Transcript 2009-04-ndai-part1-peak-extended.ppt

NDIA M&S Committee Meeting
April 22, 2009  Arlington, Virginia
Model-Based SE Using SysML
Part 1: Integrating Design and Assessment M&S
Russell Peak, Chris Paredis, Leon McGinnis
Georgia Institute of Technology
Product & Systems Lifecycle Management Center
www.pslm.gatech.edu
Part 1 Speaker: Russell Peak
Note: This is the 187-slide “extended edition” presentation with additional context material included as hidden slides.
A 99-slide ”standard edition” is available here: http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/projects/incose-mbse-msi/
Extended Edition - v1
Model-Based SE Using SysML
Part 1: Integrating Design and Assessment M&S
Abstract
This presentation highlights Phase 1 results from a modeling & simulation effort that integrates design and assessment
using SysML. An excavator testbed illustrates interconnecting simulation models with associated diverse system
models, design models, and manufacturing models. We then overview Phase 2 work-in-process including a mobile
robotics testbed and associated SysML-driven operations demonstration.
The overall goal is to enable advanced model-based systems engineering (MBSE) in particular and model-based X
(MBX) [1] 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 Part 1 presentation overviews the project context and several specific components. Part 2 focuses on
manufacturing aspects including factory design, process planning, and throughput simulation.
This work is sponsored by several organizations including Lockheed and Deere and is part of the Modeling &
Simulation Interoperability Team [2] in the INCOSE MBSE Challenge (with applications to mechatronics as an example
domain).
[1] The X in MBX includes engineering (MBE), manufacturing (MBM), and potentially other scopes and contexts such as model-based
enterprises (MBE).
[2] http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/projects/incose-mbse-msi/
Citations
RS Peak, CJJ Paredis, LF McGinnis (2009-04) Model-Based SE Using SysML—Part 1: Integrating Design and
Assessment M&S. NDIA M&S Committee Meeting, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/projects/incose-mbse-msi/
LF McGinnis (2009-04) Model-Based SE Using SysML—Part 2: Integrating Manufacturing Design and Simulation.
NDIA M&S Committee Meeting, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/projects/incose-mbse-msi/
Contact
[email protected], Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, www.msl.gatech.edu
2
INCOSE IW09
Feb 2, 2009  San Francisco
Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Challenge
Modeling & Simulation Interoperability (MSI)
Team Status Update
[with Mechatronics Applications]
Presenter
Russell Peak - Georgia Tech
Other Team Leaders
Roger Burkhart, Sandy Friedenthal, Chris Paredis, Leon McGinnis
v1.1
Portions are Copyright © 2009 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.
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
• Vendor collaboration
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 courses, ...
– 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
• Phase 1 Overview and Results
– From August, 2007 to August, 2008
• Phase 2 Progress
– From August, 2008 to August, 2009
6
Contents
• Problem Description
– Challenge Team Objectives
– Characteristics of Mechatronic Systems
• Technical Approach
– Techniques and Testbeds
• Deliverables & Outcomes
• Collaboration Approach
Page 7
MBSE Challenge Team Objectives
Phase 1: 2007-2008
Overall Objectives
• Define & demonstrate capabilities for
advanced 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
Note: The objectives to date are primarily based on projects in the GIT PSLM Center sponsored by industry and
government—see backup slides.
Page 9
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 10
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
Interoperability Method Objectives for MBSE
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
11
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 13
Mechatronics Product Categories
From Tamburini & Deren, PLM World ‘06
Contents
• Problem Description
– Characteristics of Mechatronic Systems
– Challenge Team Objectives
• Technical Approach
– Techniques and Testbeds
• Deliverables & Outcomes
• Collaboration Approach
Page 15
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 16
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 17
Example Federated System Model
Logical composition of models based on various
ontologies/schemas (from native tools, standards, in-house)
Propulsion
Fluid Dynamics
• Standard:
• Standard: CFD
• Software • Status: In Development
• Boeing,
STEP-PRP
• Software:• Status: In Development
• ESA, EADS
Electrical Engineering
Cabling
• Standard: AP210
• Standard: AP212
• Software Mentor Graphics
• Status: Prototyped
• Rockwell, Boeing
• Software MentorGraphics
• Status: Prototyped
• Daimler-Chrysler, ProSTEP
Software Engineering
Optics
Mechanical Engineering
• Standard: NODIF
• Standard: AP203, AP214
• Software - TBD
• Minolta, Olympus
• Software Pro-E, Cadds, SolidWorks,
AutoCad, SDRC IDEAS, Unigraphics,
others
• Status: In Production
• Aerospace Industry Wide, Automotive
Industry
Structural Analysis
• Standard: AP209
Spacecraft Development
Machining
STEP-NC/AP224
•Software:: Gibbs,
•Status:: In Development / Prototyped
Adapted from 2001-12-16 - Jim U’Ren, NASA-JPL
Systems Engineering
• Standard: AP233
• Standard: STEP PDM Schema/AP232
• Standard: STEP-TAS
•STEP-Tools, Boeing
• Software:Rational Rose, Argo, All-Together
• Status: In Production
• Industry-wide
PDM
Thermal Radiation Analysis
• Standard::
Development)
• Software: Statemate, Doors, Matrix-X,
Slate, Core, RTM
• Status: In development / Prototyped
• BAE SYSTEMS, EADS, NASA
• Software: MSC Patran, Thermal
Desktop
• Status: In Production
• Lockheed Martin, Electric Boat
• Software: Thermal Desktop, TRASYS
• Status: In Production
• ESA/ESTEC, NASA/JPL & Langely
• Standard::UML - (AP233 interface In
Inspection
• Standard: AP219
• Software: Technomatics, Brown,
eSharp
• Status: In Development
• NIST, CATIA, Boeing, Chrysler, AIAG
• Software: MetaPhase, Windchill, Insync
• Status: In Production
• Lockheed Martin, EADS, BAE SYSTEMS,
Raytheon
Life-Cycle Management
• Standard: PLCS
• Software: SAP
• Status: In Development
• BAE SYSTEMS, Boeing, Eurostep
18
Model-Centric Framework
Produce, Merge, Enrich, Consume
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/journals/2004-jcise-peak/ (where “collective product model”  “federated system model”)
Producer Tools
(Primary Authoring)
Tool A1
...
Tool An
Propulsion
Fluid Dynamics
• Standard:
• Standard: CFD
• Software • Status: In Development
• Boeing,
STEP-PRP
• Software:• Status: In Development
• ESA, EADS
Electrical Engineering
Cabling
• Standard: AP210
• Standard: AP212
• Software Mentor Graphics
• Status: Prototyped
• Rockwell, Boeing
• Software MentorGraphics
• Status: Prototyped
• Daimler-Chrysler, ProSTEP
Software Engineering
Optics
Mechanical Engineering
• Standard: NODIF
• Standard: AP203, AP214
• Software - TBD
• Minolta, Olympus
• Software Pro-E, Cadds, SolidWorks,
AutoCad, SDRC IDEAS, Unigraphics,
others
• Status: In Production
• Aerospace Industry Wide, Automotive
Industry
Structural Analysis
• Standard: AP209
Spacecraft Development
Machining
STEP-NC/AP224
•Software:: Gibbs,
•Status:: In Development / Prototyped
Enricher Tools
(Secondary Authoring)
Systems Engineering
• Standard: AP233
• Standard: STEP PDM Schema/AP232
• Standard: STEP-TAS
•STEP-Tools, Boeing
• Software:Rational Rose, Argo, All-Together
• Status: In Production
• Industry-wide
PDM
Thermal Radiation Analysis
• Standard::
Development)
• Software: Statemate, Doors, Matrix-X,
Slate, Core, RTM
• Status: In development / Prototyped
• BAE SYSTEMS, EADS, NASA
• Software: MSC Patran, Thermal
Desktop
• Status: In Production
• Lockheed Martin, Electric Boat
• Software: Thermal Desktop, TRASYS
• Status: In Production
• ESA/ESTEC, NASA/JPL & Langely
• Standard::UML - (AP233 interface In
Inspection
• Standard: AP219
• Software: Technomatics, Brown,
eSharp
• Status: In Development
• NIST, CATIA, Boeing, Chrysler, AIAG
• Software: MetaPhase, Windchill, Insync
• Status: In Production
• Lockheed Martin, EADS, BAE SYSTEMS,
Raytheon
Life-Cycle Management
• Standard: PLCS
• Software: SAP
• Status: In Development
• BAE SYSTEMS, Boeing, Eurostep
Federated System Model
Tool Bj
Consumer Tools
(e.g., Solvers)
Tool Ck
Meta-Building Blocks:
• Information models & meta-models
• International standards
• Industry specs
• Corporate standards
• Local customizations
• Modeling technologies:
• Express, UML, SysML,
COBs, OWL, XML, …
19
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 21
The Four Pillars of SysML
1. Structure
2. Behavior
interaction
state
machine
activity/
function
definition
use
3. Requirements
4. Parametrics
Page 22
Model vs. Diagrams
Reality
Model
Diagrams
- Envisioned or actual
- Computer-oriented
- Master repository
- Complete for intended scope
- Human-oriented
- Subset views
Tools
- Authoring, viewing, executing, ...
Acknowledgements: Selected portions from Friedenthal et al. 2008 and MagicDraw samples.
23
SysML Technology Status
www.omgsysml.org
• Spec
v1.0: 2007-09 v1.1: 2008-11 v1.2: WIP
v2.x: RFI preparation workshop - 2008-12
http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/
• Vendor support
• Learning infrastructure
– Books, vendor courses, academic courses,
INCOSE/OMG tutorial, public examples, etc.
• Growing production usage
– http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/events/frontiers2008/
– OMG SysML Info Days – 2008-12
• Overall status: Healthy and growing 
24
“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—Part 2]
25
“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, …
27
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 28
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
29
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
30
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
34
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
35
Earth-Moving Enterprise
SysML package diagram (pkg)
36
Excavator Model Tree
Summary View (mostly unexpanded) in MagicDraw SysML Tool
37
Excavator Operational Domain
Top-Level Context Diagram in SysML
38
Excavator Operational Domain
First Level of Detail—bdd (SysML block definition diagram)
39
Excavator Operational Domain
First Level of Detail—ibd (SysML internal block diagram)
40
Excavator Operational Domain
Top-Level Use Cases
41
Excavator Dig Cycle
Activity Diagram
42
Excavator Requirements & Objectives
req - SysML Requirements Diagram
43
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
44
Excavator Test Case
Selected System Breakdowns
45
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
46
Hydraulic Circuit Diagram
Pressure-Compensated, Load-Sensing Excavator—ISO 1219 notation
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Engineering
Schematic
Mechanical
Interface
LS
49
SysML Schematic (ibd) — Basic View
Pressure-Compensated, Load-Sensing Excavator
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Engineering
Schematic
Mechanical
Interface
LS
50
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
51
Hydraulics Subsystem Simulation Model
bdd
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Mechanical
Interface
Engineering
Schematic
Mechanical
Interface
LS
53
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
54
Simulation
in Dymola
Simulation
Results
Modelica
Lexical Representation
(auto-generated from SysML)
[Johnson, 2008 - Masters Thesis]
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
Recurring Problem:
Maintaining Multiple Views
• Multiple
stakeholders
with different
views and tools
• Models of
different system
aspects
• Different views
are not
independent
Aspect
A
Models
System
Design
Model
Aspect
B
Models
57
Approach: Model Transformation
1. Define meta-models
2. Define a model transformation
–
–
–
Create graphs of correspondence between metamodels
Define transformation rules from SysML to Modelica
and vice-versa
Triple Graph Grammar (TGG)
3. Compile rules (MOFLON) and load as plug-in
Source Metamodel
refers to
conforms to
Source Model
Transformation Specification
refers to
executes
reads
Transformation Engine
(Czarnecki, K., & Hellen, S., 2006)
Target Metamodel
conforms to
writes
Target Model
58
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*
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*
filter : Filter
b : FlowPort
in : FlowPort
out : FlowPort
actuator : Double-ActingCylinder
System Behavior
SysML
Models
Model Translation*
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*
Design
Optimization
ModelCenter
69
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
71
Wrap Dynamic Simulation as
ModelCenter Model in SysML
Fully qualified name points to
ModelCenter model
Stereotypes define
input/output causality
72
DOE Model in SysML
LatinHyperCube sampler
Reference
Property
Model
73
Automatic Export to
and Execution in ModelCenter
74
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
75
SysML Model
Optimization under uncertainty with kriging model
76
Trade Study Optimization Results
Design space
visualized in
ModelCenter
utility
Auto-generated
optimization model in
ModelCenter
Plot Variable: response (Model.utility.utility)
0.8386
0.74458
0.65057
0.55655
0.46254
0.36852
0.27451
0.18049
0.08648
-0.00754
0.82
0.8
0.78
0.76
0.74
0.72
0.7
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.6
0.58
0.56
0.54
0.52
0.5
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
-3.95517e-016
0.105
0.106
0.107
0.108
0.109
0.11
0.111
0.112
0.113
boomSize
0.114
0.115
0.145
0.144
0.144
0.143
0.143
0.142
0.142
0.141
0.141
0.140.14
0.139
0.139
0.138
0.138
0.137
0.137
0.136
0.136
0.135
0.135
0.134
0.134
0.133
0.117
0.133
0.132
armSize
0.132
0.131
0.131
0.118
0.130.13
0.129
0.129
0.128
0.128
0.127
0.119
0.127
0.126
0.126
0.125
0.125
0.12
0.116
Design optimization
model in SysML with
auto-updated results
77
See Part 2 talk by Leon McGinnis ...
Model-Based SE Using SysML
Part 2: Integrating Mfg Design and Simulation
78
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
79
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
80
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
94
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
95
MCAD Native Model and Tool UIs
UGS/Siemens NX
96
MCAD Model (Subset) in SysML
RSD/E+
97
Interfacing Spreadsheets
with SysML Parametrics
98
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
99
Simulation-Based Design Using SysML
[see backup slides]
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/
100
UAV System Design Problem: LittleEye
Network-Centric Warfare Context — SysML/DoDAF Model
Source: No Magic Inc. and InterCAX LLC
101
Road Scanner System Problem
LittleEye UAV Squadron
104
LittleEye SysML Model
Various Diagram Views
105
Solving LittleEye SysML Parametrics
ParaMagic Browser Views
Next-generation object-oriented spreadsheet-like capabilities.
Instance 1 - Before Solving
Instance 1 - After Solving
106
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 API
Execution via
API messages
or exchange files
COB Services (constraint graph manager, including COTS solver access via web services)
XaiTools SysML Toolkit™
SysML Authoring Tools
...
Native Tools Models
...
Ansys
(FEA Solver)
...
L
COTS =
commercial-off-the-shelf
(typically readily available)
FL
 TL Mathematica
EA
(Math Solver)
XaiTools FrameWork™
Composable Objects (COBs)
Traditional COTS or
in-house solvers
107
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™ 15.5
(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 has been fostered by the GIT VentureLab incubator program (www.venturelab.gatech.edu) via an InterCAX VentureLab project initiated October 2007.
108
Solver Access via XaiTools Web Services (XWS)
S1: General Multi-Solver Setup
Client Machines
Server Machines
XaiTools Web Services
Rich Client
Servlet Container
HTTP/XML
Wrapped Data
SOAP Servers
XaiToolsAnsys
Ansys
XaiTools
XaiTools
Math.
XaiTools
SolverSolver
Server
Solver
Server
Solver
Server
Wrappers
Internet/Intranet
FEA Solvers
Ansys, Patran,
Abaqus, ...
Math Solvers
Engineering
Service Bureau
...
SysML-based
COB models
Apache Tomcat
Web
WebServer
Server
(e.g. ParaMagic)
SOAP
Internet
XaiTools
Client
Mathematica
109
Solver Access via XaiTools Web Services (XWS)
S2: ParaMagic-Mathematica Setup (current product = XWS 2.2)
Client Machines
(End Users 1...n)
Server Machine @ Company X
XaiTools Web Services
Rich Client
Servlet Container
Internet/Intranet
MagicDraw
SysML Tool
Apache Tomcat
HTTP/XML
Wrapped Data
Web Server
SysML-based
COB models
SOAP
Internet
ParaMagic
SOAP Server
XaiTools Solver
Wrappers
Math Solver
Mathematica
Network Server
network increment(s)
...
110
Broadly Applicable Technology
Examples of Executable SysML Parametrics
• Road scanning system
using unmanned aerial vehicle (UAVs)
• Space systems orbit planning
• Energy systems
•
...
• Mechanical part design and analysis (FEA)
•
...
• Insurance claims processing
and website capacity model
• Financial model for small businesses
• Banking service levels model
•
...
111
Satellite Tutorial Highlights: SimpleSat
par [Block] Satellite[
definition ]
r1 : MassBalance
{m = m1 +m2 + m3 + m4}
e1
mass
m
m1
e10
m2
m3
m4
e2
e3
propulsionSubSys :
PropulsionSystem
e5
e4
instruments :
Instruments
controllerSubSys :
ControlSystem
powerSubSys :
PowerSystem
mass
mass
mass
mass
power
power
power
power
e6
e7
e9
e8
p
2
p
3
p
r2 : PowerBalance
{p = p1 + p2 + p3}
p
reqVerifierMass :
MarginOfSafetyBlock
e12
allowable
1
mass
r3 : CtrlPwrEqn
{pwrctrl = 0.2 * mass}
pwrctrl
mos
determined
e11
112
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?
–…
113
Financial Projections SysML Model
Various Diagram Views
114
Solving Financial Projections SysML Parametrics
ParaMagic Browser Views
Instance 1 - Before Solving
Instance 1 - After Solving
115
Using a Spectrum of Modeling Technologies
• Spectrum
– Mental calculations
– Back-of-envelope hand calculations
– Spreadsheets
–
...
– SysML (with executable parametrics)
–
...
• Varying characteristics
– Quickness, flexibility, structure, modularity,
reusability, self-validation/constraints, ...
116
Contents
• Problem Description
– Characteristics of Mechatronic Systems
– Challenge Team Objectives
• Technical Approach
– Techniques and Testbeds
• Deliverables & Outcomes
• Collaboration Approach
Page 117
Deliverables & Outcomes
Phase 1 (Aug 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 118
Primary Public 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
– Aug 2008 [proprietary deliverable]
– May 2009 (estimate) via website [public version]
• Phase 2 Status Updates @ IW’09, etc.
• Misc. reports/updates/publications @ various venues
– OMG meetings, NDIA, society & vendor conferences, ...
Page 119
Phase 1 Report
• Proprietary Deliverable: Aug 31, 2008 (v1.0)
– 127 pages; 137 figures; 5 tables
• Sanitized public version: ~May 2009
Page 120
Contents
• Phase 1 Overview and Results
– From August, 2007 to August, 2008
• Phase 2 Progress
– From August, 2008 to August, 2009
121
MBSE Challenge Team Objectives
Phase 2: 2008-2009
Overall Objectives
• Refine & extend beyond Phase 1 capabilities
for modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI)
• Phase 2 Scope [new aspects]
– Domains: Primary: Mechatronics (expanded excavator testbed)
Secondary: Others to demo reusability
– Capabilities: Methodologies, tools, requirements,
and practical applications (MIM v2, ...)
– 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 122
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, closed-loop control, electronics, ...
3. Interfaces to new tools: Matlab/Simulink, ECAD, 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 123
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]
124
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
125
PhD Dissertation Defense
G.W.Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA, USA
Nov 3, 2008 * MRDC 4211
Knowledge Composition Methodology for
Effective Analysis Problem Formulation in
Simulation-based Design
Manas Bajaj
[email protected]
Georgia Tech
Engineering Information Systems Lab
www.eislab.gatech.edu
Systems Realization Lab
www.srl.gatech.edu
Copyright © 1993-2008 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0415 USA. All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
In simulation-based design, a key challenge is to formulate and solve analysis problems efficiently to evaluate a
large variety of design alternatives. The solution of analysis problems has benefited from advancements in commercial
off-the-shelf math solvers and computational capabilities. However, the formulation of analysis problems is often a
costly and laborious process. Traditional simulation templates used for representing analysis problems are typically
brittle with respect to variations in artifact topology and the idealization decisions taken by analysts. These templates
often require manual updates and “re-wiring” of the analysis knowledge embodied in them. This makes the use of
traditional simulation templates ineffective for multi-disciplinary design and optimization problems.
Based on these issues, this dissertation defines a special class of problems known as variable topology multi-body
(VTMB) problems that characterizes the types of variations seen in design-analysis interoperability. This research thus
primarily answers the following question:
How can we improve the effectiveness of the analysis problem formulation process for VTMB problems?
The knowledge composition methodology (KCM) presented in this dissertation answers this question by addressing
the following research gaps: (1) the lack of formalization of the knowledge used by analysts in formulating simulation
templates, and (2) the inability to leverage this knowledge to define model composition methods for formulating
simulation templates. KCM overcomes these gaps by providing: (1) formal representation of analysis knowledge as
modular, reusable, analyst-intelligible building blocks, (2) graph transformation-based methods to automatically
compose simulation templates from these building blocks based on analyst idealization decisions, and (3) meta-models
for representing advanced simulation templates—VTMB design models, analysis models, and the idealization
relationships between them.
Applications of the KCM to thermo-mechanical analysis of multi-stratum printed wiring boards and multicomponent chip packages demonstrate its effectiveness—handling VTMB and idealization variations, and enhanced
computational efficiency (from several hours in existing methods to few minutes). In addition to enhancing the
effectiveness of analysis problem formulation, the KCM is envisioned to provide a foundational approach to model
formulation for generalized variable topology problems.
Main sponsor: NIST (Ray, Sriram, Fenves, Brady, et al.)
Copyright © 1993-2008 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0415 USA. All Rights Reserved.
127
Electronics Test Case
Level 1: Substrates (PCBs / Panels / Chip Package substrates)
1d. Meshed FEA Model
(~10k Elements)
1e. Solved FEA Model
1a. Substrate
1c. ABB system model
1b. Idealized PCB design (APM)
(~100+
layered shell analysis bodies)
and simulation template (CBAM)
Level 3: PCAs
PCA top view
3d. Meshed FEA
Model
3e. Solved FEA
Model
3a. PCA
3b. Idealized PCA design
(APM) and simulation
template (CBAM)
3c. ABB system model
(~4000+ bodies;
8000+ interactions)
Level 2: Chip Packages / PCA components
Wireframe view
top and bottom components
exploded view
2d. Meshed FEA Model
(~10k Elements)
assembled view
2a. Chip Packages
2b. Idealized chip package design
(APM) and simulation template (CBAM)
2c. ABB system model
(~100-500 analysis bodies)
Copyright © 1993-2008 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0415 USA. All Rights Reserved.
2e. Solved FEA model
131
Research Contributions (Bajaj, 2008)
Effective Formulation of Complex Simulation Templates
Primary Capabilities
 Variations in system design topology
 Variations in idealization intent
 Efficiency
– 90%+ faster
– Reusable analysis building blocks (ABBs)
– Automated composition from building blocks
» Formal approach based on graph transformations
– Meta-models for design and behavior model abstractions
– Libraries of ABBs, transformation patterns, and rules
Copyright © 1993-2008 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0415 USA. All Rights Reserved.
132
SysML Parametrics
Flattened Graphs
[3]
[1]
[4]
[2]
133
Examples
SysML Parametrics Flattened Graphs
1. Spring systems (with animation)
2. Road scanning system
using LittleEye UAVs
3. Flap linkage mechanical design
4. Multi-year business financial model
For further information on these examples, see backup slide below entitled
“SysML Parametrics—Suggested Starting Points” for these references:
- Examples 1 and 3: Peak et al. 2007 (IS07 Parts 1 and 2)
- Examples 2 and 4: Zwemer and Bajaj 2008 (Frontiers Workshop)
134
SysML Parametrics Graph Visualization
[in collaboration with InterCAX—A. Scott Fall 2008 internship]
• Flattened graph [aka COB constraint graph]
– Flattened graph  graph among value types
– Block encapsulation not shown
• Purpose
– Alternative way to understand / interact with a given model
• Primitive connections/relationships, structure, complexity, ...
– Enables visual/intuitive model comparisons
– Possible additional SysML view of models
• Status
– Prototype plugin that leverages ygraph toolkit
– Auto-generates flattened graph from MagicDraw
– Construction animation and static final view
135
SysML and Mobile Robotic Systems:
A Research Testbed and Educational Platform
Status Update: 2009-Feb-17
Georgia Tech Modeling & Simulation Lab – www.msl.gatech.edu
Russell Peak (PI), Bennett Wilson, Brian Aikens, Michael Qin
• Background & Objectives
• Operational Control Using SysML Activities
– Demonstration
• Status & Next Steps
143
Institute for Personal Robots in Education
(IPRE) — http://www.roboteducation.org/
144
Background
• Leveraging Institute for Personal Robots in
Education (IPRE) — http://www.roboteducation.org/
– Multi-university/corporation educational environment
– Ex. Used in intro comp sci course @ GIT (CS1301)
• Key elements
– Mobile robots: IPRE Scribbler, Roomba, SRV-1
• Sensors, cameras, Bluetooth, firmware, PCB ECAD, ...
– Mobile robotics s/w platform: Myro (Python)
• Primitive operations ... image processing, intro ~AI, ...
– Domain context
• Multi-unit systems, command & control, reusability, ...
• Low-cost and open (non-proprietary)
145
Objectives—Big Picture
• Research & demonstration testbed
• Achieve Phase 2 objectives (INCOSE MBSE MSI Team)
– System run-time operation aided by SysML
– Embedded software / firmware
• Hardware-software relations, real-time factors, ...
– Executable SysML across multiple constructs
• Activities, parametrics, state machines ...
– Misc: instance levels, versioning/config mgt.
• SysML education platform
– Usage in hands-on courses
(industry short courses, university courses, ...)
– Model it and run it!
146
SysML and Mobile Robotic Systems:
A Research Testbed and Educational Platform
Status Update: 2009-Feb-17
Georgia Tech Modeling & Simulation Lab – www.msl.gatech.edu
Russell Peak (PI), Bennett Wilson, Brian Aikens, Michael Qin
• Background & Objectives
• Operational Control Using SysML Activities
– Demonstration
• Status & Next Steps
147
Scribbler / Myro Demo
Executable SysML Activity Modeling [activity building blocks]
148
Scribbler / Myro Demo
from myro import *
initialize("com29")
Executable SysML Activity Model [1 - original]
forward(1, 1)
turnRight(1, .4)
forward(1, 1)
turnRight(1, .4)
forward(1, 1)
turnRight(1, .4)
forward(1, 1)
stop()
Resulting python script 
149
Scribbler / Myro Demo
from myro import *
initialize("com29")
Executable SysML Activity Model [2 - after live update]
senses()
beep(1, 440)
forward(1, 1)
turnRight(1, .4)
forward(1, 1)
beep(1, 440)
turnRight(1, .4)
forward(1, 1)
turnRight(1, .4)
forward(1, 1)
stop()
Resulting python script 
150
Representative Broader Usage (Sanitized)
Excursion 456 on Moon: Rover - Unmanned
Mission: Pick up 10 kg of rocks at two specified locations
WP 5
Stop
Report all data
WP 1
Time: 000 minutes
Task 1: Travel WP 1 to WP 2
Power = 500 units
Power Rate: 1 unit per minute
(traveling and at stops)
Rover Weight = 100 kg
Report all dataattributes
Heading: 120 degrees for
Time: 30 minutes
WP 4
Stop at Target
Task X: Pick up rocks
10 kilos
10 minutes
Report all data attributes
Task X WP 4 to WP 5
Heading: 200 degrees
Time: 50 minutes
WP 3
Task 4: WP 3 to WP 4
Report all data attributes
Heading: 300 degrees
Time: 40 minutes
WP 2
Stop at Target
Task 2: Pick up rocks
- 10 kilos
- 10 minutes
Task 3: WP 2 to WP 3
Heading: 060 degrees
Time: 60 minutes
Report All Data attributes
151
Contents
• Problem Description
– Characteristics of Mechatronic Systems
– Challenge Team Objectives
• Technical Approach
– Techniques and Testbeds
• Deliverables & Outcomes
• Summary & Collaboration Approach
Page 152
SE Practices for Describing Systems
Now / Future
Past / Now
•
•
•
•
•
Specifications
Interface requirements
System design
Analysis & trade-off
Test plans
ATC
Pilot
Airplane
Request to proceed
Authorize
Initiate power-up
Power-up
Report Status
Direct taxiway
Initiate Taxi
Executed cmds
Moving from Document-centric to Model-centric
Revision by GIT; Original Source: OMG SysML Tutorial (June 2008). Reprinted with permission. Copyright © 2006-2008 by Object Management Group.
153
What you can do with a SysML model ...
Describe requirements, system structure, & allocations
Generate and/or link to simulations & verify requirements
Support system trade studies
Link to domain models & analyses: S/W, M/ECAD, ...
I.e., do the Vee and more ... (e.g., support system operation)
Requirements
Definition;
System Concepts
Systems
Design
Systems
Integration
Validate
to User
Requirements
sit
po
m
co tion
De fini
De
Sys. Integration;
Sys. Verification
System Spec.;
Verification Plan
ion
Allocate Specs;
Allocate Verification
Assemble Subsys;
Subsys. Verification
d
an
In
Ve tegr
rif atio
ica n
tio an
n
d
•
•
•
•
•
Design Engineering
Time
"Vee" model by Forsberg and Mooz, 1992
154
Modeling & Simulation Interoperability for MBSE
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 Approach
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Precision Knowledge
for the
Model-Based Enterprise
■
■
155
MBSE Challenge
Model Interoperability Team
Open “Call for Participation”
• Systems engineering drivers in commercial settings
– Increased system complexity
– Cross-disciplinary communication/coordination
• Enhancement possibilities based on interest
– Sponsoring other demonstrations and testbeds
– Developing shared models and libraries
– etc.
• Primary contacts
– Russell Peak [Russell.Peak @ gatech.edu]
– Sandy Friedenthal [sanford.friedenthal @ lmco.com]
– Roger Burkhart [BurkhartRogerM @ JohnDeere.com]
Page 156
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.
158
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 ... )
159
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).]
160
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).
161
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/
162
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/
163
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/
164
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 165
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 166
Modelica Multi-Discipline Models
Page 167
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/
168
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/
169
Design-Simulation Knowledge Graph
Flap Linkage Model—A Benchmark Design-Analysis Example
Interoperability Panorama View (per MIM 0.1 terminology)
a0. Descriptive Resources
d0. Simulation
Building Block Libraries
MCAD Tools
CATIA, NX, Pro/E*, ...
c0. Context-Specific
Simulation Models
(of diverse behavior & fidelity)
1D
Extension
Requirements Tools
DOORS*, MagicDraw,
E+, Rhapsody*, Studio, …
Materials Libraries
In-House, ...
Parts Libraries
In-House*, ...
Legend
Parametric associativity
Tool & native model associativity
Composition relationship (re-usage)
e0. Solver Resources
General Math
Mathematica,
Matlab*,
MathCAD*,
...
FEA
b0. Federated
Descriptive Model
2D
Torsion
Ansys, Abaqus,
CATIA Elfini*,
MSC Nastran*,
MSC Patran ,
NX Nastran*,
...
1D
* = Item not yet available in toolkit. All
others have working examples. Based on
HMX 0.1 pattern terminology. 2008-02-20
170
Implementation in MagicDraw
(see demo including parametrics solving via ParaMagic™)
173
Design Template Instance: Flap Linkage XYZ-150
Executable parametric model in XaiTools COB browser—an object-oriented spreadsheet.
Computed outputs
(targets and ancillary outputs)
Detailed design inputs
from CAD and requirements
(givens)
Design features
(object-oriented structure)
L
B
s
ts1
ts2
red = idealized parameter
rib1
ds1
shaft
rib2
sleeve1
sleeve2
B
ds2
Leff
Parametric design relationships
(multi-directional)
174
Flap Linkage Design Model
SysML Block Definition Diagram (bdd) - Basic View
bdd [package] flapLinkageApm [Basic view]
L
B
s
ts1
PhysicalPart
ts2
red = idealized parameter
rib1
ds1
shaft
rib2
sleeve1
sleeve2
B
ds2
Leff
shaft
FlapLinkage
TaperedBeam
criticalCrossSection
origin
Point
sleeve1
Sleeve
sleeve2
rib1
CrossSection
rib2
Rib
basic
material
hole
Material
Hole
tapered
BasicISection
TaperedISection
design
FilletedTaperedISection
v. 2007-04-19
175
Linkage Simulation Templates & Generic Building Blocks
SysML Block Definition Diagram (bdd) - basic view
bdd [package] linkageCbams [Basic view]
soi = system of interest
L
B
condition
Condition
soi
«cbam»
LinkageAnalysisModel
s
ts1
«apm»
Linkage
ts2
red = idealized parameter
rib1
ds1
shaft
rib2
sleeve1
sleeve2
B
ds2
Leff
Designspecific
simulation
templates
«cbam»
LinkageExtensionalModel
«cbam»
LinkagePlaneStressModel
sxMosModel
Designindependent
analytical
building
blocks
«cbam»
LinkageTorsionalModel
uxMosModel
stressMosModel
stressMosModel
«abb»
MarginOfSafetyModel
deformationModel
«abb»
ExtensionalRodIsothermal
twistMosModel
deformationModel
«abb»
LinkagePlaneStressAbb
«abb»
TorsionalRod
«abb»
OneDLinearElasticModel
materialModel
«abb»
OneDLinearElasticModelNoShear
materialModel
«abb»
OneDLinearElasticModelIsothermal
176
Libraries of Analysis Building Blocks (ABBs)
Material Model & Continuum Bodies
y
SysML Parametric Diagrams
L 
FL
 TL
EA
 Emergent
Block Behavior
par [block] ExtensionalRod [Definition view]
L
L
Lo
F
F
E, A, 
materialModel:
OneDLinearElasticModelNoShear
edbr1: deltatEqn
T:
youngsModulus:
temperature:
elasticStrain:
T, ,  x
T0:
referenceTemperature:
 
par [block] OneDLinearElasticModel [Definition view]
dT:
cte:
{dT = T – T0}
thermalStrain:
temperatureChange:
F
A
totalStrain:
normalStress
r4: stressEqn
r5: gamEqn
F:
sig:
force:
gam:
tau:
r3: etotEqn
shearStrain:
shearStress:
A:
area:
G:
L:
{sig = F / A}
{gam = tau / G}
r2: deltalEqn
dL:
L0:
r1: gEqn
etot:
{etot = dL / L}
undeformedLength:
r1: lengthEqn
G:
E:
shearModulus:
youngsModulus:
nu:
L:
dL:
totalElongation:
{dL = L – L0}
x1:
positionEnd1:
poissonsRatio:
{G = 1/2 * E/(1 + nu)}
x2:
positionEnd2:
Modular
Re-usage
r4: etEqn
L:
length:
{L = x2 – x1}
alpha:
cte:
par [block] TorsionalRod [Definition view]
et:
dT:
thermalStrain:
temperatureChange:
{et = alpha * dT}
materialModel:
OneDLinearElasticModelPureShear
r2: tauEqn
T:
elasticStrain:
shearModulus:
torque
r2: etotEqn
r3: eeEqn
shearStrain:
J:
sig:
etot:
et:
E:
tau:
shearStress:
polarMomentOfInertia:
totalStrain:
normalStress:
r:

ee:
ee:
radius:
{tau = T * r / J}

r3: gamEqn
{etot = ee + et}
{ee = sig / E}
r:
L0:
gam:
undeformedLength:
  E e
r1: twistEqn
y
Lo
th1:
dTh:
{gam = dTh * r / L0}
angleEnd1:
T
T
G, r, ,  ,J
x
th2:
angleEnd2:
dTh:
{dTh = th2 – th1}
twist:
177
Linkage Simulation Templates & Generic Building Blocks
SysML Block Definition Diagram (bdd) - basic view
bdd [package] linkageCbams [Basic view]
soi = system of interest
L
B
condition
Condition
soi
«cbam»
LinkageAnalysisModel
s
ts1
«apm»
Linkage
ts2
red = idealized parameter
rib1
ds1
shaft
rib2
sleeve1
sleeve2
B
ds2
Leff
Designspecific
simulation
templates
«cbam»
LinkageExtensionalModel
«cbam»
LinkagePlaneStressModel
sxMosModel
Designindependent
analytical
building
blocks
«cbam»
LinkageTorsionalModel
uxMosModel
stressMosModel
stressMosModel
«abb»
MarginOfSafetyModel
deformationModel
«abb»
ExtensionalRodIsothermal
twistMosModel
deformationModel
«abb»
LinkagePlaneStressAbb
«abb»
TorsionalRod
«abb»
OneDLinearElasticModel
materialModel
«abb»
OneDLinearElasticModelNoShear
materialModel
«abb»
OneDLinearElasticModelIsothermal
178
Design-Simulation Knowledge Graph
Flap Linkage Model—A Benchmark Design-Analysis Example
Interoperability Panorama View (per MIM 0.1 terminology)
a0. Descriptive Resources
d0. Simulation
Building Block Libraries
MCAD Tools
CATIA, NX, Pro/E*, ...
c0. Context-Specific
Simulation Models
(of diverse behavior & fidelity)
1D
Extension
Requirements Tools
DOORS*, MagicDraw,
E+, Rhapsody*, Studio, …
Materials Libraries
In-House, ...
Parts Libraries
In-House*, ...
Legend
Parametric associativity
Tool & native model associativity
Composition relationship (re-usage)
e0. Solver Resources
General Math
Mathematica,
Matlab*,
MathCAD*,
...
FEA
b0. Federated
Descriptive Model
2D
Torsion
Ansys, Abaqus,
CATIA Elfini*,
MSC Nastran*,
MSC Patran ,
NX Nastran*,
...
1D
* = Item not yet available in toolkit. All
others have working examples. Based on
HMX 0.1 pattern terminology. 2008-02-20
179
Analysis Template: Linkage Extensional Model
COB-based CBAM - SysML Parametric Diagram—Definition View
L
B
y
s
ts1
L
Lo
ts2
red = idealized parameter
rib1
ds1
shaft
rib2
L
F
sleeve1
sleeve2
B
F
E, A, 
ds2
T, ,  x
 
F
A
L 
FL
 TL
EA
*
Leff
par [cbam] LinkageExtensionalModel [Definition view]
CBAM
soi: Linkage
deformationModel:
ExtensionalRodIsothermal
ABB
APM
effectiveLength
undeformedLength:
totalElongation:
shaft:
area:
criticalCrossSection:
length:
basic:
materialModel:
area:
normalStress:
youngsModulus:
totalStrain:
material:
SMM
condition: Condition
name:
mechanicalBehaviorModels:
reaction:
force:
description:
Solving supported via
math tool execution
linearElastic:
youngsModulus:
stressMosModel:
MarginOfSafetyModel
ABB
determined:
yieldStress:
allowable:
marginOfSafety:
allowable
MoS 
1
determined
* = Emergent behavior
180
Analysis Template: Linkage Extensional Model
COB-based CBAM - SysML Parametric Diagram—Instance View (Unsolved)
L
B
y
s
ts1
L
Lo
ts2
red = idealized parameter
rib1
ds1
shaft
rib2
F
sleeve1
sleeve2
B
L
F
E, A, 
ds2
T, ,  x
 
F
A
L 
FL
 TL
EA
*
Leff
par [cbam] LinkageExtensionalModel_800240 [Instance view: state 1.0 - unsolved]
deformationModel:
soi: FlapLinkage_XYZ-510
undeformedLength:
effectiveLength: in = 5.00
totalElongation:
shaft:
area:
criticalCrossSection:
Solve ...
length:
basic:
materialModel:
area:
in^2 = 1.125
normalStress:
youngsModulus:
totalStrain:
material: Steel1020HR
name:
= “1020 hot-rolled steel”
mechanicalBehaviorModels:
condition:
reaction:
lbs = 10000
force:
description:
= “flaps mid position”
linearElastic:
youngsModulus:
psi = 30e6
stressMosModel:
determined:
yieldStress:
psi = 18000
allowable:
marginOfSafety:
=?
allowable
MoS 
1
determined
* = Emergent behavior
181
Analysis Template: Linkage Extensional Model
COB-based CBAM - SysML Parametric Diagram—Instance View (Solved)
L
B
y
s
ts1
L
Lo
ts2
red = idealized parameter
rib1
ds1
shaft
rib2
F
sleeve1
sleeve2
B
L
F
E, A, 
ds2
T, ,  x
 
F
A
L 
FL
 TL
EA
*
Leff
par [cbam] LinkageExtensionalModel_800240 [Instance view: state 1.1 - solved]
soi: FlapLinkage_XYZ-510
CBAM
ABB
APM
deformationModel:
undeformedLength:
effectiveLength: in = 5.00
totalElongation:
in = 1.43e-3
shaft:
area:
criticalCrossSection:
length:
basic:
materialModel:
area:
in^2 = 1.125
normalStress:
psi = 8888
youngsModulus:
totalStrain:
material: Steel1020HR
name:
= “1020 hot-rolled steel”
mechanicalBehaviorModels:
SMM
condition:
reaction:
lbs = 10000
Solving supported via
math tool execution
force:
description:
= “flaps mid position”
linearElastic:
youngsModulus:
psi = 30e6
stressMosModel:
ABB
determined:
yieldStress:
psi = 18000
allowable:
marginOfSafety:
= 1.025
allowable
MoS 
1
determined
v. 2005-12-19
* = Emergent behavior
182
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 API
Execution via
API messages
or exchange files
COB Services (constraint graph manager, including COTS solver access via web services)
XaiTools SysML Toolkit™
SysML Authoring Tools
...
Native Tools Models
...
Ansys
(FEA Solver)
...
L
COTS =
commercial-off-the-shelf
(typically readily available)
FL
 TL Mathematica
EA
(Math Solver)
XaiTools FrameWork™
Composable Objects (COBs)
Traditional COTS or
in-house solvers
183
Analysis Template Instance: Linkage Extensional Model
Executable parametric model in XaiTools COB browser—an object-oriented spreadsheet.
Library data for materials
Detailed CAD data from CATIA
example 1, state 1
Idealized analysis features in APM
Modular generic building blocks
(ABBs)
Explicit multi-directional
associativity between
design & analysis
XFW v1.0.0.t02
184
Design-Simulation Knowledge Graph
Flap Linkage Model—A Benchmark Design-Analysis Example
Interoperability Panorama View (per MIM 0.1 terminology)
a0. Descriptive Resources
d0. Simulation
Building Block Libraries
MCAD Tools
CATIA, NX, Pro/E*, ...
c0. Context-Specific
Simulation Models
(of diverse behavior & fidelity)
1D
Extension
Requirements Tools
DOORS*, MagicDraw,
E+, Rhapsody*, Studio, …
Materials Libraries
In-House, ...
Parts Libraries
In-House*, ...
Legend
Parametric associativity
Tool & native model associativity
Composition relationship (re-usage)
e0. Solver Resources
General Math
Mathematica,
Matlab*,
MathCAD*,
...
FEA
b0. Federated
Descriptive Model
2D
Torsion
Ansys, Abaqus,
CATIA Elfini*,
MSC Nastran*,
MSC Patran ,
NX Nastran*,
...
1D
* = Item not yet available in toolkit. All
others have working examples. Based on
HMX 0.1 pattern terminology. 2008-02-20
185
par [cbam] LinkagePlaneStressModel [Definition view]
L
B
FEA-based
Analysis Template
Linkage Plane Stress Model
SysML Parametric Diagram
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:
ws2:
width:
ts2:
wallThickness:
rs2:
outerRadius:
tf:
wf:
shaft:
tw:
criticalCrossSection:
ex:
uxMax:
nuxy:
basicIsection:
sxMax:
force:
flangeThickness:
flangeWidth:
webThickness:
condition: Condition
material:
reaction:
name:
mechanicalBehaviorModels:
description:
sxMosModel:
MarginOfSafetyModel
linearElastic:
youngsModulus:
determined:
allowable:
marginOfSafety:
poissonsRatio:
yieldStress:
uxMosModel:
MarginOfSafetyModel
determined:
allowableInterAxisLengthChange:
allowable:
marginOfSafety:
186
SysML Wrapping for Native FEA Template
Specialized ABB system with FEA-based SMM template
(a) Specialized analysis system—SysML parametric diagram.
(b) FEA-based SMM template.
(i) Parameterized FEA model: shape schematic.
par [block] LinkagePlaneStressAbb [Definition view]
Plane Stress Bodies
y
ts2
tf
wf
r1: CobExternalFunction
Ex:
tw
rs1
in9:
tw:
in3:
in11:
tf:
in4:
ws1:
in12:
wf:
in5:
ws2:
in13:
force:
in6:
rs1:
out1:
uxMax:
in7:
rs2:
out2:
sxMax:
in8:
ts1:
(u x ,max ,  x ,max )  r1 ( L, ws1 , ts1 , rs1 ,..., E , , F )
(iii) Sample
FEA results
Generic SysML block for wrapping
external solver models like (b)
as a parametric relations.
F
rs2
C
L x
L
in10:
L:
ws2
ts2:
in2:
nuxy:
ts1
ws1
in1:
(ii) Parameterized FEA model: ANSYS Prep7 script.
!EX,NUXY,L,WS1,WS2,RS1,RS2,TS1,TS2,TW,TF,WF,FORCE
...
/prep7
! element type
et,1,plane42
! material properties
mp,ex,1,@EX@
mp,nuxy,1,@NUXY@
! keyopt(3)= 0
! (0 = plane stress)
! elastic modulus
! Poissons ratio
! geometric parameters
L
= @L@
! length
ts1
= @TS1@ ! thickness of sleeve1
rs1
= @RS1@ ! radius of sleeve1 (rs1<rs2)
tf
= @TF@
! thickness of shaft flange
...
! key points
k,1,0,0
k,2,0,rs1+ts1
k,3,-(rs1+ts1)*sin(phi),(rs1+ts1)*cos(phi)
...
! lines
LARC,3,2,1,rs1+ts1,
LARC,7,3,1,rs1+ts1,
...
! areas
FLST,2,4,4
AL,P51X
...
@<name>@ =
Parameter populated
by context ABB system
187