English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

With the rapid advancement of Formal Methods, Model-based Safety Analysis(MBSA) has been gaining tremendous attention for its ability to rigorouslyverify whether the safety-critical scenarios are adequately addressed by thedesign solution of a cyber-physical human system. However, there is a gap. Ifspecific safety-critical scenarios are not included in the given designsolution (i.e., the model) in the first place, the results of MBSA cannot betrusted for safety assurance. To tackle this problem, we propose a newsafety-guided design methodology (called STPA+) to complement MBSA. Inspired bySTPA, STPA+ treats a system as a control structure, which is particularly fitfor systems with complex interactions between human, machine, and automation.Three methods are developed in STPA+ to tackle the possible omissions ofsafety-critical scenarios caused by incorrectly defined safety constraints,improperly constrained process model, and inadequately designed controller. Inthis way, STPA+ directly derives an adequately defined design solution as theinput to an MBSA verification program and bridges the gap between current MBSAapproaches and safety assurance.

A new safety-guided design methodology to complement model-based safety analysis for safety assurance