Skip to main content

A Controlled Experiment on Component Fault Trees

  • Conference paper
Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP 2013)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 8153))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In safety analysis for safety-critical embedded systems, methods such as FMEA and fault trees (FT) are strongly established in practice. However, the current shift towards model-based development has resulted in various new safety analysis methods, such as Component Integrated Fault Trees (CFT). Industry demands to know the benefits of these new methods. To compare CFT to FT, we conducted a controlled experiment in which 18 participants from industry and academia had to apply each method to safety modeling tasks from the avionics domain. Although the analysis of the solutions showed that the use of CFT did not yield a significantly different number of correct or incorrect solutions, the participants subjectively rated the modeling capacities of CFT significantly higher in terms of model consistency, clarity, and maintainability. The results are promising for the potential of CFT as a model-based approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. International Electrotechnical Commission, Fault tree analysis (FTA), IEC 61025 ed2.0 (December 13, 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  2. SAE International, Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems. ARP4754A (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics Software, Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification. DO-178C (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Object Management Group: OMG Systems Modeling Language, http://www.omgsysml.org/ (last visited March 9, 2013)

  5. de Miguel, M.A., Briones, J.F., Silva, J.P., Alonso, A.: Integration of safety analysis in model-driven software development. IET Software 2(3), 260–280 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Damm, W., Votintseva, A., Metzner, A., Josko, B., Peikenkamp, T., Böde, E.: Boosting Re-use of Embedded Automotive Applications Through Rich Components. In: Elsevier’s Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier Science B.V. (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Papadopoulos, Y., McDermid, J.A.: Hierarchically Performed Hazard Origin and Propagation Studies. Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Domis, D., Hoefig, K., Trapp, M.: A Consistency Check Algorithm for Component-based Refinements of Fault Trees. In: Proc. 21st IEEE Intern. Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), San Jose CA, USA, pp. 171–180 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Adler, R., Domis, D., Hoefig, K., Kemmann, S., Kuhn, T., Schwinn, J., Trapp, M.: Integration of Component Fault Trees into the UML. Non-functional System Properties in Domain Specific Modeling Languages. In (NFPinDSML 2010), Workshop at ACM/IEEE 13th Intern. Conf. on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Oslo, Norway (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Stålhane, T., Sindre, G.: A Comparison of Two Approaches to Safety Analysis Based on Use Cases. In: Parent, C., Schewe, K.-D., Storey, V.C., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 2007. LNCS, vol. 4801, pp. 423–437. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Stålhane, T., Sindre, G.: Safety Hazard Identification by Misuse Cases: Experimental Comparison of Text and Diagrams. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 721–735. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Stålhane, T., Sindre, G., du Bousquet, L.: Comparing safety analysis based on sequence diagrams and textual use cases. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 165–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Briand, L., Falessi, D., Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Yue, T.: Traceability and SysML Design Slices to Support Safety Inspections: A Controlled Experiment. Technical Report, Simula Research Laboratory (August. 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pai, G.J., Dugan, J.B.: Empirical Analysis of Software Fault Content and Fault Proneness Using Bayesian Methods. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 33(10), 675–686 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Paivio, A.: Mind and Its Evolution: A Dual Coding Theoretical Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Jung, J., Jedlitschka, A., Höfig, K., Domis, D., Hiller, M. (2013). A Controlled Experiment on Component Fault Trees. In: Bitsch, F., Guiochet, J., Kaâniche, M. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8153. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40793-2_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40793-2_26

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40792-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40793-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics