An industrial application of formal model based development: The metrô rio ATP case

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Software Engineering for Resilient Systems, SERENCE 2010

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 71-76

  Ferrari, Alessio ^a   Papini, Mario ^a   Fantechi, Alessandro ^b   Grasso, Daniele ^b  

^a General Electric Transportation Systems   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Metro signaling; Model based development; Modeling guide lines; Rail; Transport

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATIC TRAIN PROTECTION SYSTEMS; CERTIFIED CODES; CODE GENERATION; DESIGN STRATEGIES; DEVELOPMENT PROCESS; EASE-OF-USE; FORMAL MODEL; FORMAL SEMANTICS; MODEL BASED DEVELOPMENT; ON-BOARD EQUIPMENT; SAFETY-CRITICAL DOMAIN; SIMULINK; TRANSPORT;

AUTOMATIC PROGRAMMING; INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS; INDUSTRIAL RAILROADS; NETWORK COMPONENTS; RAILS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

PROGRAM COMPILERS;

EID: 84866022814     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2401736.2401744     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (12)

1. European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, CENELEC EN50128, Railway Applications - Software for Railway Control and Protection Systems, 1997.
2. Mathworks Automotive Advisory Board (MAAB), Control Algorithm Modeling Guidelines Using Matlab, Simulink and Stateow, Version 2.0, 2007.
3. S. Bacherini, A. Fantechi, M. Tempestini, and N. Zingoni. A story about formal methods adoption by a railway signaling manufacturer. Proceedings of FM 2006, LNCS, 4025, 2006.
4. A. Faivre and P. Benoit. Safety critical software of meteor developed with the B formal method and vital coded processor. In Proceedings of WCRR99, pages 84-89, 1999.
5. A. Ferrari, A. Fantechi, S. Bacherini, and N. Zingoni. Modeling guidelines for code generation in the railway signaling context. In Proceedings of 1st NASA Formal Methods Symphosium. NASA, April 2009.
6. D. Grasso, A. Fantechi, and A. Ferrari. Model based testing and abstract interpretation in the railway signaling context. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (to appear), 2010.
7. G. Hamon. A denotational semantics for stateow. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM international conference on Embedded software, pages 164{172, 2005.
8. G. Hamon and J. Rushby. An operational semantics for stateow. STTT, 9(5-6):477-456, 2007.
9. D. Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8(3):231-274, 1987.
10. M. Leuschel, J. Falampin, F. Fabian, and D. Plagge. Automated property veri-cation for large scale B models. Proceedings of FM 2009, LNCS, 5850:810-814, 2009.
11. N. Scaife, C. Sofronis, P. Caspi, S. Tripakis, and F. Maraninchi. De-ning and translating a safe subset of Simulink/Stateow into Lustre. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM international conference on Embedded software, pages 259{268, 2004.
12. J. Woodcock, P. G. Larsen, J. Bicarregui, and J. Fitzgerald. Formal methods: Practice and experience. ACM Computing Surveys, 5(N):1{39, June 2009.