Abstract:
A method for programming a failsafe control system comprises the steps of defining logical interconnections between input signals of the failsafe control system and of assigning interconnection products to output signals of the failsafe control system. The steps of defining and assigning take place on the basis of predefined function-specific program modules, which are selected from a set of such program modules. According to one aspect, each selected program module is uniquely assigned to a defined functional group, with a first functional group containing program modules which pick up input signals of the failsafe control system and provide first interim variables in response thereto, a second functional group containing program modules which logically interconnect the first interim variables to one another and provide second interim variables in response thereto, and a third functional group containing program modules which assign the second interim variables to the output signals of the failsafe control system. A corresponding programming device is also disclosed.

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
   This application is a continuation of copending international patent application PCT/EP02/01205 filed on Feb. 6, 2002 designating the U.S., which PCT application is published in German language and claims priority from German patent application DE 101 08 962.7, filed on Feb. 20, 2001. 

   BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
   The present invention relates to a method of programming a failsafe control system, and in particular to a method of programming a failsafe control system comprising the steps of:
         defining logical interconnections between input signals of the failsafe control system and   assigning interconnection products to output signals of the failsafe control system,       

   with the definition of the interconnections and the assignment taking place on the basis of predefined function-specific program modules, which are selected from a set of such program modules. 
   The invention furthermore relates to a device for programming a failsafe control system, and in particular a device having a first part for selecting and parameterizing predefined function-specific program modules, by means of which logical interconnections can be defined between input signals of the failsafe control system and interconnection products can be assigned to output signals of the failsafe control system. 
   For the purposes of the present invention, a failsafe control system is a unit or a device which picks up the input signals supplied by sensors and generates output signals there from by logical interconnections and, under some circumstances, some further signal- or data-processing steps. The output signals can then be fed to actuators, which specifically effect actions or reactions in the surroundings in response to the input signals. A preferred field of application for such failsafe control systems is in the area of machine safety, and in particular the monitoring of emergency-off buttons, two-hand controls, protective doors or light curtains. Such sensors are used for example to make safe a machine which, when operated, gives rise to a risk to people or property. When the protective door is opened or when the emergency-off button is actuated, a respective signal is generated and fed to the failsafe control system as an input signal. In response to this, the failsafe control system then shuts down the dangerous part of the machine by means of an actuator for example. 
   In contrast to a “normal” control system, it is characteristic of a failsafe control system that, even when a malfunction occurs in it or in a device connected to it, the failsafe control system must always ensure a safe state of the dangerous installation or machine. Therefore, failsafe control systems have to meet extremely high requirements in terms of intrinsic failsafety, which has the consequence of considerable expenditure on development and production. Failsafe control systems generally require special authorization from responsible supervisory authorities before they are used, such as for example in Germany from the employers&#39; liability insurance associations or what is known the TÜV (technical inspection and testing organization). The failsafe control system must in this case conform to predetermined safety standards, which are laid down for example in European Standard EN 954-1. Therefore, a failsafe control system is understood hereafter as meaning a device which conforms at least to safety category 3 of said European standard or an equivalent standard. 
   A programmable failsafe control system offers the user the possibility of individually defining logical interconnections, and if appropriate further signal- or data-processing steps, according to his needs with the aid of software, known as the user program. This results in great flexibility compared to earlier solutions, in which the logical interconnections were produced by defined wiring between various safety modules. One problem in the programming of a failsafe control system is, however, that the user program to be created is itself a safety-critical element, since an error in the user program can cause an uncontrolled situation and consequently a dangerous state in the case of the monitored machine or installation. Additionally, for monitoring of a large machine installation with many safety devices, the user program can become very complex and confusing, which makes it considerably more difficult to ensure the required failsafety. In this case, serious errors in the user program may be caused not only by human error in the programming but also by programming aids which are not failsafe. If, for example, the user program for the failsafe control system is created by means of a non-failsafe, commercially available personal computer (PC), memory errors of the PC could lead unnoticed to serious falsification of the user program. 
   In WO 98/44399, a method is disclosed according to which a commercially available PC can be used to program a safety-oriented control system, i.e. a failsafe control system. For this purpose, function-specific program modules in the form of what are known as software macros are stored in the failsafe control system. To create the user program, the user generates program-module function calls with the aid of the PC, which function calls are subsequently transferred to the failsafe control system. With the aid of the program-module function calls, the required program modules in the failsafe control system are called up and linked to form the actual user program. The programming device, i.e. the PC, merely serves for the purpose of selecting and linking the required program modules. The program modules themselves cannot be changed, and consequently the PC cannot exert any influence on them. 
   The known method simplifies the programming of a failsafe control system. Moreover, a certain safety is additionally achieved by the fact that the program-module function calls transferred to the failsafe control system have to be read back into the programming device and reconfirmed there by the user. However, the known method is not yet optimal with regard to failsafety in the creation of a user program. 
   SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
   It is therefore an object of the present invention to improve a method and a device of the type mentioned at the beginning such as to achieve still greater failsafety in the programming of the failsafe control system. 
   It is another object of the invention to provide a method and a device for programming a failsafe control system with a high degree of convenience and failsafety. 
   According to one aspect of the invention, this object is achieved with a method as mentioned at the beginning, wherein each selected program module is uniquely assigned to a defined functional group, a first functional group containing program modules which pick up input signals of the failsafe control system and, in dependence on them, provide first interim variables, a second functional group containing program modules which logically interconnect the first interim variables to one another and, in dependence on them, provide second interim variables, and a third functional group containing program modules which assign the second interim variables to the output signals of the failsafe control system. 
   According to another aspect of the invention, this object is achieved with a device as mentioned at the beginning which device comprises a further part, which uniquely assigns a selected program module to a functional group, wherein the functional groups are correspondingly defined as for the method mentioned above. 
   Preferably, there is a mandatory assignment of a selected program module to one of the defined functional groups which brings about a very clear and structured programming of the failsafe control system. This has the consequence that the likelihood of errors during programming is reduced. In the case of unstructured programming, for example, it is possible for undetected reactions to be formed between various parts of the generated user program. Such reactions may lead to runtime problems or even to “oscillations”, which have the consequence of an unstable and dangerous state. These sources of error are reduced considerably, if not avoided completely, by the enforced structuring during programming proposed here. Furthermore, on account of the clear and uniform structure, the plausibility checking of the user program created is also simplified. For example, checking whether a program module from the first functional group is allocated to a logic module from the second functional group just by means of a unique interim variable is now easier and consequently also more reliable. 
   In addition, a program structured according to the invention can be maintained, i.e. subsequently changed or extended, more easily, as a result of which sources of error during such activities are also reduced. Furthermore, the predetermined structure also leads to greater clarity during the programming itself, as a result of which the risk of human errors, such as for example forgetting individual interconnections that are required, is likewise reduced. 
   The division into defined functional groups has the overall effect of making the programming more clear and, consequently, even more convenient as well. At the same time, a great advantage of the known method, that is that the programmer relies solely on prefabricated program modules when creating the user program, can be fully retained. The user program is linked here exclusively from checked, failsafe program modules, which likewise reduces sources of error. 
   In a preferred refinement of the invention, each program module is assigned to precisely one of a total of three defined functional groups. 
   In this refinement, the structure during programming is divided into exactly three levels. This corresponds to the natural basic structure of the user programs to be created, in which firstly input signals are picked up (first level), subsequently the picked-up signals are processed (second level) and finally the processing results are also output in order to initiate actions (third level). In this refinement, the programming structure is therefore optimally adapted to the circumstances and is therefore especially simple and clear. The risk of errors during programming is therefore still further reduced. 
   In a further refinement of the invention, each program module of the first functional group evaluates a defined signal source in a failsafe manner. 
   Defined signal sources in this sense are, for example, emergency-off buttons, protective doors and any other sensors which supply safety-relevant signals. The program modules of the first functional group evaluate these sensors independently and therefore supply as a first interim variable failsafe information on the state of the corresponding sensor. The measure has the advantage that the first interim variable has a “physical” meaning, which can be comprehended very well by the programmer of the user program. Therefore, during programming, the structure becomes especially easy to view, as a result of which sources of error are further reduced. 
   In a further refinement of the invention, a program-module function call is generated and stored in a sequence table whenever a program module is selected. 
   This refinement of the invention makes it possible to stationary store prepared and certified program modules in the failsafe control system. The user program created by the programmer with the aid of his programming device can then be restricted to stringing together program-module function calls. Such a user program requires comparatively little storage space and can consequently be transferred to the failsafe control system simply and quickly. It can also be checked more easily. Moreover, as important safety-critical elements, the program modules are withdrawn from access by the programmer. This has the overall effect of further improving both the convenience and the failsafety during programming. 
   In a further refinement of the previously mentioned measure, the program-module function calls are stored in the sequence table separately according to the functional groups. 
   This measure has the advantage that the structure according to the invention is reflected not only in the programming itself but also in the user program thereby generated. As a consequence of this, the user program generated has itself fewer sources of error, as a result of which the failsafety is further improved. 
   In a further refinement of the previously mentioned measure, the program-module function calls are stored in the sequence of the functional groups. 
   In this refinement, consequently, firstly all the program-module function calls of the first functional group, subsequently those of the second functional group and finally those of the third functional group are stored. The measure has the advantage that the sequence of the program-module function calls implements an optimum time sequence already during the creation of the user program, which further increases the failsafety. 
   In a further refinement of the invention, the program modules are represented by means of graphic symbols on a graphic user interface. 
   Due to this measure, it is possible to make the actual programming operation especially easy to view and clear, as a result of which sources of error caused by human failure or carelessness are reduced considerably. The failsafety is again considerably increased. 
   In a further refinement of the previously mentioned measure, the program modules are selected by means of a drag &amp; drop function. 
   A drag &amp; drop function is already known per se from graphic user interfaces of commercially available PCs. In this case, an element is marked with an input device, for example with the aid of what is known as a mouse, and then dragged or copied with the aid of the input device to a desired point. Such a type of selection is very simple and convenient for the programmer. As a consequence of this, operator errors and resultant sources of error during programming are further reduced considerably. 
   In a further refinement of the invention, the functional groups are also represented by means of graphic symbols on a graphic user interface. 
   The ease of viewing and clarity during programming is also considerably improved by this measure, since the structure according to the invention is visually displayed directly for the programmer. The risk of errors is further reduced on account of the visual control which is thereby directly possible. 
   In a further refinement of the method according to the invention, the representation of a selected program module on the user interface is generated from a stored, associated program-module function call. The corresponding device according to the invention therefore has a memory for storing a program-module function call in dependence on a selected program module and also a display unit, which generates a representation of the selected program module in dependence on the stored program-module function call. 
   In this refinement of the invention, a selected program module is visually displayed on the user interface only indirectly. Firstly, the associated program-module function call is stored, to be precise in the format in which it is later fed to the failsafe control system. Only subsequently is the representation of the selected program module generated from the stored program-module function call. The programmer is therefore always provided with a visual display of the program-module function calls actually stored and can consequently recognize directly whether what is stored coincides with what he has specified. Consequently, a check is kept here on the stored program-module function calls directly during selection, as a result of which errors during programming are again reduced considerably. Moreover, there is no longer any need for further control checks on the stored program-module function calls, as an overall result of which the programming is possible very simply and conveniently with a high level of failsafety. 
   In addition, the measure has the advantage that the programmer can graphically document the created user program very simply. Therefore, later care of the user program is possible very much more simply and with greater failsafety. 
   It goes without saying that the features mentioned above and still to be explained below can be used not only in the combination respectively indicated but also in other combinations or on their own without departing from the scope of the present invention. 

   
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING 
     Exemplary embodiments of the invention are explained in more detail in the following description and are represented in the appended drawings, in which: 
       FIG. 1  shows a schematic representation of an embodiment of a device according to the invention in conjunction with a failsafe control system to be programmed, and 
       FIG. 2  shows a simplified representation of a graphic user interface of the device of  FIG. 1  for programming the failsafe control system. 
   

   DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
   In  FIG. 1 , a device according to the invention is designated overall by reference numeral  10 . 
   Device  10  comprises a conventional PC  12  with a monitor  14 , on which a computer program  16  is executed. The computer program  16  permits the creation of a user program for a failsafe control system. It is therefore often referred to as a programming tool in technical terminology. 
   The failsafe control system to be programmed is designated in  FIG. 1  by reference numeral  18 . It is constructed in a two-channel, redundant manner to achieve the required failsafety for controlling safety-critical processes. Shown in  FIG. 1  as representative of the two-channel redundancy are two processors  20 ,  22 , which are separate from each other and which are connected to each other via a bidirectional communication interface  24 , to allow them to keep a check on each other and exchange data. The two channels of the failsafe control system  18  and the two processors  20 ,  22  are preferably constructed with diversity, i.e. differently from each other, in order to substantially exclude systematic errors. 
   Reference numeral  26  designates an input/output unit, which is in connection with each of the two processors  20 ,  22 . The input/output unit picks up input signals  28  from external sensors  30  and passes them on in an adapted data format to each of the two processors  20 ,  22 . Furthermore, in dependence on the processors  20 ,  22 , the input/output unit generates output signals  32 , with which actuators  34  are activated. The sensors  30  are, for example, emergency-off buttons, two-hand controls, protective doors, rotational-speed monitoring devices or other sensors for picking up safety-relevant parameters. The actuators  34  are, for example, what is known as contactors, with which the power supply of a drive or of a complete machine can be switched off. 
   Reference numeral  36  designates a chip card, on which a user program  38  is stored. The user program  38  is created with the aid of the device  10 , and it establishes the control tasks to be carried out by the failsafe control system  18 . The use of a chip card  36  as a storage medium in this case permits a simple exchange of the user program  38  even without direct connection to the device  10 . As an alternative to this, the user program  38  may also be stored in a memory permanently installed in the failsafe control system  18 , for example an EEPROM. 
   The computer program  16  provides a user interface, explained in more detail below, on a monitor  14  of the PC  12 . The user interface makes it possible for a programmer to select and parameterize predefined function-specific program modules, which for their part are permanently stored in the failsafe control system  18 . However, the programmer can only select the individual program modules and combine them with one another, he cannot himself change them. 
   The selection and parameterizing of the predefined program modules is symbolized in  FIG. 1  by a function block  40 . Once the programmer has selected and, if appropriate, parameterized a desired program module, it is stored in a memory  42  of the PC, to be precise in the format of the failsafe control system  18 . “In the format of the failsafe control system” means in this case that a program-module function call which is later fed in this form to the chip card  36  is generated and stored. The stored program-module function call represents a program command in the user program  38 . 
   According to the exemplary embodiment represented here, the computer program  16  generates with the aid of the function block  44  from the stored program-module function call a symbolic representation of the corresponding, associated program module on the user interface of the PC  12 . For the programmer this means that he selects a program module in the manner explained in more detail below, and it follows solely from the fact that the desired selection is visually displayed to him that the correct associated program-module function call was stored in the memory  42 . 
   When the programmer has selected and, if appropriate, parameterized all the program modules required for his user program, the complete user program is in the memory  42 . It is preferably additionally protected there by a CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check). The user program can then be transferred from the memory  42  with the function block  46  in a way known per se to the chip card  36 . By protecting it with the CRC, it is thereby ensured that the user program stored on the chip card  36  coincides exactly with the user program previously generated and stored in the memory  42 . 
   During the transfer, the chip card  36  may be inserted in the failsafe control system  18 , which requires a corresponding communication connection between the PC  12  and the failsafe control system  18 . As an alternative, the user program  38  may also be written to the chip card  36  by means of a loading unit known per se (not represented here). The failsafe control system  18  is then supplied with the user program  38  by simple insertion of the written chip card  36 . 
   According to a further preferred embodiment of the invention, the two processors  20 ,  22  run the user program  38  diversely. This can take place for example with the aid of functionally identical, but different program modules, which are activated by a uniform program-module function call. A comparison of the respective results between the two processors  20 ,  22  then permits failsafe checking of the user program  38 . In this way it is possible to make the user program  38  more failsafe, without individually checking all the conceivable combinations of the program modules that are available. 
   In  FIG. 2 , a graphic user interface which presents the computer program  16  to the programmer on the monitor  14  is designated overall by the reference numeral  50 . 
   The user interface  50  comprises a programming area  52 , which, according to the preferred exemplary embodiment of the invention represented here, is graphically divided into three separate functional groups  54 ,  56 ,  58 . Outside the programming area  52 , a set  60  of selectable program modules  62 ,  64 ,  66 ,  68 ,  70 ,  72  is represented in the form of graphic symbols. The selection of one of these program modules takes place by moving the corresponding symbol with the aid of a drag &amp; drop function into the functional group provided for it of the programming area  52 , as represented by way of example by an arrow  74 . Program modules selected in this way are designated by way of example by the reference numerals  76 ,  78 ,  80 . 
   The program modules  62 – 72  available for selection can be roughly divided into three different types, which correspond to the three defined functional groups  54 ,  56 ,  58 . The functional group  54  receives program modules  62 – 68 , which independently evaluate a defined signal source, i.e. a defined sensor  30 , in a failsafe manner. The program modules  62 – 68  are accordingly referred to as sensor modules here. Each sensor module  62 – 68  is adapted to a specific type of sensor, such as for example to an emergency-off button, a protective door or two-hand control. The sensor module  62  is, for example, a program module for the failsafe evaluation of a signal source with two redundant normally open contacts and with a monitored start. Sensor module  64  serves for example for the failsafe evaluation of a signal source with a normally open contact and a normally closed contact and also with a non-monitored start. Sensor module  66  serves for example for the evaluation of a signal source with only a normally closed contact. Further sensor modules  68  serve for the evaluation of signal sources with semiconductor outputs, such as for example light barriers. Altogether, the set  60  comprises sensor modules for all sensors  30  coming into consideration. 
   The sensor modules  62 – 68 , which can be assigned to the first functional group  54 , receive as input parameters the input signals  28  of the sensors  30 . As transfer parameters, they provide first interim variables, which are referred to as markers in technical terminology. In the representation given by way of example in  FIG. 2 , the markers M 1 , M 2  and M 3  are represented as first interim variables at the outputs of a total of three selected sensor modules. 
   The functional group  56  serves exclusively for receiving program modules which logically connect the first interim variables to one another and, in dependence on this, provide second interim variables. In the representation in  FIG. 2 , the two markers M 1  and M 2  are connected for example by a logical AND. The markers M 2  and M 3  are connected by a logical OR. At the outputs of the corresponding program modules, the second interim variables M 4  and M 5  are then available. 
   In addition to the logic modules shown here, the second functional group  56  also serves for receiving other program modules, which further process the first interim variables to form second interim variables, such as for example negations or time delays. 
   The third functional group  58  serves for receiving what are known as actuator modules, i.e. those program modules which generate output signals for the activation of the actuators  34  from the second interim variables. In  FIG. 2 , the actuator module  80  serves for example for the activation of two redundant contactors, with which the power supply of a monitored drive can be switched off in a two-channel and consequently failsafe manner. 
   The creation of the user program  38  for the failsafe control system  18  takes place by selecting and linking the desired program modules  62 – 72 . With the selection of a desired program module, the computer program  16  generates a correspondingly associated program-module function call, which is stored in the memory  42  in a so-called sequence table. For the programming operation represented by way of example in  FIG. 2 , the following sequence table is thereby obtained: 
   
     
       
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
           
         
             
                 
             
             
                 
               Module 
               Output 
               Output 
               Input 
               Input 
               Input 
             
             
               Line 
               type 
               1 
               2 
               1 
               2 
               3 
             
             
                 
             
           
           
             
               1 
               Sensor 
               M1 
               — 
               E 1.1 
               E 1.2 
               Start 1 
             
             
                 
               type 1 
             
             
               2 
               Sensor 
               M2 
               — 
               E 2.1 
               E 2.2 
               Start 2 
             
             
                 
               type 2 
             
             
               3 
               Sensor 
               M3 
               — 
               E 3.1 
               — 
               — 
             
             
                 
               type 3 
             
             
               4 
               AND 
               M4 
               — 
               M1 
               M2 
               — 
             
             
               5 
               OR 
               M5 
               — 
               M2 
               M3 
               — 
             
             
               6 
               Actuator 
               A 4.0 
               A 4.1 
               M4 
               — 
               — 
             
             
                 
               type 1 
             
             
               7 
               Actuator 
               A 4.2 
               — 
               M5 
               — 
               — 
             
             
                 
               type 2 
             
             
                 
             
           
        
       
     
   
   In the “Module type” column, the respective program-module function call appears in a coding which can be read by the failsafe control system  18 . In the columns which follow, the transfer parameters are given which the correspondingly called program module receives and returns. 
   According to a particularly preferred exemplary embodiment of the invention, the computer program  16  arranges the individual program-module function calls in the sequence table in chronological sequence, i.e. in the sequence of the three functional groups  54 ,  56 ,  58 . Consequently, the structure which is already obtained during programming on account of the graphic user interface  50  is continued in the user program  38  that is ultimately generated and used. Consequently, a clearly divided and structured user program  38  is produced. 
   In preferred exemplary embodiments of the invention, the user program  38  is always protected by a CRC when it is transferred from the memory  42  onto the chip card  36 . In this way, falsification of the user program during the transfer to the chip card  36  can be reliably detected and if need be prevented.