Advertisement

A lifecycle model to support continuous component evolution in embedded automotive systems

  • Lukas Block
  • Oliver Riedel
  • Florian Herrmann
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings book series (PROCEE)

Zusammenfassung

Already today, hardware and software versions of embedded automotive components frequently evolve, due to discontinued electronics or fixed software bugs. For example, the average release cycle for new software versions of a vehicle already in production is six months (Guissouma et al. 2018). With agile development methods, continuous integration efforts and over-the-air software updates, this frequency and the amplitude of system alternations is expected to increase.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1. Ahmad, Naveed; Wynn, David C.; Clarkson, P. John (2013): Change impact on a product and its redesign process. A tool for knowledge capture and reuse. In Research in Engineering Design 24 (3), pp. 219–244.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-012-0139-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2. Albers, Albert; Lohmeyer, Quentin (2012): Advanced Systems Engineering. Towards a Model-Based and Human-Centered Methodology. In: International Symposium Series on Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering, TMCE, pp. 407–416.Google Scholar
  3. 3. Al-Zaher, A.; ElMaraghy, W. (2013): Design of reconfigurable automotive framing system. In CIRP Annals 62 (1), pp. 491–494.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4. AUTOSAR Document 442, 11/30/2017: Application Interfaces User Guide.Google Scholar
  5. 5. AUTOSAR GbR (2017): About. AUTOSAR GbR. Available online at https://www.autosar.org/about/, updated on 7/20/2017, checked on 1/11/2019.
  6. 6. AUTOSAR Document 635, 12/8/2017: AUTOSAR Model Constraints.Google Scholar
  7. 7. Bohner, Shawn A.; Arnold, Robert S. (1996): Software change impact analysis. Los Alamitos, California, USA: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8. Borg, Markus; Wnuk, Krzysztof; Regnell, Bjorn; Runeson, Per (2017): Supporting Change Impact Analysis Using a Recommendation System. An Industrial Case Study in a Safety-Critical Context. In IEEE Transactions On Software Engineering 43 (7), pp. 675–700.  https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2016.2620458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9. Durisic, Darko; Nilsson, Martin; Staron, Miroslaw; Hansson, Jörgen (2013): Measuring the impact of changes to the complexity and coupling properties of automotive software systems. In Journal of Systems and Software 86 (5), pp. 1275–1293.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.12.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10. Durisic, Darko; Staron, Miroslaw; Tichy, Matthias (2015): ARCA. Automated Analysis of AUTOSAR Meta-Model Changes. In: 7th International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering, pp. 30–35.Google Scholar
  11. 11. Eckert, Claudia; Clarkson, P. John; Zanker, Winfried (2004): Change and customisation in complex engineering domains. In Research in Engineering Design 15 (1), pp. 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-003-0031-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12. AUTOSAR Document 706, 3/29/2018: Explanation of Adaptive Platform Design.Google Scholar
  13. 13. AUTOSAR Document 268, 10/31/2018: Explanation of Application Interfaces of the Body and Comfort Domain.Google Scholar
  14. 14. Frama-C (2018). Available online at https://frama-c.com/, updated on 11/29/2018, checked on 1/10/2019.
  15. 15. Giese, Holger; Hildebrandt, Stephan; Neumann, Stefan (2010): Model Synchronization at Work. Keeping SysML and AUTOSAR Models Consistent. In Gregor Engels, Claus Lewerentz, Wilhelm Schäfer, Andy Schürr, Bernhard Westfechtel (Eds.): Graph Transformations and Model-Driven Engineering: Essays Dedicated to Manfred Nagl on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 555–579.Google Scholar
  16. 16. Giffin, Monica; Weck, Olivier de; Bounova, Gergana; Keller, Rene; Eckert, Claudia; Clarkson, P. John (2009): Change Propagation Analysis in Complex Technical Systems. In Journal of Mechanical Design 131 (8), p. 81001.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3149847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17. Guissouma, Houssem; Klare, Heiko; Sax, Eric; Burger, Erik (2018): An Empirical Study on the Current and Future Challenges of Automotive Software Release and Configuration Management. In Tomas Bures, Lefteris Angelis (Eds.): 2018 44th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SSEA). Prague, 29.08.2018 - 31.08.2018. Euromicro SEAA. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 298–305.Google Scholar
  18. 18. Heinrich, Robert; Koch, Sandro; Cha, Suhyun; Busch, Kiana; Reussner, Ralf; Vogel-Heuser, Birgit (2018): Architecture-based Change Impact Analysis in Cross-disciplinary Automated Production Systems. In Journal of Systems and Software 146, pp. 167–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.08.058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19. IEEE (2000): IEEE 100. The authoritative dictionary of IEEE standards terms. New York: Standards Information Network IEEE Press. Available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=4116785.
  20. 20. Jarratt, Timothy; Clarkson, John; Eckert, Claudia (2005): Engineering Change. In John Clarkson, Claudia Eckert (Eds.): Design process improvement: A review of current practice. London: Springer London, pp. 262–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21. Kernschmidt, Konstantin; Behncke, Florian; Chucholowski, Nepomuk; Wickel, Martina; Bayrak, Gülden; Lindemann, Udo; Vogel-Heuser, Birgit (2014): An Integrated Approach to Analyze Change-situations in the Development of Production Systems. In Variety Management in Manufacturing. Proceedings of the 47th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems 17, pp. 148–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.01.081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22. Kiritsis, Dimitris; Bufardi, Ahmed; Xirouchakis, Paul (2003): Research issues on product lifecycle management and information tracking using smart embedded systems. In Advanced Engineering Informatics 17 (3-4), pp. 189–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2004.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23. Kirschke-Biller, F.; Ebert, Christof (2018): Requirements and systems engineering for complex systems. In Michael Bargende, Hans-Christian Reuss, Jochen Wiedemann (Eds.): 18. Internationales Stuttgarter Symposium. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp. 493–498.Google Scholar
  24. 24. Koh, Edwin C.Y.; Caldwell, Nicholas H.M.; Clarkson, P. John (2013): A technique to assess the changeability of complex engineering systems. In Journal of Engineering Design 24 (7), pp. 477–498.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2013.769207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25. Li, Jingran; Tao, Fei; Cheng, Ying; Zhao, Liangjin (2015): Big Data in product lifecycle management. In The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 81 (1), pp. 667–684.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7151-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26. Nejati, Shiva; Sabetzadeh, Mehrdad; Arora, Chetan; Briand, Lionel C.; Mandoux, Felix (2016): Automated Change Impact Analysis between SysML Models of Requirements and Design. In Thomas Zimmermann, Jane Cleland-Huang, Zhendong Su (Eds.): Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. Seattle, WA, USA, 13.11.2016 -18.11.2016. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 242–253.Google Scholar
  27. 27. Pasqual, Michael C.; Weck, Olivier L. de (2012): Multilayer network model for analysis and management of change propagation. In Research in Engineering Design 23 (4), pp. 305–328.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-011-0125-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28. Robert Elder (2016): Interfaces. The Most Important Software Engineering Concept. Robert Elder Software Inc. Available online at http://blog.robertelder.org/interfaces-most-important-software-engineering-concept/, updated on 9/29/2016, checked on 7/16/2018.
  29. 29. Ropohl, Günter (2009): Allgemeine Technologie. Eine Systemtheorie der Technik. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. 30. Stark, John (2015): Product Lifecycle Management. Cham, Swizzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. 31. AUTOSAR Document 063, 10/31/2018: System Template.Google Scholar
  32. 32. AUTOSAR Document 121, 8/15/2008: Template UML Profile and Modeling Guide.Google Scholar
  33. 33. Terzi, Sergio; Bouras, Abdelaziz; Dutta, Debashi; Garetti, Marco; Kiritsis, Dimitris (2010): Product lifecycle management - from its history to its new role. In International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management 4 (4), pp. 360–389.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPLM.2010.036489.
  34. 34. Ufuktepe, Ekincan; Tuglular, Tugkan (2018): A Program Slicing-Based Bayesian Network Model for Change Impact Analysis. In : 2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability, and Security. With assistance of Ina Schieferdecker, Yuanshun Dai. Lisbon. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; IEEE Reliability Society. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 490–499.Google Scholar
  35. 35. Wiesner, Stefan; Freitag, Mike; Westphal, Ingo; Thoben, Klaus-Dieter (2015): Interactionsbetween Service and Product Lifecycle Management. In 7th IndustrialProduct-Service Systems Conference - PSS, industry transformation for sustainability and business 30, pp. 36–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lukas Block
    • 1
  • Oliver Riedel
    • 2
  • Florian Herrmann
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of Excellence advanced Manufacturing EngineeringUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartDeutschland
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial EngineeringStuttgartDeutschland

Personalised recommendations