Advertisement

Enabling Modular Design Platforms for Complex Systems

  • Saurabh Mahapatra
  • Jason Ghidella
  • Ascension Vizinho-Coutry
Conference paper

Abstract

In recent times, an emerging trend in several industries that have adopted Model-Based Design has been holistic product platforms where a single systems design is reused and customized to meet diverse customer requirements such as application, cost, and operational considerations. Many of these dynamic changes in nature have required system design component variations referred to as “variants” on top of a fixed master design. One approach to realize this is to create copies of the original design for each variant combination. Additionally, this requires a sophisticated traceability mechanism to propagate any changes in the design to the various implementations. An alternative approach is to design a modular architecture that can reference all the product variations within a single file. Different implementations can then be realized by selecting different system components through a scripting language. This approach promotes design reuse and provides a powerful mechanism to implement traceability. However, such a paradigm requires core tool functionality similar to those available in various UML/SysML implementations before being applied to a systems development process. In this paper, we introduce variant semantics for complex systems design for use within the Simulink modeling environment. We discuss their attributes which can be parametric or structural that can be used throughout the development process. In addition to improving the efficiency and development of product variations, variants present a variety of uses in the context of systems engineering workflows. For example, design exploration, where several alternatives exist for a component, can now be managed efficiently to simulate every design possibility in a combinatorial fashion for a given test suite. For large-scale problems, these simulations could be distributed to a high performance computing cluster for overall speedup through a scripting methodology. Design elaboration and integration is a challenging activity that can also be improved through the use of variants, where low fidelity components are replaced by more specialized one’s going from mathematical equations to physical or software elements. Since the order in which these components are integrated influence design quality and subsequent iterations, it is possible to carry out several separate integrations that increase confidence.  Since there are a number of ways to modularize a design, we also outline a set of best practices for partitioning the design variations for scalability and maintainability. Using Simulink-based examples, we illustrate the above scenarios and outline strategies on how organizations can leverage these possibilities to reuse while enhancing their existing knowledge to meet system design challenges of the future.

Keywords

Software Product Line Variant Object Variant Choice Variant Semantic Software Product Line Engineering 
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.
    F-35 Variants, The F-35 Lightning II Main JSF Website, http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_variants.htm
  2. 2.
    Winchester, J.: Civil aircraft-passenger and utility aircraft: A century of innovation. Amber Books, London (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nicolescu, G., Mosterman, P.J.: Model-based design for embedded systems: computational analysis, synthesis, and design of dynamic systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mosterman, P.J., Zander, J., Hamon, G., et al.: A computational model of time for stiff hybrid systems applied to control synthesis. Control Engineering Practice 19 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    MathWorks, Simulink User Guide. MathWorks Natick, MA (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peak, R.S., Burkhart, R.M., Friedenthal, S.A., et al.: Simulation-based design using SysML—Part 2: celebrating diversity by example. In: INCOSE International Symposium, San Diego (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Booch, G.: Object oriented analysis and design with applications. Addison-Wesley Professional (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kinnucan, P., Mosterman, P.J.: A graphical variant approach to object-oriented modeling of dynamic systems. In: Proceedings of 2007 Summer Computer Simulation Conference, San Diego, CA, pp. 513–521 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mosterman, P.J., Vangheluwe, H.: Computer automated multi-paradigm modeling: an introduction. Simulation: Transactions of The Society for Modeling and Simulation International 80(9), 433–450 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meyer, M.H., Lehnerd, A.P.: The power of product platforms: building value and cost leadership. Free Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clark, K., Fujimoto, T.: New product development performance: strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    MathWorks, Stateflow user’s guide. MathWorks, Natick, MA (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parnas, D.: On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM 15(12), 1053–1058 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parnas, D.: On the design and development of program families. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (1976)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang, H., Jarzabek, S.: XVCL: a mechanism for handling variants in software product lines. In: Science of Computer Programming, vol. 53, pp. 381–407. Elsevier (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Minsky, M.: A framework for representing knowledge, the psychology of computer vision. McGraw-Hill (1975)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bassett, P.: Framing software reuse—lessons from the real world. Yourdon Press, Prentice-Hall, NJ (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gomaa, H.: Designing software product lines with UML: from use cases to pattern-based software architectures. Addison-Wesley Professional (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Possompès, T., Dony, C., Huchard, M., et al.: Design of a UML profile for feature diagrams and its tooling implementation. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Miami Beach, Florida, USA (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Junior, E.A.O., Gimenes, I.M.S., Maldonado, J.C.: Systematic management of variability in UML-based software product lines. Journal of Computer Science 16(17), 2374–2393 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taub, H., Schilling, D.: Digital integrated electronics. McGraw-Hill, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barnard, P.: Graphical techniques for aircraft dynamic model development. In: AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, Providence, Rhode Island (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ghidella, J., Mosterman, P.: Requirements-based testing in aircraft control design. In: Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, San Francisco (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chou, B., Mahapatra, S.: Techniques for generating and measuring production code constructs from controller models. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars- Electronic and Electrical Systems 2(4), 127–133 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walker, G., Friedman, J., Aberg, R.: Configuration management of the model-based design process. In: SAE World Congress, Detroit (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wakefield, A., Miller, S.: Improving System Models Using Monte Carlo Techniques on Plant Models. In: AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, Hawaii (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ghidella, J., Wakefield, A., Grad-Frielich, S., et al.: The use of computing clusters and automatic code generation to speed up simulation tasks. In: AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, South Carolina (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    MathWorks, Simulink Coder user guide. MathWorks, Natick, MA (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kang, K., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., et al.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report, CMU-SEI-90-TR-21, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saurabh Mahapatra
    • 1
  • Jason Ghidella
    • 1
  • Ascension Vizinho-Coutry
    • 2
  1. 1.MathWorks Inc.NatickFrance
  2. 2.MathWorks IncMeudonFrance

Personalised recommendations