SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Viewgraphs on technology drivers for flight telerobotic system software are included. Topics covered include: flight software lines of code; flight computer architecture; system safety; safety critical parameters; system safety - software functions.
A system is safety-critical if its failure can endanger human life or cause significant damage to property or the environment. State-of-the-art computer systems on commercial aircraft are highly complex, software-intensive, functionally integrated, and network-centric systems of systems. Ensuring that such systems are safe and comply with existing safety regulations is costly and time-consuming as the level of rigor in the development process, especially the validation and verification activities, is determined by considerations of system complexity and safety criticality. A significant degree of care and deep insight into the operational principles of these systems is required to ensure adequate coverage of all design implications relevant to system safety. Model-based development methodologies, methods, tools, and techniques facilitate collaboration and enable the use of common design artifacts among groups dealing with different aspects of the development of a system. This paper examines the application of model-based development to complex and safety-critical aircraft computer systems. Benefits and detriments are identified and an overall assessment of the approach is given.
Verification and validation (V&V) of safety-critical technologies developed for loss of control (LOC) prevention and recovery and other aviation safety concerns pose significant challenges. Aircraft LOC can result from a wide spectrum of hazards, often occurring in combination, which cannot be fully replicated during evaluation. Technologies developed for LOC prevention and recovery must therefore be effective under a wide variety of hazardous and uncertain conditions, and the verification and validation of these technologies must provide some measure of assurance that the new vehicle safety technologies do no harm (i.e., that they themselves do not introduce new safety risks). V&V technologies must also enable the identification of system limitations and constraints, as well as enable the identification of safe and unsafe operating conditions (and their boundaries). Additionally, the V&V of complex, increasingly autonomous systems is a fundamental concern. Scalable, reproducible and cost-effective techniques for the assurance of safety critical systems during their design and operation is a key barrier to fielding new systems or updating current systems. Moreover, these techniques need to provide artifacts that enable a comprehensive evidence-based approach to certification. This briefing summarizes research performed under NASA’s Aviation Safety Program and follow-on research for the V&V of safety-critical aircraft system technologies developed for LOC prevention and recovery and increasingly autonomous systems, and for a broad assurance capability in both current and emerging aviation applications. Note that, in this briefing, the term “validation” refers to a confirmation that the system implementation (e.g., algorithms etc.) is performing the intended function(s), as well as an affirmation of effectiveness in these functions. “Verification” refers to a confirmation that the system implementation in the software and hardware meets its (hopefully validated) specifications (e.g., correctly executes algorithms as designed).
This paper analyzes the root causes of safety-related software errors in safety-critical, embedded systems. The results show that software errors identified as potentially hazardous to the system tend to be produced by different error mechanisms than non- safety-related software errors. Safety-related software errors are shown to arise most commonly from (1) discrepancies between the documented requirements specifications and the requirements needed for correct functioning of the system and (2) misunderstandings of the software's interface with the rest of the system. The paper uses these results to identify methods by which requirements errors can be prevented. The goal is to reduce safety-related software errors and to enhance the safety of complex, embedded systems.
To explore, discover, and understand the impact on safety of growing complexity introduced by modernization aimed at improving the efficiency of flight, the access to airspace, and/or the expansion of services provided by air vehicles. To develop and demonstrate innovative solutions that enable this modernization and the aviation transformation envisioned by ARMD through proactive mitigation of risks in accordance with target levels of safety.
The evaluation of the 15 N compound system was selected by the Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) due to the importance of nitrogen in criticality benchmarks and in actinide chemistry encountered during fuel reprocessing. For improved accuracy in transport calculations, it is recommended to obtain and distribute resonance parameters to describe n + 14 N reactions.
Practical safety-critical distributed systems must integrate safety critical and non-critical data in a common platform. Safety critical systems almost always consist of isochronous components that have synchronous or asynchronous interface with other components. Many of these systems also support a mix of synchronous and asynchronous interfaces. This report presents a study on the modeling and analysis of asynchronous, synchronous, and mixed synchronous/asynchronous systems. We build on the SAE Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL) to capture architectures for analysis. We present preliminary work targeted to capture mixed low- and high-criticality data, as well as real-time properties in a common Model of Computation (MoC). An abstract, but representative, test specimen system was created as the system to be modeled.
The transition from the current air traffic system to the next generation air traffic system will require the introduction of new automated systems, including transferring some functions from air traffic controllers to on-board automation. This report describes a new design verification and validation (V&V) methodology for assessing aviation safety. The approach involves a detailed computer simulation of work practices that includes people interacting with flight-critical systems. The research is part of an effort to develop new modeling and verification methodologies that can assess the safety of flight-critical systems, system configurations, and operational concepts. The 2002 Ueberlingen mid-air collision was chosen for analysis and modeling because one of the main causes of the accident was one crew's response to a conflict between the instructions of the air traffic controller and the instructions of TCAS, an automated Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System on-board warning system. It thus furnishes an example of the problem of authority versus autonomy. It provides a starting point for exploring authority/autonomy conflict in the larger system of organization, tools, and practices in which the participants' moment-by-moment actions take place. We have developed a general air traffic system model (not a specific simulation of Überlingen events), called the Brahms Generalized Ueberlingen Model (Brahms-GUeM). Brahms is a multi-agent simulation system that models people, tools, facilities/vehicles, and geography to simulate the current air transportation system as a collection of distributed, interactive subsystems (e.g., airports, air-traffic control towers and personnel, aircraft, automated flight systems and air-traffic tools, instruments, crew). Brahms-GUeM can be configured in different ways, called scenarios, such that anomalous events that contributed to the Überlingen accident can be modeled as functioning according to requirements or in an anomalous condition, as occurred during the accident. Brahms-GUeM thus implicitly defines a class of scenarios, which include as an instance what occurred at Überlingen. Brahms-GUeM is a modeling framework enabling "what if" analysis of alternative work system configurations and thus facilitating design of alternative operations concepts. It enables subsequent adaption (reusing simulation components) for modeling and simulating NextGen scenarios. This project demonstrates that BRAHMS provides the capacity to model the complexity of air transportation systems, going beyond idealized and simple flights to include for example the interaction of pilots and ATCOs. The research shows clearly that verification and validation must include the entire work system, on the one hand to check that mechanisms exist to handle failures of communication and alerting subsystems and/or failures of people to notice, comprehend, or communicate problematic (unsafe) situations; but also to understand how people must use their own judgment in relating fallible systems like TCAS to other sources of information and thus to evaluate how the unreliability of automation affects system safety. The simulation shows in particular that distributed agents (people and automated systems) acting without knowledge of each others' actions can create a complex, dynamic system whose interactive behavior is unexpected and is changing too quickly to comprehend and control.
We describe and compare the architectures of four fault-tolerant, safety-critical buses with a view to deducing principles common to all of them, the main differences in their design choices, and the tradeoffs made. Two of the buses come from an avionics heritage, and two from automobiles, though all four strive for similar levels of reliability and assurance. The avionics buses considered are the Honeywell SAFEbus (the backplane data bus used in the Boeing 777 Airplane Information Management System) and the NASA SPIDER (an architecture being developed as a demonstrator for certification under the new DO-254 guidelines); the automobile buses considered are the TTTech Time-Triggered Architecture (TTA), recently adopted by Audi for automobile applications, and by Honeywell for avionics and aircraft control functions, and FlexRay, which is being developed by a consortium of BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Motorola, and Philips.
The application of assurance engineering techniques improves the duration of failure-free performance of software. The totality of features and characteristics of a software product are what determine its ability to satisfy customer needs. Software in safety-critical systems is very important to NASA. We follow the System Safety Working Groups definition for system safety software as: 'The optimization of system safety in the design, development, use and maintenance of software and its integration with safety-critical systems in an operational environment. 'If it is not safe, say so' has become our motto. This paper goes over methods that have been used by NASA to make software design improvements by focusing on software quality and the design and inspection process.
In traditional software development methodologies, operational and functional requirements of systems are often specified in structured natural language notations. These restricted notations provide good documentation support, but only provide limited support for semantic analysis. These notations are generally not rich enough to unambiguously specify the requirements of safety-critical systems that, for example, involve complex numerical computations or that interact with the physical environment. Examples of these safety-critical systems are autonomous vehicles such as unmanned aircraft systems. This talk advocates the use of expressive formal logics, such as higher-order logic, to specify the operational and functional requirement of unmanned systems and to prove the correctness of these requirements. Semantic analysis of requirements written in higher-order logic is supported through the use of interactive theorem provers. Formal models serve as ideal reference implementations of functional requirements. Hence, formal logics enable software validation techniques where software implementations can be checked against functional requirements in a mechanical way. The Formal Methods group in the Safety-Critical Avionics Systems Branch at NASA Langley Research Center has conducted research on the development and application of formal verification techniques to safety-critical applications of interest to NASA for more than 30 years. This talk illustrates the use of formal methods in the development of highly-assured autonomous unmanned aircraft systems.
Model-based development tools are increasingly being used for system-level development of safety-critical systems. Architectural and behavioral models provide important information that can be leveraged to improve the system safety analysis process. Model-based design artifacts produced in early stage development activities can be used to perform system safety analysis, reducing costs and providing accurate results throughout the system life-cycle. In this report we describe an extension to the Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL) that supports modeling of system behavior under failure conditions. This Safety Annex enables the independent modeling of component failures and allows safety engineers to weave various types of fault behavior into the nominal system model. The accompanying tool support uses model checking to propagate errors from their source to their effect on safety properties without the need to add separate propagation specifications. The tool also captures all minimal set of fault combinations that can cause violation of the safety properties, that can be compared to qualitative and quantitative objectives as part of the safety assessment process. We describe the Safety Annex, illustrate its use with a representative example, and discuss and demonstrate the tool support enabling an analyst to investigate the system behavior under failure conditions.
System safety, an integral component in software development, often poses a challenge to engineers designing computer-based systems. While the relaxed constraints on software design allow for increased power and flexibility, this flexibility introduces more possibilities for error. As a result, system engineers must identify the design constraints necessary to maintain safety and ensure that the system and software design enforces them. Safeware Engineering Corporation, of Seattle, Washington, provides the information, tools, and techniques to accomplish this task with its Specification Tools and Requirements Methodology (SpecTRM). NASA assisted in developing this engineering toolset by awarding the company several Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contracts with Ames Research Center and Langley Research Center. The technology benefits NASA through its applications for Space Station rendezvous and docking. SpecTRM aids system and software engineers in developing specifications for large, complex safety critical systems. The product enables engineers to find errors early in development so that they can be fixed with the lowest cost and impact on the system design. SpecTRM traces both the requirements and design rationale (including safety constraints) throughout the system design and documentation, allowing engineers to build required system properties into the design from the beginning, rather than emphasizing assessment at the end of the development process when changes are limited and costly.System safety, an integral component in software development, often poses a challenge to engineers designing computer-based systems. While the relaxed constraints on software design allow for increased power and flexibility, this flexibility introduces more possibilities for error. As a result, system engineers must identify the design constraints necessary to maintain safety and ensure that the system and software design enforces them. Safeware Engineering Corporation, of Seattle, Washington, provides the information, tools, and techniques to accomplish this task with its Specification Tools and Requirements Methodology (SpecTRM). NASA assisted in developing this engineering toolset by awarding the company several Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contracts with Ames Research Center and Langley Research Center. The technology benefits NASA through its applications for Space Station rendezvous and docking. SpecTRM aids system and software engineers in developing specifications for large, complex safety critical systems. The product enables engineers to find errors early in development so that they can be fixed with the lowest cost and impact on the system design. SpecTRM traces both the requirements and design rationale (including safety constraints) throughout the system design and documentation, allowing engineers to build required system properties into the design from the beginning, rather than emphasizing assessment at the end of the development process when changes are limited and costly.
Adoption of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products in safety critical systems has been seen as a promising acquisition strategy to improve mission affordability and, yet, has come with significant barriers and challenges. Attempts to integrate COTS software components into NASA human rated flight systems have been, for the most part, complicated by verification and validation (V&V) requirements necessary for flight certification per NASA s own standards. For software that is from COTS sources, and, in general from 3rd party sources, either commercial, government, modified or open source, the expectation is that it meets the same certification criteria as those used for in-house and that it does so as if it were built in-house. The latter is a critical and hidden issue. This paper examines the longstanding barriers and challenges in the use of 3rd party software in safety critical systems and cover recent efforts to use COTS software in NASA s Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) project. It identifies some core artifacts that without them, the use of COTS and 3rd party software is, for all practical purposes, a nonstarter for affordable and timely insertion into flight critical systems. The paper covers the first use in a flight critical system by NASA of COTS software that has prior FAA certification heritage, which was shown to meet the RTCA-DO-178B standard, and how this certification may, in some cases, be leveraged to allow the use of analysis in lieu of testing. Finally, the paper proposes the establishment of an open source forum for development of safety critical 3rd party software.
In Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) model checking, we check LTL formulas representing desired behaviors against a formal model of the system designed to exhibit these behaviors. To accomplish this task, the LTL formulas must be translated into automata [21]. We focus on LTL compilation by investigating LTL satisfiability checking via a reduction to model checking. Having shown that symbolic LTL compilation algorithms are superior to explicit automata construction algorithms for this task [16], we concentrate here on seeking a better symbolic algorithm.We present experimental data comparing algorithmic variations such as normal forms, encoding methods, and variable ordering and examine their effects on performance metrics including processing time and scalability. Safety critical systems, such as air traffic control, life support systems, hazardous environment controls, and automotive control systems, pervade our daily lives, yet testing and simulation alone cannot adequately verify their reliability [3]. Model checking is a promising approach to formal verification for safety critical systems which involves creating a formal mathematical model of the system and translating desired safety properties into a formal specification for this model. The complement of the specification is then checked against the system model. When the model does not satisfy the specification, model-checking tools accompany this negative answer with a counterexample, which points to an inconsistency between the system and the desired behaviors and aids debugging efforts.
The Space Station contains safety critical computer software components in systems that can affect life and vital property. These components require a multilevel secure system that provides dynamic access control of the data and processes involved. A study is under way to define requirements for a security model providing access control through level B3 of the Orange Book. The model will be prototyped at NASA-Johnson Space Center.
NASA relies more and more on software to control, monitor, and verify its safety critical systems, facilities and operations. Since the 1960's there has hardly been a spacecraft launched that does not have a computer on board that will provide command and control services. There have been recent incidents where software has played a role in high-profile mission failures and hazardous incidents. For example, the Mars Orbiter, Mars Polar Lander, the DART (Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology), and MER (Mars Exploration Rover) Spirit anomalies were all caused or contributed to by software. The Mission Control Centers for the Shuttle, ISS, and unmanned programs are highly dependant on software for data displays, analysis, and mission planning. Despite this growing dependence on software control and monitoring, there has been little to no consistent application of software safety practices and methodology to NASA's projects with safety critical software. Meanwhile, academia and private industry have been stepping forward with procedures and standards for safety critical systems and software, for example Dr. Nancy Leveson's book Safeware: System Safety and Computers. The NASA Software Safety Standard, originally published in 1997, was widely ignored due to its complexity and poor organization. It also focused on concepts rather than definite procedural requirements organized around a software project lifecycle. Led by NASA Headquarters Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, the NASA Software Safety Standard has recently undergone a significant update. This new standard provides the procedures and guidelines for evaluating a project for safety criticality and then lays out the minimum project lifecycle requirements to assure the software is created, operated, and maintained in the safest possible manner. This update of the standard clearly delineates the minimum set of software safety requirements for a project without detailing the implementation for those requirements. This allows the projects leeway to meet these requirements in many forms that best suit a particular project's needs and safety risk. In other words, it tells the project what to do, not how to do it. This update also incorporated advances in the state of the practice of software safety from academia and private industry. It addresses some of the more common issues now facing software developers in the NASA environment such as the use of Commercial-Off-the-Shelf Software (COTS), Modified OTS (MOTS), Government OTS (GOTS), and reused software. A team from across NASA developed the update and it has had both NASA-wide internal reviews by software engineering, quality, safety, and project management. It has also had expert external review. This presentation and paper will discuss the new NASA Software Safety Standard, its organization, and key features. It will start with a brief discussion of some NASA mission failures and incidents that had software as one of their root causes. It will then give a brief overview of the NASA Software Safety Process. This will include an overview of the key personnel responsibilities and functions that must be performed for safety-critical software.
This paper is a work of fiction, but it is fiction with a very real purpose: to stimulate careful thought and friendly discussion about some questions for which thought is often careless and discussion is often unfriendly. To accomplish this purpose, the paper creates a fictional legal case. The most important issue in this fictional case is whether certain proffered expert testimony about software engineering for safety critical systems should be admitted. Resolving this issue requires deciding the extent to which current practices and research in software engineering, especially for safety-critical systems, can rightly be considered based on knowledge, rather than opinion.