Sequential Logic for State/Event Fault Trees: A Methodology to Support the Failure Modeling of Cyber Physical Systems

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9338)

Abstract

The society is nowadays increasingly controlled through embedded systems. The certification process of such systems is often supported by tree based approaches like fault trees. Nevertheless, these methodologies have some crucial drawbacks when it comes to dynamic systems. In the standard fault tree analysis it is not possible to model dependent events as well as timing behavior. To deal with these disadvantages state/event fault trees (SEFTs) were developed. However, this method is mainly restricted to academic problems due to its poor analysis procedures. To overcome this problem, this paper introduces a new qualitative analysis technique for SEFTs based on event sequences that can be identified out of their reachability graphs. To analyze these sequences an event sequence minimization schema similar to minimal cut sets of normal fault trees is proposed. Afterwards, a sequence algebra is used to further minimize these temporal expressions and transform them as far as possible into static ones.

Keywords

State event fault tree Fault tree Sequential logic Reliability analysis Cyber physical system 

References

  1. 1.
    Bozzano, M., Villafiorita, A.: Integrating fault tree analysis with event ordering information. In: Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL) (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchacker, K.: Combining Fault Trees And Petri Nets To Model Safety-Critical Systems, pp. 439–44. Society for Computer Simulation, International (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dugan, J.B., Bavuso, S.J., Boyd, M.A.: Dynamic fault-tree models for fault-tolerant computer systems. Trans. Reliab. 41, 363–377 (1992)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bechta-Dugan, J., Sullivan, K., Coppit, D.: Developing a low-cost high-quality software tool for dynamic fault tree analysis. Trans. Reliab. 49, 49 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ESSaRel: Embedded systems safety and reliability analyser. http://www.essarel.de
  6. 6.
    Fussell, J.B., Aber, E.F., Rahl, R.G.: On the quantitive analysis of priority AND failure logic. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 25(5), 324–326 (1796)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gulati, R., Dugan, J.B.: A modular approach for analyzing static and dynamic fault trees. In: Proccedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Philadelphia, USA, pp. 57–63 (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaiser, B., Gramlich, C.: State-event-fault-trees – a safety analysis model for software controlled systems. In: Heisel, M., Liggesmeyer, P., Wittmann, S. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3219, pp. 195–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu, D., Xing, W., Zhang, C., Li, R., Li, H.: Cut sequence set generation for fault tree analysis. In: Lee, Y.-H., Kim, H.-N., Kim, J., Park, Y.W., Yang, L.T., Kim, S.W. (eds.) ICESS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4523, pp. 592–603. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Long, W., Sato, Y., Horigome, M.: Quantification of sequential failure logic for fault tree analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 67, 269–274 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Palshikar, G.K.: Temporal fault trees. Inf. Softw. Technol. 44, 137–150 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roth, M., Liggesmeyer, P.: Qualitative analysis of state/event fault trees for supporting the certification process of software-intensive systems. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW), pp. 353–358, Pasadena, CA (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tang, Z., Dugan, J.B.: Minimal cut set/sequence generation for dynamic fault trees. In: Proccedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS), Charlottesville, USA, pp. 207–213 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vesely, W.E., Goldberg, F.F., Roberts, N.H., Haasl, D.F.: Fault Tree Handbook (1981)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walker, M.D.: Pandora: A Logic for the Qualitative Analysis of Temporal Fault Trees. PhD Thesis, University of Hall, UK (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Watson, H.R.: Launch control safety study. Bell Labs (1961)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yuge, T., Yanagi, S.: Quantitative analysis of a fault tree with priority AND gates. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 93, 1577–1583 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zimmermann, A., German, R., Freiheit, J., Hommel, G.: TimeNET 3.0 Tool Description. In: International Conference on Petri Nets and Performance Models (PNPM 1999), Zaragoza, Spain (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Software Engineering: DependabilityUniversity of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations