This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
How to Keep Consistency between System Architecture and Their Fault Trees: A Lightweight Approach
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published April 03, 2018 by SAE International in United States
This content contains downloadable datasetsAnnotation ability available
FTA (Fault Tree Analysis) is one of prominent safety analysis techniques in the automotive industry partly because of its graphical representation and partly because of cut-set analysis. Especially because FTA is a practical solution for analyzing multiple-points faults, it is extensively used for items assigned with ASIL C or D safety goals. Our experience shows that, for successful application of FTA, the consistency between system architecture and its fault tree is essential. Unfortunately, as system size grows, and development time shortens, it is becoming difficult to keep this consistency manually. In this paper, we propose a light-weight approach for this consistency systematically. Our idea stems from the ‘reflexion model' proposed in software architecture recovery research: firstly, we assume that a functional block diagram (FBD) describes system architecture. Based on this assumption, we define fault tree modeling conventions for attaching structural information to fault tree events. Then, we develop an algorithm for deducing an FBD from fault trees. Finally, the comparison of the deduced FBD to the original shows inconsistencies between system architecture and its fault trees. To illustrate the effectiveness of our approach, we will explain the experience of our proposal in an industrial product.
|Journal Article||An Efficient Method to Calculate the Failure Rate of Dynamic Systems with Random Parameters Using the Total Probability Theorem|
|Technical Paper||Better Reuse of Architecture Models: Profits and Costs|
CitationKim, H., "How to Keep Consistency between System Architecture and Their Fault Trees: A Lightweight Approach," SAE Technical Paper 2018-01-1073, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4271/2018-01-1073.
Data Sets - Support Documents
|Unnamed Dataset 1|
|Unnamed Dataset 2|
|Unnamed Dataset 3|
- Ericson , C.A. II Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety John Wiley & Sons, Inc 2005
- Spinellis , D. On the declarative specification of models IEEE Software 20 2 94 96 March/April 2003
- Feiler , P. and Delange , J. Automated Fault Tree Analysis from AADL Models Newsletter ACM SIGAda Ada Letters 36 2 December 2016
- Murphy , G.C. and Notkin , D. Reengineering with Reflexion Models: A Case Study IEEE Computer August 1997
- International Organization for Standardization “ Road Vehicles - Functional Safety - Part 4: Product Development at the System Level ”
- Philippe Cuenot et al. The EAST-ADL architecture description language for automotive embedded software MBEERTS'07 Proceedings of the 2007 International Dagstuhl conference on Model-based engineering of embedded real-time systems 2007
- Deliverable D331a: Proposal for extension of meta-model for error failure and propagation analysis 2013
- Vesely , W. , Dugan , J. , Minarick , J. III , and Railsback , J. Fault Tree Handbook with Aerospace Applications NASA 2002