IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v12y2009i3p183-200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of dynamic system modeling methods

Author

Listed:
  • A. Terry Bahill
  • Ferenc Szidarovszky

Abstract

This paper compares state‐equation models to state‐machine models. It compares continuous system models to discrete system models. The examples were designed to be at the same level of abstraction. This paper models these systems with the following methods: the state‐space approach of Linear Systems Theory, set‐theoretic notation, block diagrams, use cases, UML diagrams and SysML diagrams. This is the first paper to use all of these modeling methods on the same examples. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals Inc. Syst Eng

Suggested Citation

  • A. Terry Bahill & Ferenc Szidarovszky, 2009. "Comparison of dynamic system modeling methods," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 183-200, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:12:y:2009:i:3:p:183-200
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.20118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20118
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.20118?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Conrad Bock, 2006. "SysML and UML 2 support for activity modeling," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 160-186, June.
    2. Rick Botta & Zach Bahill & Terry Bahill, 2006. "When are observable states necessary?," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 228-240, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christopher Durugbo, 2013. "Integrated product‐service analysis using SysML requirement diagrams," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 111-123, March.
    2. Daniel Kasperek & Daniel Schenk & Matthias Kreimeyer & Maik Maurer & Udo Lindemann, 2016. "Structure‐Based System Dynamics Analysis of Engineering Design Processes," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 278-298, May.
    3. Jessica Ryan & Shahram Sarkani & Thomas Mazzuchi, 2014. "Leveraging Variability Modeling Techniques for Architecture Trade Studies and Analysis," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 10-25, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Conrad Bock & Raphael Barbau & Ion Matei & Mehdi Dadfarnia, 2017. "An Extension of the Systems Modeling Language for Physical Interaction and Signal Flow Simulation," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 395-431, September.
    2. Michael W. Grenn & Shahram Sarkani & Thomas Mazzuchi, 2014. "The Requirements Entropy Framework in Systems Engineering," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 462-478, December.
    3. A. Terry Bahill, 2012. "Diogenes, a process for identifying unintended consequences," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 287-306, September.
    4. Thomas C. Ford & John M. Colombi & David R. Jacques & Scott R. Graham, 2009. "On the application of classification concepts to systems engineering design and evaluation," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 141-154, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:12:y:2009:i:3:p:183-200. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.