Advertisement

Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 245–262 | Cite as

Formal verification of SysML diagram using case studies of real-time system

  • Sajjad AliEmail author
Original Paper
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

System and software engineers use SysML models for the graphical modeling of the embedded systems. The SysML models are inadequate to express the discrete controllers with continuously evolving variables. The real-time constraints such as discrete and continuous dynamics are considered to be an important aspect in embedded systems. The lack of support of real-time aspect in SysML model can lead to inexplicit modeling of the embedded systems. The imprecise modeling could cause catastrophic results when an embedded system gets operational. In this paper, we propose hybrid automata-based semantics that supports the discrete and continuous behavior in upgraded SysML block diagram. The upgraded SysML block diagram is used for the modeling of the embedded system. Furthermore, we use model checker PRISM for the early design verification of upgraded SysML block diagram. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed approach with the help of two case studies “temperature control system” and “water level control system”.

Keywords

SysML Formal modeling Verification Embedded system PRISM Continuous stochastic logic (CSL) Model checker Continuous time Markov chain (CTMC) 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Baier C, Katoen J-P (2008) Principles of model checking, vol 26202649. MIT press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML). http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.3/ (June, 2012)
  3. 3.
    OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML). http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/ (August, 2011)
  4. 4.
    Jarraya Y, Soeanu A, Debbabi M, Hassaine F (2007). Automatic verification and performance analysis of time-constrained sysml activity diagrams. In: 14th annual IEEE international conference and workshops on the engineering of computer-based systems, 2007. ECBS ’07, IEEE pp 515–522Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke EM, Grumberg O, Peled D (1999) Model checking. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raskin JF (2005) An introduction to hybrid automata. In: Johansson K, Törngren M, Nielsen L (eds) Handbook of networked and embedded control systems. Birkhauser, Boston, pp 491–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ouchani S, Mohamed OA, Debbabi M (2013) A probabilistic verification framework of SysML activity diagrams. In: 2013 IEEE 12th international conference on intelligent software methodologies, tools and techniques (SoMeT). IEEE, pp 165–170Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ouchani S, Mohamed OA, Debbabi M (2014) A formal verification framework for sysml activity diagrams. Expert Syst Appl 41(6):2713–2728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ouchani S, Mohamed OA, Debbabi M (2014) A property-based abstraction framework for sysml activity diagrams. Knowl Based Syst 56:328–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ouchani S, Mohamed OA, Debbabi M (2012) Efficient probabilistic abstraction for SysML activity diagrams. In: Software engineering and formal methods. Springer, Berlin, pp 263–277Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jarraya Y, Debbabi M, Bentahar J (2009). On the meaning of SysML activity diagrams. In: ECBS 2009, 16th annual IEEE international conference and workshop on the engineering of computer based systems, 2009. IEEE, pp 95–105Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Debbabi M, Hassaine F, Jarraya Y, Soeanu A, Alawneh L (2010) Probabilistic model checking of SysML activity diagrams. In: Verification and validation in systems engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 153–166Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jansen DN, Hermanns H, Katoen JP (2002) A probabilistic extension of UML statecharts. In: Formal techniques in real-time and fault-tolerant systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 355–374Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bianco VD, Lavazza L, Mauri M (December 2002) Model checking UML specifications of real time software. In: Eighth IEEE international conference on engineering of complex computer systems, 2002. Proceedings. IEEE, pp 203–212Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Basit-Ur-Rahim MA, Arif F, Ahmad J ( January 2014) Formal verification of sequence diagram using divine. In: 2014 World Congress on computer applications and information systems (WCCAIS). IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lima V, Talhi C, Mouheb D, Debbabi M, Wang L, Pourzandi M (2009) Formal verification and validation of UML 2.0 sequence diagrams using source and destination of messages. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 254:143–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mazzini S, Puri S, Mari F, Melatti I, Tronci E (2009) Formal verification at system level, DAta Systems in Aerospace (DASIA), Org. EuroSpace, Canadian Space Agency, CNES, ESA, EUMETSAT, Instanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soliman D, Thramboulidis K, Frey G (2012) Function block diagram to uppaal timed automata transformation based on formal models. Inf Control Probl Manuf 14(1):1653–1659Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Linhares MV, Oliveira RSD, Farines JM, Vernadat F (September 2007) Introducing the modeling and verification process in SysML. In: Emerging technologies and factory automation. IEEE Conference on ETFA 2007. IEEE, pp 344–351Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ali S, Basit-Ur-Rahim MA, Arif F (June 2015) Formal verification of internal block diagram of SysML for modeling real-time system. In: 16th IEEE/ACIS international conference on software engineering, artificial intelligence, networking and parallel/distributed computing (SNPD 2015). IEEE (in press) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ali S, Basit-Ur-Rahim MA, Arif F (June 2015) Formal verification of time constrains SysML internal block diagram using prism. In: 15th international conference on computational science and its applications (ICCSA 2015). IEEE (in press) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hinton A, Kwiatkowska M, Norma G, Parker D (2006) Prism: a tool for automatic verification of probabilistic systems. In: Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 441–444Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clarke E, Grumberg O, Jha S, Lu Y, Veith H (2000) Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Computer aided verification. Springer, Berlin, pp 154–169Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen T, Diciolla M, Kwiatkowska M, Mereacre A (2013) Verification of linear duration properties over continuous-time markov chains. ACM Trans Comput Logic: TOCL 14(4):33MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D (2007) Stochastic model checking. In: Formal methods for performance evaluation. Springer, Berlin, pp 220–270Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National University of Sciences and TechnologyIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations