English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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 UNICARagil. Finally, these findings are taken to define rules for the development and testing of modules to dispense with system tests.

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