Complete Learning Module

Safety Measures vs. Safety Mechanisms

Understanding the Critical Distinction in ISO 26262

12
Chapters
6
Interactive Diagrams
2 Types
Faults Covered
All ASIL
Levels

What You'll Learn

Build complete competency in safety measures vs. safety mechanisms through structured, progressive learning.

Distinguish Measures from Mechanisms Precisely

Apply ISO 26262 definitions to correctly classify any given safety activity or technical feature as a safety measure, a safety mechanism, or both.

Select the Right Response by Fault Type

Use the fault type selection matrix to determine whether process-based measures, technical mechanisms, or a combination are required for each identified failure mode.

Specify Measures and Mechanisms Separately

Write safety requirements that clearly separate process-based safety measures from technical safety mechanisms to avoid ambiguity and double-counting in FMEDA.

Integrate Both Types Without Double-Counting

Design combined safety strategies that layer measures and mechanisms correctly, with FMEDA documentation that avoids overclaiming diagnostic coverage.

Map Requirements to ISO 26262 Clauses

Trace every safety measure and mechanism to its normative ISO 26262 source clause across Parts 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 for complete traceability.

Verify Mechanism Effectiveness

Plan and execute fault injection tests that demonstrate safety mechanism detection coverage matches the claimed diagnostic coverage value in the FMEDA.

12 Comprehensive Chapters

Each chapter builds your safety measures vs. safety mechanisms expertise systematically from foundations to advanced application.

1

Overview

Introduce the fundamental distinction between safety measures and safety mechanisms in ISO 26262. Understand why the confusion between these terms causes specification errors, audit findings, and incorrect ASIL allocation decisions.

Why the distinction mattersCommon confusion sourcesAudit finding patterns
2

Definitions & Scope

Apply precise ISO 26262 definitions: safety measure (any means to avoid or control systematic and random hardware faults) vs. safety mechanism (technical implementation detecting or controlling hardware failures to prevent violations of safety goals).

ISO 26262 definitionsScope boundariesNormative references
3

Safety Measures (Process-Based)

Catalog process-based safety measures: design guidelines, coding standards, formal methods, reviews, analysis techniques (FMEA, FTA), configuration management, and independence requirements - all targeting systematic fault prevention.

Design guidelinesAnalysis techniquesIndependence measures
4

Safety Mechanisms (Technical)

Enumerate technical safety mechanisms: watchdogs, CRC checks, ECC memory, redundant sensors, plausibility monitors, safe state control logic, AUTOSAR E2E protection, and lockstep CPU - all targeting random hardware failure detection and control.

Watchdog typesCRC and ECCPlausibility monitors
5

Side-by-Side Comparison

Compare safety measures and mechanisms across six dimensions: fault type addressed, implementation domain, ASIL contribution, verification method, ISO 26262 clause reference, and typical work product evidence.

6-dimension comparisonISO clause mappingEvidence types
6

Measures for Systematic Faults

Detail how safety measures address systematic fault avoidance and control: why process quality, independence, and analysis depth reduce systematic fault likelihood - and how ASIL level scales the required measures per ISO 26262-6 and -8.

Systematic fault modelProcess rigor scalingASIL-graded measures
7

Mechanisms for Random HW Failures

Explain how safety mechanisms address random hardware failures: detection via diagnostic mechanisms (DC contribution), control via safe state transition logic, and how mechanism effectiveness is quantified in FMEDA for PMHF and hardware metric calculations.

DC contributionFMEDA rolePMHF impact
8

Selection Criteria by Fault Type

Apply structured selection criteria: given a fault type, determine whether a safety measure, a safety mechanism, or both are required. Covers single-point faults, residual faults, latent faults, and systematic failures with decision examples.

Fault type decision treeSingle vs. latent faultsSystematic failure cases
9

Integration Strategy

Design integrated safety approaches that combine process-based measures and technical mechanisms: layer the two types for maximum coverage, avoid double-counting in FMEDA, and document the combined strategy in the technical safety concept.

Layered coverageFMEDA double-countingTSC documentation
10

ISO 26262 Mapping

Map safety measures and mechanisms to their source clauses across all ISO 26262 parts: measures in Part 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 - mechanisms in Parts 4, 5, 9, and 10 - with normative requirement status for each.

Cross-part clause mapNormative vs. informativePart 10 examples
11

Examples Catalog

Searchable catalog of 40+ examples organized by system type (EPS, EBS, ETC, ADAS) and fault type - each showing the applicable measure or mechanism, the fault it addresses, and the ISO 26262 clause requiring it.

40+ examplesSystem-type filterClause reference for each
12

Best Practices

Apply best practices: always specify measures and mechanisms separately in safety requirements, maintain a safety mechanism register in the FMEDA, trace each mechanism to its safety goal, and verify mechanism effectiveness with fault injection.

Separate specificationMechanism registerFault injection verification
ISO 26262 Terminology

6 6 Interactive Diagrams & Tools

Experiment with visual tools that bring safety measures vs. safety mechanisms concepts to life.

Measures vs. Mechanisms Taxonomy

Interactive taxonomy tree showing the hierarchy from safety goal to safety requirements, then branching to process-based measures and technical mechanisms with examples at each leaf node.

Fault Type Selection Matrix

Interactive matrix mapping fault types (single-point, latent, residual, systematic) to required safety response (measure, mechanism, or both) with ISO 26262 clause references.

FMEDA Mechanism Coverage View

FMEDA-style visualization showing how safety mechanisms contribute to diagnostic coverage (DC) and how this flows into PMHF and hardware metric calculations.

Systematic Fault Prevention Layers

Layered diagram showing ISO 26262 systematic fault avoidance measures from development process through architecture, coding standards, and review - with ASIL-graded depth indicators.

Safety Mechanism State Diagram

Generic state machine for a safety mechanism: Monitoring, Fault Detected, Fault Reaction Initiated, Safe State Achieved - with timing parameters and failure mode handling.

Integration Strategy Diagram

Visual showing how process-based measures and technical mechanisms combine to achieve the required safety integrity for a given ASIL level, with annotation of what each layer contributes.

Worked Example

EPS Torque Sensor Fault Coverage Analysis

Complete measures and mechanisms analysis for an ASIL D EPS torque sensor path: systematic fault measures (process) vs. random hardware failure mechanisms (technical) - side by side with FMEDA integration.

  • Systematic: coding standard compliance (MISRA C:2012) - measure, not mechanism
  • Systematic: independent peer review of sensor algorithm - measure, not mechanism
  • Random HW: CRC on SPI communication - safety mechanism, DC = 99%
  • Random HW: plausibility check vs. motor current model - safety mechanism, DC = 90%
  • Random HW: redundant sensor channel - safety mechanism, residual fault coverage
  • FMEDA: measures excluded from DC calculation; mechanisms contribute to SPFM and LFM

EPS Torque Sensor Analysis

SPI CRC: Safety Mechanism - Fault Type: Random HW Transient, DC = 99%, Contributes to SPFM
Unlock in course

Master the Measures vs. Mechanisms Distinction

End the confusion that causes specification errors and audit findings - learn to apply ISO 26262 terminology with precision.

Start Learning Now
12 Chapters6 Interactive Diagrams40+ ExamplesAll ISO 26262 Parts