Advertisement

Compositional Verification of Interlocking Systems for Large Stations

  • Alessandro FantechiEmail author
  • Anne E. Haxthausen
  • Hugo D. Macedo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10469)

Abstract

Railway interlocking systems are responsible to grant exclusive access to a route, that is a sequence of track elements, through a station or a network. Formal verification that basic safety rules regarding exclusive access to routes are satisfied by an implementation is still a challenge for networks of large size due to the exponential computation time and resources needed.

Some recent attempts to address this challenge adopt a compositional approach, targeted to track layouts that are easily decomposable into sub-networks such that a route is almost fully contained in a sub-network: in this way granting the access to a route is essentially a decision local to the sub-network, and the interfaces with the rest of the network easily abstract away less interesting details related to the external world.

Following up on previous work, where we defined a compositional verification method that started considering routes that overlap between sub-networks in interlocking systems governing a multi-station line, we attack the verification of large networks, which are typically those in main stations of major cities, and where routes are very intertwined and can hardly be separated into sub-networks that are independent at some degree. At this regard, we study how the division of a complex network into sub-networks, using stub elements to abstract all the routes that are common between sub-networks, may still guarantee compositionality of verification of safety properties.

Keywords

Railway interlocking Compositional verification Model checking 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Jan Peleska and Linh Hong Vu with whom Anne Haxthausen developed the RobustRailS verification method and tools used in the presented work.

References

  1. 1.
    Bonacchi, A., Fantechi, A., Bacherini, S., Tempestini, M.: Validation process for railway interlocking systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 128, 2–21 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization. EN 50128:2011 - Railway applications - Communications, signalling and processing systems - Software for railway control and protection systems (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferrari, A., Magnani, G., Grasso, D., Fantechi, A.: Model checking interlocking control tables. In: Schnieder, E., Tarnai, G. (eds.) FORMS/FORMAT 2010, pp. 107–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-14261-1_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hvid Hansen, H., Ketema, J., Luttik, B., Mousavi, M.R., Pol, J., Santos, O.M.: Automated verification of executable UML models. In: Aichernig, B.K., Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M. (eds.) FMCO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6957, pp. 225–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-25271-6_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haxthausen, A.E., Bliguet, M., Kjær, A.A.: Modelling and verification of relay interlocking systems. In: Choppy, C., Sokolsky, O. (eds.) Monterey Workshop 2008. LNCS, vol. 6028, pp. 141–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-12566-9_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haxthausen, A.E., Peleska, J., Kinder, S.: A formal approach for the construction and verification of railway control systems. Formal Aspects Comput. 23(2), 191–219 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haxthausen, A.E., Peleska, J., Pinger, R.: Applied bounded model checking for interlocking system designs. In: Counsell, S., Núñez, M. (eds.) SEFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8368, pp. 205–220. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-05032-4_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    James, P., Möller, F., Nguyen, H.N., Roggenbach, M., Schneider, S., Treharne, H.: Decomposing scheme plans to manage verification complexity. In: FORMS/FORMAT 2014–10th Symposium on Formal Methods for Automation and Safety in Railway and Automotive Systems, pp. 210–220. Institute for Traffic Safety and Automation Engineering, Technische Universität Braunschweig (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    James, P., Lawrence, A., Moller, F., Roggenbach, M., Seisenberger, M., Setzer, A., Kanso, K., Chadwick, S.: Verification of solid state interlocking programs. In: Counsell, S., Núñez, M. (eds.) SEFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8368, pp. 253–268. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-05032-4_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    James, P., Moller, F., Nguyen, H.N., Roggenbach, M., Schneider, S., Treharne, H.: Techniques for modelling and verifying railway interlockings. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 16(6), 685–711 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Limbrée, C., Cappart, Q., Pecheur, C., Tonetta, S.: Verification of railway interlocking - compositional approach with OCRA. In: Lecomte, T., Pinger, R., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) RSSRail 2016. LNCS, vol. 9707, pp. 134–149. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-33951-1_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Macedo, H.D., Fantechi, A., Haxthausen, A.E.: Compositional verification of multi-station interlocking systems. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 279–293. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Macedo, H.D., Fantechi, A., Haxthausen, A.E.: Compositional model checking of interlocking systems for lines with multiple stations. In: Barrett, C., Davies, M., Kahsai, T. (eds.) NFM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10227, pp. 146–162. Springer, Cham (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-57288-8_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peleska, J.: Industrial-strength model-based testing - state of the art and current challenges. In: Petrenko, A.K., Schlingloff, H. (eds.) 8th Workshop on Model-Based Testing, Rome, Italy, vol. 111, pp. 3–28. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, Open Publishing Association (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Theeg, G., Vlasenko, S.V., Anders, E.: Railway Signalling & Interlocking: International Compendium. Eurailpress, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Verified Systems International GmbH. RT-Tester Model-Based Test Case and Test Data Generator - RTT-MBT - User Manual (2013). http://www.verified.de
  17. 17.
    Vu, L.H., Haxthausen, A.E., Peleska, J.: A domain-specific language for railway interlocking systems. In: Schnieder, E., Tarnai, G. (eds.) FORMS/FORMAT 2014–10th Symposium on Formal Methods for Automation and Safety in Railway and Automotive Systems, pp. 200–209. Institute for Traffic Safety and Automation Engineering, Technische Universität Braunschweig (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vu, L.H., Haxthausen, A.E., Peleska, J.: Formal modeling and verification of interlocking systems featuring sequential release. In: Artho, C., Ölveczky, P.C. (eds.) FTSCS 2014. CCIS, vol. 476, pp. 223–238. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-17581-2_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vu, L.H.: Formal development and verification of railway control systems - in the context of ERTMS/ETCS level 2. Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Denmark, DTU Compute (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vu, L.H., Haxthausen, A.E., Peleska, J.: Formal modelling and verification of interlocking systems featuring sequential release. Sci. Comput. Program. 133(Part 2), 91–115 (2017). doi: 10.1016/j.scico.2016.05.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Winter, K.: Symbolic model checking for interlocking systems. In: Flammini, F. (ed.) Railway Safety, Reliability, and Security: Technologies and Systems Engineering. IGI Global (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winter, K.: Optimising ordering strategies for symbolic model checking of railway interlockings. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7610, pp. 246–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-34032-1_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Fantechi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Anne E. Haxthausen
    • 1
  • Hugo D. Macedo
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.DTU ComputeTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.DINFOUniversity of FlorenceFirenzeItaly
  3. 3.Department of EngineeringAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations