1 / 20

Efficient representation for formal verification of PLC programs

Efficient representation for formal verification of PLC programs. Vincent Gourcuff, Olivier de Smet and Jean-Marc Faure LURPA – ENS de Cachan. Outline. Objective of the work Construction of formal models Representation construction Dependencies analysis

reid
Télécharger la présentation

Efficient representation for formal verification of PLC programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Efficient representation for formal verification of PLC programs Vincent Gourcuff, Olivier de Smet and Jean-Marc Faure LURPA – ENS de Cachan

  2. Outline • Objective of the work • Construction of formal models • Representation construction • Dependencies analysis • Translation of PLC programs into formal models • Assessment of the representation efficiency • Conclusions and prospects

  3. Objective Design of controllers for critical systems Requirements Power plant ? Refinery Control system Steam turbine

  4. Objective Impact of the IEC 61508 standard • Functional safety of E/E/PE safety-related systems • Industrial need: to reach the SIL3 or SIL4 levels (SIL: Safety Integrity Level) • Hardware: redundancies, voting mechanisms, …. • Software: recommendations for development • SIL levels and software development

  5. Objective Overall objective • To investigate the possibilities of formal verification for improving the SIL level of critical systems controlled by PLCs

  6. Construction of formal models Requirements Formal verification of PLC programs Scheduler Program • O1 := I1 OR I2; • O2 := I3 AND I4; • IF O1 • THEN • O3 := I3 AND NOT(I4); • END_IF; • O4:= RS(O5,I1) • O5 := O2 AND O4; • O1 := NOT(I2 OR I4); Initialization Informal extrinsic (application-dependant) properties Inputs reading 1 Program execution Formalization Outputs updating 2 Formalization AG (( dp_head_motor_up) => EF (!dp_head_motor_up )) Formal representation Formal representation Model – Checker [Rausch Krogh 98] [Frey Litz 00] [de Smet Rossi 02] [Huuck Lukoschus Bauer 03] … Property proved or counterexample 3

  7. Construction of formal models Technical barriers when model-checking PLC programs 1 2 3

  8. Formal representations Collection of automata 5-tuple { S, Σ, Λ, T, G } : 3 finite sets : states (S) input alphabet (Σ) output alphabet (Λ) a transition function (T : S × Σ → S) an output function (G : S → Λ). Transition relations on variables Equations system: VARn+1 = F(VARn) VARn+1 the set of variables, at the next step of calculus VARn the set of variables, at the current step of calculus Temporal logic statements CTL LTL Real world behavior Construction of formal models PLC Initialization Inputs reading Program execution Outputs updating Process What is the meaning of a state ? Cyclic scheduler Program Variables states Execution state IF O1THENO3 := I3 AND NOT(I4);END_IF; ? Expected and unexpected states and sequences Requirements

  9. Construction of formal models PLC program O1 • O1 := I1 OR I2; • O2 := I3 AND I4; • IF O1 • THEN • O3 := I3 AND NOT(I4); • END_IF; • O4:= RS(O5,I1) • O5 := O2 AND O4; • O1 := NOT(I2 OR I4); I1 O2 I2 O3 I3 O4 I4 O5 PLC scheduler Initial state Case of a PLC program I1=1, I2=0, I3=1, I4=0, O1=0, O2=1, O3=0, O4=0,O5=1 Inputs reading I1=0, I2=0, I3=1, I4=0 I1=0, I2=1, I3=1, I4=0 O1=0 O2=0 O4=1 O5=0 O1=1 Outputs updating I1=1, I2=0, I3=1, I4=0, O1=1, O2=0, O3=0, O4=1,O5=0 I1=1, I2=0, I3=1, I4=0, O1=1,O2=0,O3=0,O4=1,O5=1 PLC cycle 1 PLC cycle 2

  10. Representation construction Features of the considered programs • PLC programs are executed sequentially; • only Boolean variables are used; • internal variables may be included in the program; • only the following statements of the ST language are allowed: • assignment; • Boolean operators defined in IEC 61131-3 standard (NOT, AND, OR, XOR) • function block (FB) (IEC 61131-3 standard or user-made) • control statements, IF and CASE selection statements; • iteration statements (FOR, WHILE, REPEAT) are forbidden; • multiple assignments of the same variable are possible.

  11. Representation construction PLC program Formal model design NuSMV model Global method Static analysis O5 Static dependencies I1 O4 O4 Taking into account execution order O5,i Temporal dependencies I1,i+1 O4,i+1 O4,i

  12. I1,i+1 O1 I1 O1 Static and temporaldependencies construction I2,i+1 I2 I3,i+1 O2,i+1 I3 O2 I4,i+1 I4 I1,i+1 O1 I2,i+1 O3 O3,i O3,i+1 O3 I3 I3,i+1 I4 I4,i+1 O5 O5,i I1 O4 I1,i+1 O4,i+1 O4 O4,i O2 O5 O2,i+1 O5,i+1 O4 O4,i+1 I2 O1 I2,i+1 O1,i+1 I4 I4,i+1 Static dependencies Temporal dependencies

  13. Representation construction Translating ST controllers into NuSMV models:general algorithm BEGIN PLC_prog_TO_NuSMV_model(Pr) FOR each statement Si of Pr: IF Si is an assignment (Vi := expressioni) THEN FOR each variable Vk in expressioni: Replace Vk by the variable pointed out in the temporal dependency (Vk,i or Vk,i+1) ELIF Si is a conditional structure (if cond; then stmt1; else stmt2) FOR each variable Vk in cond: Replace Vk by the variable pointed out in the temporal dependency (Vk,i or Vk,i+1) FOR each variable Vm assigned in Si : Replace Vm assignment by: ”case cond : assignment of Vm in PLC_prog_TO_NuSMV_model(stmt1); !cond : assignment of Vm in PLC_prog_TO_NuSMV_model(stmt2); esac ; ” ASSIGNMENT CONDITION CONDITIONAL STRUCTURE STATEMENT

  14. Representation construction Translating ST controllers into NuSMV models:example Next(I1) := {0, 1}; Next(I2) := {0, 1}; Next(I3) := {0, 1}; Next(I4) := {0, 1}; Next(O2) := Next(I3) & Next(I4); Next(O3) := case Next(I1) | Next(I2) : Next(I3) & !(Next(I4)); !(Next(I1) | Next(I2)) : O3; esac; Next(O4) := case Next(I1) : 0; O5 : 1; 1 : O4; esac; Next(O5) := Next(O2) & Next(O4); Next(O1) :=!(Next(I2) | Next(I4)); + Temporal dependencies From generic models library O5,i I1,i+1 O4,i+1 O4,i

  15. Representation construction Translating ST controllers into NuSMV models: comparison to previous approaches Next(I1) := {0, 1}; Next(I2) := {0, 1}; Next(I3) := {0, 1}; Next(I4) := {0, 1}; Next(O2) := Next(I3) & Next(I4); Next(O3) := case Next(I1) | Next(I2) : Next(I3) & !(Next(I4)); !(Next(I1) | Next(I2)) : O3; esac; Next(O4) := case Next(I1) : 0; O5 : 1; 1 : O4; esac; Next(O5) := Next(O2) & Next(O4); Next(O1) :=!(Next(I2) | Next(I4)); No intermediary variables states No "line_counter" because the execution state is no more useful No "end_of_cycle" variable; one cycle is reduced to only one state

  16. Efficiency assessment PLC program O1 • O1 := I1 OR I2; • O2 := I3 AND I4; • IF O1 • THEN • O3 := I3 AND NOT(I4); • END_IF; • O4:= RS(O5,I1) • O5 := O2 AND O4; • O1 := NOT(I2 OR I4); I1 O2 I2 O3 I3 O4 I4 O5 PLC scheduler Basic example Comparison of the state spaces sizes • state space reduction (about 15 times) • reduction of the maximum distance between states (system diameter) (11 times shorter) • indirect consequence : trace of counterexample reduced

  17. Efficiency assessment Fishertechnik example [Special session at ACC02] • known tested machining line • already written control program • expected behavior known • small scale system • 15 Inputs • 15 Outputs • Comparison of the proof process durations

  18. Conclusions • Efficiency of the representation assessed • Translation of PLC programs • Fully automated • Fast (some seconds or tens of seconds for industrial programs) On-going works • Improvement of the representation efficiency by limiting the number of stored variables • Taking into account integer and real variables • Design of a library of tailor-made function blocks

  19. Efficient representation for formal verification of PLC programs Thank you for attention

  20. State distance • d(1,2) = 1 • d(1,3) = 2 • ... • d(2,1) = 2 • ... • System diameter • SD = max (d(I,j)) = 2 2 3 1 4

More Related