Formal Verification of Train Control with Air Pressure Brakes

  • Stefan Mitsch
  • Marco Gario
  • Christof J. Budnik
  • Michael Golm
  • André Platzer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10598)

Abstract

Train control technology enhances the safety and efficiency of railroad operation by safeguarding the motion of trains to prevent them from leaving designated areas of operation and colliding with other trains. It is crucial for safety that the trains engage their brakes early enough in order to make sure they never leave the safe part of the track. Efficiency considerations, however, also require that the train does not brake too soon, which would limit operational suitability. It is surprisingly subtle to reach the right tradeoffs and identify the right control conditions that guarantee safe motion without being overly conservative.

In pursuit of an answer, we develop a hybrid system model with discrete control decisions for acceleration, brakes, and with continuous differential equations for their physical effects on the motion of the train. The resulting hybrid system model is systematically derived from the Federal Railway Administration model for flat terrain by conservatively neglecting minor forces.

The main contribution of this paper is the identification of a controller with control constraints that we formally verify to always guarantee collision freedom in the FRA model. The safe braking behavior of a train is influenced not only by the train configuration (e.g., train length and mass), but also by physical characteristics (e.g., brake pressure propagation and reaction time). We formalize train control safety properties in differential dynamic logic and prove the correctness of the train control models in the theorem prover KeYmaera X.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.: The B-book - Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge University Press, New York (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahmad, H.A.: Dynamic braking control for accurate train braking distance estimation under different operating conditions (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohrer, B., Rahli, V., Vukotic, I., Völp, M., Platzer, A.: Formally verified differential dynamic logic. In: Bertot, Y., Vafeiadis, V. (eds.) Certified Programs and Proofs - 6th ACM SIGPLAN Conference, Cp. 2017, Paris, France, January 16–17, 2017, pp. 208–221. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonacchi, A., Fantechi, A., Bacherini, S., Tempestini, M., Cipriani, L.: Validation of railway interlocking systems by formal verification, a case study. In: Counsell, S., Núñez, M. (eds.) SEFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8368, pp. 237–252. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05032-4_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borälv, A.: Case study: Formal verification of a computerized railway interlocking. Formal Aspects Comput. 10(4), 338–360 (1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brossaeu, J., Ede, B.M.: Development of an adaptive predictive braking enforcement algorithm. Technical report FRA/DOT/ORD-9/13, Federal Railroad Administration (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cimatti, A., Corvino, R., Lazzaro, A., Narasamdya, I., Rizzo, T., Roveri, M., Sanseviero, A., Tchaltsev, A.: Formal verification and validation of ERTMS industrial railway train spacing system. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 378–393. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31424-7_29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cimatti, A., Giunchiglia, F., Mongardi, G., Romano, D., Torielli, F., Traverso, P.: Model checking safety critical software with spin: an application to a railway interlocking system. In: Ehrenberger, W. (ed.) SAFECOMP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1516, pp. 284–293. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). doi:10.1007/3-540-49646-7_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Damm, W., Hungar, H., Olderog, E.-R.: On the verification of cooperating traffic agents. In: Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2003. LNCS, vol. 3188, pp. 77–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30101-1_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Essamé, D., Dollé, D.: B in large-scale projects: the Canarsie line CBTC experience. In: Julliand, J., Kouchnarenko, O. (eds.) B 2007. LNCS, vol. 4355, pp. 252–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11955757_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falampin, J., Le-Dang, H., Leuschel, M., Mokrani, M., Plagge, D.: Improving railway data validation with ProB. In: Romanovsky, A., Thomas, M. (eds.) Industrial Deployment of System Engineering Methods, pp. 27–43. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferrari, A., Fantechi, A., Magnani, G., Grasso, D., Tempestini, M.: The Metrô Rio case study. Sci. Comput. Program. 78(7), 828–842 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fulton, N., Mitsch, S., Quesel, J.-D., Völp, M., Platzer, A.: KeYmaera X: an axiomatic tactical theorem prover for hybrid systems. In: Felty, A.P., Middeldorp, A. (eds.) CADE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9195, pp. 527–538. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21401-6_36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haxthausen, A.E., Peleska, J., Kinder, S.: A formal approach for the construction and verification of railway control systems. Formal Asp. Comput. 23(2), 191–219 (2011)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heitmeyer, C.L., Lynch, N.A.: The generalized railroad crossing: a case study in formal verification of real-time systems. In: RTSS, pp. 120–131. IEEE Computer Society (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hong, L.V., Haxthausen, A.E., Peleska, J.: Formal modelling and verification of interlocking systems featuring sequential release. Sci. Comput. Program. 133, 91–115 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iliasov, A., Romanovsky, A.: Formal analysis of railway signalling data. In: HASE 2016, pp. 70–77. IEEE Computer Society (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ortmeier, F., Reif, W., Schellhorn, G.: Formal safety analysis of a radio-based railroad crossing using deductive cause-consequence analysis (DCCA). In: Cin, M., Kaâniche, M., Pataricza, A. (eds.) EDCC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3463, pp. 210–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/11408901_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Platzer, A.: Differential dynamic logic for hybrid systems. J. Autom. Reas. 41(2), 143–189 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Platzer, A.: Logical Analysis of Hybrid Systems: Proving Theorems for Complex Dynamics. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Platzer, A.: Logics of dynamical systems. In: LICS, pp. 13–24. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Platzer, A.: A complete uniform substitution calculus for differential dynamic logic. J. Autom. Reas. 59(2), 219–265 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Platzer, A., Quesel, J.-D.: European train control system: a case study in formal verification. In: Breitman, K., Cavalcanti, A. (eds.) ICFEM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5885, pp. 246–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10373-5_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Polivka, A., Ede, B.M., Drapa, J.: North american joint positive train control project. Technical report DOT/FRA/ORD-09/04 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zou, L., Lv, J., Wang, S., Zhan, N., Tang, T., Yuan, L., Liu, Y.: Verifying chinese train control system under a combined scenario by theorem proving. In: Cohen, E., Rybalchenko, A. (eds.) VSTTE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8164, pp. 262–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54108-7_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Mitsch
    • 1
  • Marco Gario
    • 2
  • Christof J. Budnik
    • 2
  • Michael Golm
    • 2
  • André Platzer
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Siemens Corporate TechnologyPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations