Methods for reducing risks and errors in the operation of oil and gas industry intellectual automated systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34185/1562-9945-2-157-2025-05Keywords:
intelligent automated systems, oil and gas industry, verification, coverage verification, testingAbstract
Modern intelligent automated systems (IAS) provide a high level of automation and im-prove the efficiency of production processes in the oil and gas industry. At the same time, the operation of such systems is accompanied by risks and the probability of errors, which can lead to financial losses and emergencies. The article considers the main methods for reducing risks and errors in the operation of IAS in the oil and gas industry, in particular, improving approaches to verification and testing. The application of formal and informal verification methods and modular, integration, and property-based testing in specific IAS systems is in-vestigated. Approaches for measuring structural coverage and optimizing the testing process are identified. The results obtained are aimed at reducing the probability of errors and ensur-ing the system's compliance with industry standards. The study's results confirm the impor-tance of integrating formal methods and testing to ensure the reliability and functionality of the IAS. Formal methods allow you to detect critical errors at the modeling stage, while test-ing, in particular modular and integration, ensures the correctness of the system's operation in real conditions. The application of the proposed approaches helps minimize the risks of accidents and ensures the smooth functioning of the IAS.
References
Cai, Xia & Lyu, Michael. (2005). The effect of code coverage on fault detection under dif-ferent testing profiles. ACM Sigsoft Software Engineering Notes. 30. 10.1145/1082983.1083288.
R. Hametner, B. Kormann, B. Vogel-Heuser, D. Winkler, and A. Zoitl, “Test case genera-tion approach for industrial automation systems,” in The 5th International Conference on Au-tomation, Robotics and Applications, 2011, pp. 57–62
D. Winkler, R. Hametner, T. Östreicher, and S. Biffl, “A framework for automated testing of automation systems,” in 2010 IEEE 15th Conference on Emerging Technologies and Fac-tory Automation (ETFA 2010), 2010, pp. 1–4.
E. M. Clarke, E. A. Emerson, and J. Sifakis, “Model checking: Algorithmic verification and debugging,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 74–84, 200.
P. J. Ramadge and W. M. Wonham, “Supervisory control of a class of discrete event proc-esses,” SIAM J. Control Optim., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 206–230, 1987.
A. Orso and G. Rothermel, “Software testing: A research travelogue (2000–2014),” in Fu-ture of Software Engineering Proceedings, 2014, pp. 117–132.
I. Buzhinsky, C. Pang, and V. Vyatkin, “Formal modeling of testing software for cyber-physical automation systems,” in 2015 IEEE Trustcom/BigDataSE/ISPA, IEEE, vol. 3, 2015, pp. 301–30.
J. Zander, I. Schieferdecker, and P. J. Mosterman, Model-based testing for embedded sys-tems. CRC press, 2017.
X. Rival and K. Yi, Introduction to static analysis: an abstract interpretation perspective. Mit Press, 2020.
A. Sistla, “Safety, liveness and fairness in temporal logic,” Formal Aspects of Computing, vol. 6, Sep. 1999.
M. Dahl, K. Bengtsson, M. Fabian, and P. Falkman, “Guard extraction for modeling and control of a collaborative assembly station,” IFACPapers On Line, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 223–228, 2020, 15th IFAC Workshop on Discrete Event Systems WODES 2020 — Rio de Ja-neiro, Brazil, 11- 13 November 2020, issn: 2405-8963.
O. Grumberg, E. Clarke, and D. Peled, Model checking, 1999.
A. Pnueli, “The temporal logic of programs,” in 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1977), IEEE, 1977, pp. 46–57.
A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. Clarke, and Y. Zhu, “Symbolic model checking without bdds,” in International conference on tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems, Springer, 1999, pp. 193–207.
P. Runeson, “A survey of unit testing practices,” IEEE software, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 22–29, 2006.
G. Fink and M. Bishop, “Property-based testing: A new approach to testing for assur-ance,” SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 74–80, Jul. 1997, issn: 0163-5948.
K. Claessen and J. Hughes, “Quickcheck: A lightweight tool for random testing of haskell programs,” SIGPLAN Not., vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 268– 279, Sep. 2000, issn: 0362-1340.
Hayhurst and D. Veerhusen, “A practical approach to modified condition/decision cover-age,” in 20th DASC. 20th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (Cat. No.01CH37219), vol. 1, 2001, 1B2/1–1B2/10 vol.1.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 System technologies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
