Software Faults and Reliability

  • Han Seong Son
  • Man Cheol Kim
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)


Software, unlike hardware, does not fail, break, wear out over time, or fall out of tolerance [1]. Hardware reliability models are based on variability and the physics of failure (Chapter 1), but are not applied to software since software is not physical. For example, it is not possible to perform the equivalent of accelerated hardware stress testing on software. Consequently, different paradigms must be used to evaluate software reliability, which raises a few issues for software reliability engineers.


Failure Mode Software Reliability Fault Tree Software Fault Failure Data 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Leveson NG (1995) Safeware: system safety and computers. Addison–WesleyGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Li B, Li M, Ghose S, Smidts C (2003) Integrating software into PRA. Proceedings of the 14th ISSRE, IEEE Computer Society PressGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Herrmann DS (2002) Software safety and reliability. IEEE Computer Society Press, ISBN 0-7695-0299-7Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Rugg G (1995) Why don’t customers tell you everything you need to know? or: why don’t software engineers build what you want? Safety Systems, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 3–4, Sep.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Musa JD, et al. (1987) Software reliability: measurement, prediction, application. McGraw–Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Asad CA, Ullah MI, Rehman MJ (2004) An approach for software reliability model selection. Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMSAC’04), IEEEGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Smidts C, Stoddard RW, Stutzke M (1998) Software reliability models: an approach to early reliability prediction. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 268–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Gokhale SS, Marinos PN, Trivedi KS (1996) Important milestones in software reliability modeling. In Proceedings of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE ’96), Lake Tahoe, NV, pp. 345–352Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Gokhale SS, Wong WE, Trivedi KS, Horgan JR (1998) An analytical approach to architecture-based software reliability prediction. In IEEE Int. Computer Performance and Dependability Symposium, pp. 13–22, Sept.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Musa J (1999) Software reliability engineering. McGraw–HillGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Lyu M (ed.) (1996) Handbook of software reliability engineering. McGraw–Hill/ IEEE Computer Society PressGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Storey N (1996) Safety-critical computer systems. Addison–WesleyGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Rees RA (1994) Detectability of software failure. Reliability Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 10–30, Dec.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Bieda F (1996) Software reliability: a practitioner’s model. Reliability Review, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 18–28, JuneGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    IEEE Std 610.12.1990 (1990) IEEE Standard glossary of software engineering terminology. IEEE, New York, MarchGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    American National Standards Institute/American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (1993) Recommended practice for software reliability. R-013-1992Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Schneidewind NF, Keller TW (1992) Application of reliability models to the space shuttle. IEEE Software, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 28–33, JulyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Myers GJ (1979) The art of software testing. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Miller KW, et. al. (1992) Estimating the probability of failure when testing reveals no failures. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Littlewood B, Wright D (1997) Some conservative stopping rules for the operational testing of safety-critical software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 11, pp. 673–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Jelinski Z, Moranda PB (1972) Software reliability research (W. Freiberger, Editor). Statistical Computer Performance Evaluation, Academic, New York, p. 465Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Goel AL, Okumoto K (1979) Time-dependent error-detection rate model for software reliability and other performance measures. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Vol. R-28, No. 3, p. 206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Kocza G, Bossche A (1997) Automatic fault-tree synthesis and real-time trimming, based on computer models. Proc. Ann. Reliability and Maintainability Symp., pp. 71–75Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    WWW Formal Technical Review(FTR) ArchiveGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Scholar
  26. [26]
    Cha SD, Son HS, Yoo JB, Jee EK, Seong PH (2003) Systematic evaluation of fault trees using real-time model checker UPPAAL. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 82, pp. 11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Bengtsson J, Larsen KG, Larsson F, Pettersson P, Yi W (1995) UPPAAL – a tool suite for automatic verification of real-time systems. In Proceedings of the 4th DIMACS Workshop on Verification and Control of Hybrid Systems, New Brunswick, New Jersey, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Pnueli A (1977) The temporal logic of programs. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–77Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    AECL CANDU (1993) Program functional specification, SDS2 programmable digital comparators, Wolsong NPP 2,3,4. Technical Report 86-68300-PFS-000 Rev.2, MayGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    DEF STAN 00-58 (1996) HAZOP studies on systems containing programmable electronics. UK Ministry of Defence, (interim) JulyGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Littlewood B (1993) The need for evidence from disparate sources to evaluate software safety. Directions in Safety-Critical Systems, Springer–Verlag, pp. 217–231Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Herrmann DS (1998) Sample implementation of the Littlewood holistic model for assessing software quality, safety and reliability. Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, pp. 138–148Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer London 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Han Seong Son
    • 1
  • Man Cheol Kim
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Game EngineeringJoongbu UniversityKumsan-gunKorea, Republic of
  2. 2.Integrated Safety Assessment DivisionKorea Atomic Energy Research InstituteDaejeonKorea, Republic of

Personalised recommendations