[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Quantitative risk analysis of safety–critical embedded systems

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Developing safety–critical embedded systems almost always includes a significant emphasis on risk analysis. Risk analysis is still a largely qualitative and manual method of analysis. In this paper, we propose a method for the quantitative analysis method of embedded systems based on the Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL) model. First, we extend the Error Model Annex with the RFMEA (Risk-based Failure Mode Effect Analysis) property to express the error effect formally, and then, a risk-based quantitative analysis method is proposed to implement the automatic generation of an RFMEA table. Finally, an eclipse plug-in of this method is implemented and a case study is used to demonstrate its feasibility.

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

Access this article

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

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baloch, M. P., Qadri, S., Hussain, S., et al. (2014). Comparative study of risk management in centralized and distributed software development environment. Science International (Lahore), 26(4), 1523–1528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitsch, F., Nguyen, V. Y., & Noll, T. (2013). Characterization of failure effects on AADL models. In: Proceedings of the 32nd international conference on computer safety, reliability and security (SAFECOMP 2013).

  • Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute. (2006). Open source AADL tool environment. http://www.aadl.info, Tech. Rep., 2006.

  • Cha, S., & Yoo, J. (2011). A safety-focused verification using software fault trees. Future Generation Computer Systems,. doi:10.1016/j.future.2011.02.004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delange, J., & Feiler, P. (2014). Architecture fault modeling with the AADL error-model annex. In Software engineering and advanced applications (SEAA), 40th EUROMICRO Conference on. IEEE, pp. 361–368.

  • Delange, J., Feiler, P., Gluch, D., & Hudak, J. (2014). AADL fault modeling and analysis within an ARP4761 safety assessment (CMU/SEI-2014-TR-020). USA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feiler, P. (2013). Architecture analysis and design language (AADL) annex. (Vol 3). Annex E: Error Model V2 Annex. Number SAE AS5506/3 (Draft) in SAE Aerospace Standard. SAE International.

  • Feiler, P. H., Gluch, D. P., & Hudak J. J.(2006) The architecture analysis & design language (AADL): An introduction. Carnegie-Mellon Univ Pittsburgh PA Software Engineering Inst.

  • Feiler, P., & Rugina, A. (2007). Dependability modeling with the architecture analysis & design language (AADL). Carnegie-Mellon Univ Pittsburgh PA Software Engineering INST.

  • Gonzalez, H., Han, J., Li, X., et al. (2007). Adaptive fastest path computation on a road network: a traffic mining approach. In Proceedings of the 33rd international conference on very large data bases. VLDB Endowment, 794–805.

  • Hatcliff, J., King, A., Lee, I., Fernandez, A., McDonald, A., Vasserman, E., & Weininger, S. (2012). Rationale and architecture principles for medical application platforms. In Proceedings of the 2012 international conference on cyberphysical systems, 2012.

  • IEC 61822 (2001). Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP studies)—Application guide. International Electrotechnical Commission.

  • IEC 60812 (1991). Analysis techniques for system reliability—Procedure for failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA). International Electrotechnical Commission.

  • Jaafar, J., Janjua, U. I., & Lai F. W. (2015). Software effective risk management: An evaluation of risk management process models and standards. Information Science and Applications, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 837–844.

  • Kahrobaee, S., & Asgarpoor, S. (2010). Short and long-term reliability assessment of wind farms. In North American Power Symposium (NAPS).

  • Larson, B. R., Hatcliff, J., & Chalin, P. (2013) Open source patient-controlled analgesic pump requirements documentation. In Proceedings of the international workshop on software engineering in healthcare, San Francisco, May 2013.

  • Lempia, D., & Miller, S. (2009). DOT/FAA/AR-08/32. Requirements engineering management handbook.

  • Li, Y., Zhu, Y. A., Ma C. Y., & Xu M. (2011). A method for constructing fault trees from AADL models. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on autonomic and trusted computing, ser. ATC’11. (pp. 243–258). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

  • Ortmeier, F., & Schellhorn, G. (2007). Formal fault tree analysis-practical experiences. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 185, 139–151.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rausand, M., & Høyland, A. (2004). System reliability theory: Models, statistical methods and applications (2nd ed.). USA: Wiley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sankhwar, S., & Pandey, D. (2014). Software project risk analysis and assessment: A survey. Global Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(5).

  • Sun, H., Hauptman, M., & Lutz R. (2007). Integrating product-line fault tree analysis into AADL models. In High assurance systems engineering symposium, 2007. HASE’07. 10th IEEE, pp. 15–22.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, NS2015093, the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Collaborative Innovation Center of Novel Software Technology and Industrialization. The author wishes to thank his tutor and classmates. His tutor is senior member of CCF, and his research has contributed greatly to this work. His classmates provided the author with valuable technical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Computer Science and Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China

    Yinling Liu, Guohua Shen, Zhiqiu Huang & Zhibin Yang

Authors
  1. Yinling Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guohua Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhiqiu Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhibin Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guohua Shen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Y., Shen, G., Huang, Z. et al. Quantitative risk analysis of safety–critical embedded systems. Software Qual J 25, 503–527 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-015-9302-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-015-9302-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation