Abstract
When dealing with structural safety analysis, one of the most popular methodologies is Fault Tree Analysis (FTA). However, one major critique is the rapid increasing of the complexity, and therefore incomprehensibility, when dealing with realistic systems. One approach to overcome this are Component Fault Trees (CFT), presenting an extension to standard FT, allowing the separation of the analysis into less complex parts on the level of system components. CFTs are proposed to be more structured and partly reusable and therefore also claimed to be more straightforward to use by engineers with little safety domain experience.
In this work, we aim at getting an idea of the validity of presented theses and started an initial experiment with 13 computer science students, being asked to execute CFT or FT method on a given case study. Due to the number of participants, we focused on their empirical statements, the analysis solutions, and empirical results collected using a questionnaire.
Although the empirical impression has been that the resulting CFT models are better to use and more comprehensible than the FT models, the qualitative results have not supported this. Moreover, the component-wise modeling seams to mislead the students such that they have overseen failures outside the component structure, e. g., Common-Cause, Cross-Component, or external failures.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The raw data and the modeling results are available under https://cse.cs.ovgu.de/cse-wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/sc2018_raw_data_anonymized.zip/.
References
Filax, M., Gonschorek, T., Ortmeier, F.: Building models we can rely on: requirements traceability for model-based verification techniques. In: Bozzano, M., Papadopoulos, Y. (eds.) IMBSA 2017. LNCS, vol. 10437, pp. 3–18. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64119-5_1
Höfig, K., Joanni, A., Zeller, M., Montrone, F., Rothfelder, M., Amarnath, R., Munk, P., Nordmann, A.: Model-based reliability and safety: reducing the complexity of safety analyses using component fault trees. In: RAMS (2018)
INCOSE: Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities. John Wiley & Sons (2015)
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): IEC 61025: Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) (1990)
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): IEC 61508: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety related systems (1998)
International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 26262: Road vehicles - Functional safety (2011)
Joshi, A., Miller, S.P., Whalen, M., Heimdahl, M.P.: A proposal for model-based safety analysis. In: 24th DASC (2005)
Jung, J., Jedlitschka, A., Höfig, K., Domis, D., Hiller, M.: A controlled experiment on component fault trees. In: Bitsch, F., Guiochet, J., Kaâniche, M. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2013. LNCS, vol. 8153, pp. 285–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40793-2_26
Kaiser, B., Liggesmeyer, P., Mäckel, O.: A new component concept for fault trees. In: Proceedings of the 8th Australian Workshop on Safety Critical Systems and Software (2003)
Lisagor, O., McDermid, J., Pumfrey, D.: Towards a practicable process for automated safety analysis. In: ISSC 24 (2006)
McDermid, J., Kelly, T.: Software in safety critical systems: achievement and prediction. University of York, UK (2006)
de Miguel, M.A., Briones, J.F., Silva, J.P., Alonso, A.: Integration of safety analysis in model-driven software development. IET Softw. 2(3), 260–280 (2008)
Papadopoulos, Y., McDermid, J.A.: Hierarchically performed hazard origin and propagation studies. In: Felici, M., Kanoun, K. (eds.) SAFECOMP 1999. LNCS, vol. 1698, pp. 139–152. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48249-0_13
Vesely, W.E., Goldberg, F.F., Roberts, N.H., Haasl, D.F.: Fault Tree Handbook. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1981)
Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2009)
Acknowledgment
Parts of the work leading to this paper was funded by the Framework Programs for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 under grant agreement n.732242 (DEIS).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Gonschorek, T., Zeller, M., Höfig, K., Ortmeier, F. (2018). Fault Trees vs. Component Fault Trees: An Empirical Study. In: Gallina, B., Skavhaug, A., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11094. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99229-7_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99229-7_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99228-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99229-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)