Abstract
The railway sector has seen a large number of successful applications of formal methods and tools. However, up-to-date, structured information about the industrial usage and needs related to formal tools in railways is limited. Two Shift2Rail projects, X2Rail-2 and ASTRail, have addressed this issue by performing a systematic search over the state of the art of formal methods application in railways to identify the best used practices. As part of the work of these projects, questionnaires on formal methods and tools have been designed to gather input and guidance on the adoption of formal methods in the railway domain. Even though the questionnaires were developed independently and distributed to different audiences, the responses show a certain convergence in the replies to the questions common to both. In this paper, we present a detailed report on such convergence, drawing some indications about methods and tools that are considered to constitute the most fruitful approaches to industrial adoption.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
The list of tools gaining only one mention is: ABS, Astah, CADP, CNL, CryptoVerif, Datalog, F\(^*\), iUML-B, FDR4, Markov Chains, Maude, mCRL2, Moebius, MoMuT, PRISM, ProVerif, QA, RAISE, RobustRails, SafeCap, SAL, SAT, SMT, TAMARIN, UMC, UPPAAL, and XILINK.
References
Ameur, Y.A., Boniol, F., Wiels, V.: Toward a wider use of formal methods for aerospace systems design and verification. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 12(1), 1–7 (2010)
Basile, D., et al.: On the industrial uptake of formal methods in the railway domain. In: Furia, C.A., Winter, K. (eds.) IFM 2018. LNCS, vol. 11023, pp. 20–29. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98938-9_2
Butler, M.J., et al.: Formal modelling techniques for efficient development of railway control products. RSSRail. LNCS, vol. 10598, pp. 71–86. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68499-4_5
Davis, J.A., et al.: Study on the barriers to the industrial adoption of formal methods. In: Pecheur, C., Dierkes, M. (eds.) FMICS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8187, pp. 63–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41010-9_5
European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization: CENELEC EN 50128 – Railway applications - communication, signalling and processing systems - software for railway control and protection systems (1 June 2011)
Fantechi, A.: Twenty-five years of formal methods and railways: what next? In: Counsell, S., Núñez, M. (eds.) SEFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8368, pp. 167–183. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05032-4_13
Fantechi, A., Ferrari, A., Gnesi, S.: Formal methods and safety certification: challenges in the railways domain. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 261–265. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3_18
Ferrari, A., et al.: Survey on formal methods and tools in railways: The ASTRail approach. In: Collart-Dutilleul, S., Lecomte, T., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) RSSRail 2019. LNCS, vol. 11495, pp. 226–241. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18744-6_15
Garavel, H., Mateescu, R.: Reflections on Bernhard Steffen’s physics of software tools. In: Margaria, T., Graf, S., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) Models, Mindsets, Meta: The What, the How, and the Why Not?. LNCS, vol. 11200, pp. 186–207. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22348-9_12
Nyberg, M., Gurov, D., Lidström, C., Rasmusson, A., Westman, J.: Formal verification in automotive industry: enablers and obstacles. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 139–158. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03427-6_14
Plat, N., van Katwijk, J., Toetenel, H.: Application and benefits of formal methods in software development. Softw. Eng. J. 7(5), 335–346 (1992)
X2Rail-2 - Deliverable D5.1, Formal Methods (Taxonomy and Survey), Proposed Methods and Applications (16 May 2018). https://projects.shift2rail.org/download.aspx?id=b4cf6a3d-f1f2-4dd3-ae01-2bada34596b8
Acknowledgements
This work has been partially funded by the ASTRail and the X2Rail-2 projects. These projects received funding from the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 777561 and No. 777465.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
ter Beek, M.H. et al. (2019). Adopting Formal Methods in an Industrial Setting: The Railways Case. In: ter Beek, M., McIver, A., Oliveira, J. (eds) Formal Methods – The Next 30 Years. FM 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11800. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30942-8_46
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30942-8_46
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30941-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30942-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)