Executable Test Generation for Safety-Critical Systems

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing safety-related technical systems, especially in embedded systems like aviation, medical technology, and industrial production, face challenges in efficiently and reliably evaluating their safety and quality due to increasing complexity, which often requires costly and time-consuming error detection and correction processes.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented procedure for generating executable tests that considers a system model, test model, and error model to simulate and evaluate error scenarios, thereby creating more efficient and reliable tests that account for multiple error modes affecting technical components.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If comprehensive testing of all fault scenarios is performed to ensure system safety, then reliability is improved, but cost and time consumption increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem safetyVSAvoidtesting efficiency

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent performs preliminary safety analysis (FMEA, FTA) to identify critical failure modes before test execution. By pre-defining which fault scenarios are most important to test, the system prepares test cases in advance rather than exhaustively testing all possible faults, thus improving efficiency while maintaining reliability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements partial testing by selecting and executing only the most critical test cases based on safety analysis results. Instead of testing all possible fault scenarios (excessive action), it focuses on partial but sufficient testing of high-priority failure modes, reducing cost and time while ensuring essential safety requirements are met.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

2Reliability

If comprehensive testing of all fault scenarios is performed to ensure system safety, then reliability is improved, but time consumption increases significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem safetyVSAvoidtesting time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent performs preliminary safety analysis (FMEA, FTA) to identify critical failure modes before test execution. By pre-defining which fault scenarios are most important to test, the system prepares test cases in advance rather than exhaustively testing all possible faults, thus improving efficiency while maintaining reliability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements partial testing by selecting and executing only the most critical test cases based on safety analysis results. Instead of testing all possible fault scenarios (excessive action), it focuses on partial but sufficient testing of high-priority failure modes, reducing cost and time while ensuring essential safety requirements are met.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

3Measurement precision

If manual safety analysis methods are used, then measurement precision is maintained, but device complexity increases due to manual processes

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveerror detection accuracyVSAvoidanalysis process complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces an automated test case generation system that acts as an intermediary between safety analysis methods and test execution. This automated intermediary processes the results of FMEA and FTA analyses, automatically generates appropriate test cases, and manages test execution, thereby reducing manual complexity while preserving the precision of established safety analysis methods.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces manual mechanical processes of safety analysis and test case creation with automated computational systems. The automated system performs the complex tasks of analyzing safety requirements, generating test cases, and executing tests, thereby reducing human effort and process complexity while maintaining or improving measurement precision through systematic automated analysis.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentEP4538896A1Computer-implemented method for generating at least one executable test

Publication Date: 2025.04.16 SIEMENS AG

Figure 1

AI summary

The invention relates to a computer-implemented method for generating at least one executable test, comprising the steps: a. providing a system model (S1); wherein the system is a technical system with a plurality of technical components; wherein each technical component is a hardware component or a software component; b. providing at least one test model (S2); c. providing a fault model (S3); wherein the fault model defines a predetermined number of at least one fault mode; wherein the at least one defined fault mode is effective simultaneously on at least one technical component of the plurality of technical components of the technical system; d. extending the at least one test model by means of the fault model by the at least one defined fault mode (S4); e.Extending the at least one test model by test data (S5); wherein the test data stimulates at least one sequence in which the at least one defined fault mode is effective in the technical system; f. Extending the at least one test model by at least one expected response to the at least one sequence using the system model (S6); g. Generating the at least one executable test based on the at least one extended test model after the extension (S7); wherein the at least one executable test takes into account the at least one defined fault mode; and h. Providing the at least one executable test (S8). The invention further relates to a technical system and a corresponding computer program product.