Automated Failure Effect Analysis for PHM of UAV

Reference work entry
First Online:

Abstract

This chapter describes how model-based simulation can be employed to automatically generate the system-level effects for comprehensive sets of component failures on systems within the aircraft. The results of the simulation can be used in several ways. They can be used to produce a system-level failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) for aircraft systems. They can be used to identify the sensors necessary to discriminate remotely between different failures on the aircraft. Once a set of sensors have been chosen for placement on the vehicle, the simulation results can also be used to generate diagnostic and prognostic software for deployment on the vehicle.

Using automated FMEA safety analysis software is more efficient than doing the same work without software and also provides a guaranteed level of performance. Using the results of this analysis can provide sensor selection and diagnostic capability while retaining some of the benefits of rule-based diagnostic systems. Alternative model-based techniques have been widely used to create diagnostic systems in a variety of domains, and these approaches are compared with the diagnostic capability provided by a failure effect-oriented technique from the perspective of the UAV application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Astraea (2009), http://www.astraea.aero/. Accessed 20 Nov 2011
  2. Bell, Interpretation of simulation for model based design analysis of engineered systems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wales Aberystwyth, 2006. http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2160/177
  3. J. Bell, N. Snooke, C.J. Price, A language for functional interpretation of model based simulation. Adv. Eng. Inform. 21(4), 398–409 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. I. Ben-Gal, in Encyclopedia of Statistics in Quality and Reliability, ed. by F. Ruggeri, R.S Kennett, F.W Faltin (Wiley, Chichester, 2007). ISBN 978–0––470–01861–3Google Scholar
  5. D. Bobrow (ed.), Special issue on qualitative reasoning about physical systems. Artif. Intell. 24, 1–5 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. W. Borutzky, Bond Graph Methodology (Springer, New York, 2010). ISBN 978–1–84882–881–0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. J.S. Brown, R. Burton, J. de Kleer, Pedagogical and knowledge engineering techniques in SOPHIE I, II and III, in Intelligent Tutoring Systems, ed. by D. Sleeman, J.S. Brown (Academic, New York, 1982), pp. 227–282Google Scholar
  8. J. de Kleer, Multiple representations of knowledge in a mechanics problem-solver, in Proceedings of the IJCAI-77 (Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1977), pp. 299–304Google Scholar
  9. B.H. Far, A. Halim Elamy, Functional reasoning theories: problems and perspectives. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 19(2), 75–88 (2005). Publisher Cambridge University Press, New York. ISSN: 0890–0604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. K. Forbus, The qualitative process engine, in Readings in Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems, ed. by D. Weld, J. de Kleer (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1990), pp. 220–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. K.D. Forbus, J. de Kleer, Building Problem Solvers (MIT, Cambridge, 1993). ISBN 978-0-262-06157-5MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. W.C. Hamscher, J. de Kleer, L. Console (eds.) Readings in Model-Based Diagnosis. (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1992)Google Scholar
  13. D. Harel, M. Politi, Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998). ISBN 978–0070262058. Out of print. Downloadable from http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~harel/books.html
  14. BJ. Kuipers, Qualitative simulation. Artif. Intell. 29, 289–338 (1986)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. B. Kuipers, Qualitative Reasoning – Modelling and Simulation with Incomplete Knowledge (MIT, Cambridge, 1994). ISBN 978–0–262–11190–4Google Scholar
  16. M.H. Lee, Qualitative circuit models in failure analysis reasoning. Artif. Intell. 111, 239–276 (1999)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. G.F Luger, Artificial Intelligence - Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving, 4th edn. (Addison Wesley, Reading, 2002). ISBN-0-201-64866-0Google Scholar
  18. A. Mukherjee, R. Karmakar, Modeling and Simulation of Engineering Systems Through Bond-graphs (CRC Press LLC/N.W Corporate, Boca Raton, 1999, 2000). ISBN 978–0849309823Google Scholar
  19. B. Peischl, F. Wotawa, Model-based diagnosis or reasoning from first principles. IEEE Intell. Syst. 18, 32–37 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. PHM Technology, http://www.phmtechnology.com/. Accessed 18 Nov 2011
  21. CJ. Price, Function directed electrical design analysis. Artif. Intell. Eng. 12(4), 445–456 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. CJ. Price, N.A. Snooke, S.D. Lewis, A layered approach to automated electrical safety analysis in automotive environments. Comput. Ind. 57, 451–461 (2006a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. C. Price, L. Travé-Massuyès, R. Milne, L. Ironi, K. Forbus, B. Bredeweg, M. Lee, P. Struss, N. Snooke, P. Lucas, M. Cavazza, G. Coghill, Qualitative futures. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(4), 317–334 (2006b). Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. N. Snooke, An automated failure modes and effects analysis based visual matrix approach to sensor selection and diagnosability assessment, in Proceedings of the Prognostics and Health Management Conference (PHM09), SanDiego, CA, Sept 2009Google Scholar
  25. N. Snooke, CJ. Price, Automated FMEA Based Diagnostic Symptom Generation, Proc. Advanced Engineering Informatics, AEI 2012, 26, 870–888. doi 10.1016/j.aei.2012.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. N. Snooke, CJ. Price, An effective practical model-based detectability tool, Proceedings of the DX-11, Murnau, Germany, 2011, pp. 180–187Google Scholar
  27. P. Struss, C J. Price, Model-based systems in the automotive industry. AI Mag. 24(4), 17–34 (2003)Google Scholar
  28. The Unified Modelling Language, http://www.uml.org/. Accessed 29 Nov 2011
  29. L. Travé-Massuyés, R. Milne, TIGERTM: gas turbines condition monitoring using qualitative model based diagnosis. IEEE Expert Intel. Syst. Appl. 12(3), 21–31 (1997)Google Scholar
  30. M. van Wie, C.R. Bryant, M.R. Bohm, D.A. McAdams, R.B. Stone, A model of function-based representations. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 19, 89–111 (2005)Google Scholar
  31. W. Vesely, Fault Tree Handbook with Aerospace Applications, NASA, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/fthb.pdf. Accessed 3 Sept 2011

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceAberystwyth University, Llandinam ExtensionAberystwythUK

Personalised recommendations