Component Specification Validation for Industrial Automation Integration

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Integration of module specifications in industrial automation systems often fails due to insufficient validation, leading to increased engineering effort and potential system failures during site acceptance testing, especially when third-party modules are involved.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method for validating component specifications using invariants such as semantic and structural correctness checks, equipment classification validation, and compatibility analysis, with the ability to recommend remedial actions and improve through reinforcement learning.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If module specifications are integrated without sufficient validation, then integration speed is improved, but system reliability deteriorates due to potential failures during site acceptance testing

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveintegration speedVSAvoidsystem reliability

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements validation of module specifications before integration into the automation system. The validation process checks semantic correctness against IEC 63280 specification and structural correctness against CAEX specification, ensuring that modules are verified in advance to prevent integration failures during site acceptance testing.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies preliminary anti-action by validating module specifications to prevent potential failures before they occur. The validation process identifies and corrects semantic and structural errors in module specifications before integration, thereby preventing system failures during operation.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #9Preliminary anti-action

2Measurement precision

If third-party module specifications are validated manually, then validation thoroughness is improved, but engineering effort increases and integration may be stalled indefinitely

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvevalidation thoroughnessVSAvoidintegration time

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements self-service by enabling automated validation of module specifications using computer-readable code. The system automatically checks semantic correctness against IEC 63280 and structural correctness against CAEX specifications, eliminating the need for manual validation by engineers and preventing indefinite stalling of integration.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces manual mechanical validation processes with automated computational validation. The validation is performed using computer-readable code that automatically checks module specifications against standardized models, substituting human engineering effort with automated systems.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

3Manufacturing precision

If semantic validation of module specifications is performed, then semantic correctness is improved, but validation complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesemantic correctnessVSAvoidvalidation complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies universality by using a standardized IEC 63280 specification model that can validate semantic correctness across different module types and vendors. The same validation framework handles various module specifications uniformly, reducing complexity through standardization rather than requiring custom validation logic for each module.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces an intermediary validation layer that mediates between module specifications and the automation system. The validation process uses intermediate representations (IEC 63280 model and CAEX metamodel) to bridge the gap between diverse module specifications and system requirements, simplifying the validation process.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Manufacturing precision

If structural validation of module specifications is performed, then structural correctness is improved, but validation complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvestructural correctnessVSAvoidvalidation complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies universality by using a standardized CAEX metamodel for structural validation that works across different module types. The same structural validation framework consistently checks module specifications against the metamodel, reducing complexity through uniform application of structural rules.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentEP4123454A1Validating component specifications for industrial automation systems

Publication Date: 2023.01.25 ABB (SCHWEIZ) AG

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

AI summary

There is provided a computer-implemented method for validating a component specification (102) defining at least one component of an industrial automation system, wherein the component specification is arranged in an object-oriented data format. The method comprises: obtaining an invariant specification (104) specifying one or more invariants that must be satisfied for the component specification to be deemed fit for use in conjunction with the industrial automation system; and validating (414) the component specification using the invariants specified in the invariant specification.