Search Results

Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) is becoming a common feature in modern day vehicles with the advancement of Advanced Driver Assist Systems (ADAS). Simultaneously, Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) simulation has emerged as a major component of the automotive product development cycle as it can accelerate product development and validation by supplementing in-vehicle testing. Specifically, HIL simulation has become an integral part of the controls development and validation V-cycles by enabling rapid prototyping of control software for Electronic Control Units (ECUs). Traditionally, ACC algorithms have been validated on a system or subsystem HIL bench with the ACC ECU in the loop such that the HIL bench acts as the host or trailing vehicle with the target or preceding vehicle usually simulated using as an object that follows a pre-defined motion profile.

The advancement towards development of autonomy follows either the bottom-up approach of gradually improving and expanding existing Advanced Driver Assist Systems (ADAS) technology where the driver is present in the control loop or the top-down approach of directly developing Autonomous Vehicles (AV) hardware and software using alternative approaches without the driver present in the control loop. Most ADAS systems today fall under the classification of SAE Level 1 which is also referred to as the driver assistance level. The progression from SAE Level 1 to SAE Level 2 or partial automation involves the critical task of merging autonomous lateral control and autonomous longitudinal control such that the tasks of steering and acceleration/deceleration are not required to be handled by the driver under certain conditions [1].

Autonomous vehicles and advanced driver assistance systems have functionality realized across numerous distributed systems that interact with a dynamic cyber-physical environment. This complexity raises the potential for emergent behaviours which are not intended for the system’s operational use. The need to analyze the intended functionality of these emergent behaviours for potential hazards, which may occur in absence of faults, are aspects of the ISO PAS 21448, Safety of the Intended Functionality (SOTIF) [1]. The Safety of the Intended Functionality or SOTIF is a framework for developing systems which are free from unreasonable risk due to the intended functionality or performance limitations of a system which is free from faults. This is meant to complement Functional Safety which is covered in ISO 26262 [2]. The major focus of SOTIF is to aid in the functional development of a system.