Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Safety Cases”

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 NTRS2015

Formal Foundations for Hierarchical Safety Cases

Safety cases are increasingly being required in many safety-critical domains to assure, using structured argumentation and evidence, that a system is acceptably safe. However, comprehensive system-wide safety arguments present appreciable challenges to develop, understand, evaluate, and manage, partly due to the volume of information that they aggregate, such as the results of hazard analysis, requirements analysis, testing, formal verification, and other engineering activities. Previously, we have proposed hierarchical safety cases, hicases, to aid the comprehension of safety case argument structures. In this paper, we build on a formal notion of safety case to formalise the use of hierarchy as a structuring technique, and show that hicases satisfy several desirable properties. Our aim is to provide a formal, theoretical foundation for safety cases. In particular, we believe that tools for high assurance systems should be granted similar assurance to the systems to which they are applied. To this end, we formally specify and prove the correctness of key operations for constructing and managing hicases, which gives the specification for implementing hicases in AdvoCATE, our toolset for safety case automation. We motivate and explain the theory with the help of a simple running example, extracted from a real safety case and developed using AdvoCATE.

Hierarchy↗
NASA NTRS2015

Towards a Formal Basis for Modular Safety Cases

Safety assurance using argument-based safety cases is an accepted best-practice in many safety-critical sectors. Goal Structuring Notation (GSN), which is widely used for presenting safety arguments graphically, provides a notion of modular arguments to support the goal of incremental certification. Despite the efforts at standardization, GSN remains an informal notation whereas the GSN standard contains appreciable ambiguity especially concerning modular extensions. This, in turn, presents challenges when developing tools and methods to intelligently manipulate modular GSN arguments. This paper develops the elements of a theory of modular safety cases, leveraging our previous work on formalizing GSN arguments. Using example argument structures we highlight some ambiguities arising through the existing guidance, present the intuition underlying the theory, clarify syntax, and address modular arguments, contracts, well-formedness and well-scopedness of modules. Based on this theory, we have a preliminary implementation of modular arguments in our toolset, AdvoCATE.

Safety↗
NASA NTRS2007

A Software Safety Risk Taxonomy for Use in Retrospective Safety Cases

Safety standards contain technical and process-oriented safely requirements. The best time to include these requirements is early in the development lifecycle of the system. When software safety requirements are levied on a legacy system after the fact, a retrospective safety case will need to be constructed for the software in the system. This can be a difficult task because there may be few to no art facts available to show compliance to the software safely requirements. The risks associated with not meeting safely requirements in a legacy safely-critical computer system must be addressed to give confidence for reuse. This paper introduces a proposal for a software safely risk taxonomy for legacy safely-critical computer systems, by specializing the Software Engineering Institute's 'Software Development Risk Taxonomy' with safely elements and attributes.

Hill, Janice L.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Automating the Generation of Heterogeneous Aviation Safety Cases

A safety case is a structured argument, supported by a body of evidence, which provides a convincing and valid justification that a system is acceptably safe for a given application in a given operating environment. This report describes the development of a fragment of a preliminary safety case for the Swift Unmanned Aircraft System. The construction of the safety case fragment consists of two parts: a manually constructed system-level case, and an automatically constructed lower-level case, generated from formal proof of safety-relevant correctness properties. We provide a detailed discussion of the safety considerations for the target system, emphasizing the heterogeneity of sources of safety-relevant information, and use a hazard analysis to derive safety requirements, including formal requirements. We evaluate the safety case using three classes of metrics for measuring degrees of coverage, automation, and understandability. We then present our preliminary conclusions and make suggestions for future work.

Denney, Ewen W.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Deriving Safety Cases for the Formal Safety Certification of Automatically Generated Code

We present an approach to systematically derive safety cases for automatically generated code from information collected during a formal, Hoare-style safety certification of the code. This safety case makes explicit the formal and informal reasoning principles, and reveals the top-level assumptions and external dependencies that must be taken into account; however, the evidence still comes from the formal safety proofs. It uses a generic goal-based argument that is instantiated with respect to the certified safety property (i.e., safety claims) and the program. This will be combined with a complementary safety case that argues the safety of the framework itself, in particular the correctness of the Hoare rules with respect to the safety property and the trustworthiness of the certification system and its individual components. Keywords: Automated code generation, Hoare logic, formal code certification, safety case, Goal Structuring Notation.

Basir, Nurlida↗
NASA NTRS2014

Querying Safety Cases

Querying a safety case to show how the various stakeholders' concerns about system safety are addressed has been put forth as one of the benefits of argument-based assurance (in a recent study by the Health Foundation, UK, which reviewed the use of safety cases in safety-critical industries). However, neither the literature nor current practice offer much guidance on querying mechanisms appropriate for, or available within, a safety case paradigm. This paper presents a preliminary approach that uses a formal basis for querying safety cases, specifically Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) argument structures. Our approach semantically enriches GSN arguments with domain-specific metadata that the query language leverages, along with its inherent structure, to produce views. We have implemented the approach in our toolset AdvoCATE, and illustrate it by application to a fragment of the safety argument for an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) being developed at NASA Ames. We also discuss the potential practical utility of our query mechanism within the context of the existing framework for UAS safety assurance.

Safety Case↗
NASA NTRS2011

Towards Measurement of Confidence in Safety Cases

Arguments in safety cases are predominantly qualitative. This is partly attributed to the lack of sufficient design and operational data necessary to measure the achievement of high-dependability targets, particularly for safety-critical functions implemented in software. The subjective nature of many forms of evidence, such as expert judgment and process maturity, also contributes to the overwhelming dependence on qualitative arguments. However, where data for quantitative measurements is systematically collected, quantitative arguments provide far more benefits over qualitative arguments, in assessing confidence in the safety case. In this paper, we propose a basis for developing and evaluating integrated qualitative and quantitative safety arguments based on the Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) and Bayesian Networks (BN). The approach we propose identifies structures within GSN-based arguments where uncertainties can be quantified. BN are then used to provide a means to reason about confidence in a probabilistic way. We illustrate our approach using a fragment of a safety case for an unmanned aerial system and conclude with some preliminary observations

Denney, Ewen↗
NASA NTRS2015

Dynamic Safety Cases for Through-Life Safety Assurance

We describe dynamic safety cases, a novel operationalization of the concept of through-life safety assurance, whose goal is to enable proactive safety management. Using an example from the aviation systems domain, we motivate our approach, its underlying principles, and a lifecycle. We then identify the key elements required to move towards a formalization of the associated framework.

Dynamic Safety Case↗
NASA NTRS2012

Hierarchical Safety Cases

We introduce hierarchical safety cases (or hicases) as a technique to overcome some of the difficulties that arise creating and maintaining industrial-size safety cases. Our approach extends the existing Goal Structuring Notation with abstraction structures, which allow the safety case to be viewed at different levels of detail. We motivate hicases and give a mathematical account of them as well as an intuition, relating them to other related concepts. We give a second definition which corresponds closely to our implementation of hicases in the AdvoCATE Assurance Case Editor and prove the correspondence between the two. Finally, we suggest areas of future enhancement, both theoretically and practically.

Denney, Ewen W.↗
NASA NTRS2013

A Formal Basis for Safety Case Patterns

By capturing common structures of successful arguments, safety case patterns provide an approach for reusing strategies for reasoning about safety. In the current state of the practice, patterns exist as descriptive specifications with informal semantics, which not only offer little opportunity for more sophisticated usage such as automated instantiation, composition and manipulation, but also impede standardization efforts and tool interoperability. To address these concerns, this paper gives (i) a formal definition for safety case patterns, clarifying both restrictions on the usage of multiplicity and well-founded recursion in structural abstraction, (ii) formal semantics to patterns, and (iii) a generic data model and algorithm for pattern instantiation. We illustrate our contributions by application to a new pattern, the requirements breakdown pattern, which builds upon our previous work

Formal Methods↗
NASA NTRS2009

Deriving Safety Cases from Automatically Constructed Proofs

Formal proofs provide detailed justification for the validity of claims and are widely used in formal software development methods. However, they are often complex and difficult to understand, because the formalism in which they are constructed and encoded is usually machine-oriented, and they may also be based on assumptions that are not justified. This causes concerns about the trustworthiness of using formal proofs as arguments in safety-critical applications. Here, we present an approach to develop safety cases that correspond to formal proofs found by automated theorem provers and reveal the underlying argumentation structure and top-level assumptions. We concentrate on natural deduction style proofs, which are closer to human reasoning than resolution proofs, and show how to construct the safety cases by covering the natural deduction proof tree with corresponding safety case fragments. We also abstract away logical book-keeping steps, which reduces the size of the constructed safety cases. We show how the approach can be applied to the proofs found by the Muscadet prover.

Basir, Nurlida↗
NASA NTRS2008

How Past Loss of Control Accidents May Inform Safety Cases for Advanced Control Systems on Commercial Aircraft

This paper describes five loss of control accidents involving commercial aircraft, and derives from those accidents three principles to consider when developing a potential safety case for an advanced flight control system for commercial aircraft. One, among the foundational evidence needed to support a safety case is the availability to the control system of accurate and timely information about the status and health of relevant systems and components. Two, an essential argument to be sustained in the safety case is that pilots are provided with adequate information about the control system to enable them to understand the capabilities that it provides. Three, another essential argument is that the advanced control system will not perform less safely than a good pilot.

Holloway, C. M.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Deriving Safety Cases from Machine-Generated Proofs

Proofs provide detailed justification for the validity of claims and are widely used in formal software development methods. However, they are often complex and difficult to understand, because they use machine-oriented formalisms; they may also be based on assumptions that are not justified. This causes concerns about the trustworthiness of using formal proofs as arguments in safety-critical applications. Here, we present an approach to develop safety cases that correspond to formal proofs found by automated theorem provers and reveal the underlying argumentation structure and top-level assumptions. We concentrate on natural deduction proofs and show how to construct the safety cases by covering the proof tree with corresponding safety case fragments.

Basir, Nurlida↗
NASA NTRS2009

Deriving Safety Cases from Machine-Generated Proofs

Proofs provide detailed justification for the validity of claims and are widely used in formal software development methods. However, they are often complex and difficult to understand, because they use machine-oriented formalisms; they may also be based on assumptions that are not justified. This causes concerns about the trustworthiness of using formal proofs as arguments in safety-critical applications. Here, we present an approach to develop safety cases that correspond to formal proofs found by automated theorem provers and reveal the underlying argumentation structure and top-level assumptions. We concentrate on natural deduction proofs and show how to construct the safety cases by covering the proof tree with corresponding safety case fragments.

Basir, Nurlida↗
NASA NTRS2015

Safety Case Patterns: Theory and Applications

We develop the foundations for a theory of patterns of safety case argument structures, clarifying the concepts involved in pattern specification, including choices, labeling, and well-founded recursion. We specify six new patterns in addition to those existing in the literature. We give a generic way to specify the data required to instantiate patterns and a generic algorithm for their instantiation. This generalizes earlier work on generating argument fragments from requirements tables. We describe an implementation of these concepts in AdvoCATE, the Assurance Case Automation Toolset, showing how patterns are defined and can be instantiated. In particular, we describe how our extended notion of patterns can be specified, how they can be instantiated in an interactive manner, and, finally, how they can be automatically instantiated using our algorithm.

Safety Assurance↗
NASA NTRS2023

Safety Case for Small Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (sUAS) Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) Operations at NASA Langley Research Center

This Technical Memorandum (TM) is written to provide for dissemination of the methods and safety considerations for operations of small Uncrewed Aerial Systems (sUAS) Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight (BVLOS)at NASA Langley Research Center. It includes the Safety Case used to acquire a BVLOS Certificate of Authorization (COA) from the FAA and is being published to enable others to benefit from this work. The intended operations, subject to approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), will include a combination of Within Visual Line of Sight (WVLOS) and Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) flights, comprising of at most five sUAS operating concurrently, with no more than three operating BVLOS. Flights will occur in a subset of the Langley Air Force Base (LAFB) Class D airspace (KLFI) at a maximum altitude of 400 ft AGL. Most operations within this subset will take place in the City Environment Range Testing for Autonomous Integrated Navigation (CERTAIN) Range. The CERTAIN Range includes airspace inside the borders of NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC). Additional airspace over the northern section of CERTAIN will be requested as part of the Certificate of Authorization (COA). NASA LaRC BVLOS operations on the CERTAIN Range can be broken down into five critical components needed to meet the 14 CFR § 91.113 see and avoid requirement: 1) procedural deconfliction with LAFB for UAS operations at or below 400 ft and manned aircraft at or above 900’ AGL; 2) ground equipment for detection of intruder aircraft and to support communications between crewmembers ; 3) sUAS vehicles with advanced onboard automation capable of autonomously maintaining safe separation; 4) BVLOS standardized operating procedures (SOPs); 5) and personnel to execute the flight operations in accordance with the SOPs and respond to airborne contingencies. The introduction of new ground equipment includes the use of the Remote Operations for Autonomous Missions (ROAM) UAS Operations Center, development and use of an Integrated Airspace Display (IAD), use of the L-STAR and GA-9120 radars, and the incorporation of standardized Vertiports. The ROAM Operations Center will be the central point for all BVLOS sUAS operations. All command and control (C2), voice communications and airspace awareness displays will reside inside ROAM. The IAD will provide raw data from ADS-B, FLARM, radar tracks and telemetered GPS vehicle positions for interpretation by an Airspace Monitor. The radars will search the class D airspace around the CERTAIN Range and serve as a backup to procedural deconfliction procedures coordinated with LAFB. In the event of a procedural deconfliction breakdown, radar detections of non-participating aircraft will be available so that the 91.113 see and avoid requirement can still be safely met. Finally, the incorporation of Vertiports will have video and network connectivity that enables large numbers of sUAS launches and recoveries from a single location. This is a continuation of the remote command and control of unpiloted aircraft component focused on evaluating unpiloted aircraft flight crew roles and responsibilities, control interfaces and the associated data links needed to operate a fleet of aircraft within a UAM Ecosystem. This work supports the development of future aviation operational concepts based on an Urban Air Mobility Maturity Level (UML) 4 environment (Patterson, 2020). It is assumed that future airspace will include hundreds of simultaneous aircraft operations within the airspace, therefore scalable operations are essential for enabling this future airspace to become a reality. Follow on work includes envisioned flights that expand operations beyond the CERTAIN range and lead to an effective Maritime Surveillance capability.

Matthew W Coldsnow↗