Real-time simulation of an F110/STOVL turbofan engine

A traditional F110-type turbofan engine model was extended to include a ventral nozzle and two thrust-augmenting ejectors for Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft applications. Development of the real-time F110/STOVL simulation required special attention to the modeling approach to component performance maps, the low pressure turbine exit mixing region, and the tailpipe dynamic approximation. Simulation validation derives by comparing output from the ADSIM simulation with the output for a validated F110/STOVL General Electric Aircraft Engines FORTRAN deck. General Electric substantiated basic engine component characteristics through factory testing and full scale ejector data

STOVL aircraft simulation for integrated flight and propulsion control research

The United States is in the initial stages of committing to a national program to develop a supersonic short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft. The goal of the propulsion community in this effort is to have the enabling propulsion technologies for this type aircraft in place to permit a low risk decision regarding the initiation of a research STOVL supersonic attack/fighter aircraft in the late mid-90's. This technology will effectively integrate, enhance, and extend the supersonic cruise, STOVL and fighter/attack programs to enable U.S. industry to develop a revolutionary supersonic short takeoff and vertical landing fighter/attack aircraft in the post-ATF period. A joint NASA Lewis and NASA Ames research program, with the objective of developing and validating technology for integrated-flight propulsion control design methodologies for short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft, was planned and is underway. This program, the NASA Supersonic STOVL Integrated Flight-Propulsion Controls Program, is a major element of the overall NASA-Lewis Supersonic STOVL Propulsion Technology Program. It uses an integrated approach to develop an integrated program to achieve integrated flight-propulsion control technology. Essential elements of the integrated controls research program are realtime simulations of the integrated aircraft and propulsion systems which will be used in integrated control concept development and evaluations. This paper describes pertinent parts of the research program leading up to the related realtime simulation development and remarks on the simulation structure to accommodate propulsion system hardware drop-in for real system evaluation

Reusability in software engineering

This paper surveys recent work concerning reusability in software engineering. The current directions in software reusability are discussed, and the two major approaches of reusable building blocks and reusable patterns studied. An extensive bibliography, parts of which are annotated, is included

SIMULATION-BASED PERFORMABILITY ANALYSIS OF MULTIPROCESSOR SYSTEMS

The primary focus in the analysis of multiprocessor systems has traditionally been on their performance. However, their large number of components, their complex network topologies, and sophisticated system software can make them very unreliable. The dependability of a computing system ought to be considered in an early stage of its development in order to take influence on the system architecture and to achieve best performance with high dependability. In this paper a simulation-based method for the combined performance and dependability analysis of fault tolerant multiprocessor systems are presented which provide meaningful results already during the design phase

Real-time scheduling in multicore : time- and space-partitioned architectures

Tese de doutoramento, Informática (Engenharia Informática), Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências, 2014The evolution of computing systems to address size, weight and power consumption (SWaP) has led to the trend of integrating functions (otherwise provided by separate systems) as subsystems of a single system. To cope with the added complexity of developing and validating such a system, these functions are maintained and analyzed as components with clear boundaries and interfaces. In the case of real-time systems, the adopted component-based approach should maintain the timeliness properties of the function inside each individual component, regardless of the remaining components. One approach to this issue is time and space partitioning (TSP)—enforcing strict separation between components in the time and space domains. This allows heterogeneous components (different real-time requirements, criticality, developed by different teams and/or with different technologies) to safely coexist. The concepts of TSP have been adopted in the civil aviation, aerospace, and (to some extent) automotive industries. These industries are also embracing multiprocessor (or multicore) platforms, either with identical or nonidentical processors, but are not taking full advantage thereof because of a lack of support in terms of verification and certification. Furthermore, due to the use of the TSP in those domains, compatibility between TSP and multiprocessor is highly desired. This is not the present case, as the reference TSP-related specifications in the aforementioned industries show limited support to multiprocessor. In this dissertation, we defend that the active exploitation of multiple (possibly non-identical) processor cores can augment the processing capacity of the time- and space-partitioned (TSP) systems, while maintaining a compromise with size, weight and power consumption (SWaP), and open room for supporting self-adaptive behavior. To allow applying our results to a more general class of systems, we analyze TSP systems as a special case of hierarchical scheduling and adopt a compositional analysis methodology.Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT, SFRH/BD/60193/2009, programa PESSOA, projeto SAPIENT); the European Space Agency Innovation (ESA) Triangle Initiative program through ESTEC Contract 21217/07/NL/CB, Project AIR-II; the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) through project KARYON (IST-FP7-STREP-288195)

Ship product modelling

This paper is a fundamental review of ship product modeling techniques with a focus on determining the state of the art, to identify any shortcomings and propose future directions. The review addresses ship product data representations, product modeling techniques and integration issues, and life phase issues. The most significant development has been the construction of the ship Standard for the Exchange of Product Data (STEP) application protocols. However, difficulty has been observed with respect to the general uptake of the standards, in particular with the application to legacy systems, often resulting in embellishments to the standards and limiting the ability to further exchange the product data. The EXPRESS modeling language is increasingly being superseded by the extensible mark-up language (XML) as a method to map the STEP data, due to its wider support throughout the information technology industry and its more obvious structure and hierarchy. The associated XML files are, however, larger than those produced using the EXPRESS language and make further demands on the already considerable storage required for the ship product model. Seamless integration between legacy applications appears to be difficult to achieve using the current technologies, which often rely on manual interaction for the translation of files. The paper concludes with a discussion of future directions that aim to either solve or alleviate these issues

Design Space Exploration for Building Automation Systems

In the building automation domain, there are gaps among various tasks related to design engineering. As a result created system designs must be adapted to the given requirements on system functionality, which is related to increased costs and engineering effort than planned. For this reason standards are prepared to enable a coordination among these tasks by providing guidelines and unified artifacts for the design. Moreover, a huge variety of prefabricated devices offered from different manufacturers on the market for building automation that realize building automation functions by preprogrammed software components. Current methods for design creation do not consider this variety and design solution is limited to product lines of a few manufacturers and expertise of system integrators. Correspondingly, this results in design solutions of a limited quality. Thus, a great optimization potential of the quality of design solutions and coordination of tasks related to design engineering arises. For given design requirements, the existence of a high number of devices that realize required functions leads to a combinatorial explosion of design alternatives at different price and quality levels. Finding optimal design alternatives is a hard problem to which a new solution method is proposed based on heuristical approaches. By integrating problem specific knowledge into algorithms based on heuristics, a promisingly high optimization performance is achieved. Further, optimization algorithms are conceived to consider a set of flexibly defined quality criteria specified by users and achieve system design solutions of high quality. In order to realize this idea, optimization algorithms are proposed in this thesis based on goal-oriented operations that achieve a balanced convergence and exploration behavior for a search in the design space applied in different strategies. Further, a component model is proposed that enables a seamless integration of design engineering tasks according to the related standards and application of optimization algorithms.:1 Introduction 17 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1.3 Goals and Use of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1.4 Solution Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1.5 Organization of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2 Design Creation for Building Automation Systems 25 2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.2 Engineering of Building Automation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.3 Network Protocols of Building Automation Systems . . . . . . . 33 2.4 Existing Solutions for Design Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.5 The Device Interoperability Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.6 Guidelines for Planning of Room Automation Systems . . . . . . 38 2.7 Quality Requirements on BAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.8 Quality Requirements on Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.8.1 Quality Requirements Related to Project Planning . . . . 42 2.8.2 Quality Requirements Related to Project Implementation 43 2.9 Quality Requirements on Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.10 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3 The Design Creation Task 47 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 3.2 System Design Composition Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.2.1 Abstract and Detailed Design Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.2.2 Mapping Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3.3 Formulation of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.3.1 Problem properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.3.2 Requirements on Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4 Solution Methods for Design Generation and Optimization 59 4.1 Combinatorial Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.2 Metaheuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.3 Examples for Metaheuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.3.1 Simulated Annealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.3.2 Tabu Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 4.3.3 Ant Colony Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.3.4 Evolutionary Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 4.4 Choice of the Solver Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.5 Specialized Methods for Diversity Preservation . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.6 Approaches for Real World Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.6.1 Component-Based Mapping Problems . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.6.2 Network Design Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.6.3 Comparison of Solution Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 5 Automated Creation of Optimized Designs 79 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5.2 Design Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5.3 Component Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 5.3.1 Presumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5.3.2 Integration of Component Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.4 Design Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.4.1 Component Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 5.4.2 Generation Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 5.5 Design Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 5.5.1 Problems and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 5.5.2 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 5.5.3 Application Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 5.6 Realization of the Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 5.6.1 Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 5.6.2 Individual Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 5.7 Automated Design Creation For A Building . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 5.7.1 Room Spanning Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 5.7.2 Flexible Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 5.7.3 Technology Spanning Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 5.7.4 Preferences for Mapping of Function Blocks to Devices . . 132 5.8 Further Uses and Applicability of the Approach . . . . . . . . . . 133 5.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 6 Validation and Performance Analysis 137 6.1 Validation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 6.2 Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 6.3 Example Abstract Designs and Performance Tests . . . . . . . . 139 6.3.1 Criteria for Choosing Example Abstract Designs . . . . . 139 6.3.2 Example Abstract Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 6.3.3 Performance Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 6.3.4 Population Size P - Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 6.3.5 Cross-Over Probability pC - Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 157 6.3.6 Mutation Probability pM - Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 6.3.7 Discussion for Optimization Results and Example Designs 168 6.3.8 Resource Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 6.3.9 Parallelism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 6.4 Optimization Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 6.5 Framework Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 6.5.1 Components and Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 6.5.2 Workflow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 6.5.3 Optimization Control By Graphical User Interface . . . . 180 6.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 7 Conclusions 185 A Appendix of Designs 189 Bibliography 201 Index 21