Advertisement

Formal verification and simulation for platform screen doors and collision avoidance in subway control systems

  • Huixing Fang
  • Jianqi Shi
  • Huibiao Zhu
  • Jian GuoEmail author
  • Kim Guldstrand Larsen
  • Alexandre David
TASE 12

Abstract

For hybrid systems, hybrid automata-based tools are capable of verification, while Matlab Simulink/Stateflow is proficient in simulation. We propose a co-verification procedure, in which the verification tool SpaceEx/PHAVer and simulation tool Matlab are integrated to analyze and verify hybrid systems. For the application of this procedure, a platform screen door system (PSDS, a subsystem of the subway control system), is modeled with hybrid automata and Simulink/Stateflow charts, respectively. The models of PSDS are simulated by Matlab and verified by SpaceEx/PHAVer. The simulation and verification results indicate that the sandwiched situation can be avoided under time interval conditions. We improve the model with four trains and four stations on a subway line and analyze the urgent control scenario for the safety distance requirement. In this paper, the Simulink/Stateflow model is a refinement of the SpaceEx/PHAVer model, which is closer to a final implementation. Moreover, the two models are complementary for some features (e.g.,visualization of simulation, correctness proving by verification), stressing different aspects of the overall system and permitting complementary analysis techniques, i.e., verification versus simulation. We conclude that this integration procedure is competent in verifying subway control systems.

Keywords

Hybrid systems Formal verification and simulation  SpaceEx/PHAVer Matlab Simulink/Stateflow Subway control systems Feedback-advancement verification 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Goran Frehse for his insightful discussion on SpaceEx/PHAVer and hybrid systems. This work was partly supported by the Danish National Research Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61361136002) for the Danish-Chinese Center for Cyber Physical Systems. And, also it was supported by National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (No. 2012AA011205), National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61321064 and No. 91118008), Shanghai STCSM Project (No. 12511504205), Shanghai Knowledge Service Platform Project (No. ZF1213) and Shanghai Minhang Talent Project.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.-R.: The B-book: Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrial, J.-R.: Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrial, J.-R., Lee, M., Neilson, D., Scharbach, P., SÃrensen, I.: The b-method. In: Proceedings of VDM, LNCS, vol. 552, pp. 398–405. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Accellera Orgnization: Property specification language reference. http://www.eda.org/vfv/docs/psl_lrm-1.01.pdf (2003). Accessed 25 Apr 2003
  5. 5.
    Agrawal, A., Simon, G., Karsai, G.: Semantic translation of simulink/stateflow models to hybrid automata using graph transformations. Electron. Notes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 109, 43–56 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alur, R., Courcoubetis, C., Henzinger, T., Ho, P.: Hybrid automata: an algorithmic approach to the specification and analysis of hybrid systems. In: Hybrid Systems, LNCS, vol. 736, pp. 209–229. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T., Ho, P.: Automatic symbolic verification of embedded systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 22(3), 181–201 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Asarin, E., Bournez, O., Dang, T., Maler, O.: Approximate reachability analysis of piecewise-linear dynamical systems. In: Proceedings of HSCC, LNCS, vol. 1790, pp. 20–31. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Asarin, E., Dang, T., Maler, O., Testylier, R.: Using redundant constraints for refinement. In: Proceedings of ATVA, LNCS, vol. 6252, pp. 37–51. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bagnara, R., Ricci, E., Zaffanella, E., Hill, P.: Possibly not closed convex polyhedra and the parma polyhedra library. In: Proceedings of SAS, LNCS, vol. 2477, pp. 299–315. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bloem, R., Cimatti, A., Greimel, K., Hofferek, G., Könighofer, R., Roveri, M., Schuppan, V., Seeber, R.: Ratsy-a new requirements analysis tool with synthesis. In: Proceedings of CAV, pp. 425–429. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bonnett, C.: Practical Railway Engineering. Imperial College Press, London (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ClearSy: http://www.clearsy.com/en/ (2011–2013). Accessed 1 July 2013
  14. 14.
    ClearSy: COPPILOT System. http://www.coppilot.fr/en/coppilot/ (2011–2013). Accessed 1 July 2013
  15. 15.
    ClearSy: Tools and applications at ClearSy. http://www.tools.clearsy.com (2011–2013). Accessed 21 Aug 2013
  16. 16.
    Doyen, L., Henzinger, T., Raskin, J.: Automatic rectangular refinement of affine hybrid systems. In: Proceedings of FORMATS, LNCS, vol. 3829, pp. 144–161. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferrari, A., Fantechi, A., Magnani, G., Grasso, D., Tempestini, M.: The metrô rio case study. Sci. Comput. Program. 78(7), 828–842 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frehse, G.: PHAVer: algorithmic verification of hybrid systems past HyTech. In: Proceedings of HSCC, LNCS, vol. 3414, pp. 258–273. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frehse, G.: Language Overview for PHAVer version 0.35. http://www.cs.ru.nl/~goranf/ (2006). Accessed 22 June 2006
  20. 20.
    Frehse, G.: PHAVer: algorithmic verification of hybrid systems past HyTech. Int. J. Softw. Tools. Technol. Transf. 10(3), 263–279 (2008)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frehse, G., Le Guernic, C., Donzé, A., Cotton, S., Ray, R., Lebeltel, O., Ripado, R., Girard, A., Dang, T., Maler, O.: SpaceEx: scalable verification of hybrid systems. In: Proceedings of CAV, LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 379–395. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Girard, A., Le Guernic, C.: Zonotope/hyperplane intersection for hybrid systems reachability analysis. In: Proceedings of HSCC, LNCS, vol. 4981, pp. 215–228. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Granlund, T., Ryde, K.: The GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library Version 4 (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Halbwachs, N., Proy, Y., Raymond, P.: Verification of linear hybrid systems by means of convex approximations. In: Proceedings of SAS, LNCS, vol. 864, pp. 223–237. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1994)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hamon, G.: A denotational semantics for stateflow. In: Proceedings of EMSOFT, pp. 164–172. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hamon, G., Rushby, J.: An operational semantics for stateflow. Int. J. Softw. Tools. Technol. Transf. 9(5–6), 447–456 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 8(3), 231–274 (1987)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harel, D., Naamad, A.: The statemate semantics of statecharts. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 5(4), 293–333 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Henzinger, T., Ho, P., Wong-Toi, H.: Hytech: a model checker for hybrid systems. Int. J. Softw. Tools. Technol. Transf. 1(1–2), 110–122 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Henzinger, T., Kopke, P., Puri, A., Varaiya, P.: What’s decidable about hybrid automata? J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 57(1), 94–124 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Henzinger, T.A.: The theory of hybrid automata. In: Proceedings of LICS, pp. 278–292. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C. (1996)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jacky, J.: The Way of Z: Practical Programming with Formal Methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jo H.-J., Hwang J.-G., Yong Y.-K.: Development of formal method application for ensuring safety in train control system. http://www.railway-research.org/IMG/pdf/o.3.4.2.3.pdf (2008)
  34. 34.
    Kurzhanski, A.B., Varaiya, P.: Ellipsoidal techniques for reachability analysis. In: Proceedings of HSCC, LNCS, vol. 1790, pp. 202–214. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Le Guernic, C., Girard, A.: Reachability analysis of linear systems using support functions. Nonlinear Anal. Hybrid Syst. 4(2), 250–262 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lecomte, T.: Safe and reliable metro platform screen doors control/command systems. In: Proceedings of FM, LNCS, vol. 5014, pp. 430–434. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lecomte, T.: Applying a formal method in industry: a 15-year trajectory. In: Proceedings of FMICS, LNCS, vol. 5825, pp. 26–34. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lynch, N.A., Vaandrager, F.W.: Forward and backward simulations, ii: timing-based systems. Inf. Comput. 128(1), 1–25 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Marrone, S., Nardone, R., Orazzo, A., Petrone, I., Velardi, L.: Improving verification process in driverless metro systems: the mbat project. In: Proceedings of ISoLA, LNCS, vol. 7610, pp. 231–245. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    MBAT Consortium: ARTEMIS Project MBAT. http://www.mbat-artemis.eu (2011–2014). Accessed 1 July 2013
  41. 41.
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Fire dynamics simulator and smokeview code. http://code.google.com/p/fds-smv/ (2012–2013). Accessed 5 Mar 2014
  42. 42.
    Nicollin, X., Olivero, A., Sifakis, J., Yovine, S.: An approach to the description and analysis of hybrid systems. In: Proceedings of Hybrid Systems, LNCS, vol. 736, pp. 149–178. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1993)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ober, I., Graf, S., Ober, I.: Validating timed uml models by simulation and verification. Int. J. Softw. Tools. Technol. Transf. 8(2), 128–145 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pinto, A., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.L., Carloni, L.P., Passerone, R.: Interchange formats for hybrid systems: review and proposal. Proc. HSCC LNCS 3414, 526–541 (2005)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Qu, L., Chow, W.: Platform screen doors on emergency evacuation in underground railway stations. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 30, 1–9 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Roh, J.S., Ryou, H.S., Park, W.H., Jang, Y.J.: Cfd simulation and assessment of life safety in a subway train fire. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 24(4), 447–453 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Su, W., Abrial, J.-R., Zhu, H.: Complementary methodologies for developing hybrid systems with event-b. In: Proceedings of ICFEM, LNCS, vol. 7635. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhao, L., Tang, T., Cheng, R., He, L.: Property based requirements analysis for train control system. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 9(3), 915–922 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Huixing Fang
    • 1
  • Jianqi Shi
    • 1
  • Huibiao Zhu
    • 1
  • Jian Guo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kim Guldstrand Larsen
    • 2
  • Alexandre David
    • 2
  1. 1.Shanghai Key Laboratory of Trustworthy Computing, Software Engineering InstituteEast China Normal UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations