Design of Train Control Software Safety Evaluation Tool

열차제어 소프트웨어 안전성 평가도구의 설계

  • 황종규 (한국철도기술연구원 전기신호연구본부) ;
  • 조현정 (한국철도기술연구원 전기신호연구본부) ;
  • 김형신 (충남대학교 컴퓨터공학과)
  • Published : 2008.04.30


Recent advances in embedded system technology have brought more dependence on automating train control. While much efforts have been reported to improve electronic hardware's safety, not so much systematic approaches to evaluate software's safety, especially for the vital software running on board train controllers. In this paper, we propose a new software tool to evaluate software safety for the train controller. We have reviewed requirements in the international standards and surveyed available tools in the market. From that, we identified necessary tests to meet the standards and proposed a tool that can be used during the whole software life cycle. We show the functional architecture and internal components of the tool. Our tool is unique in that it is a comprehensive tool specifically designed for software safety evaluation while other tools are not.


  1. Matsumo, M. (2005), 'The revolution of train control system in Japan', Autonomous Decentralized Systems, ISADS Proceedings, pp.599 - 606
  2. Lawson, H. W. et al., (2001), 'Twenty years of safe train control in Sweden', Engineering of Computer Based Systems, Proceedings. Eighth Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the, p.0289
  3. Oh, Y.J. et al., (2005), 'Software safety analysis of function block diagrams using fault trees', Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 88, No. 3., pp. 215-228
  4. Weber, W. et al., (2005), 'Enhancing software safety by fault trees: experiences from an application to flight critical software', Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 89, No. 1., pp. 57-70
  5. Pirie, Ian B., (1999), 'Software ? How do we know it is safe?', Proceedings of the ASME/IEEE, pp.122-129
  6. Lutz, R. R. and Woodhouse, R. M. (1999), 'Bi-directional Analysis for Certification of Safety-Critical Software', Proceedings of 1st International Software Assurance Certification Conference, Dulles, Virginia, February
  7. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) (1999), '61508 - Functional Safety of Electrical / Electronic / Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems'.
  8. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) (2002), '62279 Railway Applications $^\circ$$\copyright$ Communications, Signalling &. Processing Systems, Software for Railway Control & Protection'.
  9. RTCA DO-178B/ED-12B (1992), 'Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification'
  10. Sammapun, U., Lee, I. and Sokolsky, O., (2005), 'RT-MaC : Runtime monitoring and checking of quantitative and probabilistic properties', Proceedings of IEEE RTCSA
  11. Leveson, N. G. (1986), 'Why, what and how ?', ACM Computing Surveys, 18(2), June
  12. France, R. and Rumpe, B. (2007), 'Model-driven development of complex systems: A research roadmap', Future of Software Engineering, ACM Press
  13. Mathworks Inc. (2004), Mathworks,
  14. Mathworks Inc., Simulink,
  15. Esterel Technologies (2004),
  16. Esterel technologies (2004), SCADE suite product, http://www.
  17. Harel, D. et al, (1990), 'Statemate: A working environment for the development of complex reactive systems', IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(4):403-414, April
  18. Leveson, N. G., Heimdahl, M. P. and Reese, J. D. (1999), 'Designing Specification Languages for Process Control Systems: Lessons Learned and Steps to the Future', In Seventh ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations on Software Engineering, volume 1687 of LNCS, pages 127-145, September