Validation and Verification of Automated Road Vehicles

  • Venkatesh AgaramEmail author
  • Frank Barickman
  • Felix Fahrenkrog
  • Edward Griffor
  • Ibro Muharemovic
  • Huei Peng
  • Jeremy Salinger
  • Steven Shladover
  • William Shogren
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mobility book series (LNMOB)


Ubiquitous, commercial deployment of automated road vehicles is desirable in order to realize their potential benefits such as crash avoidance, congestion mitigation, reduced environment impact, reduced driver stress, and increased driver productivity. A rigorous application of systems engineering, which includes validation and verification as crucial elements of assurance, is needed for the design and development of automated road vehicles. We discuss, without implying any form of joint recommendation, several areas of relevance to a common understanding of validation and verification of automated vehicles, namely customer expectations for vehicle response, industry standards for terms and definitions, industry standards for how measurement should be done, deeper knowledge of driving behavior today to serve as a reference, and standardized processes that encompass minimum performance requirements.


Validation and verification Automated road vehicles Commercial deployment Systems engineering Customer expectations Industry standards Terms and definitions Driving behavior Measurement standards 



The authors would like to acknowledge Mary Doyle of the Society of Automotive Engineers for capturing the details of the breakout session on Verification and Validation of On-Road Automated Vehicles held at the Automated Vehicle Symposium 2015. The first author would like to acknowledge Paul Perrone of Perrone Robotics for preparing the initial ground for the breakout session on Verification and Validation of On-Road Automated Vehicles held at the Automated Vehicle Symposium 2015.


  1. 1.
    Barrickman F (2014) USDOT-crash avoidance metrics partnership automation research project overview. SAE Government and Industry Meeting, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christensen A, Cunningham A, Engelman J, Green C, Kawashima C, Kiger S, Prokhorov D, Tellis L, Wendling B, Barickman F (2015) Key considerations in the development of driving automation systems, 24th enhanced safety vehicles conference. Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tellis L (2015) Key considerations in the development of driving automation systems. Automated Vehicles Symposium, Ann Arbor, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Griffor ER, Nass C (2016) Implicit communication: design for human-machine interaction, handbook of system safety and security, Editor Griffor, E.R., Elsevier-North Holland Publishing, 2016 (to appear)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    1490 WG—IEEE Guide—Adoptions of the Project Management Institute (PMI) Standard—A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 4th edn, 2008Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Venkatesh Agaram
    • 1
    Email author
  • Frank Barickman
    • 2
  • Felix Fahrenkrog
    • 3
  • Edward Griffor
    • 4
  • Ibro Muharemovic
    • 5
  • Huei Peng
    • 6
  • Jeremy Salinger
    • 7
  • Steven Shladover
    • 8
  • William Shogren
    • 9
  1. 1.PTC Inc.TroyUSA
  2. 2.National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationVehicle Research and Test CenterEast LibertyUSA
  3. 3.Institut für KraftfahrzeugeRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  4. 4.U.S. Department of CommerceNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA
  5. 5.Continental CorporationOne Continental DriveAuburn HillsUSA
  6. 6.Michigan Mobility Transformation CenterLay Auto LabAnn ArborUSA
  7. 7.General MotorsWarrenUSA
  8. 8.California PATH ProgramUniversity of CaliforniaRichmondUSA
  9. 9.Harman InternationalFarmington HillsUSA

Personalised recommendations