Advertisement

Automated, Nomenclature Based Data Point Selection for Industrial Event Log Generation

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11315)

Abstract

Within the automotive industry today, data collection, for legacy manufacturing equipment, largely relies on the data being pushed from the machine’s PLCs to an upper system. Not only does this require programmers’ efforts to collect and provide the data, but it is also prone to errors or even intentional manipulation. External monitoring, is available through Open Platform Communication (OPC), but it is time consuming to set up and requires expert knowledge of the system as well. A nomenclature based methodology has been devised for the external monitoring of unknown controls systems, adhering to a minimum set of rules regarding the naming and typing of the data points of interest, which can be deployed within minutes without human intervention. The validity of the concept will be demonstrated through implementation within an automotive body shop and the quality of the created log will be evaluated. The impact of such a fine grained monitoring effort on the communication infrastructure will also be measured within the manufacturing facility. It is concluded that, based on the methodology provided in this paper, it is possible to derive OPC groups and items from a PLC program without human intervention in order to obtain a detailed event log.

Keywords

Automotive Body Shop Open Platform Communications (OPC) Plant Floor System Controller Tags Logic Control Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Bose, R.J.C., Mans, R.S., van der Aalst, W.M.: Wanna improve process mining results? Its high time we consider data quality issues seriously. In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence and Data Mining, CIDM 2013, pp. 127–134 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1109/CIDM.2013.6597227
  2. 2.
    Heynicke, R., et al.: IO-link wireless enhanced sensors and actuators for industry 4.0 networks. In: Proceedings-AMA Conferences 2017 with SENSOR and IRS2, pp. 134–138 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.5162/sensor2017/A8.1
  3. 3.
    Hoffmann, M., Büscher, C., Meisen, T., Jeschke, S.: Continuous integration of field level production data into top-level information systems using the OPC interface standard. Procedia CIRP 41, 496–501 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.12.059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Veryha, Y.: Going beyond performance limitations of OPC DA implementation. In: 10th IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, p. 4 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ETFA.2005.1612501
  5. 5.
    Reboredo, P., Keinert, M.: Integration of discrete manufacturing field devices data and services based on OPC UA. In: 39th Annual Conference on Industrial Electronics Society, IECON 2013, pp. 4476–4481 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON.2013.6699856
  6. 6.
    Schleipen, M.: OPC UA supporting the automated engineering of production monitoring and control systems. In: 2008 IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, pp. 640–647 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ETFA.2008.4638464
  7. 7.
    Oksanen, T., Piirainen, P., Seilonen, I.: Remote access of ISO 11783 process data by using OPC unified architecture technology. Comput. Electron. Agric. 117, 141–148 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haubeck, C., et al.: Interaction of model-driven engineering and signal-based online monitoring of production systems. In: 40th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON.2014.7048868
  9. 9.
    Feldmann, K., Colombo, A.W.: Monitoring of flexible production systems using high-level Petri net specifications. Control. Eng. Pract. 7(12), 1449–1466 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0661(99)00107-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee, J., Bagheri, B., Kao, H.A.: A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manuf. Lett. 3, 18–23 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Palluat, N., Racoceanu, D., Zerhouni, N.: A neuro-fuzzy monitoring system: application to flexible production systems. Comput. Ind. 57(6), 528–538 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2006.02.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Phaithoonbuathong, P., Monfared, R., Kirkham, T., Harrison, R., West, A.: Web services-based automation for the control and monitoring of production systems. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 23(2), 126–145 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1080/09511920903440313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ouelhadj, D., Hanachi, C., Bouzouia, B.: Multi-agent architecture for distributed monitoring in flexible manufacturing systems (FMS). In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2000, vol. 3, pp. 2416–2421 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2000.846389

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computing, Electronics and Mathematics, Faculty of Engineering, Environment and ComputingCoventry UniversityCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations