Probabilistic Failure Propagation and Transformation Analysis
A key concern in safety engineering is understanding the overall emergent failure behaviour of a system, i.e., behaviour exhibited by the system that is outside its specification of acceptable behaviour. A system can exhibit failure behaviour in many ways, including that from failures of individual or a small number of components. It is important for safety engineers to understand how system failure behaviour relates to failures exhibited by individual components. In this paper, we propose a safety analysis technique, failure propagation and transformation analysis (FPTA), which automatically and quantitatively analyses failures based on a model of failure logic. The technique integrates previous work on automated failure analysis with probabilistic model checking supported by the PRISM tool. We demonstrate the technique and tool on a small, yet realistic safety-related application.
Keywordsfailure safety analysis probabilistic analysis component-based system
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.IEC 60812. Functional safety of electrical/electronical/programmable electronic safety/related systems, analysis techniques for system reliability - procedure for failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA). Technical report, International Electrotechnical Commission IEC (1991)Google Scholar
- 2.Fenelon, P., McDermid, J.A.: New directions in software safety: Causal modelling as an aid to integration. Technical report, High Integrity Systems Engineering Group, Dept of Computer Science, University of York (1992)Google Scholar
- 4.Hiller, M., Jhumka, A., Suri, N.: An approach for analysing the propagation of data errors in software. In: Proceedings of 2001 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks DSN 2001, Göteborg, Sweden, July 2001, pp. 161–172. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
- 5.Hiller, M., Jhumka, A., Suri, N.: Propane: an environment for examining the propagation of errors in software. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 2002, Roma, Italy, pp. 81–85. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
- 6.Kaiser, B., Liggesmeyer, P., Mäckel, O.: A new component concept for fault trees. In: Proceedings of the 8th Australian Workshop on Safety Critical Systems and Software, SCS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
- 7.Kwiatkowska, M.Z., Norman, G., Parker, D.: PRISM: Probabilistic symbolic model checker. In: Field, T., Harrison, P.G., Bradley, J., Harder, U. (eds.) TOOLS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2324, pp. 200–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
- 8.Li, B., Li, M., Ghose, S., Smidts, C.: Integrating software into PRA. In: Proceedings of 14th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, ISSRE 2003, Denver, CO, USA, November 2003, pp. 457–467 (2003)Google Scholar
- 9.Michael, C.C., Jones, R.C.: On the uniformity of error propagation in software. In: Proceedings of 12th Annual Conference on Computer Assurance (COMPASS 1997), pp. 68–76 (1997)Google Scholar
- 10.Nassar, D.E.M., Abdelmoez, W., Shereshevsky, M., Ammar, H.H., Mili, A., Yu, B., Bogazzi, S.: Error propagation analysis of software architecture specifications. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer and Communication Engineering, ICCCE 2006, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (May 2006)Google Scholar
- 11.Paige, R.F., Rose, L.M., Ge, X., Kolovos, D.S., Brooke, P.J.: Automated safety analysis for domain-specific languages. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Non-Functional System Properties in Domain Specific Modeling Languages, co-located with 11th International Conference of Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MoDELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5421, Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar