Real-Time Systems

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 196–227 | Cite as

Model predictive control under timing constraints induced by controller area networks

Article

Abstract

When multiple model predictive controllers are implemented on a shared controller area network (CAN), their performance may degrade due to the variable timing and delays among messages. The priority based real-time scheduling of messages on the CAN introduces complex timing of events, especially when the types and number of messages change at runtime. This paper introduces a novel hybrid timing model to make runtime predictions on the timing of the messages for a finite time window. Controllers can be designed using the optimization algorithms for model predictive control by considering the timing as optimization constraints. This timing model allows multiple controllers to share a CAN without significant degradation in the controller performance. The timing model also provides a convenient way to check the schedulability of messages on the CAN at runtime. Simulation results demonstrate that the timing model is accurate and computationally efficient to meet the needs of real-time implementation. Simulation results also demonstrate that model predictive controllers designed when considering the timing constraints have superior performance than the controllers designed without considering the timing constraints.

Keywords

Model predictive control Controller area network (CAN) Timing delay Schedulability 

References

  1. Anta A, Tabuada P (2009) On the benefits of relaxing the periodicity assumption for networked control systems over CAN. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on real-time systems symposium, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  2. Arzen KE, Cervin A, Eker J, Sha L (2000) An introduction to control and scheduling co-design. In: Proceedings of the 39th IEEE conference on decision and control. IEEE, Sydney, vol 5, pp 4865–4870Google Scholar
  3. Baruah SK, Chen D, Mok AK (1997) Jitter concerns in periodic task systems. Proceedings of the 18th IEEE real time systems symposium. Piscataway, IEEE, pp 68–77Google Scholar
  4. Camacho EF, Bordons Alba C (2004) Model predictive control. Advanced textbooks in control and signal processing, vol 57. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Cena G, Bertolotti IC, Valenzano A (2012) An efficient fixed-length encoding scheme for CAN. In: Proceedings of 9th IEEE international workshop on factory communication systems, pp 265–274Google Scholar
  6. Cervin A, Henriksson D, Lincoln B, Eker J, Årzén KE (2003a) How does control timing affect performance. IEEE Control Syst Mag 23(3):16–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cervin A, Arzen KE, Henriksson D, Lluesma M, Balbastre P, Ripoll I, Crespo A (2006) Control loop timing analysis using TrueTime and Jitterbug. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE international conference on computer-aided control systems design. IEEE, Munich, pp 1194–1199Google Scholar
  8. Chantem T, Hu XS, Lemmon MD (2006) Generalized elastic scheduling. In: Proceedings of 27th RTSSGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke D, Mohtadi C, Tuffs P (1987) Generalized predictive control algorithm, part I. The basic algorithm. Automatica 23(2):137–148MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis RI, Burns A, Bril RJ, Lukkien JJ (2007) Controller Area Network (CAN) schedulability analysis: refuted, revisited and revised. Real-Time Syst 35:239–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Di Natale M, Zeng H, Giusto P, Ghosal A (2012) Understanding and using the controller area network communication protocol. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaid M, Cela A, Hamam Y (2006) Optimal integrated control and scheduling of networked control systems with communication constraints: application to a car suspension system. Control Syst Technol 14(4):776–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gmbh RB (1991) CAN Specification, version 2.0. Tech. Rep., StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodwin GC, Haimovich H, Quevedo DE, Welsh JS (2004) A moving horizon approach to networked control system design. IEEE Trans Autom Control 49(9):1427–1445MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grune L, Jurgen P (2011) Nonlinear model predictive control theory and algorithms. Communications and control engineering series, Springer, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Henriksson D, Cervin A, Akesson J, Arzen KE (2002) On dynamic real-time scheduling of model predictive controllers. In: IEEE 2002 conference on decision and control. IEEE, Las Vegas, vol 2, pp 1325–1330Google Scholar
  17. Hespanha JP, Naghshtabrizi P, Xu Y (2007) A survey of recent results in networked control systems. In: IEEE proceedings, vol 95(1)Google Scholar
  18. Imer OC, Yüksel S, Baar T (2006) Optimal control of LTI systems over unreliable communication links. Automatica 42(9):1429–1439MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeon JM, Kim DW, Kim HS, Cho YJ, Lee BH (2001) An analysis of network-based control system using CAN (Controller Area Network) protocol. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, vol 4, pp 3577–3581Google Scholar
  20. Lee J, Morari M, Garcia C (1994) State-space interpretation of model predictive control. Automatica 30(4):707–717MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Leen G, Heffernan D (2002) TTCAN: a new time-triggered controller area network. Microprocess Microsyst 26(2):77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu CL, Layland JW (1973) Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a Hard-Real-Time environment. J ACM 20(1):46–61MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu G, Sun J, Zhao Y (2013) Design, analysis and real-time implementation of networked predictive control systems. Acta Autom Sin 39(11):1769–1777Google Scholar
  24. Liu GP, Xia Y, Chen J, Rees D, Hu W (2007) Networked predictive control of systems with random network delays in both forward and feedback channels. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 54(3):1282–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loontang P, de Silva CW (2006) Compensation for transmission delays in an ethernet-based control network using variable-horizon predictive control. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 14(4):707–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martí P, Camacho A, Velasco M, Gaid MEMB (2010) Runtime allocation of optional control jobs to a set of CAN-based networked control systems. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 6(4):503–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayne DQ, Rawlings JB, Rao CV, Scokaert POM (2000) Constrained model predictive control: stability and optimality. Automatica 36(6):789–814MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Montestruque LA, Antsaklis P (2004) Stability of model-based networked control systems with time-varying transmission times. IEEE Trans Autom Control 49(9):1562–1572MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pop T, Pop P, Eles P, Peng Z, Andrei A (2008) Timing analysis of the FlexRay communication protocol. Real-Time Syst 39(1–3):205–235CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Rawlings JB (2000) Tutorial overview of model predictive control. IEEE Control Syst Mag 20(3):38–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Richalet J, Rault A, Testud J, Papon J (1978) Model predictive heuristic control: applications to industrial processes. Automatica 14(5):413–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sha L, Abdelzaher T, Arzen KE, Cervin A, Baker T, Burns A, Buttazzo G, Caccamo M, Lehoczky J, Mok AK, Årzén KE (2004) Real time scheduling theory: a historical perspective. Real-Time Syst 28(2–3):101–155. doi:10.1023/B:TIME.0000045315.61234.1e CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Shi Z, Zhang F (2012) An analytical model of the CAN bus for online schedulability test. In: Proceedings of the third analytic virtual integration of cyber-physical systems workshop (AVICPS), held in conjunction with the 33rd IEEE real-time systems symposium (RTSS2012)Google Scholar
  34. Shi Z, Zhang F (2013) Predicting time-delays under real-time scheduling for linear model predictive control. In: Proceedings of 2013 international conference on computing, networking and communication, workshops cyber physical system, pp 205–209Google Scholar
  35. Shi Z, Yao N, Zhang F (2016) Scheduling feasibility of energy management in micro-grids based on significant moment analysis. In: Cyber-physical systems foundations, principles, and applications, pp 431–449Google Scholar
  36. Tindell K, Burns A (1994) Guarantee message latency on control area network (CAN). In: Proceedings of international CAN conference, Figure 1, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  37. Tindell K, Burns A, Wellings A (1995) Calculating controller area network (CAN) message response times. Control Eng Pract 3(8):1163–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang L (2009) Model predictive control system design and implementation using MATLAB, 1st edn. Springer, LondonMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang Y, Shi Z, Wang C, Zhang F (2013) Human-robot mutual trust in (semi)autonomous underwater robots. In: Cooperative robots and sensor networks. Springer, Berlin, pp 115–137Google Scholar
  40. Wang X, Shi Z, Zhang F, Wang Y (2015a) Mutual trust based scheduling for (semi) autonomous multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of 2015 American control conference , pp 459–464Google Scholar
  41. Wang X, Shi Z, Zhang F, Wang Y (2015b) Dynamic real-time scheduling for human-agent collaboration systems based on mutual trust. Cyber-Physical Syst 1(2–4):76–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zeng H, Natale MD, Giusto P, Sangiovanni-vincentelli A (2010) Using statistical methods to compute the probability distribution of message response time in controller area network. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 6(4):678–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang L, Shi Y, Chen T, Huang B (2005) A new method for stabilization of networked control with random delays. IEEE Autom Control 50(8):1177–1181MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang F, Szwaykowska K, Mooney V, Wolf W (2008) Task scheduling for control oriented requirements for cyber-physical systems. In: Proceedings of 29th IEEE real-time systems symposium (RTSS 2008), Barcelona, Spain, pp 47–56Google Scholar
  45. Zhang F, Shi Z, Mukhopadhyay S (2013) Robustness analysis for battery-supported cyber-physical systems. ACM Trans Embed Comput Syst 12(3), Article No. 69:1–27Google Scholar
  46. Zhao Y, Liu G, Rees D (2008) Integrated predictive control and scheduling co-design for networked control systems. IET Control Theory Appl 2(1):7–15MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.C3 IoTRedwood CityUSA
  2. 2.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations