Architecting Systems-of-Systems of Self-driving Cars for Platooning on the Internet-of-Vehicles with SosADL

  • Flavio OquendoEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 574)


A Software-intensive System-of-Systems (SoS) is architecturally designed to exhibit emergent behavior from the interactions among independent constituent systems. With the upcoming generation of self-driving vehicles, an important case of emergent behavior is vehicle platooning. In a platoon, a group of vehicles (which is dynamically formed) safely travel closely together like in a convoy. It requires, on the one hand, that each vehicle in the platoon control its velocity and the relative distance to the vehicle in front of it for avoiding rear collision and, on the other hand, that vehicles coordinate for enabling other vehicles to dynamically join or leave the platoon. This paper investigates the mediated approach for architecting a platooning of self-driving vehicles, with SosADL, a novel SoS Architecture Description Language (ADL) enhanced with broadcasting for the Internet-of-Vehicles (IoV). In particular, it demonstrates how architectural mediators expressed with broadcast constructs of SosADL for IoV supports platooning architecture descriptions through an excerpt of a real application for architecting platoons of Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs). This novel approach is supported by an integrated toolset for SoS architects.


Software architecture Self-driving vehicle platooning Internet-of-Vehicles (IoV) Systems-of-Systems (SoS) Broadcasting SosADL 


  1. 1.
    Allen, R., Garlan, D.: A formal basis for architectural connection. ACM TOSEM 6(3), 213–249 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blachowicz, J.: The constraint interpretation of physical emergence. J. Gen. Philos. Sci. 44, 21–40 (2013). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cavalcante, E., Quilbeuf, J., Traonouez, L.-M., Oquendo, F., Batista, T., Legay, A.: Statistical model checking of dynamic software architectures. In: Tekinerdogan, B., Zdun, U., Babar, A. (eds.) ECSA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9839, pp. 185–200. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ene, C., Muntean, T.: Expressiveness of point-to-point versus broadcast communications. In: Ciobanu, G., Păun, G. (eds.) FCT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1684, pp. 258–268. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tao, F., Zhang, M., Nee, A.Y.C.: Digital Twin Driven Smart Manufacturing. Academic Press, Cambridge (2019)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graciano Neto, V.V., et al.: ASAS: an approach to support simulation of smart systems. In: 51st HICSS, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA, January 2018Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grieves, M.: Virtually Perfect: Driving Innovative and Lean Products through Product Lifecycle Management. Space Coast Press, Cocoa Beach (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guessi, M., Graciano, V.V., Bianchi, T., Felizardo, K.R., Oquendo, F., Nakagawa, E.Y.: A systematic literature review on the description of software architectures for systems-of-systems. In: 30th ACM SAC, Salamanca, Spain, April 2015Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guessi, M., Oquendo, F., Nakagawa, E.Y.: Checking the architectural feasibility of systems-of-systems using formal descriptions. In: 11th IEEE SoSE, Kongsberg, Norway, June 2016Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    INCOSE, SE Vision 2025 (2014).
  11. 11.
    Inverardi, P., Tivoli, M.: Automatic synthesis of modular connectors via composition of protocol mediation patterns. In: 35th ACM/IEEE ICSE, May 2013Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011: Systems and Software Engineering – Architecture Description, December 2011Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jia, D., Lu, K., Wang, J., Zhang, X., Shen, X.: A survey on platoon-based vehicular cyber-physical systems. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 18(1), 263–284 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaiwartya, O., et al.: Internet of vehicles: motivation, layered architecture, network model, challenges, and future aspects. IEEE Access 4, 5356–5373 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klein, J., van Vliet, H.: A systematic review of system-of-systems architecture research. In: 9th ACM QoSA, Vancouver, Canada, June 2013Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kopetz, H., Höftberger, O., Frömel, B., Brancati, F., Bondavalli, A.: Towards an understanding of emergence in systems-of-systems. In: 10th IEEE SoSE, San Antonio, Texas, USA, May 2015Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kumar, P., Merzouki, R., Bouamama, B.O., Koubeissi, A.: Bond graph modeling of a class of system-of-systems. In: 10th IEEE SoSE, San Antonio, Texas, USA, May 2015Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Labrado, J.D., Erol, B.A., Ortiz, J., Benavidez, P., Jamshidi, M., Champion, B.: Proposed testbed for the modeling and control of a system of autonomous vehicles. In: 11th IEEE SoSE, Kongsberg, Norway, June 2016Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maier, M.W.: Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. Syst. Eng. J. 1(4), 267–284 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Malavolta, I., et al.: Architectural Languages Today: The Up-to-Date List of ADLs, 7 April 2019.
  21. 21.
    Milner, R.: Communicating and Mobile Systems: The π-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Motus, L., Preden, J.S., Meriste, M., Pahtma, R.: Self-aware architecture to support partial control of emergent behavior. In: 7th IEEE SoSE, Genoa, Italy, July 2012Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olarte, C., Rueda, C., Valencia, F.D.: Models and emerging trends of concurrent constraint programming. Int. J. Constr. 18(4), 535–578 (2013). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oquendo, F.: π-ADL: an architecture description language based on the higher-order typed π-Calculus for specifying dynamic and mobile software architectures. ACM SEN 29(3), 1–14 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oquendo, F.: Formally describing the software architecture of systems-of-systems with SosADL. In: 11th IEEE SoSE, Kongsberg, Norway, June 2016Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oquendo, F.: Case study on formally describing the architecture of a software-intensive system-of-systems with SosADL. In: 15th IEEE SMC, Budapest, Hungary, October 2016Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oquendo, F.: Software architecture challenges and emerging research in software-intensive systems-of-systems. In: Tekinerdogan, B., Zdun, U., Babar, A. (eds.) ECSA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9839, pp. 3–21. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oquendo, F.: The π-Calculus for SoS: novel π-Calculus for the formal modeling of software-intensive systems-of-systems. In: Communicating Process Architectures (CPA 2016), August 2016Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oquendo, F.: Formally describing the architectural behavior of software-intensive systems-of-systems with SosADL. In: 21st IEEE ICECCS, Dubai, UAE, November 2016Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oquendo, F.: Architecturally describing the emergent behavior of software-intensive system-of-systems with SosADL. In: 12th IEEE SoSE, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA, June 2017Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oquendo, F.: On the emergent behavior oxymoron of system-of-systems architecture description. In: 13th IEEE SoSE, Paris, France, June 2018Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oquendo, F.: Formally describing self-organizing architectures for systems-of-systems on the internet-of-things. In: Cuesta, C.E., Garlan, D., Pérez, J. (eds.) ECSA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11048, pp. 20–36. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  33. 33.
    Oquendo, F.: Dealing with uncertainty in software architecture on the internet-of-things with digital twins. In: Misra, S., et al. (eds.) ICCSA 2019. LNCS, vol. 11619, pp. 770–786. Springer, Cham (2019). Scholar
  34. 34.
    Oquendo, F., Buisson, J., Leroux, E., Moguérou, G., Quilbeuf, J.: The SosADL studio: an architecture development environment for software-intensive systems-of-systems. In: SiSoS 2016, Copenhagen, DK. ACM, November 2016Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Oquendo, F., Buisson, J., Leroux, E., Moguérou, G.: A formal approach for architecting software-intensive systems-of-systems with guarantees. In: 13th IEEE SoSE, Paris, France, June 2018Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ozkaya, M.: The analysis of architectural languages for the needs of practitioners. Softw. Pract. Exp. 48, 985–1018 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Quilbeuf, J., Cavalcante, E., Traonouez, L.-M., Oquendo, F., Batista, T., Legay, A.: A logic for the statistical model checking of dynamic software architectures. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 806–820. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  38. 38.
    Roca, D., Nemirovsky, D., Nemirovsky, M., Milito, R., Valero, M.: Emergent behaviors in the internet-of-things: the ultimate ultra-large-scale system. IEEE Micro 36(6), 36–44 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Silva, E., Cavalcante, E., Batista, T., Oquendo, F.: Bridging missions and architecture in software-intensive systems-of-systems. In: 21st IEEE ICECCS, Dubai, UAE, November 2016Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wachholder, D., Stary, C.: Enabling emergent behavior in systems-of-systems through bigraph-based modeling. In: 10th IEEE SoSE, San Antonio, Texas, USA, May 2015Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang, Z., Wu, G., Barth, M.J.: A review on cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) systems: architectures, controls, and applications. In: Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC 2018), Maui, HI, USA (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IRISA – UMR CNRS 6074, Univ. Bretagne SudVannesFrance

Personalised recommendations