An Extension of the Systems Modeling Language for Physical Interaction and Signal Flow Simulation

Abstract

Computer‐interpretable representations of system structure and behavior are at the center of developing today's complex systems. Systems engineers create and review these representations using graphical modeling languages that capture requirements, designs, and tests (such as the Systems Modeling Language, SysML). However, these languages must be used in conjunction with analysis tools, in particular, with simulators for physical interaction and numeric signal flow based on ordinary and algebraic differential equation solvers. These kind of simulation tools are often used separately from system modeling tools, leading to inconsistencies that require additional work to eliminate, preventing multidisciplinary concerns from being reflected in the overall system design. As a result, there is an increasing need for integrating physical interaction and signal flow simulation tools and languages into system modeling under a single framework. In this article, we first present an abstraction of the constructs and semantics these simulation tools and languages have in common, based on earlier reviews. Then, we compare SysML to our simulation abstraction to find the parts of SysML closest to simulation modeling, and to identify simulation concepts missing from SysML. This leads to extensions of SysML to bridge the gaps, illustrated with an example application. Next, we address issues in translating extended SysML models to common simulation tools and languages, including the differences between them. Finally, we validate the approach by applying the extension to an example SysML model, automating the translations in software, and showing that the results execute the same way on different simulation platforms.

Topological semantics for lumped parameter systems modeling

“…Figure 2 shows the correspondence between the primal and dual cochains of variables and naming conventions used by different authors and lumped-parameter modeling systems. We note that the adopted classification in terms of primal and dual cochains is consistent with the conventions in linear graphs [3], Modelica [4], Simscape [5] and NIST models [11], but differs slightly from that in bond graphs [1].…”

“…The second approach is similar in spirit to STEP for product models, which requires the neutral format to be formally defined and include the superset of models present in any such language. These difficulties can be observed in a recent effort to extend System Modeling Language (SysML) with packages for direct communication with multiple simulation tools [11]. Recently proposed Functional Mockup Interface (FMI) [12] attempts to sidestep the semantic interoperability issues by supporting model exchange and integration via standardized XML and C-code interfaces; this approach simply shifts the responsibility for semantic correctness of these tasks to the authoring systems and users.…”

Proceedings of the 11th Model-Based Enterprise Summit (MBE 2020)

“…This requires shared formalizations of simulation. For example, many independent toolchains implement power-coupled Kirchhoff networks and signal-coupled networks abstractions, such as Modelica (Modelica Association, 2017), an open standard, and MATLAB Simulink/Simscape (The MathWorks, n.d.), a proprietary software tool (Bock, et al, 2017), among others. There is currently no such abstraction for STS simulation.…”

Translator from Extended SysML to Physical Interaction and Signal Flow Simulation Platforms

“…The result is serialized into simulation fles that can be opened by their simulation platforms. Additional explanation is available in [5,6].…”