Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 3147))

Abstract

In the ForMoSA project [18] an integrated approach for safety analysis of critical, embedded systems has been developed. The approach brings together the best of engineering practice, formal methods and mathematics: traditional safety analysis, temporal logics and verification, and statistics and optimization.

These three orthogonal techniques cover three different aspects of safety: fault tolerance, functional correctness and quantitative analysis. The ForMoSA approach combines these techniques to answer the safety relevant questions in a structured and formal way. Furthermore, the tight combination of methods from different analysis domains yields results which can not be produced by any single technique.

The methodology was applied in form of case studies to different industrial domains. One of them is the height control of the Elbtunnel in Hamburg [17] from the domain of electronic traffic control, which we present as an illustrating example.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baier, C., Clarke, E.M., Hartonas-Garmhausen, V., Kwiatkowska, M.Z., Ryan, M.: Symbolic model checking for probabilistic processes. In: Automata, Languages and Programming, pp. 430–440 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Balser, M.: Verifying Concurrent System with Symbolic Execution – Temporal Reasoning is Symbolic Execution with a Little Induction. PhD thesis, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Gemany (2004) (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Balser, M., Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Stenzel, K., Thums, A.: Formal system development with KIV. In: Maibaum, T. (ed.) FASE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1783, pp. 363–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Bozzano, M., Cavallo, A., Cifaldi, M., Valacca, L., Villafiorit, A.: Improving safety assessment of complex systems: An industrial case study. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 208–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Bruns, G., Anderson, S.: Validating safety models with fault trees. In: Górski, J. (ed.) SafeComp 1993: 12th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security, pp. 21–30. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cau, A., Moszkowski, B., Zedan, H.: ITL – Interval Temporal Logic. Software Technology Research Laboratory, SERCentre, De Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK (2002), www.cms.dmu.ac.uk/~cau/itlhomepage

  7. Damm, W., Josko, B., Hungar, H., Pnueli, A.: A compositional real-time semantics of STATEMATE designs. In: de Roever, W.-P., Langmaack, H., Pnueli, A. (eds.) COMPOS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1536, pp. 186–238. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. ECSS. Dependability. In European Cooperation for Space Standardization, editor, Space Product Assurance. ESA Publications (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rinnooy Kan, H.G., Nemhauser, G.L. (eds.): Optimization, vol. 1. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam (1989)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Hansen, K., Ravn, A., Stavridou, V.: From safety analysis to software requirements. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(7), 573–584 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hansen, K.M., Ravn, A.P., Stavridou, V.: From safety analysis to formal specification. ProCoS II document [ID/DTH KMH 1/1], Technical University of Denmark (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  12. van den Blieck, E.G., Rouvroye, J.L.: Comparing safety analysis techniques. Reliability Engineering & System Safety (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Klose, J., Thums, A.: The STATEMATE reference model of the reference case study ‘Verkehrsleittechnik’. Technical Report 2002-01, Universität Augsburg (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Leveson, N.: Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Luenberger, D.G.: Linear and nonlinear programming. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ortmeier, F., Reif, W.: Failure-sensitive specification: A formal method for finding failure modes. Technical Report 3, Institut für Informatik, Universität Augsburg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ortmeier, F., Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Thums, A., Hering, B., Trappschuh, H.: Safety analysis of the height control system for the Elbtunnel. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 81(3), 259–268 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ortmeier, F., Thums, A.: Formale Methoden und Sicherheitsanalyse. Technical Report 15, Universität Augsburg (2002) (in German)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schellhorn, G., Thums, A., Reif, W.: Formal fault tree semantics. In: Proceedings of The Sixth World Conference on Integrated Design & Process Technology, Pasadena, CA (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schürger, K.: Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie. R. Oldenbourg Verlag (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Storey, N.: Safety-Critical Computer Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Thums, A., Schellhorn, G.: Model checking FTA. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 739–757. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Thums, A., Schellhorn, G., Ortmeier, F., Reif, W.: Interactive verification of statecharts. In: Ehrig, H., Damm, W., Desel, J., Große-Rhode, M., Reif, W., Schnieder, E., Westkämper, E. (eds.) INT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3147, pp. 355–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Thums, A., Schellhorn, G., Reif, W.: Comparing fault tree semantics. In: Haneberg, D., Schellhorn, G., Reif, W. (eds.) FM-TOOLS 2002, Technical Report 2002-11, pp. 25 – 32. Universität Augsburg (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Vesely, W.E., Goldberg, F.F., Roberts, N.H., Haasl, D.F.: Fault Tree Handbook, Washington, D.C. (1981) NUREG-0492.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vesley, W., Dugan, J., Fragole, J., Minarik II, J., Railsback, J.: Fault Tree Handbook with Aerospace Applications. NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, NASA Headquarters, Washington DC 20546 (August 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chaochen, Z., Hansen, M.R.: Duration calculus: Logical foundations. In: Formal Aspects of Computing, pp. 283–330 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ortmeier, F., Thums, A., Schellhorn, G., Reif, W. (2004). Combining Formal Methods and Safety Analysis – The ForMoSA Approach. In: Ehrig, H., et al. Integration of Software Specification Techniques for Applications in Engineering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3147. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27863-4_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27863-4_26

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-23135-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-27863-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics