Full Text:   <1150>

Summary:  <1074>

CLC number: TP391.9

On-line Access: 2021-03-08

Received: 2019-11-26

Revision Accepted: 2020-06-21

Crosschecked: 2021-02-11

Cited: 0

Clicked: 2890

Citations:  Bibtex RefMan EndNote GB/T7714


Dongsu Jeong


-   Go to

Article info.
Open peer comments

Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering  2021 Vol.22 No.3 P.415-436


Method for process-based modeling of combat scenarios using interaction analysis weapon systems

Author(s):  Dongsu Jeong, Dohyun Kim, Yoonho Seo

Affiliation(s):  Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Korea University, Seoul KS013, Korea

Corresponding email(s):   jdsvs2979@korea.ac.kr, davydo@korea.ac.kr, yoonhoseo@korea.ac.kr

Key Words:  Weapon systems, Process-based modeling (PBM), Combat scenario, Interaction analysis, Metamodel, Petri net

Share this article to: More <<< Previous Article|

Dongsu Jeong, Dohyun Kim, Yoonho Seo. Method for process-based modeling of combat scenarios using interaction analysis weapon systems[J]. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, 2021, 22(3): 415-436.

@article{title="Method for process-based modeling of combat scenarios using interaction analysis weapon systems",
author="Dongsu Jeong, Dohyun Kim, Yoonho Seo",
journal="Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering",
publisher="Zhejiang University Press & Springer",

%0 Journal Article
%T Method for process-based modeling of combat scenarios using interaction analysis weapon systems
%A Dongsu Jeong
%A Dohyun Kim
%A Yoonho Seo
%J Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering
%V 22
%N 3
%P 415-436
%@ 2095-9184
%D 2021
%I Zhejiang University Press & Springer
%DOI 10.1631/FITEE.1900649

T1 - Method for process-based modeling of combat scenarios using interaction analysis weapon systems
A1 - Dongsu Jeong
A1 - Dohyun Kim
A1 - Yoonho Seo
J0 - Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering
VL - 22
IS - 3
SP - 415
EP - 436
%@ 2095-9184
Y1 - 2021
PB - Zhejiang University Press & Springer
ER -
DOI - 10.1631/FITEE.1900649

With technological advancements, weapon system development has become increasingly complex and costly. Using modeling and simulation (M&S) technology in the conceptual design stage is effective in reducing the development time and cost of weapons. One way to reduce the complexity and trial-and-error associated with weapon development using M&S technology is to develop combat scenarios to review the functions assigned to new weapons. Although the M&S technology is applicable, it is difficult to analyze how effectively the weapons are functioning, because of the dynamic features inherent in combat scenario modeling, which considers interrelations among different weapon entities. To support review of weapon functions including these characteristics, this study develops a process-based modeling (PBM) method to model the interactions between weapons in the combat scenario. This method includes the following three steps: (1) construct virtual models by converting the weapons and the weapon functions into their corresponding components; (2) generate the combat process from the combat scenario, which is derived from the interrelations among weapons under consideration using reasoning rules; (3) develop a process-based model that describes weapon functions by combining the combat process with virtual models. Then, a PBM system based on this method is implemented. The case study executed on this system shows that it is useful in deriving process-based models from various combat scenarios, analyzing weapon functions using the derived models, and reducing weapon development issues in the conceptual design stage.


Dongsu JEONG, Dohyun KIM, Yoonho SEO


Darkslateblue:Affiliate; Royal Blue:Author; Turquoise:Article


[1]Alshayeb M, Khashan N, Mahmood S, 2016. A framework for an integrated unified modeling language. Front Inform Technol Electron Eng, 17(2):143-159.

[2]Choi BK, Kang D, 2013. Modeling and Simulation of Discrete-Event Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, USA.

[3]Choi J, Moon S, Kim T, et al., 2015. Study of development for distributed battlefield simulation environment: one-to-one single unit engagement model. J Korea Soc Simul, 24(4):69-76.

[4]Claxton JD, Cavoli C, Johnson C, 2005. Test and Evaluation Management Guide (5th Ed.). Defense Acquisition University Press, Fort Belvoir, USA.

[5]Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), 2012. Guide Book of Weapon System Test and Evaluation. Defense Acquisition Program Administration, Seoul, Korea.

[6]Eisner H, Marciniak J, McMillan R, 1991. Computer-aided system of systems (S2) engineering. Proc IEEE Int Conf on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, p.531-537.

[7]Jafer S, Durak U, 2017. Tackling the complexity of simulation scenario development in aviation. Proc Symp on Modeling and Simulation of Complexity in Intelligent, Adaptive and Autonomous Systems, p.1-10.

[8]Jeong D, Kim D, Seo Y, 2016. Research of ontology based battlefield scenario generation systems. Proc 2nd Int Conf on Artificial Intelligence and Industrial Engineering, p.393-396.

[9]Jeong DS, Seo YH, 2018. Process-based ship production system modeling for supporting decision processes. Proc 32nd Annual European Simulation and Modelling Conf, p.82-87.

[10]Jeong DY, Kim GI, Cho SS, et al., 2014. The Latest Weapon Systematology. CHEONG MOON GAK Publishing Company, Seoul, Korea.

[11]Kewley R, Cook J, Goerger N, et al., 2008. Federated simulations for systems of systems integration. Winter Simulation Conf, p.1121-1129.

[12]Kim CO, Cho YH, Yoon JU, et al., 2005. Ontology based negotiation case search system for the resolution of exceptions in collaborative production planning. In: Meersman R, Tari Z, Herrero P (Eds.), On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM 2005 Workshops. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, p.24-25.

[13]Kim D, Seo Y, Sheen DM, 2015. Dynamic component reconfiguration system using case-based reasoning for weapons system in DM&S: guided weapon case. Proc IEEE European Modelling Symp, p.9-13.

[14]Kim TG, Moon IC, 2012. Combat modeling using the DEVS formalism. In: Tolk A (Ed.), Engineering Principles of Combat Modeling and Distributed Simulation. Wiley, Hoboken, USA, p.479-510.

[15]Kim TG, Kwon SJ, Kang B, 2013. Modeling and simulation methodology for defense systems based on concept of system of systems. J Korean Inst Ind Eng, 39(6):450-460.

[16]Lee B, Seo Y, 2014. A design of operational test & evaluation system for weapon systems thru process-based modeling. J Korea Soc Simul, 23(4):211-218.

[17]Lee JO, Lee JJ, Suk JB, et al., 2010. A development of the dynamic reconfigurable components based on software product line: guided weapon system. J Korea Soc Simul, 19(4):179-188.

[18]Lee PJ, Lee YU, 2011. A study on weapon systems acquisition for the use of Modeling & Simulation (M&S). Conv Secur J, 11(3):11-17.

[19]Li XB, Lei YL, Vangheluwe H, et al., 2013. A multi-paradigm decision modeling framework for combat system effectiveness measurement based on domain-specific modeling. J Zhejiang Univ-Sci C (Comput & Electron), 14(5):311-331.

[20]Li XB, Yang F, Lei YL, et al., 2017. A model framework-based domain-specific composable modeling method for combat system effectiveness simulation. Soft Syst Model, 16(4):1201-1222.

[21]Luo YL, Wu YN, Qin YH, et al., 2016. Modeling method for integration of air command and security process. Int J Model Simul Sci Comput, 7(1):1641004.

[22]No H, Son T, 2005. NCW: trends of developed countries and challenges of ROK. J Korean Def Iss Anal, 1046:5-19 (in Korean).

[23]Object Management Group (OMG), 2003. OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification (15th Ed. Object Management Group, Inc., Framingham, MA, USA.

[24]Oh SR, Jeong DS, Seo YH, 2016. Scenario-based evaluation object selection research for performance evaluation of weapon systems. Proc Korean Operations Research and Management Science Society Joint Conf, p.1239-1244 (in Korean).

[25]Özhan G, Oğuztüzün H, Evrensel P, 2008. Modeling of field artillery tasks with live sequence charts. J Def Mod Simul Appl Meth Techn, 5(4):219-252.

[26]Park HR, Seo YH, 2015. AHP-based ontology integration method for weapon function. J Inform Techn Arch, 12(1):99-112.

[27]Park SC, Kwon Y, Seong K, et al., 2010. Simulation framework for small scale engagement. Comput Ind Eng, 59(3):463-472.

[28]Park SK, Lee JY, 2003. A study on the assessment of power improvement effectiveness of corps level C4I system applied to integrated fire operation. J Mil Oper Res Soc Korea, 29(1):26.

[29]Qi ZH, Wang ZY, Zhang WH, et al., 2006. Design and implication of attack and defense simulation system for ballistic missile with UML. J Syst Simul, 18(3):602-603, 606 (in Chinese).

[30]Rainey LB, Tolk A, 2015. Modeling and Simulation Support for System of Systems Engineering Applications. Wiley, Hoboken, USA.

[31]Schwenn K, Colombi J, Wu T, et al., 2015. Toward agent-based modeling of the U.S. Department of Defense Acquisition System. Proc Comput Sci, 44:383-392.

[32]Seo DJ, Seo Y, 2016. A method for build an ontology-based component semantic search system for reconfiguration of weapon system. J Korea Soc Simul, 25(1):11-20.

[33]Seo KM, Choi C, Kim TG, et al., 2014. DEVS-based combat modeling for engagement-level simulation. Simulation, 90(7):759-781.

[34]Seo KM, Hong W, Kim TG, 2017. Enhancing model composability and reusability for entity-level combat simulation: a conceptual modeling approach. Simulation, 93(10):825-840.

[35]Seo Y, Kim T, Kim B, et al., 2006. Representation and performance analysis of manufacturing cell based on generalized stochastic petri net. Int J Ind Eng Theor Appl Pract, 13(1):99-107.

[36]Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO), 2008. Standard for Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL), SISO-STD-007-2008. Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Orlando, USA.

[37]Son MJ, Cho DY, Kim T, et al., 2010. Modeling and simulation of target motion analysis for a submarine using a script-based tactics manager. Adv Eng Softw, 41(3):506-516.

[38]Tolk A, 2012. Engineering Principles of Combat Modeling and Distributed Simulation. Wiley, Hoboken, USA.

[39]Tolk A, Diallo SY, Padilla JJ, et al., 2013. Reference modelling in support of M&S—foundations and applications. J Simul, 7(2):69-82.

[40]United States Department of the Army (USDA), 2007. Attack Reconnaissance Helicopter Operations, FM 3-04.126. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, USA.

[41]U.S. Department of Defense (USDoD), 2011. Revision C, Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel Items, New MIL-STD-881. Department of Defense Standard Practice, Washington, USA.

[42]Wang WG, Tolk A, Wang WP, 2009. The levels of conceptual interoperability model: applying systems engineering principles to M&S. https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0191

[43]Wittman RLJr, Harrison CT, 2001. OneSAF: a Product Line Approach to Simulation Development. MITRE Corporation, Orlando, FL, USA.

[44]Zhao XY, Zhou X, Mei Y, et al., 2012. Structure and content enhancement to military scenario definition language. Int IEEE Symp on Robotics and Applications, p.379-382.

Open peer comments: Debate/Discuss/Question/Opinion


Please provide your name, email address and a comment

Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE, 38 Zheda Road, Hangzhou 310027, China
Tel: +86-571-87952783; E-mail: cjzhang@zju.edu.cn
Copyright © 2000 - 2022 Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE