International Journal of Computer
Trends and Technology

Research Article | Open Access | Download PDF

Volume 27 | Number 1 | Year 2015 | Article Id. IJCTT-V27P107 | DOI : https://doi.org/10.14445/22312803/IJCTT-V27P107

Customizing the Methodology of Expanding RUP Software for Safety-Critical Systems

Mina Zaminkar

Citation :

Mina Zaminkar, "Customizing the Methodology of Expanding RUP Software for Safety-Critical Systems," International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT), vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 40-43, 2015. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/22312803/IJCTT-V27P107

Abstract

Rational Unified Process is considered as an object oriented methodology. This methodology is a software development and production approach which is repetitious axial architecture and based on practicality. The RUP provide a process framework with the capability of customization in software engineering; frameworks for defining vast spectrum of different size, complexities and considerations projects. This concern provides the potential to produce software based on reduced risk and encounter main problems which leads to a reduction in cost and increase in potential success, hence an advantage. At this stage there does not exist any methodology to expand safe software from developing Safety-Critical systems based on objective orientation, axial architecture capable of gradual expansion and repetitious. Attempt is made in this article to apply RUP with respect to the safety rules printed in IEC 61508, in order to define and customize the necessities of Safety-Critical systems in Railway interlocking methodology is applied in controlling train movement in stations. This proposed RUP methodology a companied with the require Safety- Critical in developing the Railway interlocking system as a case study is assessed and the practical conditions are presented.

Keywords

Customization, IEC 61508 Standard, Safety-Critical, RUP, Object Oriented.

References

[1] J. R. Pimentel, “Designing safety-critical systems: A Convergence of Technologies,” Kettering University, Flint, Michigan, 2008.
[2] E. G. Leaphart, et al, “Survey of software failsafe techniques for safety-critical automotive applications,” in SAE World Congress, Detroit, 2005
[3] J. M. Sulek and M. R. Lind, “Fail-safe methods for paratransit safety,” Journal of public transportation, 2005, vol. 8.
[4] BSI Group, “Draft BS EN 50126-5 Railway applications,” The specification and Demonstration of Reliability, Availability,Maintainability and Safety (RAMS), 2013.
[5] G. Sugandba, "A Comparative study of Usability Evaluation Methods," International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT), V22(3):103-106, 2015.
[6] Rizwan Ahmed, et al, “Design of safety-critical systems using the complementarities of success and failure domains with a case study,” 2011.
[7] B. J. Krämer, N. Völker, “A highly dependable computing architecture for safety-critical control applications,” Real- Time Systems, vol. 13, 1997.
[8] International Standard, “IEC 61508-3-1, 2ndedition, 2010.
[9] Rlewallen, “Software Development Life Cycle Models,” 2005.
[10] Steve Easterbrook, “Software Lifecycles,” University of Toronto Department of Computer Science, 2001.
[11] M. Zaminkar, M. R. Reshadinezhad, “A Comparison between Two Software Engineering Process, RUP and Waterfall Models,” International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, 2013.
[12] NASA-STD-8719.13A, NASA Software Safety Standard, 1997.
[13] P. Borges, et al, “Mapping RUP Roles to Small Software Development Teams,” SWQD, 2012.