ExplicitCase: Integrated Model-Based Development of System and Safety Cases

  • Carmen Cârlan
  • Simon Barner
  • Alexander Diewald
  • Alexandros Tsalidis
  • Sebastian Voss
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10489)

Abstract

Tools for creating safety cases currently on the market target safety experts, whose main concern is the management of safety cases. However, for safety assurance, safety experts should collaborate with technical experts, who have better understanding of technical and operational hazards. Thus, there should be a closer collaboration between the management of safety cases and technical expertise. Technical expertise may be retrieved, among others, from model-based system artifacts and processes. In order to close the gap between safety and technical expertise, we present ExplicitCase, an open-source tool for semi-automatic modeling, maintenance, and verification of safety cases integrated with system models. The advantage of this tool is two-fold. First, it enables its users to capture safety relevant information from model-based artifacts into safety cases. Second, it makes the safety cases rationale available to engineers in order to help them reason about design choices, while minding safety concerns. We evaluate the approach and the implemented tool based on the experiences obtained in a project use case.

Keywords

Safety cases Goal Structuring Notation System models 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program FP7/2007–2013 under grant agreement no. 610640. We thank Fernando Eizaguirre and Carlos-F. Nicolás from IK4-IKERLAN for their valuable feedback on applying ExplicitCase in the context of the DREAMS project.

References

  1. 1.
    Adelard safety case editor. http://www.adelard.com/asce/
  2. 2.
    DREAMS FP7 project. http://dreams-project.eu
  3. 3.
    GSN community standard version 1, November 2011. http://www.goalstructuringnotation.info/documents/GSN_Standard.pdf
  4. 4.
    Aravantinos, V., Voss, S., Teufl, S., Hölzl, F., Schätz, B.: AutoFOCUS 3: Tooling concepts for seamless, model-based development of embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop Model-Based Architecture Cyber-Physical Embeded System, pp. 19–26 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barner, S., Diewald, A., Eizaguirre, F., Vasilevskiy, A., Chauvel, F.: Building product-lines of mixed-criticality systems. In: Proceedings of the Forum Specification and Design Languages (FDL 2016). IEEE, Bremen, September 2016Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bloomfield, R., Bishop, P.: Safety and assurance cases: past, present and possible future - an Adelard perspective. In: Dale, C., Anderson, T. (eds.) Making Systems Safer, pp. 51–67. Springer, London (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-1-84996-086-1_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Denney, E., Pai, G., Pohl, J.: AdvoCATE: an assurance case automation toolset. In: Ortmeier, F., Daniel, P. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7613, pp. 8–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33675-1_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DREAMS consortium: Architectural style of DREAMS. D1.2.1, July 2014Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gleirscher, M., Cârlan, C.: Arguing from hazard analysis in safety cases: a modular argument pattern. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering, January 2017Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hawkins, R., Habli, I., Kolovos, D., Paige, R., Kelly, T.: Weaving an assurance case from design: a model-based approach. In: IEEE 16th International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE) (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO/TC 22: ISO/DIS 26262–1 - Road vehicles Functional safety Part 2 Management of Functional Safety. Technical report, Technical Committee 22, Geneva, Switzerland, July 2009Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Larrucea, A., Perez, J., Agirre, I., Brocal, V., Obermaisser, R.: A modular safety case for an IEC 61508 compliant generic hypervisor. In: Proceedings fo the Euromicro Conference on Digital System Design (DSD), pp. 571–574. IEEE, August 2015Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larrucea, A., Perez, J., Obermaisser, R.: A modular safety case for an IEC 61508 compliant generic COTS processor. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on CIT/IUCC/DASC/PICOM, pp. 1788–1795. IEEE, October 2015Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Matsuno, Y.: D-case editor: a typed assurance case editor. University of Tokyo (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perez, J., Gonzalez, D., Trujillo, S., Trapman, T.: A safety concept for an IEC-61508 compliant fail-safe wind power mixed-criticality system based on multicore and partitioning. In: de la Puente, J.A., Vardanega, T. (eds.) Ada-Europe 2015. LNCS, vol. 9111, pp. 3–17. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19584-1_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rinehart, D.J., Knight, J.C., Rowanhill, J.: Understanding what it means for assurance cases to “work”. Technical report, NASA/CR-2017-219582, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, United States (2017). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170003806.pdf
  17. 17.
    Voss, S., Schätz, B., Khalil, M., Cârlan, C.: Towards modular certification using integrated model-based safety cases. In: Proceedings of the Workshop Verification and Assurance, July 2013Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carmen Cârlan
    • 1
  • Simon Barner
    • 1
  • Alexander Diewald
    • 1
  • Alexandros Tsalidis
    • 1
  • Sebastian Voss
    • 1
  1. 1.fortiss GmbHMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations