Closed Track Testing To Assess Prototype Level-3 Autonomous Vehicle Readiness for Public Road Deployment
Abstract
Most of the Automated Driving Systems (ADS) technology development is targeting urban areas; there is still much to learn about how ADS will impact rural transportation. The DriveOhio team deployed level-3 ADS-equipped prototype vehicles in rural Ohio with the goal of discovering technical challenges for ADS deployment in such environments. However, before the deployment on public roads, it was essential to test the ADS-equipped vehicle for their safety limitations. At Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC Inc.) proving grounds, we tested one such prototype system on a closed test track with soft targets and robotic platforms as surrogates for other road users. This paper presents an approach to safely conduct testing for ADS prototype and assess its readiness for public road deployment. The main goal of this testing was to identify a safe Operational Design Domain (ODD) of this system by gaining better understanding of the limitations of the system. The prototype system uses Apollo-based platform that provided perception, localization, routing, planning, and control modules. In this paper, we present a test matrix specifically designed for testing level-3 ADS-equipped vehicles on a closed test track. The test matrix includes a minimum set of test scenarios and procedures for each functionality of the ADS, for example, localization, routing, planning, object detection and collision avoidance, negotiating traffic at different types of intersections, car-following, etc. Various test parameters are chosen considering the intended public road deployment requirements and limitations. Further, we define safety metrics for various scenarios to objectively assess the limitations of the ADS. We also present sample data analysis results obtained from the testing. The ODD definitions were later used as ADS engagement/disengagement guidelines for the ADS operator to follow during public road deployment. The findings and lessons learned from this study will be useful in safely assessing limitations of future level-3 ADS-equipped prototypes.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 12 · Cited by 5
- Authors
- Rampilla, L., Freistuhler, C., Karanjkar, S., Seitz, T., & Tulpule, P.
- Affiliations
- Transportation Research Center Inc
- Transportation Research Center Inc.
- Venue
- SAE International Journal of Advances and Current Practices in Mobility
- Publisher
- SAE International
- Published
- 2024-04-09
- Volume
- 07
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 852-864
- ISSN
- 2641-9645 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4394616816
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 0.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- SAE International Journal of Advances and Current Practices in Mobility (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Keywords
- operational design domain, rural transport, safety metrics, test matrix, vehicle following, collision avoidance, object detection, localization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review