Cyber-Physical Systems - contradicting requirements as drivers for innovation

Unrestricted © Siemens AG 2015 All rights reserved.
Cyber-Physical Systems
contradicting requirements as drivers for innovation
Siemens Corporate Technology | June 2015

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

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 layers
and 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
Cyber-Physical
Systems
Control Systems
are
Networked
and/or
distributed
Adaptive and
predictive
Intelligent
Real-time
that are
Human
in-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

We focus on higher architectural layers
Our Definition of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS)
Cyber-Physical
Systems
Control or
Coordination
Systems
are
Networked
and/or
distributed
Self-*
Resilient
Real-time
that are
Human
in-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 platforms
towards less hierarchical structures
(compare with Internet architecture)
• New requirements (sometimes contradicting)
for platforms
CPSs are growing together
HVAC Lighting Safety
Energy
sun-
shades
Building
automation
…
Building(s)
Energy
Market
National
Power 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
Building
Automation
System 1
Power Grid
Building
Automation
System 2
Building
Automation
System 3
negotiation
negotiation
negotiation
negotiation
Just
incentive definition
Neither the building operator nor the grid operator wants to provide the operational data to third parties

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

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 Heiss
Head of Research Group
Siemens CT RTC ITP CPS
Siemens AG Österreich
Siemensstraße 90
1210 Vienna, Austria
Phone & Mobile: +43 664 88 55 1526
E-mail:
michael.heiss@siemens.com
www.siemens.com

Cyber-Physical Systems - contradicting requirements as drivers for innovation

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Cyber-Physical Systems - contradicting requirements as drivers for innovation

More from Michael Heiss

Recently uploaded

Cyber-Physical Systems - contradicting requirements as drivers for innovation