|
by Dr Antony Anderson C.Eng FIEE Sudden acceleration is also described by a variety of other terms including "sudden unexplained acceleration", "uncontrolled acceleration", "unintended acceleration", "uncommanded acceleration", "runaway vehicles", and, in an NBC TV report (NBC News/MSNBC, Feb. 10, 1999), as "vehicles taking off on their own". The picture presented is of a vehicle event in which the throttle moves, apparently uncommanded, of its own accord, rather mysteriously, to the fully open position, without the driver pressing the accelerator pedal. In such a situation the driver appears not to be able to exercise any kind of control, except by switching off the ignition or braking, which itself may be dangerous. The US NHTSA [National Highways Traffic
Safety
Administration ] provided the following rather narrow definition
of sudden
acceleration from near standstill in their 1989
Sudden
Acceleration
Report: “Sudden acceleration incidents” (SAI) are
defined for the purpose of this report as unintended, unexpected,
high-power
accelerations from a stationary position or a very low initial speed
accompanied by an apparent loss of braking effectiveness. In a typical
scenario, the incident begins at the moment of shifting to Drive” or
“Reverse”
from “Park”.
The NHTSA definition appears to leave out of consideration the following types of incidents :
In my opinion, any unexplained uncommanded
acceleration/deceleration
event,
at whatever speed and whatever the duration, might be a
symptom
of an electronic control system malfunction and therefore ought to be
investigated. Why the NHTSA should have adopted such a limiting
definition of
a sudden acceleration is not at all clear. To an outside
observer, it appears that unexplained
acceleration in the automobile environment is being investigated on a
somewhat ad-hoc basis, with
insufficient reference to known art in control engineering theory and
to standard practice in control system fault diagnosis. For example, if a competent electrical or control engineer
were investigating unexplained behaviour in a P & I controller in
an industrial application, they would first seek to establish whether
or not the system response was within the design specification. To do
this they would of course have to know the key system design
parameters, which would have been provided to them, as a matter of
course, by the manufacturers. They
would normally measure
the step and impulse responses of the system and establish the
gain/frequency
response and compare these with the design responses.
They would inject noise at critical points in the system. They would
want
to see if the output drifted over time and if any parts of the system
could go into saturation and whether there were any signs of
instability. They might repeat the tests with certain faults imposed on
the control module. They would also look for signs of poor electrical
contact, electrical tracking, hotspots, transient overvoltages and
other rather mundane causes of electrical misbehaviour. They would, in
other words, be carrying out a kind of sensitivity analysis to
establish how near the system was to becoming unstable. They would be
able to carry out this investigatory process fairly effectively because
most of the
relevant design information would have already been made available to
the owner of the
equipment as a matter of course as a very necessary part of the extent
of supply. In the automobile industry things seem to be very different.
Almost all of the design information
relating to electronic systems - including details of software
and its updates - remains privy
to the manufacturer. The key information, which
would allow competent independent electrical or control system
engineers to
critique safety-critical electronic systems, is kept securely under
wraps and
can only be obtained by the lengthy, inefficient and costly process of
legal
discovery. Effectively the automobile industry is self-certifying and
customers have no independent way of assessing whether or not
safety critical products meet essential requirements for functional
safety either when they purchase the vehicle or thereafter. In my opinion, this is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation: taking the manufacturer's word for the functional safety of what are now highly complex safety-critical electronic systems is no longer acceptable. Protocols need to be put in place, as in other industries, that allow independent evaluation of safety critical automobile systems at the design stage so that the customer can have confidence that the systems have been designed, manufactured and installed in accordance with best current functional safety practice. Bookmark Section 9 Links and
References before leaving
this site.
|
|
Nov 29th 2009, July 30th 2010 ©Antony Anderson Version 1.0 February 2001 and Version 1.1 July 2001 |