Advertisement

Discrete Event Dynamic Systems

, Volume 25, Issue 1–2, pp 177–201 | Cite as

Hierarchical modelling of manufacturing systems using discrete event systems and the conflict preorder

  • Robi MalikEmail author
  • Ryan Leduc
Article

Abstract

This paper introduces Hierarchical Interface-Based Supervisory Control using the Conflict Preorder and applies it to the design of two manufacturing systems models of practical scale. Hierarchical Interface-Based Supervisory Control decomposes a large system into subsystems linked to each other by interfaces, facilitating the design of complex systems and the re-use of components. By ensuring that each subsystem satisfies its interface consistency conditions locally, it can be ensured that the complete system is controllable and nonblocking. The interface consistency conditions proposed in this paper are based on the conflict preorder, providing increased flexibility over previous approaches. The framework requires only a small number of interface consistency conditions, and allows for the design of multi-level hierarchies that are provably controllable and nonblocking.

Keywords

Discrete event systems Supervisory control theory Hierarchical control Nonblocking 

References

  1. Åkesson K, Fabian M, Flordal H, Malik R (2006) Supremica—an integrated environment for verification, synthesis and simulation of discrete event systems. In: Proceedings 8th International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, WODES ’06. Ann Arbor, MI, pp 384–385Google Scholar
  2. de Alfaro L, Henzinger TA (2001) Interface automata. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering 2001. Vienna, pp 109–120Google Scholar
  3. Barrett G, Lafortune S (2000) Decentralized supervisory control with communicating controllers. IEEE Trans Autom Control 45(9):1620–1638CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandin B, Charbonnier F (1994) The supervisory control of the automated manufacturing system of the AIP. In: Proceedings Rensselaer’s 4th international conference computer integrated manufacturing and automation technology. Troy, pp 319–324Google Scholar
  5. Brandin BA,Malik R,Malik P (2004) Incremental verification and synthesis of discrete-event systems guided by counter-examples. IEEE Trans Control Sys Tech 12(3):387–401 doi: 10.1109/TCST.2004.824795 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruegge B, Dutoit AH (2004) Object-Oriented Software Engineering Using UML, Patterns, and Java, 2nd edn. Pearson Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  7. Dai P (2006) Synthesis method for hierarchical interface-based supervisory control. Master’s thesis, Department of Computing and Software, McMaster University, Hamilton. http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/%7Eleduc
  8. De Nicola R, Hennessy MCB (1984) Testing equivalences for processes. Theor Comput Sci 34(1–2):83–133. doi: 10.1016/0304-3975(84)90113-0 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Fabian M (1995) On object oriented nondeterministic supervisory control. Ph.D. thesis, Chalmers University of Technology. Göteborg. https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/cpl/record/index.xsql?pubid=1126 Google Scholar
  10. Feng L, Wonham WM (2006) Computationally efficient supervisor design: abstraction and modularity. In: Proceedings of the 8th international Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, WODES ’06. Ann Arbor, pp 3–8Google Scholar
  11. Feng L, Wonham WM (2010) On the computation of natural observers in discrete-event systems. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 20(1):63–102CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Flordal H, Malik R (2009) Compositional verification in supervisory control. SIAM J Control Optim 48(3):1914–1938. doi: 10.1137/070695526 CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Harel D (1987) Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci Comput Program 8(3):231–274CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill RC, Cury JER, de QueirozMH, Tilbury DM, Lafortune S (2010) Multi-level hierarchical interface-based supervisory control. Autom 46(7):1152–1164. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2010.04.002 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoare CAR (1985) Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  16. Leduc R DESpot —unlock the DES potential. http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/%7Eleduc/DESpot.html
  17. Leduc RJ (2002) Hierarchical interface-based supervisory control. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Toronto. Canada. http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/leduc
  18. Leduc RJ (2009) Hierarchical interface-based supervisory control with data events. Int J Control 82(5):783–800. doi: 10.1080/00207170802291411 CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Leduc RJ, Brandin BA, Lawford M, Wonham WM (2005a) Hierarchical interface-based supervisory control—part I: Serial case. IEEE Trans Autom Control 50(9):1322–1335CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Leduc RJ, Lawford M, Wonham WM (2005b) Hierarchical interface-based supervisory control—part II: Parallel case. IEEE Trans Autom Control 50(9):1336–1348CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Leduc RJ, Dai P, Song R (2009) Synthesis method for hierarchical interface-based supervisory control. IEEE Trans Autom Control 54(7):1548–1560CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin F, Wonham WM (1990) Decentralized control and coordination of discrete-event systems with partial observation. IEEE Trans Autom Control 35(12):1330–1337CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Ma C, Wonham WM (2005) Nonblocking supervisory Control of State Tree Structures, LNCIS, vol. 317. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  24. Malik R (2010) The language of certain conflicts of a nondeterministic process. Working Paper 05/2010, Department of Computer Science, University of Waikato. HamiltonGoogle Scholar
  25. Malik R, Flordal H, Pena PN (2007) Conflicts and projections In: Proceedings of the 1st IFAC Workshop on Dependable Control of Discrete Systems, DCDS ’07. Paris, pp 63–68Google Scholar
  26. Malik R., Leduc R. (2012) Hierarchical interface-based supervisory control using the conflict preorder. In: Proceedings of the 11th International workshop on discrete event systems, WODES ’12. Guadalajara, pp 163–168Google Scholar
  27. Malik R, Leduc R (2013) Compositional nonblocking verification using generalised nonblocking abstractions. IEEE Trans Autom Control 58(8):1–13. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2013.2248255 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Malik R, Streader D, Reeves S (2006) Conflicts and fair testing. Int J Found Comput Sci 17(4):797–813. doi: 10.1142/S012905410600411X CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitchell R, McKim J (2001) Design by contract, by example. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  30. Moor T, Baier C, Wittmann T (2013) Consistent abstractions for the purpose of supervisory control. In: Proceedings of the 52nd IEEE conference decision and control, CDC 2013. Firenze, pp 7291–7296Google Scholar
  31. Parnas DL (1972) On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Commun ACM 15(12):1053–1058. doi: 10.1145/361598.361623 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. de Queiroz MH, Cury JER (2000) Modular supervisory control of large scale discrete event systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on discrete event systems, WODES’00. Ghent, pp 103–110Google Scholar
  33. Ramadge PJG, Wonham WM (1989) The control of discrete event systems. Proceedings of the IEEE 77(1):81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rudie K, Wonham W (1992) Think globally, act locally: decentralized supervisory control. IEEE Trans Autom Control 37(11):1692–1708CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmidt K, Breindl C (2011) Maximally permissive hierarchical control of decentralized discrete event systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 56(4):723–737CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Song R (2006) Symbolic synthesis and verification of hierarchical interface-based supervisory control. Master’s thesis, Department of Computing and Software. McMaster University. Hamilton. http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/%7Eleduc Google Scholar
  37. Teixeira M, Cury JER, de Queiroz MH (2011) Local modular supervisory control of DES with distinguishers. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international conference on emerging technologies and factory automation, ETFA’11. Toulouse, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  38. Wang B (1995) Top-down design for RW supervisory control theory. Master’s thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Toronto. CanadaGoogle Scholar
  39. Ware S, Malik R (2011) A state-based characterisation of the conflict preorder. In: Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on the foundations of coordination languages and software architectures, FOCLASA 2011. Aachen, pp 34–48. doi: 10.4204/EPTCS.58.3
  40. Ware S, Malik R (2012) Conflict-preserving abstraction of discrete event systems using annotated automata. Discret Event Dyn Syst 22(4):451–477. doi: 10.1007/s10626-012-0133-3 CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Wong KC, Wonham WM (1996) Hierarchical control of discrete-event systems. Discret Event Dyn Syst 6(3):241–273CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. Wong KC, Wonham WM (1998) Modular control and coordination of discrete-event systems. Discret Event Dyn Syst 8(3):247–297CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. Wong KC, Wonham WM (2004) On the computation of observers in discrete-event systems. Discret Event Dyn Syst 14(1):55–107CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. Wonham WM (2009). Supervisory control of discrete-event systems. Systems Control Group, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Toronto. Canada. at http://www.control.utoronto.edu/DES/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Computing and SoftwareMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations