Modeling forward design method for equipment architecture

Abstract

The invention belongs to the technical field of equipment architecture model design, and particularly relates to an equipment architecture modeling forward design method. The method comprises the following steps: S1, determining a system use case of equipment according to a top-layer design requirement of the equipment; s2, determining functional components of the equipment and an interface relationship among the functional components according to the system use case, and establishing a functional architecture model; s3, a plurality of logic architecture models corresponding to the functional architecture model are established according to the mapping relation between the functional components and the logic components, each logic architecture model comprises a plurality of logic components, and each logic component at least bears one functional component; s4, selecting an optimal logic architecture model from the plurality of logic architecture models according to a preset system safety evaluation index; and S5, constructing a physical architecture model according to specific physical equipment for realizing each logic component and interface in the logic architecture model. According to the method, the equipment architecture modeling forward design efficiency is improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application belongs to the technical field of equipment architecture model design, and in particular relates to an equipment architecture modeling forward design method. Background Art

[0002] At present, model-based design methods are widely used in the development of complex equipment, and design is assisted by demand modeling, functional modeling, and performance modeling. However, existing model-based design methods focus on modeling in different physical fields such as mechanics, electrical, and control. Considering that the design process of complex equipment is a demand-driven, step-by-step iterative and refined forward design process, the current methods cannot achieve the modeling of equipment architecture from demand, function, logic to physics, and it is difficult to meet the requirements of rapid conversion of digital models, trade-off analysis, and process traceability at each stage of forward design. Summary of the invention

[0003] In order to solve the above problems, the present application provides an equipment architecture modeling forward design method, which mainly includes: Step S1, determining the system use case of the equipment according to the top-level design requirements of the equipment; Step S2: Determine the functional components of the equipment and the interface relationship between the functional components according to the system use case, and establish a functional architecture model; Step S3: establishing a plurality of logical architecture models corresponding to the functional architecture model according to the mapping relationship between the functional components and the logical components, wherein each of the logical architecture models includes a plurality of logical components, and each logical component carries at least one functional component; Step S4: selecting an optimal logical architecture model from multiple logical architecture models according to preset system security evaluation indicators; Step S5: construct a physical architecture model according to the specific physical devices that implement the logical components and interfaces in the logical architecture model.

[0004] Preferably, step S1 further comprises: Step S11, dividing the top-level design requirements of the equipment into functional requirements and non-functional requirements; Step S12: Determine the user, supporter, owner, supervisor and affected party related to the functional requirements, and take the user, supporter, owner, supervisor and affected party as the main stakeholders of the equipment; Step S13: determine the interaction relationship between each of the main stakeholders and the equipment under each typical task profile, and divide the system use cases of the equipment.

[0005] Preferably, in step S13, the typical mission profile includes an aircraft ground preparation profile, a take-off profile, a cruise profile, a mission execution profile, an approach and landing profile, and a mission data return profile.

[0006] Preferably, before step S3, the method further comprises: For each logical component, the adaptation function list and interface constraint set of the logical component are established according to the historical usage of the equipment and the interface supported by the logical component. When the function corresponding to a functional component is in the adaptation function list of the logical component, or the corresponding interface satisfies the interface constraint set of the logical component, a mapping relationship between the functional component and the logical component is established.

[0007] Preferably, in step S3, when multiple logical architecture models corresponding to the functional architecture model are established, for each logical architecture model, when an interface relationship exists between two different functional components corresponding to any two logical components therein, an interaction interface between the two logical components is automatically constructed.

[0008] Preferably, in step S4, the system safety evaluation index is a weighted calculation result of the safety factors between each logical component in the logical architecture model and each corresponding functional component in the functional architecture model, and the logical architecture model with the highest system safety evaluation index is the optimal logical architecture model.

[0009] Preferably, the safety factor is calculated by the following formula: a ij =1 / (R fi *R cj ); Among them, a ij From the functional component f i To the logic component c j The corresponding safety factor during mapping, R fi For the functional component f i The function importance level factor is taken from low to high according to the importance level, R cj For the logic component c j The failure risk factor is taken from low to high according to the failure probability level.

[0010] Preferably, the weight for weighting the safety factor is set to: For the logic component corresponding to the safety factor, when the logic component is connected in series or in parallel, a correction factor inversely proportional to the number of series or parallel connections is set, and the correction factor is used as the weight of the safety factor corresponding to the logic component.

[0011] Preferably, step S5 further comprises: When two logical components with an interactive relationship in the logical architecture model are mapped to two different physical devices, an interactive interface of the two physical devices is automatically created according to the interactive relationship between the logical components.

[0012] Preferably, step S5 further includes establishing an association relationship between the top-level design requirements of the equipment, the functional architecture model, the logical architecture model and the physical architecture model.

[0013] This application realizes the modeling design of equipment architecture from requirements, functions, logic to physical devices, ensuring the agile conversion, rapid optimization and design consistency of digital models in each stage of forward design. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0014] Figure 1 It is a flow chart of a preferred embodiment of the equipment architecture modeling forward design method of the present application.

[0015] Figure 2 This application Figure 1 A schematic diagram of mapping from functional components to logical components of the illustrated embodiment.

[0016] Figure 3 This application Figure 1 A schematic diagram of the multi-level association relationship of the complex equipment architecture model of the illustrated embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0017] In order to make the purpose, technical scheme and advantages of the implementation of this application clearer, the technical scheme in the implementation of this application will be described in more detail in combination with the drawings in the implementation of this application. In the drawings, the same or similar reference numerals throughout represent the same or similar elements or elements with the same or similar functions. The described implementation is a part of the implementation of this application, not all of the implementations. The implementation described below with reference to the drawings is exemplary and is intended to be used to explain this application, and cannot be understood as a limitation on this application. Based on the implementation in this application, all other implementations obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without making creative work are within the scope of protection of this application. The implementation of this application is described in detail below in combination with the drawings.

[0018] This application provides a forward design method for equipment architecture modeling, such as Figure 1 As shown, it mainly includes: Step S1, determining the system use case of the equipment according to the top-level design requirements of the equipment; Step S2: Determine the functional components of the equipment and the interface relationship between the functional components according to the system use case, and establish a functional architecture model; Step S3: establishing a plurality of logical architecture models corresponding to the functional architecture model according to the mapping relationship between the functional components and the logical components, wherein each of the logical architecture models includes a plurality of logical components, and each logical component carries at least one functional component; Step S4: selecting an optimal logical architecture model from multiple logical architecture models according to preset system security evaluation indicators; Step S5: construct a physical architecture model according to the specific physical devices that implement the logical components and interfaces in the logical architecture model.

[0019] The present application determines the top-level design requirements in step S1, then constructs the functional architecture model in step S2, constructs the logical architecture model in steps S3 and S4, and finally constructs the physical architecture model in step S5, thereby realizing the equipment architecture modeling design from requirements, functions, logic to physics.

[0020] In some optional implementations, step S1 further includes: Step S11, dividing the top-level design requirements of the equipment into functional requirements and non-functional requirements; Step S12: Determine the user, supporter, owner, supervisor and affected party related to the functional requirements, and take the user, supporter, owner, supervisor and affected party as the main stakeholders of the equipment; Step S13: determine the interaction relationship between each of the main stakeholders and the equipment under each typical task profile, and divide the system use cases of the equipment.

[0021] In this embodiment, the top-level design requirements of complex equipment issued by the requirements analyst are received, and the top-level design requirements are analyzed and divided into functional requirements and non-functional requirements. For functional requirements, a preliminary analysis of the stakeholders of the equipment system is carried out. From the two aspects of mission execution and guarantee throughout the life cycle of the equipment, the users, supporters, owners, regulators and affected parties of these functional requirements are identified as the main stakeholders of the equipment. Then, the interaction between the stakeholders and the equipment is analyzed, and the use cases of the equipment are divided according to the typical mission profile of the complex equipment.

[0022] If the equipment use case is complex, it can be further refined, but equipment use cases at the same level should meet the principle of independence.

[0023] In some optional implementations, in step S13, the typical mission profile includes an aircraft ground preparation profile, a take-off profile, a cruise profile, a mission execution profile, an approach and landing profile, and a mission data return profile.

[0024] Then in step S2, according to the use cases of this level of complex equipment and the different complexity characteristics, corresponding use case modeling analysis is carried out in a targeted manner to identify the functional components and their interface relationships that should be included in this level, and to establish a functional architecture model for this level.

[0025] refer to Figure 1,In constructing the functional architecture model, activity flow analysis, ,interaction scenario analysis, state transition analysis and aircraft functional ,hazard analysis are mainly conducted based on the aircraft ,functional characteristics.

[0026] When performing activity flow analysis, first analyze the operation process of the use case, decompose the operation activities of the use case, the relationship between activities, and the decision logic of the activity path, and then analyze the input information and output information of each activity, which include data flow, control flow and material flow. The data flow represents the specific data that depends on the activities, which is generally a continuous quantity. The control flow represents the instruction signal that drives the start, interruption and recovery of the activity. The material flow represents the mechanical power, electricity, hydraulic and other energy transmitted between activities. When performing interactive scenario analysis, if the interaction relationship between a use case activity and the outside is relatively complex, further identify other external objects that interact with the equipment during the operation of the use case, including related parties or other systems. Starting from the initial activity in the activity diagram model, according to the data flow relationship of each activity, further consider the input signal of the external object, gradually identify the information interaction relationship between the use case and other external objects, and establish the interactive interface under the use case scenario.

[0027] When conducting state transition analysis, the possible states of the equipment in the use case scenario are defined in detail from the state perspective, the triggering events, triggering conditions and transfer logic of the state are defined in detail, and the state transition model of the use case is established. In the state identification process, in order to more comprehensively identify the possible failure of the equipment, the equipment state in both normal and abnormal states of each activity should be identified in detail based on the activity diagram model, so as to ensure the consistency of state identification and equipment function design. When conducting aircraft functional hazard analysis, functional hazard analysis is performed based on the state transition model, and the impact of each functional failure on the safety of the equipment system is determined according to the safety design standards, so as to determine the development assurance level of each function.

[0028] Finally, a comprehensive analysis is conducted on the activities and interaction interfaces of each use case, the related activities are merged, and the strongly related activities are aggregated. According to the principle of functional independence, independent functional components and their data flow, control flow, and material flow interfaces are identified, and the functional architecture model of this level is established using the architectural modeling method.

[0029] With the functional architecture model, it can be converted into a logical architecture model in step S3.

[0030] In some optional implementations, the process further includes before step S3: For each logical component, the adaptation function list and interface constraint set of the logical component are established according to the historical usage of the equipment and the interface supported by the logical component. When the function corresponding to a functional component is in the adaptation function list of the logical component, or the corresponding interface satisfies the interface constraint set of the logical component, a mapping relationship between the functional component and the logical component is established.

[0031] like Figure 2 As shown, a mapping from the functional architecture component set to the logical architecture component set is established, which is represented as , , ; Where A represents the set of functional components in the functional architecture model; N represents the number of functional components; f i represents the i-th functional component, 1≤i≤N; B represents the set of logical components in the logical architecture model; M represents the number of logical components; c j represents the jth logical component, 1≤j≤M; Figure 2 The mapped risk factor in f i to c j The corresponding safety factor when mapping is used, and its value is f i The corresponding function importance level and the logical component c to which it is mapped j The product of the corresponding fault probability level is calculated. According to the above method, the mapping of all functional components to logical components is completed, and an optional mapping set from the functional architecture model to the logical architecture model is established.

[0032] In some optional implementations, in step S3, when multiple logical architecture models corresponding to the functional architecture model are established, for each logical architecture model, when an interface relationship exists between two different functional components corresponding to any two logical components therein, an interaction interface between the two logical components is automatically constructed.

[0033] This embodiment is usually executed after the optimal logical architecture model is selected in step S4. At this time, step S3 can only construct each logical component. After the final logical components are selected in step S4, these logical components need to further clarify the interaction interface between each other, and according to the preferred function-logic mapping scheme, comply with the interface consistency principle, and carry out the transformation analysis from functional components to logical components according to one-to-one or many-to-one mapping rules. If two functional components with an interactive relationship in the functional architecture are mapped to two different logical components, the interaction interface of the two logical components is automatically created according to the functional unit interaction relationship, and all logical component interface definitions are completed in sequence to establish a logical architecture model.

[0034] In some optional implementations, in step S4, the system safety evaluation index is a weighted calculation result of the safety factors between each logical component in the logical architecture model and each corresponding functional component in the functional architecture model, and the logical architecture model with the highest system safety evaluation index is the optimal logical architecture model.

[0035] In some optional embodiments, the safety factor is calculated by the following formula: a ij =1 / (R fi *R cj ); Among them, a ij From the functional component f i To the logic component c j The corresponding safety factor during mapping, R fi For the functional component f i The function importance level factor is taken from low to high according to the importance level, R cj For the logic component c j The failure risk factor is taken from low to high according to the failure probability level.

[0036] In the above two embodiments, the mapping process from function to logic should meet the unique allocation criterion constraint in the project. In actual projects, the allocation from function to logic component generally needs to meet the unique allocation principle, that is, the function must be uniquely allocated to a certain logic component, so as to ensure that the boundaries between logic components are clear. As mentioned above, the safety factor matrix of the mapping from the functional component set A to the logic component set B is established. , whose element a ij From the functional component With logic components The safety factor corresponding to the mapping; according to formula a ij =1 / (R fi *R cj ) calculates the value of each element, where the function component The function importance level factor is R fi (According to the importance level, the values ​​are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 from low to high), logical components The failure risk factor is R cj (The failure probability levels from low to high are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). It can be seen that when the functional component with the highest importance level is mapped to the logical component with the highest failure probability level, the corresponding safety factor is the smallest, and this mapping is the least satisfactory mapping scheme; when the functional component with the highest importance level is mapped to the optional logical component with the lowest failure probability level, the corresponding safety factor is the largest, and this mapping is the best mapping scheme.

[0037] It should be noted that in the calculation formula of the safety factor, the functional components are fixed, that is, the value of the function importance level factor is fixed. The safety factor is essentially inversely proportional to the failure risk factor, that is, for a specific functional component, the logical component with a lower failure probability needs to be considered for selection.

[0038] In some optional implementations, the weight for weighting the safety factor is set to: For the logic component corresponding to the safety factor, when the logic component is connected in series or in parallel, a correction factor inversely proportional to the number of series or parallel connections is set, and the correction factor is used as the weight of the safety factor corresponding to the logic component.

[0039] The safety factor of a single function-logic mapping can be determined through the above analysis, but this method does not consider the impact of the association between the function-logic mappings on the overall risk of the system architecture. Therefore, this embodiment comprehensively considers the series and parallel relationships between the logic components and the safety factor of a single function-logic mapping, and establishes a safety evaluation model for the entire system function-logic architecture mapping scheme, that is, the correction factor described in the above embodiment is set to be inversely proportional to the number of series or parallel connections, and the correction factor is used as the weight of the safety factor corresponding to the logic component. For example, when the three logic components corresponding to the three functional components are connected in series, the correction factors of the safety factors corresponding to the three logic components are all set to 1 / 3. When two of the three logic components corresponding to the three functional components are connected in series and the other logic component is independent, the safety factors corresponding to the first two logic components are set to 1 / 2, and the safety factor corresponding to the other logic component is 1.

[0040] In the above embodiment, in order to facilitate explanation that the correction factor is inversely proportional to the number of series or parallel connections, the reciprocal of the number of series or parallel connections is directly taken. In fact, in order to weaken the impact of the series-parallel relationship on the overall safety of the system, the correction coefficient y can be calculated using the following formula: y=0.5+(1-0.5) / x. Where x is the number of series and parallel connections, the correction coefficient y can be limited to between 0.5 and 1. When the logic components are not connected in series or in parallel, the correction coefficient is 1. The greater the number of series and parallel connections, the closer the correction coefficient y is to 0.5.

[0041] Finally, taking system security as an evaluation indicator, after a comprehensive trade-off analysis of each mapping in the optional mapping set, the optimal logical architecture model is determined based on the criterion of minimizing system security risk.

[0042] Finally, in step S5, a physical architecture model is constructed, including physical devices for implementing each logical component and physical interfaces such as mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and control of each physical device.

[0043] In some optional implementations, step S5 further includes: When two logical components with an interactive relationship in the logical architecture model are mapped to two different physical devices, an interactive interface of the two physical devices is automatically created according to the interactive relationship between the logical components.

[0044] In this embodiment, in the process of identifying physical devices according to logical components, the physical integrated design of the equipment must be fully considered. Under the condition of meeting the security isolation requirements, if the logical components can be implemented through existing physical devices, in principle, no new physical devices will be added; in the process of identifying physical device interfaces according to logical component interfaces, if two logical components with an interactive relationship in the logical architecture are mapped to two different physical devices, an interactive interface between the two physical devices is automatically created according to the interactive relationship between the logical units; if multiple logical signal interfaces in the logical architecture are transmitted through the same bus, they are integrated into a bus interface in the physical architecture; all physical device interface definitions are completed in sequence, and a physical architecture model is established.

[0045] In some optional implementations, step S5 further includes establishing an association relationship between the top-level design requirements of the equipment, the functional architecture model, the logical architecture model, and the physical architecture model.

[0046] like Figure 3 As shown, in the process of building the demand association relationship, if the design demand is a functional demand, the association relationship between the design demand and the functional component, the logical component and the physical component is established in turn, and the demand coverage analysis and demand change impact analysis are performed through this type of association relationship; in the process of building the functional component association relationship, not only the relationship between the newly derived demand and the functional component generated in the function development process should be dynamically maintained, but also the association relationship between the functional component and the logical component should be established, and the association relationship with the physical component should be formed through the logical component, and the functional impact relationship analysis is performed through this association relationship; in the process of building the logical component association relationship, the relationship between the logical component and the design demand undertaken and its derived design demand, the relationship between the logical component and the implemented functional component, and the relationship between the logical component and the physical component that implements the logical component should be established respectively, and the design change impact of the logical architecture can be quickly analyzed and the design consistency can be checked through the analysis of this type of association relationship; in the process of building the physical architecture association relationship, the relationship between the physical device and the design demand undertaken and its derived design demand, and the relationship between the physical device and the implemented logical component should be established respectively, and the design change impact of the logical architecture can be quickly analyzed and the design consistency can be checked through the analysis of this type of association relationship.

[0047] The above is only a specific implementation of the present application, but the protection scope of the present application is not limited thereto. Any changes or substitutions that can be easily thought of by a person skilled in the art within the technical scope disclosed in the present application should be included in the protection scope of the present application. Therefore, the protection scope of the present application shall be based on the protection scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A forward design method for equipment architecture modeling, characterized in that: include: Step S1, determining the system use case of the equipment according to the top-level design requirements of the equipment; Step S2: Determine the functional components of the equipment and the interface relationship between the functional components according to the system use case, and establish a functional architecture model; Step S3: establishing a plurality of logical architecture models corresponding to the functional architecture model according to the mapping relationship between the functional components and the logical components, wherein each of the logical architecture models includes a plurality of logical components, and each logical component carries at least one functional component; Step S4: selecting an optimal logical architecture model from multiple logical architecture models according to preset system security evaluation indicators; Step S5: construct a physical architecture model according to the specific physical devices that implement the logical components and interfaces in the logical architecture model.

2. The equipment architecture modeling forward design method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Step S1 further comprises: Step S11, dividing the top-level design requirements of the equipment into functional requirements and non-functional requirements; Step S12: Determine the user, supporter, owner, supervisor and affected party related to the functional requirements, and take the user, supporter, owner, supervisor and affected party as the main stakeholders of the equipment; Step S13: determine the interaction relationship between each of the main stakeholders and the equipment under each typical task profile, and divide the system use cases of the equipment.

3. The equipment architecture modeling forward design method according to claim 2, characterized in that: In step S13, the typical mission profile includes an aircraft ground preparation profile, a take-off profile, a cruise profile, a mission execution profile, an approach and landing profile, and a mission data return profile.

4. The equipment architecture modeling forward design method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Before step S3, the method further comprises: For each logical component, the adaptation function list and interface constraint set of the logical component are established according to the historical usage of the equipment and the interface supported by the logical component. When the function corresponding to a functional component is in the adaptation function list of the logical component, or the corresponding interface satisfies the interface constraint set of the logical component, a mapping relationship between the functional component and the logical component is established.

5. The equipment architecture modeling forward design method according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S3, when multiple logical architecture models corresponding to the functional architecture model are established, for each logical architecture model, when there is an interface relationship between two different functional components corresponding to any two logical components therein, an interaction interface between the two logical components is automatically constructed.

6. The equipment architecture modeling forward design method according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S4, the system safety evaluation index is a weighted calculation result of the safety factors between each logical component in the logical architecture model and each corresponding functional component in the functional architecture model. The logical architecture model with the highest system safety evaluation index is the optimal logical architecture model.

7. The equipment architecture modeling forward design method according to claim 6, characterized in that: The safety factor is calculated by the following formula: a ij =1 / (R fi *R cj ); Among them, a ij From functional component fi to logical component c j The corresponding safety factor during mapping, R fi For the functional component f i The function importance level factor is taken from low to high according to the importance level, R cj For the logic component c j The failure risk factor is taken from low to high according to the failure probability level.

8. The equipment architecture modeling forward design method according to claim 6, characterized in that: The weights for weighting the safety factors are set as: For the logic component corresponding to the safety factor, when the logic component is connected in series or in parallel, a correction factor inversely proportional to the number of series or parallel connections is set, and the correction factor is used as the weight of the safety factor corresponding to the logic component.

9. The equipment architecture modeling forward design method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Step S5 further comprises: When two logical components with an interactive relationship in the logical architecture model are mapped to two different physical devices, an interactive interface of the two physical devices is automatically created according to the interactive relationship between the logical components.

10. The equipment architecture modeling forward design method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Step S5 further includes establishing the relationship between the top-level design requirements of the equipment, the functional architecture model, the logical architecture model and the physical architecture model.

Images