Equipment Model Object for Industrial Controller State Management

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional industrial control systems face challenges in managing state operations between controllers and batch processors, leading to inefficiencies and high costs due to human error, complex debugging processes, and rigid control architectures that limit scalability and flexibility.

Innovation Solution

A state-driven programming system with an equipment model object that encapsulates code into functional modules, allowing for internal sequencing and external process control, supporting multi-level state machines and hybrid control architectures, and enabling distributed batch execution across multiple controllers.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If conventional rigid control architectures with duplicate state machines are used, then control functionality is provided, but system flexibility and scalability are limited

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem flexibilityVSAvoidcontrol architecture complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The control system is segmented into independent equipment model objects, each representing a discrete piece of equipment with its own state machine. This allows individual equipment to be controlled independently while maintaining overall system coordination, enabling flexible reconfiguration without redesigning the entire control architecture.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The control architecture transitions from a static rigid structure to a dynamic object-oriented system where equipment models can be instantiated, configured, and modified at runtime. This dynamic nature allows the system to adapt to changing process requirements and scale by adding or removing equipment models as needed.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Reliability

If thousands of rungs of logic are designed and debugged for state-driven systems, then complete control functionality is achieved, but development time and validation costs increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontrol logic completenessVSAvoiddebugging time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

Pre-fabricated equipment model objects with embedded state machines serve as reusable templates that can be copied and instantiated multiple times across different processes. This eliminates the need to design and debug control logic from scratch for each new application, significantly reducing development time while maintaining reliability through proven designs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

Equipment model objects accept parameterization to adapt to specific process requirements without modifying the underlying control logic structure. This allows the same equipment model to be configured for different equipment types by changing parameters rather than rewriting control code, reducing debugging requirements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Adaptability or versatility

If code is provided and modified by engineers for specific processes, then customization is achieved, but human error and re-validation requirements increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprocess customizationVSAvoidcode error rate
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

Equipment model objects are designed to be self-configuring and self-describing, automatically adapting to the specific process through parameter assignment rather than code modification. This self-service capability reduces human error by eliminating manual code editing while maintaining full process customization through configuration parameters.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

4Productivity

If distributed batch execution is implemented across multiple controllers, then system scalability is improved, but coordination complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem scalabilityVSAvoidcoordination complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Equipment model objects serve multiple functions including local control, state management, and inter-controller communication. This universal design allows the same object to operate autonomously at the local level while simultaneously participating in distributed coordination, enabling scalability without proportionally increasing coordination complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentUS7721273B1Controller equipment model systems and methods
Publication Date: 2010.05.18 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION TECH INC
  • US7721273B1 patent drawing
  • US7721273B1 patent drawing
  • US7721273B1 patent drawing

AI summary

The present invention relates to a system and methodology facilitating automated manufacturing processes in an industrial controller environment. An automation system is provided for automated industrial processing. The system includes an equipment phase object that is executed by a controller engine, wherein the equipment phase object can be accessible from internal instructions within the controller and/or from external instructions directed to the controller such as from a server or another controller across a network connection. A sequencing engine operates with the equipment phase object to facilitate automated industrial processing. The sequencing engine can be adapted to various industrial standards or in accordance with other state type models.