2021
DOI: 10.3390/s21041458
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison and Evaluation of Integrity Algorithms for Vehicle Dynamic State Estimation in Different Scenarios for an Application in Automated Driving

Abstract: High-integrity information about the vehicle’s dynamic state, including position and heading (yaw angle), is required in order to implement automated driving functions. In this work, a comparison of three integrity algorithms for the vehicle dynamic state estimation of a research vehicle for an application in automated driving is presented. Requirements for this application are derived from the literature. All implemented integrity algorithms output a protection level for the position and heading solution. In … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, the main contribution of this work is on the accuracy evaluation methodologies, while two trajectory test datasets demonstrate the broad applicability of the approach. Furthermore, the proposed evaluation methods complement the work by [ 3 ] allowing to evaluate the proposed accuracy and confidence requirements of automated vehicles (it also complements the work by [ 12 ] proposing algorithms to calculate integrity levels). Therefore, together with [ 3 ] and [ 12 ], the current work can act as a welcome foundation for localization performance validation for AVs and connected vehicles.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Therefore, the main contribution of this work is on the accuracy evaluation methodologies, while two trajectory test datasets demonstrate the broad applicability of the approach. Furthermore, the proposed evaluation methods complement the work by [ 3 ] allowing to evaluate the proposed accuracy and confidence requirements of automated vehicles (it also complements the work by [ 12 ] proposing algorithms to calculate integrity levels). Therefore, together with [ 3 ] and [ 12 ], the current work can act as a welcome foundation for localization performance validation for AVs and connected vehicles.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…Another definition for accuracy requirements of safety-critical automated driving comes from the European GSA with <0.2 m accuracy and 99.9% availability [ 11 ]. After reviewing different localization requirements for AVs, it is obvious that currently there exists no commonsense on the accuracy, integrity, and availability requirements for automated driving systems, which has recently also be confirmed by [ 12 ]. Due to the most reasonable scientific grounding and the stringent accuracy requirements, for the current work, we rely on the requirement definitions by [ 3 ] with 0.1 m accuracy at 95% confidence.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Assuming that noise can be modeled as Gaussian white noise, the EKF provides a suboptimal technique for non-linear model and estimates system state by means of a least square error approach. A description of the different data fusion techniques is presented in [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ].…”
Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proposed model offers better positioning performance than individual sub-models for a relative navigation system with GNSS and ultra wideband observations. Reference [20] discusses a Kalman integrated PL approach with empirically tuned parameters. It demonstrates better performance of the new approach over two other methods for an autonomous vehicle state estimation with GNSS, INS, and an odometer.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Five of the aforementioned references discuss KF-based PL calculations. Among them, [10,15] perform fault detection in the position domain, [16,17] follow range domain methods, and [20] assumes that fault detection and mitigation have been executed. This paper attempts to explore range domain methods further for their relatively low architectural complexity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%