Improvement of Processes and Methods in Testing Activities for Safety-Critical Embedded Systems

  • Giuseppe Bonifacio
  • Pietro Marmo
  • Antonio Orazzo
  • Ida Petrone
  • Luigi Velardi
  • Alessio Venticinque
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6894)


In order to sustain competitiveness in transport domain, especially in automotive, aerospace and rail, it is extremely important to control and optimize the entire development process of complex safety-critical embedded systems. In this context, the ARTEMIS EU-project CESAR (Cost-Efficient methods and processes for SAfety Relevant embedded systems) aims to boost cost efficiency of embedded systems development, safety and certification processes by an order of magnitude. We want to achieve the above target in the railway domain with particular emphasis on the Verification and Validation (V&V) process where activities to be performed, due to their complexity, require a significant amount of economical resources. Starting from an industrial use case (the On- Board Unit of the European Railway Traffic Management System Level 1, ERTMS L1) we provide a methodology that overcomes some weaknesses in testing processes. It supports requirements analysis and automatic test cases generation, avoiding a computational explosion.


Testing Safety Requirements engineering Ontology V&V 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kotonya, G., Sommerville, I.: Requirements Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specification. IEEE Std 830-1998 (1998) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    CENELEC EN 50126: Railway applications - The specification and demonstration of Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) (2001) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CENELEC EN 50128: Railway Applications - Communication, signalling and processing systems - Software for railway control and protection systems (2001) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    CENELEC EN 50129: Railway applications - Communication, signalling and processing systems - Safety related electronic systems for signalling (2003) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    CENELEC EN 50159-1: Railway applications - Communication, signalling and processing systems – Part 1: Safety-related communication in closed transmission systems (2001) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    CENELEC EN 50159-2: Railway applications - Communication, signalling and processing systems – Part 2: Safety-related communication in open transmission systems (2001) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    CENELEC Home Page,
  9. 9.
    De Nicola, G., di Tommaso, P., Esposito, R., Flammini, F., Marmo, P., Orazzo, A.: A Grey-Box Approach to the Functional Testing of Complex Automatic Train Protection Systems. In: Dal Cin, M., Kaâniche, M., Pataricza, A. (eds.) EDCC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3463, pp. 305–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Nicola, G., di Tommaso, P., Esposito, R., Flammini, F., Marmo, P., Orazzo, A.: ERTMS/ETCS: Working Principles and Validation. In: Proc. International Conference on Ship Propulsion and Railway Traction Systems, SPRTS 2005, Bologna, Italy, pp. 59–68 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    UNISIG, ERTMS/ETCS – Class 1, Scope of Test Specifications, Subset-076-7, issue 1.0.2 (2009) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    UNISIG, ERTMS/ETCS – Class 1, Interoperability Test Guidelines, Subset-110, issue 1.0.0 (2009) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    UNISIG, ERTMS/ETCS – Class 1, Interoperability Test Environment Definition (General), Subset-111-1, issue 1.0.0 (2009) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    UNISIG, ERTMS/ETCS – Class 1, Rules for Interoperability Test Scenarios, Subset-112, issue 0.1.4 (2008) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Farfeleder, S., Moser, T., Krall, A., Stålhane, T., Zojer, H., Panis, C.: DODT: Increasing Requirements Formalism using Domain Ontologies for Improved Embedded System Development. In: 14th IEEE Symposium on Design and Diagnostics of Electronic Circuits and Systems, Germany (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hull, E., Jackson, K., Dick, J.: Requirements Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stålhane, T., Omoronyia, I., Reichenbach, F.: Ontology-guided requirements and safety analysis. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Safety of Industrial Automated Systems, SIAS 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Omoronyia, I., Sindre, G., Stålhane, T., Biffl, S., Moser, T., Sunindyo, W.: A Domain Ontology Building Process for Guiding Requirements Elicitation. In: Wieringa, R., Persson, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2010. LNCS, vol. 6182, pp. 188–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Nicola, G., di Tommaso, P., Esposito, R., Flammini, F., Marmo, P., Orazzo, A.: An experience in validating train control systems by a grey-box testing approach. In: The Second International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive System, Technical University of Catalonia Barcelona, Spain (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe Bonifacio
    • 1
  • Pietro Marmo
    • 1
  • Antonio Orazzo
    • 1
  • Ida Petrone
    • 1
  • Luigi Velardi
    • 1
  • Alessio Venticinque
    • 1
  1. 1.AnsaldoSTSNapoliItaly

Personalised recommendations