| Analox v2 |
|
| Analox, is a leader in gas detection technology selected the LDRA tool suite Analox for two projects demanding a safety requirement. LDRA was also the only product able to integrate successfully with the Analox tool chain and enabled them to increase productivity and quality while reducing costs. |
|
| |
|
| LDRA and WRS Ultra Datel Case Study |
|
| This case study presents the midlife upgrade of a pre-existing, uncertified, avionics system and highlights the significant challenges faced due to the introduction of requirements for DO-178B Level B safety certification coupled with a migration to a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware platform. Discussion focuses upon the advanced test techniques that were applied and specifically how the LDRA tool suite was utilised to overcome the identified challenges to develop a safety-certifiable platform running on VxWorks. |
|
| |
|
| Fairchild Controls v2 |
|
| Fairchild Controls - a division of EADS North America (Fairchild) selected the LDRA tool suite to integrate into their development environment and utilise the test facilities provided to achieve DO-178B Level C certification. The LDRA tool suite helped Fairchild to automate the development processes and dramatically increased efficiency by 1000%. |
|
| |
|
| IHI v2 |
|
| IHI, a manufacturer of jet engines in Japan, selected the LDRA tool suite to verify its C and Ada source code for DO-178B certification. IHI claimed that the LDRA tool suite was fourteen times quicker than previous coverage analysis processes. IHI also said it selected LDRA’s tool suite due to its depth and diversity of tools. |
|
| |
|
| Ultra Datel v2 |
|
| Ultra Datel (Datel) has make use of the LDRA tool suite (software verification tools) in safety critical projects. LDRA was utilised on the Wing Ice Protection System (WIPS) and Engine Ice Protection System (EIPS) project. Datel quoted that the LDRA tool suite assisted in saving £2 million over a 4-year period by providing a highly streamlined and automated verification process. |
|
| |
|
| DENSO v2 |
|
| DENSO, a leading supplier of advanced automotive technology, systems and components for all the world’s major automakers. They took advantage of LDRA’s software analysis techniques to improve the quality of our software platform. The LDRA tool suite is used as a benchmark for other third-party and similar software platform products. |
|
| |
|
| Vision Microsystems v2 |
|
| LDRA have operated in the Chinese market since 2000 through their distributor Vision Microsystems. In this time the Chinese aerospace and defense software market has developed at a dramatic rate and this in turn has lead to a high demand for software test tools capable of analysing complex safety-critical applications. |
|
| |
|
| Seaweed Systems v2 |
|
| Seaweed Systems is a supplier of High Performance OpenGL graphics drivers and devices to the Military and Aerospace industries for use in safety critical applications, such as flight deck instrumentation. LDRA assisted them in capturing the DO-178B Level A structural coverage data across the entire Seaweed Systems software while executing their automated test suite and Seaweed has full support for any OS using LDRA. |
|
| |
|
| Neptec v2 |
|
| Neptec is a leader in the design, development, and integration of mission-critical real-time software, harsh environment electronics and digital signal processing. They required a tool that had extensive and detailed reporting facilities for audit purposes and which was easy to use and configure through the graphical user interface. |
|
| |
|
| Invensys v2 |
|
| Invensys Dimetronic Signals (IDS) is a Spanish company which has 45 years experience of implementing safety critical and safety related state-of-the-art technologies. They had specific technical requirements which included checking software quality to ISO 9001:2000, programming standards checking including MISRA C, and host / target testing for our embedded systems software. |
|
| |
|
| ENSCO v2 |
|
| ENSCO’s Innovative Systems Solutions (ISS) Division, is a leading provider of solutions for internet development, e-commerce, automated equipment and process controls and mission-critical sofware development and engineering. Due to the ease of use of the tool they can have a tester up and running within 3 – 10 days and the tools assisted with a 50% improvement in performance using the LDRA tool suite. |
|
| |
|
| QinetiQ v2 |
|
| QinetiQ’s Avionic Systems Integration Group (ASIG), located at Boscombe Down, England, has a proven track record in the provision of innovative, practical and cost effective solutions to system integration needs in support of research, development and operations. The LDRA tool suite was adopted as the primary code analysis tool for the critical validation and verification phases of the project. |
|
| |
|
| LBS West v2 |
|
| LBS West is the market leader in the German housing finance market in the region of Nordrhein-Westfalen (NRW). The development time was reduced by about 25% and the testing time by about 75%, as well as the quality of testing and coding increasing. |
|
| |
|
| Penny & Giles v2 |
|
| Penny & Giles Aerospace of Christchurch, UK,is part of the Curtiss-Wright Group. Achieving DO-178B Level A with LDRA "better structured Code without errors" for Penny & Giles. Quality was at the heart of Penny & Giles products. The LDRA tool suite was chosen to help maintain this tradition in new product development. |
|
| |
|
| Westinghouse v2.1 |
|
| Westinghouse Brakes, who supply brake control systems to 80% of the trains in the UK, first contacted LDRA in 1995 to discuss how they could improve their testing productivity through the use of static and dynamic analysis techniques. LDRA Testbed enabled software testing procedures for each module coded in C, to be carried out in 2 days instead of the previous 5. A saving of 60%! |
|
| |
|
| PET Report Overview v2.2 |
|
| The PET Project (Prevention of Errors through Experience-driven Test Efforts) was set up to improve software quality through improved testing. The objectives were to reduce the number of bugs reported after release by 50%, and reduce the hours of test effort per bug found by 40%. Both of these goals were met. The actual numbers achieved were 75% less bugs reported, and a 46% improvement in test efficiency. |
|
| |
|