skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

EACAN: Reliable and Resource-Efficient CAN Communications

Published:05 February 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Worst-case-based timing verification for the controller area network (CAN) has been the bottleneck to efficient use of its bandwidth. Especially, this inefficiency comes from the worst-case transmission error rate (WCTER) when transmission errors are accounted for. To alleviate this inefficiency, we propose a runtime adaptation scheme, error-adaptive CAN (EACAN). EACAN observes the behavior of transmission errors at runtime, and reconfigures the message period based on the observation to meet the timing-failure requirement. We experimentally evaluate the bandwidth utilization of both EACAN- and WCTER-based verification, showing that the former improves the bandwidth utilization by 14% over the latter.

References

  1. Arduino. {n.d.}. Retrieved from https://www.arduino.cc/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. P. Axer, M. Sebastian, and R. Ernst. 2012. Probabilistic response time bound for CAN messages with arbitrary deadlines. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE’12). 1114--1117. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. H. Aysan, A. Thekkilakattil, R. Dobrin, and S. Punnekkat. 2010. Efficient fault tolerant scheduling on controller area network (CAN). In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA’10). 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Christelle Braun, Lionel Havet, and Nicolas Navet. 2007. NETCARBENCH: A benchmark for techniques and tools used in the design of automotive communication systems. In Proceedings of the 7th IFAC International Conference on Fieldbuses 8 Networks in Industrial 8 Embedded Systems (FeT’07). Toulouse, France, 321--328. Retrieved from https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00188629.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. I. Broster, A. Burns, and G. Rodriguez-Navas. 2002. Probabilistic analysis of CAN with faults. In Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Symposium. 269--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. I. Broster, A. Burns, and G. Rodriguez-Navas. 2004. Comparing real-time communication under electromagnetic interference. In Proceedings of the 16th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS’04). 45--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. Burns and R. I. Davis. 2013. Mixed criticality on controller area network. In Proceedings of the 25th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems. 125--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Y. Chun, S. Park, J. Kim, H. Kim, K. Hwang, J. Kim, and S. Ahn. 2012. System and electromagnetic compatibility of resonance coupling wireless power transfer in on-line electric vehicle. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation (ISAP’12). 158--161.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. R. I. Davis, A. Burns, R. J. Bril, and J. J. Lukkien. 2007. Controller area network (CAN) schedulability analysis: Refuted, revisited and revised. Real-Time Syst. 35, 3 (Apr. 2007), 239--272. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. R. I. Davis, S. Kollmann, V. Pollex, and F. Slomka. 2011. Controller area network (CAN) Schedulability analysis with FIFO queues. In Proceedings of the 23rd Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems. 45--56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Robert I. Davis and Alan Burns. 2009. Robust priority assignment for messages on controller area network (CAN). Real-Time Syst. 41, 2 (Feb. 2009), 152--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Reinhard Felgenhauser. 2011. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) in E-vehicles. Retrieved from www.automotive-eetimes.com/content/electromagnetic-interference-emi-e-vehicles.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. J. Ferreira, A. Oliveira, P. Fonseca, and J. Fonseca. 2004. An experiment to assess bit error rate in CAN. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop of Real-Time Networks (RTN’04). 15--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Freescale. {n.d.}. Future Advances in Body Electronics. Retrieved from http://www.nxp.com/assets/documents/data/en/white-papers/BODYDELECTRWP.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. A. R. Guraliuc, M. Zhadobov, R. Sauleau, L. Marnat, and L. Dussopt. 2015. Millimeter-wave electromagnetic field exposure from mobile terminals. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Networks and Communications (EuCNC’15). 82--85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. SAE International. 2000. Class C application requirement considerations. SAE Technical Report J2056/1 (Feb. 2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO/TC22. 2011. ISO26262: Road Vehicles—Functional Safety. Technical Report. International Organization for Standardization.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. U. Keskin. 2013. Evaluating message transmission times in controller area network (CAN) without buffer preemption revisited. In Proceedings of the IEEE 78th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC’13). 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. D. A. Khan, R. J. Bril, and N. Navet. 2010. Integrating hardware limitations in CAN schedulability analysis. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Workshop on Factory Communication Systems (WFCS’10). 207--210.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. D. A. Khan, R. I. Davis, and N. Navet. 2011. Schedulability analysis of CAN with non-abortable transmission requests. In Proceedings of the IEEE 16th Conference on Emerging Technologies Factory Automation (ETFA’11). 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. J. Kim, K. Lakshmanan, and R. Rajkumar. 2012. Rhythmic tasks: A new task model with continually varying periods for cyber-physical systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM Third International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems. 55--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Daniel KAd'stner, Marek Jersak, Christian Ferdinand, Peter Gliwa, and Reinhold Heckmann. 2011. An integrated timing analysis methodology for real-time systems. In SAE Technical Paper.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. R. Lange, A. C. Bonatto, F. Vasques, and R. S. de Oliveira. 2016. Timing analysis of hybrid FlexRay, CAN-FD and CAN vehicular networks. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON’16). 4725--4730.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Microchip 2012. Stand-Alone CAN Controller with SPI Interface. Microchip. Rev. G.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. N. Navet and H. Perrault. 2012. CAN in automotive applications: A look forward. In Proceedings of the 13th International CAN Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. N. Navet, Y.-Q. Song, and F. Simonot. 2000. Worst-case deadline failure probability in real-time applications distributed over controller area network. J. Syst. Archit. 46, 7 (Apr. 2000), 607--617. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Nicolas Navet, Schehnaz Louvart, Jose Villanueva, Sergio Campoy-Martinez, and Jorn Migge. 2014. Timing verification of automotive communication architectures using quantile estimation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Embedded Real Time Software and Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Shuichi Oikawa and Ragunathan Rajkumar. 1998. Linux/RK: A portable resource kernel in Linux. In Proceedings of the 19th IEEE Real-Time Systems Sumposium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. F. Ren, Y. R. Zheng, M. Zawodniok, and J. Sarangapani. 2007. Effects of electromagnetic interference on control area network performance. In Proceedings of the IEEE Region 5 Technical Conference. 199--204.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. M. Schreiner, H. Mahmoud, M. Huber, S. Koc, and J. Waldmann. 2013. CAN FD from an OEM point of view. In Proceedings of the 14th International CAN Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Symtavision. {n.d.}. Retrieved from https://www.symtavision.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. L. Tan, C. Du, and Y. Dong. 2015. Control-performance-driven period and deadline selection for cyber-physical systems. In Proceedings of the 10th Asian Control Conference (ASCC’15). 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. K. W. Tindell and A. Burns. 1994. Guaranteed Message Latencies for Distributed Safety-Critical Hard Real-Time Control Networks. Technical Report YCS 229. University of York, Department of Computer Science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. K. W. Tindell, H. Hansson, and A. J. Wellings. 1994. Analysing real-time communications: Controller area network (CAN). In Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Symposium. 259--263.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Volcano. {n.d.}. Retrieved from https://www.mentor.com/products/vnd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. EACAN: Reliable and Resource-Efficient CAN Communications

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!