Compositional Hazard Analysis of UML Component and Deployment Models

  • Holger Giese
  • Matthias Tichy
  • Daniela Schilling
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3219)


The general trend towards complex technical systems with embedded software results in an increasing demand for dependable high quality software. The UML as an advanced object-oriented technology provides in principle the essential concepts which are required to handle the increasing complexity of these safety-critical software systems. However, the current and forthcoming UML versions do not directly apply to the outlined problem. Available hazard analysis techniques on the other hand do not provide the required degree of integration with software design notations. To narrow the gap between safety-critical system development and UML techniques, the presented approach supports the compositional hazard analysis of UML models described by restricted component and deployment diagrams. The approach permits to systematically identify which hazards and failures are most serious, which components or set of components require a more detailed safety analysis, and which restrictions to the failure propagation are assumed in the UML design.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    McDermid, J.A.: Trends in Systems Safety: A European View? In: Lindsay, P. (ed.) Seventh Australian Workshop on Industrial Experience with Safety Critical Systems and Software, Adelaide, Australia. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, vol. 15, pp. 3–8. ACS (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McDermid, J., Pumfrey, D.: Software Safety: Why is there no Consensus? In: Proceedings of the 19th International System Safety Conference, Huntsville, AL, USA, pp. 17–25 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fenelon, P., McDermid, J.A., Nicolson, M., Pumfrey, D.J.: Towards integrated safety analysis and design. ACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review 2, 21–32 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Papadopoulos, Y., McDermid, J.R., Sasse, B., Heiner, G.: Analysis and synthesis of the behaviour of complex programmable electronic systems in conditions of failure. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 71, 229–247 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaiser, B., Liggesmeyer, P., Maeckel, O.: A New Component Concept for Fault Trees. In: Proceedings of the 8th National Workshop on Safety Critical Systems and Software (SCS 2003), Canberra, Australia, October 9-10. Research and Practice in Information Technology, vol. 33 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grunske, L., Neumann, R.: Quality Improvement by Integrating Non-Functional Properties in Software Architecture Specification. In: Proc. of the SecondWorkshop on Evaluating and Architecting System dependability (EASY), San Jose, California, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grunske, L.: Annotation of Component Specifications with Modular Analysis Models for Safety Properties. In: Overhage, S., Turowski, K. (eds.) Proc. of the 1st Int. Workshop on Component Engineering Methodology, Erfurt, Germany (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Object Management Group: UML2.0 Superstructure Specification, Document ptc/03-08-02 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Szyperski, C.: Component Software, Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McDermid, J., Pumfrey, D.: A Development of Hazard Analysis to aid Software Design. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference on Computer Assurance (COMPASS 1994), Gaithersburg, MD, USA, pp. 17–25 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ogata, K.: Modern control engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1990)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Selic, B., Gullekson, G., Ward, P.: Real-Time Object-Oriented Modeling. John Wiley and Sons Inc., Chichester (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Birolini, A.: Reliability engineering: theory and practice, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laprie, J.C. (ed.): Dependability: basic concepts and terminology in English, French, German, Italian and Japanese [IFIP WG10.4, Dependable Computing and Fault Tolerance]. Dependable computing and fault tolerant systems, vol. 5. Springer, Wien (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rauzy, A.: A new methodology to handle Boolean models with loops. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 52, 96–105 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Electrotechnical Commission Geneva. International Standard IEC 61025. Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Switzerland (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bryant, R.E.: Symbolic Boolean manipulation with ordered binary-decision diagrams. ACM Computing Surveys 24, 293–318 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coudert, O., Madre, J.: Fault tree analysis: 1020 prime implicants and beyond. In: Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Atlanta, GA, USA, pp. 240–245. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Madre, J., Coudert, O., Fraisse, H., Bouissou, M.: Application of a new logically complete ATMSto digraph and network-connectivity analysis. In: Proceedings of theAnnual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Anaheim, CA, USA, pp. 118–123. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giese, H., Burmester, S., Klein, F., Schilling, D., Tichy, M.: Multi-Agent System Design for Safety-Critical Self-Optimizing Mechatronic Systems with UML. In: Henderson-Sellers, B., Debenham, J. (eds.) OOPSLA 2003 - Second InternationalWorkshop on Agent-Oriented Methodologies,Anaheim, CA, USA, Center for Object TechnologyApplications and Research (COTAR), University of Technology, Sydney, Australia (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hawkins, R.D., McDermid, J.A.: Performing Hazard and Safety Analysis of Object Oriented Systems. In: Proceedings of the 20th System Safety Conference (ISSC 2002), Denver, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giese, H., Tichy, M., Burmester, S., Schäfer, W., Flake, S.: Towards the Compositional Verification of Real-Time UML Designs. In: Proc. of the European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC), Helsinki, Finland. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holger Giese
    • 1
  • Matthias Tichy
    • 1
  • Daniela Schilling
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Engineering GroupUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations