Formal Architecture Based Design Analysis for Certifying SWS RTOS

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 385)

Abstract

In recent times Formal Techniques have been strongly recommended in the engineering life-cycle of safety -critical systems. With this, Architecture Analysis & Design Language (AADL) is a widely spectrum accepted architecture modeling language that can be wrap with Formal Modeling techniques, that proficiently helps in the design of a safety-critical system and circumscribes various analytical features for modeling the hardware and software architecture/s, against the required as per the guidelines set aside in RTCA DO-178C (333- Formal Based Modeling). This paper discusses the use of architecture modeling language along with formal based techniques for the analysis of RTOS architecture which is important in the correct implement of the given requirements. The architecture of the RTOS is expressed and analyzed using AADL. A suitable case study such as Stall Warning System/Aircraft Interface Computer (SWS/AIC), RTOS scheduler is modeled and analyzed. The analysis of results are mapped to the workflow prescribed in RTCA DO-178C for generating the certificate artifact and establishing the effectiveness of architecture based design analysis in the software engineering process.

Keywords

Safety-Critical system Multi-function RTOS Formal method Architecture analysis & design language (AADL) SWS/AIC Certification artifacts 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bieber, P., Boniol, F., Boyer, M., Noulard, E., Pagetti, C.: New Challenges for Future Avionic Architectures (4), May 2012. pp10Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dobrica, L., Niemelä, E.: A Survey on Software Architecture Analysis Method. Ieee Transactions on Software Engineering 28(7), July 2002. pp10Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dhage, S.: Qualification of RTOS for safety critical systems using formal methods. INDIAcom 2015. pp12Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singhoff, F., Legrand, J., Nana, L.: Scheduling and memory requirements analysis with AADL. In: International Conference Proceedings, November 13–17, 2005. pp11Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Designing Safety-Critical Avionics Software Using Open Standards. http://www.google.com.unpublished
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Donini, R., Marrone, S., Mazzocca, N., Orazzo, A., Papa, D., Venticinque, S.: Testing complex safety- critical systems in SOA Context, November 12, 2007. pp8Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alexander, R., Alexander-Bown, R., Kelly, T.: Engineering Safety-Critical Complex Systems. http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/nature/tuna/outputs/finalreport.pdf, pp27
  9. 9.
    Correa, T., Becker, L.B., Farines, J.-M.: Supporting the design of safety critical systems using AADL. In: 2010 15th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, pp. 331–336. pp6Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knight, J.C.: Safety critical systems: challenges and directions. In: Proceedings of the 24rd International Conference on ICSE 2002 (2002). ieeexplore.ieee.org, pp4Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nordhoff, S.: DO-178C/ED-12C the new software standards for avionics industry: goal, changes and challenges. http://www.sqs.com, pp26
  12. 12.
    Feiler, P.H., Gluch, D.P., Hudak, J.J., Lewis, B.A.: Embedded System Architecture Analysis Using SAE AADL, June 2004. Technical Note, CMU/SEI-2004-TN-005, pp45Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Adalog, J.-P.R., Axlog, J.-F.T.: AADL Workshop, October 17–18, 2005. 2005 Overview of AADL SyntaxGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Casteres, J., Ramaherirariny, T.: Aircraft integration real-time simulator modeling with AADL for architecture tradeoffs, pp. 346–351 (2009). pp6Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rammig, F., Ditze, M., Janacik, P., Heimfarth, T., Kerstan, T., Oberthuer, S., Stahl, K.: Basic Concepts of Real Time Operating systems. Hardware-Dependent Software, Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 16–44 (2009). pp28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    RTCA DO-178C Software Consideration in Airborne Systems and Equipment CertificationGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    RTCA DO-333 Formal Method Supplement to DO-178C and DO-278AGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Formal Methods for Software Architectures: Software Architectures, SFM 2003, Bertinoro, Italy, September 22–27, 2003. http://www.springer.com
  19. 19.
    Cofer, D.: “DO-178C”, High Confidence Software & Systems Conference, May 8, 2012. pp33Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang, Y., Ngolah, C.F.: Formal Description of a Real-Time Operating System using RTPA, vol. 2, pp. 1247–1250, May 4–7, 2003. pp3Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    CSIR-NAL: Software Design Description (SWDD) of SARAS aircraftGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Noll, T.: Safety, dependability and performance analysis of aerospace systems. In: Third International Workshop on Formal Techniques for Safety-Critical Systems (FTSCS 2014) November 1–5, 2014Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fisher, K.: Using Formal Methods to Enable More Secure Vehicles: DARPA’s HACMS Program, September 16, 2014Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hugues, J., Singhoff, F.: AADLv2: an Architecture Description Language for the Analysis and Generation of Embedded Systems. ISAE, FranceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yalamati Ramoji Rao
    • 1
  • Manju Nanda
    • 2
  • J. Jayanthi
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Science and TechnologyJNTUK-Kakinda UniversityKakinadaIndia
  2. 2.CSIR- National Aerospace LaboratoriesBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations