NEW 11 Ethernet Performance

Performance of Industrial Ethernet
Applied to Networked Control,

Diagnostics and Safety
James Moyne
moyne@umich.edu
December 2006
ERC for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems ERC/RMS

University of Michigan
Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Manufacturing Systems James Moyne 1
College of Engineering, University of Michigan. All rights reserved
Abstract
As industrial Ethernet becomes more prevalent on the manufacturing floor it is
increasingly being considered as a universal networking solution. While the capability of
Ethernet has been proven acceptable in high level manufacturing environments, issues
of Ethernet performance must be considered as we push this technology into domains of
control, diagnostics and safety, and into applications such as I/O, motion control, fail-to-
safe , and security. The University of Michigan’s Engineering Research Center for
Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems (ERC-RMS) has been exploring the applicability
of Ethernet to the factory floor. Results include:
– An identification of node software performance as a dominant factor in evaluating overall
Ethernet system performance.
– An quantification of the delay overhead associated with common factory Ethernet protocols
such as UDP, VPN and OPC for data transport, security and diagnostics respectively.
– A comparative evaluation of common industrial Ethernet protocols of EtherNet/IP and
PROFINET
– Development of a cost-based evaluation methodology for determining the need for
partitioning of networks across functionalities of control, diagnostics and (especially) safety
This presentation explores the results achieved in the investigation of industrial Ethernet
at the ERC-RMS and identifies key factors that should be considered in evaluating
industrial Ethernet performance.

Outline
• Background
– The Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable
Manufacturing Systems (ERC-RMS)
– Reconfigurable Factory Testbed (RFT)
– Networks Performance Evaluation Efforts
• Performance Metrics for Industrial

Ethernet in Control, Diagnostics and
Safety Domains
– Experimental Analysis
• Key Points

The UM ERC for RMS
• University of Michigan Engineering Research

Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems
“ERC-RMS”
– Established 1996 (11 year funding from NSF)
– Annual Budget of approx. $3M
– Funding sources
• NSF (ramping down)
• State of Michigan
• Industry membership
• The ERC/RMS is the only ERC today with

Traditional manufacturing focus
– Guided by industry membership
ERC Membership (partial
list)
LIVERNOIS®

Motivation Responsive Systems
Low Rapid
Cost Responsiveness
High
Quality
Responsive to:
• Demand Changes
Lean-Manufacturing • Product Changes
Six-Sigma • Opportunities for new products
Mass-Production • System failures – keep production up
The Need:
A factory designed to evolve in response to market demands

ERC Focus Areas
TA2 Networks Software Machine Reconfig.
for Control Infrastruct. Diagnostics Scheduling
(TA2) (TA2) (TA4) (TA1)
Modular
Logic IMS
Control (TA2) Watchdog
(TA4)
RFT
Tech Xfer
Education Platform
•Controls:
•Rockwell, Pilz, Siemens
Undergrad Courses •Networks:
Workshops •DeviceNet, SafetyBus p,
Remote Collaborations Profibus, Ethernet, Wireless
•Software:
•Brooks, Oracle, Indusoft,
iConics
The Reconfigurable Factory Testbed
(RFT)
Serial-Parallel Line Remote HMI Virtual Factory
…
NETWORK
MiddleWare
MiddleWare
Software
Modules
System-Level
Controller AGV
Software Infrastructure &

RFID CMMS Control Workflow Manager
RFT: Control and Diag. Networks
Remote
HMIs
rn
Networks, Inte
Monitoring & System Level Database/Web Server et
Diagnostics Controller (SLC)
OPC:
for Monitoring
and Diagnostics
Ethernet
LAN
Virtual Assembly & Profibus
Machining Cells
DNet
PLC
Soft
PLC
DeviceNet
PLC

RFT: Safety Networks
Master PSS
Safety
Networking
Bridges
SafetyNet
Cell PSS
I/O block
E-stop

ERC-TA2 Networking Projects:
Summary
• Enterprise industrial networking solutions
– ERC core activity with Reconfigurable Factory
Testbed
– Control, Diagnostics and Safety multi-tier networks
• Industrial Ethernet best practices
– Technology trade-offs, and performance analysis
– Network Performance Workshop: April 2006
• Industrial network time synchronization
– IEEE 1588, approaches, benefits,
current issues with implementation
– Analysis of delay associated with common Ethernet
protocols (e.g., UDP, VPN and OPC)
– Factory simulation of network traffic; analysis of
impact of time synchronization
• Network partitioning for safety, control and
diagnostics
– Trade-offs of putting safety and control on a
dedicated versus shared network

Outline
• Background
• Deriving Performance Metrics for

Industrial Ethernet
• Key Points

Network Advantages
Centralized point-to-point Distributed common bus
Advantages of Distributed Common Bus

• Decrease wiring/maintenance cost • Increase reliability
• Expand flexibility of control • Increase

architecture reconfigurability
• Expand diagnostic capabilities
• Increase
interchangeability
Network End-to-End Performance
Cost
Out of Control
Worse
Ideal
Operating
Networked Region
Control ??
Tracking Error
Performance:
Digital ?
Control
Unacceptable
Network
Acceptable
A B C saturation
inducing
Continuous longer delays
Control
Better
PA PB PC
Larger Smaller
Impact of
sampling &
Sampling Time
Impact of additional
sampling delays

Examples of Issues Driving Industrial Network
Performance Assessment
Should I put safety,
Can I use Ethernet
control and diagnostics
down to the I/O
on one, two or three
level?
networks?
Should I partition What is the

my networks at tradeoff cost of a
different levels? decision?
What is the tradeoff

Where is the delay complexity of a
and delay variability decision?
occurring?
What is the performance

What are the industry cost of security (e.g.,
defacto standards? VPN) or application level
protocols (e.g., OPC)?
Performance Issues That Should Be Addressed
in Applying Industrial Ethernet (especially at the
I/O level)
• Software delays and delay variability
• Overhead for control/diagnostic and security protocols
– E.g., OPC and VPN
• Architecture best practices

• Comparison of industrial Ethernet solutions
– EtherNET/IP, Modbus/TCP, PROFINET …
• Network partitioning for safety, control and diagnostics

– Trade-offs of putting safety and control on a dedicated versus
shared network
• Industrial network time synchronization
– IEEE 1588, approaches, benefits, current issues with
implementation
All Research Projects at UM-ERC

Partnering with Industry

Software Delays and Delay
Variability:
Where are the Sources of Delay?
100m 100m
64-byte
Switched packet
100Mbps
Ethernet
Node A Node B

Overhead for Control/Diagnostics
Protocols on Top of Ethernet
• UDP round-trip delays • OPC round-trip delays
(100Mb/s switched network) (100Mb/s switched network)
Delay and
Delay Variability
• Mean = 0.33ms, max = 1.89ms • Mean = 1.5ms, max = 16.8ms

• Stdev = 0.03ms • Stdev = 0.81ms
• Network round-trip time: 0.035ms

Overhead for Security
Protocols on Top of Ethernet
• UDP round-trip delays • VPN round-trip delays
(100Mb/s switched network) (100Mb/s switched network)
• Slope = 0.411s/bit • Slope = 0.848s/bit

– Theory: 0.32 s/bit • Intercept: 1.07ms
• Intercept: 0.285ms • Encryption, no compression

Ethernet Fieldbus Best Practices
and Comparative Analysis
• Objective
– Comparing EtherNet/IP and PROFINET in the areas of
architecture principles, technologies incorporated,
performance, diagnostic, capability, and network
management capability
– Determine best practices, technology tradeoffs and
issues associated with GM migration to Ethernet
• Deliverables
– Technology Analysis (Literature search, knowledge
base, etc.) Reports
– Peer-to-Peer Test Report
– Network Management and HMI Test Report
• Benefits
– Best practices for migration to Ethernet fieldbus
on the factory floor, including technology tradeoffs
– Address network control system technology
deployment
issues before they appear on the factory floor
– Reduction of downtime due to network control
system
performance and lack of technology maturity issues
– Reduction of technology and deployment ramp-up
time

Networks Lab
Ethernet/IP
PLC
& Loo Switc
h
p
ProfiNet
Project
• Features Zon PLC Switc Switc PLC
h h
• Performance e
Statio
Current
n Switc Switc Switc
Industry h h h
PLC PLC PLC
NCS
Practices HMI HMI HMI
I/O I/O I/O
I/O I/O I/O

PROFINET Observations

EtherNet/IP Observations

Industrial Ethernet Performance Workshop
(Apr 06): Workshop Goals
• Format
– Presentations by suppliers and users
– Round table discussion and consensus building
• Identify and reach consensus on network system

performance metrics that are practically important
– Agree on definitions for these metrics
• Develop consensus on basic statements regarding

network systems implementation and operation best
practices with respect to these metrics
• Identify ways in which the ERC can contribute to

improving network system best practices

Industrial Ethernet Performance Workshop
(Apr 06):Workshop Output  Top performance
issues
• Node performance is most important performance
consideration
– Speed, jitter, reliability, determinism
– Prioritization on the network is key
• Ease of use and diagnostic tools
– From a plant-floor personnel perspective
• Cost versus security trade-off
– E.g., wireless safety, security and cost trade-offs
• Time synchronization support
– From a plant-floor personnel perspective
• Cost of complexity
– E.g., one or two networks for safety and control?
• Network handling of power and topology
• Fault handling

Ethernet Performance: Control,
Diagnostics and Safety Domains
• Ethernet I/O functionality domains
– Control: Medium data volumes, high determinism
– Diagnostics: High data volumes, high speeds, low determinism
– Safety: Small data volumes, very high determinism
• There is a desire to put control, diagnostics and safety on the

same industrial ethernet wire
– Functional consolidation just like vertical consolidation of Ethernet
• Since safety and control can be guaranteed with best practices

and layers on top of Ethernet it all comes down to an issue of cost
• … but the results are not as obvious as you might think…

Ethernet, Performance and Control,
Diagnostics and Safety: A Three-Way
Trade-off
You need to determine the
System optimal cost solution for
Complexity you
For splitting up control,
Engineering and diagnostics and safety
Maintenance Cost
Hardware and
Performance Installation Cost
Cost
# of Networks,
# of Nodes
Network And
Delays Cost of Nodes
Costtotal = Costhardware + Costperformance+

CostEngineering
Two-Level Cost Calculator
• In order to generalize the cost calculator
to take into account different units of
measurement a two tier normalized
weighted cost calculator was developed:
Costs:
H = Hardware and Installation; E = Engineering and
Maintenance
P = Performance
Cost Calculator: Use Case 1
• Hardware costs for
many shared nodes Shared Networks
Dedicated Networks
initially weighted high
• In this case, high
Increasing Cost 
initial costs of
hardware dominate
with respect to the Shared
other factors Network is
better in this
application
• A shared network is
more cost effective Increasing Number of Nodes 
here

• Hardware costs for
Shared Networks
many shared nodes Dedicated Networks
initially weighted
lower
Increasing Cost 
• With initial costs
weighted lower, value
over an amortization
period of time for
shared vs. dedicated Here it could
networks remains go either way
similar
• The optimal choice of

dedicated or shared is Increasing Number of Nodes 
not clear

• Weighted hardware
cost where there are Shared Networks
few shared nodes, a Dedicated Networks
longer amortization
period and dominant
Increasing Cost 
performance costs
• Dedicated networks
stays lower with an Dedicated
increasing amount of Networks are
better in this
nodes.
application
• Dedicated networks
are more cost effective Increasing Number of Nodes 
here

Outline
• Background
• Deriving Performance Metrics for

Industrial Ethernet
• Key Points

Key Points
• A key issue of concern in the move to Ethernet I/O is end-to-end

performance
– Consider not only network delay, but software delay
– Consider not only delay, but also delay variability (jitter)
• Understand that Ethernet application protocol overhead (e.g., OPC

and VPN) adds to the delay consideration
• When moving to Ethernet I/O consider that there is control,

diagnostics and safety networking potential
– Determine whether this should be one, two or three networks
• High-speed Ethernet I/O applications such as motor control may

require time synchronization (IEEE 1588) and control
methodologies that leverage the associated synchronization and
time stamping

For Additional Information
• James Moyne: moyne@umich.edu / Dawn Tilbury: tilbury@umich.edu
• UM-ERC-RMS: http://erc.engin.umich.edu
• References
– F. -L. Lian, J. R. Moyne, and D. M. Tilbury, "Performance Evaluation of Control Networks: Ethernet, ControlNet, and
DeviceNet," IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 21(1), pp. 66-83, February 2001.
– F. -L. Lian, J. R. Moyne, and D. M. Tilbury, "Network Design Consideration for Distributed Control Systems," IEEE
Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 10(2), pp. 297-307, March 2002.
– J. R. Moyne and D. M. Tilbury, "The Emergence of Industrial Control Networks for Manufacturing Control, Diagnostics,
and Safety Data," accepted for publication in IEEE Proceedings, December 2005.
– P. G. Otanez, J. T. Parrott, J. R. Moyne, and D. M. Tilbury, "The Implications of Ethernet as a Control Network," in
Proceedings of the Global Powertrain Congress, Ann Arbor, September 2002.
– J. T. Parrott, J. R. Moyne, D. M. Tilbury, "Experimental Determination of Network Quality of Service in Ethernet: UDP,
OPC, and VPN," Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Minneapolis, MN, June 2006.
– 11th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA ’06), Prague, Czech
Republic, (Sept. 2006).
• Marco Antolovi , Kristen Acton, Naveen Kalappa, Siddharth Mantri, Jonathan Parrott, Jon Luntz, James Moyne &
Dawn Tilbury, “PLC Communication using PROFINET: Experimental Results and Analysis”
• Naveen Kalappa, Kristen Acton, Marco Antolovic, Siddharth Mantri, Jonathan Parrott, Jon Luntz, James Moyne and
Dawn Tilbury, “Experimental Determination of Real Time Peer to Peer Communication Characteristics of
EtherNet/IP”
• Bradley Triden, Siddharth Mantri, Kyle Schroeder, Aditya Thomas, James Moyne, and Dawn Tilbury , “Dedicated vs.
Shared Networks for Safety and Controls: An analysis of the trade-offs involved”


NEW 11 Ethernet Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEW 11 Ethernet Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance of Industrial Ethernet

Applied to Networked Control,

ERC for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems ERC/RMS

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

• Performance Metrics for Industrial

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

• University of Michigan Engineering Research

• The ERC/RMS is the only ERC today with

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Software Infrastructure &

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

• Deriving Performance Metrics for

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Centralized point-to-point Distributed common bus

Advantages of Distributed Common Bus

• Expand flexibility of control • Increase

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Should I partition What is the

What is the tradeoff

What is the performance

• Architecture best practices

• Network partitioning for safety, control and diagnostics

All Research Projects at UM-ERC

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

• Mean = 0.33ms, max = 1.89ms • Mean = 1.5ms, max = 16.8ms

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

• Slope = 0.411s/bit • Slope = 0.848s/bit

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

• Identify and reach consensus on network system

• Develop consensus on basic statements regarding

• Identify ways in which the ERC can contribute to

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

• There is a desire to put control, diagnostics and safety on the

• Since safety and control can be guaranteed with best practices

• … but the results are not as obvious as you might think…

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Costtotal = Costhardware + Costperformance+

• In this case, high

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

• The optimal choice of

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

• Deriving Performance Metrics for

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

• A key issue of concern in the move to Ethernet I/O is end-to-end

• Understand that Ethernet application protocol overhead (e.g., OPC

• When moving to Ethernet I/O consider that there is control,

• High-speed Ethernet I/O applications such as motor control may

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

Copyright © 2006 NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable

You might also like