skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Real-Time Simulation Support for Runtime Verification of Cyber-Physical Systems

Published:11 May 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), cyber and physical components must work seamlessly in tandem. Runtime verification of CPS is essential yet very difficult, due to deployment environments that are expensive, dangerous, or simply impossible to use for verification tasks. A key enabling factor of runtime verification of CPS is the ability to integrate real-time simulations of portions of the CPS into live running systems. We propose a verification approach that allows CPS application developers to opportunistically leverage real-time simulation to support runtime verification. Our approach, termed BraceBind, allows selecting, at runtime, between actual physical processes or simulations of them to support a running CPS application. To build BraceBind, we create a real-time simulation architecture to generate and manage multiple real-time simulation environments based on existing simulation models in a manner that ensures sufficient accuracy for verifying a CPS application. Specifically, BraceBind aims to both improve simulation speed and minimize latency, thereby making it feasible to integrate simulations of physical processes into the running CPS application. BraceBind then integrates this real-time simulation architecture with an existing runtime verification approach that has low computational overhead and high accuracy. This integration uses an aspect-oriented adapter architecture that connects the variables in the cyber portion of the CPS application with either sensors and actuators in the physical world or the automatically generated real-time simulation. Our experimental results show that, with a negligible performance penalty, our approach is both efficient and effective in detecting program errors that are otherwise only detectable in a physical deployment.

References

  1. Ahmad T. Al-Hammouri. 2012. A comprehensive co-simulation platform for cyber-physical systems. Comput. Commun. 36, 1 (2012), 8--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. J. Bastian, C. Clauß, S. Wolf, and P. Schneider. 2011. Master for co-simulation using FMI. In Proceedings of the 8th International Modelica Conference. Citeseer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Marcin Baszyński. 2016. Low cost, high accuracy real-time simulation used for rapid prototyping and testing control algorithms on example of BLDC motor. Arch. Electr. Eng. 65, 3 (2016), 463--479. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. R. Bednar and R. E. Crosbie. 2007. Stability of multi-rate simulation algorithms. In Proceedings of Summer Computer Simulation Conference (SCSC’07). 189--194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. J. Bélanger, P. Venne, and J. N. Paquin. 2010. The what, where, and why of real-time simulation. Planet RT 1.1: 25--29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. T. Blochwitz, M. Otter, J. Åkesson, M. Arnold, C. Clauss, H. Elmqvist, and others. 2012. Functional mockup interface 2.0: The standard for tool independent exchange of simulation models. In Proceedings of the 9th International Modelica Conference. 173--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. H. X. Chen. 2010. Simulink and VC-based hardware-in-the-loop real-time simulation for EV. In Proceedings of Electric Vehicle Symposium (EVS-25’10).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. L. Dagum and R. Enon. 1998. OpenMP: An industry standard API for shared-memory programming. Comput. Sci. Eng. IEEE 5, 1 (1998), 46--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Robocup Federation. Robocup Normal League. Retrieved at http://www.robocup.org/leagues/5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. C. Fetzer and F. Cristian. 1995. An optimal internal clock synchronization algorithm. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Assurance (COMPASS’95). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. A. Gholkar, A. Isaacs, and H. Arya. 2004. Hardware-in-loop simulator for mini aerial vehicle. In Proceedings of the Real-Time Linux Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. D. Goswami, R. Schneider, and S. Chakraborty. 2011. Co-design of cyber-physical systems via controllers with flexible delay constraints. In Proceedings of the Asia and South pacific design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC’11). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. M. Harakawa et al. 2005. Real-time simulation of a complete PMSM drive at 10 μs time step. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Parameterized and Exact Computation (IPEC’05).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. T. A. Henzinger, P. W. Kopke, A. Puri, and P. Varaiya. 1995. What’s decidable about hybrid automata? In Proceedings of the Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’95). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. B. Horling, V. Lesser, R. Vincent, and T. Wagner. 2006. The soft real-time agent control architecture. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 12, 1 (2006), 35--91. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. U. Hunkeler, H. L. Truong, and A. Stanford-Clark. 2008. MQTT-SâĂŤA publish/subscribe protocol for wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of Comsware. IEEE, 791--798.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Xiaoqing Jin, Alexandre Donzé, Jyotirmoy V. Deshmukh, and Sanjit A. Seshia. 2015. Mining requirements from closed-loop control models. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Design Integr. Circ. Syst. 34, 11 (2015), 1704--1717. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. T. Jones and G. A. Koenig. 2010. A clock synchronization strategy for minimizing clock variance at runtime in high-end computing environments. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Computer Architecture and High Performance Computing (SBAC-PAD’10). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Michele L. Joyner, Chelsea R. Ross, Colton Watts, and Thomas C. Jones. 2014. A stochastic simulation model for anelosimus studiosus during prey capture: A case study for determination of optimal spacing. Math. Biosci. Eng. 11, 9 (2014). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. A. B. Khaled, M. B. Gaid, N. Pernet, and D. Simon. 2014. Fast multi-core co-simulation of cyber-physical systems: Application to internal combustion engines. Simulat. Model. Pract. Theory 47 (2014), 79--91. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. G. Kiczales, J. Lamping, A. Mendhekar, C. Maeda, C. Lopes, J. M. Loingtier, and J. Irwin. 1997. Aspect-oriented programming. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Object Oriented Programming (ECOOP’97). Springer, 220--242. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. M. Kinsy, O. Khan, I. Celanovic, D. Majstorovic, N. Celanovic, and S. Devadas. 2011. Time-predictable computer architecture for cyber-physical systems: Digital emulation of power electronics systems. In Proceedings of the Real Time Systems Symposium (RTSS’11). IEEE, 305--316. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. W. H. Kwon and S.-G. Choi. 1999. Real-time distributed software-in-the-loop simulation for distributed control systems. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Computer Aided Control System Design. IEEE, 115--119.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. LabVIEW RealTime. 2016. LabVIEW RealTime. Retrieved from http://www.ni.com/labview/realtime/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. LabViewManual. 2016. LabView User Manual. Retrieved from http://autnt.fme.vutbr.cz/lab/FAQ/labview/SimulationModule_UserManual_371013c.pdf (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. V. Lesser et al. 2004. Evolution of the GPGP/TAEMS domain-independent coordination framework. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 9, 1 (July 2004), 87--143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. B. Miller, F. Vahid, and T. Givargis. 2011. Application-specific codesign platform generation for digital mockups in cyber-physical systems. In Proceedings of the Electronic System Level Synthesis Conference (ESLsyn’11). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. D. L. Mills. 1991. Internet time synchronization: The network time protocol. IEEE Trans. Comm. 39, 10 (October 1991), 1482--1493. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Modelisar 2016. Modelisar. Retrived at http://www.modelisar.org. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. PXI 2016. What’s PXI. Retrived at http://www.ni.com/pxi/whatis/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. PXIPrice. 2016. PXI Sample Price. Retrived at http://sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/210825. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Camille Alain Rabbath, M. Abdoune, and Jay Belanger. 2000. Real-time simulations: Effective real-time simulations of event-based systems. In Proceedings of the 32nd Conference on Winter Simulation. Society for Computer Simulation International, 232--238.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. J. J. Sanchez-G., R. D’Aquila, W. W. Price, and J. J. Paserba. 1995. Variable time step, implicit integration for extended-term power system dynamic simulation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Power Industry Computer Applications (PICA’95). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Wei Yan, Yuan Xue, Xiaowei Li, Jiannian Weng, Timothy Busch, and Janos Sztipanovits. 2012. Integrated simulation and emulation platform for cyber-physical system security experimentation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on High Confidence Networked Systems. ACM, 81--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Z. Zhang et al. 2013. Co-simulation framework for design of time-triggered cyber physical systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS’13). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. X. Zheng, C. Julien, R. Podorozhny, and F. Cassez. 2015. BraceAssertion: Runtime Verification of Cyber-Physical Systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Sensor Systems (MASS’15). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. X. Zheng, D. E. Perry, and C. Julien. 2014. Braceforce: A middleware to enable sensing integration in mobile applications for novice programmers. In Proceedings of International Conference on Mobile Software Engineering and Systems. ACM, 8--17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Real-Time Simulation Support for Runtime Verification of Cyber-Physical Systems

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems
          ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems  Volume 16, Issue 4
          Special Issue on Secure and Fault-Tolerant Embedded Computing and Regular Papers
          November 2017
          614 pages
          ISSN:1539-9087
          EISSN:1558-3465
          DOI:10.1145/3092956
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2017 ACM

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 11 May 2017
          • Accepted: 1 February 2017
          • Revised: 1 November 2016
          • Received: 1 July 2016
          Published in tecs Volume 16, Issue 4

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!