Automated Consistency Preservation in Electronics Development of Cyber-Physical Systems
Computer-aided development of complex cyber-physical systems usually takes place in engineering teams with several different expert roles using a range of various software tools. This results in numerous artifacts created during this process. However, these artifacts commonly contain plenty of overlapping information. Therefore, the editing of one model by a developer may lead to inconsistencies with other models. Keeping these artifacts manually consistent is time-consuming and error-prone. In this paper, we present an automated strategy to ensure consistency between two widely used categories of software tools in electrical engineering: an electronic design automation application for designing printed circuit boards (PCBs) and an electronic circuit simulator tool to predict system behavior at runtime.
Coupling these two types of tools provides the developers with the ability of efficiently testing and optimizing the behavior of the electric circuit during the PCB design process. For the proper preservation of consistency, assigning the model elements correctly between different tools is required. To avoid the disadvantages of ambiguous heuristic matching methods, we present a strategy based on annotated identifiers in order to ensure a reliable assignment of these model elements. We have implemented the described approach by using Eagle CAD as PCB software and Matlab/Simulink with the Simscape extension as the simulation tool.
KeywordsCyber-Physical Systems (CPSs) Consistency management Electronics development
- 1.Atkinson, C., Stoll, D., Bostan, P.: Orthographic software modeling: a practical approach to view-based development. In: Maciaszek, L.A., González-Pérez, C., Jablonski, S. (eds.) ENASE 2008. CCIS, vol. 69, pp. 206–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14819-4_15CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 2.Broy, M.: Challenges in automotive software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2006, pp. 33–42. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
- 3.Burger, E.J.: Flexible views for view-based model-driven development. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Doctoral Symposium on Components and Architecture, WCOP 2013, pp. 25–30. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
- 4.Diskin, Z., Xiong, Y., Czarnecki, K., Ehrig, H., Hermann, F., Orejas, F.: From state- to delta-based bidirectional model transformations: the symmetric case. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 304–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24485-8_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Kramer, M.E.: Specification languages for preserving consistency between models of different languages. Ph.D. thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany (2017)Google Scholar
- 7.Neema, H., et al.: Design space exploration and manipulation for cyber physical systems. In: IFIP First International Workshop on Design Space Exploration of Cyber-Physical Systems (IDEAL 2014). Springer, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
- 8.Schmidt, M., Gloetzner, T.: Constructing difference tools for models using the SiDiff framework. In: Companion of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE Companion 2008, pp. 947–948, ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
- 9.Stephan, M., Cordy, J.R.: A survey of model comparison approaches and applications. In: Modelsward, pp. 265–277 (2013)Google Scholar