PROBLEMS OF EVALUATION OF SOFTWARE DEPENDABILITY AND QUALITY IN INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
https://doi.org/10.21683/1729-2646-2015-0-4-87-96
Abstract
About the Authors
A. V. AntonovRussian Federation
PhD Engineering, Senior Research Assistant
E. F. Zharko
Russian Federation
PhD Engineering, Senior Research Assistant
V. G. Promyslov
Russian Federation
Candidate of physical-mathematical sciences, Senior Research Assistant
References
1. Byvaikov M. E., Zharko E.F., Mengazetdinov N.E., Poletykin A.G., Prangishvili I.V., Promyslov V.G. Experience of designing and implementation of system of upper unit level of NPP IACS//Automation and telemechanics. 2006. No. 5. p. 65-79.
2. Smith D., DeLong T., Johnson B.W. A Safety Assessment Methodology for Complex Safety-Critical Hardware/ Software Systems//International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Controls, and Human-Machine Interface Technologies. Washington, DC, November, 2000
3. Lipaev V.V. Dependability of software. M: SINTEG, 1998.
4. Aldernir T., Miller D.W., Stovsky M.P., Kirschenbaurr J., Bucci P., Fentiman A.W., Mangan L.T. Current State of Reliability Modeling Methodologies for Digital Systems and Their Acceptance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plant Assessments (NUREG/CR-6901).
5. Halstead M.H. Elements of Software Science. New York: Elsevier, 1977.
6. Devooght J., Smidts C. Probabilistic Reactor Dynamics l: The theory of continuous event trees // Nuclear Science and Engineering. 1992. Vol. 111. No. 3. P. 229-240.
7. Acosta C., Siu N. Dynamic event trees in accident sequence analysis: Application to steam generator tube rupture // Reliab. Engng & System Safety. 1993. Vol. 41, No. 2. P. 135-154.
8. Goddard P.L. A Combined Analysis Approach to Assessing Requirements for Safety Critical Real-Time Control Systems // Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 1996 Proceedings. International Symposium on Product Quality and Integrity., Annual. P. 110-115.
9. Stamataletos M. et.al. Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners, Version 1.1, August, 2002.
10. Andrews J.D., Dugan J.B. Dependency modeling using failure-tree analysis // Proceedings of the 17 International System Safety Conference, The System Safety Society, Unionville, Virginia, 1999. P. 67-76.
11. Matsuoka T., Kobayashi M. An analysis of a dynamic system by the GOFLOW methodology // Proc. ESREL’96/PSAM III, Crete, 1996. P. 1547-1552.
12. Smidts C., Li M. Validation of a Methodology for Assessing Software Quality. Report UMDRE 2002-07. February, 2002.
13. NEA/CSNI Recommendations on assessing digital system reliability in probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power plants. 2009. 157 p.
14. Fitzpatrick R. Software Quality: Definitions and Strategic Issues. Staffordshire University, School of Computing Report. 1996. 35 p.
15. Zharko E.F. Comparison of models of software quality: analytical approach//XII All-Russia conference on control problems. VSPU-2014. Moscow, June, 16-19th, 2014: Works. M: IPU of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2014. p. 4585-4594.
Review
For citations:
Antonov A.V., Zharko E.F., Promyslov V.G. PROBLEMS OF EVALUATION OF SOFTWARE DEPENDABILITY AND QUALITY IN INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS. Dependability. 2015;(4):87-96. https://doi.org/10.21683/1729-2646-2015-0-4-87-96