Integrating Safety Analyses and Component-Based Design

  • Dominik Domis
  • Mario Trapp
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5219)

Abstract

In recent years, awareness of how software impacts safety has increased rapidly. Instead of regarding software as a black box, more and more standards demand safety analyses of software architectures and software design. Due to the complexity of software-intensive embedded systems, safety analyses easily become very complex, time consuming, and error prone. To overcome these problems, safety analyses have to be integrated into the complete development process as tightly as possible. This paper introduces an approach to integrating safety analyses into a component-oriented, model-based software engineering approach. The reasons for this are twofold: First, component- and model-based development have already been proven in practical use to handle complexity and reduce effort. Second, they easily support the integration of functional and non-functional properties into design, which can be used to integrate safety analyses.

References

  1. 1.
    IEC 61508: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems, International Electrotechnical Commission (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    MISRA: Guidelines for safety analysis of vehicle based programmable systems, MIRA Limited, Warwickshire (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lisagor, O., McDermid, J.A., Pumfrey, D.J.: Towards a Practicable Process for Automated Safety Analysis. In: 24th International System Safety Conference, pp. 596–607 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bozzano, M., Villafiorita, A.: ESACS: An Integrated Methodology for Design and Safety Analysis of Complex Systems. In: 14th European Safety and Reliability Conference, pp. 237–245. Balkema Publishers, Maastricht (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bretschneider, M., Holberg, H.-J., Peikenkamp, T., Böde, E., Brückner, I., Spenke, H.: Model-based Safety Analysis of a Flap Control System. In: Proceedings of the INCOSE 2004 – 14th Annual International Symposium, Toulouse (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Papadopoulos, Y., McDermid, J.A.: Hierarchically Performed Hazard Origin and Propagation Studies. In: Felici, M., Kanoun, K., Pasquini, A. (eds.) 18th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security. LNCS, vol. 1608, pp. 139–152. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grunske, L., Kaiser, B.: Automatic Generation of Analyzable Failure Propagation Models from Component-Level Failure Annotations. In: 5th IEEE International Conference on Quality Software, pp. 117–123. IEEE Computer Society Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grunske, L.: Towards an Integration of Standard Component-Based Safety Evaluation Techniques with SaveCCM. In: Hofmeister, C., Crnković, I., Reussner, R. (eds.) QoSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4214, pp. 199–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wallnau, K.C.: Volume III: A Technology for Predictable Assembly from Certifiable Components (PACC). Technical report CMU/SEI-2003-TR-009, Pittsburg, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Damm, W., Votintseva, A., Metzner, A., Josko, B., Peikenkamp, T., Böde, E.: Boosting Re-use of Embedded Automotive Applications Through Rich Components. In: Proceedings of the Foundation of Interface Technology Workshop. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Atkinson, C., Bayer, J., Bunse, C., Kamsties, E., Laitenberger, O., Laqua, R., Muthig, D., Peach, B., Wüst, J., Zettel, J.: Component-based Product Line Engineering with UML. Addison-Wesley, London (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pumfrey, D.J.: The Principled Design of Computer System Safety Analyses, DPhil Thesis, University of York (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giese, H., Tichy, M., Schilling, D.: Compositional Hazard Analysis of UML Component and Deployment Models. In: Heisel, M., Liggesmeyer, P., Wittmann, S. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3219, pp. 166–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaiser, B., Liggesmeyer, P., Mäckel, O.: A New Component Concept for Fault Trees. In: Lindsay, P., Cant, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th Australian workshop on Safety critical systems and software, Canberra, vol. 33, pp. 37–46. Australian Computer Society (to be published, 2003); Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology SeriesGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    MathWorks, Simulink: Simulation and Model-Based Design, www.mathworks.com
  16. 16.
    Embedded Systems Safety and Reliability Analyser (ESSaRel), http://www.essarel.de
  17. 17.
    Isograph: Fault Tree Analysis Software - FaultTree, http://www.isograph.com

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dominik Domis
    • 1
  • Mario Trapp
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software EngineeringKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations