Dependent Failure Analysis: Three Checks Beyond Redundancy
Two channels can still share one vulnerability. Learn three practical DFA checks for examining common causes, hidden dependencies and the evidence behind independence claims.
3 min
Tag
functional-safety
36 articles
Why FMEDA Matters for ISO 26262: Five Practical Reasons
Hardware can fail systematically, through errors made during development, or randomly, as parts wear or break in service. FMEDA addresses the random failures, connecting failure analysis with stronger evidence and better engineering decisions. Explore five reasons it matters for ISO 26262 projects, from revealing diagnostic gaps and examining supplier assumptions to guiding improvements and keeping the safety argument aligned with a changing design.
6 min
MiscellaneousProven in Use Under ISO 26262: What Field History Can Support
Years on the road do not automatically make a component proven in use. What makes field history credible under ISO 26262, and when can it support reuse? A practical introduction to the evidence, limits and common misconceptions.
6 min
MiscellaneousISO 26262 Is Not Learned in One Shot
A training week, a certificate, and six months later a blank hazard analysis template. Nothing went wrong with the course. ISO 26262 is used in slices, months apart, and every slice borrows knowledge the standard does not teach: vehicle dynamics, reliability data, software verification, supplier contracts, SOTIF, cybersecurity. It is not learned in one shot. It is learned, applied and repeated, one cycle at a time. New article on how a team keeps that loop running, and what evidence it leaves behind.
5 min
TechnicalASPICE and ISO 26262: What Each One Actually Grades
ASPICE rates how capable your development process is. ISO 26262 asks whether the product it produced is acceptably safe. Neither verdict substitutes for the other. Where the two read the same artifacts, where they diverge, and the safety work that has no ASPICE process behind it.
7 min
TechnicalMulti-Core Safety Architectures: An ISO 26262 Overview
Multi-core automotive SoCs add shared hardware, mixed criticality, and timing interference to every safety argument. This article maps the families of multi-core safety architecture, the three interference concerns underneath them, and what actually decides which one fits.
6 min
TechnicalIEC 61508 vs ISO 26262: What Automotive Engineers Need to Know
Can an element assessed at IEC 61508 SIL 3 support an ISO 26262 ASIL D safety goal? Often yes, but the label proves nothing on its own: a SIL belongs to a safety function, not to a part. Why the two risk models look alike and still cannot be converted, and what an integrity level is attached to.
9 min
MiscellaneousAutomotive vs Railway Functional Safety: An ISO 26262 Comparison
While both automotive and railway safety standards originate from IEC 61508, they have evolved into distinct methodologies. Discover how ISO 26262 principles compare to CENELEC railway standards regarding risk assessment, system response, and lifecycle management.
8 min
TechnicalAutomotive vs Machinery Functional Safety: An ISO 26262 Comparison
While automotive and machinery functional safety share common roots, their methodologies differ significantly. Explore how ISO 26262 compares to ISO 13849 and IEC 62061 in risk assessment and system architecture.
8 min
TechnicalFunctional Safety in Aerospace vs Automotive: An ISO 26262 Guide
Discover how aerospace functional safety standards like DO-178C and ARP4754A compare to automotive ISO 26262. Learn what automotive engineers can adapt from aviation to build robust, fail-operational architectures for autonomous vehicles.
7 min
TechnicalMastering HMI Display Safety for Automotive ISO 26262
Automotive display systems are the final line of defense during vehicle failures. Learn how to engineer robust HMI warning strategies, manage arbitration chaos, and calculate strict timing budgets to achieve ISO 26262 compliance.
7 min
TechnicalHow to Implement Model-Based Development for ISO 26262
Discover how to accelerate automotive software engineering using Model-Based Development. This guide covers essential ISO 26262 Part 6 requirements, from enforcing strict modeling guidelines to performing Model-in-the-Loop testing and automatic code generation.
8 min
Keep learning
Go from article to full guide.
Each guide is a full course with diagrams and worked examples. Open one to see what it covers.
- Safety analysesDependent Failure Analysis (DFA)Learn how ISO 26262-9 Clause 7 verifies that redundant channels and ASIL decomposition are genuinely independent, by hunting dependent failure initiators and coupling factors that let one root cause defeat several safety elements at once.
- HardwareFMEDA: Quantitative Hardware Safety AnalysisLearn how Failure Modes, Effects and Diagnostic Analysis turns component failure rates in FIT, failure-mode distributions, and diagnostic coverage into the SPFM, LFM, and PMHF metrics that ISO 26262-5 requires for safety-related hardware.
- Verification and assessmentProven in UseISO 26262-8 Clause 14 lets you trade development evidence for statistically demonstrated field experience. This concept shows when that trade actually closes and, far more often, why it does not.