access icon openaccess Execution time analysis and optimisation techniques in the model-based development of a flight control software

This case study analyses the possibilities to improve the execution time of model-based developed software by applying optimisations during code generation and compilation. The present case study is performed on flight control software, for which safety aspects are accounted throughout the development. Therefore, a formally verified compiler is used for the optimisation during the compilation. The optimisation is evaluated by execution time measurements on the target and a static worst-case execution time analysis. Based on the results, recommendations for certain model patterns are given, which impact the worst-case execution time analysis.

Inspec keywords: control engineering computing; formal verification; aerospace computing; program diagnostics; software engineering; aerospace control; program compilers

Other keywords: formally verified compiler; code generation; model-based development; compilation; optimisation techniques; flight control software; static worst-case execution time analysis

Subjects: Control engineering computing; Aerospace engineering computing; Software engineering techniques; Aerospace control; Compilers, interpreters and other processors; Diagnostic, testing, debugging and evaluating systems

References

    1. 1)
      • 19. DO-254: ‘Design assurance guidance for airborne electronic hardware’, April 2000.
    2. 2)
      • 9. MathWorks: ‘Embedded coder users's guide’ (2016).
    3. 3)
      • 40. Wilhelm, R., Lucas, P., Parshin, O., et al: ‘Improving the precision of WCET analysis by input constraints and model-derived flow constraints’, in Chakraborty, S., Eberspächer, J. (Eds.): ‘Advances in real-time systems’ (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012), pp. 123143.
    4. 4)
      • 5. Braun, S., Geiser, M., Heller, M., et al: ‘Configuration assessment and preliminary control law design for a novel diamond-shaped UAV’. Int. Conf. on Unmanned Aircraft, Orlando, FL, May 2014, pp. 10091022.
    5. 5)
      • 25. Karlsson, E., Schatz, S.P., Holzapfel, F., et al: ‘Development of an automatic flight path controller for a DA42 general aviation aircraft’. CEAS EuroGNC, Warsaw, Poland, April 2017.
    6. 6)
      • 6. Kreienfeld, M., Giese, K., Heider, J., et al: ‘Development of a RPV-demonstrator for ATM research’. SCI-269 Symp. on ‘Flight Testing of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)’, Ottawa, Canada, May 2015, pp. 18:118:10.
    7. 7)
      • 16. Görke, S., Riedeling, R., Kraus, F., et al: ‘Flexible platform approach for fly-by-wire systems’. Digital Avionics Systems Conf. (DASC), East Syracuse, NY, October 2013, pp. 2C5-12C5-16.
    8. 8)
      • 12. AMC RPAS.1309: ‘Safety assessment of remotely piloted aircraft systems’, November 2015.
    9. 9)
      • 13. Weber, G., Lammering, T., Thierer, S., et al: ‘The Liebherr fully integrated FCS design – a case study’. Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conf., Los Angeles, CA, August 2013.
    10. 10)
      • 33. DO-248C: ‘Supporting information for DO-178C and DO-278A’, December 2011.
    11. 11)
      • 32. Leroy, X.: ‘The CompCert C verified compiler: documentation and user's manual’ (2016, 2nd edn.).
    12. 12)
      • 17. Alvis, W., Murthy, S., Valavanis, K., et al: ‘FPGA based flexible autopilot platform for unmanned systems’. Mediterranean Conf. on Control Automation, Athens, Greece, June 2007, pp. 19.
    13. 13)
      • 8. ‘Simulink’, https://de.mathworks.com/products/simulink.html, accessed 18 April 2017.
    14. 14)
      • 30. Blazy, S., Leroy, X.: ‘Mechanized semantics for the Clight subset of the C language’, J. Autom. Reasoning, 2009, 43, (3), pp. 263288.
    15. 15)
      • 18. Klenke, R.H., Sleemann IV, W.C., Motter, M.A.: ‘A high-throughput processor for flight control research using small UAVs’. 25th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology and Ground Testing Conf., San Francisco, CA, June 2006.
    16. 16)
      • 2. STANAG 4671 Edition 1: ‘Unmanned aerial vehicles systems airworthiness requirements’, May 2007.
    17. 17)
      • 38. Baufreton, P., Heckmann, R.: ‘Reliable and precise WCET and stack size determination for a real-life embedded application’. ISoLA Workshop On Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation, France, December 2007, pp. 4148.
    18. 18)
      • 4. DeGarmo, M.: ‘Issues concerning integration of unmanned aerial vehicles in civil airspace’ (2004).
    19. 19)
      • 7. Karlsson, E., Schatz, S.P., Baier, T., et al: ‘Automatic flight path control of an experimental DA42 general aviation aircraft’. 14th Int. Conf. on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision, Phuket, Thailand, November 2016.
    20. 20)
      • 23. Kügler, M.E., Holzapfel, F.: ‘Designing a safe and robust automatic take-off maneuver for a fixed-wing UAV’. 14th Int. Conf. on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision, Phuket, Thailand, November 2016, pp. 16.
    21. 21)
      • 10. DO-178C: ‘Software considerations in airborne systems and equipment certification’, December 2011.
    22. 22)
      • 37. AbsInt Angewandte Informatik GmbH: ‘AbsInt advanced analyzer for PowerPC e300 user documentation’, October 2016.
    23. 23)
      • 35. ‘aiT’, https://www.absint.com/ait/, accessed 18 April 2017.
    24. 24)
      • 11. DO-331: ‘Model-based development and verification supplement to DO-178C and DO-278A’, December 2011.
    25. 25)
      • 34. CAST-20: ‘Addressing cache in airborne systems and equipment’, June 2003.
    26. 26)
      • 39. Souyris, J., Le Pavec, E., Himbert, G., et al: ‘Computing the worst case execution time of an avionics program by abstract interpretation’. 5th Int. Workshop on Worst-Case Execution Time (WCET) Analysis, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, July 2005, pp. 2124.
    27. 27)
      • 31. MISRA-C: 2004: ‘Guidelines for the use of the C language in critical systems’, October 2004.
    28. 28)
      • 24. Schatz, S.P., Holzapfel, F.: ‘Modular trajectory / path following controller using nonlinear error dynamics’. Aerospace Electronics and Remote Sensing, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, November 2014, pp. 157163.
    29. 29)
      • 3. Stecklein, J.M., Dabney, J., Dick, B., et al: ‘Error cost escalation through the project life cycle’. 14th INCOSE Int. Symp. Annual, Toulouse, France, June 2004.
    30. 30)
      • 27. ‘Simulink Code Inspector’, https://de.mathworks.com/products/simulink-code-inspector.html, accessed 18 April 2017.
    31. 31)
      • 20. Ermedahl, A., Jakob, E.: ‘Execution time analysis for embedded real-time systems’, in Lee, I., Leung, J.Y.-T., Son, S.H. (Eds.): ‘Handbook of real-time and embedded systems’ (Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, London, 2008), pp. 437455.
    32. 32)
      • 26. Schatz, S.P., Holzapfel, F.: ‘Nonlinear modular 3D trajectory control of a general aviation aircraft’. CEAS EuroGNC, Warsaw, Poland, April 2017.
    33. 33)
      • 28. Hochstrasser, M., Schatz, S.P., Nürnberger, K., et al: ‘Aspects of a consistent modeling environment for DO-331 design model development of flight control algorithms’. CEAS EuroGNC, Warsaw, Poland, April 2017.
    34. 34)
      • 29. Leroy, X.: ‘Formal verification of a realistic compiler’, Commun. ACM, 2009, 52, (7), pp. 107115.
    35. 35)
      • 22. Schneider, V., Holzapfel, F.: ‘Modular trajectory generation test platform for real flight systems’. CEAS EuroGNC, Warsaw, Poland, April 2017.
    36. 36)
      • 15. França, R.B., Favre-Felix, D., Leroy, X., et al: ‘Towards formally verified optimizing compilation in flight control software’. PPES 2011: Predictability and Performance in Embedded Systems, Grenoble, France, March 2011, pp. 5968.
    37. 37)
      • 21. Krause, C., Holzapfel, F.: ‘Designing a system automation for a novel UAV demonstrator’. 14th Int. Conf. on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision, Phuket, Thailand, November 2016, pp. 16.
    38. 38)
      • 1. AC: 23.1309-1E: ‘Advisory circular: system safety analysis and assessment for part 23 airplanes’, November 2011.
    39. 39)
      • 14. Walde, G., Luckner, R.: ‘Bridging the tool gap for model-based design from flight control function design in Simulink to software design in SCADE’. 2016 IEEE/AIAA 35th Digital Avionics Systems Conf. (DASC), Sacramento, CA, September 2016, pp. 110.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-cps.2016.0046
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-cps.2016.0046
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading