WO2016146169A1 - Détermination de composants à comportement similaire pour un système - Google Patents

Détermination de composants à comportement similaire pour un système Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2016146169A1
WO2016146169A1 PCT/EP2015/055525 EP2015055525W WO2016146169A1 WO 2016146169 A1 WO2016146169 A1 WO 2016146169A1 EP 2015055525 W EP2015055525 W EP 2015055525W WO 2016146169 A1 WO2016146169 A1 WO 2016146169A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
component
signal
original
model
alternative component
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/EP2015/055525
Other languages
German (de)
English (en)
Inventor
Lars JORDAN
Jan Richter
Arquimedes Martinez Canedo
Original Assignee
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Siemens Aktiengesellschaft filed Critical Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
Priority to PCT/EP2015/055525 priority Critical patent/WO2016146169A1/fr
Publication of WO2016146169A1 publication Critical patent/WO2016146169A1/fr

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G05—CONTROLLING; REGULATING
    • G05B—CONTROL OR REGULATING SYSTEMS IN GENERAL; FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS OF SUCH SYSTEMS; MONITORING OR TESTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR SUCH SYSTEMS OR ELEMENTS
    • G05B17/00—Systems involving the use of models or simulators of said systems
    • G05B17/02—Systems involving the use of models or simulators of said systems electric
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G05—CONTROLLING; REGULATING
    • G05B—CONTROL OR REGULATING SYSTEMS IN GENERAL; FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS OF SUCH SYSTEMS; MONITORING OR TESTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR SUCH SYSTEMS OR ELEMENTS
    • G05B2219/00—Program-control systems
    • G05B2219/30—Nc systems
    • G05B2219/37—Measurements
    • G05B2219/37612—Transfer function, kinematic identification, parameter estimation, response

Definitions

  • the invention relates to a method for a system to find at least one behavioral-like alternative component to an original component of the system.
  • the system may be, for example, a motor vehicle or a ship or an aircraft or a simulator.
  • the invention also includes an apparatus for carrying out the method according to the invention.
  • Such indications may be, for example, the description of the physical structure or the blueprint or an indication of which signal type is an input signal or an output signal of the component.
  • the invention has for its object to find a behavior-like alternative component for a system to an original component.
  • the object is solved by the subject matters of the independent claims.
  • Advantageous developments of the invention will become apparent from the features of the dependent claims.
  • a method for a system, for example a motor vehicle or a ship or an aircraft or a simulation device, in order to find at least one behavior-like alternative component to an original component of the system.
  • at least one potential or possible or possible alternative component is provided, which is characterized in that it has at least one input port and at least one output port, as it also has the original component in each case.
  • Each alternative component thus has on the input side and on the output side in each case at least one port which corresponds in each case to one port of the original component, that is to say in each case a port for a temperature signal and / or a generated torque.
  • An input port is a signal input; an output port is a signal output.
  • the original component and each possible alternative component are acted upon at their respective at least one input port with a respective test signal.
  • the original component and every possible alternative component are operated under the same input conditions, namely with the same test signal (or with the same test signals in the case of several input ports).
  • a respective output signal is detected in each case at the at least one output port.
  • the output signal thus describes a respective time profile of a reaction to the at least one test signal.
  • each output signal of the at least one output port describes the dynamic behavior of the respective component, ie the original component or the possible alternative component. Now the original component and every possible alternative component are compared in pairs.
  • a respective error signal is now formed from each output signal of each output port of the original component and the output signal of the corresponding output port of the possible alternative component.
  • the error signal may be formed, for example, as a difference signal or by dividing one of the output signals by the other output signal. The error signal thus describes a behavioral difference with respect to the respective output signal.
  • each error signal is then combined into a respective indicator value.
  • the indicator value is a scalar value by which the entire error signal is represented or described.
  • a set of multiple indicator values thus results for each component pair.
  • a key behavior indicator is formed as a whole, which is also referred to below as the SVI (Key Behavior Indicator).
  • the SVI may e.g. be a vector formed from the indicator values. If there is only one indicator value, it can be used as SVI.
  • the Key Behavior Index provides a single indication of how different the dynamic behavior of the original component, on the one hand, and the possible alternative component, on the other hand, is with respect to the at least one test signal.
  • the key indicator value fulfills a predetermined similarity criterion.
  • the similarity criterion depends on the indicator values used and on the way the key indicator value is formed.
  • the key indicator value is preferably formed in the described manner by combining the indicator values into a vector.
  • the similarity criterion can be defined as a distance measure, in particular as a Euclidean distance. For example, it may be provided as a similarity criterion that the distance must be smaller than a predetermined maximum distance.
  • each selected alternative component, for which the similarity criterion is thus met is provided as the sought-after at least one behavioral-like alternative component. It is similar in behavior in that, based on the error signals and the resulting indicator values, it has been shown that the key indicator value satisfies the similarity criterion.
  • the invention provides the advantage that the comparison of the original component with any possible alternative component is formed on the basis of a similarity of the dynamic behavior of the components. Thus, a statement is made about how similar the compared components will behave in the operation of the system.
  • a signal standard can be calculated.
  • a suitable signal standard is the L2 standard, which is also referred to as L2 gain or L2 gain.
  • Another suitable signal standard is the peak-to-peak standard, also called peak-to-peak gain or peak-to-peak gain or L ⁇ gain.
  • RMS - root mean square From the error signal, a weighted average or RMS value (RMS - root mean square) can also be calculated.
  • the relevance of individual deviations is taken into account.
  • the associated error signal is divided by the test signal provided at the input port or one of the input ports.
  • a value formed from the error signal for example one of the described signal standards, is divided by a value formed from the test signal, for example likewise a signal standard.
  • a respective Bode diagram of the original component and / or a respective Bode diagram of the possible alternative component is used to form at least one error signal.
  • the Bode diagram advantageously takes into account in which frequency range a gain or a gain on the one hand and / or a phase response on the other hand are relevant for the operation of the components.
  • Another development makes it possible to make the supply of behavioral alternative components particularly large.
  • at least one input port and / or at least one output port are each provided with a signal adaptation device for unit conversion. This has the advantage that even those components can be recognized as behaving like whose input port and / or output port provides a signal with another unit, for example, a different scale and / or a different representation of the same physical facts.
  • the comparison of components is also possible across different digital implementations or digital circuits.
  • at least one output signal of one component is adjusted by a sampling device to the corresponding output signal of the other component with respect to the sampling rate.
  • an output signal of the original component is matched to the corresponding output signal with which an error signal is to be formed together, or vice versa.
  • an output signal to a test signal so an input signal, be aligned.
  • test signal is limited to a frequency range and / or time-domain range.
  • the test signal is not an arbitrary signal sequence or an arbitrary waveform used, but the test signal is adapted or limited with respect to the frequency range and / or its time course to that only the relevant during operation frequency components and / or time histories are checked.
  • the test signal is limited in terms of frequency and / or time profile to a range in which, during operation of the original component, a corresponding excitation signal (ie the signal which is simulated or simulated by the test signal) has a predetermined minimum portion of a signal energy.
  • each test signal may be formed, for example, first on the basis of a chirp signal or a sum of scaled harmonics or on the basis of a step function or a noise signal, for example a Gaussian noise or a pseudorandom binary noise signal.
  • a noise signal for example a Gaussian noise or a pseudorandom binary noise signal.
  • Another embodiment provides to use as a test signal a corresponding excitation signal which has been detected or recorded during operation of the system with the original component. The test signal is then particularly authentic.
  • a development is provided specifically for the case that the system is a simulation device.
  • a simulation device can be provided, for example, to develop, for example, a motor vehicle or an aircraft or a ship.
  • Such a simulation device may be part of an engineering system or development system.
  • the original component can be a first dynamic model of a subarea or module of a product to be developed, for example a motor vehicle or aircraft or ship.
  • Each possible alternative component is provided by a respective dynamic model, but different from the first dynamic model in terms of a model aspect.
  • first dynamic model an alternative component
  • alternative dynamic model an alternative dynamic model
  • the first dynamic model and each alternative dynamic model differ in that the first dynamic model only provides an overview and simulates every further dynamic model, that is to say each alternative component, a greater degree of detail or additional technical aspects.
  • the original component is a simulation model of a module to be developed, for example of the motor vehicle or of the ship or of the aircraft, and each possible alternative component is a dynamic simulation model which has a greater degree of detail than the original component and / or an additional technical aspect with regard to replicates the original component.
  • a staggered development process can take place, in which a suitable dynamic model can be determined for a next or subsequent development step, which models a greater degree of detail and / or additional technical aspects, and however with respect to those in the preceding development aspects how the first dynamic model behaves.
  • the first dynamic model for an electric machine may determine whether the electric machine behaves as desired with respect to drive torque and / or coil currents.
  • an alternative component that is to say another dynamic model
  • a dynamic behavior of the electric machine which is similar with respect to the similarity criterion, for example with respect to drive torque and / or Coil currents results in which, however, in addition, for example, a temperature behavior and / or a noise development of the electric machine can be modeled.
  • the user then does not have to elaborate or search for a new, dynamic model.
  • the difference in detail level may be related to a temporal resolution of operations and / or to a number of variables of the model.
  • the first dynamic model and at least one alternative dynamic model differ in that they are provided in a different programming language. In other words, dynamic models that are provided for different simulation devices can be compared here.
  • RFAD RFAD - Requirements Functions Abstract Components Discipline Specific Components
  • MLD models MLD - Mixed Logical Dynamical Model
  • This step from an abstract model to a concrete model usually requires elaborate testing phases, since it can not be said with certainty via a simulation model whether it correctly replicates the abstract modeled processes of the MLD model.
  • an simulation model provided as a behavior-like alternative component for a predefined simulator is determined in an RFAD process for an MLD model as the original component.
  • This has the advantage that the comparison of the models is carried out on the basis of the key behavior indicator (SVI) without the intervention of the user.
  • the invention also includes a device.
  • the device according to the invention is designed to apply at least one test signal to an original component and an alternative component. In particular, several test signals are required when each component has multiple input ports.
  • the device is furthermore designed to detect a respective time profile of an output signal in the case of the original component and the alternative component, which results in response to the at least one test signal, that is to say describes this reaction.
  • the device has a control device which is designed to carry out an embodiment of the method according to the invention.
  • the device according to the invention can be designed, for example, as a test stand, in particular for technical modules or technical devices, or as a simulation device.
  • the control device can be provided, for example, by a processor device and / or a computer.
  • FIG. 1 shows a schematic representation of an embodiment of the device according to the invention
  • FIG. 3 shows a sketch for illustrating a component comparison, as it can be carried out with the method according to the invention
  • FIG 4, and 6 shows a sketch to illustrate an RFAD
  • the device 1 shows a device 1, which may be, for example, a test stand or a simulation device.
  • the original component 2 may be a simulation model (Model 1) and the alternative component 3 may be a simulation model (Model 2) of another simulator, so that the two simulation models may be provided in different simulation languages.
  • the alternative component 3 has a similar dynamic behavior as the original component 2, wherein the similarity can be predetermined by a predetermined similarity criterion, eg a distance criterion.
  • the original component 2 and the alternative component 3 may each have input ports 4, 5 which may be configured to receive the same signal type, respectively.
  • Corresponding input ports are provided in FIG. 1 with the same reference numerals.
  • each input port 4, 5 of the original component 2 and the alternative component 3 with the same test signal 6, 7 (ui, u m ) are acted upon.
  • ellipsis 8 illustrates that more or fewer than the illustrated two input ports may be provided.
  • Components 2, 3 (ie, the original component 2 and the alternative component 3), each component 2, 3 depending on the at least one test signal 6, 7 each generate at least one output signal 9, 10. It can be provided here that the original component 2 and the alternative component 3 have corresponding output ports 11, 12, ie output ports 11, 12 which have the same signal type or a signal type converted by a unit conversion.
  • the unit conversion may, for example, be provided by a program module.
  • an error signal 15, 16 can be formed, for example, by a difference formation 14.
  • Each error signal 15, 16 can describe a time profile of the behavioral difference between the components 2, 3.
  • the error signal 15, 16 is thus each a time-dependent signal, in particular no scalar.
  • a key behavior indicator 18 can be formed by the device on the basis of a behavioral criterion 17, which will be described in more detail below.
  • the key behavior indicator 18 is in particular a scalar or vector, that is to say the time profiles of the error signals 15, 16 are combined to form a scalar or a vector.
  • a vector In the case of a vector, the latter has, in particular, fewer vector entries than each error signal 15, 16 signal values.
  • a step S1 it is checked whether the original components 2 and the possible alternative components 2 have suitable input and output structures, that is, corresponding input ports 4, 5 and output ports 9, 10 (STRUC structural criterion). It is a prerequisite for behavioral model comparisons that the external connection arrangements of the model match. This means that for each input port or input port and each output port or output port, one variable must exist in a model of the same causality and data type in another model, or vice versa. This assignment must be bijective.
  • connection variables be formed in the physical unit. In case of deviations of the units a unit conversion can be provided.
  • a statistical and dynamic degree of similarity (by the behavioral criterion 17) can be determined.
  • Quantitative behavioral criteria are applied for all model pairs that are compatible with the structural criterion, ie that can be determined on the basis of the existing input ports 4, 5u and output ports 9, 10.
  • Resampling is a standardized technique that can be easily performed.
  • RMS Root-Mean-Square
  • Each of these indicator values compares two models. In other words, the criterion forms pairwise similar indicator values of some given behavioral models.
  • the indicator values are combined in a vector for key behavior indicators, SVI:
  • Suitable test signals 6, 7 for the comparison can be taken from the theory of system identification. They should have the following properties:
  • Jump signals or step signals Pseudo-random binary noise signals Gaussian noise
  • the requirements formally formulated for the system can be evaluated in order to limit the test signals and to identify the relevant frequency and time ranges. This observation is crucial because it significantly reduces complexity; the complete examination of the value ranges of the model variables can in some cases be too complex to put into practice.
  • step S2 two behavioral models have been identified as behaviorally similar having similar behavior, and which are interconnected or associated with each other, they may be used in an interactive modeling scenario, such as the design decision support system, always be used together again.
  • the alternative component 3 may be provided to a user e.g. be proposed as an alternative to the original component 2.
  • Step S3 are stored (STR - Store). This is illustrated in FIG. 3, wherein the e.g. the SVI (Model, Model2) is abbreviated as S12.
  • SVI Model, Model2
  • a sensible approach is to create a cluster (graphs) of structurally identical model types (nodes) and store the key behavior indicator SVI of each pair (edges). This scheme can be easily done e.g. shown in a table.
  • the providers of complex systems can thus provide large repositories of behavioral models at different levels of abstraction in different languages.
  • these data stores are heterogeneous.
  • These heterogeneous data stores reflect a significant portion of the intellectual property of the sellers.
  • the described method can overcome the problem of finding a way to relate the models to the data repositories so as to find the models which describe the same technical processes in different ways, eg once under the aspect of temperature behavior and once under aspect fuel consumption.
  • the stored calculated key behavior indicator SVI can also be used by an automation tool to either assist the user with suggestions or find alternative or similar solutions.
  • Another possibility of this method is the automatic generation of identical models.
  • a previous system evaluation may use an Amesim format as a modeling and simulation tool.
  • testing of control algorithms in real hardware may require, for example, Simulink or another simulator format, eg, for a test setup or test stand or simulation. Assuming that it contains stored calculated match values for a An Amesim original component and a Simulink alternative component, these can be used to produce a behavioral or at least behavioral-like component
  • the dynamic model difference is reduced to a numeric value for each criterion.
  • Behavioral matches can be particularly advantageous in model-based application scenarios, such as:
  • the invention can be extended so that the variables are formed in different behavioral models with the same constellation.
  • FIG. 4 and FIG. 5 a model-based application scenario is described for this purpose.
  • two Amesim representations (submodels in Amesim language) of a DC electric motor DC are compared with self-excitation.
  • FIG. 5 illustrates the generation of the test signals 6, 7 and the evaluation of the error signals 9, 10 by a control device 21 of the device 1.
  • the control device 21 may e.g. be provided by a processor device or a computer.
  • each model would be simulated by itself with a given input, and the verification of the criterion would be separate from the simulation.
  • an interface 19 between the test bench 20 and the device 1 may be provided, as illustrated in FIG. 4 and FIG.
  • FIG. 6 which can be used in a "prerequisite functions-abstraction components-behavior-specific component n development process (RFAD process).
  • behavioral model refers to dynamic models that contain time-dependent variables that can change over time.
  • a behavioral model may be used to describe operational aspects of physical reality or the behavior of the software, and may in particular describe a combination of both.
  • the behavioral and architectural models that are at the same level of abstraction are linked together, and behavioral models are usually created in commercial modeling software programs, such as MATLAB.
  • Modeler or Esterei SCADE.
  • the models or building blocks are created and stored with formal modeling languages, such as the Simulink language, Modelica or C.
  • FIG. 6 shows a schematic view of the connections between the requirements (R), the functions (F), abstract Components (C) and simulation blocks 23, as used in the RFAD process. Since the level of detail of the models of different domains or system views (R and S in this case) differs, the behavioral match often only refers to a part of the variables of the behavioral model, whereas the other variables are not taken into account.
  • the set of variables 22 restricted by the system requirements is designated from the set of all variables V L , with V L ⁇ .
  • the set of variables limited by the system requirements is called from the set of all variables V s , with V s ⁇ .
  • the example shows how a behavioral similarity of behavior models for a simulation or a controller development or a controller verification can be calculated by the invention.

Landscapes

  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Automation & Control Theory (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)

Abstract

L'invention concerne un procédé pour un système, permettant de trouver, pour un composant original (2) du système, au moins un composant de substitution (3) à comportement similaire, qui comprend les étapes suivantes : application d'un signal d'essai respectif (6, 7) au composant original (2) et à chaque composant de substitution (3) possible et détection d'un signal de sortie (11, 12) respectif décrivant une variation dans le temps d'une réaction audit au moins un signal d'essai (6, 7) au niveau du composant original (2) et de chaque composant de substitution (3) possible. Pour chaque paire de composants formée d'une part du composant original (2) et d'autre part d'un composant de substitution (3) possible, au moins un signal d'erreur (15, 16) respectif est formé et les signaux d'erreur (15, 16) sont regroupés en une valeur d'indicateur respective. Une valeur de comportement clé (18), SVI, est formée à partir de chaque valeur d'indicateur. Chaque composant de substitution (3) possible pour lequel la valeur d'indicateur clé (18) satisfait un critère de similarité prédéfini est sélectionné en tant que composant(s) de substitution (3) à comportement similaire.
PCT/EP2015/055525 2015-03-17 2015-03-17 Détermination de composants à comportement similaire pour un système WO2016146169A1 (fr)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/EP2015/055525 WO2016146169A1 (fr) 2015-03-17 2015-03-17 Détermination de composants à comportement similaire pour un système

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/EP2015/055525 WO2016146169A1 (fr) 2015-03-17 2015-03-17 Détermination de composants à comportement similaire pour un système

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2016146169A1 true WO2016146169A1 (fr) 2016-09-22

Family

ID=52811096

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/EP2015/055525 WO2016146169A1 (fr) 2015-03-17 2015-03-17 Détermination de composants à comportement similaire pour un système

Country Status (1)

Country Link
WO (1) WO2016146169A1 (fr)

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US10255386B2 (en) 2015-11-25 2019-04-09 Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. Space exploration with quantitative pruning and ranking system and method

Citations (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
EP2402876A2 (fr) * 2010-06-30 2012-01-04 ITT Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc. Procédé et appareil de corrélation des modèles de simulation avec des dispositifs physiques basés sur des mesures de corrélation

Patent Citations (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
EP2402876A2 (fr) * 2010-06-30 2012-01-04 ITT Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc. Procédé et appareil de corrélation des modèles de simulation avec des dispositifs physiques basés sur des mesures de corrélation

Non-Patent Citations (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
JAMES R. CORDY: "Submodel pattern extraction for simulink models", PROCEEDINGS OF THE 17TH INTERNATIONAL SOFTWARE PRODUCT LINE CONFERENCE, 26 August 2013 (2013-08-26), XP002750496, ISBN: 978-1-4503-1968-3, Retrieved from the Internet <URL:http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2492153> [retrieved on 20131104], DOI: 10.1145/2491627.2492153 *

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US10255386B2 (en) 2015-11-25 2019-04-09 Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. Space exploration with quantitative pruning and ranking system and method

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
DE102020205539A1 (de) Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Prüfen eines technischen Systems
EP2897011B1 (fr) Procédé et système de simulation pour la simulation d&#39;une installation industrielle automatisée
EP1763710B1 (fr) Procede de simulation d&#39;une installation technique
EP3757795A1 (fr) Procédé et dispositif destinés à la distribution optimale de cas d&#39;essai sur différentes plateformes d&#39;essai
DE112021003677T5 (de) Automatisierte unterstützte schaltkreisvalidierung
EP1947567A2 (fr) Dispositif et procédé destinés au test automatique de fonctions basées sur un modèle
WO2016146169A1 (fr) Détermination de composants à comportement similaire pour un système
DE112015002752T5 (de) Durchführung und Kommunikation von Blechmetall-Simulationen unter Einsatz einer Kombination von Faktoren
EP3999925B1 (fr) Procédé et dispositifs de détermination d&#39;une qualité de produit
EP3617912A1 (fr) Procédé et dispositif de génération assiste par un ordinateur d&#39;un composant pour un système technique
DE102021200927A1 (de) Verfahren und Vorrichtung zur Analyse eines insbesondere in einen zumindest teilautonomen Roboter oder Fahrzeug eingebetteten Systems
DE102020205540A1 (de) Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Prüfen eines technischen Systems
DE102017104049B4 (de) Verfahren und vorrichtung zum überprüfen der zuverlässigkeit eines chips
DE102020206327A1 (de) Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Prüfen eines technischen Systems
EP3757698A1 (fr) Procédé et dispositif d&#39;évaluation et de sélection des métriques de comparaison des signaux
DE102020206321A1 (de) Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Prüfen eines technischen Systems
DE10325513B4 (de) Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Erstellen eines Verhaltensaspekts einer Schaltung zur formalen Verifikation
EP3056994B1 (fr) Dispositif et procede de detection, de verification et de memorisation de donnees de processus provenant au moins de deux etapes de processus
DE102019126292A1 (de) System und Verfahren zum Vorhersagen einer analytischen Anomalie bei der rechnerischen Fluiddynamikanalyse
EP3828655B1 (fr) Procédé et dispositif de détermination des causes d&#39;une défaillance dans un circuit électrique
DE102019201700A1 (de) Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Spezifizieren und Verifizieren einer integrierten Schaltung
DE102020205527A1 (de) Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Prüfen eines technischen Systems
DE102020205526A1 (de) Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Prüfen eines technischen Systems
WO1999038024A1 (fr) Procede d&#39;optimisation de specifications de controle et de minimisation de logiciels de controle assistees par ordinateur
WO2023006934A1 (fr) Procédé mis en oeuvre par ordinateur pour produire une image logicielle, appropriée pour une simulation numérique, d&#39;au moins une partie d&#39;un dispositif de commande réel

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 15714174

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 15714174

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1