Method and apparatus for checking a control program in an industrial system

• US 20100241901A1
• Filed: 02/10/2010
• Published: 09/23/2010
• Est. Priority Date: 02/12/2009
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Siemens AG
• Original Assignee: Siemens AG
• Inventors: Jahn, Roland
• Application Number:
  US12/703,320
• Publication Number:
  US 20100241901A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 714/26
• CPC Class Codes: G05B 19/41885 characterised by modeling, simulation of the manufacturing system
• CPC Class Codes: G05B 2219/24034 Model checker, to verify and debug control software
• CPC Class Codes: G05B 2219/34454 Check functioning controller, cpu or program
• CPC Class Codes: G05B 2219/35293 Execute program and check block of data, on interrupt display block
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3692 for test results analysis
• CPC Class Codes: Y02P 90/02 Total factory control, e.g. smart factories, flexible manufacturing systems [FMS] or integrated manufacturing systems [IMS]
• CPC Class Codes: Y02P 90/80 Management or planning

Abstract

Industrial systems (2) have complex process control systems with many degrees of freedom for parameterization. To find faults during the parameterization, the invention proposes a method for checking a control program (12) in order to control an industrial system (2), in which data of the control program (12) is read into a database (20) and a test routine (24) checks the control program (12), on the basis of data, for compliance with defined rules and displays rule infringements.

Claims

1. A method for checking a control program (12) for controlling an industrial system (2), in which data of the control program (12) is read into a database (20) and a test routine (24) checks the control program (12), on the basis of data, for compliance with defined rules and displays rule infringements.

2. The method as claimed in claim 1,

characterized in that

the data from a control server (10) of the industrial system (2) is read into a testing apparatus (14), which is independent of the industrial system (2) and has the test routine (24).

3. The method as claimed in claim 1 or 2, characterized in that the test routine (24) checks the control program (12) for correct parameterization and/or circuitry of system elements (4, 6, 8) of the industrial system (2).

4. The method as claimed in one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the rules are plausibility rules and rule infringements are implausibilities.

5. The method as claimed in one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the test routine (24) checks whether values assigned to system elements (4, 6, 8) of the industrial system (2) are plausible in respect of system element data.

6. The method as claimed in one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the test routine (24) compares value ranges of output signals of system elements (4, 6, 8) of the industrial system (2) with level values, which are assigned to these output signals.

7. The method as claimed in one of the preceding claims, characterized in that

the test routine (24) checks several system elements (4, 6, 8) of the industrial system (2) emitting the same signal to determine whether they are adequately separated from one another in respect of a defined property.

8. The method as claimed in one of the preceding claims, characterized in that

the test routine (24) checks level values at signal outputs of system elements (4, 6, 8) of the industrial system (2), which are connected to a signal input of another system element (4, 6, 8) of the industrial system (2), to determine whether the level values are activated.

9. The method as claimed in one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the test routine (24) checks level values at signal outputs of system elements (4, 6, 8) of the industrial system (2), which were set to another value from a preset value, to determine whether the level values are activated.

10. The method as claimed in one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the test routine (24) compares documented specifications relating to output signals of system elements (4, 6, 8) of the industrial system with level values, which are assigned to these output signals.

11. The method as claimed in one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the test routine (24) checks alarm messages relating to operating faults in the industrial system (2) which are provided by the control program (12) for displaying to a user, to determine whether a graphic display for visualizing a localization of the fault is stored in the control program (12) for the alarm message.

12. The method as claimed in one of the preceding claims, characterized in that

the control program (12) is tested by the test routine (24) to determine whether an archiving routine of the control program (12) is prepared to archive values of such output signals of system elements (4, 6, 8) of the industrial system (2) which are assigned level values.

13. The method as claimed in one of the preceding claims, characterized in that rule infringements are eliminated on a control basis with the aid of the test routine (24) and the data is changed accordingly.

14. The method as claimed in one of the preceding claims, characterized in that

a control program (12) for controlling a first industrial system (2) and then a control program (12) for controlling a second industrial system which differs from the first industrial system (2) are initially checked, with the aid of the test routine (24), for compliance with the same defined rules.

15. A testing apparatus (14) for checking a control program (12) for controlling an industrial system (2), comprising a database (20), a reading-in routine (18) for reading data from the control program (12) into the database (20) and a test routine (24), which is provided in conjunction with a processor-controlled computing means (22) for checking the control program (12), on the basis of data, for compliance with defined rules and for displaying rule infringements.