Functional Safety
Functional Safety & Compliance
End-to-end safety lifecycle engineering, hazard analysis, FMEA, safety case development, tool qualification, and assessor-ready evidence packages. From automotive ASIL-D to aerospace DAL A, delivered by India's embedded safety specialists.
Safety Lifecycle
V-Model Safety Engineering
Every functional safety engagement follows a structured lifecycle from hazard analysis through validated safety case. We cover the full V-model, not just the comfortable middle.
Hazard Analysis & Risk Assessment
Systematic identification of hazards, determination of safety integrity levels, and definition of safety goals. HARA, FTA, FMEA, and FMEDA methodologies applied across automotive, industrial, aerospace, and medical domains.
Safety Concept & Architecture
Technical safety concept development, safety-relevant architecture decomposition, hardware-software interface specification, and freedom from interference analysis for multi-core and mixed-criticality systems.
Implementation & Verification
Safety-compliant code development with MISRA C/C++ adherence, unit testing with MC/DC coverage, static analysis, and requirements traceability from safety goals through code.
Validation & Safety Case
End-to-end safety case development, compiling all evidence, verification reports, and compliance arguments into assessor-ready documentation packages.
Tool Qualification
Tool Confidence Level assessment and tool qualification per ISO 26262 Part 8, IEC 61508 Part 3, or DO-330. We produce the Tool Qualification Plan, Tool Qualification Report, and manage the assessor dialogue.
Starting a safety-critical project?
Our safety engineers can help you select the right tools and processes for ISO 26262, IEC 61508, DO-178C, and IEC 62304 compliance.
Standards
Safety Standards We Cover in India
Five international safety standards across four industries. Each backed by engineers who have delivered real compliance projects, not just read the standards documents.
ISO 26262
AutomotiveFull lifecycle, HARA through safety case, tool qualification, AUTOSAR safety analysis
IEC 61508
IndustrialSafety function design, FMEDA, proven-in-use analysis, SFF calculation
DO-178C
AerospaceObjectives matrix, structural coverage, model-based supplement (DO-331)
IEC 62304
Medical DevicesSoftware lifecycle, risk management integration (ISO 14971), unit verification
ISO 21434
Automotive CybersecurityThreat analysis, cybersecurity concept, TARA methodology, UNECE R155 compliance
Quick Reference
Standards at a Glance
| Standard | Domain | Integrity Levels | GSAS Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISO 26262 | Automotive | ASIL A-D | ASIL A-D |
| IEC 61508 | Industrial | SIL 1-4 | SIL 1-3 |
| DO-178C | Aerospace | DAL A-E | DAL A-C |
| IEC 62304 | Medical Devices | Class A-C | Class A-C |
| ISO 21434 | Automotive Cyber | CAL 1-4 | CAL 1-4 |
Tool Qualification
TUV SUD Process Expertise
Tool qualification is where most safety projects stall. GSAS has deep experience in the TUV SUD assessment process, we know what assessors expect, what evidence satisfies each objective, and how to structure the Tool Qualification Plan and Report to pass review on first submission.
We have qualified development tools (compilers, IDEs), verification tools (test frameworks, static analyzers), and production tools (flash programmers) across ISO 26262, IEC 61508, and DO-330.
Toolchain
Safety-Qualified Tools We Support
Every tool we recommend for safety-critical projects is one we have used in our own compliance engagements. We supply and support these tools across India.
Arm Arm Compiler 6
Safety-qualified compiler (TUV SUD certified) for Cortex-M/R targets. Functional safety variant with documented compiler anomalies.
View product →
Perforce Perforce Klocwork
Static analysis for C/C++/Java with MISRA, CERT, CWE, and AUTOSAR checkers. Differential analysis for CI/CD integration.
View product →
Perforce Perforce Helix QAC
MISRA C/C++ compliance checker with deep dataflow analysis. The industry-standard tool for coding guideline enforcement.
View product →
Razorcat TESSY
Automated unit testing for embedded C/C++ with MC/DC coverage. Qualified for ISO 26262 ASIL D, IEC 61508 SIL 3, and DO-178C DAL A.
View product →Blog
Safety & Compliance Insights
Automotive Ethernet Conformance: TC8 and Testing Above It
Summarising TC8 as a layer 1 to layer 4 suite is wrong in both directions. The public OPEN Alliance ECU test documents run from transmitter distortion up to a SOME/IP chapter with its own standardised test stub, and they contain exactly one time synchronisation test case. This is what those documents enumerate, chapter by chapter, what genuinely lives above their boundary, why a passing ECU can still fail against a partner node, and how much pre-compliance work a Tier-1 in India can honestly do in-house before a test house visit. Written by the GSAS Micro Systems engineering team in India.
Fault Injection in HIL: Open Load, Shorts, Malformed Frames
Fault injection material splits in two. Switching-hardware pages describe relay matrices and open-load wiring; software-testing posts describe malformed input. A vehicle network fails across both at once, because an intermittent short changes link quality and the stack above then behaves badly. This article puts electrical and protocol faults into one campaign, writes the observable and the expected reaction down per fault, and treats the fault insertion hardware itself as a signal-integrity risk you have to characterise before you trust a result. Written by the GSAS Micro Systems engineering team in India.
SecOC vs MACsec vs TLS: Automotive Security Layers
SecOC, MACsec and TLS get compared as if a programme picks one. They are three different scopes, and most vehicles carry more than one. This article separates them in a single table by scope, unit protected, key source and what a capture still shows, then covers the two things almost nobody writes down: what each layer does to your ability to debug, and why an ECU can reject a message whose authenticator is perfectly valid after a reset. Protocol claims trace to the public AUTOSAR SecOC protocol specification, IEEE 802.1, the Wireshark dissector sources and Linux networking documentation. Written by the GSAS Micro Systems engineering team in India.
TC10 Sleep and Wake-Up: How It Works and Why It Fails
Search for TC10 and you get the specification PDFs plus forum threads where one engineer cannot get a PHY into sleep at all and another is asking whether a wake can even cross from standard Ethernet onto a single pair. This is the plain-language version: the sleep handshake state by state, every timer with the clause it comes from, how a wake travels across a zone, and the seven reasons it fails on a real vehicle. Every state name and number here was read out of the public OPEN Alliance sleep and wake-up specifications, written by the GSAS Micro Systems engineering team in India.
Test Case Design with the Classification Tree Method: Deriving Unit Tests You Can Defend in an Audit
Ad-hoc test cases can be perfectly good tests and still fail an audit, because nothing on file records why that particular set was sufficient. The Classification Tree Method derives test cases from the input space instead: identify the test-relevant aspects as classifications, partition each into equivalence classes, then combine leaf classes in a combination table. Razorcat implements CTM in the Classification Tree Editor, available integrated into TESSY or standalone. GSAS Micro Systems is the authorized Razorcat engineering partner for India, the UAE and Sri Lanka.
Fault Injection and Robustness Testing for Embedded Software: What ISO 26262, IEC 61508 and DO-178C Actually Ask For
Every safety-related unit contains code that correct inputs never execute: range checks, error returns, timeouts, recovery paths. The functional safety standards require that code to be verified, and they are explicit about how. ISO 26262-6 lists fault injection test as a method for both software unit verification and software integration verification; IEC 61508-3 recommends defensive programming from SIL 2 upward and then concedes that defensive code is exactly what stops teams reaching 100 percent structural coverage. This guide separates robustness testing from fault injection, maps each to the obligation that asks for it, and shows how Razorcat implements automated fault injection in TESSY without leaving instrumentation in production code.
Need Functional Safety Support?
Whether you are starting a new safety-critical project, qualifying a tool, or preparing for an assessor review, our safety engineers are ready to help.