A Graph-Based Fault Identification and Propagation Framework for Functional Design of Complex Systems

In this paper, the functional-failure identification and propagation (FFIP) framework is introduced as a novel approach for evaluating and assessing functional-failure risk of physical systems during conceptual design. The task of FFIP is to estimate potential faults and their propagation paths under critical event scenarios. The framework is based on combining hierarchical system models of functionality and configuration, with behavioral simulation and qualitative reasoning. The main advantage of the method is that it allows the analysis of functional failures and fault propagation at a highly abstract system concept level before any potentially high-cost design commitments are made. As a result, it provides the designers and system engineers with a means of designing out functional failures where possible and designing in the capability to detect and mitigate failures early on in the design process. Application of the presented method to a fluidic system example demonstrates these capabilities.

[1]  Paul M. Frank,et al.  Fault diagnosis in dynamic systems: theory and application , 1989 .

[2]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  Risk-Based Decision-Making for Managing Resources During the Design of Complex Space Exploration Systems , 2006 .

[3]  Benjamin Kuipers,et al.  Model-Based Monitoring of Dynamic Systems , 1989, IJCAI.

[4]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  The function-failure design method , 2005 .

[5]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  Deriving Function-Failure Similarity Information for Failure-Free Rotorcraft Component Design , 2002 .

[6]  Yoshikiyo Kato,et al.  Fault Detection by Mining Association Rules from House-keeping Data , 2001 .

[7]  I. Turner,et al.  On Quantifying Cost-Benefit of ISHM in Aerospace Systems , 2007, 2007 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[8]  Daniel A. McAdams,et al.  DERIVING A COMPONENT BASIS FOR COMPUTATIONAL FUNCTIONAL SYNTHESIS , 2005 .

[9]  N. Siu,et al.  Risk assessment for dynamic systems: An overview , 1994 .

[10]  Mark A. Kramer,et al.  A rule‐based approach to fault diagnosis using the signed directed graph , 1987 .

[11]  Krishna R. Pattipati,et al.  Multi-signal flow graphs: a novel approach for system testability analysis and fault diagnosis , 1994 .

[12]  Kenneth D. Forbus.  Qualitative Process Theory , 1984, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Wolfgang Beitz,et al.  Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach , 1984 .

[14]  Hamid R. Berenji,et al.  Inductive learning for fault diagnosis , 2003, The 12th IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, 2003. FUZZ '03..

[15]  Jie Chen,et al.  Robust Model-Based Fault Diagnosis for Dynamic Systems , 1998, The International Series on Asian Studies in Computer and Information Science.

[16]  Nageswara S. V. Rao.  On Parallel Algorithms for Single-Fault Diagnosis in Fault Propagation Graph Systems , 1996, IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst..

[17]  Gary Riley,et al.  Expert Systems: Principles and Programming , 2004 .

[18]  Pieter J. Mosterman,et al.  Diagnosis of continuous valued systems in transient operating regions , 1999, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[19]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  Mapping function to failure mode during component development , 2003 .

[20]  Brian C. Williams,et al.  Diagnosing Multiple Faults , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  Prescribing and Implementing the Risk in Early Design (RED) Method , 2006 .

[22]  P. Pandurang Nayak,et al.  A Model-Based Approach to Reactive Self-Configuring Systems , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 2.

[23]  E. Shortliffe.  Mycin: computer-based medical consultations , 1976 .

[24]  Giacomo Cojazzi,et al.  The DYLAM approach for the dynamic reliability analysis of systems , 1996 .

[25]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  Function-Based Design of a Spacecraft Power System Diagnostics Testbed , 2005 .

[26]  Krishna R. Pattipati,et al.  Computationally efficient algorithms for multiple fault diagnosis in large graph-based systems , 2003, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[27]  Sherif Abdelwahed.  System Diagnosis using Hybrid Failure Propagation Graphs , 2004 .

[28]  James R. Wertz,et al.  Space Mission Analysis and Design , 1992 .

[29]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  REQUIREMENTS FOR A FAILURE MODE TAXONOMY FOR USE IN CONCEPTUAL DESIGN , 2003 .

[30]  James Miller,et al.  Failure environment analysis tool (FEAT) development status , 1991 .

[31]  Tunc Aldemir,et al.  Computer-Assisted Markov Failure Modeling of Process Control Systems , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Reliability.

[32]  Stefano Chessa,et al.  Operative diagnosis of graph-based systems with multiple faults , 2001, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[33]  Benjamin J. Kaipers,et al.  Qualitative Simulation , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[34]  Robert Stone,et al.  Capturing Empirically Derived Design Knowledge for Creating Conceptual Design Configurations , 2005 .

[35]  Ivan J. Sacks.  Digraph Matrix Analysis , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Reliability.

[36]  Simon Szykman,et al.  A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous efforts , 2002 .

[37]  Ravi Kapadia.  SymCure: A Model-Based Approach for Fault Management with Causal Directed Graphs , 2003, IEA/AIE.

[38]  John S. Gero,et al.  Function–behavior–structure paths and their role in analogy-based design , 1996, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.