Advertisement

Case Study

  • Rafal Dorociak
  • Jürgen Gausemeier
  • Peter Iwanek
  • Tobias Meyer
  • Walter Sextro
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

The challenge of increasing the dependability of a self-optimizing system is best addressed by a development process which seamlessly integrates appropriate dependability-oriented methods. The developer is assisted during this process by a set of guidelines to help him or her select the most suitable methods for the current development step.

In this chapter, a development process making use of these guidlines for the effective development of a self-optimizing system is shown exemplarily and advantages are highlighted that can be obtained by expanding the development process to include methods of increasing the dependability of the resulting system. Furthermore, the interaction between and sequence of these methods is outlined. As a case study, the RailCab system is presented and an abstract of its development process is illustrated.

In general, the development process is structured into the two phases: ”Conceptual Design” and ”Design and Development”. During Conceptual Design of the Active Guidance Module of the RailCab, methods based on the specification of the Principle Solution are employed to being increasing the dependability as early as possible. This is followed by the Design and Development phase, during which methods of analyzing the dependability of the whole RailCab system, as well as of optimizing the system behavior, are employed.

In Sect. 3.3, a methodology was presented, which supports the improvement of the dependability of self-optimizing systems. Its constituent elements are a method database, a guide for planning the use of the selected methods in the development process, and the appropriate software tool. By using the presented methodology, the developer can decide easier and faster which of the vast number of available dependability engineering methods (like shown for self-optimizing systems in Chap. 3) suits the development task best. In the following, the use of this methodology in an actual development project (the RailCab mentioned in previous chapters) will be discussed as a concrete application of the strategies presented thus far in the book. Additionally, the methods, selected by engineering teams to improve the dependability of the RailCab will be discussed in detail.

Keywords

Virtual Machine Pareto Front Risk Priority Number Virtual Machine Migration Pareto Point 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Birolini, A.: Reliability Engineering – Theory and Practice, 5th edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2007), doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03792-8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dorociak, R.: Early Probabilistic Reliability Analysis of Mechatronic Systems. In: Proceedings of the Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (2012), doi:10.1109/RAMS.2012.6175464Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dorociak, R., Gaukstern, T., Gausemeier, J., Iwanek, P., Vaßholz, M.: A Methodology for the Improvement of Dependability of Self-Optimizing Systems. Production Engineering – Research and Development 7(1), 53–67 (2013), doi:10.1007/s11740-012-0425-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC): Railway applications Communication, signalling and processing systems Software for railway control and protection systems, CENELEC EN 50128. European Standard (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gausemeier, J., Rammig, F.J., Schäfer, W. (eds.): Selbstoptimierende Systeme des Maschinenbaus. HNI-Verlagsschriftenreihe, vol. 234. Heinz Nixdorf Institute, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, DE (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gausemeier, J., Rammig, F.J., Schäfer, W. (eds.): Design Methodology for Intelligent Technical Systems. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2014), doi:10.1007/978-3-642-45435-6_2Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giese, H., Tichy, M.: Component-Based Hazard Analysis: Optimal Designs, Product Lines, and Online-Reconfiguration. In: Górski, J. (ed.) SAFECOMP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4166, pp. 156–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): IEC 61025: Fault Tree Analysis (FTA). International Standard (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klöpper, B., Aufenanger, M., Adelt, P.: Planning for Mechatronics Systems – Architechture, Methods and Case Study. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25(1), 174–188 (2012), doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2011.08.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klöpper, B., Sondermann-Wölke, C., Romaus, C.: Probabilistic Planning for Predictive Condition Monitoring and Adaptation within the Self-Optimizing Energy Management of an Autonomous Railway Vehicle. Journal for Robotics and Mechatronics 24(1), 5–15 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tichy, M., Klöpper, B.: Planning Self-Adaptation with Graph Transformations. In: Schürr, A., Varró, D., Varró, G. (eds.) AGTIVE 2011. LNCS, vol. 7233, pp. 137–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafal Dorociak
    • 1
  • Jürgen Gausemeier
    • 1
  • Peter Iwanek
    • 1
  • Tobias Meyer
    • 2
  • Walter Sextro
    • 2
  1. 1.Product Engineering, Heinz Nixdorf InstituteUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany
  2. 2.Mechatronics and DynamicsUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations