Information processor system for monitoring a complex system

Abstract

An information processor system for monitoring a complex system and including a mechanism receiving at least one piece of event detection information associated with a detection time and a mechanism generating at least one remanent confidence level value that decreases over time starting from the detection time.

Claims

1. An sensor system for monitoring a complex system comprising: at least one sensor placed in a particular location in the complex system and configured to detect one or more physical magnitudes whenever a variation is detected relative to a threshold; processing circuitry configured to receive at least one piece of event detection information from the at least one sensor associated with a detection time, a fault flag being associated with the at least one piece of event detection information, where the received at least one piece of event detection information includes a magnitude level of a fault indicated by the fault flag and an initial confidence level; generate at least one remanent confidence level value that decreases from the initial confidence level over time starting from the detection time, the remanent confidence level value being associated with the fault flag and the magnitude level associated with the received at least one piece of event detection information; and when a new piece of event detection information is received that is associated with the fault flag and includes an initial confidence level and a same magnitude level as the at least one piece of event detection information, generate an integrated remanent confidence level value for the new piece of event detection information which is based on the initial confidence level that is included in the new piece of event detection information and the remanent confidence level value that exists at a time when the new piece of event detection information is received, wherein the at least one piece of detection information associated with a detection time is included in a failure message including at least a failure time, the initial confidence level, and a failure identifier.

2. The sensor system according to claim 1, wherein the remanent confidence level value is associated with at least one failure magnitude value selected as a function of a failure magnitude value associated with the detection time.

3. The sensor system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate at least two remanent confidence level values, each associated with a malfunction magnitude value, each of the at least two remanent confidence level values varying independently of the other.

4. The sensor system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate at least two remanent confidence level values each associated with a different malfunction magnitude value, and reset to zero one of the at least two remanent confidence level values that was non-zero at a previous time when the other remanent confidence level value becomes non-zero at a current time.

5. The sensor system according to claim 1, wherein, the remanent confidence level value is a raw value.

6. The sensor system according to claim 1, wherein the initial confidence level and the raw remanent confidence level value are combined to give the integrated remanent confidence value by an addition.

7. The sensor system according to claim 1, wherein a duration from which the remanent confidence level value is zero may be set by a user, for a single fault flag, or for a plurality of fault flags.

8. The sensor system according to claim 1, wherein a decreasing relationship may be set by a user for the remanent confidence level value, for a single fault flag, or for a plurality of fault flags.

9. The sensor system according to claim 1, wherein the complex system is an engine.

10. An sensing method for monitoring a complex system, the method comprising: detecting, by at least one sensor placed in a particular location in the complex system, one or more physical magnitudes whenever a variation is detected relative to a threshold receiving at least one piece of event detection information from the at least one sensor associated with a detection time, a fault flag being associated with the at least one piece of event detection information, where the received at least one piece of event detection information includes a magnitude level of a fault indicated by the fault flag and an initial confidence level; generating at least one remanent confidence level value that decreases from the initial confidence level over time starting from the detection time, the remanent confidence level value being associated with the fault flag and the magnitude level associated with the received at least one piece of event detection information; and when a new piece of event detection information is received that is associated with the fault flag and includes an initial confidence level and a same magnitude level as the at least one piece of event detection information, generating an integrated remanent confidence level value for the new piece of event detection information which is based on the initial confidence level that is included in the new piece of event detection information and the remanent confidence level value that exists at a time when the new piece of event detection information is received, wherein the at least one piece of detection information associated with a detection time is included in a failure message including at least a failure time, the initial confidence level, and a failure identifier.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

(1) FIG. 1 shows a general embodiment of the invention.

(2) FIG. 2 shows the signals produced by a system of the invention in an embodiment of the invention.

(3) FIG. 3 shows a general implementation aspect of the invention.

(4) FIGS. 4 to 7 show particular embodiments of the invention.

(5) FIG. 8 is a general diagram of a detailed embodiment of the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS OF THE INVENTION

(6) FIG. 1 shows a module MOD.sub.TRANS that receives messages as input, in this example consolidated messages MSG.sub.CONS. The consolidated nature of the messages MSG.sub.CONS refers to the fact that they have been subjected to preprocessing, e.g. by using a knowledge base concerning the architecture and the properties of the monitored system.

(7) These messages MSG.sub.CONS are associated with a time stamp DATE, a fault flag identifier ID.sub.FLAG, a malfunction magnitude value VAL, and a confidence level NC2C. The digit 2 in the notation NC2C indicates that this confidence level is a confidence level derived from a primitive confidence level, in one manner or another.

(8) The malfunction magnitude value VAL may for example be selected from a discrete value space, such as for example the set 0, 1, 2, and 3. In the embodiment shown, the time stamp DATE, the identifier ID.sub.FLAG, the value VAL, and the level NC2C are included in the message MSG.sub.CONS.

(9) The module MOD.sub.TRANS uses a knowledge base of fault flags BC.sub.FLAGS and a module M1 with magnitude and time axes for generating a raw time-varying fault flag signal SIG.sub.BRUT, associated with the flag identifier ID.sub.FLAG and with the malfunction magnitude valve VAL. Unlike the messages MSG.sub.CONS which are received by the module MOD.sub.TRANS solely when a sensor detects an event, the signal SIG.sub.BRUT as generated by the module MOD.sub.TRANS is a continuous signal, varying as a function of time. As shown by the curve in the right-hand portion of FIG. 1, which is an illustrative simplification, it takes the value NC2C at the time DATE, and then decreases.

(10) It is specified that the module MOD.sub.TRANS takes account of a variable selected by the user by means of a terminal. This variable is a time window FEN.sub.TEMP, expressing a duration. Once the duration FEN.sub.TEMP has elapsed starting from the time DATE, the signal SIG.sub.BRUT is zeroed.

(11) In a more sophisticated embodiment, the module MOD.sub.TRANS also takes account of a decreasing function selected by the user by means of the terminal, and the rate at which the signal SIG.sub.BRUT decreases is then defined by that function. It is specified that the decreasing function and the time window FEN.sub.TEMP may both be selected by the user in specific manner for each flag, as identified by its identifier ID.sub.FLAG, and/or for each magnitude value VAL.

(12) FIG. 2 shows the signals that are generated in parallel (simultaneously) by the module MOD.sub.TRANS for two different flags FLAG1 and FLAG2.

(13) These two flags are presented with five different magnitude levels, namely levels Val-1, Val0, Val1, Val2, and Val3. The level Val-1 indicates that information is not available, while the levels 0 to 3 indicate the severity of the failure using the convention that the magnitudes have the following meanings respectively: all's well; minor malfunction; severe malfunction; and failure.

(14) For each flag and for each level of magnitude, a raw signal similar to the signal SIG.sub.BRUT shown in FIG. 1 is produced continuously by the module MOD.sub.TRANS. Two particular signals are shown in FIG. 2 by way of example. These are signals SIG1 and SIG2. These signals decrease from an initial value taken at a particular time. Each of these signals comes progressively closer to zero once the duration corresponding to the time window FEN.sub.TEMP starts to elapse.

(15) FIG. 3 shows a correspondence table of fault flags and failures, in an embodiment of the invention. In accordance with this table, fault flags for a given failure are merged by taking into consideration the fault flags that are given a 1 or some other value in the table, while ignoring those for which the table contains 0.

(16) FIG. 4 shows how a fault flag is consolidated in a first embodiment of the invention. A real flag, constructed solely on the basis of information contained in the messages MSG.sub.CONS is shown in the top portion of the Figure. It can be seen that for each time, only one magnitude is activated. It corresponds to the magnitude VAL specified in the message MSG.sub.CONS. It has a confidence level equal to that defined in the message MSC.sub.CONS, namely NC2C. For times for which no message MSG.sub.CONS is received, all of the magnitudes in the flag have a confidence level of zero, other than the magnitude 0, which has a confidence level equal to 1.0.

(17) Thereafter, a flag that is said to be virtual is shown in the middle portion of the figure. This is a remanent confidence flag as produced by the module MOD.sub.TRANS shown in FIG. 1. It can be seen that in the instants that follow reception of a message MSG.sub.CONS, the corresponding magnitude is activated and has a confidence level that decreases from an initial value defined by the value NC2C contained in the message MSG.sub.CONS. This is observed for the magnitudes 1, 2, and 3. The magnitude 0 remains at a confidence level that is continuously equal to 0 in this virtual flag.

(18) The example of the figure shows a ephemeral reactivation of the magnitude 2 following a message MSG.sub.CONS. In this scenario, the remanent confidence level is 0.4 at the time the message arrives, and it gives a confidence level of 0.2. The remanent confidence level then decreases from the sum of these two values, i.e. form 0.6. The first visible value is 0.5.

(19) In its bottom portion, the figure shows a flag SIG.sub.RV resulting from integrating (or summing) the two above-described flags with the rule of keeping real and virtual flags separate (using a virtual space that is distinct from the real space). In this embodiment, the virtual flag is summed with the real flag only in the event of a change of magnitude in the real flag. Thus, the integrated flag value at a detection time defined by a message MSG.sub.CONS for a magnitude is equal to the initial confidence level contained in the message (NC2C) plus the value of the remanent confidence level at that instant, as given by the virtual flag. At times that are not detection times, the value of the integrated flag is zero.

(20) It is specified that the initial confidence level (NC2C) could be combined with the value of the raw remanent confidence level in order to obtain the integrated remanent confidence value (SIG.sub.RV) in a manner other than by simple addition.

(21) In the scenario described, the integrated flag is thus equal to the real flag except at the time when the magnitude of 2 is reactivated, whereupon it takes as its value the sum of the confidence value of the real flag, i.e. 0.2, plus the confidence value of the virtual flag, i.e. 0.4, giving a value of 0.6.

(22) FIG. 5 shows a fault flag being consolidated in accordance with a second embodiment of the invention. A real flag, identical to that shown in FIG. 4, is shown in the top portion of the figure. For times at which no message MSG.sub.CONS is received, all of the magnitudes of the flag have a confidence level of 0, except the magnitude 0, which has a confidence value equal to 1.0.

(23) Thereafter, a virtual flag is shown in the middle portion of the figure. As in FIG. 4, at instants following the reception of a message MSG.sub.CONS, the corresponding magnitude is activated and has a confidence level that decreases starting from an initial value defined by the value NC2C contained in the message MSG.sub.CONS.

(24) Thus, by way of example, when a message MSG.sub.CONS is received indicating a reactivation of the flag with a magnitude 2 and with a confidence level of 0.2, the real flag takes account of this, as in FIG. 4. In contrast, in the embodiment presently described, the virtual flag continues to vary in the same manner as before the message was received, without this magnitude 2 reactivation of the flag being taken into account. In this example, this option is selected by taking account of the fact that the remanent confidence level for the magnitude 2, in this example 0.4, is higher than that associated with the real flag, i.e. 0.2.

(25) Finally, in its bottom portion, this figure shows a flag SIG.sub.RV resulting from integrating the two above-described flags using the rule of superposing the virtual and real spaces, making use of the most severe stored magnitude. In this embodiment, at each instant, the integrated flag is equal to the sum of the real flag plus the greatest activated magnitude of the virtual flag. Thus, those magnitudes of the virtual flag that are lower than an activated magnitude have their confidence levels reduced to 0. In the embodiment described, it can be seen that the magnitude 3 that was initially activated has a confidence value in the integrated flag that decreases progressively, as in the virtual flag. Conversely, the magnitudes 1 and 2, lower than the magnitude 3, have their respective confidence levels reduced to 0 as from the instant following the time of the message MSG.sub.CONS that activated them.

(26) It is also specified at this point that the initial confidence level (NC2C) and the value of the raw remanent confidence level could be combined in order to obtain the integrated remanent confidence value (SIG.sub.RV) in a manner other than by simple addition.

(27) FIG. 6 shows a fault flag being consolidated in accordance with a third embodiment of the invention. A real flag, identical to that shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, is shown in the top portion of the figure. Thereafter, a virtual flag is shown in the middle portion of the figure. It is identical to the virtual flag shown in FIG. 5.

(28) Finally, in its bottom portion, the figure shows a flag SIG.sub.RV resulting from integrating the two above-described flags using the rule of superposing the virtual and real spaces, but this time using the least severe stored magnitude. In this embodiment, the integrated flag is equal, at each instant, to the sum of the real flag and the lowest activated magnitude (excluding the magnitude 0) of the virtual flag. Thus, the magnitudes of the virtual flag that are higher than an activated magnitude have their confidence levels reduced to 0. In the embodiment shown, it can be seen that since the magnitude 1 was activated after the magnitude 3, in the integrated flag it has a confidence value that decreases progressively, as in the virtual flag, whereas the magnitude 3 has its confidence level returned to 0 starting from the instant following the activation of the magnitude 1.

(29) It is specified once more than the initial confidence level (NC2C) and the value of the raw remanent confidence level may be combined to give the integrated remanent confidence value (SIG.sub.RV) in some manner other than by simple addition.

(30) FIG. 7 shows a fault flag being consolidated in accordance with a fourth embodiment of the invention. A real flag, identical to that shown in FIGS. 4 to 6, is shown in the top portion of the Figure. A virtual flag is then shown in the middle portion of the figure. This virtual flag is identical to that shown in FIGS. 5 and 6.

(31) Finally, in its bottom portion, the figure shows a flag SIG.sub.RV that results from integration in the two above-described flags using the rule of superposing the virtual and real spaces, but this time using all of the stored magnitudes. In this embodiment, the integrated flag is equal at each instant to the sum of the real flag plus the virtual flag. In the figure, it can be seen that a reactivation of magnitude 2 is taken into account, thereby giving rise in the integrated flag to a rise in the confidence level associated with this magnitude, after a first stage of progressive decrease and before a second stage of progressive decrease.

(32) It is specified once more that the initial confidence level (NC2C) and the value of the raw remanent confidence level may be combined to give the integrated remanent confidence value (SIG.sub.RV) in some manner other than by simple addition.

(33) FIG. 8 shows an embodiment of a complete system implementing the invention. In particular, the complete system receives messages comprising fault flags, processes them, in particular for generating a remanent confidence level value, and merges them in order to obtain a failure diagnosis enabling a decision to be made by a human or automatically, concerning an action, e.g. a corrective action or a preventative action.

(34) The input of the system is constituted by a module MOD.sub.CONS for consolidating raw messages MSG.sub.PB and MSG.sub.CAP, which messages are received by this input module of the system. The first messages are state messages comprising a piece of state information INF.sub.PB, comprising the identifier of a component, the identifier of a fault flag ID.sub.FLAG, and a confidence level NC2, while the second messages relate to the states of sensors, which messages are also associated with confidence levels. The notation used is taken from Document WO 2011/104466.

(35) The module MOD.sub.CONS makes use of a knowledge base BC.sub.DEF to extract a table concerning the severity of the malfunction T.sub.ND and it supplies a consolidated message MSG.sub.CONS including an ND2C malfunction magnitude on the scale 0, 1, 2, and 3. If the sensor in question is malfunctioning, the malfunction magnitude is 1, meaning that no information is available. A consolidated confidence level NC2C is also produced and inserted in the consolidated messages that are generated, as a function of the confidence levels received in the various messages MSG.sub.PB and MSG.sub.CAP.

(36) The messages MSG.sub.CONS are transmitted to the module MOD.sub.TRANS, which uses them as mentioned with reference to FIG. 1, and thus continuously produces raw, time-varying signals of fault flags, SIG.sub.BRUTFLAG1, SIG.sub.BRUTFLAG2, etc.

(37) The messages MSG.sub.CONS are transmitted to the flag positioning module MOD.sub.POSFLAG, which makes use of a flag knowledge base BC.sub.FLAGS in order to position the messages MSC.sub.CONS on the correspondence table between flags and failures that defines the assembly comprising the engine, subsystems, and components, as shown by way of example in FIG. 3. Messages MSG.sub.CMP are thus larger than the messages MSG.sub.CONS as received and transmitted by the module. They include the identifiers of the failures with which the fault flag ID.sub.FLAG is associated by the knowledge base BC.sub.FLAGS, and also the weight to be given to the flag during failure calculation.

(38) The signals SIG.sub.BRUT generated by the module MOD.sub.TRANS and the messages MSG.sub.CMP generated by the module MOD.sub.POSFLAG are directed to a module MOD.sub.CCD for managing conflicts, resolving inconsistencies, and looking for correlations. In certain embodiments, if there is a conflict or an inconsistency, this module can send a warning signal to a terminal used by an operator.

(39) The signals are then directed to a module MOD.sub.RV that integrates the real flags (received from the module MOD.sub.POSFLAG) and the virtual flags (received from the module MOD.sub.TRANS), as described above with reference to FIGS. 4 to 7. It produces the signals SIG.sub.BRUTRV1, SIG.sub.BRUTRV2, etc., for each fault flag. Finally, the information is transmitted to a merge module MOD.sub.FST, which proceeds to merge the various flags in order to obtain failure information INF.sub.PC with confidence levels NC3. This data is included in consolidated failure messages MSG.sub.PC.

(40) The invention is described above with reference to particular embodiments, however it is not limited thereto. It covers all variants that come within the ambit of the scope of the claims.