Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics ›› 2021, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (4): 984-994.doi: 10.23919/JSEE.2021.000084
• RELIABILITY • Previous Articles
Peng YANG1(), Haoyu XIE2,*(), Jing QIU1()
Received:
2020-04-16
Online:
2021-08-18
Published:
2021-09-30
Contact:
Haoyu XIE
E-mail:nudtyp7894@163.com;xiehaoyu1982@163.com;qiujing16@sina.com
About author:
Supported by:
Peng YANG, Haoyu XIE, Jing QIU. System level test selection based on combinatorial dependency matrix[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2021, 32(4): 984-994.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks
Table 1
TDM"
| | | ··· | | |
| | | | ··· | |
| | | | ··· | |
| | | | | |
| | | | ··· | |
Table 2
CDM"
| ··· | | | ··· | | |
| | ··· | | | ··· | |
··· | ··· | ··· | ··· | ··· | ··· | ··· |
| | ··· | | | ··· | |
| | ··· | | | ··· | |
| | | | | | |
| | ··· | | | ··· | |
Table 4
CDM of the case system in Fig. 2 "
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Fault rate | |
| 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 |
| 0 | 0.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 50 |
| 0 | 0 | 0.75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.85 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 60 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.95 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 50 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 70 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 200 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 150 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 30 |
Test cost | 12 | 14 | 11 | 10 | 19 | 10 | 17 | 19 | 11 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 11 | 16 | 16 | 12 | 11 | 15 | — |
Table 5
Comparison among test selection results of the case system in Fig. 2 "
Result | Constraint | Unit level test set | System level test set | | | | |
1 | | | | 0.9567 | 0.9389 | 1.0000 | 97 |
2 | | | | 1.0000 | 0.3327 | 1.0000 | 82 |
3 | | | | 0.8980 | 0.8901 | 0.8444 | 89 |
4 | | ? | | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 138 |
5 | | | ? | 0.3327 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 66 |
Table 6
CDM of the case system in Fig. 4 "
t1 | t2 | t3 | t4 | t5 | t6 | t7 | t8 | t9 | t10 | t11 | t12 | t13 | t14 | t15 | t16 | t17 | t18 | t19 | t20 | t21 | t22 | t23 | t24 | t25 | Fault rate | |
f1 | 0.94 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 42.80 |
f2 | 0 | 0.96 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 64.35 |
f3 | 0 | 0 | 0.97 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 75.00 |
f4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.95 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50.00 |
f5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.96 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 62.35 |
f6 | 0 | 0 | 00 | 0 | 0 | 0.96 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 63.50 |
f7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.91 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 29.89 |
f8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.91 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 29.89 |
f9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.91 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 29.89 |
f10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.80 |
f11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.80 |
f12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.80 |
f13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.80 |
f14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.80 |
f15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.80 |
f16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.80 |
f17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.80 |
f18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.20 |
f19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.20 |
f20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.20 |
f21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.20 |
f22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.20 |
f23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4.20 |
f24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1.90 |
Test cost | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | —— |
Table 7
Comparison among test selection results of the case system in Fig. 4 "
Result | Constraint | Unit level test set | System level test set | | | | |
1 | | {t1,···,t9} | {t11, t12, t13, t14, t15, t16, t17, t18, t19, t20, t21, t22, t23, t24} | 0.9854 | 0.9001 | 0.9434 | 23 |
2 | | {t1,···,t9} | {t12, t14, t14, t18, t20} | 0.9079 | 0.9301 | 0.2828 | 13 |
3 | | {t1,···,t9} | { t12, t14, t14, t18, t20, t24} | 0.9168 | 0.9128 | 0.3212 | 14 |
4 | | ? | {t10, t11, t12, t13, t14, t15, t16, t17, t18,t19, t20, t21, t22, t23, t24, t25} | 1.0000 | 0.6744 | 1.0000 | 16 |
5 | | {t1,···,t9} | ? | 0.8541 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 9 |
1 | QIU J, LIU G J, YANG P, et al. Equipment testability modeling and design. Beijing: Science Press, 2013. (in Chinese) |
2 | ZHANG Y, CHEN X X, LIU G J, et al. Optimal test points selection based on multiobjective genetic algorithm. Proc. of the IEEE Circuits and Systems International Conference on Testing and Diagnosis, 2009: 1−4. |
3 |
MENG X F, ZHONG B, CHEN X M, et al A MOGA-based approach for optimal analogue test points selection. International Journal of Modelling Identification and Control, 2010, 9 (1/2): 144- 151.
doi: 10.1504/IJMIC.2010.032372 |
4 |
LI F, UPADHYAYA B R, PERILLO S R P Fault diagnosis of helical coil steam generator systems of an integral pressurized water reactor using optimal sensor selection. IEEE Trans. on Nuclear Science, 2012, 59 (2): 403- 410.
doi: 10.1109/TNS.2012.2185509 |
5 |
KHANLARI M, EHSANIAN M A test point selection approach for DC analog circuits with large number of predefined faults. Analog Integrated Circuits and Signal Processing, 2020, 102 (1): 225- 235.
doi: 10.1007/s10470-019-01550-7 |
6 |
SAEEDI S, PISHGAR S H, ESLAMI M Optimum test point selection method for analog fault dictionary techniques. Analog Integrated Circuits and Signal Processing, 2019, 100 (1): 167- 179.
doi: 10.1007/s10470-019-01453-7 |
7 |
TANG X F, XU A Q, NIU S C KKCV-GA-based method for optimal analog test point selection. IEEE Trans. on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2017, 66 (1): 24- 32.
doi: 10.1109/TIM.2016.2614752 |
8 |
CUI Y Q, SHI J Y, WANG Z L Analog circuit test point selection incorporating discretization-based fuzzification and extended fault dictionary to handle component tolerances. Journal of Electronic Testing: Theory and Applications, 2016, 32 (6): 661- 679.
doi: 10.1007/s10836-016-5620-2 |
9 |
LUO H, LU W, WANG Y R, et al A new test point selection method for analog continuous parameter fault. Journal of Electronic Testing: Theory and Applications, 2017, 33 (3): 339- 352.
doi: 10.1007/s10836-017-5661-1 |
10 |
NAMBURU S M, AZAM M S, LUO J H, et al Data-driven modeling, fault diagnosis and optimal sensor selection for HVAC chillers. IEEE Trans. on Automation Science and Engineering, 2007, 4 (3): 469- 473.
doi: 10.1109/TASE.2006.888053 |
11 | WANG Y F, MA X D, MALCOLM J. Optimal sensor selection for wind turbine condition monitoring using multivariate principal component analysis approach. Proc. of the 18th International Conference on Automation and Computing: Integration of Design and Engineering, 2012: 306−312. |
12 |
WANG D B, GAO B, ZHAO J, et al Optimization of thermoelectric microwave power sensors based on thin-membrane structure. Chinese Journal of Electronics, 2015, 24 (4): 884- 888.
doi: 10.1049/cje.2015.10.037 |
13 |
YANG S M, QIU J, LIU G J Sensor optimization selection model based on testability constraint. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2012, 25 (2): 262- 268.
doi: 10.1016/S1000-9361(11)60386-5 |
14 |
XU J P, WANG Y S, XU L PHM-oriented sensor optimization selection based on multi objective model for aircraft engines. IEEE Sensors Journal, 2015, 15 (9): 4836- 4844.
doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2015.2430361 |
15 |
QIU J, TAN X D, LIU G J, et al Test selection and optimization for PHM based on failure evolution mechanism model. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2013, 24 (5): 780- 792.
doi: 10.1109/JSEE.2013.00091 |
16 |
ZHANG S G, PATTIPATI K R, HU Z, et al Optimal selection of imperfect tests for fault detection and isolation. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 2013, 43 (6): 1370- 1384.
doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2013.2244210 |
17 | LEI H J, QIN K Y Optimal selection of imperfect tests based on improved quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm. Acta Electronica Sinica, 2017, 45 (10): 2464- 2472. |
18 |
LIU Y H Optimal selection of tests for fault detection and isolation in multi-operating mode system. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 30 (2): 425- 434.
doi: 10.21629/JSEE.2019.02.20 |
19 | YE W, LYU X Y, LYU X F, et al Optimized tests selection method considering critical faults. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 41 (7): 1583- 1589. |
20 | MA L, LI H J, WANG C G, et al. Optimized tests selection method considering the cost of alternative maintenance. Chinese Journal of Scientific Instrument, 2015, 36(2): 280−286. (in Chinese) |
21 |
GOLONEK T, RUTKOWSKI J Genetic-algorithm-based method for optimal analog test points selection. IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, 2007, 54 (2): 117- 121.
doi: 10.1109/TCSII.2006.884112 |
22 | YU H, XIAO M Q, ZHAO X Improved RBF network application in analog circuit fault isolation. Journal of Measurement Science and Instrumentation, 2012, 3 (1): 70- 74. |
23 | AMATI L, BOLCHINI C, SALICE F. Optimal test-set selection for fault diagnosis improvement. Proc. of the IEEE International Symposium on Defect and Fault Tolerance in VLSI and Nanotechnology Systems, 2011: 93−99. |
24 | WANG H Y, TIAN Z H, SHI S J, et al A fault detection and isolation scheme based on parity space method for discrete time-delay system. Journal of Donghua University (English Edition), 2008, 25 (3): 304- 307. |
25 | RAHIMI N, SADEGHI M H, MAHJOOB M J Performance of the geometric approach to fault detection and isolation in SISO, MISO, SIMO and MIMO systems. Journal of Zhejiang University (Science A: An International Applied Physics & Engineering Journal), 2007, 8 (9): 1443- 1451. |
26 |
HARKAT M F, DJELEL S, DOGHMANE N, et al Sensor fault detection, isolation and reconstruction using nonlinear principal component analysis. International Journal of Automation & Computing, 2007, 4 (2): 149- 155.
doi: 10.1007/s11633-007-0149-6 |
27 | ZHU X H, LI Y H, LI N, et al Optimal sensor placement design based on improved discrete PSO algorithm. Acta Electronica Sinica, 2013, 41 (10): 2104- 2108. |
28 |
DENG S, JING B, ZHOU H Heuristic particle swarm optimization approach for test point selection with imperfect test. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2017, 28 (1): 37- 50.
doi: 10.1007/s10845-014-0960-1 |
29 | CHEN X X, QIU J, LIU G J Optimal test selection based on hybrid BPSO and GA. Chinese Journal of Scientific Instrument, 2009, 30 (8): 1674- 1680. |
30 | MU L F, HE Y Z, ZHANG J Y Test point selection based on chaotic binary bats algorithm. Navigation and Control, 2017, 16 (6): 33- 37. |
31 |
YANG P, LIU G J, XIE H Y Integration of testability concept and allocation for integrated system. National Defense Science & Technology, 2016, 37 (2): 4- 8.
doi: 10.23919/JSEE.2021.000000 |
[1] | Jie Zhang, Yang Lu, Shu Yang, and Chong Xu. NHPP-based software reliability model considering testing effort and multivariate fault detection rate [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2016, 27(1): 260-. |
[2] | Jing Qiu, Xiaodong Tan, Guanjun Liu, and Kehong L¨u. Test selection and optimization for PHM based on failure evolution mechanism model [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2013, 24(5): 780-792. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||