Systematic Validation of a Relational Control Program for the Bay Area Rapid Transit System

  • F. B. Bastani
  • V. Reddy
  • P. Srigiriraju
  • I.-L. Yen
Part of the The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 577)


The failure of safety-critical systems, such as aircraft control systems, railway control systems, and nuclear power plant control systems, can cause catastrophic losses of life and property. Hence, it is imperative to assure the reliability and safety of these systems to a very high degree of confidence.

It is infeasible to perform this type of ultrahigh reliability analysis by treating the entire system as one unit. This paper develops an approach that combines relational programs with iterative enhancement. It allows a complex system to be divided into a series of increments such that each increment is decomposed into subsystems that can be independently assessed. An increment is related to the previous increment via transformations or clearly delineated enhancements that can be assessed independently. The subsystems are then automatically composed together to obtain the system.

The approach guarantees that the reliability and safety of the system can be inferred from the corresponding properties of the individual subsystems. It is illustrated using a case study drawn from the Bay Area Rapid Transit system project.


Speed Limit Flat Terrain Relational Program Smoothness Requirement Acceleration Control 
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. C. Atkinson.Object-Oriented Reuse, Concurrency and Distribution. Addison-Wesley&ACM Press, New York, NY, 1991.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Farokh B. Bastani. Relational Programs: Architecture for Robust Process-Control Programs. To appear in —emphAnnals of Software Engineering.Google Scholar
  3. F.B. Bastani, V.L. Winter, and I.-L. Yen. Dependability of relational programs. InProc. Of the 1999 IEEE Intl. Symp. On Software Reliability Engineering, Boca Raton, FL, Nov. 1999.Google Scholar
  4. D. Coleman, F. Hayes, and S. Bear. Introducing Objectcharts or How to use Statecharts in object-oriented design,”IEEE Trans, on Softw. Eng., 18(1):9–18, Jan. 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. D. Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems.Sci. of Comput Prog., Vol. 8, 1987, pp. 231–274.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. D. Harel, H. Lachover, A. Naamad, A. Pnueli, M. Politi, R. Sherman, A. Shtull-Trauring, and M. Trakhtenbrot. Statemate: A working environment for the development of complex reactive systems.IEEE Trans. on Softw. Eng., 16(4):403–414, Apr. 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Jackson. Structuring Z specifications with views.ACM trans. Softw. Eng. and Meth., 4(4):365–389, Oct. 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. C.B. Jones. Tentative steps towards a development method for interfering programs.ACM Trans. Prog. Lang, ad Sys., 5(4):596–619, Oct. 1983.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. G. Kiczales, J. Lamping, A. Mendhekar, C. Maeda, C.V. Lopes, J.-M. Loigtier, and J. Irwin. Aspect-Oriented Programming.Prof. European Cong, on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), Finland, June 1997.Google Scholar
  10. S.S. Lam and A.U. Shankar. A theory of interfaces and modules: I — Composition Theorem.IEEE Trans, on Softw. Eng., 20(1):55–71, Jan. 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. N.G. Leveson, M.P.E. Heimdahl, H. Hildreth, and J.D. Reese. Requirements specification for process-control systems.IEEE Trans, on Softw. Eng., 20(9):684–707, Sep. 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Reasoning, Inc., Code-Base Management System (CBMS), Mountain View, CA,1997.Google Scholar
  13. V.L. Winter and J.M. Boyle. Proving refinement transformations for deriving high-assurance software. InProceedings of the IEEE High-Assurance Systems Engineering Workshop, Oct. 1996.Google Scholar
  14. V.L. Winter, Private communication, July 1998.Google Scholar
  15. Victor Winter, Raymond Berg and Jim Ringland. “Bay Area Rapid Transit District Advanced automated Train Control System Case Study Description”, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. P. Zave. A distributed alternative to Finite-State-Machine specifications.ACM Trans, on Prog. Lang, and Sys., 7(l):10–36, Jan. 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. B. Bastani
    • 1
  • V. Reddy
    • 1
  • P. Srigiriraju
    • 1
  • I.-L. Yen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Texas at DallasUSA

Personalised recommendations