Workflow between ISO 26262 and ISO 21448 Standards for Autonomous Vehicles

Kaushik Madala; Carlos Avalos-Gonzalez; Gokul Krithivasan

doi:10.56094/jss.v57i1.6

Authors

Kaushik Madala
Carlos Avalos-Gonzalez
Gokul Krithivasan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56094/jss.v57i1.6

Keywords:

autonomous vehicle, functional safety, SOTIF

Abstract

Assuring safety is important in autonomous vehicles. The safety related to autonomous vehicles can be primarily viewed from two perspectives: the functional safety (FuSa) perspective and the safety of the intended functionality (SOTIF) perspective. While FuSa ensures the system has an acceptable risk with respect to malfunctions of electrical and electronic components, SOTIF ensures the system has an acceptable risk with respect to functional insufficiencies and performance limitations.

ISO 26262 and ISO 21448 are the state-of-the-art international standards used to ensure compliance with FuSa and SOTIF for autonomous automotive systems, respectively. The ISO 21448 standard mentions the need for alignment of ISO 26262 activities with the ISO 21448 activities and describes the mapping at a very high level. However, given the iterative nature of SOTIF activities in ISO 21448, the workflow between the two standards is not a direct one-toone mapping. Hence, we need a clear understanding how we can align ISO 26262 and ISO 21448 activities, and on how analysis done in one standard can impact the other.

To achieve this, in this paper we propose a detailed workflow between ISO 26262 and ISO 21448 standards. We discuss guidelines on how to find if a change to design due to SOTIF modification can affect FuSa analysis and vice versa. We also discuss the aspects we need to consider for agile development when we want to ensure the system being

References

International Organization for Standardization. ISO 26262:2018, Road Vehicles – Functional Safety, 2018.

International Organization for Standardization. ISO/DIS 21448, Road Vehicles - Safety of the Intended Functionality, 2021.

Underwriter Laboratories. ANSI/UL 4600 - Standard for Evaluation of Autonomous Products, 2020.

Kron, H. “On the evaluation of risk acceptance principles,” 19th Dresden Conference on Traffic and Transportation Science, 2003.

Ishigooka, T., S. Otsuka, K. Serizawa, R. Tsuchiya, & F. Narisawa. “Graceful Degradation Design Process for Autonomous Driving System,” International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, 19-34, Springer, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26601-1_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26601-1_2

Kirovskii, O. M., & V. A. Gorelov. “Driver Assistance Systems: Analysis, Tests and the Safety Case. ISO 26262 and ISO PAS 21448,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, IOP Publishing, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/534/1/012019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/534/1/012019

Kirovsky, O., & K. Byakov. “Scenario-based definition of technical safety requirements for autonomous road vehicles,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 012- 016), IPO Publishing, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/820/1/012016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/820/1/012016

Radlak, K., M. Szczepankiewicz, T. Jones, & P. Serwa. “Organization of machine learning based product development as per ISO 26262 and ISO/PAS 21448,” 2020 IEEE 25th Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing (PRDC), 110-119, IEEE, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/PRDC50213.2020.00022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/PRDC50213.2020.00022

Amini, A., I. Gilitschenski, J. Phillips, J. Moseyko, R. Banerjee, S. Karaman, & D. Rus. “Learning Robust Control Policies for End-to-end Autonomous Driving from Data-driven Simulation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 1143-1150, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020.2966414 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020.2966414

Goble, W. M., & A. C. Brombacher. “Using a Failure Modes, Effects and Diagnostic Analysis (FMEDA) to Measure Diagnostic Coverage in Programmable Electronic Systems,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 145-148, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(99)00031-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(99)00031-9