Iwsm2014 verifying the accuracy of automation tools for cosmic measurement (hassan soubra)

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

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


Agenda

• FSM Automation




• Conclusion

3


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

Why FSM automation?



• The Accuracy of the FSM automation tool developed should be independently demonstrated… but

5

FSM automation Risk ?

How?!?



6

Accuracy verification of Automation tools ?


Agenda

• FSM Automation




• Conclusion

7


Agenda

• FSM Automation




• Conclusion

8


Automation accuracy verification protocol

9


Agenda

• FSM Automation




• Conclusion

10


Agenda

• FSM Automation




• Conclusion

11


AUTomotive Open System Architecture 1

12

Standardizedconfiguration

processes

Standardizedconfiguration

processes

Standardized software

architecture

Standardized software

architecture

Standardized applicationinterfaces

Standardized applicationinterfaces

Cooperate on standards

Compete on implementation



• System engineering approach with a layered architecture.

• Standardization and distribution of functions.

• Principle of Reuse and configuration.

• http://www.autosar.org/

13

http://www.autosar.org/

http://www.autosar.org/



• 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


A Steer-by-Wire system with AUTOSAR 1

The system provides two main functionalities: rack torque and feedback torque.

15


A Steer-by-Wire system with AUTOSAR 2

16

Run_Sensor

TimingEvent5 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

TimingEvent5 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

TimingEvent5 ms

SteerSensor SWC

Run_Acquisition

TimingEvent5 ms

WheelSensor SWC

(To FlexRay Bus)

(From FlexRay Bus)

(From FlexRay Bus)

Run_Actuator

DataReceivedEvent

SteerActuator SWC

Run_Actuator

DataReceivedEvent

WheelActuator SWC


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 CFPRun_Command 5E + 2X 7 CFPRun_InterECU_Wheel 1E + 2X 3 CFP


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 4Run_Command 5E + 2X 7Run_InterECU_Wheel 1E + 2X 3

SteerSensor Run_Acquisition 2E + 1X 3SteerActuator Run_Actuator 1E + 1X 2 Wheel Manager

Run_Sensor 2E + 2X 4Run_Command 5E + 2X 7Run_InterECU_Steer 1E + 2X 3

WheelSensor Run_Acquisition 2E + 1X 3WheelActuator Run_Actuator 1E + 1X 2

Total 38 CFP


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

Fo

r ea

ch R

un

nab

le

Aggregate the functional sizes of the Runnables identified to obtain the

functional size of the software being measured.


Agenda

• FSM Automation




• Conclusion

20


Agenda

• FSM Automation




• Conclusion

21


Case study 2: from the industry

1. Prototype tool: Renault/ETS/UVSQ2. 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%


Agenda

• FSM Automation




• Conclusion

23


Agenda

• FSM Automation




• Conclusion

24


Conclusion

Is FSM automation helpful?

But be careful that your automation tool does what it’s supposed to do…or else…

25


Q & A

26

[email protected]

Iwsm2014 verifying the accuracy of automation tools for cosmic measurement (hassan soubra)

Documents

Transcript of Iwsm2014 verifying the accuracy of automation tools for cosmic measurement (hassan soubra)