Health Monitoring of a Planetary Rover Using Hybrid Particle Petri Nets

  • Quentin Gaudel
  • Pauline Ribot
  • Elodie ChantheryEmail author
  • Matthew J. Daigle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9698)


This paper focuses on the application of a Petri Net-based diagnosis method on a planetary rover prototype. The diagnosis is performed by using a model-based method in the context of health management of hybrid systems. In system health management, the diagnosis task aims at determining the current health state of a system and the fault occurrences that lead to this state. The Hybrid Particle Petri Nets (HPPN) formalism is used to model hybrid systems behavior and degradation, and to define the generation of diagnosers to monitor the health states of such systems under uncertainty. At any time, the HPPN-based diagnoser provides the current diagnosis represented by a distribution of beliefs over the health states. The health monitoring methodology is demonstrated on the K11 rover. A hybrid model of the K11 is proposed and experimental results show that the approach is robust to real system data and constraints.


Diagnosis Hybrid systems Model-based monitoring Health management Uncertainty Petri Nets Particle filter 


  1. 1.
    Balaban, E., Narasimhan, S., Daigle, M.J., Roychoudhury, I., Sweet, A., Bond, C., Celaya, J.R., Gorospe, G.: Development of a mobile robot test platform and methods for validation of prognostics-enabled decision making algorithms. Int. J. Prognostics Health Manag. 4(006), 1–19 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basile, F., Chiacchio, P., Tommasi, G.D.: Fault diagnosis and prognosis in Petri Nets by using a single generalized marking estimation. In: 7th IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety of Technical Processes, Spain (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bayoudh, M., Travé-Massuyes, L., Olive, X.: Hybrid systems diagnosis by coupling continuous and discrete event techniques. In: IFAC World Congress, Korea, pp. 7265–7270 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cabasino, M.P., Giua, A., Seatzu, C.: Diagnosability of discrete-event systems using labeled Petri Nets. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 11(1), 144–153 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chanthery, E., Ribot, P.: An integrated framework for diagnosis and prognosis of hybrid systems. In: 3rd Workshop on Hybrid Autonomous System, Italy (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daigle, M., Roychoudhury, I., Bregon, A.: Qualitative event-based diagnosis applied to a spacecraft electrical power distribution system. Control Eng. Pract. 38, 75–91 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daigle, M., Roychoudhury, I., Bregon, A.: Integrated diagnostics and prognostics for the electrical power system of a planetary rover. In: Annual Conference of the PHM Society, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daigle, M., Sankararaman, S., Kulkarni, C.S.: Stochastic prediction of remaining driving time and distance for a planetary rover. In: IEEE Aerospace Conference (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaudel, Q., Chanthery, E., Ribot, P., Le Corronc, E.: Hybrid systems diagnosis using modified particle Petri Nets. In: 25th International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, Austria (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaudel, Q., Chanthery, E., Ribot, P.: Health monitoring of hybrid systems using hybrid particle Petri Nets. In: Annual Conference of the PHM Society, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaudel, Q., Chanthery, E., Ribot, P.: Hybrid particle Petri Nets for systems health monitoring under uncertainty. Int. J. Prognostics Health Manag. 6(022), 1–20 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Genc, S., Lafortune, S.: Distributed diagnosis of place-bordered Petri Nets. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 4(2), 206–219 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henzinger, T.: The theory of hybrid automata. In: 11th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 278–292 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jianxiong, W., Xudong, X., Xiaoying, B., Chuang, L., Xiangzhen, K., Jianxiang, L.: Performability analysis of avionics system with multilayer HM/FM using stochastic Petri Nets. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 26(2), 363–377 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koutsoukos, X., Kurien, J., Zhao, F.: Monitoring and diagnosis of hybrid systems using particle filtering methods. In: 15th International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lachat, D., Krebs, A., Thueer, T., Siegwart, R.: Antarctica rover design and optimization for limited power consumption. In: 4th IFAC Symposium on Mechatronic Systems (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lesire, C., Tessier, C.: Particle Petri Nets for aircraft procedure monitoring under uncertainty. In: Ciardo, G., Darondeau, P. (eds.) ICATPN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3536, pp. 329–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Narasimhan, S., Balaban, E., Daigle, M., Roychoudhury, I., Sweet, A., Celaya, J., Goebel, K.: Autonomous decision making for planetary rovers using diagnostic and prognostic information. In: 8th IFAC Symposium on Fault Dectection, Supervision and Safety of Technical Processes, Mexico, pp. 289–294 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Narasimhan, S., Browston, L.: HyDE - a general framework for stochastic and hybrid modelbased diagnosis. In: 18th International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, pp. 162–169 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ru, Y., Hadjicostis, C.N.: Fault diagnosis in discrete event systems modeled by partially observed Petri Nets. Discrete Event Dyn. Syst. 19(4), 551–575 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sampath, M., Sengupta, R., Lafortune, S., Sinnamohideen, K., Teneketzis, D.: Diagnosability of discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 40(9), 1555–1575 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soldani, S., Combacau, M., Subias, A., Thomas, J.: On-board diagnosis system for intermittent fault: application in automotive industry. In: 7th IFAC International Conference on Fieldbuses and Networks in Industrial and Embedded Systems, vol. 7-1, pp. 151–158 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sweet, A., Gorospe, G., Daigle, M., Celaya, J.R., Balaban, E., Roychoudhury, I., Narasimhan, S.: Demonstration of prognostics-enabled decision making algorithms on a hardware mobile robot test platform. In: Annual Conference of the PHM Society, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zouaghi, L., Alexopoulos, A., Wagner, A., Badreddin, E.: Modified particle Petri Nets for hybrid dynamical systems monitoring under environmental uncertainties. In: IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration, pp. 497–502 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 International License (, which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Quentin Gaudel
    • 1
  • Pauline Ribot
    • 1
  • Elodie Chanthery
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthew J. Daigle
    • 2
  1. 1.LAAS-CNRSUniversité de Toulouse, CNRS, INSA, UPSToulouseFrance
  2. 2.NASA Ames Research CenterMoffett FieldUSA

Personalised recommendations