Advertisement

Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems

, Volume 91, Issue 1, pp 59–83 | Cite as

Resilient Design and Operation of Cyber Physical Systems with Emphasis on Unmanned Autonomous Systems

  • George Vachtsevanos
  • Benjamin Lee
  • Sehwan Oh
  • Michael Balchanos
Article
  • 178 Downloads

Abstract

Autonomy and autonomous systems are occupying central stage in the research community, as autonomous vehicles are proliferating and their utility in all aspects of the military and civilian domains are increasing exponentially from one year to the next. The development and application of resiliency and safety technologies to autonomous systems is, unfortunately, not keeping pace with their growth rate. Several factors impede the deployment and adoption of autonomous systems. Among them is the absence of an adequately high level of autonomy that can be relied upon, significant challenges in the area of human-machine interface requiring significant human intervention to operate and interpret sensor data, the need for emerging machine learning technologies and, most importantly, the resilient design and operation of complex systems to assure their safety, reliability and availability when executing missions in unstructured and cluttered environments. Recent advances in resiliency and safety of complex engineered systems have focused on methods/tools to tradeoff system performance for increased time to failure aiming at mission completion or trial and error methods to arrive at a suboptimal policy for system self-organization in the presence of a failure mode. This paper introduces a novel framework for the resilient design and operation of such complex systems via self-organization and control reconfiguration strategies that avoid empirical trial and error techniques and may be implemented and perform in real time on-platform. The main theme is summarized as: “a healthy and resilient system is a safe system”. To accomplish this objective, we introduce an integrated and rigorous approach to resilient design while safety considerations ascertain that the targeted system is contained within a safe envelope. A resilient system is robustly and flexibly monitoring its internal and external environment, it can detect and anticipate disturbances that may affect its operational integrity and take appropriate action to compensate for the disturbance. Resilience enhances safety while improving risk factors and assures that vehicles subjected to extreme disturbances remain within their safe envelope. The enabling technologies begin with graph spectral and epidemic spreading modeling tools to represent the system behaviors under normal and faulty conditions; a Markov Decision Process is the basic self-organization module. We are introducing a novel approach to fault-tolerance by considering the impacts of severe fault modes on system performance as inputs to a Reinforcement Learning (RL) strategy that trades off system performance with control activity in order to extend the Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of the unmanned system. Performance metrics are defined and assist in the algorithmic developments and their validation. We pursue an integrated and verifiable methodology to safety assurance that enables the evaluation of the effectiveness of risk management strategies. Several unmanned autonomous systems are used for demonstration purposes.

Keywords

Resilience Self-organization Reconfigurable control Complex adaptive systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    David, R.A., Nielsen, P.: Defense Science Board Summer Study on Autonomy. Defense Science Board Washington United States (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holling, C.S.: Ecosystems the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems 4, 390–405 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gunderson, L.H., Allen, C.R., Hollng, C.S.: Foundations of Ecological Resilience (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D., Leveson, N.: Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hollnagel, E.: Resilience engineering: Why, what, and how (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prehofer, C., Bettstetter, C.: Self-organization in communication networks: principles and design paradigms. IEEE Commun. Mag. 43(7), 78–85 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heylighen, F.: The science of self-organization and adaptivity. The Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems 5 (3), 253–280 (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang, Y., Jiang, J.: Bibliographical review on reconfigurable fault-tolerant control systems. Ann. Rev. Control 32(2), 229–252 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2008.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clements, N.S.: Fault tolerant control of complex dynamical systems. Doctoral dissertation Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ge, J., Kacprzynski, G.J., Roemer, M.J., Vachtsevanos, G.: Automated contingency management design for UAVs. In: AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference, pp. 20–22.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-6464 (2004)
  11. 11.
    Drozeski, G.R., Saha, B., Vachtsevanos, G.: A fault detection and reconfigurable control architecture for unmanned aerial vehicles. In: Aerospace Conference. IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2005.1559597 (2005)
  12. 12.
    Tang, L., Kacprzynski, G.J., Goebel, K., Saxena, A., Saha, B., Vachtsevanos, G.: Prognostics-enhanced automated contingency management for advanced autonomous systems. Prognostics and Health Management, International Conference, IEEE, pp. 1–9, IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/PHM.2008.4711448 (2008)
  13. 13.
    Brown, D.W., Georgoulas, G., Bole, B., Pei, H.L., Orchard, M., Tang, L., Saha, B., Saxena, A., Goebel, K., Vachtsevanos, G.: Prognostics enhanced reconfigurable control of electro-mechanical actuators. In: Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bole, B., Tang, L., Goebel, K., Vachtsevanos, G.: Adaptive load allocation for prognosis-based risk management. In: Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society, pp. 1–10 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bole, B.M.: Load allocation for optimal risk management in systems with incipient failure modes. Doctoral dissertation Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, USA (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scientific American, April 1, 2015Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vachtsevanos, G., Lewis, F., Roemer, M., Hess, A., Wu, B.: Intelligent Fault Diagnosis and Prognosis for Engineering Systems. Wiley (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang, B., Khawaja, T., Patrick, R., Vachtsevanos, G., Orchard, M.E., Saxena, A.: Application of blind deconvolution denoising in failure prognosis. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 58(2), 303–310 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G.: Deep learning. Nature 521, 28 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deng, L., Yu, D.: Deep learning: Methods and applications. Found Trends Signal Process 7(3–4), 1–199 (2014)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bengio, Y.: Learning deep architectures for AI (PDF). Found. Trends Mach. Learn. 2(1), 1–127 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roemer, M., Byington, C., Kacprszynski, G., Vachtsevanos, G., Goebel, K.: Prognostics in Systems Health Management with Aerospace Applications, pp. 281–295. Wiley (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Orchard, M.: A particle-filtering based framework for on-line fault diagnosis and failure prognosis. School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, GA : s.n., Ph.D Dissertation (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Martin, A., Jacazio, G., Vachtsevanos, G.: Windings fault detection and prognosis in electro-mechanical flight control actuators operating in active-active configuration IJPHM, (best paper award) (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shyy, W., Lian, Y., Tang, J., Vileru, D., Liu, H.: Aerodynamics of low Reynolds Number Flyers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chapman, A., Mesbahi, M., Swarms, UAV: In Valavanis, K.P., Vachtsevanos, G. J. (eds.) Models and Effective Interfaces, Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Systems, pp. 1987–2019. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Establishing Trust Is Greatest Challenge to Increasing System Autonomy, Aviation Week & Space Technology Sep 13, (2010) p. 48Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Giordano, V., Ballal, P., Lewis, F.L., Turchiano, B., Zhang, J.B.: Supervisory control of mobile sensor networks: matrix formulation, simulation and implementation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. – Part B 36 (4), 806–819 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mireles, J., Lewis, F.L.: Intelligent material handling: development and implementation of a matrix-based discrete-event controller. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 48(6), 1087–1097 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Theodorakopoulos, G., Baras, J.S.: On trust models and trust evaluation metrics for Ad Hoc networks. IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. 24(2), 318–328 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Orchard, M., Tang, L., Goebel, K., Vachtsevanos, G.: A novel RSPF approach to prediction of high-risk, low-probability failure events. In: First Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society – PHM09. San Dieg (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Edwards, D., Orchard, M., Tang, L., Goebel, K., Vachtsevanos, G.: Impact of input uncertainty on failure prognostic algorithms: Extending the remaining useful life of nonlinear systems. Prognostics and Health Management Conference (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Orchard, M.: A particle-filtering based framework for on-line fault diagnosis and failure prognosis. School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, GA : s.n., 2007. Ph.D DissertationGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Balchanos, M.G.: A probabilistic technique for the assessment of complex dynamic system resilience. Doctoral dissertation Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tran, H.T.: A complex networks approach to designing resilient system-of-systems. Doctoral dissertation Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, USA (2015)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lucas, C.: Self-Organizing Systems Usenet FAQ (2003)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sutton, R.S., Barto, A.G.: Reinforcement learning: An introduction, vol. 1. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Altunas, N., Imal, E., Emanet, N., Ozturk, C.N.: Reinforcement learning-based mobile robot navigation. Turkish J. Electric. Eng. Comput. Sci. 24.3, 1747–1767 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cully, A., Clune, J., Tarapore, D., Mouret, J.: Robots that can adapt like animals. Nature 521(7553), 503–507 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yang, J.: Fault-tolerant gait generation for locked joint failures. In: 2003 IEEE International Conference Systems, Man and Cybernetics, p. 8.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2003.1244216 (2003)
  41. 41.
    Kim, K., Lee, Y., Oh, S., Moroniti, D., Mavris, D., Vachtsevanos, G.J., Papamarkos, N., Georgoulas, G.: Guidance, navigation, and control of an unmanned hovercraft. In: 2013 21st Mediterranean Conference Control & Automation (MED), pp. 380–387. IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MED.2013.6608750 (2013)
  42. 42.
    Sconyers, C., Lee, Y., Kim, K., Oh, S., Mavris, D., Oza, N., Mah, R., Martin, R., Raptis, I.A., Vachtsevanos, G.J.: Diagnosis of fault modes masked by control loops with an application to autonomous hovercraft systems. International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management (2013)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Han, B., Zhao, G.L.: Course-keeping control of underactuated hovercraft. J. Marine Sci. Appl. 3(1), 24–27 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02918642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Johnson, E., Kannan, S.: Adaptive trajectory control for autonomous helicopters. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 28(3), 534–538 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yavrucuk, I., Unnikrishnan, S., Prasad, J.V.R.: Envelope protection in autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles. In: Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society 59th Annual Forum, vol. 2, pp. 2000–2010. Phoenix (2003)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Heck, B., Wills, L., Vachtsevanos, G.: Software technology for implementing reusable, distributed control systems. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 23(1), 21–35 (2003). (IEEE Control Systems Magazine Outstanding Paper Award for the years 2002-2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rosenblatt, M.: Remarks on a multivariate transformation. Ann. Math. Statist. 23(3), 470–472 (1952)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Vachtsevanos
    • 1
  • Benjamin Lee
    • 1
  • Sehwan Oh
    • 1
  • Michael Balchanos
    • 1
  1. 1.The Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations