Specification and Evaluation of Safety Properties in a Component-Based Software Engineering Process

  • Lars Grunske
  • Bernhard Kaiser
  • Ralf H. Reussner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3778)


Over the past years, component-based software engineering has become an established paradigm in the area of complex software intensive systems. However, many techniques for analyzing these systems for critical properties currently do not make use of the component orientation. In particular, safety analysis of component-based systems is an open field of research. In this chapter we investigate the problems arising and define a set of requirements that apply when adapting the analysis of safety properties to a component-based software engineering process. Based on these requirements some important component-oriented safety evaluation approaches are examined and compared.


Failure Probability Failure Behavior Safety Property Fault Tree Failure Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Szyperski, C.: Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. ACM Press, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bondavalli, A., Simoncini, L.: Failure Classification with respect to Detection. Esprit Project Nr 3092 PDCS: Predictably Dependable Computing Systems (1990) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fenelon, P., McDermid, J., Nicholson, M., Pumfrey., D.J.: Towards integrated safety analysis and design. ACM Computing Reviews 2, 21–32 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leveson, N.G.: SAFEWARE: System Safety and Computers. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    CENELEC (European Committee for Electro-technical Standardisation): CENELEC EN 50126: Railway Applications – the specification and demonstration of Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety. CENELEC EN 50128: Railway Applications: Software for Railway Control and Protection Systems CENELEC, Brussels (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    SAE ARP 4754 (Society of Automotive Engineers Aerospace Recommended Practice): Certification Considerations for Highly Integrated or Complex Aircraft Systems (1996) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Department of Defense, United States of America: Military Standard 882C. System Safety Program Requirements (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deutsches Institur für Normung e.V.: DIN 25419: Ereignisablaufanalyse, Verfahren, graphische Symbole und Auswertung, German Standard (1985)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    IEC 60812 (International Electrotechnical Commission): Functional safety of electrical/ electronical/programmable electronic safety/related systems, Analysis Techniques for System Reliability - Procedure for Failure Mode and Effect Analysis, FMEA (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission): Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP studies) - Application guide (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    UK Defence Standardization Organisation: Defence Standard 00-58, HAZOP Studies on Systems Containing Programmable Electronics, Part 1 and 2 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    DIN 25424 (Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.): Fault Tree Analysis: Part 1 (Method and graphical symbols) and Part 2 (Manual: calculation procedures for the evaluation of a fault tree (1981/1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    IEC 61025 (International Electrotechnical Commission): Fault-Tree-Analysis, FTA (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vesely, W.E., Goldberg, F.F., Roberts, N.H., Haasl, D.F.: Fault Tree Handbook. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mauri, G.: Integrating Safety Analysis Techniques, Supporting Identification of Common Cause Failures. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of York (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission): IEC 61165: Application of Markov techniques (1995-2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Selic, B., Gullekson, G., Ward, P.: Real-Time Object Oriented Modeling. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fenelon, P., McDermid, J.A.: An integrated toolset for software safety analysis. Journal of Systems and Software 21, 279–290 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaiser, B., Liggesmeyer, P., Mäckel, O.: A new component concept for fault trees. In: Proceedings of the 8th AustralianWorkshop on Safety Critical Systems and Software (SCS 2003), Adelaide (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frolund, S., Koistinen, J.: Quality-of-service specification in distributed object systems. Technical Report HPL-98-159, Hewlett Packard, Software Technology Laboratory (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reussner, R.H., Poernomo, I.H., Schmidt, H.W.: Reasoning on software architectures with contractually specified components. In: Cechich, A., Piattini, M., Vallecillo, A. (eds.) Component-Based Software Quality. LNCS, vol. 2693, pp. 287–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reussner, R.H., Schmidt, H.W., Poernomo, I.: Reliability prediction for component-based software architectures. Journal of Systems and Software – Special Issue of Software Architecture - Engineering Quality Attributes 66, 241–252 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reussner, R.H.: Automatic Component Protocol Adaptation with the CoCoNut Tool Suite. Future Generation Computer Systems 19, 627–639 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grunske, L.: Annotation of component specifications with modular analysis models for safety properties. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Component Engineering Methodology (WCEM), Erfurt pp. 737–738 (2003) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bryant, R.: Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers 35, 677–691 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Grunske
    • 1
  • Bernhard Kaiser
    • 2
  • Ralf H. Reussner
    • 3
  1. 1.School of ITEEThe University of QueenslandSt Lucia, BrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software EngineeringKaiserslauternGermany
  3. 3.Software Engineering GroupUniversity of Oldenburg, OFFISOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations