# Optimizing Non-Glare Zone Width of Adaptive Driving Beam (ADB) Using Fuzzy Logic Control
## 4 Result and Discussion  
Table 6 and Figure 14 show the result of the best non-glaze zone width in different driving scenarios. The x-axis is the minimum curvature of the driving scenario, and the y-axis is the best non-glaze zone width defined by the fuzzy logic controller. The top dashed line is the non-glaze zone width when all glare is eliminated, which is in the extreme case of the best glare rating and the worst road illumination. The x-axis also represents the narrowest non-glare zone width, which is just as wide as the vehicle boundary box, when the road illumination rating is the best and the glare rating is the worst. The best value of the non-glare zone width should lie between these two lines, balancing the glare/road illumination trade-off. The two solid lines are the first and second trials of the fuzzy logic controllers using different membership functions. Those can be considered two balances of the road illumination and glare trade-off. Those two trials have very similar results, except in the S-curve with 25 m minimum curvature, in which the second trial prefers lower glare and the first one prefers better road illumination.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Driving** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Iteration**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Non-Glare**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Glare Rating [s]**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Output [\%]**} \\
**Scenario** & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{S-curve with 25 m curvature} & 1 & 256 & 0 & \(-\)55.7 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 2 & 200.3 & 2 & \(-\)25.1 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 3 & 175.2 & 2.6 & \(-\)7.09 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 4 & 168.11 & 3.1 & \(-\)2.36 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 5 & 165.75 & 3.2 & \(-\)1.86 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 6 & 163.89 & 3.4 & 0.367 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{S-curve with 50 m curvature} & 1 & 180 & 0 & \(-\)13.9 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 2 & 166.1 & 2 & \(-\)7.6 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 3 & 158.5 & 2.6 & \(-\)4.86 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 4 & 153.64 & 4.2 & \(-\)1.64 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 5 & 152 & 4.3 & \(-\)1.13 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 6 & 150.87 & 4.5 & \(-\)0.308 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{S-curve with 75 m curvature} & 1 & 154 & 0 & \(-\)4.74 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 2 & 149.26 & 1 & \(-\)3.54 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 3 & 145.72 & 1.6 & \(-\)2.75 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 4 & 142.97 & 2.2 & \(-\)2 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 5 & 140.97 & 2.6 & \(-\)1.44 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 6 & 139.53 & 2.8 & \(-\)1.15 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 7 & 138.38 & 3.1 & \(-\)0.67 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{S-curve with 100 m curvature} & 1 & 143 & 0 & \(-\)2.62 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 2 & 140.38 & 0.5 & \(-\)2.16 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 3 & 138.22 & 0.9 & \(-\)1.71 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 4 & 136.51 & 1.22 & \(-\)1.3 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 5 & 135.21 & 1.4 & \(-\)1 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 6 & 134.21 & 1.6 & \(-\)0.7 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 7 & 133.51 & 1.75 & \(-\)0.45 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Trial 2 iteration of four driving scenarios, using the fuzzy logic controller with Gauss membership function.  
Such results could be used as an ADB non-glare zone width design guideline for automotive OEMs. For example, if an OEM would like to consider the performance of this ADB system at corner curvature as low as 50 m, the non-glare zone width should be set at 151% of the boundary box according to the result, balancing the glare and road illumination. Note that the minimum curvature proposed by NHTSA for ADB testing in NPRM is 100 m. If the proposed ADB testing procedure is executed, then the minimum non-glare zone width of this ADB should be set to 143% of the boundary box to meet the legal requirement.