Info: Zenodo’s user support line is staffed on regular business days between Dec 23 and Jan 5. Response times may be slightly longer than normal.

Published February 8, 2016 | Version v1
Conference paper Open

Generic representation of PLC programming languages for formal verification

Creators

  • 1. Budapest University of Technology and Economics, CERN
  • 2. Budapest University of Technology and Economics
  • 3. CERN

Description

Programmable Logic Controllers are typically programmed in one of the five languages defined in the IEC 61131 standard. While the ability to choose the appropriate language for each program unit may be an advantage for the developers, it poses a serious challenge to verification methods. In this paper we analyse and compare these languages to show that the ST programming language can efficiently and conveniently represent all PLC languages for formal verification purposes.

Files

Minisy2016_Darvas.pdf

Files (206.1 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:13669b7511b2f17cf1fd380f8657923d
206.1 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Related works

Is part of
978-963-313-220-3 (ISBN)
10890/1546 (Handle)

References

  • IEC 61131-3:2003 Programmable controllers – Part 3: Programming languages, IEC Std., 2003.
  • B. Fernández et al., “Applying model checking to industrial-sized PLC programs,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1400–1410, 2015.
  • D. Darvas, B. Fernández, and E. Blanco, “PLCverif: A tool to verify PLC programs based on model checking techniques,” in Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Accelerator & Large Experimental Physics Control Systems, 2015.
  • B. Fernández, D. Darvas, J.-C. Tournier, E. Blanco, and V. M. González, “Bringing automated model checking to PLC program development – A CERN case study,” in Proc. of the 12th Int. Workshop on Discrete Event Systems. IFAC, 2014, pp. 394–399.
  • J. Sadolewski, “Conversion of ST control programs to ANSI C for verification purposes,” e-Informatica, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 65–76, 2011.
  • J. Sadolewski, “Automated conversion of ST control programs to Why for verification purposes,” in Proc. of the Federated Conf. on Computer Science and Information Systems. IEEE, 2011, pp. 849–854.
  • A. Sülflow and R. Drechsler, “Verification of PLC programs using formal proof techniques,” in Formal Methods for Automation and Safety in Railway and Automotive Systems. L’Harmattan, 2008, pp. 43–50.
  • N. Bauer, R. Huuck, B. Lukoschus, and S. Engell, “A unifying semantics for sequential function charts,” in Integration of Software Specification Techniques for Applications in Engineering, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2004, vol. 3147, pp. 400–418.
  • C. Böhm and G. Jacopini, “Flow diagrams, Turing machines and languages with only two formation rules,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 366–371, 1966.
  • M. de Sousa, “Proposed corrections to the IEC 61131-3 standard,” Computer Standards & Interfaces, vol. 32, no. 5-6, pp. 312–320, 2010.
  • Siemens, “Standards compliance according to IEC 61131-3,” 2011, http://support.automation.siemens.com/WW/view/en/50204938.
  • Siemens, SIMATIC Ladder Logic (LAD) for S7-300 and S7-400 Programming, 1996, C79000-G7076-C504-02.