1 / 16

Model-based testing of complex manufacturing systems: A case study

Model-based testing of complex manufacturing systems: A case study. 10th Dutch Testing Day, October 8, 2004 Niels Braspenning Systems Engineering Group, Eindhoven University of Technology. Outline. ASML and Tangram Model-based testing (MBT) MBT framework Case: ASML laser subsystem

burkart
Download Presentation

Model-based testing of complex manufacturing systems: A case study

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. Model-based testing of complex manufacturing systems:A case study 10th Dutch Testing Day, October 8, 2004 Niels Braspenning Systems Engineering Group, Eindhoven University of Technology

  2. Outline • ASML and Tangram • Model-based testing (MBT) • MBT framework • Case: ASML laser subsystem • Conclusions • Future work • Questions

  3. ASML: TWINSCAN Presentation ‘Testing High Technology Developments at ASML’ by Tom Brugman, Dutch Testing Day 2003 Key figures: Supervisory Control (SUN) 10-15 sub-systems (Power PC) Lower level CPUs (firmware) 50 processors 400 sensors, 500 actuators, 12,5 MLOC Language: C (Java, Python, Matlab)

  4. Development activities Test effort Shipment date time Development activities effort Test Shipment date time Tangram

  5. Model-based testing (MBT) • Testing is an operational way to check whether a system implementation is correct • There is a need for unambiguous specifications and for test automation  MBT: • Specification is described in a formal model (unambiguous) • Tests can be generated from this formal model (automation) • However: • Unambiguous specification takes a lot of time (thus modeling also) • Current (worldwide) automatic testing covers small and specific test domains

  6. MBT framework documentation, mental models System interface access formal, suitable input for test tool automatic generation and execution of tests unambiguous description of correct system behavior

  7. communication laser beam Case: laser subsystem • Functional black box testing of laser subsystem • Objectives: • Show applicability of MBT with TorX (RU/UT) within ASML • Show usability of  (TU/e) specification models for MBT • Investigate limitation/shortcomings of the approach

  8. Specification model() Specification model(Promela) EP E model translate validate/verify LP L Mental model Spin convert verification properties TDRV LT TorX = model = tooling = ASML Test model (Trojka, laser only) Test tool Case: approach Informal specification ASML docs validate/verify Test environment Test rack Laser SUT

  9. Case: informal specification • Interface specifications • Operational sequences • State diagrams (Confidential)

  10. Case: specification model • Environment process: • Closed system • Specific traces for analysis • Laser processes: • IO: handle communication • LS: process commands, execute actions, create responses • CLS: hold current laser state • Error handling • Configurable behavior • Initially: Cymer ELS 7600 with laser state behavior only

  11. Case: different models •  • Simulation only • Modeling expressivity (data, time, functions, stochastics, hybrid) • Reasonably easy to modify/configure • Promela • Simulation and verification • Less modeling expressivity (workarounds) • Less easy to modify/configure • Trojka • Testing only (open system) • Same characteristics as Promela

  12. Case: results 1/2 • Validation and verification • Mainly good weather (operational) behavior • Simulation with  and SPIN • Model checking with SPIN • Testing • Also bad weather (exceptional) behavior • Discrepancies are detected by TorX, with different sources: • Documentation, model incompleteness, tooling, SUT

  13. Case: results 2/2

  14. Conclusions • Proof of concept delivered: • Applicability of MBT with TorX within ASML • Usability of  specification models for MBT • Shortcomings/limitations: • Manual translation from  to Promela • Tested functionality is limited due to limited interface access • Problems with data and timing • Error injection in SUT is not possible

  15. Future work • Laser case: • Test more functionality • Test real laser • Tangram: • Direct connection between  and TorX • Extensions for data, timed and hybrid testing • Using simulation models for (early) integration testing • Research in test strategy, test infrastructure, and model-based diagnosis

  16. Questions/discussion

More Related