Skip to main content

Formal Safety Analysis in Industrial Practice

  • Conference paper
Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems (FMICS 2011)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 6959))

Abstract

We report on a comparative study on formal verification of two level crossing controllers that were developed using Scade by a rail automation manufacturer. Deductive Cause-Consequence Analysis of Ortmeier et al. is applied for formal safety analysis and in addition, safety requirements are proven. Even with these medium size industrial case studies we observed intense complexity problems that could not be overcome by employing different heuristics like abstraction and compositional verification. In particular, we failed to prove a crucial liveness property within the Scade framework stating that an unsafe state will not be persistent. We finally succeeded to prove this property by combining abstraction and model transformation from Scade to UPPAAL timed automata. In addition, we found that the modeling style has a significant impact on the complexity of the verification task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abdulla, P.A., Deneux, J., Stålmarck, G., Ågren, H., Åkerlund, O.: Designing Safe, Reliable Systems Using Scade. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2004. LNCS, vol. 4313, pp. 115–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2006), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11925040_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Alur, R., Courcoubetis, C., Dill, D.L.: Model-checking in dense real-time. Information and Computation 104(1), 2–34 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Alur, R., Dill, D.L.: A theory of timed automata. Theoretical Computer Science 126, 183–235 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. André, C.: Semantics of S.S.M (safe state machine). Tech. Rep. UMR 6070, I3S Laboratory, University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bozzano, M., Villafiorita, A.: Improving system reliability via model checking: The fsap/nusmv-sa safety analysis platform (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  6. CENELEC: EN 50128 – Railway Applications – Software for Railway Control and Protection Systems. European Standard (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Daskaya, I.: Comparative Safety Analysis and Verification for Level Crossings. Master’s thesis, Technische Universität Braunschweig (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  9. DIN: EN 50126: Spezifikation und Nachweis der Zuverlässigkeit, Verfügbarkeit, Instandhaltbarkeit und Sicherheit, RAMS (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  10. DIN: EN 50129: Bahnanwendungen – Telekommunikationstechnik, Signaltechnik und Datenverarbeitungssysteme – Sicherheitsrelevante elektronische Systeme für Signaltechnik (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Güdemann, M., Ortmeier, F., Reif, W.: Using deductive cause-consequence analysis (DCCA) with SCADE. In: Saglietti, F., Oster, N. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4680, pp. 465–478. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Halbwachs, N., Caspi, P., Raymond, P., Pilaud, D.: The synchronous dataflow programming language LUSTRE. Proceedings of the IEEE 79(9), 1305–1320 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hanisch, H.M., Pannier, T., Peter, D., Roch, S., Starke, P.: Modeling and formal verification of a modular level-crossing controller design (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  14. IEC 60812: Analysis techniques for system reliability (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  15. IEC 61508: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems – Part 3: Software requirements (1998), corrigendum (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Joshi, A., Whalen, M.: Modelbased safety analysis: Final report. Tech. rep., NASA (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lamport, L.: What good is temporal logic. Information Processing 83, 657–668 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  18. McDermid, J.A., Nicholson, M., Pumfrey, D.J., Fenelon, P.: Experience with the application of HAZOP to computer-based systems. In: 10th Annual Conference on Computer Assurance (Compass), pp. 37–48 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ortmeier, F., Reif, W., Schellhorn, G.: Deductive cause consequence analysis (DCCA). In: Proc. IFAC World Congress. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  20. UPPAAL 4.0: Small Tutorial (November 16, 2009), http://www.it.uu.se/research/group/darts/uppaal/smalltutorial.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Daskaya, I., Huhn, M., Milius, S. (2011). Formal Safety Analysis in Industrial Practice. In: Salaün, G., Schätz, B. (eds) Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems. FMICS 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6959. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24431-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24431-5_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-24430-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-24431-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics