Dear Ansys medini analyze Development Team, We are currently considering a model-based safety analysis workflow compliant with ARP4754B / ARP4761A, using Cameo Systems Modeler for system design and Ansys medini analyze for safety analysis. In this workflow, we would like to define and manage system functions in Cameo, since the functional architecture and its evolution are part of the system development process under ARP4754B. However, medini provides dedicated Function elements that are well suited for functional decomposition and subsequent safety analyses such as FHA and malfunction analysis. When reviewing the Cameo-to-medini import mapping, we found mappings for SysML elements such as Blocks, Activities, and Actions, but we could not identify a Cameo element that is directly imported as a medini Function. Could you please advise us on the recommended approach for this use case? In particular, we would appreciate your guidance on the following points: * How should functions be modeled in Cameo when the model is intended to be used as the system engineering master model for an ARP4754B / ARP4761A workflow? For example, would you recommend Activities / Actions, Blocks with a stereotype, or another modeling approach? * How should those functions be imported into medini for safety analysis? Is it recommended to import Cameo Activities / Actions and use them directly as the functional elements for FHA, malfunction analysis, FDAL assignment, etc.? Or is there a recommended way to convert them into medini Function elements? * Is it possible to use a mapping file or another customization mechanism so that a Cameo element with a specific stereotype, for example «Function», is imported or converted into a medini Function? * If Cameo is maintained as the master for functional architecture, what is the recommended workflow for handling function additions or modifications in Cameo and subsequent model updates in medini, while preserving the safety-analysis information added in medini? If you have any reference model, example project, or best-practice guidance for Cameo–medini integration in an ARP4754B / ARP4761A workflow, we would greatly appreciate it if you could share it with us. Thank you very much for your support. Best regards, Yusuke

Hello Yusuke, First of all, thank you for reaching out to us. What you are proposing is indeed a valid and commonly adopted approach. It is fully aligned with both good Systems Engineering practices and the Cameo/SysML modeling paradigm. In SysML, Activities are a standard and recommended way to represent functions and behaviors, making them a natural choice for managing the functional architecture within your ARP4754B development workflow. From the medini analyze perspective, Activities imported from Cameo can be directly used as functional elements for safety analyses such as FHA, malfunction analysis, FDAL allocation, and related activities. Internally, the imported Activities are treated consistently with the functional concepts used by the medini metamodel, so there is no need to maintain duplicate function definitions in both tools. Maintaining the functional architecture as the master model in Cameo while enriching it with safety information in medini is therefore a sound and recommended workflow. This approach is also used by several organizations worldwide that employ Cameo and medini analyze together. In addition, this workflow provides several important advantages: * Hierarchical structure import: Complex functional decompositions and package hierarchies can be imported from Cameo and preserved within medini. * Allocation mapping: Allocations and dependencies between functional, logical, and physical architectures can be created in medini (highlighting traceability between architectural and/or logical parts and safety related artefacts/analysis). * Model synchronization: Architecture updates from Cameo can be synchronized while preserving existing safety analyses and related metadata within medini. * Change visibility and traceability: Structural modifications can be tracked, helping engineers identify impacts and maintain consistency between engineering and safety models. Please also note that Activity-based behaviors and Call Behavior Actions are supported by the medini integration and can be imported correctly. Additional details can be found in the medini attributes accessible via the Attributes view (field 'callee'). As a final recommendation, if you have not already done so, I would encourage you to connect with our colleague Michiyoshi Ishi-san (miishii@synopsys.com). He has extensive experience supporting customers using a similar Cameo-medini workflow and would certainly confirm the suitability of the approach you described . Please let us know if you have any further questions. We will be happy to help.

nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Question on Function Modeling and Cameo–medini Integration for ARP4754B/ARP4761A

Yusuke

Dear Ansys medini analyze Development Team,

We are currently considering a model-based safety analysis workflow compliant with ARP4754B / ARP4761A, using Cameo Systems Modeler for system design and Ansys medini analyze for safety analysis.

In this workflow, we would like to define and manage system functions in Cameo, since the functional architecture and its evolution are part of the system development process under ARP4754B.

However, medini provides dedicated Function elements that are well suited for functional decomposition and subsequent safety analyses such as FHA and malfunction analysis.

When reviewing the Cameo-to-medini import mapping, we found mappings for SysML elements such as Blocks, Activities, and Actions, but we could not identify a Cameo element that is directly imported as a medini Function.

Could you please advise us on the recommended approach for this use case?

In particular, we would appreciate your guidance on the following points:

How should functions be modeled in Cameo when the model is intended to be used as the system engineering master model for an ARP4754B / ARP4761A workflow?
For example, would you recommend Activities / Actions, Blocks with a stereotype, or another modeling approach?
How should those functions be imported into medini for safety analysis?
Is it recommended to import Cameo Activities / Actions and use them directly as the functional elements for FHA, malfunction analysis, FDAL assignment, etc.?
Or is there a recommended way to convert them into medini Function elements?
Is it possible to use a mapping file or another customization mechanism so that a Cameo element with a specific stereotype, for example «Function», is imported or converted into a medini Function?
If Cameo is maintained as the master for functional architecture, what is the recommended workflow for handling function additions or modifications in Cameo and subsequent model updates in medini, while preserving the safety-analysis information added in medini?

If you have any reference model, example project, or best-practice guidance for Cameo–medini integration in an ARP4754B / ARP4761A workflow, we would greatly appreciate it if you could share it with us.

Thank you very much for your support.

Best regards,
Yusuke

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

mpalumbo

Hello Yusuke,

First of all, thank you for reaching out to us.

What you are proposing is indeed a valid and commonly adopted approach. It is fully aligned with both good Systems Engineering practices and the Cameo/SysML modeling paradigm. In SysML, Activities are a standard and recommended way to represent functions and behaviors, making them a natural choice for managing the functional architecture within your ARP4754B development workflow.

From the medini analyze perspective, Activities imported from Cameo can be directly used as functional elements for safety analyses such as FHA, malfunction analysis, FDAL allocation, and related activities. Internally, the imported Activities are treated consistently with the functional concepts used by the medini metamodel, so there is no need to maintain duplicate function definitions in both tools.

Maintaining the functional architecture as the master model in Cameo while enriching it with safety information in medini is therefore a sound and recommended workflow. This approach is also used by several organizations worldwide that employ Cameo and medini analyze together.

In addition, this workflow provides several important advantages:

Hierarchical structure import: Complex functional decompositions and package hierarchies can be imported from Cameo and preserved within medini.
Allocation mapping: Allocations and dependencies between functional, logical, and physical architectures can be created in medini (highlighting traceability between architectural and/or logical parts and safety related artefacts/analysis).
Model synchronization: Architecture updates from Cameo can be synchronized while preserving existing safety analyses and related metadata within medini.
Change visibility and traceability: Structural modifications can be tracked, helping engineers identify impacts and maintain consistency between engineering and safety models.

Please also note that Activity-based behaviors and Call Behavior Actions are supported by the medini integration and can be imported correctly. Additional details can be found in the medini attributes accessible via the Attributes view (field 'callee').

As a final recommendation, if you have not already done so, I would encourage you to connect with our colleague Michiyoshi Ishi-san (miishii@synopsys.com). He has extensive experience supporting customers using a similar Cameo-medini workflow and would certainly confirm the suitability of the approach you described .

Please let us know if you have any further questions.
We will be happy to help.

All comments

Yusuke

Hi,

Just following up on this question, as we are currently defining the modeling approach for an ARP4754B/ARP4761A project.

After some further investigation on our side, we are currently considering the following approach:

Model system functions in Cameo as SysML Activities
Maintain the functional architecture and function decomposition in Cameo as the master model
Import those Activities into medini and use them as the basis for FHA, malfunction analysis, FDAL assignment, and subsequent safety analyses

Our main reason for considering this approach is that the functions are part of the system design under ARP4754B, so we would prefer to maintain them in Cameo rather than define them independently in medini.

Could you please confirm whether modeling ARP4754B functions as Activities in Cameo is the recommended approach when integrating Cameo with medini?

If there is another recommended modeling approach — for example, using a specific stereotype, profile, or mapping to medini Function elements — we would very much appreciate your guidance.

In particular, we would like to avoid maintaining duplicate function definitions in both Cameo and medini.

Thank you in advance for your advice.

mpalumbo

Hello Yusuke,

First of all, thank you for reaching out to us.

In addition, this workflow provides several important advantages:

Hierarchical structure import: Complex functional decompositions and package hierarchies can be imported from Cameo and preserved within medini.
Allocation mapping: Allocations and dependencies between functional, logical, and physical architectures can be created in medini (highlighting traceability between architectural and/or logical parts and safety related artefacts/analysis).
Model synchronization: Architecture updates from Cameo can be synchronized while preserving existing safety analyses and related metadata within medini.
Change visibility and traceability: Structural modifications can be tracked, helping engineers identify impacts and maintain consistency between engineering and safety models.

Please let us know if you have any further questions.
We will be happy to help.

Yusuke

Hello Palumbo-san,

Thank you very much for your detailed response and clarification.

Your explanation was very helpful, and we now have a clear path forward to proceed with our safety analysis in medini using the Activities modeled in Cameo as the functional architecture.

It is also reassuring to know that this Cameo–medini workflow is a commonly adopted and recommended approach.

If we have any further questions regarding this integration or the surrounding modeling approach, we will also reach out to Ishi-san as you kindly suggested.

Thank you again for your support.

Best regards,
Yusuke