Compliance, Functional Safety and Fault Detection by Formal Methods

  • Christof Fetzer
  • Christoph Weidenbach
  • Patrick Wischnewski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9953)

Abstract

With the increasing complexity of today’s cars functional safety and compliance guarantees are more and more difficult to obtain. During the life time of a vehicle the detection of malfunctioning non-mechanical components requires meanwhile more attention than the maintenance of its mechanical counterparts. A full fledged formal verification of the overall car is not realistic and even hard to obtain for single non-trivial components such as assistant systems. Furthermore, it does not support fault detection at run time. We suggest an approach towards formal safety, compliance and fault detection at run time via an auditor. The auditor is automatically fed out of the engineering and production process by a suitable abstract specification and respective model of the car and can detect then detect violations and faulty components.

References

  1. 1.
    ISO/DIS 26262–1 - Road vehicles Functional safety Part 1 Glossary, July 2009Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO/DIS 26262–7 - Road vehicles Functional safety Part 7 Production and operation (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ElMaraghy, H., Schuh, G., ElMaraghy, W., Piller, F., Schönsleben, P., Tseng, M., Bernard, A.: Product variety management. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 62(2), 629–652 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghadhab, M., Kuntz, M., Kuvaiskii, D., Fetzer, C.: A controller safety concept based on software-implemented fault tolerance for fail-operational automotive applications. In: Artho, C. (ed.) FTSCS 2015. CCIS, vol. 596, pp. 189–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29510-7_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heffernan, D., Macnamee, C., Fogarty, P.: Runtime verification monitoring for automotive embedded systems using the ISO 26262 functional safety standard as a guide for the definition of the monitored properties. IET Softw. 8(5), 193–203 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Junk, C., Rößger, R., Rock, G., Theis, K., Weidenbach, C., Wischnewski, P.: Model-based variant management with v. control. In: Curran, R., Wognum, N., Borsato, M., Stjepandic, J., Verhagen, W.J. C. (eds.) Transdisciplinary Lifecycle Analysis of Systems - Proceedings of the 22nd ISPE Inc., International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands, July 20–23, 2015, vol. 2 of Advances in Transdisciplinary Engineering, pp. 194–203. IOS Press (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mendonça, M., Wasowski, A., Czarnecki, K.: SAT-based analysis of feature models is easy. In: Muthig, D., McGregor, J.D. (eds.) Software Product Lines, 13th International Conference, SPLC 2009, San Francisco, California, USA, August 24–28, 2009, Proceedings, vol. 446 of ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pp. 231–240. ACM (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christof Fetzer
    • 1
  • Christoph Weidenbach
    • 2
  • Patrick Wischnewski
    • 3
  1. 1.Technical University DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for InformaticsSaarbrückenGermany
  3. 3.Logic4Business GmbHSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations