Integration of Component Fault Trees into the UML

  • Rasmus Adler
  • Dominik Domis
  • Kai Höfig
  • Sören Kemmann
  • Thomas Kuhn
  • Jean-Pascal Schwinn
  • Mario Trapp
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6627)

Abstract

Efficient safety analyses of complex software intensive embedded systems are still a challenging task. This article illustrates how model-driven development principles can be used in safety engineering to reduce cost and effort. To this end, the article shows how well accepted safety engineering approaches can be shifted to the level of model-driven development by integrating safety models into functional development models. Namely, we illustrate how UML profiles, model transformations, and techniques for multi language development can be used to seamlessly integrate component fault trees into the UML.

References

  1. 1.
    Bernat, G., Burns, A., Newby, M.: Probabilistic timing analysis: An approach using copulas. J. Embedded Comput. 1, 179–194 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernat, G., Colin, A., Petters, S.: pWCET: A tool for probabilistic worst-case execution time analysis of real-time systems. Technical report (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bozzano, M.: ESACS: An integrated methodology for design and safety analysis of complex systems. In: Proc. of European Safety and Reliability Conf. ESREL, pp. 237–245 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuenot, P., Chen, D., Gérard, S., Lönn, H., Reiser, M.-O., Servat, D., Kolagari, R.T., Törngren, M., Weber, M.: Towards improving dependability of automotive systems by using the east-adl architecture description language, pp. 39–65 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Damm, W., Votintseva, A., Metzner, A., Josko, B., Peikenkamp, T., Bde, E.: Boosting Re-use of Embedded Automotive Applications Through Rich Components. In: Proceedings, FIT 2005 - Foundations of Interface Technologies (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Miguel, M.A., Briones, J.F., Silva, J.P., Alonso, A.: Integration of safety analysis in model-driven software development. Software, IET 2(3), 260–280 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dingel, J., Diskin, Z., Zito, A.: Understanding and improving UML package merge. Software and Systems Modeling 7(4), 443–467 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Essarel homepage, http://www.essarel.de/index.html (last accessed on 2010/08/02)
  9. 9.
    Ganesh, P., Dugan, J.: Automatic Synthesis of Dynamic Fault Trees from UML SystemModels. In: 13th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE) (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grunske, L.: Towards an Integration of Standard Component-Based Safety Evaluation Techniques with SaveCCM. In: Proc. Conf.Quality of Software Architectures QoSA, vol. 4214 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Isograph homepage, http://www.isograph-software.com/ftpover.htm (last accessed on 2010/08/02)
  12. 12.
    Joshi, A., Heimdahl, M., Steven, M., Whalen, M.: Model-Based Safety Analysis (2006) NASAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaiser, B., Liggesmeyer, P., Mäckel, O.: A new component concept for fault trees. In: Proceedings of the 8th Australian Workshop on Safety Critical Systems and Software (SCS 2003), Adelaide, pp. 37–46 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaiser, B., Zocher, A.: Bdd complexity reduction by component fault trees. In: Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2005), Adelaide, pp. 1011–1019. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuhn, T., Kemmann, S., Trapp, M., Schaefer, C.: Multi-language development of embedded systems. In: 9th OOPSLA DSM Workshop, Orlando, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liggesmeyer, P., Rothfelder, M.: Improving system reliability with automatic fault tree generation. In: Twenty-Eighth Annual International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing. Digest of Papers, pp. 90–99, 23-25 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Magicdraw homepage, http://www.nomagic.com/ (last accessed on 2010/08/02)
  18. 18.
    Papadopoulos, Y., Maruhn, M.: Model-Based Automated Synthesis of Fault Trees from Matlab.Simulink Models. In: International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rugina, A.: System Dependability Evaluation using AADL (Architecture Analysis and Design Language) (2005) LAAS-CNRSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rasmus Adler
    • 1
  • Dominik Domis
    • 2
  • Kai Höfig
    • 2
  • Sören Kemmann
    • 1
  • Thomas Kuhn
    • 1
  • Jean-Pascal Schwinn
    • 3
  • Mario Trapp
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer IESEGermany
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of KaiserslauternGermany
  3. 3.Siemens AG, Corporate Research and TechnologiesGermany

Personalised recommendations