A Framework for Establishing Performance Guarantees in Industrial Automation Networks

  • Sven Kerschbaum
  • Kai-Steffen Hielscher
  • Ulrich Klehmet
  • Reinhard German
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8376)

Abstract

In this paper we investigate the application of Network Calculus for industrial automation networks to obtain performance bounds (latency, jitter and backlog). In our previous work we identified the modeling of industrial networks as the most challenging aspect since in industry most users do not have detailed knowledge about the traffic load caused by applications. However, exactly this knowledge is indispensable when it comes to modeling the corresponding arrival curves. Thus, we suggest the use of generalized traffic profiles, which are provided by the engineering tool. During the engineering process, the user has to specialize these profiles to meet the application configurations. The engineering tool derives the corresponding arrival curves from the specialized profiles and calculates the performance bounds using Network Calculus. To guarantee that the calculated performance bounds are kept during the runtime of the industrial automation, we must ensure that the real traffic flows do not exceed their engineered arrival curves. We therefore propose the use of shapers at the edge of the network domain. The shaper configurations can be automatically derived from the engineered arrival curves of the flows.

Keywords

Network Calculus performance guarantees quality of service (QoS) industrial automation networks 

References

  1. 1.
    IEEE: Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks. IEEE 802.1Q (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kerschbaum, S., Hielscher, K.-S.J., Klehmet, U., German, R.: Network Calculus: Application to an Industrial Automation Network. In: MMB & DFT Workshop Proceedings, WoNeCa (March 2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Witsch, D., Vogel-Heuser, B., Faure, J.-M., Marsal, G.: Performance analysis of industrial Ethernet networks by means of timed model-checking. In: 12th IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Fummi, F., Martini, S., Monguzzi, M., Perbellini, G., Poncino, M.: Modeling and analysis of heterogeneous industrial networks architectures. In: DATE, pp. 342–344. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    PROFIBUS Nutzerorganisation e. V. (PNO): PROFINET and IT. Technical report, PROFIBUS Nutzerorganisation e. V. (PNO) (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jasperneite, J., Neumann, P.: How to guarantee realtime behavior using Ethernet. In: 11th IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing (INCOM 2004), Salvador-Bahia, Brazil (April 2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IEC: Digital data communication for measurement and control - Fieldbus for use in industrial control systems. IEC61158 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    IEC: Digital data communication for measurement and control - Fieldbus for use in industrial control systems. IEC61784 (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Le Boudec, J.-Y., Thiran, P.: Network Calculus. LNCS, vol. 2050. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chang, C.S.: Performance Guarantees in Communication Networks. Springer, London (2000)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cruz, R.L.: A calculus for network delay, Part I: Network elements in isolation. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 37(1), 114–131 (1991)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cruz, R.L.: A calculus for network delay, Part II: Network analysis. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 37(1), 132–141 (1991)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Kerschbaum, S., Hielscher, K.-S.J., German, R.: Automatische Generierung des Network Calculus-Modells aus einem Simatic STEP7-Projekt. In: 3. Jahreskolloquium ”Kommunikation in der Automation (KommA 2012)”, Lemgo, Jürgen Jasperneite and Ulrich Jumar (November 2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    IEC: Programming languages for programmable logic controllers. IEC61131-3 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schmitt, J.B., Zdarsky, F.A.: The DISCO network calculator: a toolbox for worst case analysis. In: Lenzini, L., Cruz, R.L. (eds.) VALUETOOLS. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, vol. 180, p. 8. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Richardson, T., Levine, J.: The Remote Framebuffer Protocol. RFC 6143 (March 2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seifert, R.: The Switch Book: The Complete Guide to LAN Switching Technology, 1st edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Götz, F.-J.: Guaranteed Latency for Control-Data-Traffic in Time Sensitive Networks. In: IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networks (Interim Meeting in York, England). IEEE Computer Society (September 2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Kerschbaum
    • 1
  • Kai-Steffen Hielscher
    • 2
  • Ulrich Klehmet
    • 2
  • Reinhard German
    • 2
  1. 1.Industry Sector, (Industry Automation Division)Siemens AGNürnbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science 7, (Computer Networks and Communication Systems)University of Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations