A formal approach for automating compositional safety analysis using flow type annotations in component fault trees

Möhrle, Felix; Bizik, Kai; Zeller, Marc; Höfig, Kai; Rothfelder, Martin; Liggesmeyer, Peter

doi:10.1201/9781315210469-442

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides modeling support for realization views, safeTbox also offers the possibility for CFTs to perform qualitative (e.g., Minimal Cut Sets) and quantitative analysis (Unavailability, Cut Sets Importance, Common Cause Failures). It also supports the definition of type systems for ports and failure modes, as proposed in [20]. CFTs in safeTbox make part of the model-based safety engineering approach inte- Fig.…”

Section: The Tooling Aspectmentioning

confidence: 88%

Hazard-driven realization views for Component Fault Trees

Moncada

2020

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, the preferred means of documentation used by safety engineers have been sheets-and text-based solutions. However, in the last decades, the introduction of model-driven engineering in conjunction with Component-Based Design has been influencing the way safety engineers perform their tasks; especially in the area of fault analysis, model-driven approaches have been developed aimed at coupling fault trees with architecture models. Doing this fosters communication between engineers, may reduce design effort, and makes artifacts easier to maintain and reuse. In this paper, we want to move forward in this direction and take another step in the modeling of Component Fault Trees in combination with the modeling of the architecture design. We propose a hazard-centric approach for the definition of multiple realization views for fault analysis using Component Fault Trees. The approach is composed of a modeling method and a tool solution. We illustrate our approach with a real-life example from the automotive industry.

show abstract

Section: The Tooling Aspectmentioning

confidence: 88%

Hazard-driven realization views for Component Fault Trees

Moncada

2020

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A library, which contains CFT elements for all system components, supports reusability by allowing stakeholders to create different CFTs by changing the assembly of the CFT elements according to the system architecture. Based on the methods described in [14,13], it is possible automate the composition of CFTs. Hence, by automatically generating mappings between the input and output failure modes, system-wide safety analysis models can be automatically created.…”

Section: Methods To Enable Continuous Delivery For Safety-critical Sy...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Continuous Safety Assessment in Context of DevOps

Zeller¹

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, promoted by the internet companies, continuous delivery is more and more appealing to industries which develop systems with safety-critical functions. Since safety-critical systems must meet regulatory requirements and require specific safety assessment processes in addition to the normal development steps, enabling continuous delivery of software in safety-critical systems requires the automation of the safety assessment process in the delivery pipeline. In this paper, we outline a continuous delivery pipeline for realizing continuous safety assessment in software-intensive safety-critical systems based on modelbased safety assessment methods.

show abstract