Aircraft Systems Architecting - a Functional-Logical Domain Perspective

Guenov, Marin D.; Molina-Cristóbal, Arturo; Voloshin, Vitaly; Riaz, Atif; Heerden, Albert S. van; Sharma, Sanjiv; Cuiller, Claude; Giese, Tim

doi:10.2514/6.2016-3143

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The architects' feedback indicated that, on the whole, the approach enables the architects to effectively express their creative ideas when synthesizing architectures, and was especially acknowledged as the way forward for rationale capture 4 …”

Section: Illustrative Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we shall distinguish between logical and physical domains, where the former is assumed to be concerned mainly with the interconnectivity between components and subsystems, while the latter with spatial layout and geometry. In a recent publication, 4 we presented data structures underpinning basic operations that take place in the F‐L domains. Here, we extend that work to include requirements and the notion of a computational (behavioral) domain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Computational framework for interactive architecting of complex systems

Guenov

Riaz

Bile

et al. 2020

Systems Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presented is a novel framework for interactive systems architecture definition at early design stages. It incorporates graph-theoretic data structures, entity relationships, and algorithms that enable the systems architect to operate interactively and simultaneously in different domains. It explicitly captures the "zigzagging" of the functional reasoning process, including not only allocated, but also the derived functions. A prototype software tool, AirCADia Architect, was implemented, which allowed the framework to be demonstrated to and tried hands-on by practicing aircraft systems architects. The tool enables architects to effectively express their ideas when interactively synthesizing new architectures, while still retaining control over the process. The proposed approach was especially acknowledged as the way forward for rationale capture. K E Y W O R D S architecture definition, systems engineering 1 INTRODUCTION The ability to innovate is considered one of the key factors for success in the globally competitive world of today. This is particularly relevant in the design of complex systems, such as aircraft, where the requisite subsystems, for example, environmental control, flight control, etc., account for about one-third of the total empty weight and cost. 1 Innovation in aircraft subsystems design can bring forth significant competitive advantages, such as improved fuel consumption, reduced maintenance costs, and higher reliability. The work reported in this paper is related to innovative systems architecting and originates from a topical European research project, "Thermal Overall Integrated Conception of Aircraft" (TOICA). 2,3 Specifically, the authors contributed to one of the research objectives of TOICA: the development of methods and tools enabling systems architects to discover, define, assess, and evaluate (systems) architectures. Within this wider context, the scope of the research described herein has been restricted to the process of conceptual systems architecture definition, within the requirements (R), functional (F), and logical (L) domains. The term requirements domain refers to the activities involving requirements engineering and management. The functional domain is concerned with the functional decomposition and analysis, and the logical domain deals with the specification of solutions and their interfaces. In the systems engineering community, solutions are also referred to as forms, means, or artifacts, and include both components and subsystems. Also, logical solutions are sometimes referredto as physical solutions. In this paper, we shall distinguish between logical and physical domains, where the former is assumed to be concerned mainly with the interconnectivity between components and subsystems, while the latter with spatial layout and geometry. In a recent publication, 4 we presented data structures underpinning basic operations that take place in the F-L domains. Here, we extend that work to include requirements and the notion of a computational (behavioral) domain. The latt...

show abstract

Section: Illustrative Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computational framework for interactive architecting of complex systems

Guenov

Riaz

Bile

et al. 2020

Systems Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Figure 4, the sets of parameters for the input and output ports are represented by and , respectively, as shown in Eq. 1and (2). A component has its own parameters, referred to as component-parameters, represented by the set, as shown in Eq.…”

Section: Proposed Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is assumed that the architecting takes place in four domains: Requirement, Functional, Logical and Physical (RFLP) 1 . In a recent work, Guenov et al 2 specified the interface between the functional and logical views. Their approach is extended here to include sizing and is restricted to the systems requirements and logical representations as the input to the systems sizing process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Automating the Sizing Process in Conceptual (Airframe) Systems Architecting

Bile

Riaz

Guenov

et al. 2018

2018 AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presented is a method for automated sizing of airframe systems, ultimately aiming to enable an efficient and interactive systems architecture evaluation process. The method takes as input the logical view of the system architecture. A source-sink approach combined with a Design Structure Matrix (DSM) sequencing algorithm is used to orchestrate the sequence of the subsystem sizing tasks. Bipartite graphs and a maximum matching algorithm are utilized to identify and construct the computational sizing workflows. A recursive algorithm, based on fundamental dimensions of additive physical quantities (e.g., weight, power, etc.) is employed to aggregate variables at the system level. The evaluation, based on representative test cases confirmed the correctness of the proposed method. The results also showed that the proposed approach overcomes certain limitations of existing methods and looks very promising as an initial systems architectural design enabler.

show abstract

“…Their FD is problem-specific, as is the analysis method, and therefore not easily generalized. The same holds for AirCADia [8], which breaks down the system description into a functional and logical domain and proceeds by mapping functions to means to arrive at a system synthesis. Where others start off with a FD, Yuan et al [9] developed a method to automate the FD process itself, which may be useful for end-users to specify their intentions when modeling a system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatically Generating the Technology Compatibility Matrix Using Graph Transformations

Roelofs

Vos

Amadori

et al. 2019

AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the first stages during technology evaluation and selection is constructing the technology compatibility matrix, which indicates the compatibility of each pair in a technology portfolio. Construction of the technology compatibility matrix usually involves subjective expert judgment, which inhibits assessing each pair consistently and storing the decision rationale. Therefore, this study develops a method based on graph transformations, allowing for a formal theoretical description of technologies. In order to automate this process, two algorithms use these graph transformations to deduce technology compatibility and dependencies between technologies. The first checks whether changes made by a pair of transformations are compatible with each other. The second defines dependencies for each technology and attempts to resolve these using other technologies. The method is put into practice for a technology portfolio within Saab Aeronautics and the automatically generated compatibility matrix is compared to a pre-existing expert-judgment-based matrix for the same portfolio. Roughly 90% of the entries in the algorithm-based TCM are identical to the expert-based TCM. Therefore, the automated method is capable of capturing much of human reasoning in this context. However, in order to fully agree with human expertise, physics and design reasoning should be included to expand the scope of inference.

show abstract

Aircraft Systems Architecting - a Functional-Logical Domain Perspective

Cited by 12 publications

References 8 publications

Computational framework for interactive architecting of complex systems

Computational framework for interactive architecting of complex systems

Towards Automating the Sizing Process in Conceptual (Airframe) Systems Architecting

Automatically Generating the Technology Compatibility Matrix Using Graph Transformations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About