skip to main content
10.1145/229000.226304acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesisstaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

Experiences and lessons from the analysis of TCAS II

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 May 1996Publication History

ABSTRACT

This report highlights some of the experiences gathered while analyzing the requirements specification for a commercial avionics system called TCAS II (Traffic alert and Collision Avoidance System II) for consistency and completeness. Completeness in this context is defined as a complete set of requirements, that is, there is a behavior specified for every possible input and input sequence.Under the leadership of Dr. Nancy G. Leveson, the Irvine Safety Research Group has developed a state-based requirements specification language RSML (Requirements State Machine Language) using TCAS II as a testbed [6]. The TCAS requirements specification project was very successful; RSML was well liked by all participants in the project, and the formal specification has been adopted as the official TCAS II requirements. The requirements document has been delivered to the FAA and has undergone an extensive independent validation and verification effort (IV&V).In a previous investigation, we defined procedures for analyzing state-based requirements specifications for completeness and consistency [5]. To demonstrate that our approach is feasible and is applicable to realistic systems, we have implemented a draft analysis tool and we have applied the analysis to the TCAS II requirements. The initial results from the analysis effort were encouraging [4, 5] and scaled well to a large requirements specification. The most complex parts of the TCAS requirements specification have recently been analyzed. Even though the effort was largely successful, some limitations with the approach have surfaced. Most importantly, the accuracy of the analysis algorithms needs improvement. When analyzing the most complex parts of the TCAS requirements, the number of spurious error reports can occasionally be overwhelming. Furthermore, we discovered that once the analysis has identified problems, it has been unexpectedly difficult to correct some of them.

References

  1. 1.R. E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-35(8):677-691, August 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 2.D. Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8:231-274, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 3.D. Harel. On visual formalisms. Communications of the ACM, 31(5):514-530, May 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 4.Mats P.E. Heimdahl. Static Analysis of State- Based Requirements: Analysis for Completeness and Consistency. PhD thesis, University of California, Irvine, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 5.Mats P.E. Heimdahl and Nancy G. Leveson. Completeness and Consistency Analysis of State-Based Requirements. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Software Engineering, April 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6.N. G. Leveson, M. P.E. Heimdahl, H. Hildrcth, and J. D. Reese. Requirements specification for processcontrol systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(9), September 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Experiences and lessons from the analysis of TCAS II

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              ISSTA '96: Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Software testing and analysis
              May 1996
              294 pages
              ISBN:0897917871
              DOI:10.1145/229000

              Copyright © 1996 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 1 May 1996

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • Article

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate58of213submissions,27%

              Upcoming Conference

              ISSTA '24

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader