TU Darmstadt / ULB / TUprints

Comparing Different Levels of Technical Systems for a Modular Safety Approval - Why the State of the Art Does Not Dispense with System Tests Yet

Klamann, Björn ; Winner, Hermann (2022)
Comparing Different Levels of Technical Systems for a Modular Safety Approval - Why the State of the Art Does Not Dispense with System Tests Yet.
In: Energies, 2022, 14 (22)
doi: 10.26083/tuprints-00021175
Article, Secondary publication, Publisher's Version

[img] Text
energies-14-07516.pdf
Copyright Information: CC BY 4.0 International - Creative Commons, Attribution.

Download (1MB)
Item Type: Article
Type of entry: Secondary publication
Title: Comparing Different Levels of Technical Systems for a Modular Safety Approval - Why the State of the Art Does Not Dispense with System Tests Yet
Language: English
Date: 2022
Place of Publication: Darmstadt
Year of primary publication: 2022
Publisher: MDPI
Journal or Publication Title: Energies
Volume of the journal: 14
Issue Number: 22
Collation: 16 Seiten
DOI: 10.26083/tuprints-00021175
Corresponding Links:
Origin: Secondary publication via sponsored Golden Open Access
Abstract:

While systems in the automotive industry have become increasingly complex, the related processes require comprehensive testing to be carried out at lower levels of a system. Nevertheless, the final safety validation is still required to be carried out at the system level by automotive standards like ISO 26262. Using its guidelines for the development of automated vehicles and applying them for field operation tests has been proven to be economically unfeasible. The concept of a modular safety approval provides the opportunity to reduce the testing effort after updates and for a broader set of vehicle variants. In this paper, we present insufficiencies that occur on lower levels of hierarchy compared to the system level. Using a completely new approach, we show that errors arise due to faulty decomposition processes wherein, e.g., functions, test scenarios, risks, or requirements of a system are decomposed to the module level. Thus, we identify three main categories of errors: insufficiently functional architectures, performing the wrong tests, and performing the right tests wrongly. We provide more detailed errors and present examples from the research project UNICARagil. Finally, these findings are taken to define rules for the development and testing of modules to dispense with system tests.

Status: Publisher's Version
URN: urn:nbn:de:tuda-tuprints-211759
Additional Information:

Keywords: safety validation; automated driving systems; decomposition; modular safety approval; modular testing; fault tree analysis

Classification DDC: 600 Technology, medicine, applied sciences > 620 Engineering and machine engineering
Divisions: 16 Department of Mechanical Engineering > Institute of Automotive Engineering (FZD)
Date Deposited: 22 Apr 2022 11:26
Last Modified: 23 Aug 2022 07:29
URI: https://tuprints.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/id/eprint/21175
PPN: 49417515X
Export:
Actions (login required)
View Item View Item