Modular Safety Cases for Product Lines Based on Assume-Guarantee Contracts

  • Damir NešićEmail author
  • Mattias Nyberg
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11699)


Safety cases are recommended, and in some cases required, by a number of standards. In the product line context, unlike for single systems, safety cases are inherently complex because they must argue about the safety of a family of products that share various types of engineering assets. Safety case modularization has been proposed to reduce safety case complexity by separating concerns, modularizing tightly coupled arguments, and localizing effects of changes to particular modules. Existing modular safety-case approaches for product lines propose a feature-based modularization, which is too coarse to modularize the claims of different types, at different levels of abstraction. To overcome these limitation, a novel, modular safety-case architecture is presented. The modularization is based on a contract-based specification product-line model, which jointly captures the component-based architecture of systems and corresponding safety requirements as assume-guarantee contracts. The proposed safety-case architecture is analyzed against possible product-line changes and it is shown that it is robust both with respect to fine and coarse-grained, and also product and implementation-level changes. The proposed modular safety case is exemplified on a simplified, but real automotive system.


Modular safety case Assume-guarantee contract Product line 



This work has been funded by Vinnova under the ECSEL PRYSTINE project, ref. number 2018-01764. The authors thank the reviewers for constructive comments.


  1. 1.
    Andersson, H., Herzog, E., ölvander, J.: Experience from model and software reuse in aircraft simulator product line engineering. IET 55, 595–606 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Denney, E., Pai, G.: Safety case patterns: theory and applications. Technial report, NASA Ames Research Center, February 2015Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fenn, J., Hawkins, R., Williams, P., Kelly, T.: Safety case composition using contracts - refinements based on feedback from an industrial case study. In: Redmill, F., Anderson, T. (eds.) The Safety of Systems. Springer, London (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fenn, L., Hawkins, R.D., Williams, P.J., Kelly, T.P., Banner, M.G., Oakshott, Y.: The who, where, how, why and when of modular and incremental certification. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ICSS, pp. 135–140. IET, October 2007Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    IEC: IEC 61508 - functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO 26262: Road vehicles - Functional safety, November 2011Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kelly, T.: Using software architecture techniques to support the modular certification of safety-critical systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th Australian SCS Workshop, pp. 53–65. SCS (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kelly, T.P.: Arguing safety - a systematic approach to managing safety cases (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mukelabai, M., Nešić, D., Maro, S., Berger, T., Steghöfer, J.P.: Tackling combinatorial explosion: a study of industrial needs and practices for analyzing highly configurable systems. In: Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE ASE. ACM (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nešić, D., Nyberg, M.: Verifying contract-based specifications of product lines using description logic. In: Proceedings 31st International DL Workshop, p. 13 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nešić, D., Nyberg, M.: Multi-view modeling and automated analysis of product line variability in systems engineering. In: Proceedings of the 20th SPLC. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nešić, D., Nyberg, M., Gallina, B.: Constructing product-line safety cases from contract-based specifications. In: Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP SAC, New York, USA, pp. 2022–2031 (2019)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Oliveira, A.L., Braga, R.T.V., Masiero, P.C., Papadopoulos, Y., Habli, I., Kelly, T.: Supporting the automated generation of modular product line safety cases. In: Zamojski, W., Mazurkiewicz, J., Sugier, J., Walkowiak, T., Kacprzyk, J. (eds.) Theory and Engineering of Complex Systems and Dependability. AISC, vol. 365, pp. 319–330. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Origin Consulting (York) Limited: GSN community standard version 2, January 2018Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van Der Linden, F.J.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). Scholar
  16. 16.
    SAE International: Guidelines for development of civil aircraft and systems (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmid, K., Verlage, M.: The economic impact of product line adoption and evolution. IEEE Softw. 19(4), 50–57 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    UK MoD: 00–56: Safety management requirements for defence systems (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vincentelli, A.S., Damm, W., Passerone, R.: Taming Dr. Frankenstein: contract-based design for cyber-physical systems. Eur. J. Control 18(3), 217–238 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Westman, J., Nyberg, M.: Preserving contract satisfiability under non-monotonic composition. In: Baier, C., Caires, L. (eds.) FORTE 2018. LNCS, vol. 10854, pp. 181–195. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wozniak, L., Clements, P.: How automotive engineering is taking product line engineering to the extreme. In: Proceedings of the 19th SPLC. ACM (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations