Please enter verification code
Confirm
Comparing Simulation with Physical Verification and Validation in a Maritime Test Field
International Journal of Systems Engineering
Volume 4, Issue 2, December 2020, Pages: 18-29
Received: Sep. 8, 2020; Accepted: Oct. 6, 2020; Published: Oct. 21, 2020
Views 90      Downloads 37
Authors
Arnold Akkermann, R&D-Division Transportation, Institute for Computer Sciences, Oldenburg, Germany
Axel Hahn, Department for Computer Science, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
The steadily increasing complexity of maritime systems substantially raised the need for advanced verification and validation (V&V) as well as certification methods. Extensive simulation-based certification adds new opportunities to existing physical testing. Compared with simulation, field tests are extremely time-consuming and therefore expensive. Furthermore, relevant close-range situations between ships or environmental impacts (e.g. certain types of bad weather situation) are impossible to perform in the field for safety reasons and the uncontrollability of the environment or simply the amount of experiments needed. Systems in the maritime domain (like products for navigation assistance, sensors, communication equipment etc.) are typically not used isolated but as part of a complex setup. More and more sensors and actuators are integrated to provide data for various systems or information services on board a ship and ashore. Since such systems are typically continuously evolving during their service lifetime, the development and maintenance of maritime systems (e.g. bridge systems) need to considered in its usage context that includes interconnected systems and external services, sensors and actuators. CPSoS (Cyber-Physical System of Systems) demand innovative approaches for distributed optimization, novel distributed management and control methodologies that can also deal with partially autonomous systems, and must be resilient to faults or cyber-attacks. In addition, CPSoS engineering no longer maintains the former strict separation between the engineering phases and actual operation. Instead, integrated approaches for the design- and operation- phase are required to cover the full lifecycle by modelling, simulation, validation, and verification (V&V). Thus, prospectively, it will be necessary to monitor the system formation and to conduct a final assessment of the system by means of a suitable application of test cases in a controlled and comprehensible manner. These systems have an emerging behavior and cannot entirely defined during the design phase. At this point it becomes apparent that conventional unit, integration and system tests are no longer sufficient to fully cover and validate the functional limits of Cyber-Physical System of Systems. An acceptable test coverage cannot be achieved with these methods for such systems. In this paper the authors present a use case of collision-regulation compliance checker to compare virtual (i.e. simulation-based) V&V, physical (i.e. in-situ testing) V&V and hybrid, mixed-reality V&V.
Keywords
Scenario-based Testing, V&V Lab, Mobile and In-Situ Platform
To cite this article
Arnold Akkermann, Axel Hahn, Comparing Simulation with Physical Verification and Validation in a Maritime Test Field, International Journal of Systems Engineering. Vol. 4, No. 2, 2020, pp. 18-29. doi: 10.11648/j.ijse.20200402.12
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
T. Porathe, “ACCSEAS Baseline and Priorities Report,” ACCSEAS Project, 2013.
[2]
T. Porathe, M. Lützhöft, and G. Praetorius, “Communicating intended routes in ECDIS: Evaluating technological change,” Accid. Anal. Prev., vol. 60, Nov. 2013, pp. 366–370.
[3]
DMA, “An overview of the ‘Maritime Cloud’ – proposed information exchange infrastructure for e-navigation”. Kopenhagen 2013, SNPWG17-9.3.
[4]
MONA LISA, “Dynamic and Proactive Routes or ‘greeen-Routes”, Sjofartsverket Sweden, Stockholm.
[5]
G. Mannarini, G. Coppini, P. Oddo, and N. Pinardi, “A Prototype of Ship Routing Decision Support System for an Operational Oceanographic Service,” TransNav Int. J. Mar. Navig. Saf. Sea Transp., vol. 7, no. 2, 2013, pp. 53–59.
[6]
K. Aichhorn, de la Cuesta de Bedoya, P. Berglez, M. Lopez, M. Troger, and A. Kemetinger, “Maritime Volumetric Navigation System,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS 2012), Nashville, Tennessee, 2012.
[7]
SESAME Strait. http://straits-stms.com/Project.html.
[8]
H. Adono, “Smart Ship Application Platform Project (SSAP Project)”. [Online]. Available: http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001039009.pdf. [Accessed: 04-May-2020].
[9]
L. Schnieder, and R. Krenkel, "Betreibermodell einer Forschungsinfrastruktur für die Entwicklung intelligenter Mobilitätsdienste im realen Verkehrsumfeld“. 16. Symposium Automatisierungssysteme, Assistenzssysteme und eingebettete Systeme für Transportmittel (AAET), 12.-13. Feb. 2015, Braunschweig. ISBN 978-3-937655-34-5.
[10]
A. Rizvanolli, H-C. Burmeister and O. John, The Role of the European Maritime Simulator Network in Assessing Dynamic Sea Traffic Management Principles TransNav, the Int. J. on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation 9 559–64, 2015.
[11]
M. Brinkmann, A. Hahn, Physical Testbed for Highly Automated and Autonomous Vessels 16th Int. Conf. on Computer and IT Applications in the Maritime Industries COMPIT, 2017.
[12]
J. J. Stadler, and N. J. Seidl, “Software failure modes and effects analysis”. In Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS), 2013 Proceedings-Annual (pp. 1–5): IEEE.
[13]
IEC 2018 Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA and FMECA).
[14]
C. Denker, M. Baldauf, S. Fischer, A. Hahn, R. Ziebold, E. Gehrmann, and M. Semann, e-Navigation based cooperative collision avoidance at sea: The MTCAS approach. European Navigation Conference (ENC), 2016.
[15]
C. Denker, and A. Hahn, "MTCAS: An e-Navigation Assistance System for Cooperative Collision Avoidance at Sea”, 2017.
[16]
M. Steidel, A. Hahn, “MTCAS – An Assistance System for Collision Avoidance at Sea”. Conference Paper March 2019, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332111082.
[17]
H. Burmeister, and W. Bruhn, „Designing an autonomous collision avoidance controller respecting COLREG” in Maritime-Port Technology and Development, 2015.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186