Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:19:44.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of Agile Model-Based Systems Engineering in aircraft conceptual design

Part of: 31st Congress of The International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2019

G. P. Krupa Open the ORCID record for G. P. Krupa [Opens in a new window]
G. P. Krupa*
Affiliation:
IEM - Instituto de Engenharia Mecânica Universidade Federal de Itajubá Itajubá, Brazil
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the challenges of modern engineering design is the amount of data that designers must keep track while performing system analysis and synthesis. This task is particularly important in the design process of complex systems such as novel aerospace systems where Modeling and Simulation play an essential role. The Agile philosophy stems from the field of Software Engineering and describes an approach to development in which requirements and solutions gradually develop through collaboration between self-organising cross-functional teams and end users. Agile Model-Based System Engineering (AMBSE) is the application of the Agile philosophy to Model-Based System Engineering. In this paper, AMBSE is accomplished through the application of the Object-Oriented System Engineering Method (OOSEM). OOSEM employs a top-down scenario-driven process that adopts System Modeling Language (SysML) and leverages the object-oriented paradigm to support the analysis, specification, design, and verification of systems. AMBSE assisted by mathematical modelling and safety assessment techniques is applied to the first design iterations of the main aircraft systems, allowing a comprehensive design exploration. The flight control system was chosen to illustrate the procedure in detail, emphasising the synthesis of a six-degrees-of-freedom model augmented by dynamic inversion control for a hypothetical supersonic transport aircraft satisfying class II MIL-F-8785C handling qualities. It is concluded that AMBSE presents promising properties to support future aircraft development within the current regulatory framework for aircraft design, while enabling a smooth transition from conceptual to preliminary design.

Keywords

Model-Based Systems EngineeringAgileSystems architectingAircraft design
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 123 , Issue 1268 , October 2019 , pp. 1561 - 1601
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Independent Researcher/Student

References

REFERENCES

German, B. and Daskilewicz, M. An MDO-inspired systems engineering perspective for the “Wicked” problem of aircraft conceptual design, 9th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (ATIO) and Aircraft Noise and Emissions Reduction Symposium (ANERS), 2009, p 7115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolai, L.M. Lessons Learned: A Guide to Improved Aircraft Design, AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, I. and Seabridge, A. Design and Development of Aircraft Systems, John Wiley & Sons, 2013, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
Alliance, A. Agile Manifesto, 6, (1), 2001. http://www.agilemanifesto.org, .Google Scholar
Johnson, C.L. Kelly: More Than My Share of it All, Smithsonian Institution, 2012.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. (2019). Kelly Johnson’s 14 Rules and Practices. [online] Lockheed Martin. Available at: https://lockheedmartin.com/us/aeronautics/skunkworks/14rules.html [Accessed 12 Jun. 2019].Google Scholar
Raymer, P.D. “Lean Production” and the “Skunk Works” Approach to Aircraft Design, 2008. http://www.aircraftdesign.com/lean_production_and_the_skunk_works_approach_to_aircraft_design__raymer_.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mavris, D.N. and Pinon, O.J. A Systems Engineering Approach to Aircraft Design. In Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering. Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2010.Google Scholar
Douglass, B.P. Agile Systems Engineering, Morgan Kaufmann, 2015, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
Eisner, H. Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2002.Google Scholar
Shortell, T.M. (Ed.). INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2015.Google Scholar
FAA. Systems Engineering Manual, Version 3.1. Federal Aviation Administration, 2006.Google Scholar
Larman, C. Agile and Iterative Development: a manager’s guide. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, Massachusetts, EUA, 2004.Google Scholar
Borutzky, W. Bond graph modeling from an object oriented modeling point of view, Simulation Practice and Theory, 1999, 7, (5), pp. 439–461, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAE. ARP-4754A: Aerospace Recommended Practice: Guidelines For Development Of Civil Aircraft and Systems, 2010.Google Scholar
Blanchard, B.S. and Fabrycky, W.J. Systems Engineering and Analysis, Pearson, 1998, USA.Google Scholar
Friedenthal, S., Moore, A. and Steiner, R. A Practical Guide to SysML: the Systems Modeling Language, Morgan Kaufmann, 2014, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
Object Management Group .® Information Technology - Object Management Group Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML), version 1.4, 2015. https://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.4/PDFGoogle Scholar
Object Management Group .® Information Technology - Object Management Group Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), version 2.5.1, 2017. https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1/PDFGoogle Scholar
Federal Aviation Administration . Safety Issues and Shortcomings With Requirements Definition, Validation, and Verification Processes (DOT/FAA/TC-16/39). Atlantic City International Airport, NJ: Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center, December, 2016.Google Scholar
Koen, B.V. Discussion of the Method: Conducting the Engineer’s Approach to Problem Solving, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, UK, 2003.Google Scholar
Koen, B.V. Definition of the Engineering Method, American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Publications, Washington, DC 20036, 1985.Google Scholar
Schlichting, H. and Truckenbrodt, E. Aerodynamics of the Airplane, New York, 1979, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ashley, H. and Landahl, M. Aerodynamics of Wings and Bodies, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Massachusetts, United States, 1965.Google Scholar
Kuethe, A.M. and Chow, C.Y. Foundations of Aerodynamics. John Wiley & Sons, 1976.Google Scholar
Kuchemann, D. The Aerodynamic Design of Aircraft. Progress in Aeronautical Sciences, Pergamon, 1978, London.Google Scholar
Hoerner, S.F. Fluid-Dynamic Drag: Practical Information on Aerodynamic Drag and Hydrodynamic Resistance, Published by the Author, 1965, Bakersfield, California, USA.Google Scholar
Hoerner, S.F. and Borst, H.V. Fluid-Dynamic Lift, Practical Information on Aerodynamic and Hydrodynamic Lift, Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, Balersfield, CA 93390, 1975.Google Scholar
Kypuros, J. System Dynamics and Control with Bond Graph Modeling. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diston, D.J. Unified Modelling of Aerospace Systems: A Bond Graph Approach. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow, 1999.Google Scholar
Paynter, H.P. Analysis and Design of Engineering Systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1961.Google Scholar
Gawthrop, P.J. and Bevan, G.P. Bond-graph modeling. IEEE control systems, 2007, 27(2), 2445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAE. ARP-4761: Aerospace Recommended Practice: Guidelines & Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment, 1996.Google Scholar
Michaels, K. Post-Tier 1: The next era in aerospace supply chain evolution? Aviation Week & Space Technology, 2017.Google Scholar
Eclipse Foundation . The Eclipse Foundation Open Source Community website, 2018. https://www.eclipse.org/Google Scholar
Eclipse Foundation . Papyrus Open Source Community Website, 2018. https://www.eclipse.org/papyrus/Google Scholar
Massif: MATLAB Simulink Integration Framework for Eclipse. https://github.com/viatra/massifGoogle Scholar
Eclipse Epsilon Team Epsilon. https://www.eclipse.org/epsilon/Google Scholar
Controllab Products B.V. 20-sim, Drienerlolaan 5 HO-8266, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands. www.20sim.com.Google Scholar
Roskam, J. Airplane Design, DARcorporation, 1985, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
Nicolai, L.M. and Carichner, G. Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Renton, VA, 2001.Google Scholar
Hoak, E. and Ellison, D. USAF Stability & Control DATCOM, AFFDL-TR-79-3032, Flight Control Division, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, USA, 1972.Google Scholar
Dubbel, H. and Davies, B.J. Handbook of Mechanical Engineering, Springer Science & Business Media, New York City, 2013.Google Scholar
XL-Viking, Excel Mathematics Visualisation Add-in (c) 2015–2018 Abbott Aerospace SEZC Ltd and Knut Gjelsvik.Google Scholar
Goldberg, B.E., Everhart, K., Stevens, R., Babbitt III, N., Clemens, P. and Stout, L. System Engineering Toolbox for Design-Oriented Engineers, NASA Reference Publication 1358, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, 1994.Google Scholar
Zoomer Analytics LLC. XL-Wings: Python for Excel. V0.11.7, 2018.Google Scholar
MacDonald, T., Clarke, M., Botero, E., Vegh, J.M. and Alonso, J.J. SUAVE: An open-source environment enabling multi-fidelity vehicle optimization, 16th AIAA Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Denver, CO, 2017.Google Scholar
Eclipse Gendoc team Gendoc. https://www.eclipse.org/gendoc/Google Scholar
Monroney, M. Joint Aircraft System/Component Code Table and Definitions, Federal Aviation Administration Flight Standards Service Regulatory Support Division Aviation Data Systems Branch, Oklahoma, 2008.Google Scholar
Wolf, R. A summary of recent supersonic vehicle studies at Gulfstream Aerospace, 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henne, P. A Case for small supersonic civil aircraft. Journal of Aircraft, 2005, 42, (3), pp 765–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. A review of supersonic business jet design issues. The Aeronautical Journal, 2007, 111, (1126), pp 761–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EASA, Certification Specification. Acceptable means of compliance for large aeroplanes CS-25. Tech. Rep. Amendment 13, European Aviation Safety Agency, 2013.Google Scholar
NATO, RTO Flight Control Design - Best Practices, RTO-TR-029, 2003.Google Scholar
Moorhouse, D., Woodcock, R. US Military Specification MIL-F-8785C. US Department of Defense, 1980.Google Scholar
ASD/AIA. S1000D, international specification for technical publications using a common source database.Google Scholar
Stengel, R.F. Altitude stability in supersonic cruising flight. Journal of Aircraft, 1970, 7, (5), pp 464–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhillon, B.S. Mechanical Reliability: Theory, Models, and Applications, American Institute of Aeronautics, Renton, VA, 1988.Google Scholar
Department of Defense of the USA, Military Handbook: Reliability Prediction of Electronic Equipment: MIL-HDBK-217F, 1991.Google Scholar
Schafer, R.E., Angus, J.E., Finkelstein, J.M., Yerasi, M. and Fulton, D.W. RADC Nonelectronic Reliability Notebook, Hughes Aircraft Company, Fullerton CA, 1985.Google Scholar
Avallone, E.A., Baumeister, I.T. and Sadegh, A. Marks‘ Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York City, New York, 2006.Google Scholar
Langlois, O., Roboam, X., Maré, J.C., Piquet, H. and Gandanegara, G. Bond Graph Modeling of an Electro-Hydrostatic Actuator for Aeronautic Applications, In: IMACS World Congress, 2005.Google Scholar
Moir, I. and Seabridge, A. Aircraft Systems: Mechanical, Electrical and Avionics Subsystems Integration, John Wiley & Sons, 2011, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
Gautrey, J.E. and Cook, M.V. A generic control anticipation parameter for aircraft handling qualities evaluation, The Aeronautical Journal, 1998, 102, (1013), pp 151–160.Google Scholar
Saisset, R., Fontes, G., Turpin, C. and Astier, S. Bond Graph model of a PEM fuel cell, Journal of Power Sources, 2006, 156, (1), pp 100–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, C.C., Bouscayrol, A. and Chen, K. Electric, hybrid, and fuel-cell vehicles: Architectures and modeling, IEEE transactions on vehicular technology, 2010, 59, (2), pp 589–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoureshi, R., Herrick, R.W. and Brackney, L.B. Final Report of Phase-II Research on Applications of Active Adaptive Noise Control to Jet Engines, NASA-CR-192277, 1993.Google Scholar
Jategaonkar, R.V. Flight Vehicle System Identification: a Time-Domain Methodology, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Renton, VA, 2015.Google Scholar
GitHub Inc. Github Web-Based Hosting Service for Version Control Using Git. https://github.com/Google Scholar
Simmons, H. An Introduction to Category Theory, Cambridge University Press, 2011, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelson, G. An Introduction to Functional Programming Through Lambda Calculus, Dover Publications, Mineola, New York, 2011.Google Scholar
Gawthrop, P. and Smith, L. Metamodelling: For Bond Graphs and Dynamic Systems, Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd, Hemel Hempstead Hertfordshire, 1996.Google Scholar
Mabrok, M.A. and Ryan, M.J. Category theory as a formal mathematical foundation for model-based systems engineering, Applied Mathematics, 2017, 11, (1), pp 43–51.Google Scholar
Marlow, S. Haskell 2010 language report, 2010.Google Scholar
Margetts, R. Modelling & analysis of hybrid dynamic systems using a bond graph approach (Doctoral dissertation, University of Bath), 2013.Google Scholar
Maia Neto, M. and Goes, L.C.S. A bond graph-oriented method for assessment of failures in an aircraft hydraulic brake system. 31st Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Brazil, 2018.Google Scholar
Gawthrop, P.J. Estimating physical parameters of nonlinear systems using bond graph models, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 2000, 3, (15), pp 1073–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawthrop, P.J. Sensitivity bond graphs, Journal of the Franklin Institute, 2000, 337, (7), pp 907–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snell, S.A., Nns, D.F. and Arrard, W.L. Nonlinear inversion flight control for a supermaneuverable aircraft, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 1992, 15, (4), pp 976-984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drela, M. and Youngren, H. AVL-aerodynamic analysis, trim calculation, dynamic stability analysis, aircraft configuration development, Athena Vortex Lattice, 2006, 3, 26.Google Scholar
Vukelich, S.R. and Williams, J.E. The USAF stability and control digital DATCOM. AFFDL-TR-79-3032, 1979.Google Scholar
Karnopp, D.C., Margolis, D.L. and Rosenberg, R.C. System Dynamics: a Unified Approach, Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, New Jersey, 1990.Google Scholar
Borutzky, W. Bond Graph Methodology: Development and Analysis of Multidisciplinary Dynamic System Models, Springer Science & Business Media, Salmon Tower Building, New York City, 2009.Google Scholar