Advertisement

Characterization of Failure Effects on AADL Models

  • Bernhard Ern
  • Viet Yen Nguyen
  • Thomas Noll
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8153)

Abstract

Prior works on model-based Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) automatically generate a FMEA table given the system model, a set of failure modes, and a set of possible effects. The last requirement is critical as bias may occur: since the considered failure effects are restricted to the anticipated ones, unexpected effects - the most interesting ones - are disregarded in the FMEA.

In this paper, we propose and investigate formal concepts that aim to overcome this bias. They support the construction of FMEA tables solely based on the system model and the failure modes, i.e., without requiring the set of effects as input. More concretely, given a system specification in the Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL), we show how to derive relations that characterize the effects of failures based on the state transition system of that specification. We also demonstrate the benefits and limitations of these concepts on a satellite case study.

Keywords

Error Model Transition System Fault Injection Fault Tree Analysis Orbit Control 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Architecture, Analysis and Design Language AS5506. SAE (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bozzano, M., Cimatti, A., Katoen, J.-P., Nguyen, V.Y., Noll, T., Roveri, M.: Safety, Dependability and Performance Analysis of Extended AADL Models. Computer Journal 54(5), 754–775 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Diekert, V., Rozenberg, G. (eds.): The Book of Traces. World Scientific, Singapore (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ern, B.: Model-Based Criticality Analysis by Impact Isolation. Master’s thesis. RWTH Aachen University (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Esteve, M.-A., Katoen, J.-P., Nguyen, V.Y., Postma, B., Yushtein, Y.: Formal Correctness, Safety, Dependability and Performance Analysis of a Satellite. In: Proc. 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2012), pp. 1022–1031 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flanagan, C., Godefroid, P.: Dynamic partial-order reduction for model checking software. In: Proc. 32nd Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2005), pp. 110–121 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hecht, M., Lam, A., Vogl, C., Dimpfl, C.: A Tool Set for Generation of Failure Modes and Effects Analyses from AADL Models. Presentation at Systems and Software Technology Conference 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley Professional (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Odenbrett, M.R.: Explicit-State Model Checking of an Architectural Design Language using SPIN. Diplomarbeit. RWTH Aachen University (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Winskel, G.: Events, Causality and Symmetry. Computer Journal 54(1), 42–57 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Ern
    • 1
  • Viet Yen Nguyen
    • 2
  • Thomas Noll
    • 2
  1. 1.Next Level Integration GmbHCologneGermany
  2. 2.RWTH Aachen UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations