A Research on the Test and Evaluation Method of Autonomous Vehicle Emergency Braking System Based on Typical Test Scenarios
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54691/bqpkxa90Keywords:
Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB), Test Scenarios, Performance Evaluation, Vehicle Safety, Autonomous Driving, NCAP.Abstract
With the emergence of self-driving vehicles, the Autonomous Emergency Braking System (AEB) has become a crucial element in preventing traffic collisions. When comes to public trust and road safety, AEB needs to be really reliable and working well. In this paper, a series of testing and evaluation methods are introduced about AEB system using some typical and key scenarios that reflect the real world driving scenario. Do research starting from having the basic structure for all kind of test scenario like CCR (car-to-car rear stationary), CCRm(car-to-car rear moving), CCRb(car-to-car rear braking), VRU(Vulnerable Road User) and more. The test protocol details, test environment, instruments in vehicle, target, recording data. The fundamental aspect of the evaluation method comprises of 4 KPIs: Collision_avoidance, Speed_reduction_on_impact, Ttc_at_ttc_intervention and Peak_braking_deceleration. In the paper, it takes hypothetrical test data on these situations to prove how this works. The results show that AEB performance depends much on the situation, whether it’s initial velocity, relative velocity, or target type. That means we should test out different situations to see how far we can push an AEB. The proposed methodology gives automakers, regulatory bodies and research institutions a regular, iterative method to do strong evaluations and comparisons of AE B performance, which is good for making safer AD Ts.
Downloads
References
[1] Rao, R., Cui, C., Chen, L., Gao, T., & Shi, Y. (2024). Quantitative Testing and Analysis of Non-Standard AEB Scenarios Extracted from Corner Cases. Applied Sciences,14(1),173.
[2] Riegl, P., Gaull, A., & Beitelschmidt, M. (2023). Simulation-Based Testing and Performance Evaluation of Vehicle Safety Functions. SAE International Journal of Connected and Automated Vehicles,12(7),0006.
[3] Waymo LLC. (2023). Collision Avoidance Testing of the Waymo Automated Driving System.
[4] Euro NCAP.(2025). Toyota PROACE CITY — Euro NCAP 2025Commercial Van Safety —4 stars.
[5] Rao, R., Cui, C., Chen, L., Gao, T., & Shi, Y. (2024). Quantitative Testing and Analysis of Non-Standard AEB Scenarios Extracted from Corner Cases. Applied Sciences, 14(1), 173. DOI:10.3390/app14010173.
[6] Riegl, P., Gaull, A., & Beitelschmidt, M. (2023). Simulation-Based Testing and Performance Evaluation of Vehicle Safety Functions. SAE International Journal of Connected and Automated Vehicles, 12(7). DOI:10.4271/12-07-01-0006.
[7] Yang, W., Liu, J., Zhou, K., Zhang, Z., & Qu, X. (2020). An Automatic Emergency Braking Model considering Driver’s Intention Recognition of the Front Vehicle. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2020, 5172305. DOI:10.1155/2020/5172305.
[8] Waymo LLC. (2023). Collision Avoidance Testing of the Waymo Automated Driving System. arXiv Preprint.
[9] Rockl, M., et al. (2019). Comparing Two Systematic Approaches for Testing Automated Driving Functions. IEEE International Conference on Connected Vehicles (ICCVE), 1–8. DOI:10.1109/ICCVE45908.2019.8965209.
[10] Huang, J., Zhang, Z., & Ouyang. (2022). Delay Compensation for Commercial Vehicle AEB Pneumatic Actuators Based on Adaptive Fuzzy PID Control. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 13(3), 456–467. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2022.03.009.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Frontiers in Science and Engineering

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.






