1. GIT SysML Work Update Part 0: Overview Part 1: Representing Executable Physics-based CAE Models in SysML Russell.Peak@gatech.edu Presenter Diego.Tamburini@gatech.edu Chris.Paredis@gatech.edu GIT Product & System Lifecycle Management (PSLM) Center www.pslm.gatech.edu Presentation to OMG Systems Engineering Domain-Specific Interest Group (SE DSIG) December 6, 2005 Burlingame, California Copyright © 1992-2005 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. v. 2005-12-28

2. Copyright © 2005 2 Acknowledgements Sponsors: NASA, NIST http://eislab.gatech.edu/projects/ GIT Team: Manas Bajaj, Injoong Kim, Raphael Kobi, Chris Paredis, Russell Peak, Diego Tamburini, Miyako Wilson Other Collaborators: Roger Burkhart (Deere), Alan Moore et al. (Artisan), Sandy Friedenthal (LMCO)

3. Copyright © 2005 3 Resources GIT SysML resources Main web  http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/topics/sysml/ Presentations  http://www.marc.gatech.edu/events/pde2005/presentations/ See Presentations 1.1 and 1.2 (includes webcast video archive)  http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/seminars-etc/2005-09-omg-se-dsig-peak/  http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/seminars-etc/2005-12-omg-se-dsig-peak/ See also videos showing SysML-driven CAE execution (via COB interfaces) http://eislab.gatech.edu/tmp/sysml/2005-12-06-burlingame/ Related GIT techniques Composable objects  http://eislab.gatech.edu/projects/nasa-ngcobs/ Multi-representation architecture (MRA) for simulation templates and CAD-CAE interoperability  http://eislab.gatech.edu/research/dai/

4. Copyright © 2005 4 Part 0: Overview Presentation purpose = overview recent progress: Validation: executability of SysML parametrics  Usage for SysML-driven CAE execution (math and FEA solvers)  Usage for knowledge capture & usage: relations and intent in design & analysis Development: further examples Part 1: Representing Executable Physics-based CAE Models in SysML (Peak, Tamburini, et al.) See below Part 2: SysML-based Reference Models for Fluid Power Components (Paredis, et al.) See GIT_SysML_Part_2_Fluid_Pwr_Ref_Models.ppt

5. Copyright © 2005 5 SysML-based Examples by GIT Test Cases Introductory tutorials (A) Triangle Spring systems Simulation template tutorials (A, B) Simulation building blocks Mechanical CAD & CAE: flap link Space systems: FireSat satellite Fluid power & system dynamics (C) -- see Part 2 Electrical/mechanical CAD & CAE Model train (for Mechatronics pilot) Racing bike Tool Interfaces A. Math solvers: 1. Mathematica B. Finite element analysis (FEA) solvers: 1. Ansys C. Dynamics solvers: 1. Modelica/Dymola = Primary Updates since 9/2005 OMG Meeting Note: The SysML notation used in these slides roughly corresponds to SysML draft v0.9 plus more recent updates (approximately R. Burkhart blocks inputs as contained in SysML spec v0.98 by SST) and experimental variations. We intend to update these examples with the final official notation when v1.0 that becomes available.

6. Copyright © 2005 6 Status of Our SysML Examples - p.1/2 2005-12-06 1. About the SysML notation used in these slides 1. It roughly corresponds to a ~9/2005 form of the blocks-based parametrics & structure approach developed by R. Burkhart et al. 1. This approach was updated & provided to both SysML teams 11/2005 2. The SST SysML v0.98 draft spec adopted this approach, whereas the SP SysML v1.0a draft spec adopted a collaborations-based approach 2. We recently received a SysML tool that corresponds to the v.0.98 spec. We hope to update these examples and solver interfaces accordingly in the near future. 2. SST SysML v0.98 vs. our current examples: 1. Block properties should be shown as small boxes flush with block boundaries vs. our current overlapping style 2. Bindings between regular blocks and constraint blocks should show their role names (as binding identifiers) vs. our current elision 3. Instances should be underlined vs. our current underlining omission (see also note below about instance causality) 3. Other notes 1. We hope to include the following notation in future versions (they are not required by the current specs, but we believe they will enhance parametric diagram usefulness): 1. Include symbols and subscripts for properties per traditional engineering notation 1. E.g., spring constant in spring 1: k 1 2. Include relation expressions in constraint blocks in terms of their bound properties (continued next page)

7. Copyright © 2005 7 Status of Our SysML Examples - p.2/2 3. Other notes (continued) 1. In these examples we tested the following notation or practices on an experimental basis to see if they might be useful: 1. We distinguished parametric diagrams used for defining a block (par-d) vs. those used to capture instances (par-i) of that block. Similar suffixes may be useful for definitional vs. instance use of all SysML diagrams. 2. We have a library of constraint blocks representing specific commonly used expressions (e.g., a=b+c, a**2=b**2+c**2, etc.) that can be utilized in composing other blocks. To represent specialized relations, we tried defining a generic “algebraic” constraint block in this library, which can be redefined wherever it is used. In future versions we will likely replace this generic “algebraic” relation with relations defined in the context of the blocks that use them. 3. We implemented equality relations as usages of an explicit “a=b” constraint block. We will likely replace such cases with binding relations in the future. 4. We used a black dot graphical symbol to denote true junctions where equality relations intersect (e.g., as a shorthand for a set of relations like a=b, a=c, a=d, and a=e). This approach is similar to that used with electrical schematics and a Manhattan routing style. It enables cleaner and more compact diagram layout. 5. We depict instance-level causality in the Triangular Prism example using a double-lined box to indicate the primary desired result (and red italics to indicate other ancillary results). 2. We did the following to enable our constraint manager, XaiTools, to process SysML parametrics (which provides subsequent solver execution using COTS math and FEA tools): 1. Added stereotypes to denote composable object (COBs) constructs: «git-schema», «git-use-from», etc. 2. Added stereotypes to denote the patterns defined in our multi-representation architecture (MRA) approach for CAD-CAE interoperability: «apm», «cbam», «abb», «smm» 3. Handled reference properties (e.g., flap link material) via ad-hoc associations (this is due to a limitation in XaiTools we hope to resolve in the near future).

8. Copyright © 2005 8 Contents - Part 1 Purpose CAD-CAE simulation template background MCAD-MCAE benchmark example: flap link Modularity & reusability Executable SysML parametrics (math, FEA) Summary Recommended prerequisites Triangle tutorial Spring systems tutorial Multi-representation architecture (MRA) for simulation templates and CAD-CAE interoperability

9. Copyright © 2005 9 GIT SysML Involvement - Overall Purpose Collaborate within SE DSIG: composable object (COB) concepts  SysML (esp. SysML parametrics) Leverage COB-based simulation template work to demonstrate and verify SysML capabilities CAD-CAE interoperability Systems-of-systems (SoS) knowledge representations... For further background and GIT SysML work-to-date: - See SE DSIG minutes/archives - Atlanta - 9/2005 - http://syseng.omg.org/ - http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/topics/sysml/

10. Copyright © 2005 10 Contents - Part 1 Purpose CAD-CAE simulation template background Leveraging test cases from existing work See http://eislab.gatech.edu/research/dai/ MCAD-MCAE benchmark example: flap link Summary Recommended prerequisites (backup slides) Triangle tutorial Spring systems tutorial Multi-representation architecture (MRA) for simulation templates and CAD-CAE interoperability

11. Copyright © 2005 11 SysML-based Examples by GIT Test Cases Introductory tutorials (A) Triangle Spring systems Simulation template tutorials (A, B) Simulation building blocks Mechanical CAD & CAE: flap link Space systems: FireSat satellite Fluid power & system dynamics (C) -- see Part 2 Electrical/mechanical CAD & CAE Model train (for Mechatronics pilot) Racing bike Tool Interfaces A. Math solvers: 1. Mathematica B. Finite element analysis (FEA) solvers: 1. Ansys C. Dynamics solvers: 1. Modelica/Dymola See slide entitled “Status of Our SysML Examples” regarding spec version used in these examples, and so on.

12. 12 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC COB Structure: Graphical Forms Tutorial: Right Triangle Basic Constraint Schematic-S Notation c. Constraint Schematic-S a. Shape Schematic-S b. Relations-S d. Subsystem-S (for reuse by other COBs) Aside: This is a “usage view” in AP210 terminology (vs. the above “design views”) COB = composable object Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

13. 13 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC COB Structure (cont.): Lexical Form Tutorial: Right Triangle for reference: c. Constraint Schematic-S e. Lexical COB Structure (COS) COB triangle SUBTYPE_OF geometric_shape; base, b : REAL; height, h : REAL; diagonal, d : REAL; area, A : REAL; RELATIONS r1 : " == 0.5 * * "; r2 : " **2 == **2 + **2"; END_COB; Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

14. 14 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Right Triangle Implemented using SysML Blocks and Parametrics SysML Parametric Diagram Note: The outmost block should be depicted as a frame (of type par), as in conformant flap_link examples elsewhere in this presentation.

15. 15 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC COBs as Building Blocks Tutorial: Triangular Prism COB Structure c. Constraint Schematic-S a. Shape Schematic-S b. Relations-S d. Subsystem-S (for reuse by other COBs) e. Lexical COB Structure (COS) COB triangular_prism SUBTYPE_OF geometric_shape; length, l : REAL; cross-section : triangle; volume, V : REAL; RELATIONS r1 : " == * "; END_COB; A Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

16. 16 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Triangular Prism Implemented using SysML Blocks and Parametrics SysML Parametric Diagram Note: The outmost block should be depicted as a frame (of type par), as in conformant flap_link examples elsewhere in this presentation.

17. 17 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Example COB Instance Tutorial: Right Triangle Constraint Schematic-ILexical COB Instance (COI) state 1.0 (unsolved): INSTANCE_OF triangle; base : 2.0; height : 3.0; area : ?; diagonal : ?; END_INSTANCE; state 1.1 (solved): INSTANCE_OF triangle; base : 2.0; height : 3.0; area : 3.0; diagonal : 3.60; END_INSTANCE; Basic Constraint Schematic-I Notation example 1, state 1.1 example 1, state 2.1. state 2.1 (solved): INSTANCE_OF triangle; base : 2.0; height : 9.0; area : 9.0; diagonal : 9.22; END_INSTANCE; Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

18. 18 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Multi-Directional I/O Tutorial: Right Triangle Constraint Schematic-ILexical COB Instance (COI) state 2.1 (solved): INSTANCE_OF triangle; base : 2.0; height : 9.0; area : 9.0; diagonal : 9.22; END_INSTANCE; state 3.0 (unsolved): INSTANCE_OF triangle; base : 2.0; height : ?; area : 6.0; diagonal : ?; END_INSTANCE; state 3.1 (solved): INSTANCE_OF triangle; base : 2.0; height : 6.0; area : 6.0; diagonal : 6.32; END_INSTANCE; example 1, state 2.1 example 1, state 3.1 Concepts illustrated: - Non-causal COB structure (no predefined I/O direction) - Causality of COB instances and states Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

19. 19 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Example COB Instance Tutorial: Triangular Prism - State 1.1 (Solved) in XaiTools

20. 20 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Example COB Instance Tutorial: Triangular Prism Constraint Schematic-ILexical COB Instance (COI) state 1.0 (unsolved): INSTANCE_OF triangular_prism; cross-section.base : 2.0; cross-section.height : 3.0; length : 5.0; volume : ?; END_INSTANCE; state 1.1 (solved): INSTANCE_OF triangular_prism; cross-section.base : 2.0; cross-section.height : 3.0; cross-section.area : 3.0; length : 5.0; volume : 15.0; END_INSTANCE; example 1, state 1.1 (solved) Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000] = 15 = 3 state 1.0 (unsolved)state 1.1 (solved) SysML Parametric Diagram-I Note: The current prototype exports instances with input values for solving. The model is then executed successfully in external solvers. However, the prototype interface for importing resulting solutions is not ready yet; thus, the solved state depicted here inside the SysML tool is an envisioned notation.

21. 21 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Composable Objects (COBs) COB Services (constraint graph manager, including COTS solver access) XaiTools Ansys (FEA Solver) Native Tools Models Traditional COTS or in-house solvers SysML-based COB Authoring COB export COB Solving & Browsing COB API SysML-COB Architecture - Prototype v0.1 as of 2005-12-06... Exchange File XaiTools Artisan Studio Mathematica (Math Solver)

22. 22 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Engineering Web Services Client PCs XaiTools Rich Client Internet Apache Tomcat Mathematica Ansys, Patran, Abaqus,... Internet/Intranet XaiTools Ansys Solver Server XaiTools Ansys Solver Server XaiTools Math. Solver Server Servlet container XaiTools Solver Server FEA Solvers Math Solvers Soap Servers SOAP... Engineering Service Bureau Host Machines Web Server HTTP/XML Wrapped Data Status: In prototype & production usage since 1999 (CORBA), 2002 (SOAP), including remote access from AZ, DC, WV, UK, Japan, …

23. 23 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Composable Objects (COBs) COB Services (constraint graph manager, including COTS solver access) XaiTools Ansys (FEA Solver) Native Tools Models Traditional COTS or in-house solvers Mathematica (Math Solver) SysML-based COB Authoring COB in/out COB Solving & Browsing COB API SysML-COB Architecture - Prototype v0.2 Anticipated 2006-1Q... Exchange File XaiTools Artisan Studio

24. 24 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Composable Objects (COBs) COB Services (graph mgt, conf. control, meta-solving, persistence, tool access, UI,…) COB Management System (CMS) Tool Native Tools Models Traditional COTS and in-house end-user tools (authoring, viewing, solving,..) Tool Standards-based tool wrappers COB-Enabled End-User Applications COB SDK UI Components SysML UI Control COB API COTS SysML Tools COB API COB Tree Other COB Apps. Domain-specific Simulation tools COB API CMS Management Client Tools COB Authoring COB API COB Configuration Management COB API COB Browsing COB API Envisioned SysML-COB Architecture http://eislab.gatech.edu/projects/nasa-ngcobs/ - 2005-10

25. Copyright © 2005 25 Contents - Part 1 Purpose CAD-CAE simulation template background Leveraging test cases from existing & new work See http://eislab.gatech.edu/research/dai/ MCAD-MCAE benchmark example: flap link Summary Recommended prerequisites (see backup slides) Triangle tutorial Spring systems tutorial Multi-representation architecture (MRA) for simulation templates and CAD-CAE interoperability

26. 26 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC X-Analysis Integration Techniques for CAD-CAE Interoperability http://eislab.gatech.edu/research/ a. Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA)b. Explicit Design-Analysis Associativity c. Analysis Module Creation Methodology Composable COB = composable object

27. 27 Analysis Tools Flexible High Diversity Design-Analysis Integration Phases 1-3 Airframe Examples: “Bike Frame” / Flap Support Inboard Beam Analysis Modules (CBAMs) of Diverse Feature:Mode, & Fidelity Design Tools Materials DB FEA Elfini* MATDB-like Analyzable Product Model XaiTools Fitting: Bending/Shear 3D 1.5D Modular, Reusable Template Libraries MCAD Tools CATIA v4, v5 Lug: Axial/Oblique; Ultimate/Shear 1.5D Assembly: Ultimate/ FailSafe/Fatigue* * = Item not yet available in toolkit (all others have working examples) Fasteners DB FASTDB-like General Math Mathematica In-House Codes Image API (CATGEO); VBScript

28. 28 Fitting Analysis Template Applied to “Bike Frame” Bulkhead COB-based CBAM constraint schematic - instance view e se tr P f 0 2   2 1 e be ht P Cf  ),,( 13 hbrfK  18 associativity relations COB = composable object Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

29. 29 Lug Template Applied to an Airframe Analysis Problem COB-based CBAM constraint schematic - instance view Solution Tool Interaction Boundary Condition Objects (links to other analyses) CAD-CAE Associativity (idealization usage) Material Models Model-based Documentation Geometry Requirements Legend: Annotations highlight model knowledge capture capabilities. Other notation is COB constraint schematics notation. Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

30. 30 Generalized MRA Patterns for Systems-of-Systems (SoS) M&S

31. 31 Diversity Demonstrated in Test Cases [based on Peak and Wilson et al. 2001]

32. 32 Test Case Statistics: Overall Test CasesCOB Libraries Used# of Entities, Attributes, Relations

33. 33 Test Case Statistics: Flap Link and Associated Building Blocks Supports reusability Supports complexity

34. 34 Example COB Reuse as Modular Simulation Building Blocks

35. Copyright © 2005 35 Contents - Part 1 Purpose CAD-CAE simulation template background Leveraging test cases from existing work See http://eislab.gatech.edu/research/dai/ MCAD-MCAE benchmark example: flap link Summary Recommended prerequisites (backup slides) Triangle tutorial Spring systems tutorial Multi-representation architecture (MRA) for simulation templates and CAD-CAE interoperability

36. Copyright © 2005 36 SysML-based Examples by GIT Test Cases Introductory tutorials (A) Triangle Spring systems Simulation template tutorials (A, B) Simulation building blocks Mechanical CAD & CAE: flap link Space systems: FireSat satellite Fluid power & system dynamics (C) -- see Part 2 Electrical/mechanical CAD & CAE Model train (for Mechatronics pilot) Racing bike Tool Interfaces A. Math solvers: 1. Mathematica B. Finite element analysis (FEA) solvers: 1. Ansys C. Dynamics solvers: 1. Modelica/Dymola See slide entitled “Status of Our SysML Examples” regarding spec version used in these examples, and so on.

37. 37 Flap Link Mechanical Part A simple design... a benchmark problem. t s1 B sleeve1 B t s2 d d s1 sleeve2 L shaft L eff  s rib1rib2 red = idealized parameter 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 (including papers overviewing this example): http://eislab.gatech.edu/research/dai/ (begin with [Wilson et al. 2001] under Suggested Starting Points)

38. 38 Design-Analysis Interoperability (DAI) Panorama Flap Link Benchmark Tutorial - Composable Object (COB)-based Constraint Schematic Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

39. 39 Flap Linkage Example Manufacturable Product Model (MPM) = Design Description Product Attribute RiRi Product Relation Extended Constraint Graph COB Structure (COS) Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

40. 40 Flap Linkage Example Analyzable Product Model (APM) = MPM Subset + Idealizations flap_link critical_section critical_simple t2f wf tw hw t1f area effective_length critical_detailed stress_strain_modellinear_elastic E cte area wf tw hw tf R 3 R 2 R 1 R 8 R 9 R 10 6 R R7R7 R 12 11 R 1 R 2 3 4 5 R R R R Product Attribute Idealized Attribute RiRi Idealization Relation RiRi Product Relation Extended Constraint Graph Partial COB Structure (COS) effective_length, Leff == inter_axis_length - (sleeve1.hole.cross_section.radius + sleeve2.hole.cross_section.radius) Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

41. 41 Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000] Design Model Idealized Model Design-Idealization Relation Flap Link APM Implementation in CATIA v5

42. 42 Flap Link APM SysML Block Definition Diagram (bdd) - basic view v. 2005-12-19 Note [1]: The term “part” is used here as a regular block name in the traditional engineering sense of part-assembly (i.e., it is not used here in the UML/SysML meta-entity context of part/class). [1]

43. 43 Flap Link APM: SysML Block Definition Diagram (bdd) Implementing COB Concepts in SysML v. 2005-12-19

44. 44 Flap Link APM: SysML Parametric Diagram (par) Implementing COB Concepts in SysML v. 2005-12-17 par-d v. 2005-12-19 See slide entitled “Status of Our SysML Examples” regarding spec version used in these examples, and so on.

45. 45 Flap Link APM: SysML Parametric Diagram - Instance (inputs - unsolved state) par-i v. 2005-12-19 Solving supported via math tool execution

46. 46 Design-Analysis Interoperability (DAI) Panorama Flap Link Benchmark Tutorial - Composable Object (COB)-based Constraint Schematic Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

47. 47 COB-based Libraries of Analysis Building Blocks (ABBs) Material Model and Continuum ABBs - Constraint Schematic-S Material Model ABB Continuum ABBs modular re-usage Torsional Rod Extensional Rod 1D Linear Elastic Model Regarding classical COB notation and examples, see References/Backup Slides Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

48. 48 par-d Libraries of Analysis Building Blocks (ABBs) Material Model & Continuum ABBs - SysML Parametric Diagrams modular re-usage par-d v. 2005-12-19

49. 49 Design-Analysis Interoperability (DAI) Panorama Flap Link Benchmark Tutorial - Composable Object (COB)-based Constraint Schematic Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

50. 50 Flap Link Simulation Templates & Generic Building Blocks SysML Block Definition Diagram (bdd) - basic view

51. 51 (1a) Analysis Template: Flap Link Extensional Model Tutorial Example: Flap Link Analysis Template COB-based CBAM - Constraint Schematic (classical view) Solution Tool Interaction Boundary Condition Objects (links to other analyses)* CAD-CAE Associativity (idealization usage) Material ModelsGeometry Requirements & Objectives APM ABB CBAM SMM Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

52. 52 Analysis Template: Flap Link Extensional Model COB-based CBAM - SysML Parametric Diagram v. 2005-12-19 par-d Solving supported via math tool execution

53. 53 material effective length, L eff deformation model linear elastic model L o Extensional Rod (isothermal) F  L  A L  E x 2 x 1 youngs modulus, E shaft critical_cross _section al1 al3 al2 linkage mode: shaft tension condition reaction allowable stress stressmosmodel Margin of Safety (> case) allowable actual MS description area, A basic example 1, state 1 steel 10000 lbs flaps mid position 1.125 in 2 18000 psi 30e6 psi 1.025 5.0 in 8888 psi 1.43e-3 in Flap Link #3 Analysis Template Instance with Multi-Directional I/O Flap Link Extensional Model - COB Constraint Schematics (classical view) Design Verification - Input: design details - Output: i) idealized design parameters ii) physical response criteria Design Synthesis - Input: desired physical response criteria - Output: i) idealized design parameters (e.g., for sizing), or ii) detailed design parameters Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

54. 54 Flap Link Extensional Model Example COB Instance in XaiTools (object-oriented spreadsheet) Detailed CAD data from CATIA Idealized analysis features in APM Explicit multi-directional associativity between design & analysis Modular generic analysis templates (ABBs) Library data for materials Focus Point of CAD-CAE Integration example 1, state 1

55. 55 Design-Analysis Interoperability (DAI) Panorama Flap Link Benchmark Tutorial - Composable Object (COB)-based Constraint Schematic Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

56. 56 FEA-based Analysis Template: Link Plane Stress Model COB-based CBAM - Constraint Schematic (classical view) Higher fidelity version vs. Link Extensional Model ABB  SMM SMM Template Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

57. 57 FEA-based Analysis Template: Link Plane Stress Model COB-based CBAM - SysML Parametric Diagram (draft layout) Solving supported via math tool and FEA tool execution Note: The outmost block should be depicted as a frame (of type par), as in conformant flap_link examples elsewhere in this presentation.

58. 58 SMM with Parameterized FEA Model Flap Link Plane Stress Model !EX,NIUX,L,WS1,WS2,RS1,RS2,TS1,TS2,TW,TF,WF,FORCE... /prep7 ! element type et,1,plane42 ! material properties mp,ex,1,@EX@! elastic modulus mp,nuxy,1,@NIUX@! Poissons ratio ! geometric parameters L = @L@! length ts1 = @TS1@! thickness of sleeve1 rs1 = @RS1@! radius of sleeve1 (rs1<rs2) tf = @TF@! thickness of shaft flange... ! key points k,1,0,0 k,2,0,rs1+ts1 k,3,-(rs1+ts1)*sin(phi),(rs1+ts1)*cos(phi)... ! lines LARC,3,2,1,rs1+ts1, LARC,7,3,1,rs1+ts1,... ! areas FLST,2,4,4 AL,P51X... ANSYS Prep7 Template @EX1@ = Parameters populated by context ABB Preprocessor Model Figure SMM wrapped inside an ABB subsystem as SysML parametric constraints par-d SMM = solution method model

59. 59 Design-Analysis Interoperability (DAI) Panorama Flap Link Benchmark Tutorial - Composable Object (COB)-based Constraint Schematic Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

60. 60 Analysis Template: Flap Link Torsional Model COB-based CBAM - Constraint Schematic (classical view) Diverse Mode (Behavior) vs. Link Extensional Model Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

61. 61 Analysis Template: Flap Link Torsional Model COB-based CBAM - SysML Parametric Diagram (draft layout) Solving supported via math tool execution Note: The outmost block should be depicted as a frame (of type par), as in conformant flap_link examples elsewhere in this presentation.

62. 62 Modularity and Reusability in Flap Link Benchmark Problem SysML Package Structure

63. Copyright © 2005 63 Next Steps Update current examples and tool interfaces Conformance to SysML spec  SysML v0.98 (SST) - ~2006-01  SysML v1.0 - ~2006-1Q Draft recommended practices for SysML-based CAD/CAE and general parametrics usage Expand examples: other system levels, constructs, domains, CAD tools, CAE solvers,...

64. Copyright © 2005 64 Summary Completed several test cases on representing executable physics-based CAE models in SysML Tutorial & benchmark problems  Triangles, analytical springs, flap link Includes interfaces to representative COTS solvers  General math: Mathematica  FEA: Ansys Leverages composable object (COB) and simulation template techniques Usage for knowledge capture & usage MRA for CAD-CAE and systems-of-systems (SoS)  Diverse CAD/CAE tools, behaviors, fidelity,...  Modular, reusable simulation building blocks and fine-grained inter-model associativity

65. Copyright © 2005 65

66. Reference & Backup Slides

67. Copyright © 2005 67

68. Copyright © 2005 68 Contents - Part 1 Purpose CAD-CAE simulation template background MCAD-MCAE benchmark example: flap link Modularity & reusability Executable SysML parametrics (math, FEA) Summary Recommended prerequisites Triangle tutorial Spring systems tutorial Multi-representation architecture (MRA) for simulation templates and CAD-CAE interoperability [plus see flap link example above and references]

69. 69 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2001 GTRC Design ModelsAnalysis Models Design Models Analysis Models Frame of Reference CAD-CAE Model Representation & Interoperability R&D ~1992 - Present Resulting techniques to date: u Architecture with new model abstractions (patterns) –Enables modular, reusable building blocks –Supports diversity: »Product domains and physical behaviors »CAD/E methods and tools –Supports multiple levels of fidelity Other Model Abstractions (Patterns)

70. 70 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2001 GTRC Frame of Reference (cont.) CAD-CAE Model Representation & Interoperability R&D Key Capabilities u Represent design-analysis model associativity as tool-independent knowledge u Provide methodology –Capture analysis idealization knowledge –Create highly automated analysis templates –Support product design Design Models Analysis Models Other Model Abstractions (Patterns) Idealization & Associativity Relations

71. 71 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2001 GTRC Product- Specific Product- Independent Frame of Reference (cont.) CAD-CAE Model Representation & Interoperability R&D Mapping to a Conceptual Architecture Design Models Analysis Models Other Model Abstractions (Patterns) Idealization & Associativity Relations Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA)

72. 72 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2001 GTRC A Basic Solder Joint Deformation Template Informal Associativity Diagram Printed Wiring Board/Assembly (PWA/PWB) FEA Model

73. 73 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2001 GTRC http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2003-asme-detc-peak/ Preliminary Characterization of CAD-CAE Interoperability Problem Estimated quantities for all structural analyses of a complex system (airframe) Design Models Analysis Models Other Model Abstractions (Patterns) Idealization & Associativity Relations O(100) tools O(10K) template types and O(100K) template instances O(100) building blocks O(10K) relevant parts

74. 74 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2001 GTRC Preliminary Characterization of CAD-CAE Interoperability Problem Estimated quantities for all structural analyses of a complex system (airframe) - cont. O(100K) template instances containing O(1M) associativity relations associativity gap = computer-insensible relation  ~1M gaps CAD-CAE associativity relations are represented as APM-ABB relations, APM  ABB, inside CBAMs

75. Copyright © 2005 75 Contents - Part 1 Purpose CAD-CAE simulation template background MCAD-MCAE benchmark example: flap link Modularity & reusability Executable SysML parametrics (math, FEA) Summary Recommended prerequisites Triangle tutorial Spring systems tutorial Multi-representation architecture (MRA) for simulation templates and CAD-CAE interoperability

76. Copyright © 2005 76 SysML-based Examples by GIT Test Cases Introductory tutorials (A) Triangle Spring systems Simulation template tutorials (A, B) Simulation building blocks Mechanical CAD & CAE: flap link Space systems: FireSat satellite Fluid power & system dynamics (C) -- see Part 2 Electrical/mechanical CAD & CAE Model train (for Mechatronics pilot) Racing bike Tool Interfaces A. Math solvers: 1. Mathematica B. Finite element analysis (FEA) solvers: 1. Ansys C. Dynamics solvers: 1. Modelica/Dymola Note: The SysML notation used in these slides roughly corresponds to SysML draft v0.9 plus more recent updates (approximately R. Burkhart blocks inputs as contained in SysML spec v0.98 by SST) and experimental variations. We intend to update these examples with the final official notation when v1.0 that becomes available.

77. 77 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC COB Structure: Graphical Forms Tutorial: Analytical Spring Primitive Basic Constraint Schematic-S Notation c. Constraint Schematic-S a. Shape Schematic-S b. Relations-S d. Subsystem-S (for reuse by other COBs) Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

78. 78 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Analytical Spring Implemented using SysML Block and Parametrics SysML Parametric Diagram Note: The outmost block should be depicted as a frame (of type par), as in conformant flap_link examples elsewhere in this presentation.

79. 79 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC COB Structure (cont.): Lexical Form Spring Primitive Constraint Schematic-S Lexical COB Structure (COS) COB spring SUBTYPE_OF abb; undeformed_length, L 0 : REAL; spring_constant, k : REAL; start, x 1 : REAL; end, x 2 : REAL; length, L : REAL; total_elongation, ΔL : REAL; force, F : REAL; RELATIONS r1 : " == - "; r2 : " == - "; r3 : " == * "; END_COB; Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

80. 80 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Example COB Instance Spring Primitive Constraint Schematic-ILexical COB Instance (COI) state 1.0 (unsolved): INSTANCE_OF spring; undeformed_length : 20.0; spring_constant : 5.0; total_elongation : ?; force : 10.0; END_INSTANCE; state 1.1 (solved): INSTANCE_OF spring; undeformed_length : 20.0; spring_constant : 5.0; start : ?; end : ?; length : 22.0; total_elongation : 2.0; force : 10.0; END_INSTANCE; example 1, state 1.1 Basic Constraint Schematic-I Notation Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

81. 81 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Multi-Directional I/O (non-causal) Spring Primitive Constraint Schematic-ILexical COB Instance (COI) state 5.0 (unsolved): INSTANCE_OF spring; undeformed_length : 20.0; spring_constant : ?; start : 10.0; length : 22.0; force : 40.0; END_INSTANCE; state 5.1 (solved): INSTANCE_OF spring; undeformed_length : 20.0; spring_constant : 20.0; start : 10.0; end : 32.0; length : 22.0; total_elongation : 2.0; force : 40.0; END_INSTANCE; Design Verification Design Synthesis example 1, state 1.1 example 1, state 5.1 Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

82. 82 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Traditional Mathematical Representation Tutorial: Two Spring System System Figure Free Body Diagrams Variables and Relations Boundary Conditions Kinematic Relations Constitutive Relations

83. 83 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC COB Constraint Schematic-S Two Spring System System-Level Relations (Boundary Conditions) Analysis Primitives with Encapsulated Relations Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

84. 84 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Spring System Implemented using SysML Blocks and Parametrics SysML Parametric Diagram SysML Block Definition Diagram (bdd) par-d

85. 85 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC Constraint Graph-S Two Spring System spring2 spring1 Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

86. 86 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC COB Representation Constraint Schematic-S: Two Spring System Constraint Schematic-S Constraint Graph-S Encapsulated form (hides details) Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

87. 87 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC COBs as Building Blocks Two Spring System Constraint Schematic-S Lexical COB Structure (COS) COB spring_system SUBTYPE_OF analysis_system; spring1 : spring; spring2 : spring; deformation1, u 1 : REAL; deformation2, u 2 : REAL; load, P : REAL; RELATIONS bc1 : " == 0.0"; bc2 : " == "; bc3 : " == "; bc4 : " == "; bc5 : " == "; bc6 : " == + "; END_COB; Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]

88. 88 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © 1993-2005 GTRC state 1.0 (unsolved): INSTANCE_OF spring_system; spring1.undeformed_length : 8.0; spring1.spring_constant : 5.5; spring2.undeformed_length : 8.0; spring2.spring_constant : 6.0; load : 10.0; deformation2 : ?; END_INSTANCE; state 1.1 (solved): INSTANCE_OF spring_system; spring1.undeformed_length : 8.0; spring1.spring_constant : 5.5; spring1.start : 0.0; spring1.end : 9.818; spring1.force : 10.0; spring1.total_elongation : 1.818; spring1.length : 9.818; spring2.undeformed_length : 8.0; spring2.spring_constant : 6.0; spring2.start : 9.818; spring2.force : 10.0; spring2.total_elongation : 1.667; spring2.length : 9.667; spring2.end : 19.48; load : 10.0; deformation1 : 1.818; deformation2 : 3.485; END_INSTANCE; Analysis System Instance Two Spring System Constraint Schematic-ILexical COB Instance (COI) example 2, state 1.1 Classical COB Notation [Peak, 1993; Tamburini, 1999; Wilson, 2000]