Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Aerospace Engineering
Volume 2017, Article ID 6143727, 9 pages
Research Article

Architecture Level Safety Analyses for Safety-Critical Systems

Aerospace Electronics & Systems Division, CSIR-National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Correspondence should be addressed to K. S. Kushal; moc.liamg@881162ksk

Received 24 August 2016; Revised 23 November 2016; Accepted 15 December 2016; Published 15 January 2017

Academic Editor: Paul Williams

Copyright © 2017 K. S. Kushal et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. P. H. Feiler and D. P. Gluch, Model-Based Engineering with AADL-An Introduction to the SAE Architecture Analysis & Design Language, Pearson Education-Addison Wesley, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2012.
  2. MIL-STD882(E): Department of Defence Standard Practice, System Safety, May 2012.
  3. SAE International, “Guidelines and methods for conducting the safety assessment process on civil airborne systems and equipments,” Tech. Rep. ARP-4761, 1996, View at Google Scholar
  4. RTCA, “Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification,” December 2011,
  5. A. Joshi, S. Vestal, and P. Binns, “Automatic generation of static fault trees from AADL models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/IFIP Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks' Workshop on Dependable Systems, Edinburgh, UK, 2007.
  6. J. Delange, Safety Evaluation with AADLv2, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2013.
  7. B. Hall, K. R. Driscoll, and G. Madl, Investigating System Dependability Modeling Using AADL, NASA/CR-2013-217961, Honeywell International, Golden Valley, Minn, USA, 2013.
  8. Q. Li, Z. Gao, and X. Luo, “Error modeling and reliability analysis of airborne distributed software based on AADL,” Advanced Science Letters, vol. 7, pp. 421–425, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. J. Delange and P. Feiler, “Architecture fault modeling with the AADL error-model annex,” in Proceedings of the 40th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA '14), pp. 361–368, Verona, Italy, August 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. D. Powell, “Failure mode assumptions and assumption coverage,” in Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, FTCS 22, pp. 386–395, IEEEXplore, Boston, Mass, USA, July 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. C. J. Walter and N. Suri, “The customizable fault/error model for dependable distributed systems,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 290, no. 2, pp. 1223–1251, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  12. J. Cabot and M. Gogolla, Object Constraint Language(OCL): A Definitive Guide, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010.
  13. M. Benammar and F. Belala, “How to make AADL specification more precise,” International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 16–23, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  14. OSATE,
  15. OpenFTA,
  16. SAE International, Annex Behavior Language Compliance & Application Program Interface, SAE International, Warrendale, Pa, USA, 2007.
  17. C. Li, H. Yang, and H. Liu, “An approach to modelling and analysing reliability of breeze/ADL-based software architecture,” International Journal of Automation and Computing, In press.
  18. J. Xiang, K. Yanoo, Y. Maeno, and K. Tadano, “Automatic synthesis of static fault trees from system models,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Secure Software Integration and Reliability Improvement (SSIRI '11), pp. 127–136, June 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus