3-Optimal Sensor Selection (Simon)

Aviation Safety Program
IVHM Project
Optimal Sensor Placement for Propulsion Gas Path Diagnostics

Donald L. Simon George Kopasakis T. Shane Sowers
www.nasa.gov
Outline
Aviation Safety Program IVHM Project
Sensor Placement Background / Motivation Systematic Sensor Selection Strategy (S4) Methodology Overview Turbofan Engine Application Example Discussion and Summary
www.nasa.gov
Optimal Sensor Placement Motivation

Aircraft engine gas path diagnostics

Based upon parameter interrelationships within the gas turbine cycle Enabled by digital engine controls and available control sensor measurements Consists of engine performance trend monitoring, event detection and fault isolation Fault types exceed number of available sensor measurements
Result in Producing
Physical Problems
Permitting correction of
Degraded Module Performance
Allowing isolation of
Changes in Measurable Parameters
Gas Turbine Cycle Parameter Inter-relationships
A holistic system-level approach to sensor selection is desired

www.nasa.gov
3
Systematic Sensor Selection Strategy (S4) Methodology Overview

Background:
Developed under NASA Space IVHM efforts Provides a systematic evaluation of the available sensor suite relative to the diagnostic requirements Selects sensors (type/location) to optimize the fidelity and response of engine health diagnostics
Iterative Iterative Down Down -Select -Select Process Process Candidate Sensor Suites Candidate Selection Complete No Yes Final Final Selection Selection Collection of Nearly Optimal Sensor Suites Statistical Statistical Evaluation Evaluation Algorithm Algorithm
System System Diagnostic Diagnostic Model Model Sensor SensorSuite Suite Merit Merit Algorithm Algorithm
Architecture Functionality:
Knowledge Base: System simulation Health information Down-select process: Diagnostic model Merit function Down-select algorithm Statistical evaluation: Considers sensor response and system/signal noise characteristics
System System Diagnostic Diagnostic Model Model
Sensor Sensor Suite Suite Merit Merit Algorithm Algorithm
Down Down -Select -Select Algorithm Algorithm (Genetic (Genetic Algorithm) Algorithm)
Health Health Related Related Information Information

Application Specific
System System Simulation Simulation
Optimal Optimal Sensor Sensor Suite Suite Knowledge Knowledge Base Base
Non -application specific
www.nasa.gov
IVHM Project
S4 Methodology: Turbofan Engine Application Example
www.nasa.gov
S4: Turbofan Engine Application Example
High-Bypass Commercial Turbofan Engine Simulation

Non-linear aero-thermodynamic component level model 5 Rotating Components (FAN, LPC, HPC, HPT, LPT) Candidate Sensors:
Baseline Sensors: N1, N2, T25, T3, Ps3, T49, Wf36 Optional COTS Sensors: P17, T17, P25, T5, P5
Gas Path Faults Considered

10 single parameter engine faults (!Fan , "Fan , !LPC , "LPC , !HPC , "HPC , !HPT , "HPT , !LPT , "LPT )
Cruise Operating Point

www.nasa.gov
6
Diagnostic Module
Processes normalized residual measurements
#y i =
y i _ measured " y i _ baseline
!i
Fault Detection monitors rootmean-squared value of the normalized residual measurements
d=
1 m 2 ( ) " y ! i m i =1
Example Gas Path Fault Signature
m = number of sensor measurements

www.nasa.gov
Diagnostic Module (cont.)

Fault Discrimination (Isolation): Applies inverse model approach. Fault hypothesis which produces smallest residual estimation error is inferred to be the fault condition.
!y i = measurements i = Inverse model estimates !y
residual estimation error ~ = !y " !y !y

i i i
Potential risk of mis-classifying these two faults

www.nasa.gov
8
Sensor Suite Merit Function

Residual measurement agreement metric between actual fault k and hypothesized fault j :
D j ,k = 1 m ~ 2 ! ("y i ) m i =1
Residual measurement agreement metric, Dj,k, values for faults 1-10 (5%)
Fault discrimination metric for fault k:

Zk = # aD j ,k
j =1 n
where : n = number of faults a = 1 for j " k a = !1 for j = k
Sensor suite merit value: Merit = P ! W Z

n k k k =1
where : n = number of faults P = sensor suite penalty W k = fault k weighting
Fan ! and LPT ! faults at risk for mis-classification
LPC " fault at risk for missed detection

www.nasa.gov
9
Down Select Algorithm

The down-select algorithm is a genetic algorithm (GA) which applies the following steps: 1. Randomly generates the initial population of sensor suites. 2. Calculates the merit value for each sensor suite. 3. Advances a given number of sensor suites with the highest merit values to the next generation. 4. Next generation is formed by selecting sensor suite pairs using roulette-wheel selection and determining if crossover occurs:
No Crossover Both parents advance to the next generation without modification. Crossover Apply single point crossover with the possibility of mutation as each gene is copied.
Crossover Point Parent1 = G1 1 G1 2 G13 G14 G1 5 G1 6 Parent2 = G2 1 G2 2 G23 G24 G2 5 G2 6 Child1 = G1 1 G1 2 G23 G24 G2 5 G2 6 Child2 = G2 1 G2 2 G13 G14 G1 5 G1 6
5. 6.
Send new generation of sensor suites to Step 2 to reinitiate the merit assignment process. Repeat until target number of generations is reached.
GA Single Point Crossover Example
www.nasa.gov
10
Statistical Evaluation Algorithm

A final statistical evaluation is performed to evaluate and rank the top performing sensor suites: Adds sensor noise Other system uncertainty factors
Residual measurement agreement metric ( Dj,k ) Baseline senor suite (blue) vs. Optimal sensor suite (red) Comparison Baseline 7 Sensor Suite 1. N1 2. N2 3. T25 4. T3 5. Ps3 6. T49 7. Wf36 S4 Optimal 10 Sensor Suite 1. N1 2. N2 3. T25 4. T3 5. Ps3 6. T49 7. Wf36 8. P17 9. P25 10. T5
www.nasa.gov
11
S4: Turbofan Engine Application Example Monte Carlo Simulation Confusion Matrix Results (2.5% to 5.0% Faults) Aviation Safety Program IVHM Project
Inferred Fault Condition
1 1 674 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 310 1 0 2 0 1000 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 627 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 998 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 25 0 0 843 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 6 2 0 1000 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 9 325 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 690 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 999 0 No Fault 0 0 343 848 0 138 0 0 0 0 10000 Accuracy 67% 100% 63% 13% 100% 84% 100% 100% 69% 100% 100%
True Fault Condition
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No Fault
7 Baseline Sensors
13% miss-detect rate 7% mis-classify rate

12
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No Fault
10 Optimal Sensors
0.8% miss-detect rate 1.3% mis-classify rate
> 5% mis-classifications or missed detections
0.1% to 5% mis-classifications or missed detections
www.nasa.gov
Discussion and Future Development Steps

Caveat: Optimality is inherently related to:

Applied diagnostic approach (detection & isolation) Fault types and magnitudes considered System simulation accuracy Sensor characteristics Merit function
Future development steps:

Evaluate multi-parameter fault types Expand engine operation envelope Include engine deterioration effects Evaluate advanced sensors Modify metric function to emphasize fault discrimination
www.nasa.gov
13
Summary
An initial application of the Systematic Sensor Selection Strategy (S4) has been applied to a turbofan engine application Demonstrated improved diagnostic performance with selected optimal sensor suite Follow-on efforts will apply updated performance metrics and additional system functionality (fault types, operating scenarios, advanced sensors) Provides a systematic approach towards the evaluation and selection of candidate sensors and diagnostic algorithms
www.nasa.gov
14
IVHM Project
Backup Slides
www.nasa.gov
15
S4: Turbofan Engine Application Example Monte Carlo Simulation Confusion Matrix Results (2.5% to 5.0% Faults) Aviation Safety Program IVHM Project
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No Fault
10 SubOptimal Sensors
(adds P17, T17, P5)

16
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No Fault
10 Optimal Sensors
> 5% mis-classifications or missed detections
0.1% to 5% mis-classifications or missed detections
www.nasa.gov
IVHM Technical Accomplishment

Element: Propulsion Health Management
Title: Initial characterization of sensor placement methodology Date: 9-07 Investigator, Contributors: George Kopasakis, Shane Sowers Milestone Supported: 1.3.2.1 Type: Demonstration Description: -- The Systematic Sensor Selection Strategy (S4) was applied to a large commercial turbofan engine simulation to select sensors to augment the current sensor suite. -- Sensors were selected that demonstrated an improved performance for gas path diagnostics. -- The demonstration explored which sensor combinations can best detect and discriminate ten single fault scenarios at the cruise operating point Outcome/Results: -- The demonstration compared the diagnostic performance of the current sensor suite versus the diagnostic performance obtained using S4 to select additional sensors from a list of optional candidate sensors, and a list of optional plus advanced sensors. -- When optional sensors were considered, the best performance was achieved with 3 additional sensors. -- When optional + advanced sensors were considered, the best diagnostic performance was achieved with 10 additional sensors. -- Additional sensors which provide limited or no diagnostic improvement will cause the overall diagnostic merit value to decrease Notes: Baseline sensors = suite of current engine sensors Optional sensors = current COTS sensing technology available Advanced sensors = no current COTS technology exists
FADEC Control Sensors T12 P0 Optional Sensors T0 P2
IVHM Project
Fan LPC HPC

Combustor
HPT
LPT
T25
T3 PS3
WF N1 N2
T45 Black = typical Green = optional Red = advanced
PS13 T13
P25
T5 P5 T41 P41 m41
Advanced Sensors
m2
m25
m3
P45 m45
m5
Figure 1. Turbofan engine with sensor type and locations.

50 45 40 35
Diagnostic Merit Value
Optimal sensor suite (optional + advanced sensors) Optimal sensor suite (optional sensors) Baseline sensor suite
Optional Sensors Optional and Advanced Sensors
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Num be r of Additiona l Se nsors
Figure 2. Diagnostic performance for optimum sensor suites increasing in size.

www.nasa.gov
17

3-Optimal Sensor Selection (Simon)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3-Optimal Sensor Selection (Simon)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aviation Safety Program

Optimal Sensor Placement for Propulsion Gas Path Diagnostics

Optimal Sensor Placement Motivation

Aircraft engine gas path diagnostics

Degraded Module Performance

Changes in Measurable Parameters

Gas Turbine Cycle Parameter Inter-relationships

A holistic system-level approach to sensor selection is desired

Systematic Sensor Selection Strategy (S4) Methodology Overview

System System Diagnostic Diagnostic Model Model

Sensor Sensor Suite Suite Merit Merit Algorithm Algorithm

Health Health Related Related Information Information

System System Simulation Simulation

Non -application specific

Aviation Safety Program

S4 Methodology: Turbofan Engine Application Example

S4: Turbofan Engine Application Example

High-Bypass Commercial Turbofan Engine Simulation

Gas Path Faults Considered

Cruise Operating Point

S4: Turbofan Engine Application Example

Processes normalized residual measurements

y i _ measured " y i _ baseline

Fault Detection monitors rootmean-squared value of the normalized residual measurements

m = number of sensor measurements

S4: Turbofan Engine Application Example

Diagnostic Module (cont.)

!y i = measurements i = Inverse model estimates !y

residual estimation error ~ = !y " !y !y

Potential risk of mis-classifying these two faults

S4: Turbofan Engine Application Example

Sensor Suite Merit Function

Fault discrimination metric for fault k:

where : n = number of faults a = 1 for j " k a = !1 for j = k

Sensor suite merit value: Merit = P ! W Z

where : n = number of faults P = sensor suite penalty W k = fault k weighting

Fan ! and LPT ! faults at risk for mis-classification

LPC " fault at risk for missed detection

S4: Turbofan Engine Application Example

Down Select Algorithm

GA Single Point Crossover Example

S4: Turbofan Engine Application Example

Statistical Evaluation Algorithm

True Fault Condition

Inferred Fault Condition

True Fault Condition

> 5% mis-classifications or missed detections

0.1% to 5% mis-classifications or missed detections

Discussion and Future Development Steps

Caveat: Optimality is inherently related to:

Future development steps:

Aviation Safety Program

True Fault Condition

Inferred Fault Condition

True Fault Condition

> 5% mis-classifications or missed detections

0.1% to 5% mis-classifications or missed detections

IVHM Technical Accomplishment

Fan LPC HPC

T45 Black = typical Green = optional Red = advanced

T5 P5 T41 P41 m41

Figure 1. Turbofan engine with sensor type and locations.

Diagnostic Merit Value

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Num be r of Additiona l Se nsors