Extracting Timing Models from Component-Based Multi-Criticality Vehicular Embedded Systems

  • Saad Mubeen
  • Mattias Gålnander
  • John Lundbäck
  • Kurt-Lennart Lundbäck
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 738)


Timing models include crucial information that is required by the timing analysis engines to verify timing behavior of vehicular embedded systems. The extraction of this information from these systems is challenging due to the software complexity, distribution of functionality and multiple criticality levels. To meet this challenge, this paper presents a comprehensive end-to-end timing model for multi-criticality vehicular distributed embedded systems. The model is comprehensive, in the sense that it captures detailed timing information and supports various types of real-time network protocols used in the vehicular domain. Moreover, the paper provides a method to extract these models from the software architectures of these systems. The proposed model is aligned with the component models and standards in the vehicular domain that support the pipe-and-filter communication among their basic building elements.


End-to-end timing model Vehicular distributed embedded system Real-time requirement Mixed criticality model Software component 



The work in this paper is supported by the KKS foundation through the project PreVeiw. We thank our industrial partners Arcticus Systems, Volvo CE and BAE Systems Hägglunds.


  1. 1.
    I. Crnkovic, M. Larsson, Building Reliable Component-Based Software Systems (Artech House, Norwood, MA, 2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Mubeen, J. Mäki-Turja, M. Sjödin, Support for end-to-end response-time and delay analysis in the industrial tool suite: issues, experiences and a case study. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 10(1), 453–482 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Feiertag, K. Richter, J. Nordlander, J. Jonsson, A compositional framework for end-to-end path delay calculation of automotive systems under different path semantics, in CRTS Workshop (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    AUTOSAR Techincal Overview, Release 4.1, Rev.2, Ver.1.1.0.
  5. 5.
    K. Hänninen et al., The rubus component model for resource constrained real-time systems, in IEEE Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Sentilles, A. Vulgarakis, T. Bures, J. Carlson, I. Crnkovic, A component model for control-intensive distributed embedded systems, in CBSE (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    X. Ke, K. Sierszecki, C. Angelov, COMDES-II: a component-based framework for generative development of distributed real-time control systems, in 13th IEEE International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications, RTCSA 2007, pp. 199–208 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Schmidt, F. Kuhns, An overview of the real-time CORBA specification. Computer 33(6), 56–63 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Burns, R. Davis, Mixed criticality systems – a review, ninth edition, Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of York, 2017. Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Vestal, Preemptive scheduling of multi-criticality systems with varying degrees of execution time assurance, in 28th IEEE International Symposium on Real-Time Systems, pp. 239–243 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO 26262-1:2011: Road vehicles – Functional safety. http://www.-iso.-org/Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Special C. of RTCA. DO-178C, software considerations in airborne systems and equipment certification (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    TIMMO-2-USE. https://itea3.-org/project/timmo-2-use.-htmlGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Timing Augmented Description Language (TADL2) syntax, semantics, metamodel Ver. 2, Deliverable 11, August 2012Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Mubeen, J. Mäki-Turja, M. Sjödin, Extraction of end-to-end timing model from component-based distributed real-time embedded systems, in Time Analysis and Model-Based Design, from Functional Models to Distributed Deployments (TiMoBD) Workshop Located at Embedded Systems Week (Springer, Berlin, 2011), pp. 1–6Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Mubeen, J. Mäki-Turja, M. Sjödin, Communications-oriented development of component- based vehicular distributed real-time embedded systems. J. Syst. Archit. 60(2), 207–220 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Tindell, Adding time-offsets to schedulability analysis, Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of York, England, 1994Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Palencia, M.G. Harbour, Schedulability analysis for tasks with static and dynamic offsets, in IEEE International Real-Time Systems Symposium, p. 26 (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Mäki-Turja, M. Nolin, Efficient implementation of tight response-times for tasks with offsets. Real-Time Syst. 40(1), 77–116 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    T.P. Baker, Stack-based scheduling for realtime processes. Real-Time Syst. 3(1), 67–99 (1991) [Online]. Available:
  21. 21.
    L. Sha, R. Rajkumar, J. Lehoczky, Priority inheritance protocols: an approach to real-time synchronization. IEEE Trans. Comput. 39(9), 1175–1185 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ISO 11898-1, Road Vehicles? interchange of digital information? controller area network (CAN) for high-speed communication, ISO Standard-11898, November 1993Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    CANopen Application Layer and Communication Profile. CiA Draft Standard 301. Version 4.02. February 13, 2002.
  24. 24.
    Hägglunds Controller Area Network (HCAN), Network Implementation Specification, in BAE Systems Hägglunds, Sweden (Internal Document) (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Requirements on Communication, Rel. 4.1, Rev. 3, Ver. 3.3.1, March, 2014. Accessed 05 May 2014
  26. 26.
    Audio/video bridging task group of IEEE 802.1, available at
  27. 27.
    R. Santos, M. Behnam, T. Nolte, P. Pedreiras, L. Almeida, Multi-level hierarchical scheduling in ethernet switches, in 2011 Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT), pp. 185–194 (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Time-Sensitive Networking Task Group, IEEE Std 802.1Qbv-2015 – IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks – Bridges and Bridged Networks (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Mubeen, J. Mäki-Turja, M. Sjödin, Integrating mixed transmission and practical limitations with the worst-case response-time analysis for controller area network. J. Syst. Softw. 99, 66–84 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saad Mubeen
    • 1
  • Mattias Gålnander
    • 2
  • John Lundbäck
    • 2
  • Kurt-Lennart Lundbäck
    • 2
  1. 1.Mälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden
  2. 2.Arcticus Systems ABJärfällaSweden

Personalised recommendations