CPS Architecture

CPS Architecture

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-7312-0.ch002


This chapter deals with the CPS architectural style, which can be used to provide support to the plan and assessment of other structural designs for cyber physical systems. It also shows the interconnections between physical and cyber components. In this prototype architecture, the important attributes of this architecture for CPS, which helps to identify many research challenges, are described and explained. The authors also discuss the open information service structural design to deal with the issues related to management of data in CPS. Along with the single-layer and multi-layer survivability of architecture, a portable CPS structure, which is known as multi-layer widespread structure, is discussed. This system uses unlicensed and licensed networks with various spectrums to connect CPS through different gateways. A research-related wireless access network project is described.
Chapter Preview


Present models and methods for cyber-physical systems (CPS) analysis and design are disoriented with an impact of different mathematical formalisms and principles in engineering and computer science. Dissimilar analytical approaches for achieving flexibility often results in preliminary partition among virtual and physical requirements of the procedural structure. This separation is creating a complexity to estimate the effects and tradeoffs that flatten the boundaries between these domains. It extends to software architectural descriptions to include the complete elements of cyber-physical organization.

The aim is to generate an extendable structure that can create a wide-ranging set of pattern devices. A new CPS architectural style as a new direction along with operational observations and connected appliances are used for confirmation. A decade before, the instruction structural design has become one of the ultimate primary techniques in the discipline of significant instruction systems engineering. Typically instruction structural design develops a system as a chart of elements and connecting objects. These components signify the major executable elements of a system’s executable structure (Rajhans et al.,2009) and the connecting objects denote the pathways of interaction between elements (Rajhans et al.,2009).

These elements are remarked with resources that distinguish their conceptual performance and allow the analysis of system-level design tradeoffs. There is a continuous extensive investigation and growth in Architecture Description Languages (ADLs) (Rajhans et al.,2009) and devices to support their study and understanding as code.

Standard representations such as Unified Modeling Language (UML 2.0) (Rajhans et al.,2009), Systems Modeling Language (SysML) (Rajhans et al.,2009) and Architecture Analysis Design Language (AADL) (Rajhans et al.,2009) offer modeling vocabularies (Rajhans et al.,2009) of elements, connecting objects and properties. Many investigators has explored techniques to model structural design performance such as protocols described by process algebras or state machines (Rajhans et al.,2009) .

Tools render support to the above mention standard notations in the following ways:

  • Visual editing and screening,

  • Expansion of hierarchy, and

  • Inspecting for element consistency or replacement and consideration of superior characteristics such as presentation, dependability, and protection.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book: