Safety Architecture Overview Framework for the Prediction, Explanation and Control of Risks of ERTMS

  • Katja SchuitemakerEmail author
  • G. Maarten Bonnema
  • Marco Kuijsten
  • Heidi van Spaandonk
  • Mohammad Rajabalinejad
Conference paper


The proposed framework includes modelling of interfaces between risk analysis, risk evaluation and scenario’s representing flows of safety information of the European Railway Traffic Management System (ERTMS). In this study, we propose a functional framework combining safety data generation, data processing and structuring, definition of interactions and finally, the creation of customized representations in order to predict, explain, and control risks. Through literature review and ERTMS applicability, we develop a safety architecture overview framework. The comprehensive overview of the safety architecture can illustrate the main interactions between government, regulations, company management, technical and operational management, physical process and activities, and environment. Explicit representation delivers insight, stimulates striving for completeness, and leads to consistency of the safety analyses.


  1. 1.
    Alexandersson, G., Hultén, S.: The Swedish deregulation path. Rev. Netw. Econ. 7(1), 1–19 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Union: Commission Decision of 25 January 2012 on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signaling subsystems of the trans-European rail system. Off. J. Eur. Union 55, 1–51 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    UNIFE: UNISIG, An industrial consortium to develop ERTMS/ETCS technical specification. Accessed May 2018
  4. 4.
    Rajabalinejad, M., Martinetti, A., Dongen, L.A.M.: Operation, safety and human: critical factors for the success of railway transportation. In: Systems of Systems Engineering Conference, pp. 1–6 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schuitemaker, K., Rajabalinejad, M.: ERTMS challenges for a safe and interoperable European railway system. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Performance, Safety and Robustness in Complex Systems and Applications, pp. 17–22 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stoop, J.A.A.M., Dekker, S.: The ERTMS railway signaling system: deals on wheels? An inquiry into the safety architecture of high speed train safety. In: Proceedings of the Third Resilience Engineering symposium, pp. 255–262 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Svedung, I., Rasmussen, J.: Graphic representation of accident scenarios: mapping system structure and the causation of accidents. Saf. Sci. 40, 397–417 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kelly, T.: Arguing safety a systematic approach to managing safety cases. PhD Thesis (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arnold, A., Point, G., Griffault, A., Rauzy, A.: The AltaRica formalism for describing concurrent systems. Fundam. Informatica 40(2), 109–124 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cuenot, P., Chen, D.J., Gerard, S., Lönn, H., et al.: Towards improving dependability of automotive systems by using the EAST-ADL architecture description language. In: Architecting Dependable Systems IV. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4615, pp. 39–65 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Güdemann, M., Ortmeier, F.: A framework for qualitative and quantitative formal model-based safety analysis. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Symposium on High-Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE), pp. 132–141 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cressent, R., David, P., Idasiak, V., Kratz, F.: Designing the database for reliability aware model-based system engineering process. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 111, 171–182 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Falessi, D., Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L., Messina, A.: SafeSlide: a model slicing and design safety inspection tool for SysML. In: Proceedings of SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 460–463 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Nejati, S., Briand, L., Evensen Mills, A.: Using SysML for modeling of Safety-critical software-hardware interfaces: guidelines and industry experience. In: IEEE 13th International Symposium on High-Assurance Systems Engineering, pp. 193–201 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De la Vara, J.L., Panesar-Walawege, R.K.: SafetyMet: a metamodel for safety standards. In: International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 69–86 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Biggs, G., Sakamoto, T., Kotoku, T.: A profile and tool for modelling safety information with design information in SysML. Softw. Syst. Model. 15(1), 147–178 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mauborgne, P.: Operational and system hazard analysis in a safe systems requirement engineering process – application to automotive industry. Saf. Sci. 87, 256–268 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Belmonte, F., Soubiran, E.: A model based approach for safety analysis. In: International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, pp. 50–63 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yakymets, N., Dhouib, S., Jaber, H., Lanusse, A.: Model-driven safety assessment of robotic systems. In: Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1137–1142 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sharvia, S., Papadopoulos, Y.: Integrating model checking with HiP-HOPS in model-based safety analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 135, 64–80 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blessing, L.T.M., Chakrabarti, A.: DRM, a Design Research Methodology. Springer, London (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., Grote, K.H.: Engineering Design, a Systematic Approach. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang, P.: Civil Aircraft Electrical Power System Safety Assessment: Issues and Practices. Butterworth-Heinemann (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brussel, F.F., Bonnema, G.M.: Interactive A3 architecture overviews. Proc. Comput. Sci. 44, 204–213 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baxter, G., Sommerville, I.: Socio-technical systems: from design methods to systems engineering. Interact. Comput. 23, 4–17 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katja Schuitemaker
    • 1
    Email author
  • G. Maarten Bonnema
    • 1
  • Marco Kuijsten
    • 2
  • Heidi van Spaandonk
    • 3
  • Mohammad Rajabalinejad
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Design, Production and ManagementUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Safety Department, NSUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Safety Department, ProRailUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations