INCOSE IW09

Feb 2, 2009  San Francisco

Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Challenge

Modeling & Simulation Interoperability (MSI)
Team Status Update
[with Mechatronics Applications]
Updates beyond IS08
- Phase 1 results (8/2008)
- Phase 2 progress Presenter
(as of 1/2009) Russell Peak - Georgia Tech
Other Team Leaders
Roger Burkhart, Sandy Friedenthal, Chris Paredis, Leon McGinnis

v1.1

Portions are Copyright © 2009 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.
INCOSE Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Challenge:
Modeling & Simulation Interoperability (MSI) Team Status Update
[with Mechatronics Applications]

Abstract
This presentation highlights Phase 1 results from an excavator testbed that interconnects simulation models with
associated diverse system models, design models, and manufacturing models. It then focuses on work-in-
process status for Phase 2, including overview of a mobile robotics testbed and a SysML-driven demonstration.
The overall goal is to enable advanced model-based systems engineering (MBSE) in particular and model-
based X (MBX) [1] in general. Our method employs SysML as the primary technology to achieve multi-level
multi-fidelity interoperability, while at the same time leveraging conventional modeling & simulation tools
including mechanical CAD, factory CAD, spreadsheets, math solvers, finite element analysis (FEA), discrete
event solvers, and optimization tools.
This work is sponsored by several organizations including Deere and Lockheed and is part of the Modeling &
Simulation Interoperability Team [2] in the INCOSE MBSE Challenge (with applications to mechatronics as an
example domain).

[1] The X in MBX includes engineering (MBE), manufacturing (MBM), and potentially other scopes and contexts such as model-based
enterprises (MBE).
[2] http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/projects/incose-mbse-msi/

Citation
Peak RS et al. (2009-02) INCOSE Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Challenge:
Modeling & Simulation Interoperability (MSI) Team Status Update [with Mechatronics Applications].
INCOSE Intl Workshop, San Francisco.
http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/projects/incose-mbse-msi/

Contact
Russell.Peak @ gatech.edu, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, www.msl.gatech.edu

2
 Collaboration Approach
Primary Current Team

• Deere & Co.

– Roger Burkhart
• Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT)
– Russell Peak, Chris Paredis, Leon McGinnis, & co.
– Leveraging collaborations in
PSLM Center SysML Focus Area (see next slide)
• Lockheed Martin
– Sandy Friedenthal
• Vendor collaboration
Page 3
Contents

• Phase 1 Overview and Results

– From August 2007 to August 2008
• Phase 2 Progress
– From August 2008 to August 2009

4
 Dec 2008: Final Phase 1
Simulation & Analysis Using SysML Overview Presentation
Experiences Applying SysML in an Excavator Testbed and More

Abstract
This talk overviews Phase 1 experiences and lessons learned from an excavator testbed that interconnects
simulation models with associated diverse system models, design models, and manufacturing models. The goal
is to enable advanced model-based systems engineering (MBSE) in particular and model-based X (MBX) [1] in
general. Our method employs SysML as the primary technology to achieve multi-level multi-fidelity
interoperability, while at the same time leveraging conventional modeling & simulation tools including mechanical
CAD, factory CAD, spreadsheets, math solvers, finite element analysis (FEA), discrete event solvers, and
optimization tools. This work is sponsored by several organizations including Deere and Lockheed and is part of
the Modeling & Simulation Interoperability Team [2] in the INCOSE MBSE Challenge (with applications to
mechatronics as an example domain).

[1] The X in MBX includes engineering (MBE), manufacturing (MBM), and potentially other scopes and contexts
such as model-based enterprises (MBE).
[2] http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/projects/incose-mbse-msi/

Citation
RS Peak, CJJ Paredis, LF McGinnis, DA Zwemer (2008-12) Simulation & Analysis Using SysML—Experiences
Applying SysML in an Excavator Testbed and More. OMG SysML Information Days, Burlingame CA.
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/seminars-etc/2008-12-omg-sysml-info-days-peak/

Contact
Russell.Peak@gatech.edu, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, www.msl.gatech.edu

5
 MBSE Challenge Team Objectives
Phase 1: 2007-2008

Overall Objectives
• Define & demonstrate capabilities
to achieve modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI)
• Phase 1 Scope
– Domain: Mechatronics
– Capabilities: Methodologies, tools, requirements,
and practical applications
– MSI subset: Connecting system specification & design models
with multiple engineering analysis & dynamic simulation models
• Test & demonstrate how SysML facilitates effective MSI

Note: The MSI Team objectives to date are primarily based on projects in the GIT PSLM Center sponsored
by industry and government—see backup slides.
Page 6
 MBSE Challenge Team Objectives
Phase 1: 2007-2008

Specific Objectives
1. Define modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI) method
2. Define SysML and tool requirements to support MSI
1. Provide feedback to vendors and OMG SysML 1.1 revision task force
3. Demonstrate MSI method with 3+ engineering analysis
and dynamic simulation model types
1. Include representative building block library: fluid power
2. Include hybrid discrete/continuous systems
described by differential algebraic equations (DAEs)
4. Develop roadmap beyond Phase 1

Page 7
Interoperability Method Objectives

Primary Impacts

Corporate Memory
Increased Artifact
Understanding

Performance
Increased

Increased
Reduced

Reduced

Reduced
Time

Cost

Risk
Enabling Capabilities
Increased Knowledge ■ ■ ■ ■
Capture & Completeness
Increased ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Modularity & Reusability
Increased ■ ■ ■
Traceability
Reduced ■ ■ ■
Manual Re-Creation
Increased
& Data Entry Errors ■ ■ ■
Automation
Reduced ■ ■
Modeling Effort
Increased ■ ■
Analysis Intensity
8
Excavator Modeling & Simulation Testbed
Tool Categories View

SysML Tools

RSA/E+ / SysML No Magic / SysML RSA/E+ / SysML

Operational Excavator
Factory Excavator Scenario Executable
Model System Model
Scenario

Interface & Transformation Tools

(VIATRA, XaiTools, ...)

Traditional Traditional
Descriptive Tools Simulation & Analysis Tools

ModelCenter
NX / MCAD Tool
Optimization
Excavator Model
Boom Model

Ansys Mathematica
FactoryCAD Reliability
FEA Model
Model
Factory
Layout Model
Excel Dymola
Dig Cycle
Cost Model
Excel Model

Production
Ramps
eM-Plant
Factory
Simulation
2008-02-25a

9
Excavator Modeling & Simulation Testbed
Interoperability Patterns View (MSI Panorama per MIM 0.1)
a0. Descriptive Resources d0. Simulation Building Block c0. Context-Specific Notes
e0. Solver Resources
(Authoring Tools, ...) Libraries Simulation Models

PLM, CM, parametric graph managers (XaiTools etc.), repositories, etc.

3) Infrastructure and middleware tools are also present (but not shown) --e.g.,
2) All models shown are SysML models unless otherwise noted.
under development for generalized system-simulation interoperability (SSI).
1) The pattern names and identifiers used here conform to HMX 0.1 — a method
MCAD Tools Cost Optimization Excavator Sys-Level Models Optimizers
Concepts Concepts
NX Optimization Model
Reliability Solid ModelCenter
Objective
Concepts Mechanics
Function
Queuing Fluid
Concepts Mechanics
Cost
Data Mgt. Tools Model Generic Math Solvers
Excel
Reliability Excel
b0. Federated Model
Descriptive Models

Dig Cycle Mathematica

Excavator Domain Models Model

Federated Excavator Model

Operations Hydraulics Boom Linkage Models Sys Dynamics Solvers

System & Req Tools Subsystem Stress/Deformation Models
MagicDraw Dymola
...

Boom Extensional Legend

Req. & Linkage Model
Linkages
RSD/E+ Objectives

Native model relationship (via tool interface, stds., ...)

Composition relationship (usage)
Parametric or algorithmic relationship (XaiTools, VIATRA, ...)
Tool & native model interface (via XaiTools, APIs, ...)
Plane Stress
Linkage Model FEA Solvers
Dig Site Dump Trucks

Ansys
Factory Domain Models
Boom Mfg. Assembly Models
Federated Factory Model
Assembly Process Models
Factory CAD Tools Req. & Excavator
Objectives MBOM
FactoryCAD MM1 Queuing
Assembly Lines Assy Model Discrete Event Solvers
(Specialized)
AGVs Work Cells
Discrete Event eM-Plant /
Buffers Machines
Assy Model Factory Flow

2008-02-20
10
 Contents

• Problem Description
– Characteristics of Mechatronic Systems
– Challenge Team Objectives
• Technical Approach
– Techniques and Testbeds
• Deliverables & Outcomes
• Collaboration Approach

Page 11
 Deliverables & Outcomes
Phase 1 (Aug 2008)
• Solution and supporting models
– Excavator test case models, test suites, …
• MBSE practices used
– Modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI) method, …
• Model interchange capabilities
– Tests between SysML tools, CAD/CAE tools, …
• MBSE metrics/value
– See “Benefits” slide with candidate metrics
• MBSE findings, issues, & recommendations
– Issue submissions to OMG and vendors, publications, …
• Training material
– Examples, tutorials, …
• Plan forward (Phase 2 and beyond)
Page 12
Primary Public Reporting Venues
• Call for Participation @ IS’07
– Jun 26, 2007 in San Diego
• Phase 1 Status Update @ IW’08 MBSE Workshop #2
– Jan 25, 2008 in Albuquerque
• Phase 1 Status Update @ Frontiers Workshop
– May 14, 2008 in Atlanta
• Phase 1 Status Update @ IS’08
– Jun 15-19, 2008 in Utrecht
• Phase 1 Final Report & Archive of Models
– Aug 2008 [proprietary deliverable]
– Feb 2009 (estimate) via website [public version]
• Phase 2 Status Updates @ IW’09, etc.
• Misc. reports/updates/publications @ various venues
– OMG meetings, society & vendor conferences, ...

Page 13
 Phase 1 Report

• Proprietary Deliverable: Aug 31, 2008 (v1.0)

– 127 pages; 137 figures; 5 tables
• Sanitized public version: expected ~Feb 2009
http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/projects/incose-mbse-msi/

Page 14
Contents

• Phase 1 Overview and Results

– From August 2007 to August 2008
• Phase 2 Progress
– From August 2008 to August 2009

15
MBSE Challenge Team Objectives
Phase 2: 2008-2009
Overall Objectives
• Refine & extend beyond Phase 1 capabilities
for modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI)
• Phase 2 Scope [new aspects]
– Domains: Primary: Mechatronics (expanded excavator testbed)
Secondary: Others to demo reusability
– Capabilities: Methodologies, tools, requirements,
and practical applications (MIM v2, ...)
– MSI subset: Connecting system specification & design models
with multiple engineering analysis
– Deployment: Productionizing techniques & tools
to enable ubiquitous practice
• Advance & demo how SysML facilitates effective MSI
Page 16
 MBSE Challenge Team Objectives
Phase 2: 2008-2009

Specific Objectives
1. Extend modeling & simulation interoperability method: MIM 2.0
1. Generalizations: graph transformations, variable topology, reusability,
parametrics 2.x, trade study support, inconsistency mgt., E/MBOM
extensions, method workflow, ...
2. Specializations: software, closed-loop control, electronics, ...
3. Interfaces to new tools: Matlab/Simulink, ECAD, Arena, ...
2. Refine SysML and tool requirements to support MIM 2.0
1. Provide feedback to vendors and OMG SysML 1.2/2.x task forces
3. Demonstrate extensions in updated testbed
4. Define deployment plan and initiate execution
5. Refine roadmap beyond Phase 2
Page 17
Phase 2 Work-In-Process
[selected topics]
• SysML parametrics and solvers
• SysML-Modelica interoperability
• Mobile robots demonstration platform

18
SysML-XaiTools Interfaces for Parametrics Solving
Status Update
R Peak, M Wilson, A Scott, et al. 2009-01-06

• Aggregate extensions
• Excel interface extensions (WIP)
• Mathematica extensions
– Constraint blocks with arbitrary m code
– Results plotting
• Parametric modeling with diverse submodels/solvers
• Matlab/Simulink support (WIP)
• Variable topology support
– M Bajaj dissertation; extending CPM
• Parametrics graph visualization
19
Enabling Executable SysML Parametrics
Commercialization by InterCAX LLC in Georgia Tech VentureLab incubator program

Advanced technology for graph management and solver access via web services.

SysML Authoring Tools COB Solving & Browsing

Plugins Prototyped by GIT

XaiTools SysML Toolkit™

(to SysML vendor tools) Next-
1) Artisan Studio [2/06] Generation
2) EmbeddedPlus [3/07] Spreadsheet
3) NoMagic [12/07]

Parametrics plugin COB API

Execution via
API messages
or exchange files

COB Services (constraint graph manager, including COTS solver access via web services)

Composable Objects (COBs)

XaiTools FrameWork™
...
Native Tools Models COTS =
commercial-off-the-shelf
... (typically readily available)

FL Traditional COTS or
Ansys ...
L  TL Mathematica
(FEA Solver) EA (Math Solver) in-house solvers

20
Productionizing/Deploying GIT XaiTools™
Technology for Executing SysML Parametrics
www.InterCAX.com

Vendor SysML Prototype by Product by

Tool GIT InterCAX LLC
Artisan Studio Yes <tbd>

EmbeddedPlus E+ SysML / RSA Yes <tbd>

No Magic MagicDraw Yes ParaMagic™

(Jul 21, 2008 release)
Telelogic/IBM Rhapsody/Tau <tbd> <tbd>

Sparx Systems Enterprise Arch. <tbd> <tbd>

n/a XMI import/export Yes <tbd>

Others <tbd> Others <tbd> <tbd> <tbd>

[1] Full disclosure: InterCAX LLC is a spin-off company originally created to commercialize technology from RS Peak’s GIT group. GIT has licensed technology to
InterCAX and has an equity stake in the company. RS Peak is one of several business partners in InterCAX. Commercialization of the SysML/composable object
aspects has been fostered by the GIT VentureLab incubator program (www.venturelab.gatech.edu) via an InterCAX VentureLab project initiated October 2007.
21
Broadly Applicable Technology
Examples of Executable SysML Parametrics
• Road scanning system
using unmanned aerial vehicle (UAVs)
• Space systems orbit planning
• Environmentally-conscious energy systems
• ...
• Mechanical part design and analysis (FEA)
• ...
• Insurance claims processing
and website capacity model
• Financial model for small businesses
• Banking service levels model
• ...

22
 Satellite Tutorial Highlights: SimpleSat
par [Block] Satellite[ definition ]

r1 : MassBalance
{m = m1 +m2 + m3 + m4}
mass e1
m
m1 m2 m3 m4
e10
e2
e3 e4 e5

propulsionSubSys : instruments : controllerSubSys : powerSubSys :

PropulsionSystem Instruments ControlSystem PowerSystem

mass mass mass mass

power power power power

e6 e7 e9

e8

p 2 p 3

r2 : PowerBalance
p 1
{p = p1 + p2 + p3}

reqVerifierMass : mass
MarginOfSafetyBlock r3 : CtrlPwrEqn
{pwrctrl = 0.2 * mass}
e12 allowable pwrctrl
mos
determined e11

23
Solver Access via XaiTools Web Services (XWS)
S1: General Multi-Solver Setup (prototype)

Client Machines Server Machines

XaiTools Web Services

Rich Client
Servlet Container
XaiTools
Apache Tomcat
SOAP
Client
(e.g. ParaMagic) Internet HTTP/XML SOAP Servers

Web
Wrapped Data

WebServer
SysML-based XaiToolsAnsys
XaiTools Ansys
XaiTools
XaiTools Math.
COB models SolverSolver
Solver Server
Server
Solver Server

Server
Wrappers
Internet/Intranet

FEA Solvers
Ansys, Patran,
Abaqus, ...

...
Math Solvers
Engineering Mathematica
Service Bureau

24
Solver Access via XaiTools Web Services (XWS)
S2: ParaMagic-Mathematica Setup (current product = XWS 2.2)

Client Machines
(End Users 1...n) Server Machine @ Company X

XaiTools Web Services

Rich Client
Servlet Container
Apache Tomcat
SOAP
ParaMagic
Internet HTTP/XML
Wrapped Data

Web Server
SOAP Server
SysML-based
COB models XaiTools Solver
Wrappers
MagicDraw
Internet/Intranet

SysML Tool Math Solver

Mathematica
Network Server
network increment(s)
...

25
SysML-XaiTools Interfaces for Parametrics Solving
Status Update
R Peak, M Wilson, A Scott, et al. 2009-01-06

• Aggregate extensions
• Excel interface extensions (WIP)
• Mathematica extensions
– Constraint blocks with arbitrary m code
– Results plotting
• Parametric modeling with diverse submodels/solvers
• Matlab/Simulink support (WIP)
• Variable topology support
– M Bajaj dissertation; extending CPM
• Parametrics graph visualization
26
Parametric modeling with
diverse submodels/solvers
• Approach:
– Wrapping as block/constraint block
• Examples to date [prototype]:
– Matlab
– Ansys
– Arbitrary Mathematica
– Arbitrary Java
• Similar for ~any arbitrary external solver
• Algorithm handles same model having
several diverse submodels
27
SysML-XaiTools Interfaces for Parametrics Solving
Status Update
R Peak, M Wilson, A Scott, et al. 2009-01-06

• Aggregate extensions
• Excel interface extensions (WIP)
• Mathematica extensions
– Constraint blocks with arbitrary m code
– Results plotting
• Parametric modeling with diverse submodels/solvers
• Matlab/Simulink support (WIP)
• Variable topology support
– M Bajaj dissertation; extending CPM
• Parametrics graph visualization
28
 PhD Dissertation Defense
G.W.Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA, USA
Nov 3, 2008 * MRDC 4211

Knowledge Composition Methodology for

Effective Analysis Problem Formulation in
Simulation-based Design
Manas Bajaj
manas.bajaj@gatech.edu
Georgia Tech
Engineering Information Systems Lab
www.eislab.gatech.edu
Systems Realization Lab
www.srl.gatech.edu
Copyright © 1993-2008 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0415 USA. All Rights Reserved.
 Abstract
http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/26639

In simulation-based design, a key challenge is to formulate and solve analysis problems efficiently to evaluate a
large variety of design alternatives. The solution of analysis problems has benefited from advancements in commercial
off-the-shelf math solvers and computational capabilities. However, the formulation of analysis problems is often a
costly and laborious process. Traditional simulation templates used for representing analysis problems are typically
brittle with respect to variations in artifact topology and the idealization decisions taken by analysts. These templates
often require manual updates and “re-wiring” of the analysis knowledge embodied in them. This makes the use of
traditional simulation templates ineffective for multi-disciplinary design and optimization problems.
Based on these issues, this dissertation defines a special class of problems known as variable topology multi-body
(VTMB) problems that characterizes the types of variations seen in design-analysis interoperability. This research thus
primarily answers the following question:
How can we improve the effectiveness of the analysis problem formulation process for VTMB problems?
The knowledge composition methodology (KCM) presented in this dissertation answers this question by addressing
the following research gaps: (1) the lack of formalization of the knowledge used by analysts in formulating simulation
templates, and (2) the inability to leverage this knowledge to define model composition methods for formulating
simulation templates. KCM overcomes these gaps by providing: (1) formal representation of analysis knowledge as
modular, reusable, analyst-intelligible building blocks, (2) graph transformation-based methods to automatically
compose simulation templates from these building blocks based on analyst idealization decisions, and (3) meta-models
for representing advanced simulation templates—VTMB design models, analysis models, and the idealization
relationships between them.
Applications of the KCM to thermo-mechanical analysis of multi-stratum printed wiring boards and multi-
component chip packages demonstrate its effectiveness—handling VTMB and idealization variations, and enhanced
computational efficiency (from several hours in existing methods to few minutes). In addition to enhancing the
effectiveness of analysis problem formulation, the KCM is envisioned to provide a foundational approach to model
formulation for generalized variable topology problems.

Copyright © 1993-2008 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0415 USA. All Rights Reserved. 30
 KCM Functional Overview KCM =
Knowledge
Composition
Methodology
Simulation Template Formulation
General Purpose Graph Transformation Architecture Czarnecki and Helsen (2006);
Andries, Engels et al. (1999);
Varro et al. (2007)

KCM – Simulation Template Formulation Architecture

Artifact Model ABB library VTMB = variable topology multi-body
Transformation library ABB = analysis building block

uses
Source Meta-Model Transformation Definition Target Meta-Model
refers to Behavior
Behavior Model
Model refers to VTMB Design VTMB Behavior
VTMB Design Meta-Model
Formulation Specifications
Formulation Specifications aa ... Meta-Model Meta-Model

conforms to executes conforms to conforms to

Source Models Target Models
Fixed Topology reads Transformation writes Fixed Topology Fixed Topology
Design Alternatives i Engine Design Alternatives i Behavior Models ia
...

Simulation ...
Design Models
Templates
Copyright © 1993-2008 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0415 USA. All Rights Reserved. 31
 KCM Functional Overview
Simulation Template Execution

KCM – Simulation Template Solution Architecture

Design Models Simulation Models

Simulation Template ia
Fixed Topology Design Fixed Topology
Alternatives i Behavior Models ia

conforms to conforms to
solves

FTMB Artifact reads writes

Object Solvers FTMB Behavior
Model Instance i1 Model Instance i1a
writes reads
...

...
Copyright © 1993-2008 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0415 USA. All Rights Reserved. 32
 Electronics Test Case
Level 1: Substrates (PCBs / Panels / Chip Package substrates)
1d. Meshed FEA Model
(~10k Elements)

1e. Solved FEA Model

1b. Idealized PCB design (APM) 1c. ABB system model

1a. Substrate (~100+ layered shell analysis bodies)
and simulation template (CBAM)

Level 3: PCAs PCA top view

3d. Meshed FEA
Model

3e. Solved FEA

Model
3c. ABB system model
(~4000+ bodies;
3a. PCA 3b. Idealized PCA design
8000+ interactions)
(APM) and simulation
Wireframe view
template (CBAM) top and bottom components

Level 2: Chip Packages / PCA components exploded view

2d. Meshed FEA Model
(~10k Elements)

assembled view

2a. Chip Packages 2b. Idealized chip package design 2c. ABB system model
(APM) and simulation template (CBAM) (~100-500 analysis bodies)
2e. Solved FEA model
Copyright © 1993-2008 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0415 USA. All Rights Reserved. 33
 Research Contributions (Bajaj, 2008)
Effective Formulation of Complex Simulation Templates
Primary Capabilities
 Variations in design topology
 Variations in idealization intent
 Efficiency
– 90%+ faster
– Reusable analysis building blocks (ABBs)
– Automated composition from building blocks
» Formal approach based on graph transformations
– Meta-models for design and behavior model abstractions
– Libraries of ABBs, transformation patterns, and rules

Copyright © 1993-2008 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0415 USA. All Rights Reserved. 34
SysML-XaiTools Interfaces for Parametrics Solving
Status Update
R Peak, M Wilson, A Scott, et al. 2009-01-06

• Aggregate extensions
• Excel interface extensions (WIP)
• Mathematica extensions
– Constraint blocks with arbitrary m code
– Results plotting
• Parametric modeling with diverse submodels/solvers
• Matlab/Simulink support (WIP)
• Variable topology support
– M Bajaj dissertation; extending CPM
• Parametrics graph visualization
35
Flattened Graph Visualization
[in collaboration with InterCAX—A. Scott Fall 2008 internship]

• Flattened graph [aka COB constraint graph]

– Flattened graph  graph among value types
– Block encapsulation not shown
• Purpose
– Alternative way to understand / interact with a given model
• Primitive connections/relationships, structure, complexity, ...
– Enable visual/intuitive comparison of several models
– Possible additional SysML view of models
• Status
– Prototype that leverages ygraph toolkit
– Auto-generates flattened graph
– Construction animation and static final view
36
Examples

1. Spring systems (with animation)

2. Road scanning system
using LittleEye UAVs
3. Flap linkage mechanical design
4. Multi-year business financial model

For further information on these examples, see backup slide below entitled
“SysML Parametrics—Suggested Starting Points” for these references:
- Examples 1 and 3: Peak et al. 2007 (IS07 Parts 1 and 2)
- Examples 2 and 4: Zwemer and Bajaj 2008 (Frontiers Workshop)

37
 [3]
Examples
[1]

[4]
[2]

38
Composable Object (COB) Views for Sample Problems
(2) Road scanning UAV system (3) Airframe structural part design (4) Multi-year financial projection model
(a) Next-gen spreadsheet view
(b) Parametric graph view

2009-01 – www.InterCAX.com and www.msl.gatech.edu

39
 bdd [package] springSystems [Analytical spring tutorial] par [block] LinearSpring [Definition view]

Spring r3: ForceEqn

«abb»

System TwoSpringSystem
values
deformation1: DistanceMeasure
springConstant: k:
{F = k * dL}

dL:
F: force:

Example
deformation2: DistanceMeasure
load: ForceMeasure
totalElongation:

r2: deltaLengthEqn
spring1 spring2 {dL = L – L0}
dL: L: length:
«abb» L0:
LinearSpring
L
values
Lo L undeformedLength: LengthMeasure undeformedLength:
springConstant: ForcePerLengthMeasure
start: DistanceMeasure r1: LengthEqn
F F
x1 x2 end: DistanceMeasure {L = x2 – x1}
k length: DistanceMeasure start: x1: L:
deformed state totalElongation: DistanceMeasure x2:
force: ForceMeasure

r1 : L  x2  x1 end:

r2 : L  L  L0 (a) Analytical springs tutorial block definition diagram. (b) LinearSpring parametric diagram.

r3 : F  kL k1 k2
par [block] TwoSpringSystem [Definition view] P

u1 u2
bc3:

spring1: LinearSpring spring2: LinearSpring

SysML springConstant: N/mm = 5.50 springConstant: N/mm = 6.00

Diagrams undeformedLength: mm = 8.00

force:
undeformedLength: mm = 8.00
force:
bc4: load:

totalElongation: totalElongation:
bc6: u2Eqn
start: = 0 start:
{u2 = dL2 – u1}
length: length:
dL2: u2: deformation2:
end: end: u1:

bc2: bc5: deformation1:

(c) TwoSpringSystem parametric diagram. 40

[1] Spring System: Flattened Graph
[SysML constraint property
name annotations] bc4

spring1.r3 bc3

spring2.r3

bc6

spring1.r2 bc5

spring2.r2

spring1.r1
bc2
spring2.r1

41
Traditional Mathematical Representation
Tutorial: Two Spring System
System Figure
k1 k2
P

u1 u2

Free Body Diagrams

L1 L2
L10 L1 L20 L2

F1 F1 F2 F2
x11 x12 x21 x22
k1 k2
Variables and Relations
r11 : L1  x12  x11 bc1 : x11  0
Kinematic Relations
r12 : L1  L1  L10 bc2 : x12  x21
r13 : F1  k1L1 bc3 : F1  F2 Boundary Conditions
Constitutive Relations
r21 : L2  x22  x21 bc4 : F2  P
r22 : L2  L2  L20 bc5 : u1  L1
r23 : F2  k 2 L2 bc6 : u2  L2  u1
42
TwoSpringSystem parametric diagram –
sample instance
par [block] TwoSpringSystem370 [Instance view]

bc3:

spring1: LinearSpring420 spring2: LinearSpring430 State 1.0 - unsolved

springConstant: springConstant:
N/mm = 5.50 N/mm = 6.00
force: force:
undeformedLength: undeformedLength: bc4:
load: N = 10.0
mm = 8.00 mm = 8.00
totalElongation: totalElongation:
bc6: u2Eqn
start: = 0 start:
{u2 = dL2 – u1}
length: length:
dL2: u2: deformation2:
end: end: u1: =?

bc5:
bc2: deformation1: = ?

bc3:

spring1: LinearSpring420 spring2: LinearSpring430 State 1.1 - solved

springConstant: springConstant:
N/mm = 5.50 force: N/mm = 6.00 force:
undeformedLength: N = 10.0 undeformedLength: N = 10.0 bc4: load: N = 10.0
mm = 8.00 totalElongation: mm = 8.00 totalElongation:
mm = 1.82 start: mm = 1.67
bc6: u2Eqn
start: = 0
mm = 9.82
length: length: {u2 = dL2 – u1}
end: mm = 9.82 end: mm = 9.67 dL2: u2: deformation2:
u1: mm = 3.49
mm = 9.82 mm = 19.5

bc2: bc5: deformation1: mm = 1.82

43
Example COB instance: two_spring_system

example 2, state 1.0 (unsolved) (b) Parametrics execution in XaiTools example 2, state 1.1 (solved)

<linear_spring loid="_15"> <two_spring_system loid="_3">

<undeformed_length causality="given">8.0</undeformed_length> <spring1 ref="_15"/>
<spring_constant causality="given">5.5</spring_constant> <spring2 ref="_25"/>
(a) Lexical </linear_spring> <deformation1 causality="target"/>
COB instance <deformation2 causality="target"/>
<linear_spring loid="_25"> <load causality="given">10.0</load>
as XML (CXI) <undeformed_length causality="given">8.0</undeformed_length> </two_spring_system>
<spring_constant causality="given">6.0</spring_constant>
</linear_spring>
44
Phase 2 Work-In-Process
[selected topics]
• SysML parametrics and solvers
• SysML-Modelica interoperability [WIP]
– Generalized mapping underway
– Contact Chris Paredis for further information
• Mobile robots demonstration platform

45
Phase 2 Work-In-Process
[selected topics]
• SysML parametrics and solvers
• SysML-Modelica interoperability
• Mobile robots demonstration platform

46
SysML and Mobile Robotic Systems:
A Research Testbed and Educational Platform
Status Update
R Peak, B Wilson, et al. 2009-02-02

• Background & Objectives

• Domain SysML model (WIP)
• Demonstration

47
Institute for Personal Robots in Education
(IPRE) — http://www.roboteducation.org/

48
Background
• Leveraging Institute for Personal Robots in
Education (IPRE) — http://www.roboteducation.org/
– Multi-university/corporation educational environment
– Ex. Used in intro comp sci course @ GIT (CS1301)
• Key elements
– Mobile robots: IPRE Scribbler, Roomba, SRV-1
• Sensors, cameras, Bluetooth, firmware, PCB ECAD, ...
– Mobile robotics s/w platform: Myro (Python)
• Primitive operations ... image processing, intro ~AI, ...
– Domain context
• Multi-unit systems, command & control, reusability, ...
• Low-cost and open (non-proprietary)
49
Objectives—Big Picture
• Research & demonstration testbed
[achieve MSI Team Phase 2 objectives ...]
– System run-time operation aided by SysML
– Embedded software / firmware
• Hardware-software relations, real-time factors, ...
– Executable SysML across multiple constructs
• Activities, parametrics, state machines ...
– Misc: instance levels, versioning/config mgt.
• SysML education platform
– Usage in hands-on courses
(industry short courses, university courses, ...)
– Model it and run it! 50
MBSE Challenge Team Objectives
Phase 2: 2008-2009
= primary Phase 2 aspects addressed by mobile robotics testbed

Specific Objectives
1. Extend modeling & simulation interoperability method: MIM 2.0
1. Generalizations: graph transformations, variable topology, reusability,
parametrics 2.x, trade study support, inconsistency mgt., E/MBOM
extensions, method workflow, ...
2. Specializations: software, closed-loop control, electronics, ...
3. Interfaces to new tools: Matlab/Simulink, ECAD, Arena, ...
2. Refine SysML and tool requirements to support MIM 2.0
1. Provide feedback to vendors and OMG SysML 1.2/2.x task forces
3. Demonstrate extensions in updated testbed
4. Define deployment plan and initiate execution
5. Refine roadmap beyond Phase 2
51
Objectives—Near-Term

• Get basic infrastructure in place

– Prototyping (executable activity basics)
– Familiarity with IPRE environment (and beyond)
• Determine what is feasible longer term
• Develop draft domain SysML model
• Update big picture objectives and proceed

52
Scribbler / Myro Demo
Executable SysML Activity Model [1 - original]

53
Scribbler / Myro Demo
Executable SysML Activity Model [2 - after interactive update]

54
Scribbler / Myro Demo
Executable SysML Activity Model [activity building blocks]

55
Contents

• Phase 1 Overview and Results

– From August 2007 to August 2008
• Phase 2 Progress
– From August 2008 to August 2009
• Summary

56
Modeling & Simulation Interoperability
Benefits of SysML-based Approach

Primary Impacts

Corporate Memory
Increased Artifact
Understanding

Performance
Precision Knowledge

Increased

Increased
Reduced

Reduced

Reduced
for the
Time

Cost

Risk
Enabling Capabilities
Model-Based Enterprise
Increased Knowledge ■ ■ ■ ■
Capture & Completeness
Increased ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Modularity & Reusability
Increased ■ ■ ■
Traceability
Reduced ■ ■ ■
Manual Re-Creation
Increased
& Data Entry Errors ■ ■ ■
Automation
Reduced ■ ■
Modeling Effort
Increased ■ ■
Analysis Intensity

57
 MBSE Challenge Team
Mechatronics / Model Interoperability
Open “Call for Participation”
• Systems engineering drivers in commercial settings
– Increased system complexity
– Cross-disciplinary communication/coordination
• Enhancement possibilities based on interest
– Other demonstration examples and testbeds
– Interoperability testing between SysML tools
– Shared models and libraries
• Primary contacts
– Russell Peak [Russell.Peak @ gatech.edu]
– Sandy Friedenthal [sanford.friedenthal @ lmco.com]
– Roger Burkhart [BurkhartRogerM @ JohnDeere.com]

Page 58
Related Resources
SysML Parametrics—Suggested Starting Points
Introductory Papers/Tutorials
• Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Wilson MW, Bajaj M, Kim I (2007) Simulation-Based Design Using SysML—Part 1: A Parametrics
Primer. INCOSE Intl. Symposium, San Diego. [Provides tutorial-like introduction to SysML parametrics.]
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-incose-is-1-peak-primer/
• Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Wilson MW, Bajaj M, Kim I (2007) Simulation-Based Design Using SysML—Part 2: Celebrating
Diversity by Example. INCOSE Intl. Symposium, San Diego. [Provides tutorial-like introduction on using SysML for modeling & simulation,
including the MRA method for creating parametric simulation templates that are connected to design models.]
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-incose-is-2-peak-diversity/

Example Applications
• Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Paredis CJJ, McGinnis LF (2008) Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis Using SysML—
Mechatronics/Interoperability Team Status Report. Presentation to INCOSE MBSE Challenge Team, Utrecht, Holland.
[Overviews modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI) methodology progress in the context of an excavator testbed.]
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/seminars-etc/2008-06-incose-is-mbse-mechatronics-msi-peak/
• Peak RS (2007) Leveraging Templates & Processes with SysML. Invited Presentation. Developing a Design/Simulation Framework: A
Workshop with CPDA's Design and Simulation Council, Atlanta. [Includes applications to automotive steering wheel systems and FEA
simulation templates.] http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-cpda-dsfw-peak/

Commercial Tools and Other Examples/Tutorials

• ParaMagic™ plugin for MagicDraw®. Developed by InterCAX LLC (a Georgia Tech spin-off) [1]. Available at www.MagicDraw.com.
• Zwemer DA and Bajaj M (2008) SysML Parametrics and Progress Towards Multi-Solvers and Next-Generation Object-Oriented
Spreadsheets. Frontiers in Design & Simulation Workshop, Georgia Tech PSLM Center, Atlanta. [Highlights techniques for executing SysML
parametrics based on the ParaMagic™ plugin for MagicDraw®. Includes UAV and financial systems examples.]
http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/events/frontiers/

See slides below for additional references and resources.

[1] Full disclosure: InterCAX LLC is a spin-off company originally created to commercialize technology from RS Peak’s GIT group. GIT has licensed technology to
InterCAX and has an equity stake in the company. RS Peak is one of several business partners in InterCAX. Commercialization of the SysML/composable object
aspects is being fostered by the GIT VentureLab incubator program (www.venturelab.gatech.edu) via an InterCAX VentureLab project initiated October 2007.

60
MBX/SysML-Related Efforts at Georgia Tech

• SysML Focus Area web page

– http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/topics/sysml/
– Includes links to publications, applications,
projects, examples, courses, commercialization, etc.
– Frontiers 2008 workshop on MBSE/MBX, SysML, ...
• Selected projects
– Deere: System dynamics (fluid power, ...)
– Lockheed: System design & analysis integration
– NASA: Enabling technology (SysML, ...)
– NIST: Design-analysis interoperability (DAI)
– TRW Automotive: DAI/FEA (steering wheel systems ... )

61
Selected GIT MBX/SysML-Related Publications
Some references are available online at http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/topics/sysml/. See additional slides for selected abstracts.

• Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Paredis CJJ, McGinnis LF (2008) Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis Using SysML—Mechatronics/Interoperability
Team Status Report. Presentation to INCOSE MBSE Challenge Team, Utrecht, Holland. [Overviews modeling & simulation interoperability (MSI) methodology
progress in the context of an excavator testbed.] http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/seminars-etc/2008-06-incose-is-mbse-mechatronics-msi-peak/
• McGinnis, Leon F., "IC Factory Design: The Next Generation," e-Manufacturing Symposium, Taipei, Taiwan, June 13, 2007. [Presents the concept of model-based
fab design, and how SysML can enable integrated simulation.]
• Kwon, Ky Sang, and Leon F. McGinnis, "SysML-based Simulation Framework for Semiconductor Manufacturing," IEEE CASE Conference, Scottsdale, AZ,
September 22-25, 2007. [Presents some technical details on the use of SysML to create formal generic models (user libraries) of fab structure, and how these formal
models can be combined with currently available data sources to automatically generate simulation models.]
• Huang, Edward, Ramamurthy, Randeep, and Leon F. McGinnis, "System and Simulation Modeling Using SysML," 2007 Winter Simulation Conference, Washington,
DC. [Presents some technical details on the use of SysML to create formal generic models (user libraries) of fab structure, and how these formal models can be
combined with currently available data sources to automatically generate simulation models.]
• McGinnis, Leon F., Edward Huang, Ky Sang Kwon, Randeep Ramamurthy, Kan Wu, "Real CAD for Facilities," 2007 IERC, Nashville, TN. [Presents concept of using
FactoryCAD as a layout authoring tool and integrating it, via SysML with eM-Plant for automated fab simulation model generation.]

• T.A. Johnson, J.M. Jobe, C.J.J. Paredis, and R. Burkhart "Modeling Continuous System Dynamics in SysML," in Proceedings of the 2007 ASME International
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, paper no. IMECE2007-42754, Seattle, WA, November 11-15, 2007. [Describes how continuous dynamics models
can be represented in SysML. The approach is based on the continuous dynamics language Modelica.]
• T.A. Johnson, C.J.J. Paredis, and R. Burkhart "Integrating Models and Simulations of Continuous Dynamics into SysML," in Proceedings of the 6th International
Modelica Conference, March 3-4, 2008. [Describes how continuous dynamics models and simulations can be used in the context of engineering systems design
within SysML. The design of a car suspension modeled as a mass-spring-damper system is used as an illustration.]
• C.J.J. Paredis "Research in Systems Design: Designing the Design Process," IDETC/CIE 2007, Computers and Information in Engineering Conference -- Workshop
on Model-Based Systems Development, Las Vegas, NV, September 4, 2007. [Presents relationship between SysML and the multi-aspect component model method.]

• Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Wilson MW, Bajaj M, Kim I (2007) Simulation-Based Design Using SysML—Part 1: A Parametrics Primer. INCOSE Intl.
Symposium, San Diego. [Provides tutorial-like introduction to SysML parametrics.]
• Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Wilson MW, Bajaj M, Kim I (2007) Simulation-Based Design Using SysML—Part 2: Celebrating Diversity by Example.
INCOSE Intl. Symposium, San Diego. [Provides tutorial-like introduction on using SysML for modeling & simulation, including the MRA method for creating parametric
simulation templates that are connected to design models.]
• Peak RS (2007) Leveraging Templates & Processes with SysML. Invited Presentation. Developing a Design/Simulation Framework: A Workshop with CPDA's Design
and Simulation Council, Atlanta. [Includes applications to automotive steering wheel systems and FEA simulation templates.]
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-cpda-dsfw-peak/
• Bajaj M, Peak RS, Paredis CJJ (2007) Knowledge Composition for Efficient Analysis Problem Formulation, Part 1: Motivation and Requirements. DETC2007-35049,
Proc ASME CIE Intl Conf, Las Vegas. [Introduces the knowledge composition method (KCM), which addresses design-simulation integration for variable topology
problems.]
• Bajaj M, Peak RS, Paredis CJJ (2007) Knowledge Composition for Efficient Analysis Problem Formulation, Part 2: Approach and Analysis Meta-Model. DETC2007-
35050, Proc ASME CIE Intl Conf, Las Vegas. [Elaborates on the KCM approach, including work towards next-generation analysis/simulation building blocks
(ABBs/SBBs).]

62
Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis Using SysML—
Mechatronics/Interoperability Team Status Report

Abstract
This presentation overviews work-in-progress experiences and lessons learned from an excavator testbed that
interconnects simulation models with associated diverse system models, design models, and manufacturing models. The
goal is to enable advanced model-based systems engineering (MBSE) in particular and model-based X1 (MBX) in
general. Our method employs SysML as the primary technology to achieve multi-level multi-fidelity interoperability, while
at the same time leveraging conventional modeling & simulation tools including mechanical CAD, factory CAD,
spreadsheets, math solvers, finite element analysis (FEA), discrete event solvers, and optimization tools. This work is
currently sponsored by several organizations (including Deere and Lockheed) and is part of the Mechatronics &
Interoperability Team in the INCOSE MBSE Challenge.

Citation
Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Paredis CJJ, McGinnis LF (2008) Integrating Design with Simulation & Analysis
Using SysML—Mechatronics/Interoperability Team Status Report. Presentation to INCOSE MBSE Challenge Team,
Utrecht, Holland. http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/seminars-etc/2008-06-incose-is-mbse-mechatronics-msi-peak/

[1] The X in MBX includes engineering (MBE), manufacturing (MBM), and potentially other scopes and contexts such as
model-based enterprises (MBE).

63
Simulation-Based Design Using SysML
Part 1: A Parametrics Primer
OMG SysML™ is a modeling language for specifying, analyzing, designing,
and verifying complex systems. It is a general-purpose graphical modeling
language with computer-sensible semantics. This Part 1 paper and its Part
2 companion show how SysML supports simulation-based design (SBD) via
tutorial-like examples. Our target audience is end users wanting to learn
about SysML parametrics in general and its applications to engineering
design and analysis in particular. We include background on the
development of SysML parametrics that may also be useful for other
stakeholders (e.g, vendors and researchers).
In Part 1 we walk through models of simple objects that progressively
introduce SysML parametrics concepts. To enhance understanding by
comparison and contrast, we present corresponding models based on
composable objects (COBs). The COB knowledge representation has
provided a conceptual foundation for SysML parametrics, including
executability and validation. We end with sample analysis building blocks
(ABBs) from mechanics of materials showing how SysML captures
engineering knowledge in a reusable form. Part 2 employs these ABBs in a
high diversity mechanical example that integrates computer-aided design
and engineering analysis (CAD/CAE).
The object and constraint graph concepts embodied in SysML
parametrics and COBs provide modular analysis capabilities based on
multi-directional constraints. These concepts and capabilities provide a
semantically rich way to organize and reuse the complex relations and
properties that characterize SBD models. Representing relations as non-
causal constraints, which generally accept any valid combination of inputs
and outputs, enhances modeling flexibility and expressiveness. We
envision SysML becoming a unifying representation of domain-specific
engineering analysis models that include fine-grain associativity with other
domain- and system-level models, ultimately providing fundamental
capabilities for next-generation systems lifecycle management.
Part 2: Celebrating Diversity by Example
These two companion papers present foundational principles of
parametrics in OMG SysML™ and their application to simulation-based
design. Parametrics capabilities have been included in SysML to support
integrating engineering analysis with system requirements, behavior, and
structure models. This Part 2 paper walks through SysML models for a
benchmark tutorial on analysis templates utilizing an airframe system
component called a flap linkage. This example highlights how engineering
analysis models, such as stress models, are captured in SysML, and then
executed by external tools including math solvers and finite element
analysis solvers.
We summarize the multi-representation architecture (MRA) method and
how its simulation knowledge patterns support computing environments
having a diversity of analysis fidelities, physical behaviors, solution
methods, and CAD/CAE tools. SysML and composable object (COB)
techniques described in Part 1 together provide the MRA with graphical
modeling languages, executable parametrics, and reusable, modular, multi-
directional capabilities.
We also demonstrate additional SysML modeling concepts, including
packages, building block libraries, and requirements-verification-simulation
interrelationships. Results indicate that SysML offers significant promise as
a unifying language for a variety of models-from top-level system models to
discipline-specific leaf-level models.
Citation
Peak RS, Burkhart RM, Friedenthal SA, Wilson MW, Bajaj M, Kim I
(2007) Simulation-Based Design Using SysML. INCOSE Intl. Symposium,
San Diego.
Part 1: A Parametrics Primer
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-incose-is-1-peak-primer/
Part 2: Celebrating Diversity by Example
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-incose-is-2-peak-diversity/
64
Composable Objects (COB) Requirements & Objectives

Abstract
This document formulates a vision for advanced collaborative engineering environments (CEEs) to aid in the design,
simulation and configuration management of complex engineering systems. Based on inputs from experienced Systems
Engineers and technologists from various industries and government agencies, it identifies the current major challenges
and pain points of Collaborative Engineering. Each of these challenges and pain points are mapped into desired
capabilities of an envisioned CEE System that will address them.
Next, we present a CEE methodology that embodies these capabilities. We overview work done to date by GIT on the
composable object (COB) knowledge representation as a basis for next-generation CEE systems. This methodology
leverages the multi-representation architecture (MRA) for simulation templates, the user-oriented SysML standard for
system modeling, and standards like STEP AP233 (ISO 10303-233) for enhanced interoperability. Finally, we present
COB representation requirements in the context of this CEE methodology. In this current project and subsequent phases
we are striving to fulfill these requirements as we develop next-generation COB capabilities.

Citation
DR Tamburini, RS Peak, CJ Paredis, et al. (2005) Composable Objects (COB) Requirements & Objectives v1.0.
Technical Report, Georgia Tech, Atlanta. http://eislab.gatech.edu/projects/nasa-ngcobs/

Associated Project
The Composable Object (COB) Knowledge Representation: Enabling Advanced Collaborative Engineering Environments
(CEEs). http://eislab.gatech.edu/projects/nasa-ngcobs/

65
Leveraging Simulation Templates & Processes with SysML
Applications to CAD-FEA Interoperability

Abstract
SysML holds the promise of leveraging generic templates and processes across design and simulation. Russell Peak
joins us to give an update on the latest efforts at Georgia Tech to apply this approach in various domains, including
specific examples with a top-tier automotive supplier. Learn how you too may join this project and implement a similar
effort within your own company to enhance modularity and reusability through a unified method that links diverse models.
Russell will also highlight SysML’s parametrics capabilities and usage for physics-based analysis, including integrated
CAD-CAE and simulation-based requirements verification. Go to www.omgsysml.org for background on SysML—a
graphical modeling language based on UML2 for specifying, designing, analyzing, and verifying complex systems.

Speaker Biosketch
Russell S. Peak focuses on knowledge representations that enable complex system interoperability and simulation
automation. He originated composable objects (COBs), the multi-representation architecture (MRA) for CAD-CAE
interoperability, and context-based analysis models (CBAMs)—a simulation template knowledge pattern that explicitly
captures design-analysis associativity. This work has provided the conceptual foundation for SysML parametrics and its
validation.
He teaches this and related material, and is principal investigator on numerous research projects with sponsors
including Boeing, DoD, IBM, NASA, NIST, Rockwell Collins, Shinko Electric, and TRW Automotive. Dr. Peak joined the
GIT research faculty in 1996 to create and lead a design-analysis interoperability thrust area. Prior experience includes
business phone design at Bell Laboratories and design-analysis integration exploration as a Visiting Researcher at
Hitachi in Japan.

Citation
RS Peak (2007) Leveraging Simulation Templates & Processes with SysML: Applications to CAD-FEA Interoperability.
Developing a Design/Simulation Framework, CPDA Workshop, Atlanta.
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2007-cpda-dsfw-peak/

66