Cyber-Physical Systems - contradicting requirements as drivers for innovation

Unrestricted © Siemens AG 2015 All rights reserved.

Cyber-Physical Systemscontradicting requirements as drivers for innovation

Siemens Corporate Technology | June 2015

Page 2 April 2015 Corporate Technology Unrestricted © Siemens AG 2015 All rights reserved.

Orchestration of central and distributed coordination

Key-challenge of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS)

Learn from nature: take any leaf from almost any tree and look at the structure


Conclusion

Contradicting requirements as drivers for innovation

Introduction and definitions

Agenda

Cyber-Physical Systems


Orchestration of computers and physical systems

Generic Definition of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS)

Definition by Edward A. Lee, UC Berkeley

A cyber-physical system (CPS) is an orchestration of computers and physical systems

Embedded computers monitor and control physical processes, usually with feedback loops, where physical processes affect computations and vice versa


Distinguish between architectural layersand multi-tiers of each layer

What is an architectural layer?

Industrial IT

Control

SCADA1)

Planning

Mgmt.

Field

1) SCADA… Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition


CPS focuses on lower architectural layers, typically

Definition of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) according to cyberphysicalsystems.org


Control Systems

are

Networked and/or

distributed

Adaptive and predictive

Intelligent

Real-time

that are

Humanin-the-loop

possibly with

Source: adopted from http://cyberphysicalsystems.org/

Wireless sensing and

actuation

possibly with

require

• Improved design tools that enable• Design Methodology• Cyber Security

http://cyberphysicalsystems.org/


We focus on higher architectural layers

Our Definition of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS)


Control or Coordination

Systems

are

Networked and/or

distributed

Self-*

Resilient

Real-time

that are

Humanin-the-loop

with

1) Different industries like building, grid, mobility *) self-organization, self-configuration, self-learning, self-healing, self-optimization, self-protection, self-explaining

Domains1) or sub-domains

accross

require

• Improved design tools that enable• Design Methodology• Cyber Security


Cyber-Physical Systems (CPSs) are growing together

Introduction: need for change

Therefore:

• Need for a distributed architecture

• Paradigm shift for IT platformstowards less hierarchical structures(compare with Internet architecture)

• New requirements (sometimes contradicting) for platforms

CPSs are growing together

HVAC Lighting Safety

Energysun-

shades

Buildingautomation

…

Building(s)

Energy Market

NationalPower Grid

Local Smart Grid

…


Building Automation

Systems

Minimal Invasiveness might be a key enabler of cross-domain cyber-physical systems

What is Minimal Invasiveness?

Power Grid

Each party keeps its own dataAll data are send to the central unit

New: Minimal invasive peer-to-peer solutionClassical technical solution: centrally

„All knowing“central coordination unit

Sen

d da

ta

Receive

comm

ands

Rec

eive

com

man

ds Send data Building

Automation System 1

Power Grid

Building Automation System 2

Building Automation System 3

negotiatio

n

neg

otia

tion

neg

otia

tion

negotiation

negotiation

negotiation

Justincentive definition

Neither the building operator nor the grid operator wants to provide the operational data to third parties


Conclusion



Agenda



Contradicting Requirements are Drivers for Innovation

Old Requirement

Innovation

• Give up?

• Change requirements?

• Innovation

Additionally new (contradicting) requirement



Agenda Innovation

Innovation

Place functionality on high layers (cloud)

High cross-system connectivity demanded

Decoupling of layers

High model fidelity

Scalability

Increasing complexity of CPSs

Leverage synergies of sub-systems

Open

Holistic optimization of CPS

Laws and regulations

Place functionality on low layers (fog)

Security is non-negotiable

Direct data access for on-top applications

Limit model complexity

Reliability and predictability

Reduce engineering effort

Self-contained modules

Proprietary

Optimization of own business

Technical possibilities

Source: Heiss et al: “Platforms for industrial cyber-physical systems integration…”, MSCPES 2015, CPS Week, IEEE, Seattle 2015, pp. 1-8.



Agenda Innovation

Innovation

Place functionality on high layers (cloud)

High cross-system connectivity demanded

Decoupling of layers

High model fidelity

Scalability

Increasing complexity of CPSs

Leverage synergies of sub-systems

Open



Place functionality on low layers (fog)

Security is non-negotiable

Direct data access for on-top applications

Limit model complexity

Reliability and predictability


Self-contained modules

Proprietary



Selected for presentation; see paper for the rest

Source: Heiss et al: “Platforms for industrial cyber-physical systems integration…”, MSCPES 2015, CPS Week, IEEE, Seattle 2015, pp. 1-8.


Cloud vs. Fog

Place functionality on high layer (e.g. cloud)

Innovation

• New architectures (orchestration of distributed central functionality)

• Distributed optimization

• Distributed middleware

• Elastic middleware

Place functionality on low layer (e.g. fog)

Requirement:Cross-system optimization

Requirement: “Minimal Invasiveness”,Independence of central infrastructure


Managing the complexity of models

High model fidelity

Innovation

• New model architectures

• Model execution provides upper bounds of errors

Limit the model complexity

Requirement:General purpose digital twins,deterministic models

Requirement:Application of models in realtime


Reduction of the engineering effort by self-* mechanisms

Increasing complexity of the CPS

Innovation

• Self-* mechanisms:-organization, -configuration, -learning, -healing, -optimization, -protection, -explaining, etc. plug-and-play culture

• New complexity metrics


Cross-system functionality requires high interconnection rate

Requirement:Reduce total cost of ownership


Openess will win over propriarity

Proprietary systems

Innovation

• Predictability via digital twins

• (Standardization)

Open, standardized interfaces

Customers need reliability.In case of troubles customers prefer one responsible contact person, who has all sub-systems under his/her control

Customers like modular, replaceable systems

Separation of hardware and software


New business models will leverage holistic optimization


Innovation

• Business model innovation

• Vision: connect businesses like people are connected via social media

• “Minimal Invasiveness”


Today: Each (sub-)system has its own provider/customer match.Who is the customer of an overarching CPS?

The business case for a CPS is leveraging cross-system savings


A modernization of the laws and regulations is desired


Innovation

• Continuous certification

• Management of country-specific legal requirements (e.g. data privacy)


Standards like SIL or FDA for safety-critical systems require for each change an external certification by an authority

Requirement:Add/remove components, systems, third party applications during live-operation


Conclusion



Agenda



CPS will trigger paradigm shifts

Conclusion

Openness, preparedness for unknown future applications, flexibility, reduction of engineering effort, and cross-systems benefits are not just

• Technical, but also

• Organizational,

• Legal, and

• Business model

challenges

More than technology

• The contradicting requirements of next generation CPSs can serve as drivers for innovation

Innovation required


Contact Information

Prof. Dr. Michael HeissHead of Research Group Cyber-Physical SystemsSiemens CT RTC ITP CPS

Siemens AG ÖsterreichSiemensstraße 901210 Vienna, Austria

Phone & Mobile: +43 664 88 55 1526

E-mail:[email protected]

www.siemens.com

mailto:[email protected]

Engineering

Cyber-Physical Systems - contradicting requirements as drivers for innovation