Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 645047, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/645047

Research Article

Fault Sample Generation for Virtual Testability Demonstration Test Subject to Minimal Maintenance and Scheduled Replacement

Yong Zhang,1,2 Jing Qiu,1,2 Guanjun Liu,1,2 and Zhiao Zhao1,2

¹Science and Technology on Integrated Logistics Support Laboratory, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410073, China
²College of Mechatronic Engineering and Automation, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410073, China

Received 30 October 2014; Revised 19 January 2015; Accepted 19 January 2015

Academic Editor: Gang Li

Copyright © 2015 Yong Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Virtual testability demonstration test brings new requirements to the fault sample generation. First, fault occurrence process is described by stochastic process theory. It is discussed that fault occurrence process subject to minimal repair is nonhomogeneous Poisson process (NHPP). Second, the interarrival time distribution function of the next fault event is proposed and three typical kinds of parameterized NHPP are discussed. Third, the procedure of fault sample generation is put forward with the assumptions of minimal maintenance and scheduled replacement. The fault modes and their occurrence time subject to specified conditions and time period can be obtained. Finally, an antenna driving subsystem in automatic pointing and tracking platform is taken as a case to illustrate the proposed method. Results indicate that both the size and structure of the fault samples generated by the proposed method are reasonable and effective. The proposed method can be applied to virtual testability demonstration test well.

1. Introduction

Recently, testability test has two basic methods, including fault injection test and field test. Both of them are physical tests. It often takes long time to get enough original fault samples in field test. In order to accelerate testability demonstration, fault injection is always applied in the testability test [1–4].

However, application results indicate that testability demonstration test based on fault injection has two unavoidable problems [1–5]. First, large numbers of fault injection tests lead to high cost. Second, some faults cannot be allowed to be injected because of destroyable influence and some faults cannot be effectively injected because of restricted fault injection means. These two shortcomings lead to unreasonable fault sample structure and low confidence.

The fault sample selection is to determine appropriate sample size and to make fault sample structure reasonable, that is, to select representative fault samples [2–6]. On one hand, considering the limits of test cost and time cost, the fault sample size needs to be as small as possible. On the other hand, in order to improve the accuracy and precision of test demonstration results, the fault sample size needs to be as large as possible. It results in a difficult contradiction [1–4].

Nowadays, many researches attach importance to virtual test. Virtual test can simulate the process of a real test and obtain test results in an efficient way. It means that virtual test can effectively decrease the test cost and risk and shorten the test period compared with physical test. According to recent studies, large-scale system modeling and simulation are difficult while small-scale system modeling and simulation can be performed in the present technical conditions [1, 7–9].

As mentioned above, virtual test has many advantages, such as high efficiency, short test period, and low cost. As the fault sample size of virtual testability test is almost unlimited, it overcomes some deficiencies of physical testability test. Thus, the fault sample generation in virtual testability test is different from fault sample selection in physical testability test.

The combination of minimal maintenance and scheduled replacement is the main maintenance mode for many systems. The occurrences of faults are nonhomogeneous because faults occur randomly and are repairable. On the basis of Monte Carlo method, Zhao et al. proposed a fault sample generation method which was subject to exponential distribution [4]. Considering various types of life distribution and assuming perfect maintenance, Zhang et al. proposed a fault sample generation method based on renewal process [1].

The nonhomogeneous Poisson process has clear physical meanings and theoretical basis. It is widely applied to system reliability analysis, reliability indices calculation, and reliability growth test.

This paper discusses the occurrence process of faults and describes it by NHPP. A suitable fault sample simulation method for virtual testability demonstration is proposed. The main idea of the method proposed in this paper is obtaining the value and composition of fault sample based on fault statistical model and statistical simulation. The purpose is obtaining an implementation of fault occurrence within the specified time and conditions, which is called fault sample simulation in this paper.

2. Description of Fault Occurrence Process

Let be the total number of faults up to time . Faults more than two at time would be ignored under single fault assumption. So has the following properties:

(1);(2);(3) is integer valued;(4)the process has independent increments;(5);(6).

According to the definition of counting process, fault occurrence process is a Poisson process with the parameter [10, 11]. The parameter is also defined as the intensity function, which describes the intensity level of fault occurrence. If is a constant, is a homogeneous Poisson process (HPP). Otherwise, it is a nonhomogeneous Poisson process. The nonhomogeneous Poisson process is the generalized form of homogeneous Poisson process. Equally, the homogeneous Poisson process is the special case of a nonhomogeneous Poisson process [11].

Fault occurrence process is an independent increment process in disjoint time intervals. That is, for , [) and (] are the two disjoint time intervals. In [) and (], the number of faults is () and , respectively. So is an independent increment process.

Let denote the mean number of faults in the interval ;

is also called cumulative number of occurrence of failures. Thus,

where is called the rate of occurrence of faults (ROCOF) at time . It can be regarded as the mean number of faults per time unit at time . If is a constant, is a HPP. Otherwise, it is a NHPP. It has been verified that the mean number of faults in the interval is Poisson distributed [11].

For a nonhomogeneous Poisson process with fault occurrence intensity function , is a Poisson distribution with parameter , where , . can be called a Poisson process with mean value . That is,

Consider a repairable system that is put into operation at time . The first fault event of the system will occur at time . The second fault will occur at time and so on. We thus get a sequence of fault time . Let be the time between the th fault event and the th fault event for , where is taken to be zero. is called the interarrival time . is called the sequence of fault interarrival time. Fault occurrence process is indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Fault occurrence process.

If fault occurrence process is a HPP having rate , all the fault interarrival time is independent and exponentially distributed with the same parameter . If the failure component is replaced or restored to an “as good as new” condition and its lifetime distribution is exponential distribution, the fault occurrence process may be a HPP. However, it is hard to meet. The rate of occurrence of faults may vary with time.

It is important to note that some fault occurrence processes do not have stationary increments. The rate of occurrence of faults varies with time rather than being a constant. This means that failures may be more or less likely to occur at certain time than others, and hence the interarrival time is generally neither independent nor identically distributed [11–15].

The NHPP is generalization of HPP having the HPP as a special case. It is often used to model repairable systems that are subject to a minimal repair strategy with negligible repair time. Minimal repair means that a failed system is restored just back to functioning state. After a minimal repair, the system continues as if nothing had happened. The likelihood of a system fault is the same immediately before and after a fault.

Consider a system consisting of many components. Suppose that a component fails and causes a system failure and this component is immediately replaced by a component of the same type, thus causing a negligible system downtime. Since only a small fraction of the system is replaced, it seems natural to assume that the system’s reliability after the repair essentially is the same as immediately before the failure. In other words, the assumption of minimal repair is a realistic approximation. The minimal repair assumption is therefore often applicable and the NHPP may be accepted as a realistic model [11–15].

Schematic diagram of fault detection process is shown in Figure 2. Let be the interval time of adjacent fault detection. Variables are influenced by fault occurrence process and testability plan. The number of fault detection and the interval time of fault detection are random. The number of detected faults is random, too.

Figure 2: Schematic diagram of fault detection process.

Generally, the observed values of fault detection rate always change in the specified time period . The formula is

where is the time variable, is the number of detected faults up to time , and is the total number of faults up to time . As discussed above, and are stochastic. Thus, the observed value of fault detection rate is random, too.

3. Fault Sample Generation

3.1. The Fault Events Simulation

Let denote the successive fault event time of such a fault occurrence process. As these random variables are clearly dependent, we generate them in sequence starting with and use the generated value of to generate and so on.

Note that if a fault event occurs at time , then, independent of what has occurred prior to , the additional time until the next fault event has the distribution . Let denote that a fault event occurs at time . This event is recorded as . Let be the interval time between and the next fault event. Then, the event is equal to a fault event occurring in ; that is, . The interarrival time distribution function of the next fault event after time is

According to the independent assumption of fault event, (5) can be simplified as

According to (1) and (3), it is obtained that

We can now simulate the fault event time by generating from the distribution . Then, we generate by adding to a generated value from the distribution . We generate by adding to a generated value from the distribution and so on [16].

3.2. Parametric NHPP Models of Fault Occurrence Process

The key of fault events simulation is the distribution function and its inverse function. If fault occurrence process is described by NHPP, it can be uniquely determined by the rate of occurrence of faults . Fault occurrence processes are usually classified into linear model, power law model, and log-linear model according to the shape of the [11]. The three models can be expressed in the common form

where is a common multiplier and determines the shape of the .

In the linear model, the ROCOF of the NHPP is defined as

The interarrival time distribution function of the next fault event after time is

The inverse functionof is

A repairable system modeled by the linear model is deteriorating if and improving when . When , the log-linear model reduces to a HPP. When , then will sooner or later become less than zero. The model can only be used in time intervals where . The linear model is often used to describe the fault occurrence process in random failure period.

In the power law model, the ROCOF of the NHPP is defined as

Thus,

A repairable system modeled by the power law model is seen to be improving if , and deteriorating if . If , the model reduces to a HPP. This NHPP is sometimes referred to as a Weibull process, since the ROCOF has the same functional form as the failure rate function of the Weibull distribution. The power law model is often used to describe the fault occurrence process of electromechanical systems and reliability growth model.

In the log-linear model, the ROCOF of the NHPP is defined by

Thus,

A repairable system modeled by the log-linear model is improving if and deteriorating if . When , the log-linear model reduces to a HPP. The log-linear model is often used to describe the fault occurrence process of electronic systems.

The cumulative number of faults and occurrence time of each fault subject to specified conditions and time period can be obtained according to reliability test and other trials. Appropriate parametric NHPP model will be selected according to failure statistics. We do not intend to discuss the model selection and parameter estimation method in this paper.

3.3. Fault Sample Simulation

In this paper, we assume that the repair or maintenance time is negligible and the corrective maintenance is minimal maintenance or repair, that is, the maintenance action which restores the part to the failure rate it had when it failed. The part after repair is as bad as old.

If fault events occur before the scheduled replacement, the part will be processed by breakdown maintenance. If no fault event occurs before scheduled replacement, the part should be replaced by a brand new one regardless of its health condition when it meets the replacement requirement.

Statistical simulation method is also known as random simulation method, random sampling method, or statistical test method. It can effectively solve uncertainty problems and complex computing problems. For example, Monte Carlo method is widely applied in financial engineering, statistical physics, computational mathematics, reliability engineering, and other fields [17, 18].

The flow chart of fault sample simulation is showed in Figure 3. is the scheduled interval replacement time. is the interarrival time distribution function of the next fault event after time . are uniform random variables. are the simulation results of interarrival time of fault events. is the cumulative working time of the th part. The initial value of is zero for . is the cumulative number of fault events. is the occurrence time of the th fault event. is the cumulative working time of the parts. is the specified statistical time.

Figure 3: The flow chart of fault sample simulation.

The basic steps of fault sample simulation are as follows.

Step 1. Determine the parameters of the NHPP and set the interval replacement time .

Step 2. Initialize the specified statistical time and initialize , , , , , , and .

Step 3. Solve the interarrival time distribution function of the next fault event after time .

Step 4. Solve the inverse function of .

Step 5. Generate the random number .

Step 6. Calculate the interarrival time based on the direct sampling method, .

Step 7. If , it shows that the part has broken down before the scheduled replacement; the cumulative working time of this part is . The cumulative number of fault events adds 1; that is, . Then, set , , and . If , it shows that the part is good until the scheduled replacement time. The part is as good as new after replacement. Then, set , , , and .

Step 8. If , stop.

Step 9. Obtain fault samples based on probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling method. Each fault mode is set to be proportional to its occurrence percentage ratio (OPR).

4. Examples

An automatic pointing and tracking platform has the ability to isolate the movement of moving vehicles, such as car, ship, and aircraft. It can automatically track the target and maintain stable communication. The stable tracking platform consists of multiple subsystems. We take antenna driving subsystem as example to carry out experiments. The lifetime of the automatic pointing and tracking platform is 15 years. The average working time is 1500 hours per year. The lifetime of the antenna drive subsystem is 7500 working hours. The antenna driving subsystems are replaced by new ones every 5 years. In the subsystem’s life cycle, breakdown maintenance and the assumption of minimal repair with negligible repair times are taken when it fails. The subsystems are replaced by new ones with the assumption of perfect repair after the end of their life cycle.

As the platform is new equipment, the failure statistics in full life cycle are poor. The same antenna driving subsystems have been tried out for 5 years in advance. We collected some credible and valuable failure and maintenance statistics of the subsystem in their single life cycle. The statistics contain 56 complete sets of trial data. Fault modes and their occurrence percentage ratio of the antenna driving subsystem are shown in Table 1. The fault occurrence process of the antenna driving subsystem in its single life cycle is a NHPP. The parameters of ROCOF were estimated by maximum likelihood method [11]. We obtained a NHPP in and faults occurred at time .

Table 1: Fault modes and their occurrence percentage ratio.

Code
Fault mode
Fault unit
OPR

A1
No signal output
Antenna
7.1%

A2
Unstable signal output
Antenna
3.7%

A3
No rotation output
Pitching motor
10.7%

A4
Angle output tolerance
Pitching motor
7.1%

A5
No turning signal output
Pitching motor driver
12.5%

A6
Turning signal output tolerance
Pitching motor driver
5.4%

A7
No rotation output
Azimuth motor
8.9%

A8
Angle output tolerance
Azimuth motor
5.4%

A9
No turning signal output
Azimuth motor driver
10.7%

A10
Turning signal output tolerance
Azimuth motor driver
7.1%

A11
No control signal output
Motion control card
8.9%

A12
Control signal output error
Motion control card
12.5%

can be found by solving

Then, solve by

The result is .

The interarrival time distribution function of the next fault event after time of the antenna driving subsystem is

The inverse function of is

It is assumed that the specified statistical time of testability demonstration is 15 years. The fault samples are generated by fault occurrence process simulation based on the proposed method. The fault modes and their occurrence time are obtained. A simulation result of fault sample is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: A simulation result of fault sample.

Number
Working time (h)
Fault

1
1287
A12

2
4422
A10

3
5953
A3

4
6900
A11

5
7166
A5

6
7261
A2

7
7482
A1

8
9833
A7

9
10061
A11

10
10963
A3

11
12487
A9

12
13369
A1

13
13932
A5

14
14392
A12

15
14554
A10

16
14740
A4

17
14815
A9

18
14870
A12

19
16008
A6

20
17212
A3

21
18181
A10

22
19384
A6

23
21639
A11

24
21784
A5

25
21903
A7

26
22032
A12

27
22208
A5

28
22316
A8

29
22354
A4

The cumulative number of the subsystem faults is shown in Figure 4. Abscissa represents the cumulative working time. Ordinate represents the cumulative number of faults. The cumulative number of faults increases one when a fault occurs.

Figure 4: Cumulative number of faults.

We implement the statistical simulation 1000 times. The specified statistical simulation time is single life cycle of the antenna driving subsystem. 1000 groups of fault samples are generated automatically by simulation. The numbers of faults in fault sample are random variables. We compare some statistics of the actual samples and the simulation samples to examine the effectiveness of the proposed method. The comparison is shown in Table 3. Let denote the number of faults of the th fault sample. The sample mean is

where is the sample size.

Table 3: The comparison of sample statistics.

Statistic
The actual samples
The simulation samples

Sample mean
10.46
10.57

Sample variance
2.35
2.29

Two-order origin moment
118.26
121.64

Sample median
10.5
11

Percentage ratio of A1
7.1%
6.9%

Percentage ratio of A2
3.7%
4.0%

Percentage ratio of A3
10.7%
10.5%

Percentage ratio of A4
7.1%
7.1%

Percentage ratio of A5
12.5%
12.4%

Percentage ratio of A6
5.4%
5.6%

Percentage ratio of A7
8.9%
8.7%

Percentage ratio of A8
5.4%
5.6%

Percentage ratio of A9
10.7%
10.5%

Percentage ratio of A10
7.1%
7.5%

Percentage ratio of A11
8.9%
8.8%

Percentage ratio of A12
12.5%
12.4%

The sample variance is

The two-order origin moment is

The sample values are arranged in increasing order so as to meet .

The sample median is

The percentage ratios of fault modes are also figured out and compared in Table 3.

We can get that the statistics of the simulation results are nearly consistent with the actual fault samples according to the comparison. The composition of the simulation samples is rational. The results show that the proposed method is feasible and effective. The random fault samples generated by statistical simulation can be applied to virtual testability demonstration test.

5. Conclusion

(1) It is analyzed and pointed out that the fault sample generation in virtual testability test is different from fault sample selection in physical testability test.

(2) In the case of minimal repair and scheduled replacement, the fault occurrence process can be described by NHPP theory. A fault sample generation approach for virtual testability demonstration test is proposed.

(3) As some assumptions are eliminated, the size and structure of the fault samples simulated by proposed method are reasonable. Experiment results show that the proposed method is feasible and effective. It can also be applied to virtual maintainability test and integrated logistics support scheme design.

Notations

: | The number of detected faults up to time
: | The number of detected faults up to time
: | Fault detection rate
: | Fault sample size
: | Mean number of faults in the interval
: | The rate of occurrence of faults at time
: | The interval time of adjacent fault detection
: | The event denoting one occurring fault
: | The interval time between and the next fault event
: | Interval time distribution function of the next fault event after time
: | The coefficient determines the shape of the
: | The scheduled interval replacement time
: | Random variables having the uniform distribution in
: | The time between the th fault event and the th fault event
: | The cumulative working time of the th part
: | The cumulative number of fault events
: | The occurrence time of the th fault event
: | The cumulative working time of the parts
: | The specified statistical time.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Research Fund for Shanghai Astronautics Science and Technology and National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors would like to thank Peng Yang, Kehong Lv, and Chenxu Zhao for enlightening discussions. They would also like to thank Chao Wang and Chao Wu for correction.

References

Y. Zhang, J. Qiu, G. Liu, and P. Yang, “A fault sample simulation approach for virtual testability demonstration test,” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 598–604, 2012.

T. M. Li, Research on optimization design and integrated evaluation of testability verification test for equipments [Ph.D. thesis], National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, China, 2010.

L. Liu, J. Y. Chang, and M. G. Zhou, “Selection and simulation of fault samples in weapon equipment's maintainability test,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Test Measure, Chongqing, China, August 2009.

C. X. Zhao, G. J. Liu, J. Qiu, and Y. Zhang, “Fault samples simulation based on Monte Carlo method in testability virtual test,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Reliability, Maintainability and Safety (ICRMS '11), pp. 358–362, June 2011.

T. Li, J. Qiu, and G. Liu, “New methodology for determining testability integrated test scheme with test data in the development stages,” Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 52–57, 2009.

H. X. Wang, S. S. Liu, and X. H. Ye, “Study on the method for fault sample selection based on fuzzy clustering,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Science, Automation and Material System, pp. 21–22, 2011.

Z. Q. Jia and J. Y. Cai, “Performance reliability estimation of small sample in multi-testing environments based on circuit simulation and hypothesis of normal distribution,” Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 791–796, 2010.

A. Abdul Kadir, X. Xu, and E. Hämmerle, “Virtual machine tools and virtual machining—a technological review,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 494–508, 2011.

Z. X. Li, X. P. Yan, C. Q. Yuan, Z. Peng, and L. Li, “Virtual prototype and experimental research on gear multi-fault diagnosis using wavelet-autoregressive model and principal component analysis method,” Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 2589–2607, 2011.

S. P. Tan, H. T. Yuan, and L. L. Han, “Analysis of fault stochastic process for armored vehicles,” Acta Armamentarii, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 961–964, 2006.

M. Rausand, System Reliability Theory: Models, Statistical Methods and Applications, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 2003.

J. L. Coetzee, “The role of NHPP models in the practical analysis of maintenance failure data,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 161–168, 1997.

V. V. Krivtsov, “Practical extensions to NHPP application in repairable system reliability analysis,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 92, no. 5, pp. 560–562, 2007.

C. L. Ao, Y. J. Li, X. B. Yan, and F. F. Chu, “Operational reliability of tractor engines based on non-homogeneous poisson process,” Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 206–210, 2007.

Z. Ming, J. Tao, Y. Zhang, X. Yi, and X. Chen, “Bayesian reliability-growth analysis for statistical of diverse population based on non-homogeneous poisson process,” Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 535–541, 2009.

S. M. Ross, Simulation, Elsevier Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006.

J. P. Yao, C. Tan, and L. Zhou, “Research on assembly quality evaluation for aircraft product based on Monte-Carlo simulation,” Advanced Science Letters, vol. 4, no. 6-7, pp. 2352–2355, 2011.

M. S. Singh, R. K. B. Singh, R. Khatri, and B. I. Sharma, “Monte Carlo simulation study of electron beam interaction in multi-layered semiconducting materials,” Advanced Science Letters, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 57–61, 2010.