Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling the Variability of System Safety Analysis Using State-Machine Diagrams

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Model-Based Safety and Assessment (IMBSA 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13525))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Software Product Lines (SPLs) enable and maximize reuse of software artefacts, using software variability as central technique. In Model-Based Safety Analysis, system and software models are annotated with failure models that are used to produce safety analysis artefacts like fault trees and FMEAs. However, little work has been done to show MBSA in product lines, exploiting failure models to create safety analyses for variants in the product line. State machines have been widely used to support both fault propagation and probabilistic system safety analysis. In this paper, we introduce an approach to support variability modeling and reuse of state-machine diagrams used for system safety analysis. The approach enhances traditional software product line cycle with new activities aimed to support the reuse of safety information using state-machine diagrams and facilitates the management of the diversity of functional safety across system configurations using variability models. We evaluate our approach using an automotive braking system where we show reduction of the burden of safety analysis and improvements in traceability between safety artifacts and variability abstractions.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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 EPUB and 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

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.ansys.com/products/systems/ansys-medini-analyze.

  2. 2.

    https://www.pure-systems.com/products/pure-variants-9.html.

  3. 3.

    https://sparxsystems.com/.

  4. 4.

    https://www.omg.org/mof/.

  5. 5.

    https://www.amass-ecsel.eu/content/about.

References

  1. Wolschke, C., Becker, M., Schneickert, S., Adler, R., MacGregor, J.: Industrial perspective on reuse of safety artifacts in software product lines. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Systems and Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2019), Paris, France. ACM, NY, USA, pp. 143–152 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pohl, P., Höchsmann, M., Wohlgemuth, P., Tischer, C.: Variant management solution for large scale software product lines. In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice, Gothenburg, Sweden. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 85–94 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tischer, C., Muller, A., Mandl, T., Krause, R.: Experiences from a large scale software product line merger in the automotive domain. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Software Product Line Conference, Munich, Germany, pp. 267–276 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  4. SPLC.net. SPLC hall of the fame: General Motors Powertrain (GMPW) (2019). https://splc.net/fame/general-motors-powertrain. Accessed 10 July 2022

  5. Schulze, M., Mauersberger, J., Beuche, D.: Functional safety and variability: can it be brought together? In: Proceedings of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference, Tokyo, Japan. ACM, NY, USA, pp. 236–243 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  6. de Oliveira, A.L., Braga, R.T.V., Masiero, P.C., Papadopoulos, Y., Habli, I., Kelly, T.: Variability management in safety-critical software product line engineering. In: Capilla, R., Gallina, B., Cetina, C. (eds.) ICSR 2018. LNCS, vol. 10826, pp. 3–22. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90421-4_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Domis, D., Adler, R., Becker, M.: Integrating variability and safetyanalysis models using commercial UML-based tools. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Software Product Conference, Nashville, USA. ACM, NY, USA, 20–24 July, pp. 225–234 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Oliveira, A.L., et al.: Variability management in safety-critical systems design and dependability analysis. J. Softw.: Evol. Process 31(8), pp. 1–28 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dehlinger, J., Lutz, R.: Software fault tree analysis for product lines. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Symposium. on High Assurance Systems Engineering, Tampa, USA, pp. 12–21 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Feng, Q., Lutz, R.: Bi-directional safety analysis of product lines. J. Syst. Softw. 78(2), 111–117 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gómez, C., Liggesmeyer, P., Sutor, A.: Variability management of safety and reliability models: an intermediate model towards systematic reuse of component fault trees. In: Schoitsch, E. (ed.) SAFECOMP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6351, pp. 28–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15651-9_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Liu, J., Dehlinger, J., Lutz, R.: Safety analysis of software product lines using stated modeling. J. Syst. Softw. 80(11), pp. 1879–1892 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Käßmeyer, M., Schulze, M., Schurius, M.: A process to support asystematic change impact analysis of variability and safety in automotive functions. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Software Product Line Conference, Nashville, USA. ACM, NY, USA, pp. 235–244 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Käßmeyer, M., Moncada, D.S.V., Schurius, M.: Evaluation of asystematic approach in variant management for safety-critical systemsdevelopment. In: Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing, IEEE, Porto, Portugal, pp. 35–43 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Montecchi, L., Lollini, P., Bondavalli, A.: A template-based methodology for the specification and automated composition of performability models. In IEEE Transactions on Reliability 69(1), 293–309 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bressan, L., de Oliveira, A.L., Campos, F., Papadopoulos, Y., Parker, D.: An integrated approach to support the process-based certification of variant-intensive systems. In: Zeller, M., Höfig, K. (eds.) IMBSA 2020. LNCS, vol. 12297, pp. 179–193. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58920-2_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. SAE. Architecture Analysis & Design Language (AADL) AS5506C, SAE (2017). https://www.sae.org/standards/content/as5506c/

  19. Shin’ichi Shiraishi,: An AADL-based approach to variability modeling of automotive control systems. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6394, pp. 346–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16145-2_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Intecs, CHESS Modelling Language: A UML/MARTE/SysML profile. (2020) https://www.eclipse.org/chess/publis/CHESSMLprofile.pdf

  21. Mazzini, S., Favaro, J., Puri, S., Baracchi, L.: CHESS: an open source methodology and toolset for the development of critical systems. In: Join Proceedings of EduSymp, pp. 59–66 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gallina, B., Javed, A. M., Muram, F. U., Punnekkat, S.: Model-driven dependability analysis method for component-based architectures. In: Proceedings of the Euromicro-SEAA Conference, Cesme, Izmir, Turkey, pp. 233–240 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Delange, J., Feiler, P., Gluch, D., Hudak, J.: AADL fault modeling and analysis within an ARP4761 safety assessment. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Instiute (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Papadopoulos, Y., et al.: Engineering failure analysis and design optimization with HiP-HOPS. J. Eng. Fail. Anal. 18(2), 590–608 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Capilla, R., Bosch, J., Kang, K.-C. (eds.): Systems and Software Variability Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36583-6

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Vasilevskiy, A. Haugen, Ø., Chauvel, F., Johansen, M. F., Shimbara, D.: The BVR tool bundle to support product line engineering. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Software Product Line Conference, Nashville, USA, ACM, NY, pp. 380–384 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Haugen, Ø., Moller-Pedersen, B., Oldevik, J., Olsen, G. K., Svendsen, A.: Adding standardized variability to domain specific languages. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference, IEEE, pp. 139–148 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  28. ISO: ISO 26262: Road Vehicles Functional Safety (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Thomas, E.: Certification Cost Estimates for Future Communication Radio Platforms. Rockwell Collins Inc., Technical Report (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Montecchi, L., Gallina, B.: SafeConcert: a metamodel for a concerted safetymodeling of socio-technical systems In: 5th International Symposium onModel-Based Safety and Assessment, vol. 10437 of LNCS, Trento, Italy, pp. 129–144 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bittner, B., et al.: The xSAP Safety Analysis Platform. In: Chechik, M., Raskin, J.-F. (eds.) TACAS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9636, pp. 533–539. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Lee, K., Kang, K.C.: Usage Context as Key Driver for Feature Selection. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds.) SPLC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6287, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15579-6_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. De Castro, R., Araújo, R.E., Freitas, D.: Hybrid ABS with electric motor and friction brakes. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks, Manchester, UK (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  34. HBS, Case Study. https://github.com/aloliveira/hbs

  35. Azevedo, L., Parker, D., Walker, M., Papadopoulos, Y., Araújo, R.: Assisted assignment of automotive safety requirements. IEEE Softw. 31(1), 62–68 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Blom, H., et al.: EAST-ADL: An architecture description language for automotive software-intensive systems in the light of recent use and research. Int. J. Syst. Dyn. Appl. (IJSDA) 5(3), 1–20 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  37. AltaRica Project. Methods and Tools for AltaRica Language. https://altarica.labri.fr/wp/?page_id=23 (2020)

  38. Arnold, A., Gerald, P., Griffault, A., Rauzy, A.: The Altarica formalism for describing concurrent systems. Fund. Inform. 34, 109–124 (2000)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Bozzano, M., Villafiorita, A.: The FSAP/NuSMV-SA safety analysis platform. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfers (STTT) – Special Section on Advances in Automated Verification of Critical Systems, 9(1), 5–24 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil

    Lucas Bressan, André L. de Oliveira & Fernanda C. Campos

  2. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Leonardo Montecchi

  3. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (URJC), Madrid, Spain

    Rafael Capilla

  4. University of Hull, Hull, U.K.

    David Parker, Koorosh Aslansefat & Yiannis Papadopoulos

Authors
  1. Lucas Bressan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. André L. de Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fernanda C. Campos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Leonardo Montecchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rafael Capilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Koorosh Aslansefat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yiannis Papadopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to André L. de Oliveira .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ONERA, Toulouse, France

    Christel Seguin

  2. Siemens AG, Munich, Bayern, Germany

    Marc Zeller

  3. ONERA, Toulouse, France

    Tatiana Prosvirnova

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Bressan, L. et al. (2022). Modeling the Variability of System Safety Analysis Using State-Machine Diagrams. In: Seguin, C., Zeller, M., Prosvirnova, T. (eds) Model-Based Safety and Assessment. IMBSA 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13525. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15842-1_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15842-1_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15841-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15842-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation