Extracting Models from ISO 26262 for Reusable Safety Assurance

  • Yaping Luo
  • Mark van den Brand
  • Luc Engelen
  • John Favaro
  • Martijn Klabbers
  • Giovanni Sartori
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7925)


As more and more complex software is deployed in safety-critical embedded systems, the challenge of assessing the safety of those systems according to the relevant standards is becoming greater. Due to the extensive manual work required, validating compliance of these systems with safety standards is an expensive and time-consuming activity; furthermore, as products evolve, re-assessment may become necessary. Therefore, obtaining reusable assurance data for safety assessment or re-assessment is very desirable. In this paper, we propose a model-based approach for assuring compliance with safety standards to facilitate reuse in the assessment, qualification and certification processes, using the automotive safety standard ISO 26262 as a specific example. Three different modeling techniques are described: A structure model is introduced to describe the overall structure of the standard; a rule-based technique is used for extracting the conceptual model from it; and a mapping to the software and systems process engineering metamodel provides a description of its processes. Finally, validation in the context of a concrete use case in the FP7 project OPENCOSS shows that the resulting models of our approach resemble the industrial models, but that they, inevitably, require the fine-tuning of domain experts.


Safety Assurance Reuse Safety-Critical Systems ISO 26262 Conceptual Model SPEM 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Eclipse Process Framework Project,
  2. 2.
    DO 178B: Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    IEC 61508: Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    OPENCOSS: Deliverable D2.2 - High-level requirements, report (2012),
  5. 5.
    OPENCOSS: Deliverable D4.1 - Baseline for the common certification language (2012),
  6. 6.
    Adedjouma, M.: Requirements Engineering Process According to Automotive Standards in a Model-Driven Framework. Ph.D. thesis, University of Paris-Sud (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Armengaud, E., Bourrouilh, Q., Griessnig, G., Martin, H., Reichenpfader, P.: Using the CESAR Safety Framework for Functional Safety Management in the Context of ISO 26262, Embedded Real Time Software and Systems (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bārzdiņš, J., Bārzdiņš, G., Čerāns, K., Liepiņš, R., Sproģis, A.: UML style graphical notation and editor for OWL 2. In: Forbrig, P., Günther, H. (eds.) BIR 2010. LNBIP, vol. 64, pp. 102–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chowdhury, G.G.: Natural Language Processing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 37(1), 51–89 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de la Vara, J.L., Nair, S., Verhulst, E., Studzizba, J., Pepek, P., Lambourg, J., Sabetzadeh, M.: Towards a Model-Based Evolutionary Chain of Evidence for Compliance with Safety Standards. In: Ortmeier, F., Daniel, P. (eds.) SAFECOMP Workshops 2012. LNCS, vol. 7613, pp. 64–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Espinoza, H., Ruiz, A., Sabetzadeh, M., Panaroni, P.: Challenges for an Open and Evolutionary Approach to Safety Assurance and Certification of Safety-Critical Systems. In: 2011 First International Workshop on Software Certification (WoSoCER), Hiroshima, Japan (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gerlach, M., Hilbrich, R., Weißleder, S.: Can Cars Fly? From Avionics to Automotive: Comparability of Domain Specifc Safety Standards. In: Proceedings of the Embedded World Conference (March 2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jackson, D., Thomas, M., Millet, L.: Software for Dependable Systems: Sufficient Evidence? The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krammer, M., Armengaud, E., Bourrouilh, Q.: Method Library Framework for Safety Standard Compliant Process Tailoring. In: 37th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, pp. 302–305 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Langheim, J., Guegan, B., Maillet-Contoz, L., Maaziz, K., Zeppa, G., Phillipot, F., Boutin, S., Aboutaleb, I., David, P.: System Architecture, Tools and Modelling for Safety Critical Automotive Applications - The R&D Project SASHA. In: ERTS2 2010, Embedded Real Time Software & Systems, Toulouse, France, pp. 1–8 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    OMG: Software and Systems Process Engineering Metamodel Specification (April 2008),
  17. 17.
    Palin, R., Ward, D., Habli, I., Rivett, R.: ISO 26262 Safety Cases: Compliance and Assurance. In: Proceedings of the 6th IET International Conference on System Safety (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Panesar-Walawege, R.K., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L.: Using UML Profiles for Sector-Specific Tailoring of Safety Evidence Information. In: Jeusfeld, M., Delcambre, L., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2011. LNCS, vol. 6998, pp. 362–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ruiz, A., Habli, I., Espinoza, H.: Towards a Case-Based Reasoning Approach for Safety Assurance Reuse. In: Ortmeier, F., Daniel, P. (eds.) SAFECOMP Workshops 2012. LNCS, vol. 7613, pp. 22–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zoughbi, G., Briand, L., Labiche, Y.: Modeling Safety and Airworthiness (RTCA DO-178B) Information: Conceptual Model and UML Profile. Softw. Syst. Model. 10(3), 337–367 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yaping Luo
    • 1
  • Mark van den Brand
    • 1
  • Luc Engelen
    • 1
  • John Favaro
    • 2
  • Martijn Klabbers
    • 1
  • Giovanni Sartori
    • 2
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Intecs S.p.A.PisaItaly

Personalised recommendations