Real-time embedded and cyber-physical systems challenge simulation disciplines due to the heterogeneous tools used to model components in the system exploration and design phases. Termed “heterogeneity,” the mixed-model problem challenges multi-simulator coordination, where event causality must be preserved among simulators with different models of computation, signals, criteria for time advancement, and levels of abstraction. SimConnect and SimTalk enable heterogeneous, distributed, hardware/software co-simulation with a simplified backplane approach, emphasizing the simulation of software interacting with simulated world-model electrical, mechanical, and physical effects. The structure of SimConnect and SimTalk is described, adhering to the properties of a Kahn Process Network. Application of the tools to the coordination of three different simulators (TExaS, Ngspice, and Simulink) is presented to simulate closed-loop, hardware/software-based, Proportional-Integral-Derivative/Pulse-Width-Modulated control of a direct current motor. Results demonstrate agreement among simulator coordinations with configurable tradeoffs in speed versus accuracy.
Sangiovanni-VincentelliA. Quo Vadis, SLD? Reasoning about the trends and challenges of system level design. Proc IEEE2007; 95: 467–506.
2.
LeeEA. Cyber-physical systems: design challenges. The University of California at Berkeley Center for Hybrid and Embedded Software Systems. Technical Report No.UCB/EECS-2008-8, 2008.
KleshATCutlerJWAtkinsEM. Cyber-physical challenges for space systems. In: the 2012 IEEE/ACM third international conference cyber-physical systems (ICCPS), 2012, pp.45–52.
5.
RajkumarRLeeIShaL. Cyber-physical systems: the next computing revolution. In: the 2010 ACM/IEEE 47th design automation conference (DAC), 2010, pp.731–736.
6.
AmoryAMoraesFOliveiraL. A heterogeneous and distributed cosimulation environment. In: proceedings of the 15th symposium on integrated circuits and systems design, 2002, pp.115–120.
7.
FujimotoRM. Parallel and distributed simulation. In: proceedings of the 1995 winter simulation conference, 1995, pp.118–125.
8.
FujimotoRM. Parallel discrete event simulation. In: proceedings of the 1989 winter simulation conference, 1989, pp.19–28.
9.
ChandyKMMisraJ. Distributed simulation: a case study in design and verification of distributed programs. IEEE Trans Software Eng1979; 5(5): 440–452.
10.
JeffersonDR. Virtual time. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst1985; 7(3): 404–425.
11.
SchmerlerSTanurhanYMuller-GlaserKD. A backplane approach for cosimulation in high-level system specification environments. In: proceedings of the European design automation conference (EURO-DAC ’95 with EURO-VHDL), 1995, pp.262–267.
12.
AtefDSalemABarakaH. An architecture of distributed cosimulation backplane. In: the 42nd Midwest symposium on circuits and systems, vol. 2, 1999, pp.855–858.
13.
SungWHaS. A hardware software cosimulation backplane with automatic interface generation. In: proceedings of the Asia and South Pacific design automation conference (ASP-DAC), 1998, pp.177–182.
14.
GheorgheLBouchhimaFNicolescuG. Formal definitions of simulation interfaces in a continuous/discrete cosimulation tool. In: proceedings of the seventeenth IEEE international workshop on rapid system prototyping, 2006, pp.186–192.
15.
BouchhimaFBriereMNicolescuG. A SystemC/Simulink cosimulation framework for continuous/discrete-events simulation. In: proceedings of the 2006 IEEE international behavioral modeling and simulation workshop, 2006, pp.1–6.
16.
PfeiferDValvanoJ. Kahn Process Networks applied to distributed heterogeneous HW/SW cosimulation. In: the 2011 electronic system level synthesis conference (ECSI), 2011.
17.
KahnG. The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. Inf Process1974, pp.471–475.
18.
PfeiferDGerstlauerA. Expression-level parallelism for distributed spice circuit simulation. In: the 15th IEEE/ACM international symposium on distributed simulation and real time applications (DS-RT), 2011.
19.
ValvanoJ. Embedded microcomputer systems: real time interfacing. 3rd ed.Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2011.
CoxFLKuhnWBLiHW. Xspice user’s manual, Computer Science and Information Technology Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, 1992.
23.
NarayananRAbbasiNZakiM. On the simulation performance of contemporary AMS hardware description languages. In: the 2008 ICM international conference on microelectronics, 2008, pp.361–364.
24.
IEEE Std 1516-2010. IEEE standard for modeling and simulation (m&s) high level architecture (HLA)– framework and rules, 2010, pp.1–38.
25.
DongHDongWJiY. A HLA-based hierarchical architecture for the CTCS hardware-in-the-loop simulation system. In: the 2nd IEEE international conference on computer science and information technology, 2009, pp.86–91.
26.
FujimotoRMWeatherlyRM. Time management in the DoD high level architecture. In: the proceedings of the 1996 10th workshop on parallel and distributed simulation, 1996, pp.60–67.
27.
de MelloBAWagnerFR. A standardized co-simulation backbone. In: the 11th international conference on very large scale integration of systems-on-chip, 2001, pp.121–131.
YouZMao-zhiW. Launch vehicle testing simulation system. In: the 2011 international conference on computational and information sciences, 2011, pp.921–924.
31.
’NutaroJ. Building software for simulation: theory and algorithms, with applications in C++. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010.
32.
ZeiglerB. Theory of modeling and simulation. 2nd ed.San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2000.
33.
CrowleyP. A dynamic publish-subscribe network for distributed simulation. In: the 22nd workshop on pricinples of advanced and distributed simulation, 2008, p.150.
34.
LeeEASangiovanni-VincentelliA. Comparing models of computation. In: the IEEE/ACM international conference on computer-aided design digest of technical papers (ICCAD), 1996, pp.234–241.
35.
FranklinGPowellJDEmami-NaeiniA. Feedback control of dynamic systems. 4th ed.Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.
36.
HughesA. Electric motors and drives: fundamentals, types and application. 3rd ed.Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2006.
