skip to main content
research-article

Robust Design and Validation of Cyber-physical Systems

Published:15 November 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Co-simulation--based validation of hardware controllers adjoined with plant models, with continuous dynamics, is an important step in model-based design of controllers for Cyber-physical Systems (CPS). Co-simulation suffers from many problems, such as timing delays, skew, race conditions, and so on, making it unsuitable for checking timing properties of CPS. In our approach to validation of controllers, synthesised from their models, the synthesised controller is adjoined with a synthesised hardware plant unit. The synthesised plant and controller are then executed synchronously and Metric Interval Temporal Logic (MITL) properties are validated on the closed-loop system. The clock period is chosen, using robustness estimates, such that all timing properties that hold on the controller guiding the discretised plant model also hold on the original case of the continuous-time plant model guided by the controller. Benchmark results show that real-time MITL properties that are vacuously satisfied or violated due to co-simulation artefacts hold correctly in the proposed closed-loop validation framework.

References

  1. Matthias Althoff and Bruce H. Krogh. 2014. Reachability analysis of nonlinear differential-algebraic systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 59, 2 (2014), 371--383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Rajeev Alur. 2015. Principles of Cyber-physical Systems. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Rajeev Alur, Costas Courcoubetis, T. Henzinger, P. Ho, Xavier Nicollin, Alfredo Olivero, Joseph Sifakis, and Sergio Yovine. 1994. The algorithmic analysis of hybrid systems. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Analysis and Optimization of Systems Discrete Event Systems. Springer, 329--351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Rajeev Alur, Aditya Kanade, S. Ramesh, and K. C. Shashidhar. 2008. Symbolic analysis for improving simulation coverage of Simulink/Stateflow models. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Embedded Software. ACM, 89--98.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Sidharta Andalam, Harshavardhan Ramanna, Avinash Malik, Parthasarathi Roop, Nitish Patel, and Mark L. Trew. 2016. Hybrid automata models of cardiac ventricular electrophysiology for real-time computational applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE 38th International Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC’16). IEEE, 5595--5598.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Yashwanth Annpureddy, Che Liu, Georgios Fainekos, and Sriram Sankaranarayanan. 2011. S-TaLiRo: A tool for temporal logic falsification for hybrid systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Springer, 254--257.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Ezio Bartocci, Flavio Corradini, Maria Rita Di Berardini, Emilia Entcheva, Scott A. Smolka, and Radu Grosu. 2009. Modeling and simulation of cardiac tissue using hybrid I/O automata. Theor. Comput. Sci. 410, 33 (2009), 3149.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Luca Benvenuti, Davide Bresolin, Pieter Collins, Alberto Ferrari, Luca Geretti, and Tiziano Villa. 2014. Assume--guarantee verification of nonlinear hybrid systems with Ariadne. Int. J. Robust Nonlin. Cont. 24, 4 (2014), 699--724.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Torsten Blochwitz. 2014. Functional mock-up interface for model exchange and co-simulation. Retrieved from: https://www.fmi-standard.org/downloads.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. C. Brennon and E. Joshua. 2013. Hybrid Systems. Tufts University, Course EE194, Lecture. Retrieved from: http://www.eecs.tufts.edu/˜khan/Courses/Spring2013/EE194/Lecs/Hybrid_Systems_Presentation_Elliott_Costello.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. David Broman, Christopher Brooks, Lev Greenberg, Edward A. Lee, Michael Masin, Stavros Tripakis, and Michael Wetter. 2013. Determinate composition of FMUs for co-simulation. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Conference on Embedded Software. IEEE Press, 2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. K. Bevrani, E. Chung, and Marc Miska. 2012. Evaluation of the GHR car following model for traffic safety studies. In Proceedings of the 25th ARRB Conference. ARRB Group Ltd, 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Henrik Carlsson, Bo Svensson, Fredrik Danielsson, and Bengt Lennartson. 2012. Methods for reliable simulation-based PLC code verification. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inform. 8, 2 (2012), 267--278.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Xin Chen, Erika Ábrahám, and Sriram Sankaranarayanan. 2013. Flow*: An analyzer for non-linear hybrid systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. Springer, 258--263.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jyotirmoy V. Deshmukh, Alexandre Donzé, Shromona Ghosh, Xiaoqing Jin, Garvit Juniwal, and Sanjit A. Seshia. 2017. Robust online monitoring of signal temporal logic. Form. Meth. Syst. Des. 51, 1 (2017), 5--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Georgios E. Fainekos and George J. Pappas. 2006. Robustness of temporal logic specifications. In Formal Approaches to Software Testing and Runtime Verification. Springer, 178--192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Georgios E. Fainekos and George J. Pappas. 2007. Robust sampling for MITL specifications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Modeling and Analysis of Timed Systems. Springer, 147--162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Goran Frehse, Colas Le Guernic, Alexandre Donzé, Scott Cotton, Rajarshi Ray, Olivier Lebeltel, Rodolfo Ripado, Antoine Girard, Thao Dang, and Oded Maler. 2011. SpaceEx: Scalable verification of hybrid systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. Springer, 379--395.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Cecil Bruce-Boye, Rüdiger zum Beck, and Dmitry A. Kazakov. 2007. An approach to distributed remote control based on middleware technology, MATLAB/Simulink-LabMap/LabNet framework. In Advances in Computer, Information, and Systems Sciences, and Engineering. Springer, 37--42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Olaf Gietelink, Jeroen Ploeg, Bart De Schutter, and Michel Verhaegen. 2006. Development of advanced driver assistance systems with vehicle hardware-in-the-loop simulations. Vehic. Syst. Dyn. 44, 7 (2006), 569--590.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Cláudio Gomes, Casper Thule, David Broman, Peter Gorm Larsen, and Hans Vangheluwe. 2018. Co-simulation: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 3 (2018), 49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Chen Huang, Bailey Miller, Frank Vahid, and Tony Givargis. 2013. Synthesis of networks of custom processing elements for real-time physical system emulation. ACM Trans. Des. Automat. Electron. Syst. 18, 2 (2013), 21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Chen Huang, Frank Vahid, and Tony Givargis. 2013. Automatic synthesis of physical system differential equation models to a custom network of general processing elements on FPGAs. ACM Trans. Embedd. Comput. Syst. 13, 2 (2013), 23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Karel Hurts, Linda S. Angell, and Miguel A. Perez. 2011. The distracted driver: Mechanisms, models, and measurement. Rev. Human Fact. Ergonom. 7, 1 (2011), 3--57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Antony Jameson, Wolfgang Schmidt, and Eli Turkel. 1981. Numerical solution of the Euler equations by finite volume methods using Runge Kutta time stepping schemes. In Proceedings of the 14th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference. 1259.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Jeff C. Jensen, Danica H. Chang, and Edward A. Lee. 2011. A model-based design methodology for cyber-physical systems. In Proceedings of the 7th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC’11). IEEE, 1666--1671.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. John Lygeros, George Pappas, and Shankar Sastry. 1999. An introduction to hybrid system modeling, analysis, and control. Preprints of the First Nonlinear Control Network Pedagogical School (1999), 307--329. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.110.4232&rep==rep1&type==pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Nancy Lynch, Roberto Segala, Frits Vaandrager, and Henri B. Weinberg. 1995. Hybrid I/O automata. In Proceedings of the International Hybrid Systems Workshop. Springer, 496--510.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Avinash Malik, Partha S. Roop, Nathan Allen, and Théo Steger. 2018. Emulation of cyber-physical systems using IEC-61499. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inform. 14, 1 (2018), 380--389.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Avinash Malik, Partha S. Roop, Sidharta Andalam, Mark Trew, and Michael Mendler. 2017. Modular compilation of hybrid systems for emulation and large scale simulation. ACM Trans. Embedd. Comput. Syst. 16, 5s (2017), 118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Pierluigi Nuzzo, Alberto L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Davide Bresolin, Luca Geretti, and Tiziano Villa. 2015. A platform-based design methodology with contracts and related tools for the design of cyber-physical systems. Proc. IEEE 103, 11 (2015), 2104--2132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Jean-François Raskin. 2005. An introduction to hybrid automata. In Handbook of Networked and Embedded Control Systems. Springer, 491--517.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. J. W. Ro, P. S. Roop, A. Malik, and P. Ranjitkar. 2018. A formal approach for modeling and simulation of human car-following behavior. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 19, 2 (Feb. 2018), 639--648.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Edmund Widl, Florian Judex, Katharina Eder, and Peter Palensky. 2015. FMI-based co-simulation of hybrid closed-loop control system models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Complex Systems Engineering (ICCSE’15). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Gulnara Zhabelova and Valeriy Vyatkin. 2012. Multiagent smart grid automation architecture based on IEC 61850/61499 intelligent logical nodes. IEEE Trans. Industr. Electron. 59, 5 (2012), 2351--2362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Robust Design and Validation of Cyber-physical Systems

          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!