Capella is a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) solution using Sirius for its diagrams rendering. It has been initially developed in house by Thales and has been open sourced (in Polarsys) within the context of the CLARITY project. This was actually the very first step of CLARITY, which aims at developing and structuring an international ecosystem around Capella. The CLARITY project now investigates customization capabilities for Capella and aims at complementing the ecosystem with a community that brings together major actors of the entire engineering value chain (industrials, integrators, technology providers and consultants, academia) for open innovation in MBSE within Capella. In this context, Areva and Airbus Defence & Space already made lots of experimentations and are helping the ecosystem to mature up by providing feedbacks to the community. In this talk, you will get an overview of what those 2 Industrial companies have realized so far. [About Christophe Boudjennah: Christophe is a senior system/software architect and project manager. His experience leads him to work for various domains such as defense, IT, or the Automotive industry. Most of his career has been focused on Systems Engineering for complex embedded systems, whether it is from the "methods and tools provider" point of view or from the operational one. He is now working for Obeo, and is dealing with various open source and systems engineering related topics. One of his current main responsibilities is to be the project coordinator of Clarity, a large R&D project whose purpose is to open-source Capella (an industrial workbench for system engineering).]

1. Experimenting the Open Source
MBSE Solution Capella: the
Industrials' Viewpoint
Christophe Boudjennah – Obeo
Philippe Tannery – Areva
Alain Huet – Airbus Defence & Space
December 2015

2. Table of content
1
2
3
Arcadia, Capella and Clarity
Areva
Airbus Defence & Space
2

3. 3
- Aerodynamics
- Propulsion Systems
- Communication
- Safety Regulation
- Human Machine
Interaction
- Mechanical Structure
- Environmental Impact
- …
1

4. 4
1 Arcadia, Capella and Clarity

5. 5
1 Arcadia, a model based engineering method

6. Specialty
engineering:
safety, perf,
security, …
Product Line
Manager, Etc.
Sub-
contractors
Architect
Solution
Architecture
Components
Evaluation Rules
ViewPoints
Functions
Safety
Security
Performance
Human Factors
IVVQ, Product Line, Cost…
Multi-viewpoint trade-off analysis (see ISO 42010 standard)
1 Early validation: specialities know-how confronted to Architecture

7. System
Engineering
Sub-Systems
Engineering
Software/Hardware
Engineering
Complex
Systems
Sub-systems
Equipment
& Functions
Sub-assemblies
& Platforms
Systems
of
Systems
1
2
3
4
5
System Breakdown Process Breakdown
Maintaining consistency
across engineering phases
1 Mastering Complexity through multiple abstraction levels

8. 8
Capella1

9. 9
Model validation
Semantic delete with preview
Methodological guidance
Semantic colormap
Semantic
browser
Advanced diagram
management
Replicable
elements and
libraries
Transition
system/sub
systems
Modeling
patterns
Multi-
viewpoint
Html output
Computed links
1

10. 10
Clarity1

11. 11
Open sourcing field proven
systems engineering methodology
world wide workbench
innovation
and the
tooling it.
a
 Pursuing and sharing .

deployed
11 What is Clarity about?

12. 1
12
1 Who is Clarity?

13. 13
2
AREVA involvement in Clarity:
Feed-back after first year activities

14. Engineering, Procurement and Commissioning of nuclear energy facilities
Fuel Cycle: enriching of uranium, fuel assemblies, treatment of nuclear
fuel…
Nuclear Power Plants (NPP): EPR™, ASTRID, new models, installed base…
2 Areva

15. An EPR™ Nuclear
Power Plant
 ~ 300 strongly
coupled systems
• 1 system
may be ~
100 SSC
 1 empty Steam
Generator weight =
1 A380 weight
 ~ 18 000 sensors
and actuators
 ~ 300 I&C cabinets
(centralized I&C)
Complexity
2 Adopting Systems Engineering approach

16. Evaluate adaptability of this MBSE tooled-method to AREVA engineering
Not (only) software intensive systems
A lot of efforts in justification of design
Strong existing engineering cultures
Boost SE transformation
Make the SE approach accessible and visible
Take advantage of a collaborative environment
THALES having brought the tooled-approach to a high maturity level
Sharing with other industrial partners involved
2 Areva in Clarity Stakes

17. Why a tool?
 Consistency between architecting results / engineering deliverables
 Common formalism between architects
 Engineering steps are embedded in the tool
 Possibility to perform automatic trade-off analysis
↔
Architecture (« black-box »)
FBS
Architecture (« white box »)
System contexts (modes)
2 Why a MBSE tool?

18. Why a tool?
 Consistency between engineering deliverables
 Common and synthetic formalism between architects
 Engineering steps are embedded in the tool
 Possibility to perform automatic trade-off analysis
Stakeholders
System of Interest
External
Function
2 Why a MBSE tool?

19. Why a tool ?
 Consistency between engineering deliverables
 Common and synthetic formalism between architects
 Method steps are embedded in the tool
 Possibility to perform automatic trade-off analysis
Architecture data Architecture models
2 Why a MBSE tool?

20. Why a tool ?
 Consistency between engineering deliverables
 Common and synthetic formalism between architects
 Engineering steps are embedded in the tool
 Possibility to perform automatic trade-off analysis and early evaluation (TBE)
Architects must deal with potentially
contradictory constraints :
 Safety
 Performances
 Complexity of internal interfaces
 Cost, subcontracting
 …
Architecture = finding the most acceptable
compromise
 Viewpoints (advanced feature not yet explored,
requires development)
2 Why a MBSE tool?

21. First year goals: evaluate the suitability of Arcadia & Capella to AREVA engineering
practices and our learning curve
AREVA engineering activities
addressed in 2015:
 Core design and transient analysis
 Fluid systems design
 Primary components design
 Handling equipment design
 I&C specifications
 I&C Architecture
 Human Factors engineering
 a rather wide spectrum
5 « official » pilot cases, with
different levels of investigation:
 *** ASTRID Fuel Handling System
 ** EPR™ Extra Borating System
 ** NPP Overall I&C Architecture
 * PWR Advanced Control
 * NPP Human System Interface
Suitability of Arcadia & Capella to the engineering of nuclear energy installations
27 November 2015 - p.21
2 AREVA involvement in Clarity Year 1 actions

22. The suitability of Arcadia & Capella has been evaluated and
validated from a technical point of view
Organizational and Financial suitability remain to be assessed
  Estimation of the ROI of MBSE
Arcadia method shall be tailored to AREVA engineering
practices before foreseeing a wider deployment
Current practices, but also future ones (e.g. ISO 15288 reference)
In order to increase ROI of MBSE, Capella tool needs to be
coupled with data management tools
Suitability of Arcadia & Capella to the engineering of nuclear energy installations
27 November 2015 - p.22
2 Benefits & Perspectives

23. Additional expected benefits to be further tested
in the context of R&D project:
Arcadia & Capella as a support for early V&V of system
design
Support for comparison of alternative designs
Coupling with simulations to support architecture
trade-offs
Automatic verification of design criteria
More engineering work and much less paper work
Better support for knowledge transfer
…
Suitability of Arcadia & Capella to the engineering of nuclear energy installations
27 November 2015 - p.23
2 Benefits & Perspectives

24. 24
3
A 4-steps approach to derisking
MBSE with Capella in Airbus D&S

25. 25
Evaluation process
Date/Time Presentation title
2
5
25
Training some engineering people:
• Methods & tools
• SoS & System architecture
• Software
• Avionics
Step 1
Capella/Arcadia Initiation
Define the use cases and the objectives for each of
them
Tests the Capella functionalities and identify:
• the advantages wrt current practices
• the lacks of the tools
Step 2
Uses cases
Start with an operational project in a multi-user
context
Identify the pre-requisite for using the tool
Define the Capella perimeter
Facilitate adoption
Next step
Operational evaluation
2525
Formalize the result of the use cases
Communicate to
• the management
• relevant technical team
Step 3
Internal communication
3 Evaluation Process

26. 26
« Main use case 2» - Avionics launcher
Middle life evolution launcher (project stopped end of phase C)
Large System in phase C
Development of the Avionics definition file. This study addresses the SA, LA et PA
Compare the MEGA/NAF & Rhapsody/SYSML approach with CAPELLA Approach for avionics
[study case over]
« Preliminary » uses cases
Feasibility study of orbital system (study over)
Project phase 0/A
Trade-Off,
Physical Architecture (Communication Architecture, propulsion architecture, mission, life phases)
[Study case for interface testing]
Lunar lander Demonstrator (Project over)
Medium project / Phase C
Domains : Safety, Functional Analysis, Budget
[Study case for functionalities testing]
« Main use case 1» - CONOPS for military system
Space military system (project in progress)
Phase B CAPELLA/ARCADIA.
Assessment of CAPELLA in order to support the Operational Concept Document development
Compare the MEGA/NAF approach with CAPELLA Approach
[study case over]
Step 2
Uses cases
 Uses Cases overview

27. Goal:
 Generate a CONOPS on a Military project with short delay (8 weeks)
Why:
 Compare Capella/Arcadia with MEGA/NAF
How:
 Diagrams shall be included manually into the document
 Capella cover the useful NAF views
 Steep learning curve counter-balanced by improved efficiency
27
Step 2
Uses cases
CONOPS support
 90 operational
architecture diagrams
done with Capella and
included in the CONOPS
delivery

28. Goal:
 Propose to use Capella for avionics architecture
Why:
 Need for a new tool
 Optimise the current methodology (requirements centric)
How:
 Pilot case to convince stakeholders with Capella capacities regarding Avionics needs
» Choose a use case known by avionics teams
» 2 demonstration axis: telemetry sub-system and control of an
engine valves
28
Step 2
Uses cases
Avionics Launcher

29. 29
Step 2
Uses cases
Avionics Launcher

30. Goal:
 Propose to use Capella for avionics architecture
Why:
 Need for a new tool
 Optimise the current methodology (requirements centric)
How:
 Pilot case to convince stakeholders with Capella capacities regarding Avionics needs
» Choose a use case known by avionics teams
» 2 demonstration axis: telemetry sub-system and control of an
engine valves
 Capella/Arcadia concepts well adapted to avionics discipline
 Capella is user friendly with useful functionalities
30
Step 2
Uses cases
Step3
Internal communication
Next step
Operational evaluation
• Results presented to the avionics team and to
the management
 Very positive feedback from the team
• Potential use for other avionics projects
• Find the right place of Capella in avionics context
Avionics Launcher

31. 31
5 mandatory topics for the new launcher project:
 Interface, synchronisation with the requirements management (Doors)
 Document generation: Architecture, Specification, Interface document
 Multi-user
 Interface with MEGA, Rhapsody (SysML), Matlab / Simulink, Open Modelica,
Open Alterica …..
But Also:
 Interface management
 HTML site generation
 Data management
 Model continuity
 Configuration management
Next step
Operational evaluation
 Pre-requisite

32. 32
Very high interest on Capella/Arcadia mainly for avionics
An opportunity on new projects to be confirmed
To go further: How Capella can help on:
 Verification & Validation (IVV)
 Safety engineering
3 Conclusion of this evaluation

33. 33
4
• http://www.clarity-se.org/
• https://www.polarsys.org/capella
• Follow us:
@capella_arcadia
Capella Modelling Workbench
Christophe Boudjennah – christophe.boudjennah@obeo.fr
Philippe Tannery – philippe.tannery@areva.com
Alain Huet -alain.huet@astrium.eads.net
Come and meet us at Obeo booth !
To go further…