Search Results

A main challenge when developing next generation architectures for automated driving ECUs is to guarantee reliable functionality. Today’s fail safe systems will not be able to handle electronic failures due to the missing “mechanical” fallback or the intervening driver. This means, fail operational based on redundancy is an essential part for improving the functional safety, especially in safety-related braking and steering systems. The 2-out-of-2 Diagnostic Fail Safe (2oo2DFS) system is a promising approach to realize redundancy with manageable costs. In this contribution, we evaluate the reliability of this concept for a symmetric and an asymmetric Electronic Power Steering (EPS) ECU. For this, we use a Markov chain model as a typical method for analyzing the reliability and Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) in majority redundancy approaches. As a basis, the failure rates of the used components and the microcontroller are considered.

Autonomous driving systems and connected mobility are the next big developments for the car manufacturers and their suppliers during the next decade. To achieve the high computing power needs and fulfill new upcoming requirements due to functional safety and security, heterogeneous processor architectures with a mixture of different core architectures and hardware accelerators are necessary. To tackle this new type of hardware complexity and nevertheless stay within monetary constraints, high performance computers, inspired by state of the art data center hardware, could be adapted in order to fulfill automotive quality requirements. The European Processor Initiative (EPI) research project tries to come along with that challenge for next generation semiconductors. To be as close as possible to series development needs for the next upcoming car generations, we present a hybrid semiconductor system-on-chip architecture for automotive.

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.

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.