This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
PreHaz: A Premortem Functional Safety Hazard Assessment Technique for Autonomous Vehicles
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published June 14, 2019 by SAE International in United States
Annotation ability available
When performing functional safety hazard assessments, the challenge is anticipating all the things that can go wrong during a system’s operation. Hazard assessment tends to be performed in an ad hoc (where do I begin assessing?) and open-ended (when do I stop assessing?) manner. It is difficult for humans to factor in all the variables that affect a system’s nominal interaction with the environment and then predict all the combinational behaviors (good or bad) resulting from those variables. Quite often, after the system is built, a hazardous situation will occur that no one expected, and perhaps even assumed improbable. At those times engineers may employ a postmortem and realize that, with enough forethought, the hazard could have been assessed and anticipated. In contrast to the postmortem, there is the premortem, which tries to assess what can go wrong, before it actually occurs. This paper introduces a technique based on the premortem that can be applied to the development of a product and, in particular, to the assessment of hazardous situations that could arise from the product’s interaction with the environment and/or a human operator using the product. The proposed technique is called PreHaz, which includes a systematic way to reduce the search space from which premortem questions are derived. This reduction occurs by creating a model that represents the domains that interact with a system being developed. The regions where the domains overlap are treated as hazard domains that are then used to derive premortem questions designed to help one or more stakeholders expose potential hazardous situations. Examples of PreHaz are examined as it is applied to the functional safety of autonomous vehicles.
|Technical Paper||Theory of Collision Avoidance Capability in Automated Driving Technologies|
|Technical Paper||Intelligent Vehicles Designed by Intelligent Students|
|Ground Vehicle Standard||Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles|
CitationAceituna, D., "PreHaz: A Premortem Functional Safety Hazard Assessment Technique for Autonomous Vehicles," SAE Technical Paper 2019-01-5066, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4271/2019-01-5066.
- Börcsök, J. , Functional Safety: Basic Principles of Safety-Related Systems, (Hüthig Verlag, 2007).
- Bell, R. , “Introduction to IEC 61508,” in SCS’05 Proceedings of the 10th Australian Workshop on Safety Critical Systems and Software, Sydney, Australia, Vol. 55, 2006, 3-12.
- Klein, G.A. , Seeing What Others Don’t: The Remarkable Ways We Gain Insights, (PublicAffairs, 2013).
- Kahneman, D. , Thinking, Fast and Slow, (Penguin, 2011).
- Sharot, T. , “The Optimism Bias,” Current Biology 21(23):40, 2011.
- Klein, G.A. , “Performing a Project Premortem,” Harvard Business Review, 2007. https://hbr.org/2007/09/performing-a-project-premortem, accessed July 8, 2019.
- Mitchell, D. J., Russo, E., and Pennington, N. , “Back to the Future: Temporal Perspective in the Explanation of Events,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2:25-38, 1989.
- Armbruster, S., Moran, J.W., and Shirley, J. , “Pre-Mortem Analysis: Anticipating Pitfalls to Increase Project Success,” article, https://www.processexcellencenetwork.com/business-process-management-bpm/articles/pre-mortem-analysis-anticipating-pitfalls-to-incre, accessed July 8, 2019.
- Aceituna, D. , “A Means of Assessing the Entire Functional Safety Hazard Space,” SAE Technical Paper 2017-01-2056, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-2056.
- Brombacher, A. , “Pre-Mortem Analysis; a New Form of Risk Analysis for Complex Systems in a Societal Context?” Quality and Reliability Engineering International 29(8):1091-1091, 2013.
- Eckert, T. , “The Pre-Mortem: An Alternative Method of Predicting Failure,” in 2015 IEEE Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering (ISPCE), Chicago, IL, 2015, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISPCE.2015.7138700.
- Ericson, C.A. , “Fault Tree Analysis,” in System Safety Conference, Orlando, FL, 1999, 1-9.
- Stamatis, D.H. , Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution (Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press, 2003).
- Cabrera, E.J.P. , “System and Method for Performing a Zonal Safety Analysis in Aircraft Design,” U.S. Patent Application 11/516,029, 2008.
- Skibinski, G., Tallam, R., Reese, R., Buchholz, B., and Lukaszewski, R. , “Common Mode and Differential Mode Analysis of Three Phase Cables for PWM AC Drives,” in Conference Record of the 2006 IEEE Industry Applications Conference Forty-First IAS Annual Meeting, Tampa, FL, 2006, 880-888.
- Kale, N.V., Ilkay, F., and Zysk, O. , “Particular Risk Analysis: Impact on Hybrid Aircraft Design,” International Journal of Structural Integrity 6(3):402-409, 2015.
- Rouvroye, J.L. and Van den Bliek, E.G. , “Comparing Safety Analysis Techniques,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety 75(3):289-294, 2002.
- Rouvroye, J.L. and Brombacher, A.C. , “New Quantitative Safety Standards: Different Techniques Different Results?” Reliability Engineering & System Safety 66:121-125, 1999.
- Litman, T. , “Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions,” Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, Canada, 2017.
- Rödel, C., Stadler, S., Meschtscherjakov, A., and Tscheligi, M. , “Towards Autonomous Cars: The Effect of Autonomy Levels on Acceptance and User Experience,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Seattle, WA, September 17, 2014, 1-8. ACM.