Dynamic Safety Contracts for Functional Cooperation of Automotive Systems

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9923)

Abstract

Going along with current research trends like Cyber-Physical Systems it is assumed for future embedded systems to enable a better interconnection of distributed systems. Besides mutual awareness, they should provide a deeper integration on the level of functional cooperation. By today, runtime aspects of system adaptation for functional safety are not sufficiently addressed. As predicted for the near future, especially collaboration scenarios of autonomous driving vehicles like platooning will make it necessary to address safety across the classical boundaries of single automotive systems. Therefore, extending the vehicle safety architecture to an open and adaptive one, implies that there is a need for a runtime assessment of safety. To ensure that the current operational situation based on cooperative functionalities is safe, we propose a safety evaluation with dynamic safety contracts between involved parties. The approach is based on a continuous monitoring, sharing and calculation of safety related quality characteristics of systems at runtime.

Keywords

Cooperative systems Dynamic safety contracts Condition monitoring Safety Autonomous vehicles Conditional certificates Dynamic adaptation 

References

  1. 1.
    Trapp, M., Schneider, D.: Safety assurance of open adaptive systems – a survey. In: Bencomo, N., France, R., Cheng, B.H., Aßmann, U. (eds.) Models@run.time. LNCS, vol. 8378, pp. 279–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rushby, J.: Runtime certification. In: Leucker, M. (ed.) RV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5289, pp. 21–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schneider, D., Becker, M., Trapp, M.: Approaching runtime trust assurance in open adaptive systems. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-managing Systems, pp. 196–201. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee, J., Bagheri, B., Kao, H.-A.: A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manufact. Lett. 3, 18–23 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schneider, D., Trapp, M.: Conditional safety certification of open adaptive systems. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. (TAAS) 8(2), 8 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/CD26262. Road vehicles, functional safety part 6: Product development at the software level, part 10, guidelines (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Östberg, K., Bengtsson, M.: Run time safety analysis for automotive systems in an open and adaptive environment. In: SAFECOMP 2013-Workshop ASCoMS (Architecting Safety in Collaborative Mobile Systems) of the 32nd International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Östberg, K., Johansson, R.: Use of quality metrics for functional safety in systems of cooperative vehicles. In: Ortmeier, F., Daniel, P. (eds.) SAFECOMP Workshops 2012. LNCS, vol. 7613, pp. 174–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Priesterjahn, C., Heinzemann, C., Schäfer, W., Tichy, M.: Runtime safety analysis for safe reconfiguration. In: 2012 10th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), pp. 1092–1097. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Software Engineering: DependabilityTechnische Universität KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations