Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Functional Safety of Automated Driving Systems: Does ISO 26262 Meet the Challenges?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Automated Driving

Abstract

Today’s innovative automated driving systems (ADS) functions are realised by highly interconnected and networking cyber-physical systems based on existing automated driving assistance systems (ADAS). These interconnections increase the complexity of so-called systems of systems, because automation requires information and interaction with its environment. All possible interactions must be known for the definition of the intended system behaviour in order to identify any malfunctions of ADS, which may propagate over the system boundaries and influence other systems to fail in a harmful way. Hidden links are able to affect unwanted operational system states so that they cannot be perceived as failure modes. For that reason, functional safety is an important topic for reduction of safety-critical risk to cause failures in complex automotive systems.

The chapter presented discusses the application of the automotive functional safety standard ISO 26262 in context of ADS. The following main topics are highlighted: Complexity of automated driving systems, issues concerning availability and reliability, importance of the concept phase and the role of the driver. Furthermore, proposals are made on how to handle these challenges and for feasible enhancements of the current ISO 26262 standard. Existing and promising methods are discussed that deal with the increasing complexity for the development of future ADS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Knight Industries, 2000.

  2. 2.

    Germany Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt)—http://www.bast.de.

  3. 3.

    US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)—http://www.nhtsa.gov/.

  4. 4.

    Emergency Brake Assist.

  5. 5.

    Lane Keeping Assist.

  6. 6.

    Original equipment manufacturer.

  7. 7.

    Car-to-x means a communication between the car and any other external system, e.g. other cars C2C or the infrastructure C2I.

  8. 8.

    Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee—http://avstop.com/legal/2.htm.

  9. 9.

    For example, Austrian Federal Act—Governing the Liability for Defective Product/Product Liability [7]: §5. (1) A product §5. (1) A product shall be deemed defective if it does not provide the safety which, taking all circumstances into account, may be reasonably expected, in particular with respect to: (1) the presentation of the product, (2) the use to which it can reasonably be expected that the product would be put and (3) the time when the product was put into circulation.

  10. 10.

    An item is a system or array of systems for implementing a function at vehicle level, to which ISO 26262 is applied.

  11. 11.

    See definition at http://v-modell.iabg.de/v-modell-xt-html-english/index.html.

  12. 12.

    See also ‘dependability’—umbrella term to describe different quality attributes of a system.

  13. 13.

    Emergent entities (properties or substances) ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them [13].

  14. 14.

    Hazard and operability study.

  15. 15.

    Failure mode and effects analysis.

  16. 16.

    Depending on the classification as S and/or E.

  17. 17.

    Time span in which fault(s) can occur in a system before a hazardous event ([2], Part 3, 1.45).

  18. 18.

    Amount of time in which a safety mechanism takes online diagnostic tests ([2], Part 3, 1.26).

  19. 19.

    Time span between detecting a fault and reaching the safe state ([2], Part 3, 1.44).

  20. 20.

    Amount of time between achieving the safe state before a hazard could occur.

  21. 21.

    Systems Modelling Language—http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/.

  22. 22.

    Modelling and Analysis of Real Time and Embedded systems—http://www.omgmarte.org/.

  23. 23.

    Electronics Architecture and Software Technology—Architecture Description Language—http://www.east-adl.info/.

  24. 24.

    A method is a set of related activities, techniques, conventions, representations, and artefacts that implement one or more processes and is generally supported by a set of tools.

References

  1. K. Bengler et al., Three Decades of Driver Assistance Systems: Review and Future Perspectives, in Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, IEEE 6.4, 2014, pp. 6–22

    Google Scholar 

  2. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 26262—Road Vehicles—Functional Safety, Part 1–10. ISO/TC 22/SC 32—Electrical and Electronic Components and General System Aspects, 15 Nov 2011

    Google Scholar 

  3. European Commission, CARE Project: Road Safety Evolution in the EU, Mar 2015, [On-line] http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road\_safety/pdf/observatory/historical\_evol.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2015

    Google Scholar 

  4. O. Carstena et al., Vehicle-based studies of driving in the real world: the hard truth? Accid. Anal. Prev. 58, 162–174 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. SAE International, SAE J3016—Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems. J3016-201401, 1 Jan 2014

    Google Scholar 

  6. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles, 30 May 2013, [On-line] http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Automated\_Vehicles\_Policy.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2015

    Google Scholar 

  7. Austrian Federal Act, Governing the Liability for a Defective Product (Product Liability Act). 21 Jan 1988, [On-line] www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblPdf/1988\_99\_0/1988\_99\_0.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2015

    Google Scholar 

  8. International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 61508—Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems, 2nd edn. TC 65/SC 65A—System aspects, 4 Apr 2010

    Google Scholar 

  9. R.W.A. Barnard, What is wrong with Reliability Engineering? INCOSE Int. Symp. 18, 357–365 (2008). doi:10.1002/j.2334-5837.2008.tb00811.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. N. Leveson, Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. MIT Press, Jan 2012, [On-line] https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/engineering-safer-world. Accessed 12 Oct 2015

  11. H. Butz, Safety and Fault Tolerance in a Complex Human Centred Automation Environment. Innovation Forum Embedded Systems, Munich, 24 Apr 2009, [On-line] http://bicc-net.de/events/innovation-forum-embedded-systems. Accessed 12 Oct 2015

  12. H. Butz, Systemkomplexität methodisch erkennen und vermeiden, in Anforderungsmanagement in der Produktentwicklung, R. Jochem, K. Landgraf (Hrsg) (Symposion Publishing GmbH, Düsseldorf, 2011), pp. 183–217

    Google Scholar 

  13. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Emergent Properties, 28 Feb 2012, [On-Line] http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/properties-emergent. Accessed 12 Oct 2015

  14. D. Campos et al., Egas–collaborative biomedical annotation as a service. Proc. Fourth BioCreative Challenge Evaluation Workshop 1, 254–259 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  15. IAV GmbH—Ingenieurgesellschaft Auto und Verkehr, Standardized E-Gas Monitoring Concept for Gasoline and Diesel Engine Control Units, Version 6, 22 Sept 2015, [On-Line] https://www.iav.com/en/publications/technical-publications/etc-monitoring-concepts. Accessed 12 Oct 2015

  16. International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 60812—Analysis techniques for system reliability—Procedure for failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), TC 56—Dependability, 26 Jan 2006

    Google Scholar 

  17. International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 61025—Fault tree analysis (FTA). TC 56—Dependability, 13 Dec 2006

    Google Scholar 

  18. S. Friedenthal, A. Moore, S. Rick, A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling Language, 3rd edn. (Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam, 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  19. H. Martin et al., Model-based Engineering Workflow for Automotive Safety Concepts. No. 2015-01-0273, SAE Technical Paper, 2015

    Google Scholar 

  20. G. Biggs et al., A profile for modelling safety information with design information in SysML. Softw. Syst. Model 15(1), 147–178 (2014). Springer

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. B. Meyer, Applying ‘design by contract’. Comput. IEEE 25(10), 40–51 (1992). 2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. J.-P. Blanquart et al., Towards cross-domains model-based safety process, methods and tools for critical embedded systems: The CESAR approach, in Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, ed. by F. Flammini, S. Bologna, V. Vittorini. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6894 (Springer, Berlin, 2011), pp. 57–70

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. A. Baumgart et al., A model-based design methodology with contracts to enhance the development process of safety-critical systems, in Software Technologies for Embedded and Ubiquitous Systems, ed. by S.L. Min, R. Pettit, P. Puschner, T. Ungerer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6399 (Springer, Berlin, 2011), pp. 59–70

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. J. Westman et al., Structuring safety requirements in ISO 26262 using contract theory, in Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, ed. by F. Bitsch, J. Guiochet, M. Kaâniche (Springer, Berlin, 2013), pp. 166–177

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. A. Benveniste et al., Contracts for System Design. INRIA, Rapport de recherche RR-8147, Nov 2012, [Online] http://hal.inria.fr/hal-00757488. Accessed 12 Oct 2015

  26. M. Fischer et al., Modular and scalable driving simulator hardware and software for the development of future driver assistance and automation systems, in New Developments in Driving Simulation Design and Experiments, 2014, pp. 223–229

    Google Scholar 

  27. M. Karner, et al., System Level Modeling, Simulation and Verification Workflow for Safety-Critical Automotive Embedded Systems. No. 2014-01-0210, SAE Technical Paper, 2014

    Google Scholar 

  28. M. Krammer, H. Martin et al., System Modeling for Integration and Test of Safety-Critical Automotive Embedded Systems. No. 2013-01-0189, SAE Technical Paper, 2013

    Google Scholar 

  29. P. Graignic et al., Complex system simulation: Proposition of a MBSE framework for design-analysis integration. Proc. Comput. Sci. 16, 59–68 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. D. Krajzewicz, Traffic simulation with SUMO—Simulation of urban mobility, in Fundamentals of Traffic Simulation, Series: International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, ed. by J. Barceló, vol. 145 (Springer, Berlin, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  31. J. Erdmann, Lane-Changing Model in SUMO. German Aerospace Center (2014), [On-Line] http://elib.dlr.de/89233/1/SUMO\_Lane\_change\_model\_Template\_SUMO2014.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2015

    Google Scholar 

  32. A. Rousseau et al., Electric Drive Vehicle Development and Evaluation Using System Simulation, in Proceedings of the 19th IFAC World Congress, 2014, pp. 7886–7891

    Google Scholar 

  33. M. Klauda et al., Automotive Safety und Security aus Sicht eines Zulieferers, 4 Oct 2013, [On-line] http://subs.emis.de/LNI/ Proceedings/Proceedings210/13.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2015

  34. T. M. Gasser, Legal consequences of an increase in vehicle automation. Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, 2013, [On-Line] http://bast.opus.hbznrw.de/volltexte/2013/723/pdf/Legal\_consequences\_of\_an\_increase\_in\_vehicle\_automation.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2015

    Google Scholar 

  35. H. Winner, W. Wachenfeld, Absicherung automatischen Fahrens, in 6.FAS-Tagung München, 29 Nov 2013, [On-Line] http://tubiblio.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/63810/. Accessed 12 Oct 2015

  36. B. Walker Smith, SAE Levels of Driving Automation. The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, 18 Dec 2013, [On-line] http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/loda. Accessed 12 Oct 2015

  37. H. Winner et al., Handbuch Fahrerassistenzsysteme, 3. Auflage. ATZ/MTZ-Fachbuch, (Springer Fachmedien, Berlin, 2015)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Virtual Vehicle Research Center, Graz, Austria

    Helmut Martin

  2. Magna Steyr Engineering AG & Co KG, Graz, Austria

    Kurt Tschabuschnig

  3. VOLVO Group Trucks Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Olof Bridal

  4. Institute of Electrical Measurement and Measurement Signal Processing, Virtual Vehicle Research Center and Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria

    Daniel Watzenig

Authors
  1. Helmut Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kurt Tschabuschnig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olof Bridal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel Watzenig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helmut Martin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Electrical Measurement and Measurement Signal Processing, Virtual Vehicle Research Center and Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria

    Daniel Watzenig

  2. Institute of Automation and Control, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria

    Martin Horn

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Martin, H., Tschabuschnig, K., Bridal, O., Watzenig, D. (2017). Functional Safety of Automated Driving Systems: Does ISO 26262 Meet the Challenges?. In: Watzenig, D., Horn, M. (eds) Automated Driving. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31895-0_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31895-0_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31893-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31895-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation