Content uploaded by Tyler Reid
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tyler Reid on Nov 29, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Gaurav Pandey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gaurav Pandey on Sep 03, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Localization
Requirements
for Autonomous
Vehicles
Ty ler G. R. Rei d†, Sarah E. Houts*,
Robert Cammarata*, Graham Mills*,
Siddharth Agarwal*, Ankit Vora*, &
Gaurav Pandey†
†Research & Advanced Engineering, Ford Motor Company
*Ford Autonomous Vehicles, LLC
Email: treid21@ford.com
Outline
1
Intro to
Localization
Localization
Geometry
Localization
Integrity
AV Requirements
& Comparison
Outline
2
Intro to
Localization
Localization
Geometry
Localization
Integrity
AV Requirements
& Comparison
Introduction
3
where am I? where am I in context?
Localization Mapping
GPS
1996-Present
3 m
Transit
1964-1996
25 m
Celestial/Chrono
1770-1920
3000 m
Loran
1940s-2010
460 m
A Brief History of Navigation
4
‘Moore’s Law’ of Navigation
5
Trend: 10x
increase in
accuracy
every ~30
years
2020s:
Decade of
the
decimeter
Not good enough for AV’s
6
AV Localization Sensors
7
Traffic / Roads
Weather
Lidar
Vision
GNSS
Other
Multimodal Sensing
8
Cameras
Lidar
Radar
GPS / IMU
Localization Requirements
9
How well do we
need to know our
position to ensure
we are within the
lane?
Localization Requirements
10
Geometry Target L e v el of
Safety
Outline
11
Intro to
Localization
Localization
Geometry
Localization
Integrity
AV Requirements
& Comparison
Road Geometry
12
As turns become tighter, lateral and longitudinal requirements
become more coupled. Coupling is stronger on local streets vs. freeways.
US Road Geometry
13
Road Type Design Speed
[km/h]
Lane Width
[m]
Minimum
Radius** [m]
Freeway 80 –130 3.6 195**
Interchanges 30 –110 3.6 –5.4 15 –150
Arterial 50 –100 3.3 –3.6 70**
Collector 50 3.0 –3.6 70**
Local 30-50 2.7*–3.6 10**
Hairpin / Cul
-de
-
Sac < 20 6.0 7
Single Lane
Roundabout < 20 4.3 11
*The lower bound of 2.7 m is the exception, not the rule, and is typically reserved for
residential streets with low traffic volumes.
**Based on design speeds and limiting values of rate of roadway superelevation eand
coefficient of friction f.
Vehicle Dimensions
14
Vehicle Type Width
[m]
Length
[m]
Height
[m]
Passenger (P) 2.1 5.8 1.3
Single Unit Truck
(SU) 2.4 9.2 3.4 –4.1
City Bus 2.6 12.2 3.2
Semitrailer 2.4 –2.6
13.9
–
22.4
4.1
Based on data from: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, “A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.” 2001.
Bounding Box Design
15
16
*Based on US passenger vehicle dimension limits
Lateral / Longitudinal Maximum Allowable Error Tradeoff
Highways
17
Lateral / Longitudinal Maximum Allowable Error Tradeoff
Local Streets
*Based on US passenger vehicle dimension limits
Vertical Requirements
•We need to determine what
road level we are on.
•US roads specify a minimum
clearance height of 4.4 m.
•We need to know our vertical
position to a fraction of this
clearance height to resolve our
road level.
18
min.vertical clearance
3=
4.4 m
3= 1.47 m
‘High Five’ Interchange in Dallas, TX
(US 75 & I-635)
Bounding Box
19
Orientation Requirements
•Errors in orientation inflate the
position protection level around
the vehicle.
•We must specify limits on
acceptable attitude errors as well
as position errors.
•This becomes a trade in
allocating allowable position and
attitude errors.
20
Outline
21
Intro to
Localization
Localization
Geometry
Localization
Integrity
AV Requirements
& Comparison
Integrity
22
Probability of
Failure per Hour
General
Programmable
Electronics
(IEC-61508)
Automotive
(ISO 26262)
Aviation
(DO
-
178/254)
Railway
(CENELEC
50126/128/129)
n/a (SIL-0) QM DAL-E (SIL-0)
10-6 –10-5 SIL-1 ASIL-A DAL-D SIL-1
10-7 –10-6 SIL-2 ASIL-B/C DAL-C SIL-2
10-8 –10-7 SIL-3 ASIL-D DAL-B SIL-3
10-9 –10-8 SIL-4 - DAL-A SIL-4
What Safety Integrity Level do we require for localization?
Approximate Cross-Domain Mapping of Safety Integrity Levels
Tar ge t L eve l of S afe ty
23
Yea r
1 fatality / 108miles
0.02 fatalities / 108miles
Tar ge t L eve l of S afe ty
24
Target Level
of Safety
2x10-10
fatal accidents /
mile
Tar ge t L eve l of S afe ty
25
Fatal
Accident to
Incident
Ratio
Target Level
of Safety
2x10-10
fatal accidents /
mile
Tar ge t L eve l of S afe ty
26
Yea r
1 Fatal Accident /
172 Total Accidents
1 Fatal Accident /
14 Total Accidents
Tar ge t L eve l of S afe ty
27
Fatal
Accident to
Incident
Ratio
Target Level
of Safety
2x10-10
fatal accidents /
mile
10-2
fatal accidents /
failure
Tar ge t L eve l of S afe ty
28
Fatal
Accident to
Incident
Ratio
Virtual Driver System
Target Level
of Safety
Vehicle
Systems
Localization
Perception Control
Planning Active
Chassis
Actuation
2x10-10
fatal accidents /
mile
10-2
fatal accidents /
failure
2x10-8
failures /
mile
Tar ge t L eve l of S afe ty
29
Fatal
Accident to
Incident
Ratio
Virtual Driver System
Target Level
of Safety
Vehicle
Systems
Localization
Perception Control
Planning Active
Chassis
Actuation
2x10-10
fatal accidents /
mile
10-2
fatal accidents /
failure
10-8
failures / mile
10-8
failures / mile
10-9
failures / mile
2x10-8
failures /
mile
Integrity
30
Probability of
Failure per Hour
General
Programmable
Electronics
(IEC-61508)
Automotive
(ISO 26262)
Aviation
(DO
-
178/254)
Railway
(CENELEC
50126/128/129)
n/a (SIL-0) QM DAL-E (SIL-0)
10-6 –10-5 SIL-1 ASIL-A DAL-D SIL-1
10-7 –10-6 SIL-2 ASIL-B/C DAL-C SIL-2
10-8 –10-7 SIL-3 ASIL-D DAL-B SIL-3
10-9 –10-8 SIL-4 - DAL-A SIL-4
Integrity
31
Outline
32
Intro to
Localization
Localization
Geometry
Localization
Integrity
AV Requirements
& Comparison
33
Requirements for US Highways
34
Vehicle
Type
Accuracy (95%) Alert Limits Prob. of
Failure
(Integrity)
Lat.
[m]
Long.
[m]
Vert.
[m]
Att*
[deg]
Lat.
[m]
Long.
[m]
Vert.
[m]
Att*
[deg]
Mid-Size 0.24
0.48
0.44 0.51 0.72 1.40 1.30 1.5 10-9 /mile
(10-8 /h)
Full-Size 0.23
0.48
0.44 0.51 0.66 1.40 1.30 1.5 10-9 /mile
(10-8 /h)
Standard
Pickup 0.21
0.48
0.44 0.51 0.62 1.40 1.30 1.5 10-9 /mile
(10-8 /h)
Passenger
Vehicle
Limits
0.20
0.48
0.44 0.51 0.57 1.40 1.30 1.5 10-9 /mile
(10-8 /h)
*Error in each direction (roll, pitch, and heading).
Example of Desired Lateral Error Distribution
35
±1.96σ
(95%)
±0.20 m
±5.73σ
(99.999999% or Probability of 1 –10-8 )
±0.57 m
μ= 0
36
Requirements for Local Roads
37
Vehicle
Type
Accuracy (95%) Alert Limits Prob. of
Failure
(Integrity)
Lat.
[m]
Long.
[m]
Vert.
[m]
Att*
[deg]
Lat.
[m]
Long.
[m]
Vert.
[m]
Att*
[deg]
Mid-Size 0.15 0.15 0.48 0.17 0.44 0.44 1.40 0.5 10-9 /mile
(10-8 /h)
Full-Size 0.13 0.13 0.48 0.17 0.38 0.38 1.40 0.5 10-9 /mile
(10-8 /h)
Standard
Pickup 0.12 0.12 0.48 0.17 0.34 0.34 1.40 0.5 10-9 /mile
(10-8 /h)
Passenger
Vehicle
Limits
0.10 0.10 0.48 0.17 0.29 0.29 1.40 0.5 10-9 /mile
(10-8 /h)
*Error in each direction (roll, pitch, and heading).
Comparison to Other Modes of Transport
38
Comparison to Other Modes of Transport
39
Tra ns po rt at ion
Mode Operation
Accuracy
(95%)
[m]
Alert
Limit
[m]
Probability of
Failure
Maritime
Ocean / Coastal 10 25** 10-5 / 3 hours
Port / Hydrography /
Drilling 12.5** 10-5 / 3 hours
Aviation
LPV 200 4 35*10-7 / 150 sec
Precision airport
approach CAT II/III 2.9 5*10-9 / 150 sec
Rail
Tra in c ont rol o n me di um
density lines n/a 20** 10-9 / hour
Parallel track
discrimination n/a 2.5** 10-9 / hour
*Vertical Alert Limit (VAL).
**Horizontal Alert Limit (HAL).
AV’s require
decimeter
performance, an
order of
magnitude more
stringent than
anything today
Summary
40
Highway
20 cm lat. (95%)
50 cm long. (95%)
Local Roads
10 cm lat. (95%)
10 cm long. (95%)
10 cm
Thank You
42
Tyl er Rei d
Controls & Automated Systems
Ford Motor Company
Palo Alto, CA
treid21@ford.com
Sarah
Houts
Ford Autonomous Vehicles, LLC
Palo Alto, CA
shouts@ford.com
Robert
Cammarata
Ford Autonomous Vehicles, LLC
Dearborn, MI
rcammar1@ford.com
Graham Mills
Ford Autonomous Vehicles, LLC
Palo Alto, CA
gmills47@ford.com
Siddharth Agarwal
Ford Autonomous Vehicles, LLC
Dearborn, MI
sagarw20@ford.com
Ankit Vora
Ford Autonomous Vehicles, LLC
Dearborn, MI
avora3@ford.com
Gaurav Pandey
Controls & Automated Systems
Ford Motor Company
Palo Alto, CA
gpandey2@ford.com
What is a failure?
43
Stanford Diagram
44