Component-Based Abstraction in Fault Tree Analysis

  • Dominik Domis
  • Mario Trapp
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5775)


To handle the complexity of safety-critical embedded systems, it is not appropriate to develop functionality and consider safety in separate tasks, or to consider software only as a black box in safety analyses. Rather, safety aspects have to be integrated as tightly as possible into the system and software development process and its models. But existing safety analyses and models do not fit well with software development tasks such as architectural design and do not take advantage of their strengths. To solve this problem, this paper extends fault tree analysis by hierarchical component-based abstraction, enabling fault tree analysis to be integrated into a component-oriented model-based design approach and to handle the complexity of software architectural design.


Failure Mode Safety Analysis Fault Tree Hierarchy Level Binary Decision Diagram 
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.
    IEC 61508: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems, International Electrotechnical Commission (1999) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    IEC/TR 80002-1 Ed.1: Medical device software - Guidance on the application of ISO 14971 to medical device software, International Electrotechnical Commission (2009) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    MISRA: Guidelines for safety analysis of vehicle based programmable systems. MIRA Limited, Warwickshire (2007) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO/CD 26262, Road vehicles, Functional Safety Part 6: Product development software. Committee draft (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atkinson, C., Bayer, J., Bunse, C., Kamsties, E., Laitenberger, O., Laqua, R., Muthig, D., Peach, B., Wüst, J., Zettel, J.: Component-based Product Line Engineering with UML. Addison-Wesley, London (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Domis, D., Trapp, M.: Integrating Safety Analyses and Comopnent-based Design. In: Harrison, M.D., Sujan, M.-A. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5219, pp. 58–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaiser, B., Liggesmeyer, P., Mäckel, O.: A New Component Concept for Fault Trees. In: Lindsay, P., Cant, T. (eds.) Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology Series, vol. 33, pp. 37–46. Australian Computer Society (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fenelon, P., McDermid, J.A., Pumfrey, D.J., Nicholson, M.: Towards Integrated Safety Analysis and Design. ACM Computing Reviews 2(1), 21–32 (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Papadopoulos, Y., McDermid, J.A.: Hierarchically Performed Hazard Origin and Propagation Studies. In: Felici, M., Kanoun, K., Pasquini, A. (eds.) 18th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security. LNCS, vol. 1608, pp. 139–152. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grunske, L.: Towards an Integration of Standard Component-Based Safety Evaluation Techniques with SaveCCM. In: Hofmeister, C., Crnković, I., Reussner, R. (eds.) QoSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4214, pp. 199–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lisagor, O., McDermid, J.A., Pumfrey, D.J.: Towards a Practicable Process for Automated Safety Analysis. In: 24th International System Safety Conference, pp. 596–607 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology, IEEE Std. 610.12-1990Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coudert, O., Madre, J., Henri, F.: A new viewpoint on Two-Level Logic Minimization. In: 30th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, Dallas, TX, USA, pp. 625–630 (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coudert, O., Madre, J., Henri, F.: New Qualitative Analysis Strategies in Metaprime. In: Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Anaheim, CA, USA, pp. 298–303 (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dutuit, Y., Rauzy, A.: Exact and Truncated Computations of Prime Implicants of Coherent and non-Coherent Fault Trees within Aralia. In: Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 58, pp. 127–144 (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Remenyte-Prescott, R., Andrews, J.: Prime Implicants for modularized non-coherent fault tress using binary decision diagrams. Int. J. Reliability and Safety 1(4), 446–464 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sun, H., Andrews, J.: Identification of independent modules in fault trees which contain dependent basic events. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 86, 285–296 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dutuit, Y., Rauzy, A.: A Linear Time Algorithm to Find Modules of Fault Trees. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 45, 422–425 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Damm, W., Votintseva, A., Metzner, A., Josko, B., Peikenkamp, T., Böde, E.: Boosting Re-use of Embedded Automotive Applications Through Rich Components. In: Proceedings of the Foundation of Interface Technology Workshop. Elsevier Science B.V, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feiler, P., Rugina, A.: Dependability Modeling with the Architecture Analysis & Design Language. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2007-TN-043, Carnegie Mellon University (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dominik Domis
    • 1
  • Mario Trapp
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software EngineeringKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations