Advertisement

Architecture and Safety for Autonomous Heavy Vehicles: ARCHER

  • Viktor Kaznov
  • Johan Svahn
  • Per Roos
  • Fredrik Asplund
  • Sagar Behere
  • Martin Törngren
Chapter

Abstract

Machines are converging towards autonomy. The transition is driven by safety, efficiency, environmental and traditional ‘robotics automation concerns’ (dirty, dull and dangerous applications). Similar trends are seen in several domains including heavy vehicles, cars and aircraft. This transition is, however, facing multiple challenges including how to gradually evolve from current architectures to autonomous systems, limitations in legislation and safety standards, test and verification methodology and human–machine interaction.

Keywords

Commercial Vehicle Heavy Vehicle Adaptive Cruise Control Reference Architecture Human Driver 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    CyPhERS deliverable D3.2. Market and Innovation Potential of CPS. Technical Report by the CyPhERS FP7 project, Aug 2014, http://www.cyphers.eu/sites/default/files/D3.2.pdf
  2. 2.
    ISO 26262:2011 Road vehicles—Functional safety (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Behere et al., Architecture Challenges for Intelligent Autonomous Machines: An Industrial Perspective, in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Intelligent Autonomous Systems (IAS-13), Padova, Italy, 2014Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C.A. Ericson, Fault Tree Analysis–A History, in Proceedings of 17th International System Safety Conference, 1999Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Tobioka, R.C. Bertucio, Use of event tree analysis in development of a LOCA test program. Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc. 39, 590–591 (1981)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. McDermott et al., The Basics of FMEA, 2nd edn. (Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, 1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Aljazzar et al., Safety Analysis of an Airbag System Using Probabilistic FMEA and Probabilistic Counterexamples, in 6th International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, Hungary, 2009Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. McDermid et al., Experience with the Application of HAZOP to Computer-Based Systems, in Proceedings of 10th Annual Conference on System Integrity, Software Safety and Process Security, COMPASS, 1995Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D.D. Woods, Decomposing automation: Apparent simplicity, real complexity, in Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications, ed. by R. Parasuraman, M. Mouloua (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1996), pp. 3–17Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B.N. Sarter, D.D. Woods, Pilot interaction with cockpit automation: Operational experiences with the flight management system. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 2(4), 303–321 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.D. Sorkin, Why are people turning off our alarms? J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 84(3), 1107–1108 (1988). doi: 10.1121/1.397232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Parasuraman, V. Riley, Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 39(2), 230–253 (1997). doi: 10.1518/001872097778543886. http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/39/2/230.abstract CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D.A. Norman, The problem of automation: Inappropriate feedback and interaction, not over-automation, in Human Factors in Hazardous Situations, ed. by D.E. Broadbent, J. Reason, A. Baddeley (New York, Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 585–593Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N.G. Leveson, Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. Ishimatsu et al., Modeling and Hazard Analysis Using STPA, in Proceedings of the 4th IAASS Conference Making Safety Matter, p. 10, 2010Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. Nakao, M. Katahira, Y. Miyamoto, N. Leveson, Safety Guided Design of Crew Return Vehicle in Concept Design Phase Using STAMP/STPA, in Proceedings of the 5th IAASS Conference, pp. 497–501, 2011Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S.J. Pereira, G. Lee, J. Howard, A System-Theoretic Hazard Analysis Methodology for a Non-advocate Safety Assessment of the Ballistic Missile Defense System, in Proceedings of the AIAA Missile Sciences Conference, Monterey, California, 2006Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Thomas, N.G. Leveson, Performing Hazard Analysis on Complex, Software- and Human-Intensive Systems, in Proceedings of the 29th ISSC Conference About System Safety, 2011Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Sulman et al., Hazard Analysis of Collision Avoidance System Using STPA, in Proceedings of the 11th International ISCRAM Conference, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA, May 2014Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. Baudin, J. Blanquart, J. Guiochet, D. Powell, Independent Safety Systems for Autonomy: State of the Art and Future Directions, Technical Report LAAS-CNRS No. 07710Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C.B. Watkins, R. Walter, Transitioning from Federated Avionics Architectures to Integrated Modular Avionics, in 2007 IEEE/AIAA 26th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, IEEE, Oct 2007Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Di Natale, A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Moving from federated to integrated architectures in automotive: The role of standards, methods and tools. IEEE Proc. 98(4), 603–620 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, G. Martin, Platform-based design and software design methodology for embedded systems. IEEE Des. Test Comput. 18(6), 23–33 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A. Ferrari, System Design—Traditional Concepts and New Paradigms, in Proceedings of ICCD, 1999Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli et al., Alberto Benefits and Challenges for Platform-Based Design, in Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference on Design Automation—DAC ’04, pp. 409–414, 2004Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Behere, Architecting Autonomous Automotive Systems: With an Emphasis on Cooperative Driving, Licentiate Thesis, KTH, Stockholm, 2005Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Behere, M. Törngren, D. Chen, A reference architecture for cooperative driving. J. Syst. Archit. 59(10), 1095–1112 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.sysarc.2013.05.014. Part CCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Shladover, An Automated Highway System as the Platform for Defining Fault-Tolerant Automotive Architectures and Design Methods. NSF CPS Workshop Position Paper, 2011Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    M. Törngren et al., Model based development of automotive embedded systems, in Automotive Embedded Systems Handbook, ed. by N. Navet, F. Simonot-Lion. Industrial Information Technology Series (Taylor and Francis CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2008). ISBN 9780849380266Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. Benveniste et al., Embedded Systems Design, The ARTIST Roadmap for Research and Development. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3436 (Springer, Berlin, 2005). doi: 10.1007/b106761. ISBN 978-3-540-31973-3Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    MBAT ARTEMIS project, http://www.mbat-artemis.eu/home/
  32. 32.
    P. Derler, E.A. Lee, M. Torngren, S. Tripakis, Cyber-Physical System Design Contracts, in ICCPS ’13: ACM/IEEE 4th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems, 10 Apr 2013Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. Westman et al., Structuring Safety Requirements Using Contract Theory, in SAFECOMP—32nd International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security, France, 2013Google Scholar
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
    iFEST ARTEMIS project, www.artemis-ifest.eu/

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Viktor Kaznov
    • 1
  • Johan Svahn
    • 1
  • Per Roos
    • 1
  • Fredrik Asplund
    • 2
  • Sagar Behere
    • 2
  • Martin Törngren
    • 2
  1. 1.Scania CV ABSödertäljeSweden
  2. 2.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations