June 15, 2008
INCOSE IS08  Utrecht
Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)
Challenge Team Status Update
Mechatronics /
Model Interoperability
Presenter
Russell Peak - Georgia Tech
Team Leaders
Russell Peak, Roger Burkhart, Sandy Friedenthal,
Chris Paredis, Leon McGinnis
v3 - 2008-08-01: Based on IS08 MBSE presentations at Utrecht and ESTEC plus updates for July 23 JPL seminar.
Note: Hidden slides (not presented during the seminar) are included here for context.
Portions are Copyright © 2008 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0415 USA. All Rights Reserved.
Permission to reproduce and distribute without changes for non-commercial purposes (including internal corporate usage) is hereby granted provided this notice and a proper citation are included.
Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis
Using SysML—Mechatronics/Interoperability
Team Status Report
Abstract
This presentation overviews work-in-progress experiences and lessons learned from an excavator testbed that interconnects
simulation models with associated diverse system models, design models, and manufacturing models. The goal is to enable
advanced model-based systems engineering (MBSE) in particular and model-based X1 (MBX) in general. Our method employs
SysML as the primary technology to achieve multi-level multi-fidelity interoperability, while at the same time leveraging
conventional modeling & simulation tools including mechanical CAD, factory CAD, spreadsheets, math solvers, finite element
analysis (FEA), discrete event solvers, and optimization tools. This work is currently sponsored by several organizations
(including Deere and Lockheed) and is part of the Mechatronics & Interoperability Team in the INCOSE MBSE Challenge.
Citation
Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Paredis CJJ, McGinnis LF (2008) Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis Using
SysML—Mechatronics/Interoperability Team Status Report. Presentation to INCOSE MBSE Challenge Team, Utrecht, Holland.
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/seminars-etc/2008-06-incose-is-mbse-mechatronics-msi-peak/
[1] The X in MBX includes engineering (MBE), manufacturing (MBM), and potentially other scopes and contexts such as
model-based enterprises (MBE).
Page 2
Seminar at JPL
July 23, 2008  Pasadena
MBSE/MBX Experiences
in an Excavator Testbed
Enhancing Modeling & Simulation Interoperability
Using SysML
Russell Peak and Chris Paredis
Georgia Tech
Based on IS08 MBSE presentation plus updates (see cover slide).
Note: Hidden slides (not presented during the seminar) are included here for context.
Collaboration Approach
Primary Current Team
• Deere & Co.
– Roger Burkhart
• Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT)
– Russell Peak, Chris Paredis, Leon McGinnis, & co.
– Leveraging collaborations in
PSLM Center SysML Focus Area (see next slide)
• Lockheed Martin
– Sandy Friedenthal
Page 4
GIT Product & Systems Lifecycle Management Center
Leveraging Related Efforts
www.pslm.gatech.edu
• SysML-related projects:
– Deere, Lockheed, Boeing, NASA, NIST, TRW Automotive, ...
• Other efforts based at GIT:
– NSF Center for Compact & Efficient Fluid Power
– SysML course development
• For Professional Masters in SE program, continuing ed. short course, ...
– Other groups & labs
– Vendor collaboration (tool licenses, support, ...)
• Consortia & other GIT involvements:
–
–
–
–
INCOSE Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) effort
NIST SE Tool Interoperability Plug-Fest
OMG (SysML, ...)
PDES Inc. (APs 210, 233, ...)
• Commercialization efforts:
– www.VentureLab.gatech.edu-based spin-off company (InterCAX):
Productionizing tools for executable SysML parametrics
5
Contents
• Problem Description
– Characteristics of Mechatronic Systems
– Challenge Team Objectives
• Technical Approach
– Techniques and Testbeds
• Deliverables & Outcomes
• Collaboration Approach
Page 6
Characterizing Mechatronics
From Rennselaer Mechatronics Web Site
Page 7
Mechatronics Architecture
Software
Interface
• Displays
• User Controls
• Haptics
• Remote Links
• ...
• Functions
• Operating Modes
• State Machines
• Control Systems
• ...
• Modules, Libraries
• Messages
• Protocols
• Code
• ...
Actuators
Electronic
Control Unit
(ECU)
Sensors
Communications Bus
“Mechanical System”
• Kinematics & Dynamics
• Powertrain
• Thermal
• Fluids
• Electric Power
• ...
Electronics
Feedback Control Loop
Page 8
MBSE Challenge Team Objectives
Phase 1: 2007-2008
Overall Objectives
• Define & demonstrate capabilities
to achieve modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI)
• Phase 1 Scope
– Domain: Mechatronics
– Capabilities: Methodologies, tools, requirements,
and practical applications
– MSI subset: Connecting system specification & design models
with multiple engineering analysis & dynamic simulation models
• Test & demonstrate how SysML facilitates effective MSI
Objectives to date primarily based on projects in GIT PSLM Center
sponsored by industry and government—see backup slides.
Page 10
MBSE Challenge Team Objectives
Phase 1: 2007-2008
Specific Objectives
1. Define modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI) method
2. Define SysML and tool requirements to support MSI
1. Provide feedback to vendors and OMG SysML 1.1 revision task force
3. Demonstrate MSI method with 3+ engineering analysis
and dynamic simulation model types
1. Include representative building block library: fluid power
2. Include hybrid discrete/continuous systems
described by differential algebraic equations (DAEs)
4. Develop roadmap beyond Phase 1
Page 11
Primary Impacts
Enabling Capabilities
Increased Knowledge
Capture & Completeness
Increased
Modularity & Reusability
Increased
Traceability
Reduced
Manual Re-Creation
Increased
& Data Entry Errors
Automation
Reduced
Modeling Effort
Increased
Analysis Intensity
Reduced
Time
Reduced
Cost
Reduced
Risk
Increased
Understanding
Increased
Corporate Memory
Increased Artifact
Performance
Method Objectives
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
12
Contents
• Problem Description
– Characteristics of Mechatronic Systems
– Challenge Team Objectives
• Technical Approach
– Techniques and Testbeds
• Deliverables & Outcomes
• Collaboration Approach
Page 13
Overall Technical Approach
• Technique Development
– “Federated system model” framework technology
• A.k.a. collective product model
– Modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI) method
– Graph transformation technology
– etc.
• Testbed Implementations & Execution
• Iteration
Page 14
Technical Approach—Subset
• Standards-based framework technology
– Federated system models
– Utilize SysML where appropriate (esp. parametrics)
• Modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI) method
– Harmonize, generalize, extend new & existing work
– COBs, CPM, KCM, MACM, MRA, OOSEM, ...
• Testbeds
–
–
–
–
Develop and test techniques iteratively
Implement test cases for verification & validation
Produce reference examples
Produce open resources
(e.g., SysML-based fluid power libraries)
Page 15
Technical Approach—Subset
• Standards-based framework technology
– Federated system models
– Utilize SysML where appropriate (esp. parametrics)
• Modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI) method
– Harmonize, generalize, extend new & existing work
– COBs/SysML, CPM, KCM, MACM, MRA, OOSEM, ...
• Testbeds
–
–
–
–
Develop and test techniques iteratively
Implement test cases for verification & validation
Produce reference examples
Produce open resources
(e.g., SysML-based fluid power libraries)
Page 19
The Four Pillars of SysML
1. Structure
2. Behavior
interaction
state
machine
activity/
function
definition
use
3. Requirements
4. Parametrics
Page 20
SysML Technology Status
www.omgsysml.org
• Spec
v1.0 - 2007-09 v1.1 - 2008-06
v2.x - RFI expected 2008-12
v1.2 - WIP
• Vendor support
• Learning infrastructure
– Books, vendor courses, academic courses,
INCOSE/OMG tutorial, public examples, etc.
• Emerging production usage
– http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/events/frontiers2008/
Page 21
“Wiring Together” Diverse Models via SysML
Level 1: Intra-Template Diversity
par [cbam] LinkagePlaneStressModel [Definition view]
L
B
s
ts1
ts2
red = idealized parameter
rib1
ds1
shaft
rib2
sleeve1
sleeve2
B
soi: Linkage
ds2
Leff
effectiveLength:
deformationModel:
LinkagePlaneStressAbb
sleeve1:
width:
Mechanical
CAD model
CAE model
(FEA)
l:
wallThickness:
ws1:
outerRadius:
ts1:
rs1:
sleeve2:
ws2:
width:
ts2:
wallThickness:
rs2:
outerRadius:
tf:
wf:
shaft:
tw:
ex:
criticalCrossSection:
uxMax:
nuxy:
basicIsection:
sxMax:
force:
flangeThickness:
flangeWidth:
webThickness:
condition: Condition
material:
reaction:
name:
mechanicalBehaviorModels:
description:
sxMosModel:
MarginOfSafetyModel
linearElastic:
youngsModulus:
determined:
allowable:
marginOfSafety:
poissonsRatio:
yieldStress:
Symbolic
math models
uxMosModel:
MarginOfSafetyModel
determined:
allowableInterAxisLengthChange:
allowable:
marginOfSafety:
[Peak et. al 2007]
22
“Wiring Together” Diverse Models via SysML
Level 2: Inter-Template Diversity (per MIM 0.1)
Naval Systems-of-Systems (SoS) Panorama—An Envisioned Complex Model Interoperability Problem Enabled by SysML/MIM/COBs
c2. Optimization Templates
a0. Descriptive
Resources
d0. Simulation
Building Blocks
ECAD & MCAD Tools
Tribon, CATIA, NX, Cadence, ...
c0. Context-Specific Models
c1. Simulation Templates
(of diverse behavior & fidelity)
2D
General Math
Mathematica,
Maple, Matlab,…
…
CFD
Flotherm, Fluent, …
3D
…
Damaged
Stability
Classification Codes, Materials,
Personnel, Procedures, …
e0. Solver
Resources
Evacuation Codes
Egress, Exodus, …
Operation Mgt. Systems
Libraries & Databases
Parametric associativity
Tool & native model associativity
Composition relationship (re-usage)
Evacuation
Mgt.
Propeller
Hydrodynamics
Systems & Software Tools
DOORS, E+
MagicDraw,
Studio,
Eclipse, …
Legend
Based on HMX 0.1
2008-02-20
b0. Federated
Descriptive Models
Navigation
Accuracy
FEA
Abaqus, Ansys,
Patran, Nastran, …
Discrete Event
Arena, Quest, …
24
Technical Approach—Subset
• Standards-based framework technology
– Federated system models
– Utilize SysML where appropriate (esp. parametrics)
• Modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI) method
– Harmonize, generalize, extend new & existing work
– COBs, CPM, KCM, MACM, MRA, OOSEM, ...
• Testbeds
–
–
–
–
Develop and test techniques iteratively
Implement test cases for verification & validation
Produce reference examples
Produce open resources
(e.g., SysML-based fluid power libraries)
Page 25
Excavator Modeling & Simulation Testbed
Tool Categories View
SysML Tools
RSA/E+ / SysML
Factory
Model
No Magic / SysML
RSA/E+ / SysML
Excavator
Executable
Scenario
Operational
Scenario
Excavator
System Model
Interface & Transformation Tools
(VIATRA, XaiTools, ...)
Traditional
Descriptive Tools
Traditional
Simulation & Analysis Tools
ModelCenter
NX / MCAD Tool
Optimization
Model
Excavator
Boom Model
FactoryCAD
Ansys
Mathematica
FEA Model
Reliability
Model
Factory
Layout Model
Excel
Dymola
Cost Model
Dig Cycle
Model
Excel
Production
Ramps
eM-Plant
Factory
Simulation
2008-02-25a
26
Excavator Modeling & Simulation Testbed
Interoperability Patterns View (MSI Panorama per MIM 0.1)
MCAD Tools
NX
d0. Simulation Building Block
Libraries
Cost
Concepts
Optimization
Concepts
Reliability
Concepts
Solid
Mechanics
Queuing
Concepts
Fluid
Mechanics
Data Mgt. Tools
c0. Context-Specific
Simulation Models
Excavator Sys-Level Models
Optimization Model
Objective
Function
Cost
Model
Excel
b0. Federated
Descriptive Models
Excavator Domain Models
e0. Solver Resources
Optimizers
ModelCenter
Generic Math Solvers
Reliability
Model
Excel
Dig Cycle
Model
Mathematica
Federated Excavator Model
System & Req Tools
RSD/E+
...
MagicDraw
Operations
Req. &
Objectives
Boom Linkage Models
Boom
Extensional
Linkage Model
Linkages
Dump Trucks
Sys Dynamics Solvers
Stress/Deformation Models
Plane Stress
Linkage Model
Dymola
FEA Solvers
Ansys
Factory Domain Models
Federated Factory Model
Factory CAD Tools
FactoryCAD
Req. &
Objectives
Excavator
MBOM
Assembly Lines
AGVs
Buffers
Work Cells
Machines
Boom Mfg. Assembly Models
Assembly Process Models
MM1 Queuing
Assy Model
Discrete Event
Assy Model
Discrete Event Solvers
(Specialized)
eM-Plant /
Factory Flow
Legend
Tool & native model interface (via XaiTools, APIs, ...)
Parametric or algorithmic relationship (XaiTools, VIATRA, ...)
Composition relationship (usage)
Native model relationship (via tool interface, stds., ...)
Dig Site
Hydraulics
Subsystem
Notes
1) The pattern names and identifiers used here conform to HMX 0.1 — a method
under development for generalized system-simulation interoperability (SSI).
2) All models shown are SysML models unless otherwise noted.
3) Infrastructure and middleware tools are also present (but not shown) --e.g.,
PLM, CM, parametric graph managers (XaiTools etc.), repositories, etc.
a0. Descriptive Resources
(Authoring Tools, ...)
2008-02-20
27
Progress to Date: June 2008 (page 1/2)
Phase 1 Report Availability: Sept. 2008
• SysML authoring tools selection and operation
(EmbeddedPlus/Rational, MagicDraw)
• Excavator as testbed problem
– Demo scenario: dig capacity trade study
• Preliminary modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI) method: MIM 1.0
– Harmonizing system design & analysis models integration methods
• Test suites for [topic] development/demonstration/V&V using SysML
– Idealized mass-spring-damper [continuous dynamics]
– Mechanical linkage [MSI method - mechanical benchmark]
• Technique development
– Graph transformation approach
• Masters thesis completed [Johnson, 2008]
– Interoperability via SysML parametrics
• Knowledge patterns, tool wrapping, ...
– Design BOM - mfg BOM interoperability via SysML
28
Progress to Date: June 2008 (page 2/2)
Phase 1 Report Availability: Sept. 2008
• Testbed environment
– Dig cycle simulation (Modelica/Dymola)
– CAD/CAE tools, engineering analysis, solvers
(NX, Ansys, Mathematica)
– Factory design & simulation (Factory CAD, eM-Plant)
– Spreadsheet interface (MS Excel)
– Optimizer (ModelCenter)
• Overall status
–
–
–
–
SysML model developed for core interoperability structure
Most individual models developed, plus 50% interconnected
Most prototype interfaces operational & unit tested
Phase 1 report drafted
• Remaining work
– Completing models & interconnections to support demo scenario
– Completing Phase 1 report & archive of models
29
Demo Scenario
• New market-driven targets:
– 20% increase in dig rate (dirt volume / time)
– 15% increase in mfg. production
• Check if existing design is sufficient by
re-running SysML-enabled simulations
• If not, explore re-design trade space
– Changes in bucket size, hydraulics, ...
• Re-do V&V using simulations on new design
• Explore manufacturing impact
– Factory re-design and simulation
30
Excavator Modeling & Simulation Testbed
Tool Categories View
[WIP models]
RSA/E+ / SysML
Factory
Model
SysML Tools
No Magic / SysML
RSA/E+ / SysML
Excavator
Executable
Scenario
Operational
Scenario
Excavator
System Model
Interface & Transformation Tools
(VIATRA, XaiTools, ...)
Traditional
Descriptive Tools
Traditional
Simulation & Analysis Tools
ModelCenter
NX / MCAD Tool
Optimization
Model
Excavator
Boom Model
FactoryCAD
Ansys
Mathematica
FEA Model
Reliability
Model
Factory
Layout Model
Excel
Dymola
Cost Model
Dig Cycle
Model
Excel
Production
Ramps
eM-Plant
Factory
Simulation
2008-02-25a
31
Excavator Operational Domain
Top-Level Context Diagram
32
Excavator Operational Domain
First Level of Detail—bdd (SysML block definition diagram)
33
Excavator Operational Domain
First Level of Detail—ibd (SysML internal block diagram)
34
Excavator Operational Domain
Top-Level Use Cases
35
Excavator Dig Cycle
Activity Diagram
36
Excavator Requirements & Objectives
req - SysML Requirements Diagram
37
System Objective Function—Excavator
Context: Operational Enterprise
Mathematical Form
n
f   k i moei 
i 1
n
k
ij
i , j 1;i ,  j
moei moe j
SysML Parametrics Form
38
Excavator Test Case
Selected System Breakdowns
39
Excavator Modeling & Simulation Testbed
Tool Categories View
SysML Tools
RSA/E+ / SysML
Factory
Model
No Magic / SysML
RSA/E+ / SysML
Excavator
Executable
Scenario
Operational
Scenario
Excavator
System Model
Interface & Transformation Tools
(VIATRA, XaiTools, ...)
Traditional
Descriptive Tools
Traditional
Simulation & Analysis Tools
ModelCenter
NX / MCAD Tool
Optimization
Model
Excavator
Boom Model
FactoryCAD
Ansys
Mathematica
FEA Model
Reliability
Model
Factory
Layout Model
Excel
Dymola
Cost Model
Dig Cycle
Model
Excel
Production
Ramps
eM-Plant
Factory
Simulation
2008-02-25a
40
Hydraulic Circuit Diagram
Pressure-Compensated, Load-Sensing Excavator—ISO 1219 notation
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Engineering
Schematic
Mechanical
Interface
LS
43
SysML Schematic (ibd) — Basic View
Pressure-Compensated, Load-Sensing Excavator
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Engineering
Schematic
Mechanical
Interface
LS
44
SysML Schematic (ibd) — Detailed View
Pressure-Compensated, Load-Sensing Excavator
ibd [Block] Simple Excavator [Hydraulic System Hxx]
Ref: Doc
Exx
[Electrical
System]
Ref: Doc Mxx
[Mechanical
System]
: Diesel Engine
pn: Cummins242
ElecJunction.a
MechJunction.b
FluidJunction.c
MechJunction.s
A1: Actuator
A2: Actuator
M1: Motor
pn: DBL21
MechJunction.r
FluidJunction.a
FluidJunction.b
pn: DBL21
MechJunction.r
FluidJunction.a
FluidJunction.b
pn: DBL21
MechJunction.r
FluidJunction.a
FluidJunction.b
A1: Servo Valve 5/3
A2: Servo Valve 5/3
M1: Servo Valve 5/3
pn: sv1
pn: sv1
pn: sv1
FluidJunction.5
FluidJunction.4
FluidJunction.2
FluidJunction.1
FluidJunction.3
: Pressure Relief Valve
FluidJunction.1
FluidJunction.2
FluidJunction.5
FluidJunction.4
FluidJunction.2
FluidJunction.1
FluidJunction.3
FluidJunction.5
FluidJunction.4
FluidJunction.2
FluidJunction.1
FluidJunction.3
: Air Separator
pn: AS1
FluidJunction
: FD Pump
A1: Check Valve
A2: Check Valve
M1: Check Valve
pn: CHK1
FluidJunction.2
FluidJunction.1
pn: CHK1
FluidJunction.2
FluidJunction.1
pn: CHK1
FluidJunction.2
FluidJunction.1
pn: AXD
FluidJunction.p
FluidJunction.t
MechJunction.s
pn: TNK-2
: Vented Reservoir
FluidJunction.t
FluidJunction.t
Vendor
or Inhouse
PN
Can use a
specific name for
usage in the
schematic, if like
parts exist
2B: Rubber Hose
Mechanical
Interface
: Heat Exchanger
pn: HXB-3
FluidJunction.h
FluidJunction.c
: Thermostatic Control
Valve
pn: STAT3A
FluidJunction.1
FluidJunction.2
Mechanical
Interface
Engineering
Schematic
FluidJunction.b : Filter
pn: Hose1
FluidJunction
FluidJunction
Mechanical
Interface
pn: Fil1b5
FluidJunction.a
Mechanical
Interface
LS
45
Hydraulics Subsystem Simulation Model
bdd
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Engineering
Schematic
Mechanical
Interface
LS
47
Excavator Case Study
ArmCylR... BucketC...
c...
BucketC...
c...
a b1_l b
r={.655,....
Carriage
b
a
r={-0.164,1....
BucketCyl
sw ingComma...
B
B
bra...
B
bC...
m=...
Base
r={...
n={0,...
in...
Sw
ArmCyl
B
BoomCylL
a Arm b
r={3.654,...
aArm2 b
r={2.97,0....
n={...
Bu...
n_a={...
JointR...
Boo...
S...
brake
boomCommand
Mechanical model of complete...
frame_...
BoomCyl...
BoomCylR
Buc...
m=...
BoomCyl...
cyl3f
p10
r={.52...
Sw ingMotor
n={...
Ar...
bArm
n={...
Bo...
m=...
Boom
a
b
r={7.11,0,0}
b2_r
a
b
r={2.85,1....
aArm1b
r={0.49...
a b4y b
r={0,.21...
BoomCyl...
ArmCylB...
cyl1...
ab1_r b
r={.655,....
BoomCyl...
Sw ingFl...
r={-.92...
a b3 b
r={2.85,1.18,... r={4.22,1.3...
a
b
b b2_l a
cyl2f b4x
bB...
Boo...
Arm...
cyl1_l
Hydraulics Model
B...
B...
m=50
c...
c...
bB...
Native Tool Models: Modelica
c...
c...
Multi-Body System Dynamics Model
(linkages, ...)
armCommand
LS B
P
T
LS B
P
LS B
T
P
T
LS B
P
T
LS B
P
accumulator
constantSpeed
max
ma...
max2
ma...
ma...
max3
ma...
circuitTank
pclsPump
bucketCommand
Dig Cycle
hydraulics
B
max1
T
environment
y
world
p_amb = 101325
T_amb = 288.15
x
48
Simulation
in Dymola
Simulation
Results
Modelica
Lexical Representation
(auto-generated from SysML)
[Johnson, 2008 - Masters Thesis]
49
Excavator Modeling & Simulation Testbed
Tool Categories View
SysML Tools
RSA/E+ / SysML
Factory
Model
No Magic / SysML
RSA/E+ / SysML
Excavator
Executable
Scenario
Operational
Scenario
Excavator
System Model
Interface & Transformation Tools
(VIATRA, XaiTools, ...)
Traditional
Descriptive Tools
Traditional
Simulation & Analysis Tools
ModelCenter
NX / MCAD Tool
Optimization
Model
Excavator
Boom Model
FactoryCAD
Ansys
Mathematica
FEA Model
Reliability
Model
Factory
Layout Model
Excel
Dymola
Cost Model
Dig Cycle
Model
Excel
Production
Ramps
eM-Plant
Factory
Simulation
2008-02-25a
50
Wrap Dynamic Simulation as
ModelCenter Model in SysML
Fully qualified name points
to ModelCenter model
Stereotypes define
input/output causality
51
DOE Model in SysML
LatinHyperCube
sampler
Reference
Property
Model
52
Automatic Export to
and Execution in ModelCenter
53
Application in Case Study:
Optimization under uncertainty with kriging model
 optimizer
 Latin Hypercube +
Kriging response surface
• Optimization under
uncertainty
• LatinHyperCube
sampler used to
predict expected
value
• Kriging model used
in conjunction with
sampler to generate
response surface to
reduce
computational cost
Objectives:
• Maximize Efficiency
• Minimize Cost
Design variables:
• bore diameters
54
SysML model
Optimization under uncertainty with kriging model
55
Excavator Modeling & Simulation Testbed
Tool Categories View
SysML Tools
RSA/E+ / SysML
Factory
Model
No Magic / SysML
RSA/E+ / SysML
Excavator
Executable
Scenario
Operational
Scenario
Excavator
System Model
Interface & Transformation Tools
(VIATRA, XaiTools, ...)
Traditional
Descriptive Tools
Traditional
Simulation & Analysis Tools
ModelCenter
NX / MCAD Tool
Optimization
Model
Excavator
Boom Model
FactoryCAD
Ansys
Mathematica
FEA Model
Reliability
Model
Factory
Layout Model
Excel
Dymola
Cost Model
Dig Cycle
Model
Excel
Production
Ramps
eM-Plant
Factory
Simulation
2008-02-25a
56
Excavator Modeling & Simulation Environment
Interoperability Patterns View (MSI Panorama per MIM 0.1)
MCAD Tools
NX
d0. Simulation Building Block
Libraries
Cost
Concepts
Optimization
Concepts
Reliability
Concepts
Solid
Mechanics
Queuing
Concepts
Fluid
Mechanics
Data Mgt. Tools
c0. Context-Specific
Simulation Models
Excavator Sys-Level Models
Optimization Model
Objective
Function
Cost
Model
Excel
b0. Federated
Descriptive Models
Excavator Domain Models
e0. Solver Resources
Optimizers
ModelCenter
Generic Math Solvers
Reliability
Model
Excel
Dig Cycle
Model
Mathematica
Federated Excavator Model
System & Req Tools
RSD/E+
...
MagicDraw
Operations
Req. &
Objectives
Boom Linkage Models
Boom
Extensional
Linkage Model
Linkages
Dump Trucks
Sys Dynamics Solvers
Stress/Deformation Models
Plane Stress
Linkage Model
Dymola
FEA Solvers
Ansys
Factory Domain Models
Federated Factory Model
Factory CAD Tools
FactoryCAD
Req. &
Objectives
Excavator
MBOM
Assembly Lines
AGVs
Buffers
Work Cells
Machines
Boom Mfg. Assembly Models
Assembly Process Models
MM1 Queuing
Assy Model
Discrete Event
Assy Model
Discrete Event Solvers
(Specialized)
eM-Plant /
Factory Flow
Legend
Tool & native model interface (via XaiTools, APIs, ...)
Parametric or algorithmic relationship (XaiTools, VIATRA, ...)
Composition relationship (usage)
Native model relationship (via tool interface, stds., ...)
Dig Site
Hydraulics
Subsystem
Notes
1) The pattern names and identifiers used here conform to HMX 0.1 — a method
under development for generalized system-simulation interoperability (SSI).
2) All models shown are SysML models unless otherwise noted.
3) Infrastructure and middleware tools are also present (but not shown) --e.g.,
PLM, CM, parametric graph managers (XaiTools etc.), repositories, etc.
a0. Descriptive Resources
(Authoring Tools, ...)
2008-02-20
57
Factory & Manufacturing Process
Modeling & Simulation Using SysML
[McGinnis et al. 2007]
SysML State Diagram
SysML Sequence
Diagram
XML Parser
Discrete Event Simulation
58
Excavator Modeling & Simulation Testbed
Tool Categories View
SysML Tools
RSA/E+ / SysML
Factory
Model
No Magic / SysML
RSA/E+ / SysML
Excavator
Executable
Scenario
Operational
Scenario
Excavator
System Model
Interface & Transformation Tools
(VIATRA, XaiTools, ...)
Traditional
Descriptive Tools
Traditional
Simulation & Analysis Tools
ModelCenter
NX / MCAD Tool
Optimization
Model
Excavator
Boom Model
FactoryCAD
Ansys
Mathematica
FEA Model
Reliability
Model
Factory
Layout Model
Excel
Dymola
Cost Model
Dig Cycle
Model
Excel
Production
Ramps
eM-Plant
Factory
Simulation
2008-02-25a
61
MCAD-SysML Interface Scenarios
UGS/Siemens NX
RSD/E+
SysML Model
SysML Model Import
User SysML Model
Manipulation
par [cbam] LinkagePlaneStressModel [Definition view]
L
B
s
ts1
ts2
red = idealized parameter
rib1
ds1
shaft
rib2
sleeve1
sleeve2
B
soi: Linkage
ds2
Leff
effectiveLength:
deformationModel:
LinkagePlaneStressAbb
sleeve1:
width:
l:
wallThickness:
ws1:
outerRadius:
ts1:
rs1:
sleeve2:
par [cbam] LinkageExtensionalModel_800240 [Instance view: state 1.0 - unsolved]
width:
ts2:
soi: FlapLinkage_XYZ-510
wallThickness:
outerRadius:
tf:
totalElongation:
area:
tw:
criticalCrossSection:
length:
ex:
criticalCrossSection:
basic:
uxMax:
nuxy:
basicIsection:
area:
in^2 = 1.125
materialModel:
sxMax:
force:
normalStress:
flangeThickness:
youngsModulus:
totalStrain:
flangeWidth:
material: Steel1020HR
condition:
name:
= “1020 hot-rolled steel”
webThickness:
mechanicalBehaviorModels:
condition: Condition
reaction:
lbs = 10000
description:
= “flaps mid position”
force:
linearElastic:
material:
Model Changes
Propagate to CAD Tool
undeformedLength:
wf:
shaft:
Parametrics
Execution
deformationModel:
rs2:
effectiveLength: in = 5.00
shaft:
Simulation
Execution*
ws2:
name:
youngsModulus:
description:
psi = 30e6
mechanicalBehaviorModels:
linearElastic:
youngsModulus:
reaction:
stressMosModel:
determined:
yieldStress:
psi = 18000
sxMosModel:
MarginOfSafetyModel
allowable:
marginOfSafety:
=?
allowable:
determined:
marginOfSafety:
poissonsRatio:
yieldStress:
uxMosModel:
MarginOfSafetyModel
determined:
allowableInterAxisLengthChange:
allowable:
marginOfSafety:
XaiTools COB Services
Georgia Tech XaiTools™
Engineering
Analysis Models
* = work-in-process
62
MCAD Native Model and Tool UIs
UGS/Siemens NX
63
MCAD Model (Subset) in SysML
RSD/E+
64
Interfacing Spreadsheets
with SysML Parametrics
65
Excavator Modeling & Simulation Testbed
Tool Categories View
SysML Tools
RSA/E+ / SysML
Factory
Model
No Magic / SysML
RSA/E+ / SysML
Excavator
Executable
Scenario
Operational
Scenario
Excavator
System Model
Interface & Transformation Tools
(VIATRA, XaiTools, ...)
Traditional
Descriptive Tools
Traditional
Simulation & Analysis Tools
ModelCenter
NX / MCAD Tool
Optimization
Model
Excavator
Boom Model
FactoryCAD
Ansys
Mathematica
FEA Model
Reliability
Model
Factory
Layout Model
Excel
Dymola
Cost Model
Dig Cycle
Model
Excel
Production
Ramps
eM-Plant
Factory
Simulation
2008-02-25a
66
Enabling Executable SysML Parametrics
Commercialization by InterCAX LLC in Georgia Tech VentureLab incubator program
Advanced technology for graph management and solver access via web services.
COB Solving & Browsing
Plugins Prototyped by GIT
(to SysML vendor tools)
1) Artisan Studio [2/06]
2) EmbeddedPlus [3/07]
3) NoMagic [12/07]
NextGeneration
Spreadsheet
Parametrics plugin
COB Services (constraint graph manager, including COTS solver access via web services)
Composable Objects (COBs)
...
Native Tools Models
...
Ansys
(FEA Solver)
...
L
COTS =
commercial-off-the-shelf
(typically readily available)
FL
 TL Mathematica
EA
(Math Solver)
XaiTools FrameWork™
2008-05 Status
- Examples working from
IS07 Parts 1 & 2 papers
- Multiple new tutorials:
UAVs, finances, insurance
claims, comm systems, ...
- Commercialization
beta releases soon
COB API
Execution via
API messages
or exchange files
XaiTools SysML Toolkit™
SysML Authoring Tools
Traditional COTS or
in-house solvers
74
Productionizing/Deploying GIT XaiTools™
Technology for Executing SysML Parametrics
www.InterCAX.com
Vendor
SysML
Tool
Prototype by
GIT
Product by
InterCAX LLC
Artisan
Studio
Yes
<tbd>
EmbeddedPlus
E+ SysML / RSA
Yes
<tbd>
No Magic
MagicDraw
Yes
ParaMagic™
(Jul 21, 2008 release)
Telelogic/IBM
Rhapsody/Tau
<tbd>
<tbd>
Sparx Systems
Enterprise Arch.
<tbd>
<tbd>
n/a
XMI import/export
Yes
<tbd>
Others <tbd>
Others <tbd>
<tbd>
<tbd>
[1] Full disclosure: InterCAX LLC is a spin-off company originally created to commercialize technology from RS Peak’s GIT group. GIT has licensed technology to
InterCAX and has an equity stake in the company. RS Peak is one of several business partners in InterCAX. Commercialization of the SysML/composable object
aspects is being fostered by the GIT VentureLab incubator program (www.venturelab.gatech.edu) via an InterCAX VentureLab project initiated October 2007.
75
Various Examples
• Road scanning system using unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAVs)
• ...
• Mechanical part design and analysis (FEA)
• ...
• Insurance claims processing and website
capacity model
• Financial model for small businesses
• Banking service levels model
• ...
76
UAV System Design Problem: LittleEye
Network-Centric Warfare Context — SysML/DoDAF Model
Source: No Magic Inc. and InterCAX LLC
77
Road Scanner System Problem
LittleEye UAV
80
LittleEye SysML Model
Various Diagram Views
81
Solving LittleEye SysML Parametrics
ParaMagic Browser Views
Instance 1 - Before Solving
Instance 1 - After Solving
82
Financial Projections System
Three Year
Corporate
Financial
Projections
• Key questions:
– Given projected sales, expenses and financing, what is the
financial position of the company at the end of 3 years?
– Given the desired financial position at the end of 3 years,
what are the required sales, expenses and financing?
–…
83
Financial Projections SysML Model
Various Diagram Views
84
Solving Financial Projections SysML Parametrics
ParaMagic Browser Views
Instance 1 - Before Solving
Instance 1 - After Solving
85
Using a Spectrum of Modeling Technologies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mental calculations
Back-of-envelope hand calculations
Spreadsheets
...
SysML (with executable parametrics)
...
• Varying characteristics
– Quickness, flexibility, structure, modularity,
reusability, self-validation/constraints, ...
86
Excavator Modeling & Simulation Testbed
Tool Categories View
SysML Tools
RSA/E+ / SysML
Factory
Model
No Magic / SysML
RSA/E+ / SysML
Excavator
Executable
Scenario
Operational
Scenario
Excavator
System Model
Interface & Transformation Tools
(VIATRA, XaiTools, ...)
Traditional
Descriptive Tools
Traditional
Simulation & Analysis Tools
ModelCenter
NX / MCAD Tool
Optimization
Model
Excavator
Boom Model
FactoryCAD
Ansys
Mathematica
FEA Model
Reliability
Model
Factory
Layout Model
Excel
Dymola
Cost Model
Dig Cycle
Model
Excel
Production
Ramps
eM-Plant
Factory
Simulation
2008-02-25a
87
Recurring Problem:
Maintaining Multiple Views
• Multiple
stakeholders
with different
views and tools
• Models of
different system
aspects
• Different views
are not
independent
System
Design
Model
Aspect
A
Models
Aspect
B
Models
88
Approach: Graph Transformations
• Recent developments in Model-Driven
Engineering
• Tools for Model and Graph Transformations
– Viatra
– GME/GReAT
– Fujaba
– MOFLON
– MoTMoT
– Kermeta
89
Capturing Domain Specific Knowledge
in Graph Transformations
Requirements &
Objectives
system
alternative
SysML
ibd [Block] Hydraulic_Subsystem[ Schematic ]
pump : FDpump
discharge : FlowPort
inputShaft : FlowPort
pump-to-valve : Line
a : FlowPort
b : FlowPort
housing : FlowPort
valve : 4port3wayServoValve
suction : FlowPort
portP : FlowPort
portT : FlowPort
tank-to-pump : Line
Topology Generation using Graph Transf
a : FlowPort
cylB : FlowPort
b : FlowPort
cylA : FlowPort
tank : Tank
System
Alternatives
sump : FlowPort
valve-to-cylP1 : Line
MAsCoMs SysML
return : FlowPort
a : FlowPort
valve-to-filter : Line
filter-to-tank : Line
b : FlowPort
a : FlowPort
b : FlowPort
b : FlowPort
valve-to-cylP2 : Line
a : FlowPort
a : FlowPort
Model Composition using Graph Transf
filter : Filter
b : FlowPort
in : FlowPort
out : FlowPort
actuator : Double-ActingCylinder
System Behavior
SysML
Models
Model Translation using Graph Transf
Executable
Simulations
housing : FlowPort
Dig
Cycle
Traj
rod : FlowPort
Sw ing
Boom
b : FlowPort
a : FlowPort
hydraulics
Arm
Bucket
behavior
model
y
simulation
configuration
world
x
Dymola
Simulation Configuration using Graph Transf
Design
Optimization
ModelCenter
101
Graph Transformations for Systems Design
• Capture complex knowledge
– Language mappings
– Abstractions and idealizations
– Analysis patterns
– Synthesis patterns
– Workflow
• Intuitive graphical formalism
• Powerful tools are maturing
102
Contents
• Problem Description
– Characteristics of Mechatronic Systems
– Challenge Team Objectives
• Technical Approach
– Techniques and Testbeds
• Deliverables & Outcomes
• Collaboration Approach
Page 103
Expected Deliverables & Outcomes
Phase 1 (Sept. 2008)
• Solution and supporting models
– Excavator test case models, test suites, …
• MBSE practices used
– Modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI) method, …
• Model interchange capabilities
– Tests between SysML tools, CAD/CAE tools, …
• MBSE metrics/value
– See “Benefits” slide with candidate metrics
• MBSE findings, issues, & recommendations
– Issue submissions to OMG and vendors, publications, …
• Training material
– Examples, tutorials, …
• Plan forward (Phase 2 and beyond)
Page 104
Primary Reporting Venues
• Call for Participation @ IS’07
– Jun 26, 2007 in San Diego
• Phase 1 Status Update @ IW’08 MBSE Workshop #2
– Jan 25, 2008 in Albuquerque
• Phase 1 Status Update @ Frontiers Workshop
– May 14, 2008 in Atlanta
• Phase 1 Status Update @ IS’08
– Jun 15-19, 2008 in Utrecht
• Phase 1 Final Report & Archive of Models
– Sep 2008 via website
• Misc. reports/updates/publications @ various venues
– OMG meetings, society & vendor conferences, ...
Page 105
Phase 1 Report
• Draft version: June 2008
– ~100+ pages
– ~75+ figures
• Final version: Sept. 2008
Page 106
MBSE Challenge Team Objectives
Phase 2: 2008-2009
(proposed—pending resources)
Overall Objectives
• Refine & extend beyond Phase 1 capabilities
for modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI)
• Phase 2 Scope
– Domains: Primary: Mechatronics (expanded excavator testbed)
Secondary: Others to demo reusability
– Capabilities: Methodologies, tools, requirements,
and practical applications
– MSI subset: Connecting system specification & design models
with multiple engineering analysis
– Deployment: Productionizing techniques & tools
to enable ubiquitous practice
• Advance & demo how SysML facilitates effective MSI
Page 107
MBSE Challenge Team Objectives
Phase 2: 2008-2009
Specific Objectives
1. Extend modeling & simulation interoperability method: MIM 2.0
1. Generalizations: graph transformations, variable topology, reusability,
parametrics 2.x, trade study support, inconsistency mgt., E/MBOM
extensions, method workflow, ...
2. Specializations: software, electronics, closed-loop control, ...
3. Interfaces to new tools: ECAD, Matlab, Arena, ...
2. Refine SysML and tool requirements to support MIM 2.0
1. Provide feedback to vendors and OMG SysML 1.2/2.x task forces
3. Demonstrate extensions in updated testbed
4. Define deployment plan and initiate execution
5. Refine roadmap beyond Phase 2
Page 108
Potential Excavator Testbed Extension
Building block modularity, reusability, adaptation, ...
Potential Space Systems Test Case #1
Phoenix Digs for Clues on Mars - Credit: Phoenix Mission Team, NASA, JPL-Caltech, U. Arizona, Texas A&M University
What's a good recipe for preparing Martian soil? Start by filling your robot's scoop a bit less than half way. Next, dump your Martian soil into one of your TEGA ovens, being sure
to watch out for clumping. Then, slowly increase the temperature to over 1000 degrees Celsius over several days. Keep checking to see when your soil becomes vaporized.
Finally, your Martian soil is not ready for eating, but rather sniffing The above technique is being used by the Phoenix Lander that arrived on Mars three weeks ago. Data from the
first batch of baked soil should be available in a few days. Pictured above, a circular array of the Phoenix Lander's solar panels are visible on the left, while a scoop partly filled
with Martian soil is visible on the right. The robotic Phoenix Lander will spend much of the next three months digging, scooping, baking, sniffing, zapping, dissolving, and
magnifying bits of Mars to help neighboring Earthlings learn more about the hydrologic and biologic possibilities of the sometimes mysterious red planet.
[http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080615.html]
109
Potential Space Systems Test Case #2
Transform spreadsheet-based models into SysML ...
(1) Sample 2-Year Titan
Orbital Mission Scenario
http://opfm.jpl.nasa.gov/community/opfminstrumentsworkshoppresentations/ 2008-06
TSSM Orbiter Science Scenario, Rob Lock TSSM Orbiter Science Scenario, Rob Lock
• Four (4) 6-month cycles = eleven campaigns (instrument usage profiles during orbits)
• Three (3) science campaign types; maintain each campaign for 16 days (one Titan revolution)
(2) Atmosphere
& Ionosphere
Campaign
Data & power
timelines for key
~6.5-hour segment
of 16-day campaign
110
Modeling & Simulation Interoperability
Primary Impacts
Enabling Capabilities
Increased Knowledge
Capture & Completeness
Increased
Modularity & Reusability
Increased
Traceability
Reduced
Manual Re-Creation
Increased
& Data Entry Errors
Automation
Reduced
Modeling Effort
Increased
Analysis Intensity
Reduced
Time
Reduced
Cost
Reduced
Risk
Increased
Understanding
Increased
Corporate Memory
Increased Artifact
Performance
Anticipated Benefits of SysML-based Approach
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Precision Knowledge
for the
Model-Based Enterprise
■
■
111
Contents
• Problem Description
– Characteristics of Mechatronic Systems
– Challenge Team Objectives
• Technical Approach
– Techniques and Testbeds
• Deliverables & Outcomes
• Collaboration Approach
Page 112
MBSE Challenge Team
Mechatronics / Model Interoperability
Open “Call for Participation”
• Systems engineering drivers in commercial settings
– Increased system complexity
– Cross-disciplinary communication/coordination
• Enhancement possibilities based on interest
– Other demonstration examples and testbeds
– Interoperability testing between SysML tools
– Shared models and libraries
• Primary contacts
– Russell Peak [Russell.Peak @ gatech.edu]
– Roger Burkhart [BurkhartRogerM @ JohnDeere.com]
– Sandy Friedenthal [sanford.friedenthal @ lmco.com]
Page 113
Backup Slides
SysML Parametrics—Suggested Starting Points
Introductory Papers/Tutorials
•
Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Wilson MW, Bajaj M, Kim I (2007) Simulation-Based Design Using SysML—Part 1: A Parametrics
Primer. INCOSE Intl. Symposium, San Diego. [Provides tutorial-like introduction to SysML parametrics.]
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-incose-is-1-peak-primer/
•
Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Wilson MW, Bajaj M, Kim I (2007) Simulation-Based Design Using SysML—Part 2: Celebrating
Diversity by Example. INCOSE Intl. Symposium, San Diego. [Provides tutorial-like introduction on using SysML for modeling & simulation,
including the MRA method for creating parametric simulation templates that are connected to design models.]
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-incose-is-2-peak-diversity/
Example Applications
•
Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Paredis CJJ, McGinnis LF (2008) Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis Using SysML—
Mechatronics/Interoperability Team Status Report. Presentation to INCOSE MBSE Challenge Team, Utrecht, Holland.
[Overviews modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI) methodology progress in the context of an excavator testbed.]
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/seminars-etc/2008-06-incose-is-mbse-mechatronics-msi-peak/
•
Peak RS (2007) Leveraging Templates & Processes with SysML. Invited Presentation. Developing a Design/Simulation Framework: A
Workshop with CPDA's Design and Simulation Council, Atlanta. [Includes applications to automotive steering wheel systems and FEA
simulation templates.] http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-cpda-dsfw-peak/
Commercial Tools and Other Examples/Tutorials
•
ParaMagic™ plugin for MagicDraw®. Developed by InterCAX LLC (a Georgia Tech spin-off) [1]. Available at www.MagicDraw.com.
•
Zwemer DA and Bajaj M (2008) SysML Parametrics and Progress Towards Multi-Solvers and Next-Generation Object-Oriented
Spreadsheets. Frontiers in Design & Simulation Workshop, Georgia Tech PSLM Center, Atlanta. [Highlights techniques for executing SysML
parametrics based on the ParaMagic™ plugin for MagicDraw®. Includes UAV and financial systems examples.]
http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/events/frontiers/
See slides below for additional references and resources.
[1] Full disclosure: InterCAX LLC is a spin-off company originally created to commercialize technology from RS Peak’s GIT group. GIT has licensed technology to
InterCAX and has an equity stake in the company. RS Peak is one of several business partners in InterCAX. Commercialization of the SysML/composable object
aspects is being fostered by the GIT VentureLab incubator program (www.venturelab.gatech.edu) via an InterCAX VentureLab project initiated October 2007.
115
MBX/SysML-Related Efforts at Georgia Tech
• SysML Focus Area web page
– http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/topics/sysml/
– Includes links to publications, applications,
projects, examples, courses, commercialization, etc.
– Frontiers 2008 workshop on MBSE/MBX, SysML, ...
• Selected projects
–
–
–
–
–
Deere: System dynamics (fluid power, ...)
Lockheed: System design & analysis integration
NASA: Enabling technology (SysML, ...)
NIST: Design-analysis interoperability (DAI)
TRW Automotive: DAI/FEA (steering wheel systems ... )
116
Selected GIT MBX/SysML-Related Publications
Some references are available online at http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/topics/sysml/. See additional slides for selected abstracts.
• Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Paredis CJJ, McGinnis LF (2008) Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis Using SysML—Mechatronics/Interoperability
Team Status Report. Presentation to INCOSE MBSE Challenge Team, Utrecht, Holland. [Overviews modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI) methodology
progress in the context of an excavator testbed.] http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/seminars-etc/2008-06-incose-is-mbse-mechatronics-msi-peak/
• McGinnis, Leon F., "IC Factory Design: The Next Generation," e-Manufacturing Symposium, Taipei, Taiwan, June 13, 2007. [Presents the concept of model-based
fab design, and how SysML can enable integrated simulation.]
• Kwon, Ky Sang, and Leon F. McGinnis, "SysML-based Simulation Framework for Semiconductor Manufacturing," IEEE CASE Conference, Scottsdale, AZ,
September 22-25, 2007. [Presents some technical details on the use of SysML to create formal generic models (user libraries) of fab structure, and how these formal
models can be combined with currently available data sources to automatically generate simulation models.]
• Huang, Edward, Ramamurthy, Randeep, and Leon F. McGinnis, "System and Simulation Modeling Using SysML," 2007 Winter Simulation Conference, Washington,
DC. [Presents some technical details on the use of SysML to create formal generic models (user libraries) of fab structure, and how these formal models can be
combined with currently available data sources to automatically generate simulation models.]
• McGinnis, Leon F., Edward Huang, Ky Sang Kwon, Randeep Ramamurthy, Kan Wu, "Real CAD for Facilities," 2007 IERC, Nashville, TN. [Presents concept of using
FactoryCAD as a layout authoring tool and integrating it, via SysML with eM-Plant for automated fab simulation model generation.]
• T.A. Johnson, J.M. Jobe, C.J.J. Paredis, and R. Burkhart "Modeling Continuous System Dynamics in SysML," in Proceedings of the 2007 ASME International
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, paper no. IMECE2007-42754, Seattle, WA, November 11-15, 2007. [Describes how continuous dynamics models
can be represented in SysML. The approach is based on the continuous dynamics language Modelica.]
• T.A. Johnson, C.J.J. Paredis, and R. Burkhart "Integrating Models and Simulations of Continuous Dynamics into SysML," in Proceedings of the 6th International
Modelica Conference, March 3-4, 2008. [Describes how continuous dynamics models and simulations can be used in the context of engineering systems design
within SysML. The design of a car suspension modeled as a mass-spring-damper system is used as an illustration.]
• C.J.J. Paredis "Research in Systems Design: Designing the Design Process," IDETC/CIE 2007, Computers and Information in Engineering Conference -- Workshop
on Model-Based Systems Development, Las Vegas, NV, September 4, 2007. [Presents relationship between SysML and the multi-aspect component model method.]
• Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Wilson MW, Bajaj M, Kim I (2007) Simulation-Based Design Using SysML—Part 1: A Parametrics Primer. INCOSE Intl.
Symposium, San Diego. [Provides tutorial-like introduction to SysML parametrics.]
• Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Wilson MW, Bajaj M, Kim I (2007) Simulation-Based Design Using SysML—Part 2: Celebrating Diversity by Example.
INCOSE Intl. Symposium, San Diego. [Provides tutorial-like introduction on using SysML for modeling & simulation, including the MRA method for creating parametric
simulation templates that are connected to design models.]
• Peak RS (2007) Leveraging Templates & Processes with SysML. Invited Presentation. Developing a Design/Simulation Framework: A Workshop with CPDA's Design
and Simulation Council, Atlanta. [Includes applications to automotive steering wheel systems and FEA simulation templates.]
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-cpda-dsfw-peak/
• Bajaj M, Peak RS, Paredis CJJ (2007) Knowledge Composition for Efficient Analysis Problem Formulation, Part 1: Motivation and Requirements. DETC2007-35049,
Proc ASME CIE Intl Conf, Las Vegas. [Introduces the knowledge composition method (KCM), which addresses design-simulation integration for variable topology
problems.]
• Bajaj M, Peak RS, Paredis CJJ (2007) Knowledge Composition for Efficient Analysis Problem Formulation, Part 2: Approach and Analysis Meta-Model. DETC200735050, Proc ASME CIE Intl Conf, Las Vegas. [Elaborates on the KCM approach, including work towards next-generation analysis/simulation building blocks
(ABBs/SBBs).]
117
Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis Using SysML—
Mechatronics/Interoperability Team Status Report
Abstract
This presentation overviews work-in-progress experiences and lessons learned from an excavator testbed that
interconnects simulation models with associated diverse system models, design models, and manufacturing models. The
goal is to enable advanced model-based systems engineering (MBSE) in particular and model-based X1 (MBX) in
general. Our method employs SysML as the primary technology to achieve multi-level multi-fidelity interoperability, while
at the same time leveraging conventional modeling & simulation tools including mechanical CAD, factory CAD,
spreadsheets, math solvers, finite element analysis (FEA), discrete event solvers, and optimization tools. This work is
currently sponsored by several organizations (including Deere and Lockheed) and is part of the Mechatronics &
Interoperability Team in the INCOSE MBSE Challenge.
Citation
Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Paredis CJJ, McGinnis LF (2008) Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis
Using SysML—Mechatronics/Interoperability Team Status Report. Presentation to INCOSE MBSE Challenge Team,
Utrecht, Holland. http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/seminars-etc/2008-06-incose-is-mbse-mechatronics-msi-peak/
[1] The X in MBX includes engineering (MBE), manufacturing (MBM), and potentially other scopes and contexts such as
model-based enterprises (MBE).
118
Simulation-Based Design Using SysML
Part 1: A Parametrics Primer
Part 2: Celebrating Diversity by Example
OMG SysML™ is a modeling language for specifying, analyzing, designing,
and verifying complex systems. It is a general-purpose graphical modeling
language with computer-sensible semantics. This Part 1 paper and its Part
2 companion show how SysML supports simulation-based design (SBD) via
tutorial-like examples. Our target audience is end users wanting to learn
about SysML parametrics in general and its applications to engineering
design and analysis in particular. We include background on the
development of SysML parametrics that may also be useful for other
stakeholders (e.g, vendors and researchers).
In Part 1 we walk through models of simple objects that progressively
introduce SysML parametrics concepts. To enhance understanding by
comparison and contrast, we present corresponding models based on
composable objects (COBs). The COB knowledge representation has
provided a conceptual foundation for SysML parametrics, including
executability and validation. We end with sample analysis building blocks
(ABBs) from mechanics of materials showing how SysML captures
engineering knowledge in a reusable form. Part 2 employs these ABBs in a
high diversity mechanical example that integrates computer-aided design
and engineering analysis (CAD/CAE).
The object and constraint graph concepts embodied in SysML
parametrics and COBs provide modular analysis capabilities based on
multi-directional constraints. These concepts and capabilities provide a
semantically rich way to organize and reuse the complex relations and
properties that characterize SBD models. Representing relations as noncausal constraints, which generally accept any valid combination of inputs
and outputs, enhances modeling flexibility and expressiveness. We
envision SysML becoming a unifying representation of domain-specific
engineering analysis models that include fine-grain associativity with other
domain- and system-level models, ultimately providing fundamental
capabilities for next-generation systems lifecycle management.
These two companion papers present foundational principles of
parametrics in OMG SysML™ and their application to simulation-based
design. Parametrics capabilities have been included in SysML to support
integrating engineering analysis with system requirements, behavior, and
structure models. This Part 2 paper walks through SysML models for a
benchmark tutorial on analysis templates utilizing an airframe system
component called a flap linkage. This example highlights how engineering
analysis models, such as stress models, are captured in SysML, and then
executed by external tools including math solvers and finite element
analysis solvers.
We summarize the multi-representation architecture (MRA) method and
how its simulation knowledge patterns support computing environments
having a diversity of analysis fidelities, physical behaviors, solution
methods, and CAD/CAE tools. SysML and composable object (COB)
techniques described in Part 1 together provide the MRA with graphical
modeling languages, executable parametrics, and reusable, modular, multidirectional capabilities.
We also demonstrate additional SysML modeling concepts, including
packages, building block libraries, and requirements-verification-simulation
interrelationships. Results indicate that SysML offers significant promise as
a unifying language for a variety of models-from top-level system models to
discipline-specific leaf-level models.
Citation
Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Wilson MW, Bajaj M, Kim I
(2007) Simulation-Based Design Using SysML. INCOSE Intl. Symposium,
San Diego.
Part 1: A Parametrics Primer
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-incose-is-1-peak-primer/
Part 2: Celebrating Diversity by Example
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-incose-is-2-peak-diversity/
119
Composable Objects (COB) Requirements & Objectives
Abstract
This document formulates a vision for advanced collaborative engineering environments (CEEs) to aid in the design,
simulation and configuration management of complex engineering systems. Based on inputs from experienced Systems
Engineers and technologists from various industries and government agencies, it identifies the current major challenges
and pain points of Collaborative Engineering. Each of these challenges and pain points are mapped into desired
capabilities of an envisioned CEE System that will address them.
Next, we present a CEE methodology that embodies these capabilities. We overview work done to date by GIT on the
composable object (COB) knowledge representation as a basis for next-generation CEE systems. This methodology
leverages the multi-representation architecture (MRA) for simulation templates, the user-oriented SysML standard for
system modeling, and standards like STEP AP233 (ISO 10303-233) for enhanced interoperability. Finally, we present
COB representation requirements in the context of this CEE methodology. In this current project and subsequent phases
we are striving to fulfill these requirements as we develop next-generation COB capabilities.
Citation
DR Tamburini, RS Peak, CJ Paredis, et al. (2005) Composable Objects (COB) Requirements & Objectives v1.0.
Technical Report, Georgia Tech, Atlanta. http://eislab.gatech.edu/projects/nasa-ngcobs/
Associated Project
The Composable Object (COB) Knowledge Representation: Enabling Advanced Collaborative Engineering Environments
(CEEs). http://eislab.gatech.edu/projects/nasa-ngcobs/
120
Leveraging Simulation Templates & Processes with SysML
Applications to CAD-FEA Interoperability
Abstract
SysML holds the promise of leveraging generic templates and processes across design and simulation. Russell Peak
joins us to give an update on the latest efforts at Georgia Tech to apply this approach in various domains, including
specific examples with a top-tier automotive supplier. Learn how you too may join this project and implement a similar
effort within your own company to enhance modularity and reusability through a unified method that links diverse models.
Russell will also highlight SysML’s parametrics capabilities and usage for physics-based analysis, including integrated
CAD-CAE and simulation-based requirements verification. Go to www.omgsysml.org for background on SysML—a
graphical modeling language based on UML2 for specifying, designing, analyzing, and verifying complex systems.
Speaker Biosketch
Russell S. Peak focuses on knowledge representations that enable complex system interoperability and simulation
automation. He originated composable objects (COBs), the multi-representation architecture (MRA) for CAD-CAE
interoperability, and context-based analysis models (CBAMs)—a simulation template knowledge pattern that explicitly
captures design-analysis associativity. This work has provided the conceptual foundation for SysML parametrics and its
validation.
He teaches this and related material, and is principal investigator on numerous research projects with sponsors
including Boeing, DoD, IBM, NASA, NIST, Rockwell Collins, Shinko Electric, and TRW Automotive. Dr. Peak joined the
GIT research faculty in 1996 to create and lead a design-analysis interoperability thrust area. Prior experience includes
business phone design at Bell Laboratories and design-analysis integration exploration as a Visiting Researcher at
Hitachi in Japan.
Citation
RS Peak (2007) Leveraging Simulation Templates & Processes with SysML: Applications to CAD-FEA Interoperability.
Developing a Design/Simulation Framework, CPDA Workshop, Atlanta.
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-cpda-dsfw-peak/
121
Mechatronics Definition
“The synergistic combination of mechanical, electronic, and
software engineering” (Wikipedia)
System
Modeling
Mechanics
Electronics
Sensors
Electromechanics
CAD/CAM
Control
Circuits
Mechatronics
Digital Control
Simulation
Software
Control
Micro-controllers
From Tamburini & Deren, PLM World ’06
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2006-plm-world-tamburini/
Page 122
Mechatronics—Open Technology
for Modeling & Frameworks
Systems
Mechanics
• SysML
• STEP AP233
• Open Modelica
• Domain-specific models
• MCAD/CAE
• STEP AP203/214/209 ...
• Part & subsystem models
...
Software
• UML 2
• Real-time middleware
• Communication protocols
• Programming languages & libraries
• Code generators
• IDEs (Eclipse, ...)
...
...
Electronics
• ECAD/CAE
• STEP AP210
• Component models
...
Not shown: Cross-cutting infrastructure (PLM, CM, ...)
Page 123
Modelica Multi-Discipline Models
Page 124