Systems Approach to Creating Test Scenarios for Automated Driving Systems

被引:65
作者
Khastgir, Siddartha [1 ]
Brewerton, Simon [2 ]
Thomas, John [3 ]
Jennings, Paul [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Warwick, WMG, Warwick, England
[2] Aurrigo Driverless Technol, Coventry, W Midlands, England
[3] MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
Autonomous vehicles; STPA; Safety; Testing; test scenarios; Hazards; SAFETY ASSURANCE; HAZARD ANALYSIS; ACCIDENT MODEL; RISK ANALYSIS; PROCESS STAMP; RELIABILITY; COMPLEXITY; MANAGEMENT; PROPAGATION; FRAMEWORK;
D O I
10.1016/j.ress.2021.107610
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
Increased safety has been advocated as one of the major benefits of the introduction of Automated Driving Systems (ADSs). Incorporation of ADSs in vehicles means that associated software has safety critical application, thus requiring exhaustive testing. To prove ADSs are safer than human drivers, some work has suggested that they will need to be driven for over 11 billion miles. The number of test miles driven is not, by itself, a meaningful metric for judging the safety of ADSs. Rather, the types of scenarios encountered by the ADSs during testing are critically important. With a Hazard Based Testing approach, this paper proposes that the extent to which testing miles are 'smart miles' that reflect hazard-based scenarios relevant to the way in which an ADS fails or handles hazards is a fundamental, if not pivotal, consideration for safety-assurance of ADSs. Using Systems Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) method as a foundation, an extension to the STPA method has been developed to identify test scenarios. The approach has been applied to a real-world case study of a SAE Level 4 Low-Speed Automated Driving system (a.k.a. a shuttle). This paper, discusses the STPA analysis and a newly-developed test scenarios creation method derived from STPA.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 63 条
[1]   Systems Theoretic Accident Model and Process (STAMP) safety modelling applied to an aircraft rapid decompression event [J].
Allison, Craig K. ;
Revell, Kirsten M. ;
Sears, Rod ;
Stanton, Neville A. .
SAFETY SCIENCE, 2017, 98 :159-166
[2]   Managing major accident risk: Concerns about complacency and complexity in practice [J].
Arstad, Ingrid ;
Aven, Terje .
SAFETY SCIENCE, 2017, 91 :114-121
[3]   Uncertainty treatment in risk analysis of complex systems: The cases of STAMP and FRAM [J].
Bjerga, Torbjorn ;
Aven, Terje ;
Zio, Enrico .
RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY, 2016, 156 :203-209
[4]   Vulnerabilities and safety assurance methods in Cyber-Physical Systems: A comprehensive review [J].
Bolbot, Victor ;
Theotokatos, Gerasimos ;
Bujorianu, Luminita Manuela ;
Boulougouris, Evangelos ;
Vassalos, Dracos .
RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY, 2019, 182 :179-193
[5]   STPA for continuous controls: A flight testing study of aircraft crosswind takeoffs [J].
Castilho, Diogo Silva ;
Urbina, Ligia M. S. ;
de Andrade, Donizeti .
SAFETY SCIENCE, 2018, 108 :129-139
[6]  
CENELEC, 2016, 61882 CENELEC
[7]   Every Move You Make [J].
Charette, Robert N. .
IEEE SPECTRUM, 2009, 46 (12) :7-7
[8]   Integrating safety and security resources to protect chemical industrial parks from man-made domino effects: A dynamic graph approach [J].
Chen, Chao ;
Reniers, Genserik ;
Khakzad, Nima .
RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY, 2019, 191
[9]   Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates [J].
Cicchino, Jessica B. .
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION, 2017, 99 :142-152
[10]   A formal framework for the safe design of the Autonomous Driving supervision [J].
Cuer, Romain ;
Pietrac, Laurent ;
Niel, Eric ;
Diallo, Saidou ;
Minoiu-Enache, Nicoleta ;
Dang-Van-Nhan, Christophe .
RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY, 2018, 174 :29-40