Сообщение

Analysis of Communication Protocols for Industrial Robot Control Systems

 
 orcid Maksim Belov,  orcid Ekaterina Kuzmina,  orcid Nadezhda Filina,  orcid Ammar Muthanna

The Bonch-Bruevich Saint Petersburg State University of Telecommunications,
St. Petersburg, 193232, Russian Federation

DOI 10.31854/2307-1303-2026-14-1-35-56

EDN YKGWDF

 Full text

 XML JATS

Abstract

Purpose. The development of the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) within the framework of the “Industry 4.0” paradigm is accompanied by an increase in the number of connected devices, growing demands for data transmission rate, and stringent latency constraints. In real-time control systems, even millisecond-level delays may lead to desynchronization of robotic mechanisms, production line interruptions, and economic losses. Widely used transport protocols, TCP and UDP, exhibit significant limitations: the former provides reliability at the cost of increased latency and overhead, while the latter ensures minimal delay without delivery control, which is critical for industrial processes. The purpose of this paper is to perform a comparative analysis of TCP, UDP, and QUIC transport protocols under conditions close to industrial scenarios and to evaluate their applicability for robotic control and reliable IIoT communications. Methods. Network analysis was conducted using the Wireshark packet analyzer and a custom-developed Python-based software complex incorporating the pyshark and matplotlib libraries. The study included PCAP file analysis, construction of time series, calculation of key metrics (command transmission rate, packet loss ratio, and command series size b), and their visualization. The elements of novelty consist in the comprehensive comparison of three transport protocols in the context of robotic manipulator control, where millisecond-level delays are critical; the application of QUIC, a relatively new protocol not previously examined in applied IIoT scenarios; and the development of a software tool enabling automated traffic analysis and classification in industrial environments. Results. Experimental results show that TCP provides zero packet loss but an unacceptably low command rate (0.58 commands/s). UDP achieves an order-of-magnitude higher rate (5.8 commands/s) but suffers from 3.88 % packet loss, rendering it unsuitable for high-precision operations. QUIC demonstrates the best performance: 18.16 commands/s with less than 1 % packet loss and a threefold increase in the average command series size b. Theoretical relevance. The obtained results confirm the prospects of using the QUIC protocol in IIoT industrial networks. Its adoption ensures minimal latency and high transmission reliability while significantly reducing network load through stream multiplexing. Practical implementation may involve integration of QUIC into robotic control systems, sensor networks, and production lines, aligning with the requirements for scalable and secure next-generation communications.

Keywords

Industrial Internet of Things, transport protocol, TCP, UDP, QUIC, industrial robotics, latency, data transmission reliability, network efficiency

Reference for citation

Belov M. A., Kuzmina E. A., Filina N. R., Muthanna A. S. A. Analysis of Communication Protocols for Industrial Robot Control Systems // Telecom IT. 2026. Vol. 14. Iss. 1. PP. 35‒56. (in Russian). DOI: 10.31854/2307-1303-2026-14-1-35-56. EDN: YKGWDF

References

1. Kirichek R., Kulik V. Industrial Internet of Things Traffic Research and Generation // Proceedings of Telecommunication Universities. 2019. Vol. 5. Iss 3. PP. 27-36. DOI: 10.31854/1813-324X-2019-5-3-27-36. EDN: JQBTYU

2. Kulik V. A., Vakhitov S. A., Kirichek R. V. Semantic Packet Conversion Model for Industrial Internet of Things Heterogeneous Gateway // Elektrosvyaz. 2020. Iss. 3. PP. 49-54. DOI: 10.34832/ELSV.2020.4.3.007. EDN: AHXFTF

3. Lee E. A. Cyber Physical Systems: Design Challenges // Proceedings of the 11th IEEE Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC, 05--07 May 2008, Orlando, USA). 2008. PP. 363-369. DOI: 10.1109/ISORC.2008.25.

4. Rajkumar R., Lee I., Sha L., Stankovic J. Cyber-Physical Systems: The Next Computing Revolution // Proceedings of the 47th Design Automation Conference (13--18 June 2010, Anaheim, USA). 2010. PP. 731-736. DOI: 10.1145/1837274.1837461. EDN: OCIABJ

5. Rani D., Gill N. S. Review of Various IoT Standards and Communication Protocols // International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology. 2019. Vol. 12. Iss. 5. PP. 647-657.

6. Peng H., Tärneberg W., Fitzgerald E., Kihl M. Performance Evaluation of QUIC Vs. TCP for Cloud Control Systems // Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM, 21-23 September 2023, Split, Croatia). 2023. DOI: 10.23919/SoftCOM58365.2023.10271592

7. Amet M., Thomas L., Song Y.-Q. A Performance Evaluation of QUIC in Real-Time Networks // Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems (RTNS, 6-8 November 2024, Porto, Portugal). 2024. PP. 255-265. DOI: 10.1145/3696355.3699698

8. Silva D. R. C., Oliveira G. M. B., Silva I., Ferrari P., Sisinni E. Latency Evaluation for MQTT and WebSocket Protocols: An Industry 4.0 Perspective // IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC, 25-28 June 2018, Natal, Brazil). IEEE, 2018. PP. 1233-1238.

 

cc-by Статья распространяется по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

cc0  Метаданные статьи распространяются по лицензии CC0 1.0 Universal

 

 
войти

Авторизация