Vehicle safety depends on (a) the range of identified hazards and (b) the operational situations for which mitigations of these hazards are acceptably decreasing risk. Moreover, with an increasing degree of autonomy, risk ownership is likely to increase for vendors towards regulatory certification. Hence, highly automated vehicles have to be equipped with verified controllers capable of reliably identifying and mitigating hazards in all possible operational situations. To this end, available methods for the design and verification of automated vehicle controllers have to be supported by models for hazard analysis and mitigation.
G "udemann and Ortmeier @cite_7 present a language for probabilistic system modeling for safety analysis. Formalized as , they propose two ways of failure mode modeling ( per-time and per-demand failure modes), and two ways of deductive cause consequence reasoning ( quantitative and qualitative). Their model and reasoning can extend our approach. However, our work (i) adds stronger guidelines on how to build planning models and (ii) puts hazard analysis into the context of autonomous systems and mitigation planning.
@cite_7
2118864410
Lessons from safety-critical anomalies during operation provide important information for constructing safer systems. To assist anomaly analysis, this research develops an integrated Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) model to analyze causal scenarios and a Three-Frame Mode model to analyze the working mode inconsistencies of failure cases. The models are used to analyze 180 digital Instrumentation and Control (IC therefore, recovery should be emphasized and planned.