Advertisement

A Strategy for Assessing Safe Use of Sensors in Autonomous Road Vehicles

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10488)

Abstract

When arguing safety for an autonomous road vehicle it is considered very hard to show that the sensing capability is sufficient for all possible scenarios that might occur. Already for today’s manually driven road vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), it is far from trivial how to argue that the sensor systems are sufficiently capable of enabling a safe behavior. In this paper, we argue that the transition from ADAS to automated driving systems (ADS) enables new solution patterns for the safety argumentation dependent on the sensor systems. A key factor is that the ADS itself can compensate for a lower sensor capability, by for example lowering the speed or increasing the distances. The proposed design strategy allocates safety requirements on the sensors to determine their own capability. This capability is then to be balanced by the tactical decisions of the ADS equipped road vehicle.

Keywords

ISO 26262 Automated driving systems Systematic system design faults Sensor systems Tactical decisions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research has been supported by the Swedish government agency for innovation systems (VINNOVA) in the ESPLANADE project (ref 2016-04268).

References

  1. 1.
    Sukthankar, R.: Situation awareness for tactical driving. Ph.D. thesis, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, USA, January 1997Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diem, T.X.P., Pasquier, M.: From operational to tactical driving: a hybrid learning approach for autonomous vehicles. In: 2008 10th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision, Hanoi, Vietnam, December 2008Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    SAE International: SAE J3016: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for on-Road Motor Vehicle (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO/AWI PAS 21448 Road vehicles – Safety of the intended functionalityGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    IEC 62998 CD – Safety-related sensors used for protection of personGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    IEC 61508: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems. The International Electrotechnical Commission (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IEC 62061: Safety of machinery – Functional safety of safety-related electrical, electronic and programmable electronic control systems. Ed. 1.2. The International Electrotechnical Commission (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO 13849: Safety of machinery – Safety-related parts of control systems. International Organization for Standardization (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    MIL-STD882(E): Department of Defense Standard Practice, System Safety, May 2012Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bergenhem, C., Johansson, R., Söderberg, A., Nilsson, J., Tryggvesson, J., et al.: How to reach complete safety requirement refinement for autonomous vehicles. Matthieu Roy, CARS 2015 - Critical Automotive applications: Robustness & Safety, Paris, France, September 2015Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Warg, F., Gassilewski, M., Tryggvesson, J., Izosimov, V., Werneman, A., Johansson, R.: Defining autonomous functions using iterative hazard analysis and requirements refinement. In: Skavhaug, A., Guiochet, J., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9923, pp. 286–297. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45480-1_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RISEBorasSweden
  2. 2.ZenuityGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.SemconGothenburgSweden
  4. 4.Volvo Car CorporationGothenburgSweden
  5. 5.Qamcom Research & TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  6. 6.Volvo Group Trucks TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  7. 7.AutolivLinköpingSweden
  8. 8.KTHStockholmSweden
  9. 9.Delphi E&SGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations