Failure Detection and Diagnosis (FDD) in Robotic Systems

FDD is a data-driven process monitoring and testing method for minimising downtimes, increase the safety of operations, and to reduce manufacturing costs. FDD comprises different approaches that can be distinguished into data-based, model-based, and knowledge-based approaches.
FDD is a process monitoring and testing method for and minimising downtimes, increase the safety of operations, and to reduce manufacturing costs.

In the industrial robotics domain, faults have the potential to affect the efficiency of the underlying process, namely causing failures of internal physical components (e.g. robot, IPC, sensors, actuators), or even compromising the safety of humans interacting with the robot. When detecting a fault, usually a diagnosis process is induced in order to identify which internal components are involved. Applying FDD for industrial robotics is a relatively new approach, thus, there exists a wide range of different types of industrial robots, and on the other hand there exist different FDD approaches such as data-driven, model-based, and knowledge-based approaches. FDD approaches can be distinguished into data-driven, model-based, and knowledge-based approaches as highlighted in the classification of existing FDD approaches [cf. figure]. 

FDD classification.JPG

Detecting faults emerging from external sensors of highly dynamic HRI work environments is mandatory as faults may lead to incorrect decisions within the robotic control unit and eventually to unexpected behaviours of the collaborative robot. Analytical or stochastic a priori models are particularly used in respect to internal sensors of a robotic system when the system operates in a well-known work environment. For robotic systems operating in unknown environments, predicting the values of external sensors is hardly possible. For these situations data-driven approaches are the better choice by applying sensor fusion techniques for external sensor fault detection. This means that multiple sensors sense different aspects of the environment (e.g. orientation and location), while their readings can be fused to form a consensus. Sensor-fusion-based fault detection approaches for robotic systems include different algorithms such as: Kalman filters, Dempster-Shafer, correlation and distribution-based, and Bayesian networks.

The figure below illustrates a robotic system which is composed out of hardware and software modules. Hardware components such as internal sensors, power, controller, and actuators might be subject to different hardware faults, which are typically diagnosed by model-based or knowledge-based diagnosis approaches. However, for the internal and external (exteroceptive) sensors (bottom left), data-driven approaches are more appropriate for FDD; in particular, sensor fusion for sensor fault detection, and data analytics techniques such as machine learning and particle filtering for utilizing sensor-readings for diagnosis.

FDD for robotic systems.JPG

Combination of FDD with advanced AI techniques such as machine learning techniques to provide useful and sophisticated diagnosis model.

  • Deficit for using FDD approaches (particularly data-driven approaches) that are dedicated to detect and diagnose HRI-related faults. HRI is subject to uncertainty due to the fact that unexpected outcomes might lead to unknown faults and failed interactions.
  • Interaction-related faults between humans and robots, humans may have the tendency to compensate for a faulty behaviour of a robot during interaction.
  • A robotic systems may provide a lot of data per se, thus, pure, data-driven approaches do not tend to exploit existing and available knowledge about the robotic system. As such, mining streamed data in an online manner for fault detection may be impractical for some reasons, and faults might not be detected immediately. Thus, when using fault injection (simulated or real), one cannot confidently account for all possible faults.
  • It is further a limitation when injecting a fault directly into a data stream since this strategy might not sufficiently represent the full impact of the fault on the whole system. Moreover, injecting a real fault may damage the robotic system, thus it has to be ensured that FDD experiments and tests are continuously supervised.
  • [FDD1] Eliahu Khalastchi and Meir Kalech. 2018. On Fault Detection and Diagnosis in Robotic Systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 1, Article 9 (January 2018), 24 pages.
  • [FDD2] Juez Uriagereka, Garazi & Amparan, Estibaliz & Martinez, Cristina & Martinez, Jabier & Ibanez, Aurelien & Morelli, Matteo & Radermacher, Ansgar & Espinoza, Huáscar. (2019). Design-Time Safety Assessment of Robotic Systems Using Fault Injection Simulation in a Model-Driven Approach. 577-586. 10.1109/MODELS-C.2019.00088.
Method Dimensions
In-the-lab environment
Experimental - Monitoring, Experimental - Simulation, Analytical - Semi-Formal
Hardware, Model, Software
Thinking, Acting, Sensing
Non-Functional - Safety, Non-Functional - Other, Non-Functional - Security
V&V process criteria, SCP criteria
Relations
Contents

There are currently no items in this folder.