Skip to main content
Log in

Using formal methods with SysML in aerospace design and engineering

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abrial, J.R.: The B-Book. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Anlauff, M., Pavlovic, D., Smith, D.: Composition and refinement of evolving specifications. In: Proceedings of Workshop (2002)

  3. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D.: The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Barendregt, H.: Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, vol. 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bell, J.: From absolute to local mathematics. In: Synthese. Springer, New York (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bell, J.: The development of categorical logic. In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 12. Springer, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomoa, G.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artif. Int. 168(1–2), 70–118 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Boileau, A., Joyal, A.: La logique des topos. J. Symb. Log. 46, 6–16 (1981)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

  10. Coquand, T., Huet, G.: The calculus of constructions. Inf. Comput. 76(2/3), 95–120 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

  12. Estefan, J.A.: Survey of Model-based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies. Rev. B, INCOSE Technical Publication, International Council on Systems Engineering (2008)

  13. Graves, H.: Constructions for modeling product structure. In: OWL Experiences and Directions October Workshop (2010)

  14. Graves, H.: Logic for modeling product structure. In: Proceedings of 23rd International Workshop on Description Logics (2010)

  15. Graves, H.: Ontological foundations for SysML. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Model-Based Systems Engineering (2010)

  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. Graves, H., Guest, S., Vermette, J., Bijan, Y.: Air vehicle model-based design and simulation pilot. In: Simulation Interoperability Workshop (SIW) (2009)

  18. Harel, D., Pnueli, A.: On the Development of Reactive Systems. Springer, New York (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hoare, C.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(12), 576–583 (1969)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Hoare, C.: Communicating sequential processes. Commun. ACM 21(8), 666–676 (1978)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Jaffar, J., Michael Maher, J.: Constraint logic programming: a survey. J. Log. Program. 19/20, 503–581 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Lambek, J., Scott, P.J.: Introduction to Higher-Order Categorical Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Lawvere, F.W.: An elementary theory of the category of sets. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 11, 1–35 (1964)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. MacKenzie, D.: Mechanizing Proof. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. Martin-Lof, P.: Constructive mathematics and computer programming. In: Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (1982)

  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)

  29. OMG Formal Ontology Definition Metamodel. http://doc.omg.org/formal/09-05-01

  30. OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML\(\texttrademark\)), V1.1 (2008)

  31. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, W3C Working Draft 11 June 2009

  32. Padawitz, P.: Swinging UML. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 1939, 162–177 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Rushby, J.: Formal methods and the certification of critical systems, SRI-TR CSL-93-7 (1993)

  35. Srinivas, Y., Jullig, R.: Specware: formal support for composing software. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 947/1995 (1995)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henson Graves.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Graves, H., Bijan, Y. Using formal methods with SysML in aerospace design and engineering. Ann Math Artif Intell 63, 53–102 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-011-9267-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-011-9267-5

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2010)

Navigation