UML-based combat effectiveness simulation system modeling within MDE

doi:10.21629/JSEE.2018.06.07

Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics ›› 2018, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (6): 1180-1196.doi: 10.21629/JSEE.2018.06.07

• Systems Engineering • Previous Articles Next Articles

UML-based combat effectiveness simulation system modeling within MDE

Zhi ZHU^1,^2,*(), Yonglin LEI^1,²(), Hessam SARJOUGHIAN²(), Xiaobo LI¹(), Yifan ZHU¹()

¹ Department of Military Modeling and Simulation, School of Systems Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China
² Arizona Center for Integrated Modeling and Simulation, School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe 85281, USA

Received:2017-08-11 Online:2018-12-25 Published:2018-12-26
Contact: Zhi ZHU E-mail:zhuzhi@nudt.edu.cn;yllei@nudt.edu.cn;sarjoughian@asu.edu;lixiaobo@nudt.edu.cn;yfzhu@nudt.edu.cn
About author:ZHU Zhi was born in 1989. He is a Ph.D. candidate in National University of Defense Technology. He was a visiting Ph.D. student at Arizona State University from 2016 to 2017. His research interests are model-driven development and system engineering. E-mail: zhuzhi@nudt.edu.cn|LEI Yonglin was born in 1978. He is a Ph.D. and an associate professor at National University of Defense Technology. He was a visiting scholar at Arizona State University from 2014 to 2015. His research interests are complex system modeling & simulation, model-driven engineering, and simulation composability. E-mail: yllei@nudt.edu.cn|SARJOUGHIAN Hessam is an associate professor in School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering at Arizona State University. He is the director of Arizona Center for Integrative Modeling and Simulation. His research interests are model composability, simulation-based design, and agent-based simulation. E-mail: sarjoughian@asu.edu|LI Xiaobo is an assistant professor at National University of Defense Technology, and also a Ph.D. candidate at University of Antwerp. His research interests are model-driven engineering techniques for M & S, simulation based system design and demonstration, and domain-specific modeling. E-mail: lixiaobo@nudt.edu.cn|ZHU Yifan was born in 1963. He is a professor at National University of Defense Technology. He was a visiting scholar at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University from 2007 to 2008. His research interests are equipment system evaluation and demonstration, and agent-based modeling and simulation. E-mail: yfzhu@nudt.edu.cn
Supported by:
the National Natural Science Foundation of China(61273198);This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61273198)

Abstract

Abstract:

To reduce complexity, the combat effectiveness simulation system (CESS) is often decomposed into static structure, physical behavior, and cognitive behavior, and model abstraction is layered onto domain invariant knowledge (DIK) and application variant knowledge (AVK) levels. This study concentrates on the specification of CESS's physical behaviors at the DIK level of abstraction, and proposes a model driven framework for efficiently developing simulation models within model-driven engineering (MDE). Technically, this framework integrates the four-layer metamodeling architecture and a set of model transformation techniques with the objective of reducing model heterogeneity and enhancing model continuity. As a proof of concept, a torpedo example is illustrated to explain how physical models are developed following the proposed framework. Finally, a combat scenario is constructed to demonstrate the availability, and a further verification is shown by a reasonable agreement between simulation results and field observations.

Key words: domain specific modeling, model-driven development, system engineering, effectiveness simulation

Zhi ZHU, Yonglin LEI, Hessam SARJOUGHIAN, Xiaobo LI, Yifan ZHU. UML-based combat effectiveness simulation system modeling within MDE[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2018, 29(6): 1180-1196.

Figures/Tables 15

Fig 1

Table 1

Table 2

Fig 2

Fig 3

Fig 4

Fig 5

Table 3

Fig 6

Table 4

Fig 7

Fig 8

Fig 9

Fig 10

Table 5

References 46

1	LEI Y, ZHU N, YAO J, et al. Model-architecture oriented combat system effectiveness simulation. Proc. of the IEEE Winter Simulation Conference, 2015: 3190-3191.
2	MOSTERMAN P J, VANGHELUWE H. Computer automated multi-paradigm modeling: an introduction. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, 2004, 80 (9): 433- 450. doi: 10.1177/0037549704050532
3	Eclipse Foundation. Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF). http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/.
4	MARCH S T, ALLEN G N. Challenges in requirements engineering: a research agenda for conceptual modeling. Social Science and Electronic Publishing, 2009, 14 (1): 157- 165. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-92966-6_8
5	Object Management Group (OMG). Business process model and notation (BPMN) version 2.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/PDF/.
6	BOZLU B, DEMIRORS O. A conceptual modeling methodology: from conceptual model to design. Proc. of the Summer Computer Simulation Conference, 2008: 1-11.
7	SMP 2.0 Metamodel (Issue 1 Revision 2: EGOS-SIM-GENTN-0100). Paris: European Space Agency (ESA), 2005.
8	SON M J, CHO D Y, KIM T W, et al. Modeling and simulation of target motion analysis for a submarine using a script-based tactics manager. Advances in Engineering Software, 2010, 41 (3): 506- 516. doi: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2009.10.009
9	BOYD J R. A discourse on winning and losing (unpublished briefing slides). Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Library, 1987.
10	IEEE Computer Society. IEEE 1516-2010-Standard for Modeling and Simulation High Level Architecture-Framework and Rules, 2010. DOI: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2010.5953411.
11	LEI Y L, WEI Z, XIN Z, et al. Research of SMP2-based missile countermine simulation system. Journal of System Simulation, 2009, 21 (14): 4312- 4316.
12	AL-AQRABAWI M S. Combat system modeling: modeling large-scale software and hardware application using UML. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2001.
13	ZHU Z, LEI Y L, ZHU N, et al. Composable modeling frameworks for networked air & missile defense systems. NUDT Transactions, 2014, 36 (5): 186- 190.
14	BALCI O. A life cycle for modeling and simulation. Simulation, 2012, 88 (7): 870- 883. doi: 10.1177/0037549712438469
15	LI X B, YANG F, LEI Y L, et al. A model framework-based domain-specific composable modeling method for combat system effectiveness simulation. Software & Systems Modeling, 2017, 16 (4): 1201- 1222. doi: 10.1007/s10270-015-0513-x
16	OLIVE A. Conceptual modeling of information systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2007.
17	HARDEBOLLE C, BOULANGER F. Exploring multiparadigm modeling techniques. Simulation, 2009, 85 (11/12): 688- 708.
18	SELIC B. A systematic approach to domain-specific language design using UML. Proc. of the IEEE International Symposium on Object and Component-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing, 2007: 2-9.
19	HAREL D, RUMPE B. Meaningful modeling: what's the semantics of "semantics"?. Computer, 2004, 37 (10): 64- 72.
20	NORDSTROM G, SZTIPANOVITS J, KARSAI G, et al. Metamodeling-rapid design and evolution of domainspecific modeling environments. Proc. of the IEEE Conference on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, 1999: 68-74.
21	SEO K M, CHOI C, KIM T G, et al. DEVS-based combat modeling for engagement-level simulation. Simulation, 2014, 90 (7): 759- 781.
22	LEE E A, SANGIOVANNI-VINCENTELLI A L. A framework for comparing models of computation. IEEE Trans. on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 1998, 17 (12): 1217- 1229.
23	PTOLEMAEUS C. System design, modeling, and simulation using Ptolemy II. Berkeley: University of California, 2014.
24	LI X B, LEI Y L, VANGHELUWE H S, et al. A multiparadigm decision modeling framework for combat system effectiveness measurement based on domain-specific modeling. Journal of Zhejiang University Science C, 2013, 14 (5): 311- 331.
25	RAVINDRAN B, BARTO A G. Approximate homomorphisms: a framework for non-exact minimization in Markov decision processes. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 2004, 73 (2-4): 131- 144.
26	HU X, ZEIGLER B P. Model continuity in the design of dynamic distributed real-time systems. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 2005, 35 (6): 867- 878.
27	ZEIGLER B P, PRAEHOFER H, KIM T G. Theory of modeling and simulation: integrating discrete event and continuous complex dynamic systems. 2nd ed New York: Academic Press, 2000.
28	Modelica Association. Modelica-A Unified Object-Oriented Language for Systems Modeling Language Specification Version 3.3. http://www.modelica.org/.
29	SISO Base Object Model Product Development Group. Base Object Model (BOM) Template Specification. Qhttp://www.sisostds.org.
30	European Space Agency (ESA). SMP 2.0 Handbook. http://www.eurosim.nl/support/manuals/manual_4_2/pdf/SMP_2.0_Metamodel-1.2.pdf.
31	AZAR M C. Assessing the treatment of airborne tactical high energy lasers in combat simulations. Dayton: Air Force Institute of Technology, 2003.
32	ZHU Z, LEI Y L, ZHU Y F, et al. A WESS-based method for anti-submarine simulation through planning waypoints of helicopter (WIP). Proc. of the Summer Computer Simulation Conference, 2016: 15.
33	HALL S B, ZEIGLER B P, SARJOUGHIAN H S. Joint measure TM: distributed simulation issues in a mission effectiveness analytic simulator. Proc. of the Simulator Interoperability Workshop (SIW), 1999: 1-7.
34	LEE E A, MESSERSCHMITT D G. Static scheduling of synchronous data flow programs for digital signal processing. IEEE Trans. on Computers, 2009, 36 (1): 24- 35.
35	FENG T H, LEE E A, SCHRUBEN L W. Ptera: An eventoriented model of computation for heterogeneous systems. Proc. of 10th ACM International Conference on Embedded Software, 2010: 219-228.
36	Object Management Group (OMG). SysML specification, version 1.2 formal. http://www.sysml.org/specs.htm.
37	Object Management Group (OMG). UML profile for schedulable, performance, and time specification, version 1.1. http://www.omg.org/spec/SPTP/1.1/2005.
38	Object Management Group (OMG). A UML profile for MARTE specification version 1.1. http://www.omg.org/spec/MARTE/1.1/PDF.
39	BIGGS G, SAKAMOTO T, KOTOKU T. A profile and tool for modelling safety information with design information in SysML. Software & Systems Modeling, 2014, 15 (1): 1- 32.
40	WARMER J, KLEPPE A. The object constraint language-precise modeling with UML. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 1999.
41	MENS T, GORP P V. A taxonomy of model transformation. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 2005, 152 (1/2): 125- 142.
42	CHALLENGER M, KARDAS G, TEKINERDOGAN B. A systematic approach to evaluating domain-specific modeling language environments for multi-agent systems. Software Quality Journal, 2016, 24 (3): 755- 795. doi: 10.1007/s11219-015-9291-5
43	JOUAULT F, ALLILAIRE F, BEZIVIN J, et al. ATL: a model transformation tool. Science of Computer Programming, 2008, 72 (1/2): 31- 39.
44	BENOUDA H, ESSBAI R, AZIZI M, et al. Modeling and code generation of android applications using acceleo. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 2013, 10 (3): 83- 94. doi: 10.14257/ijseia.2016.10.3.08
45	ZHU Z, LEI Y L, SARJOUGHIAN H S, et al. Cognitive behaviors modeling using UML profile: design and experience. IEEE Access, 2017, 5, 21694- 21708. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2760060
46	Object Management Group (OMG). Unified modeling language-superstructure version 2.1.1. http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm.

Number	Example	Heterogeneity	Continuity
1	DEVS, Modelica	Well	Well
2	BOM, SMP2	Well	Medium well
3	EADSim, WESS	Medium well	Medium
4	HLA	Low	Low
5	JointMEASURE	Medium	Medium

Number	Source	Specialty
SysML	UML	Requirements/behavior/structure
SafeML	SysML	Safety-critical systems
SPT	UML	Schedulability/performance/time
MARTE	SPT	SPT NFPs/ GRM/ Alloc/GCM/GQAM

Entity	Property	Type	Value
Event	dataFlowMode	DataFlowMode (Enumeration)	Requirements/behavior/structure
Event	eventOccurTime	SuperdenseTime (DataType)	simulationTime, microstep
Event	policy	ControlPolicy (Enumeration)	LIFO, FIFO
Event	priority	Integer (UML Primitive Type)	0, 1, 2, ...
TargetEvent	kind	TargetEventKind (Enumeration)	TargetFound, TargetLost, TargetDamaged
PredefinedEvent	kind	PredefinedEventKind (Enumeration)	preAreaArrived, preTimeArrived
GuidanceState	mode	GuidanceMode (Enumeration)	Active, Passive, SemiActive
Pseudostate	kind	PseudostateKind (Enumeration)	initial, junction, choice, terminate, fork, end

Stereotype	Graphical notation	Meta-class	Description
T_Element	(Abstract)	Element	As a stereotype that derives other stereotypes of the torpedo's physical profile, hierarchy is introduced. It has a tag name typed by String.
T_State		State, Element	The core stereotype represents a physical state of torpedo that will keep unchanged for a certain time period unless stimuli occur. It has a Boolean tag activityActivated and two operations entryActivity and exitActivity.
T_GuidanceState (Active)		State, Element	Isolating the stereotype from T State stereotype aims to emphasize the guidance characteristics of torpedo. It has a tag mode typed by the GuidanceMode enumeration which contains Active, Passive, and Semi Active modes.
T_GuidanceState (Passive)		State, Element
T_GuidanceState (Semi Active)		State, Element
T_Pseudostate	(Similar to state diagram)	State, Element	The stereotype refers to the pseudo states of UML state diagram, which consists of initial, junction, choice, terminate, fork, and end forms.
T_Transition		Transition, Element	As another core stereotype, T Transition is used for future extension purpose. It derives the T Event stereotype.
T_Event		Event, State	The aggregation relationships fall into a stereotype. The stereotype has an Action operation and five tags: dataFlowMode, guardCondition, eventOccurTime, policy and priority.
T_TargetEvent		Event, State	The stereotype derives from T Event, which has three kinds of target events: TargetFound, TargetLost, and TargetDamaged
T_PredefinedEvent		Event, State	The stereotype derives from T Event, which has two kinds of predefined events: preAreaArrived and preTimeArrived.

State	Initial	WireGuided	HomingGuided	FinalAttack	HelicalSearch
Time/s	468	471	511	795	809
Velocity/Knot	35.04	36.80	56.62	55.77	55.83
Elevation/m	0.00	–15.26	–480.00	–479.07	–210.24

UML-based combat effectiveness simulation system modeling within MDE

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

Share this article

Figures/Tables 15

References 46

Related Articles 6

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	Yutao ZHAI, Yongzheng SHEN, Xiangbin YAN, Huifeng TAN. Methods of configuration test and deformation analysis for large airship [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 33(4): 951-960.
[2]	Yonglin Lei, Ning Zhu, Jian Yao, Hessam Sarjoughian, and Weiping Wang. Model architecture-oriented combat system effectiveness simulation based on MDE [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2017, 28(5): 900-922.
[3]	Guanghui Wang, Xuefeng Sun, Liping Zhang, and Chao Lv. Saturation attack based route planning and threat avoidance algorithm for cruise missiles [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2011, 22(6): 948-953.
[4]	Tianran Zhou, Huagang Xiong, and Zhen Zhang. Hierarchical resource allocation for integrated modular avionics systems [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2011, 22(5): 780-787.
[5]	Weiwei Chen, Ning Huang, Yuqing Liu, Ye Wang, and Rui Kang. Analysis and verification of network profile [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2010, 21(5): 784-790.
[6]	Yang YongJ an, Zhang Hongzvei, Feng Zuren & Luo Yongjin. Selection of the best initial orbital elements of satellite based on fuzzy integration evaluation method [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2006, 17(3): 566-570.