Abort Trigger False Positive and False Negative Analysis Methodology for Threshold-based Abort Detection

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

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

Kevin J. Melcher José A. Cruz Stephen B. Johnson Yunnhon Lo

Abstract

This paper describes a quantitative methodology for bounding the false positive (FP) and false negative (FN) probabilities associated with a human-rated launch vehicle abort trigger (AT) that includes sensor data qualification (SDQ). In this context, an AT is a hardware and software mechanism designed to detect the existence of a specific abort condition. Also, SDQ is an algorithmic approach used to identify sensor data suspected of being corrupt so that suspect data does not adversely affect an AT’s detection capability. The FP and FN methodologies presented here were developed to support estimation of the probabilities of loss of crew and loss of mission for the Space Launch System (SLS) which is being developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The paper provides a brief overview of system health management as being an extension of control theory; and describes how ATs and the calculation of FP and FN probabilities relate to this theory. The discussion leads to a detailed presentation of the FP and FN methodology and an example showing how the FP and FN calculations are performed. This detailed presentation includes a methodology for calculating the change in FP and FN probabilities that result from including SDQ in the AT architecture. To avoid proprietary and sensitive data issues, the example incorporates a mixture of open literature and fictitious reliability data. Results presented in the paper demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach in providing quantitative estimates that bound the probability of a FP or FN abort determination.

How to Cite

J. Melcher, K. ., A. Cruz , J. ., B. Johnson, S., & Lo, Y. . (2015). Abort Trigger False Positive and False Negative Analysis Methodology for Threshold-based Abort Detection. Annual Conference of the PHM Society, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.36001/phmconf.2015.v7i1.2765
Abstract 6 | PDF Downloads 3

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

Keywords

false positive detection, false negative detection

References
Atwood, C.L., Kelly, D.L., Marshall, F.M., Prawdzik, D.A., & Stetkar, J.W. (1996). Evaluation of loss of offsite power events at nuclear power plants, NUREG/CR- 5496, CCF parameter estimations (2007), p. 216.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Albert, J., Alyea, D., Cooper, L., Johnson, S., & Uhrich, D.,(1995). Vehicle health management (VHM) architecture process development. Proceedings of SAE Aerospace Atlantic Conference, May, Dayton, OH. DOI: 10.4271/951385.

Day, J. C., & Johnson, S. B. (2104). System health management design strategies. Proceedings of the AIAA SpaceOps Conference, May 5-9, Pasadena, CA. doi: 10.2514/6.2014-1819.

Johnson, S. B., & Day, J. C. (2010). Conceptual framework for a fault management design methodology. Proceedings of the AIAA Infotech@Aerospace Conference, April 20-22, Atlanta, GA. doi:10.2514/6.2010-3431.

Johnson, S. B., & Day, J. C. (2011). System health management theory and design strategies. Proceedings of the AIAA Infotech@Aerospace Conference, March 29-31, St. Louis, Missouri. DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-1493.

Johnson, S. B. (2011). The theory of system health management. In Johnson, S. B., Gormley, T. J., Kessler, S. S., Mott, C. D., Patterson-Hine, A., Reichard, K. M., & Scandura, P. A., Jr. (Eds.) System Health Management: with Aerospace Applications (pp. 3-26), Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lo, Y., Johnson, S.B., & Breckenridge, J.T. (2014). Application of fault management theory to the quantitative selection of a Launch Vehicle Abort Trigger Suite. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Prognostics and Health Management (PHM), June 22- 25, Cheney, WA. doi: 10.1109/ICPHM.2014.7036380.

Maul, W. A., Melcher, K. J., Chicatelli, A. K., & Sowers, T.S. (2006). Sensor data qualification for autonomous operation of space systems. Proceedings of the American Association for
Artificial Intelligence 2006 Fall Symposiums, Spacecraft Autonomy, October 13-15, Arlington, VA. http://aaaipress.org/Papers/Symposia/ Fall /2006/FS-06-07/FS06-07-008.pdf.

Mosleh, A., Rasmuson, D.M., Marshall, F.M. (1998). Guidelines on modeling common-cause failures in probabilistic risk assessment, NUREG/CR-5485. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Stamatelatos, M. and Homayoon, D. (2011). Probabilistic risk assessment procedures guide for NASA managers and practitioners, NASA/SP-2011-3421. Washington D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Wood, S.T., Smith, C.L., Kvarfordt, K.J., & Beck, S.T. (2008). Systems analysis programs for hands-on integrated reliability evaluations (SAPHIRE), Vol. 1, Summary Manual, NUREG/CR-6952. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Vachtsevanos, G., Lewis, F. L., Roemer, M., Hess, A., & Wu, B. (2006). Intelligent fault diagnosis and prognosis for engineering system. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Section
Technical Papers