Standardization and certification needs for deployment of road … · 2020. 4. 7. · 4.2.2...

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology

SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

Coordination and Support Action

Grant Agreement Nr 610737

Support action for Vehicle and Road Automation network

Standardization and certification needs for

deployment of road automation

Deliverable no. D 3.3.1

Dissemination level CO

Work Package no. WP3

Main author(s) Alvaro Arrúe, Alex Vallejo, François Fischer, Davide Brizzolara

Co-author(s) François Fischer, Alex Vallejo, Davide Brizzolara

Version Nr (F: final, D: draft) 1.0

File Name VRA_20130701_WP3_DEL 3 3 1_v1.0.docx

Project Start Date and Duration 01 July 2013, 42 months

D 3.3.1 – Standardization and certification needs for deployment of road automation

VRA is an ERTICO Partnership activity 2

Document Control Sheet

Main author(s) or editor(s): Alvaro Arrúe, Alex Vallejo, François Fischer, Davide Brizzolara

Work area: WP3

Document title: Standardization and certification needs for deployment of road automation

Version history:

Version

number

Date Main author Summary of changes

v0.1 15/09/2014 Álvaro Arrúe Initial draft

v0.2 25/09/2014 Álvaro Arrúe, Alex

Vallejo

Implementation plan and

annexes

v0.3 10/10/2014 Álvaro Arrúe, Alex

Vallejo, François

Fischer, Davide

Brizzolara

Changes in ToC and update of

the deliverable

V0.4 15/10/2014 Álvaro Arrúe Final consolidation of the

deliverable

V0.5 19/10/2014 Txomin Rodriguez Contribution to Chapter 3

V1.0 20/10/2014 Davide Brizzolara,

Maxime Flament

Revision of Chapter 5

Approval:

Name Date

Prepared Alvaro Arrúe, Alex Vallejo, François Fischer, Davide Brizzolara

15/10/2014

Reviewed Davide Brizzolara, Maxime Flament 21/10/2014

Authorised Maxime Flament 21/10/2014

Circulation:

Recipient Date of submission

EC 21/10/2014

VRA consortium 21/10/2014



Table of Contents

Table of Contents 3

List of Figures 5

List of Tables 6

1 Introduction 7

1.1 Purpose of Document 7

1.2 Intended Audience 7

1.3 Structure of Document 7

1.4 VRA contractual references 8

1.5 Project Objectives 8

2 Standardization and certification challenges and needs in the deployment of vehicle and road automation 10

2.1 Standardization and certification challenges 10

2.2 Development Testing 12

2.3 Roadworthiness Testing 15

2.4 Stakeholders tree 17

3 Methodology description for standardization and certification 19

3.1 Tools for stakeholders engagement 20

Meetings and teleconferences 20 3.1.1 Congresses and forums 20 3.1.2 Link activities with on-going R&D projects 21 3.1.3 Link activities with task forces or interest groups 21 3.1.4 Webinars 22 3.1.5

3.2 Implementation plan 22

iMobility Forum Automation Working Group Road Testing Session 24

4 Report of the networking activities 26

4.1 Building a network for discussion groups and current status 26

4.2 Main outcomes of the work done 27

Topic list regarding standards and testing needs 27 4.2.1 Presentation slides with main technical challenges 27 4.2.2 Action points on the AWG objectives 27 4.2.3 Recommendations for the EC 28 4.2.4

4.3 Next steps 30

5 Consolidation of the discussion topics 32

5.1 Introduction 32



5.2 Standardisation 32

Needs for standardisation 32 5.2.1 Recommendations for standardisation 34 5.2.2

5.3 Certification 35

Needs for certification 35 5.3.1 Recommendations for certification 36 5.3.2

6 Conclusions 37

7 Annexes 38

Annex 1 – VRA: Consortium meeting #1 38

Annex 2 – VRA: European Concertation meeting #1 40

Annex 3 – Trilateral meeting 42

Annex 4 – Testing Discussion Group KoM 46

Annex 5 – Telecall discussion to prepare iMobility Forum AWG Road Testing Session 49

Annex 6 – iMobility Forum Automation Working Group Road Testing Session 50

Annex 7 – ITS European Congress, Helsinki 56

Annex 8 – TriLateral US-EU-JP Automation in Road Transportation Working Group 56

Annex 9 – ITS World Congress, Detroit 58

Annex 10 – Workshop WG Automation (EC Recommendations) 59

Annex 11 – Presentation: Automated Driving Testing 63

Annex 12 – Presentation: Automated Driving Testing, iMF 07/05/2014 69

Annex 13 - Roadworthiness testing recommendations by the AWG Testing discussion group 77



List of Figures

Figure 1. V-Model for a functionality development ..............................................................................13

Figure 2. Test levels and relative efforts for automation, including Virtual Test Drive . Dr. Arne Bartels –

Volkswagen – TRB presentation 2013 .....................................................................................14

Figure 3. Illustration of stakeholder groups and their role vehicle and road automation ................................17



List of Tables

Table 1. Stakeholder tree identification and description .......................................................................17

Table 2: Meetings, teleconferences and congresses with active contribution to VRA Task 3.3 .......................22



1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Document

This deliverable D3.3 intends to define a common European approach towards

standardisation and certification for Vehicle and Road Automation.

Discussion group meetings and workshops are used to agree on the approach and reach

and European position on standardisation and certification. The discussions are carried out

at International level in order to reach global position concerning standardisation and to

foster harmonisation for certification.

This document first summarises the current status of the VRA deployment concerning the

challenges relating to standardisation and certifications, as established at the start of VRA.

Then the document defines the different methodologies, used to involve the relevant

stakeholders, in the discussion groups and to reach a common European position on

standardisation and certification needs and recommendations. The document will also

provide a reporting about the networking activities carried out during first period of the

project, as well as the topics of discussions planned for the next period.

As a result of the discussions among stakeholders, this document will define standardisation

and certification needs as well as recommendations for the deployment of Vehicle and Road

Automation in Europe.

This first draft (D3.3.1) presents the methodology to lead the discussion and the table of

contents concerning the expected results about needs for standardisation and certification.

1.2 Intended Audience

This document is written mainly targeting the following audience:

European Commission

Project Partners and Associated Partners

1.3 Structure of Document

The deliverable consists of the following sections:

Section 1: Introduction to the deliverable objectives, audience and relation to the VRA

Support Action

Section 2: Summarizes the current state of standardization and certification initiatives

as well as its relation to roadworthiness and development testing

Section 3: Identifies the different tools to be used by VRA and Task 3.3. in order to

create and coordinate networking activities and to engage relevant experts.

Section 4: Summarizes the different networking activities coordinated from VRA

regarding standardization and certification needs



Section 5: Defines the objectives and consolidate the discussions to the results that

the task aims in these and future 3.3.2 and 3.3.3. deliverables

Annexes: Several annexes supporting the previous sections and networking events

organized through the VRA project. Most of them may also be found in VRA web

page.

The points mentioned in chapter 5 are to be regarded as a preliminary consolidation of the

discussion topics and they will be considered as a basis for planning the activities in the next

periods of the VRA project.

1.4 VRA contractual references

VRA, Vehicle and Road Automation, is a Support Action submitted for the call FP7-ICT-2013-

10. It stands for Vehicle and Road Automation Network.

The Grant Agreement number is 610737 and project duration is 42 months, effective from 01

July 2013 until 31 December 2016. It is a contract with the European Commission (EC),

Directorate General Communications Networks, Content & Technology (DG CONNECT).

The EC Project Officer is:

Mrs Aude Zimmermann EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG CONNECT - H05 Office: BU31 06/030 B - 1049 Brussels Tel: +32 2 298 7022 E-mail: [email protected]

1.5 Project Objectives

In the field of vehicle and road automation, VRA’s main objectives are:

To maintain an active network of experts and stakeholders

To contribute to international collaboration

To identify deployment needs

To promote research and deployment initiatives

In practice, VRA will:

Organise or support international meetings together with similar initiatives in US and

JPN. (WP2.1)

Support the iMobility Forum Automation WG and extend its role as a reference group

for European activities on the topic eventually formulating common positions,

especially at European level (WP2.2)

Aggregate information on existing research or deployment activities in a shared wiki

(WP2.3)

Describe valid business models and deployment paths & scenarios and investigate

the broad socio-economic implications of automation for the future societies (WP3.1)

Clarify, report and setup a plan of actions on legal, liability, insurance and regulatory

issues in different member states (WP3.2)

mailto:[email protected]



Monitor and steer standardisation, compliance and certification for vehicle and road

automation (WP3.3)



2 Standardization and certification challenges and needs in the deployment of vehicle and road automation

2.1 Standardization and certification challenges

From a holistic point of view, standardization and certification is a tool from both industry and

public authorities to foster the development and deployment of technologies in our society

through the creation of a common framework in which all the stakeholders can rely and trust.

One of the main objectives of standardization, from the industry point of view, is to reduce

development costs through common methodologies, procedures and technical solutions

which can be developed and shared. Public authorities and regulators have legal

mechanisms to mandate standardization processes to standardization bodies, e.g. as with C-

ITS M/453 to ETSI and ISO/CEN.

However, as well as a powerful tool, excessive standardization may also have negative

features for the development of new technologies making it too hard for the industry to follow

up with its requirements and reducing competitiveness among the different vendors making it

difficult to achieve differentiation. As a result, it may produce a stall in its development and

loss of interest from the stakeholders. This is especially important in automation where

several technologies work together to achieve its goals. Its heterogeneous nature, with

different kinds of sensors (e.g. radar, lidar, V2X communications, etc..), algorithms and

architectures, allows different approaches to gather similar results in terms of functionality in

a transparent manner for the end user. For instance, technology agnostic standards should

be fostered in order to allow a fair competition between the developers, not discriminating

different technological solutions.

Standardization for automation can be considered in its early stages. We already have some

automated features on the market, some of them available for many years if we attend to the

description of automation as the features in a vehicle which aim to support the user during its

driving activities. This definition does not necessarily apply to safety or efficiency, but its use

definitively enhances both of them and increases driving comfort. Some of these

functionalities are very popular and have approached standardization through different

procedures:

Cruise Control (CC) automatically controls the speed of a motor vehicle taking

over the throttle of the car to maintain a steady speed as set by the driver.

Although it can be understood as a comfort feature, CC reduces fuel consumption

and helps driver to stay below maximum legal speeds. Adaptive Cruise Control

(ACC), natural evolution of Cruise Control, makes use of sensors to modify speed

according to the relative distance to the vehicles ahead. ISO has defined

standards1 for ACC as well as SAE2. CC provides an example of automated

1 ISO 22179:2009, Intelligent transport systems – Full speed range adaptive cruise control (FSRA)

systems – Performance requirements and test procedures

2 SAE J2399, Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) Operating Characteristics and User Interface



feature with standardization behind which is not subject of regulatory issues under

Type Approval processes.

Electronic Stability Control (ESC) is a computerized technology that improves the

safety of a vehicle's stability by detecting and reducing loss of traction

automatically braking wheels independently to help "steer" the vehicle where the

driver intends to go. Originally an optional safety feature, ESC was included in

European Type Approval for passenger vehicles in 2012 and it for heavy duty

ones in 2013. It has been an example of how an automated functionality has been

adopted by public authorities after its initial deployment with the side effect benefit

of enhancing exponentially its penetration in European road fleet.

Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) monitors the ahead vehicle position and,

in case of imminent crash with no reaction from the driver, applies the brakes to

avoid or mitigate the impact. AEB is mandatory in the type approval process for

heavy duty vehicles since 2013. AEB is a good example of standardization and

regulation: as it only actuates on the vehicle when the driver is not anymore in

control of the vehicle, it actually circumvents the Vienna convention. Euro NCAP

has described methodologies for AEB testing and benchmarking which will

support the ISO initiative to standardize them.

Lane Keeping Assistance Systems (LKAS): LKAS provide support for safe lane

keeping operations by drivers and do not perform automatic driving nor prevent

possible lane departures. The responsibility for the safe operation of the vehicle

always remains with the driver. LKAS3 is a potential enabler of automation in

highways, but opposite to AEB, with the current status of the Vienna convention, it

is not possible to extend the continuous time the system is controlling the vehicle.

These examples show different automated driving functionalities, with different levels of

automation and also following different standardization and regulation processes.

In the short term and mid-term, and with lower levels of automation, standardization activities

of automated functionalities are supposed to follow similar paths as the ones found in the

ADAS and other active safety systems and in convergence with other current standardization

activities as ETSI G5 regarding cooperative ITS.

The scenario is completely different when full automation is targeted and higher levels of

automation are developed. The interaction with other vehicles and with the infrastructure

raise new challenges that will be needed to be faced by both the industry and the public

authorities. These challenges involve many different topics which are already being

addressed by the different iMobility Forum Automation Working Group discussion groups.

Digital maps: Accurate digital maps will be a milestone, not only for automated driving

but for C-ITS and ADAS and for both vehicle and road stakeholders. Standardization

is also critical in order to allow interoperability.

3 ISO 11270:2014, Intelligent transport systems -- Lane keeping assistance systems (LKAS) --

Performance requirements and test procedures



Human factors: Transport will face several years with regular, partially to full

automated and also cooperative aware vehicles. This will suppose a challenge

regarding how all this kind of different road users will interact, thus human factors

must be included in the standardization process both for development and validation.

New HMIs will also be of great relevance for automation while the driver is still in the

loop and needs to be dynamically engaged and disengaged from driving activities.

Connectivity: Connectivity and C-ITS are enablers of automation. Although already

heavily standardized, the adoption of communications by automated vehicles

development will have to be taken into account too.

Regulatory issues: One of the main issues regarding standardization. Standardization

processes are difficult to initiate without a clear regulatory framework that takes care

of liability and performance requirements. On the other hand, many regulations are

based in existing standards. Automation currently faces a classic egg-and-chicken

problem. Amendments to the Vienna convention are paving the way to a regulatory

framework that will legalise higher levels of automation, but that still do not solve the

full automation issue. Regulation is also a topic which is experimenting several

development today with different countries adopting various regulations regarding

autonomous driving testing.

Roadworthiness testing: Testing and validation, through the development V-model is

a topic that traditionally benefits from standardization and the cost reduction

associated in terms of tools and methodologies. The Automation Working Group

Roadworthiness testing discussion group is focusing on testing at all the development

and validation phases with special interest in what is needed to allow tests and

deployment of partially and fully automated vehicles in public roads in line with the

different regulation initiatives in different countries and states in Europe, US and

Japan.

Interaction between the different actors in the automation eco-system (driver-vehicle-roads-

digital infrastructure) will increase the need of a certification framework for all the different

interfaces among these actors with a complexity that will be highly coupled with the evolution

of the deployed functionalities along the automation levels.

2.2 Development Testing

Standardization for automated driving can be followed through all the development V-Model

of a certain application. Following this approach, the right side of the V, corresponding to the

testing and validation stages, has traditionally been very active in the definition of standards,

with special legal relevance of the last stage (homologation and type approval). However

standardization is also necessary in the left part of the V-model, close to the implementation,

as automation introduces certain challenges.



Figure 1. V-Model for a functionality development

Functional safety and fault tolerance: ISO 262624 defines functional safety for

automotive equipment applicable throughout the lifecycle of all automotive electronic

and electrical safety-related systems. ISO 26262 is a risk-based safety standard,

where the risk of hazardous operational situations is qualitatively assessed and safety

measures are defined to avoid or control systematic failures and to detect or control

random hardware failures, or mitigate their effects. Ongoing R&D projects on C-ITS

are already facing the limitations of ISO 26262 to trace and assign hazard levels,

during its development stages, when these hazard events its due or shared among

different elements (vehicles, roads, vulnerable road users, driver, etc…). An ISO

26262 extension to deal with these new interacting elements is a highly potential case

of standardization needs for automation development. Fault tolerance will also be of

great importance, for instance, when an automated vehicle needs to reengage the

driver due to a general failure of the system or when the scenario is too complex to

be solved by the autonomous vehicle.

Scenario and use case definition for simulation and validation: Certain use cases are

being defined in the different R&D projects towards automation development, some of

them with certain similarities (e.g. platooning) and for its development they have

already defined different scenarios. One potential activity of standardization would be

to analyze these projects results, at international level, to see if common use cases

4 ISO 26262-1:2011 1-10, Road vehicles -- Functional safety

http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=43464



and scenarios can be gathered and worked out in a cooperative and coordinated

manner.

Simulation is a very important tool in the early development stages as complex,

complete and highly correlated with reality simulation scenarios are key for the rest of

the development and validation process. Automated driving towards full automation

makes use of different sensor technologies to provide the vehicle with information of

the surrounding scenario which is aggregated and analyzed before making a tactical

decision to be executed by the vehicle actuators. The physics nature of all these

different sensors, as well as the need to interact with all the different road

infrastructure and users, add an extra layer of complexity to state of the art simulation

tools, including “new elements” as human factors to the system. How to model and

simulate the different elements present in certain scenarios would benefit of

standardization activities in order to share its development efforts among the

stakeholders.

Figure 2. Test levels and relative efforts for automation, including Virtual Test Drive .

Dr. Arne Bartels – Volkswagen – TRB presentation 2013

Testing phases for automation: Testing needs to be taken into account from early

development stages. The V-Model clearly links the development with the validation

phases. As already mentioned, use cases and scenarios for automation have a high

complexity that is translated to the simulation and hence to the testing and functional

validation of these systems. This has a direct impact in the overall cost of the testing

activities, at software and hardware levels, especially when automation may require

an increase of mean time between failures due to safety reasons. Previous works

from Professor Wiener et al. forecast that automated driving functionalities needs

millions of km. of road testing, both on private and public roads, due to the increased



complexity and number of scenarios to be validated and consequently a great

increase in overall testing costs. “Traditional” testing needs to be redefined, updating

already existing tools and methodologies or introducing new ones. According to

Figure 2, from Volkswagen Group Dr. Arne Bartels, one extra phase may be added to

the traditional testing pyramid in order to keep validation costs under rational budget

control: Virtual Test Drive. This tool is being used in the FP7 Adaptive5 project to

develop and validate automated driving functionalities. The main idea is to generate a

simulation at vehicle level in order to reproduce complex scenarios to validate the

whole system before going to test tracks or public roads. These simulated scenarios

are captured from real situations making use of different recording or data gathering

technologies.

The last phases of the V-Model, real road tests, functional validation and

homologation/commercial tests are related to the development of a certain functionality.

However it is necessary to evaluate the effect of automation in public roads and its societal

effects, cost-benefit analysis and minimum safety requirements to be allowed to get to

market and to drive in public, shared, roads.

2.3 Roadworthiness Testing

Standards are of special relevance for what is defined as roadworthiness testing.

Roadworthiness is the legal recognition of a vehicle to be allowed to drive on public roads,

normally through the fulfilment of a set of minimum performance requirements.

There are several ongoing legislation initiatives in several countries and states, both in the

US and Europe, as well as Japan, towards the creation of a regulatory framework to allow

automation testing in public roads. This kind of testing is of great importance both for the

validation of automated driving, but its results also have great impact in the development

phases:

Define interoperability requirements in real environments

Define more precise, simulated scenarios from real life

HIL and SIL test cases: Realistic inputs at the component level for its development

and validation

Virtual test drives: Real world scenarios recorded to be tested at vehicle level

Private test tracks: Acquire knowledge that can be applied to have a better correlation

between test track testing and reality

Human factors assessment: Possibility to assess the impact of automation and

automated driving in road users: drivers, pedestrian and other vulnerable road users,

interaction with other vehicles and the (digital) infrastructure

Real cost-benefit and impact assessment: Going from simulations and theoretical

approaches to real Field Operational Tests to assess the benefits of automation at

different levels (individual, societal, etc…)

5 https://www.adaptive-ip.eu/



In Europe, the FESTA (Field opErational teSt supporT Action) handbook was delivered to

produce comprehensive guidance to facilitate the successful delivery of FOTs for the

evaluation of driver support systems and functions. The methodology defined is a good

starting point towards a FOT on automation, but it is still required to know if it needs to be

adapted for automated driving and automation. Again, an appropriate regulatory framework is

needed to allow these kind of tests.

One of the main reasons to make tests in public roads is the possibility to help to define this

set of minimum performance requirements through the analysis of the different test results.

Together with the rest of R&D efforts, a complete approach to automated driving

functionalities evaluation and assessment is feasible.

As already appointed, several countries are creating legal frameworks to allow this kind of

tests, but difficulties are arising when having to define this set of requirements with a general

focus on operational and insurance ones rather than in technical definitions. For instance the

State of California has set up a legislative initiative that allows public road testing with several

restrictions: licensed driver always in the vehicle and able to take back control; no heavy duty

vehicles tests; insurance fees of several million dollars just if case of accident; the vehicle

shall have a hazard event recorder; etc… The California legislation is leading these type of

legal frameworks and soon other US States and (probably) European member states will

follow the same road.

From the ready to market point of view, these minimum performance requirements can be

fulfilled by the industry following a self-certification scheme (as in the US and Canada), in

which the manufacturers are responsible to make their own tests to assure the vehicle

roadworthiness. In Europe and most of the world, when related to safety and vehicle

emissions, a Type Approval process is followed, performed by independent, accredited third

parties and following regulated requirements.

Standards are of key importance for these procedures, as they guarantee normalized

methodologies, tools and rules, so results are identical in any test-house and can be shared,

compared and reproduced. These standards usually are the basis for regulations, allowing

public authorities to define a minimum safety or sustainability level before allowing a new

technology or functionality to reach the market.

Apart of vehicle certification, other forums claim that certification for roads would also be

necessary. This certification would validate the use of a road for certain applications or

functionalities or to be suitable to allow certain levels of automation on its roads.

Certification initiatives on automation deployment have already started. CityMobil2 and

COMPANION are good examples of these activities:

CityMobil 2 blueprint on certification: CityMobil2 produced one key deliverable

describing a possible certification framework. This framework defines the

methodology to assess if the deployment of a testbed to demonstrate an automation

use case is suitable to be implemented according to safety, organizational and

operational requirements.

COMPANION: This project has already made public a deliverable analyzing current

traffic laws and standards regarding platooning and what needs to be legally

respected by these mobility solution to be allowed to make tests on public roads

without infringing current regulations, e.g minimum distance between vehicles.



2.4 Stakeholders tree

The stakeholders to be taken into account in vehicle and road automation can be divided into

four big categories: technology providers (e.g.: OEM´s, GNS suppliers, research and

consulting), service providers (highway operators, assurance companies), decision makers

(e.g.: local and national authorities, certification bodies) and final consumers (e.g.: drivers

associations). Following the distinction of roles for VRA, the stakeholder groups are

illustrated in Figure 3. The four sides of the rectangle represent these four roles.

Figure 3. Illustration of stakeholder groups and their role vehicle and road automation

This general overview is customized in Table 1, in which the stakeholders are analysed

indicating main function and also key aspects on standardization and certification that are

affecting them. This is important to focus the discussions depending on the group of

stakeholders that VRA is addressing at each moment.

Table 1. Stakeholder tree identification and description

Stakeholder Function Standardization & Certification keys

Policy makers and legislative bodies

Produce regulations and ensures compliance

Support to certification and

standardization bodies and related

coordination

Vehicle manufacturers

Manufacture and sell vehicles with a level of automation

Associated certification procedures Participate in standardization and certification committees

System providers

Offer VRA related systems and applications for vehicles and infrastructures

System provider certification



Research companies

Provide new paradigms and application solutions. Part of the technology providers chain

Pack new products and services for certification and standardization

Service providers

Make business providing services based on vehicle and road automation

Service provider certification

Infrastructure operators

Explode roads and highways. Is a potential service provider

Operator certification

Final consumers

Buyers of VRA technology (drivers, fleet owners, local authorities,…)

Training of automated vehicles drivers Standards to switch between levels of automation within and between vehicles, environments and infrastructure

Certification bodies

Homologation of vehicles, equipment and drivers for automation

Certification of vehicles, infrastructures, drivers and operators New standards and harmonisation needs (e.g. tri-lateral)

Insurance companies

Provide Insurance for automated vehicles. Safe mobility and responsabilities

Standardization of new insurance procedures

Standards Developing Organizations

Primary activities in developing, coordinating, promulgating, revising, amending, reissuing, interpreting, or otherwise producing technical standards that are intended to address the needs of some relatively wide base of affected adopters

New standards through cooperation within the academia and the industry, both public and/or private oriented Standardization of automated systems across manufacturers



3 Methodology description for standardization and certification

In order to accomplish with VRA objectives, a network of experts on standardization and

certification of road automation must be organized. This network must be composed of the

main stakeholders, as identified in chapter 2.4. A triple helix approach (business – academics

- government) must be fostered in order to aggregate the different sensitivities on the

deployment of road automation and the identification and organization of standardization and

certification initiatives.

The current state of road automation is in its early development stages, closer to lower

automation levels, and mostly vehicle-centric with a high involvement of the driver. ADAS

functionalities have been deployed by circumventing the limitations on automation due to the

Vienna convention. Research centres have had an important impact in the technology

development and a closer link between them and the industry is already taking place. Due to

this initial phase in automation and following the classical lifecycle of the technology,

standardisation and certification have still a slow activity, as no dominant solution or system

is still close to market for highly automated driving.

Together with the development of higher levels of automation, standardization and

certification needs description will be critical. With automated driving getting close to market,

certification of these new features must be identified and potentially bonded to regulations

from the public authorities. Infrastructure (road, telecommunications, control centres, etc..)

will also be involved in the process together with the vehicle in a joint or parallel certification

of its capabilities.

Two different stages on the network creation have been identified thanks to the different

activities in VRA and highly linked to the level of automation and automation roadmap:

1. Low automation levels (short term): Activities are closer to the vehicle and the driver.

Business and research centres are highly involved in the development of the

technology. Public authorities and road operators and managers must facilitate this

development and deployment of these functionalities as well as fostering the initiation

of standardization activites and standard definition.

2. High automation levels (mid and long term): Increased relevance of public authorities

and new stakeholders (roads, telecommunications, traffic control centers). Necessary

certification/homologation organization at international level.

VRA is aware of this roadmap for deployment and focus its efforts in the creation of expert

networks according to this evolvement of the automation ecosystem. During the first year of

the project, researchers and companies have been enrolled in the network and the AWG

discussion groups and their participation coordinated. Public authorities at all levels have

also been introduced in our discussions with an active work of the Regulatory issues

discussion group. Along with the VRA development and together with the technology

evolution, the active participation in the discussion groups of public authorities and roads will

be leveraged based on the previous efforts of the project and its network.



In order to be able to follow this engagement and networking strategy, several tools have

already been organized during this first year activity and serve as a basis for the future

activities.

3.1 Tools for stakeholders engagement

Meetings and teleconferences 3.1.1

General procedure

1) Define a draft agenda for each meeting: Definition of discussion themes with

descriptions. Share among the current members of the meeting in advance to gather

inputs and points of interest from the participants.

2) Define a final agenda: With all the feedback from the participants, create a definitive

agenda and share it again.

3) Celebrate the meeting: Meetings may be celebrated by teleconference (making use

of existent Internet teleconference systems) or physical meeting in a certain venue.

Both will be organized in advance with enough capacity for the intended audience.

During the meeting and its discussions, definition of results and action points should

be encouraged by the organizer and/or moderator

4) Share the preliminary results among the participants and the rest of interested people

and ask for feedback and clarifications as well as other offline activities.

5) Consolidate feedback and final document: Add the feedback and consolidate the

minutes of the meeting for its release.

6) If new topics raise during the meeting update topic table: If new topics on

standardization, certification or testing are introduced on either the meeting or the

consolidation stage, add it to the topics list of the discussion groups.

7) Make recommendations; Periodic assessment of the existing material to formulate

recommendations for the EC or the trilateral meeting. These recommendations may

be described through offline work or with specific meetings dealing with this topic.

Examples of celebrated meetings can be found on Table 2 and the associated working

documents used on are annexed to this document.

Congresses and forums 3.1.2

1) Foster ad-hoc sessions in relevant international congresses: Collaborate with

congresses and forums organizers to include special interest sessions regarding Task

3.3. activities to disseminate the VRA networking efforts and create momentum on the

topic.

2) Participate and attend technical sessions and Special Interest Sessions (SIS)

regarding standardization and certification needs. Disseminate the activities of the

VRA networking efforts by participating in congress topics with papers or technical

sessions. Attend to relevant presentations in order to identify potential participants

and follow up state of the art activities.



3) Organize workshops during the congress: Make use of the attendance of experts and

relevant actors to create workshops or meetings towards the consecution of the task

objectives.

Participation on automation special interest sessions and organization and moderation of

them are two examples of activities organized through the VRA project during the ITS

European Congress 2014 and ITS World Congress 2014. In the European congress a

presentation on roadworthiness testing was shared among the audience linking these area of

development with current European R&D projects and the VRA support action. During the

ITS World Congress, a SIS on Roadworthiness testing was organized and moderated with

speakers from the US, Europe and Japan providing first-hand information of both public and

private initiatives on road automation. The corresponding activities are annexed to this

deliverable and can also be found in the VRA site6.

Link activities with on-going R&D projects 3.1.3

Foster active collaboration with past and on-going R&D projects that deal with the objectives

of the task at international level. Specific workshops can be organized with them allowing to

dialogue and discuss with relevant experts involved in their development. Collaboration

between the different projects is crucial to identify common activities that have the potential

to start standardization during all its development and validation stages.

For example, several R&D projects have platooning as one of its main technical challenges.

Associated used cases were shared between the projects and with other participants in the

AWG. Overlaps, gaps and potential self-contribution may thus be identified and help to

achieve collaborative results.

Concertation meetings between the ongoing automation related projects from FP7 Call 10

are organised periodically with active participation of different participants. VRA has provided

a common nexus point for all these projects and relevant input is expected from them in

terms of standardization and certification needs.

AdaptIVe is running a dedicated subproject for automated functionalities assessment in

terms of safety, impact and cost-benefit. COMPANION will foster the large scale, multi-

vendor approach to platoon deployment. iGAME will develop new validation techniques,

methodologies and performance requirements for automation. AutoNET2030 is exploring

new organizations of automated vehicles working cooperatively.

Link activities with task forces or interest groups 3.1.4

VRA activities towards the creation of an active network can be extended to existing task

forces regarding standardization and certification activities towards automation development

and deployment.

ERTICO interoperability interest group is a good example of potential collaboration between

the VRA CSA and on-going interest groups. The ERTICO Interoperability Interest group

meets periodically to analyse the potential challenges interoperability faces and how

6 http://vra-net.eu/



certification can be approached and organized. Currently, the activities are focused on

eCALL and C-ITS, however its scope is not limited to this area.

Webinars 3.1.5

Webinars is one of the tools used by VRA to disseminate automation among interest groups

and stakeholders. Webinars allow great dissemination at a reasonable cost while maintaining

a certain level of interaction among the participants. Webinars regarding standardisation and

certification will be organised in the near future.

3.2 Implementation plan

To facilitate the follow up of the different discussions and events in which VRA CSA

supported the objectives described in Task 3.3 on standardization and certification, as well as

in the activities performed in the Testing discussion group of the AWG, Table 2 has been

introduced. This table also includes a description of the event, a short summary, any

particular result to be explained and if there is an ANNEX with the different working

documents used.

Table 2: Meetings, teleconferences and congresses with active contribution to VRA

Task 3.3

Events/Topics Date Description Summary and objectives Annex

VRA meeting #1 30 Sept

2013

1st VRA

consortium

meeting

General overview and WPs status and discussion.

Presentation of Task 3.3. on standardization and testing and review of its objectives among the VRA consortium members.

Discussion on the presentation for the next Concertation meeting.

1 &

112

Concertation

Meeting #1

1 Oct

2013

Open

workshop for

partners and

members of

some past and

current EU-

funded

activities

EC Automation in Road Transport towards H2020.

Overview of VRA Support Action and EC current activities.

Review of the objectives of the different FP7 Call 10 projects. COMPANION, Adaptive, iGAME, AutoNET2030.

Presentation of the VRA T3.3. objectives and challenges to the ongoing projects and the AWG

2 & 11



VRA meeting #2 23 Jan

2014

2nd VRA

consortium

meeting

Project and WPs status and discussion.

Presentation of the results of the previous trilateral meeting celebrated in Tokyo ITS World Congress which shows explicit interest on testing and validation cooperation and the creation of an specific objective on the topic

-

AWG Meeting 24 Jan

2014 No specific discussions on testing -

Trilateral

meeting

24 Jan

2014

Trilateral

meeting with

US-EU-Japan

Presentation to the trilateral meeting the aim and objectives of the different AWG discussion groups, including Roadworthiness testing

3

Testing

Discussion

group KoM

20 Mar

2014

Testing

discussion

group Kick-off

meeting

Discussion on the objectives and scope of the group.

Clarification on the expected outputs and collaboration with the AWG.

Review of the 2 page description of the group on

Roadworthiness testing presented to the tri-lateral meeting.

Standardization initiatives on Japan were explored.

Next steps for the group

3 & 4

STA R&D

Workshop

3 April

2014

R&D workshop

with the

presence of

Spanish

experts

Presentation of automation challenges and cooperative automation R&D projects.

Presentation of the current challenges on road automation and the role of VRA

STA is the Spanish branch of FISITA and represents Spanish automotive technicians

-

Testing

Discussion

group meeting

30 Apr

2014

Telecall

discussion to

prepare AWG

meeting in

Antwerp

Review of the PPT draft to be used during the AWG meeting in their discussions.

5 & 12



AWG Meeting

Antwerp

7 May

2014

iMobility Forum Automation Working Group Road Testing Session

Specific breakout session on Roadworthiness testing following the PPT in annex 7 as a guideline

Contribution from different EU research projects and the presence of the US.DOT

Definition of different action points to be fulfilled by the group

Request from the US to share the results of the group

5 & 6

ITS European

Congress –

Helsinki

16 May

2014

Participation in

a Special

Interest

Session on

Automation

with a

presentation

on testing

Presentation on current status on development and validation testing as well as the potential of FOTs projects for automation development, together with the activities developed in VRA and the AWG

7

Trilateral

Meeting

18 July

2014

Trilateral US-

EU-JP

Automation in

Road

Transportation

WG

News from Japan, Europe and USA regarding automation. Areas of cooperation: Digital infrastructure and deployment paths. Presentation of the results of AWG Antwerp meeting.

6 & 8

ITFVHA

(International

Task Force on

Vehicle-

Highway

Automation)

6 Sept

2014

Annual

meeting of this

international

Task Force on

Automation

Presentations from academia, industry and public institutions on international automation activities

Presentation of VRA activities including roadworthiness testing

-

ITS World

Congress –

Detroit

7-11 Sept

2014

ITS World

Congress –

Automation

Organization and moderation of a Special Interest Session about the deployment of automated vehicles and requirements for road testing.

9

AWG Meeting 17 Sept

2014

AWG

Workshop (EC

Recommendati

ons)

Discussion and description of recommendations to be provided to the EC for future H2020 calls.

10 &13

Trilateral 18 Nov Describe

objectives of

Draft description of the different discussion groups in

-



Meeting Tokyo 2014 trilateral

meeting in

Japan and with

direct

collaboration

with MLIT

the trilateral meeting and current status

Foster international contribution and harmonization of roadworthiness testing

Foster the creation of activities towards certification and standardization at an international level

Plugtest 2015

Test sessions

for C-ITS

interoperability

Potential workshop onfor the

VRA, AWG and theAWG testing discussion group on roadworthiness and development testing aiming to a very specific target audience: component developers

-

TRB(Transport

Research

Board)

11 – 15

July 2015

Main R&D

congress in

the US TBD -



4 Report of the networking activities

4.1 Building a network for discussion groups and current status

Difficulties have arisen when building a network for standardization and certification analysis

dedicated to automation. A holistic approach to the program has not already been started

due to today’s current R&D nature of the projects as well as the lack of regulatory framework

that would legally cover the deployment of these functionalities. These two barriers difficult to

create momentum on standardization activities

Since the beginning of 2014, the Testing discussion group, dealing with Roadworthiness

testing started its activities. An initial core group was formed from the interested participants

inside the iMobility Forum Automation Working Group. The first role of the discussion group

was to create a short document in which the aims and topics of interest were described and

identified, as well as which ones would fit in international harmonization efforts with the EU-

US-JAPAN trilateral meetings led by the EC in a two page document [Annex 3 – Trilateral

meeting].

Other teleconferences were organized to officially Kick Off the Testing Discussion Group

[Annex 4 – Testing Discussion Group KoM]. One of the main issues regarding this group is

how to limit the scope of its activities as testing can be a huge topic and it is important to

concentrate the efforts there were the discussion group results may have a greater impact.

An initial description of subtasks was also initiated.

The topics from the two page description were furtherly extended by the group in following

offline work and telecall meetings, and as a result, a presentation was made following the

topics previously described but adding several questions and challenges that need to be

solved in relation to automated driving. This presentation was used as agenda for the AWG

meeting in Antwerp held the 7th of May [Annex 6 – iMobility Forum Automation Working

Group Road Testing Session].

This meeting was the first one organized by the iMF, in coordination with VRA, which

included an specific breakout session for the Testing discussion group. There was a high

number of participants and the presence of coordinators from very significant ongoing R&D

projects: Aria Etemad from Adaptive and Adriano Alessandrini from CitiMobil2. Both of them

shared their projects view of standardization and certification. CitiMobil2 introduced its

certification blueprint which describes a logical process to define if a certain automated

mobility application is suitable to be deployed according to organizational, safety and

operational parameters. Adaptive introduced the Virtual Test Drive concept that it is being

used towards the validation of their under development applications.

The Antwerp Testing meeting also had the presence of the U.S. Department of Transport

which informed the participants of current testing and standardization initiatives in the United

States, as well as informing us of their interest in other topics (e.g. cybersecurity) and

requested to keep them updated of the testing discussion group progress.

During this meeting, 4 action points were identified and recommended to be developed by

the testing discussion groups in the short term [Annex 6 – iMobility Forum Automation

Working Group Road Testing Session.



The testing discussion group had one last physical meeting during September in order to

prepare a number of recommendations on the topic to be compiled and sent to the EC as

feedback for their description efforts for the next H2020 calls in 2016 and 2017. Several,

critical challenges that need to be addressed by R&D projects were identified and explained

in terms of impact and urgency which can be found in Annex 10.

4.2 Main outcomes of the work done

Topic list regarding standards and testing needs 4.2.1

This was the first output of the testing discussion group. It is a two page document with

defines what is roadworthiness testing for the participants, what is the aim of the testing

discussion group and lists different topics and subtopics to be discussed among the

participants as well as at international level with the EU-US-JAPAN trilateral. Some other

topics, not critical but worth considering were also listed. This 2 page description was used in

the following trilateral meetings as working document and can be found in Annex 3 –

Trilateral meeting.

Presentation slides with main technical challenges 4.2.2

Additionally, and previously to the celebration of the first testing discussion group in Antwerp

AWG meeting (7th-8th May), with a specific breakout session for the group, a dedicated

PowerPoint presentation was drafted and shared among the participants of the discussion

group. This presentation (Annex 12) continued the topic list description but added an extra

layer of information.

For each of the topics and subtopics a general introduction was made with real

implementation examples and was followed by different questions and challenges that need

to be answered and solved in testing for automated driving development.

The PPT was followed as a guideline for discussions during the breakout session. Due to the

density of the topics and the discussions that were raised, it was not possible to cover the

extension of the document, with topics left for other offline or online meetings.

Action points on the AWG objectives 4.2.3

During the Antwerp Meeting held the 7th of May, a list of action points for further

development by the group was agreed among the members and as a natural output of the

different discussions that took place by following the agenda and topic guidelines.

This action points are currently under discussion and to be addressed during the following

months among the AWG Roadworthiness Testing discussion group. A leader shall be

identified for each of them and other contributors will support its development.

1) Glossary of terms for roadworthiness testing and standardization/certification:

During the initial discussions it was made clear that a specific glossary of terms

was necessary for the roadworthiness topic as many terms may have different

scopes depending of the background of the speakers. Standardization itself can

be differently understood if the approach comes from the IT industry, the

automotive industry or different countries and SDOs. Other FP7 projects, as

Autonet2030 are also introducing new terms in the automation R&D environment.

Together with the presence of regulatory issues linked to the type approval



process, and with different approaches from the international point of view, it is

clear that precise definitions need to be shared among the stakeholders to set up

a clear dialogue among all the key actors. There are several initiatives on this

issue, as SAE J3016 or CityMobil 2, and should be used as starting points for a

harmonized approach to the problem.

2) Current standards on automation (or automated manoeuvres): As already

addressed in this document, if we attend to the definition of automation to those

actions the vehicle may do automatically in order to facilitate the driving activities

to the user, there are already standards published by different SDOs. This action

point should deliver a review of the different standards that are related to testing

of automated manoeuvres and that have been published or drafted by different

bodies at an international level. The scope of these standards is not limited to the

automotive sector, and other transport modes (plane, train, tram, metro) as well

as industrial activities should be included. The objective of this review of

standards is to set a baseline of the current standardization status to be used as a

starting point for the potential development of new ones.

3) Testing for development: tools & methodologies: Together with current standards

for existing automated functionalities, it is important to assess how current and

future features may be tested during its development phase in terms of

methodologies and testing tools (Simulation, HiL, SiL, Virtual test drive) at

different levels (device, component, vehicle).

4) Bottom up or top down approach to the problem: This activity will try to create a

procedure in order to assess how to analyse the problem of roadworthiness

testing. This can be achieved through two different ways, a Top-Down (From

working functionality to technology) approach or a bottom up one (going from

technology to functionality). This approach should be used for existing

functionalities and try to extrapolate it to new ones.

Recommendations for the EC 4.2.4

The 17th of September, the Roadworthiness testing discussion group celebrated a physical

meeting in Brussels in order to elaborate potential recommendations on the topic for the EC

towards the description of H2020 for 2016-2017 workplan. During this discussion the

following topics were identified as critical and prone to be considered by the Commission to

be introduced in the next call texts.

The main challenge of Roadworthiness Testing, understood as the necessary evaluation of

the vehicle to be allowed to drive in public roads, is the lack of standardization at

international level of procedures and requirements for vehicles (and infrastructures when

relevant). This standardization must be understood firstly for pilot licensing (in the short term)

and later for market deployment, in terms of system performance, failsafe operation and user

interaction on the middle and long term. This standardization process is highly related to the

different automation levels.

Standards at international level are needed for deployment of road automation. Future R&D

projects must address and promote these standardization efforts at an international level,

through the cooperation between other projects through concertation and dialogue and

collaborating with standardization and policy makers.



Different procedures and requirements will be needed, according to the different levels of

automation and stakeholders involvement in order to allow a safe deployment in the first step

and setting up the baseline to enhance safety impact (both at individual and societal level) in

a second stage.

Three challenges regarding roadworthiness testing have been identified that need to be

issued in the short term:

1) Feasibility of representation of the real world with a minimum set of scenarios,

to be implemented in several means of testing (SiL, HiL, proving ground testing, field

test). A first challenge is to come to a definition and description of a single, unique

scenario. Potentially, a high number of parameters may be considered in describing

the scenarios, resulting in high amount of different scenarios that represent the real

world. Therefore, the reduction to a minimum set that represent the real world, will be

a significant challenge, especially when considering that this representation of the

real world, will differ due to the variety in road and traffic conditions across the

different EU countries. Subsequently, the next challenge lies in the definition of a

methodology and/or protocol for testing the different scenarios, which includes field

tests (real world environment) , but also more dedicated and specific tests on proving

grounds, HIL and SIL test facilities.

2) Effects of automation in current regulatory type approval process: Regulation

issues are already being addressed by national authorities and at European level.

These new policies will probably be followed by certification and homologation

requirements when different automation level functionalities reach the market.

These requirements will affect existing regulations as the type approval scheme in

Europe which is directly linked with UNECE WP29 activities. Type approval is

fundamentally based in the performance evaluation of each vehicle over a minimum

set of requirements in order to allow driving in public roads. How to define this

minimum set of requirements is still an important gap at international level opening

the possibility of further cooperation even with countries that follow a self-certification

scheme (US - CANADA).

It is important to assess the implications of the different levels of road automation in

the type approval process in terms of existing gaps identification and how to address

them:

o Interaction among the different stakeholders: type approval authority, road

authority, vehicle manufacturer, infrastructure provider, user, etc.. all of them

with different priorities and needs

o Vehicle and user interaction: how to introduce human factors in the type

approval process which is based in minimum performance rather than

subjective analysis.

o System lifetime validity: Addressing the need of software updates over the

lifetime of the vehicle and how to evaluate its performance in legacy systems.

o Scalability and reusability of previous validations (pilots) by minimum set of

tests: Minimize cost impact by being able to reuse previous results and



o Implications at functional safety level: to be checked with current state of the

art and published standards e.g. ISO 26262

3. Pilots to be deployed need to provide answers to new test procedures

requirements: Future R&D projects must address these issues as a priority action

and provide results and recommendations for both the standardization and regulation

framework: standardization efforts, minimum set of scenarios and liaison with current

and future homologation and certification needs.

The complete recommendations document can be found in Annex 13.

4.3 Next steps

The activities during this first period of VRA have been organised towards the creation of a

stable network of experts with expertise and know-how in standardisation and certification. A

special interest has been raised around the need of roadworthiness testing towards the initial

tests and deployment of automation in public roads and therefore collaboration with the US

and Japan has been established. To answer these concerns a specific discussion group on

the AWG has been organized and coordinated through VRA coordination.

To successfully continue networking activities fostering standardization and certification

regarding automation at all its levels, and with special focus on roadworthiness testing, VRA,

with the contribution of the iMobility Forum Automation Working Group, needs to continue its

current efforts in the following areas:

Encourage cooperation with the other discussion groups. Standardization and

certification is also relevant to other areas of development as Digital Maps and

Human factors. A holistic approach to the problem of standardization will help to

achieve long term results with greater impact. Especially relevant is the cooperation

with the Regulation discussion group as Standardization and certification are highly

dependent of the current legal frameworks that will enable the start of these activities.

Follow up the ongoing legislation initiatives at international level: Together with the

Regulation group, it is necessary to follow up how different public authorities in

different countries are creating legislations suitable to legally allow public road testing

of automated vehicles. These legislations are still to be known if they will guarantee

road safety by using already defined or new standards that set minimum performance

of these vehicles.

Continue the current work on network creation: Populate the group with new experts

from different areas (research, industry and public institutions) to improve the know-

how and expertise in the different topics that have been defined to be part of the

scope of the AWG and VRA activities.

Contribute to the development of the identified action points: Following the decisions

made during the AWG Antwerp meeting, develop the action points described in order

to create some material to be used as a baseline for further common efforts among

the group

Follow up the development process of ongoing R&D projects around the world: In

Europe, through the concertation meetings, monitor the current developments on

standardization and testing in the ongoing FP7 Call 10 projects. Participate in



international forums and congresses to learn first-hand the evolution of US and Japan

activities in these fields by assistance and organization of Special Interest Sessions

or dedicated workshops.



5 Consolidation of the discussion topics

5.1 Introduction

The different networking activities coordinated through VRA, following the tools and

methodologies described in this deliverable and executed in the description table and

implementation plan look for the completion of the following objectives:

Standardisation needs: Identify, analyse and describe recommendations through

the interaction among experts involved in the development and validation stages of

automation on the potential standardization process built around these

technologies.

Testing processes: Identify the current methodologies and tools in the testing

phases (mainly development and roadworthiness) to allow vehicles to be evaluated

and circulate in public roads.

Certification methodology: Help to define an international approach to the

certification of automation related technologies at all its levels (component-vehicle,

vehicle-road) through standardised methodologies, tools and processes.

Certification organisation: Involve all the stakeholders in order to contribute to the

concertation of a (internationally) harmonised certification methodology to enable

the safe, successful and legally viable deployment of automated roads and vehicles

and its relation with current regulation as the type approval process in Europe.

International harmonisation: Foster international cooperation among the Tri-lateral

EU-US-Japan as well as other relevant countries, in the development and

deployment of automation in their roads

Clause 5 will be drafted during the last period of the project, in the deliverable 3.3.3, while

reporting all results coming from the networking activities executed during the VRA project

duration. Draft results are however likely to be presented at the end of the second period, in

the deliverable 3.3.2. Deliverable 3.3.1 aims to assess the current status of standardization

and certification and start the networking activities that shall enable the final description of

D3.3.3.

Although present along the whole document, this chapter tries to synthetize and consolidate

the identified standardization and certification needs on road automation that rose on the

different networking activities together with specific recommendations for different topics.

The points mentioned in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 are to be regarded as a preliminary

consolidation of the discussion topics and they will be considered as a basis for planning the

activities in the next periods.

5.2 Standardisation

Needs for standardisation 5.2.1

During the different discussions some topics were identified as prone to start a potential

standardization process or adapt it to the needs of automation deployment:



Gap identification on current standards: Set as one of the action points in the AWG

Roadworthiness Testing discussion group, it is necessary to define a baseline on

standards that may support further standardisation efforts and identify gaps that

should be covered in the future. These standards may come from the automotive

sector (homologation, certification and consumer testing standards) as well as other

transport modes that have automated functionalities (air, railway, industrial…). For

example, SAE glossary of terms or the different levels on automation defined by SAE,

NHTSA or BAST are object of discussion on standardization and will help to define

this baseline.

Generic architecture standard for vehicle – road interaction: Potential standardization

towards certification of the different interactions between automated vehicles and the

roads they are using. Standardization and certification for road infrastructures could

define the minimum performance and operational requirement of public/private roads

in order to allow certain levels of automation to be used by the vehicle. Is also

important to follow an approach to standardization from the component point of view

up to the vehicle level functionality performance and validation methodologies.

Vehicle E/E architecture standard: As CAN bus communication protocol has worked

out to be a common standard in the automotive industry, the bandwidth, latency and

synchronicity requirements may force the adoption of new international level

standards for in-vehicle architecture communications. This E/E architecture has direct

impact in the vehicle ECU development

V2X communications: Several R&D project are studying and developing a potential

extension of ETSI G5 to adapt its use for automation. These research should be

fostered to be part of future versions of current standards or derive in new dedicated

ones.

Cybersecurity: Connected automation must fulfil with the necessary cybersecurity

standards already under discussion on C-ITS technologies. However, the control over

the vehicle dynamics forces a further effort on defending the vehicle from external

malicious attacks. Some initiatives already addressed in C-ITS might be suitable for

further standardization activities e.g. firewalls and security certificates between in-

vehicle ECUs.

Feasibility of representation of the real world with a minimum set of scenarios:

Identified as a relevant recommendation from the AWG Testing group to the EC to be

introduced in future H2020 calls, identification of this minimum set of scenarios is

both critical for the development and validation of automation and so, the

identification process, capture and recreation of this set of scenarios are potential

standardization activities towards cost minimization and interoperability compliance.

Roadworthiness testing standardization: The lack of standardization at international

level of procedures and requirements for vehicles (and infrastructures when relevant).

This standardization must be understood firstly for pilot licensing (in the short term)

and later for market deployment, in terms of system performance, failsafe operation

and user interaction on the middle and long term. This standardization process is

highly dependent to the different automation levels.

Functional safety: Current functional safety standards, as ISO 26262 might be

amended to introduce C-ITS and automation related hazard levels in order to assess



the interaction among vehicles and other road users and infrastructures which share

a level of responsibility on safety.

Human factors: Standardization on HMI interaction, with a less and less involved

driver as higher levels of automation are deployed, is also needed. Human factors

must also be introduced in other standards and testing methodologies, as automated

vehicles will share public roads with other automated vehicles, traditional vehicles,

connected ones and vulnerable road users. Understanding this mixed scenario is

crucial for the technology safe validation.

Recommendations for standardisation 5.2.2

Some recommendations on the necessary efforts towards standardization has also been

identified during this first year of VRA networking activities:

Identification of SDOs relevant to the standardization activities: Among the potential

candidates to lead or have a relevant role in the standardization process CEN TC278,

ISO TC204 and SAE have already experience in the development of standards for

ADAS systems functional validation and performance evaluation. ETSI ITS group

should also be included in the standardisation process as responsible of V2X

communications among connected and automated vehicles.

Foster interoperability: Following the TESTFEST approaches by ERTICO fostering

these kind of developer workshops are very relevant to guarantee interoperability

among the different vendor solutions, both at the component and vehicle level. The

iGAME project follows a similar approach towards the celebration of the Grand

Mobility Driving Challenge in 2016: several workshops will be held in different sites

and a dedicated online tool for interoperability compliance testing is under

development to enable participants to test their solutions prior to the final event.

Link with H2020: The AWG celebrated a special meeting in Brussels to define a set of

recommendations to be shared with the EC towards the development of the H2020

2015-2016 calls. One of the main outputs of the Testing discussion group was the

need to foster standardization activities in the future. More information may be found

in the attached annex.

Foster field tests: Also identified as a potential recommendation for future H2020

calls, field tests and FOTs are invaluable to assess the technology impact as well as

to define standards and methodologies.

Other important issues were also identified and have a direct liaison and impact on any

standardization effort and so, it is important to understand them before starting any

standardization initiative:

Dependence on automation level: It is very important to map the automation level of a

new functionality to the different levels defined in order to assess not only its legal

concerns but estimated difficulties to draft a useful standard.

Granularity level: At which level is the standard intended to act: Component – Vehicle-

Infrastructure. This is also relevant when deciding to follow a top-down approach

(from the functionality point of view) or a bottom-up one (from the chosen technology

point of view).



Minimum requirements and technology agnostic standards: Standards need to set an

appropriate detail and level of performance to be fulfilled by the developers in order to

benefit the industry without stalling its development (i.e. due to the difficulty to comply

with them). Standards should also be “technology agnostic” when defining a

functionality as different manufacturers may use different technologies (e.g.

communications, radar, lidar, etc…) to achieve their objectives or even use several

ones for redundancy and robustness purposes.

Mandatory vs. optional standardization processes: Standardization might be fostered

from public authorities (i.e. M/453 on C-ITS) or might be started by the industry (i.e.

Euro NCAP consumer tests). Standardization initiatives should both integrate societal

needs with business and market requirements and try to harmonize the Triple-helix

positions and opinion.

5.3 Certification

Needs for certification 5.3.1

Standardization for automated driving is in its early stages of development blocking the

development of dedicated certification methodologies. Also, and immediate large scale

request for a complete certification organisation is not critical in the short term as it is directly

linked to close to market solutions

However it is crucial that VRA works towards this future scenario where certification will play

a relevant role if automated vehicles are to be allowed to drive in public roads. It is also one

of the topics that have been raised during several discussions and was chosen as one of the

main recommendations to be introduced in next H2020 calls.

CityMobil2 has already proposed a potential certification scheme for automated mobility in

public roads. This certification scheme binds technical, safety and operational requirements

to decide the viability of automation services at a local level.

California has already legislated on the issue, defining a set of requirements that companies

that want to test automation in public roads must fulfil. These requirements include failsafe

systems, event logging and driver licensing or insurance contracts and financial and legal

bonds for any accident that may happen during the testing. A set of minimum performance

requirements has been announced to be published in 2015.

A potential certification for road automation deployment, although not following a classical

scheme at this phase of the technology maturity has to accomplish the following needs:

Basic technology certification: Following current certification of ECUs and sensor

technologies (Radar, lidar, etc…) in terms of frequency and EMC tests as it is already

done nowadays in the automotive sector. Update fast to new technologies or systems

at component and sub-component level.

Communications: Connected automation, as already addressed in the standard’s

needs, may introduce changes in current ETSI G5 standard which shall be followed

by a change in the certification process.

Interoperability and interaction between automated vehicles: Interaction at a logical

and physical way among connected vehicles and connected and automated ones



shall require a correct certification process as the one under development in C-ITS

but taking into account the tactical control of automation.

Road certification: Already a topic of discussion, road may be certificated by third

parties to determine what level of automation or which automated functionalities are

allowed to be used.

Type approval scheme: Type approval regulation is decided in UNECE WP29 and

adopted by the EC in its legal framework. Type approval has a legal liason that

certification lacks and thereby is performed by accredited laboratories and test

houses on behalf of public institutions. Type approval will potentially have to be

reviewed to adapt to automation and its safety features as addressed in the

recommendations from the AWG to the EC.

Recommendations for certification 5.3.2

Following the status of standardization and certification, some recommendations have been

evaluated in order to understand and set up a comprehensive certification organisation for

future automated driving functionalities. These recommendations will also be followed by

Standardization and certification needs for deployment of road … · 2020. 4. 7. · 4.2.2...

Documents

Transcript of Standardization and certification needs for deployment of road … · 2020. 4. 7. · 4.2.2...