IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO.

5, SEPTEMBER 2002

709

An Implementation of the Matrix-Based Supervisory Controller of Flexible Manufacturing Systems

Stjepan Bogdan, Frank L. Lewis, Zdenko Kova ic, Ayla Grel, and Mario Stajdohar c

AbstractThis paper deals with an implementation of a new matrix-based supervisory controller of flexible manufacturing system (FMS). A design method is applied to the laboratory setup of a finite-buffer multiple reentrant flowline FMS which contains one 5-degree of freedom (DOF) robot, few transporters, pistons, and other elements (sensors, programmable logic controller, and personal computers). Control of the FMS is based on a matrix model approach which significantly reduces a computational effort and simplifies conversion of dispatching rules to the software program. The results obtained during experiments have confirmed effectiveness of the matrix-based FMS controller. Index TermsDeadlock avoidance, discrete-event systems, flexible manufacturing systems (FMSs), supervisory controller.

I. INTRODUCTION NY MANUFACTURING process can be treated as a group of jobs performed by someone or something in order to get a product finished in a specific time. From the control point of view, full automation requires controllability and observability of all machine operations. Controllability is provided by direct computer control of machine actuators at the local level and by indirect computer control at the global (shop or factory) level. Observability is ensured by processing of data acquired from the suitably mounted sensors. A swift change of production technology is an important feature of flexible manufacturing systems (FMSs) which is crucial in providing a quick output of medium series products which may undergo minor to major variations of shape, size, and structure (material). Different scheduling rules can be used to steer a manufacturing process depending whether it is treated as a static or dynamic problem [1]. Failure to suitably assign, or dispatch, resources can lead to system deadlock [10]. When stability of finite-buffer automated manufacturing systems is considered, then deadlock is found to be far more critical issue than bounded-buffer stability [4]. Various concepts in Petri nets (PNs) [11] are extremely useful for flexible manufacturing systems analysis and a great deal of research has been done from the PN point of view [12][15], [17], [18]. Though the PN framework offers rigorous ground

for theoretical analysis, it is very inconvenient for actual computational analysis of the practical FMS, introducing problems of computational complexity (it is known that many problems in scheduling, dispatching, and deadlock analysis are NP-hard [16]). Matrix techniques that exploit the system structure can be used to alleviate this. In this paper, we are concerned with a practical implementation of a new matrix-based supervisory controller in order to show its potential as a tool for very simple realization of dispatching rules that are often used in the FMS. The physical model of an FMS has been built for testing of dispatching algorithms. Namely, physical models are widely adopted as a method for studying of FMS performance [3]. The FMS model comprises few machines (transporters and pistons) and one articulated robot arm. Various sensors are mounted in order to get feedback data from the system. As the only shared resource in the proposed FMS, the robot arm represents a potential source of deadlock. In this sense, experiments have been organized to illustrate those situations which may lead to system deadlock. Prevention of deadlock may be accomplished by adequate FMS control based on the usage of fast logical matrix calculations in a form of ladder diagram. In order to show efficiency of the proposed controller two dispatching policies have been tested; lastbuffer-first-serve (LBFS) and improved first-buffer-first-serve (FBFS) algorithm denoted as a stable FBFS policy [2]. This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we give a brief description of a matrix-based FMS controller according to the concept described in [5] and [6]. Since the experiments address the problem of deadlock free dispatching, a special emphasis has been put on determination of critical subsystems, siphons, and traps [7], [8]. In Section III, we describe a structure of an FMS laboratory setup. In Section IV, experimental results obtained after applying dispatching algorithms prove theoretical hypotheses and confirm effectiveness of the matrix-based FMS controller. Final comments and discussion about future research directives are given in Section V. II. MATRIX MODEL OF AN FMS The matrix model, which is described in more detail in [5] and [6], represents a set of logical rules that put in relation resources, operations, control signals, and parts in an FMS. In [8] it is shown that a matrix model is an efficient framework for analysis of an FMS that offers a deep insight in the structure of the system and provides computational algorithms for determination of control (i.e., dispatching) signals. We make the following assumptions. 1) No preemption. A resource cannot be removed from a job until it is complete; 2) Mutual exclusion. A single resource can be used for only one job at a time; 3) Hold while waiting. A process holds the resources

Manuscript received August 9, 2000; revised July 12, 2001. Manuscript received in final form January 7, 2002. Recommended by Associate Editor M. Lemmon. S. Bogdan and Z. Kova ic are with the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and c Computing, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. F. L. Lewis is with the Automation and Robotics Research Institute, University of Texas at Arlington, Fort Worth, TX 76118-7115 USA. A. Grel is with the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Turkey. M. Stajdohar is with HEP, D.P. Elektra, 44000 Sisak, Croatia. Publisher Item Identifier 10.1109/TCST.2002.801876.

1063-6536/02$17.00 2002 IEEE

710

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2002

resource vector; parts input vector; dispatching (control) vector. In the matrix model a standard matrix addition and mulstands for or tiplication are replaced by or/and algebra, operation, and stands for and operation. As (1) is a logical equation all vectors and matrices are binary. The over bar in (1) denotes a nonlinear function (i.e., logical of negation) that is defined as follows. For any component a natural number vector if if (5)

Fig. 1.

FMS supervisory controller based on the matrix model.

already allocated to it until it has all resources required to perform a job. In this paper, we also assume there are no machine failures. The basic concept of the FMS supervisory controller based on the matrix model is shown in Fig. 1. Based on the performance measures, the materials requirement, and the workcell status, conflict resolution logic derives . As an input to the next task logic, jointly control vector and , control vector forms with signals from sensors, , task command vector which defines start of operations in the workcell. Once operation is finished the resource release logic determines resource release vector . The matrix-based FMS controller describes next task logic and resource release logic in a form of IFTHEN rules written as matrices containing 0s and 1s. A description of the controller follows: Logical matrix state equation: (1) Job start equation: (2) Resource release equation: (3) Product output equation: (4) where job sequencing matrix; job start matrix; resource requirements matrix; resource release matrix; parts input matrix; parts exit matrix; dispatching (control) matrix; logical rule vector; job vector;

Basically the matrix model (1)(4) summarizes a set of rules: IF job A is finished AND AND resource C is idle . AND THEN THEN start job E AND start job F AND IF AND release resource G AND release resource H AND A component stands for rule ; when all conditions (jobs are finished and resources are idle) required for rule are attains the value 1 (TRUE). Matrices met the component and have the following meaning. if finishing of job is the requirement for rule to become 1. if resource is required for rule to become 1. if job is to be started when rule is 1 (all are satisfied). the requirements for component if resource is to be released when logical state component is set high. Matrix corelates input vector and logical rule if part is required for rule to become vector . and denote completed jobs 1. Entries of 1 in vectors and indicate idle and jobs to be started; entries of 1 in resources and resources to be released, while 1 in manifests that the part is out. describes the way how control signals influence Matrix the FMS rules. The first issue of the controller design is deterand dispatching vector which would mination of matrix resolve conflict situations. In case resource is shared by several jobs it may be requested simultaneously by more then one job by multiple 1s in the (this situation is indicated in matrix column which represents the shared resource). The structure of should be determined in a way that every conflict rule has one control input. While PN techniques of FMS control are generally based on introduction of new (control) places in the PN model of the system, it should be noted that introduction of dispatching (i.e., and vector ) in the FMS rules does not create any matrix new places, thus providing that structural properties of the controlled system remain unchanged. As a conflict resolution problem may have more than one solution the second step in the FMS controller design is finding components which shall take an algorithm for calculation of care of conflicts and in the same time lead an FMS according to the desired criteria. Even though the matrix-based FMS controller is capable to execute various dispatching policies, in examples presented here we use deadlock avoidance as criteria to show the controller design. Once having the matrix-based model of the FMS it is straightforward to convert the set of rules, described with the model, into a software program.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2002

711

Fig. 2. Experimental FMS setup.

III. FMS LABORATORY SETUP In order to investigate performance of the matrix-based FMS controller in a real environment a laboratory model of a flexible manufacturing system has been built (Fig. 2). The laboratory model contains a personal computer (PC), a programmable logic controller (PLC), a robot driver, and machine shop that includes a set of sensors, machines, and a 5-degree of freedom (DOF) robot arm (Fig. 3). The PC serves as an interface between the PLC and the robot driver. It calculates joint velocities based on the difference between the next and the current robot arm position. In order to reach the next position robot executes trajectories that are predetermined and saved to file. Which trajectory will be performed next depends on the code received from the PLC. Once received by the PC the code is processed and information about motor velocities is sent through the RS232 to the robot driver. Simultaneously the robot driver transfers data from motor encoders so that the PC can calculate a current arm position. The PLC takes the highest control level in the FMS which means that it bonds all parts of the system in one logical unit. The main task of the PLC is to execute an FMS control algorithm. The PLC picks sensors status and robot status (sigand ), sends onoff signals to the machines nals that form and ) and makes decisions which trajectory robot (vectors ). should terminate (components of dispatching vector The PLC connection diagram is shown in Fig. 4. A very simple 8-bit PLC is used in experiments. The matrix-based FMS dispatching algorithm, in form of a ladder diagram, is executed every 184 ms. The machine shop includes one 5-DOF articulated robot arm, three pneumatic double-acting cylinders which act as transporters, three pneumatic pistons for moving parts from and to transporters, and one buffer. A modular nature of the machine shop (all parts are movable and stand-alone) allows the user to arrange different problems to be solved. The structure of the machine shop used in experiments is shown in Fig. 5 with a dotted line representing a part path. As may be seen, the robot moves a part from an input place to the transporter 1 ( ), which carries it to the piston 1 ( ). and moves it in front of The piston unloads the part from puts the part into the buffer ( ). the second piston ( ). The robot lifts and carries it to transporter 2 ( ). The part advances through the line by moving along the transporter .

Fig. 3.

Structure of the experimental FMS.

Once reaching the piston 3 ( ) the part is moved to the transporter 3 ( ) which hauls it to the end of the line. Finally, the part is removed from the line by the robot and dropped into the output place. A. Matrix Model of the Laboratory FMS By using a system description (bill of materials, assembly tree, heuristic design experience of the shop-floor engineer) one can define the form of the matrices and vectors necessary for generation of the matrix model which will consequentially lead to set of rules. As the first step of matrix model development we should recognize and entitle all jobs (operations) in the FMS. In our example one can resolve eight operations which are stated in Table I. Even though from the mathematical point of view an order of jobs is irrelevant when matrix model is carried out, a causal ordering of operations has few merits. One is that in case and have a special, very conof causal ordering matrices venient form that is important in proving the results on the FMS structural properties [8]. Having this in mind and knowing the structure of the system, : we may write down a job vector and matrix

(6)

Once having a job vector one should assign resources in the FMS to the jobs, those providing a resource requirement matrix . In the laboratory setup six resources are allocated in order to perform operations defined with (6). Table II shows resource assignment. From Table II, it may be seen that robot RA has three tasks and it is the only shared resource in the example. Also, one can find that operation T3P is conducted by two physical resources

712

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2002

Fig. 4.

PLC connection diagram.

Causal ordering of jobs and resource assignment dictates the shape of matrices and

Fig. 5. Machine shop of the FMS laboratory setup.

(8)

that form one resource in the matrix model (T3A). Hence, the forms of a resource vector and resource requirements matrix are as follows:

To complete the matrix model we have to define matrices and that describe part entering and leaving the line as well as . Since in our example we have one part dispatching matrix path, input vector and output vector become scalars ( PI and PO) which leads to vector-shaped and

(9) (7) As it is said earlier problem arises when conditions for two or three jobs, performed by the robot, are met. In that case robot is is facing a conflict and introduction of a control vector (7) has three 1s in the first column, necessary. Since matrix has to have three components, and matrix has a form (10)

has three 1s in the first One should notice that matrix column. This column corresponds with robot (resource RA, which is the first component of vector ) who has three jobs to perform.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2002

713

TABLE I OPERATIONS IN THE FMS EXAMPLE

TABLE II RESOURCE ASSIGNMENT

The matrix model of the experimental FMS follows:

(12) From vectors and matrices determined above, it is possible to read FMS rules. For example, in order to start with operation has to be true (12), which means that operation T2P rule RP2 has to be done and resource T2A has to be idle (11). If we associate a sensor (or group of sensors) with each operation, the FMS controller can be written in a form of a PLC ladder diagram directly from the matrix model. The ladder diagram rung for the has a form shown in Fig. 6. rule It can be seen that completion of operation RP2 is assigned to sensor S6, which is connected with input I0.5 (input word 0, bit 5). If the rule is satisfied, actuator connected with output O0.1 (output word 0, bit 1) starts operation T2P. The matrix model could be easily understood by comparing with a Petri net graph (Fig. 7) of the FMS laboratory setup. It is clear that components of the logical state vector (rules) correspond with Petri net transitions. The matrix model can be used to simulate the system [6] or to solve logical equations online, i.e., to control a system by

(11)

714

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2002

The equation that determines critical subsystems has the following form: (13) where vector representation of critical subsystem (set of operations) that corresponds with the circular wait ; vector representation of a (there are standard effective techniques of polynomial complexity for identifying circular waits such as string algebra); binary -invariant basis matrix; critical siphon matrix corresponding to . can be found by using relation The columns of matrix (14) is the vector showing the shared resources involved in where . Operations in (13) and (14) are carried out in matrix or/and algebra and denotes element-by-element matrix logical and operation. A binary -invariant basis matrix is determined with [19] (15)

Fig. 6. Matrix-based FMS controller in a form of a ladder diagram.

using various dispatching techniques. It is very important to notice that once model is determined, it remains the same as long as the structure of the system stays unchangedusing different dispatching policies would change only the way how the compoare calculated, leaving all system nents of the control vector matrices unchanged. IV. MATRIX-BASED DEADLOCK-FREE FMS CONTROLLER DESIGN Even though the matrix model determined in a way shown in the previous chapter can be used to execute any dispatching policy by simple changing of algorithm that evaluates control , in our example the criterion for the FMS controller vector design is deadlock prevention. First, we define few structural properties of an FMS. For more detailed description of these properties see [8]. The resource is said to wait for resource , denoted , if the release of resource is immediately preceded by the availability of . A circular wait (CW) relation is a set of resources such that , with and when and . A circular blocking (CB) is a circular wait where none of the resources will ever again become available. A CB indefinitely disables the resources in a CW. Let be a set of all jobs and resources in an FMS. Then for any define , where ,with ; with a state vector and as initial value of the state vector. Define a -vector that represents the set of jobs and resources that correspond to its nonzero elements. A -invariant is a -vector for all state vectors reachable from such that . In [9], structural properties described above are put in relation. It is shown that, for the class of flexible manufacturing systems called MRF1 (multiple reentrant flow lines with no self-loops, with jobs that require only one resource, with no two consequent jobs using the same resource, with no choice jobs and no assembly jobs and with shared resources), occurrence of a CB or deadlock of a part path has the same consequencea part is kept in the line, waiting forever to be moved. As a solution of a deadlock problem, an algorithm which keeps the number of work-in-process (WIP), in particular critical subsystems, under predetermined value is proposed. These critical subsystems are in the close relation with a PN notion of the siphon. Moreover, in order to calculate critical subsystems one has to find so called critical siphons [2]. Here we shall skip theorems and proofs of the algorithm and give only final results.

and ( and ) are where is identity matrix. Matrices and ( and ) formed by deleting columns (rows) of that correspond with input and output of parts. The maximum number of jobs allotted to the critical subdepends on the number of resources involved system the initial number of idle rein . If we denote with sources in then the system will be deadlock-free only if dispatching policy keeps the WIP in critical subsystems to be less . We have implemented two deadlock-free control than strategies. First one is a well-known LBFS dispatching policy. The second one is so called stable FBFS [2]the strategy that drives an FMS by following FBFS logic until the number of WIP in critical subsystem reaches limit and then switches to LBFS is kept as close to one as possible, logic. Specifically, if is maximized, thus then the WIP in critical subsystem maximizing the percent utilization of resources. The described FBFS algorithm is one-step-ahead type of dispatching. Even though it works well for regular MRF1, it must be noted that there are systems (described in more details in [9]) which may run into deadlock several steps before any critical siphon actually becomes empty. V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS The FMS is built in such a way that the input operation, denoted PI, acts as a source of parts; when one part is taken by the robot other takes its position immediatelya delay between parts coming into the line is assumed to be zero. Parts leaving the system enter into the output place (PO), which is built as a sink place. That allows one to investigate the laboratory setup

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2002

715

Fig. 7.

Petri net graph of the FMS laboratory setup.

as an isolated system which is not influenced by the upstream and downstream operations. As the setup belongs to the MRF1 class of systems, the structural analysis has been done by usage of the relations described in Section IV. By using system matrices and string algebra we may define two simple RA T1A K1A K2A and circular waits: RA T2A T3A . A vector representations and are and of , respectively. From these two vectors and the resource vector we can determine vectors . As in the FMS that show the shared resources involved in only one shared resource is present vectors are the same: . The columns of critical siphon matrix may be found by inin (14) cluding vectors and

or WIP in obtains a value the resolution logic switches to the LBFS policy. A. LBFS Dispatching Policy

For implementation of LBFS strategy the control algorithm checks the status of conflict operations (PI, BP, and T3P) and according to the following determines dispatching vector , , set of rules (it is clear that only one of components can be set high in case of conflict): or PI BP T3P BP T3P IF PI T3P THEN ELSE IF PI BP THEN ELSE IF PI THEN ELSE IF BP THEN ELSE IF T3P THEN END IF Figs. 8 and 9 show the status of operations BP and T1P under the LBFS strategy. B. Stable FBFS Dispatching Policy

and Based on the structural properties of the system, the stable FBFS dispatching policy tests the status of conflict operations (PI, BP, and T3P) and checks the number of parts in critical subsystems. The algorithm attains the form PI BP T3P BP T3P IF

The next step in critical subsystems determination is calculation of -invariant matrix . For the FMS laboratory setup it has a form

Finally, the vector representations of two critical subsystems and are . By using these vectors and RP1 T1P K1P BP vector one can read that and RP2 T2P T3P . Having critical subsystems and corresponding circular waits we may calculate maximum WIP in particular subsystem that prevents from deadlock. As and , in order to keep the system and from reaching a deadlock the number of WIP in has to be less than four and three, respectively. A conflict resolution logic traces the number of WIP in critical subsystems and dispatch according to the FBFS policy as long and as observed WIPs remain under the critical values . At the moment when WIP in obtains a value

THEN ELSE IF PI BP THEN ELSE IF PI THEN ELSE IF BP THEN ELSE IF T3P THEN END IF Experimental results are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. By comparing results obtained in experiments it may be seen that the FMS is deadlock free for both dispatching policies. The difference in operation status is clear. While in the case of FBFS strategy (Fig. 10) the buffer is full most of the time (algorithm pushes parts into the system), for LBFS (Fig. 8) this is not the case since dispatching algorithm pulls parts out of the system. VI. CONCLUSION An experimental verification of a new matrix-based FMS controller was presented. A physical model of a finite buffer

716

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2002

policies, one was a well-known LBFS policy while the other was a MAXWIP policy called also a stable FBFS. The matrix techniques allowed effective and simple on-line control by applying a set of discrete-event control signals. Future work will be concerned with influence of operational times on the stability and throughput of the manufacturing system. Another issue will be an investigation of different FMS topologies with shared resources and bottleneck machines varying in place.
Fig. 8. BP operation status during the LBFS dispatching: 1the buffer is full, 0the buffer is empty.

REFERENCES
[1] S. S. Panwalkar and W. Iskander, A survey of scheduling rules, Oper. Res., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 4561, Jan.Feb. 1977. [2] S. Bogdan and F. L. Lewis, Matrix approach to deadlock avoidance of dispatching in multi-class finite buffer reentrant flow lines, in Proc. 12th IEEE Int. Symp. Intell. Contr., Istanbul, Turkey, 1997, pp. 397402. [3] K. H. Dietsch and E. M. Malstrom, Physical simulator analyzes performance of flexible manufacturing system, Ind. Eng., pp. 6675, June 1985. [4] P. R. Kumar and S. P. Meyn, Stability of queueing networks and scheduling policies, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 40, pp. 251260, Feb. 1995. [5] A. Gurel, O. C. Pastravanu, and F. L. Lewis, A robust approach in deadlock-free and live FMS design, in Proc. IEEE Mediterranean Symp. New Directions Contr. Automat., June 1994, pp. 4047. [6] D. A. Tacconi and F. L. Lewis, A new matrix model for discrete event systems: Application to simulaition, IEEE Contr. Syst. Mag., vol. 17, pp. 6271, 1997. [7] A. Gurel, F. L. Lewis, S. Bogdan, and O. Pastravanu, Circular blocking in flexible manufacturing systems: A matrix-based analysis, in Proc. IEEE Conf. Contr. Applicat., Trieste, Italy, 1998, pp. 786791. [8] F. L. Lewis, A. Gurel, S. Bogdan, A. Doganalp, and O. Pastravanu, Analysis of deadlock and circular waits using a matrix model for discrete event manufacturing systems, Automatica, vol. 34, no. 9, 1998. [9] A. Gurel, S. Bogdan, F. L. Lewis, and B. Huff, Matrix approach to deadlock-free dispatching in multi-class finite buffer flowlines, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 45, pp. 20862090, Nov. 2000. [10] H. M. Deitel, An Introduction to Operating Systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1984, ch. 6. [11] T. Murata, Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications, Proc. IEEE, vol. 77, pp. 541580, Apr. 1989. [12] Z. A. Banaszak and B. H. Krogh, Deadlock avoidance in flexible manufacturing systems with concurrently competing process flows, IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat., vol. 6, pp. 724734, Dec. 1990. [13] S. D. Ezpeleta, J. M. Colom, and J. Martinez, A Petri net based deadlock prevention policy for flexible manufacturing systems, IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat., vol. 11, pp. 173184, Apr. 1995. [14] M. D. Jeng and F. DiCesare, A synthesis method for Petri net modeling of automated manufacturing systems with shared resources, in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decision Contr., Dec. 1992, p. 1184. [15] T. K. Kumaran, W. Chang, N. Cho, and R. A. Wysk, A structured approach to deadlock detection, avoidance, and resolution in flexible manufacturing systems, Int. J. Prod. Res, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 23612379, 1994. [16] M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. San Francisco, CA: Freeman, 1979. [17] H. Cho, T. K. Kumaran, and R. A. Wysk, Graph-theoretic deadlock detection and resolution for flexible manufacturing systems, IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat., vol. 11, pp. 413421, 1995. [18] R. A. Wysk, N. S. Yang, and S. Joshi, Detection of deadlocks in flexible manufacturing cells, IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat., vol. 7, pp. 853859, Dec. 1991. [19] D. Labalo, A. Gurel, F. L. Lewis, and S. Bogdan, Modeling and information structures for supervisory control of flexible manufacturing systems, in Information Infrastructure Systems for Manufacturing II, J. J. Mills and F. Kimura, Eds. Boston, MA: Kluwer, 1999, ch. 20, pp. 287301.

Fig. 9. T1P operation status 1work-in-progress, 0idle.

during

the

LBFS

dispatching:

Fig. 10. BP operation status during the stable FBFS dispatching: 1the buffer is full, 0the buffer is empty.

Fig. 11. T1P operation status during the stable FBFS dispatching: 1work-in-progress, 0idle.

multiple reentrant flowline FMS was built. The matrix-based FMS model was derived and thereafter used for the synthesis of the matrix-based FMS controller. Deadlock prevention was applied as a criterion for the controller design. The controller was validated through implementation of two dispatching