Earlier this year, NHTSA's FMVSS 127 rule mandated that all cars and light trucks sold in the US must be fitted with AEB (Automated Emergency Braking) from 2029. In this roundtable discussion with AB Dynamics’ Director of Track Testing, Dr. Andrew Pick (AP), and DRI’s Director of Track Testing, Nadine Wong (NW), we take an in-depth look into how OEMs and test houses can get ahead of FMVSS 127.
AEB is a recognized and established technology, what does the current landscape look like in the US?
NW: Exactly, there is nothing new about AEB. In fact, around 90% of new passenger vehicles in the US are offered with the technology. FMVSS 127 is aiming to not only increase this to 100%, by making it mandatory, but it is also requiring that the performance and capability of these systems be improved, which is reflected in the testing requirements.
ABD: So what exactly is FMVSS 127 and what capabilities is it aiming to improve?
AP: FMVSS 127 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard) is a regulation mandating that passenger vehicles and trucks in the US must be fitted with AEB as standard by 2029. Specifically, it states that vehicles have an AEB system and FCW (Forward Collision Warning) that operate at any forward speed greater than 10 km/h (6 mph) and less than 145 km/h (90 mph). The AEB system should be capable of preventing collisions with stationary objects at speeds up to 100 km/h (62 mph) and detecting pedestrians in both daylight and darkness. In addition, the standard requires that the FCW system provides an auditory and visual warning to the driver to apply the brakes up to 145 km/h (90 mph) when a collision with a lead vehicle is imminent, while automatic braking is required up to 73 km/h (45 mph) when a pedestrian is detected.
That sounds like a demanding set of requirements for manufacturers to meet, is FMVSS 127 achievable?
NW: We have already conducted extensive FMVSS 127 testing for clients and regularly work directly with NHTSA to test and develop new protocols, so DRI has a lot of experience in this area. We know that there are vehicles currently available that already come close to achieving the standard. In our experience, the more challenging area is the nighttime PAEB (Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking) tests, which will likely require further advancements and developments in sensor technologies.
AP: Luckily, OEMs currently have five years to achieve these required advancements. The combination of high-speed tests as well as detecting pedestrians at nighttime may require more sophisticated sensor systems than are commonly used today, such as long-range radar and LiDAR.
What specifically is driving the need for more advanced sensors, why is it more challenging?
NW: The high-speed nature of these tests is certainly one of the key challenges. The 90 mph (145 km/h) test dictated by FMVSS 127 is one of the highest mandated test speeds globally for active safety systems. It significantly increases the required field of view of sensors, as well as the braking distances involved. This also has implications for the practicalities of testing; necessitating more room to get the vehicle up to speed and the increased potential for damage caused to the vehicle under test and other test equipment.
AP: As Nadine previously mentioned, perhaps the main challenge is the PAEB tests at nighttime. While some Euro NCAP night tests allow for street lighting, FMVSS 127 mandates testing in complete darkness and in the most challenging cases low beam lighting only to illuminate the scene ahead. This makes detecting the pedestrian more difficult for sensor systems.
NW: And to top it off, FMVSS 127 requires a 100% pass rate, leaving no room for error, unlike other international AEB standards that allow for a margin of acceptable failure.
How does the regulation compare with its European counterparts?
AP: You can make the argument that FMVSS 127 is one of the most challenging active safety regulations to achieve. The equivalent standard in Europe is the UNECE R152 regulation, which is a mandatory requirement that came into force in 2020. FMVSS 127 has requirements up to 145 km/h (90 mph), while UNECE R152 is limited to just 60km/h (37mph). FMVSS 127 mandates a non-contact result, or complete collision avoidance, while in comparison UNECE allows for collision mitigation as well as avoidance. Also applicable in the region, although not mandatory, is Euro NCAP’s set of AEB protocols.
What’s more challenging; NHTSA’s FMVSS 127 or Euro NCAP’s AEB protocol?
NW: NHTSA is certainly raising the bar with FMVSS 127. On the face of it FMVSS 127 is more challenging. Euro NCAP test speeds are limited to just 80 km/h (50 mph) and, similar to R152, collision mitigation is acceptable, and a 100% pass rate is not required. However, where Euro NCAP’s AEB protocols are more challenging to meet is they cover a much broader range of speeds and scenarios. For example, the inclusion of cyclists, motorcyclists, turning at intersections, curved roads and lane changes. This necessitates sideways-looking sensors and a more discerning AEB system.
So that’s why achieving the protocol is challenging but how about conducting the testing itself, will FMVSS 127 require a new approach on the test track?
NW: At DRI, we have developed a very flexible test methodology that enables us to accommodate a broad range of tests. We have adapted our approach to accommodate FMVSS 127 and we have experience conducting tests for customers.
However, the high-speed nature does necessitate additional track. Getting an average family car from 80-140km/h (50-87mph) can add 200-300m to the required space. The speed also makes the use of an automated abort procedure preferable during repeated testing to avoid having to constantly reassemble impacted ADAS targets.
How does the abort procedure work?
AP: We have developed an automated abort maneuver procedure, which can be programmed into our software. We can do this because our system closely controls and coordinates both the vehicle under test through our driving robots and the test objects via our LaunchPad and GST test platforms. When the AEB system doesn’t intervene before a collision is imminent our software can automatically take action to either brake or steer to avoid or mitigate a collision. When vehicle speeds are in excess of 145 km/h (90 mph) this abort maneuver could be critical in keeping a test programme on schedule.
NW: We use this system at our proving ground in California to reduce downtime and maximize test efficiency, which is crucial to a successful test programme. To further increase efficiency, we are also working with AB Dynamics to create, test and validate the FMVSS 127 ‘Special Group’ to automate more of the test programme.
How do the ‘Special Groups’ help with testing?
AP: Our Special Groups are a library of pre-defined test scenarios. Combined with our driving robots, ADAS targets and other track test equipment, it enables test engineers to automate the creation, set-up, variation, execution and verification of industry-standard active safety protocols. The FMVSS 127 Special Group is currently being trialed with DRI and will be available to customers soon.
NW: It saves us a lot of time at the track and provides a real-time pass or fail, which is incredibly useful in planning what scenario to conduct next.
Finally, what should OEMs be doing to get ahead of FMVSS 127?
AP: Start testing sooner rather than later! OEMs need to understand where they fall short on the regulation and why, and the best way to do that is to test with current vehicle models to see how they stack up. This will help them to focus development to ensure they are ready for 2029.
NW: I agree with Andrew, and we are already experiencing an increase in enquiries from OEMs looking to do just that.
Key Takeaways
For more information on how DRI can support your FMVSS 127 programme, contact us here.
As the automotive industry evolves, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are increasingly incorporating sophisticated Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS) technologies in their vehicles to enhance safety and the driving experience. This advancement necessitates a corresponding increase in the complexity of ADAS testing to ensure these technologies perform as intended. At DRI, as specialists in ADAS testing and target design, we are committed to staying ahead of the curve in this rapidly growing market.
In this blog post, DRI General Manager Jordan Silberling shares his insights on our approach to developing ADAS targets that meet the challenges presented by the latest advancements in ADAS technology.
Next-generation ADAS targets
The ADAS market is rapidly evolving as the automotive industry works to continually improve vehicle safety. ADAS systems are becoming more sophisticated, with their ability to identify and classify objects improving. As a result, regulatory and consumer bodies are increasing the complexity of testing to challenge these technologies. In addition, vehicle manufacturers are not only aiming to meet regulatory and consumer testing requirements but also ensure that their systems work effectively in the real world. This increased sophistication of the systems and the testing required to verify them means that targets used for testing need to be more realistic than earlier versions.
As an independent test consultancy specializing in ADAS testing, our extensive experience with conducting hundreds of tests annually has highlighted the shortcomings of commercially available targets, which often lack realism and can lead to test vehicle damage, resulting in financial repercussions and project delays.
Key elements of a next-generation ADAS target
Industry standards dictate certain design elements, such as dimensions or sensor recognition characteristics which help guarantee uniformity across the targets developed by different manufacturers. This limits the extent to which design modifications can be made. They must also fulfill specific requirements to be approved for use in official regulatory and consumer testing, such as Euro NCAP.
Above adhering to these standards, our priority is to optimize the target’s usability. We do so by designing products that are flexible, durable, and cost-effective. Our use of hard-wearing materials minimizes the damage to the target while our modular architecture minimizes costs should damage occur.
The importance of realism
In ADAS testing, the primary objective is to gather high-quality data. The quality of this data corresponds with the accuracy of the targets used, which is why DRI’s product development team focusses on ensuring our targets are as realistic as possible within the constraints of industry standards, and without compromising usability.
Collaborating with sensor suppliers has helped us understand better how ADAS sensors “see” the world. We also conduct extensive real-world research. For example, we researched pedestrian gait to ensure the motion of our dummies is representative of humans at a range of speeds. Additionally, we utilize the ScanR, our own scanning device to take radar and lidar measurements of our targets to calibrate them to mimic the signatures of real objects. The scanner also enables our customers to verify that their targets remain compliant with standards throughout their life.
It’s important to note that regulatory and consumer pedestrian ADAS testing initially required only a static target. Later, dynamic testing was introduced but currently only requires the articulation of legs. This does not accurately represent a human’s gait, which could influence how vehicles classify a pedestrian or its intentions. We foresee that the articulation of the arms and head will become necessary eventually, which the design accommodates.
Our Soft Pedestrian 360 target features sophisticated articulation of the knee, hip, shoulder and neck. This provides more control over the gait and allows a greater range of movement than is currently required by regulatory and consumer testing requirements. By making our products as realistic as possible we significantly extend their usability and lifespan.
Industry trends shaping the development of ADAS targets
The future of ADAS testing will focus on intent, specifically in understanding pedestrian behavior through instinctive human actions such as body language. For instance, if we observe someone stopped at the roadside looking both ways, we institutively understand that they intend to cross the road and can adjust our driving accordingly. Similarly, AI-trained systems and real-time image and video processing are being trained to recognize these cues. As the industry evolves, the integration of vision software becomes crucial in classifying and tracking objects. Pedestrian targets will need accurately mimic these behaviors to thoroughly test these systems.
We achieve this in the Soft Pedestrian 360 through sophisticated limb articulation and its modular architecture, which allows the standard arm to be switched easily with an arm that is holding a mobile phone, for example. AB Dynamics’ LaunchPad Spin, the platform that the target is moved by, offers turn-on-the-spot mobility to replicate sudden changes in direction or intent.
To conclude, the progression of ADAS technologies necessitates a parallel advancement in our testing methodologies and instruments. At DRI, we are committed to staying at the forefront of this evolution, developing next-gen ADAS targets that meet the needs of this swiftly evolving sector.
At DRI, we’re committed to nurturing talent at every career stage, from those just embarking on their professional journey to students seeking hands-on experience during their academic pursuits.
Recently, we had the pleasure of speaking with Christian Schmitz, who recently began working for DRI as a full-time Human Factors Engineer after beginning her time at DRI as a summer intern.
How would you describe your overall experience at DRI?
Christian: “Working at a company that’s at the forefront of driver and system safety has been incredibly fulfilling. The research is not only fascinating but also contributes directly to saving lives and preventing accidents. It’s rewarding to be part of a team that supports new technology while prioritizing the well-being of drivers and passengers. This experience has shaped my understanding of what makes a job interesting and fulfilling.”
How has the transition from an intern to a full-time role been?
Christian: “The transition was seamless. During my internship, I gradually took on more responsibilities in each project. By the time I joined as a full-time staff engineer, I was already well-versed in many of the tasks I perform today. University provided the theoretical knowledge needed as a human factors engineer, but the internship taught me the practical demands of the industry. Of all my internships, my time at DRI most closely aligned with what industry professionals seek in a candidate.”
What are the key skills you have gained during your internship that you now apply in your full-time role?
Christian: “My internship at DRI was a period of significant personal and professional growth. I honed my analytical skills through hands-on user studies and data analysis. I deepened my understanding of human factors principles and their application in automotive design. Under the guidance of my mentor, I gained confidence in my abilities and learned to apply my skills effectively in a real job setting.”
What were the highlights of your summer internship? Have you worked on any interesting projects?
Christian: “One of the most exciting aspects of my internship was working with various tools, like our simulators and biometric toolkits. I spent a lot of time in DRI’s vehicle motion simulator, studying driver behaviors and interactions with vehicle systems under different conditions. Leading a few smaller projects independently was also a highlight. These projects allowed me to collaborate with teams across the company, including engineers, manufacturing, and product managers, and apply my academic knowledge to solve real-world problems.”
For students considering a summer internship, Christian offers this advice:
“The biggest challenge is overcoming the mental hurdle of applying. But putting yourself out there is crucial for your academic and professional development.”
This summer, DRI is excited to welcome new interns to our Summer Internship Program. We look forward to meeting the fresh faces who will join us and embark on an exciting and rewarding internship journey.
This year DRI celebrates the 10th anniversary of the first sale of the Guided Soft Target (GST) surrogate vehicle target system.
The GST test system consists of the Soft Car 360 – an impactable dummy vehicle target attached to a low-profile robotic platform designed to be run over by vehicles. In this article we will delve into the history of this solution, which has had a significant impact of the development of active safety systems globally.
The GST story starts in 2007 when crash avoidance technologies, such as Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), were still in their infancy and so too were the systems to test them. A variety of targets, ranging from simple radar reflectors to partial vehicle representations (both static and dynamic), were developed to aid in the evaluation of rear end collision avoidance and mitigation systems, but these had limitations restricting approach speeds and angles, as well as lateral offsets. Additionally, some of the dynamic systems required the presence of other vehicles to tow the targets, or suspend them from above, which could sometimes adversely affect the performance of the vehicles under test.
It was at this time that DRI collaborated with NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and Honda R&D on the ACAT (Advanced Crash Avoidance Technologies) project. The project aimed to develop practical methods for evaluating the effectiveness of emerging ADAS technologies. A key phase of the project was to establish the test requirements in order to conduct full-scale testing of the technologies.
The project identified three key vehicle-to-vehicle scenarios that would need to be tested, which were head-on, rear end and crossing paths. These tests necessitated a dynamic solution that was strikable from multiple angles that
The solution was the GST system. Through this project, DRI became fundamental in finding ways to help the industry test and develop first-generation collision avoidance systems that have since been developed into today’s technologies.
The initial development of what would become recognizable as the GST system used a simple vehicle target constructed from foam, fitted to a first-generation version of the GST platform, which was affectionately known internally as the ‘Turtle’. It was the first self-propelled dummy vehicle target that could be safely run over, providing unrivalled testing flexibility. Designed initially for detection by lidar, the system’s visual representation of a vehicle and its radar reflectivity were less relevant. The entire system was designed and manufactured in-house at DRI, including the platform’s navigation and control system.
DRI recognized that the appearance and durability of the target needed to be improved to be useful to manufacturers using camera and radar systems and this formed the core development path for the following few years. A project with IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) in 2011 and feedback from other industry experts identified a demand for stable radar reflectivity, which resulted in the introduction of a new reflective material for the Soft Car 360. Other developments included enclosing the foam skins in vinyl fabric “pillowcases”, which allowed the application of photorealistic graphics and increased durability and realism. The result was a first-generation version of the Soft Car 360 that we know today.
DRI’s involvement in these industry projects led to the development of solutions that are now in use globally to thoroughly test ADAS technologies. Worldwide adoption of standardized tests that rely on our equipment is helping to provide safety ratings of new vehicles to educate consumers and improving road safety.
In 2012 DRI developed what became the first commercially available GST that incorporated all the various features to make it representative to a variety of sensor systems. Later that year, DRI began its partnership with AB Dynamics to further develop the product and the first unit was delivered to an Asian OEM in 2013.
In 2014, DRI developed the second generation GST in collaboration with NHTSA. This project involved reducing the radar reflectivity of the platform and increasing the acceleration and top speed, to cater for the growing variety of tests being carried out. There was also a heavy-duty version developed for trucks. In 2018, AB Dynamics introduced the MK2 GST platform, bringing improvements to the market, such as a lower overall profile, 100 km/h top speed and improved path following.
The collaboration between AB Dynamics and DRI proved to be a great success resulting in the GST’s approval for use by Euro NCAP and NHTSA as its Global Vehicle Target in 2018. The relationship further strengthened when DRI joined the AB Dynamics Group through an acquisition in 2019.
DRI and AB Dynamics are continuing to jointly develop the system as driver assistance technology develops. One of the next big steps in active collision avoidance technologies is likely to come from increased connectivity. The ability for a vehicle to communicate with infrastructure and other vehicles around it increases awareness of potential dangers and the time to react. The integration of connectivity, or V2X (Vehicle-to-Everything), will significantly impact the testing landscape. AB Dynamics is participating in the SECUR project (Safety Enhancement through Connected Users on the Road), which aims to create a coherent proposal for V2X testing and assessment protocols for Euro NCAP. AB Dynamics’ key input into the project is to help define a specification for connected targets to support V2X testing in the future.
Watch this space for further developments.