Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 31, Supplement 1, pp 223–232 | Cite as

Earliest deadline first scheduling technique for different networks in network control system

  • C. T. KalaivaniEmail author
  • N. Kalaiarasi
S.I. : Machine Learning Applications for Self-Organized Wireless Networks


The idea of this research is to determine the best network providing the reduced network time delay in network controlled system (NCS). NCS tackles robust and nonlinear processes that are time-varying or the requirements for the control change with the operating conditions using earliest deadline first (EDF) scheduling technique. It is very useful for minimizing the effects of parameter variations with respect to the process dynamics. The main advantage of applying EDF is that the parameters of the controller can be changed according to deadline along with the process changes. The main limiting factor is that auxiliary measurement should respond quickly to the process change. By applying the EDF algorithm in NCS schemes, the control of the two-tank water-level system is simulated using PID controllers and the control via Internet is simulated with the constant time delays and time-varying delay conditions. The drawbacks of NCS are network-induced delay, packet losses, bit errors, time-varying random transmission delay, lack of synchronization between devices, bandwidth limitations and integration of the modules. As the EDF scheduling approach is based on the mean time-delay parameters, they shift from one set to another when the mean time delay changes from one set to another. Therefore, time-delay issues are reduced by this algorithm. In this research work, the main challenge network-induced delay is reduced by scheduling technique and suitable network for PID control for EDF scheduling is determined among CAN, Ethernet, Switched Ethernet, TDMA and FDMA. CAN and Ethernet have the minimum of 1 ms network-induced time delay when compared with Switched Ethernet, TDMA and FDMA under overload condition. The integral of absolute error is employed to measure the quality of control of each control loop value for EDF scheduling 0.00354 and processor utilization is estimated as U = 0.12.


Scheduling Network control system PID controller Time delay 


  1. 1.
    Gupta RA, Chow M-Y (2010) Networked control system: overview and research trends. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 57(7):2527–2535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jacobson V (1988) Congestion avoidance and control. In: ACM Sigcomm ‘88, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li Q, Mills DL (2001) Jitter-based delay-boundary prediction of wide-area networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 9(5):578–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choi BY, Moon S, Zhang ZL, Papagiannaki K, Diot C (2007) Analysis of point-to-point packet delay in an operational network. Comput Netw 51(13):3812–3827CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moon SB, Skelly P, Towsley D (1999) Estimation and removal of clock skew from network delay measurements. In: Proceedings of the eighteenth annual joint conference of the IEEE computer and communications societies, vol 1, pp 227–234Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang L, Gao H, Kaynak O (2013) Network-induced constraints in networked control systems—a survey. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 9(1):403–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mazo M, Tabuada P (2008) On event-triggered and self-triggered control over sensor/actuator networks. In: Proc. IEEE conf. decision control, pp. 435–440Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li Q, Mills D (1999) Investigating the scaling behavior, crossover and anti-persistence of Internet packet delay dynamics. In: Proceedings of IEEE globalcom, Rio de Janeiro, vol 3, pp 1843–1852Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li Q, Mills DL (1998) On the long-range dependence of packet round-trip delays in Internet. In: IEEE international conference on communications, vol 2, pp 1185–1191Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bolot JC (1993) End-to-end packet delay and loss behavior in the Internet. ACM SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 23(4):289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bovy C, Mertodimedjo H, Hooghiemstra G, Uijterwaal H, Van Mieghem P (2002) Analysis of end-to-end delay measurements in Internet. In: Passive and active measurement, pp 26–33Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tang L, Zhang H, Li J, Li Y (2006) End-to-end delay behavior in the internet. In: 14th IEEE international symposium on modeling, analysis, and simulation of computer and telecommunication systems, pp 373–382Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang W, Branicky MS (2001) Stability of networked control systems with time varying transmission period. In: Allerton conf. communication, control, and computing, Urbana, October 2001Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vilanova R (2006) Revisiting IMC based design of PI/PID controllers for FOPTD models. In: IEEE conference on emerging technologies and factory automation, pp 862–869Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vilanova R (2008) IMC based robust PID design: tuning guidelines and automatic tuning. J Process Control 18(1):61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tipsuwan Y, Chow MY (2010) Gain scheduler middleware: a methodology to enable existing controllers for networked control and teleoperation-part I: networked control. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 51(6):1218–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tipsuwan Y, Chow M (2004) On the gain scheduling for networked PI controller over IP network. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 9(3):491–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kalaivani CT, Kalaiarasi N (2014) Rate monotonic scheduling analysis for stability constraints in network control system. IOSR J Electr Electron Eng (IOSR-JEEE) 9(3):30–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quevedo DE, Welsh JS, Goodwin GC, McLeod M (2006) Networked PID control. In: IEEE international conference on control applications, pp 1695–1700Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saveetha Engineering CollegeAnna UniversityChennaiIndia
  2. 2.RMK College of Engineering and TechnologyChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations