Advertisement

Evolution of 3C Cyber-Physical Systems Architecture for Industry 4.0

  • Ahmadzai AhmadiEmail author
  • Ali Hassan Sodhro
  • Chantal Cherifi
  • Vincent Cheutet
  • Yacine Ouzrout
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 803)

Abstract

Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) are considered as the emerging components for Industry 4.0, the state-of-the art and standard CPS architecture playing the major role in understanding the nature of the industrial landscape. The key problem with traditional CPS architectures is that they are not up-to-mark and convincing to fulfil the needs of smart industries, as they merely consider vertical and horizontal integration with three components (i.e., human, cyber and physical components) integration. Currently, CPS lack adopting and highlighting the key interfacing elements which are vital for Industry 4.0. So, to remedy these problems and bridge the gap between concepts and implementing, this paper proposes to enhance the 3C CPS architecture based on the traditional 3C one for Industry 4.0 by adopting the main interfacing elements such as connectors, protocols, and sub-elements, for example human, cyber and physical parts. Hence, it can be said that the proposed enhanced 3C CPS architecture plays a significant role and will be considered as a guideline and application for future smart manufacturing CPS systems and industries.

Keywords

CPS Industry 4.0 CPS architectures Connectors Protocols 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This research work has been supported by the SmartLink Project, Erasmus Mundus Program. The authors would like to thank SmartLink Project and Université Lumière Lyon2.

References

  1. 1.
    Sadiku, M.N., Wang, Y., Cui, S., Musa, S.M.: Cyber-physical systems: a literature review. Eur. Sci. J. 13(36), 1–7 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lu, Y.: Industry 4.0: a survey on technologies, applications and open research issues. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 6, 1–10 (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bagheri, B., Yang, S., Kao, H.A., Lee, J.: Cyber-physical systems architecture for self-aware machines in industry 4.0 environment. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(3), 1622–1627 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jiang, J.R.: An improved cyber–physical systems architecture for Industry 4.0 smart factories. In: 2017 International Conference on ICASI, pp. 918–920. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pirvu, B.C., Zamfirescu, C.B., Gorecky, D.: Engineering insights from an anthropocentric cyber–physical system: a case study for an assembly station. Mechatronics 34, 147–159 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thramboulidis, K.: A cyber–physical system-based approach for industrial automation systems. Comput. Ind. 72, 92–102 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sodhro, A.H.: Convergence of IoT and Product Lifecycle Management in Medical Health Care, Future Generation Computer Systems: Special Issue on Emerging Edge-of-Things Computing: Opportunities and Challenges. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hummel, V., Hyra, K., Ranz, F., Schuhmacher, J.: Competence development for the holistic design of collaborative work systems in the Logistics Learning Factory. Procedia CIRP 32, 76–81 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sodhro, A.H., Kumar, A., Sodhro, G.H.: 5G-based transmission power control mechanism in fog computing for IoT devices. MDPI Sustain. 10(4), 1–17 (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holtewert, P., Wutzke, R., Seidelmann, J., Bauernhansl, T.: Virtual fort knox federative, secure and cloud-based platform for manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 7, 527–532 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fang, C., Liu, X., Pardalos, P.M., Pei, J.: Optimization for a three-stage production system in the Internet of Things: procurement, production and product recovery, and acquisition. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 83(5–8), 689–710 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gradišar, D., Glavan, M., Strmčnik, S., Mušič, G.: ProOpter: An advanced platform for production analysis and optimization. Comput. Ind. 70, 102–115 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spöcker, G., Schreiner, T., Huwer, T., Arntz, K.: Programming of adaptive repair process chains using repair features and function blocks. J. Comput. Des. 3, 53–62 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheng, L., Wang, T., Hong, X., Wang, Z., Wang, J., Liu, J.: A study on the architecture of manufacturing internet of things. Int. J. Model. 23(1), 8–23 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sodhro, A.H., Sekahri, A., Ouzrout, Y.: Energy-efficiency comparison between data rate control and transmission power control algorithms for wireless body sensor networks. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. (IJDSN) 14(1), 1–18 (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Toro, C., Barandiaran, I., Posada, J.: A perspective on knowledge based and intelligent systems implementation in Industry 4.0. Procedia Comput. Sci. 60, 362–370 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berger, C., Hees, A., Braunreuther, S., Reinhart, G.: Characterization of cyber–physical sensor systems. Procedia CIRP 41, 638–643 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lesjak, C., Ruprechter, T., Haid, J., Bock, H., Brenner, E.: A secure hardware module and system concept for local and remote industrial embedded system identification. In: Emerging Technology and Factory Automation (ETFA), pp. 1–7. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wan, J., et al.: Software-defined industrial internet of things in the context of industry 4.0. IEEE Sens. J. 16(20), 7373–7380 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sodhro, A.H., Li, Y.: Medical quality-of-service optimization in wireless telemedicine system using optimal smoothing algorithm. E-Health Telecommun. Syst. Netw. (ETSN) J. 2(1), 1 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sodhro, A.H., Fortino, G.: Energy management during video transmission in WBSNs. In: 14th IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC), Calabria, Italy, May 16–18 (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kashevnik, A., Teslya, N., Padun, B., Kipriyanov, K., Arckhipov, V.: Industrial cyber–physical system for lenses assembly: configuration workstation scenario. In: 2015 17th Conference of Open Innovations Association (FRUCT), pp. 62–67 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spath, D., Gerlach, S., Hämmerle, M., Schlund, S., Strölin, T.: Cyber–physical system for self-organised and flexible labour utilisation. Personnel 50, 22 (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grangel-González, I., Halilaj, L., Coskun, G., Auer, S., Collarana, D., Hoffmeister, M.: Towards a semantic administrative shell for industry 4.0 components. In: 2016 IEEE Tenth International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC), pp. 230–237 (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gölzer, P., Cato, P., Amberg, M.: Data processing requirements of Industry 4.0-use cases for big data applications. ECIS 2015 research-in-progress papers. Paper 61, ISBN: 978-3-00-050284-2. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2015_rip/61 (2015)
  26. 26.
    Niggemann, O., Henning, S., Schriegel, S., Otto, J., Anis, A.: Models for adaptable automation software: an overview of plug-and-produce in industrial automation. In: 11th MBEES Workshop, pp. 73–82 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schmitt, M., Orfgen, M., Zühlke, D.: Dynamic reconfiguration of intelligent field devices by using modular software applications. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(3), 561–566 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosenberg, E., Haeusler, M. H., Araullo, R., Gardner, N.: Smart architecture-bots and Industry 4.0 principles for architecture. Fabrication Robots, vol. 2. eCAADe 33. http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/ecaade2015_155.content.pdf (2015)
  29. 29.
    Colombo, A.W., Karnouskos, S., Kaynak, O., Shi, Y., Yin, S.: Industrial cyberphysical systems. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 11(1), 6–16 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Urbina, M., Astarloa, A., Lázaro, J., Bidarte, U., Villalta, I., Rodriguez, M.: Cyber–physical production system gateway based on a programmable SoC platform. IEEE 5, 20408–20417 (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Knezic, M., Dokic, B., Ivanovic, Z.: Theoretical and experimental evaluation of ethernet powerlink PollResponse chaining mechanism. IEEE Trans. 13, 923–933 (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ahmadi, A., Cherifi, C., Cheutet, V., Ouzrout, Y.: A review of CPS 5 components architecture for manufacturing based on standards. In: SKIMA, International Conference on Software, Knowledge, Intelligent Management and Applications, Colombo, Sri-Lanka (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmadzai Ahmadi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ali Hassan Sodhro
    • 1
  • Chantal Cherifi
    • 1
  • Vincent Cheutet
    • 1
  • Yacine Ouzrout
    • 1
  1. 1.University Lyon, University Lumière Lyon2, INSA Lyon, DISP EA4570LyonFrance

Personalised recommendations