Towards Accreditation of Diagnostic Models for Improved Performance

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Anuradha Kodali Peter Robinson

Abstract

The research community mainly concentrates on developing new and updated diagnostic algorithms to achieve high diagnostic performance which is necessary but not sufficient for the diagnostic models that are embedded in software. The focus of this paper is to understand the requirements for accrediting diagnostic system models to meet high performance and safety criticality in case of both models and embedded system (model + software). For embedded systems, models need to be accredited first to allow a more accurate distinction of whether the model or the code within which the model is embedded is the cause of degraded performance. This is because, neither standards for models and simulations (NASA-STD-7009) nor software engineering requirements (NPR 7150.2A) are sufficient to accredit the models in embedded systems. NASA-STD- 7009 assesses the correctness of the physics in models and simulations and NPR 7150.2A lists software engineering requirements for NASA systems. Thus, it is important to understand the accreditation standards in terms of performance requirements of models in embedded systems that can smoothly transit from NASA-STD-7009 to NPR 7150.2A. We will discuss interactive diagnostic modeling evaluator (i-DME) as an accreditation tool that provides the performance requirements or limitations imposed while accrediting embedded systems. This process is done automatically, making accreditation feasible for larger diagnostic systems.

How to Cite

Kodali, A. ., & Robinson, P. (2014). Towards Accreditation of Diagnostic Models for Improved Performance. Annual Conference of the PHM Society, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.36001/phmconf.2014.v6i1.2393
Abstract 21 | PDF Downloads 13

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

diagnostic performance, accreditation, diagnostic system models, safety critical

References
CAIB (2003). Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report. . vol. 1.

Daigle, M., Roychoudhury, I., Biswas, G., & Koutsoukos, X (2010). An event-based approach to distributed diagnosis of continuous systems. Proceedings of the 21st International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, pp. 15-22.

Kodali, A., Robinson, P., & Patterson-Hine, A. (2013). A framework to debug diagnostic matrices. Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society 2013, October 14 - 17, New Orleans, LO.

Luo, J., Tu, H., Pattipati, K., Qiao, L., & Chigusa, S. (2006). Graphical models for diagnostic knowledge representation and inference. IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 45–52.

NASA-STD-7009 (2008). Standards for models and simulations. NASA, https://standards.nasa.gov/ documents/viewdoc/3315599/3315599.

NASA software engineering handbook (2013). NASA Technical Handbook. NASA, http://swehb.nasa.gov /display/7150/7.15+-+Relationship+Between+NPR+ 7150.2+and+NASA-STD-7009# tabs-1.

NPR 7150.2A (2009).NASA Software engineering requirements. NASA, http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa. gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=7150&s=2.

Poll, S., Patterson-Hine, A., Camisa, J., Garcia, D., Hall, D., Lee, C., Mengshoel, O., Neukom, C., Nishikawa, D., Ossenfort, J., Sweet, A., Yentus, S., Roychoudhury, I., Daigle, M., Biswas,
G., & Koutsoukos, X. (2007). Advanced diagnostics and prognostics testbed. In Proc. DX’07, pp. 178–185.
Qualtech Systems Inc., www.teamqsi.com.

Sabetzadeh, M., Nejati, S., A., Briand, L., & Mills, A. E.(2011). Using SysML for modeling of safety-critical software–hardware interfaces: Guidelines and industry Experience. IEEE 13th International Symposium on High-Assurance Systems Engineering.

Sheppard, J. W., & Simpson, W. R. (1991). A mathematical model for integrated diagnostics. IEEE Design and Test of Computers, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 25 – 38.

Sheppard, J. W., & Simpson, W. R. (1992). Applying testability analysis for integrated diagnostics. IEEE Design and Test of Computers, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 65 – 78.

Sheppard, J. W., & Simpson, W. R. (1993). Performing effective fault isolation in integrated diagnostics. IEEE Design and Test of Computers, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 78 – 90.

Sheppard, J. W., & Simpson, W. R. (1998). Managing conflicts in system diagnostics. IEEE Computer, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 69 – 76.

Simpson, W. R., & Sheppard, J. W. (1991). System complexity and integrated diagnostics. IEEE Design and Test of Computers, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 16 -30.

Simpson, W. R., & Sheppard, J. W. (1992). System testability assessment for integrated diagnostics. IEEE Design and Test of Computers, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 40 -54.

Simpson, W. R., & Sheppard, J. W. (1993). Fault isolation in an integrated diagnostics. IEEE Design and Test of Computers, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 52 -66.

Singh, S., Kodali, A., Choi, K., Pattipati, K., Namburu, S., Chigusa, S., Prokhorov, D.V., & Qiao, L. (2009). Dynamic multiple fault diagnosis: Mathematical formulations and solution techniques. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 160–176.

Swenson, Jr., L. S., & Grimwood, J. M. (1989). This new ocean: A history of project Mercury. Published as NASA Special Publication-4201 in the NASA History Series.

Vaandrager, F. W. (2006). Does it pay-off? model-based verification and validation of embedded systems!. In F. A. Karelese (editor), PROGRESS White Papers.
Section
Technical Papers