E3S Web of Conferences 268, 01037 (2021) https://doi.org/10.

1051/e3sconf/202126801037
VESEP2020

Research on subjective evaluation method of

automatic emergency braking (AEB) for
passenger car
Shuai Zhang *, Bin Lei, Shuai Chen, and Lei Sha
CATARC Automotive Test Center(Tianjin) Co.,Ltd., Tianjin 300300, China

Keywords: passenger car, automatic emergency braking,

subjective evaluation.

Abstract. With the continuous development of automotive active safety

technology, automatic emergency braking technology has been widely
used, playing an important role in avoiding rear-end collisions or collisions
with pedestrians and other traffic participants. This article analyzes the
technical characteristics of the automatic emergency braking system, put
forward subjective evaluation index, select vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle
-to-pedestrian and other typical scenes for automatic emergency braking
subjective evaluation and actual vehicle verification, and constructed a
subjective evaluation system for automatic emergency braking of
passenger car.

Foreword
Automotive safety technology is divided into passive safety technology and active
safety technology. In the early stages of the development of automotive safety technology,
limited by technical conditions, passive safety technology is mainly considered in
automotive safety design, like high-strength car body, bumper, seat belt, safety headrest,
airbag, etc. The main function of passive safety technology is to reduce the personal injury
to the occupants of the car after a car accident, while traditional passive automotive safety
technology can't avoid collisions. With the development of automotive technology and the
transformation of automotive safety technology concepts, the concept of active safety
technology has gained popularity. The main effect of active safety technology is that the
driver can control the car freely, with either of lateral or longitudinal movements as smooth
as possible, being able to predict/avoid collision hazards, and ensure car safety in
emergencies. Common active safety configurations include traction control system, electric
brake force distribution, antilock brake system, electronic stability control, etc[1].
With the rapid development of intelligent driving technology in recent years,
automotive active safety technology has also come into a period of rapid development.
Utilization of a series of new technologies such as collision warning, automatic emergency
breaking and blind spot detection, greatly reduces the occurrence of car collision accidents

* Corresponding author: leibin@catarc.ac.cn

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E3S Web of Conferences 268, 01037 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202126801037
VESEP2020

and improves driving safety. Among them, automatic emergency braking technology plays
an important role in avoiding collision accidents, and vehicle companies also attach great
importance to the research and development of automatic emergency braking technology.
The automatic emergency braking system is mainly composed of three major modules:
control module, ranging module and braking module. However, due to the different
automatic emergency braking control logic of different companies and the different basic
braking capabilities of each model, the automatic emergency braking effect of different
models also varies.
At present, most of the test research on automatic emergency braking system
technology is focusing on the objective test category, while there are few related studies on
automatic emergency braking subjective evaluation based on users’ experiences.
Therefore,this article through analyzing the principles and technical features of the
automatic emergency braking system, selects vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-person and
other typical scenarios for subjective evaluation of automatic emergency braking, and
builds a subjective evaluation system, which can be used as a supplement to the objective
test of automatic emergency braking, providing a new evaluation method for vehicle
companies in the evaluation of automatic emergency braking system.

1 Analysis on technical features of Automatic Emergency

Braking

1.1 Definition of automatic emergency braking

Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), that is, real-time monitoring of the driving
environment in front of the vehicle, automatically activates the vehicle braking system
slowing down the vehicle to avoid collision or reduce collision effect. when the vehicle
detects a safe distance from the vehicle in front or other road users or obstacles where
collision may occur.
The AEB system architecture is mainly composed of three layers: perception layer,
decision layer and execution layer. as shown in figure 1:

Fig. 1. AEB system architecture.

In the perception layer part, there are three common schemes: camera scheme,
millimeter wave radar scheme, camera and millimeter wave radar fusion scheme. The
current mainstream solution is the combination solution, which can combine the advantages
of the two sensors thus distinguish the type of target even small targets through the camera,
and detect the distance information through the radar, and then combine two kinds of signal
to increase the system stability and reduce the false trigger rate.
The decision layer is the main control unit of the AEB system. After receiving the
information sent by the radar or camera, it completes the signal processing, judges the
relative position relationship with the target in front, evaluates the possibility of collision
according to the internally set algorithm logic, and then send out the execute command.
The execution layer part is the emergency braking actuator, usually the ESC system, but
there are other types of actuator, such as Bosch i-booster.

2
E3S Web of Conferences 268, 01037 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202126801037
VESEP2020

1.2 Automatic emergency braking work flow

The main functions of the AEB system are Forward Collision Warning (FCW) and
Automatic Braking (AB). The FCW monitors the driving environment in front of the
vehicle in real time, and trigger an alarm to the driver when judging the possibility of a
forward collision, with warning methods of sound, light, and tactile. This stage can be
recognized as the early part of the AEB function; The automatic braking part (AB) starts
full brake deceleration when the system detects the danger of a collision, which stage can
be recognized as the late part of the AEB function[2]. The work flow of the AEB system is
shown in Figure 2:

Fig. 2. AEB system work flow.

1.3 Status of automatic emergency braking technology

At the beginning of the development of AEB technology, there was only FCW function
which would triggers the alarm when there’s rear-end collision risk, by detecting the
distance to the front vehicle by the millimeter wave radar and calculating the pre-collision
time. With the development of sensor technology and ESC technology, the AEB function
combining alarm and braking has gradually appeared. The current AEB technology can not
only detect vehicles, but also detect pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles and other vulnerable
road users to avoid collisions.

2. Constructing of subjective evaluation system for AEB

Based on the technical features of automatic emergency braking and the typical scenarios of
vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-person, this article structures a related subjective
evaluation system.

2.1 Subjective evaluation of automatic emergency braking

Subjective evaluation of automatic emergency braking refers to that the trained assessors
use body senses to evaluate the overall performance of automatic emergency braking in
typical scenes per the evaluation criteria, and analyze, describe the evaluation results by
quickly perceiving automatic emergency braking performance level.

3
E3S Web of Conferences 268, 01037 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202126801037
VESEP2020

2.2 Scoring basis

Ten-point scoring method is recommended in order to make the subjective evaluation data
reflecting the slight difference between vehicles’ performances. 0.25 point is used as the
minimum indexing value, that is, 1 point is divided into four score levels of 0, 0.25, 0.5,
and 0.75 [3]. The basis for the ten-point scoring system is shown in Table 1:
Table 1. Subjective evaluation scoring basis.
score evaluation category evaluator defect
1 very poor loss of functions
all consumers
2 poor serious defect
complain
3 relatively poor unacceptable defect
need
4 slightly poor ordinary
improvement
consumers
conditionally
5 marginal complain more
acceptable
6 acceptable critical relatively less
relatively consumers
7 less
good complain
8 good acceptable trained extremely less
engineer
9 very good almost no feel
complain
10 perfect no complaint no feel

2.3 Evaluation scenarios

This article mainly studies the functions of vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-vulnerable
road users of AEB, for the following four typical scenes [4]:
1) Vehicle-to-Vehicle
In this scenario, CCRs are evaluated (the test vehicle moves at a constant speed, while
the target vehicle is stationary), and a soft balloon trolley is set as the target. The evaluation
scenario is shown in Figure 3:

Fig. 3. CCRs evaluation scenario.

When evaluating CCRs, the test vehicle travel along the path of the target vehicle which
is stationary. 40km/h speed is adopted to evaluate AEB function of the test vehicle, while
80km/h to evaluate FCW function.
2) Vehicle-to-Adult Pedestrian
This evaluation is for the scenario where the target in front is adult pedestrian. A
stationary adult dummy is picked as the target. The evaluation scenario is shown in Figure
4:

4
E3S Web of Conferences 268, 01037 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202126801037
VESEP2020

Fig. 4. Vehicle-to-adult pedestrian evaluation scenario.

In the scenario of vehicle-to-adult, the test vehicle and travel along the path of the adult
pedestrian that is stationary. 40km/h speed is adopted to evaluate AEB function of the test
vehicle, while 80km/h to evaluate FCW function.
3) Vehicle-to- Child Pedestrian
This evaluation is for the scenario where the target in front is child pedestrian. A
stationary child dummy is picked as the target. The evaluation scenario is shown in Figure
5:

Fig. 5. Vehicle-to- child pedestrian evaluation scenario.

In the scenario of vehicle-to-child, the test vehicle and travel along the path of the child
pedestrian that is stationary. 40km/h speed is adopted to evaluate AEB function of the test
vehicle, while 80km/h to evaluate FCW function.
4) Vehicle-to- Bicycle
This evaluation is for the scenario where the target in front is bicycle. A stationary adult
on bicycle dummy is picked as the target. The evaluation scenario is shown in Figure 6:

Fig. 6. Vehicle-to- bicycle valuation scenario.

In the scenario of vehicle-to- bicycle, he test vehicle and travel along the path of the
bicycle which is stationary. 40km/h speed is adopted to evaluate AEB function of the test
vehicle, while 80km/h to evaluate FCW function.

2.4 Conditions of evaluation

The subjective evaluation of AEB should meet the following conditions:
1) Personnel conditions:After being trained and passing the assessment, obtain the
company's internal certificate;
2) Vehicle conditions: With necessary conditions of vehicles capable of meeting
subjective evaluation requirements, the vehicle must have good dynamic performance, and
no problem with the engine, chassis, body, electrical and electronic equipment, and
automatic emergency braking systems;
3) Site: Clean, dry, straight concrete, asphalt or similar pavement;

5
E3S Web of Conferences 268, 01037 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202126801037
VESEP2020

4) Weather: The average wind speed should be less than 5m/s,sunny or cloudy;
5) Standards: Company internal subjective evaluation standard documents on automatic
emergency braking.

2.5 Subjective evaluation system

This session evaluates the automatic emergency braking in three aspects: Human-computer
Interaction, FCW function and AEB function, and introduces the subdivision items and
subjective evaluation method:

2.5.1 Items and methods of human-computer interaction subjective evaluation

1) Icon visuality: to evaluate if the AEB icon indicator or signal is easy to recognize
(including the icon size, the display location in the dash board, the color of the signal
device, etc.)
2) System setting: Evaluate the operation logic and convenience of AEB system, switch
logic and sensitivity setting, and whether the operation logic is clear and easy to understand,
etc.

2.5.2 Items and methods of FCW function subjective evaluation

1) Warning method: To evaluate whether the warning method of the FCW system is
reasonable, including whether the icon flashing, sound warning, and auxiliary alarm (seat
belt pretension, HUD display, braking,etc.) warning method can attract the driver's
attention and whether the warning intensity is appropriate.
2) Warning timing: With setting the warning sensitivity to medium or above medium,
evaluate the gap between the warning time of FCW and the driver's psychological
expectation, and whether the warning time is moderate.
3) False warning: To evaluate the ability of FCW system recognizing obstacles in front
of the vehicle, whether there is false alarm, and the accuracy of obstacle recognition of the
system.

2.5.3 Items and methods of AEB function subjective evaluation

1) Comfortableness: To evaluate the level of the braking deceleration, the pitch angle of the
body, the sudden feeling and the attenuation of the pitch angle, the level of the working
noise and so on when the AEB is engaged.
2) Efficiency: To evaluate whether the braking distance of the vehicle is moderate
(neither of too far nor too close to the target is good) when the AEB is engaged, and the gap
from the driver's expectation.
3) Sense of safety: To evaluate the driver’s safety sense and confidence on the braking
time and braking process when the AEB is engaged.

3 Field test of subjective evaluation on Automatic Emergency

Braking

3.1 The information of Vehicle AEB system

6
E3S Web of Conferences 268, 01037 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202126801037
VESEP2020

Table 2. Vehicle Information.

Vehicle Sensor type Technical features
Camera+Millimeter
#1
wave radar
Camera+Millimeter Identify vehicles and pedestrians
#2
wave radar
#3 Camera

3.2 Evaluation results of vehicle-to-vehicle

The subjective evaluation results of the three vehicles in the vehicle-to-vehicle scenario are
shown in Table 3:
Table 3. Subjective evaluation data of vehicle-to-vehicle.
Score
Item Index
#1 #2 #3
Human-Computer Icon visuality 7.0 5.5 5.5
Interaction System setting 7.25 5.0 5.0
Warning method 7.25 7.0 7.25
FCW function Warning timing 7.0 6.75 7.25
False warning 8.0 8.0 8.0
Comfortableness 7.25 6.75 6.25
AEB
Efficiency 7.0 6.75 7.5
function
Sense of safety 7.0 6.5 7.5
In the vehicle-to- vehicle scenario, all of three vehicles can successfully complete
automatic emergency braking. In terms of human-computer interaction indicators, the AEB
interfaces of #2 and #3 vehicles were set by the system default and can't be changed; In
terms of the AEB comfortableness index, the #3 braking is relatively sudden, and the
comfortableness is not good.

3.3 Evaluation results of vehicle-to- adult pedestrian

The subjective evaluation results of the three vehicles in the vehicle-to- adult scenario are
shown in Table 4:
Table 4. Subjective evaluation data of vehicle-to-adult.
Score
Item Index
#1 #2 #3
Human-Computer Icon visuality 7.0 5.5 5.5
Interaction System setting 7.25 5.0 5.0
Warning method 7.25 1.0 7.25
FCW function Warning timing 5.25 1.0 7.25
False warning 8.0 1.0 8.0
Comfortableness 7.25 1.0 6.25
AEB
Efficiency 7.0 1.0 7.5
function
Sense of safety 7.0 1.0 7.5
In the vehicle-to-adult pedestrian scenario, the warning timing of the vehicle #1 is close
to the limit status; vehicle #2 can't effectively identify the stationary adult dummy, and the
AEB function was not activated.

7
E3S Web of Conferences 268, 01037 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202126801037
VESEP2020

3.4 Evaluation results of vehicle-to-child pedestrian

The subjective evaluation results of the three vehicles in the vehicle-to-child scenario are
shown in Table 5:
Table 5. Subjective evaluation data of vehicle-to-child.
Score
Item Index
#1 #2 #3
Human-Computer Icon visuality 7.0 5.5 5.5
Interaction System setting 7.25 5.0 5.0
Warning method 7.25 1.0 1.0
FCW function Warning timing 5.25 1.0 1.0
False warning 8.0 1.0 1.0
Comfortableness 7.25 1.0 6.25
AEB
Efficiency 7.0 1.0 7.5
function
Sense of safety 7.0 1.0 7.5
In the vehicle-to-child pedestrian scenario, the warning timing of the vehicle #1 is close
to the limit status; vehicle #2 couldn’t effectively identify the stationary child dummy, and
the AEB function was not activated; vehicle #3 was unable to recognize the stationary child
dummy during high-speed driving and didn’t output any warning.

3.5 Evaluation results of vehicle-to-bicycle

The subjective evaluation results of the three vehicles in the vehicle-to-bicycle scenario are
shown in Table 6:
Table 6. Subjective evaluation data of vehicle-to-bicycle.
Score
Item Index
#1 #2 #3
Human-Computer Icon visuality 7.0 5.5 5.5
Interaction System setting 7.25 5.0 5.0
Warning method 1.0 1.0 1.0
FCW function Warning timing 1.0 1.0 1.0
False arning 1.0 1.0 1.0
Comfortableness 1.0 1.0 6.25
AEB
Efficiency 1.0 1.0 7.5
function
Sense of safety 1.0 1.0 7.5
In the vehicle-to-bicycle scenario, vehicles #1 and #2 couldn’t effectively identify the
stationary bicycle dummy, and the AEB function was not activated; vehicle #3 was unable
to recognize the stationary adult bicycle dummy during high-speed driving, and didn’t
output any warning.

3.6 Comprehensive analysis results

Through analyzing the scoring trend of the three indicators of human-computer interaction,
FCW function and AEB function in automatic emergency braking, in four scenarios of
vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to- adult, vehicle-to-child, and vehicle-to-bicycle (average
scores from Table 3-6), the technical maturity of the current automatic emergency braking
in different scenarios can be verified as Figure 7:

8
E3S Web of Conferences 268, 01037 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202126801037
VESEP2020

Fig. 7. Score comparison.

As shown in Figure 7, in the four typical scenarios of vehicle-to-vehicle,
vehicle-to-adult, vehicle-to-child and vehicle-to-bicycle, they share the same score on
human-computer interaction indicators, while AEB interfaces of some models were set by
the system default and can't be changed that is not convenient for driver to set. The warning
function and the automatic emergency braking function can’t work successfully in the
scenarios except for vehicle-to-vehicle scenario. Several systems are unable to accurately
and effectively identify pedestrians or bicycles, resulting in no response from AEB system
functions.

4 Conclusion
Through analyzing the technical features of automatic emergency braking, this article
studied the vehicle field tests in four typical scenarios, and built an subjective evaluation
system which is executable and can help on comprehensive, effective evaluation on the
vehicle's automatic emergency braking at subjective evaluation aspect.
Through analyzing the evaluation results, it can be found that the current automatic
emergency braking appears to be more mature in the scenario of vehicle-to-vehicle than
other scenarios. In the scenarios of vehicle-to-adult, vehicle-to-child, and vehicle-to-
bicycle, some AEB systems can't effectively identify the target and result in the failure of
the warning function or the automatic emergency braking function which proves that the
current AEB function still has certain restrictions. The AEB systems equipped with
multiple sensors (radars, cameras, etc.) can identify multiple targets as long as the design
adopts combined algorithms of data processing and target classification with strengthening
the recognizing capability of perception layer and expanding its effective target database.
With the development of millimeter-wave radar, cameras, laser radar and V2X
technology, AEB technology will also go various with promoted performance, which will
cover more complex scenarios such as intersections, vehicle turning, back-moving, higher
speed targets, etc.

References
1. Chen Yinding,Chen Donggui.Technology and future development of automotive safety
system [J]. Auto Time, 2019(18):159-160.
2. Hermann W,Stephan H,Felix L,Christina S.. Handbook of Driver Assistance
Systems[J]. 2015.
3. Wu Lijun. Automobile Vehicle Performance Subjective Evaluation [M]. Beijing:
Beijing Institute of Technology Press,2016.

9
E3S Web of Conferences 268, 01037 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202126801037
VESEP2020

4. EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME,TEST PROTOCOL–AEB

VRU systems,Version 3.0.2 July2019[S/OL].https:// www. euroncap.com/en/.

10