This application is the national phase under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of PCT International Application No. PCT/DE00/00735 which has an International filing date of Mar. 9, 2000, which designated the United States of America, the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
The invention relates to a method for the automatic retrieval of engineering data from installations.
An automation system of this type is used in particular in the area of automation technology. An automation system of this type generally comprises a multiplicity of individual automation objects, which are frequently highly dependent on the engineering system respectively used.
At present there are two basic methods in use. In the first method, the retrieval of the engineering data from the installation is ruled out. Changes to the installation are possible only via the engineering tool. Consequently, the data in the engineering system always reflect the current state and there is no need for information to be reproduced from the installation. This solution has the following disadvantages:
The second approach is based on a disassembly of the runtime code. In this case, the executable code of the runtime objects is analyzed and translated into the engineering counterparts. This solution has the following disadvantages:
In the specialist article Elmqvist, H.: “A Uniform Architecture for Distributed Automation”, Advances in Instrumentation and Control, vol. 46, part 2, 1991, pages 1599-1608, XP000347589 Research Triangle Park, N.C., US, a description is given of an automation system whose objects are programmed in an object- and data-flow-oriented programming language. It uses a graphic programming environment and offers means for the creation of dynamically updated process images. The programming language allows an automatic communication between distributed objects.
One problem underlying the invention is that of allowing the information contained in an installation to be automatically reproduced in an engineering system and used again there, for example to plan changes in the installation.
An object of the invention is to solve that and/or other problems by a method and by a system with the features specified in claims 1 and 8, respectively.
In this case, the engineering and runtime objects are described by a uniform object model. As a result, the correspondence between engineering objects and runtime objects can be determined at the object level and no information is lost as a result of the mapping. In addition, a direct communication between engineering and runtime objects can take place, which can be utilized when the method is carried out.
The relationship between an engineering object and its runtime counterpart is described in
With respect to a runtime object RTO, the method for the restoration of engineering information proceeds as follows:
The invention is described and explained in more detail below on the basis of the exemplary embodiments represented in the figures, in which:
The method for the retrieval of engineering information from the installation preferably proceeds in three steps:
Restoration of the device representatives;
Restoration of the representatives of the automation objects in the engineering; and
Restoration of the communication relationships between the representatives of the automation objects.
The method is described below for the complete retrieval of the engineering information. However, it can equally be used for updating already existing engineering information, i.e. as a delta method. Hereafter, the overall method is referred to as upload.
In
1. Restoration of the Device Representatives
The beginning of the upload is initiated from a software system. This may be an engineering system or any other desired system which requires engineering information. One example of this is a system for parameterizing the installation. For the sake of simplicity, hereafter reference is always made to an engineering system.
In the first step, all the devices are requested to create their representation in the engineering. For this purpose, each device returns an identifier of the type of its engineering counterpart. The engineering system then creates the corresponding objects and enters the reference to the actual device in each device representative. By means of the reference, each device representative then reads out the relevant data of “its” device.
2. Restoration of the Automation Objects in the Engineering
In the second step, the representatives of the automation objects are created in the engineering. Via the device assigned to it, each device representative requests the automation objects of its device to create its counterparts in the engineering. For this purpose, each automation object returns the identifier of the type of its engineering representative. In the engineering system, the corresponding objects are then again created and provided with a reference to their partner in the runtime environment. After that, each automation object in the engineering inquires the relevant data of its partner.
The result of this operation can be seen in
3. Restoration of the Communication Relationships Between the Automation Objects in the Engineering
In the third step, the communication relationships between the automation objects are restored. For this purpose, each device representative asks the device assigned to it for its communication relationships. The device then returns a list with both the device-internal and device-interlinking communication relationships. An entry of this list comprises the source and drain of the communication relationship. The source and drain are in each case described by a 3-tuple from the identifier of the physical device, the identifier of the automation object and the identifier of the input or output.
In the engineering system, the entries of the list are converted into references to the inputs and outputs of the representatives of the automation objects. For this purpose, the information from the already created objects (the references of the engineering representatives to their runtime counterparts) is used. Subsequently, the connection in the engineering system is then set up.
An efficient way of carrying out the step will ensure that the list with communication connections created by each device only contains those in which the device appears in the identifier of the source (alternatively of the drain). Furthermore, an effective method will buffer-store the relationships between engineering representatives and runtime counterparts set up in steps 1 and 2, in order in this way to minimize the searching effort in step 3.
Both the objects of the engineering system and of the runtime system are based on the same, executable object model. The use of the same model makes possible a direct interaction at model level (data exchange and communication) between the engineering objects and runtime objects. Furthermore, a unique mapping, which is independent of the implementation of the objects, is defined by the defined assignment between the engineering and runtime objects.
This gives rise to advantages for the method, including but not limited to:
The invention being thus described, it will be obvious that the same may be varied in many ways. Such variations are not to be regarded as a departure from the spirit and scope of the invention, and all such modifications as would be obvious to one skilled in the art are intended to be included within the scope of the following claims.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
199 10 535 | Mar 2000 | DE | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/DE00/00735 | 3/9/2000 | WO | 00 | 1/18/2002 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO00/54188 | 9/14/2000 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4885694 | Pray et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
5437027 | Bannon et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5557773 | Wang et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5680613 | Atsumi | Oct 1997 | A |
5901058 | Steinman et al. | May 1999 | A |
5987242 | Bentley et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5995969 | Lee et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6055541 | Solecki et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6059838 | Fraley et al. | May 2000 | A |
6063128 | Bentley et al. | May 2000 | A |
6100964 | De Cremiers | Aug 2000 | A |
6119125 | Gloudeman et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6141595 | Gloudeman et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6169993 | Shutt et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6263492 | Fraley et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6339776 | Dayani-Fard et al. | Jan 2002 | B2 |
6421571 | Spriggs et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6425017 | Dievendorff et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6499137 | Hunt | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6505204 | Fanjoy | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6567819 | Cheng et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6581048 | Werbos | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6600964 | Hess et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6631521 | Curtis | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6701325 | Becker et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6757568 | Birzer et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6775576 | Richetta et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6779174 | Amrhein et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6834209 | Potz et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6859668 | Ginzburg et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6889097 | Kiesel et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6965803 | Bungert et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6993409 | Jartyn | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7107523 | Bussert et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7114155 | Stripf et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7181301 | Becker et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7185129 | Becker et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
20010037161 | Hess et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010042067 | Dayani-Fard et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020072819 | Becker et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020196285 | Sojoodi et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20040210850 | Bermudez et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050159932 | Thurner | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050183094 | Hunt | Aug 2005 | A1 |