Advertisement

Product Line Fault Tree Analysis by Means of Multi-valued Decision Diagrams

  • Michael KäßmeyerEmail author
  • Rüdiger Berndt
  • Peter Bazan
  • Reinhard German
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9629)

Abstract

The development of cyber-physical systems such as highly integrated, safety-relevant automotive functions is challenged by an increasing complexity resulting from both customizable products and numerous soft- and hardware variants. In order to reduce the time to market for scenarios like these, a systematic analysis of the dependencies between functions, as well as the functional and technical variance, is required (cf. ISO 26262). In this paper we introduce a new approach which allows for a compact representation and analysis of failure mechanisms of systems marked by numerous variants, also: Product Line Fault Tree (PLFTs), in a unified data structure based on Multi-valued Decision Diagram (MDDs). Therefore, instead of analyzing the Fault Tree (FT) of each variant separately, the proposed method enables one to analyze the FT in a single step. Summing up, this article introduces a systematic modeling concept to analyze fault propagation in variant-rich systems.

Keywords

Fault tree Multi-valued decision diagrams Safety engineering Reliability Dependability analysis Variant management Product line engineering Minimal cut set 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Partially funded by the project SPES XT of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant no. 01IS12005C).

References

  1. 1.
    Ebert, C., Jones, C.: Embedded software: facts, figures and future. IEEE Comput. 42(4), 42–52 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO/ IS 26262. - road vehicles - functional Safety (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vesely, W., Goldberg, F.F., Roberts, N., Haasl, D.F.: Fault tree handbook. In: No. NUREG-0492, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (1981)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Electrotechnical Commission: IEC 61025 fault tree analysis (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vesely, B.: Fault Tree Anaylsis (FTA): concepts and applications. In: NASA HQ (2002). http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/risk/docs/ftacourse.pdf
  6. 6.
    Leveson, N.G., Diaz-Herrera, J.: Safeware: System Safety and Computer. Addison-Wesley (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hansen, K.M., Ravn, A.P., Stavridou, V.: From safety analysis to software requirements. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24(7), 573–584 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lutz, R., Woodhouse, R.M.: Requirements analsis using forward and backward search. Ann. Softw. Eng. 3(1), 459–475 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dehlinger, J., Lutz, R.: Software fault tree analysis for product lines. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering, pp. 12–21 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lu, D., Lutz, R.: Fault contribution trees for product families. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium in Software Reliability Engineering, pp. 231–242 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lam, W.: A case study of requirements reuse through product families. Ann. Softw. Eng. 5(1), 253–277 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feng, Q., Lutz, R.: Bi-directional safety analysis of product lines. J. Syst. Softw. 78(2), 111–127 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Noda, A., Nakanishi, T., Kitasuka, T., Fukuda, A.: Introducing fault tree analysis into product line software engineering for exception handling feature exploitation. In: Proceedings of the 25th Conference on IASTED International Multi-conference: Software Engineering, pp. 229–234 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gómez, C., Liggesmeyer, P., Sutor, A.: Variability management of safety and reliability models: an intermediate model towards systematic reuse of component fault trees. In: Schoitsch, E. (ed.) SAFECOMP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6351, pp. 28–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaiser, B., Liggesmeyer, P., Mäckel, O.: A new component concept for fault trees. In: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Safety Critical Systems and Software, pp. 37–46 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Atkinson, C., Bayer, J., Muthig, D.: Component-based product line development: the KobrA approach. In: Software Product Lines, pp. 289–309 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Srinivasan, A., Ham, T., Malik, S., Brayton, R.: Algorithms for discrete function manipulation. In: ICCAD-90, International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, pp. 92–95, IEEE, November 1990Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, C.Y.: Representation of switching circuits by binary-decision programs. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 38(4), 985–999 (1959)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bryant, R.E.: Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. Comput. 35, 677–691 (1986)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mo, Y., Xing, L., Dugan, J.: MDD-based method for efficient analysis on phased-mission systems with multimode failures. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.: Syst. 44(6), 757–769 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Manikas, T., Thornton, M., Feinstein, D.: Using multiple-valued logic decision diagrams to model system threat probabilities. In: 41st IEEE International Symposium on Multiple-valued Logic, pp. 263–267, May 2011Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gulati, R., Bechta Dugan, J.:A modular approach for analyzing static and dynamic fault trees. In: 1997 Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, pp. 57–63, January 1997Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mo, Y.: A multiple-valued decision-diagram-based approach to solve dynamic fault trees. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 63(1), 81–93 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xing, L., Dugan, J.B.: Dependability analysis using multiple-valued decision diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xing, L., Dai, Y.: A new decision-diagram-based method for efficient analysis on multistate systems. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput. 6(3), 161–174 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mo, Y., Xing, L., Amari, S.: A multiple-valued decision diagram based method for efficient reliability analysis of non-repairable phased-mission systems. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 63(1), 320–330 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jung, W.S., Han, S.H., Ha, J.: A fast BDD algorithm for large coherent fault trees analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 83(3), 369–374 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Contini, S., Matuzas, V.: Analysis of large fault trees based on functional decomposition. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 96(3), 383–390 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rauzy, A.: Mathematical foundations of minimal cutsets. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 50(4), 389–396 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rauzy, A.: Binary decision diagrams for reliability studies. In: Misra, K. (ed.) Handbook of Performability Engineering, pp. 381–396. Springer, London (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schulze, M., Mauersberger, J., Beuche, D.: Functional safety and variability: can it be brought together?. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference, pp. 236–243. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Käßmeyer, M., Velasco Moncaday, D., Schurius, M.: Evaluation of a systematic approach in variant management for safety-critical systems development. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Berndt, R., Bazan, P., Hielscher, K.S.: On the ordering of variables of multi-valued decision diagrams. In: MMB (ed.): Leistungs-, Zuverlässigkeits- und Verlässlichkeitsbewertung von Kommunikationsnetzen und Verteilten Systemen, Hamburg, pp. 89–98 (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Berndt, R., Bazan, P., Hielscher, K.-S., German, R.: Construction methods for MDD-based state space representations of unstructured systems. In: Fischbach, K., Krieger, U.R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th International GI/ITG Conference on Measurement, Modelling and Evaluation of Computing Systems and Dependability and Fault-Tolerance. LNCS, vol. 8376, pp. 43–56. Springer, Switzerland (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schmiedle, F., Gunther, W., Drechsler, R.: Selection of efficient re-ordering heuristics for MDD construction. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Multiple-valued Logic, pp. 299–304. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Käßmeyer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rüdiger Berndt
    • 2
  • Peter Bazan
    • 2
  • Reinhard German
    • 2
  1. 1.Audi Electronics Venture GmbHGaimersheimGermany
  2. 2.Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations