ECU Testing Method Combining Segmented Function Groups

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current methods for testing control devices in vehicles, ships, and aircraft do not adequately assess combinatorial coverage of safety functions, leading to misinterpretation of test quality and potential operational risks due to the sequential execution of tests, which focus on individual requirements rather than interdependent functions.

Innovation Solution

A method that divides functions into groups, tests their connections, and combines results to provide a comprehensive combinatorial test outcome, ensuring coverage of safety functions and identifying potential weak points by linking individual and safety-relevant functions.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If functions are tested individually and sequentially, then testing simplicity and ease of operation are improved, but combinatorial coverage and reliability of safety functions deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetesting simplicityVSAvoidsafety function coverage
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments functions into groups (e.g., safety-relevant functions vs. other functions) and tests them individually first, then combines results. This maintains operational simplicity while enabling comprehensive safety assessment through systematic grouping and combination of test results.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent merges individual test results with combinatorial relationships to generate combined test results. By combining results from different function groups and analyzing their interdependencies, the system achieves comprehensive safety coverage without requiring entirely new complex testing procedures.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

2Loss of time

If individual requirements are tested sequentially, then test execution time and simplicity are improved, but combinatorial coverage and detection of interdependent failures deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetest execution timeVSAvoidcombinatorial coverage information
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of timeVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent performs preliminary individual testing of functions and groups them systematically before generating combined results. This preliminary action establishes individual test results that can be efficiently combined later, avoiding the need to re-test everything in combination and thus managing test execution time while capturing combinatorial information.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent uses feedback from individual test results to generate combined test results. By analyzing the relationships between individual function test outcomes, the system derives combinatorial coverage information and identifies interdependent failures, effectively recovering lost combinatorial information from sequential test execution.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Device complexity

If functions are tested in isolation, then testing complexity and ease of operation are improved, but assessment of interdependent failures and safety quality deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetesting complexityVSAvoidsafety quality measurement
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments functions into distinct groups (safety-relevant and other functions) and tests them in isolation first. This segmentation maintains low testing complexity while enabling precise safety quality measurement through systematic combination of results that reveals interdependent relationships.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent adds a combinatorial dimension to traditional individual function testing. By combining individual test results across function groups and analyzing their interdependencies, the system achieves precise safety quality measurement without fundamentally changing the simplicity of individual tests.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

Data Source

PatentEP4092535B1Control device testing method
Publication Date: 2024.04.03 VOLKSWAGEN AG
  • EP4092535B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4092535B1 patent drawingFigure 2~3
  • EP4092535B1 patent drawingFigure 4~5

AI summary

The invention relates to a method for testing electronic control units (ECUs), a computer program (10), and a computer program product (14). Furthermore, a test circuit (16), a corresponding test device (18), and a vehicle (20) are presented. The invention also describes the use of the presented method in a mechanical test procedure. The method for testing ECUs is designed to include the following: Functions to be tested are divided into different groups. After each of these functions has been tested individually, the respective functions are combined with other related functions to ultimately provide a higher-level result.