Fault diagnosis with matrix analysis for electrically actuated unmanned aerial vehicles

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering

Volumn 223, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 543-563

  Kladis, G P ^a   Economou, J T ^a   Tsourdos, A ^a   White, B A ^a   Knowles, K ^a  

^a CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Adjacency matrix; Cut set; Diagnosis; Digraphs; Fault path; Fault tree; Graph theory; Path set; Pseudo boolean function; Reliability

Indexed keywords

ADJACENCY MATRIX; CUT SET; DIGRAPHS; FAULT PATH; FAULT-TREE; PATH SET; PSEUDO-BOOLEAN FUNCTION;

AUTOMOBILE PARTS AND EQUIPMENT; BOOLEAN FUNCTIONS; FAULT TREE ANALYSIS; GRAPH THEORY; QUALITY CONTROL; RELIABILITY ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY THEORY; REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLES; RISK PERCEPTION; ROUTING ALGORITHMS; SET THEORY; UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAV);

QUALITY ASSURANCE;

EID: 69249121541     PISSN: 09544100     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1243/09544100JAERO422     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Kladis, G. P., Economou, J., Tsourdos, A., and White, B. A Kalman based approach for fault detection and diagnosis on a model-based actuator device. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2007 Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, VPPC 2007, Arlinghton, Texas, USA, 9-12 September 2007, pp. 742-747.
2. Kladis, G. P., Economou, J., Tsourdos, A., and White, B. and Knowles, K. Digraph matrix reliability analysis for fault assessment for a UAV platform application. A fault-tree analysis approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2008 Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, VPPC 2008, Harbin, China, 3-5 September 2008.
3. Raich, A. and Çinar, A. Statistical process monitoring and disturbance diagnosis in multivariable continuous processes. AIChE J., 1996, 42(4), 995-1009.
4. Isermann,R. Model based fault detection and diagnosis methods. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference, June 1995, vol.3, pp. 1605-1609.
5. Strutt, J. E. Report of the inquiry into the loss of Auto-sub2 under the Fimbulisen. Technical report, Research & Consultancy Report no.12, National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, 2006.
6. Davidson, G. G. and Labib, A. W. Learning from failures: design improvements using a multiple criteria decision-making process. Proc. IMechE, Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering, 2003, 217(4), 207-216. DOI: 10.1243/095441003769700762.
7. Lee,W. S.,Grosh,D. L.,Tillman,F. A., and Lie,C. H. Fault tree analysis methods and applications - a review. IEEE Trans. Reliab., 1985, 34(3), 194-203.
8. Watson, H. Launch control safety study, vol.1, 1961, section vii (Bell labs Murray Hill, NJ).
9. Holtzman, C.W. and Marshall, J. W. E. A new method of communication between engineering and mathematician aids system reliability prediction. In Proceedings of the National Symposium on Reliability and Quality Control, January 1960, pp. 403-408.
10. Haasl, D. F. Advanced concepts in fault tree analysis. In Proceedings of the Boeing/UW System Safety Symposium, 1965.
11. Vesely,W. E.,Goldberg,F. F.,Roberts,N. H.,and Haasl,D. F. Fault tree handbook, series NUREG-0492. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1981.
12. Ericson, C. A. Hazard analysis techniques for system safety, 2005 (Wiley, USA).
13. Vesely,W. E. Analysis of fault trees by kinetic tree theory. Technical report, IN-1330 Idaho Nuclear Corporation, 1969.
14. Fussell, J. B. Synthetic tree model - a formal methodology for fault tree construction. Technical report, ANCR-1098, Nuclear Science and Engineering, 1973.
15. Fussell, J. B., Henry, E. B., and Marshal, N. H. Mocus - a computer program to obtain minimal sets from fault trees. Technical report, ANCR-1156, Aerojet Nuclear Corporation, 1974.
16. Worrell, R. Set equation transformation system (sets). Technical report, SLA-73-0028A, Sandia National Laboratories, 1974.
17. Willie, R. R. Computer aided fault tree analysis. Technical report, Ftap. OC-78-114, University of California Operations Research Center, 1978.
18. Hurdle, E. E., Bartlett, L. M., and Andrews, J. D. System fault diagnostics using fault tree analysis. Proc. IMechE, Part O: J. Risk and Reliability, 2007, 221(1), 43-55. DOI: 10.1243/1748006XJRR6.
19. Dunnett,S.and Andrews,J.D.Analysis methods for fault trees that contain secondary failures. Proc. IMechE, Part E: J. Process Mechanical Engineering, 2004, 218(2), 93-102. DOI: 10.1243/095440804774134271. (Pubitemid 38740213)
20. Dugan,J.B.,Bavuso,S. J.,and Boyd,M.A. Dynamic fault tree models for fault tolerant computer systems. IEEE Trans. Reliab., 1992, 41(3), 363-377.
21. Dugan, J. B., Bavuso, S. J., and Boyd, M. A. Fault trees and markov models for reliability analysis of fault tolerant systems. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 1993, 39, 291-301.
22. Gulati, R. and Dugan,J. B. A modular approach for analyzing static and dynamic fault trees. In Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 13-16 January 1997, pp. 57-63.
23. Cepin, M. and Mavko, B. A dynamic fault tree. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 2002, 75, 83-91.
24. Andrews, J. D. and Brennan, G. Application of the digraph method of fault tree construction to a complex control configuration. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 1990, 28, 357-384.
25. Rao, N. S. V. Expected-value analysis of two single fault diagnosis algorithms. IEEE Trans. Comput., 1993, 42(3), 272-280.
26. Iverson, D. L. and Patterson-Hine, F. A. Advances in digraph model processing applied to automated monitoring and diagnosis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 1995, 49(33), 325-334.
27. Pattipati, K. R. Computationally efficient algorithms for multiple fault diagnosis in large graph-based systems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern., A: Syst. Humans, 2003, 33(1), 73-85.
28. Remenyte, R. and Andrews, J. D. Qualitative analysis of complex modularized fault trees using binary decision diagrams. Proc. IMechE, Part O:J. Risk and Reliabity, 2006, 220(1), 45-53. DOI: 10.1243/1748006XJRR10.
29. Iri, M., Aoki, K., O'Shima, E., and Matsuy, H. Algorithm for diagnosis of system failures in the chemical process. Comput. Chem. Eng., 1979, 3, 489-493.
30. Shiozaki, J., Matsuyama, H., O'Shima, E., and Iri, M. An improved algorithm for diagnosis of system failures in the chemical process. Comput. Chem. Eng., 1985, 9, 285-293.
31. Tsuge, Y., Shiozaki, J., Matsuyama, H., and O'Shima, E. Fault diagnosis algorithms based on the signed directed graph and its modifications. Ind. Chem. Eng. Symp. Ser., 1985, 92, 133-144.
32. Bogdanoff,J.and Kozin,F. Probabilistic models of cumulative damage, 1985 (John Wiley & Sons, New York).
33. Kuravsky, L. and Baranov, S. Neural networks in fatigue damage recognition: diagnostics and statistical analysis. In Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on Sound and Vibration, St Petersburg, Russia, July 2004, pp. 2929-2944.
34. Kuravsky, L. and Baranov, S. The concept of multifac-tor markov networks and its application to forecasting and diagnostics of technical systems. In Proceedings of Condition Monitoring 2005, Cambridge, UK, July 2005, pp. 111-117.
35. Andrews,J. and Ericson II,C. Fault tree Andmarkov analysis applied to various design complexities. In Proceedings of the 18th International System Safety Conference, Texas, USA, 2000.
36. Rouvroye,J.andBrombacher,A.New quantitative safety standards: different techniques, different results? Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saftey, 1999, 66(2), 121-125.
37. Bukowski, J. A comparison of techniques for computing PFD average. In Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 2005, pp. 590-595.
38. Christofides, N. Graph theory an algorithmic approach, 1975 (Acadamic Press Inc. Ltd, London).
39. Kladis, G. P., Economou, J., Tsourdos, A., White, B., and Knowles, K. An emergency refueling problem over a dynamically changing environment in the context of unmanned aerial vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2008 16thMediterraneanConferenceonControlandAutoma-tion, MED 2008, Corsica, France, 25-27 June 2008, pp. 703-708.
40. Quinlan, J. R. Programs for machine learning, 1993 (Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA).
41. Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., and Stone, C. J. Classification and regerssion trees, 1984 (Wadsworth and Brooks, Belmont, CA).
42. Economou, J., Kladis, G. P., Tsourdos, A., and White, B. A node-to-node composite graph and pseudo-boolean modeling: a UAV energy application. Proc. IMechE, Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering, 2007, 221(5), 815-830. DOI: 10.1243/09544100JAERO191.
43. Pagès, A. and Gondran, M. System reliability evaluation and prediction in engineering (Translated by E. Griffin), 1986 (Springer-Verlag, UK).
44. Pande, P. K., Spector, M. E., and Chatterjee, P. Computerized fault tree analysis: treel and micsup. ORC 75-83, Operational Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, April 1975.
45. Goldberg, A. V. and Tarjan, R. E. A new approach to the maximum flow problem. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposiumon Theory of Computing, 1986, pp. 136-146.
46. Dantzig, G. B. and Fulkerson, D. R. On the min cut max flow theorem of networks. In Linear inequalities and related systems; Annals of Mathematics, vol.38, 1956, pp. 215-221 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).
47. Elias, P., Feinstein, A., and Shannon, C. A note on the maximum flow through a network. IRE Trans, 1956, IT-2, 117.
48. Ford, L. R. J. Network flow theory. In The Rand corporation, 1956, paper P-923 (Santa Monica, CA).
49. Dijkstra,E.W.Anoteontwo problems in connexion with graphs. Numerische Math., 1959, 1, 269-271.
50. Dreyfus, E. An appraisal of some shortest-path algorithms. Oper. Res., 1968, 17(3), 395-412.
51. Ford, L. R. and Fulkerson, D. R. Maximal flow through a network. Canadian J. Math., 1956, 18, 399.