Advertisement

Modeling of the Process of Optimization of Decision-Making at Control of Parameters of Energy and Technical Systems on the Example of Remote Earth’s Sensing Tools

  • Oleksandr Maevsky
  • Volodymyr ArtemchukEmail author
  • Yuri Brodsky
  • Igor Pilkevych
  • Pavlo Topolnitsky
Chapter
  • 2 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 298)

Abstract

The authors study the process of decision-making optimization in the control of the spacecraft onboard systems. To ensure the continuous operation of a remotely controlled complex technical system, it is necessary, on the basis of an analysis of the state of the onboard systems, to formulate control effects, the absence of which could lead to the system’s failure to fulfill its tasks or system failure. In order to prevent such situations, an approach based on a simulation model is proposed, the use of which will reduce the risk of accidents in the onboard systems of the spacecraft. The proposed model is represented by factor space. The state of the onboard parameters of the spacecraft at different points in time is matched by the set of points that form the decision-making surface in this factor space. The basic stages of forming the optimal trajectory on the decision surface, which are approximated by numerical methods, are given and described. Using the actual values of the parameters obtained in a 15-minute data communication session from the board of the artificial satellite Earth “Ocean—1”, a decision-making surface was constructed. The equation of the optimal trajectory on the created surface is obtained. The simulation results will be used to develop emergency management and control systems.

Keywords

Remote earth’s sensing (RES) Spacecraft Onboard parameters Optimal trajectory Decision surface Factor space Simulation model 

References

  1. 1.
    Popov, O., Iatsyshyn, A., Kovach, V., Artemchuk, V., Taraduda, D., Sobyna, V., Sokolov, D., Dement, M., Yatsyshyn, T., Matvieieva, I.: Analysis of possible causes of npp emergencies to minimize risk of their occurrence. Nucl. Radiati. Saf. 1(81), 75–80 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.32918/nrs.2019.1(81).13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Popov, O.O., Iatsyshyn, A.V., Kovach, V.O., Artemchuk, V.O., Kameneva, I.P., Taraduda, D.V., Sobyna, V.O., Sokolov, D.L., Dement, M.O., Yatsyshyn, T.M.: Risk assessment for the population of Kyiv, Ukraine as a result of atmospheric air pollution. J. Health Poll. 10(25), 200303 (2020).  https://doi.org/10.5696/2156-9614-10.25.200303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Popov, O., Iatsyshyn, A., Kovach, V., Artemchuk, V., Taraduda, D., Sobyna, V., Sokolov, D., Dement, M., Hurkovskyi, V., Nikolaiev, K., Yatsyshyn, T., Dimitriieva, D.: Physical features of pollutants spread in the air during the emergency at NPPs. Nucl. Radiat. Saf. 4(84), 88–98 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.32918/nrs.2019.4(84).11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    What is Remote Sensing? The Definitive Guide. Access mode: https://gisgeography.com/remote-sensing-earth-observation-guide/
  5. 5.
    Shmelova, T., Sikirda, Y., Scarponi, C., Chialastri, A.: Deterministic and stochastic models of decision making in air navigation socio-technical system. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2104, pp. 649–656 (2018). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2104/paper_221.pdf
  6. 6.
    Grishin, I., Timirgaleeva, R.: Air navigation: automation method for controlling the process of detecting aircraft by a radar complex. In 2019 24th Conference of Open Innovations Association, pp. 110–115 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.23919/fruct.2019.8711905
  7. 7.
    Kondratyeva, N., Valeev, S.: Fatigue test optimization for complex technical system on the basis of lifecycle modeling and big data concept. In 2016 IEEE 10th International Conference on Application of Information and Communication Technologies, pp. 1–4 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/icaict.2016.7991656
  8. 8.
    Leveson, N.: A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Saf. Sci. 42(4), 237–270 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raza, A.: Mathematical model of corrective maintenance based on operability checks for safety critical systems. Am. J. Applied Math. 6(1), 8–14 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mokhor, V., Gonchar, S., Dybach, O.: Methods for the total risk assessment of cybersecurity of critical infrastructure facilities. Nucl. Radiat. Saf. 2(82), 4–8 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.32918/nrs.2019.2(82).01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bilan, T., Rezvik, I., Sakhno, O., But, O., Bogdanov, S.: Main approaches to cable aging management at nuclear power plants in Ukraine. Nucl. Radiat. Saf. 4(84), 54–62 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.32918/nrs.2019.4(84).07CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mokhor, V.V., Tsurkan, O.V., Tsurkan, V.V., Herasymov, R.P.: Information security assessment of computer systems by socio-engineering approach. In: Selected Papers of the XVII International Scientific and Practical Conference on Information Technologies and Security (ITS 2017), November 30, 2017, pp. 92–98. Kyiv, Ukraine (2017). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2067/paper13.pdf
  13. 13.
    Yatsyshyn, T., Shkitsa, L., Popov, O., Liakh, M.: Development of mathematical models of gas leakage and its propagation in atmospheric air at an emergency gas well gushing. East. Eur. J. Enter. Technol. 5/10(101), 49–59 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2019.179097
  14. 14.
    Zhang, S., Du, M., Tong, J., Li, Y.-F.: Multi-objective optimization of maintenance program in multi-unit nuclear power plant sites. Reliab. Eng. Sys. Saf. (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.03.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen, Z.C., Liu, P.H., Pei, Z.: An approach to multiple attribute group decision making based on linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Int. J. Comput. Int. Sys. 8, 747–760 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tang, J., Meng, F., Zhang, Y.: Decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations based on additive consistency analysis. Inf. Sci. 467, 115–134 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.07.036MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kovach, V., Lysychenko, G. Toxic soil contamination and its mitigation in Ukraine. In: Dent, D., Dmytruk, Y. (eds.) Soil Science Working for a Living. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45417-7_18
  18. 18.
    Gomez Fernandez, M., Tokuhiro, A., Welter, K., Wu, Q.: Nuclear energy system’s behavior and decision making using machine learning. Nucl. Eng. Des. 324, 27–34 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.08.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reyes, J.N., Groome, J., Woods, B.G., Young, E., Abel, K., Yao, Y., Yoo, Y.J.: Testing of the multi-application small light water reactor (MASLWR) passive safety systems. Nucl. Eng. Des. 237(18), 1999–2005Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Popov, O., Iatsyshyn, A., Kovach, V., Artemchuk, V., Taraduda, D., Sobyna, V., Sokolov, D., Dement, M., Yatsyshyn, T.: Conceptual approaches for development of informational and analytical expert system for assessing the NPP impact on the environment. Nucl. Radiat. Saf. 3(79), 56–65 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.32918/nrs.2018.3(79).09CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang, D., Gu, X., Zhou, G., Li, S., Liang, H.: Decision-making optimization of power system extended black-start coordinating unit restoration with load restoration. Int. Trans. Elec. Energy Sys. 27(9), e2367 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1002/etep.2367CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zhytomyr National Agroecological UniversityZhytomyrUkraine
  2. 2.Pukhov Institute for Modelling in Energy Engineering of NAS of UkraineKyivUkraine
  3. 3.Zhytomyr Military InstituteZhytomyrUkraine

Personalised recommendations