e & i Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik

, Volume 128, Issue 6, pp 203–208 | Cite as

A time-triggered object tracking subsystem for advanced driver assistance systems

  • W. Elmenreich
  • M. Koplin
Originalarbeiten
Received:
Accepted:

Summary

Multi-sensor object tracking is an important feature for advanced driver assistance systems in future automobiles. Most state-of-the-art systems cannot guarantee deterministic processing of the sensor values due to unsynchronized sensing and processing units. To overcome this shortcoming we propose a paradigm shift towards a time-triggered system architecture providing a deterministic bus system, synchronized nodes, and a global time-base. The paradigm shift is supported by results of a simulation of different synchronization and scheduling approaches which suggest that although non-time-triggered approaches perform well in scenarios with low process noise, the time-triggered model becomes advantageous in potentially dangerous scenarios with high dynamics. In order to validate the results of the simulation for real life scenarios, we analyzed test drives derived from a testbed featuring a Volkswagen Touran being equipped with a laser scanner, a stereo camera system, a FlexRay communication system, an object tracking subsystem and a differential GPS system as reference.

Keywords

Sensor fusion Object tracking Real-time Automotive Time-triggered Flexray 

Zeitgesteuerte Objekterkennung in Fahrerassistenzsystemen

Zusammenfassung

Im Automobil der Zukunft spielen Fahrerassistenzsysteme eine wichtige Rolle. Ein wichtiges Untersystem sind dabei Objektverfolgungssysteme, welche andere Fahrzeuge mit mehreren Sensoren erfassen und deren Position berechnen. Die Architektur der derzeitigen Systeme kann jedoch oft weder Echtzeiteigenschaften noch Determinismus oder synchronisierte Verarbeitung garantieren. Um dieses Problem zu lösen, schlagen die Autoren einen Pradigmenwechsel zu einer zeitgesteuerten Architektur vor. Ein simulationsgestützter Vergleich verschiedener Ansätze legte die Vermutung nahe, dass die eventgesteuerten Modelle in Szenarien mit niedriger Dynamik bessere Ergebnisse liefern, in potentiell gefährlichen Szenarien mit hoher Dynamik aber das zeitgesteuerte Modell von Vorteil ist. Um die Realitätsnähe der Simulationsergebnisse zu überprüfen, wurden beide Ansätze in einer Testumgebung mit einem Volkswagen Touran evaluiert. Das Testfahrzeug war hierfür mit einem Laser-Scanner, einem Stereo-Kamera-System, einem FlexRay-Kommunikationssystem, einem Objektverfolgungssystem und einem Differential-GPS-System als Referenz ausgestattet.

Schlüsselwörter

Sensordatenfusion Objektverfolgung Echtzeit Automobil Zeitsteuerung Flexray 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Avitzour, D., Rogers, S. (1990): Optimal measurement scheduling for prediction and estimation. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing 38 (10): 1733–1739MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Elmenreich, W., Bauer, G., Kopetz, H. (2003): The time-triggered paradigm. In: Proccedings of the Workshop on Time-Triggered and Real-Time Communication SystemsGoogle Scholar
  3. Elmenreich, W., Pitzek, S. (2001): The time-triggered sensor fusion model. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES), pp. 297–300Google Scholar
  4. Fle. (2005): FlexRay Communications System Protocol Specification Version 2.1. Available at http://www.flexray.com
  5. Fox, M., (1994): Intelligent Scheduling. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  6. Hartwich, F., Müller, B., Führer, T., Hugel, R. (2000): Time triggered communication on CAN. In: Proceedings 7th International CAN Conference, Amsterdam, The NederlandsGoogle Scholar
  7. Koplin, M. (2009): Time-Triggered Object Tracking for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, PhD thesis, Technische Universität Wien, Institut für Technische Informatik, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  8. Koplin, M., Elmenreich, W. (2008): Analysis of Kalman filter based approaches for fusing out-of-sequence measurements corrupted by systematic errors. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems (MFI'08), pp. 175–180Google Scholar
  9. Li, Y., Krakow, L., Chong, E., Groom, K. (2006): Dynamic sensor management for multisensor multitarget tracking. In: Proc. 40th Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, pp. 1397–1402Google Scholar
  10. Mauthner, M., Altendorfer, R., Elmenreich, W., Kirchner, A. (2007): Optimization of sensor, bus, and fusion schedules of a time-triggered sensor fusion system. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 570–575Google Scholar
  11. Mauthner, M., Elmenreich, W., Kirchner, A. (2007): Analysis of sensor and fusion schedules of a time-triggered sensor fusion system. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), Quebec, Canada, pp. 1–5Google Scholar
  12. Mehra, R. (1976): Optimization of measurement schedules and sensor designs for linear dynamic systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 21 (1): 55–64MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mourikis, A., Roumeliotis, S. (2006): Optimal sensor scheduling for resource-constrained localization of mobile robot formations. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 22 (5): 917–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schrage, D., Gonsalves, P. (2003): Sensor scheduling using ant colony optimization. In: Proc. Sixth International Conference of Information Fusion, Vol. 1, Cairns, pp. 379–385Google Scholar
  15. Spall, J. (2008): Improved methods for monte carlo estimation of the fisher information matrix. In: Proc. American Control Conference, pp. 2395–2400Google Scholar
  16. Stromberg, D., Andersson, M. Lantz, F. (2002): On platform-based sensor management. In: Proc. Fifth International Conference on Information Fusion, Vol. 1, Annapolis, pp. 600–607Google Scholar
  17. Suranthiran, S., Jayasuriya, S. (2004): Optimal fusion of multiple nonlinear sensor data. IEEE Sensors Journal 4 (5): 651–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Norden, W., de Jong, J., Bolderheij, F., Rothkrantz, L. (2005): Intelligent task scheduling in sensor networks. In: Proc. 8th International Conference on Information Fusion, Vol. 2, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Elmenreich
    • 1
  • M. Koplin
    • 2
  1. 1.Lakeside Labs, Institute of Networked and Embedded SystemsUniversity of KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria
  2. 2.Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations