Abstract
The Spin model checker has been successfully applied to the modelling, validation, and verification of different safety-critical systems. In this paper, we model and validate the Hybrid ERTMS/ETCS Level 3 Case Study using Spin; in particular, we show the assumptions we made to keep the state space limited, and present the problems and ambiguities that arose during the modelling. Although Spin offers several advantages in terms of validation and verification facilities, its modelling language Promela is limited if compared to higher level notations of other formal methods. Therefore, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using the tool, and how it could be improved in terms of modelling facilities.
The research reported in this paper has been partially supported by the Czech Science Foundation project number 17-12465S.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Actually, two trains can be in a TTD if they are operating in on-sight mode in which the drivers are fully responsible for the train movement; this setting, however, is an exceptional case that is not a part of normal operational mode.
- 2.
Note that the case study assignment [11] considers movement only in one direction, i.e., no backward moves.
- 3.
Formulations in [6] such as “A value between 5–10 s would seem to be practical” and “...this timer could be set to a value of at least 27 s ...” are not of much use.
- 4.
The simulation output of the assertion violation can be found at http://d3s.mff.cuni.cz/~kofron/abz18casestudy.html.
- 5.
Note that in Spin, we sometimes need to perform multiple steps in order to model a single step of a scenario reported in the requirements document; therefore, the step numbers (6 and 7) reported in the figure are different from the corresponding steps of the requirements document (steps 3 and 4).
- 6.
References
Abrial, J.: Modeling in Event-B - System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)
Arcaini, P., Gargantini, A., Riccobene, E.: AsmetaSMV: a way to link high-level ASM models to low-level NuSMV specifications. In: Frappier, M., Glässer, U., Khurshid, S., Laleau, R., Reeves, S. (eds.) ABZ 2010. LNCS, vol. 5977, pp. 61–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11811-1_6
Arvind, D.N., Katelman, M.: Getting formal verification into design flow. In: Cuellar, J., Maibaum, T., Sere, K. (eds.) FM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5014, pp. 12–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68237-0_2
Börger, E., Stärk, R.: Abstract State Machines: A Method for High-Level System Design and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18216-7
Carioni, A., Gargantini, A., Riccobene, E., Scandurra, P.: A scenario-based validation language for ASMs. In: Börger, E., Butler, M., Bowen, J.P., Boca, P. (eds.) ABZ 2008. LNCS, vol. 5238, pp. 71–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87603-8_7
Hybrid ERTMS/ETCS Level 3. Technical report, EEIG ERTMS Users Group, July 2017
Chen, J., Cui, H.: Translation from adapted UML to promela for CORBA-based applications. In: Graf, S., Mounier, L. (eds.) SPIN 2004. LNCS, vol. 2989, pp. 234–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24732-6_17
Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Sebastiani, R., Tacchella, A.: NuSMV 2: an opensource tool for symbolic model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 359–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45657-0_29
Glossary of terms and abbreviations. Technical report, ERA * UNISIG * EEIG ERTMS USERS GROUP, May 2016
Havelund, K., Lowry, M., Penix, J.: Formal analysis of a space-craft controller using SPIN. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 27(8), 749–765 (2001)
Hoang, T.S., Butler, M., Reichl, K.: The hybrid ERTMS/ETCS level 3 case study. Technical report (2018)
Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker - Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2004)
Ladenberger, L., Bendisposto, J., Leuschel, M.: Visualising event-B models with B-motion studio. In: Alpuente, M., Cook, B., Joubert, C. (eds.) FMICS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5825, pp. 202–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04570-7_17
Leuschel, M.: The high road to formal validation. In: Börger, E., Butler, M., Bowen, J.P., Boca, P. (eds.) ABZ 2008. LNCS, vol. 5238, pp. 4–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87603-8_2
Leuschel, M., Butler, M.: ProB: an automated analysis toolset for the B method. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 10(2), 185–203 (2008)
Meenakshi, B., Bhatnagar, A., Roy, S.: Tool for translating simulink models into input language of a model checker. In: Liu, Z., He, J. (eds.) ICFEM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4260, pp. 606–620. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11901433_33
Prigent, A., Cassez, F., Dhaussy, P., Roux, O.: Extending the translation from SDL to Promela. In: Bošnački, D., Leue, S. (eds.) SPIN 2002. LNCS, vol. 2318, pp. 79–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46017-9_8
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Arcaini, P., Ježek, P., Kofroň, J. (2018). Modelling the Hybrid ERTMS/ETCS Level 3 Case Study in Spin. In: Butler, M., Raschke, A., Hoang, T., Reichl, K. (eds) Abstract State Machines, Alloy, B, TLA, VDM, and Z. ABZ 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10817. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91271-4_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91271-4_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-91270-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-91271-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)