پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 7 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 399 |
| تعداد مقالات | 5,389 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 5,288,171 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 4,882,900 |
A Method for Assessing the Ability of Complex Engineered Systems under Uncertainty | ||
| AUT Journal of Modeling and Simulation | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 52، شماره 1، شهریور 2020، صفحه 19-30 اصل مقاله (958.41 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22060/miscj.2019.14645.5112 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Jafar Gheidar-Kheljani* 1؛ Mohammad Hossein Karimi Gavarashki2؛ Malek Tahoori1 | ||
| 1Management and Industrial engineering department, Malek-Ashtar university of technology, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Management and Industrial engineering department, Malek-Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Engineered systems are man-made systems created to deliver value/service to stakeholders. Many engineered systems should be operated for long period of times within unpredictable and dynamic conditions. Uncertainty can affect system output and its value/service delivery through different ways such as shifts in stakeholder needs and perturbations. It is important for end users to ensure that the system is operable and reliable in unknown environment. Assessing system capability and its ability to do missions under uncertainty conditions is still an important problem for end users. Non-functional properties such as flexibility and changeability are presented and formulated as a response to decrease the impact of dynamic complexities on system value/service delivery. In this paper viability as a good criterion is selected to measure system capability under uncertainty and a 7-step method is developed to measure it. The proposed method has three characteristics: describing the uncertainty in operational environment, analyzing how the uncertainty will affect functional and physical characteristics of the system and finally representing regions in the system architecture that are mostly impacted by operational uncertainties. Design Structure Matrix (DSM) is used to represent relationships between system properties and uncertain scenarios. Finally, an example is presented to show the application of the method. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Complex Engineered Systems (CES)؛ Design Structure Matrix (DSM)؛ Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)؛ Uncertainty؛ Viability | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
[1] R. Westrum, A Typology of Resilience Situations, in: Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2006, pp. 55-66.
[2] Richards, M. G., Hastings, D. E., Ross, A. M. and Rhodes, D. H. (2009), 7.1.1 Survivability Design Principles for Enhanced Concept Generation and Evaluation. INCOSE International Symposium, 19: 1055-1070. doi:10.1002/j.2334-5837.2009.tb01001.x
[3] Smart, Ashley G., et al. “Cascading Failure and Robustness in Metabolic Networks.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 36, 2008, pp. 13223–13228.
[4] Mekdeci, Brian, “Managing the impact of change through survivability and pliability to achieve viable systems of systems,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2013.
[5] Fisher, David., Linger, Richard., Lipson, Howard., Longstaff, Thomas., Mead, Nancy., & Ellison, Robert. (1997). Survivable Network Systems: An Emerging Discipline (CMU/SEI-97-TR-013). Retrieved May 27, 2019, from the Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?AssetID=12905
[6] A.M. Ross, D.B. Stein, D.E. Hastings, Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration for Survivability, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 51(5) (2014) 1735-1752.
[7] K.M.G. Adams, Non-functional Requirements in Systems Analysis and Design, Springer International Publishing, 2015.
[8] A. Stevenson, Oxford dictionary of English. Oxford University Press, 2010.
[9] Beesemyer, J.C., & Rhodes, D.H. (2012). A Prescriptive Semantic Basis for System Lifecycle Properties.
[10] Nicola Ricci, Matthew E. Fitzgerald, Adam M. Ross, Donna H. Rhodes, Architecting Systems of Systems with Ilities: An Overview of the SAI Method,Procedia Computer Science, Volume 28, 2014, Pages 322-33.
[11] Bartolomei, J. E., Neufville, R. , Hastings, D. E. and Rhodes, D. H. (2006), 9.1.3 Screening for Real Options “In” an Engineering System: A Step Towards Flexible System Development. INCOSE International Symposium, 16: 1241-1257. doi:10.1002/j.2334-5837.2006.tb02809.x
[12] Pierce, Jeff. “Designing flexible engineering systems utilizing embedded architecture options.” Vanderbilt University, Ph.D. Thesis, (2010).
[13] C.A.J. Scott Ferson, Jon C. Helton, William L. Oberkampf, Kari Sentz, Summary from the epistemic uncertainty workshop: consensus amid diversity, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 85(1-3) (2004) 355-369.
[14] B. Mekdeci, A. M. Ross, D. H. Rhodes, and D. E. Hastings, “A taxonomy of perturbations: Determining the ways that systems lose value,” IEEE International Systems Conference SysCon 2012, 2012, pp. 1–6.
[15] A. Ross, H. McManus, D. Rhodes, D. Hastings, and A. Long, “Responsive Systems Comparison Method: Dynamic Insights into Designing a Satellite Radar System,” AIAA SPACE 2009 Conference & Exposition, 2009.
[16] N. Ricci, A. M. Ross, and D. H. Rhodes, “A Generalized Options-based Approach to Mitigate Perturbations in a Maritime Security System-of-Systems,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 16, pp. 718–727, 2013.
[17] T. Mikaelian, D. H. Rhodes, D. J. Nightingale, and D. E. Hastings, “Model-based estimation of flexibility and optionability in an integrated real options framework,” in 2009 3rd Annual IEEE Systems Conference, 2009, pp. 224–229.
[18] M. E. Fitzgerald, A. M. Ross, and D. H. Rhodes, “8.4.1 Assessing Uncertain Benefits: a Valuation Approach for Strategic Changeability (VASC),” INCOSE International Symposium, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1147–1164, Jul. 2012.
[19]T. R. Browning, “Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 292–306, 2001.
[20] R. E. (Ronnie E. 1970- Thebeau, “Knowledge management of system interfaces and interactions from product development processes,” 2001.
[21] J. Jay Clark Beesemyer, Empirically characterizing evolvability and changeability in engineering systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2012.
[22]B. Mekdeci, A. M. Ross, D. H. Rhodes and D. E. Hastings, "Pliability and Viable Systems: Maintaining Value Under Changing Conditions," in IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1173-1184, Dec. 2015. doi: 10.1109/JSYST.2014.2314316
[23]L. Chung, B.A. Nixon, E. Yu, J. Mylopoulos, Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering, 1 ed., Springer US, 2000. [24] M. Glinz, On Non-Functional Requirements, in: 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2007), IEEE Delhi, India 2007, pp. 21-26. [25] J.J.G. Agis, S.S. Pettersen, C.F. Rehn, A. Ebrahimi, Handling commercial, operational and technical uncertainty in early stage offshore ship design, in: 11th System of Systems Engineering Conference (SoSE), IEEE, Kongsberg, Norway, 2016. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 368 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 199 |
||