Advertisement

Towards a Co-simulation Based Model Assessment Process for System Architecture

  • Benjamin Bossa
  • Benjamin Boulbene
  • Sébastien Dubé
  • Marc Pantel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11176)

Abstract

Model Based System Engineering and early Validation & Verification are now key enablers for the development of complex systems. However, the current state of the art is not sufficient to achieve a seamless use in an Extended Enterprise (EE) context. Indeed, the various stakeholders must protect their Intellectual Property (IP) while conducting system wide design exploration that relies on each part of the system. Co-simulation standards such as Functional Mock-up Interface provide technological assets to deal with IP management issues for an EE organization. However, this standard is not meant to provide reference processes to support such organizations. We target the development of such a common process based on both the system of interest design models and the EE architecture. The purpose is to build a Simulation Reference Model as a requirement model for the whole co-simulation, the derived IP-protected co-simulation components and the co-simulation platform architecture as well as the method for the validation of system models. We propose to extend the work done for the Model Identity Card and rely on detailed domain specific engineering ontologies and quantitative quality properties for models to express the requirements for the co-simulation components and to reduce the simulation quality loss induced by the co-simulation technologies.

Keywords

MBSE Extended Enterprise (co-)simulation Quality 

References

  1. 1.
    Modelica Association, et al.: Modelica and the modelica association (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blochwitz, T., et al.: Functional Mockup Interface 2.0: the standard for tool independent exchange of simulation models. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Modelica Conference, pp. 173–184. The Modelica Association (2012).  https://doi.org/10.3384/ecp12076173
  3. 3.
    Chiastek: CosiMate software (2018). https://site.cosimate.com/
  4. 4.
    Durling, E., Palmkvist, E., Henningsson, M.: FMI and IP protection of models: a survey of use cases and support in the standard. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Modelica Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, 15–17 May 2017, pp. 329–335, no. 132. Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköpings universitet (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fuhrmann, H., von Hanxleden, R.: On the pragmatics of model-based design. In: Choppy, C., Sokolsky, O. (eds.) Monterey Workshop 2008. LNCS, vol. 6028, pp. 116–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12566-9_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gomes, C., Thule, C., Broman, D., Larsen, P.G., Vangheluwe, H.: Co-simulation: state of the art. CoRR abs/1702.00686 (2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00686
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Lyapunov, A.: The general problem of the stability of motion. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Kharkov (1892). (in Russian). (1) Stability of Motion. Academic Press, New-York and London (1966) (2) The General Problem of the Stability of Motion, (A. T. Fuller trans.). Taylor & Francis, London (1992). Included is a biography by Smirnov and an extensive bibliography of Lyapunov’s workGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mitts, K.J., Lang, K., Roudier, T., Kiskis, D.L.: Using a co-simulation framework to enable software-in-the-loop powertrain system development. Technical report, SAE Technical Paper (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    PolarSys: Capella (2018). http://www.polarsys.org/capella/
  11. 11.
    Prosvirnova, T., Saez, E., Seguin, C., Virelizier, P.: Handling consistency between safety and system models. In: Bozzano, M., Papadopoulos, Y. (eds.) IMBSA 2017. LNCS, vol. 10437, pp. 19–34. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64119-5_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quan, Q.: Introduction to Multicopter Design and Control. Springer, Singapore (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3382-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sachidananda, V., et al.: Simulation and evaluation of mixed-mode environments: towards higher quality of simulations. In: Ando, N., Balakirsky, S., Hemker, T., Reggiani, M., von Stryk, O. (eds.) SIMPAR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6472, pp. 133–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17319-6_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sargent, R.G.: Verification and validation of simulation models. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Winter Simulation Conference, WSC, pp. 183–198, December 2011Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sirin, G., Paredis, C.J.J., Yannou, B., Coatanéa, E., Landel, E.: A model identity card to support simulation model development process in a collaborative multidisciplinary design environment. IEEE Syst. J. 9(4), 1151–1162 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2014.2371541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Voirin, J.L.: Model-based System and Architecture Engineering with the Arcadia Method, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Bossa
    • 1
    • 5
  • Benjamin Boulbene
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sébastien Dubé
    • 1
    • 4
  • Marc Pantel
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Research and Technology (IRT) Saint-ExupéryToulouseFrance
  2. 2.University of Toulouse, INPT-ENSEEIHT/IRITToulouseFrance
  3. 3.ChiastekToulouseFrance
  4. 4.ESI GroupToulouseFrance
  5. 5.Sogeti High TechToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations