skip to main content
10.1145/2593069.2602976acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Safety Evaluation of Automotive Electronics Using Virtual Prototypes: State of the Art and Research Challenges

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 June 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Intelligent automotive electronics significantly improved driving safety in the last decades. With the increasing complexity of automotive systems, dependability of the electronic components themselves and of their interaction must be assured to avoid any risk to driving safety due to unexpected failures caused by internal or external faults.

Additionally, Virtual Prototypes (VPs) have been accepted in many areas of system development processes in the automotive industry as platforms for SW development, verification, and design space exploration. We believe that VPs will significantly contribute to the analysis of safety conditions for automotive electronics. This paper shows the advantages of such a methodology based on today's industrial needs, presents the current state of the art in this field, and outlines upcoming research challenges that need to be addressed to make this vision a reality.

References

  1. AUtomotive Open System ARchitecture (AUTOSAR) Development Partnership Website. http://www.autosar.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Georg Georgakos, Ulf Schlichtmann, Reinhard Schneider, and Samarjit Chakraborty. Reliability challenges for electric vehicles: from devices to architecture and systems software. In 50th Annual Design Automation Conference (DAC), page 98, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. C. Pinello, L.P. Carloni, and A.L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. Fault-tolerant deployment of embedded software for cost-sensitive real-time feedback-control applications. In Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference (DATE), pages 1164--1169 Vol.2, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Malcolm Wallace. Modular architectural representation and analysis of fault propagation and transformation. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 141(3):53--71, December 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Xiaocheng Ge, Richard F. Paige, and John A. Mcdermid. Probabilistic failure propagation and transformation analysis. In 28th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP), pages 215--228, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bernhard Kaiser, Peter Liggesmeyer, and Oliver Mäckel. A new component concept for fault trees. In 8th Australian Workshop on Safety Critical Systems and Software (SCS) - Volume 33, pages 37--46, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J. Zimmermann, S. Stattelmann, A. Viehl, O. Bringmann, and W. Rosenstiel. Model-driven virtual prototyping for real-time simulation of distributed embedded systems. In 7th IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES), pages 201--210, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. S. Reiter, M. Pressler, A. Viehl, O. Bringmann, and W. Rosenstiel. Reliability assessment of safety-relevant automotive systems in a model-based design flow. In 18th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC), pages 417--422, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Ningfang Song, Jiaomei Qin, Xiong Pan, and Yan Deng. Fault injection methodology and tools. In International Conference on Electronics and Optoelectronics (ICEOE), volume 1, pages V1-47--V1-50, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Giacinto P. Saggese, Nicholas J. Wang, Zbigniew T. Kalbarczyk, Sanjay J. Patel, and Ravishankar K. Iyer. An experimental study of soft errors in microprocessors. IEEE Micro, 25(6):30--39, November 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Rebaudengo, M. Sonza Reorda, and M. Violante. An accurate analysis of the effects of soft errors in the instruction and data caches of a pipelined microprocessor. In Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE), 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M.L. Li, P. Ramachandran, U.R. Karpuzcu, S. Hari, and S.V. Adve. Accurate microarchitecture-level fault modeling for studying hardware faults. In IEEE 15th International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), pages 105--116, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. D. May and W. Stechele. An fpga-based probability-aware fault simulator. In International Conference on Embedded Computer Systems (SAMOS), pages 302--309, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. T. Schweizer, D. Peterson, J.M. Kuhn, T. Kuhn, and W. Rosenstiel. A fast and accurate fpga-based fault injection system. In IEEE 21st Annual International Symposium on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines (FCCM), pages 236--236, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Peterson, O. Bringmann, T Schweizer, and W. Rosenstiel. Stml: Bridging the gap between fpga design and hdl circuit description. In International Conference on Field-Programmable Technology (ICFPT), 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Lukai Cai and Daniel Gajski. Transaction level modeling: An overview. In 1st IEEE/ACM/IFIP International Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesisv (CODES+ISSS), pages 19--24, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Accellera Systems Initiative. Universal Verification Methodology (UVM), May 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. IEEE Computer Society. IEEE 1666-2011 Standard SystemC Language Reference Manual, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. R. A. DeMillo, R. J. Lipton, and F. G. Sayward. Hints on test data selection: Help for the practicing programmer. Computer, 11:34--41, April 1978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Richard A. DeMillo and A. Jefferson Offutt. Constraint-based automatic test data generation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 17(9):900--910, September 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Yue Jia and Mark Harman. An analysis and survey of the development of mutation testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Markus Becker, Daniel Baldin, Christoph Kuznik, Mabel Mary Joy, Tao Xie, and Wolfgang Mueller. Xemu: An efficient qemu based binary mutation testing framework for embedded software. In Tenth ACM International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT), pages 33--42, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. C. Berger R. Rana, M. Staron and F. Törner J. Hansson, M. Nilsson. Increasing efficiency of iso 26262 verification and validation by combining fault injection and mutation testing with model based development. 8th International Joint Conference on Software Technologies (ICSOFT-EA), July 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Synopsys. CERTITUDE Functional Qualification System.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. V. Guarnieri, N. Bombieri, G. Pravadelli, F. Fummi, H. Hantson, J. Raik, M. Jenihhin, and R. Ubar. Mutation analysis for systemc designs at tlm. In 12th Latin American Test Workshop (LATW), pages 1--6, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Tao Xie, W. Mueller, and F. Letombe. IP-XACT based system level mutation testing. In IEEE International High Level Design Validation and Test Workshop (HLDVT), nov. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Thorsten Piper, Stefan Winter, Paul Manns, and Neeraj Suri. Instrumenting autosar for dependability assessment: A guidance framework. 43rd Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN), 0:1--12, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Nicola Bombieri, Franco Fummi, and Valerio Guarnieri. Accelerating RTL Fault Simulation through RTL-to-TLM Abstraction. In European Test Symposium, pages 117--122, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Nicola Bombieri, Franco Fummi, and Valerio Guarnieri. Fast-gp: An rtl functional verification framework based on fault simulation on gp-gpus. In Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE), pages 562--565, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Markus Becker, Christoph Kuznik, Mabel Mary Joy, Tao Xie, and Wolfgang Mueller. Binary mutation testing through dynamic translation. In 42nd Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN), pages 1--12, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. T. Nirmaier, A. Burger, M. Harrant, A. Viehl, O. Bringmann, W. Rosenstiel, and G. Pelz. Mission profile aware robustness assessment of automotive power devices. In Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE), 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. ZVEI. Handbook for Robustness Validation of Automotive Electrical/Electronic Modules. ZVEI - Zentralverband Elektrotechnik- und Elektronikindustrie e. V., June 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Y. Li, M.-M. Louërat, F. Pêcheux, R. Iskander, P. Cuenot, M. Barnasconi, T. Vörtler, K. Einwich. Virtual Prototyping, Verification and Validation Framework for Automotive Using SystemC, SystemC-AMS and SystemC-UVM. Embedded Real Time Software and Systems (ERTS2), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. M. Barnasconi, F. Pêcheux, T. Vörtler, K. Einwich. Advancing system-level verification using UVM in SystemC. Design and Verification Conference (DVCon), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Marcio F.S. Oliveira, Christoph Kuznik, Hoang M. Le, Daniel Große, Finn Haedicke, Wolfgang Mueller, Rolf Drechsler, Wolfgang Ecker, and Volkan Esen. The System Verification Methodology for Advanced TLM Verification. In International Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesis (CODES+ISSS), 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Marcio F. S. Oliveira, Christoph Kuznik, Wolfgang Mueller, Wolfgang Ecker, and Volkan Esen. A SystemC Library for Advanced TLM Verification. In Design and Verification Conference (DVCON), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Yao Li, Ramy Iskander, Farakh Javid, and Marie-Minerve Louërat. A Design and Verification Methodology for Mixed-Signal Systems Using SystemC-AMS. In Jan Haase, editor, Models, Methods, and Tools for Complex Chip Design, volume 265 of Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, pages 89--108. Springer International Publishing, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Ankur Sharma, Joseph Sloan, Lucas F Wanner, Salma H Elmalaki, Mani B Srivastava, and Puneet Gupta. Towards analyzing and improving robustness of software applications to intermittent and permanent faults in hardware. In IEEE 31st International Conference on Computer Design (ICCD), pages 435--438, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Lucas Wanner, Salma Elmalaki, Liangzhen Lai, Puneet Gupta, and Mani Srivastava. Varemu: An emulation testbed for variability-aware software. In IEEE International Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesis (CODES+ ISSS), pages 1--10, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Hyungmin Cho, Shahrzad Mirkhani, Chen-Yong Cher, Jacob A Abraham, and Subhasish Mitra. Quantitative evaluation of soft error injection techniques for robust system design. In 50th Annual Design Automation Conference (DAC), page 101, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Cristian Cadar, Daniel Dunbar, and Dawson Engler. Klee: Unassisted and automatic generation of high-coverage tests for complex systems programs. In 8th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), pages 209--224, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. H. M. Le, D. Große, V. Herdt, and R. Drechsler. Verifying SystemC using an intermediate verification language and symbolic simulation. In Design Automation Conference (DAC), page 116, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Safety Evaluation of Automotive Electronics Using Virtual Prototypes: State of the Art and Research Challenges

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            DAC '14: Proceedings of the 51st Annual Design Automation Conference
            June 2014
            1249 pages
            ISBN:9781450327305
            DOI:10.1145/2593069

            Copyright © 2014 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 1 June 2014

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate1,770of5,499submissions,32%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader