This paper presents a new method for complex system failure analysis and adaptive mission planning that provides both an overall failure analysis on a system's performance as well as a mission-based failure analysis. The adaptive mission planning and analysis (AMPA) method presented here uses physics-based governing equations to identify the system's overall behavior during both nominal and faulty conditions. The AMPA method is unique, in which it first identifies a specific failure or combination of failures within a system and then determines how each failure scenario will affect the system's overall performance characteristics, i.e., its functionality. Then, AMPA uses this failure information to assess and optimize various missions that the system may be asked to perform. The AMPA method is designed to identify functional failures of a given system and then, depending on the types of failures that have occurred and what tasks the system will be asked to perform, identify the optimal functional approach needed for moving forward to successfully complete its mission. Ultimately, this method could be applied in situ to systems using sensor data rather than simulations to allow autonomous systems to automatically adapt to failures. That is, by using the remaining healthy components in a new or different way to compensate for the faulty components to extend the systems lifespan and optimize the chance of mission completion.

References

References
1.
Umeda
,
Y.
,
Tomiyama
,
T.
, and
Yoshikawa
,
H.
,
1995
,
A Design Methodology for a Self-Maintenance Machine
,
University of Tokyo
,
Tokyo, Japan
.
2.
Umeda
,
Y.
,
Tomiyama
,
T.
, and
Yoshikawa
,
H.
,
1992
, “
A Design Methodology for a Self-Maintenance Machine Based on Functional Redundancy
,” Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology (DTM) Conference, pp.
317
324
.
3.
DeStefano
,
C.
, and
Jensen
,
D.
,
2014
, “
A Qualitative Failure Analysis Using Function-Based Performance State-Machines for Fault Identification and Propagation During Early Design Phases
,”
ASME
Paper No. DETC2014-34803.
4.
DeStefano
,
C.
,
2014
, “
Utilizing Failure Information for Mission Assessment and Optimization for Complex Systems
,” M.Sc. thesis, University of Arkansas-Fayetteville, Fayetteville, AR.
5.
Tague
,
N.
,
2004
, “
Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA)
,”
The Quality Toolbox
,
2nd ed.
,
ASQ Quality Press
,
Milwaukee, WI
, pp.
236
240
.
6.
Stillings
,
K.
,
2010
, “
Advanced Failure Mode Effects Analysis
,” American Society for Quality, Milwaukee, WI, http://www.asq501.org/images/Failure%20Mode%20Effects%20Analysis_Advanced.pdf
7.
Nannikar
,
A.
,
Raut
,
D.
,
Chanmanwar
,
R.
,
Kamble
,
S.
, and
Patil
,
D.
,
2012
, “
FMEA for Manufacturing and Assembly Process
,”
International Conference on Technology and Business Management
, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, March 26–28, pp.
509
509
.
8.
NASA/GSFC
,
1996
, “
Performing a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
,” Flight Assurance Procedure No. P-302-720, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center, Goddard, MD.
9.
U.S. Army
,
2006
, “
Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) for Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Facilities
,” Department of the Army, Technical Manual No. TM 5-698-4.
10.
Borgovini
,
R.
,
Pemberton
,
S.
, and
Rossi
,
M.
,
1993
, “
Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA)
,”
Reliability Analysis Center
, Rome, NY, Report No. F30602-91-C-0002.
11.
Stone
,
R.
,
Tumer
,
I.
, and
Van Wie
,
M.
,
2005
, “
The Function-Failure Design Method
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
127
(
3
), pp.
397
407
.
12.
Stone
,
R.
,
Tumer
,
I.
, and
Stock
,
M.
,
2006
, “
Linking Product Functionality to Historical Failures to Improve Failure Analysis in Design
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
,
16
(
2
), pp.
96
108
.
13.
Grantham-Lough
,
K.
,
Stone
,
R.
, and
Tumer
,
I.
,
2009
, “
The Risk in Early Design Method
,”
J. Eng. Des.
,
20
(
2
), pp.
144
173
.
14.
Tumer
,
I.
, and
Stone
,
R.
,
2003
, “
Mapping Function to Failure Mode During Component Development
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
,
14
(
1
), pp.
25
33
.
15.
Grantham-Lough
,
K.
,
Stone
,
R.
, and
Tumer
,
I.
,
2008
, “
Implementation Procedures for the Risk in Early Design (RED) Method
,”
J. Ind. Syst. Eng.
,
2
(
2
), pp.
126
143
.
16.
Jensen
,
D.
,
Tumer
,
I.
,
Kurtoglu
,
T.
, and
Hoyle
,
C.
,
2012
, “
Application and Analysis of Complex Systems Using the Function Failure Identification and Propagation Framework
.”
17.
Kurtoglu
,
T.
, and
Tumer
,
I.
,
2008
, “
A Graph-Based Fault Identification and Propagation Framework for Functional Design of Complex Systems
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
130
(
5
), p.
051401
.
18.
Jensen
,
D.
,
Bello
,
O.
,
Hoyle
,
C.
, and
Tumer
,
I.
,
2014
, “
Reasoning About System-Level Failure Behavior From Large Sets of Function-Based Simulations
,”
Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf.
,
28
(
04
), pp.
385
398
.
19.
O’Halloran
,
D.
,
Haley
,
B.
,
Jensen
,
D.
,
Arlitt
,
R.
,
Tumer
,
I.
, and
Stone
,
R.
,
2013
, “
The Early Implementation of Failure Modes Into Existing Component Model Libraries
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
,
25
(
3
), pp.
203
221
.
20.
Papakonstantinou
,
N.
,
Sierla
,
S.
,
Jensen
,
D.
, and
Tumer
,
I.
,
2012
, “
Multi-Scale Simulation of Interactions and Emergent Failure Behavior During Complex System Design
,”
ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.
,
12
(
3
), p.
031007
.
21.
Nikula
,
H.
,
Sierla
,
S.
,
O’Halloran
,
B.
, and
Karhela
,
T.
,
2015
, “
Capturing Deviations From Design Intent in Building Simulation Models for Risk Assessment
,”
ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.
,
15
(
4
), p.
041011
.
22.
Huang
,
Z.
, and
Jin
,
Y.
,
2007
, “
Conceptual Stress and Conceptual Strength for Functional Design-for-Reliability
,”
ASME
Paper No. DETC2008-49347.
23.
Ireson
,
W. G.
,
1966
,
Reliability Handbook
,
McGraw-Hill
,
New York, NY
.
24.
Rudnick-Cohen
,
E.
,
Herrman
,
J.
, and
Azarm
,
S.
,
2016
, “
Risk-Based Path Planning Optimization Methods for UAVs Over Inhabited Areas
,”
ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.
,
16
(
2
), p.
021004
.
You do not currently have access to this content.