SpringerLink
Log in

Safety-Driven Development and ISO 26262

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Automotive Systems and Software Engineering

Abstract

The automotive industry has seen a rapid change in the technologies used inside the vehicles. Since the introduction of the first electronic control unit, the impact of electronics and computer science on the quality of the vehicles is increasing every year. Arguably, safety is one of the most important quality attributes of a vehicle that needs special attention during all the stages of the lifecycle of a vehicle. The overall safety of a vehicle can be seen from multiple aspects, such as passive safety, active safety, and functional safety. Functional safety addresses the hazards that are caused by malfunctioning of electrical and/or electronic (E/E) systems. There are many factors that impact functional safety such as the organization and management, the development process, the design of the systems, the system type and technologies used in it, the quality control methods, etc. The ISO 26262 standard provides the state of the art of functional safety in automotive industry. In this chapter some of the most important aspects of functional safety from ISO 26262 perspective are discussed; namely, safety management, development process, architecture design, and safety assurance are presented here.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** 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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. (2011) HSE: safety case assessment manual. http://www.hse.gov.uk/gas/supply/gasscham/gsmrscham.pdf

  2. (2013) OPENCOSS: Deliverable D2.2 – high-level requirements (report). http://www.opencoss-project.eu/node/7

  3. (2015) Eclipse process framework project. http://www.eclipse.org/epf/

  4. Amroush A (2010) Design patterns for safety-critical embedded systems. PhD thesis, Aachen University, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-85617-707-8.00006-6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Armengaud E, Bourrouilh Q, Griessnig G, Martin H, Reichenpfader P (2012) Using the CESAR safety framework for functional safety management in the context of ISO 26262, Embedded real time software and systems

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bishop P, Bloomfield R (1998) A methodology for safety case development. Industrial Perspectives of Safety-critical Systems, P194-203 Cited by 201

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bushmann F, Meunier R, Rohnert H, Architecture SW (1996) Pattern-oriented software architecture, vol 1. Wiley, Chichester. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.108.452.101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. CENELEC (1999) EN50126: railway applications – the specification and demonstration of reliability. Availability, maintainability and safety (RAMS)

    Google Scholar 

  9. CENELEC (2000) EN50129: railway application – safety related electronic systems for signaling

    Google Scholar 

  10. CENELEC (2011) EN50128: railway applications-communication, signaling and processing systems-software for railway control and protection systems

    Google Scholar 

  11. Douglass BP (2002) Real-time design patterns: robust scalable architecture for real-time systems. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fleming M (2001) Safety culture maturity model. Technical report, The Keil Centre. ISBN 0 7176 1919 2. www.hse.gov.uk/research/

  13. Graydon P (2014) Towards a clearer understanding of context and its role in assurance argument confidence. In: Computer safety, reliability, and security. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 8666. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 139–154

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hawkins R, Kelly T, Knight J, Graydon P (2011) A new approach to creating clear safety arguments. In: Advances in systems safety. Springer, London, pp 3–23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Hecker S, Goldenhar L (2014) Understanding safety culture and safety climate in construction: existing evidence and a path forward. In: Safety culture/climate workshop. The Center for Construction Research and Training. CPWR, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hudson P (1999) Safety culture – theory and practice. The human factor in system reliability – is human performance predictable

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hudson P (2001) Safety culture: the ultimate goal. Flight Safety Australia (October):29–31. http://82.94.179.196/bookshelf/books/1091.pdf

  18. Hudson P (2001) Safety management and safety culture the long, hard and winding road. In: Occupational health & safety management systems: proceedings of the first national conference, p 3. http://www.ohs.com.au/ohsms-publication.pdf#page=11

  19. International Electrotechnical Commission (2010) IEC 61508 functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems, Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.iec.ch/functionalsafety/

    Google Scholar 

  20. ISO (2011) ISO 26262 road vehicles – functional safety. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  21. ISO (2011) ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010: systems and software engineering – architecture description, pp 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.6129467

  22. Kelly T, McDermid J (1998) Safety case patterns – reusing successful arguments. In: IEEE colloquium on understanding patterns and their application to systems engineering (Digest No. 1998/308), pp 3/1–3/9, cited by 41

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kelly T, Weaver R (2004) The goal structuring notation – a safety argument notation. In: Proceedings of Dependable Systems and Networks 2004 Workshop on Assurance Cases Cited by 257

    Google Scholar 

  24. Khabbaz Saberi A, Luo Y, Cichosz FP, van den Brand M, Jansen S (2015) An approach for functional safety improvement of an existing automotive system. In: Systems Conference (SysCon), 9th Annual IEEE International, pp 277–282

    Google Scholar 

  25. Krammer M, Armengaud E, Bourrouilh Q (2011) Method library framework for safety standard compliant process tailoring. In: 37th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 302–305

    Google Scholar 

  26. Langheim J, Guegan B, Maillet-Contoz L, Maaziz K, Zeppa G, Phillipot F, Boutin S, Aboutaleb I, David P (2010) System architecture, tools and modelling for safety critical automotive applications – the R&D project SASHA. In: ERTS2 2010, embedded real time software & systems, Toulouse, France, pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  27. Li Z (2016) A systematic approach and tool support for assessing GSN-based safety case. Master’s thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  28. Luo Y, van den Brand M, Engelen L, Favaro J, Klabbers M, Sartori G (2013) Extracting models from ISO 26262 for reusable safety assurance. In: Safe and secure software reuse – 13th international conference on software reuse, vol 7925. Springer, Berlin, pp 192–207

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Luo Y, van den Brand M, Engelen L, Klabbers M (2014) From conceptual models to safety assurance. In: Conceptual modeling. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 8824. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 195–208

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Luo Y, van den Brand M, Engelen L, Klabbers M (2015) A modeling approach to support safety assurance in the automotive domain. In: Progress in systems engineering. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, vol 1089. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 339–345

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Luo Y, van den Brand MGJ, Engelen L, Klabbers M (2015) A modeling approach to support safety assurance in the automotive domain. In: Progress in systems engineering, vol 1089. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 339–345

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Luo Y, van den Brand MGJ, Kiburse A (2015) Safety case development with SBVR-based controlled language. In: Proceedings of third international conference on model-driven engineering and software development

    Google Scholar 

  33. MOD (1997) Defence standard 00–55 part 1. http://www.software-supportability.org/Docs/00-55_Part_1.pdf

  34. OMG (2005) Unified Modeling Language 2.0: superstructure specification

    Google Scholar 

  35. OMG (2008) Software and systems process engineering metamodel specification. http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/2.0/

  36. OMG (2013) SBVR: semantics of business vocabulary and rules (version 1.2)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Örsmark O (2015) Will your safety case pass an ISO 26262 assessment? http://safety.addalot.se/2015/programme

  38. Panesar-Walawege R, Sabetzadeh M, Briand L (2011) Using UML profiles for sector-specific tailoring of safety evidence information. In: Jeusfeld M, Delcambre L, Ling TW (eds) 30th ACM international conference on conceptual modeling (ER). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6998. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 362–378

    Google Scholar 

  39. Piers M, Montijn C, Balk A (2009) Safety culture framework for the ECAST SMS-WG. European Commercial Aviation Safety Team (ECAST). https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/WP1-ECASTSMSWG-SafetyCultureframework1.pdf

  40. RTCA (2011) RTCA DO-178C: software consideration in airborne systems and equipment certification

    Google Scholar 

  41. Safety Case Repository (2013) Safety case repository. http://dependability.cs.virginia.edu/info/Safety_Cases:Repository

  42. Sternudd P (2011) Unambiguous requirements in functional safety and ISO 26262: dream or reality? Master’s thesis, Uppsala University

    Google Scholar 

  43. van den Brand M, Groote JF (2013) Software engineering: Redundancy is key. Sci Comput Program 97:75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2013.11.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Warszawska K, Kraslawski A (2015) Method for quantitative assessment of safety culture. J Loss Prev Process Ind:323–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.09.005, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950423015300309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. White SA (2004) Introduction to BPMN. IBM Cooperation 2(0):0

    Google Scholar 

  46. Yang JB, Singh MG (1994) An evidential reasoning approach for multiple-attribute decision making with uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Yang JB, Xu DL (2002) On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 32(3):289–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Yuan T, Kelly T (2012) Argument-based approach to computer system safety engineering. Int J Crit Comput Based Syst 3(3):151–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Yuan T, Kelly T, Xu T, Wang H, Zhao L (2013) A dialogue based safety argument review tool. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on argument for agreement and assurance (AAA-2013), Kanagawa, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  50. Zoughbi G, Briand L, Labiche Y (2011) Modeling safety and airworthiness (RTCA DO-178B) information: conceptual model and UML profile. Softw Syst Model 10(3):337–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-010-0164-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Ya** Luo & Mark van den Brand

  2. TNO Technical Sciences/Automotive, Helmond, The Netherlands

    Arash Khabbaz Saberi

Authors
  1. Ya** Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arash Khabbaz Saberi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark van den Brand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ya** Luo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Yanja Dajsuren

  2. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Mark van den Brand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Luo, Y., Saberi, A.K., den Brand, M.v. (2019). Safety-Driven Development and ISO 26262. In: Dajsuren, Y., van den Brand, M. (eds) Automotive Systems and Software Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12157-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12157-0_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12156-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12157-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation