Automatic transformation of logic models within engineering of embedded mechatronical units

  • Arndt Lüder
  • Elisabet Estévez
  • Lorenz Hundt
  • Marga Marcos
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Engineering of manufacturing systems is one of the most important aspects within the life cycle of manufacturing systems in terms of cost. Within the engineering process, several engineering activities are executed by different experts commonly using specific tools for the design of the different parts of the system. To reduce engineering costs beneath, two main approaches arise. The first is based on the use of libraries of mechatronical units as reusable artifacts. In this case, manufacturing systems are represented as a hierarchy of mechatronic units. The second option is to achieve the seamless connection of the different engineering tools exploiting a common data exchange format. This latter approach allows avoiding both double engineering and faults within the engineering process. Within this paper, a novel approach combining both options is proposed, and its effects are analyzed through an example. It considers the application of mechatronical units within the engineering process of manufacturing systems as well as a common data exchange format for the logic information required for designing the control system within the engineering of manufacturing systems. The latter provides a data exchange format for the overall engineering process, including not only model information exchange but also its embedding. This paper discusses the benefits of the data exchange format for logic models in detail.

Keywords

AutomationML PLCopen Mechatronical units Model transformation Heterogeneous design support 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    El Maraghy HA (2005) Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms. Int J Flex Manuf 17(2005):261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schäfer C (2007) On the modularity of manufacturing systems. IEEE Ind Electron Mag Fall 2007:20–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lüder A, Barth H, Hundt L, Baumbach P, Wagner T (2009) Modellierung und datenaustausch im engineering von produktionssystemen, Magdeburger Maschinenbautage 2009, Proceedings (in German)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wagner T, Schertl A, Elger J, Vollmar J (2008) Evolution of effectiveness and impact of decentralized automation. 13th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, ETFA 2008, September 2008, Proceedings, pp. 1128–1135Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Verlag VDI (2009) Verein deutscher ingenieure: VDI richtlinie 3695–Engineering von Anlagen–Evaluieren und Optimieren des Engineerings, (German industrial recommendation)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drath R, Lüder A, Peschke J, Hundt L (2008) AutomationML—the glue for seamless automation engineering, 13th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, ETFA 2008, September 2008, Proceedings, pp. 616–623Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engels G, Küster J, Heckel R, Lohmann M (2003) Model-based verification and validation of properties, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Volume 82, Issue 7, June 2003, pages 133–150, UNIGRA’03, Uniform Approaches to Graphical Process Specification Techniques Satellite Event for ETAPS 2003Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Missal D, Hirsch M, Hanisch H-M (2007) Hierarchical distributed controllers—design and verification, IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, ETFA´2007, Patras, Greece, September 2007, Proceedings pp 657–664Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hegny I, Zoitl A (2010) Component-based simulation framework for production systems, IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, ICIT 2010, Vina del Mar, Chile, March 2010, Proceedings, pp 1017–1022Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kiefer J, Manns M, Wack K-J (2010) Cross-functional digital production validation framework for automotive industry 43rd CIRP International Conference on Manufacturing Systems Sustainable Production and Logistics in Global Networks, Vienna, Austria, May 2010, Proceedings, pp 779–808Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Linhares MV, de Oliveira RS, Farines J-M, Vernadat F (2007) Introducing the modeling and verification process in SysML, IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation , ETFA´2007,Patras, Greece, September 2007, Proceedings, pp 344–351Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Drath R, Miegel V (2009) AutomationML verbindet Werkzeuge der Anlagenplanung, ATP, 2009, Heft 7. (in German)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hundt L, Drath R, Lüder A, Peschke J (2008) Seamless Automation Engineering with AutomationML, 14th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising (ICE2008), June 2008, ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Automation ML (2009) Website: www.automationml.org
  15. 15.
    Harashima F, Tomizuka M, Fukuda T (1996) Mechatronics,—what is it, why, and how? An Editorial, IE-EE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 1, 1996, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tomizuka M (2002) Mechatronics from 20th to 21st century. Control Eng Pract 10(2002):877–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Habib MK (2007) Mechatronics—a unifying interdisciplinary and intelligent engineering science paradigm, IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine, vol. 1, I. 2, 2007, pp 12–24Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schäfer W, Wehrheim H (2007) The challenges of building advanced mechatronic systems: International Conference on Software Engineering, ISCE 2007, Workshop on the Future of Software Engineering, FOSE 2007, May 23–25, 2007, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2007, pp 72–84Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thramboulidis K (2007) Model-integrated mechatronics—toward a new paradigm in the development of manufacturing systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 1(1):54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alznauer R, Auer K, Frey A (2003) Wiederverwendung von Automatisierungsinformationen und Lösungen, atp—Automatisierungstechnische Praxis, March 2003, pp. 31–35 (in German)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    VDI (2004) Verein Deutscher Ingenieure: VDI Richtlinie 2206—Entwicklungsmethodik für mechatronische Systeme, VDI Verlag, June 2004 (German industrial recommendation)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kiefer J (2007) Mechatronikorientierte Planung automatisierter Fertigungszellen im Bereich Karosseriebau, PhD Thesis, 2007, Universität des Saarlandes, Schriftenreihe Produktionstechnik Band 43 (in German)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    PABADIS’PROMISE (2008) White Paper—industrial application of PABADIS’PROMISE System, available at: http://www.pabadis-promise.org, last access August 2009
  24. 24.
    Wagner T, Haußner C, Elger J, Löwen U, Lüder A (2010) Engineering processes for decentralized factory automation systems, within InTech Buch. Available at: http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/engineering-processes-for-decentralized-factory-automation-systems, last access September 2010
  25. 25.
    Maga C, Jazdi N, Ehben T, Tetzner T (2009) Domain Engineering—Mehr Systematik im industriellen Lösungsgeschäft, Automation 2009, Baden-Baden, 2009, (in German)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wünsch D, Lüder A, Heinze M (2009) Flexibility and re-configurability in manufacturing by means of distributed automation systems—an overview, in H. Kühnle (Editor): Distributed Manufacturing, Springer-Publisher, London, 2009, ISBN 978-1-84882-706-6Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pilone D, Pitman N (2005) UML 2.0 in a Nutshell, Sebastopol, CA; O'Reilly MediaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lüder A, Hundt L, Biffl S (2009) On the suitability of modeling approaches for engineering distributed control systems, 7th International IEEE Conference on Industrial Informatics,INDIN2009, June 2009, Cartiff, United Kingdom, Proceedings, pp 440–445Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    PLCopen XML (2008). PLCopen Consortium: Technical Paper PLCopen Technical Committee 6 XML Formats for IEC 61131-3, http://www.plcopen.org, last access August 2009.
  30. 30.
    IEC (2003) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC International Standard IEC 61131-3:2003, “Programmable Controllers, Part 3: Programming Languages”Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Apache, (2008). Apache Cocoon Project, available at: http://cocoon.apache.org/, last access June 2009
  32. 32.
    Andrew Troelsen (2007). “Pro C# 2008 and the .NET 3.5 Platform, Fourth Edition (Windows.Net)”. Apress, ISBN: 1590598849. 2007Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sharp J, Longhaw A, Roxburgh P (2003) “Microsoft Visual J# .NET”, Microsoft press, 2003Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Apache Software Foundation (2003) WebSite: http://ant.apache.org/
  35. 35.
    Matzke B (2003) ANT—the Java build tool in practice. Charles River Media, INC. ISBN: 1-58450-248-7. 2003Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Drath R (Editor) (2010) Datenaustausch in der Anlagenplanung mit AutomationML, Springer Verlag, 2010, (in German)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    KW Software (2010): MULTIPROG®: Modern and powerful IEC 61131 programming, www.kw-software.com/com/, last access September 2010

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arndt Lüder
    • 1
  • Elisabet Estévez
    • 2
  • Lorenz Hundt
    • 1
  • Marga Marcos
    • 2
  1. 1.Fakulty Mechanical EngineeringOtto-v.-Guericke UniversityMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.Departamento de Ingeniería de Sistemas y Automática, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería de BilbaoUniversidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)BilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations