Towards Model-Based Integration of Tools and Techniques for Embedded Control System Design, Verification, and Implementation

  • Joseph Porter
  • Gábor Karsai
  • Péter Völgyesi
  • Harmon Nine
  • Peter Humke
  • Graham Hemingway
  • Ryan Thibodeaux
  • János Sztipanovits
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5421)


While design automation for hardware systems is quite advanced, this is not the case for practical embedded systems. The current state-of-the-art is to use a software modeling environment and integrated development environment for code development and debugging, but these rarely include the sort of automatic synthesis and verification capabilities available in the VLSI domain. We present a model-based integration environment which uses a graphical architecture description language (EsMoL) to pull together control design, code and configuration generation, platform-specific simulation, and a number of other features useful for taming the heterogeneity inherent in safety-critical embedded control system designs. We describe concepts, elements, and development status for this suite of tools.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Henzinger, T., Sifakis, J.: The embedded systems design challenge. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.: Defining Platform-based Design. EEDesign of EETimes (February 2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kopetz, H., Bauer, G.: The time-triggered architecture. In: Proceedings of the IEEE, Special Issue on Modeling and Design of Embedded Software (October 2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    AS-2 Embedded Computing Systems Committee: Architecture analysis and design language (AADL). Technical Report AS5506, Society of Automotive Engineers (November 2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    RTCA, Inc. 1828 L St. NW, Ste. 805, Washington, D.C. 20036: DO-178B: Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification. Prepared by: RTCA SC-167 (December 1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Henzinger, T.A., Horowitz, B., Kirsch, C.M.: Giotto: A time-triggered language for embedded programming. In: Henzinger, T.A., Kirsch, C.M. (eds.) EMSOFT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2211, pp. 166–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neema, S., Karsai, G.: Embedded control systems language for distributed processing (ECSL-DP). Technical Report ISIS-04-505, Institute for Software Integrated Systems, Vanderbilt University (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agrawal, A., Karsai, G., Neema, S., Shi, F., Vizhanyo, A.: The design of a language for model transformations. Journal on Software and System Modeling 5(3), 261–288 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISIS, V.U.: Generic Modeling Environment,
  10. 10.
    Karsai, G., Sztipanovits, J., Ledeczi, A., Bapty, T.: Model-integrated development of embedded software. Proceedings of the IEEE 91(1) (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee, E.A., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.L.: A denotational framework for comparing models of computation. Technical Report UCB/ERL M97/11, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ohlin, M., Henriksson, D., Cervin, A.: TrueTime 1.5 Reference Manual. Dept. of Automatic Control, Lund University, Sweden (January 2007),
  13. 13.
    Thibodeaux, R.: The specification and implementation of a model of computation. Master’s thesis, Vanderbilt University (May 2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schulte, C., Lagerkvist, M., Tack, G.: Gecode: Generic Constraint Development Environment,
  15. 15.
    Schild, K., Würtz, J.: Scheduling of time-triggered real-time systems. Constraints 5(4), 335–357 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Magyari, E., Bakay, A., Lang, A., et al.: Udm: An infrastructure for implementing domain-specific modeling languages. In: The 3rd OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (October 2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Börger, E., Stärk, R.: Abstract State Machines: A Method for High-Level System Design and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO/IEC: Information Technology – Z Formal Specification Notation – Syntax, Type System and Semantics. 13568:2002 (July 2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Hwang, M.H.: DEVS++: C++ Open Source Library of DEVS Formalism (May 2007),
  21. 21.
    Basic Research in Computer Science (Aalborg Univ.) Dept. of Information Technology (Uppsala Univ.): Uppaal. Integrated tool environment for modeling, validation and verification of real-time systems,
  22. 22.
    Ouimet, M., Lundqvist, K.: The timed abstract state machine language: An executable specification language for reactive real-time systems. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Real-Time and Network Systems (RTNS 2007), Nancy, France (March 2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Skaf, J., Boyd, S.: Controller coefficient truncation using lyapunov performance certificate. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control (in review) (December 2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bhave, A., Krogh, B.H.: Performance bounds on state-feedback controllers with network delay. In: IEEE Conference on Decision and Control 2008 (submitted) (December 2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Basu, A., Bozga, M., Sifakis, J.: Modeling heterogeneous real-time components in BIP. In: SEFM 2006: Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, pp. 3–12. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen, K., Sztipanovits, J., Abdelwahed, S.: A semantic unit for timed automata based modeling languages. In: Proceedings of RTAS 2006, pp. 347–360 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen, K., Sztipanovits, J., Abdelwalhed, S., Jackson, E.: Semantic anchoring with model transformations. In: Hartman, A., Kreische, D. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 115–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gargantini, A., Riccobene, E., Rinzivillo, S.: Using spin to generate testsfrom ASM specifications. In: Börger, E., Gargantini, A., Riccobene, E. (eds.) ASM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2589, pp. 263–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ouimet, M., Lundqvist, K.: Automated verification of completeness and consistency of abstract state machine specifications using a sat solver. In: 3rd International Workshop on Model-Based Testing (MBT 2007), Satellite of ETAPS 2007, Braga, Portugal (April 2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Visser, W., Havelund, K., Brat, G., Park, S., Lerda, F.: Model checking programs. Automated Software Engineering Journal 10(2) (April 2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xie, Y., Aiken, A.: Saturn: A sat-based tool for bug detection. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, pp. 139–143 (January 2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Narayanan, A., Karsai, G.: Towards verifying model transformations. In: Bruni, R., Varró, D. (eds.) 5th International Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques, 2006, Vienna, Austria, pp. 185–194 (April 2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Porter
    • 1
  • Gábor Karsai
    • 1
  • Péter Völgyesi
    • 1
  • Harmon Nine
    • 1
  • Peter Humke
    • 1
  • Graham Hemingway
    • 1
  • Ryan Thibodeaux
    • 1
  • János Sztipanovits
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Software Integrated SystemsVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations