A New Test-Generation Methodology for System-Level Verification of Production Processes

  • Allon Adir
  • Alex Goryachev
  • Lev Greenberg
  • Tamer Salman
  • Gil Shurek
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7857)


The continuing growth in the complexity of production processes is driven mainly by the integration of smart and cheap devices, such as sensors and custom hardware or software components. This naturally leads to higher complexity in fault detection and management, and, therefore to a higher demand for sophisticated quality control tools. A production process is commonly modeled prior to its physical construction to enable early testing. Many simulation platforms were developed to assess the widely varying aspects of the production process, including physical behavior, hardware-software functionality, and performance. However, the efficacy of simulation for the verification of modeled processes is still largely limited by manual operation and observation. We propose a massive random-biased, ontology-based, test-generation methodology for system-level verification of production processes. The methodology has been successfully applied for simulation-based processor hardware verification and proved to be a cost-effective solution. We show that it can be similarly beneficial in the verification of production processes and control.


Production processes / Manufacturing processes Test generation Transaction-based modeling UML/SysML 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Teti, R., Jemielniak, K., O’Donnell, G., Dornfeld, D.: Advanced monitoring of machining operations. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 59, 717–739 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Köhler, H., Nickel, U., Niere, J., Zündorf, A.: Integrating UML Diagrams in Production Control Systems. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 241–251 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rother, M., Shook, J.: Learning to See: Value-Stream Mapping to Create Value and Eliminate MUDA, Lean Enterprise Inst., Version 1.3, Cambridge, Mass. (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nickel, U., Niere, J., Zündorf, A.: The FUJABA Environment. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 742–745 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Specht, T., Drawehn, J., Thränert, M., Kühne, S.: Modeling Cooperative Business Processes and Transformation to a Service Oriented Architecture. In: 7th IEEE International Conference on ECommerce Technology, pp. 249–256 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wen-xian, T., Yuan-yuan, X.: A Production Process Mixed Modeling for Marine Diesel Engine Based on IDEF0 and Petri Net. In: International Symposium on Information Science and Engineering, ISISE 2008, vol. 2, pp. 773–777 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zor, S., Görlach, K., Leymann, F.: Using Modeling Manufacturing Processes. In: Sihn, W., Kuhlang, P. (eds.) Sustainable Production and Logistics in Global Networks - Proceedings of 43rd CIRP International Conference on Manufacturing Systems, pp. 515–522 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campagna, D., Formisano, A.: ProdProc - Product and Production Process Modeling and Configuration. In: 26th Italian Conference on Computational Logic, pp. 261–279 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 - OASIS Standard (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Colledani, M., Terkaj, W., Tolio, T.: Product-Process-System Information Formalization. In: Tolio, T. (ed.) Design of Flexible Production Systems: Methodologies and Tools. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aharon, A., Lichtenstein, Y., Malka, Y.: Model-Based Test Generator for Processor Design Verification. In: Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI) (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Emek, R., Jaeger, I., Naveh, Y., Bergman, G., Aloni, G., Katz, Y., Farkash, M., Dozoretz, I., Goldin, A.: X-Gen: A Random Test-Case Generator for Systems and SoCs. In: 7th IEEE International High-Level Design Validation and Test Workshop (HLDVT), pp. 145–150 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Bin, E., Ghanayim, A., Holtz, K., Marcus, E., Morad, R., Peled, O., Rimon, M., Shurek, G., Tsanko, E.: Ontology-Based Tools in the Service of Hardware Verification. In: 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering, pp. 303–308. Knowledge Systems Institute Graduate School (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brahme, D.S., Cox, S., Gallo, J., Glasser, M., Grundmann, W., Norris Ip, C., Paulsen, W., Pierce, J.L., Rose, J., Shea, D., Whiting, K.: The Transaction-Based Verification Methodology. Cadence Berkeley Labs (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bin, E., Emek, R., Shurek, G., Ziv, A.: Using constraint satisfaction formulations and solution techniques for random test program generation. IBM Systems Journal 41(3), 386–402 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mackworth, A.: Consistency in Networks of Relations. Artificial Intelligence 8(1), 99–118 (1977)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allon Adir
    • 1
  • Alex Goryachev
    • 1
  • Lev Greenberg
    • 1
  • Tamer Salman
    • 1
  • Gil Shurek
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM Research - HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations