IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i22p7516-d676417.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Different Levels of Technical Systems for a Modular Safety Approval—Why the State of the Art Does Not Dispense with System Tests Yet

Author

Listed:
  • Björn Klamann

    (Institute of Automotive Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Darmstadt, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany)

  • Hermann Winner

    (Institute of Automotive Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Darmstadt, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany)

Abstract

While systems in the automotive industry have become increasingly complex, the related processes require comprehensive testing to be carried out at lower levels of a system. Nevertheless, the final safety validation is still required to be carried out at the system level by automotive standards like ISO 26262. Using its guidelines for the development of automated vehicles and applying them for field operation tests has been proven to be economically unfeasible. The concept of a modular safety approval provides the opportunity to reduce the testing effort after updates and for a broader set of vehicle variants. In this paper, we present insufficiencies that occur on lower levels of hierarchy compared to the system level. Using a completely new approach, we show that errors arise due to faulty decomposition processes wherein, e.g., functions, test scenarios, risks, or requirements of a system are decomposed to the module level. Thus, we identify three main categories of errors: insufficiently functional architectures, performing the wrong tests, and performing the right tests wrongly. We provide more detailed errors and present examples from the research project UNICAR agil . Finally, these findings are taken to define rules for the development and testing of modules to dispense with system tests.

Suggested Citation

  • Björn Klamann & Hermann Winner, 2021. "Comparing Different Levels of Technical Systems for a Modular Safety Approval—Why the State of the Art Does Not Dispense with System Tests Yet," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:22:p:7516-:d:676417
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/22/7516/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/22/7516/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ron Sanchez & Tomoatsu Shibata, 2018. "Modularity Design Rules for Architecture Development: Theory, Implementation, and Evidence from Development of the Renault-Nissan Alliance "Common Module Family" Architecture," DSSR Discussion Papers 80, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University.
    2. Ron Sanchez, 2013. "Building real modularity competence in automotive design, development, production, and after-service," International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 13(3), pages 204-236.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arno Eichberger & Zsolt Szalay & Martin Fellendorf & Henry Liu, 2022. "Advances in Automated Driving Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-5, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tomoatsu Shibata, 2015. "Exploring the Black Box of Modularity: Process to formulate design rules in the Renault-Nissan CMF," TMARG Discussion Papers 119, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:22:p:7516-:d:676417. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.