Advertisement

Advances in Software Engineering and Aeronautics

  • Shafagh JaferEmail author
  • Umut Durak
  • Hakan Aydemir
  • Richard Ruff
  • Thorsten Pawletta
Chapter

Abstract

Avionics, like any other safety-critical real-time systems, pose unique challenges on system design, development, and testing. Specifically, the rigorous certification process mandated for avionics software calls for additional attention. The DO-178C Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification provides detailed guidelines to ensure safety measures. This chapter gives a different angle to avionics development and certification, highlighting model-based approaches for advancing the design, development, testing, and maintenance of airborne software systems. Modern software engineering processes such as agile and scrum are discussed as the new techniques in speeding up the certification hurdle, while achieving higher return on investment.

References

  1. 1.
    C.B. Watkins, Integrated modular avionics: managing the allocation of shared intersystem resources, in 25th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2006 IEEE/AIAA (IEEE, 2006), pp. 1–12Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    RTCA. DO-297: Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) Development Guidance and Certification Considerations. Technical report, RTCA (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Aleksa, J.P. Carter, Boeing 777 airplane information management system operational experience, in Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 1997. 16th DASC AIAA/IEEE, vol. 1 (IEEE, New York, 1997), pp. 1–3Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Rushby, Partitioning in avionics architectures: requirements, mechanisms, and assurance. Technical report, SRI International (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    RTCA/EUROCAE. ED-12C/DO-178C Software considerations in airborne systems and equipment certification. Technical report, EUROCAE (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C.B. Watkins, R. Walter, Transitioning from federated avionics architectures to integrated modular avionics, in 2007 IEEE/AIAA 26th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G.E. Migneault, Software reliability and advanced avionics, in Proceedings of the May 19–22, 1980, National Computer Conference (ACM, New York, 1980), pp. 715–720Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Furnell, U.G. Bleimann, P. Dowland, O. Schneider, in Proceedings of the Eighth International Network Conference (INC 2010). Lulu.com (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T.O. Group, Technical Standard for Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) (2017), http://www.opengroup.org/face
  10. 10.
    C. Jones, O. Bonsignour, The Economics of Software Quality (Addison-Wesley Professional, USA, 2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    RTCA/EUROCAE. DO-333/ED-216 Formal Methods Supplement to DO-178C and DO-278A. Technical report, EUROCAE (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    RTCA/EUROCAE. E-218/DO-331 Model-based development and verificationsupplement to ED-12C and ED-109A. Technical report, EUROCAE (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Schwaber, M. Beedle, Agile Software Development with Scrum, vol. 1 (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Beck, Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change (Addison-Wesley Professional, USA, 2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Cockburn, Crystal Clear: A Human-Powered Methodology for Small Teams (Pearson Education, London, 2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S.R. Palmer, M. Felsing, A Practical Guide to Feature-Driven Development (Pearson Education, London, 2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Beck, Test-Driven Development: By Example (Addison-Wesley Professional, USA, 2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Highsmith, Adaptive Software Development: A Collaborative Approach to Managing Complex Systems (Addison-Wesley, USA, 2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R.A. Kemmerer, Integrating formal methods into the development process. IEEE Softw. 7(5), 37–50 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J.M. Wing, A specifier’s introduction to formal methods. Computer 23(9), 8–22 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Wolff, Scrum goes formal: Agile methods for safety-critical systems, in Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Engineering: Rigorous and Agile Approaches (IEEE Press, New York, 2012), pp. 23–29Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. Walters, Hybrid implementations of algebraic specifications, in International Conference on Algebraic and Logic Programming (Springer, Berlin, 1990), pp. 40–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    V. Carchiolo, M. Malgeri, G. Mangioni, Hardware/software synthesis of formal specifications in codesign of embedded systems. ACM Trans. Design Autom. Electron. Syst. (TODAES) 5(3), 399–432 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Kasser, Model-based systems engineering: back to the future? in Asia-Pacific Council on Systems Engineering (APCOSE) Conference (Yokohama, Japan, 2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    I. Amundson, L. Shipton, A. Liu, M. Nowak, Toward efficient model-based development of aerospace applications, in 15th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (2015), p. 2741Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    D.J. Coe, J.H. Kulick, A model-based agile process for DO-178C certification, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP). The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science. Computer Engineering and Applied Computing (WorldComp) (2013), p. 1Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    IBM. Rational Rhapsody Family (2017), http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/ratirhapfami
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    F. Paterno, Model-Based Design and Evaluation of Interactive Applications (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, 2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    S. Beydeda, M. Book, V. Gruhn et al., Model-Driven Software Development, vol. 15 (Springer, Berlin, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    P. Swithinbank, M. Chessell, T. Gardner, C. Griffin, J. Man, H. Wylie, L. Yusuf, Patterns: Model-Driven Development Using IBM Rational Software Architect (IBM, International Technical Support Organization, 2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    R. Capilla, J. Bosch, K.-C. Kang et al., Systems and Software Variability Management, in Concepts Tools and Experiences (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    I. Groher, M. Voelter, Expressing feature-based variability in structural models, in Workshop on Managing Variability for Software Product Lines (Citeseer, 2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    OMG, OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification Version 2.5.1. Technical report, Object Management Group (2016)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    H. Gomaa, Designing Software Product Lines with UML (IEEE, New York, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    K. Lee, K.C. Kang, J. Lee, Concepts and guidelines of feature modeling for product line software engineering, in International Conference on Software Reuse (Springer, Berlin, 2002), pp. 62–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    D. Beuche, Modeling and building software product lines with pure:: variants, in Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference, vol. 2 (ACM, New York, 2012), pp. 255–255Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    M. Krausz, M. Zimmer, H.C. Reuss, OverNight Testing-The fully automated simulation environment for evaluation of car concepts ONT, in Simulation Notes Europe: Ontologies in Modelling and Simulation, vol. 2, pp. 87–94 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    A. Haber, C. Kolassa, P. Manhart, P.M.S. Nazari, B. Rumpe, I. Schaefer, First-class variability modeling in matlab/simulink, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software Intensive Systems (ACM, New York, 2013), p. 4Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    J. Weiland, P. Manhart, A classification of modeling variability in simulink, in Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (ACM, New York, 2014), p. 7Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    M. Schulze, J. Weiland, D. Beuche, Automotive model-driven development and the challenge of variability, in Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference, vol. 1 (ACM, New York, 2012), pp. 207–214Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    K. Pohl, G. Böckle, F.J. van Der Linden, Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Software Product Lines (2017), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/productlines/
  44. 44.
    C. Dumitrescu, R. Mazo, C. Salinesi, A. Dauron, Bridging the gap between product lines and systems engineering: an experience in variability management for automotive model based systems engineering, in Proceedings of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference (ACM, New York, 2013), pp. 254–263Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    S. Thiel, A. Hein, Modelling and using product line variability in automotive systems. IEEE Softw. 19(4), 66–72 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    N. Sozen, E. Merlo, Adapting software product lines for complex certifiable avionics software, in Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Product Line Approaches in Software Engineering (IEEE Press, New York, 2012), pp. 21–24Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    F. Dordowsky, W. Hipp, Adopting software product line principles to manage software variants in a complex avionics system, in Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference (Carnegie Mellon University, 2009), pp. 265–274Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    F. Dordowsky, R. Bridges, H. Tschope, Implementing a software product line for a complex avionics system, in 2011 15th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC) (IEEE, New York, 2011), pp. 241–250Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    R.T. Braga, O. Trindade Jr, K.R. Branco, J. Lee, Incorporating certification in feature modelling of an unmanned aerial vehicle product line, in Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference, vol. 1 (ACM, New York, 2012), pp. 249–258Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    J.C. Jensen, D.H. Chang, E.A. Lee, A model-based design methodology for cyber-physical systems, in 2011 7th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC) (IEEE, New York, 2011), pp. 1666–1671Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    J. Zander, I. Schieferdecker, P.J. Mosterman, Model-Based Testing for Embedded Systems (CRC Press, USA, 2011)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    M. Utting, B. Legeard, Practical Model-Based Testing: A Tools Approach (Morgan Kaufmann, USA, 2010)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    T. Roßner, C. Brandes, H. Goetz, M. Winter, Basiswissen Modellbasierter Test. Dpunkt. verlag, 2012Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    J. Zander-Nowicka, Model-based testing of real-time embedded systems in the automotive domain (2009)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Simulink Verification and Validation (2017), http://www.mathworks.com/products/simverification/
  56. 56.
    L.M. Boden, R.D. Busser, Adding natural relationships to Simulink models to improve automated model-based testing, in The 23rd Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2004. DASC 04, vol. 2 (IEEE, New York, 2004), pp. 6–BGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    R.D. Busser, M.R. Blackburn, A.M. Nauman, T.R. Morgan, Reducing cost of high integrity systems through model-based testing, in The 23rd Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2004. DASC 04, vol. 2 (IEEE, New York, 2004), pp. 6–BGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    H. Stallbaum, M. Rzepka, Toward DO-178B-compliant test models, in 2010 Workshop on Model-Driven Engineering, Verification, and Validation (MoDeVVa) (IEEE, New York, 2010), pp. 25–30Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    B. Gallina, A. Andrews, Deriving verification-related means of compliance for a model-based testing process, in Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), 2016 IEEE/AIAA 35th (IEEE, New York, 2016), pp. 1–6Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    U. Durak, A. Schmidt, T. Pawletta, Model-based testing objective fidelity evaluation of engineering and research flight simulators, in Proceedings of AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference (Dallas/TX, USA, 2015)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    M.M. Lehman, Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. Proc. IEEE 68(9), 1060–1076 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    G. Visaggio, Ageing of a data-intensive legacy system: symptoms and remedies. J. Softw. Evol. Process 13(5), 281–308 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    D.L. Parnas, Software aging, in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering (IEEE Computer Society Press, 1994), pp. 279–287Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    H.M. Sneed, Estimating the costs of a reengineering project, in 12th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (IEEE, New York, 2005), p. 9Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    V. Kshusidman, ADM transformation, in ADM Task Force (White Paper, 2008), http://www.omg.org/adm/ADMTransformartionv4.pdf
  66. 66.
    R. Pérez-Castillo, I.G.-R. De Guzman, M. Piattini, Knowledge Discovery Metamodel-ISO/IEC 19506: A standard to modernize legacy systems. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 33(6), 519–532 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    C. Norton, V. Decyk, Re-engineering legacy mission scientific software, in AIAA Space 2001 Conference and Exposition. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (2001)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    U. Durak, Extending the Knowledge Discovery Metamodel for architecturedriven simulation modernization. Simulation 91(12), 1052–1067 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shafagh Jafer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Umut Durak
    • 2
  • Hakan Aydemir
    • 3
  • Richard Ruff
    • 4
  • Thorsten Pawletta
    • 5
  1. 1.Embry Riddle Aeronautical UniversityDaytona BeachUSA
  2. 2.German Aerospace Center (DLR)BraunschweigGermany
  3. 3.Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI)AnkaraTurkey
  4. 4.The MathWorksDallasUSA
  5. 5.Wismar University of Applied SciencesWismarGermany

Personalised recommendations