Advertisement

Defining Autonomous Functions Using Iterative Hazard Analysis and Requirements Refinement

  • Fredrik WargEmail author
  • Martin Gassilewski
  • Jörgen Tryggvesson
  • Viacheslav Izosimov
  • Anders Werneman
  • Rolf Johansson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9923)

Abstract

Autonomous vehicles are predicted to have a large impact on the field of transportation and bring substantial benefits, but they present new challenges when it comes to ensuring safety. Today the standard ISO 26262:2011 treats each defined function, or item, as a complete scope for functional safety; the driver is responsible for anything that falls outside the items. With autonomous driving, it becomes necessary to ensure safety at all times when the vehicle is operating by itself. Therefore, we argue that the hazard analysis should have the wider scope of making sure the vehicle’s functions together fulfill its specifications for autonomous operation. The paper proposes a new iterative work process where the item definition is a product of hazard analysis and risk assessment rather than an input. Generic operational situation and hazard trees are used as a tool to widen the scope of the hazard analysis, and a method to classify hazardous events is used to find dimensioning cases among a potentially long list of candidates. The goal is to avoid dangerous failures for autonomous driving due to the specification of the nominal function being too narrow.

Keywords

ISO 26262 Functional safety Autonomous vehicles Hazard analysis Safety goals Item definition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research has been supported by the Swedish government agency for innovation systems (VINNOVA) in the FUSE project (ref 2013-02650).

References

  1. 1.
    Jang, H.A., Hong, S.-H., Lee, M.K.: A study on situation analysis for ASIL determination. J. Ind. Intell. Inf. 3(2), 152–157 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    VDA: Situationskatalog E-parameter nach ISO 26262-3. VDA 702, Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V. (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johansson, R.: Efficient identification of safety goals in the automotive E/E domain. In: Proceedings of 8th European Congress of Embedded Real-Time Software and Systems (ERTS2) (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergenhem, C., Johansson, R., Söderberg, A., Nilsson, J., Tryggvesson, J., Törngren, M., Ursing, S.: How to reach complete safety requirement refinement for autonomous vehicles. In: Critical Automotive Applications: Robustness and Safety workshop (CARS) (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kemmann, S.: SAHARA - A structured Approach for Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessments, Technische Universität Kaiserslautern (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stålhane, T., Myklebust, T., Hanssen, G.: The application of safe scrum to IEC 61508 certifiable software. In: Proceedings of ESREL 2012, Helsinki, Finland (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO: International Standard 26262:2011 Road vehicles – Functional safety (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jesty, P.H., Ward, D.D., Rivett, R.S.: Hazard analysis for programmable automotive systems. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on System Safety, IET (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vuori, M.: Agile development of safety-critical software. Technical report 14, Tampere University of Technology, Department of Software Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bainbridge, L.: Ironies of automation. Automatica 19(6), 775–779 (1983). Pergamon PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Automated_Vehicles_Policy.pdf
  12. 12.
    Maher, G., Sporer, H., Berlach, R., Armengaud, E., Kreiner, C.: SAHARA: a security-aware hazard and risk analysis method. In: Proceedings of 2015 Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition (DATE) (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fredrik Warg
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Gassilewski
    • 2
  • Jörgen Tryggvesson
    • 3
  • Viacheslav Izosimov
    • 4
  • Anders Werneman
    • 5
  • Rolf Johansson
    • 1
  1. 1.SP Technical Research Institute of SwedenBoråsSweden
  2. 2.Volvo CarsGöteborgSweden
  3. 3.Comentor ABGöteborgSweden
  4. 4.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  5. 5.Qamcom ABGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations