A Unifying Semantics for Sequential Function Charts

Bauer, Nanette; Huuck, Ralf; Lukoschus, Ben; Engell, Sebastian

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-27863-4_22

Cited by 40 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The translation from SFC to ST 0 is problematic since the standard leaves many semantical issues unanswered. We resolved this issue by following the formal semantics for SFCs given in [4] when translating SFC to ST 0 .…”

Section: From Plc Code To Model Checker Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The state transition system is a composition of the two systems that result from translating the two PLC program revisions P and Q and the models for the environment as introduced in Sect. 4.…”

Section: Encoding Regression Verificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This model checker is also used to verify properties of continuous function charts (CFC) in [37]. In [4,6] a unifying semantics for SFC is given where the ambiguities of the standard are addressed in a formal fashion. Süflow and Drechsler [30] present a framework to verify that the same program behaves equivalently on different PLC platforms; a scenario closely related to ours.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Regression Verification for Programmable Logic Controller Software

Beckert

Ulbrich

Vogel‐Heuser

et al. 2015

Formal Methods and Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Automated production systems are usually driven by Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs). These systems are long-living -yet have to adapt to changing requirements over time. This paper presents a novel method for regression verification of PLC code, which allows one to prove that a new revision of the plant's software does not break existing intended behavior. Our main contribution is the design, implementation, and evaluation of a regression verification method for PLC code. We also clarify and define the notion of program equivalence for reactive PLC code. Core elements of our method are a translation of PLC code into the SMV input language for model checkers, the adaptation of the coupling invariants concept to reactive systems, and the implementation of a toolchain using a model checker supporting invariant generation. We have successfully evaluated our approach using the Pick-and-Place Unit benchmark case study.

show abstract

Section: From Plc Code To Model Checker Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Encoding Regression Verificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Regression Verification for Programmable Logic Controller Software

Beckert

Ulbrich

Vogel‐Heuser

et al. 2015

Formal Methods and Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Electrotechn. Commission, 2003) for an informal description and (Bauer et al, 2004a) for a formal definition). For simplicity, the notion of hierarchy and history is omitted here:…”

Section: Verification Based On Transformation Of Sfc Into Tamentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Dependability of Logic Controllers by Algorithmic Verification

Stursberg

Lohmann

Engell

2005

IFAC Proceedings Volumes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional safety, as addressed in the standard IEC 61508, is a key requirement for a high dependability of controlled systems. In order to guarantee that the function of programmable logic controllers (PLC) complies with given safety specifications, the use of verification has proven to be useful. This contribution builds upon a recently proposed approach to verify PLC programs with time specifications. It starts from a controller design given as sequential function chart (SFC), transforms the SFC into timed automata (TA), and applies model checking to verify (or falsify) functional safety. Since the explicit representation of the cyclic operation mode of PLC can lead to complex TA models, this paper investigates to which extent the cyclic mode can be omitted, to obtain simplified models for which the verification effort is considerably smaller.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the grammars of the PLC languages are notably different, making it difficult to use the same technology stack. For example, in case of PLCverif the currently used Xtext-based 1 parser is not suitable for the IL language, where the same tokens can be treated as keywords or names depending on the context. On the other hand, the different languages have many common parts, e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%