Application of a Process-Oriented Build Tool for Flight Controller Development Along a DO-178C/DO-331 Process

  • Markus HochstrasserEmail author
  • Stephan Myschik
  • Florian Holzapfel
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 991)


Growing software size and complexity paired with its application in increasingly safety-critical environments requires to follow strict software development processes. They demand extensive documented development and verification activities as well as the creation and management of a huge number of artefacts. This paper presents a monolithic, process-oriented build tool for model-based development in MATLAB, Simulink, and Stateflow as well as its application and adaption for the implementation of a flight control algorithm in the light of RTCA DO-178C/DO-331, the accepted standard for airborne software certification. Beyond classical build automation functionality, the tool accelerates achieving a software design compliant to standards and evaluates completeness of process artefacts, their consistency, and correctness at a central place.


Build automation Workflow management system Software development process Model standards Model scaffolding Continuous integration DO-178C DO-331 


  1. 1.
    Basagiannis, S.: Software certification of airborne cyber-physical systems under DO-178C. In: Proceedings of 2016 International Workshop on Symbolic and Numerical Methods for Reachability Analysis (SNR), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Research Council (U.S.), National Academies Press (U.S.): Critical Code: Software Producibility for Defense. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broy, M., Kirstan, S., Krcmar, H., Schätz, B.: What is the benefit of a model-based design of embedded software systems in the car industry? In: IR Management Association (ed.) Software Design and Development, pp. 310–334. IGI Global (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhatt, D., Madl, G., Oglesby, D., Schloegel, K.: Towards scalable verification of commercial avionics software. In: AIAA (ed.) Proceedings of AIAA Infotech@Aerospace 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paz, A., El Boussaidi, G.: On the exploration of model-based support for DO-178C-compliant avionics software development and certification. In: Proceedings of 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW), pp. 229–236. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hochstrasser, M., Hornauer, M., Holzapfel, F.: Formal Verification of Flight Control Applications along a Model-Based Development Process: A Case Study, 05 October 2016Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hochstrasser, M., Schatz, S.P., Nürnberger, K., Hornauer, M., Myschik, S., Holzapfel, F.: Aspects of a consistent modeling environment for DO-331 design model development of flight control algorithms. In: Dołęga, B., Głębocki, R., Kordos, D., Żugaj, M. (eds.) Advances in Aerospace Guidance, Navigation and Control, pp. 69–86. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schatz, S.P., et al.: Flightplan flight tests of an experimental DA42 generation aviation aircraft. In: IEEE Control Systems Society (ed.) Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nürnberger, K., Hochstrasser, M., Holzapfel, F.: Execution time analysis and optimisation techniques in the model-based development of a flight control software. IET Cyber-Phys. Syst.: Theory Appl. 2(2), 57–64 (2017). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hochstrasser, M., Myschik, S., Holzapfel, F.: A process-oriented build tool for safety-critical model-based software development. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, pp. 191–202. SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    RTCA: DO-178C - Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    RTCA: DO-331 - Model-Based Development and Verification Supplement to DO-178C and DO-278A (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Conrad, M., et al.: Automating code reviews with simulink code inspector. In: Dagstuhl (ed.) Proceedings of VIII Dagstuhl-Workshop, München, fortiss GmbH (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Conrad, M., Friedman, J., Sandmann, G.: Verification and validation according to IEC 61508: a workflow to facilitate the development of high-integrity applications. SAE Int. J. Commercial Veh. 2, 272–279 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Erkinnen, T., Potter, B.: Model-based design for DO-178B with qualified tools. In: AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc, Hyatt Regency McCormick Place, Chicago (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marques, J.C., Yelisetty, S.M.H., Dias, L.A.V., da Cunha, A.M.: Using model-based development as software low-level requirements to achieve airborne software certification. In: Proceedings of 2012 Ninth International Conference on Information Technology - New Generations, pp. 431–436. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Potter, B.: Complying with DO-178C and DO-331 using Model-Based Design (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berglund, T., McCullough, M.: Building and Testing with Gradle. O’Reilly, Beijing and Sebastopol (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Humble, J., Farley, D.: Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software Releases Through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation. Tenth printing edn. A Martin Fowler Signature Book. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sonatype Company: Maven: The Definitive Guide. O’Reilly, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rahman, A., Partho, A., Meder, D., Williams, L.: Which factors influence practitioners’ usage of build automation tools? In: Proceedings of 2017 IEEE/ACM 3rd International Workshop on Rapid Continuous Software Engineering (RCoSE), pp. 20–26. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dillaber, E., Kendrick, L., Jin, W., Reddy, V. (eds.) Pragmatic Strategies for Adopting Model-Based Design for Embedded Applications. SAE International (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Estrada, R.G., Sasaki, G., Dillaber, E.: Best practices for developing DO-178 compliant software using Model-Based Design. AIAA Infotech@Aerospace, Boston (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zisman, A.: Using rules for traceability creation. In: Cleland-Huang, J., Gotel, O., Zisman, A. (eds.) Software and Systems Traceability, pp. 147–170. Springer, London (2012). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seibel, A., Hebig, R., Giese, H.: Traceability in model-driven engineering: efficient and scalable traceability maintenance. In: Cleland-Huang, J., Gotel, O., Zisman, A. (eds.) Software and Systems Traceability, pp. 215–240. Springer, London (2012). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lochmann, H., Hessellund, A.: An integrated view on modeling with multi domain-specific languages. In: Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference Software Engineering (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Holten, D.: Hierarchical edge bundles: visualization of adjacency relations in hierarchical data. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 12, 741–748 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Quan, Q.: Introduction to Multicopter Design and Control. Springer, Singapore (2017). Scholar
  29. 29.
    The MathWorks Inc.: DO Qualification R2017b: Model-Based Design Workflow for DO-178C (2017)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    The Motor Industry Software Reliability Association: MISRA-C:2012 - Guidelines for the use of C language in critical systems, March 2013Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    The MathWorks Automotive Advisory Board: MathWorks Automotive Advisory Board Control Algorithm Modeling Guidelines Using MATLAB, Simulink, and Stateflow: R2016b (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    The MathWorks Inc.: DO Qualification Kit - Simulink Code Inspector Tool Operational Requirements: R2017b (2017)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    The MathWorks Inc.: Simulink Code Inspector Reference: R2017b, Natick, MA, USA (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Seibel, A., Neumann, S., Giese, H.: Dynamic hierarchical mega models: comprehensive traceability and its efficient maintenance. Softw. Syst. Model. 9, 493–528 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    OMG Object Management Group: Software & System Process Engineering Meta-Models Specification (SPEM 2.0), April 2008Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gallina, B.: A model-driven safety certification method for process compliance. In: Proceedings of 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops, pp. 204–209. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Couto, R., Ribeiro, A.N., Campos, J.C.: The modelery: a collaborative web based repository. In: Murgante, B., et al. (eds.) ICCSA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8584, pp. 1–16. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mahapatra, S., Ghidella, J., Walker, G.: Team-based collaboration in model-based design. In: AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Hochstrasser
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stephan Myschik
    • 2
  • Florian Holzapfel
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Flight System DynamicsTU MünchenMunichGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Flight Mechanics and Flight ControlUniversität der Bundeswehr MünchenNeubibergGermany

Personalised recommendations