Advertisement

SafeDeML: On Integrating the Safety Design into the System Model

  • Tim GonschorekEmail author
  • Philipp Bergt
  • Marco Filax
  • Frank Ortmeier
  • Jan von Hoyningen-Hüne
  • Thorsten Piper
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11698)

Abstract

The safety design definition of a safety critical system is a complex task. On the one hand, the system designer must ensure that he addressed all potentially hazardous harwdware faults. This is often defined not(!) in the model but within extra documents (e.g., Excel sheets). On the other hand, all defined safety mechanisms must be transformed back into the system model. We think an improvement for the designer would be given by a modeling extension integrating relevant safety design artifacts into the normal design work-flow and supporting the safety design development directly from within the model.

To address this issue, we developed the UML-profile SafeDeML extending standard SysML such that it integrates the fault modeling into the system modeling. In addition, we defined a modeling process with special attention to the Iso 26262 standard. Therefore we introduce special elements for the diagnosis, modeling required safety mechanisms within the model and developed a library for standard Iso 26262 faults and corresponding hardware components, intended to lower the potential of missing important fault definitions.

Keywords

Model-based system design SysML extension for the automotive domain Safety design according to Iso 26262 

References

  1. 1.
    Road vehicles - Functional safety: Part(X): StandardGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adler, R., et al.: Integration of component fault trees into the UML. In: Dingel, J., Solberg, A. (eds.) MODELS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6627, pp. 312–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21210-9_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Avižienis, A., Laprie, J.-C., Randell, B.: Dependability and its threats: a taxonomy. In: Jacquart, R. (ed.) Building the Information Society. IFIP, vol. 156, pp. 91–120. Springer, Boston (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8157-6_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernardi, S., Merseguer, J., Petriu, D.C.: A dependability profile within MARTE. Softw. Syst. Model. 10(3), 313–336 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biggs, G., Juknevicius, T., Armonas, A., Post, K.: Integrating Safety and Reliability Analysis into MBSE: overview of the new proposed OMG standard. INCOSE Int. Symp. 28(1), 1322–1336 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biggs, G., Sakamoto, T., Kotoku, T.: 2A2-I06 SafeML: a model-based tool for communicating safety information (Robotics with Safety and Reliability). In: Proceedings of Robomec 2013(0), \(\_\)2A2-I06\(\_\)1-\(\_\)2A2-I06\(\_\)4 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biggs, G., Sakamoto, T., Kotoku, T.: A profile and tool for modelling safety information with design information in SysML. Softw. Syst. Model. 15(1), 147–178 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cicchetti, A., et al.: CHESS: a model-driven engineering tool environment for aiding the development of complex industrial systems. In: Goedicke, M., Menzies, T., Saeki, M. (eds.) Proceedings of ASE, p. 362. IEEE, Piscataway (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fuentes-Fernández, L., Vallecillo-Moreno, A.: An introduction to UML profiles. UML Model Eng. 2, 6–13 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gallina, B., Javed, M.A., Muram, F.U., Punnekkat, S.: A model-driven dependability analysis method for component-based architectures. In: Proceedings of Euromicro DSD/SEAA, pp. 233–240 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grunske, L., Kaiser, B., Papadopoulos, Y.: Model-driven safety evaluation with state-event-based component failure annotations. In: Heineman, G.T., Crnkovic, I., Schmidt, H.W., Stafford, J.A., Szyperski, C., Wallnau, K. (eds.) CBSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3489, pp. 33–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11424529_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaiser, B., Liggesmeyer, P., Mäckel, O.: A new component concept for fault trees. In: Proceedings of SCS, pp. 37–46 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Langenhan, T.: Still basic guide to automotive functional safety. epubli, Berlin, version 2 edn. (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moncada, V., Santiago, V.: Towards proper tool support for component-oriented and model-based development of safety critical systems. In: Commercial Vehicle Technology 2016, pp. 365–374. Shaker Verlag, Aachen (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montecchi, L., Lollini, P., Bondavalli, A.: Dependability concerns in model-driven engineering. In: Proceedings of ISORC, pp. 254–263. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Papadopoulos, Y., McDermid, J.A.: Hierarchically performed hazard origin and propagation studies. In: Felici, M., Kanoun, K. (eds.) SAFECOMP 1999. LNCS, vol. 1698, pp. 139–152. Springer, Heidelberg (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48249-0_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Papadopoulos, Y., et al.: Engineering failure analysis and design optimisation with HiP-HOPS. Eng. Fail. Anal. 18(2), 590–608 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ross, H.L.: Functional Safety for Road Vehicles. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified modeling language reference manual. Pearson Higher Education (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Selic, B., Gérard, S.: Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time and Embedded Systems with UML and MARTE: Developing Cyber-Physical Systems. Elsevier (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mazzini, S., Favaro, J.M., Puri, S., Baracchi, L.: CHESS: an open source methodology and toolset for the development of critical systems. In: EduSymp/OSS4MDE@MoDELS (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weilkiens, T.: SysML–the systems modeling language. In: The MK/OMG Press (ed.) Systems Engineering with SysML/UML, pp. 223–270. Elsevier (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Otto von Guericke UniversityMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.Xitaso Engineering GmbHMagdeburgGermany
  3. 3.Conti Temic microelectronic GmbHMarkdorfGermany
  4. 4.Continental Automotive GmbHRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations