Methods of measuring the size and complexity of PLC programs in different logic control design methodologies

Original Article

Abstract

Currently there is a wide variety of logic control design methodologies used in industrial logic design. These methodologies include ladder diagrams, function block diagrams, sequential function charts, and flow charts, but driven by a desire for verifiability, academics are developing additional logic control design methodologies, such as modular finite state machines and Petri nets. Using these, important properties of programs can be verified and some logic can be generated automatically from a part plan. The main contribution of this paper is to define methods for measuring programs written in different methodologies, so that the performance of the methodologies can be compared.

We demonstrate these methods of measurement using four program samples that perform similar functions on the same machine, written in four logic control design methodologies: ladder diagrams, Petri nets, signal interpreted Petri nets and modular finite state machines.

Keywords

Comparison of logic design methods Logic control PLC program complexity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lewis RW (2001) Modeling control systems using IEC 61499. The Institution of Electrical Engineers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nematron logic control software, http://www.nematron.com/OpenControl/Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lewis RW (1988) Programming Industrial Control Systems Using IEC 1131-3 Revised Edition. The Institution of Electrical EngineersGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cassandras CG, Lafortune S (1999) Introduction to discrete event systems. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holloway L (2000) Spectool, http://www.crms.engr.uky.edu/pages/spectool/Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holloway LE, Guan X, Sundaravadivelu R, Ashley J Jr (2000) Automated synthesis and composition of taskblocks for control of manufacturing systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 30(5):696–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park E, Tilbury DM, Khargonekar PP (1999) Modular logic controller for machining systems: Formal representation and performance analysis using Petri nets. IEEE Trans Robot Automat 15(6):1046–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park E, Tilbury DM, Khargonekar PP (2001) A modeling and analysis methodology for modular logic controllers of machining systems using Petri net formalism. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C 31(2):168–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gollapudi C and Tilbury DM (2001) Logic control design and implementation for a machining line test-bed using Petri nets. In: Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (Dynamic Systems and Control Division), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frey G (2001) SIPN, hierarchical SIPN, and extensions. Technical report, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany, http://www.eit.uni-kl.de/litz/members/frey/PDF/I19.pdfGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Minas M, Frey G (2002) Visual PLC-programming using signal interpreted Petri nets. In: Proceedings of the American Control Conference, pp 5019–5024Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klein S, Weng X, Frey G, Lesage J, Litz L (2002) Controller design for an FMS using signal interpreted Petri nets and SFC: validation of both descriptions via model checking. In: Proceedings of the American Control Conference, pp 4141–4146Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klein S, Frey G (2002) Control of a flexible manufacturing system using sipn. Reports of the institute of automatic control i23/2002, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany, http://www.eit.uni-kl.de/litz/members/frey/PDF/I23.pdfGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uzam M, Jones AH, Yücel I (2000) Using a Petri-net-based approach for the real-time supervisory control of an experimental manufacturing system. Int J of Adv Manuf Technol, 16:498–515Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peng S, Zhou M (2001) Conversion between ladder diagrams and PNs in discrete-event control design — a survey. In: IEEE conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp 2682–2687Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lucas MR, Endsley EW, Tilbury DM (1999) Coordinated logic control for reconfigurable machine tools. In: Proceedings of the American Control Conference, pp 2107–2113Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Endsley EW, Lucas MR, Tilbury DM (2000) Software tools for verification of modular FSM based logic control for use in reconfigurable machining systems. Japan–USA Symposium on Flexible AutomationGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shah SS, Endsley EW, Lucas MR, Tilbury DM (2002) Reconfigurable logic control using modular finite state machines: design, verification, implementation, and integrated error handling. In: Proceedings of the American Control Conference, pp 4153–4158Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vankatesh K, Zhou M, Caudill RJ (1994) Comparing ladder logic diagrams and Petri nets for sequence controller design through a discrete manufacturing system. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 41(6):611–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee JS, Hsu PL (2001) A new approach to evaluate ladder diagrams and Petri nets via the if-then transformation. In: IEEE Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp 2711–2716, Tucson, AZGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Halstead MH (1977) Elements of software science. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Conte SD, Dunsmore HE, Shen VY Software Engineering Metrics and Models. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Green TR, Petre M (1996) Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. J Vis Lang Comput 7:131–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tilbury DM (2001) Logic control testbed, http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/˜tilbury/testbedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tim King Electronics, http://www.phoenix.org/tking/index.shtmlGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gilmore DJ, Green TR (1984) Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. Int J Man Mach Stud 21:31–48Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lucas MR, Tilbury DM (2003) A study of current logic design practices in the automotive industry. Int J Hum Comput Stud 59(5):725–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems, Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations