Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation and Verification Techniques and Tools

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Systems and Control

Abstract

Validation and verification (V&V) of advanced control systems is required for their use in fielded systems. A comprehensive V&V process involving analysis, simulation, and experimental testing should be used to assess closed-loop system performance and identify system limitations. This entry discusses current V&V methods and tools as well as future research directions for safety-critical control applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

  • Apkarian P, Gahinet P (1995) A convex characterization of gain-scheduled Hinf controllers. IEEE Trans Autom Control AC-40(5):853–864

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Balas G, Chiang R, Packard A, Safonov M, Robust control toolboxTM, Matlab \(^{ \circledR ;}\) product family. The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, 1994–2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Balas G, Packard A, Seiler P, Topcu U (2013a) Robustness analysis of nonlinear systems. University of Minnesota. Website http://www.aem.umn.edu/~AerospaceControl/

  • Balas GJ, Chaing R, Packard AK, Safonov M (2013b) Robust control toolbox. The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Belcastro CM, Khong TH, Shin J-Y, Balas GJ, Kwatny HG, Chang B-C (2005) Uncertainty modeling for robustness analysis of control upset prevention and recovery systems. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference and exhibit, AIAA-2005-6427, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Belcastro CM (2010) Validation and verification of future integrated safety-critical systems operating under off-nominal conditions. In: AIAA guidance, navigation and control conference, Toronto, Aug 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Belcastro CM (2012) Validation of safety-critical systems for aircraft loss-of-control prevention and recovery. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference, Minneapolis, Aug 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Berard B, Bidoit M, Finkel A, Laroussinie F, Petit A, Petrucci L, Schnoebelen P (1998) Systems and software verification: model-checking techniques and tools. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty A, Seiler P, Balas GJ (2011a) Susceptibility of F/A-18 flight controllers to the falling-leaf mode: linear analysis. J Guid Control Dyn 34(1):57–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty A, Seiler P, Balas GJ (2011b) Susceptibility of F/A-18 flight controllers to the falling-leaf mode: nonlinear analysis. J Guid Control Dyn 34(1):73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C-T (1998) Linear system theory and design, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Control System ToolboxTM, Matlab \(^{ \circledR ;}\) product family. The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper GE, Harper RP Jr (1969) The use of pilot rating in the evaluation of aircraft handling qualities. AGARD report 567, Apr 1969

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle JC, Francis BA, Tannenbaum AR (1992) Feedback control theory, Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscol K, Madl G, Hall B (2012) Modeling and analysis of mixed synchronous/asynchronous systems. NASA/CR-2012-217756, Sept 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding C, Varga A, Bennani S, Selier M (eds) (2002) Advanced techniques for clearance of flight control laws. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Foster JV, Cunningham K, Fremaux CM, Shah GH, Stewart EC, Rivers RA, Wilborn JE, Gato W (2005) Dynamics modeling and simulation of large transport airplanes in upset conditions. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill SJ, Lowenberg MH, Krauskopf B, Puyou G, Coetzee E (2012) Bifurcation analysis of the NASA GTM with a view to upset recovery. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference, Minneapolis, Aug 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Groen E, Ledegang W, Field J, Smaili H, Roza M, Fucke L, Nooij S, Goman M, Mayrhofer M, Zaichik L, Grigoryev M, Biryukov V (2012) SUPRA – enhanced upset recovery simulation. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference, Minneapolis, Aug 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann AK (2009) Practical guide to computer simulations. World Scientific, Hackensack, New Jersey

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hecker S, Varga A, Magni J (2005) Enhanced LFR toolbox for Matlab. Aerosp Sci Technol 9(2):173–180

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Holloway CM (2012) Towards understanding the DO-178C/ED-12C assurance case. In: Proceedings of the IET 7th international conference on system safety, Edinburgh, Oct 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovakimyan N, Cao C (2010) L1 adaptive control theory. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • IEEE (2011) IEEE guide–adoption of the Project Management Institute (PMI \(^{\circledR ;}\)) standard a guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK \(^{\circledR ;}\) Guide), 4th edn. IEEE, p 452. doi:10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.6086685. Retrieved 7 Dec 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny SP, Crespo LG, Giesy DP (2012) UQ tools: the uncertainty quantification toolbox – introduction and tutorial. NASA TM-2012-217561, Apr 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Khalil HK (2002) Nonlinear systems, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kwatny HG, Dongmo J-ET, Chang B-C, Bajpai G, Yasar M, Belcastro C (2013) Nonlinear analysis of aircraft loss of control. J Guid Control Dyn 36(1):149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroese DP, Taimre T, Botev ZI (2011) Handbook of Monte Carlo methods. Wiley series in probability and statistics. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Latorella KA, Feary M (2011) NASA aviation safety programs: human factors focused work. In: 16th International symposium on aviation psychology, Dayton, 2–5 May 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavretsky E, Wise KA (2013) Robust and adaptive control. Springer, London

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Claus RW, Litt JS, Guo T-H (2013) Simulating Effects of High Angle of Attack on Turbofan Engine Performance. In: 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Grapevine, Texas, 7–10 January 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Magni J-F (2004) Linear fractional representation toolbox – modeling, order reduction, and gain scheduling. ONERA technical report TR 6/08162 DSCD, Systems Control and Flight Dynamics Department, ONERA, July 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Magni J-F (2006) User manual of the linear fractional representation toolbox (version 2.0). Technical report 5/10403.01F, ONERA/DCSD. http://www.onera.fr/staff-en/jean-marc-biannic/docs/lfrtv20s.zip

  • Matlab®; , The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogata K (1970) Modern control engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Owre S, Shankar N, Rushby J (1992) PVS: a prototype verification system. In: CADE 11, Saratoga Springs, June 1992

    Google Scholar 

  • Packard AK (1994) Gain-scheduling via linear fractional transformations. Syst Control Lett 22:79–92

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Packard A, Topcu U, Seiler P, Balas G (2010) Help on SOS. IEEE Control Syst Mag 30(4):18–23

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Person SJ, Yang G, Rungta N, Khurshid S (2011) Directed incremental symbolic execution. In: 32nd ACM SIGPLAN conference on programming design and implementation, San Jose, June 4–8 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Reif K, Gunther S, Yaz E, Unbehauen R (1999) Stochastic stability of the discrete-time extended Kalman filter. IEEE Trans Autom Control 44(4):714, 728

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhudy M, Gu Y, Napolitano MR (2013a) An analytical approach for comparing linearization methods in EKF and UKF. Int Journal of Adv Robot Syst, 2013, Vol. 10, 208. doi:10.5772/56370

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhudy M, Gu Y, Napolitano MR (2013b) Does the unscented Kalman filter converge faster than the extended Kalman filter? A counter example. AIAA guidance navigation and control conference, Boston, Aug 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhudy M, Gu Y, Gross J, Gururajan S, Napolitano MR (2013c) Sensitivity analysis of extended and unscented Kalman filters for attitude estimation. AIAA J Aerosp Inf Syst 10(3):131–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugh J, Shamma J (2000) A survey of research on gain scheduling. Automatica 36:1401–1425

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rushby J (1995) Formal methods and their role in digital systems validation for airborne systems. NASA Contractor report 4673, Aug 1995

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushby J (2009) Software verification and system assurance. In: 7th IEEE international conference on software engineering and formal methods (SEFM), Hanoi, Nov 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Simulink®; , The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Slotine J-JE, Li W (1991) Applied nonlinear control. Pearson education. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers E, Chakraborty A, Tan W, Topcu U, Seiler P, Balas GJ, Packard AK (2013) Quantitative local L2-gain and reachability analysis for nonlinear systems. Int J Robust Nonlinear Control, 23:1115–1135

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tallant GS, Hull RA, Bose P, Johnson T, Buffington JM, Krogh B, Crum VW, Prasanth R (2004) Validation & verification of intelligent and adaptive control systems. IEEEAC paper #1487, Dec 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Varga A, Looye G, Moormann D, Grubel G (1998) Automated generation of LFT-based parametric uncertainty descriptions from generic aircraft models. Math Comput Model Dyn Syst 4:249–274

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Varga A, Hansson A, Puyou G (2012) Optimization based clearance of flight control laws. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wu F, Packard AK, Becker G (1996) Induced L2-norm control for LPV systems with bounded parameter variation rates. Int J Control 6(9/10):983–998

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Xu X, Ulrey M, Brown JA, Mast J, Lapis MB (2013) Safety sufficiency for NextGen: assessment of selected existing safety methods, tools, processes, and regulations. NASA/CR-2013-217801, Feb 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou K, Doyle JC (1997) Essentials of robust control. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou K, Doyle JC, Glover K (1996) Robust and optimal control. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA

    Christine M. Belcastro

Authors
  1. Christine M. Belcastro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine M. Belcastro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Electrical and Computer Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    John Baillieul

  2. Automation and Control Solutions, Honeywell, Golden Valley, Minnesota, USA

    Tariq Samad

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this entry

Cite this entry

Belcastro, C.M. (2013). Validation and Verification Techniques and Tools. In: Baillieul, J., Samad, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Systems and Control. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5102-9_146-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5102-9_146-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5102-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EngineeringReference Module Computer Science and Engineering

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation