Advertisement

A structural approach to the non-blocking supervisory control of discrete-event systems

  • Lei Feng
  • Kai Cai
  • W. M. Wonham
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Many practical and important systemic properties of manufacturing systems, like deadlock freeness, liveness, and reversibility, can be formulated as the non-blocking property of discrete-event systems. It can be difficult, however, to verify non-blocking or design a supervisor to guarantee non-blocking control because of state size explosion in the concurrency model. In this paper, we present sufficient conditions for the computation of (small) model abstractions that preserve the non-blocking property. As a consequence, hierarchical and decentralized control structures can be flexibly integrated, and the proposed approach can synthesize maximally permissive and non-blocking control with reduced computational effort. The solution is a group of decentralized supervisors that transparently displays control logic and admits relatively simple implementation.

Keywords

Supervisory control Discrete-event systems Non-blocking control 

References

  1. 1.
    Ho YC (ed) (1992) Discrete event dynamic systems: analyzing complexity and performance in the modern world. IEEE Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ramadge PJ, Wonham WM (1987) Supervisory control of a class of discrete event systems. SIAM J Control Optim 25(1):635–650CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ramadge PJ, Wonham WM (1989) The control of discrete event systems. Proc IEEE, Special Issue on DES 77(1):81–89Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brandin BA, Charbonnier FE (1994) The supervisory control of the automated manufacturing system of the AIP. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Integrated Manufacturing and Automation Technology, New York, NY, pp 319–324. IEEE Computer Society PressGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chandra V, Huang Z, Kumar R (2003) Automated control synthesis for an assembly line using discrete-event system control theory. IEEE T Syst Man Cy C 33(2):284–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ricker S, Sarkar N, Rudie K (1996) A discrete-event system approach to modeling dexterous manipulation. Robotica 14(5):515–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giua A, Seatzu C (2001) Supervisory control of railway networks with Petri nets. In: Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Orlando, FL, December, 5004–5009Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jafari MA, Darabi H, Boucher TO, Amini A (2002) A distributed discrete event dynamic model for supply chain of business enterprises. In: Silva M, Giua A, Colom JM (eds) Proceedings of WODES2002, Zaragoza, Spain, pp 279–285. IEEE Control Systems SocietyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kozak P, Wonham WM (1996) Design of transaction management protocols. IEEE T Automat Contr 41(9):1330–1335zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feng L, Wonham WM, Thiagarajan PS (2007) Designing communicating transaction processes by supervisory control theory. Form Method Syst Des 30(2):117–141zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seidl M (2006) Systematic controller design to drive high-load cell centers. IEEE T Contr Syst T 14(2):216–223CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Queiroz MH, Cury JER (2000) Modular supervisory control of large scale discrete event systems. In: Boel R, Stremersch G (ed) Discrete event systems: analysis and control. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 103–110Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoffman G, Wong-Toi H (1992) Symbolic synthesis of supervisory controllers. In: Proceedings of ACC, Chicago, IL, pp 2789–2793Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Åkesson K, Flordal H, Fabian M (2002) Exploiting modularity for synthesis and verification of supervisors. In: Proceedings of the 15th IFAC World Congress on Automatic Control, Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ma C, Wonham WM (2005) Nonblocking supervisory control of state tree structures. In: Thoma M, Morari M (ed) LNCIS 317. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmidt K, Marchand H, Gaudin B (2006) Modular and decentralized supervisory control of concurrent discrete event systems using reduced system models. In: Lafortune S, Lin F, Tilbury D (ed) Proceedings of the 8th WODES, Ann Arbor, MI, July, pp 149–154Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang ZH (2001) Smart TCT: an efficient algorithm for supervisory control design. M.A.Sc thesis, Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hill R, Tilbury D (2006) Modular supervisory control of discrete-event systems with abstraction and incremental hierarchical construction. In: Lafortune S, Lin F, Tilbury D (ed) Proceedings of the 8th WODES, Ann Arbor, MI, July, pp 399–406Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gohari P, Wonham WM (2000) On the complexity of supervisory control design in the RW framework. IEEE T Syst Man Cy B 30(5):643–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rohloff K, Lafortune S (2002) On the computational complexity of the verification of modular discrete-event systems. In: Proceedings of the 41th CDC, Las Vegas, NV, December, 16–21Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee SH, Wong KC (2002) Structural decentralized control of concurrent discrete-event systems. Eur J Control 8(5):477–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmidt K, Reger J, Moor T (2004) Hierarchical control for structural decentralized DES. In: Proceedings of the 7th WODES, Rheims, France, September, pp 289–294Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wong KC, Wonham WM (1998) Modular control and coordination of discrete-event systems. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 8(3):247–297zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leduc RJ, Brandin BA, Lawford M, Wonham WM (2005) Hierarchical interface-based supervisory control-part I: serial case. IEEE T Automat Contr 50(9):1322–1335CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leduc RJ, Lawford M, Wonham WM (2005) Hierarchical interface-based supervisory control-part II: parallel case. IEEE T Automat Contr 50(9):1336–1348CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pena P, Cury J, Lafortune S (2006) Testing modularity of local supervisors: an approach based on abstractions. In: Lafortune S, Lin F, Tilbury D (ed) Proceedings of the 8th WODES, Ann Arbor, MI, July, pp 107–112Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wong KC, Wonham WM (1996) Hierarchical control of discrete-event systems. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 6(3):241–273zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vahidi A, Fabian M, Lennartson B (2006) Efficient supervisory synthesis of large systems. Control Eng Pract 14(10):1157–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Song R, Leduc RJ (2006) Symbolic synthesis and verification of hierarchical interface-based supervisory control. In: Lafortune S, Lin F, Tilbury D (ed) Proceedings of the 8th WODES, Ann Arbor, MI, July, pp 419–426Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Feng L, Wonham WM (2006) Computationally efficient supervisor design: abstraction and modularity. In: Lafortune S, Lin F, Tilbury D (ed) Proceedings of the 8th WODES, Ann Arbor, MI, July, 3–8Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Feng L, Wonham WM (2006) Computationally efficient supervisor design: control flow decomposition. In: Lafortune S, Lin F, Tilbury D (ed) Proceedings of the 8th WODES, Ann Arbor, MI, July, 9–14Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Feng L, Wonham WM (2007) Nonblocking coordination of discrete-event systems by control-flow nets. In: Proceedings of the 46th CDC, New Orleans, LA, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Feng L (2007) Computationally efficient supervisory design for discrete-event systems, PhD Thesis, Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, 2007, http://www.control.utoronto.ca/~fenglei
  34. 34.
    Feng L, Wonham WM (2008) Supervisory control architecture for discrete-event systems. IEEE T Automat Contr (to appear in June 2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Holloway LE, Krogh BH, Giua A (1997) A survey of Petri net methods for controlled discrete event systems. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 7(2):151–190zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Iordache MV, Antsaklis PJ (2006) Supervision based on place invariants: a survey. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 16(4):419–557CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Giua A, DiCesare F, Silva M (1992) Generalized mutual exclusion constraints on nets with uncontrollable transitions. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Chicago, IL, pp 974–979Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Uzam M, Wonham WM (2006) A hybrid approach to supervisory control of discrete event systems coupling RW supervisors to Petri nets. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28(7):747–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fanti MP, Zhou MC (2004) Deadlock control methods in automated manufacturing systems. IEEE T Syst Man Cy A 34(1):5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zajac J (2004) A deadlock handling method for automated manufacturing systems. Ann CIRP Manuf Tech 53(1):367–370CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wonham WM (2007) Supervisory control of discrete-event systems. ECE Dept, University of Toronto, 2002–2007, http://www.control.toronto.edu/DES, Updated 2007.07.01
  42. 42.
    Cassandras CG, Lafortune S (1999) Introduction to discrete event systems. Kluwer, DordrechtzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Feng L, Wonham WM (2006) On the computation of natural observers in discrete-event systems. In: Proceedings of the 45th IEEE CDC, San Diego, CA, December, pp 428–433Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wong KC, Wonham WM (2004) On the computation of observers in discrete-event systems. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 14(1):55–107zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    XPTCT (2007) Design software for SCT (Version 119, Windows XP, updated 2007.07.01). ECE Dept, University of Toronto, http://www.control.toronto.edu/DES
  46. 46.
    Melcher H, Winkelmann K (1998) Controller synthesis for the ‘production cell’ case study. Proceedings of the second workshop on formal methods in software practice, Clearwater Beach, FL, pp 24–33Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Su R, Wonham WM (2004) Supervisor reduction for discrete-event systems. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 14(1):31–53zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Embedded Control Systems Research Group, Department of Machine DesignKTH-Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Systems Control Group, Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations