The news media has naturally focused on the handful of deaths that have occurred while auto-pilot features have been enabled. In reality, automobile deaths are occurring at a lower rate now than ever. In 2014 the rate was 1.08 deaths per 100 million miles driven. Compare that to the 5.06 per 100M miles in 1960, or a whopping 24.09 in 1921 – the first year there were reliable data on miles driven. Still around thirty-two thousand deaths per year in the US is a horrific number.
Autonomous driving promises to do a lot to further reduce these numbers. Automated systems containing electronics have contributed to reducing deaths. The airbag system contains accelerometers and controller circuitry to trigger deployment. Anti-lock brakes and anti-skid controls have certainly been effective in reducing accident rates or the severity of injuries. However, semi and fully autonomous driving could help eliminate the most frequent cause of injury accidents – human error. Per the NHTSA, 94% of auto accidents can be tied back to human choice or error.
The one big assumption made for autopilot systems is that they themselves do not suffer from ‘driver error’ – or in other words any kind of failure. Of course, no system can be made error proof. However, much can be done to design them to drastically reduce the likelihood of an error occurring. Going back to the 1970’s, the space shuttle relied on redundant systems and a voting mechanism to ensure no failures affected the mission. They had five computers to enable this. Four of them performed identical calculations and they voted to ensure the correct result. The fifth was a no-frills backup in case the fully configured systems failed.
Today, for commercial and consumer products, having a four or five-fold redundancy would be prohibitive. Even two-fold redundancy would present a competitive disadvantage. Let’s probe deeper into the control systems for autonomous driving. Neural networks are the core of autopilot systems. They rely heavily on hardware accelerators to perform compute intensive operations. In these systems, there is a combined need for functional safety, super-computer complexity and near real-time latency. See below for block diagrams of several leading auto-pilot compute systems.
The relevant standard for automotive functional safety is ISO 26262. It deals with every level of the supply chain. Functional safety risks include both random and systemic faults, and the systems it covers deal with accident prevention and accident mitigation, Active and Passive respectively. For a higher-level unit or system to function properly, all its components, mechanical, hardware and software, must also adhere to the same safety process. Each identified potential failure has an Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) assigned to it based on the severity of the expected loss, the probability of the failure and the degree to which it may be controllable if it occurs. ASIL is quite different from the more common Safety Integrity Level (SIL) used for other applications. ASIL relies on more subjective and comprehensive metrics.
Avoiding ASIL level B faults, as a rule of thumb, can be accomplished with fault detection such as ECC/parity and software measures. Again, this is for faults are associated with low levels of loss, or that can be easily recovered from. ASIL D, on the other end of the spectrum calls for space shuttle levels of protection. Common techniques for these faults involve duplication of key logic – albeit a costly undertaking.
Recently at the Linley Autonomous Hardware Conference in Santa Clara Arteris announced an innovative solution for improving the reliability of ISO26262 systems at the hardware level. As an alternative to duplicating all the elements of critical hardware to ensure reliable operation, with their Ncore 2.0 and Ncore Resilience Package it is possible to improve the reliability of the existing memories and data links. This means that only hardware that affects the contents of data packets need to be duplicated. The Ncore Resilience Package internally uses integrated checkers, ECC/parity and buffers to provide a reliable and resilient data transport in SOC’s. This goes a long way toward helping system designers and architects meet the requirements of ISO 26262.
One of the advantages of this approach is that system software is simplified. Ncore is scalable so there is more flexibility, including the ability to add non-coherent elements and make them present a coherent interface to the SOC by using Ncore Proxy Caches. Building functional safety into on chip networking makes complete sense in the context of automotive safety and reliability. More information about Arteris Ncore and Ncore Resilience Package is available on their website.Share this post via: