Verification of Railway Control Systems Using Model Checking and CTL, Explained Through a Case Study.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Verification of Railway Control Systems Using Model Checking and CTL, Explained Through a Case Study.
Authors:	Lukács, Gábor¹ lukacs.gabor@edu.bme.hu, Bartha, Tamás^1,2
Source:	Periodica Polytechnica: Transportation Engineering. 2024, Vol. 52 Issue 4, p402-411. 10p.
Subjects:	Railroad design & construction, Design failures, Systems engineering, Engineering design, Simulation methods & models
Abstract:	Systematic faults can often occur during the development of a system. The later such faults are discovered, the more expensive it can be to correct them. In systems engineering practice, there are many methods and tools to reduce the likelihood of systematic faults. In this paper, we present the application of a formal model-based verification technique - called model checking - to assist railway engineers in designing and verifying the safety-related functionality of railway control systems. The proposed process is part of a specification-verification environment that facilitates the construction of correct, complete, consistent, and verifiable functional specifications during development. The results and experience in model checking are illustrated by a case study of a vehicle detection point, a common component in this domain. The model checking of the case study has been performed in the widely used UPPAAL modeling and simulation framework, which can also verify formal properties and generate a counterexample in case of a property violation. By analyzing the counterexample, the designer can gain insights into the system's behavior and identify potential design flaws or failures. Model checking can be used to achieve a higher quality functional specification that is typically more complete and/or contains fewer faults compared to the traditional development approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Periodica Polytechnica: Transportation Engineering is the property of Periodica Polytechnica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Engineering Source

Description
Abstract:	Systematic faults can often occur during the development of a system. The later such faults are discovered, the more expensive it can be to correct them. In systems engineering practice, there are many methods and tools to reduce the likelihood of systematic faults. In this paper, we present the application of a formal model-based verification technique - called model checking - to assist railway engineers in designing and verifying the safety-related functionality of railway control systems. The proposed process is part of a specification-verification environment that facilitates the construction of correct, complete, consistent, and verifiable functional specifications during development. The results and experience in model checking are illustrated by a case study of a vehicle detection point, a common component in this domain. The model checking of the case study has been performed in the widely used UPPAAL modeling and simulation framework, which can also verify formal properties and generate a counterexample in case of a property violation. By analyzing the counterexample, the designer can gain insights into the system's behavior and identify potential design flaws or failures. Model checking can be used to achieve a higher quality functional specification that is typically more complete and/or contains fewer faults compared to the traditional development approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	03037800
DOI:	10.3311/PPtr.23344