Presentation on theme: "Michelle Harris 407-306-6693 Michelle.L.Harris@lmco.com ATML on LM-STAR® Michelle Harris 407-306-6693 Michelle.L.Harris@lmco.com Alicia Helton 407-306-1592."— Presentation transcript:
1Michelle Harris 407-306-6693 Michelle.L.Harris@lmco.com ATML on LM-STAR®Michelle HarrisAlicia HeltonSteven O’Donnell
2Introduction Implemented a set of ATML schemas on LM-STAR® Schemas used –TestDescription ML (draft 5.0)TestResults ML (version 0.15)Diagnostic MLBayesCommon Element Model (CEM)Dynamic Context Model (DCM – version 0.07)
3Task DefinitionConvert a legacy CASS ATLAS TPS into ATML TestDescription.Use TestDescription as input to the SELEX TPS Wizard™ and generate TestStand™ sequences.Execute the TestStand™ sequences on the LM-STAR®.Collect measured values using ATML TestResults.Interface with diagnostic reasoner to isolate to the fault more quickly and more accurately.
4Initial ApproachUse an externally developed tool to convert ATLAS to Intermediate XMLUse XML tools to transform the Intermediate XML to TestDescriptionTestDescription will provide the “what” to do information for the TPSUse the TPS Wizard™ to generate TestStand™ sequence files capable of being run on LM-STAR®.ATLASIntermediateXMLATML TestDescriptionTestStandSequence Files
5Issues Legacy ATLAS TPS was not designed to maximize portability Intermediate XML generated from ATLAS was very flatDifficult to understand test flow and translate into TestDescriptionLegacy ATLAS TPS didn’t adhere to style guide which would have enforced specific design rulesMultiple fault callout permutations based on data evaluations made without test numbers created problems in the diagnostic model development
6Revised ApproachAn application was developed to extract the “what” to do information from the ATLAS and save it to a spreadsheet.Human intervention verified the information and added missing values.An application was written to convert the spreadsheet to TestDescription.Test2000Test Group1Next on FailDIAGNOSTIC1Next on Pass2010Callout on FailA4High Limit25Low LimitNAComparisonEQUnitsOhmEntry PointNo
7TestDescription Sample <Outcomes><Outcome ID="0_1" value="Passed"/><Outcome ID="0_2" value="Failed"/><Outcome ID=" DIAGN1" value="Failed"><ReplaceComponents><ReplaceComponent uutComponentId="UUT-0"/></ReplaceComponents></Outcome><ReplaceComponent uutComponentId="UUT-1"/>------snipped<Step xsi:type="Step_Test" ID="Step_2" testId="2000"><Results><Result xsi:type="Result_Test" testOutcomeId="2000A"><NextStep stepId="Step_3"/> <! ></Result>Using the information from TestDescription, the Selex TPS Wizard™ builds the frame of the new TPS with initiated variables, test criteria, simulation mode, pre and post conditions, and calls to “how-to” sequences.
8TestDescription to LM-STAR® Needed to create the “how-to” TestStand™ SequencesHighly intensive manual taskSimplified through the use of Custom StepsGraphical interface to LM-STAR® system software
9Diagnostic Model Description Development of Model Model is based off the Bayesian and Common Element Models from the AI-ESTATE standardStored in XML format derived from the AI-ESTATE modelsDevelopment of ModelStart with the fault tree of the TPSUse historical test results and maintenance data to add more intelligence to the ModelLearning algorithms are used to continuously feed back newly discovered test results (in TestResults ML format) and maintenance data
10Diagnostic ReasonerProvides run-time environment for using the diagnostic modelsImplements the AI-ESTATE interface to the diagnostic modelsUses the Dynamic Context Model to track session informationAllows for back-tracking through sessionAllows restart of Session from previous stopping pointProvides a set of “higher-order” interface functions to minimize required calls for accessing model/reasoner dataWeb-service based interface (using WSDL)Utilizes a Bayesian Network Analyzer called SMILEBy Decisions System Laboratory – Univ. of Pittsburgh
11Lessons LearnedOur current process is still heavily dependent on manual intervention.Very time-consumingCurrent legacy TPSs are implemented with tight coupling making it difficult to separate the “what” and “how” informationOther ATML schemas such as UUT Description and TestAdapter could aid in the porting processThey were not mature enough at the time the task startedWould be more cost effective to implement UUT test requirements on new systems as opposed to re-hosting the applicationNot always a one-to-one test mapping from TPS to Diagnostic Model
12ConclusionIndustry needs tools that can generate and consume ATML that could be exported to C, ATLAS etcUsing IEEE-1641 for Signal and Test Definition appears promising and further study by Lockheed Martin is plannedLockheed Martin is embracing ATMLTestResults ML is deployed on LM-STAR® systems supporting the JSF programAs ATML matures, Lockheed Martin is prepared to implement this technology into our legacy and future programs