Iwsm2014 verifying the accuracy of automation tools for cosmic measurement (hassan soubra)
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•494 views
The document presents a study on verifying the accuracy of automation tools for finite state machine (FSM) measurement. It describes a verification protocol and two case studies applying the protocol. The first case study measures an AUTOSAR-based steer-by-wire system using an automation algorithm. The second case study evaluates 77 Simulink specifications using a prototype tool developed by Renault, ETS, and UVSQ, finding it to be over 98% accurate. The conclusion stresses the importance of independently verifying that FSM automation tools perform as intended.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (14)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (6)
Similar to Iwsm2014 verifying the accuracy of automation tools for cosmic measurement (hassan soubra)
Similar to Iwsm2014 verifying the accuracy of automation tools for cosmic measurement (hassan soubra) (20)
More from COSMIC - Common Software Measurement International Consortium
More from COSMIC - Common Software Measurement International Consortium (12)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Iwsm2014 verifying the accuracy of automation tools for cosmic measurement (hassan soubra)
- 1. Verifying the Accuracy of COSMIC Automation Tools: an AUTOSAR-based Example and a Case Study H. Soubra (ESTACA), A. Abran (ETS), A. Ramdane-Cherif(UVSQ) IWSM MENSURA, October 6-8 2014, Rotterdam
- 2. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Agenda • FSM Automation • A verification protocol for FSM automation accuracy • Case study 1: AUTOSAR example • Case study 2: example from the industry • Conclusion 2
- 3. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Agenda • FSM Automation • A verification protocol for FSM automation accuracy • Case study 1: AUTOSAR example • Case study 2: example from the industry • Conclusion 3
- 4. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Context: FSM Automation • Manual application of FSM is tedious and time-consuming • Especially for organizations with a large number of projects • Not to forget the ‘human’ error factor 4
- 5. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Context: FSM Automation • The Accuracy of the FSM automation tool developed should be independently demonstrated… but 5
- 6. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Context: FSM Automation 6
- 7. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Agenda • FSM Automation • A verification protocol for FSM automation accuracy • Case study 1: AUTOSAR example • Case study 2: example from the industry • Conclusion 7
- 8. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Agenda • FSM Automation • A verification protocol for FSM automation accuracy • Case study 1: AUTOSAR example • Case study 2: example from the industry • Conclusion 8
- 9. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Automation accuracy verification protocol 9
- 10. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Agenda • FSM Automation • A verification protocol for FSM automation accuracy • Case study 1: AUTOSAR example • Case study 2: example from the industry • Conclusion 10
- 11. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Agenda • FSM Automation • A verification protocol for FSM automation accuracy • Case study 1: AUTOSAR example • Case study 2: example from the industry • Conclusion 11
- 12. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif AUTomotive Open System Architecture 1 12 Standardized configuration processes Standardized software architecture Standardized application interfaces Cooperate on standards Compete on implementation
- 13. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif AUTomotive Open System Architecture 2 • System engineering approach with a layered architecture. • Standardization and distribution of functions. • Principle of Reuse and configuration. • http://www.autosar.org/ 13
- 14. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif AUTomotive Open System Architecture 3 • Software is widely independant of Hardware. • Time and costs are reduced due to the simplification of the development processes. • Quality and efficiency are enhanced because of software reuse at OEM and suppliers. 14
- 15. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif A Steer-by-Wire system with AUTOSAR 1 The system provides two main functionalities: rack torque and feedback torque. 15
- 16. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif A Steer-by-Wire system with AUTOSAR 2 16 Run_Sensor TimingEvent 5 ms Run_Command TimingEvent 5ms Run_InterECU_Wheel DataReceivedEvent SteerManager SWC iSensorData_angle iSensorData_torque iInterECUWheel_angle iInterECUWheel_torque SteerSensor_data InterECU_WM_to_SM InterECU_SM_to_WM FeedbackTorque Run_Sensor TimingEvent 5 ms Run_Command TimingEvent 5ms Run_InterECU_Steer DataReceivedEvent WheelManager SWC iSensorData_angle iSensorData_torque iInterECUSteer_angle iInterECUSteer_torque WheelSensor_data InterECU_SM_to_WM InterECU_WM_to_SM RackTorque (To FlexRay Bus) Run_Acquisition TimingEvent 5 ms SteerSensor SWC Run_Acquisition TimingEvent 5 ms WheelSensor SWC (To FlexRay Bus) (From FlexRay Bus) (From FlexRay Bus) Run_Actuator DataReceivedEvent SteerActuator SWC Run_Actuator DataReceivedEvent WheelActuator SWC
- 17. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Functional size of the steer-by-wire system: Measurement detail of the Steer Manager SWC 17 1E 1E 1E 1X 1X 1X 1X 1E 1E 1E 1E 1E 1X 1X Run_Sensor 2E + 2X 4 CFP Run_Command 5E + 2X 7 CFP Run_InterECU_Wheel 1E + 2X 3 CFP
- 18. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Functional size of the steer-by-wire system 18 AUTOSAR SWC Runnable (COSMIC Functional Process) Data group movements identified Functional Process Size (in CFP) SteerManager Run_Sensor 2E + 2X 4 Run_Command 5E + 2X 7 Run_InterECU_Wheel 1E + 2X 3 SteerSensor Run_Acquisition 2E + 1X 3 SteerActuator Run_Actuator 1E + 1X 2 Wheel Manager Run_Sensor 2E + 2X 4 Run_Command 5E + 2X 7 Run_InterECU_Steer 1E + 2X 3 WheelSensor Run_Acquisition 2E + 1X 3 WheelActuator Run_Actuator 1E + 1X 2 Total 38 CFP
- 19. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Automation algorithm for AUTOSAR 19 Identify all Runnables of the application software being measured. triggered by a Timing Event? identify 1E Require Ports(RPort): identify 1E Provide Ports (PPort): identify 1X Read InterRunnableVariables : identify 1E Write InterRunnableVariables : identify 1X Aggregate the identified data group movements to obtain its functional size ForeachRunnable Aggregate the functional sizes of the Runnables identified to obtain the functional size of the software being measured.
- 20. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Agenda • FSM Automation • A verification protocol for FSM automation accuracy • Case study 1: AUTOSAR example • Case study 2: example from the industry • Conclusion 20
- 21. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Agenda • FSM Automation • A verification protocol for FSM automation accuracy • Case study 1: AUTOSAR example • Case study 2: example from the industry • Conclusion 21
- 22. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Case study 2: from the industry 1. Prototype tool: Renault/ETS/UVSQ 2. 77 specifications in Simulink 22 Total Number of Models Total Size obtained manually (CFP) Total Size obtained using the prototype tool (CFP) Difference (%) Accuracy 76 fault-free models 1,729 1,739 Less than 1% >99% All 77 models 1,758 1,791 1.8% >98%
- 23. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Agenda • FSM Automation • A verification protocol for FSM automation accuracy • Case study 1: AUTOSAR example • Case study 2: example from the industry • Conclusion 23
- 24. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Agenda • FSM Automation • A verification protocol for FSM automation accuracy • Case study 1: AUTOSAR example • Case study 2: example from the industry • Conclusion 24
- 25. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Conclusion Is FSM automation helpful? But be careful that your automation tool does what it’s supposed to do…or else… 25
- 26. IWSM/MENSURA 2014 -October 6-8, Rotterdam©2014 Soubra, Abran, Ramdane-Cherif Q & A 26 hassan.soubra@estaca.fr
Editor's Notes
- FSM automation is attractive for organizations using commercial modeling tools for documenting their software functional requirements They should independently demonstrate the accuracy of the FSM automation tool developed
- FSM automation is attractive for organizations using commercial modeling tools for documenting their software functional requirements They should independently demonstrate the accuracy of the FSM automation tool developed
- A: Verify final results? B: Functional Processes? C: Data Group Movements? D: All of the above?
- The AUTOSAR consortium was formally launched in July 2003 by the major automotive companies including automobile manufacturers, suppliers and tool developers. Its main objective is to standardize a large number of ECU software modules in order to benefit from the reuse of these modules It also aims to prepare for the increase in functional scope of E/E systems.
- AUTOSAR has become an important part of production design criteria for many vehicle manufacturers. AUTOSAR ECU software design methodology is gradually replacing the previous one which is decentralized and OEM specific. AUTOSAR is the new generation of ECU software design architecture, methodology and meta-model.
- AUTOSAR ECU software design methodology is gradually replacing the previous one which is decentralized and OEM specific.
- In order to provide these functionalities, a set of 6 SWCs is defined as shown in Fig. 4: the SteerSensor and WheelSensor sensor SWCs; the SteerManager and WheelManager application SWCs; and the SteerActuator and WheelActuator actuator SWCs. The type of the ports used is sender-receiver. Data are acquired at the sensor SWCs level, transformed and then yielded to the 2 application SWCs. Data are also exchanged between application SWCs. Finally, data are sent to the actuator SWCs from the application SWCs.
- Each SWC is composed of one or more Runnables. Fig. 5 shows the Runnables of each of the SWCs of the system. For simplicity’s sake, as the 2 application SWCs are designed in a symmetrical manner, only the description of the SteerManager Application SWC is detailed in this paper. The SteerManager SWC is composed of 3 Runnables: Run_Sensor: This Runnable is triggered periodically with a period of 5 ms. It receives data acquired by the SteerSensor SWC. The data received contain information about the steering angle and torque. Run_Command: This Runnable is also triggered periodically with a period of 5 ms. It implements the steering control algorithm. It has as input, on the one hand, angle and torque data received from Run_Sensor; and on the other hand, the angle and torque of the road wheel data received from Run_InterECU_Wheel. As output, it sends the steer angle InterECU_SM_to_WM (sent on the network bus) and the FeedbackTorque to the WheelActuator SWC. Run_InterECU_Wheel: This runnable is triggered by the reception of the InterECU_WM_to_SM data message via the network bus. This Runnable receives road wheel angle and torque data and then sends data to Run_Command. The SteerSensor (resp. WheelSensor) SWC contains one cyclic Runnable Run_Acquisition with a period of 5ms that sends steering data (resp. wheel sensor data) from the physical sensor to the SteerManager (resp. WheelManager) application SWC. The SteerActuator (resp. WheelActuator) SWC contains one Runnable Run_Actuator that receives FeedbackTorque (resp. Racktorque) data. The sender/receiver communication mode type used for all SWCs is implicit read/write.
- FSM methods (e.g. COSMIC) are applicable at both the beginning of the development process, in the requirements specification phase, and at the end of the project, after implementation for benchmarking studies.
- FSM methods (e.g. COSMIC) are applicable at both the beginning of the development process, in the requirements specification phase, and at the end of the project, after implementation for benchmarking studies.
- There are no AUTOSAR elements that can be mapped to COSMIC Read/Write data group movements because Runnables do not have direct access to the persistent storage, this access being provided by the NVRAM manager module located in the basic software layer
- The automation prototype subject to verification in this case study is a COSMIC automation prototype developed in collaboration with the software engineering research teams at the École de Technologie Supérieure (University of Québec, Canada) and the UVSQ (University of Versailles at St-Quentin en Yvelines, France)