Transcript Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis Using SysML

OMG Systems Engineering Domain Special Interest Group (SE DSIG) Meeting
Burlingame CA  2007-12-12
Integrating Design with
Simulation & Analysis Using SysML
Status Update to SE DSIG
on GIT SysML-related Efforts
Russell Peak (presenter),
Chris Paredis, Leon McGinnis
Georgia Institute of Technology
Product & Systems Lifecycle Mgt. Center
www.pslm.gatech.edu
Copyright © 2007 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.
1
Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis Using SysML
Status Update to SE DSIG on GIT SysML-related Efforts
Abstract
We provide an update on SysML-related activities at Georgia Tech. This presentation focuses on a
project underway with Lockheed aimed at integrating design and engineering analysis using SysML.
The primary objective is to define and demonstrate the methodology, tools, requirements, and
practical applications for connecting a SysML system specification and design model with multiple
engineering analysis and dynamic simulation models. This project employs excavators as a test case
and contains several model types being interconnected with a system design model: fluid power
(hydraulics), linkage dynamics, structural (FEA), cost, reliability, and factory flow.
Citation
RS Peak, CJ Paredis, LF McGinnis (2007-12) Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis Using
SysML—Status Update to SE DSIG on GIT SysML-related Efforts. Presentation to OMG SE DSIG,
Burlingame CA. http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/seminars-etc/2007-12-omg-se-dsig-peak/
2
“Wiring Together” Diverse Models via SysML
Level 2: Inter-Template Diversity
Naval Systems-of-Systems (SoS) Panorama—An Envisioned Complex Model Interoperability Problem Enabled by SysML/COBs/MRA
Optimization Templates
System Description
Tools & Resources
Simulation
Building Blocks
ECAD & MCAD Tools
Tribon, CATIA, NX, Cadence, ...
Legend
Simulation Templates
of Diverse Behavior & Fidelity
Evacuation
Mgt.
Tool Associativity
Object Re-use
Simulation
Solvers
Evacuation Codes
Egress, Exodus, …
…
2D
General Math
Mathematica,
Maple, Matlab,…
Propeller
Hydrodynamics
Systems & Software Tools
DOORS,
Studio,
MagicDraw,
Eclipse, …
3D
…
Operation Mgt. Systems
CFD
Flotherm, Fluent, …
…
Damaged
Stability
Libraries & Databases
Classification Codes, Materials,
Personnel, Procedures, …
Augmented
Descriptive Models
Navigation
Accuracy
Utilizes generalized MRA terminology (preliminary)
FEA
Abaqus, Ansys,
Nastran, …
Discrete Event
Arena, Quest, …
[email protected] 2007-09
3
“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]
4
Diverse Types of Relations ...
(partially supported to date)
System A
System B
a1
b1
b1 = a1 + a2
a2
formula-based
a3
b2
equality
a4
a4 < 100
constraint
a5[ i ]
b3
b3 = AVG( a5 )
aggregate
a6
b4
if (a6 <= 250) b4 = 250
if (250 < a6 < 300) b4 = 300
if( a6 > 300 ) b4 = a6
buffered
a7
if a7 <= 10
b5
if a7 > 10
b6
selector
a8
while a8 <= 50
b7
breaker
a9
b8
black-box
a10
b9
unidirectional
[Tamburini, Peak, Paredis 2005]
5
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, etc.
• 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 ... )
6
GIT-Lockheed SysML Project Synopsis
Integrating System Design with Simulation and Analysis Using SysML
• Objective
– Define & demonstrate the methodology, tools, requirements, and practical
applications for connecting a SysML system specification & design model
with multiple engineering analysis & dynamic simulation models
• Period of Performance
– August 1, 2007 through July 31, 2008
• Approach
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Select one or more SysML modeling tools
Develop a system design model including electrical, mechanical, and software
Identify 3+ representative engineering analyses and associated analysis tools
Define methodology for integrating the system model with the analysis models
Define SysML and analysis tool requirements needed to support integration
Demo capability to integrate the system model with engineering analysis models
Identify key issues to address to further enhance this capability
Develop a roadmap for future work
Document results in a final report
7
GIT-Lockheed SysML Project Synopsis (cont.)
Integrating System Design with Simulation and Analysis Using SysML
• Progress to Date (2007-11)
– Project plan
– SysML authoring tools selection
(EmbeddedPlus/Rational, MagicDraw)
– Excavator as testbed problem
– Initial iteration of high level excavator system model
– Preliminary integration approach for system design & analysis models
– Preliminary testbed environment
• Dig cycle simulation (Modelica)
• CAD/engineering analysis (NX, Ansys)
• Factory simulation (EM Plant)
8
GIT Modeling Environment
for Excavator Test Case
RSA/E+ / SysML
Excavator
Executable
Scenario
Model Center
Objective
Function
[WIP models]
Operational Scenario
NX / MCAD Tool
No Magic / SysML
CAD Model
Excavator
System Model
XaiTools
Cost
Model
Optimizer
Reliability
Model
Modelica
Tools
Dig Cycle
Model
Process Flow
Factory CAD
EM Plant / Factory Flow
Factory
Layout
Process
Simulation
Tool Types
Generic Tool Behavior
RSA/E+ / SysML
Factory
Model
2007-11-05
9
Excavator Test Case
Top-Level System Breakdown
10
Excavator Operational Domain
Top-Level Context Model
11
Excavator Operational Domain
Top-Level Use Cases
12
Excavator Dig Cycle
Activity Diagram
13
GIT Modeling Environment
for Excavator Test Case
RSA/E+ / SysML
Excavator
Executable
Scenario
Model Center
Objective
Function
Operational Scenario
NX / MCAD Tool
No Magic / SysML
CAD Model
Excavator
System Model
XaiTools
Cost
Model
Optimizer
Reliability
Model
Modelica
Tools
Dig Cycle
Model
Process Flow
Factory CAD
EM Plant / Factory Flow
Factory
Layout
Process
Simulation
Tool Types
Generic Tool Behavior
RSA/E+ / SysML
Factory
Model
2007-11-05
14
Excavator Analysis/Simulation Models
Problem Definition
Stakeholder
Concerns
Integration of Concerns about System Aspects
Multi-Body Dynamics,
Hydraulics, ...
Behavior Aspects
Analysis
Simulation
Cost Aspects
System
Architectures
Various
Topologies
Analysis
Simulation
Multi-Attribute
Utility Theory
Reliability Aspects
Analysis
Evaluation of
Preferences
Simulation
[Paredis et al. 2007]
15
Dynamic Physics-Based Behaviors
Hydraulics
Modelica Dynamic Behavioral Model
• Graphically represented via ISO 1219
• Open-source
• High fidelity
• Nonlinear fluid models
• Thermal models
• Hierarchical
• Multi-disciplinary
16
Hydraulic Circuit Diagram
Pressure-Compensated, Load-Sensing Excavator—ISO 1219 notation
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Engineering
Schematic
Mechanical
Interface
LS
17
SysML Schematic (ibd) — Basic View
Pressure-Compensated, Load-Sensing Excavator
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Engineering
Schematic
Mechanical
Interface
LS
18
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
19
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
20
Excavator Hydraulics Subsystem
Design Structure Models
21
Hydraulics Subsystem Simulation Model
Simulation Component Connectivity Aspects
22
GIT Modeling Environment
for Excavator Test Case
RSA/E+ / SysML
Excavator
Executable
Scenario
Model Center
Objective
Function
Operational Scenario
NX / MCAD Tool
No Magic / SysML
CAD Model
Excavator
System Model
XaiTools
Cost
Model
Optimizer
Reliability
Model
Modelica
Tools
Dig Cycle
Model
Process Flow
Factory CAD
EM Plant / Factory Flow
Factory
Layout
Process
Simulation
Tool Types
Generic Tool Behavior
RSA/E+ / SysML
Factory
Model
2007-11-05
23
Factory/Mfg Modeling & Simulation Using SysML
[McGinnis et al. 2007]
SysML State Diagram
SysML Sequence
Diagram
XML Parser
Discrete Event Simulation
24
GIT Modeling Environment
for Excavator Test Case
RSA/E+ / SysML
Excavator
Executable
Scenario
Model Center
Objective
Function
Operational Scenario
NX / MCAD Tool
No Magic / SysML
CAD Model
Excavator
System Model
XaiTools
Cost
Model
Optimizer
Reliability
Model
Modelica
Tools
Dig Cycle
Model
Process Flow
Factory CAD
EM Plant / Factory Flow
Factory
Layout
Process
Simulation
Tool Types
Generic Tool Behavior
RSA/E+ / SysML
Factory
Model
2007-11-05
25
Enabling Executable SysML Parametrics
GIT XaiTools Prototype Status
SysML parametrics execution via composable objects (COBs) for graph management and math/FEA solving 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™
2007-12 Status
- Examples working from
IS07 Parts 1 & 2 papers
(see next slide)
- Prototype being scaled
and hardened for industrial
usage
COB API
Execution via
API messages
or exchange files
XaiTools SysML Toolkit™
SysML Authoring Tools
Traditional COTS or
in-house solvers
26
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/
27
Flap Linkage Mechanical Part
A simple design ... a benchmark problem.
L
B
s
ts1
ts2
red = idealized parameter
rib1
ds1
shaft
rib2
sleeve1
sleeve2
B
ds2
Leff
Background
This simple part provides the basis for a benchmark tutorial for CAD-CAE interoperability and
simulation template knowledge representation. This example exercises multiple capabilities relevant to
such contexts (many of which are relevant to broader simulation and knowledge representation
domains), including:
• Diversity in design information source, behavior, fidelity, solution method, solution tool, ...
• Modular, reusable simulation building blocks and fine-grained inter-model associativity
See the following for further information:
- http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-incose-is-1-peak-primer/
- http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-incose-is-2-peak-diversity/
28
Design-Simulation Knowledge Graph
Flap Linkage Panorama—A Benchmark Design-Analysis Interoperability Problem
Design Tools
Analysis Building Blocks
(ABBs)
MCAD Tools
CATIA, NX,
Pro/E*, ...
Analysis Templates
of Diverse Behavior & Fidelity
(CBAMs)
Continuum ABBs:
Material Model ABB:
reference temperature, To
shear stress,
E
2(1  )
G
cte, 
 t   T
temperature change,T

stress,
r3

e 
e
T
t


r2
undeformed length, Lo
r4
L
F
E, A, 
T, ,  x
L  L  Lo

Extension
r3
L
L
L  x2  x1
  e  t
E
linkage
effective length, Leff
Extensional Rod
(isothermal)
al1
length, L
end, x2
thermal strain, t
Linkage Extensional Model
total elongation,L
r1
start, x1
shear modulus, G
r1
E
torque, Tr
material
T
G, r, ,  ,J
radius, r
E

F

stress mos model

e
T
t




Margin of Safety
(> case)
1D
allowable stress
allowable
General Math
Mathematica
Matlab*
MathCAD*
...
actual
MS
r3r
 
L0
undeformed length, Lo
   2  r1
1
theta start, 1
L
A
youngs modulus, E al3
reaction
condition
x
L
x2
al2
linear elastic model
Lo
x1
G

Trr

polar moment of inertia, J
J
area, A
cross section
Lo
One D Linear T
Elastic Model
strain, 
r2
mode: shaft tension
y
material model
Torsional Rod
elastic strain, e

r4
F
A

shear strain, 
r5

G

youngs modulus, E
poissons ratio, 

area, A
L
Lo
F
E
T  T  To
force, F
1D Linear Elastic Model
One D Linear
Elastic Model
(no shear)
edb.r1
temperature, T
y
material model
Extensional Rod
Analysis Solvers
(via SMMs)
theta end, 2
Linkage Plane Stress Model
inter_axis_length
linkage
twist, 
sleeve_1
deformation model
Parameterized
FEA Model
w
t
Legend
Tool Associativity
Object Re-use
L
ws1
r
sleeve_2
w
shaft
cross_section:basic
ts1
rs2
ws2
t
2D
mode: tension
r
ux,max
ts2
x,max
rs2
wf
wf
tw
tw
tf
tf
material
E
name
E

linear_elastic_model

F
condition reaction
flap_link
allowable stress
effective_length
allowable inter axis length change
L
w
sleeve_1
B
t
ts2
ts1
r
s
w
sleeve_2
sleeve1
sleeve2
shaft
rib1
stress mos model
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
allowable
actual
actual
MS
MS
R1
t
rib2
R1
r
R2
x
ds1
ds2
B
ux mos model
Margin of Safety
(> case)
x
shaft
cross_section
R3
wf
R4
tw
t1f
Leff
R6
R5
deformation model
t2f
Torsional Rod
critical_section
critical_detailed
linkage
wf
effective length, Leff
al1
Lo
tw
Materials Libraries
In-House, ...
Parts Libraries
In-House*, ...
rib_1
R11
hw
b
R7
t1f
h
t
rib_2
t2f
R2
critical_simple
wf
h
t
material
tw
R3
name
stress_strain_model
linear_elastic
E
hw

tf
cte
area
R9
mode: shaft torsion
Torsion
R8
area
b
R10
cross section:
effective ring
material
condition
polar moment of inertia, J
al2a
outer radius, ro
al2b
linear elastic model
reaction
allowable stress
twist mos model
R12
Analyzable Product Model
(APM)
* = Item not yet available in toolkit—all others have working examples 2007-04

1
1D
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
shear modulus, G
al3
2
J
r

G

T
stress mos model
allowable
twist
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
actual
actual
MS
MS
FEA
Ansys
Abaqus*
CATIA Elfini*
MSC Nastran*
MSC Patran*
NX Nastran*
...
Linkage Torsional Model
29
Flap Linkage Implementation in MagicDraw
2007-12: Working demo includes parametrics solving via GIT XaiTools™
WIP implementation of FlapLinkage APM as described in IS07 Part 2 paper [Peak et al. 2007]
30
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, etc.
• 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 ... )
31
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/.
32
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/
33
Integrated System Design and Analysis Models
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
Benefits of SysML-based Template Approach
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Precision Information
for the
Model-Based Enterprise
■
■
34