Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s13272-015-0156-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
Abstract This work presents a novel holistic framework aircraft system functions in an A320-like scenario. Results
for Distributed Integrated Modular Avionics (DIMA) ar- show significant optimization potential of generated ar-
chitecture design and optimization. Integrated Modular chitectures compared to a manually designed one. The
Avionics (IMA) are a standardization of avionics compo- resulting architectures are analyzed and compared in per-
nents. IMA is beneficial in weight and costs if the com- formance and structure in detail.
plexity of sizing, function allocation, and topology
selection is mastered. In preceding publications, stand- Keywords IMA Avionics Optimization
alone models and optimization algorithms were developed, Architecture Pareto Model-based
which significantly support different aspects of DIMA ar-
chitecture design. This article extends, integrates, and
compares all methods in a holistic framework, which en- 1 Introduction
ables model and algorithm-aided design of avionics ar-
chitectures. Domain-specific modeling of systems Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) are state-of-the art
software, hardware, and aircraft anatomy enables auto- avionics systems of recent aircraft. An IMA system consists
mated verification and early evaluation of architectures. of standardized hardware for computing and I/O, as well as a
Moreover, the model is the foundation for a flexible kit of common high-bandwidth network. The resources of the
eight optimization routines. For design issues in which hardware are shared in a safe manner between hosted aircraft
humans likely lose the overview optimization routines are system functions, i.e., IMA is a single avionics system for
proposed. The degree of freedom in optimization ranges multiple avionics functions. Its purpose is defined by func-
from function mapping over routing to a complete archi- tion allocation and configuration [1]. The shared utilization
tecture generation. Routines for platform selection, net- of fewer devices and fewer device types make IMA systems
work, and topology optimization are unique and unrivaled superior in weight and costs compared to traditional avionics
today. All optimization problems are solved globally op- systems [2]. The second generations of IMA platforms, the
timal and a multi-objective solving algorithm calculates the so-called Distributed IMA (DIMA), increase the saving
best trade-off architectures for contradicting objectives, the potential by the separation of computing and I/O and by
Pareto optimum. All optimization routines are extensively spatially distributed IMA device installations [3].
tested by designing the optimal DIMA architecture for The main challenge in developing DIMA avionics sys-
tems, called DIMA architectures, is the complexity re-
This paper is based on a presentation at the German Aerospace
sulting from shared resources and spatial distribution [4, 5].
Congress, September 16–18, 2014, Augsburg, Germany. Currently CPUs, memory, and I/O are shared by ap-
proximately 1000 individual functions and peripheral
& B. Annighöfer components such as sensors and actuators. Current archi-
bjoern.annighoefer@tuhh.de
tectures comprise round about 50 DIMA modules, and up
1
Hamburg University of Technology / SYSTAR Innovation, to 1000 installation locations exist for modules and pe-
Nesspriel 5, 21129 Hamburg, Germany ripherals. Bringing systems, hardware, and anatomy
123
B. Annighöfer, F. Thielecke
123
A systems architecting framework for optimal distributed integrated modular avionics architectures
123
B. Annighöfer, F. Thielecke
123
A systems architecting framework for optimal distributed integrated modular avionics architectures
2.4 Mapping
3 Optimization routines
123
B. Annighöfer, F. Thielecke
first level are single assignments as known from the dis- of devices and tasks. An additional input is the number
tributed systems research, e.g., task assignment or signal of ports per switch. The results are switch and link
routing. They depend on each other. For instance, task instances placed in installation locations. Moreover, all
assignment depends on device assignment and vice versa. signals are routed while resource and segregation
Level two routines are combined device type or network constraints are hold.
optimizations, which leverage some level one dependency. • Topology optimization combines device type and
The full potential for optimization has level three with network optimization. Since the only inputs are tasks,
combined device and network optimization. All routines signals, device types, and the anatomy, it is almost
can be applied to a single objective or calculate the multi- complete architecture generation. It finds the optimal
objective optimum in terms of the Pareto optimum. In number of devices and network topology, while
practice, the routines which match the process and avail- considering the trade-off between device and network
able data best are selected. In addition, the scope can be weight or costs.
chosen from single-system optimization to full or even
multiple aircraft optimizations. Each single routine has
been summarized below. This is, however, only a top-level 3.1 Algorithms and solving
summery. For details on mathematics see [25–29].
The eight optimization routines presented above are solved
• Device assignment finds the optimal installation loca- with the same mathematical foundation. All optimization
tions for a set of devices in a given anatomy. The routines are combinatorial optimization problems. A well-
devices are already assigned with functions. Optimized known mathematical representation and the most advanced
is, for instance, the minimum mass for peripheral globally optimal solving algorithms are used. All problems
wirings. are expressed as binary programs (BP) and are solved with
• Task assignment maps a set of tasks to devices installed the Branch-and-Cut approach. The difficulties are finding a
in an anatomy. The mapping considers all resource and suitable BP formulation for each DIMA design problem
segregation constraints. Task assignment can, for and making the right simplifications such that architectures
instance, minimize the device mass by using less above 100 elements can be optimized.
devices or the peripheral wiring mass. The general form of a binary program (BP) is to find a
• Peripheral wire assignment assumes an architecture binary solution vector x such that
with tasks and peripheral already assigned to locations.
It finds the optimal, shortest, routes for peripheral f Tx
wires. If the related tasks need to be segregated, routes is minimized subject to
are also segregated.
• Link assignment finds the cable routes for links from Ax b
the hardware layer if devices are already assigned. If Aeq x ¼ beq
signals are assigned to links, spatial segregations are
x 2 f0; 1gn :
also respected.
• Signal assignment calculates the optimal routes for x encodes—depending on the optimization routine—either
signals if tasks, devices, and links are already assigned. task assignment possibilities, signal routes, or topologies
While respecting bandwidth limitations and segrega- and so on. For instance, in the solution vector for tasks
tions, signal assignment, can, for instance, minimize the assignment, a variable xi in the solution vector x represents
number of necessary links and switches. a unique assignment possibility, i.e., there is an xi for each
• Device type optimization derives the optimal number of capability on each device for each task.
devices, the allocation of tasks, and the device sizings
T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T2 ... TN T
in parallel. Its inputs are a set of device types, system
C1 C1 C1 C2 ... ... ... CNC
tasks, and the anatomy. The resources per device types
D1 D2 . . . D1 ... ... ... DND
are not specified, but the possible types and an upper
x ¼ ðx1 x2 ... ... ... ... ... xN x Þ
limit is given. According to the infrastructure resources,
the algorithm decides how many instances of which N is the total number of elements of tasks T, capa-
device type are used in which location and how tasks bilities C, and devices D. Details on the other problem
are distributed. The objectives can not only be device formulations can be found in [30].
and wiring mass, but also costs The cost vector f allows quasi-linear objectives.
• Network optimization finds the optimal number of links ‘‘Quasi’’ means that by introducing auxiliary variables,
and switches for a given set of signals and the locations certain nonlinearities can be considered. The objectives
123
A systems architecting framework for optimal distributed integrated modular avionics architectures
123
B. Annighöfer, F. Thielecke
4.2 Scenario
123
A systems architecting framework for optimal distributed integrated modular avionics architectures
4.3 Results
123
B. Annighöfer, F. Thielecke
Table 1 Number of solutions and calculation time for each opti- two additional GO RDC with no OIC. Because the removal
mization routine of one device and the smart shifting of tasks, mass and SSC
Routine # Solutions Time are lower than in the manual mapping, although the re-
sources per device type are the same than in the manual
Signal assignment 1 10 ms
design.
Device assignment 3 5s Results of device type optimization are up to 10 %
Task assignment 6 10 m lighter than the reference architecture. Figure 17 shows the
Network optimization 5 4h Pareto optimal solution with the lowest mass and SSC.
Device type opt. 13 45 m Obviously the decrease is made by having only six RDCs
Topology optimizationa 4 48 h compared to the ten in the manual design. By resizing the
a
Only single objective optima with 20 % uncertainty were calculated number and types of resources per device type, it is pos-
sible to increase the usage rate of RDCs from 75 to 95 %.
while Mass and SSC, as well as OIC and IPC, share some The increase in cable weight is more than compensated.
minima. Moreover, the trade-off space is not linear, but the Interestingly, no CPMs can be removed because segrega-
relative decrease in OIC and IPC is higher than the related tions are the dominating driver. By removing four RDCs,
decrease in mass/SSC. Moreover, this trade-off has some OIC and IPC are decreased.
knee-points. Optimizations including the network show a From topology optimization, only the four extreme so-
more equal distribution between mass/SSC and OIC/IPC. lutions could be determined because of extremely high
The runtimes for optimization ranged from below one runtime. Figures 18 and 19 show the mapping and network
minute for signal and device assignment to 10 and 45 min topology of the solutions with the overall lowest mass. The
for task and device type optimization up to 4 and 48 h for decrease of additional 12 kg in mass shows the major
network and topology optimization on a 3 GHz desktop
computer. For the latter only four points of the Pareto
optimum could be determined. Runtimes, therefore,
strongly correlate with the achieved improvements.
Table 1 lists the number of solutions and calculation time
of the six optimizations.
For a better understanding, three extreme solutions (1–3)
are analyzed in detail. In the following section, the archi-
tectures for the OIC-optimal task assignment, the lightest
device type optimization, and the mass-optimal topology
optimization are given.
The architecture with the lowest OIC in the Pareto op-
timum of task assignment is depicted in Fig. 16. Compared
to the manual solution, one RDC has been removed low-
ering the OIC. In addition, tasks with high MEL levels are
Fig. 17 Solution 2—device type optimization minimum mass
grouped on two nose and two middle RDC. This creates
Fig. 16 Solution 1—task assignment with minimum OIC Fig. 18 Solution 3—topology optimization minimum mass
123
A systems architecting framework for optimal distributed integrated modular avionics architectures
6 Conclusion
influence of network mass and the correlation of task
placement and network links. Looking at the mapping in In avionics systems based on the DIMA concept, stan-
Fig. 18, it shows that the same number of device is used as dardized avionics modules and network are shared by
in device type optimization. The device positions and the safety critical system functions. Current architectures host
task allocation are, however, slightly different. Most im- approximately 1000 functions, which cause non-optimal
portantly, one RDC is moved from the tail to the middle. manual selections, sizings, and allocations of DIMA ar-
This saves long links and makes it lucrative to only have chitectures. To support design engineers, a model and al-
four switches in the avionics bay instead of eight in the gorithm-aided systems architecting framework for avionics
manual design. Although the mapping and network is architectures is proposed. The framework comprises a do-
asymmetric, the assignment of systems is left–right sym- main-specific model and optimization routines, both
metric. This was not the case for device type optimization seamlessly integrated. An architecture model especially for
and task assignment. Left–right symmetry seems beneficial planning enables the independent modeling of systems,
when targeting smaller networks, which is reasonable since hardware, and anatomy, which can be combined to multi-
it eases signal segregation. ple architecture variants. Information is rigid enough for
early verification, evaluation, and optimization. A set of
eight flexible optimization routines is presented, that au-
5 Discussion tomates design tasks ranging from function allocation,
module selection, and network definition to complete
Analyzing the results from the optimization studies, it can topology generation. The latter are unique in the IMA
be stated that the scenario bears high optimization poten- scope. Routines can be chosen from three levels of au-
tials in all objectives, which were not visible manually. It tomation and are free in their input scope and objectives.
shows that these improvements are especially high if The stable and efficient foundations for solving the opti-
complex and non-traditional objectives as OIC and IPC are mization problems are Binary programs and best-effort
considered. Moreover, architectures looking asymmetric or MILP solvers. Moreover, a multi-objective solver exten-
odd on the first glimpse might be optimal, but would never sion is provided that retrieves Pareto optimal architecture
be chosen manually. The assumption that DIMA design sets. Model and optimization are implemented in the
issues are dependent and that higher degree of freedom in Avionics Architect and its Toolbox. The application of six
optimization increases the room for improvements is of the optimization routines to an A320-like example of
proven. four aircraft systems reveals optimization potentials up to
The runtime was acceptable for level one and level two 75 % compared to manual design. It showed up the best
routines. For topology optimization, this small excerpt of a possible trade-offs for mass, SSC, OIC, and IPC. More-
complete aircraft hits already the computational feasibility over, the resulting architectures showed how mass or cost
limit. The latter can be weakened by restricting the solu- improvements affect the architecture. Overall, the opti-
tions space. See [29] for a successful optimization of an mization potential increases with the degree of freedom in
A380-like network. However, it is visible that for bigger optimization, which is proportional to the level of au-
architectures, such complete and unbounded optimization tomation. However, solving time increases exponentially.
studies are maybe not feasible. Therefore, the framework Nevertheless, if the solution space is manually bounded
especially optimization cannot be a replacement for the and objectives are wisely chosen, optimizations can be
design engineer, but a valuable helper and sparring partner. applied on full-scaled avionics architectures, leading to
123
B. Annighöfer, F. Thielecke
results, insights, and design justifications, hardly achieved 14. Object Modeling Group. Omg Systems Modeling Language
manually. (OMG SysML). http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.3/, June
2012
15. Sagaspe, L., Bel, G., Bieber, P., Boniol, F., Castel, C.: Safe allocation
6.1 Outlook of avionics shared resources. In: IEEE International Symposium on
High-Assurance Systems Engineering, pp. 25–33 (2005)
Commercial applications showed that up to the second 16. Sagaspe, L., Bieber, P.: Constraint-based design and allocation of
shared avionics resources. In: 26th AIAA-IEEE Digital Avionics
level of automation routines can successfully be applied to Systems Conference, Dallas (2007)
the full system set of aircrafts of A380 dimensions. How- 17. Bieber, P., Bodeveix, J.P., Castel, C., Doose, D., Filali, M.,
ever, this requires a manual restriction of the search space Minot, F., Pralet, C.: Constraint-based design of avionics plat-
and the restriction of the number of objectives optimized in form—preliminary design exploration. In: 4th European Con-
gress ERTS Embedded Real Time Software (2008)
parallel. Achieving full-scale optimizations on large air- 18. Al Sheikh, A., Brun, O., Hladik, P-E.: Decision support for task
crafts or even complete aircraft families is a major aim for mapping on IMA architecture. Junior Researcher Workshop on
future works. This requires improvements in problem for- Real-Time Computing (JR-WRTC2009), pp. 31–34, Oct 2009
mulation and combinatorial optimization. The other aim is 19. Salomon, U.: Automatic design of IMA-based systems. Ph.D.
thesis, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering and Geodesy of the
to include redundancy and power distribution in architec- University of Stuttgart (2014)
ture optimization. 20. Shu, Z.: Communication infrastructure supporting real-time ap-
plications. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität Hamburg-Har-
burg (2008)
21. Charara, H., Scharbarg, J.-L., Ermont, J., Fraboul, C.: Methods
for bounding end-to-end delays on an AFDX network. In: 18th
References Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (2006)
22. Sivanthi, T., Zhang, S., Killat, U.: A holistic framework for op-
1. Halle, M., Thielecke, F.: Konfigurationsmanagement für Inte- timal avionics system resource planning. In: AST 2007 Workshop
grierte Modulare Avionik. Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkon- on Aircraft System Technologies, pp. 257–268 (2007)
gress, Hamburg (2010) 23. Carta, D.C., de Oliveira, J.M.P., Starr, R.R.: Allocation of
2. Prisaznuk, P.J.: Integrated modular avionics. Aerospace and avionics communication using boolean satisfiability. In: IEEE/
Electronics Conference, vol. 1, pp. 39–45, May 1992 AIAA 31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC),
3. Fuchsen, R.: Preparing the next generation of IMA: a new tech- pp. 6C1–1–6C1–12, Oct 2012
nology for the SCARLETT Program. Digital Avionics Systems 24. Al Sheikh, A., Brun, O., Chéramy, M., Hladik, P.-E.: Optimal
Conference, pp. 7.B.5–1 –7.B.5–8, Oct 2009 design of virtual links in AFDX networks. Real Time Syst 16,
4. Watkins, C.B.: Integrated modular avionics: managing the allo- 1–29 (2012)
cation of shared intersystem resources. 25th Digital Avionics 25. Annighöfer, B., Kleemann, E., Thielecke, F.: Model-based de-
Systems Conference, pp. 1–12, Oct 2006 velopment of integrated modular avionics architectures on air-
5. Butz, H.: Open integrated modular avionic (IMA): state of the art craft-level. In: Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Bremen,
and future development road map at Airbus Deutschland. In: Sept 2011
Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Aircraft Sys- 26. Annighöfer, B., Thielecke, F.: Supporting the Design of
tem Technologies, pp. 211–222, Mar 2007 Distributed Integrated Modular Avionics Systems with Binary
6. Itier, J-B.: IMA1G—Genesis and results. Scarlett Moscow—1st Programming. Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Berlin
Forum, Sept 2009 (2012)
7. Maier, M.W., Rechtin, E.: The Art of Systems Architecting. CRC 27. Annighöfer, B., Thielecke, F.: Multi-objective mapping opti-
Press, Boca Raton (2000) mization for distributed modular integrated avionics. In: 31st
8. Fraboul, C., Martin, F.: Modeling advanced modular avionics Digital Avionics System Conference, Williamsburg, VA, USA,
architectures for early real-time performance analysis. In: Pro- Oct 2012
ceedings of the Seventh Euromicro Workshop on Parallel and 28. Annighöfer, B., Kleemann, E., Thielecke, F.: Automated selec-
Distributed Processing, pp. 181–188 (1999) tion, sizing, and mapping of integrated modular avionics mod-
9. Forster, S., Fischer, M., Windisch, A., Balser, B., Monjau, D.: A ules. In: 32nd Digital Avionics System Conference, Syracuse,
new specification methodology for embedded systems based on NY, USA, Oct 2013
the p-calculus process algebra. Rapid Syst Prototyp 200, 26–32 29. Annighöfer, B., Reif, C., Thielecke, F.: Network topology opti-
(2003) mization for distributed integrated modular avionics. In: 33rd
10. Gamatie, A., Brunette, C., Delamare, R., Gautier, T., Talpin, J.- Digital Avionics System Conference, Colorado Springs, CO,
P.: A modeling paradigm for integrated modular avionics design. USA, Oct 2014
In: 32nd EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and 30. Annighöfer, B.: Model-based architecting and optimization of
Advanced Applications, pp. 134–143, Sept 2006 distributed integrated modular avionics. Dissertation, Hamburg
11. Delange, J., Pautet, L., Plantec, A., Kerboeuf, M., Singhoff, F., University of Technology (2015)
Kordon, F.: Validate, simulate, and implement Arinc653 systems 31. Ozlen, M., Burton, B.A.: Multi-objective integer programming:
using the AADL. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGAda Annual an improved recursive algorithm. arXiv:1104.5324v1 (2011)
International Conference on Ada and Related Technologies, 32. Neumann, K., Kleemann, E., Reichel, R., Lehmann, M.: Quan-
pp. 31–44 (2009) titative evaluation criteria for modern avionic system architec-
12. Lafaye, M., Gatti, M., Faura, D., Pautet, L.: Model driven early tures. In: Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress. DGLR, Sept
exploration of IMA execution platform. In: Digital Avionics 2008
Systems Conference, pp. 7A2–1–7A2–11, Oct 2011
13. AADL. http://www.aadl.info (2009)
123