A New Component Concept for Fault Trees

The decomposition of complex systems into manageable parts is an essential principle when dealing with complex technical systems. However, many safety and reliability modelling techniques do not support hierarchical decomposition in the desired way. Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) offers decomposition into modules, a breakdown with regard to the hierarchy of failure influences rather than to the system architecture. In this paper we propose a compositional extension of the FTA technique. Each technical component is represented by an extended Fault Tree. Besides the internal basic events and gates, each component can have input and output ports. By connecting these ports, components can be integrated into a higher-level system model. All components can be developed independently and stored in separate files or component libraries. Mathematically, each Component Fault Tree represents a logical function from its input ports and internal events to its output ports. As in traditional FTA, both qualitative and quantitative analyses are possible. Known algorithms e.g. based on Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) can still be applied. The Windows based safety analysis tool UWG3 has been developed to prove this concept in practice. It allows creating component libraries in an exchangeable XML format. We have carried out some case studies in order to show that the new concept improves clearness and intuitive modelling while maintaining the same results as traditional FTA.

[1]  John A. McDermid,et al.  An integrated tool set for software safety analysis , 1993, J. Syst. Softw..

[2]  Peter Liggesmeyer,et al.  Quantifying the reliability of embedded systems by automated analysis , 2001, 2001 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks.

[3]  Martin Rothfelder,et al.  Challenges and Solutions for Fault Tree Analysis Arising from Automatic Fault Tree Generation: Some Milestones on the Way , 2001, ISAS-SCI.

[4]  Joanne Bechta Dugan,et al.  Dependability assessment using binary decision diagrams (BDDs) , 1995, Twenty-Fifth International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing. Digest of Papers.

[5]  Peter Liggesmeyer,et al.  Improving system reliability with automatic fault tree generation , 1998, Digest of Papers. Twenty-Eighth Annual International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing (Cat. No.98CB36224).

[6]  C. M. Sperberg-McQueen,et al.  Extensible markup language , 1997 .

[7]  Randal E. Bryant,et al.  Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[8]  Bernhard Kaiser.  Integration von Sicherheits- und Zuverlässigkeitsmodellen in den Entwicklungsprozess Eingebetteter Systeme , 2002, Softwaretechnik-Trends.

[9]  Olivier Coudert,et al.  Fault Tree Analysis: 1020 Prime Implicants and Beyond , 1993 .

[10]  C. M. Sperberg-McQueen,et al.  Extensible Markup Language (XML) , 1997, World Wide Web J..

[11]  Lars Grunske.  Annotation of component specifications with modular analysis models for safety properties , 2003 .

[12]  Peter Liggesmeyer,et al.  Automatisierung erweiterter Fehlerbaumanalysen für komplexe technische Systeme , 2000 .

[13]  David Harel,et al.  Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems , 1987, Sci. Comput. Program..

[14]  C. M. Sperberg-McQueen,et al.  eXtensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition) , 2000 .

[15]  W E Vesely,et al.  Fault Tree Handbook , 1987 .

[16]  Takehisa Kohda,et al.  Finding modules in fault trees , 1989 .

[17]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Formal Methods: State of the Art and Future Directions Working Group Members , 1996 .

[18]  David Coppit,et al.  Developing a high-quality software tool for fault tree analysis , 1999, Proceedings 10th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (Cat. No.PR00443).