We have been working with automotive electronics and electrification for enough time to have seen functional safety having a real evolution. If you’ve been in the automotive industry for a while, you know just how complex the interaction between various electronic systems can be. If you are a new engineer starting in this field, you will quickly learn. In this article let’s see what ISO 26262 is, what it aims to achieve, and why there’s more to it than just ticking compliance boxes.
What is the ISO 26262 Functional Safety Standard? Beyond the basics
Let’s start with a definition: ISO 26262 is an international standard for functional safety, specifically targeted at electrical and electronic systems in production vehicles. Its main objective is to minimize risks.
Now, let’s see what this standard means to us.
ISO 26262 represents our industry’s response to the quetsion: how do we ensure that complex electronic systems don’t compromise vehicle safety and that they function reliably in any scenario?
ISO 26262 provides a comprehensive framework for managing functional safety in electrical and electronic (E/E) systems, it’s a structured approach to anticipating and mitigating risks throughout a vehicle’s lifecycle, from concept to decommissioning. As vehicles get more sophisticated, so must the methods we use to ensure their safety.
ISO 26262 Requirements: Structured to Safeguard
The requirements of ISO 26262 are organized into a series of safety lifecycle processes, divided into ten parts that cover everything from management of functional safety to the detailed guidelines for hardware and software development. One key concept is the ASIL (Automotive Safety Integrity Level), which categorizes risk according to severity, exposure, and controllability. ASIL levels range from A to D, with ASIL D representing the highest level of risk, often applied to systems like electronic braking.
The standard essentially forces us to answer this question repeatedly: “What if something goes wrong?” Whether it’s during system design, software development, or testing, we must determine how likely it is for a failure to happen and how severe the consequences could be. If you’ve ever designed a component for a powertrain, you know how challenging it can be to anticipate every possible failure. ISO 26262 provides a framework to systematically assess and reduce these risks, making the difference between a “safe” system and a truly resilient one.
ISO 26262 Procedure: A Lifecycle Perspective
The ISO 26262 procedure requires a lifecycle approach to safety, starting from defining the overall safety goals to implementing safety measures in design and then verifying that those measures work effectively. For instance, in a real-world scenario, developing a braking control system involves defining safety goals such as preventing unintended acceleration, designing redundancy measures, and validating these measures through rigorous testing.
The V-model is a main methodology, which means we validate requirements at each step and verify that the system fulfills those requirements. For instance, let’s consider the safety aspect of a battery management system in an electric vehicle. Following ISO 26262, we would outline potential failures, such as overheating or overcharging, and then implement safety mechanisms, such as temperature monitoring and a fail-safe shutdown strategy. By following this process, we make sure we’re developing a product that’s compliant and that’s genuinely robust in real-world situations.
Comparing ISO 26262 with IEC 61508 and ASPICE
Often, we get questions about how ISO 26262 relates to other standards, like IEC 61508 and ASPICE.
- ISO 26262 vs IEC 61508 : In a nutshell, IEC 61508 is the “parent” standard for functional safety across different industries, from railway systems to nuclear power plants. ISO 26262 adapts the principles of IEC 61508 to the specific needs and challenges of the automotive world. For instance, it accounts for situations we deal with daily, like the interaction between driver assistance systems and human input, something that general industrial standards simply weren’t designed to address.
- ISO 26262 vs ASPICE : On the other hand, ASPICE (Automotive SPICE) is a process assessment model aimed at software development quality. While ISO 26262 focuses on ensuring that the product is functionally safe, ASPICE ensures that the processes used to develop that software are robust and repeatable. Although ASPICE has a different goal, it effectively forms the foundational basis for developing a safety-relevant product. By ensuring that the development processes are robust and consistent, ASPICE inherently supports the safety requirements outlined in ISO 26262. In practice, a company will often implement ASPICE to improve software engineering processes while following ISO 26262 to certify that their safety systems are up to the mark. The two complement each other ensuring that both the journey (development process) and the destination (safety integrity) are secure.
Our Perspective
From our standpoint in vehicle electrification, any potential point of failure must be addressed systematically, and that’s exactly what ISO 26262 allows us to do.
It also provides us with a common language to discuss safety across teams and with our customers. This is something that’s increasingly valuable because it enables a cohesive, structured, and collaborative approach to safety engineering.
Final Thoughts
If you’re a project manager or an engineer stepping into the automotive industry, looking for a better understanding of ISO 26262, we hope you found some answers. For us, working in the field, this standard is the guide that ensures our systems work safely and reliably, even under unforeseen circumstances. And, honestly, that’s something we should all be striving for, to push the boundaries of what’s possible in automotive engineering, without compromising on the trust our customers place in what we create at Bylogix.
