Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Safety Argumentation for Machinery Assembly Control Software

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP 2024)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14988))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Assemblies of machinery commonly require control systems whose functionality is based on application software. In Europe, such software requires high safety integrity levels in accordance with the Machinery Directive (MD). However, identifying the essential regulatory requirements for the safety approval is not an easy task. To facilitate this job, this paper presents a process for Safety Argumentation for Machinery Assembly Control Software (SAMACS). We are inspired by patterns provided in the Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) and the use of contracts in safety argumentation. SAMACS contribution is aligning those methods with the MD by adopting EN ISO 13849. In particular, we define safety goals based on expected software contribution to control system safety and the standard guidance. Software safety goals are detailed into software safety requirements and expressed further as contracts, which shall be verified with prescribed techniques. We apply SAMACS to a case study from a European mining company and discuss the findings. This work aims at helping practitioners compose the safety case argumentation necessary to support machinery integration approval in Europe.

This Research is supported by Vinnova via the project ESCAPE-CD, Ref: 2021-03662.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://uppaal.org/documentation/.

References

  1. Ayoub, A., Kim, B.G., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O.: A systematic approach to justifying sufficient confidence in software safety arguments. In: Ortmeier, F., Daniel, P. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7612, pp. 305–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33678-2_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Bate, I., Hawkins, R., McDermid, J.: A contract-based approach to designing safe systems. In: 8th Workshop on Safety-critical Systems and Software (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Gallina, B., Governatori, G.: Compliance-aware engineering process plans: the case of space software engineering processes. In: Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 1–41 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Punekkat, S., Hansson, H., Grante, C.: Arguing operational safety for mixed traffic in underground mining. In: 18th Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Punnekkat, S., Fattouh, A., Hansson, H.: A context-specific operational design domain for underground mining (ODD-UM). In: European Conference on Software Process Improvement, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15559-8_12

  6. Chechik, M., Salay, R., Viger, T., Kokaly, S., Rahimi, M.: Software assurance in an uncertain world. In: Hähnle, R., van der Aalst, W. (eds.) FASE 2019. LNCS, vol. 11424, pp. 3–21. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16722-6_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheng, J., Goodrum, M., Metoyer, R., Cleland, J.: How do practitioners perceive assurance cases in safety-critical software systems? In: Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, pp. 57–60 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Europen Parliament and the Council: Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gallina, B., Olesen, T.Y., Parajdi, E., Aarup, M.: A knowledge management strategy for seamless compliance with the machinery regulation. In: European Conference on Software Process Improvement, pp. 220–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42307-9_17

  10. Global Mining Guidelines Group: Systems Safety for Autonomous Mining (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Graydon, P., Bate, I.: The nature and content of safety contracts: challenges and suggestions for a way forward. In: 20th Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing, pp. 135–144. IEEE (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Habli, I., Hawkins, R., Kelly, T.: Software safety: relating software assurance and software integrity. Int. J. Crit. Comput.-Based Syst. 1(4), 364–383 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hawkins, R., Kelly, T.: Software safety assurance-what is sufficient? In: 4th IET International Conference on Systems Safety 2009. Incorporating the SaRS Annual Conference, pp. 1–6. IET (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  14. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7: ISO/IEC/IEEE 15026:2019. Systems and software engineering - Systems and software assurance (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  15. ISO/TC 199: ISO 12100:2010. Safety of machinery - General Principles for design - Risk Assessment and Risk Reduction (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. ISO/TC 199: EN ISO 13849-1:2023. Safety of machinery - Safety-related parts of control systems - Part 1: General principles for design (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Javed, M.A., Muram, F.U., Hansson, H., Punnekkat, S., Thane, H.: Towards dynamic safety assurance for Industry 4.0. J. Syst. Arch. (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kelly, T.P.: Arguing safety: a systematic approach to managing safety cases. Ph.D. thesis, University of York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Maus, A.: Pegasus safety argumentation (2018). https://www.pegasusprojekt.de/files/tmpl/pdf/PEGASUS%20Safety%20Argumentation.pdf

  20. McDermid, J.A.: Software safety: where’s the evidence? In: 6th Australian Workshop on Safety Critical Systems and Software, pp. 1–6 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Meyer, B.: Applying design by contract. Computer 25(10), 40–51 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Porras, A., Romero, J.A.: A new methodology for facilitating the design of safety-related parts of control systems in machines according to ISO 13849:2006 standard. Reliabil. Eng. Syst. Saf. 174, 60–70 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Söderberg, A., Hedberg, J., Folkesson, P., Jacobson, J.: Safety-related Machine Control Systems using standard EN ISO 13849-1 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Söderberg, A., Johansson, R.: Safety contract-based design of software components. In: International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  25. The Assurance Case Working Group (ACWG): GSN Community Standard. Version 3 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  26. The Council of the European Parliament: Machinery - Directive 2006/42/EC (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Volvo Technology AB - Advanced Technology & Research: Automated Safe and Efficient Transport System - VINNOVA Project- Ref: 2015-00612 (2015). https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/automated-safe-and-efficient-transport-system/

  28. Weaver, R.A.: The safety of software: constructing and assuring arguments. Ph.D. thesis (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ye, F.: Justifying the use of COTS Components within safety critical applications. Ph.D. thesis, Citeseer (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mälardalen University, 721 23, Västerås, Sweden

    Julieth Patricia Castellanos-Ardila, Sasikumar Punnekkat, Hans Hansson & Peter Backeman

Authors
  1. Julieth Patricia Castellanos-Ardila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sasikumar Punnekkat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hans Hansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Backeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julieth Patricia Castellanos-Ardila .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Florence, Florence, Firenze, Italy

    Andrea Ceccarelli

  2. Fraunhofer IKS, Munich, Germany

    Mario Trapp

  3. Department of Mathematics, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Andrea Bondavalli

  4. GTS Deutschland GmbH, Ditzingen, Germany

    Friedemann Bitsch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 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

Castellanos-Ardila, J.P., Punnekkat, S., Hansson, H., Backeman, P. (2024). Safety Argumentation for Machinery Assembly Control Software. In: Ceccarelli, A., Trapp, M., Bondavalli, A., Bitsch, F. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14988. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68606-1_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68606-1_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-68605-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-68606-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics