Truck automation deployment studies in France International Task Force on Vehicle-Highway Automation, Detroit, July 22, 2004 J.M.
Download
Report
Transcript Truck automation deployment studies in France International Task Force on Vehicle-Highway Automation, Detroit, July 22, 2004 J.M.
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)
Reliability and critical functions ( CNRS)
Similar systems ( LCPC, INRETS)
Entrance control (CNRS)
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)
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
Studied layouts
Existing highways
Mixed traffic with dynamic separation
Additional lane
Modification of entrances, exits, parking platforms,
bridges
Dedicated, independent infrastructure
Chosen option
Advantages
Non mix traffic
Layout adapted to
RA
Easy access control
Difficulties
Delay due to contruction
Cost
Profitability
Ground to be found
Network layout & geographic
situation
1020 km
Calais-Bayonne
1 lane/direction
+ emergency
lane
8 interchanges
with the
existing radial
freeways
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
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…
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
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
Static and dynamic platoons’
4 PL par convoi scenarios
•
• 15m intra-convois
Hypotheses
• 45m entre convois
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
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
Economy of the project
Project cost ~ 6,3 billions €
Coût per
unit
Number
Cost
Freeway km
6,10 M€HT
1 020 km
6 222 M€HT
Service and parking area
3,83 M€HT
8
31 M€HT
Interchange
5,11 M€HT
8
41 M€HT
Control at entrance & toll
0,04 M€HT
32
1 M€HT
TOTAL
6 295 M€HT
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
Comparison with alternative modes
R-Shift-R
RAPL
Combined
transport
Number of trucks/day
16000
64000
8000
Investment costs
4-9 B€
6-7B€
7B€
Toll that balances
discounted expense costs at
50% capacity for 40 years
0,13-0,27€
0,040,13€
0,42€
R-shift-R : improved railway solution
RAPL : automated trucking
Combined transport : road + rail existing solution
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
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
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