Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

European Conference on Software Process Improvement

EuroSPI 2018: Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement pp 161–172Cite as

Method of Evaluating the Influence Factor of Safety in the Automated Driving System: The Chasm Between SAE Level 2 and Level 3

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 896))

Abstract

Recently vehicle control system becomes have the automated feature. In this situation, the analysis based on malfunction of a system is not enough. We have to consider other hazard types such as the hazard originated from threats, the hazard that comes from the misinterpretation on using sensor. In this paper, we provide several hazard types that we have to think and explain the consistent approach to analyse the system in the concept phase.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The issue shown in this example is categorized in the last one of Table 1 (i.e. “decision of ADS”).

  2. 2.

    We use the pointing system to refer a description: P-CH.SC.CL, where P is the part number, CH is a chapter number, SC is a section number and CL is a clause number of ISO 26262.

  3. 3.

    We use the SAE J3061 to analyse threats, and we think ISA/IEC 62443 is useful to find the safety relating threats.

References

  1. SAE: J3016: SAE international taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems. Levels of driving automation (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  2. SAE Vehicle Electrical System Security Committee, et al.: SAE J3061-Cybersecurity Guidebook for Cyber-Physical Automotive Systems. SAE-Society of Automotive Engineers (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Knapp, A., et al.: Code of practice for the design and evaluation of ADAS. Preventive and active safety applications, eSafety for road and air transport, European Commission Project (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  4. DOT, HS 810 905: Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems (IVBSS): Human Factors and Driver-Vehicle Interface (DVI) Summary Report (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  5. ISO, ISO26262: Road vehicles-functional safety. International Standard ISO (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Yoshida, J.: Tesla’s Fatal Crash: 6 Unanswered Questions:1. What did the front-camera actually see just before the crash?. https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1330060&page_number=2. Accessed 1 Apr 2018

  7. Spanfelner, B., et al.: Challenges in applying the ISO 26262 for driver assistance systems. Tagung Fahrerassistenz (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wilhelm, U., Ebel, S., Weitzel, A.: Functional safety of driver assistance systems and ISO 26262. In: Handbook of Driver Assistance Systems: Basic Information, Components and Systems for Active Safety and Comfort, pp. 109–131 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ito, M.: Finding threats with hazards in the concept phase of product development. In: Barafort, B., O’Connor, R.V., Poth, A., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2014. CCIS, vol. 425, pp. 277–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43896-1_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Weilkiens, T.: Systems Engineering with SysML/UML: Modeling, Analysis, Design. Elsevier, New York City (2011)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. D’Souza, D.F., Wills, A.C.: Objects, Components, and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  12. van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements engineering: from system goals to UML models to software. Wiley, Chichester (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  13. IEC, B.S. 61882:2001: Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP studies). Application guide. British Standards Institute (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ito, M.: HMI requirements creation, as the collaboration work of human and machine in the safety-critical system. In: Stolfa, J., Stolfa, S., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2017. CCIS, vol. 748, pp. 61–71. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64218-5_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Ito, M.: Cardion.spec: an approach to improve the requirements specification written in the natural language through the formal method. In: Kreiner, C., O’Connor, R.V., Poth, A., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2016. CCIS, vol. 633, pp. 58–69. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44817-6_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. IEC, IEC 62443-1-1: Security for industrial automation and control systems (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Salay, R., Queiroz, R., Czarnecki, K.: An analysis of ISO 26262: machine learning and safety in automotive software, SAE Technical Paper (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  18. ISO, ISO/AWI PAS 21448: Road vehicles - safety of the intended functionality (under development)

    Google Scholar 

  19. AMASS (Architecture-driven, Multi-concern and Seamless Assurance and Certification of Cyber-Physical Systems), Standardization Survey D8.9 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kelly, T.: Arguing safety-a systematic approach to managing safety cases. University of York, Department of Computer Science-Publications-YCST (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Larrucea, X., Walker, A, Colomo-Palacios, R.: Supporting the management of reusable automotive software. In: IEEE Software, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 40–47, May–June (2017)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NIL Software Corp., 2-17-7 Kinuta, Setagaya, Tokyo, Japan

    Masao Ito

Authors
  1. Masao Ito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masao Ito .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tecnalia Bizkaia, San Sebastián, Spain

    Xabier Larrucea

  2. Tecnalia Bizkaia, San Sebastián, Spain

    Izaskun Santamaria

  3. School of Computing, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Rory V. O'Connor

  4. I.S.C.N. GesmbH, Graz, Austria

    Richard Messnarz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ito, M. (2018). Method of Evaluating the Influence Factor of Safety in the Automated Driving System: The Chasm Between SAE Level 2 and Level 3. In: Larrucea, X., Santamaria, I., O'Connor, R., Messnarz, R. (eds) Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement. EuroSPI 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 896. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97925-0_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97925-0_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97924-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97925-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation