Modeling A UAV in Practice: A Comparison between Rhapsody and Capella

Brisacier-Porchon, Lorraine; Ensta, Omar Hammami; Boutemy, Rémi

doi:10.1109/isse51541.2021.9582553

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The details of the five evaluation criteria are explained. 15 A qualitative discussion based on the COFRA is then detailed, along with conclusions.…”

Section: Architecture Framework Description and Nafmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This problem is described in Ref. 15 as looking for compromises in developing interoperability and re-use of methods and tools with respect to a system category. This article presents one of many possible applications of MTS-EP resolution using optimization scheduling problem resolution and NAF 3.1.…”

Section: Architecture Framework Description and Nafmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, our overall tooled method will be evaluated through COmparative Framework for engineering methods and tools. The details of the five evaluation criteria are explained 15 . A qualitative discussion based on the COFRA is then detailed, along with conclusions.…”

Section: State‐of‐the‐art: Operation Research and Architecture Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…NAF standards have evolved over time, until version 4.0 which was edited in 2019 4 . Although the evolution includes new views and links between views, it does not contain improvements to address the previously mentioned 15 Method‐Tools‐System Engineering Population (MTS‐EP) problem compared to NAF v3.1. The problem suggests including engineering methods and tool selection with a systematic search for <Q,R,T> optimal compromises.…”

Section: State‐of‐the‐art: Operation Research and Architecture Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The next section contains our results. Last, the evaluation of the method and tool is provided based on our previously published Comparative Framework (COFRA) 15 . The final sections discuss the results and extension possibilities introducing an iterative workflow for system‐driven engineering and conclusions.…”

Section: Introductonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Defense program quality‐cost‐delay optimization: architecture framework, a bridge between program management and system engineering

Brisacier‐Porchon,

Hammami

2023

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Military program management and system engineering re quire the expression of costs and delay trade‐off with respect to system architecture. If architecture frameworks (AF) such as NATO (NAF) were designed to fill this common need, their current state is essentially descriptive. As it turns out, building defense systems architectures using those frameworks in a properly anticipated cost/delay budget envelope would require to have all system engineering already solved, because the architecture frameworks are designed to provide an explicit representation of the operational domain that can be used in analysis, for articulation of issues and requirements, as support to planning, and as a means of solution design and validation, among other things. Thus Quality‐Resource‐Time <Q,R,T> optimality in a regularly evolving environment cannot be represented in acceptable delay without automated optimization assistance. Our contribution in this article explores coupling architecture framework with operation research (OR) models to enable computer assisted design and evaluation of heterogeneous views in NATO Architecture Framework (NAF). Our illustrative example is a Linear Programming based bridge between program management and system engineering to anticipate <Q,R,T> optimal trade‐offs. This article presents promising results, with which we hope to show how OR and AF will be indivisible in architecture evaluation process.

show abstract

“…The details of the five evaluation criteria are explained. 15 A qualitative discussion based on the COFRA is then detailed, along with conclusions.…”

Section: Architecture Framework Description and Nafmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Architecture Framework Description and Nafmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: State‐of‐the‐art: Operation Research and Architecture Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: State‐of‐the‐art: Operation Research and Architecture Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Defense program quality‐cost‐delay optimization: architecture framework, a bridge between program management and system engineering

Brisacier‐Porchon,

Hammami

2023

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Dependency Graphs to Boost the Verification of SysML Models

Apvrille

Saqui-Sannes

Hotescu

et al. 2023

Communications in Computer and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tackling Optimization and System-Driven Engineering in Coupling Physical Constraints with MBSE: The Case of a Mobile Autonomous Line of Products

Brisacier-Porchon,

Hammami

2024

Conference on Systems Engineering Research Series

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main goal of product line engineering is to build complex system architecture at the best quality, cost, resource ratio. The return on investment in terms of assessment is however not trivial, as systems to build rise in complexity. Moreover, the perspective of system of systems engineering that set up both historic and new systems in capabilities, and the introduction of more and more autonomous systems in architectures makes the anticipation of return on investment impossible to achieve without computer assistance. The necessary tools to assess as precisely as possible also involve a wide exploration of possibilities in an ever-changing context. The absence of mechanical or multi physical aspects in SysML-based tools, either in its version 1.3 or 2.0, makes it inefficient in representing or simulating robotic systems or system of system engineering. This article explains the benefits of tackling a classic Multi-Objective Knapsack Problem (MOKP) to the UGV product line items selection using a seamless system architecting toolchain. The association of MBSE (Model-based System Engineering), OR (Operation Research) and MBD (Model Based design) that generated various designs is presented. Our results in system engineering in UGV presents a Pareto Front of trade-offs that can count as numerous possibilities that sole MBSE or separate MBD simulation could not have represented as the best in the sense of . The simultaneous variations in both hardware and mechanical design show was entirely automated using standard tools with no redesign. This shows that seamless automations should pave the future of system engineering tools. With Operation research and Systems engineering tackling methods, our model upscale to real systems will shape System-Driven Engineering that will require new skills in system validation and verification and simulation analytics.

show abstract

Modeling A UAV in Practice: A Comparison between Rhapsody and Capella

Cited by 6 publications

References 8 publications

Defense program quality‐cost‐delay optimization: architecture framework, a bridge between program management and system engineering

Defense program quality‐cost‐delay optimization: architecture framework, a bridge between program management and system engineering

Dependency Graphs to Boost the Verification of SysML Models

Tackling Optimization and System-Driven Engineering in Coupling Physical Constraints with MBSE: The Case of a Mobile Autonomous Line of Products

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About