Airborne equipment software reliability evaluation method

Abstract

The invention provides an airborne equipment software reliability evaluation method, and belongs to the technical field of aviation software reliability evaluation, and the method comprises the steps: determining an evaluation boundary and an evaluation standard criterion of airborne software reliability; on the basis of the boundary and the criterion, an airborne software reliability evaluation index system is constructed, airborne equipment software reliability is included, the airborne equipment software reliability comprises a plurality of second-level evaluation indexes, and each second-level evaluation index comprises a plurality of third-level evaluation indexes; data acquisition and analysis of three-level evaluation indexes are carried out for airborne software, and an analysis result of each second-level evaluation index is obtained; based on a preset evaluation rule, integrating the analysis result of each secondary evaluation index to obtain an evaluation result of the reliability of the airborne equipment software; and based on an evaluation result, constructing an airborne software reliability demand set, and applying the airborne software reliability demand set to airborne software potential safety hazard troubleshooting. According to the method, data support is provided for troubleshooting software potential safety hazards, and the safety and reliability of airborne software are improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of aviation software reliability assessment, and in particular to a method for assessing the reliability of airborne equipment software. Background Art

[0002] Most of the airborne equipment software is embedded software. Due to the particularity of running in the aviation field, it not only has requirements for the anti-hazard and anti-interference capabilities of the software during operation, but also has more complex design requirements for its own design framework, code structure, communication module design, numerical conversion accuracy, mode conversion, operation boundary, etc. Therefore, an effective and systematic evaluation method is needed to evaluate the reliability of airborne equipment, and then analyze the failure mode and impact, provide instructions and guidance for the acquisition of software reliability requirements, timely discover the reliability risks of airborne equipment software, improve the quality of software operation, and narrow the gap between airborne equipment software design and standardization. At the same time, enhance the reliability demand density of airborne equipment software, form high-quality export documents through the improvement of demand capture and demand iteration stages, and establish software failure and reliability data assets. However, there is currently no universal and effective method for reliability evaluation of airborne equipment software. Summary of the invention

[0003] In view of this, an embodiment of the present application provides a method for evaluating the reliability of airborne equipment software. By analyzing the reliability of airborne equipment software, instructions and guidance can be provided for obtaining software reliability requirements, so as to solve the problems of difficulty in troubleshooting safety risks of airborne equipment software and low software operation reliability.

[0004] The present application provides a method for evaluating the reliability of airborne device software, the method comprising:

[0005] Determine the evaluation boundaries and evaluation criteria for airborne software reliability;

[0006] Based on the evaluation boundary and the evaluation standard criteria, an airborne software reliability evaluation index system is constructed, wherein the reliability evaluation index system includes airborne equipment software reliability as a first-level evaluation index, and the airborne equipment software reliability includes a plurality of second-level evaluation indicators, and each second-level evaluation indicator includes a plurality of third-level evaluation indicators;

[0007] Acquiring data of the third-level evaluation index for the airborne software, and analyzing the second-level evaluation index based on the acquired data to obtain analysis results of each second-level evaluation index;

[0008] Based on the preset evaluation rules, the analysis results of each secondary evaluation indicator are integrated to obtain the evaluation result of the reliability of the airborne equipment software;

[0009] Based on the evaluation result of the airborne equipment software reliability, an airborne software reliability requirement set is constructed, and the airborne software reliability requirement set is used to troubleshoot airborne software safety risks.

[0010] According to a specific implementation of an embodiment of the present application, the evaluation boundary includes a demand analysis stage, a demand iteration stage, and an export file stage.

[0011] According to a specific implementation method of an embodiment of the present application, the evaluation standard criteria include reliance on documents, clear interfaces, indicator independence, and comprehensive reliability.

[0012] According to a specific implementation method of an embodiment of the present application, the second-level evaluation indicators include fault frequency, fault type, fault level and fault impact range, the third-level evaluation indicators in the fault frequency include mean fault interval time and mean fault recovery time, the third-level evaluation indicators in the fault type include data type definition error, data value abnormality, timing constraint violation, functional logic error, associated equipment failure, software and hardware coupling conflict and non-reproducible failure, the third-level evaluation indicators in the fault level include multiple severity levels, and the third-level evaluation indicators in the fault impact range include the whole system range of the whole machine, the subsystem cross-linking range, the equipment internal range and the software itself range.

[0013] According to a specific implementation of the embodiment of the present application, the data acquisition of the three-level evaluation indicators for the airborne software includes:

[0014] The third-level evaluation index data is obtained through troubleshooting means for airborne software, and the troubleshooting means include:

[0015] Check the carrier external interface on which the onboard device software runs, and describe the interface data, timing, communication, combination, source / destination device information in a graphical or tabular manner; the carrier external interface includes a discrete input interface, an analog input interface, a discrete output interface, and a bus input and output interface;

[0016] Check the execution of software functions, and describe the control solution, logical conditions, task execution sequence, and software-hardware coupling relationship for software function items; the software function items include logic execution, constraints, conditions, sequence, execution of operation information, and actual processing;

[0017] Check the functional combination relationship, and describe the concurrent execution and sequential execution information between the functions for the combination relationship between software functions; the functional combination relationship is the combination and interaction relationship between the specific functional implementations of the software, including the relationship between timing, constraints, concurrency, combination and priority processing;

[0018] Check the software working mode migration situation, and describe the working status, state transfer conditions, state transfer path, and related function information for the software working status and mode; the software working mode migration situation refers to each link that the airborne equipment software goes through during work, including power-on, self-test, periodic task operation, maintenance, and power-off working mode conversion.

[0019] According to a specific implementation of the embodiment of the present application, the second-level evaluation index is analyzed based on the acquired data to obtain the analysis result of each second-level evaluation index, including:

[0020] Based on the acquired data, for each of the second-level evaluation indicators, the data of the third-level evaluation indicators corresponding to the second-level evaluation indicator are scored, and based on the score, a score for each second-level evaluation indicator is obtained;

[0021] The score of each secondary evaluation indicator is used as the analysis result of each secondary evaluation indicator.

[0022] According to a specific implementation of the embodiment of the present application, scoring the data of the third-level evaluation indicator corresponding to the second-level evaluation indicator, and obtaining the score of each second-level evaluation indicator based on the score, includes:

[0023] Assigning different weights to the mean time between failures and the mean time to recover from failures corresponding to the failure frequency, respectively, and performing weighted summation based on the acquired data to obtain a first score, and using the first score as the score of the failure frequency;

[0024] Assign different weights to the data type definition error, the data value anomaly, the timing constraint violation, the functional logic error, the associated device failure, the software-hardware coupling conflict, and the non-reproducible failure corresponding to the fault type, respectively, and perform weighted summation based on the acquired data to obtain a second score, and use the second score as the score of the fault type;

[0025] Assigning different scores to each severity level corresponding to the fault level, analyzing the severity level corresponding to the acquired data, and using the score corresponding to the severity level as the score of the fault level;

[0026] Different scores are assigned to the entire system scope, subsystem cross-linking scope, equipment internal scope and software scope corresponding to the fault impact scope, and the corresponding scope in the acquired data is analyzed, and the score corresponding to the scope is used as the score of the fault impact scope.

[0027] According to a specific implementation of the embodiment of the present application, the analysis results of each secondary evaluation indicator are integrated based on the preset evaluation rules to obtain the evaluation result of the reliability of the airborne device software, including:

[0028] Assigning different weights to each of the secondary evaluation indicators, performing weighted summation on the analysis results of each of the secondary evaluation indicators based on the weights, and obtaining a total score;

[0029] The total score is used as the evaluation result of the reliability of the airborne equipment software.

[0030] According to a specific implementation of the embodiment of the present application, the step of constructing an airborne software reliability requirement set based on the evaluation result of the airborne device software reliability includes:

[0031] Based on the evaluation results of the airborne equipment software reliability, data integration is performed according to failure modes, failure causes, failure impacts, control measures, and software reliability requirements. According to the data format requirements, each record is recorded one by one to form a complete software failure risk analysis data record, thereby forming the airborne software reliability requirement set.

[0032] Beneficial effects:

[0033] The airborne equipment software reliability assessment method in the embodiment of the present application, by constructing a reliability index system and adopting a distributed data analysis method, analyzes multiple reliability aspects of the airborne equipment software, comprehensively and comprehensively evaluates the software reliability, provides data support for troubleshooting software security risks, and provides a set of effective methods for software reliability testing. Through this effective reliability and risk analysis method, most software security issues and risk defects can be discovered; on this basis, combined with software reliability testing with target targets, airborne equipment simulation verification, airborne system joint test verification and other measures, the security risks existing in the airborne equipment software itself can be more comprehensively solved. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0034] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application, the drawings required for use in the embodiments will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present application. For ordinary technicians in this field, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without paying creative work.

[0035] Figure 1 is an evaluation boundary graph in a method for evaluating airborne device software reliability according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0036] Figure 2 The figure is a framework diagram of an airborne software reliability evaluation index system according to an embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0037] The embodiments of the present application are described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0038] The following describes the implementation methods of the present application through specific examples, and those skilled in the art can easily understand other advantages and effects of the present application from the contents disclosed in this specification. Obviously, the described embodiments are only a part of the embodiments of the present application, rather than all the embodiments. The present application can also be implemented or applied through other different specific implementation methods, and the details in this specification can also be modified or changed in various ways based on different viewpoints and applications without departing from the spirit of the present application. It should be noted that, in the absence of conflict, the following embodiments and the features in the embodiments can be combined with each other. Based on the embodiments in the present application, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in the field without making creative work belong to the scope of protection of the present application.

[0039] It should be noted that various aspects of the embodiments within the scope of the appended claims are described below. It should be apparent that the aspects described herein can be embodied in a wide variety of forms, and any specific structure and / or function described herein is merely illustrative. Based on the present application, it should be understood by those skilled in the art that an aspect described herein can be implemented independently of any other aspect, and two or more of these aspects can be combined in various ways. For example, any number of aspects described herein can be used to implement the device and / or practice the method. In addition, other structures and / or functionalities other than one or more of the aspects described herein can be used to implement this device and / or practice this method.

[0040] It should also be noted that the illustrations provided in the following embodiments are only schematic illustrations of the basic concept of the present application. The illustrations only show the components related to the present application rather than being drawn according to the number, shape and size of the components in actual implementation. In actual implementation, the type, quantity and proportion of each component may be changed at will, and the component layout may also be more complicated.

[0041] Additionally, in the following description, specific details are provided to facilitate a thorough understanding of the examples. However, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the aspects described may be practiced without these specific details.

[0042] The present application embodiment provides a method for evaluating the reliability of airborne equipment software. Figure 1 and Figure 2 The method comprises:

[0043] Step S1, determining the assessment boundary and assessment standard criteria of the airborne software reliability;

[0044] Step S2: constructing an airborne software reliability evaluation index system based on the evaluation boundary and the evaluation standard criteria, wherein the reliability evaluation index system includes airborne equipment software reliability as a first-level evaluation index, and the airborne equipment software reliability includes a plurality of second-level evaluation indicators, and each second-level evaluation indicator includes a plurality of third-level evaluation indicators;

[0045] Step S3, acquiring data of the third-level evaluation index for the airborne software, and analyzing the second-level evaluation index based on the acquired data to obtain analysis results of each second-level evaluation index;

[0046] Step S4: Based on preset evaluation rules, the analysis results of each secondary evaluation indicator are integrated to obtain the evaluation result of the airborne equipment software reliability;

[0047] Step S5: construct an airborne software reliability requirement set based on the evaluation result of the airborne device software reliability, and use the airborne software reliability requirement set for airborne software security risk investigation.

[0048] In this embodiment, an evaluation index system is established in a hierarchical manner for the airborne equipment software reliability evaluation, and the indicators are divided into primary evaluation indicators, secondary evaluation indicators and tertiary evaluation indicators. The primary evaluation indicators are the objects of evaluation and directly reflect the results of the evaluation. The secondary evaluation indicators are the evaluation of the primary evaluation indicators from various dimensions. The tertiary evaluation indicators are computable and obtainable indicators that can directly reflect the quality of the secondary evaluation indicators.

[0049] In this embodiment, by constructing a reliability index system and using a distributed data analysis method, multiple reliability aspects of airborne equipment software are analyzed, and the software reliability is comprehensively evaluated, providing data support for troubleshooting software security risks and providing a set of effective methods for software reliability testing. Through this effective reliability and risk analysis method, most software security issues and risk defects can be discovered; on this basis, combined with targeted software reliability testing, airborne equipment simulation verification, airborne system joint test verification and other measures, the security risks of airborne equipment software itself can be more comprehensively resolved.

[0050] In one embodiment, the evaluation boundary includes a demand analysis phase, a demand iteration phase, and an export document phase; the evaluation criteria include reliance on documents, clear interfaces, indicator independence, and comprehensive reliability.

[0051] Specifically, refer to Figure 1In step S1, in the design of airborne product software, the stages suitable for software reliability analysis are demand analysis, demand iteration, and export file stages. Reliability assessment at this stage can fully consider design defects, effectively avoid the probability of design problems appearing in subsequent tests and experiments, and reduce maintenance costs. Based on the characteristics of large-scale, complex logic, large number of components, and strong coupling of airborne equipment software, reliability assessment should be carried out based on the principles of "relying on documents", "clear interfaces", "independent indicators", and "comprehensive reliability".

[0052] In one embodiment, the secondary evaluation indicators include fault frequency, fault type, fault level and fault impact range. The tertiary evaluation indicators in the fault frequency include mean time between failures and mean time to recover from failures. The tertiary evaluation indicators in the fault type include data type definition error, data value abnormality, timing constraint violation, functional logic error, associated equipment failure, software-hardware coupling conflict and non-reproducible failure. The tertiary evaluation indicators in the fault level include multiple severity levels. The tertiary evaluation indicators in the fault impact range include the whole system range of the whole machine, the subsystem cross-linking range, the equipment internal range and the software itself range.

[0053] In this embodiment, guided by the evaluation boundary and evaluation standard criteria, based on the characteristics of the airborne software itself, the defect classification method, the key requirement elements and the failure type statistics, an airborne equipment software reliability analysis index system is constructed. The distributed design concept is adopted to separate the evaluation indicators from each other. Each sub-indicator can evaluate a dimension of software reliability separately. The sub-indicators are: fault frequency, fault type, fault level and fault impact range, such as Figure 2 . According to the evaluation comparison, the reliability of airborne equipment software is a first-level indicator. Since software reliability is strongly correlated with the equipment's failure frequency, failure type, failure size, and failure impact range, and the coupling between indicators is relatively small, the failure frequency, failure type, failure level, and failure impact range are selected as second-level evaluation indicators. Specifically, the failure frequency indicator refers to the interval frequency of airborne software failures; the failure type indicator refers to the type of airborne software failures, reflecting the difficulty of software troubleshooting; the failure level indicator refers to the severity of airborne software failures, which is divided into major, severe, mild, and slight levels; the failure range indicator refers to the impact range of airborne software failures, which is divided into the entire system range of the entire machine, the cross-linking range of the subsystem, the internal range of the equipment, and the range of the software itself.

[0054] For the selection of three-level evaluation indicators, the mean time between failures is determined by the weighted sum of the mean time between failures and the mean time to recover from failures, and these two indicators can be directly obtained, so these two are the three-level evaluation indicators. Similarly, the types of fault phenomena that can be directly determined, such as data type definition errors, abnormal data values, timing constraint violations, functional logic errors, key equipment failures, software-hardware coupling conflicts, and non-reproducible failures, are defined as three-level evaluation indicators, which can intuitively reflect the type of fault. According to the fault level, it can be divided into major, severe, mild and slight levels as three-level evaluation indicators, which can effectively reflect the severity of the fault. Finally, the whole system scope of the whole machine, the interconnection scope of the subsystem, the internal scope of the equipment, and the scope of the software itself are selected as the three-level evaluation indicators to reflect the impact scope of the fault.

[0055] In one embodiment, the data acquisition of the three-level evaluation index for the airborne software includes:

[0056] The third-level evaluation index data is obtained through troubleshooting means for airborne software, and the troubleshooting means include:

[0057] Check the carrier external interface on which the onboard device software runs, and describe the interface data, timing, communication, combination, source / destination device information in a graphical or tabular manner; the carrier external interface includes a discrete input interface, an analog input interface, a discrete output interface, and a bus input and output interface;

[0058] Check the execution of software functions, and describe the control solution, logical conditions, task execution sequence, and software-hardware coupling relationship for software function items; the software function items include logic execution, constraints, conditions, sequence, execution of operation information, and actual processing;

[0059] Check the functional combination relationship, and describe the concurrent execution and sequential execution information between the functions for the combination relationship between software functions; the functional combination relationship is the combination and interaction relationship between the specific functional implementations of the software, including the relationship between timing, constraints, concurrency, combination and priority processing;

[0060] Check the software working mode migration situation, and describe the working status, state transfer conditions, state transfer path, and related function information for the software working status and mode; the software working mode migration situation refers to each link that the airborne equipment software goes through during work, including power-on, self-test, periodic task operation, maintenance, and power-off working mode conversion.

[0061] In one embodiment, the analyzing the secondary evaluation indicators based on the acquired data to obtain the analysis results of each secondary evaluation indicator includes:

[0062] Based on the acquired data, for each of the second-level evaluation indicators, the data of the third-level evaluation indicators corresponding to the second-level evaluation indicator are scored, and based on the score, a score for each second-level evaluation indicator is obtained;

[0063] The score of each secondary evaluation indicator is used as the analysis result of each secondary evaluation indicator.

[0064] In one embodiment, scoring the data of the third-level evaluation indicator corresponding to the second-level evaluation indicator, and obtaining the score of each second-level evaluation indicator based on the score, includes:

[0065] Assigning different weights to the mean time between failures and the mean time to recover from failures corresponding to the failure frequency, respectively, and performing weighted summation based on the acquired data to obtain a first score, and using the first score as the score of the failure frequency;

[0066] Assign different weights to the data type definition error, the data value anomaly, the timing constraint violation, the functional logic error, the associated device failure, the software-hardware coupling conflict, and the non-reproducible failure corresponding to the fault type, respectively, and perform weighted summation based on the acquired data to obtain a second score, and use the second score as the score of the fault type;

[0067] Assigning different scores to each severity level corresponding to the fault level, analyzing the severity level corresponding to the acquired data, and using the score corresponding to the severity level as the score of the fault level;

[0068] Different scores are assigned to the entire system scope, subsystem cross-linking scope, equipment internal scope and software scope corresponding to the fault impact scope, and the corresponding scope in the acquired data is analyzed, and the score corresponding to the scope is used as the score of the fault impact scope.

[0069] The following is a detailed description of the scoring of each secondary evaluation indicator with specific examples:

[0070] Fault frequency index D 1 Data analysis: The failure frequency index refers to the interval frequency of failures in the airborne software, which is obtained by the weighted sum of the mean time between failures and the mean time to recover from failures. The smaller the value, the higher the reliability.

[0071] Fault type indicator D 2Data analysis: The fault type indicator refers to the type of fault that occurs in the airborne software, reflecting the difficulty of troubleshooting the software. Based on the software requirement elements and software failure mode analysis criteria, based on the software failure mode analysis criteria and general failure data, the software requirement elements are analyzed for possible software failure causes, including data type definition errors, data value anomalies, timing constraint violations, functional logic errors, software and hardware coupling conflicts, and related equipment failures. They are quantified and assigned values. The smaller the value, the higher the reliability.

[0072] After the specific fault is found, quantitative values ​​are assigned according to the fault type, as follows:

[0073] D 2 {Data type definition error} = 0.15; D 2 {Abnormal data value} = 0.3;

[0074] D 2 {Time constraint violation} = 0.15; D 2 {Functional logic error} = 0.2;

[0075] D 2 {Software and hardware coupling conflict} = 0.1; D 2 {Associated equipment failure} = 0.05;

[0076] D 2 {Unreproducible fault} = 0.05;

[0077] Fault level indicator D 3 Data analysis: The fault level index refers to the severity of the onboard software fault, which is divided into major, severe, mild and slight levels. The smaller the value, the higher the reliability. The determination and quantitative assignment of fault levels are shown in Table 1.

[0078] Table 1 Fault level quantification table

[0079]

[0080] Fault range indicator D 4 Data analysis: Fault scope index value The impact scope of the onboard software failure is divided into the whole system scope, subsystem cross-linking scope, equipment internal scope and software scope. The smaller the value, the higher the reliability. The determination and quantitative assignment of the fault impact scope are shown in Table 2.

[0081] Table 2 Fault range quantification table

[0082]

[0083] In one embodiment, the analysis results of each secondary evaluation indicator are integrated based on the preset evaluation rules to obtain the evaluation result of the airborne device software reliability, including:

[0084] Assigning different weights to each of the secondary evaluation indicators, performing weighted summation on the analysis results of each of the secondary evaluation indicators based on the weights, and obtaining a total score;

[0085] The total score is used as the evaluation result of the reliability of the airborne equipment software.

[0086] In the specific implementation, for this scenario, the influence weight of the secondary evaluation index is set as fault frequency: fault type: fault level: fault impact range = 0.3: 0.3: 0.2: 0.2, and the analysis results of the secondary evaluation index are weighted and summed to obtain the total score of the airborne equipment reliability, as shown in the following formula:

[0087] P=0.3·D 1 +0.3·D 2 +0.2·D 3 +0.2·D 4 ,

[0088] Among them, P is the total score. According to this formula and the analysis results of the secondary evaluation indicators, a comprehensive evaluation result can be obtained.

[0089] It should be noted that the assignment of each weight and each set score in the embodiment of the present application are obtained by comprehensive evaluation and calculation based on experience and actual needs.

[0090] In one embodiment, the step of constructing an airborne software reliability requirement set based on the airborne device software reliability evaluation result includes:

[0091] Based on the evaluation results of the airborne equipment software reliability, data integration is performed according to failure modes, failure causes, failure impacts, control measures, and software reliability requirements. According to the data format requirements, each record is recorded one by one to form a complete software failure risk analysis data record, thereby forming the airborne software reliability requirement set.

[0092] Specifically, based on the evaluation results of the reliability of the airborne equipment software, the safety and failure risk of the airborne equipment software are analyzed, and according to the formulated airborne equipment software failure impact level, the safety and failure risk analysis results are integrated to form the airborne software reliability requirement set.

[0093] The analysis results such as failure mode, failure cause, failure impact, software failure impact level, control measures, software safety requirements, etc. shall be recorded one by one in accordance with the failure risk analysis data format requirements to form a complete software failure risk analysis data record. The safety requirements of airborne equipment software shall be supported by analyzing the data.

[0094] The embodiment provided by the present invention comprehensively evaluates the software reliability by analyzing the failure frequency, failure type, failure level and failure range of the onboard equipment software, provides data support for troubleshooting software safety risks, and provides a set of effective methods for software reliability testing.

[0095] The above is only a specific implementation of the present application, but the protection scope of the present application is not limited thereto. Any changes or substitutions that can be easily thought of by a person skilled in the art within the technical scope disclosed in the present application should be included in the protection scope of the present application. Therefore, the protection scope of the present application shall be based on the protection scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the reliability of airborne equipment software, characterized in that: The method comprises: Determine the evaluation boundaries and evaluation criteria for airborne software reliability; Based on the evaluation boundary and the evaluation standard criteria, an airborne software reliability evaluation index system is constructed, wherein the reliability evaluation index system includes airborne equipment software reliability as a first-level evaluation index, and the airborne equipment software reliability includes a plurality of second-level evaluation indicators, and each second-level evaluation indicator includes a plurality of third-level evaluation indicators; Acquiring data of the third-level evaluation index for the airborne software, and analyzing the second-level evaluation index based on the acquired data to obtain analysis results of each second-level evaluation index; Based on the preset evaluation rules, the analysis results of each secondary evaluation indicator are integrated to obtain the evaluation result of the reliability of the airborne equipment software; Based on the evaluation result of the airborne equipment software reliability, an airborne software reliability requirement set is constructed, and the airborne software reliability requirement set is used to troubleshoot airborne software safety risks.

2. The method for evaluating the reliability of airborne equipment software according to claim 1, characterized in that: The evaluation boundaries include a requirements analysis phase, a requirements iteration phase, and an export document phase.

3. The method for evaluating the reliability of airborne equipment software according to claim 1, characterized in that: The evaluation criteria include reliance on documentation, clear interfaces, indicator independence, and comprehensive reliability.

4. The method for evaluating the reliability of airborne equipment software according to claim 1, characterized in that: The second-level evaluation indicators include fault frequency, fault type, fault level and fault impact range. The third-level evaluation indicators in the fault frequency include mean time between failures and mean time to recover from failures. The third-level evaluation indicators in the fault type include data type definition error, data value abnormality, timing constraint violation, functional logic error, associated equipment failure, software-hardware coupling conflict and non-reproducible failure. The third-level evaluation indicators in the fault level include multiple severity levels. The third-level evaluation indicators in the fault impact range include the whole system range of the whole machine, the subsystem cross-linking range, the equipment internal range and the software itself range.

5. The method for evaluating the reliability of airborne equipment software according to claim 1, characterized in that: The data acquisition of the three-level evaluation indicators for the airborne software includes: The third-level evaluation index data is obtained through troubleshooting means for airborne software, and the troubleshooting means include: Check the carrier external interface on which the onboard device software runs, and describe the interface data, timing, communication, combination, source / destination device information in a graphical or tabular manner; the carrier external interface includes a discrete input interface, an analog input interface, a discrete output interface, and a bus input and output interface; Check the execution of software functions, and describe the control solution, logical conditions, task execution sequence, and software-hardware coupling relationship for software function items; the software function items include logic execution, constraints, conditions, sequence, execution of operation information, and actual processing; Check the functional combination relationship, and describe the concurrent execution and sequential execution information between the functions for the combination relationship between software functions; the functional combination relationship is the combination and interaction relationship between the specific functional implementations of the software, including the relationship between timing, constraints, concurrency, combination and priority processing; Check the software working mode migration situation, and describe the working status, state transfer conditions, state transfer path, and related function information for the software working status and mode; the software working mode migration situation refers to each link that the airborne equipment software goes through during work, including power-on, self-test, periodic task operation, maintenance, and power-off working mode conversion.

6. The method for evaluating the reliability of airborne equipment software according to claim 4, characterized in that: The analyzing the secondary evaluation indicators based on the acquired data to obtain the analysis results of each secondary evaluation indicator includes: Based on the acquired data, for each of the second-level evaluation indicators, the data of the third-level evaluation indicators corresponding to the second-level evaluation indicator are scored, and based on the score, a score for each second-level evaluation indicator is obtained; The score of each secondary evaluation indicator is used as the analysis result of each secondary evaluation indicator.

7. The method for evaluating the reliability of airborne equipment software according to claim 6, characterized in that: Scoring the data of the third-level evaluation indicator corresponding to the second-level evaluation indicator, and obtaining the score of each second-level evaluation indicator based on the score, includes: Assigning different weights to the mean time between failures and the mean time to recover from failures corresponding to the failure frequency, respectively, and performing weighted summation based on the acquired data to obtain a first score, and using the first score as the score of the failure frequency; Assign different weights to the data type definition error, the data value anomaly, the timing constraint violation, the functional logic error, the associated device failure, the software-hardware coupling conflict, and the non-reproducible failure corresponding to the fault type, respectively, and perform weighted summation based on the acquired data to obtain a second score, and use the second score as the score of the fault type; Assigning different scores to each severity level corresponding to the fault level, analyzing the severity level corresponding to the acquired data, and using the score corresponding to the severity level as the score of the fault level; Different scores are assigned to the entire system scope, subsystem cross-linking scope, equipment internal scope and software scope corresponding to the fault impact scope, and the corresponding scope in the acquired data is analyzed, and the score corresponding to the scope is used as the score of the fault impact scope.

8. The method for evaluating the reliability of airborne equipment software according to claim 1, characterized in that: The step of integrating the analysis results of each secondary evaluation indicator based on the preset evaluation rules to obtain the evaluation result of the airborne equipment software reliability includes: Assigning different weights to each of the secondary evaluation indicators, performing weighted summation on the analysis results of each of the secondary evaluation indicators based on the weights, and obtaining a total score; The total score is used as the evaluation result of the reliability of the airborne equipment software.

9. The method for evaluating the reliability of airborne equipment software according to claim 1, characterized in that: The step of constructing an airborne software reliability requirement set based on the airborne device software reliability evaluation result includes: Based on the evaluation results of the airborne equipment software reliability, data integration is performed according to failure modes, failure causes, failure impacts, control measures, and software reliability requirements. According to the data format requirements, each record is recorded one by one to form a complete software failure risk analysis data record, thereby forming the airborne software reliability requirement set.

Images