Mission Planning Analysis using Decision Diagrams
Theodore W. Manikas, Mitchell Aaron Thornton, Frederick R. Chang · 2011
Many military and space operations are phased missions, which contain non-overlapping phases. One approach for assessing phased mission system reliability is to apply binary decision diagrams (BDD’s). While the BDD is an efficient structure for probability analysis, it cannot accurately represent all aspects of complex systems and processes as it assumes all phases follow binary logic. It is of great interest to ascertain if a system or process is to be successful during the planning and design stage. The concept and assessment of partial success when a system or process is in a degraded state is desirable and an objective of the methods presented here. To address the limitation of current analysis methods, we introduce the application of multiple-valued logic models to phased mission system analysis. These models identify the various levels of system operations and yield more information about the overall system operating states. Keywords—decision diagram, mission analysis; fault tree analysis; reliability; probability analysis REFERENCES [1] J. D. Andrews, R. Remenyte-Prescott, and D. R. Prescott, “Reliability analysis of missions with cooperating platforms,” in Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS), 2010 Proceedings Annual, 2010, pp. 1–6. [2] D. Astapenko and L. M. Bartlett, “System design optimisation involving phased missions,” International Journal of Reliability and Safety, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 331–344, 2009. [3] J. D. Andrews, D. R. Prescott, and R. Remenyte-Prescott, “A systems reliability approach to decision making in autonomous multi-platform systems operating a phased mission,” Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 2008. (RAMS). Annual, pp. 8–14, Jan. 2008. [4] S. Reed, J. D. Andrews, and S. J. Dunnett, “Improved Efficiency in the Analysis of Phased Mission Systems With Multiple Failure Mode Components,” Reliability, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 70– 79, Mar. 2011. [5] S. A. Szygenda and M. A. Thornton, “Disaster Tolerant Computing and Communications,” in Proc. Int. Conf. on Cybernetics and Information Technologies, Systems and Applications (CITSA), and Int. Conf. on Information Systems Analysis and Synthesis (ISAS), 2005, pp. 171–173. [6] M. A. Harper, C. M. Lawler, and M. A. Thornton, “IT Application Downtime, Executive Visibility and Disaster Tolerant Computing,” in Proc. Int. Conf. on Cybernetics and Information Technologies, Systems and Applications (CITSA), and Int. Conf. on Information Systems Analysis and Synthesis (ISAS), 2005, pp. 165–170. [7] W. E. Vesely, F. F. Goldberg, N. H. Roberts, and D. F. Haasi, Fault tree handbook, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0492, Jan. 1981. [8] R. E. Bryant, “Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation,” Computers, IEEE Transactions on, vol. C-35, no. 8, pp. 677 –691, Aug. 1986. [9] L. M. Bartlett and J. D. Andrews, “Choosing a heuristic for the ‘fault tree to binary decision diagram’ conversion, using neural networks,” Reliability, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 344 – 349, Sep. 2002. [10] K. A. Reay and J. D. Andrews, “A fault tree analysis strategy using binary decision diagrams,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 45–56, 2002. [11] A. B. Rauzy, J. Gauthier, and X. Leduc, “Assessment of large automatically generated fault trees by means of binary decision diagrams,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, vol. 221, no. 2, pp. 95 –105, Jun. 2007. [12] D. M. Miller and M. A. Thornton, Multiple Valued Logic: Concepts and Representations. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2007. [13] T. W. Manikas, M. A. Thornton, and D. Y. Feinstein, “Using Multiple- Valued Logic Decision Diagrams to Model System Threat Probabilities,” in Multiple-Valued Logic (ISMVL), 2011 41st IEEE International Symposium on, 2011, pp. 263–267. [14] D.M. Miller and R. Drechsler, Implementing a Multiple-Valued Decision Diagram Package, in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Mulitple- Valued Logic (ISMVL), 1998.