This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Reliable Real-Time Communication in CAN Networks
December 2003 (vol. 52 no. 12)
pp. 1594-1607

Abstract—Controller Area Network (CAN) is a fieldbus network suitable for small-scale Distributed Computer Controlled Systems (DCCS), being appropriate for sending and receiving short real-time messages at speeds up to 1 Mbit/sec. Several studies are available on how to guarantee the real-time requirements of CAN messages, providing preruntime schedulability conditions to guarantee the real-time communication requirements of DCCS traffic. Usually, it is considered that CAN guarantees atomic multicast properties by means of its extensive error detection/signaling mechanisms. However, there are some error situations where messages can be delivered in duplicate or delivered only by a subset of the receivers, leading to inconsistencies in the supported applications. In order to prevent such inconsistencies, a middleware for reliable communication in CAN is proposed, taking advantage of CAN synchronous properties to minimize the runtime overhead. Such middleware comprises a set of atomic multicast and consolidation protocols, upon which the reliable communication properties are guaranteed. The related timing analysis demonstrates that, in spite of the extra stack of protocols, the real-time properties of CAN are preserved since the predictability of message transfer is guaranteed.

[1] ISO 11898, Road Vehicle Interchange of Digital Information Controller Area Network (CAN) for High-Speed Communication ISO, 1993.
[2] K.M. Zuberi and K.G. Shin, “Scheduling Messages on Controller Area Network for Real-Time CIM Applications,” IEEE Trans. Robotics and Automation, pp. 310–314, Apr. 1997.
[3] Rockwell Automation, DeviceNet Product Overview Publication DN-2.5, Rockwell, 1997.
[4] K. Tindell, A. Burns, and A. Wellings, Calculating Controller Area Network (CAN) Message Response Time Control Eng. Practice, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 1163-1169, 1995.
[5] M. Livani and J. Kaiser, Evaluation of a Hybrid Real-Time Bus Scheduling Mechanism for CAN Proc. Seventh Int'lWorkshop Parallel and Distributed Real-Time Systems (WPDRTS '99), pp. 425-429, Apr. 1999.
[6] S. Punnekkat, H. Hansson, and C. Norstrom, Response Time Analysis under Errors for CAN Proc. 2000 IEEE Real-Time Technology and Applications Symp., pp. 258-275, June 2000.
[7] L.M. Pinho, F. Vasques, and E. Tovar, Integrating Inaccessibility in Response Time Analysis of CAN Networks Proc. Third IEEE Int'l Workshop Factory Comm. Systems, pp. 77-84, Sept. 2000.
[8] N. Navet, Y.-Q. Song, and F. Simonot, Worst-Case Deadline Failure Probability in Real-Time Applications Distributed over CAN (Controller Area Network) J. Systems Architecture, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 607-617, 2000.
[9] J. Rufino, P. Veríssimo, G. Arroz, C. Almeida, and L. Rodrigues, Fault-Tolerant Broadcasts in CAN Proc. 28th Symp. Fault-Tolerant Computing, pp. 150-159, June 1998.
[10] N.C. Audsley, A. Burns, M. Richardson, K. Tindell, and A. Wellings, "Applying New Scheduling Theory to Static Priority Preemptive Scheduling," Software Eng. J. vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 284-292, Sept. 1993.
[11] J. Rufino and P. Veríssimo, A Study on the Inaccessibility Characteristics of the Controller Area Network Proc. Second CAN Conf., pp. 7.12-7.21, Oct. 1995.
[12] Delta-4 A Generic Architecture for Dependable Distributed Computing ESPRIT Research Reports, D. Powell, ed., Springer Verlag, Nov. 1991.
[13] S. Poledna, A. Burns, A. Wellings, and P. Barrett, Replica Determinism and Flexible Scheduling in Hard Real-Time Dependable Systems IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 100-111, Feb. 2000.
[14] L. Rodrigues, M. Guimarães, and J. Rufino, Fault-Tolerant Clock Synchronization on CAN Proc. 19th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symp., pp. 420-429, Dec. 1998.
[15] P. Veríssimo, A. Casimiro, L.M. Pinho, F. Vasques, L. Rodrigues, and E. Tovar, Distributed Computer-Controlled Systems: The DEAR-COTS Approach Proc. 16th IFAC Workshop Distributed Computer Control Systems, pp. 128-135, Dec. 2000.
[16] V. Hadzilacos and S. Toueg, "Fault-Tolerant Broadcasts and Related Problems," in Distributed Systems, S. Mullender, ed., ACM Press, New York, 1993, pp. 97-138.
[17] D. Powell, Failure Mode Assumptions and Assumption Coverage Proc. 22nd Int'l Symp. Fault-Tolerant Computing (FTCS-22), pp. 386-395, 1992.
[18] J. Rufino, P. Veríssimo, and G. Arroz, Design of Bus Media Redundancy in CAN Proc. Fieldbus Conf. (FeT '99), pp. 375-380, 1999.
[19] H. Hilmer, H.-D. Kochs, and E. Dittmar, A CAN-Based Architecture for Highly Reliable Communication Systems Proc. Fifth CAN Conf., pp. 6.10-6.16, 1998.
[20] F. Cristian, H. Aghili, R. Strong, and D. Dolev, Atomic Broadcast: From Simple Message Diffusion to Byzantine Agreement Information and Control, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 158-179, 1995.
[21] J. Kaiser and M. Livani, Achieving Fault-Tolerant Ordered Broadcasts in CAN Proc. Third European Dependable Computing Conf., pp. 351-363, Sept. 1999.

Index Terms:
Communication protocols, controller area network, fault-tolerant systems, real-time systems.
Citation:
Lu?s Miguel Pinho, Francisco Vasques, "Reliable Real-Time Communication in CAN Networks," IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 1594-1607, Dec. 2003, doi:10.1109/TC.2003.1252855
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.