1 / 18

Truck automation deployment studies in France International Task Force on Vehicle-Highway Automation, Detroit, July 22,

Truck automation deployment studies in France International Task Force on Vehicle-Highway Automation, Detroit, July 22, 2004 J.M. Blosseville, S. Mammar. Content of the studies (1/2). Context (INRETS) Layout and costs (Cofiroute) Scenarios (All) Capacity & safety (LIVIC)

barbie
Download Presentation

Truck automation deployment studies in France International Task Force on Vehicle-Highway Automation, Detroit, July 22,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Truck automation deployment studies in FranceInternational Task Force on Vehicle-Highway Automation, Detroit, July 22, 2004J.M. Blosseville, S. Mammar

  2. Content of the studies (1/2) • Context (INRETS) • Layout and costs (Cofiroute) • Scenarios (All) • Capacity & safety (LIVIC) • Reliability and critical functions ( CNRS) • Similar systems ( LCPC, INRETS) • Entrance control (CNRS)

  3. Content of the studies (2/2) • Dynamic simulation (INRIA) • Economy of the project (EMC, ENPC, INRETS) • Comparison with rail (INRETS) • Drivers’ point of views (YO consultants) • Research in US (RB consultant)

  4. French Context : main elements • Predominance of the road haulage : trucks carry 80% of the goods (95% in economical value) • High dynamics : annual increasing : 3.2%/an • High productivity of the road haulage : ~5%/year • Concentrated sector : 50% of the sector turnover is made by « 50 employees and + » companies • Big trucks : 90 % of tons.km are carried by tractor + semitrailors or trucks+trailors • Long distances : 3/4 of tons.km regard distances > 150km • Importance of the travel on freeways : 50 % of the trucks’ travel are made on freeways

  5. Studied layouts • Existing highways • Mixed traffic with dynamic separation • Additional lane • Modification of entrances, exits, parking platforms, bridges • Dedicated, independent infrastructure Chosen option • Difficulties • Delay due to contruction • Cost • Profitability • Ground to be found • Advantages • Non mix traffic • Layout adapted to RA • Easy access control

  6. Network layout & geographic situation • 1020 km • Calais-Bayonne • 1 lane/direction + emergency lane • 8 interchanges with the existing radial freeways

  7. Studied Scenarios • Improved present situation : • Trucks manually driven +specific ADAS • Truck location tracing through radio+ GPS • Adaptive ACC (speed and interdistance fixed by infra) • Guided entrance operations : metering wrt available gaps + guidance through adapted IHM (giving optimal speed trajectory ) • “static platoon” scenario : • Platoons made in a static way on merging platforms + specific ADAS • “dynamic platoon” scenario : • Platoon are made dynamically on the freeway • RA : automated trucks • Full automation : entrance, exit, cruise

  8. Studied similar systems • Chauffeur 1 and 2 (European FP 5 &6) • Platooning based on electronic tow bar • … • Safe-tunnel (European FP 6) • Truck on-board failure detection • Interdistance and speed control • Vehicle continuous checking thanks to two ways communication • … • ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) • Self-localization of the trains • Coordinated emergency braking • Capacity & safety management through bi-directionnal communication…

  9. Capacity/safety considerations • Principles • Capacity =f (speed, inter-distances, vehicle length) • Safety =g(speed, braking capabilities, braking homogeneity, reaction time, emergency notification propagation) • One lane in a pipe-line, steady state (constant speed) • 2 safety levels : • Level 1 : no collision when hard braking ahead • Level 2 : minimum collision when brick wall ahead • Method : • Simulating various technological solutions (speed and distance control, emergency braking (fixed intensity, triggered by radio signaling…) on the same traffic model

  10. Reference case : dedicated lane / manual driving • Hypotheses • Manual driving corresponds to safety level 1 • Speed : 90 km/h • Vehicle length :20m • Reaction time 1sec • Braking capability : [ –2m/s2, –5m/s2] • Speed accuracy knowledge : 10% • Results : • Capacity Niv 1 : 994 Trucks/h

  11. Static and dynamic platoons’ scenarios • 4 PL par convoi • 15m intra-convois • 45m entre convois • Hypotheses • Speed : 110 km/h • Inter-distance between trucks in a platoon : 15m • minimal inter-distance between platoons : 45m • Homogeneous emergency braking inside a platoon (–5m/s2 ) • Reaction time for emergency braking : 0.4sec • 4 PL par platoon • Results • Safety level 1 /Capacity compromise : • 2600 Trucks/h, accident brick wall type 14 trucks involved • Safety level 2 /Capacity compromise : • 1800 trucks/h, accident brick wall type  4 trucks involved

  12. Automated trucks scenario • Hypotheses • Same as platoon scenarios • Results • Safety level 1 /Capacity • 3100 Trucks/h, accident brick wall type 8 trucks involved • Safety level 2 /Capacity c • 1800 trucks/h, accident brick wall type  4 trucks involved

  13. Economy of the project Project cost ~ 6,3 billions €

  14. Economy of the project • Good internal rate of profitability : 9 to 10,6% • A less profitability (~2 to 3%) to be expected if • Restrictive policy regarding road construction • Slow deployment of automatisms • Significant economical advantages for road haulage companies • Travel time reduction due to speed increase and time break spent in vehicles • Reduction of the external costs • Moderate benefits, high if fuel cells develop

  15. Comparison with alternative modes R-shift-R : improved railway solution RAPL : automated trucking Combined transport : road + rail existing solution

  16. Driver’s points of view • Their main social values • Freedom, autonomy, responsibility • Their vision of the future : rather negative •  competition due to arrivals of drivers from emergent countries • An  feeling of loss autonomy due to increasing regulations • A negative view from light vehicle drivers • Fear that transportation by rail becomes predominant

  17. Driver’s points of view • Reception of the concept • Higher speed than manual mode : allow longer travels but more dangerous • Automation : compatible with sleep or rest if safe • Recurrent questions • Is automation safe ? • Is it possible to take over in manual mode at any time ? • Economical model ? • Reception of the scenarios • Platoons : highest opposition • Follower : to depend on s.o. else, Leader : too heavy responsibility, in the middle risks maximum • Static : loss of waiting time • Dynamic : to be linked with unknown drivers • Autonomous automated trucks • More acceptable if take over always possible

  18. Conclusion • Truck automation appears as a rather good solution. Several characteristics seems attractive : • Dedicated freeway • Only one automated lane appears as compatible with a long term demand • Technology can be progressively deployed • Platoons not an advantage except for fuel reduction • Economically viable, more than rail based solutions • Compatible with driver’s views if take over possible

More Related