skip to main content
10.1145/3453417.3453427acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesrtnsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A model-based approach for analysing network communication timeliness in IMA systems at concept level

Published:22 July 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Analyzing the resource adequacy of complex cyber-physical systems at concept development stage can be a challenging task since there are a lot of uncertainties about the system at this stage. In Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) systems, with a life-cycle over several decades and potential functionality changes, we need to estimate resource needs at the early stage but leave capacity to absorb future modifications. Given an envisaged set of functions and a mapping to a candidate platform, one needs to assure that the selected network configuration will provide adequate resources to meet communication timeliness. In particular, whether the set of switches, the topology, and the available bandwidth are sufficient to meet the envisaged needs. In this paper, timeliness requirements are expressed as constraints on the freshness of data and a strict bounding of end-to-end latency. We support generation of UML/MARTE-based specifications by creating a domain-specific meta-model for IMA systems and a resource modelling approach for the study of time-critical systems. The instances of this model then specify the application requirements and various network configurations that can be formally analyzed. We present a tool, M2NC, for automatic derivation of a network calculus model through model transformation, and use the state-of-art NC tools for deriving the bounds for end-to-end timeliness. The approach is illustrated on an example avionics case study, consisting of 91 computational processes that exchange 629 different types of messages. The results of the analysis show that our approach can efficiently provide feedback on configurations that are compliant with the requirements imposed by the application and the toolchain provides a systematic mechanism to quickly identify potential future bottlenecks.

References

  1. Nesrine Badache, Katia Jaffrès-Runser, Jean-Luc Scharbarg, and Christian Fraboul. 2013. End-to-end delay analysis in an Integrated Modular Avionics architecture. In Int. Conf. Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA). 1–4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Steffen Bondorf, Paul Nikolaus, and Jens B. Schmitt. 2017. Quality and Cost of Deterministic Network Calculus: Design and Evaluation of an Accurate and Fast Analysis. In Proc. ACM Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems. 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3084453Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. S Bondorf and J. B. Schmitt. 2014. The DiscoDNC v2 – A Comprehensive Tool for Deterministic Network Calculus. In Proc. Int. Conf. Performance Evaluation Methodologies and Tools. 44–49. https://doi.org/10.4108/icst.Valuetools.2014.258167Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Marc Boyer, Nicolas Navet, and Marc Fumey. 2012. Experimental assessment of timing verification techniques for AFDX. In 6th European Congress on Embedded Real Time Software and Systems. Toulouse, France.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. H. Charara, J. . Scharbarg, J. Ermont, and C. Fraboul. 2006. Methods for bounding end-to-end delays on an AFDX network. In 18th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS’06). 10 pp.–202.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. R. L. Cruz. 1991. A calculus for network delay. I. Network elements in isolation. IEEE Trans. Information Theory 37, 1 (1991), 114–131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. R. L. Cruz. 1991. A calculus for network delay. II. Network analysis. IEEE Trans. Information Theory 37, 1 (1991), 132–141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Rodrigo Saar de Moraes and Simin Nadjm-Tehrani. 2019. Verifying Resource Adequacy of Networked IMA Systems at Concept Level. In Formal Techniques for Safety-Critical Systems International Workshop, FTSCS. 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46902-3_3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Rodrigo Saar de Moraes and Simin Nadjm-Tehrani. 2021. Abstraction Models for Verifying Resource Adequacy of IMA Systems at Concept Level. Science of Computer Programming(2021), to appear.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ning Ge and Marc Pantel. 2012. Time properties dedicated semantics for UML/MARTE safety critical real-time system verification. In Proc. European Conf. Modelling Foundations and Applications. 25–39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Siddhartha Kumar Khaitan and James D McCalley. 2014. Design techniques and applications of cyberphysical systems: A survey. IEEE Systems J. 9, 2 (2014), 350–365.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. X. Li, O. Cros, and L. George. 2014. The Trajectory approach for AFDX FIFO networks revisited and corrected. In Int. Conf. on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications. 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Aymen Louati, Kamei Barkaoui, and Chadlia Jerad. 2014. Time properties verification of UML/MARTE real-time systems. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Information Reuse and Integration. 386–393.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Adel Mahfoudhi and Walid Karamti. 2015. Transformation process of RTS scheduling analysis requirements from UML/MARTE to dynamic priority time Petri Nets. The Journal of Supercomputing 71, 10 (2015), 3637–3667.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Steven Martin, Pascale Minet, and Laurent George. 2005. End-to-end response time with fixed priority scheduling: trajectory approach versus holistic approach. Int. J. of Communication Systems 18, 1 (2005), 37–56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. OMG. 2017. Unified Modeling Language. Version 2.5.1, formal/17-12-05, December 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. OMG. 2019. UML Profile for MARTE, Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time Embedded Systems V1.2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Tiyam Robati, Abdelouahed Gherbi, and John Mullins. 2016. A Modeling and Verification Approach to the Design of Distributed IMA Architectures Using TTEthernet. Procedia Computer Science 83 (2016), 229–236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. A. Soni, X. Li, J. Scharbarg, and C. Fraboul. 2017. Work in progress paper: pessimism analysis of network calculus approach on AFDX networks. In IEEE Int. Symp. on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES). 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIES.2017.7993380Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Hongchun Wang and Wensheng Niu. 2018. A Review on Key Technologies of the Distributed Integrated Modular Avionics System. Int. J. of Wireless Information Networks 25, 3 (2018), 358–369.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Christopher B Watkins. 2006. Integrated modular avionics: managing the allocation of shared intersystem resources. In IEEE/AIAA Digital Avionics Systems Conf.1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Luxi Zhao, Paul Pop, Qiao Li, Junyan Chen, and Huagang Xiong. 2017. Timing analysis of rate-constrained traffic in TTEthernet using network calculus. Real-Time Systems 53, 2 (2017), 254–287.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    RTNS '21: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems
    April 2021
    236 pages
    ISBN:9781450390019
    DOI:10.1145/3453417

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 22 July 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate119of255submissions,47%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)19
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format