Advertisement

Model Based Importance Analysis for Minimal Cut Sets

  • Eckard Böde
  • Thomas Peikenkamp
  • Jan Rakow
  • Samuel Wischmeyer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5311)

Abstract

We show how fault injection together with recent advances in stochastic model checking can be combined to form a crucial ingredient for improving quantitative safety analysis. Based on standard design notations (Statecharts) annotated with fault occurrence distributions we compute to what extent certain fault configurations contribute to the probability of reaching a safety-critical state.

Keywords

Fault Tree Label Transition System Fault Injection Sensor Fault Transient Fault 
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.
    Åkerlund, O., et al.: ISAAC, a framework for integrated safety analyses of functional, geometrical and human aspects. ERTS (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vesely, W.E., Dugan, J., Fragola, J., Minarick III, J., Railsback, J.: Fault Tree Handbook with Aerospace Applications. National Aeronatics and Space Administration (August 2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peikenkamp, T., Cavallo, A., Valacca, L., Böde, E., Pretzer, M., Hahn, E.M.: Towards a unified model-based safety assessment. In: Górski, J. (ed.) SAFECOMP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4166, pp. 275–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Böde, E., Herbstritt, M., Hermanns, H., Johr, S., Peikenkamp, T., Pulungan, R., Wimmer, R., Becker, B.: Compositional performability evaluation for statemate. In: 3rd International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, QEST 2006, Riverside (USA), pp. 167–178. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Böde, E., Herbstritt, M., Hermanns, H., Johr, S., Peikenkamp, T., Pulungan, R., Rakow, J., Wimmer, R., Becker, B.: Compositional performability evaluation for statemate. In: Quantitative Evaluation of Computer Systems - Special issue of IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (to appear, 2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harel, D., Politi, M.: Modelling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hermanns, H., Katoen, J.P.: Automated compositional markov chain generation for a plain-old telephone system. Science of Computer Programming 36(1), 97–127 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pulungan, R., Hermanns, H.: Orthogonal distance fitting for phase-type distributions. Reports of SFB/TR 14 AVACS 10, SFB/TR 14 AVACS (November 2006) ISSN: 1860-9821, http://www.avacs.org
  9. 9.
    Hermanns, H.: Interactive Markov Chains – The Quest for Quantified Quality. LNCS, vol. 2428. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hermanns, H., Johr, S.: Uniformity by construction in the analysis of nondeterministic stochastic systems. In: International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, DSN 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boudali, H., Crouzen, P., Stoelinga, M.: Dynamic fault tree analysis using input/output interactive markov chains. In: DSN 2007: Proceedings of the 37th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 708–717. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harel, D., Naamad, A.: The STATEMATE semantics of statecharts. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5(4), 293–333 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Milner, R.: A Calculus of Communicating Systems. LNCS, vol. 92. Springer, Heidelberg (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glabbeek, R., Weijland, W.P.: Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics. Journal of the ACM 43(3), 555–600 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wimmer, R., Herbstritt, M., Hermanns, H., Strampp, K., Becker, B.: Sigref – a symbolic bisimulation tool box. In: Graf, S., Zhang, W. (eds.) ATVA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4218, pp. 477–492. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hermanns, H., Johr, S.: May we reach it? or must we? in what time? with what probability? In: Proceedings 14th GI/ITG Conference on Measuring, Modelling and Evaluation of Computer and Communication Systems (MMB 2008), Dortmund, Germany, March 31 - April 2, 2008, VDE Verlag (to appear, 2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johr, S.: Model Checking Compositional Markov Systems. PhD thesis, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katoen, J.P., Khattri, M., Zapreev, I.S.: A markov reward model checker. In: Second International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluaiton of Systems (QEST 2005), Torino, Italy, 19-22 September 2005, pp. 243–244. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ERTMS User Group, UNISIG: ETCS Application Level 2 - Safety Analysis - Part 1 - Functional Fault Tree. Technical report, ALCATEL,ALSTOM,ANSALDO SIGNAL,BOMBARDIER,INVENSYS RAIL,SIEMENSGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R.: An overview of CADP 2001. European Assoc. for Software Science and Technology (EASST) Newsletter 4, 13–24 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    BCG_MIN: Project Website (March 2006), http://www.inrialpes.fr/vasy/cadp/man/bcg_min.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eckard Böde
    • 1
  • Thomas Peikenkamp
    • 1
  • Jan Rakow
    • 2
  • Samuel Wischmeyer
    • 2
  1. 1.OFFIS e.V.OldenburgGermany
  2. 2.Carl von Ossietzky UniversityOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations