Advertisement

Towards the Verification of Hybrid Co-simulation Algorithms

  • Casper Thule
  • Cláudio Gomes
  • Julien Deantoni
  • Peter Gorm Larsen
  • Jörg Brauer
  • Hans Vangheluwe
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11176)

Abstract

Engineering modern systems is becoming increasingly difficult due to the heterogeneity between different subsystems. Modelling and simulation techniques have traditionally been used to tackle complexity, but with increasing heterogeneity of the subsystems, it becomes impossible to find appropriate modelling languages and tools to specify and analyse the system as a whole.

Co-simulation is a technique to combine multiple models and their simulators in order to analyse the behaviour of the whole system over time. Past research, however, has shown that the naïve combination of simulators can easily lead to incorrect simulation results, especially when co-simulating hybrid systems.

This paper shows: (i) how co-simulation of a family of hybrid systems can fail to reproduce the order of events that should have occurred (event ordering); (ii) how to prove that a co-simulation algorithm is correct (w.r.t. event ordering), and if it is incorrect, how to obtain a counterexample; and (iii) how to correct an incorrect co-simulation algorithm. We apply the above method to two well known co-simulation algorithms used with the FMI Standard, and we show that one of them is incorrect for the family of hybrid systems under study, under the restrictions of the standard. The conclusion is that either the standard needs to be revised, or one of the algorithms should be avoided.

Keywords

Hybrid co-simulation Hybrid systems Model checking 

References

  1. 1.
    Arnold, M.: Stability of sequential modular time integration methods for coupled multibody system models. J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 5(3), 9 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnold, M., Clauß, C., Schierz, T.: Error analysis and error estimates for co-simulation in FMI for model exchange and co-simulation v2.0. In: Schöps, S., Bartel, A., Günther, M., ter Maten, E.J.W., Müller, P.C. (eds.) Progress in Differential-Algebraic Equations. DEF, pp. 107–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44926-4_6CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aström, K.J., Wittenmark, B.: Computer-Controlled Systems: Theory and Design. Courier Corporation, Chelmsford (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benedikt, M., Watzenig, D., Zehetner, J., Hofer, A.: NEPCE-a nearly energy preserving coupling element for weak-coupled problems and co-simulation. In: IV International Conference on Computational Methods for Coupled Problems in Science and Engineering, Coupled Problems, pp. 1–12. Ibiza, Spain, June 2013Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blochwitz, T., et al.: The functional mockup interface for tool independent exchange of simulation models. In: 8th International Modelica Conference, pp. 105–114. Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköpings universitet, Dresden, Germany, June 2011Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blockwitz, T., et al.: Functional mockup interface 2.0: the standard for tool independent exchange of simulation models. In: 9th International Modelica Conference, pp. 173–184. Linköping University Electronic Press, Munich, Germany, November 2012Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broman, D., et al.: Determinate composition of FMUs for co-simulation. In: Eleventh ACM International Conference on Embedded Software, Article no. 2. IEEE Press, Piscataway, Montreal (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broman, D., Greenberg, L., Lee, E.A., Masin, M., Tripakis, S., Wetter, M.: Requirements for hybrid cosimulation standards. In: 18th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, HSCC 2015, pp. 179–188. ACM, New York, Seattle (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Busch, M.: Continuous approximation techniques for co-simulation methods: analysis of numerical stability and local error. ZAMM - J. Appl. Math. Mech. 96(9), 1061–1081 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cellier, F.E., Kofman, E.: Continuous System Simulation. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30260-3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarke, E., Veith, H.: Counterexamples revisited: principles, algorithms, applications. In: Dershowitz, N. (ed.) Verification: Theory and Practice. LNCS, vol. 2772, pp. 208–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39910-0_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cremona, F., Lohstroh, M., Broman, D., Lee, E.A., Masin, M., Tripakis, S.: Hybrid co-simulation: it’s about time. Softw. Syst. Model. (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    FMI: functional mock-up interface for model exchange and co-simulation. Technical report (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fritzson, P., et al.: OpenModelica - a free open-source environment for system modeling, simulation, and teaching. In: 2006 IEEE Conference on Computer Aided Control System Design. 2006 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications. 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, pp. 1588–1595, October 2006Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gheorghe, L., Bouchhima, F., Nicolescu, G., Boucheneb, H.: A formalization of global simulation models for continuous/discrete systems. In: Summer Computer Simulation Conference, SCSC 2007, pp. 559–566. Society for Computer Simulation International, San Diego, July 2007Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gomes, C., Karalis, P., Navarro-López, E.M., Vangheluwe, H.: Approximated stability analysis of bi-modal hybrid co-simulation scenarios. In: Cerone, A., Roveri, M. (eds.) SEFM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10729, pp. 345–360. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74781-1_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gomes, C., Legat, B., Jungers, R.M., Vangheluwe, H.: Stable adaptive co-simulation: a switched systems approach. In: IUTAM Symposium on Co-Simulation and Solver Coupling, Darmstadt, Germany (2017, to appear)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gomes, C., et al.: Semantic adaptation for FMI co-simulation with hierarchical simulators. SIMULATION, 1–29 (2018)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gomes, C., Thule, C., Broman, D., Larsen, P.G., Vangheluwe, H.: Co-simulation: state of the art. Technical report, February 2017. http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00686
  20. 20.
    Gomes, C., Thule, C., Broman, D., Larsen, P.G., Vangheluwe, H.: Co-simulation: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 51(3), Article no. 49 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gomes, C., Thule, C., Larsen, P.G., Denil, J., Vangheluwe, H.: Co-simulation of continuous systems: a tutorial. arXiv:1809.08463 [cs, math], September 2018
  22. 22.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 8(3), 231–274 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Holzmann, G.: The model checker SPIN. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 23(5), 279–295 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kalmar-Nagy, T., Stanciulescu, I.: Can complex systems really be simulated? Appl. Math. Comput. 227, 199–211 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kübler, R., Schiehlen, W.: Modular simulation in multibody system dynamics. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 4(2–3), 107–127 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee, E.A.: Cyber physical systems: design challenges. In: 11th IEEE International Symposium on Object Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing, ISORC, pp. 363–369 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Palensky, P., Van Der Meer, A.A., Lopez, C.D., Joseph, A., Pan, K.: Cosimulation of intelligent power systems: fundamentals, software architecture, numerics, and coupling. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 11(1), 34–50 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sadjina, S., Kyllingstad, L.T., Skjong, S., Pedersen, E.: Energy conservation and power bonds in co-simulations: non-iterative adaptive step size control and error estimation. Eng. Comput. 33(3), 607–620 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sadjina, S., Pedersen, E.: Energy conservation and coupling error reduction in non-iterative co-simulations. Technical report, June 2016. http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05168
  30. 30.
    Schweizer, B., Li, P., Lu, D.: Explicit and implicit cosimulation methods: stability and convergence analysis for different solver coupling approaches. J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 10(5), 051007 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sicklinger, S., et al.: Interface Jacobian-based co-simulation. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 98(6), 418–444 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thule, C., Lausdahl, K., Larsen, P.G., Meisl, G.: Maestro: the INTO-CPS co-simulation orchestration engine (2018). Submitted to Simulation Modelling Practice and TheoryGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tomiyama, T., D’Amelio, V., Urbanic, J., ElMaraghy, W.: Complexity of multi-disciplinary design. CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 56(1), 185–188 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van der Auweraer, H., Anthonis, J., De Bruyne, S., Leuridan, J.: Virtual engineering at work: the challenges for designing mechatronic products. Eng. Comput. 29(3), 389–408 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vangheluwe, H., De Lara, J., Mosterman, P.J.: An introduction to multi-paradigm modelling and simulation. In: AI, Simulation and Planning in High Autonomy Systems, pp. 9–20. SCS (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhang, F., Yeddanapudi, M., Mosterman, P.J.: Zero-crossing location and detection algorithms for hybrid system simulation. In: IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 41, pp. 7967–7972. Elsevier Ltd., Seoul, July 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Casper Thule
    • 1
  • Cláudio Gomes
    • 2
    • 6
  • Julien Deantoni
    • 3
  • Peter Gorm Larsen
    • 1
  • Jörg Brauer
    • 4
  • Hans Vangheluwe
    • 2
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.DIGIT, Department of EngineeringAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  3. 3.Polytech Nice SophiaBiotFrance
  4. 4.Verified Systems International GmbHBremenGermany
  5. 5.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  6. 6.Flanders MakeLommelBelgium

Personalised recommendations