Advertisement

An Industrial Experience in Cross Domain Assurance Projects

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 543)

Abstract

Companies related to safety critical systems developments invest efforts and resources to assure that their systems are safe enough. Traditionally reuse strategies have been proposed to reduce these efforts in several domains which criticality is not a key aspect. However reusing software artefacts across different domains establishes new challenges especially between safety critical systems. In fact we need to take into account different domain specific standards requirements at the same time. In this paper we present our experience on cross domain assurance involving a reuse of a software component developed for the railway domain, and to be used for the avionics domain.

Keywords

Compliance Cross domain Reuse DO-178 EN 50128 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Espinoza, H., Ruiz, A., Sabetzadeh, M., Panaroni, P.: Challenges for an Open and Evolutionary Approach to Safety Assurance and Certification of Safety-Critical Systems 2011, pp. 1–6 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de la Vara, J.L., Panesar-Walawege, R.K.: SafetyMet: a metamodel for safety standards. In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds.) MODELS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8107, pp. 69–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Machrouh, J., Blanquart, J.P., Baufreton, P., Boulanger, J.L., Delseny, H., Gassino, J., Ladier, G., Ledinot, E., Leeman, M., Astruc, J.M.: Cross domain comparison of system assurance. In: ERTS 2012, Toulouse, pp. 1–3 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blanquart, J.P., Astruc, J.M., Baufreton, P., Boulanger, J.L., Delseny, H., Gassino, J., Ladier, G., Ledinot, E., Leeman, M., Machrouh, J.: Criticality categories across safety standards in different domains. In: ERTS 2012, Toulouse, pp. 1–3 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ledinot, E., Astruc, J.-M., Blanquart, J.-P., Baufreton, P., Boulanger, J.-L., Delseny, H., Gassino, J., Ladier, G., Leeman, M., Machrouh, J., et al.: A cross-domain comparison of software development assurance standards. In: Proc. of ERTS2 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Papadopoulos, Y., McDermid, J.A.: The potential for a generic approach to certification of safety critical systems in the transportation sector. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 63(1), 47–66 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zeller, M., Höfig, K., Rothfelder, M.: Towards a cross-domain software safety assurance process for embedded systems. In: Bondavalli, A., Ceccarelli, A., Ortmeier, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8696, pp. 396–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Safecer Project Safety Certification of Software-Intensive Systems with Reusable Components Web: http://www.safecer.eu
  9. 9.
    RTCA DO-178/EUROCAE ED-12, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IEC 61508 IEC61508, 61508 - Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems. International Electrotechnical Commission (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO26262 Road vehicles – Functional safety, ISO (November 2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    CENELEC EN 50128 - Railway applications — Communication, signalling and processing systems — Software for railway control and protection systems (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICT – European Software Institute DivisionTecnaliaDerioSpain
  2. 2.Airworthiness & Certification DirectorateThales AvionicsToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations