1 / 21

Observers Data Only Fault Detection

Observers Data Only Fault Detection. Bo Wahlberg Automatic Control Lab & ACCESS KTH, SWEDEN André C. Bittencourt Department of Automatic Control UFSC, Brazil & Linköping University, SWEDEN. MB filter. Sensor. -. ???. Integrated Sensor. -. Problem Description.

yasir-molina
Télécharger la présentation

Observers Data Only Fault Detection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Observers Data Only Fault Detection Bo Wahlberg Automatic Control Lab & ACCESS KTH, SWEDEN André C. Bittencourt Department of Automatic Control UFSC, Brazil & Linköping University, SWEDEN

  2. MB filter Sensor - ??? Integrated Sensor - Problem Description Residual based fault detection • Difference between a sensor output and a corresponding model-based prediction Usual case • Raw measurements • available Integrated sensors • No access to the raw • measurements

  3. Motivational Applications Navigation/Localization systems • i.e. GPS, odometry, SLAM

  4. Residual Generation using Observers Estimates ONLY Simplification: The sensors are integrated with standard observers/Kalman filters Faults are now mixed through the observer The sensor structures, i.e. the observer gains, will affect the fault influence to the estimates

  5. Different Approaches 1.Try to reconstruct the output as • - Sensitive to errors • - Requires a reliable observer model • - Redundant solutions 2. Assume there are at least 2 observers (sensors) • Model is not used

  6. Idea! 3.Augment sensor states • Use the augmented state model to design an overall observer to generate the residuals Questions • Are faults still observable? • What if is unknown? • How to compare the performance?

  7. Fault Observability • Suppose and augment the fault to the states (e.g. Törnqvist, 2006) • Analyze the observability of the augmented system

  8. Fault Observability is OK, IF • Original pair is observable • is full column rank  Same conditions as if the raw measurements were available (we can access the same information)

  9. Unknown Sensor Structure The internal sensor structure • is abstracted, with some simplifications, to The simplified model is then used to generate residuals • , the artificial measurement noise can be used to adjust for jitter, lost samples, etc

  10. Performance comparison Analyze the residual-fault transfer functions (fault sensitivity) for the different methods Some indications of improvements using the overall observer • i.e. Steady state analyzes

  11. Robot Example – where am I? Localization is crucial in autonomous systems Typical situations • Wheel slippages • Skidding • Wall grasping • Pushed away • Collision

  12. Two Localization Providers Odometry • Integration of velocity meas • Based on the linear displacement caused by wheel rotations • Reliability < 15m (acc errors) Laser Scan Matching • Integration of relative displacement measurements • Hough transform (heading) + Iterative Closest Point (ICP)

  13. Residuals Used Aug states EKF • Simple approach • EKF using the augmented state matrix model

  14. Behavior – No faults • Odometry bias quickly (badly calibrated tires) • Will increase the amount of false alarms • Model disturbances affects considerably more

  15. Behavior – Faults t+4 t t+1 t+3 t+2 t+4 t t+1 t+2 t+3 • Succesfull detection in many cases

  16. Preliminary Results Basic idea: • Extended system (system + sensor). • Design an overall observer to generate residuals • Do standard fault detection • Fault observability conditions have been derived • Evaluation on a mobile robot – real data Remaining open questions: • More thorough performance analysis needed • Use of more complex sensor models • Methods to support observer design to residual gen

  17. ¿ Questions ?

  18. Unknown Sensor Structure Two approximations 1. 2. Then, use the simplified model to tune, for example, a Kalman filter , the artificial measurement noise can be used to adjust for jitter, lost samples, etc

  19. Scan matching • Estimate the transform relating two scans • is the hardest to estimate • is estimated through spectrum correlation in the Hough domain [Censi05] • Rotations are phase shifts in the HD • ICP solves the translation estimation

  20. Robot Models • Odometry model based on the relation between wheel rotation to linear displacement • Model valid for differential drive robot • Simple kinematics model • Robot as a rigid-body • Moving in a plane

  21. Detection - rotation and are affect with a transient behavior Input faults Effects in are greater than in because the estimate has a much smaller variance than is a directly measured quantity is a direvative estimate of the pose t+4 t t+1 t+3 t+2 t+4 t t+1 t+3 t+2

More Related