Advertisement

Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 53–102 | Cite as

Using formal methods with SysML in aerospace design and engineering

  • Henson GravesEmail author
  • Yvonne Bijan
Article

Abstract

Maintaining design consistency is a critical issue for macro-level aerospace development. The inability to maintain design consistency is a major contributor to cost and schedule overruns. By embedding The Systems Modeling Language (SysML) within a formal logic, formal methods can be used to maintain consistency as a design evolves. SysML, provided with a formal semantics, enables engineers to employ reasoning in the course of a typical model-based development process. Engineers can make use of formal methods within the context of current engineering practice and tools without needing to have special formal methods training. As component subsystems are introduced to refine a design, their assumptions are checked against current assumptions. If new assumptions do not introduce inconsistency, they are added to the model assumptions. If the assumptions render the design inconsistent, they are detected which minimizes potential rework. SysML has a demonstrated capability for top-to-bottom design refinement for large-scale aerospace systems. SysML does not have a formal logic-based semantics. The logical formalism within which SysML is embedded matches the informal semantic of SysML closely. The approach to integrating formal methods with SysML is illustrated with a typical macro-level aerospace design task. The design process produces a design solution which provably satisfies the top level requirements. The example provides evidence that coupling formal methods with SysML can realistically be applied to solve aerospace development problems. The approach results from a number of detailed design trades employing a model-based system development process which used SysML as the model integration framework.

Keywords

SysML OWL MBSE Type theory Design by refinement Description logic 

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2010)

03B70 03C60 03G30 03C98 18B25 18C10 18C50 68Q60 68T30 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.R.: The B-Book. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anlauff, M., Pavlovic, D., Smith, D.: Composition and refinement of evolving specifications. In: Proceedings of Workshop (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D.: The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barendregt, H.: Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, vol. 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bell, J.: From absolute to local mathematics. In: Synthese. Springer, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bell, J.: The development of categorical logic. In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 12. Springer, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomoa, G.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artif. Int. 168(1–2), 70–118 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boileau, A., Joyal, A.: La logique des topos. J. Symb. Log. 46, 6–16 (1981)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cabot, J., Clariso, R., Riera, D.: Verification of UML/OCL class diagrams using constraint programming. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation Workshop (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coquand, T., Huet, G.: The calculus of constructions. Inf. Comput. 76(2/3), 95–120 (1988)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dupuy, S., Ledru, Y., Chabre-Peccoud, M.: An Overview of Roz: a tool for integrating UML and Z specifications. In: 12th International Conference CAISE’00, Stockhom, Sweden (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Estefan, J.A.: Survey of Model-based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies. Rev. B, INCOSE Technical Publication, International Council on Systems Engineering (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graves, H.: Constructions for modeling product structure. In: OWL Experiences and Directions October Workshop (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graves, H.: Logic for modeling product structure. In: Proceedings of 23rd International Workshop on Description Logics (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graves, H.: Ontological foundations for SysML. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Model-Based Systems Engineering (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Graves, H., Blaine, L.: Algorithm transformation and verification in algos. In: Third International Workshop on Software Specification and Design. IEEE Computer Society Press, Silver Spring (1985)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graves, H., Guest, S., Vermette, J., Bijan, Y.: Air vehicle model-based design and simulation pilot. In: Simulation Interoperability Workshop (SIW) (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harel, D., Pnueli, A.: On the Development of Reactive Systems. Springer, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoare, C.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(12), 576–583 (1969)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoare, C.: Communicating sequential processes. Commun. ACM 21(8), 666–676 (1978)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jaffar, J., Michael Maher, J.: Constraint logic programming: a survey. J. Log. Program. 19/20, 503–581 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laleau, R., Semmak, F., Matoussi, A., Petit, D., Hammad, A., Tatibouet, B.: A first attempt to combine SysML requirements diagrams and B. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering 6(1–2), 47–54 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lambek, J., Scott, P.J.: Introduction to Higher-Order Categorical Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lawvere, F.W.: An elementary theory of the category of sets. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 11, 1–35 (1964)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    MacKenzie, D.: Mechanizing Proof. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marquis, J.-P., Gonzalo, E., Reyes, G.: The history of categorical logic. In: Kanamori, A. (ed.) The Handbook of the History of Logic vol. 6. 1963–1977. (to appear) webdepot.umontreal.ca
  27. 27.
    Martin-Lof, P.: Constructive mathematics and computer programming. In: Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (1982)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Michel, D., Gervais, F., Valarcher, P.: B-ASM: Specification of ASM a la B. In: Abstract State Machines, Alloy, B and Z: Second International Conference, ABZ 2010, Orford, QC, Canada, February 22–25 (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    OMG Formal Ontology Definition Metamodel. http://doc.omg.org/formal/09-05-01
  30. 30.
    OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML\(\texttrademark\)), V1.1 (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, W3C Working Draft 11 June 2009Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Padawitz, P.: Swinging UML. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 1939, 162–177 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Point, G., Rauzy, A.: AltaRica: constraint automata as a description language. Eur. J. Autom. (Hermes) 33(8–9), 1033–1052 (1999)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rushby, J.: Formal methods and the certification of critical systems, SRI-TR CSL-93-7 (1993)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Srinivas, Y., Jullig, R.: Specware: formal support for composing software. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 947/1995 (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Algos AssociatesFort WorthUSA
  2. 2.Lockheed Martin Aeronautics CompanyFort WorthUSA

Personalised recommendations