Authors : Jherrod Thomas

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 9 - September

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/ymzhnffp

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/htkej9t6

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25sep451

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : This article addressed the absence of human controllability in highly automated driving by proposing an extension to automotive functional safety that introduced a driver-out controllability class and required a uniform, one- level escalation of integrity targets. The aim was to establish a coherent basis for demonstrating safety without a human fallback by aligning hazard analysis, verifiable evidence, and lifecycle governance within a single framework. The study employed an extended hazard analysis and risk assessment that included an explicit driver-out decision with a corresponding escalation rule. It derived obligations for an integrity tier beyond current practice and integrated Safety of the Intended Functionality and the Underwriters Laboratories 4600 safety-case framework. Mandatory analyses comprised System-Theoretic Process Analysis for control-structure hazards, systematic identification of triggering conditions that degrade nominal performance, and construction of a structured safety case with traceable evidence. The approach was illustrated through a worked example on night-time pedestrian non-detection to show requirement flow- down and a verification and validation plan. Results indicated that the driver-out classification elevated all hazards by one integrity level and produced an obligation set that exceeded prior thresholds. The framework specified higher diagnostic- coverage targets, architectural redundancy with fail-operational behaviour, stricter latency and availability requirements, runtime monitoring with minimal-risk transitions, and post-deployment governance using telemetry, drift detection, incident response, and gated software updates. An evaluation workflow connected claims to evidence across development, testing, and operation, and the case study demonstrated measurable Performance targets and auditable traceability. The proposed extension offered a transparent and reviewable route to establish acceptable safety for driver-out operation, while maintaining compatibility with established practice and enabling continuous assurance in service.

Keywords : Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL E), ISO 21448 (SOTIF), Driver-Out Autonomy (C4), Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA), System-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA), Safety of The Intended Functionality, Underwriters Laboratories UL 4600, Verification and Validation, Runtime Assurance, Safety Case, Autonomous Vehicles.

References :

1. Road Vehicles — Functional Safety — Part 1: Vocabulary, Std. ISO 26 262-1:2018, 2018.
2. R. Debouk, “Overview of the second edition of ISO 26262: Functional safety—road vehicles,” Journal of System Safety, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 13–21, 2019.
3. F. Ferlini, L. O. Seman, and E. A. Bezerra, “Enabling ISO 26262 compliance with accelerated diagnostic coverage assessment,” Electronics, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 732, 2020.
4. K. Madala, C. Avalos-Gonzalez, and G. Krithivasan, “Workflow between ISO 26262 and ISO 21448 standards for autonomous vehicles,” Journal of System Safety, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 34–42, 2021.
5. O. M. Kirovskii and V. A. Gorelov, “Driver assistance systems: Analysis, tests and the safety case. ISO 26262 and ISO PAS 21448,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineer-ing, vol. 534, no. 1, p. 012019, 2019.
6. Road Vehicles — Functional Safety — Part 2: Management of Functional Safety, Std. ISO 26 262-2:2018, 2018.
7. R. Debouk, “Review of the latest developments in automotive safety standardization for driving automation systems,” Journal of System Safety, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 40–45, 2023.
8. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Au-tomation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, Std. SAE J3016_202 104, 2021.
9. X. Li, A. C. A. Doss, B. A. Guvenc, and L. Guvenc, “Pre-deployment testing of low speed, urban road autonomous driv-ing in a simulated environment,” SAE International Journal of Advances and Current Practices in Mobility, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 3301–3311, 2020.
10. R. Salay, N. Kumar, and K. Czarnecki, “Enabling hazard analysis of ADAS and automated vehicles by characterizing driving scenarios,” in SAE Technical Paper, no. 2018-01-1075. SAE International, 2018.
11. H. Kang, Y. Lee, H. Jeong, G. Park, and I. Yun, “Applying the operational design domain concept to vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance systems for enhanced safety,” Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 2023, p. 4640069, 2023.
12. Road Vehicles — Safety of the Intended Functionality (SOTIF), Std. ISO 21 448:2022, 2022.
13. UL 4600: Standard for Evaluation of Autonomous Products, Std., 2023.
14. Y. Li, W. Liu, Q. Liu, X. Zheng, K. Sun, and C. Huang, “Complying with ISO 26262 and ISO/SAE 21434: A safety and security co-analysis method for intelligent connected vehicle,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 6, p. 1848, 2024.
15. L. Rocha, P. Maciel, J. Cabral, and A. Costa, “Virtualized fault injection framework for ISO 26262-compliant digital component hardware faults,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 14, p. 2787, 2024.
16. D. R. Biba, M. C. Ancuti, A. Ianovici, C. Sorandaru, and Mu¸suroi, “Power supply platform and functional safety con-cept proposals for a powertrain transmission electronic control unit,” Electronics, vol. 9, no. 10, p. 1580, 2020.
17. Considerations for ISO 26262 ASIL Hazard Classification, Std. SAE J2980_202 310, 2023.
18. W. M. Goble and A. C. Brombacher, “Using a failure mode, effects and diagnostic analysis (FMEDA) to measure diagnostic coverage in programmable electronic systems,” Reliability Engi-neering & System Safety, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 145–148, 1999.
19. T. Stolte, S. Ackermann, R. Graubohm, I. Jatzkowski, B. Kla-mann, H. Winner, and M. Maurer, “A Taxonomy to Unify Fault Tolerance Regimes for Automotive Systems: Defining Fail-Operational, Fail-Degraded, and Fail-Safe,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 251–262, Jun. 2022.
20. T. Schmid, S. Schraufstetter, J. Fritzsch, D. Hellhake, G. Koelln, and S. Wagner, “Formal Verification of a Fail-Operational Auto-motive Driving System,” Jan. 2021.
21. T. Vidano and F. Assadian, “Control performance requirements for automated driving systems,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 902, 2024.
22. M. D. Menek¸se, O. Özçetin, T. E. Ercan, and K. F. Dogan,˘ “Safety of the Intended Functionality (SOTIF) based on System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA): Study for Specific Control Action in Blind Spot Detection (BSD),” in 2024 8th International Symposium on Innovative Approaches in Smart Technologies (ISAS), Dec. 2024, pp. 1–5.
23. “A study of automatic allocation of automotive safety require-ments in two modes: Components and failure modes,” in The Role of ISO 26262, 2020, pp. 83–97.
24. J. N. Gowda, “ECU Inter-processor data communication End to End verification in Autosar for achieving Functional Safety Goals,” INCOSE International Symposium, vol. 29, no. S1, pp. 443–453, 2019.
25. F. Ferlini, L. O. Seman, and E. A. Bezerra, “Enabling ISO 26262 Compliance with Accelerated Diagnostic Coverage Assessment,” Electronics, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 732, May 2020.
26. C. Robinson-Mallet, J. Wegener, H. Heers, and P. Liggesmeyer, “Integration und Validation von Produktlinien fuer Fahrerassis-tenzsysteme im Kontext der ISO 26262 / Integration an validation of driver assistance product-lines in the context of ISO 26262,” 2010.
27. G. Bahig and A. El-Kadi, “Formal Verification of Automotive Design in Compliance With ISO 26262 Design Verification Guidelines,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 4505–4516, 2017.
28. P. Koopman, “UL 4600: What to Include in an Autonomous Vehicle Safety Case,” Computer, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 101–104, May 2023.
29. P. Koopman and W. Widen, “Redefining Safety for Autonomous Vehicles,” Aug. 2024.
30. D. Jackson, V. Richmond, M. Wang, J. Chow, U. Guajardo,Kong, S. Campos, G. Litt, and N. Arechiga, “Certified Control: An Architecture for Verifiable Safety of Autonomous Vehicles,” Mar. 2021.
31. M. Wagner and C. Carlan, “The Open Autonomy Safety Case Framework,” Apr. 2024.
32. F. A. da Silva, A. Cagri Bagbaba, S. Hamdioui, and C. Sauer, “An automated formal-based approach for reducing undetected faults in ISO 26262 hardware compliant designs,” in 2021 IEEE International Test Conference (ITC), Oct. 2021, pp. 329–333.
33. M. Patel, R. Jung, and M. Khatun, “A Systematic Literature 16 Review on Safety of the Intended Functionality for Automated Driving Systems,” Apr. 2025, pp. 2025–01–5030.
34. D. Ratiu, T. Rohlinger, T. Stolte, and S. Wagner, “Towards an Argument Pattern for the Use of Safety Performance Indicators,” Oct. 2024.
35. M. Okada and B. Gallina, “Safety of the Intended Functionality of External Human Interfaces: Gaps and Research Agenda,” in 2024 IEEE 48th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Jul. 2024, pp. 578–583.
36. A. Collin, A. Bilka, S. Pendleton, and R. D. Tebbens, “Safety of the Intended Driving Behavior Using Rulebooks,” in 2020 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Oct. 2020, pp. 136–143.
37. X. Xing, T. Jia, J. Chen, L. Xiong, and Z. Yu, “An Ontology-based Method to Identify Triggering Conditions for Perception Insufficiency of Autonomous Vehicles,” Oct. 2022.
38. M. Conrad and G. Schildbach, “Analysis of Functional Insuffi-ciencies and Triggering Conditions to Improve the SOTIF of an MPC-based Trajectory Planner,” Jul. 2024.
39. L. Putze, L. Westhofen, T. Koopmann, E. Böde, and C. Neurohr, “On Quantification for SOTIF Validation of Automated Driving Systems,” Apr. 2023.
40. L. Peng, B. Li, W. Yu, K. Yang, W. Shao, and H. Wang, “SOTIF Entropy: Online SOTIF Risk Quantification and Mitigation for Autonomous Driving,” Nov. 2022.
41. J. Betz, M. Lutwitzi, and S. Peters, “A new Taxonomy for Automated Driving: Structuring Applications based on their Op-erational Design Domain, Level of Automation and Automation Readiness,” Apr. 2024.
42. V. Mohan, R. Harradi, and W. Hardt, “Enhancing SOTIF Analysis Using Model-Based Systems Engineering and Virtual Valida-tion With Focus on Responsibility-Sensitive Safety,” in 2024 International Symposium on Computer Science and Educational Technology (ISCSET), Jul. 2024, pp. 1–6.
43. T. Menzel, G. Bagschik, and M. Maurer, “Scenarios for Devel-opment, Test and Validation of Automated Vehicles,” Apr. 2018.
44. V. J. E. Jiménez, H. Martin, C. Schwarzl, G. Macher, and E. Brenner, “Triggering Conditions Analysis and Use Case for Validation of ADAS/ADS Functions,” 2022, vol. 13415, pp. 11– 22.
45. C. Reichenbächer, J. Hipp, and O. Bringmann, “Statistical Mod-elling of Driving Scenarios in Road Traffic using Fleet Data of Production Vehicles,” 2024, pp. 185–196.
46. S.-S. Shin, H.-J. Kang, and S.-J. Kwon, “A Study on Data Analysis for Improving Driving Safety in Field Operational Test (FOT) of Autonomous Vehicles,” Machines, vol. 10, no. 9, p. 784, Sep. 2022.
47. N. F. Salem, T. Kirschbaum, M. Nolte, C. Lalitsch-Schneider,Graubohm, J. Reich, and M. Maurer, “Risk Management Core – Towards an Explicit Representation of Risk in Automated Driving,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 33 200–33 217, 2024.
48. K. S. Kushal, M. Nanda, and J. Jayanthi, “Architecture Level Safety Analyses for Safety-Critical Systems,” International Jour-nal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 2017, no. 1, p. 6143727, 2017.
49. K. Bos, M. J. van der Laan, J. Groeneweg, G. J. Kamps, A. Legemate, I. Leistikow, and D. A. Dongelmans, “Grading recommendations for enhanced patient safety in sentinel event analysis: The recommendation improvement matrix.” BMJ open quality, vol. 13, no. 2, Apr. 2024.
50. M. D. Menek¸se, O. Özçetin, T. E. Ercan, and K. F. Dogan,˘ “Safety of the Intended Functionality (SOTIF) based on System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA): Study for Specific Control Action in Blind Spot Detection (BSD),” in 2024 8th International Symposium on Innovative Approaches in Smart Technologies (ISAS), Dec. 2024, pp. 1–5. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10845230
51. O. Özçetin and P. Brudke, “Comparison of System Theoretic Process Analysis and Cause Tree Analysis Applied on an Au-tonomous Parking System from Safety of the Intended Func-tionality Perspective,” in 2024 8th International Symposium on Innovative Approaches in Smart Technologies (ISAS), Dec. 2024, pp. 1–5.
52. D. Wichner, J. Wishart, J. Sergent, and S. Swaminathan, “Devel-oping a Safety Management System for the Autonomous Vehicle Industry,” Nov. 2024.
53. O. Ahlgren, “Spice up apqp,” 2013. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:86562260
54. K. Radlak, M. Szczepankiewicz, T. Jones, and P. Serwa, “Orga-nization of machine learning based product development as per ISO 26262 and ISO/PAS 21448,” in 2020 IEEE 25th Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing (PRDC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 110–119.