M
"

Directory

High-Level Overview

Glossary

Input

Data Framework

Performance Assurance

Scenario

Create

Format

Store

Environment

Query & Concretise

Allocate

Execute

Safety Argument

Coverage

Test Evaluate

Safety Case

Decide

Audit

Use Cases

SAF Solutions

Submit Feedback

SUNRISE Safety Assurance Framework

UC3.2 – Cooperative perception & decision making & control

The primary objective of sub-UC 3.2 is to demonstrate how safety can be enhanced on motorways by integrating cooperative functions into the Highway Pilot (HWP) system.

Variation of interesting parameters, including corner cases and safety-critical conditions, can be demonstrated first through virtual tests and then proven in real world scenarios, providing sufficient test coverage of the ODD.

Use case overview

UC3.2-A: Validate C-ACC Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control with horizon extended beyond the immediately leading vehicle via V2V.

UC3.2-C1: Logical scenario 1. Test an automated driving system (ADS) equipped with V2V communication, assessing its response to careless merging communicated on highways, and evaluating its ability to avoid collisions.

UC3.2-C2: Logical scenario 2. Test two automated driving systems (ADS) equipped with V2V communication, assessing their negotiated merge on highways.

Objectives

By applying the SAF, demonstrate how safety and surrounding awareness can be improved on highways by including cooperative V2X communication with surrounding vehicles.

SAF blocks demonstrated

UC3.2-A

UC3.2-C1

UC3.2-C2

Safety case setup

UC3.2-A

  • CCAM system under test: Cooperative-advanced ACC including augmented perception that integrates information from other road vehicles transmitted via V2X communications
  • Operational Design Domain (ODD): Highways similar roads

    • UC3.2-C1

  • CCAM system under test:
    Three different self-driving systems:

    • A cognitive self-driving agent
    • A traditional path planner
    • A generalized Intelligent Driver Model (IDM)
  • Operational Design Domain (ODD): Highway

    • Test environments

    UC3.2-A: Virtual and physical testing
    UC3.2-C: Simulation in IPG CarMaker

    Safety case building

    UC3.2-A

    • Scenario space coverage
    • Safety evidence: Microscopic evaluation (on individual scenarios) of pass/fail results
    • Safety case pass/fail binary result
    • Test scenario allocation and re-allocation if needed in higher fidelity test environment
    • Co-simulation framework execution
    • Risk-oriented testing: Boundary scenarios identification
    • Test scenario prioritization (based on scenario criticality, exposure and complexity as per ISO 34505)
    • Modular approach: Independent subsystems & End-to-end system testing (Open-Loop / Closed-Loop)
    • Combine results from different test environments to argue ‘macroscopic’ safety margin violation for one logical scenario
    • Verification of simulation results through Proving Ground

    UC3.2-C1

    • Safety evidence
      • Microscopic evaluation of individual scenarios results
      • Macroscopic evaluation (statistical analysis) of aggregated results
      • Derivation of a safe speed recommendation function
    • Coverage-oriented testing
    • Risk-oriented testing
      • Risk assessment
      • Failure model analysis
      • Safe speed recommendation

    UC3.2-C2

    • Safety evidence
      • Microscopic evaluation of individual scenarios results
      • Macroscopic evaluation (statistical analysis) of aggregated results
    • Risk-oriented testing
      • Risk assessment
      • Merge success rate

    Test scenarios selected

    • 3.2-A: Cooperative ACC
    • 3.2-B: Deceleration vehicle in front
    • 3.2-C: Cut-in into ego’s lane

    Key take aways

  • Expert-designed scenarios enable reliable and targeted validation aligned with safety requirements
  • Function integration into a prototype shows the SAF’s scalability and versatility for assessment of multiple platforms
  • The test setup applies SAF principles to ensure traceable and harmonized validation
  • Reporting supports SAF-guided, transparent, and structured safety argumentation

    • Demo videos

    Highway AD validation / Cooperative perception & decision making & control / UC 3.2-A
    Highway AD validation / Cooperative perception & decision making & control / UC3.2
    Highway AD validation / Cooperative perception & decision making & control / UC3.2-C 1 Response to careless merging communicated on highways
    Highway AD validation / Cooperative perception & decision making & control / UC 3.2-C 2 Negotiated merge on highways