Search Results

Current development processes for automotive Electronic Control System (ECS) architectures have certain limitations in evaluating and comparing different architecture design alternatives. The limitations entail the lack of systematic and quantitative exploration and evaluation approaches that enable objective comparison of architectures in the early phases of the design cycle. In addition, architecture design is a multi-stage process, and entails several stakeholders who typically use their own metrics to evaluate different architecture design alternatives. Hence, there is no comprehensive view of which metrics should be used, and how they should be defined. Finally, there are often conflicting forces pulling the architecture design toward short-term objectives such as immediate cost savings versus more flexible, scalable or reliable solutions. In this paper, we propose the usage of a set of metrics for comparing ECS architecture alternatives.

Recent trends in the automotive industry show growing demands for the introduction of new in-vehicle features (e.g., smart-phone integration, adaptive cruise control, etc.) at increasing rates and with reduced time-to-market. New technological developments (e.g., in-vehicle Ethernet, multi-core technologies, AUTOSAR standardized software architectures, smart video and radar sensors, etc.) provide opportunities as well as challenges to automotive designers for introducing and implementing new features at lower costs, and with increased safety and security. As a result, the design of Electrical/Electronic (E/E) architectures is becoming increasingly challenging as several hardware resources are needed. In our earlier work, we have provided top-level definitions for three relevant metrics that can be used to evaluate E/E architecture alternatives in the early stages of the design process: flexibility, scalability and expandability.