Fault diagnosis reasoning method and device based on fault logic modeling
By decomposing the fault logic criterion of the fault mode and constructing the association matrix, the problems of multi-source and high computing cost of fault diagnosis logic in complex monitoring objects are solved, and efficient fault diagnosis is achieved.
Patent Information
- Application Number
- CN202411477348.X
- Authority / Receiving Office
- CN · China
- Patent Type
- Applications(China)
- Current Assignee / Owner
- Filing Date
- 2024-10-22
- Publication Date
- 2025-02-14
AI Technical Summary
As the integration and complexity of the monitoring objects increase, the fault mechanism becomes more complex, and the monitoring data associated with the fault is complicated, resulting in a large number of logic for fault judgments and a large increase in computing time cost.
By decomposing the fault logic criteria corresponding to the fault mode of the monitoring object, an independent fault logic element is formed, and a fault mode-fault logic element association matrix is constructed based on the relationship between the fault logic element and the fault mode, and then the fault state is judged. .
This method reduces the calculation amount, improves the implementation efficiency of the fault diagnosis function, and can more quickly determine whether the fault occurs or not.
Smart Images
Figure CN119443266A_ABST
Abstract
Description
Technical Field
[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of fault diagnosis, and in particular to a fault diagnosis reasoning method and device based on fault logic modeling. Background Art
[0002] In the field of fault diagnosis and health management, it has become an important technical means to realize the fault diagnosis function of the monitored object by means of logical judgment. By analyzing the structure and function of the monitored object, the fault mechanism and monitoring status of the monitored object are correlated and confirmed to obtain the associated monitoring parameters and logic that can judge the occurrence of the fault. The use of logical judgment to judge whether the fault has occurred has become the most direct means of fault detection. However, as the integration and complexity of the monitored object become higher and higher, the fault mechanism becomes more and more complex, and the monitoring data associated with the fault becomes more and more complicated, which makes the fault judgment logic multi-source and large in number. Using fault logic judgment and traversing all fault logics will make the calculation time cost more and more. Summary of the invention
[0003] The technical problem to be solved by the present invention is to provide a fault diagnosis reasoning method and device based on fault logic modeling, which can improve the implementation efficiency of the fault diagnosis function.
[0004] The technical solution adopted by the present invention to solve the technical problem is: to provide a fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling, comprising the following steps:
[0005] Decomposing the fault logic criteria corresponding to all fault modes of the monitored object to form independent fault logic elements, and constructing a fault mode-fault logic element association matrix of the monitored object based on the relationship between the fault logic elements and the fault modes;
[0006] Obtain the status of the fault logic element of the monitored object, and determine whether the status of all fault logic elements of the monitored object are not triggered;
[0007] If the states of all fault logic elements of the monitored object are not all untriggered, then all fault modes associated with the set of fault logic elements whose states are triggered are determined according to the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix;
[0008] According to the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix, determining a fault logic element set associated with each fault mode in all fault modes associated with a fault logic element set whose state is triggered;
[0009] The set of fault logic elements associated with each fault mode is compared and analyzed with the set of fault logic elements in a triggered state, and the occurrence state of the fault is confirmed in combination with the trigger state of the fault logic element.
[0010] The step of obtaining the state of the fault logic element of the monitored object and determining whether the state of all the fault logic elements is before being triggered further includes:
[0011] In the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix, only one column is retained for multiple identical columns corresponding to different fault logic elements; and only one row is retained for multiple identical rows corresponding to different fault modes.
[0012] The comparing and analyzing the set of fault logic elements associated with each fault mode with the set of fault logic elements in the triggered state, and confirming the state of the fault in combination with the trigger state of the fault logic element, specifically includes:
[0013] Compare the number of faulty logic elements in the faulty logic element set associated with each fault mode with the number of faulty elements in the faulty logic element set whose state is triggered;
[0014] If the number of fault logic elements in the fault logic element set associated with a certain fault mode is greater than the number of fault elements in the fault logic element set whose state is triggered, then the fault mode is added to the non-occurring fault set;
[0015] Compare the fault logic element sets associated with the remaining fault modes with the fault logic element sets whose states are triggered, respectively, to obtain a first difference set and a second difference set of the remaining fault modes, wherein the first difference set refers to a fault logic element set that exists in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode but does not exist in the fault logic element set whose states are triggered, and the second difference set refers to a fault logic element set that exists in the fault logic element set whose states are triggered but does not exist in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode;
[0016] If the first difference set and the second difference set of a remaining fault mode are both empty sets, then the fault mode is added to the suspected fault set;
[0017] If only one of the first difference set and the second difference set of a certain remaining fault mode is an empty set, and the number of fault logic elements in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode is less than the number of fault elements in the fault logic element set whose state is triggered, then the fault mode is added to the suspected fault set;
[0018] If the first difference set and the second difference set of a remaining fault mode are both non-empty sets, the fault mode is added to the set of faults that have not occurred.
[0019] The fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling also includes:
[0020] The fault logic elements corresponding to each fault mode in the suspected fault set are compared to find a unique fault mode, and the unique fault mode is deleted from the suspected fault set and added to the determined fault set.
[0021] If the status of all fault logic elements of the monitored object is not triggered, it means that the monitored object has no fault.
[0022] The technical solution adopted by the present invention to solve the technical problem is: to provide a fault diagnosis reasoning device based on fault logic modeling, comprising:
[0023] A construction module is used to decompose the fault logic criteria corresponding to all fault modes of the monitored object to form independent fault logic elements, and construct a fault mode-fault logic element association matrix of the monitored object based on the relationship between the fault logic elements and the fault modes;
[0024] An acquisition judgment module is used to obtain the state of the fault logic element of the monitored object and judge whether the states of all the fault logic elements of the monitored object are not triggered;
[0025] A first determination module is used to determine all fault modes associated with a set of fault logic elements whose states are triggered according to the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix when the states of all fault logic elements of the monitored object are not all untriggered;
[0026] A second determination module is used to determine, according to the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix, a set of fault logic elements associated with each fault mode in all fault modes associated with a set of fault logic elements whose state is triggered;
[0027] The comparison and analysis module is used to compare and analyze the set of fault logic elements associated with each fault mode with the set of fault logic elements in the triggered state, and confirm the occurrence state of the fault in combination with the trigger state of the fault logic element.
[0028] The comparative analysis module includes:
[0029] A comparing unit, used for comparing the number of faulty logic elements in the faulty logic element set associated with each fault mode with the number of faulty elements in the faulty logic element set whose state is triggered;
[0030] A first adding unit, configured to add a certain fault mode to a set of non-occurring faults when the number of fault logic elements in a set of fault logic elements associated with a certain fault mode is greater than the number of fault elements in a set of fault logic elements in a triggered state;
[0031] a first comparison unit, configured to compare the fault logic element sets associated with the remaining fault modes with the fault logic element sets whose states are triggered, respectively, to obtain a first difference set and a second difference set of the remaining fault modes, wherein the first difference set refers to a fault logic element set that exists in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode but does not exist in the fault logic element set whose states are triggered, and the second difference set refers to a fault logic element set that exists in the fault logic element set whose states are triggered but does not exist in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode;
[0032] A second adding unit is used to add a certain remaining fault mode to the set of suspected faults when the first difference set and the second difference set of the remaining fault mode are both empty sets;
[0033] A third adding unit is configured to add a certain fault mode to the suspected fault set when only one of the first difference set and the second difference set of a certain remaining fault mode is an empty set and the number of fault logic elements in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode is less than the number of fault elements in the fault logic element set whose state is triggered;
[0034] The fourth adding unit is used to add a certain remaining fault mode to the set of faults that have not occurred when both the first difference set and the second difference set of the remaining fault mode are non-empty sets.
[0035] The comparative analysis module also includes:
[0036] A second comparison unit is used to compare the fault logic elements corresponding to each fault mode in the suspected fault set to find a unique fault mode;
[0037] The fifth adding unit is used to delete the unique fault mode from the suspected fault set and add it to the determined fault set.
[0038] The technical solution adopted by the present invention to solve its technical problem is: to provide an electronic device, including a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor implements the steps of the above-mentioned fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling when executing the computer program.
[0039] The technical solution adopted by the present invention to solve its technical problem is: providing a computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling are implemented.
[0040] Beneficial Effects
[0041] Due to the adoption of the above-mentioned technical scheme, the present invention has the following advantages and positive effects compared with the prior art: the present invention decomposes the fault judgment logic and constructs an association model of fault mode and fault logic elements for reasoning. This method can reduce the amount of calculation and improve the efficiency of implementing the fault diagnosis function. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0042] Figure 1 is a flow chart of a fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling according to a first embodiment of the present invention;
[0043] Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of a fault mode-fault logic element association matrix of a hydraulic pump of an aircraft hydraulic system in a first embodiment of the present invention;
[0044] Figure 3 is a schematic diagram of a fault mode-fault logic element association matrix constructed in the first embodiment of the present invention;
[0045] Figure 4 is a schematic diagram of an optimized fault mode-fault logic element association matrix in the first embodiment of the present invention;
[0046] Figure 5 1 is a test example diagram of the failure mode association in the first embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0047] The present invention will be further described below in conjunction with specific embodiments. It should be understood that these embodiments are only used to illustrate the present invention and are not intended to limit the scope of the present invention. In addition, it should be understood that after reading the content taught by the present invention, those skilled in the art can make various changes or modifications to the present invention, and these equivalent forms fall within the scope limited by the appended claims of the application equally.
[0048] The first embodiment of the present invention relates to a fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling, such as Figure 1 As shown, the following steps are included:
[0049] Step 1: Decompose the fault logic criteria corresponding to all fault modes of the monitored object to form independent fault logic elements, and construct a fault mode-fault logic element association matrix of the monitored object based on the relationship between the fault logic elements and the fault modes.
[0050] Assume that a monitoring object needs to diagnose N fault modes, and the names of the fault modes are as follows:
[0051] Fault_1, Fault_2, Fault_3, Fault_4,…Fault_N
[0052] The monitoring object has status data DATA including P status data, which are:
[0053] DATA-1, DATA-2, DATA-3,…, DATA-P
[0054] Based on the fault occurrence mechanism, the manifestation form of the fault mode is analyzed to determine whether each fault occurs or not. When the fault logic judgment meets the following logical conditions, it means that the fault occurs. The following is an example of the fault occurrence judgment logic condition:
[0055] DATA-1>Threshold-1&&DATA-2<Threshold-2&&DATA-3≮Threshold-3
[0056] &&……
[0057] That is, the monitoring parameter DATA and the threshold Threshold are connected and judged by using the logic judgment symbol (the left side of the logic judgment symbol (see Table 1) may be composed of multiple monitoring parameters through the logic operators of addition +, subtraction -, multiplication ×, division ÷, and ∧, or ∨, and non-!, which is a new monitoring parameter), which constitutes a single fault logic element; the fault elements are connected by the logic connector (see Table 2) to form the logical criterion for fault mode judgment.
[0058] Table 1 Logical judgment symbol table
[0059] Serial number logic symbol 1 Greater than > 2 Less than < 3 Greater than or equal to >＝ 4 Less than or equal to <＝ 5 equal ＝ 6 Not equal to ≠
[0060] Table 2 Logical connection symbol table
[0061] Serial number logic symbol 1 and &&
[0062] Wherein, DATA1, DATA2, DATA3, ...∈DATA; Threshold-1, Threshold-2, Threshold-3, ... respectively represent the judgment thresholds of the state parameter DATA when a fault occurs (when different faults occur, the judgment thresholds of the same state parameter DATA may be different, depending on the specific monitoring object); any coherent logical judgment expression that does not contain a logical connector (&&) is a complete fault logic element, as shown below. The fault logic element obtained by decomposing the above fault occurrence judgment logic condition example is:
[0063] Fault logic element Element_1: DATA1>Threshold-1
[0064] Fault logic element Element_2: DATA2 <Threshold-2
[0065] Fault logic element Element_3: DATA3≠Threshold-3
[0066] Fault Logic Elements
[0067] Among them, each fault logic element is a separate logic judgment formula, so its status includes two types:
[0068]
[0069] Therefore, according to the requirements of the fault occurrence judgment logic condition example, the occurrence and non-occurrence of the fault mode meet the following conditions:
[0070] (1) Condition 1: When a fault occurs, the status of all corresponding fault logic elements must be triggered.
[0071] (2) Condition 2: When the states of all fault logic elements corresponding to a certain fault mode are triggered, the fault may not necessarily occur (the triggering of the corresponding fault logic element may be caused by other fault modes).
[0072] (3) Condition 3: If a certain fault does not occur, then at least one of the corresponding fault logic elements is in the untriggered state (the triggered fault logic element is caused by other fault modes)
[0073] (4) Condition 4: If at least one of the fault logic elements corresponding to a certain fault mode is not triggered, the fault mode must not have occurred.
[0074] The fault logic elements corresponding to all fault modes are combined to form a fault logic element set Element, in which the same fault logic elements are merged; the elements with the same state parameters and the same judgment threshold are the same fault logic element, and the elements with the same state parameters but different judgment thresholds or different state parameters and different judgment thresholds are different fault logic elements.
[0075] E=[Element-1, Element-2, Element-3,..., Element-i]
[0076] The status of Element_i includes triggered and untriggered.
[0077] As shown in Table 3, the fault logic criterion for insufficient pressure supply of the hydraulic pump of the aircraft hydraulic system is:
[0078] S<100r / pmin&&P1>56kpa&&P2<120kpa (this is just an example), the logical judgment criteria for the oil filter blockage failure in the aircraft hydraulic system: M>10L / min&&A>50kpa&&B<40kpa.
[0079] Table 3 Logic criterion for failure of insufficient hydraulic pump pressure supply in aircraft hydraulic system
[0080]
[0081] After decomposition, the fault logic elements of the fault mode of insufficient hydraulic pump pressure are as follows:
[0082] Fault logic element 1: S<100r / pmin
[0083] Fault logic element 2: P1>56kpa
[0084] Fault logic element 3: P2<120kpa
[0085] Fault logic element 4: M>10L / min
[0086] Fault logic element 5: A>50kpa
[0087] Fault logic element 6: B<40kpa
[0088] As shown above, the fault set of the hydraulic system Fault = [Insufficient hydraulic pump pressure, oil filter clogged], its corresponding fault logic element set Element = [S, P1, P2, M, A, B], the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix is as follows: Figure 2 shown.
[0089] Step 2, obtaining the state of the fault logic element of the monitored object, and determining whether the states of all the fault logic elements of the monitored object are not triggered. If the states of all the fault logic elements of the monitored object are not triggered, it means that the monitored object has no fault; if the states of all the fault logic elements of the monitored object are not all not triggered, then according to the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix, determine all fault modes associated with the set of fault logic elements whose states are triggered.
[0090] like Figure 3 As shown, in the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix constructed in this embodiment, the columns corresponding to the fault logic elements E10 and E11 are the same, and the rows corresponding to the fault modes F5 and F11 are the same, so one row and one column are deleted respectively. The optimized fault mode-fault logic element association matrix is as follows: Figure 4 shown.
[0091] Assume that the status of fault logic elements E2, E3, E4, E5, and E6 is triggered ( Figure 4 Red mark), the status of fault logic elements E1, E7, E8, E9, and E10 is not triggered. According to the fault mode-fault logic element association model, the matrix value of 1 means that the fault mode in this row is associated with the fault logic element in this column, and the fault mode set associated with the trigger fault logic element is obtained by inference ( Figure 4 Red framed line):
[0092] Fault logic element triggers E2 associated fault mode: F1, F2
[0093] Fault logic element triggers E3 associated fault mode: F2, F3
[0094] Fault logic element triggers E4 associated fault mode: F1, F2, F3, F4
[0095] Fault logic element triggers E5 associated fault mode: F5
[0096] Fault logic element triggers E6 associated fault mode: F1, F5, F6
[0097] Therefore, the fault logic element is the fault mode set Fault=[F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6] associated with E2, E3, E4, E5, E6 in the trigger state.
[0098] Step 3: According to the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix, determine a fault logic element set associated with each fault mode in all fault modes associated with a fault logic element set in a triggered state.
[0099] The fault mode set Fault = [F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6] determined according to the trigger fault logic element of step 2, Figure 5 The blue fault mode mark, according to the fault mode-fault logic element association model, the matrix value of 1 means that the fault mode in this row is associated with the fault logic element in this column, and the set of fault modes that trigger the association of the fault logic element is obtained by inference ( Figure 5 Blue framed lines):
[0100] Fault mode F1 associated fault logic elements: E1, E2, E4, E6, E7, E9, E10
[0101] Fault mode F2 associated fault logic elements: E2, E3, E4,
[0102] Fault mode F3 associated fault logic elements: E3, E4
[0103] Fault mode F4 associated fault logic element: E4
[0104] Fault mode F5 associated fault logic elements: E5, E6, E10
[0105] Fault mode F6 associated fault logic element: E6
[0106] Therefore, the fault logic elements E2, E3, E4, E5, and E6 are in the trigger state, and the fault logic element sets corresponding to the fault modes in the associated fault mode set Fault = [F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6] are:
[0107] F1_E=[E1, E2, E4, E6, E7, E9, E10]
[0108] F2_E=[E2, E3, E4]
[0109] F3_E=[E3, E4]
[0110] F4_E=[E4]
[0111] F5_E=[E5, E6, E10]
[0112] F6_E=[E6]
[0113] Among them, E1, E7, E8, E9, and E10 are in the untriggered state.
[0114] The fault logic element sets corresponding to the remaining fault modes are as follows:
[0115] F7_E=[E7, E8]
[0116] F8_E=[E8]
[0117] F9_E=[E1, E9]
[0118] F10_E=[E10]
[0119] Since E1, E7, E8, E9, and E10 are in the untriggered state, the above fault logic element sets respectively meet condition 4 in step 2, so faults F7, F8, F9, and F10 do not occur.
[0120] Step 4: Compare and analyze the set of fault logic elements associated with each fault mode with the set of fault logic elements in a triggered state, and confirm the occurrence state of the fault in combination with the trigger state of the fault logic element.
[0121] In this step, the fault logic element set Element = [E2, E3, E4, E5, E6] triggered in step 2 is compared and analyzed with the fault logic element sets corresponding to each fault mode in step 3 in the following process, and the faults are divided into the confirmed fault set F_affirm, the non-fault set F_negative, and the suspected fault set F_incertitude:
[0122] 1) Process 1
[0123] Compare the fault logic element set corresponding to the fault with the triggered fault logic element set. If the number of fault logic elements contained in the set is greater than the number of triggered fault logic elements, that is:
[0124] Length(Fi_E)>Length(Element)
[0125] The number of logical elements in the fault logic element set corresponding to the fault mode exceeds the number of triggered fault logic elements, that is, there are untriggered fault logic elements, which satisfies condition 4 in step 1. Therefore, the fault mode has definitely not occurred and belongs to the non-occurring fault set F_negative. If the above process is not satisfied, that is, the number of elements in the Fi_E set is less than or equal to the number of elements in the Element set, execute reasoning process 2.
[0126] For example, the length of the fault logic element set of F1_E is 7, which is greater than the length of the fault logic element of Element, 5; therefore, the fault F1 is not a fault; F_negative = [F1].
[0127] 2) Process 2
[0128] Compare the fault logic element set corresponding to the remaining faults with the triggered fault logic element set, and conduct the following analysis:
[0129] The difference set Fi_E-Element=setdiff(Fi_E, Element) is represented as: the faulty logical element that exists in Fi_E but does not exist in Element;
[0130] The difference set Element-Fi_E=setdiff(Element, Fi_E) is represented by: the faulty logical elements that exist in Element but not in Fi_E.
[0131] If the difference set Fi_E-Element and the difference set Element-Fi_E are both empty sets, that is, the fault logic element set corresponding to the fault is exactly the same as the triggered fault logic element, then the state of the fault logic element in the fault logic element set of the fault meets condition 2 in step 1; therefore, it is uncertain whether the fault has occurred; it belongs to the suspected fault set F_incertitude and needs further confirmation. If the above process is not satisfied, go to reasoning process 3.
[0132] For example, the lengths of the fault logic elements contained in F2_E, F3_E, F4_E, F5_E, and F6_E are all smaller than the length of the Element fault logic element, where:
[0133] difference set
[0134] Difference set Element-F2_E=setdiff(Element, F2_E)=[E5, E6]
[0135] difference set
[0136] Difference set Element-F3_E=setdiff(Element, F3_E)=[E2, E5, E6]
[0137] difference set
[0138] Difference set Element-F4_E=setdiff(Element, F4_E)=[E2, E3, E5, E6]
[0139] Difference set F5_E-Element=setdiff(F5_E, Element)=[E10]
[0140] Difference set Element-F5_E=setdiff(Element, F5_E)=[E2, E3, E4]
[0141] difference set
[0142] Difference set Element-F6_E=setdiff(Element, F6_E)=[E2, E3, E4, E5]
[0143] There is only one empty set between the two differences of F2_E, F3_E, F4_E, and F6_E and Element, and both the differences of the fault logic element set of F5_E and Element are non-empty sets; therefore, no suspected fault is found here, that is,
[0144] 3) Process 3
[0145] Compare the fault logic element set corresponding to the remaining faults with the triggered fault logic element set, and conduct the following analysis:
[0146] The difference set Fi_E-Element=setdiff(Fi_E, Element) is represented as: the faulty logical element that exists in Fi_E but does not exist in Element;
[0147] The difference set Element-Fi_E=setdiff(Element, Fi_E) is represented by: the faulty logical elements that exist in Element but not in Fi_E.
[0148] If only one of the difference set Fi_E-Element and the difference set Element-Fi_E is an empty set, that is, the number of elements in the Fi_E set is less than the number of elements in the Element set, and Fi_E∈Element; then the fault logic element state in the fault logic element set of the fault satisfies condition 2, so the fault may not occur and is a suspected fault; the fault belongs to the suspected fault set F_incertitude. If the above process is not satisfied, turn to reasoning process 4.
[0149] According to the calculation of process 2, there is only one empty set between the two difference sets of F2_E, F3_E, F4_E, F6_E and Element. Here, the fault modes F2, F3, F4, and F6 are suspected faults and are merged with the fault set obtained in process 3, that is, F_incertitude = [F2, F3, F4, F6].
[0150] 4) Process 4
[0151] Compare the fault logic element set corresponding to the remaining faults with the triggered fault logic element set, and conduct the following analysis:
[0152] The difference set Fi_E-Element=setdiff(Fi_E, Element) is represented as: the faulty logical element that exists in Fi_E but does not exist in Element;
[0153] The difference set Element-Fi_E=setdiff(Element, Fi_E) is represented by: the faulty logical elements that exist in Element but not in Fi_E.
[0154] If the difference set Fi_E-Element and the difference set Element-Fi_E are both non-empty sets, that is, the Element set and the Fi_E set have an intersection, but they do not completely contain each other, that is, there are logical elements in Fi_E that do not belong to the triggering fault set, condition 4 is met, so the fault does not occur, and it is a non-fault; the fault belongs to the non-fault set F_negative.
[0155] For example, the two difference sets of the fault logic element set F5_E and Element of fault F5 in process 2 are both non-empty sets, so fault F5 did not occur. It is merged with the non-occurring fault set obtained in process 1 and step 2, F_negative = [F1, F5, F7, F8, F9, F10].
[0156] Next, further judge the suspected fault and turn to reasoning process 5.
[0157] 5) Process 5
[0158] Process 3 obtains a set of possible faults, namely, a suspected fault set F_incertitude = [F2, F3, F4, F6]. The set of fault logic elements corresponding to each fault is as follows:
[0159] F2_E=[E2, E3, E4]
[0160] F3_E=[E3, E4]
[0161] F4_E=[E4]
[0162] F6_E=[E6]
[0163] The fault logic elements corresponding to the above four faults are all triggered, and the fault logic elements are compared with each other. Among them, F3_E∈F2_E, F4_E∈F2_E, that is, F2_E and F6_E are unique. The trigger state of E3 is only caused by the occurrence of F3, and the trigger state of E6 is only caused by the occurrence of F6. Therefore, fault modes F2 and F6 are determined to occur, and they are deleted from the suspected fault set. At the same time, they are merged with the deterministic fault set obtained in process 2; that is, F_incertitude=[F3, F4], F_affirm=[F2, F6].
[0164] When the states of fault logic elements E2, E3, E4, E5, and E6 are triggered, and the states of fault logic elements E1, E7, E8, E9, and E10 are not triggered, after reasoning through the above five processes, the judgment results of all fault modes of the monitored object are as follows:
[0165] Confirm the fault: F_affirm = [F2, F6]
[0166] Determine the fault that has not occurred: F_negative = [F1, F5, F7, F8, F9, F10]
[0167] The suspected fault is: F_incertitude = [F3, F4]
[0168] It is not difficult to find that the present invention decomposes the fault judgment logic and constructs an association model between the fault mode and the fault logic element to perform reasoning. This method can reduce the amount of calculation and improve the efficiency of implementing the fault diagnosis function.
[0169] A second embodiment of the present invention relates to a fault diagnosis and reasoning device based on fault logic modeling, comprising:
[0170] A construction module is used to decompose the fault logic criteria corresponding to all fault modes of the monitored object to form independent fault logic elements, and construct a fault mode-fault logic element association matrix of the monitored object based on the relationship between the fault logic elements and the fault modes;
[0171] An acquisition judgment module is used to obtain the state of the fault logic element of the monitored object and judge whether the states of all the fault logic elements of the monitored object are not triggered;
[0172] A first determination module is used to determine all fault modes associated with a set of fault logic elements whose states are triggered according to the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix when the states of all fault logic elements of the monitored object are not all untriggered;
[0173] A second determination module is used to determine, according to the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix, a set of fault logic elements associated with each fault mode in all fault modes associated with a set of fault logic elements whose state is triggered;
[0174] The comparison and analysis module is used to compare and analyze the set of fault logic elements associated with each fault mode with the set of fault logic elements in the triggered state, and confirm the occurrence state of the fault in combination with the trigger state of the fault logic element.
[0175] The fault diagnosis reasoning device based on fault logic modeling also includes:
[0176] The optimization module is used to retain only one column for multiple identical columns corresponding to different fault logic elements in the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix, and retain only one row for multiple identical rows corresponding to different fault modes.
[0177] The comparative analysis module includes:
[0178] A comparing unit, used for comparing the number of faulty logic elements in the faulty logic element set associated with each fault mode with the number of faulty elements in the faulty logic element set whose state is triggered;
[0179] A first adding unit, configured to add a certain fault mode to a set of non-occurring faults when the number of fault logic elements in a set of fault logic elements associated with a certain fault mode is greater than the number of fault elements in a set of fault logic elements in a triggered state;
[0180] a first comparison unit, configured to compare the fault logic element sets associated with the remaining fault modes with the fault logic element sets whose states are triggered, respectively, to obtain a first difference set and a second difference set of the remaining fault modes, wherein the first difference set refers to a fault logic element set that exists in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode but does not exist in the fault logic element set whose states are triggered, and the second difference set refers to a fault logic element set that exists in the fault logic element set whose states are triggered but does not exist in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode;
[0181] A second adding unit is used to add a certain remaining fault mode to the set of suspected faults when the first difference set and the second difference set of the remaining fault mode are both empty sets;
[0182] A third adding unit is configured to add a certain fault mode to the suspected fault set when only one of the first difference set and the second difference set of a certain remaining fault mode is an empty set and the number of fault logic elements in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode is less than the number of fault elements in the fault logic element set whose state is triggered;
[0183] The fourth adding unit is used to add a certain remaining fault mode to the set of faults that have not occurred when both the first difference set and the second difference set of the remaining fault mode are non-empty sets.
[0184] The comparative analysis module also includes:
[0185] A second comparison unit is used to compare the fault logic elements corresponding to each fault mode in the suspected fault set to find a unique fault mode;
[0186] The fifth adding unit is used to delete the unique fault mode from the suspected fault set and add it to the determined fault set.
[0187] The fault diagnosis reasoning device based on fault logic modeling also includes:
[0188] The third determination module is used to determine that the monitored object has no fault when the states of all fault logic elements of the monitored object are not triggered.
[0189] The third embodiment of the present invention relates to an electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor implements the steps of the fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling of the first embodiment when executing the computer program.
[0190] A fourth embodiment of the present invention relates to a computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling of the first embodiment are implemented.
[0191] Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the embodiments of the present application may be provided as methods, systems, or computer program products. Therefore, the present application may adopt the form of a complete hardware embodiment, a complete software embodiment, or an embodiment in combination with software and hardware. Moreover, the present application may adopt the form of a computer program product implemented on one or more computer-usable storage media (including but not limited to disk storage and optical storage, etc.) that contain computer-usable program code.
[0192] The present application is described with reference to the flowcharts and / or block diagrams of the methods, devices (systems), and computer program products according to the embodiments of the present application. It should be understood that each process and / or box in the flowchart and / or block diagram, as well as the combination of the processes and / or boxes in the flowchart and / or block diagram, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions can be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, a special-purpose computer, an embedded processor, or other programmable data processing device to generate a machine, so that the instructions executed by the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing device generate instructions for implementing the processes in the flowchart and / or block diagram. Figure 1 A process or multiple processes and / or boxes Figure 1 A device that provides the functions specified in a block or multiple blocks.
[0193] These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing device to work in a specific manner, so that the instructions stored in the computer-readable memory produce a manufactured product including an instruction method, which is implemented in the process Figure 1 A process or multiple processes and / or boxes Figure 1 A function specified in one or more boxes.
[0194] These computer program instructions can also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing device so that a series of operating steps are executed on the computer or other programmable device to produce a computer-implemented process, thereby providing instructions for implementing the process. Figure 1 A process or multiple processes and / or boxes Figure 1 The steps for the functions specified in one or more boxes.
[0195] The above is only a specific embodiment of the present invention, but the protection scope of the present invention is not limited thereto. Any person skilled in the art can easily think of changes or substitutions within the technical scope disclosed by the present invention, which should be included in the protection scope of the present invention. Therefore, the protection scope of the present invention should be based on the protection scope of the claims.
Claims
1. A fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Decomposing the fault logic criteria corresponding to all fault modes of the monitored object to form independent fault logic elements, and constructing a fault mode-fault logic element association matrix of the monitored object based on the relationship between the fault logic elements and the fault modes; Obtain the status of the fault logic element of the monitored object, and determine whether the status of all fault logic elements of the monitored object are not triggered; If the states of all fault logic elements of the monitored object are not all untriggered, then all fault modes associated with the set of fault logic elements whose states are triggered are determined according to the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix; According to the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix, determining a fault logic element set associated with each fault mode in all fault modes associated with a fault logic element set whose state is triggered; The set of fault logic elements associated with each fault mode is compared and analyzed with the set of fault logic elements in a triggered state, and the occurrence state of the fault is confirmed in combination with the trigger state of the fault logic element.
2. The fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The step of obtaining the state of the fault logic element of the monitored object and determining whether the state of all the fault logic elements is before being triggered further includes: In the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix, only one column is retained for multiple identical columns corresponding to different fault logic elements, and only one row is retained for multiple identical rows corresponding to different fault modes.
3. The fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The comparing and analyzing the set of fault logic elements associated with each fault mode with the set of fault logic elements in the triggered state, and confirming the state of the fault in combination with the trigger state of the fault logic element, specifically includes: Compare the number of faulty logic elements in the faulty logic element set associated with each fault mode with the number of faulty elements in the faulty logic element set whose state is triggered; If the number of fault logic elements in the fault logic element set associated with a certain fault mode is greater than the number of fault elements in the fault logic element set whose state is triggered, then the fault mode is added to the non-occurring fault set; Compare the fault logic element sets associated with the remaining fault modes with the fault logic element sets whose states are triggered, respectively, to obtain a first difference set and a second difference set of the remaining fault modes, wherein the first difference set refers to a fault logic element set that exists in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode but does not exist in the fault logic element set whose states are triggered, and the second difference set refers to a fault logic element set that exists in the fault logic element set whose states are triggered but does not exist in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode; If the first difference set and the second difference set of a remaining fault mode are both empty sets, then the fault mode is added to the suspected fault set; If only one of the first difference set and the second difference set of a certain remaining fault mode is an empty set, and the number of fault logic elements in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode is less than the number of fault elements in the fault logic element set whose state is triggered, then the fault mode is added to the suspected fault set; If the first difference set and the second difference set of a remaining fault mode are both non-empty sets, the fault mode is added to the set of faults that have not occurred.
4. The fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling according to claim 3 is characterized in that: Also includes: The fault logic elements corresponding to each fault mode in the suspected fault set are compared to find a unique fault mode, and the unique fault mode is deleted from the suspected fault set and added to the determined fault set.
5. The fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling according to claim 1 is characterized in that: If the status of all fault logic elements of the monitored object is not triggered, it means that the monitored object has no fault.
6. A fault diagnosis reasoning device based on fault logic modeling, characterized in that: include: A construction module is used to decompose the fault logic criteria corresponding to all fault modes of the monitored object to form independent fault logic elements, and construct a fault mode-fault logic element association matrix of the monitored object based on the relationship between the fault logic elements and the fault modes; An acquisition judgment module is used to obtain the state of the fault logic element of the monitored object and judge whether the states of all the fault logic elements of the monitored object are not triggered; A first determination module is used to determine all fault modes associated with a set of fault logic elements whose states are triggered according to the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix when the states of all fault logic elements of the monitored object are not all untriggered; A second determination module is used to determine, according to the fault mode-fault logic element association matrix, a set of fault logic elements associated with each fault mode in all fault modes associated with a set of fault logic elements whose state is triggered; The comparison and analysis module is used to compare and analyze the set of fault logic elements associated with each fault mode with the set of fault logic elements in the triggered state, and confirm the occurrence state of the fault in combination with the trigger state of the fault logic element.
7. The fault diagnosis and reasoning device based on fault logic modeling according to claim 6 is characterized in that: The comparative analysis module includes: A comparing unit, used for comparing the number of faulty logic elements in the faulty logic element set associated with each fault mode with the number of faulty elements in the faulty logic element set whose state is triggered; A first adding unit, configured to add a certain fault mode to a set of non-occurring faults when the number of fault logic elements in a set of fault logic elements associated with a certain fault mode is greater than the number of fault elements in a set of fault logic elements in a triggered state; a first comparison unit, configured to compare the fault logic element sets associated with the remaining fault modes with the fault logic element sets whose states are triggered, respectively, to obtain a first difference set and a second difference set of the remaining fault modes, wherein the first difference set refers to a fault logic element set that exists in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode but does not exist in the fault logic element set whose states are triggered, and the second difference set refers to a fault logic element set that exists in the fault logic element set whose states are triggered but does not exist in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode; A second adding unit is used to add a certain remaining fault mode to the set of suspected faults when the first difference set and the second difference set of the remaining fault mode are both empty sets; A third adding unit is configured to add a certain fault mode to the suspected fault set when only one of the first difference set and the second difference set of a certain remaining fault mode is an empty set and the number of fault logic elements in the fault logic element set associated with the fault mode is less than the number of fault elements in the fault logic element set whose state is triggered; The fourth adding unit is used to add a certain remaining fault mode to the set of faults that have not occurred when both the first difference set and the second difference set of the remaining fault mode are non-empty sets.
8. The fault diagnosis and reasoning device based on fault logic modeling according to claim 7 is characterized in that: The comparative analysis module also includes: A second comparison unit is used to compare the fault logic elements corresponding to each fault mode in the suspected fault set to find a unique fault mode; The fifth adding unit is used to delete the unique fault mode from the suspected fault set and add it to the determined fault set.
9. An electronic device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein: When the processor executes the computer program, the steps of the fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling as described in any one of claims 1-5 are implemented.
10. A computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, characterized in that: When the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the fault diagnosis reasoning method based on fault logic modeling as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 5 are implemented.