The RobustRailS Verification Tool Set

Transkript

1 The RobustRailS Verification Tool Set for Safety Verification of Interlocking Systems Linh, H. Vu, Technical University of Denmark Anne E. Haxthausen, Technical University of Denmark Jan Peleska, University of Bremen

2 RobustRailS Verification Method & Tools ERTMS niveau 2: Interoperabel jernbane uden ydre signaler Fjernstyringscentral Trafikleder Radioblokcenter Sikringsanlæg GSM-R data Fast mærke ETCS Akseltællere Eurobalise (Km-sten) Figur 4.2 ERTMS niveau 2: Interoperabel jernbane uden ydre signaler. Eurobalise (Km-sten) Togdetektering Sporskiftedrev Strækningshastigheden vil desuden kunne øges på enkelte strækninger, når der er installeret et nyt signalsystem, idet togkontrol og førerrumssignalering er en sikkerhedsmæssig forudsætning for strækningshastigheder over 120 km/t, jf. kapitel 6. Method and tool set for automated, formal safety verification of interlocking systems. Were developed by Linh H. Vu, Anne Haxthausen, Jan Peleska, in collaboration with the Danish railways in the RobustRailS. research project. RobustRailS research project, : Funded by the Danish Innovation Fund. Partners: 4 DTU departments, Bremen University, Banedanmark, Traffic Authorities, DSB, DSB S-train. Det nye togkontrolsystem kan håndtere hastigheder på mere end 200 km/t. Det vil således være sporets udformning, der vil være begrænsende i forhold til hastighedsopgraderinger. En række strækninger, hvor hastigheden i dag begrænses af signalsystemet, vil uden videre kunne anvendes ved den hastighed sporet giver mulighed for. Togkontrolsystemet i ERTMS udfører de samme funktioner som det nuværende danske ATC system. Det vil således stadig være lokomotivføreren, som varetager styringen af toget. Togkontrolsystemet vil fortsat være en sikkerhedsfunktion, der nedbremser toget, hvis lokomotivføreren ikke reagerer korrekt på signalerne Teknisk udviklingsstade for ERTMS niveau 1 og 2 Fastlæggelsen af ERTMS-standarden for niveau 1 og 2 handler om, at der skal opnås enighed om, hvilken løsning blandt flere allerede eksisterende løsninger, der skal være den fælles standard. Derefter skal det sikres, at de valgte løsninger for de forskellige funktioner kan fungere sammen. Fastlæggelsen af ERTMS-standarden handler således ikke om at udvikle nye løsninger, men om at opnå enighed om hvilke løsninger der skal anvendes og få produkterne til at fungere sammen. Problemstillingen er uafhængig af valget af ERTMS niveau 1 eller niveau Goal: to develop methods for achieving punctual and safe railway operations for the Danish Re-signaling Program implementing ERTMS/ETCS Level 2. methods for efficient safety verification... 2 RobustRailS Verification Tool Set

3 Background: Challenges Errors in interlocking systems may have very severe consequences. Conventional specification & verification methods may be time consuming and not give sufficient guaranties for correctness. Bugs typically first found during testing expensive to fix. Need to get it right from the beginning. 3 RobustRailS Verification Tool Set

4 Smarter Specification and Verification Methods state space reachable states :safe states :unsafe states Use Formal Methods and Automation: strongly recommended by CENELEC for safety-critical software efficient to avoid bugs to catch bugs early, before implementation and test saves time and money 4 RobustRailS Verification Tool Set

5 b10 mb10 DOWN mb11 t10 t11 mb20 t20 mb12 t12 mb21 mb13 t13 t14 UP mb14 mb15 b14 RobustRailS Verification Method & Tools (0) develop or generate Possible human manipulation route from to path points markerboards conflicts 1a mb10 mb13 t10;t11;t12 t11:+;t13:- mb11;mb12;mb20 1b;2a;2b;3;4;5a;5b;6b;7. 7 mb20 mb11 t11;t10 t11:- mb10;mb12 1a;1b;2a;2b;3;5b;6a 8 mb21 mb14 t13;t14 t13:- mb13;mb15 1b;2a;4;5a;5b;6a;6b (step 2.1) generator model safety requirements (step 2.2) Model checker investigates: does model meet the requirements? 1.1 Input: track plan. (step 1) static checker 1.2 The tool automatically generates a route control table, if not provided. 1.3 The tool checks that the track plan and route control table are correct. 2.1 The tool generates a formal model of the behaviour of the interlocking system x formal safety requirements (e.g no train collisions). 2.2 A model checker (dis-)proves the model meets the requirements. 3.1 The tool generates test cases and a test oracle for software integration testing. 5 RobustRailS Verification Tool Set

6 b10 mb10 DOWN mb11 t10 t11 mb20 t20 mb12 t12 mb21 mb13 t13 t14 UP mb14 mb15 b14 RobustRailS Verification Method & Tools (0) develop or generate Possible human manipulation route from to path points markerboards conflicts 1a mb10 mb13 t10;t11;t12 t11:+;t13:- mb11;mb12;mb20 1b;2a;2b;3;4;5a;5b;6b;7. 7 mb20 mb11 t11;t10 t11:- mb10;mb12 1a;1b;2a;2b;3;5b;6a 8 mb21 mb14 t13;t14 t13:- mb13;mb15 1b;2a;4;5a;5b;6a;6b (step 2.1) generator model safety requirements (step 2.2) Model checker investigates: does model meet the requirements? (step 1) static checker Verification in three steps: The static checking step is used to find errors in the control table. The model checking step is used to find errors in the control algorithms. The model-based testing step is used to find errors in the implemented system. Features: Model hiding : Models automatically generated from domain-specific railway specifications can be used by railway engineers without background in formal methods. Verification based on induction reasoning using bounded model checking pushes the limits for state space explosion. 6 RobustRailS Verification Tool Set

7 b10 mb10 DOWN mb11 t10 t11 mb20 t20 mb12 t12 mb21 mb13 t13 UP t14 mb14 route from to path points markerboards conflicts 1a mb10 mb13 t10;t11;t12 t11:+;t13:- mb11;mb12;mb20 1b;2a;2b;3;4;5a;5b;6b;7. 7 mb20 mb11 t11;t10 t11:- mb10;mb12 1a;1b;2a;2b;3;5b;6a 8 mb21 mb14 t13;t14 t13:- mb13;mb15 1b;2a;4;5a;5b;6a;6b Untitled layer Roskilde Station Gadstrup St. Havdrup St. Lille Skensved St. Køge St. Herfølge St. Tureby St. Haslev St. Holme-Olstrup St. Næstved St. EDL mb15 b14 Applications of the Method & Tools (0) develop or generate Possible human manipulation (step 2.1) generator model safety requirements (step 2.2) Model checker investigates: does model meet the requirements? (step 1) static checker The Early Deployment Line, Roskilde - Næstved, in Denmark [Vu, Haxthausen, Peleska 2017]: Untitled map Florence station in Italy [Fantechi, Haxthausen, Macedo 2017]: 7 RobustRailS Verification Tool Set

8 Untitled layer Roskilde Station Gadstrup St. Havdrup St. Lille Skensved St. Køge St. Herfølge St. Tureby St. Haslev St. Holme-Olstrup St. Næstved St. EDL t25 t26 t27 t28 Compositional Verification Suggested by Fantechi, Haxthausen, Macedo Goal: to further increase the scalability of the verification method. Idea: cut the interlocking logic of large layouts into separate, more manageable, portions, so that proving safety of the portions implies safety of the whole. E8 E26 t13 T1 t7 t11 T16 T19 E1 E19 A station B station T2 E10 t5 t8 t10 t12 T15 E24 T18 E2 E17 E12 E22 T3 E3 t6 t9 T14 E15 T17 Experiments show: compositional verification is faster, uses 30 40% less memory. Early Deployment Line (EDL) in Denmark and Florence Station in Italy Untitled map 8 RobustRailS Verification Tool Set

9 Thank you for your attention. 9 RobustRailS Verification Tool Set