TRAINING SYNOPSIS REPORT

ON

TITLE OF TRAINING
Submitted by:

NAME OF STUDENT (ROLL NO)

In partial fulfilment for award of the degree
of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
in

ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING

at

CHANDIGARH ENGINEERING COLLEGE

(CGC TECHNICAL CAMPUS)
JHANJERI, MOHALI, PUNJAB (INDIA)-140307

Affiliated to

I.K. GUJRAL Punjab Technical University

Kapurthala, Punjab, India
TRAINING CONFIRMATION LETTER
No. 1 Software & Development Company in Chandigarh

Born in 2016, VproTech digital is a forward

looking company focused on software, solution
and innovative ideas that are required for 21st
century. As an institution being a pioneer in
courses that is gave birth to , vprotech digital
offers different job practices oriented trainings
from different streams including mechanical,
civil, electronics and computer science
engineering with placement tie ups all over the
country.

Under the 9001:2015 ISO Certification, we

offer you standardize trainings and personality
development sessions that helps building the
mindset and vision of the students for their
bright future.

Vprotech digital
SCF – 116, SECOND FLOOR, INDUSTRIAL AREA SECTOR 58, PhASE-5,
MOHALI, 160059
E-Mail – [email protected]
WEB – https://vprotechdigital.com/
Contact 172-4639508, 7901949497
 INTRODUCTION OF SOFTWARE TRAINING

Fast and Easy PLC Control The object of a PLC simulator is to 'fake out' the
input into a PLC so that the programmer can test and debug the program
before installation into it's operating environment. Our patent pending PLC
simulators achieve this by mounting on the existing terminal strip of the
PLC card and providing easy controls to turn digital inputs on/off or adjust
analog signals. If you are a engineer who programs PLCs or even a
technician in need of a quick way to test a PLC functionality then these
devices are for you. Save time, money and embarrassment by fixing
problems before they start. These PLC simulators are for sale in our products
section.

History

The PLC was invented in response to the needs of the American automotive
industry. Before the PLC, control, sequencing, and safety interlock logic for
manufacturing automobiles was accomplished using relays, timers and
dedicated closed-loop controllers. The process for updating such facilities
for the yearly model change-over was very time consuming and expensive,
as the relay systems needed to be rewired by skilled electricians. In 1968
GM Hydromantic (the automatic transmission division of General Motors)
issued a request for proposal for an electronic replacement for hard-wired
relay systems.

The winning proposal came from Bedford Associates of Bedford,

Massachusetts. The first PLC, designated the 084 because it was Bedford
Associates eighty-fourth project, was the result. Bedford Associates started
a new company dedicated to developing, manufacturing, selling, and
 servicing this new product: Madison, which stood for Modular Digital
Controllers. One of the people who worked on that project was Dick
Morley, who is considered to be the "father" of the PLC. The Madison
brand was sold in 1977 to Gould Electronics, and later acquired by German
Company AEG and then by French Schneider Electric, the current owner.

Characteristics

The main difference from other computers is that PLCs are armoured
for severe condition (dust, moisture, heat, cold, etc) and have the
facility for extensive input/output (I/O) arrangements. These connect
the PLC to sensors and actuators. PLCs read limit switches, analog
process variables (such as temperature and pressure), and the
positions of complex positioning systems. Some even use machine
vision. On the actuator side, PLCs operate electric motors, pneumatic
or hydraulic cylinders, magnetic relays or solenoids, or analog
outputs. The input/output arrangements may be built into a simple
PLC, or the PLC may have external I/O modules attached to a
computer network that plugs into the PLC.

PLCs were invented as replacements for automated systems that

would use hundreds or thousands of relays, cam timers, and drum
sequencers. Often, a single PLC can be programmed to replace
thousands of relays. Programmable controllers were initially
adopted by the automotive manufacturing industry, where
software revision replaced the re-wiring of hard-wired control
panels when production models changed.

Many of the earliest PLCs expressed all decision making logic in

simple ladder logic which appeared similar to electrical schematic
diagrams. The electricians were quite able to trace out circuit
problems with schematic diagrams using ladder logic. This
program notation was chosen to reduce training demands for the
 existing technicians. Other early PLCs used a form of instruction
list programming, based on a stack-based logic solver.

The functionality of the PLC has evolved over the years to include
sequential relay control, motion control, process control,
distributed control systems and networking. The data handling,
storage, processing power and communication capabilities of
some modern PLCs are approximately equivalent to desktop
computers. PLC-like programming combined with remote I/O
hardware, allow a general-purpose desktop computer to overlap
some PLCs in certain applications.

Under the IEC 61131-3 standard, PLCs can be programmed

using standards-based programming languages. A graphical
programming notation called Sequential Function Charts is
available on certain programmable controllers.

System Scale:

A small PLC will have a fixed number of connections built in for inputs and
outputs.
Typically, expansions are available if the base model does not have enough I/O.

Modular PLCs have a chassis (also called a rack) into which is placed
modules with different functions. The processor and selection of I/O
modules is customised for the particular application. Several racks can be
administered by a single processor, and may have thousands of inputs and
outputs. A special high speed serial I/O link is used so that racks can be
distributed away from the processor, reducing the wiring costs for large
plants.

PLCs used in larger I/O systems may have peer-to-peer (P2P)

communication between processors. This allows separate parts of a complex
process to have individual control while allowing the subsystems to co-
ordinate over the communication link. These communication links are also
often used for HMI (Human-Machine Interface) devices such as keypads or
PC-type workstations. Some of today's PLCs can communicate over a wide
range of media including RS-485, Coaxial, and even Ethernet for I/O
control at network speeds up to 100 Mbit/s.

Programming in PLCs

Early PLCs, up to the mid-1980s, were programmed using proprietary

programming panels or special-purpose programming terminals, which often
had dedicated function keys representing the various logical elements of
PLC programs. Programs were stored on cassette tape cartridges. Facilities
for printing and documentation were very minimal due to lack of memory
capacity. More recently, PLC programs are typically written in a special
application on a personal computer, then downloaded by a direct-connection
cable or over a network to the PLC. The very oldest PLCs used non-volatile
magnetic core memory but now the program is stored in the PLC either in
battery-backed-up RAM or some other non-volatile flash memory.

Early PLCs were designed to replace relay logic systems. These PLCs were
programmed in "ladder logic", which strongly resembles a schematic
diagram of relay logic. Modern PLCs can be programmed in a variety of
ways, from ladder logic to more traditional programming languages such as
BASIC and C. Another method is State Logic, a Very High Level
Programming Language designed to program PLCs based on State
Transition Diagrams.
FLOWCHART OF THE WORK TO BE FOLLOWED/PROJECT
 Introduction

Definition and Brief Review

Programmable logic controllers have been used extensively in industrial control

applications since their advent in the 70s. The programming of logic controllers

has been done majorly by the knowledge of the programmer and no formal

methods are used. Hence, the task of writing the code becomes a difficult one with

the efficiency of the code varying from programmer to programmer. The ladder

logic structure of coding PLCs makes it difficult to realize higher level concepts

such as function calls and looping. The discrete event based modeling of systems

provides a suitable sequential structure to the programming of PLCs.

Many control problems in the industry, especially manufacturing processes, can

be dealt as Discrete Event problems. The DES based modeling and Supervisory

Control of a manufacturing cell is already dealt with in [1]. Hence, in our paper,

we deal with another problem, that is, Supervisory Control of a Dynamic Power

Flow Controller using the same approach as in [2]. The Supervisory Control

Theory (SCT) was proposed first by Ramadge and Wonham [3]. In this paper, they

introduce the concept of Supervisors and how a feedback system is established for

the control of a DES. Although, SCT has gained critical acclaim in the academic

sector, industrial applications have been minimal. This is mainly due to the fact
that the number of states in the Supervisor increases exponentially and is so larger

that the physical realization becomes impossible. A modular approach was

suggested by Max and Vieira [4]. According to this

approach, instead of a single monolithic supervisor, a number of decentralized

supervisors are used which work synchronously to achieve the same control action

as the monolithic supervisor.

The physical implementations of the supervisors are somewhat complicated

due the “bridge between the asynchronous DES world and synchronous PLC

world” [5]. The DES modeling assumes the events to occur spontaneously at any

random instant. But, the PLC follows a synchronous system of scan cycles. Some

problems with physical implementation of supervisors are dealt with in [5], [6],

[7]. In [5] , Fabian and Hellgren discuss some problems such as causality, inexact

synchronization and avalanche effect. They discuss some possible solutions to t

above problems which are to some extent implemented in our work. For physical

implementation of the supervisors, they define a concept called interleave

insensitivity and Malik

[6] proposes an algorithm to verify if a supervisor satisfies this condition. Although

all these problems have been discussed effective solutions are still open to

research. Max and Vieira [4] suggest some methods while programming to
overcome some of the problems discussed. They define a three level architecture

which contains the Modular supervisors at the top, the product systems in the next

level and the related operational procedures in the lowest level. They also use some

auxiliary variables in the code to make sure the supervisors are not updated in the

next cycles before the output is changed. Our work uses all these methods to

implement the modular supervisors for a DPFC.

2
Research Objectives

As discussed earlier the SCT, although it has earned much acclaim in the

academic sector, does not have much industrial applications as of yet.

Hence, the major objective of our research is:

 to model a Discrete Event System, in our case a Dynamic Power

Flow Controller.

 to develop supervisors to the system using SCT with a modular

approach.

 to simulate the supervisors and the system to test proper functioning.

 automatic code generation for a PLC using ides2st.

 to address some implementation problems of SCT and suggest

solutions.

Our work mainly aims at proving that the complete automation of the

SCT based controller design process in possible in the future. By this

paper, we hope to spread the advantages of SCT based modelling to

conventional methods and finally aid the process of utilization of SCT in

industrial control applications.

3
 Literature Review

Earlier Discrete-Event Systems were sufficiently simple that intuitive and

ad-hoc solutions were sufficient. But, due to the increasing complexity of man-

made systems, has taken such systems to such a level that formal methods for

analysis and design are required. One of the first papers on the formal methods for

control of discrete event systems were by Ramadge and Wonham [3]. The main

advantage of the model is that it separates the concept of open loop dynamics

(plant) from the feedback control, and thus permits the formulation and solution of

a variety of control synthesis problems. After the initiative by them, many other

researchers developed the theory to include concepts like controllability,

observability, aggregation, and modular, decentralized, and hierarchical control.

But, what the researches had not considered was the implementation of SCT.

In 1992, Balemi [8] proposed an interpretation of supervisory control theory

from an input/output perspective. The plant was modeled as an input/output

process accepting commands as inputs, and producing as outputs some messages

regarding changes that occurred in the system. A controller controlling the system

was described in a similar way, accepting the outputs of the plant, and in turn

producing commands. Under these semantics both the controller and the plant

formed the “generating” process in the closed-loop systems. This was in contrast to
the original framework of Ramadge and Wonham where the plant alone was the

“generator”. Balemi also dealt with some problems of communication delay

between the plant and the supervisor. Using this scheme a control environment for

a Rapid Thermal Multiprocessor (RTM) had been

4
implemented at the Center for Integrated Systems at Stanford University. The

environment provided both manual and automatic control.

Although the SCT attained critical acclaim in academia, its industrial

applications were unknown. Fabian and Hellgren [5] in 1996, suggested that the

main reason for this was the discrepancy between the abstract supervisor and its

physical implementation. This is specifically noticeable when the implementation

is supposed to be based on programmable logic controllers (PLCs), as is the case

with many manufacturing systems. The asynchronous event-driven nature of the

supervisor is not straightforwardly implemented in the synchronous signal-based

PLC. They dealt with some problems in physical implementation of supervisors

like simultaneity of events, inexact synchronization, causality and choice with

examples. Malik [6] also dealt with problems like determinism and suggested some

solutions.

In 2002 Max and Cury [1] attempted the modular supervisory control of a

manufacturing cell. They suggest a three level structure for the PLC

implementation of the supervisors. Again in 2006 [4], they improved their structure

and proposed a Sequential Flow Chart based algorithm for developing the PLC

code. In 2009 Max and Silva [2], developed the control scheme for a factory

manufacturing cell using the methods in [4] and they also used an automatic code

generator for the PLC code part. This was a real step forward in the automation of
the controller implementation process. Further, the tools TCT and IDES developed

by Wonham [9] and Rudie [10] respectively greatly aided to the ease of design

process.

REFERENCES

[1] Queiroz M.H. and Cury J.E.R. Synthesis and Implementation of Local

Modular Supervisory Control for a Manufacturing Cell,in Proceedings of the

6th International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, Zaragoza, Spain,

(2002): pp. 377-382.

[2] Queiroz M.H and Silva Y.G. Formal Synthesis, simulation and automatic code

generation of a Factory Manufacturing Cell,in 20th International Congress of

Mechanical Engineering, Gramado, Brazil,(2009).

[3] Ramadge P.J.G and Wonham W.M. The Control Of Discrete Event Systems,

Proceedings of IEEE,77-1(1989): pp. 81-98.

[4] Vieira A.D and Cury J.E.R and Qeiroz M.H. A Model for PLC

Implementation of Supervisory Control of Discrete Event Systems ,

IEEE(2006).
[5] Fabian M. and Hellgran A. PLC-based Implementation of Supervisory Control

for Discrete Event Systems,in Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on

Decision & Control, Tampa, Florida, USA,(1998).

[6] Malik P., Generating Controllers from Discrete-Event Models, in

Proceedings of Summer School in Modelling and Verification Processes

(MOVEP), Cassez F. et al., Eds., 2002, pp. 337-342.

[7] Dietrich P., Malik R., Wonham W.M., and and Brandin B., Implementation Considerations

in Supervisory Control, in Synthesis and Control of Discrete Event Systems.: Kluwer

Academic Publishers, 2002, pp. 185-201.

[8] Balemi S. "Control of Discrete Event Systems: Theory and Application,"

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland, PhD Thesis 1992.

[9] Cassandras C.G. and Lafortune S., Introduction to Discrete Event Systems

New York, USA: Springer, 2008.

[10] Afzalian A. and Noorbakhsh M. and Nabavi S.A. PLC Implementation of

Decentralized Supervisory ,in 17th IEEE International Conference on

Control Applications, San Antonio, Texas, USA,(2008).

[11] Feng L. and Wonham W.M. TCT: A computational Tool for Supervisory

Control Synthesis,in Proceedings of 8th International Workshop on

Discrete Event Systems, Ann Harbor, USA,(2006): pp. 388-389.

[12] Rudie K. The Integrated Discrete-Event System Tool,in Proceedings of 8th

International Workshop on Discrete-Event Systems, Ann Harbor, USA,

(2006): pp. 394-395.

[13] Afzalian A., Nabavi Niaki S.A., and Irani R. and Wonham W.M. Discrete-

Event Systems Supervisory Control for a Dynamic Flow Controller, IEEE

Transactions on Power Delivery,24-1(2009).

[14] Brandin B.A. The Real-time Supervisory Control of an Experimental

Manufacturing Cell , IEEE Transactions on Robitics and Automation,12-

1(1996): pp. 1-14.