Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Methodology
Background
Conclusion and Future Work
Conclusion
Future Work
References
All Topics
Art
Architecture

Metrics for Integrated Modular Avionics Architecture

Profile image of Daniel JankovicDaniel Jankovic

2017

visibility

…

description

69 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Integrated modular avionics (IMA) architecture is an emerging concept in the military aerospace industry after being successfully implemented in the commercial domain. The highly modular architecture allows multiple aviation applications to execute on the same hardware thanks to defined standards by Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated (ARINC). System architects are responsible for designing and taking advantage of the IMA architecture to meet the requirements set by the stakeholders. They rely much on experience, system knowledge, and design patterns in their work. This thesis aims to find relevant metrics for system architects when developing IMA architecture in the aerospace industry. A metric survey, with focus on the aerospace and closely related industries, is conducted and broadened to include software and real-time metrics. To find one to three metrics multiple presentations and screenings are held together with a team of domain experts. Three metrics are selected: structural co...

Related papers

Communications for Integrated Modular Avionics
Andre Goforth

2007 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2007

The aerospace industry has been adopting avionics architectures to take advantage of advances in computer engineering. Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA), as described in ARINC 653, distributes functional modules into a robust configuration interconnected with a "virtual backplane" data communications network. Each avionics module's function is defined in software compliant with the APEX Application Program Interface. The Avionics Full-Duplex Ethernet (AFDX) network replaces the point-topoint connections used in previous distributed systems with "virtual links". This network creates a command and data path between avionics modules with the software and network defining the active virtual links over an integrated physical network. In the event of failures, the software and network can perform complex reconfigurations very quickly, resulting in a very robust system. In this paper, suitable architectures, standards and conceptual designs for IMA computational modules and the virtual backplane are defined and analyzed for applicability to spacecraft. The AFDX network standard is examined in detail and compared with IEEE 802.3 Ethernet. A reference design for the "Ancillary Sensor Network" (ASN) is outlined based on the IEEE 1451 "Standard for a Smart Transducer Interface for Sensors and Actuators" using realtime operating systems, time deterministic AFDX and wireless LAN technology. Strategies for flight test and operational data collection related to Systems Health Management are developed, facilitating vehicle ground processing. Finally, a laboratory evaluation defines performance metrics and test protocols and summarizes the results of AFDX network tests, allowing identification of design issues and determination of ASN subsystem scalability, from a few to potentially thousands of smart and legacy sensors. 12

View PDFchevron_right
New challenges for future avionic architectures
Pierre Bieber

E lectronic sets operated on aircraft are usually summarized as "avionic architectures" (for "aviation electronic architecture"). Since the 70s, avionic architectures, composed of digital processing modules and communication buses, are supporting more and more avionic applications such as flight control, flight management, etc. Hence, avionic architectures have become a central component of an aircraft. They have to ensure a large variety of important requirements: safety, robustness to equipment failures, determinism, and real-time.

View PDFchevron_right
An Approach to Electrical Integration: Integrated Modular Avionics
HARISH KUQSHAL

Traditionally avionics systems are more functionality centric with dedicated hardware and software. The global architecture of the avionic system was designed in accordance with the "federated architecture" principle: "one function = one computer". In recent times the trend is towards more and smarter functionality. With advancement of technology, methods, and mechanisms, the industry is moving quite rapidly towards the integrated architecture called integrated modular avionics (IMA). The principle is to integrate multiple functions with possibly different criticality levels on single avionic computing resources in order to keep the weight, volume, cost & power consumption of the avionic architecture within reasonable limits. In this paper existing avionics architectures and future architectures are compared and defined and analyzed for applicability to missile systems.

View PDFchevron_right
Using design patterns for safety assessment of integrated modular avionics
MARA ELI DE MATOS

2014 IEEE/AIAA 33rd Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), 2014

In commercial aircraft, safety assessment uses a combination of top-down and bottom-up techniques. This is performed for every system in each aircraft installation. Since several functions and subsystems are common to different aircraft models, there is the need to consider reusing components and safety artifacts across several platforms. This necessity has become even more evident with the introduction of the Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) concept. There is an increasing interest in developing design patterns in safety-critical systems. This paper provides an investigation of how SysML/UML design patterns can be used to assess the safety of IMA systems in a modular manner, while maintaining compliance with the existing civil aircraft certification guidelines. A case study is provided for a generic avionics system based on the IMA concept, fulfilling safety requirements for civil avionics.

View PDFchevron_right
Advanced Avionics Equipment on the Basis of Second Generation Integrated Modular Avionics
N. Selvesyuk

2014

A prospect in the avionics equipment development is the integration and generalization of onboard software and hardware on the basis of integrated modular avionics (IMA) [1]. This is due to both economic and organizational-technical backgrounds. On the one hand, there is an increasing need to expand the functionality and scalability of avionics equipment while striving to reduce its development and operating costs. On the other hand, the existing and projected levels of technology and hardware components allows for increasingly integrated in hardware and algorithmic levels [3]. All this allows us to identify promising areas of avionics equipment improvement on the basis of the IMA: 1. Development of a network fault-tolerant architecture of the onboard avionics with a minimum range of unified open standard interchangeable and highly integrated components based on IMA Technologies of 2nd Generation (IMA 2G platform). 2. Development of innovation aircraft systems with built-in remote h...

View PDFchevron_right
The architectural specification of an avionic subsystem
Leonor Barroca

Proceedings of 1995 IEEE Workshop on Industrial-Strength Formal Specification Techniques, 1995

The work of the British Aerospace Dependable Computing Systems Centre includes the development of formal techniques for use in defining and tracing requirements for software systems at the system architecture level. A basic repertoire of techniques proposed so far includes the graphical representation of timing requirements allied to model-oriented specifications of functionality. This paper gives an overview of these techniques and reports on a small study in their application conducted by British Aerospace Defence. The study uses a realistic example of an avionics system: the pilot data entry system for a waypoint database. The example is described with some technical detail. Formally analysing a timing requirement for the rate of data entry yields local timing requirements for the cockpit equipments. Conclusions assess the value of these techniques, as perceived by BAe systems developers, and propose further work in providing tool support.

View PDFchevron_right
Avionics Systems Panel Research and Innovation Perspectives
Erik Blasch

IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 2020

View PDFchevron_right
The SAE Avionics Architecture Description Language (AADL) Standard: A Basis for Model-Based Architecture-Driven Embedded Systems Engineering
Steve Vestal

2003

Architecture Description Languages provide significant opportunity for the incorporation of formal methods and engineering models into the analysis of software and system architectures. A standard is being developed for embedded real-time safety critical systems which will support the use of various formal approaches to analyze the impact of the composition of systems from hardware and software and which will allow the generation of system glue code with the performance qualities predicted. The standard, the Avionics Architecture Description Language (AADL), is based on the MetaH language developed under DARPA and US Army funding and on the model driven architectural based approach demonstrated with this technology over the last 12 years. The AADL standard will include a UML profile useful for avionics, space, automotive, robotics and other real-time concurrent processing domains including safety critical applications.

View PDFchevron_right
High level failure analysis for Integrated Modular Avionics
Philippa Ryan Conmy

… of the Sixth Australian workshop on Safety …, 2001

Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) is the term used for a common computer network aboard an aircraft. In order to gain full benefit from this technology a strategy is required to allow the separate development and safety analysis of applications and the computing platform. This paper presents the results of high level failure analysis of an IMA computing platform as a separate system and shows how the analysis can be used as part of an overall certification strategy for IMA. For the analysis six high level functions were constructed which described the functionality provided to applications and devices using the IMA platform. Lower level IMA services, such as scheduling and communications, are used to meet one or more of the functions. Deviations in service provision were considered using a number of guide words to suggest possible failure modes. The analysis revealed a number of weaknesses in the design which will require further consideration.

View PDFchevron_right
Considerations on Domain-Specific Architectures Applicability in Future Avionics Systems
Johnny Marques

Proceedings of the 10th Aerospace Technology Congress, October 8-9, 2019, Stockholm, Sweden, 2019

The community related to the avionics systems domain tends to be conservative mainly due to the safety-critical requirements this kind of system has to comply with. With respect to the presented context, this paper addresses and discusses the next challenges of future avionics systems always considering the safety-critical aspects and the possibility of formal models of computation application together with domain-specific architectures. Runtime partial reconfiguration, for example, is one promising way to mitigate the increasing failure rate and thereby fulfill safety requirements. N-modular redundancy implementation with different hardware architectures is also analyzed considering reconfigurable computing.

View PDFchevron_right

References (63)

  1. Aboutaleb, H. and B. Monsuez (2015a). "Handling complexity of a complex system design: paradigm, formalism, and transformations". International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 9.
  2. Aboutaleb, H. and B. Monsuez (2015b). "Measuring the complexity of a higraph- based system model: formalism and metrics". Procedia Computer Science 44.
  3. Aboutaleb, H. and B. Monsuez (2016). "Quantifying system complexity in design phase using higraph-based models". In: 26th Annual INCOSE International Symposium. INCOSE.
  4. Albrecht, A. J. and J. E. Gaffney (1983). "Software function, source lines of code, and development effort prediction: a software science validation". IEEE Trans- actions on Software Engineering SE-9.
  5. Aleksa, B. D. and J. P. Carter (1997). "Boeing 777 airplane information manage- ment system operational experience". In: AIAA/IEEE Digital Avionics Systems Conference. Reflections to the Future.
  6. Almugrin, S., W. Albattah, O. Alaql, M. Alzahrani, and A. Melton (2014). "Insta- bility and abstractness metrics based on responsibility". In: IEEE 38th Annual International Computers, Software and Applications Conference.
  7. Baruah, S. K., A. Burns, and R. I. Davis (2011). "Response-time analysis for mixed criticality systems". In: 32nd IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium.
  8. Bass, L., P. Clements, and R. Kazman (2012). Software Architecture in Practise. 3rd ed. The SEI Series in Software Engineering. Carnegie Mellon.
  9. Bieber, P., F. Boniol, M. Boyer, E. Noulard, and C. Pagetti (2012). "New challenges for future avionic architectures". AerospaceLab 4.
  10. Briand, L. C., S. Morasca, and V. R. Basili (1996). "Property-based software engi- neering measurement". IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 22.
  11. Bril, R. J., G. Fohler, and W. F. Verhaegh (2008). Execution times and execution jitter analysis of real-time tasks under fixed-priority pre-emptive scheduling. Tech. rep. Computer Science, Universiteit Eindhoven.
  12. Broniatowski, D. A. and J. Moses (2014). Flexibility, Complexity, and Controlla- bility in Large Scale Systems. Tech. rep. Engineering Systems Division, Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology.
  13. Butz, H. (2010). Open Integrated Modular Avionic (IMA): State of the Art and fu- ture Development Road Map at Airbus Deutschland. Tech. rep. Department of Avionics Systems at Airbus Deutschland GmbH.
  14. Card, D. N. and W. W. Agresti (1988). "Measuring software design complexity". The Journal of Systems and Software 8.
  15. Cervantes, H. and R. Kazman (2016). Designing Software Architectures: A Practi- cal Approach. The SEI Series in Software Engineering. Carnegie Mellon.
  16. Chandran, S. K., A. Dimov, and S. Punnekkat (2010). "Modeling uncertainties in the estimation of software reliability a pragmatic approach". In: Fourth Interna- tional Conference on Secure Software Integration and Reliability Improvement.
  17. Chen, J. and C. Du (2015). "Schedulability analysis for independent partitions in integrated modular avionics systems". In: IEEE International Conference on Progress in Informatics and Computing.
  18. Durisic, D., M. Nilsson, M. Staron, and J. Hansson (2013). "Measuring the impact of changes to the complexity and coupling properties of automotive software systems". The Journal of Systems and Software 86.
  19. Elhag, A. A. M. and R. Mohamad (2014). "Metrics for evaluating the quality of service-oriented design". In: 8th Malaysian Software Engineering Conference.
  20. Fenton, N. E. and S. L. Pfleeger (1997). Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach. 2nd ed. International Thomson Computer Press.
  21. Flight Manual A/C JA37.
  22. Gaudan, S., G. Motet, and G. Auriol (2008). "Metrics for object-oriented software reliability assessment -application to a flight manager". In: Seventh European Dependable Computing Conference.
  23. Ghasemi, M., S. M. Sharafi, and A. Arman (2015). "Towards an analytical approach to measure modularity in software architecture design". Journal of Software 10.
  24. Gillespie, A. M., M. W. Monaghan, and Y. Chen (2012). "Comparison modeling of system reliability for future nasa projects". In: Annual Reliability and Maintain- ability Symposium. NASA Kennedy Space Center.
  25. Grigg, A. and N. C. Audsley (1999). "Towards a scheduling and timing analysis so- lution for integrated modular avionic systems". Microprocessors and Microsys- tems 22.
  26. Grossman, O. and D. Harel (1997). On the Algorithmics of Higraphs. Tech. rep. Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science.
  27. Gupta, V. and J. K. Chhabra (2009). "Package coupling measurement in object- oriented software". Journal of Computer Science and technology 24.
  28. Harel, D. (1988). "On visual formalisms". Communications of the ACM 31.
  29. Heinecke, H., K.-P. Schnelle, H. Fennel, J. Bortolazzi, L. Lundh, J. Leflour, J.-L. Mate, K. Nishikawa, and T. Scharnhorst (2004). AUTomotive Open System AR- chitecture -An Industry-Wide Initiative to Manage the Complexity of Emerging Automotive E/E-Architectures. Tech. rep. AUTOSAR Partnership.
  30. Helfrick, A. (2007). Principles of Avionics. 4th ed. Avionics Communications Inc.
  31. Henry, S. and D. Kafura (1981). "Software structure metrics based on information flow". IEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-7.
  32. Jogalekar, P. and M. Woodside (2000). "Evaluating the scalability of distributed systems". IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 11.
  33. Kan, S. H. (1995). Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering. Addison Wesley.
  34. Kim, J.-E., T. Abdelzaher, and L. Sha (2015). "Schedulability bound for integrated modular avionics partitions". In: Design, Automation & Test in Europe Confer- ence & Exhibition.
  35. Klein, M. H., T. Ralya, B. Polak, R. Obenza, and M. G. Harbour (1993). Practi- tioner's Handbook for Real-Time Analysis: Guide to Rate Monotonic Analysis for Real-Time Systems. The Kluwer international series in engineering and com- puter science. Real-time system. Carnegie Mellon.
  36. Kubo, A., H. Washizaki, and Y. Fukazawa (2007). A Metric for Measuring the Ab- straction Level of Design Patterns. Tech. rep. Department of Computer Science, University of Waseda.
  37. Marinescu, S. O., D. tian TamasSelicean, V. Acretoaie, and P. Pop (2012). "Tim- ing analysis of mixed-criticality hard real-time applications implemented on distributed partitioned architectures". In: IEEE 17th Conference on Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation.
  38. McCabe, T. J. (1976). "A complexity measure". IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-2.
  39. Moir, I. and A. G. Seabridge (2006). Military Avionics Systems. John Wiley & Sons.
  40. Moir, I., A. Seabridge, and M. Jukes (2013). Civil Avionics Systems. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons.
  41. Morgan, M. J. (2007). "Boeing 777". In: Spitzer, C. R. (Ed.). Digital Avionics Hand- book. 2nd ed. CRC Press. Chap. 28.
  42. Nakamura, T. and V. R. Basili (2005). "Metrics of software architecture changes based on structural distance". In: 11th IEEE International Software Metrics Symposium.
  43. Navarro, I., N. Leveson, and K. Lunqvist (2010). "Semantic decoupling: reducing the impact of requirement changes". Requirements Engineering 15.
  44. Nord, R. L., I. Ozkaya, R. S. Sangwan, and R. J. Koontz (2014). "Architectural dependency analysis to understand rework costs for safety-critical systems". In: The 36th International Conference on Software Engineering.
  45. Pathan, R. M. (2014). "Fault-tolerant and real-time scheduling for mixed-criticality systems". Real-Time Syst 50.
  46. Pelton, S. L. and K. D. Scarbrough (1997). "Boeing systems engineering experi- ences from the 777 aims program". In: IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems. Vol. 33.
  47. Perepletchikov, M., C. Ryan, K. Frampton, and Z. Tari (2007). "Coupling metrics for predicting maintainability in service-oriented designs". In: Australian Soft- ware Engineering Conference.
  48. Pillay, R., S. K. Chandran, and S. Punnekkat (2010). "Optimizing resources in real- time scheduling for fault tolerant processors". In: 1st International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Grid Computing.
  49. Prisaznuk, P. J. (2015). "Arinc specication 653, avionics application software stan- dard interface". In: Spitzer, C. R. et al. (Eds.). Digital Avionics Handbook. 3rd ed. CRC Press. Chap. 36.
  50. Qutaish, R. E. A. and A. Abran (2005). An Analysis of the Design and Definitions of Halstead's Metrics. Tech. rep. Ecole de Technologie Superieure, University of Quebec.
  51. Schneidewind, N. F. (1996). "Reliability and risk analysis for software that must be safe". In: 3rd International Software Metrics Symposium.
  52. Stewart, D. B. (2006). "Measuring execution time and real-time performance". In: Embedded Systems Conference.
  53. Tomayko, J. E. (2000). Computers Take Flight: A History of NASA's Pioneering Digital Fly-By-Wire Project. NASA.
  54. Troy, D. A. and S. H. Zweben (1981). "Measuring the quality of structured design". The Journal of Systems and Software 2.
  55. Vestal, S. (2007). "Pre-emptive scheduling of multi-criticality systems with varying degrees of execution time assurance". In: 28th IEEE International Real-Time Systems Symposium.
  56. Voss, C. A. and J. Hsuan (2009). "Service architecture and modularity". Decision Sciences 40.
  57. Yao, J., J. Wu, Q. Li, Z. Xiong, and G. Zhu (2016). "System-level scheduling of mixed-criticality traffics in avionics networks". IEEE Access 4.
  58. Yau, S. S. and P.-S. Chang (1988). "A metric of modifiability for software mainte- nance". In: The Conference on Software Maintenance.
  59. Yau, S. S. and J. S. Collofello (1985). "Design stability measures for software main- tenance". IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-11.
  60. Yourdon, E. and L. L. Constantine (1979). Structured Design, Fundamentals of a Discipline of Computer Program and Systems Design. Prentice-hall interna- tional.
  61. Zhang, Q. and X. Li (2009). "Complexity metrics for service-oriented systems". Second International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and Model 3. Modifiability Modularity Execution time Schedulability Timing Analysis Response Time Analysis Resource Analysis Jitter Quality Reliability Safety Scalability Security Stability [Yourdon and Constantine, 1979] [Gupta and Chhabra, 2009] [Navarro et al., 2010] [McCabe, 1976] [Qutaish and Abran, 2005] [Henry and Kafura, 1981] [Card and Agresti, 1988] [Aboutaleb and Monsuez, 2016] [Albrecht and Gaffney, 1983] [Zhang and Li, 2009] [Broniatowski and Moses, 2014] [Kubo et al., 2007] [Almugrin et al., 2014] [Gillespie et al., 2012] [Nord et al., 2014] [Perepletchikov et al., 2007] [Durisic et al., 2013] [Yau and Chang, 1988] [Nakamura and Basili, 2005] [Ghasemi et al., 2015] [Voss and Hsuan, 2009] [Stewart, 2006] [Bril et al., 2008] [Kim et al., 2015] [Grigg and Audsley, 1999] [Chen and Du, 2015] [Vestal, 2007] [Yao et al., 2016] [Pathan, 2014] [Marinescu et al., 2012] [Baruah et al., 2011] [Klein et al., 1993] [Elhag and Mohamad, 2014] [Gaudan et al., 2008] [Schneidewind, 1996] [Chandran et al., 2010] [Jogalekar and Woodside, 2000] [Yau and Collofello, 1985]
  62. B Short-list Table B.1 Short-list that displays authors and[Yourdon and Constantine, 1979] [Gupta and Chhabra, 2009] [Navarro et al., 2010] [Henry and Kafura, 1981] [Card and Agresti, 1988] [Aboutaleb and Monsuez, 2016] [Zhang and Li, 2009] [Broniatowski and Moses, 2014] [Almugrin et al., 2014] [Nord et al., 2014] [Perepletchikov et al., 2007] [Durisic et al., 2013] [Yau and Chang, 1988] [Ghasemi et al., 2015] [Troy and Zweben, 1981] [Elhag and Mohamad, 2014] [Gaudan et al., 2008] [Yau and Collofello, 1985]
  63. C Metric 1 Matlab code

Related papers

Integrated Modular Avionics (DO-297/ED-124) Report for Requirement Engineering
Nikhil Dantkale

Considering the integration within Avionics, the Report covers the brief knowledge on Integrated Modular Avionics(IMA) Document DO-297. It also includes the communication bus architectures used in avionics applications, MIL-STD-1553, ARINC 429, and Most advanced AFDX/ARINC 664 Protocol. It covers a brief description on Core Processing Input Output Modules (CPIOMs) computers used in Airbus 380 flight.

View PDFchevron_right
Exploring the design space of IMA system architectures
Marco Caccamo

2010

Abstract In systems such as integrated modular avionics (IMA), there is a substantial benefit from maintaining significant portions of a product family's architecture unchanged from one system to the next. When there are tight constraints on resources such as bandwidth and processor capacity, however, certain seemingly small changes in a few components have the potential to create a cascade of timing problems.

View PDFchevron_right
An integrated modular avionics development environment
Tobias Schoofs

2009

The ARINC 653 standard has taken a leading role within the aeronautical industry in the development of safety-critical systems based on the Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) concept. One of the main promises of IMA is cost saving in reduced development, integration and verification and validation effort. To exploit the full potential of cost savings, it is necessary to establish an effective way to prototype, develop, test and analyse on-board applications without having access to the final IMA target platform for all engineers. Target platforms are usually extremely expensive considering hardware and software prices as well as training costs. This paper describes the architecture of the Integrated Modular Avionics Development Environment (IMADE) that is based on Linux and the ARINC 653 simulator Simulated IMA (SIMA) that was developed by Skysoft Portugal, 2007-2009.

View PDFchevron_right
Methodology for Aircraft System Architecture Definition
Dimitri N. Mavris

46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2008

This paper introduces a methodology to estimate aircraft performance by sizing the systems constituting its architecture. The proposed approach requires the definition of the architecture structure which is performed using functional induction. This definition allows the formulation of the modeling structure necessary to integrate sizing models at the component level. The sizing of the systems is based on a multi-level optimization method. This approach allows the definition of objective-functions at the component level which are driven by the optimization of performance at the aircraft level.

View PDFchevron_right
A Modeling Paradigm for Integrated Modular Avionics Design
Christian Brunette

Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, 2006

The Modeling paradigm for Integrated Modular Avionics Design (Mimad) is an extensible component-oriented framework that enables high level models of systems designed on integrated modular avionics architectures. It relies on the generic modeling environment (Gme), a congurable object-oriented toolkit that supports the creation of domain-specic modeling and program synthesis environments. Mimad is built upon component models dedicated to avionic applications

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Engineering
  • Architecture
  • Systems Engineering
  • Integrated Modular Avionics
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved