Automatic Fault Localization for Programmable Logic Controllers ★
Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) are widely applied to control safety critical systems. Efficient formal and nonformal methods to detect faulty behavior have been developed, but finding the cause of the buggy behavior is often still a manual process. Automatic fault localization for PLCs is studied in this paper. Methods for automated debugging are analyzed and compared with respect to accuracy and run time. The experimental results on industrial models show a high accuracy at low run time costs.
KeywordsDebugging Boolean SAT Program slicing Programmable Logic Controllers
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.M. Abramovici, P.R. Menon, and D.T. Miller. Critical path tracing - an alternative to fault simulation. In Design Automation Conf., pages 214–220, 1983.Google Scholar
- 2.H. Agrawal and J.R. Horgan. Dynamic program slicing. In PLDI ’90: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1990 conference on Programming language design and implementation, pages 246–256, 1990.Google Scholar
- 3.G. Canet, S. Couffin, J.-J. Lesage, A. Petit, and P. Schnoebelen. Towards the automatic verificication of PLC programs written in instruction list. In IEEE conf. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), pages 2449–2454, 2000.Google Scholar
- 4.K.-H. Chang, I.L. Markov, and V. Bertacco. Fixing design errors with counterexamples and resynthesis. IEEE Trans. on CAD, 27(1):184–188, 2008.Google Scholar
- 6.M. Fahim Ali, A. Veneris, S. Safarpour, R. Drechsler, A. Smith, and M.S.Abadir. Debugging sequential circuits using Boolean satisfiability. In Int’l Conf. on CAD, pages 204–209, 2004.Google Scholar
- 7.G. Fey, S. Staber, R. Bloem, and R. Drechsler. Automatic fault localization for property checking. IEEE Trans. on CAD, 27(6):1138–1149, 2008.Google Scholar
- 8.C. Genz and R. Drechsler. System exploration of SystemC designs. In IEEE Annual Symposium on VLSI, pages 335–340, Mar. 2006.Google Scholar
- 11.R. Huuck. Software Verification for Programmable Logic Controllers. PhD thesis, Faculty of engineering, University of Kiel, Germany, 2003.Google Scholar
- 14.M.W. Moskewicz, C.F. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang, and S. Malik. Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In Design Automation Conf., pages 530– 535, 2001.Google Scholar
- 15.O. Pavlovic, R. Pinger, M. Kollmann, and H.-D. Ehrich. Principles of formal verification of interlocking software. In Symposium on Formal Methods for Automation and Safety in Railway and Automotive Systems (FORMS/FORMAT), pages 370–378, 2007.Google Scholar
- 16.Siemens. SIMATIC–Statement List (STL) S7-300 and S7-400 Programming, 2003.Google Scholar
- 17.A. Smith, A. Veneris, M. Fahim Ali, and A.Viglas. Fault diagnosis and logic debugging using boolean satisfiability. IEEE Trans. on CAD, 24(10):1606–1621, 2005.Google Scholar
- 18.A. Sülflow and R. Drechsler. Verification of PLC programs using formal proof techniques. In Symposium on Formal Methods for Automation and Safety in Railway and Automotive Systems (FORMS/FORMAT), pages 43–50, 2008.Google Scholar
- 19.A. Sülflow, U. Kühne, G. Fey, D. Große, and R. Drechsler. WoLFram - a word level framework for formal verification. In International Symposium on Rapid System Prototyping (RSP), pages 11–17, 2009.Google Scholar
- 20.Synopsys Inc. and CoWare Inc. and Frontier Design Inc. Open SystemC Inititative. http://www.systemc.org, 2008.
- 21.A. Veneris and I. N. Hajj. Design error diagnosis and correction via test vector simulation. IEEE Trans. on CAD, 18(12):1803–1816, 1999.Google Scholar