A Lightweight Methodology for Safety Case Assembly

  • Ewen Denney
  • Ganesh Pai
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7612)


We describe a lightweight methodology to support the automatic assembly of safety cases from tabular requirements specifications. The resulting safety case fragments provide an alternative, graphical, view of the requirements. The safety cases can be modified and augmented with additional information. In turn, these modifications can be mapped back to extensions of the tabular requirements, with which they are kept consistent, thus avoiding the need for engineers to maintain an additional artifact. We formulate our approach on top of an idealized process, and illustrate the applicability of the methodology on excerpts of requirements specifications for an experimental Unmanned Aircraft System.


Safety cases Formal methods Automation Requirements Unmanned Aircraft Systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Basir, N., Denney, E., Fischer, B.: Deriving safety cases for hierarchical structure in model-based development. In: 29th Intl. Conf. Comp. Safety, Reliability and Security (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bishop, P., Bloomfield, R.: A methodology for safety case development. In: Proc. 6th Safety-Critical Sys. Symp. (February 1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis, K.D.: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the U.S. National Airspace System. FAA Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01 (March 2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Denney, E., Habli, I., Pai, G.: Perspectives on Software Safety Case Development for Unmanned Aircraft. In: Proc. 42nd Annual IEEE/IFIP Intl. Conf. on Dependable Sys. and Networks (June 2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Denney, E., Pai, G., Habli, I.: Towards measurement of confidence in safety cases. In: Proc. 5th Intl. Symp. on Empirical Soft. Eng. and Measurement, pp. 380–383 (September 2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Denney, E., Pai, G., Pohl, J.: Heterogeneous aviation safety cases: Integrating the formal and the non-formal. In: Proc. 17th IEEE Intl. Conf. Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (July 2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dodd, I., Habli, I.: Safety certification of airborne software: An empirical study. Reliability Eng. and Sys. Safety. 98(1), 7–23 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goal Structuring Notation Working Group: GSN Community Standard Version 1 (November 2011), http://www.goalstructuringnotation.info/
  9. 9.
    Goodenough, J.B., Barry, M.R.: Evaluating Hazard Mitigations with Dependability Cases. White Paper (April 2009), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/whitepapers/dependabilitycase_hazardmitigation.cfm/
  10. 10.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Road Vehicles-Functional Safety. ISO Standard 26262 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kelly, T.: A systematic approach to safety case management. In: Proc. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) World Congress (March 2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelly, T., McDermid, J.: Safety case patterns – reusing successful arguments. In: Proc. IEE Colloq. on Understanding Patterns and Their Application to Sys. Eng. (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    NASA Aircraft Management Division: NPR 7900.3C, Aircraft Operations Management Manual. NASA (July 2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rushby, J.: New challenges in certification for aircraft software. In: Proc. 11th Intl. Conf. on Embedded Soft, pp. 211–218 (October 2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scolese, C.J.: NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 7123.1A (March 2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ewen Denney
    • 1
  • Ganesh Pai
    • 1
  1. 1.SGT / NASA Ames Research CenterMoffett FieldUSA

Personalised recommendations