Adding Value to Automotive Models

  • Eckard Böde
  • Werner Damm
  • Jarl Høyem
  • Bernhard Josko
  • Jürgen Niehaus
  • Marc Segelken
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4147)


We report on how implementing a Model Based Automotive SW Engineering Process in an industrial setting can ensure the correctness of automotive applications when a process based on formal models is used. We show how formal methods, in particular model checking, can be used to ensure consistency of the models and can prove that the models satisfy selected functional and safety requirements. The technique can also be used to automatically generate test vectors from the model. Hence we show how in many ways formal verification techniques can add value to the models used for different purposes in developing automotive applications.


Model Check Test Vector Intellectual Property Protection Model Check Technique Automatic Code Generation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Damm, W., Schulte, C., Segelken, M., Wittke, H., Higgen, U., Eckrich, M.: Formale verifikation von ascet modellen im rahmen der entwicklung der aktivlenkung. Lecture Notes in Informatics P-34, pp. 340–345 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baufreton, P., Dupont, F., Lesergent, T., Segelken, M., Brinkmann, H., Strichman, O., Winkelmann, K.: Safeair: Advanced design tools for aircraft systems and airborne software. In: Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Owre, S., Rushby, J.M., Shankar, N.: PVS: A Prototype Verification System. In: Kapur, D. (ed.) CADE 1992. LNCS(LNAI), vol. 607, pp. 748–752. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paulson, L.C.: Isabelle: a generic theorem prover. LNCS, vol. 828. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.): CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maler, O., Pnueli, A. (eds.): HSCC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2623. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bienmüller, T., Damm, W., Wittke, H.: The STATEMATE verification environment – making it real. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 561–567. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bryant, R.E.: Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-35, 677–691 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coudert, O., Berthet, C., Madre, J.: Verification of synchronous sequential machines based on symbolic execution. In: Sifakis, J. (ed.) CAV 1989. LNCS, vol. 407, pp. 365–373. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stalmarck, G., Sflund, M.: Modeling and verifying systems and software in propositional logic. In: Daniels, B.K. (ed.) Safety of Computer Control Systems (SAFECOMP 1990), pp. 31–36. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an Efficient SAT Solver. In: Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference, DAC 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Filliâtre, J.C., Owre, S., Rueß, H., Shankar, N.: ICS: Integrated canonizer and solver. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.) CAV 2001. LNCS, vol. 2102, pp. 246–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stump, A., Barrett, C., Dill, D.: CVC: a cooperating validity checker. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, p. 500. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shankar, N.: Combining theorem proving and model checking through symbolic analysis. In: Palamidessi, C. (ed.) CONCUR 2000. LNCS, vol. 1877, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Basin, D., Friedrich, S.: Combining WS1S and HOL. In: Frontiers of Combining Systems 2 (FROCOS), pp. 39–56. Research Studies Press/Wiley (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bemporad, A., Morari, M.: Verification of hybrid systems via mathematical programming. In: Vaandrager, F.W., van Schuppen, J.H. (eds.) HSCC 1999. LNCS, vol. 1569, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glusman, M., Kamhi, G., Mador-Haim, S., Fraer, R., Vardi, M.: Multiplecounterexample guided iterative abstraction refinement: An industrial evaluation. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 176–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Graf, S., Saidi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ball, T., Majumdar, R., Millstein, T., Rajamani, S.K.: Automatic predicate abstraction of C programs. SIGPLAN Notices 36, 203–213 (2001); Proceedings of PLDI 2001Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Becker, B., Behle, M., Eisenbrand, F., Fränzle, M., Herbstritt, M., Herde, C., Hoffmann, J., Kröning, D., Nebel, B., Polian, I., Wimmer, R.: Bounded model checking and inductive verification of hybrid discrete-continuous systems. In: ITG/GI/GMM-Workshop “Methoden und Beschreibungssprachen zur Modellierung und Verifikation von Schaltungen und Systemen” (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bienmüller, T., Brockmeyer, U., Damm, W., Döhmen, G., Eßmann, C., Holberg, H.J., Hungar, H., Josko, B., Schlör, R., Wittich, G., Wittke, H., Clements, G., Rowlands, J., Sefton, E.: Formal Verification of an Avionics Application using Abstraction and Symbolic Model Checking. In: Redmill, F., Anderson, T. (eds.) Towards System Safety – Proceedings of the Seventh Safety-critical Systems Symposium, Huntingdon, UK, pp. 150–173. Safety-Critical Systems Club, SV (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bohn, J., Damm, W., Klose, J., Moik, A., Wittke, H.: Modeling and validating train system applications using statemate and live sequence charts. In: Ertas, A., Ehrig, H., Krämer, B.J. (eds.) Proceedings of the Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology (IDPT 2002), Society for Design and Process Science (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bozzano, M., et al.: Esacs: An integrated methodology for design and safety analysis of complex systems. In: ESREL (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bretschneider, M., Holberg, H.J., Böde, E., Brückner, I., Peikenkamp, T., Spenke, H.: Model-based safety analysis of a flap control system. In: INCOSE (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eckard Böde
    • 1
  • Werner Damm
    • 1
  • Jarl Høyem
    • 1
  • Bernhard Josko
    • 1
  • Jürgen Niehaus
    • 2
  • Marc Segelken
    • 1
  1. 1.Kuratorium OFFIS e.V. Safety Critical SystemsOldenburgGermany
  2. 2.Carl von Ossietzky UniversityOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations