Improving tail accuracy of the predicted cumulative distribution function of time of failure

Abstract Prognostic information is used to make decisions such as when to perform maintenance or - in time sensitive and safety critical applications - when to change operational settings. Where distributions about expected end of life (EOL) are available, these decisions are often based on risk-informed thresholds, for example a 2 σ or 3 σ criterion which considers the probability of making a bad decision at 5 % or 0.3 % , respectively, as tolerable. Sampling-based techniques such as Monte Carlo Sampling (MCS) and Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) can provide effective approaches to the propagation and analysis of uncertainty. Due to its efficient manner of stratifying across the range of each sampled variable, LHS requires less computational effort than MCS and is therefore more often used. However, since the focus is placed on accurately predicting the tails of the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of Time of Failure (ToF) sampling-base techniques may not properly represent these areas. Although one might be tempted to use a brute force approach and simply increase the number of samples, some safety-critical applications may be computationally constrained. Such applications include electric UAV where the decision making process has to be fast in order to take action as soon as possible. This paper explores the ability of MCS and LHS to perform tail prediction with small sample sizes. The results show that LHS does not provide a significant advantage over MCS in terms of characterizing the tails of the CDF of the battery End of Discharge (EOD) prediction. Then, a methodology that combines MCS and Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) is investigated. The advantages of KDE in terms of reducing sample size while improving tail accuracy are demonstrated on battery end-of-discharge data.

[1]  Luigi Iannelli,et al.  Fault analysis to improve reliability of a LEO satellite EPS , 2019 .

[2]  Harold García-Alfonso,et al.  Comparison of uncertainty analysis of the Montecarlo and Latin Hypercube algorithms in a camera calibration model , 2018, 2018 IEEE 2nd Colombian Conference on Robotics and Automation (CCRA).

[3]  Mohammad Reza Bahaari,et al.  A comparative reliability study of corroded pipelines based on Monte Carlo Simulation and Latin Hypercube Sampling methods , 2020 .

[4]  A. Olsson,et al.  On Latin hypercube sampling for structural reliability analysis , 2003 .

[5]  Kai Goebel,et al.  Model-Based Prognostics With Concurrent Damage Progression Processes , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems.

[6]  Chetan S. Kulkarni,et al.  Battery health management for small-size rotary-wing electric unmanned aerial vehicles: An efficient approach for constrained computing platforms , 2019, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[7]  Bernard W. Silverman,et al.  Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis , 1987 .

[8]  Ibrahim Ziedan,et al.  Machine Learning Techniques for Satellite Fault Diagnosis , 2020 .

[9]  Marshall C. Smart,et al.  Energy Storage Technologies for Small Satellite Applications , 2018, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[10]  Richard J. Beckman,et al.  A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code , 2000, Technometrics.

[11]  Kai Goebel,et al.  A Hybrid Battery Model for Prognostics in Small-size Electric UAVs , 2018 .

[12]  M. D. McKay,et al.  A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code , 2000 .

[13]  Giancarlo Genta,et al.  Exploring the surface of the Moon and Mars: What kind of ground vehicles are required? , 2019 .

[14]  Zhang Lei,et al.  Application of Monte Carlo sampling and Latin Hypercube sampling methods in pumping schedule design during establishing surrogate model , 2011, 2011 International Symposium on Water Resource and Environmental Protection.

[15]  Mingliang Suo,et al.  Data-driven fault diagnosis of satellite power system using fuzzy Bayes risk and SVM , 2019, Aerospace Science and Technology.

[16]  Eduardo Saliby,et al.  An empirical evaluation of sampling methods in risk analysis simulation: quasi-Monte Carlo, descriptive sampling, and latin hypercube sampling , 2002, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference.

[18]  Evangelos Simoudis The Autonomous Mobility Innovation Lifecycle , 2020, IEEE Potentials.

[19]  Muhammad Nizam,et al.  Model-Based Simulation for Hybrid Fuel Cell/Battery/Ultracapacitor Electric Vehicle , 2018, 2018 5th International Conference on Electric Vehicular Technology (ICEVT).

[20]  Matthew Daigle,et al.  Stochastic prediction of remaining driving time and distance for a planetary rover , 2015, 2015 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[21]  V. Filho,et al.  Using data analytics to quantify the impact of production test uncertainty on oil flow rate forecast , 2020 .

[22]  M. Figliozzi Carbon emissions reductions in last mile and grocery deliveries utilizing air and ground autonomous vehicles , 2020, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.

[23]  N. Kumarappan,et al.  Reliability Evaluation of Composite Electric Power System Based On Latin Hypercube Sampling , 2013 .

[24]  Michael D. Shields,et al.  The generalization of Latin hypercube sampling , 2015, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..