ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
0 likes509 views
The document discusses ModelicaML, a framework that combines UML and Modelica languages for system modeling and automated model verification through value bindings. It highlights the process of verifying design alternatives against requirements via automated composition of verification models, utilizing value bindings to facilitate client-providers relationships in simulations. The approach enables the generation of verification models without modifying original client or provider models and automates the creation of reports summarizing simulation configurations and results.
ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition
- 1. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Wladimir Schamai (EADS Innovation Works, Germany) Philipp Helle (EADS Innovation Works, Germany) Peter Fritzson (Linköping University, Sweden) Chris Paredis (Georgia Institute of Technology, USA)
- 2. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Table of Contents • Introduction • Challenge • Value Bindings Concept and Example • Using Value Bindings for Models Composition • Conclusion Page 2
- 3. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Introduction: ModelicaML • ModelicaML integrates a subset of the UML and the Modelica language in order to leverage standardized graphical notations of UML for system modeling and the simulation power of Modelica • ModelicaML enables engineers to describe • System requirements • System design (structure and behavior) • Usage-, test scenarios • vVDR (Virtual Verification of Designs against Requirements) is a method that enables a model-based design verification against requirements • vVDR is supported in ModelicaML Page 3 03/05/2012
- 4. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Introduction: vVDR Method Actor Task Created Artifact Formalize RMM Requirement Requirements Monitor Models Designs Formalize Designs DAM Alternative Models Formalize SM Scenario Models Scenarios Goal: Enable on-demand * Create Verification VM Verification Models verification of designs AUTOMATED Models against requirements using automated model AUTOMATED Execute and Reports composition at any time Create Report during development. Focus of this Analyze Results presentation Page 4 03/05/2012
- 5. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Challenge We want to verify different design alternatives against sets of requirements using different scenarios. Questions: 1) How to find valid combinations of design alternatives, scenarios and requirements in order to enable an automated composition of verification models? 2) Having found a valid combination: How to bind all components correctly? Designs Alternative Models Scenario Models Requirement Models … DAM RMM RMM SM SM 1 RMM DAM RMM RMM SM SM RMM DAM RMM SM RMM SM RMM * Create Verification SM Models 1. Verification VM … Model DAM SM RMM 2. Verification Model VM … … … n. Verification … Model Page 5
- 6. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Solution Proposal: Value Bindings • Value Binding enables the automation of c Clients verification model composition M Mediators p Providers • Value Bindings include the definition of: – Client (component that requires data from other components) Requirement Design Monitor Alternative – Provider (component that provides data for Models Model other components) DAM – Mediator (mediates between clients and RMM c c providers) M p VM c p c p • Depending on which mediators and SM Verification ORM Model providers are in place we can: Scenario Other • Determine which clients can be satisfied Model Required • Find valid combinations and generate Models verification models • Generate binding code for client Page 6 components in verification models
- 7. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Example: Design Alternative Model Simplified Aircraft Potable Water System - Overhead tank system that can be filled using a liquid source from bottom with the aircraft on ground. - Controller monitors the level of liquid and controls the valves according to its mode (e.g. “fill”-, “drain”-, “pre-selected value fill”- mode). Liquid out Liquid in (from liquid source) Page 7
- 8. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Example: Requirement Monitor Model ”The time to fill an empty tank shall be 300 sec. max.” Clients to get input values from design model providers “status” is set by the violation monitor and indicates the following: 0 = not evaluated 1 = evaluated and not violated 2 = violated Page 8
- 9. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Example: Design Alternative Model Provider for requirements Clients to get input values from scenarios Page 9
- 10. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Example: Scenario Model “Filling and draining the tank” Providers for design model clients Action code: mode := 1; // fill mode preselectedLevel := 1; pumpPowerFactor := 1; Example scenario: Tank cleaning by filling and draining the tank several times when the aircraft is on ground. Page 10
- 11. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Example: Mapping Scenarios to Requirements Engineer (e.g. tester) has to define which scenarios are appropriate to verify which requirements? • One scenario can be used to verify multiple requirements (to increase requirements coverage and confidence in verification results) • Each requirement should be referenced by at least one scenario These relations are defined manually (could be automated in the future) Page 11
- 12. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Verification Model Composition in ModelicaML: Finding Valid Combinations - Goal • Value Bindings are used to determine valid combinations as follows: – Select a design alternative • Find combinations consisting of – 1 scenario that can stimulate this design model and – n requirements that are implemented in the design, and can be verified using this scenario. • Each combination is used to generate one verification model. Page 12 03/05/2012
- 13. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Verification Model Composition in ModelicaML: Finding Valid Combinations - Algorithm Combinations DAM DAM Select Design Alternative * Abort if no scenario Analyze (Next) Scenario More scenarios N Y ? ? Select Scenario SM SM … else * Next scenario if no requirement Clients of design alternative satisfied Analyze (Next) Requirement by providers from scenario? More req. N Y else ? ? Select Requirement RMM RMM … More requirements ? Requirement is referenced by scenario else and requirement clients satisfied by providers from design alternative? Create Combination VM VM … (i.e. Create Verification Model) Page 13 03/05/2012
- 14. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Automatic Binding Code Generation in ModelicaML Value Bindings are used to automatically generate binding code for all clients in the verification model (i.e. a combination of design model, scenario and a set of requirements): Verification Model Provider from Design Model design model Scenario Model Binding Requirement Models Client from requirement model Example: Binding code for the client tankIsEmpty of the requirement req_001_...: tankIsEmpty = sm_spws_environment.spws.tank.level < 0.001 Page 14
- 15. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Simulation and Report Generation in ModelicaML Verification models are simulated. The generated Verification Report is a prepared summary of: • Configuration, bindings • Violations of requirements • etc. Page 15
- 16. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Conclusion • The ModelicaML Value Bindings approach enables automated model composition, which is used in ModelicaML for automatic generate verification models • Bindings do not modify client or provider models (important when libraries are used) • Using binding definitions we can find valid combinations and generate verification models • The binding code can be generated for all client components automatically • The generated verification models become artifacts that are created automatically on- demand and do not need to be maintained Page 16
- 17. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Thank you for your attention! Wladimir Schamai EADS Innovation Works (Germany) wladimir.schamai@eads.net Peter Fritzson Linköping University (Sweden) petfr@ida.liu.se Page 17
- 18. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition ADDITIONAL SLIDES Page 18 03/05/2012
- 19. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition vVDR Method Steps Explanation 1. Formalize Requirements: This step explains how select and formalize requirements for the design verification purpose. 2. Formalize Designs (Select or Create Design Model to be Verified against Requirements ): This step clarifies what properties a system design model needs to have for being suitable for this method. 3. Formalize (Verification) Scenarios: This step describes what the properties of a verification scenario are. 4. Create Verification Models: This step explains what a verification model consists of. 5. Execute Verification Models and Create Report: This step imposes requirements on the simulation output. 6. Analyze Results: This step provides guidance for analyzing possible causes of inconsistencies found in the simulation results. Page 19
- 20. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Verification Artifacts Traceability in ModelicaML The same algorithm for finding valid combination is used to infer the traceability between requirements, scenarios and design alternatives: • Requirements view shows which requirements are implemented and can be tested using which scenarios • Scenarios view shows scenarios that are appropriate for a design alternative and all requirements can be verified using this scenario • For each combination a verification model can be generated on-demand Page 20
- 21. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Example of Value Bindings in ModelicaML With provider operation: “level < 0.001” in order to return a Boolean value. Page 21
- 22. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Binding Operations in ModelicaML : Client Operation • Used when a sub-component client shall be referenced explicitly • When a value manipulation or type conversion is required • For overwriting of binding definitions. Any upper binding definition in the components tree overwrites lower level bindings. Page 22
- 23. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Binding Operations in ModelicaML : Mediator Operation • Built-in functions for taking the minimum or the maximum value, sum values, build a product, or to use the logic operators such as AND, OR, or XOR. • These functions are only used if multiple providers are anticipated for this mediator. • In contrast, the function getSingleProvider() is used to ensure that there must be only one provider for this mediator. Page 23
- 24. ModelicaML Value Bindings for Automated Model Composition Binding Operations in ModelicaML : Provider Operation • Used for type conversion, • e.g., if client requires a different type compared to the provider type • Or when the actual provider is a sub-component, e.g.: • Requirement: When the system is not used (e.g. is not being filled, drained or is not supplying water to clients) all valves shall be fully closed. Provider Provider Operation with references to sub-components Page 24