Model-Driven Availability Evaluation of Railway Control Systems

  • Simona Bernardi
  • Francesco Flammini
  • Stefano Marrone
  • José Merseguer
  • Camilla Papa
  • Valeria Vittorini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6894)


Maintenance of real-world systems is a complex task involving several actors, procedures and technologies. Proper approaches are needed in order to evaluate the impact of different maintenance policies considering cost/benefit factors. To that aim, maintenance models may be used within availability, performability or safety models, the latter developed using formal languages according to the requirements of international standards. In this paper, a model-driven approach is described for the development of formal maintenance and reliability models for the availability evaluation of repairable systems. The approach facilitates the use of formal models which would be otherwise difficult to manage, and provides the basis for automated models construction. Starting from an extension to maintenance aspects of the MARTE-DAM profile for dependability analysis, an automated process based on model-to-model transformations is described. The process is applied to generate a Repairable Fault Trees model from the MARTE-DAM specification of the Radio Block Centre - a modern railway controller.


Automated Model Generation ERTMS/ETCS system Model Transformation Repairable Fault Trees UML profiles 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    SAE-AS5506/1 Architecture Analysis and Design Language Annex (AADL): Vol.1, annex E:Error Model, International Society of Automotive Engineers (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernardi, S., Merseguer, J., Petriu, D.C.: A Dependability Profile within MARTE. Journal of Software and Systems Modeling (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bondavalli, A., Latella, D., Dal Cin, M., Pataricza, A.: High-Level Integrated Design Environment for Dependability (HIDE). In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Object-Oriented Real-Time Dependable Systems, WORDS 1999, pp. 87–92. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Codetta Raiteri, D., Iacono, M., Franceschinis, G., Vittorini, V.: Repairable fault tree for the automatic evaluation of repair policies. In: Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, pp. 659–668. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D’Ambrogio, A., Iazeolla, G., Mirandola, R.: A method for the prediction of software reliability. In: Proc. of the 6-th IASTED Software Engineering and Applications Conference, SEA 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ERTMS/ETCS System Requirements Specification (SRS), SUBSET-026, Issue 3.0.0 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Avizienis, A., et al.: Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans. on Dependable and Secure Computing 1(1), 11–33 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cancila, D., et al.: SOPHIA: a modeling language for model-based safety engineering. In: 2nd International Workshop on Model Based Architecting and Construction of Embedded Systems, Denver, Colorado, USA, October 6, pp. 11–26. CEUR (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bozzano, M., et al.: Safety, dependability and performance analysis of extended AADL models. The Computer Journal 54(5), 754–775 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flammini, F., Mazzocca, N., Iacono, M., Marrone, S.: Using repairable fault trees for the evaluation of design choices for critical repairable systems. In: IEEE International Symposium on High-Assurance Systems Engineering, pp. 163–172 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: On the architectural alignment of ATL and QVT. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2006, pp. 1188–1195. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lyu, M.R.: Software Fault Tolerance. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marrone, S., Papa, C., Vittorini, V.: Multiformalism and transformation inheritance for dependability analysis of critical systems. In: Méry, D., Merz, S. (eds.) IFM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6396, pp. 215–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    MOF Query/Views/Transformations. Final Adopted Spec., ptc/05-11-01 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pai, G.J., Dugan, J.B.: Automatic Synthesis of Dynamic Fault Trees from UML System Models. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pp. 243–254. IEEE CS, Washington, DC, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ERTMS/ETCS RAMS Requirements Specification. Ref. 96s1266 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rugina, A.-E., Kanoun, K., Kaaniche, M.: A system dependability modeling framework using AADL and GSPNs. In: de Lemos, R., Gacek, C., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) Architecting Dependable Systems IV. LNCS, vol. 4615, pp. 14–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sendall, S., Kozaczynski, W.: Model transformation: The heart and soul of model-driven software development. IEEE Softw. 20, 42–45 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Systems Modeling Language. SySML,
  20. 20.
    UML profile for Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time and Embedded Systems (MARTE), Version 1.0, OMG document formal/2009-11-02 (November 2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simona Bernardi
    • 1
  • Francesco Flammini
    • 2
  • Stefano Marrone
    • 3
  • José Merseguer
    • 4
  • Camilla Papa
    • 5
  • Valeria Vittorini
    • 5
  1. 1.Centro Universitario de la Defensa, Academia General MilitarSpain
  2. 2.AnsaldoSTS, Innovation and Competitiveness UnitItaly
  3. 3.Dip. di MatematicaSeconda Università di NapoliItaly
  4. de Informática e Ingeniería de SistemasUniversidad de ZaragozaSpain
  5. 5.Dip. di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversità di Napoli “Federico II”Italy

Personalised recommendations