Advertisement

Integrating Safety Design Artifacts into System Development Models Using SafeDeML

  • Tim GonschorekEmail author
  • Philipp Bergt
  • Marco Filax
  • Frank Ortmeier
Conference paper
  • 186 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11842)

Abstract

Applying a safety artifact language as Safety Design Modeling Language SafeDeML integrates the generation of the safety design into the system modeling stage – directly within the system architecture. In this paper, we present a modeling process and a prototype for the CASE tool Enterprise Architect for SafeDeML. The goal is to support the system designer in developing a standard (in this paper Iso 26262) conform system and safety design containing all relevant safety artifact within one model. Such integration offers several modeling guarantees like consistency checks or computation of coverage and fault metrics. Since all relevant information and artifacts are contained within the model, SafeDeML and the prototype can help to decrease the effect of structural faults during the safety design and further supports the safety assessment. To give an idea to the reader of the complexity of the approach’s application, we present an exemplary implementation of the safety design for a brake light system, a real case-study from the Iso 26262 context.

Keywords

Safety design for critical systems Model-based safety assessment for ISO 26262 Safety design integration 

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. IIFIP, vol. 156, pp. 91–120. Springer, Boston, MA (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8157-6_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Behrmann, G., et al.: Uppaal 4.0. In: Proceedings of QEST, pp. 125–126 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernardi, S., Merseguer, J., Petriu, D.C.: A dependability profile within MARTE. Softw. Syst. Model. 10(3), 313–336 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biggs, G., Juknevicius, T., Armonas, A., Post, K.: Integrating safety and reliability analysis into MBSE: overview of the new proposed OMG standard. In: INCOSE International Symposium, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1322–1336 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biggs, G., Sakamoto, T., Kotoku, T.: 2A2-I06 SafeML: A model-based tool for communicating safety information (robotics with safety and reliability). Proc. Robomec 2013(0), \(\_\)2A2-I06\(\_\)1–\(\_\)2A2-I06\(\_\)4 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Filax, M., Gonschorek, T., Ortmeier, F.: Correct formalization of requirement specifications: a V-model for building formal models. In: Lecomte, T., Pinger, R., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) RSSRail 2016. LNCS, vol. 9707, pp. 106–122. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33951-1_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Filax, M., Gonschorek, T., Ortmeier, F.: Building models we can rely on: requirements traceability for model-based verification techniques. In: Bozzano, M., Papadopoulos, Y. (eds.) IMBSA 2017. LNCS, vol. 10437, pp. 3–18. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64119-5_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Gonschorek, T., Bergt, P., Filax, M., Ortmeier, F., von Hoyningen-Hüne, J., Piper, T.: SafeDeML: On integrating the safety design into the system model. In: Romanovsky, A., Troubitsyna, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2019. LNCS, vol. 11698, pp. 271–285. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26601-1_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gonschorek, T., Filax, M., Lipaczewski, M., Ortmeier, F.: VECS - verification enviroment for critical systems - tool supported formal modeling and verification. In: IMBSA 2014: Short & Tutorial Proceedings. Otto von Guericke University, Magdeburg (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Kaiser, B., Liggesmeyer, P., Mäckel, O.: A new component concept for fault trees. In: Proceedings of SCS, pp. 37–46 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Langenhan, T.: Still Basic Guide to Automotive Functional Safety, 2nd edn. Epubli, Berlin (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Montecchi, L., Lollini, P., Bondavalli, A.: Dependability concerns in model-driven engineering. In: Proceedings of ISORC, pp. 254–263. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Papadopoulos, Y., et al.: Engineering failure analysis and design optimisation with HiP-HOPS. Eng. Fail. Anal. 18(2), 590–608 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ross, H.L.: Functional Safety for Road Vehicles. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33361-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Selic, B., Gérard, S.: Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time and Embedded Systems with UML and MARTE: Developing Cyber-Physical Systems. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Stamatis, D.H.: Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution. ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Otto von Guericke UniversityMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.Xitaso Engineering GmbHMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations