See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341895722

Petri net modelling of industrial processes from a P&ID description

Conference Paper · June 2020

DOI: 10.1109/CoDIT49905.2020.9263991

CITATIONS READS
2 1,101

4 authors:

Durvvin Alexis Rozo Javier Ruiz-Leon

Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute
8 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS    93 PUBLICATIONS   511 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Daniel Guevara Lozano Carlos Renato Vazquez

Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute Tecnológico de Monterrey
7 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS    68 PUBLICATIONS   460 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multi-Agent Systems View project

ROBOTICS GIEE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlos Renato Vazquez on 04 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Petri net modelling of industrial processes from a
P&ID description
D. Rozo-Ibañez 1 , J. Ruiz-León1 , D. Guevara-Lozano1 , and C.R. Vázquez2

Abstract—This work presents a novel methodology to trans-
late an industrial process description from the standard ISA
5.1 (Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&ID’s)), and the
corresponding process and operation narratives, into Interpreted
Petri Nets (IPN), capturing both the plant and the specification
behaviors. In contrast to other methodologies, the one herein
proposed can be automatized demanding from operators and
practitioners neither knowledge on Petri nets, nor ladder dia-
grams. Moreover, it is endowed with error detection stages to
automatically remove errors introduced in the narratives, such
as omissions, inconsistencies, or ambiguities. The methodology
consists in capturing the process information (P&ID and narra-
tives) in tables, and then translating them into interpreted Petri
nets representing both, the plant and specification behaviors.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Industrial processes consist of a sequence of unit operations,
that could be physical (grinding, mixture, heat exchange,
drying, etc.), chemical (refining, chemical peeling), and/or bio-
chemical (fermentation, sterilization, pasteurization) [1]. These
processes are commonly represented using the standard ISA
S5.1, mainly the Pipe & Instrumentation Diagrams (P&ID) to
graphically describe the interaction between actuators, sensors,
devices and process variables. Although this is a convenient
unambiguous mechanism for engineering communication, it is
incomplete since it captures neither the process functionality
nor the desired closed-loop behavior. Moreover, P&ID lack
of a mathematical formalism that could be used for analysis
purposes. In practice, the system functionality and desired
closed-loop behavior are frequently captured in process and
operation narratives, which are described in natural language,
introducing a source of potential errors [2], [3]. As a result
of this modelling approach, the success of the control pro-
gramming depends on the expertise of the programmer, who
frequently performs a trial-and-error methodology, introducing
unconscious errors and requiring expensive and time consum-
ing debugging stages.
In order to cope with these problems, many researchers have
proposed formal tools and methodologies to model and ana-
lyze these processes, either based on Finite Automata or Petri
nets [4]. For example, [5]–[10] introduce fine methodologies
to model and analyze processes, unfortunately, all of them
demand a deep knowledge on the formal tool, limiting their
applicability in real industries. The approach herein proposed
1 D. Rozo-Ibañez, J. Ruiz-León and D. Guevara-Lozano are
with CINVESTAV-IPN Unidad Guadalajara, Av. del Bosque
1145, CP 45019, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico {darozo,
jruiz,dguevara}@gdl.cinvestav.mx
2 C.R. Vázquez is with Tecnologico de Monterrey, Av. Ramón Corona 2514,
CP 45201, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico cr.vazquez@tec.mx
uses the P&ID, and the corresponding process and operation
narratives as input information to build Petri net models of
the process and the desired behavior. Based on these models,
a supervisor controller ( [11]–[14]) can be formally designed
and implemented, avoiding errors introduced in heuristic ap-
proaches. The advantage of Petri nets lies in the compactness
of the derived model and that different classes of controllers
can be designed (for instance, tracking control [15], [16]).
Even if different works in the literature have proposed Petri
net models for industrial systems, to the best of our knowledge
none of those modelling methodologies is based on the ISA
S5.1 standard, hence the engineers should start from scratch
the process description and modeling, requiring to learn new
formal tools and abandoning the well established standards.
The approach of the proposed methodology follows a mod-
ular strategy, where the industrial process information given by
a P&ID, a process narrative (P N ), and an operation narrative
(ON ) is presented in a structured way (tables), representing
the behavior and desired operation of the process elements.
Next, the information captured in these tables is translated
in a process graph (PG ) that represents the interaction be-
tween actuators and controlled variables. Finally, the tables
information and the process graph are used to build two
IPN models, one representing the possible process behavior
and the other representing the required process behavior. In
each stage, errors such as inconsistencies, ambiguities, and
incompleteness are detected and removed, leading to error-
free models.
This paper is organized as follows: Section II provides basic
definitions of PN and the fundamentals of industrial processes.
In Section III, the proposed methodology is presented in order
to translate the industrial process description from a P&ID to
IPN models. Section IV describes how to detect some errors
in the translation methodology. Finally, some conclusions are
presented in Section V.
II. BASIC CONCEPTS
This section recalls fundamentals on Petri nets and industrial
processes.
A. Petri nets
Definition 1. A Petri net (PN) structure is a bipartite di-
graph represented by the 4-tuple G = hP, T, I, Oi, where P =
{p1 , p2 , ..., pn } is a finite set of places, T = {t1 ,t2 , ...,to } is
a finite set of transitions, I : P × T → Z≥0 is a function rep-
resenting the weighted arcs connecting places to transitions,
and O : P × T → Z≥0 is a function representing the weighted
arcs connecting transitions to places.
Pictorially, places are represented by circles, transitions by
rectangles, and arcs by arrows. The incidence matrix of a PN
is a |P| × |T | matrix C defined such that C[i, j] = O(pi ,t j ) −
I(pi ,t j ). The symbol •t j (resp. • pi ) denotes the set of all places
pi ( resp. transitions t j ) such that I(pi ,t j ) 6= 0 (resp. O(pi ,t j ) 6=
0). Similarly, t •j (resp. p•i ) denotes the set of all places pi (resp.
transitions t j ) such that O(pi ,t j ) 6= 0 (resp. I(pi ,t j ) 6= 0). A PN
is consistent (conservative) if there exists X > 0 (Y > 0) such
that CX = 0 (Y T C = 0).
Definition 2. Given a PN structure, the marking distribution
is defined as a function M : P → Z≥0 , where M(pi ) represents
the number of tokens residing inside the place pi (depicted as
dots). The marking distribution is expressed as a column vector
M of length |P|, where M[i] = M(pi ), ∀pi ∈ P. A PN system
is a pair hG, M0 i, where G is a PN structure and M0 is the
initial marking distribution. The marking distribution evolves
according to the firing of transitions. A transition t j is enabled
at a marking Mk if ∀pi ∈ •t j , Mk [i] ≥ I(pi ,t j ), this is denoted
tj
as Mk →. A transition t j can fire if it is enabled. The firing
of an enabled transition t j leads to a new marking Mk+1 that
can be computed with the so-called PN fundamental equation
Mk+1 = Mk + Cvk , where vk [i] = 0 for i 6= j and vk [ j] = 1.
Definition 3. An Interpreted Petri net (IPN) system is a tuple
Q = hG, M0 , ΣI , ΣO , λ, ϕi, where hG, M0 i is a PN system; ΣI is
the input alphabet, where each element of the set ΣI is an input
symbol; ΣO is the output alphabet, where each element of the
set ΣO is an output symbol; λ : T → 2ΣI is the input-labeling
function of transitions (a single transition can be associated
with more than one symbol from the input alphabet ΣI ); ϕ :
P → 2ΣO is the labeling function of places (a single place can
be associated with more than one output symbol).
The evolution of an IPN is similar to that of the PN system
with the addition of the following rules: 1) a symbol a ∈ ΣI
is said to be indicated if it is activated by an external device
(e.g., a controller or a user) or ∃p ∈ P such that a ∈ ϕ(p)
and M(p) > 0; 2) a transition t j can fire iff t j is enabled and
∀a ∈ λ(t j ) it holds that a is indicated.
B. Industrial processes
The information of an industrial process is frequently de-
scribed by a Piping and Instrument Diagram (P&ID), a
Process narrative (P N ), and an Operation narrative (ON ).
A P&ID is a graphic representation illustrating the intercon-
nection of the equipment, control elements (sensors, actuators,
converters, timers, etc.) used in the control of a process [17],
as well as the variables that must be controlled. This diagram
uses a set of symbols and nomenclatures for element and
variable identification based on the standards issued by the
Instrumentation Systems and Automation Society (ISA).
The variables appearing in a P&ID are named controlled
variable, the value of this variable is named the variable state,
and the set of possible values is named the variable range.
In a similar way, the actuator state is the condition of the
actuator and the actuator range is the set of possible states
of the actuator. Both the controlled variables and the actuators
are referred as the process elements. The elements controlling,
acting or sensing a controlled variable form a control loop in
the P&ID; control loops are gathered to form sub-processes.
In this work, we consider processes in which the actuators
range and the variables range are discrete.
The Process Narrative (P N ) is a description of the process
functionality, provided in natural language. This narrative
describes the possible evolution of each controlled variable as
function of both the variables states and the actuators states.
Variables and actuators interact in two different ways. First,
the simultaneous occurrence of variables and actuators state
changes is represented by a synchronous relation [6], [18].
Second, the permissive relation represents the enabling of a
variable state change when some actuator is at a particular
state [6]. These relations are implied in the process narrative.
The Operation Narrative (ON ) is a set of sentences
describing the required behavior of the system. In particular,
this narrative indicates ordered sequences of state values that
the actuators and controlled variables must reach in order to
produce goods as expected.
The following example presents an industrial process de-
scription, and the translating methodology proposed in this
paper will be illustrated using also this example.
Example 1. A bottle filling system. The P&ID depicted in Fig.
1 represents a bottle filling system. This process is described
as follows.
YIC-1 LV -104
LT
GRIPPER
ZZC -103
104
ZZ -103
T1 BOTTLE ROBOT
ZN -103
M CONVEYOR - C1
ZY ZT-1 ZT-2 ZT-3
YIC-1
103 103 103 103
YIC-1
Fig. 1: P&ID of a bottle filling system.
Process narrative. The system has two sub-processes. The
first one is the bottle transfer (C − 1) that is composed of
three position transmitters (ZT-1, ZT-2, and ZT-3), a motor
(ZZ-103), and a robot arm (ZN-103) with its gripper (ZZC-
103). Transmitters are used to detect relevant bottle positions
over the conveyor, defining controlled variables BP1 − 103 ,
BP2 − 103 and BP3 − 103 for positions 1, 2 and 3 respectively,
p p
where each can be either at a presence state (BP1 , BP2 , and
p
BP3 ) or at an absence state (BP1a , BP2a , and BP3a ). If the motor
ZZ − 103 is turned on the conveyor belt conveys bottles, then
bottles are transferred from the position-1 to position-2, and
from the position-2 to position-3 (a physical barrier is at the
end of the conveyor); when the motor ZZ − 103 is turned o f f
the conveyor stops. The variable of the gripper ZZC − 103 row and column represent a state of the element from the
can be opened or closed. The robot arm is programmed to Range column of the Element Description table. Given two
reach positions Home (RH ), RP1 (over ZT − 3) and RP2 (over different states, state-1 and state-2, a check-mark is drawn
the exit). The second sub-process (T − 1) is the bottle filling, in the cell at row state-1 and column state-2 if the element
it consists of a level transmitter (LT − 104) and a level valve evolves from state-1 to state-2 without visiting another state.
(LV − 104). The Bottle-level variable (LT − 104) can be empty The element behavior tables of the industrial process described
(BLe ) or f ull (BL f ). If the valve LV − 104 is opened, then the for the Example 1 are shown in Table II.
state of BL − 104 changes from BLe to BL f . The complete
process is controlled by the controller Y IC − 1. TABLE II: Element Behavior tables.
Operation narrative. The initial conditions of the position ZZ-103 off on ZZC-103 opened closed LV-104 opened closed
off X opened X opened X
transmitters are BP1a , BP2a and BP3a . The initial condition of on X closed X closed X

BL is BLe . The complete system must perform the following BP1 − 103 BP1a BP1
p
BP2 − 103 BP2a BP2
p
BP3 − 103 BP3a BP3
p

BP1a X BP2a X BP3a X

tasks: at the initial conditions, take a bottle to position 2 of BP1
p
X BP2
p
X BP3
p
X
p
the conveyor (BP2 ) and fill it (BL f ), then retrieve the bottle BL-104 BLe BL f ZN-103 RP1 home RP2
BLe X RP1 X
from position 2 (BP2a ) only if there is not a bottle at position BL f X home X X
p
3 (BP3a ); and if there is a bottle at position 3 (BPp ) then the RP2 X

robot goes to its position 1 with the gripper opened (RP1 , Go ),

The interaction between controlled variables and actuators
closes its gripper (RP1 , Gc ), goes to its position 2 with the
is captured in the permissive and synchronous relation tables.
griper still closed (RP2 , Gc ), opens its gripper (RP2 , Go ), and
The permissive relation table represents the fact that certain
goes back to its home position with the gripper still opened
variable changes occur only if certain actuators are at some
(RPH , Go ).
particular states. In the permissive relation table, a row is
III. M ETHODOLOGY TO TRANSLATE A PROCESS INTO IPN defined for each actuator from the P&ID. Furthermore, each
This section describes how to capture the relevant infor- actuator row is split into sub-rows, one per each state in
mation of the P&ID, the process narrative, and the operation the actuator’s range. On the other hand, a column is defined
narrative, in a few standardized tables. Later, these tables for each controlled variable. If the evolution of a controlled
are used to propose IPN models to describe the process variable Vi from state S1 to state S2 requires that actuator A j
and the required behavior, which represent the plant and the be in state R, then write “S1 to S2 ” in the cell associated to
specification, respectively, in the tracking control framework the actuator A j , at sub-row representing state R and column
[15], [16]. representing V j . Table III is the permissive relation table for
Example 1.
A. P&ID and P N tables
The P&ID and P N information is summarized in the TABLE III: Permissive relation.
elements description, elements behavior, permissive and syn- Controlled variables
BP1 − 103 BP2 − 103 BP3 − 103 BL − 104
chronous relation tables. Actuator Actuator State Events
The element description table lists the controlled variables off - - - -
ZZ-103 p
BP2a to BP2 p
on p BP3a to BP3 -
and actuators with their characteristics: range, initial condition, BP1 to BP1a p
BP2 to BP2a
p
RP1 - - BP3 to BP3a -
labels, etc. The first column of this table is filled with the ZN-103 home - - - -
element’s name; the second column with the variable/actuator RP2 - - - -
p
closed - - BP3 to BP3a -
ZCC-103
range; and the third column with the variable/actuator initial opened - - - -
closed - - - -
state. The different values in the Range column are referred as LV-104
opened - - - BLe to BL f
the states of the element. The last two columns correspond to
the element location in the process. The element description The Synchronous relation table indicates when two or more
table for Example 1 is depicted in Table I. controlled variables evolve simultaneously. In the synchronous
relation table, rows and columns are associated to controlled
TABLE I: Element Description.
variables. Furthermore, rows and columns are split into sub-
Controlled variables
Range
Initial rows and sub-columns, respectively, representing the events
& Actuators State
ZZ-103(Motor) off, on off of each controlled variable (i.e. the change from one state
ZN-103 (Robot) home (RH ), RP1, RP2 RH to another). The cell defined by a sub-row eventi and a sub-
ZZC-103 (Gripper) opened (Go ), closed (Gc ) Go
LV-104 (Valve) opened, closed closed
column event j is marked with an “X” if these events occur
Bottle-Position-1 (BP1 − 103)
p
absence (BP1a ), presence (BP1 ) absence simultaneously. The synchronous relation table for the bottle
a p
Bottle-Position-2 (BP2 − 103) absence (BP2 ), presence (BP2 ) absence filling system is shown in Table IV.
p
Bottle-Position-3 (BP3 − 103) absence (BP3a ), presence (BP3 ) absence
Bottle-level (BL-104) empty (BLe ), full (BL f ) empty
B. Process graph
Each of the element behavior tables captures the behavior The Process Graph (PG ) represents the relation between
of an element mentioned in the P&ID. In each table, every actuators and variables of a process, as defined below.
 TABLE IV: Synchronous relation.
Variables and BP1 − 103 BP2 − 103 BP3 − 103 BL − 104
p p p p p p
Events BP1a to BP1 BP1 to BP1a BP2a to BP2 BP2 to BP2a BP3a to BP3 BP3 to BP3a BLe to BL f BL f to BLe
p
BP1a to BP1
BP1 − 103 p
BP1 to BP1a X
p
BP2a to BP2 X
BP2 − 103 p
BP2 to BP2a X X
p
BP3a to BP3 X X
BP3 − 103 p
BP3 to BP3a
BLe to BL f
BL − 104
BL f to BLe X X

Definition 4. A process graph is the triplet PG = (N, B, D), the union of the labels associated to all the transitions and
where N = {n1 , ..., nq } is a finite set of vertices, and ni places in the module, respectively.
represents the i − th element of the P&ID; B ∪ D ⊂ N × N Module interconnection. The place ph of the module Mi
is a set of arcs, where B represents the permissive relation, is connected to the transition tkl of M j , with a self-loop, if the
and D represents the synchronous relation. event “pk to pl ” is written in the cell defined by the sub-row
rh of ei and the column e j of the permissive relation table. In
If arc (ni , n j ) ∈ B, then ni is an actuator, n j is a variable,
addition, transitions tab ,tcd of modules Mi , M j , respectively,
and there exists a non null cell at row ni and column n j in
are merged into a single one if there exists a mark in the cell
the permissive relation table. If arc (ni , n j ) ∈ D, then ni , n j are
defined by the sub-row “a to b” and the sub-column “c to d”,
both variables and there is a marked cell at row ni and column
respectively, in the synchronous relation table. Notice that by
n j in the Variable relation table. Arcs B are represented with
construction, the IPN model is consistent and conservative.
solid lines and arcs in D are represented with dashed lines.
Fig. 2 represents the process graph of the Example 1. Example 2. Consider the system illustrated in Fig. 1, where
each element is represented by a PN module in Fig. 3. In
p p p
n7 LV-104 this figure, M1 , M2 , ..., M8 represent the PN modules of the
motor, position-1 transmitter, position-2 transmitter, position-3
transmitter, Robot, gripper, valve and bottle, respectively. For
n8 BL-104 n5 p
ZN-103 example, to built the PN module M5 (Robot), the range is
n1 n2 n3 n4 defined as RP1, home, and RP2, and its initial condition as
n6 home, according to the Elements description table. Therefore,
p
ZZ-103 BP1 -103 BP2 -103 BP3 -103 the places of M5 are p51 , p52 , and p53 , and a mark is included in
5
the place p2 , respectively. The transitions t1,25 ,t 5 ,t 5 and t 5
ZCC-103 2,3 3,2 2,1
p
Fig. 2: Process graph for the bottle filling process. and their directed arcs are included in M5 , since the states
of the robot can change in one step from p51 to p52 , from p52
to p53 , from p53 to p52 , and from p52 to p51 , as indicated in the
C. Process IPN model behavior table ZN − 103. The complete process IPN model
In order to translate the previous section into an IPN, is illustrated in Fig. 4, where the synchronous and permissive
every vertex of PG is translated into an IPN module and the relations between PN modules are presented. For instance, the
resulting IPN modules are connected using the synchronous 2 and t 3 in Fig. 3 are merged into a transition
transitions t2,1 1,2
p p
and permissive relations. t M2 ,M3 , since there exists a dashed arc from n2 to n3 in PG

IPN module.  The i − th module Mi =
Gi , Mi0 , ΣiI , ΣiO , λi , ϕi , where Gi = hPi , Ti , Ii , Oi i, is built
for the ni vertex of PG , based on the element behavior table
associated to the i − th element. In detail, Pi = {p1 , ..., pr },
where each place is defined for each row of the behavior table.
Moreover, if there is a check mark in the cell defined by the
row r j and column ck of the behavior table, then a transition
t jk is defined and arcs from p j to t jk , and from t jk to pk are
defined as well. In this way, there are as many transitions
as check marks in the behavior table. The initial marking of
Mi is given by M0i (pk ) = 1 if pk is the initial condition of
ei and M0i (pk ) = 0 otherwise. Places are labelled according
to the element description table, i.e., ϕi (p j ) = statek if the
place p j of the i − th element is associated to the state statek .
Moreover, distinct labels are associated to the transitions of
the actuator elements (all the transitions in the actuators are
controllable). The input and output alphabets are defined as
(Fig. 2); moreover, two-way arcs are included from the place
p
p12 in M1 to transitions t M2,3 , t M3,8,4 , and t2,14 , since there
exists a relation between the actuator state on in ZZ-103 and
p p
the variable events BP1 to BP2a and BP2a to BP3 in BP1 − 103,
BP2 − 103, and BP3 − 103 presented in the permissive relation
table.
D. Operation narrative tables
The operation narrative (ON ) is summarized in tables,
representing the control specification for the process. The
Operation range table lists the elements and their operation
ranges as given by the P&ID and the ON . The Operation
conditions table describes each required sub-process as a
sequence of operations, whose occurrence may be conditioned
by the states of the controlled variables. Table V lists the
elements and their operation ranges for the Example 1.
 LV-104 BL-104 TABLE V: Operation range.
ZN-103
Elements Operation range
ZN-103 RH , RP1 , RP2
ZZC-103 Go , Gc
p
BP1 − 103 BP1a , BP1
BP1-103 BP2-103 BP3-103
p
ZZ-103 BP2 − 103 BP2a , BP2
ZCC-103 BP3 − 103 BP3a , BP3
p

BL − 104 BLe , BL f

TABLE VI: Operation conditions.

Pre-condition
Conditions Target states
states
p
{RH , Go } BP3 {RP1 , Go }
Fig. 3: Process PN modules of the bottle filling process. {RP1 , Go } {RP1 , Gc }
Evacuate
{RP1 , Gc } {RP2 , Gc }
bottle
{RP1 , Gc } {RP1 , Go }
LV-104 BL-104 {RP1 , Go } {RH , Go }
p
Bottle {BP2a , BLe } {BP2 , BL f }
ZN-103 p
filling {BP2 , BL f } BP3a {BP2a , BLe }

ZZ-103
BP1-103 BP2-103 BP3-103 states in the cell at the i − th row and the second column;
ZCC-103
˘ j (ti ) = conditioni , where conditioni is the set of states
label λ
in the cell at the i − th row and the third column. Define
the input and output alphabets as the union of the labels
associated to all the transitions and places in the module,
respectively. The resulting modules for Table VI are shown
Fig. 4: Process IPN model of the bottle filling process. in Fig. 5. In order to obtain a suitable specification for the
tracking control paradigm [15], [16], the reachability graph of
the Operation IPN modules is obtained and transformed into an
The Operation conditions shown in Table VI describe the IPN, preserving the place and transition labels. The resulting
required sub-processes for Example 1, where the first column IPN represents the specification IPN model, describing the
is filled with the list of tasks, which in this case are two, process required behavior. The specification of the process of
named “Evacuate bottle” and “Bottle filling”. Each task is Example 1 is shown in Fig. 6.
decomposed in a set of operations, a sub-row is defined for
each of these operations. Each operation is defined as follows:
the column 2 denotes a set of states of controlled variables that
a)
describes pre-conditions when the operation starts; column 4
denotes a set of states of controlled variables that describes the
states when the operation finish (the state that the process must
b)
reach), named target states; column 3 describes conditions that
must be satisfied in order to allow the operation (guards). Fig. 5: Operation IPN modules for the Example 1
Operations are ordered from top to bottom. For instance, in the
first row of Table VI, the pre-condition states are {RH , Go }, the
p
target states are {RP1 , Go }, and the guard is BP3 ; next, the pre-
condition state in the second operation is the previous target
state, i.e. {RP1 , Go }, and the next target state is {RP1 , Gc }. The
rest of the operations are read similarly for both tasks.
E. Operation IPN model
The operation IPN model comprises a set of PN modules
Fig. 6: Specification IPN model for the Example 1.
M jo ; one module is defined for eachD task in the operation E
j j j ˘j
conditions table. Each module M jo = Ğ j , M̆0 , Σ̆I , Σ̆O , λ , ϕ̆ j
is built as follows. For each task, define n places and n IV. E RRORS DETECTION
transitions, where n is the number of operations (rows in Both, the P N and the ON are described in natural lan-
the operation conditions table) related with the task. For any guage, thus they are susceptible of introducing errors due to
i ∈ {1, ..., n}, add an arc from pi to ti and from ti to pi+1 , if omissions, inconsistencies or ambiguities. Omissions occur
j
i + 1 ≤ n; and add an arc from tn to p1 . Define M̆0 (p1 ) = 1 when some elements are declared in the P&ID, but they
j
and M̆0 (pi ) = 0, ∀i 6= 1. Moreover, for any i ∈ {1, ..., n}, label are never mentioned in the narratives; inconsistencies appear
pi as ϕ̆ j (pi ) = pre − statei , where pre − statei is the set of when the narratives include contradictory information; finally,
ambiguities appear when the narratives include information
indicating that the same system conditions and inputs could
lead to different scenarios. Every step in the methodology is
verified to ensure the correctness of the derived models. The
error detection is declared as a rule, where the pre-condition is
true when an error is detected, and the post-condition indicates
the actions to remove the error.
A. Error detection in the table element description
Omissions
R1 IF there exists an element label in the P&ID not listed
in the first column of the table THEN ask the user to
include such element in the table.
R2 IF there is an empty Range cell THEN ask the user
to include such information in the P N and in the
corresponding cell.
R3 IF there is an empty Initial state cell THEN ask the
user to include such information in the P N and in the
corresponding cell.
Inconsistencies
R4 IF there exists an element in the table that is not included
in the P&ID THEN ask the user to remove it from the
P N and from the table.
R5 IF there is an Initial Condition not declared in the Range
of the table THEN ask the user to correct the information
in the P N and to update the table.
Other tables are analyzed similarly to detect and remove
errors, for the sake of conciseness, we briefly mention them.
In element behaviors tables, the isolated states are detected.
These should be connected to be reachable from other states or
removed. In the permissive table, only reachable states must be
mentioned in filled cells. In the synchronous table, the marks
in the main diagonal must be removed, in this case P N must
be rewritten.
After removing possible errors in tables and P N , the PG is
analyzed. It must not include strongly connected components
involving only actuators vertices. This component represents
a set of actuators having no effect over controlled variables.
Also, PG must not have isolated controlled variables since it
is not actuated, i.e., this controlled variable is not assigned
to a control loop in the process. In both cases the user must
introduce the relation between actuators and variables in P N
and update tables and PG . Moreover, errors in the specification
can be captured during the controller design stage. This will
be addressed in a future work.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this work, a methodology to translate the representation
of a process from a P&ID to an IPN has been proposed.
The methodology is divided in three stages: first, the relevant
information of the process, which is originally described by
a P&ID, a process narrative and an operation narrative is
captured in standarized tables; then a formal representation
is derived based on a graph structure, which allows to discard
irrelevant information; finally, an IPN model is built for the
View publication stats
process possible behavior (plant) and another IPN model is
built for the process required behavior (specification). By using
this formal tool, existing control synthesis algorithms can be
used to automatically design and implement controllers to en-
force the required behavior, reducing potential inconsistencies
and other errors frequently introduced by manual procedures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research leading to these results has received support
from the Conacyt Fondo Sectorial de Investigación para la
Educación, project number 288470.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Ibarz and G. V. Barbosa-Cánovas, Unit operations in food engineer-
ing. CRC press, 2002.
[2] D. Popescu, S. Rugaber, N. Medvidovic, and D. M. Berry, “Reducing
ambiguities in requirements specifications via automatically created
object-oriented models,” in Monterey Workshop, ser. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, P. B. and M. C., Eds., vol. 5320. Springer, 2007,
pp. 103–124.
[3] F. Pittke, H. Leopold, and J. Mendling, “Automatic detection and
resolution of lexical ambiguity in process models,” IEEE Transactions
on Software Engineering, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 526–544, 2015.
[4] T. Murata, “Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications,” Proceed-
ings of the IEEE, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 541–580, 1989.
[5] I. Rivera-Rangel, A. Ramı́rez-Treviño, L. I. Aguirre-Salas, and J. Ruiz-
Leon, “Geometrical characterization of observability in interpreted petri
nets,” Kybernetika, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 553–574, 2005.
[6] A. Ramirez-Trevino, E. Ruiz-Beltran, I. Rivera-Rangel, and E. Lopez-
Mellado, “Online fault diagnosis of discrete event systems. a petri
net-based approach,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and
Engineering, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 31–39, 2007.
[7] M. Skoldstam, K. Akesson, and M. Fabian, “Modeling of discrete event
systems using finite automata with variables,” in Decision and Control,
2007 46th IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2007, pp. 3387–3392.
[8] N. Kim, D. Shin, R. Wysk, and L. Rothrock, “Using finite state automata
(fsa) for formal modelling of affordances in human-machine cooperative
manufacturing systems,” International Journal of Production Research,
vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1303–1320, 2010.
[9] H. A. Awad, “Modeling of industrial productivity processes,” J. Eng.
Sci. JES, vol. 10, pp. 763–781, 2010.
[10] L.-P. Chung and C.-T. Chang, “Petri-net models for comprehensive haz-
ard analysis of mocvd processes,” Computers & chemical engineering,
vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 356–371, 2011.
[11] P. J. Ramadge and W. M. Wonham, “The control of discrete event
systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81–98, 1989.
[12] Y. Chen, Z. Li, and M. Zhou, “Optimal supervisory control of flexible
manufacturing systems by petri nets: A set classification approach,”
IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 11,
no. 2, pp. 549–563, 2013.
[13] A. Giua and M. Silva, “Modeling, analysis and control of discrete event
systems: a petri net perspective,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 50, no. 1,
pp. 1772–1783, 2017.
[14] A. Dideban and H. Zeraatkar, “Petri net controller synthesis based on
decomposed manufacturing models,” ISA transactions, vol. 77, pp. 90–
99, 2018.
[15] C. R. Vázquez, J. A. Gómez-Castellanos, and A. Ramı́rez-Treviño,
“Petri nets tracking control for electro-pneumatic systems automation,”
in Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics (ICINCO) 2018, ser.
Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, O. Gusikhin and K. Madani,
Eds., vol. 613. Springer, 2019, pp. 503–525.
[16] D. Guevara-Lozano, C. R. Vázquez, and A. Ramı́rez-Treviño, “Towards
decentralized control for Petri nets,” in 24th International Conference
on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), 2019, pp.
428–435.
[17] M. Toghraei, “Principles of p&id development: the tips provided here
will streamline efforts to develop piping & instrumentation diagrams,”
Chemical Engineering, vol. 121, no. 4, pp. 62–72, 2014.
[18] L. Feng and W. M. Wonham, “Supervisory control architecture for
discrete-event systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1449–1461, 2008.