MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075300511 · doi:10.1109/mesa.2010.5552042

DUKF-based GTM UAV fault detection and diagnosis with nonlinear and LPV models

2010· article· en· W2075300511 on OpenAlexaff
Ling Ma, Youmin Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFault detection and isolationControl reconfigurationActuatorControl theory (sociology)FTCS schemeKalman filterFault (geology)Nonlinear systemFault toleranceEngineeringControl engineeringController (irrigation)Computer scienceReal-time computingEmbedded systemControl (management)Artificial intelligenceReliability engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fault tolerant control system (FTCS) is to maintain system stability in the presence of fault occurred in the actuators, sensors or other system components. When a fault/failure occurs either in an actuator, sensor or plant, the fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) as the central part of a FTCS will detect and diagnose the source and the magnitude of the fault. The reconfiguration scheme in the FTCS will design the reconfigurable controller based on the FDD information to balance and adapt the system for being able to tolerate to the faults and failures. This paper presents an applicable procedure of integrated fault detection and diagnosis for the NASA Generic Transport Model (GTM) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) aircraft model. The implementation of a FDD scheme in handling partial control effector fault cases with the nonlinear GTM and the linear parameter varying (LPV) representation of the nonlinear GTM have been carried out based on a dual unscented Kalman filter (DUKF) and a Baysian rule for detection and isolation decision making. Simulation results show satisfactory results for detecting and diagnosing the control effectors failures.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207