Date post: | 11-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | alexia-fisher |
View: | 221 times |
Download: | 2 times |
1
Integrating Design with Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis Using SysML Simulation & Analysis Using SysML
Status Update to SE DSIG Status Update to SE DSIG on GIT SysML-related Effortson GIT SysML-related Efforts
Russell Peak (presenter),Russell Peak (presenter),Chris Paredis, Leon McGinnisChris Paredis, Leon McGinnis
Georgia Institute of Technology
Product & Systems Lifecycle Mgt. Center
www.pslm.gatech.edu
OMG Systems Engineering Domain Special Interest Group (SE DSIG) MeetingOMG Systems Engineering Domain Special Interest Group (SE DSIG) MeetingBurlingame CA Burlingame CA 2007-12-12 2007-12-12
Copyright © 2007 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0415 USA. All Rights Reserved. Permission to reproduce and distribute without changes for non-commercial purposes (including internal corporate usage) is hereby granted provided this notice and a proper citation are included.
2
AbstractWe provide an update on SysML-related activities at Georgia Tech. This presentation focuses on a project underway with Lockheed aimed at integrating design and engineering analysis using SysML. The primary objective is to define and demonstrate the methodology, tools, requirements, and practical applications for connecting a SysML system specification and design model with multiple engineering analysis and dynamic simulation models. This project employs excavators as a test case and contains several model types being interconnected with a system design model: fluid power (hydraulics), linkage dynamics, structural (FEA), cost, reliability, and factory flow.
CitationRS Peak, CJ Paredis, LF McGinnis (2007-12) Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis Using SysML—Status Update to SE DSIG on GIT SysML-related Efforts. Presentation to OMG SE DSIG, Burlingame CA. http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/seminars-etc/2007-12-omg-se-dsig-peak/
Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis Using SysML Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis Using SysML Status Update to SE DSIG on GIT SysML-related EffortsStatus Update to SE DSIG on GIT SysML-related Efforts
3
““Wiring Together” Diverse Models via SysMLWiring Together” Diverse Models via SysML Level 2: Inter-Template Diversity Level 2: Inter-Template Diversity
Utilizes generalized MRA terminology (preliminary) [email protected] 2007-09
Simulation Templatesof Diverse Behavior & Fidelity
ECAD & MCAD Tools
Libraries & DatabasesClassification Codes, Materials,
Personnel, Procedures, …
CFDFlotherm, Fluent, …
General MathMathematica,
Maple, Matlab,…
Augmented Descriptive Models
EvacuationMgt.
DamagedStability
2D
Simulation Building Blocks
Tribon, CATIA, NX, Cadence, ...
Simulation Solvers
System DescriptionTools & Resources
3D
FEAAbaqus, Ansys,
Nastran, …
Operation Mgt. Systems …Propeller
Hydro-dynamics
Evacuation CodesEgress, Exodus, …
NavigationAccuracy
Systems & Software Tools
DOORS, Studio,
MagicDraw,Eclipse, …
…
Optimization Templates
…
Discrete EventArena, Quest, …
Tool AssociativityObject Re-use
LegendTool AssociativityObject Re-use
Legend
Naval Systems-of-Systems (SoS) Panorama—An Envisioned Complex Model Interoperability Problem Enabled by SysML/COBs/MRA
4
““Wiring Together” Diverse Models via SysMLWiring Together” Diverse Models via SysML Level 1: Intra-Template Diversity Level 1: Intra-Template Diversity
sxMosModel: MarginOfSafetyModel
allowable:
marginOfSafety:
determined:
effectiveLength:
mechanicalBehaviorModels:
material:
yieldStress:
name:
soi: Linkage
criticalCrossSection:
basicIsection:
flangeThickness:
webThickness:
shaft:
allowableInterAxisLengthChange:
uxMosModel: MarginOfSafetyModel
allowable:
marginOfSafety:
determined:
par [cbam] LinkagePlaneStressModel [Definition view]
deformationModel: LinkagePlaneStressAbb
rs1:
ws2:
ts2:
tf:
rs2:
ws1:
ts1:
nuxy:
wf:
tw:
ex:
force:
uxMax:
sxMax:
l:
linearElastic:
youngsModulus:
poissonsRatio:
flangeWidth:
sleeve1:
width:
outerRadius:
wallThickness:
sleeve2:
width:
outerRadius:
wallThickness:
condition: Condition
description:
reaction:
ts1
B
sleeve1
B
ts2
ds2
ds1
sleeve2
L
shaft
Leff
s
rib1 rib2
red = idealized parameter
MechanicalCAD model
CAE model (FEA)
Symbolic math models
[Peak et. al 2007]
5
Diverse Types of Relations ...Diverse Types of Relations ...(partially supported to date)(partially supported to date)
System ASystem A System BSystem B
a10 b9
a1 b1
a2
a3 b2
a4
a5[ i ] b3
a6 b4
a7 b5
b6
if a7 <= 10
if a7 > 10
a8 b7while a8 <= 50
a9 b8
b1 = a1 + a2
a4 < 100
b3 = AVG( a5 )
if (a6 <= 250) b4 = 250if (250 < a6 < 300) b4 = 300if( a6 > 300 ) b4 = a6
formula-based
equality
constraint
aggregate
buffered
selector
breaker
black-box
unidirectional[Tamburini, Peak, Paredis 2005]
6
SysML-Related Efforts at Georgia TechSysML-Related Efforts at Georgia Tech
• SysML Focus Area web page– http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/topics/sysml/ – Includes links to publications, applications,
projects, examples, etc.
• Selected projects– Deere: System dynamics (fluid power, ...)– Lockheed: System design & analysis integration – NASA: Enabling technology (SysML, ...)– NIST: Design-analysis interoperability (DAI)– TRW Automotive: DAI/FEA (steering wheel systems ... )
7
GIT-Lockheed SysML Project SynopsisGIT-Lockheed SysML Project SynopsisIntegrating System Design with Simulation and Analysis Using SysMLIntegrating System Design with Simulation and Analysis Using SysML
• Objective– Define & demonstrate the methodology, tools, requirements, and practical
applications for connecting a SysML system specification & design model with multiple engineering analysis & dynamic simulation models
• Period of Performance– August 1, 2007 through July 31, 2008
• Approach– Select one or more SysML modeling tools – Develop a system design model including electrical, mechanical, and software– Identify 3+ representative engineering analyses and associated analysis tools – Define methodology for integrating the system model with the analysis models – Define SysML and analysis tool requirements needed to support integration – Demo capability to integrate the system model with engineering analysis models – Identify key issues to address to further enhance this capability– Develop a roadmap for future work – Document results in a final report
8
GIT-Lockheed SysML Project Synopsis (cont.)GIT-Lockheed SysML Project Synopsis (cont.)Integrating System Design with Simulation and Analysis Using SysMLIntegrating System Design with Simulation and Analysis Using SysML
• Progress to Date (2007-11)– Project plan– SysML authoring tools selection
(EmbeddedPlus/Rational, MagicDraw)– Excavator as testbed problem – Initial iteration of high level excavator system model – Preliminary integration approach for system design & analysis models – Preliminary testbed environment
• Dig cycle simulation (Modelica)
• CAD/engineering analysis (NX, Ansys)
• Factory simulation (EM Plant)
9
GIT Modeling Environment GIT Modeling Environment for Excavator Test Casefor Excavator Test Case
Model Center
Reliability Model
Cost Model
Dig Cycle Model
Optimizer
ObjectiveFunction
Modelica
XaiToolsNo Magic / SysML
ExcavatorSystem Model
Factory CAD
Factory Layout
EM Plant / Factory Flow
ProcessSimulation
Process FlowTools
RSA/E+ / SysML
FactoryModel
Generic Tool BehaviorTool Types
RSA/E+ / SysML
ExcavatorExecutable Scenario
Operational Scenario
NX / MCAD Tool
CAD Model
2007-11-05
[WIP models]
10
Excavator Test CaseExcavator Test CaseTop-Level System BreakdownTop-Level System Breakdown
11
Excavator Operational DomainExcavator Operational DomainTop-Level Context ModelTop-Level Context Model
12
Excavator Operational DomainExcavator Operational DomainTop-Level Use CasesTop-Level Use Cases
13
Excavator Dig CycleExcavator Dig CycleActivity DiagramActivity Diagram
14
GIT Modeling Environment GIT Modeling Environment for Excavator Test Casefor Excavator Test Case
Model Center
Reliability Model
Cost Model
Dig Cycle Model
Optimizer
ObjectiveFunction
Modelica
XaiToolsNo Magic / SysML
ExcavatorSystem Model
Factory CAD
Factory Layout
EM Plant / Factory Flow
ProcessSimulation
Process FlowTools
RSA/E+ / SysML
FactoryModel
Generic Tool BehaviorTool Types
RSA/E+ / SysML
ExcavatorExecutable Scenario
Operational Scenario
NX / MCAD Tool
CAD Model
2007-11-05
15
Cost Aspects
Behavior Aspects
Excavator Analysis/Simulation ModelsExcavator Analysis/Simulation ModelsProblem DefinitionProblem Definition
VariousTopologies
Multi-Attribute Utility TheoryReliability Aspects
Stakeholder Concerns Integration of Concerns about System Aspects
Evaluation of Preferences
System Architectures
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Simulation
Simulation
Simulation
Multi-Body Dynamics,Hydraulics, ...
[Paredis et al. 2007]
16
Dynamic Physics-Based Behaviors Dynamic Physics-Based Behaviors HydraulicsHydraulics
• Open-source• High fidelity
• Nonlinear fluid models• Thermal models
• Hierarchical• Multi-disciplinary
Modelica Dynamic Behavioral Model
• Graphically represented via ISO 1219
17
LSMechanical Interface
Mechanical Interface
Mechanical Interface
Mechanical Interface
Engineering Schematic
Hydraulic Circuit DiagramHydraulic Circuit DiagramPressure-Compensated, Load-Sensing Excavator—ISO 1219 notationPressure-Compensated, Load-Sensing Excavator—ISO 1219 notation
18
SysML Schematic (ibd) — Basic ViewSysML Schematic (ibd) — Basic ViewPressure-Compensated, Load-Sensing ExcavatorPressure-Compensated, Load-Sensing Excavator
LSMechanical Interface
Mechanical Interface
Mechanical Interface
Mechanical Interface
Engineering Schematic
19
SysML Schematic (ibd) — Detailed ViewSysML Schematic (ibd) — Detailed ViewPressure-Compensated, Load-Sensing ExcavatorPressure-Compensated, Load-Sensing Excavator
ibd [Block] Simple Excavator [Hydraulic System Hxx]
: FD Pump
pn: AXD
MechJunction.s
FluidJunction.p
: Diesel Engine
pn: Cummins242
MechJunction.s
FluidJunction.c
: Vented Reservoirpn: TNK-2
FluidJunction.t
FluidJunction.t
2B: Rubber Hose
pn: Hose1
FluidJunctionFluidJunction
FluidJunction.t
MechJunction.bElecJunction.a
: Heat Exchanger
pn: HXB-3
FluidJunction.cFluidJunction.h
: Thermostatic Control Valve
pn: STAT3A
FluidJunction.2FluidJunction.1
: Filter
pn: Fil1b5
FluidJunction.b
FluidJunction.a
Ref: Doc Exx[Electrical System]
: Pressure Relief Valve
FluidJunction.2FluidJunction.1
Can use a specific name for usage in the schematic, if like parts exist
Vendor or In-house PN
: Air Separator
pn: AS1FluidJunction
A1: Check Valve
pn: CHK1
FluidJunction.1FluidJunction.2
A1: Servo Valve 5/3
pn: sv1
FluidJunction.2
FluidJunction.5
FluidJunction.1FluidJunction.3
FluidJunction.4
A1: Actuator
pn: DBL21
FluidJunction.aMechJunction.r
FluidJunction.b
Ref: Doc Mxx[Mechanical System]
A2: Check Valve
pn: CHK1
FluidJunction.1FluidJunction.2
A2: Servo Valve 5/3
pn: sv1
FluidJunction.2
FluidJunction.5
FluidJunction.1FluidJunction.3
FluidJunction.4
A2: Actuator
pn: DBL21
FluidJunction.aMechJunction.r
FluidJunction.b
M1: Check Valve
pn: CHK1
FluidJunction.1FluidJunction.2
M1: Servo Valve 5/3
pn: sv1
FluidJunction.2
FluidJunction.5
FluidJunction.1FluidJunction.3
FluidJunction.4
M1: Motor
pn: DBL21
FluidJunction.aMechJunction.r
FluidJunction.b
LSMechanical Interface
Mechanical Interface
Mechanical Interface
Mechanical Interface
Engineering Schematic
20
Excavator Case StudyExcavator Case StudyNative Tool Models: ModelicaNative Tool Models: Modelica
Sw ingMotor
B
BoomCylR
B
BucketCyl
B
ArmCyl
B
Boo
mC
ylL
B
TP
LSB
TP
LSB
TP
LSB
TP
LSB
TP
LS
max
ma...
max1
ma...
max2
ma... max3
ma...
BpclsPump
circuitTank
accumulator
constantSpeed
Sw ingFl... BoomCyl... BoomCyl...
BoomCyl...
ArmCylB... ArmCylR... BucketC... BucketC...
sw ingComma...
boomCommand
armCommand
bucketCommand
BoomCyl...
hydraulics
world
x
y
Dig Cycle
environment
p_amb = 101325
T_amb = 288.15
Mechanical model of complete...
Bas
e
r={.
..n=
{0,..
.S
win
...
Car
riage
r={-
0.16
4,1.
...a
b
Boom
r={7.11,0,0}a b
b2_rr={2.85,1....
a b
b1_r
r={.
655,
....
ab
b4y
r={0
,.21.
..a
bb4xr={-.92...
abb3
r={4.22,1.3...a bcyl2f
cyl1
...
m=...
bC...
m=...
bB...
b1_l
r={.
655,
....
ab
cyl1
_l
b2_lr={2.85,1.18,...
ab
Armr={3.654,...
a b
m=...
bArm
Arm1r={0.49...a b
JointR...n_a={...Arm2
r={2.97,0....a b
cyl3f
m=5
0
bB...
p10r={.52...
n={...Ar...
Arm... Buc...
n={...Bu...
Boo...
n={...Bo...
Boo...
brakeS...
c...c...
c...c...
c...
c...
B...B...
fram
e_...
bra...
Multi-Body System Dynamics Model(linkages, ...)
Hydraulics Model
21
Excavator Hydraulics SubsystemExcavator Hydraulics SubsystemDesign Structure ModelsDesign Structure Models
22
Hydraulics Subsystem Simulation ModelHydraulics Subsystem Simulation ModelSimulation Component Connectivity AspectsSimulation Component Connectivity Aspects
23
GIT Modeling Environment GIT Modeling Environment for Excavator Test Casefor Excavator Test Case
Model Center
Reliability Model
Cost Model
Dig Cycle Model
Optimizer
ObjectiveFunction
Modelica
XaiToolsNo Magic / SysML
ExcavatorSystem Model
Factory CAD
Factory Layout
EM Plant / Factory Flow
ProcessSimulation
Process FlowTools
RSA/E+ / SysML
FactoryModel
Generic Tool BehaviorTool Types
RSA/E+ / SysML
ExcavatorExecutable Scenario
Operational Scenario
NX / MCAD Tool
CAD Model
2007-11-05
24
Factory/Mfg Modeling & Simulation Using SysMLFactory/Mfg Modeling & Simulation Using SysML[McGinnis et al. 2007]
SysML State Diagram
SysML Sequence Diagram
XML Parser
Discrete Event Simulation
25
GIT Modeling Environment GIT Modeling Environment for Excavator Test Casefor Excavator Test Case
Model Center
Reliability Model
Cost Model
Dig Cycle Model
Optimizer
ObjectiveFunction
Modelica
XaiToolsNo Magic / SysML
ExcavatorSystem Model
Factory CAD
Factory Layout
EM Plant / Factory Flow
ProcessSimulation
Process FlowTools
RSA/E+ / SysML
FactoryModel
Generic Tool BehaviorTool Types
RSA/E+ / SysML
ExcavatorExecutable Scenario
Operational Scenario
NX / MCAD Tool
CAD Model
2007-11-05
26
SysML parametrics execution via composable objects (COBs) for graph management and math/FEA solving via web services.
Composable Objects (COBs)
COB Services (constraint graph manager, including COTS solver access via web services)
Xa
iTo
ols
Fra
me
Wo
rk™
Ansys(FEA Solver)
Native Tools Models
Traditional COTS or in-house solvers
SysML Authoring Tools
Parametrics plugin
COB Solving & Browsing
COB API
...
Plugins Prototyped by GIT(to SysML vendor tools)1) Artisan Studio [2/06]2) EmbeddedPlus [3/07]3) NoMagic [12/07]*
Mathematica(Math Solver)
Enabling Executable SysML ParametricsEnabling Executable SysML ParametricsGIT GIT XaiToolsXaiTools Prototype Status Prototype Status
Execution via API messages
or exchange files
Xa
iTo
ols
Sys
ML
To
olk
it™
...
...
Next-Generation
Spreadsheet
TLEA
FLL
COTS =commercial-off-the-shelf
(typically readily available)
2007-12 Status- Examples working from IS07 Parts 1 & 2 papers (see next slide)- Prototype being scaled and hardened for industrial usage
27
Simulation-Based Design Using SysMLSimulation-Based Design Using SysML
Part 1: A Parametrics PrimerOMG 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 non-causal 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.
CitationPeak 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/
Part 2: Celebrating Diversity by Example 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, multi-directional 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.
28
Flap Linkage Mechanical PartFlap Linkage Mechanical PartA simple design ... a benchmark problem.A simple design ... a benchmark problem.
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/
ts1
B
sleeve1
B
ts2
ds2
ds1
sleeve2
L
shaft
Leff
s
rib1 rib2
red = idealized parameter
29
Design-Simulation Knowledge GraphDesign-Simulation Knowledge GraphFlap Linkage Panorama—A Benchmark Design-Analysis Interoperability ProblemFlap Linkage Panorama—A Benchmark Design-Analysis Interoperability Problem
Material Model ABB:
Continuum ABBs:
E
One D LinearElastic Model
T
G
e
t
material model
polar moment of inertia, J
radius, r
undeformed length, Lo
twist,
theta start, 1
theta end, 2
r1
12
r3
0L
r
J
rTr
torque, Tr
x
TT
G, r, , ,J
Lo
y
material model
temperature, T
reference temperature, To
force, F
area, A
undeformed length, Lo
total elongation,L
length, L
start, x1
end, x2
E
One D LinearElastic Model
(no shear)
T
e
t
r1
12 xxL
r2
oLLL
r4
A
F
edb.r1
oTTT
r3
L
L
x
FF
E, A,
LLo
T, ,
yL
Torsional Rod
Extensional Rod
temperature change,T
cte,
youngs modulus, E
stress,
shear modulus, G
poissons ratio,
shear stress, shear strain,
thermal strain, t
elastic strain, e
strain,
r2
r1)1(2
EG
r3
r4Tt
Ee
r5
G
te
1D Linear Elastic Model
material
effective length, Leff
linear elastic model
Lo
Extensional Rod(isothermal)
F
L
A
L
E
x2
x1
youngs modulus, E
cross section area, A
al1
al3
al2
linkage
mode: shaft tension
condition reaction
allowable stress
stress mos model
Margin of Safety(> case)
allowable
actual
MS
Analysis Templatesof Diverse Behavior & Fidelity
(CBAMs)MCAD Tools
Materials LibrariesIn-House, ...
FEAAnsys
Abaqus*
CATIA Elfini*
MSC Nastran*
MSC Patran*
NX Nastran*
...
General MathMathematica
Matlab*
MathCAD*
...
Analyzable Product Model(APM)
Extension
Torsion
1D
1D
Analysis Building Blocks(ABBs)
CATIA, NX,Pro/E*, ...
Analysis Solvers(via SMMs)
Design Tools
2D
flap_link
critical_section
critical_simple
t2f
wf
tw
hw
t1f
area
effective_length
critical_detailed
stress_strain_model linear_elastic
E
cte area
wf
tw
hw
tf
sleeve_1
b
h
t
b
h
t
sleeve_2
shaft
rib_1
material
rib_2
w
t
r
x
name
t2f
wf
tw
t1f
cross_section
w
t
r
x
R3
R2
R1
R8
R9
R10
6R
R7
R12
11R
1R
2
3
4
5
R
R
R
R
name
linear_elastic_model
wf
tw
tf
inter_axis_length
sleeve_2
shaft
material
linkage
sleeve_1
w
t
r
E
cross_section:basic
w
t
rL
ws1
ts1
rs2
ws2
ts2
rs2
wf
tw
tf
E
deformation model
x,max
ParameterizedFEA Model
stress mos model
Margin of Safety(> case)
allowable
actual
MS
ux mos model
Margin of Safety(> case)
allowable
actual
MS
mode: tensionux,max
Fcondition reaction
allowable inter axis length change
allowable stress
ts1
B
sleeve1
B ts2
ds2
ds1
sleeve2
L
shaft
Leff
s
rib1 rib2
material
effective length, Leff
deformation model
linear elastic model
Lo
Torsional Rod
G
J
r
2
1
shear modulus, G
cross section:effective ring polar moment of inertia, J
al1
al3
al2a
linkage
mode: shaft torsion
condition reactionT
outer radius, ro al2b
stress mos model
allowable stress
twist mos model
Margin of Safety(> case)
allowable
actual
MS
Margin of Safety(> case)
allowable
actual
MS
allowabletwist
Linkage Extensional Model
Linkage Plane Stress Model
Linkage Torsional Model* = Item not yet available in toolkit—all others have working examples 2007-04
Parts LibrariesIn-House*, ...
LegendTool AssociativityObject Re-use
30
Flap Linkage Implementation in MagicDrawFlap Linkage Implementation in MagicDraw2007-12: Working demo includes parametrics solving via GIT 2007-12: Working demo includes parametrics solving via GIT XaiToolsXaiTools™™
WIP implementation of FlapLinkage APM as described in IS07 Part 2 paper [Peak et al. 2007]
31
SysML-Related Efforts at Georgia TechSysML-Related Efforts at Georgia Tech
• SysML Focus Area web page– http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/topics/sysml/ – Includes links to publications, applications,
projects, examples, etc.
• Selected projects– Deere: System dynamics (fluid power, ...)– Lockheed: System design & analysis integration – NASA: Enabling technology (SysML, ...)– NIST: Design-analysis interoperability (DAI)– TRW Automotive: DAI/FEA (steering wheel systems ... )
32
AbstractThis 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.
CitationDR 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/.
Composable Objects (COB) Requirements & ObjectivesComposable Objects (COB) Requirements & Objectives
33
AbstractSysML 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 BiosketchRussell 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.
CitationRS 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/
Leveraging Simulation Templates & Processes with SysMLLeveraging Simulation Templates & Processes with SysML Applications to CAD-FEA InteroperabilityApplications to CAD-FEA Interoperability
34
Integrated System Design and Analysis Models Integrated System Design and Analysis Models Benefits of SysML-based Template ApproachBenefits of SysML-based Template Approach
Primary Impacts
Enabling Capabilities R
ed
uced
T
ime
Re
duc
ed
Co
st
Re
duc
ed
Ris
k In
crea
sed
U
nd
erst
an
din
g In
crea
sed
C
orp
ora
te M
emo
ry
Incr
ease
d A
rtifa
ct
Pe
rfor
ma
nce
Increased Knowledge Capture & Completeness
■ ■ ■ ■
Increased Modularity & Reusability
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Increased Traceability
■ ■ ■
Reduced Manual Re-Creation & Data Entry Errors
■ ■ ■
Increased Automation
■ ■ ■
Reduced Modeling Effort
■ ■
Increased Analysis Intensity
■ ■
Precision InformationPrecision Informationfor thefor the
Model-Based EnterpriseModel-Based Enterprise