A Modular Approach to the Specification and Validation of an Electrical Flight Control System

  • M. Doche
  • I. Vernier-Mounier
  • F. Kordon
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2021)


To study a part of an Electrical Flight Control System we have developed a tool-supported method dedicated to the incremental specification and validation of complex heterogeneous systems. Formal description of a system is structured in modules that interact. We combine two modular approaches that share the same view of modularity but offer complementary validation procedures: model checking and functional test generation. We have adapted these validation procedures to take care of the modular aspects of our specification. They are performed incrementally. We first consider basic modules, then the communication between modules and finally composed modules. To support our method, we have adapted existing tools, dedicated to non-modular specifications, to deal with modular constraints. These tools are integrated into a common platform to build a coherent execution environment.


Heterogeneous Specification Modularity Verification Test Generation Case Tools 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Action FORMA. Maîtrise de systèmes complexes réactifs et sûrs, Journée au MENRT: Bilan de la 1ereannée, Paris, January 1998.
  2. 2.
    R; Alur, T.A. henzinger, F.Y.C. Mang, S. Qadeer, S.K. Rajamani, and S. Tasiran. Mocha: Modularity in model checking. In proceedings on the 10th International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification, pages 521–525. Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H.R. Andersen, J. Staunstrup, and N. Maretti. A comparison of modular verification techniques. In Proceedings of FASE’97. Springer Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R.J. Anderson, P. Beame, S. Burns, W. Chan, F. Modugno, D. Notkin, and J.D. Reese. Model checking large software specifications. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software engineering, pages 156–166, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Barbey, D. Buchs, M-C. Gaudel, B. Marre, C. Péraire, P. Théevenod-Fosse, and H. Waeselynck. From requirements to tests via object-oriented design. Technical Report 20072, DeVa ESPRIT Long Term Research Project, 1998.
  6. 6.
    G. Bernot, M-C. Gaudel, and B. Marre. Software testing based on formal specifications: a theory and a tool. Software Engineering Journal, 6, November 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Brière and P. Traverse. Airbus a320/a330/a340 electric flight controls: a family of fault-tolerant systems. FTCS, 23:616–623, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Brinksma. Formal methods for conformance testing: Theory can be practical. In CAV’99, number 1633 in LNCS, pages 44–46. Springer Verlag, July 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, D.E. Long, K.L. McMillan, and D.L. DILL. Symbolic model checking for sequential circuit verification. IEEE Trans. on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 13, 4:401–424, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Chan, R.J. Anderson, P. Beame, and D. Notkin. Improving A efficiency of Symbolic Model Checking for State-Based System Requirements. In proceedings of the 1998 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Ciapessoni, E. Corsetti, M. Migliorati, and E. Ratto. Specifying industrial real-time systems in a logical framework. In ICLP 94-Post Conference Workshop on Logic Programming in Software Engineering, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E.M. Clarke and J.M. Wing. Formal Methods: State of the Art and Future Directions. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Diagne. Une Approche Multi-Formalismes de Spécification de Systèmes Répartis: Transformations de Composants Modulaires en Réseaux de Petri. Thèse, LIP6, Université Paris 6, 4, Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, May 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Diagne and F. Kordon. A multi-formalisms prototyping approach from conceptual description to implementation of distributed systems. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Workshop on Rapid System Prototyping (RSP’96), Porto Caras, Thessaloniki Greece, June 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Doche. Techniques formelles pour l’évaluation de systèmes complexes. Test et modularité. PhD thesis, ENSAE, ONERA-CERT/DTIM, Décembre 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Doche, J. Cazin, D. Le Berre, P. Michel, C. Seguin, and V. Wiels. Module templates for the specification of fault-tolerant systems. In DASIA’98, May 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Doche, C. Seguin, and V. Wiels. A modular approach to specify and test an electrical flight control system. In FMICS-4, Fourth International Workshop on formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems, July 1999. Available at
  18. 18.
    M. Doche and V. Wiels. Extended institutions for testing. In AMAST00, Algebraic Methodology And Software Technology, LNCS, Iowa City, May 2000. Springer Verlag. Available at Scholar
  19. 19.
    ECMA. A Reference Model for Frameworks of Software Engineerings Environments. Technical Report TR/55 (version 3), NIST Report, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    H. Ehrig and B. Mahr. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 2: Modules specifications and constraints, volume 21 of EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M-C. Gaudel. Testing can be formal, too. In TAPSOFT’95, pages 82–96. Springer Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Ghezzi, D. Mandrioli, and A. Morzenti. A model parametric real-time logic. ACM Transactions on programming languages and systems, 14(4):521–573, October 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. A. Goguen and R. Burstall. Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of the ACM, 39(1):95–146, January 1992.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    K. Jensen. Coloured Petri Nets, Basic Concepts, Analysis Methods and Practical Use, Volumes 1, 2 and 3. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    MARS-Team. MARS Home page.
  26. 26.
    P. Michel and V. Wiels. A Framework for Modular Formal Specification and Verification. In LNCS 1313, Proceedings of FME’97, September 1997.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    A. Morzenti, P. San Pietro, and S. Morasca. A tool for automated system analysis based on modular specifications. In ASE98, pages 2–11. IEEE Computer Society, 1998.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. Pugliese and E. Tronci. Automatic verification of a hydroelectric power plant. In LNCS 1051, FME’96: Industrial Benefit and Advances in Formal Methods, 3rd International Symposium of Formal Methods Europe, pages 425–444, 1996.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    T. Sreemani and J.M. Atlee. Feasibility of model checking software requirements: A case study. In COMPASS’]96, Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Computer Assurance, pages 77–88, 1996.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    K. Varpaaniemi, J. Halme, K. Hiekkanen, and T. Pyssysalo. PROD Reference Manual. Technical Report ISBN 951-22-2707-X, University of technology, Departement of Computer Science, Digital Systems Laboratory, 1995.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    V. Wiels. Modularité pour la conception et la validation formelles de systèmes. PhD thesis, ENSAE-ONERA/CERT, October 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Doche
    • 1
  • I. Vernier-Mounier
    • 2
  • F. Kordon
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Computer ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonUnited-Kingdom
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Informatique de Paris 6Paris Cedex 05France

Personalised recommendations