Search Results

The development of highly automated driving functions (AD) recently rises the demand for so called Fail-Operational systems for native driving functions like steering and braking of vehicles. Fail-Operational systems shall guarantee the availability of driving functions even in presence of failures. This can also mean a degradation of system performance or limiting a system’s remaining operating period. In either case, the goal is independency from a human driver as a permanently situation-aware safety fallback solution to provide a certain level of autonomy. In parallel, the connectivity of modern vehicles is increasing rapidly and especially in vehicles with highly automated functions, there is a high demand for connected functions, Infotainment (web conference, Internet, Shopping) and Entertainment (Streaming, Gaming) to entertain the passengers, who should no longer occupied with driving tasks.

Introduction The introduction of Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet [2] as the main invehicle network infrastructure is the technical foundation for different new functionalities such as piloted driving, minimizing the CO2- footprint and others. The high data rate of such systems influences also the used microcontrollers due the fact that a big amount of data has to be transferred, encrypted, etc. Figure 1 Motivation - Vehicles will become connected to uncontrolled networks The usage of Ethernet as the in-vehicle-network enables the possibility that future road vehicles are going to be connected with other vehicles and information systems to improve system functionality. These previously closed automotive systems will be opened up for external access (see Figure 1). This can be Car2X connectivity or connection to personal devices. Allowing vehicle systems to communicate with other systems that are not within their physical boundaries impose a previously non-existing security problem.

The trend towards even more sophisticated driver assistance systems and growing automation of driving sets new requirements for the robustness and availability of the involved automotive systems. In case of an error, today it is still sufficient that safety related systems just fail safe or silent to prevent safety related influence of the driving stability resulting in a functional deactivation. But the reliance on passive mechanical fallbacks in which the human driver taking over control, being inevitable in such a scenario, is expected to get more and more insufficient along with a rising degree of driving automation as the driver will be given longer reaction time. The advantage of highly or even fully automated driving is that the driver can focus on other tasks than controlling the car and monitoring it’s behavior and environment.

In recent years, we see more and more ECUs integrating a huge number of application software components. This process mostly results from the increasing amount of so called in-house software in various fields like electric-drive, chassis and driver assistance systems. The software development for these systems is partially moved from the supplier to the car manufacturers. Another important trend is the introduction of new network architectures intending to meet the growing communication requirements. For such ECUs the software integration scenarios become more complicated, as more quality of service requirements with regards to timing, safety and security need to be considered [2]. Multi-core microcontrollers offer even more potential variants for integration scenarios. Understanding the interaction between the different software components, not only from a functional, but also from a timing view, is a key success factor for modern electronic systems [6,7,8,9].

The German funded project ARAMiS included work on several demonstrators one of which was a multicore approach on large scale software integration (LSSI) for the automotive domain. Here BMW and Audi intentionally implemented two different integration platforms to gain both experience and real life data on a Hypervisor based concept on one side as well as using only native AUTOSAR-based methods on the other side for later comparison. The idea was to obtain figures on the added overhead both for multicore as well as safety, based on practical work and close-to-production implementations. During implementation and evaluation on one hand there were a lot of valuable lessons learned about multicore in conjunction with safety. On the other hand valuable information was gathered to make it finally possible to set up a cost model for estimation of potential overhead generated by different integration approaches for safety related software functions.