Importance of Specification Means to Design Integrated Modular Avionics Systems

  • G. Motet
Chapter

Abstract

Economical constraints such as maintenance cost reduction required the introduction of a new architecture to design systems which will be embedded in the future commercial aircrafts. This architecture called “Integrated Modular Avionics” leads to a new approach of system design. In particular this architecture allows multiple applications to be integrated on one framework. Moreover, as studied systems concern the avionics domain, dependability must be considered as a major property of these systems. During the European BRITE-EURAM project “IMAGES 2000”, the main European aircraft manufacturers and suppliers and some research laboratories worked together to study the means and the process which must be used to design dependable Integrated Modular Avionics systems. In this paper, we analyse the characteristics of the Integrated Modular Avionics systems to highlight that the obtaining of dependable systems will require a special effort on specification step from the part of the engineers involved in the design of the systems embedded in the future planes.

Keywords

Core Module Multiple Partner Health Monitor Maintenance Cost Reduction Power Supply Module 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Albin J.-L., Ferreol R., “Collection and Analysis of Software Measurements”, (in french), Technique et Science Informatique, vol. 1, no. 4, (1982), pp. 297313.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Basili V.R., Boehm B.W., Clapp J.A., Gaumer D., Holden M., Salwen A.E., Summers J.K., “Use of Ada for FAA’s Advanced Automation System”, The Mitre Corporation Technical Report MTR-87W77, (April 1987), pp. 87–120.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bhandari I.S., Halliday M.J., Traver E., Brown D., Chaar J.K., Chillarege R., “A Case Study of Software Process Improvement During Development”, Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 19, no. 12, IEEE publisher, (1993), pp. 1157–1170.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Boehm B.W., “Verifying and Validating Software Requirements and Design Specifications”, IEEE Software, ( January 1984 ), pp. 75–88.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Boehm B.W., “Introduction and Overview”, in “Software Risk Management”, B. W. Boehm editor, IEEE Computer Society Press, (1989), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Chillarege R., Bhandari I.S., Chaar J.K., Halliday M.J., Moebus D.S., Ray B.K., Wong M.Y., “Orthogonal Defect Classification. A Concept for In-Process Measurements”, Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 18, no. 11, IEEE publisher, (1992).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Eckhardt D.E., Caglayan A.K., Knight J.C., Lee L.D., McAllister D.F., Vouk M.A., Kelly J.P., “An Experimental Evaluation of Software Redundancy as a Strategy for Improving Reliability”, Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 17, no. 7, IEEE publisher, (1991), pp. 692–702.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Glass R.L., “Persistent Software Errors”, Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. SE-7, no. 2, IEEE publisher, (1981), pp. 162–168.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Sub-Task 2.4, “Requirements on Cabinet Monitoring Aspects in IMA Context”, Working Report no BAe_001_WD2.d of the IMAGES 2000 BRITE EU-RAM Project, ( January 1994 ).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Sub-Task 5.3, “Guidelines for Segregation Mechanisms Implementation”, Official Report no SI_001_0D_5.c of the IMAGES 2000 BRITE-EURAM Project, ( January 1995 ).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Sub-Task 5.4, “Guidelines for Real-Time Implementation”, Official Report no SXT_005_OD_5.d of the IMAGES 2000 BRITE-EURAM Project, ( February 1995 ).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Sub-Task 5.6, “Guidelines for Health Monitoring Implementation”, Official Report no AS_007_OD_5.f of the IMAGES 2000 BRITE-EURAM Project, ( July 1995 ).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Motet G., Kubek J.-M., “Dependability Problems of Ada Components Available via Information Superhighways”, Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Ada Technology, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, USA, Rosenberg and Risinger Publisher, (1995), pp. 8–18.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Motet G., Marpinard A., Geffroy J.-C., “Design of Dependable Ada Software”, Prentice Hall, (1996).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Nakajo T., Kume H., “A Case History Analysis of Software Error Cause-Effect Relationships”, Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 17, no. 8, IEEE publisher, (1993), pp. 830–838.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Schneidewind N.F., Hoffmann H.M., “An Experiment in Software Error Data Collection and Analysis”, Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. SE-5, no. 3, IEEE publisher, (1978).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Sullivan M., Chillarege R., “Software Defects and their Impact on System Avaiblability. A Study of Fiel Failures in Operating Systems”, in the proceedings of the FTCS 21, (1991), pp. 2–9.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Tamai T., Itou A., “Requirements and Design Change in Large-Scale Software Development: Analysis from the Viewpoint of Process Backtracking”, in proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE Publisher, (1993), pp. 167–176.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Motet
    • 1
  1. 1.Complexe Scientifique de RangueilGERII / LESIA, DGEI / INSAToulouse cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations