This paper presents a taxonomy that allows defining the fault tolerance regimes fail-operational , fail-degraded , and fail-safe in the context of automotive systems. Fault tolerance regimes such as these are widely used in recent publications related to automated driving, yet without definitions. This largely holds true for automotive safety standards, too. We show that fault tolerance regimes defined in scientific publications related to the automotive domain are partially ambiguous as well as taxonomically unrelated. The presented taxonomy is based on terminology stemming from ISO 26262 as well as from systems engineering. It uses four criteria to distinguish fault tolerance regimes. In addition to fail-operational , fail-degraded , and fail-safe , the core terminology consists of operational and fail-unsafe . These terms are supported by definitions of available performance , nominal performance , functionality , and a concise definition of the safe state . For verification, we show by means of two examples from the automotive domain that the taxonomy can be applied to hierarchical systems of different complexity.

While systems in the automotive industry have become increasingly complex, the related processes require comprehensive testing to be carried out at lower levels of a system. Nevertheless, the final safety validation is still required to be carried out at the system level by automotive standards like ISO 26262. Using its guidelines for the development of automated vehicles and applying them for field operation tests has been proven to be economically unfeasible. The concept of a modular safety approval provides the opportunity to reduce the testing effort after updates and for a broader set of vehicle variants. In this paper, we present insufficiencies that occur on lower levels of hierarchy compared to the system level. Using a completely new approach, we show that errors arise due to faulty decomposition processes wherein, e.g., functions, test scenarios, risks, or requirements of a system are decomposed to the module level. Thus, we identify three main categories of errors: insufficiently functional architectures, performing the wrong tests, and performing the right tests wrongly. We provide more detailed errors and present examples from the research project UNICARagil. Finally, these findings are taken to define rules for the development and testing of modules to dispense with system tests.