Engineering topics

Graydon, Patrick J.

Publications and source records attributed to Graydon, Patrick J..

7 records

NASA NTRS2018

FUELEAP Model-Based System Safety Analysis

NASA researchers, in a partnership with Boeing, are investigating a fuel-cell powered variant of the X-57 “Maxwell” Mod-II electric propulsion aircraft, which is itself derived from a stock Tecnam P2006T. The “Fostering Ultra-Efficient Low-Emitting Aviation Power” (FUELEAP) project will replace the X-57 power subsystem with a hybrid Solid-Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) system to increase the potential range of the electric-propulsion aircraft while dramatically improving efficiency and emissions over stock internal-combustion engines. Our FUELEAP safety analysis faces two primary challenges. First, the Part 23 certificated Tecnam P2006T is undergoing significant modifications to host the hybrid electric-propulsion system, and the challenge is to assure that the safety inherent in the stock aircraft (and subsequently in X-57 Mod-II) is not compromised by changes in avionics, aircraft structural loading, weight and balance, or other considerations. Secondly, because the SOFC power system has little (if any) relevant in-service precedent, our challenge is to assure that we identify and mitigate all reasonably plausible hazards introduced by unique FUELEAP equipage. We are investigating and utilizing Model-Based Safety Analysis (MBSA) methods to help us address these FUELEAP safety challenges. We captured aircraft-level system hazard conditions using instances of a SysML hazard block via aircraft-level Functional Hazard Analysis (FHA). Then, using SysML models of the FUELEAP architecture, we related the hazard conditions to initiating system events and possible mitigations, such as design architecture modifications or operational constraints. We are continuing to define our approach to MBSA by developing a component-by-component inventory of local failure modes and tracing their possible contribution to hazard conditions. Finally, we are applying an argument-based approach to FUELEAP assurance. Through a FUELEAP “safety case,” we are providing an explicit argument for FUELEAP safety by associating assurance evidence with overarching safety claims through a structured argument.

Woodham, Kurt P.↗

NASA NTRS2018

The Simple Assurance Argument Interchange Format (SAAIF) Manual

This document describes the Simple Assurance Argument Interchange Format, a proposed meta-model for describing structured assurance arguments. We describe the syntax and semantics of the model elements, compare the meta-model to existing argument formats, and give an example to illustrate its use.

Graydon, Patrick J.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Defining Baconian Probability for Use in Assurance Argumentation

The use of assurance cases (e.g., safety cases) in certification raises questions about confidence in assurance argument claims. Some researchers propose to assess confidence in assurance cases using Baconian induction. That is, a writer or analyst (1) identifies defeaters that might rebut or undermine each proposition in the assurance argument and (2) determines whether each defeater can be dismissed or ignored and why. Some researchers also propose denoting confidence using the counts of defeaters identified and eliminated-which they call Baconian probability-and performing arithmetic on these measures. But Baconian probabilities were first defined as ordinal rankings which cannot be manipulated arithmetically. In this paper, we recount noteworthy definitions of Baconian induction, review proposals to assess confidence in assurance claims using Baconian probability, analyze how these comport with or diverge from the original definition, and make recommendations for future practice.

Graydon, Patrick J.↗

NASA NTRS2016

An Investigation of Proposed Techniques for Quantifying Confidence in Assurance Arguments

The use of safety cases in certification raises the question of assurance argument sufficiency and the issue of confidence (or uncertainty) in the argument's claims. Some researchers propose to model confidence quantitatively and to calculate confidence in argument conclusions. We know of little evidence to suggest that any proposed technique would deliver trustworthy results when implemented by system safety practitioners. Proponents do not usually assess the efficacy of their techniques through controlled experiment or historical study. Instead, they present an illustrative example where the calculation delivers a plausible result. In this paper, we review current proposals, claims made about them, and evidence advanced in favor of them. We then show that proposed techniques can deliver implausible results in some cases. We conclude that quantitative confidence techniques require further validation before they should be recommended as part of the basis for deciding whether an assurance argument justifies fielding a critical system.

Graydon, Patrick J.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Planning the Unplanned Experiment: Assessing the Efficacy of Standards for Safety Critical Software

We need well-founded means of determining whether software is t for use in safety-critical applications. While software in industries such as aviation has an excellent safety record, the fact that software aws have contributed to deaths illustrates the need for justi ably high con dence in software. It is often argued that software is t for safety-critical use because it conforms to a standard for software in safety-critical systems. But little is known about whether such standards `work.' Reliance upon a standard without knowing whether it works is an experiment; without collecting data to assess the standard, this experiment is unplanned. This paper reports on a workshop intended to explore how standards could practicably be assessed. Planning the Unplanned Experiment: Assessing the Ecacy of Standards for Safety Critical Software (AESSCS) was held on 13 May 2014 in conjunction with the European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC). We summarize and elaborate on the workshop's discussion of the topic, including both the presented positions and the dialogue that ensued.

Graydon, Patrick J.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Planning the Unplanned Experiment: Towards Assessing the Efficacy of Standards for Safety-Critical Software

Safe use of software in safety-critical applications requires well-founded means of determining whether software is fit for such use. While software in industries such as aviation has a good safety record, little is known about whether standards for software in safety-critical applications 'work' (or even what that means). It is often (implicitly) argued that software is fit for safety-critical use because it conforms to an appropriate standard. Without knowing whether a standard works, such reliance is an experiment; without carefully collecting assessment data, that experiment is unplanned. To help plan the experiment, we organized a workshop to develop practical ideas for assessing software safety standards. In this paper, we relate and elaborate on the workshop discussion, which revealed subtle but important study design considerations and practical barriers to collecting appropriate historical data and recruiting appropriate experimental subjects. We discuss assessing standards as written and as applied, several candidate definitions for what it means for a standard to 'work,' and key assessment strategies and study techniques and the pros and cons of each. Finally, we conclude with thoughts about the kinds of research that will be required and how academia, industry, and regulators might collaborate to overcome the noted barriers.

Graydon, Patrick J.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Formal Assurance Arguments: A Solution In Search of a Problem?

An assurance case comprises evidence and argument showing how that evidence supports assurance claims (e.g., about safety or security). It is unsurprising that some computer scientists have proposed formalizing assurance arguments: most associate formality with rigor. But while engineers can sometimes prove that source code refines a formal specification, it is not clear that formalization will improve assurance arguments or that this benefit is worth its cost. For example, formalization might reduce the benefits of argumentation by limiting the audience to people who can read formal logic. In this paper, we present (1) a systematic survey of the literature surrounding formal assurance arguments, (2) an analysis of errors that formalism can help to eliminate, (3) a discussion of existing evidence, and (4) suggestions for experimental work to definitively answer the question.

Graydon, Patrick J.↗