Formal Development and Assessment of a Reconfigurable On-board Satellite System

  • Anton Tarasyuk
  • Inna Pereverzeva
  • Elena Troubitsyna
  • Timo Latvala
  • Laura Nummila
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7612)


Ensuring fault tolerance of satellite systems is critical for achieving goals of the space mission. Since the use of redundancy is restricted by the size and the weight of the on-board equipments, the designers need to rely on dynamic reconfiguration in case of failures of some components. In this paper we propose a formal approach to development of dynamically reconfigurable systems in Event-B. Our approach allows us to build the system that can discover possible reconfiguration strategy and continue to provide its services despite failures of its vital components. We integrate probabilistic verification to evaluate reconfiguration alternatives. Our approach is illustrated by a case study from aerospace domain.


Formal modelling fault tolerance Event-B refinement probabilistic verification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.-R.: Modeling in Event-B. Cambridge University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    BepiColombo: ESA Media Center, Space Science,
  3. 3.
    Caporuscio, M., Di Marco, A., Inverardi, P.: Model-Based System Reconfiguration for Dynamic Performance Management. J. Syst. Softw. 80, 455–473 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Castro Guerra, P.A., Rubira, C.M.F., de Lemos, R.: A Fault-Tolerant Software Architecture for Component-Based Systems. In: Architecting Dependable Systems, pp. 129–143. Springer (2003) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldsby, H.J., Sawyer, P., Bencomo, N., Cheng, B., Hughes, D.: Goal-Based Modeling of Dynamically Adaptive System Requirements. In: ECBS 2008, pp. 36–45. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grunske, L.: Specification Patterns for Probabilistic Quality Properties. In: ICSE 2008, pp. 31–40. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kelly, T.P., Weaver, R.A.: The Goal Structuring Notation – A Safety Argument Notation. In: DSN 2004, Workshop on Assurance Cases (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: PRISM 4.0: Verification of Probabilistic Real-Time Systems. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 585–591. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour. In: RE 2001, pp. 249–263. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Lemos, R., de Castro Guerra, P.A., Rubira, C.M.F.: A Fault-Tolerant Architectural Approach for Dependable Systems. IEEE Software 23, 80–87 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rodin: Event-B Platform,
  12. 12.
    Space Engineering: Ground Systems and Operations – Telemetry and Telecommand Packet Utilization: ECSS-E-70-41A. ECSS Secretariat (January 30, 2003),
  13. 13.
    Tarasyuk, A., Pereverzeva, I., Troubitsyna, E., Latvala, T., Nummila, L.: Formal Development and Assessment of a Reconfigurable On-board Satellite System. Tech. Rep. 1038, Turku Centre for Computer Science (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tarasyuk, A., Troubitsyna, E., Laibinis, L.: Quantitative Reasoning about Dependability in Event-B: Probabilistic Model Checking Approach. In: Dependability and Computer Engineering: Concepts for Software-Intensive Systems, pp. 459–472. IGI Global (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tarasyuk, A., Troubitsyna, E., Laibinis, L.: Formal Modelling and Verification of Service-Oriented Systems in Probabilistic Event-B. In: Derrick, J., Gnesi, S., Latella, D., Treharne, H. (eds.) IFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7321, pp. 237–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Warren, I., Sun, J., Krishnamohan, S., Weerasinghe, T.: An Automated Formal Approach to Managing Dynamic Reconfiguration. In: ASE 2006, pp. 18–22. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wermelinger, M., Lopes, A., Fiadeiro, J.: A Graph Based Architectural Reconfiguration Language. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 26, 21–32 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anton Tarasyuk
    • 1
    • 2
  • Inna Pereverzeva
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elena Troubitsyna
    • 1
  • Timo Latvala
    • 3
  • Laura Nummila
    • 3
  1. 1.Åbo Akademi UniversityTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Turku Centre for Computer ScienceTurkuFinland
  3. 3.Space Systems FinlandEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations