Juan Valencia
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
We compare three platform-aware feedback control design flows that are tailored for a composable and predictable Time Division Multiplexing (TDM)-based execution platform. The platform allows for independent execution of multiple applications. Using the precise timing knowledge of the platform execution, we accurately characterise the execution of the control application (i.e., sensing, computing, and actuating operations) to design efficient feedback controllers with high control performance in terms of settling time. The design flows are derived for Single-Rate (SR) and Multi-Rate (MR) sampling schemes. We show the applicability of the design flows based on two design considerations and their trade-off: control performance and resource utilisation. The design flows are validated by means of MATLAB and Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) experiments for a motion control application.
- A. Aminifar, P. Eles, and Z. Peng. 2015. Jfair: A scheduling algorithm to stabilize control applications. In Proceedings of the 21st IEEE Real-time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium. 63--72.Google Scholar
- A. Aminifar, S. Samii, P. Eles, Z. Peng, and A. Cervin. 2012. Designing high-quality embedded control systems with guaranteed stability. In Proceedings of the IEEE 33rd Real-time Systems Symposium. 283--292. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Aminifar, P. Tabuada, P. Eles, and Z. Peng. 2016. Self-triggered controllers and hard real-time guarantees. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE). 636--641. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Arzen, A. Cervin, J. Eker, and L. Sha. 2000. An introduction to control and scheduling co-design. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Vol. 5. 4865--4870.Google Scholar
- Karl-Erik Årzén and Anton Cervin. 2005. Control and embedded computing: Survey of research directions. IFAC Proc. Vol. 38, 1 (2005), 191--202.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karl J Åström. 1970. Introduction to Stochastic Control Theory. Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Karl Johan Åström and Richard M. Murray. 2008. Feedback Systems: An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers. Princeton University Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Karl J. Åström and Björn Wittenmark. 1990. Computer-controlled Systems: Theory and Design (2nd Ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. W. Bauer, S. J. L. M. B. van Loon, N. van de Wouw, and W. P. M. H. M. Heemels. 2014. Exploring the boundaries of robust stability under uncertain communication: An NCS toolbox applied to a wireless control setup. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 34, 4 (Aug. 2014), 65--86.Google Scholar
- Dimitri P. Bertsekas. 2005. Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control. Athena Scientific. 3rd ed. Vols. 1 and 2.Google Scholar
- A. Biondi, M. D. Natale, and G. Buttazzo. 2018. Response-time analysis of engine control applications under fixed-priority scheduling. IEEE Trans. Comput. 67, 5 (May 2018), 687--703.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sergio Bittanti and Patrizio Colaneri. 2008. Periodic Systems: Filtering and Control. Vol. 5108985. Springer Science 8 Business Media. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Arben Çela, Mongi Ben Gaid, Xu-Guang Li, and Silviu-Iulian Niculescu. 2014. Resource Allocation in Distributed Control and Embedded Systems. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 9--29.Google Scholar
- A. Cervin, D. Henriksson, B. Lincoln, J. Eker, and K. Arzen. 2003. How does control timing affect performance? Analysis and simulation of timing using Jitterbug and TrueTime. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 23, 3 (June 2003), 16--30.Google Scholar
- A. Cervin, M. Velasco, P. Marti, and A. Camacho. 2011. Optimal online sampling period assignment: Theory and experiments. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 19, 4 (July 2011), 902--910.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wanli Chang, Dip Goswami, Samarjit Chakraborty, and Arne Hamann. 2018. OS-aware automotive controller design using non-uniform sampling. ACM Trans. Cyber-Phys. Syst. 2, 4, Article 26 (July 2018), 22 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Chang, D. Goswami, S. Chakraborty, L. Ju, C. J. Xue, and S. Andalam. 2017. Memory-aware embedded control systems design. IEEE Trans. Comput.-aided Design Integr. Circ. Syst. 36, 4 (Apr. 2017), 586--599. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Chang, A. Pröbstl, D. Goswami, M. Zamani, and S. Chakraborty. 2014. Battery- and aging-aware embedded control systems for electric vehicles. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-time Systems Symposium. 238--248.Google Scholar
- Douglas E. Crabtree and Emilie V. Haynsworth. 1969. An identity for the Schur complement of a matrix. Proc. Amer. Math. 22, 2 (1969), 364--366.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Deng, Q. Zhu, A. Davare, A. Mourikis, X. Liu, and M. D. Natale. 2016. An efficient control-driven period optimization algorithm for distributed real-time systems. IEEE Trans. Comput. 65, 12 (Dec. 2016), 3552--3566. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Geelen, D. Antunes, J. P. M. Voeten, R. R. H. Schiffelers, and W. P. M. H. Heemels. 2016. The impact of deadline misses on the control performance of high-end motion control systems. IEEE Trans. Industr. Electron. 63, 2 (2016), 1218--1229.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kees Goossens, Martijn Koedam, Andrew Nelson, Shubhendu Sinha, Sven Goossens, Yonghui Li, Gabriela Breaban, Reinier van Kampenhout, Rasool Tavakoli, Juan Valencia, Hadi Ahmadi Balef, Benny Akesson, Sander Stuijk, Marc Geilen, Dip Goswami, and Majid Nabi. 2017. NoC-Based Multiprocessor Architecture for Mixed-Time-Criticality Applications. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 491--530.Google Scholar
- D. Goswami, M. Lukasiewycz, R. Schneider, and S. Chakraborty. 2012. Time-triggered implementations of mixed-criticality automotive software. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE’12). 1227--1232. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Goswami, A. Masrur, R. Schneider, C. J. Xue, and S. Chakraborty. 2013. Multirate controller design for resource- and schedule-constrained automotive ECUs. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE’13). 1123--1126. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Goswami, R. Schneider, and S. Chakraborty. 2014. Relaxing signal delay constraints in distributed embedded controllers. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 22, 6 (Nov. 2014), 2337--2345.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joseph L. Hellerstein, Yixin Diao, Sujay Parekh, and Dawn M. Tilbury. 2004. StateSpace Feedback Control. IEEE.Google Scholar
- M. Karpenko and N. Sepehri. 2006. Hardware-in-the-loop simulator for research on fault tolerant control of electrohydraulic flight control systems. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference. 7.Google Scholar
- Benjamin C. Kuo. 1992. Digital Control Systems (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, NY. Google ScholarDigital Library
- MathWorks. 2018. What Is Hardware-in-the-Loop Simulation? Retrieved from https://nl.mathworks.com/help/physmod/simscape/ug/what-is-hardware-in-the-loop-simulation.html.Google Scholar
- Róbinson Medina, Sander Stuijk, Dip Goswami, and Twan Basten. 2017. Exploring the trade-off between processing resources and settling time in image-based control through LQR tuning. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’17). ACM, New York, NY, 1456--1459. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Morelli and M. Di Natale. 2014. An MDE approach for the design of platform-aware controls in performance-sensitive applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE Emerging Technology and Factory Automation (ETFA’14). 1--8.Google Scholar
- A. Nelson, A. Beyranvand Nejad, A. Molnos, M. Koedam, and K. Goossens. 2014. CoMik: A predictable and cycle-accurately composable real-time microkernel. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE’14). 1--4. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ron T. Ogan. 2015. Hardware-in-the-Loop Simulation. Springer London, London, 167--173.Google Scholar
- A. Palladino, G. Fiengo, F. Giovagnini, and D. Lanzo. 2009. A micro hardware-in-the-loop test system. In Proceedings of the European Control Conference (ECC’09). 3833--3838.Google Scholar
- D. Roy, L. Zhang, W. Chang, D. Goswami, and S. Chakraborty. 2016. Multi-objective co-optimization of flexray-based distributed control systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS’16). 1--12.Google Scholar
- S. Samii, A. Cervin, P. Eles, and Z. Peng. 2009. Integrated scheduling and synthesis of control applications on distributed embedded systems. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition. 57--62. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Schneider, D. Goswami, A. Masrur, M. Becker, and S. Chakraborty. 2013. Multi-layered scheduling of mixed-criticality cyber-physical systems. J. Syst. Architect. Embed. Syst. Design 59, 10-D (2013), 1215--1230. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Subramanian, V. Seshadri, A. Ghosh, S. Khan, and O. Mutlu. 2015. The application slowdown model: Quantifying and controlling the impact of inter-application interference at shared caches and main memory. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO’15). 62--75. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Truong. 2012. Hardware-in-the-loop approach to controller design and testing of motion control systems using xPC target. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Intelligent and Advanced Systems (ICIAS’12), Vol. 1. 117--121.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Valencia, D. Goswami, and K. Goossens. 2015. Composable platform-aware embedded control systems on a multi-core architecture. In Proceedings of the Euromicro Conference on Digital System Design. 502--509. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Valencia, E. P. van Horssen, D. Goswami, W. P. M. H. Heemels, and K. Goossens. 2016. Resource utilization and quality-of-control trade-off for a composable platform. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE’16). 654--659. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. van Zundert and T. Oomen. 2018. LPTV loop-shaping with application to non-equidistantly sampled precision mechatronics. In Proceedings of the IEEE 15th International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control (AMC’18). 467--472.Google Scholar
- A. Varga. 2008. On solving periodic Riccati equations. Numer. Lin. Alg. Appl. 15, 9 (2008), 809--835.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wayne Wolf. 2009. Cyber-physical systems. Computer 42, 3 (Mar. 2009), 88--89. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xilinx. 2018. Virtex-6 FPGA ML605 Evaluation Kit. Retrieved from https://www.xilinx.com/products/boards-and-kits/ek-v6-ml605-g.html.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Comparing Platform-aware Control Design Flows for Composable and Predictable TDM-based Execution Platforms
Recommendations
Optimal Control of Nonlinear Inverted Pendulum System Using PID Controller and LQR: Performance Analysis Without and With Disturbance Input
Linear quadratic regulator (LQR) and proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control methods, which are generally used for control of linear dynamical systems, are used in this paper to control the nonlinear dynamical system. LQR is one of the optimal ...
State-based switching multi-rate controller for improving resource utilization on predictable and composable platforms
AbstractResource sharing is a crucial design consideration in design of embedded systems for cost and resource utilization reasons. The system-level performance is negatively influenced by resource sharing due to inter-application ...
Design and Development of a Depth Controller for an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle with Variable Buoyancy Engine using Coefficient Diagram Method
ICMSCE 2018: Proceedings of the 2018 2nd International Conference on Mechatronics Systems and Control EngineeringAlthough the 'Coefficient Diagram Method (CDM)' can generate a stable controller which is robust and give the desired performance, the optimality and cost function are not yet under consideration. Herein, we design and develop an optimal controller for ...
Comments