Advertisement

Towards Cross-Domains Model-Based Safety Process, Methods and Tools for Critical Embedded Systems: The CESAR Approach

  • Jean-Paul Blanquart
  • Eric Armengaud
  • Philippe Baufreton
  • Quentin Bourrouilh
  • Gerhard Griessnig
  • Martin Krammer
  • Odile Laurent
  • Joseph Machrouh
  • Thomas Peikenkamp
  • Cecile Schindler
  • Tormod Wien
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6894)

Abstract

The CESAR project aims at elaborating a Reference Technology Platform usable across several application domains (Aeronautics, Automotive, Industrial Automation, Railway and Space) for the cost effective development and validation of safety related embedded systems. Safety and, more generally, dependability are therefore major topics addressed by the project. This paper focuses on the work performed on safety requirements and approaches to be supported by a common Reference Technology Platform. We analyse and compare the industrial practice, applicable standards and state of the art so as to identify which and how safety views should be supported. We focus in particular on the major axes investigated by the project, formal model-based techniques for requirements engineering and component-based engineering. Preliminary realisations and case studies confirm the interest and provide refined requirements for the final version of the platform.

Keywords

Safety dependability embedded systems standards multidomains development and validation platform 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems, EUROCAE ED-79A and SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice ARP 4754A (December 21, 2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guidelines and methods for conducting the safety assessment process on civil airborne systems and equipment, EUROCAE ED-135 and SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice ARP 4761 (December 1996) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Software considerations in airborne systems and equipment certification, EUROCAE ED-12 and RTCA DO-178, issue B (December 1, 1992) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware, EUROCAE ED-80 and RTCA DO-254 (April 2000) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Road vehicles – Functional safety, Final Draft International Standard ISO/FDIS 26262: (Parts 1-10) (2010) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Functional safety of electrical/electronic/ programmable electronic safety-related systems, IEC 61508 Parts 1-7, Edition 2.0, (April 2010) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Functional safety – Safety instrumented systems for the process industry sector, IEC 61511 Parts 1-3, Edition 1.0 (March 2003) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Railway applications – The specification and demonstration of reliability, availability, maintainability and safety (RAMS), CENELEC, EN 50126 (February 28, 2007) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Railway applications – Communications, signalling and processing systems – Software for railway control and protection systems, CENELEC, EN 50128 (May 15, 2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Railway applications – Communications, signalling and processing systems – Safety related electronic systems for signalling, CENELEC, EN 50129 (May 7, 2003) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Space product assurance – Dependability, European Cooperation for Space Standardisation, ECSS-Q-ST-30C (March 6, 2009) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Space product assurance – Safety, European Cooperation for Space Standardisation, ECSS-Q-ST-40C (March 6, 2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Space product assurance – Software product assurance, European Cooperation for Space Standardisation, ECSS-Q-ST-80C (March 6, 2009) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baufreton, P., Blanquart, J.P., Boulanger, J.L., Delseny, H., Derrien, J.C, Gassino, J., Ladier, G., Ledinot, E., Leeman, M., Quéré, P., Ricque, B.: Multi-domain comparison of safety standards. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Embedded Real Time Software and Systems (ERTS2 2010), Toulouse, France (May 19-21, 2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems, ANSI/IEEE Std 1471, ISO/IEC 42010:2007 (2007) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group, Software and Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model, v2.0 (2008) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haumer, P.: Increasing Development Knowledge with EPFC. Eclipse Review (Spring 2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cifaldi, M., Lanteri, F.: CESAR Practices Framework – SPEM Mapping Guidelines, Draft 1, CESAR internal document (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chiam, Y.K., Staples, M., Zhu, L.: Representing Quality Attribute Techniques Using SPEM and EPF Composer. In: EuroSPI 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bieber, P., Blanquart, J.P., Durrieu, G., Lesens, D., Lucotte, J., Tardy, F., Turin, M., Seguin, C., Conquet, E.: Integration of formal fault analysis in ASSERT: Case studies and lessons learnt. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Embedded Real Time Software (ERTS 2008), Toulouse, France (January 29-February 1, 2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rugina, A.E., Blanquart, J.P.: Formal Methods in Space Systems: Lessons Learnt. In: Data Systems in Aerospace, DASIA Conference, Budapest, Hungary (June 1-4, 2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Blanquart, J.P., Valadeau, P.: Model-based approaches for an improved FDIR development and validation process. In: Data Systems in Aerospace, DASIA Conference, Malta (May 17-20, 2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Paul Blanquart
    • 1
  • Eric Armengaud
    • 2
    • 3
  • Philippe Baufreton
    • 4
  • Quentin Bourrouilh
    • 3
  • Gerhard Griessnig
    • 3
  • Martin Krammer
    • 2
  • Odile Laurent
    • 5
  • Joseph Machrouh
    • 6
  • Thomas Peikenkamp
    • 7
  • Cecile Schindler
    • 5
  • Tormod Wien
    • 8
  1. 1.Astrium SatellitesToulouse Cedex 4France
  2. 2.Virtual Vehicle Research and Test CenterGrazAustria
  3. 3.AVLGrazAustria
  4. 4.Sagem Défense SécuritéMassyFrance
  5. 5.Airbus OperationsToulouseFrance
  6. 6.ThalesPalaiseauFrance
  7. 7.OFFISOldenburgGermany
  8. 8.ABBBillingstadNorway

Personalised recommendations