Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Safety Critical Systems”

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.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2008

Product Engineering Class in the Software Safety Risk Taxonomy for Building Safety-Critical Systems

When software safety requirements are imposed on legacy safety-critical systems, retrospective safety cases need to be formulated as part of recertifying the systems for further use and risks must be documented and managed to give confidence for reusing the systems. The SEJ Software Development Risk Taxonomy [4] focuses on general software development issues. It does not, however, cover all the safety risks. The Software Safety Risk Taxonomy [8] was developed which provides a construct for eliciting and categorizing software safety risks in a straightforward manner. In this paper, we present extended work on the taxonomy for safety that incorporates the additional issues inherent in the development and maintenance of safety-critical systems with software. An instrument called a Software Safety Risk Taxonomy Based Questionnaire (TBQ) is generated containing questions addressing each safety attribute in the Software Safety Risk Taxonomy. Software safety risks are surfaced using the new TBQ and then analyzed. In this paper we give the definitions for the specialized Product Engineering Class within the Software Safety Risk Taxonomy. At the end of the paper, we present the tool known as the 'Legacy Systems Risk Database Tool' that is used to collect and analyze the data required to show traceability to a particular safety standard

Hill, Janice↗
NASA NTRS2007

Traceability of Software Safety Requirements in Legacy Safety Critical Systems

How can traceability of software safety requirements be created for legacy safety critical systems? Requirements in safety standards are imposed most times during contract negotiations. On the other hand, there are instances where safety standards are levied on legacy safety critical systems, some of which may be considered for reuse for new applications. Safety standards often specify that software development documentation include process-oriented and technical safety requirements, and also require that system and software safety analyses are performed supporting technical safety requirements implementation. So what can be done if the requisite documents for establishing and maintaining safety requirements traceability are not available?

Hill, Janice L.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Software Safety Risk in Legacy Safety-Critical Computer Systems

Safety-critical computer systems must be engineered to meet system and software safety requirements. For legacy safety-critical computer systems, software safety requirements may not have been formally specified during development. When process-oriented software safety requirements are levied on a legacy system after the fact, where software development artifacts don't exist or are incomplete, the question becomes 'how can this be done?' The risks associated with only meeting certain software safety requirements in a legacy safety-critical computer system must be addressed should such systems be selected as candidates for reuse. This paper proposes a method for ascertaining formally, a software safety risk assessment, that provides measurements for software safety for legacy systems which may or may not have a suite of software engineering documentation that is now normally required. It relies upon the NASA Software Safety Standard, risk assessment methods based upon the Taxonomy-Based Questionnaire, and the application of reverse engineering CASE tools to produce original design documents for legacy systems.

Hill, Janice↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Adaptive Stress Testing: Using Reinforcement Learning to Find Failures in Safety-Critical Systems

Emerging applications in artificial intelligence, such as driverless cars and autonomous aircraft promise to be more efficient, cheaper to operate, and always available. However, ensuring the safety of these systems remains a major challenge to their certification and adoption. These autonomous systems are expected to routinely make safety-critical decisions where failures can have serious consequences including loss of life and property. Testing and validation techniques aim to identify and diagnose potential failures before the system is deployed. However, finding failure scenarios in autonomous systems can be very challenging due to high-dimensional and continuous state spaces, interaction with large environments over many time steps, and the rarity of failures. This talk presents Adaptive Stress Testing (AST), a simulation-based testing framework for finding the most likely path to a failure event of a safety-critical system. The key idea of AST is that stress testing can be formulated as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP), which enables reinforcement learning techniques to be used for finding failure events. Reinforcement learning algorithms can efficiently explore the search space and have been shown to scale to very large systems. We present applications of AST to find failures in various safety-critical systems including the aircraft collision avoidance systems, autonomous cars, and small unmanned aerial vehicles.

autonomous vehicles↗
NASA NTRS2014

Some Challenges in the Design of Human-Automation Interaction for Safety-Critical Systems

Increasing amounts of automation are being introduced to safety-critical domains. While the introduction of automation has led to an overall increase in reliability and improved safety, it has also introduced a class of failure modes, and new challenges in risk assessment for the new systems, particularly in the assessment of rare events resulting from complex inter-related factors. Designing successful human-automation systems is challenging, and the challenges go beyond good interface development (e.g., Roth, Malin, & Schreckenghost 1997; Christoffersen & Woods, 2002). Human-automation design is particularly challenging when the underlying automation technology generates behavior that is difficult for the user to anticipate or understand. These challenges have been recognized in several safety-critical domains, and have resulted in increased efforts to develop training, procedures, regulations and guidance material (CAST, 2008, IAEA, 2001, FAA, 2013, ICAO, 2012). This paper points to the continuing need for new methods to describe and characterize the operational environment within which new automation concepts are being presented. We will describe challenges to the successful development and evaluation of human-automation systems in safety-critical domains, and describe some approaches that could be used to address these challenges. We will draw from experience with the aviation, spaceflight and nuclear power domains.

systems engineering↗
NASA NTRS2010

Validation and Verification of Future Integrated Safety-Critical Systems Operating under Off-Nominal Conditions

Loss of control remains one of the largest contributors to aircraft fatal accidents worldwide. Aircraft loss-of-control accidents are highly complex in that they can result from numerous causal and contributing factors acting alone or (more often) in combination. Hence, there is no single intervention strategy to prevent these accidents and reducing them will require a holistic integrated intervention capability. Future onboard integrated system technologies developed for preventing loss of vehicle control accidents must be able to assure safe operation under the associated off-nominal conditions. The transition of these technologies into the commercial fleet will require their extensive validation and verification (V and V) and ultimate certification. The V and V of complex integrated systems poses major nontrivial technical challenges particularly for safety-critical operation under highly off-nominal conditions associated with aircraft loss-of-control events. This paper summarizes the V and V problem and presents a proposed process that could be applied to complex integrated safety-critical systems developed for preventing aircraft loss-of-control accidents. A summary of recent research accomplishments in this effort is also provided.

Belcastro, Christine M.↗
NASA NTRS1992

RICIS Symposium 1992: Mission and Safety Critical Systems Research and Applications

This conference deals with computer systems which control systems whose failure to operate correctly could produce the loss of life and or property, mission and safety critical systems. Topics covered are: the work of standards groups, computer systems design and architecture, software reliability, process control systems, knowledge based expert systems, and computer and telecommunication protocols.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2012

Validation of Safety-Critical Systems for Aircraft Loss-of-Control Prevention and Recovery

Validation of technologies developed for loss of control (LOC) prevention and recovery poses 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 validation framework 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). This paper summarizes a proposed validation framework for safety-critical systems, provides an overview of validation methods and tools developed by NASA to date within the Vehicle Systems Safety Project, and develops a preliminary set of test scenarios for the validation of technologies for LOC prevention and recovery

Belcastro, Christine M.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Evaluating Models of Human Performance: Safety-Critical Systems Applications

This presentation is part of panel discussion on Evaluating Models of Human Performance. The purpose of this panel is to discuss the increasing use of models in the world today and specifically focus on how to describe and evaluate models of human performance. My presentation will focus on discussions of generating distributions of performance, and the evaluation of different strategies for humans performing tasks with mixed initiative (Human-Automation) systems. I will also discuss issues with how to provide Human Performance modeling data to support decisions on acceptability and tradeoffs in the design of safety critical systems. I will conclude with challenges for the future.

Feary, Michael S.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Validation and Verification (V&V) of Safety-Critical Systems Operating Under Off-Nominal Conditions

Loss of control (LOC) remains one of the largest contributors to aircraft fatal accidents worldwide. Aircraft LOC accidents are highly complex in that they can result from numerous causal and contributing factors acting alone or more often in combination. Hence, there is no single intervention strategy to prevent these accidents. Research is underway at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the development of advanced onboard system technologies for preventing or recovering from loss of vehicle control and for assuring safe operation under off-nominal conditions associated with aircraft LOC accidents. The transition of these technologies into the commercial fleet will require their extensive validation and verification (V&V) and ultimate certification. The V&V of complex integrated systems poses highly significant technical challenges and is the subject of a parallel research effort at NASA. This chapter summarizes the V&V problem and presents a proposed process that could be applied to complex integrated safety-critical systems developed for preventing aircraft LOC accidents. A summary of recent research accomplishments in this effort is referenced.

Belcastro, Christine M.↗
NASA NTRS2024

Key Considerations When Developing Avionics for Safety-Critical Systems

Multiple human spaceflight programs are underway at NASA including Orion, Space Launch System, Gateway, Human Landing System, and EVA and Lunar Surface Mobility programs. Achieving success in these programs requires NASA to collaborate with a variety of commercial partners, including both new spaceflight companies and robotic spaceflight companies pursuing crewed spaceflight for the first time. It is not always clear to these organizations how to show their systems are safe for human spaceflight. This is particularly true for avionics systems, which are responsible for performing some of a crewed spacecraft’s most critical functions. NASA recently published guidance describing how to show the design of an avionic system meets safety requirements for crewed missions.

Safety-Critical Systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Applying Formal Methods to Safety-Critical Systems

How do you know a proof is correct? Traditionally, mathematical proofs are socially verified – at least one human, following a set of implicit rules of natural language and logic, determines if the proof is believable. If the proof becomes overly tedious and/or is essential to some safety- or mission-critical application, it becomes necessary to determine the soundness to a higher standard. 'Formal methods' refer to mathematically rigorous techniques and tools that enable specification, design, and verification of hardware and software systems. The specification used in formal methods are statements in a mathematical logic while the formal verifications are deductions in that logic. Formal methods can be difficult or time/resource intensive, but offer a higher level of assurance than standard verification through testing or handwritten proofs. This talk will introduce formal methods, motivated by applications of interest to NASA, including uncrewed aircraft operations in the national airspace, urban air environments, and wildfire areas. The audience will be given a crash course in mechanically verified proofs in the Prototype Verification System (PVS), an interactive theorem prover.

Formal Methods↗
NASA NTRS1988

A new technology perspective and engineering tools approach for large, complex and distributed mission and safety critical systems components

Rapidly emerging technology and methodologies have out-paced the systems development processes' ability to use them effectively, if at all. At the same time, the tools used to build systems are becoming obsolescent themselves as a consequence of the same technology lag that plagues systems development. The net result is that systems development activities have not been able to take advantage of available technology and have become equally dependent on aging and ineffective computer-aided engineering tools. New methods and tools approaches are essential if the demands of non-stop and Mission and Safety Critical (MASC) components are to be met.

Carrio, Miguel A., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Aircraft Loss-of-Control: Analysis and Requirements for Future Safety-Critical Systems and Their Validation

Loss of control remains one of the largest contributors to fatal aircraft accidents worldwide. Aircraft loss-of-control accidents are complex, resulting from numerous causal and contributing factors acting alone or more often in combination. Hence, there is no single intervention strategy to prevent these accidents. This paper summarizes recent analysis results in identifying worst-case combinations of loss-of-control accident precursors and their time sequences, a holistic approach to preventing loss-of-control accidents in the future, and key requirements for validating the associated technologies.

Belcastro, Christine M.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Software Safety Risk in Legacy Safety-Critical Computer Systems

Safety Standards contain technical and process-oriented safety requirements. Technical requirements are those such as "must work" and "must not work" functions in the system. Process-Oriented requirements are software engineering and safety management process requirements. Address the system perspective and some cover just software in the system > NASA-STD-8719.13B Software Safety Standard is the current standard of interest. NASA programs/projects will have their own set of safety requirements derived from the standard. Safety Cases: a) Documented demonstration that a system complies with the specified safety requirements. b) Evidence is gathered on the integrity of the system and put forward as an argued case. [Gardener (ed.)] c) Problems occur when trying to meet safety standards, and thus make retrospective safety cases, in legacy safety-critical computer systems.

Hill, Janice L.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Proceedings of the Sixth NASA Langley Formal Methods (LFM) Workshop

Today's verification techniques are hard-pressed to scale with the ever-increasing complexity of safety critical systems. Within the field of aeronautics alone, we find the need for verification of algorithms for separation assurance, air traffic control, auto-pilot, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), adaptive avionics, automated decision authority, and much more. Recent advances in formal methods have made verifying more of these problems realistic. Thus we need to continually re-assess what we can solve now and identify the next barriers to overcome. Only through an exchange of ideas between theoreticians and practitioners from academia to industry can we extend formal methods for the verification of ever more challenging problem domains. This volume contains the extended abstracts of the talks presented at LFM 2008: The Sixth NASA Langley Formal Methods Workshop held on April 30 - May 2, 2008 in Newport News, Virginia, USA. The topics of interest that were listed in the call for abstracts were: advances in formal verification techniques; formal models of distributed computing; planning and scheduling; automated air traffic management; fault tolerance; hybrid systems/hybrid automata; embedded systems; safety critical applications; safety cases; accident/safety analysis.

Rozier, Kristin Yvonne↗