Maintaining consistency between system architecture and dynamic system models with SysML4Modelica

Nowadays many technical products include mechatronic systems that incorporate components from multiple disciplines --- mechanical, electronic, controls and software. In model-based design of mechatronic systems different kinds of models are used to model various system aspects, such as the system structure or its dynamic behavior. This often leads to a process that involves multiple formalisms and is concerned with the coupling of and transformation between models described in these formalisms. In this paper, an approach based on the OMG SysML-Modelica specification is introduced to facilitate the formal definition of dependencies between a system architecture view described in SysML and a continuous system dynamics view defined in Modelica. We discuss the problem of maintaining consistency between these two views. Taking into account the characteristics of the modeling languages, the design workflows, and current modeling tool capabilities, we present the advantages and challenges of modeling the dynamic behavior completely in SysML4Modelica followed by a transformation to Modelica. To overcome the disadvantages, a "mixed-paradigm" approach is proposed in which different parts of the dynamic system behavior are modeled at different levels of abstraction with different formalisms. Finally, an illustrative example is provided which focuses on practical issues related to the usage of SysML4-Modelica.

[1]  Christiaan J. J. Paredis,et al.  5.5.1 An Overview of the SysML‐Modelica Transformation Specification , 2010 .

[2]  Christiaan J. J. Paredis,et al.  Integrating Models and Simulations of Continuous Dynamics Into SysML , 2012, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[3]  C.J.H. Mann,et al.  A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling Language , 2009 .

[4]  Dieter Schramm,et al.  A Model Driven Approach for Requirements Engineering of Industrial Automation Systems , 2011, EOOLT.

[5]  Christiaan J. J. Paredis,et al.  Enabling Multi-View Modeling with SysML Profiles and Model Transformations , 2009 .

[6]  David Broman,et al.  Equation-Based Object-Oriented Languages and Tools , 2008, ECOOP Workshops.

[7]  Christiaan J. J. Paredis,et al.  Towards Unified System Modeling and Simulation with ModelicaML: Modeling of Executable Behavior Using Graphical Notations , 2009 .

[8]  Jim Steel,et al.  MOF QVT final adopted specification: meta object facility (MOF) 2.0 query/view/transformation specification. , 2005 .

[9]  Christoph Nytsch-Geusen.  The use of the UML within the modelling process of Modelica-models , 2007, EOOLT.

[10]  Qing Li,et al.  Unified Modeling Language , 2009 .

[11]  E. Fosse,et al.  Applying Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) to a standard CubeSat , 2012, 2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[12]  L. Noethe,et al.  Exploring model based engineering for large telescopes: getting started with descriptive models , 2008, Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation.

[13]  Parham Vasaiely,et al.  Interactive Simulation of SysML Models using Modelica , 2009 .

[14]  Tim Weilkiens,et al.  Systems engineering with SysML / UML - modeling, analysis, design , 2007 .

[15]  Anjelika Votintseva,et al.  Analysis of a Complex System for Electrical Mobility Using a Model-Based Engineering Approach Focusing on Simulation , 2011, Complex Adaptive Systems.

[16]  Adrian Pop,et al.  Towards Unified System Modeling with the ModelicaML UML Profile , 2007, EOOLT.

[17]  Olivia Penas,et al.  Integrated design methodology of a mechatronic system , 2010 .

[18]  Dazhong Wu,et al.  SysML-based design chain information modeling for variety management in production reconfiguration , 2013, J. Intell. Manuf..

[19]  Mourad Debbabi,et al.  Systems Modeling Language , 2010 .