System-level Prognostics for the National Airspace

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

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

Matthew Daigle Shankar Sankararaman Indranil Roychoudhury

Abstract

In the National Airspace System (NAS), safety is assured through a set of rules, regulations, and procedures to respond to unsafe events. However, safety stands to benefit immensely from the introduction of tools and methodologies from Prognostics and Health Management (PHM). PHM will enable the NAS to stochastically predict unsafe states within the NAS, enabling a proactive preventative response strategy, as opposed to a reactive mitigative one. However, current PHM methods do not directly apply to the NAS for several reasons: they typically apply only at the component level, are implemented in a centralized manner, and are focused only on predicting remaining useful life. In this paper, we extend the model-based prognostics approach to PHM in order to provide a framework that can be applied to the NAS. We offer a system-level approach that supports a distributed implementation, and provide algorithms to predict the probability of an unsafe state, either at a specific time or within a time interval,
and to predict the time of an unsafe state. Experimental results in simulation demonstrate the new approach.

How to Cite

Daigle, M., Sankararaman, S., & Roychoudhury, I. (2016). System-level Prognostics for the National Airspace. Annual Conference of the PHM Society, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.36001/phmconf.2016.v8i1.2583
Abstract 27 | PDF Downloads 7

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

Keywords

aleatory uncertainty, Safety, Challenges in Prognostics, system-level prognostics, flight safety

References
Balaban, E., & Alonso, J. J. (2013). A modeling framework for prognostic decision making and its application to UAV mission planning. In Annual conference of the prognostics and health management society (p. 449-460).
Bilmoria, K. D., Banavar, S., Chatterji, G. B., Sheth, K. S., & Grabbe, S. (2000, June). FACET: Future atm concepts evaluation tool. In 3rd USA/EuropeATM R&D Seminar.
Chatterji, G., Sridhar, B., & Bilimoria, K. (1996, July). Enroute flight trajectory prediction for conflict avoidance and traffic management. In AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control and Conference.
Daigle, M., Bregon, A., & Roychoudhury, I. (2012, September). A distributed approach to system-level prognostics. In Annual conference of the prognostics and health management society 2012 (p. 71-82).
Daigle, M., Bregon, A., & Roychoudhury, I. (2014, June). Distributed prognostics based on structural model decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 63(2), 495-510.
Daigle, M., Roychoudhury, I., & Bregon, A. (2015, October). Model-based prognostics of hybrid systems. In Annual conference of the prognostics and health management society 2015 (p. 57-66).
Daigle, M., Saxena, A., & Goebel, K. (2012). An efficient deterministic approach to model-based prediction uncertainty estimation. In Annual conference of the prognostics and health management society (pp. 326–335).
Glynn, P. W., & Iglehart, D. L. (1989). Importance sampling for stochastic simulations. Management Science, 35(11), 1367–1392.
Khorasgani, H., Biswas, G., & Sankararaman, S. (2016, October). Methodologies for system-level remaining useful life prediction. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 154, 8-18.
Robert, C., & Casella, G. (2004). Monte carlo statistical methods. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Roychoudhury, I., Daigle, M., Bregon, A., & Pulido, B. (2013, March). A structural model decomposition framework for systems health management. In 2013 IEEE aerospace conference.
Roychoudhury, I., Spirkovska, L., Daigle, M., Balaban, E., Sankararaman, S., Kulkarni, C., . . . Goebel, K. (2015, November). Real-time monitoring and prediction of airspace safety (Tech. Rep. No. NASA/TM-2015-218928). Moffett Field, CA, USA: NASA Ames Research Center.
Roychoudhury, I., Spirkovska, L., Daigle, M., Balaban, E., Sankararaman, S., Kulkarni, C., . . . Goebel, K. (2016, January). Predicting real-time safety of the national airspace system. In AIAA Infotech@Aerospace, AIAA SciTech.
Sankararaman, S., Daigle, M., & Goebel, K. (2014, June). Uncertainty quantification in remaining useful life prediction using first-order reliability methods. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 63(2), 603-619.
Sankararaman, S., & Goebel, K. (2013). Why is the remaining useful life prediction uncertain? In Annual conference of the prognostics and health management society (p. 337-349).
Tandale, M. D., Wiraatmadja, S., Menon, P. K., & Rios, J. . (2011). High-speed prediction of air traffic for realtime decision support. In Aiaa guidance navigation and control conference, portland or (pp. 8–11).
Wells, A. (2001). Commercial aviation safety. McGraw Hill Professional.
Section
Technical Papers

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 4 > >>