Design of the distributed architecture of a machine-tool using FIP fieldbus

Song, Dezhen; Divoux, Thierry; Lepage, Francis

doi:10.1109/asap.1996.542820

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The phase margin can then be used to characterizes the degree of tolerance on the total time delay by the sampling mechanism and data transmission. The phase lag due to discretization and additional time delay are summarized as follows [28]: (6) where is the frequency variable, is the sampling time, and is the additional time delay. Due to the integral link between the network and control parameters, the selection of the best sampling rate is a compromise.…”

Section: A Network and Control Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Network architecture and communication modules for guaranteeing acceptable control and communication performance for networked multi-agent systems

Lian

Yook

Tilbury

et al. 2006

IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When sensory and actuation devices in a control system are exchanging data through one common communication medium, the sharing of communication bandwidth will induce unavoidable data latency and might degrade the control performance. Hence, the utilization of communication resource and the requirement of control specification should be analyzed and properly designed when implementing a control system over a network architecture. In this paper, we analyze the performance of information sharing of multiple cooperative agents over one communication network, and propose design methodologies of guaranteeing acceptable control and communication performance in a networked control system. In particular, we study the relationship between the sampling rates of a control system, and the transmission rates of a communication network, and then utilize an integrated networked control design chart to help select design parameters and visualize overall system performance at different sampling and transmission rates. Based on the design parameters selected, the communication modules by utilizing deadband control and state estimation are presented for guaranteeing both control and communication performance. Simulation studies are conducted in a network-and-control simulation tool that is developed on the Matlab/Simulink platform and is used to demonstrate the proposed design methodologies. Both the analysis and simulation results illustrate the characteristics of designing mechanisms between control and communication performance and show the improvement of implementing the proposed communication modules.

show abstract

Section: A Network and Control Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examples of modern complex systems include industrial automation, building automation, office and home automation, intelligent vehicle systems, and advanced aircraft and spacecraft [1]- [6]. The common features of these systems are a large number of devices interconnected together to perform the desired operations, and a large physical area of coverage.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Network architecture and communication modules for guaranteeing acceptable control and communication performance for networked multi-agent systems

Lian

Yook

Tilbury

et al. 2006

IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During network operation, the 6 token bus can dynamically add nodes to or remove nodes from the network. This contrasts with token ring case, where the nodes physically form a ring and cannot be added or removed dynamically 11].…”

Section: Controlnet (Token Passing Bus)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…T frame = N data + N ovhd + N pad + N stu ] 8 T bit : (6) The values N data , N ovhd , N pad , and N stu 3 can be explicitly described for the Ethernet, ControlNet, and DeviceNet protocols 24].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance evaluation of control networks: Ethernet, ControlNet, and DeviceNet

Moyne²,

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The traditional communication architecture for control systems is point-to-point, which has been successfully implemented in industry for decades. However, expanding physical setups and functionality push the limits of the point-to-point architecture. Hence, a traditional centralized point-to-point control system is no longer suitable to meet new requirements, such as modularity, decentralization of control, integrated diagnostics, quick and easy maintenance, and low cost 1]. Network systems with common-bus architectures, called Networked Control Systems (NCSs), provide several advantages such as small volume of wiring and distributed processing. Especially with respect to manufacturing systems, NCS architectures that utilize processing power at each node allow for modularization of functionality and standard interfaces for interchangeability and interoperability. Object-based device models separate generic, device-type speci c from manufacturer-speci c functionality. Many di erent n e t work types have been promoted for use in control systems. In this article, we compare three of them: Ethernet bus (CSMA/CD), Token passing bus (e.g., ControlNet) and Controller Area Network (CAN) bus (e.g., DeviceNet).Distributed systems contain a large number of devices interconnected together to perform the desired operations over a large area of coverage examples include industrial automation, building automation, o ce and home automation, intelligent v ehicle systems, and advanced aircraft and spacecraft 2-6]. Data networks or control networks may be used, depending on the information exchanged. Data networks are characterized by large data packets, relatively infrequent bursty transmission, and high data rates they generally do not have hard realtime constraints. Control networks, in contrast, must shuttle countless small but frequent packets among a relatively large set of nodes to meet the time-critical requirements. The key element that distinguishes control networks from data networks is the capability to support real-time or time-critical applications 7].With NCSs, decisions and control functions (including signal processing) can be distributed among controllers on the network. However, when designing a NCS, a new constraint must be accommodated | the limited bandwidth of the communication network. The e ective bandwidth of a network is de ned as the maximum amount of meaningful data that can betransmitted perunit time, exclusive of headers, padding, stu ng, etc. and the network bandwidth is equal to the numberof raw bits transmitted per unit time. Four factors a ect the availability and utilization of the network bandwidth: the sampling rates at which the various devices send information over the network, the numberof elements that require synchronous operation, the data or message size of the information, and the medium access control sublayer protocol that controls the information transmission 8]. Therefore, to achieve the timing constraints and guarantee the performance of NCSs, network tra c op-2 timization and co...

show abstract

“…Song et al also describe a distributed control architecture over a fieldbus [20]. They describe a multiaxis machine-tool with one processor for the central control (in their example, interpolation) plus another processor for each axis servo control.…”

Section: Fieldbus-based Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decentralized, modular real-time control for machining applications

Yook

Tilbury²,

Chervela³

et al. 1998

Proceedings of the 1998 American Control Conference. ACC (IEEE Cat. No.98CH36207)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to realize the vision of reconfigurable manufacturing systems, the machine tool hardware, as well as the software which controls it, must be constructed in a modular fashion. We envision that each hardware module, be it a single spindle, linear or rotary axis, or a multi-axis grouping, will have its own sensors as well as control hardware and software modules. When a set of modules are grouped together to form a machine, the control task may demand not only certain requirements for individual axes, but also have constraints on the coordination of interacting axes (as in a contouring application). Thus, the axis-level control modules, running on distributed processors with communication over a network, must be coordinated in an appropriate way to ensure that the desired task is completed with the highest possible speed and accuracy. This coordination gives rise to stringent constraints on both the control execution as well as the data communication between control modules.In this paper, we investigate several different architectures for a distributed control system for a reconfigurable machining system. We describe how the control requirements for a manufacturing control system map to temporal constraints on the data managed for the environment. We show how the various time delays associated with distributed architectures impact the performance of the control algorithms, and describe different types of communication protocols that can be implemented to meet the required deadlines.

show abstract

Design of the distributed architecture of a machine-tool using FIP fieldbus

Cited by 8 publications

References 6 publications

Network architecture and communication modules for guaranteeing acceptable control and communication performance for networked multi-agent systems

Network architecture and communication modules for guaranteeing acceptable control and communication performance for networked multi-agent systems

Performance evaluation of control networks: Ethernet, ControlNet, and DeviceNet

Decentralized, modular real-time control for machining applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About