Currently, the most prominent industry is undoubtedly robotics, particularly embodied intelligent robots. These robots require complex interaction with their environment and people, and their functionality and operating environments are inherently complex. The automotive industry, in particular, provides a very clear example of this.

Where does functional safety originate?

Traditionally, the automotive industry has reached a high level of maturity, with advanced ADAS features being widely implemented. However, even in this mature industry, major accident news can still generate significant public outcry. Therefore, simply achieving complex functionality does not guarantee product success.

Modern industrial products have largely transitioned to electronic and software-based systems. However, electronic and electrical systems are more prone to failure compared to traditional mechanical systems, making failure due to these systems a significant challenge to overall system safety. This has led to the development of the concept and technology of "functional safety," which focuses on ensuring that the system can minimize unacceptable risks and serious consequences in the event of an electronic or electrical failure.

Systematic Implementation of Automotive Functional Safety: ISO 26262

Taking ISO 26262 as an example, the standard incorporates the concept of full-lifecycle management, requiring risk identification and control at every stage, from design and development to verification. Through redundancy, fault detection mechanisms, and safety response strategies, the system can enter a safe mode promptly in the event of an anomaly, thereby reducing the probability of harm. Interestingly, the underlying principles of "functional safety" have been applied in industrial practice long before the standard's formalization. Examples include redundant braking systems and dual-engine aircraft. However, the introduction of ISO 26262 provides a systematic framework for functional safety, incorporating previously experiential considerations into a quantifiable and operational approach.

The ISO 26262 standard provides clear guidance on two previously undefined aspects within the industry: firstly, a comprehensive analysis using a "brute-force" approach, and secondly, a quantitative method for assessing the impact of hardware random failures.

Comprehensive scenario analysis and quantitative assessment of hardware random failures.

First, the derivation of functional safety requirements according to the ISO26262 standard involves a comprehensive analysis of the operating environment, considering at least two dimensions: the external operating environment and potential failure modes. This analysis employs a systematic approach to derive the ASIL (Automotive Safety Integrity Level) and related key characteristics, such as safety goals and safety state levels. In essence, for each system function, the potential consequences of all possible failure scenarios are considered, and these consequences are then categorized based on their severity. The ASIL level is determined based on factors such as severity, frequency of occurrence, and controllability, which are derived from the specific characteristics of automotive products.

The fundamental principles underlying the definition of ASIL (Automotive Safety Integrity Level) levels.
Secondly, the quantitative assessment of random hardware failures is a key characteristic of the ISO 26262 design methodology. By referencing existing industry standards for hardware component failure rates, the methodology provides quantifiable metrics for failure rates and fault detection coverage, offering a valuable benchmark for quantitative assessment. This allows ISO 26262 to not only establish a procedural framework, but also to serve as a technical standard for quantitative determination.

Challenges and directions for functional safety in the robotics industry

It's clear that in the robotics industry, with the prospect of widespread robot deployment, the challenges related to functional safety are comparable to those in the automotive industry. Currently, some international standards for robots already specify certain functional safety requirements, similar to the automotive industry's ISO 26262 standard. Firstly, a comprehensive scenario analysis is crucial. Different types of robots have varying operating scenarios and functionalities, which may result in different external environments and failure modes. However, the approach should be similar. In contrast to the three criteria used in the automotive industry (severity, exposure frequency, and controllability), the robotics industry may require additional dimensions for evaluation, even potentially different evaluation systems for different types and applications of robots.

Secondly, the quantitative assessment method for hardware failures also applies to robotic systems. Regarding the specific metrics, it likely requires long-term data collection and statistical analysis by the industry to determine these metrics. For emerging fields, establishing quantitative metrics may not be achieved immediately. As industry practices deepen, the hardware reliability database will continue to improve, leading to the development of standardized failure assessment criteria.

Third, within the robotics industry, the concept of "functional safety" has even greater potential for expansion. In the automotive industry, ensuring human safety is paramount, and the entire automotive functional safety system is built around this. However, in the robotics industry, in certain specific operating scenarios, a failure in a particular function could potentially lead to significant losses, even if it doesn't directly result in physical harm. For example, a disruption in a critical engineering project could trigger major economic, political, or social risks. Therefore, beyond "functional safety," there may be new dimensions such as "functional availability" or "task safety" that need to be considered.

The value of learning from experience in the automotive industry.

Finally, the application of automotive functional safety technology has developed a relatively mature methodology, encompassing the entire lifecycle from development and design to testing and validation, and ultimately to production and maintenance. This methodology has accumulated significant best practices over many years, which hold considerable value as a reference for emerging fields like robotics.

Zhejiang ATTC's technical capabilities

As functional safety has evolved from a cornerstone of human safety to a critical factor in ensuring the reliability of complex robotic tasks, this shift represents not only a technological transition but also a fundamental change in industry thinking. Recognizing this trend, our company has proactively established core capabilities through collaboration with international certification experts, enabling us to successfully extend our expertise to the robotics sector. We have built a "dual-track" system, leveraging our deep understanding of ISO 26262 functional safety and automotive export certification, to support the development of safe, reliable, and confident global mobility for both automobiles and robots. Our mission is to provide comprehensive support for the "Made in China" initiative, ensuring that both vehicles and robots can operate safely and reliably on a global scale.