This invention relates to methods and apparatus for determining probability distribution functions and/or cumulative probability distributions.
Physics-based probabilistic reliability/risk analysis can be used to predict the probabilities of component failure and to schedule maintenance of complex systems. A physics-based analysis uses a physics model to simulate the behavior of systems and components of such systems. Physics models can be computationally complex, requiring a large number of input variables to conduct an accurate analysis of a system (
In one example, if X represents an input random vector to the physics model, and Y represents its output random variable, then the cumulative probability distribution of Y or its probability density function, which is the derivative of the cumulative probability distribution function, must be computed accurately in order to be able to make predictions about component failure, or to compute a maintenance schedule date. One approach to computing the output distribution is the Monte Carlo (MC) method. This method requires the generation of random values for the input variables X For each random value of X, the function implemented in the physics model is evaluated to produce a value for Y. The set of values for Y can then be grouped to give an approximation to the probability density function (pdf) or the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of Y. In practical applications, Y usually represents damage or time and is assumed to be non-negative.
The Monte Carlo method is used extensively and works with any number of input variables. However, it can be computationally expensive, and it is very difficult to get accurate results in the tails of the distribution due to the fact that the random samples occur in the tails infrequently due to the low probability of getting a value there. Additionally, if there are modifications or updates to the input probability distribution, then the entire sampling process must be done again. Therefore, it is desirable to have an alternative method for approximating the probability distribution of the output random variable Y.
In one aspect, the invention provides a method including: receiving a plurality of values of an input variable representative of a physical characteristic of a component or system, using a physics model to produce an estimate of an output for each of the input values, mapping the output estimates to the input values to produce an output probability density or cumulative distribution function for the physical characteristic at a future time, and outputting the probability density or cumulative distribution function.
In another aspect, the invention provides an apparatus including a processor having an input for receiving an input probability distribution of a variable for a stochastic process, wherein the processor uses a mapping function, which relates outputs to inputs, to produce an exact representation of an output distribution for the stochastic process.
In one aspect, this invention provides an exact representation of the output distribution for a stochastic process in terms of an input probability distribution and a mapping function (which can be defined by a physics model) relating the output to the input. For the purposes of this description, a mapping function is described by an equation or procedure that relates the output of a physics model with its inputs. An example physics model is a software application that calculates the crack (defect) length as a function of time given inputs of an initial crack size, material parameters, and loads.
In
The input data can be represented as values of a random variable X. As an example, let X1, X2, . . . , XR represent a set of one or more random variables whose values are input to a function (i.e., the physics model), and let Y represent its output random variable, then Y(t)=m(X1, . . . , XR,t). The output in
For a fixed time t, Y(t) is a random variable defined by its cumulative probability distribution (cdf) or its probability density (derivative of the cdf).
For simplicity, assume there is a single random input (R=1). The method begins with input data including values xi of a random variable X, which can represent a defect, such as an initial crack size. The input variables can represent the initial conditions or state of the material, which is needed by the physics model to be able to compute the output Y(t) over time. The output can describe the growth of the length of a crack in a material under load. The input variables are usually determined by experiments.
Then the physics model function is used to produce an approximation or estimate of Y(t) by computing the defect values y(tjk, xk). For each random input xk the physics model computes points on each defect curve y(t, xk). This is illustrated in
Next, the data (tjk, y(tjk,xk) is curve fitted, for example, with linear or cubic splines to generate curves y(t,xk), as shown in
Each spline is then intersected at a value t=t1 by intersecting each curve with a vertical line, to generate values yk, where yk=y(t1,xk) (this is called a vertical slice). This is illustrated in
To compute the cdf FY(y) at the vertical slice, t=t1, FY(yk)=FX(xk)=pk is computed.
In
In a more detailed example, the cumulative distribution of Y(t), where Y(t) represents a generic output variable (not necessarily defect size) is defined by
where f(x1, . . . , xR) is the joint distribution of the input random variables.
If the inputs are independent, then f(x1, . . . , xR)=fX
For a one-dimensional input case, assume that there is only one input random variable (R=1) for the function Y(t)=m(X,t). From equation (1), if m(x,t) is an increasing function of x, then
If t=h(x,y) is a decreasing function of x, and T=h(X,y) then
F
T(y)(t)=P(T(y)≦t)=P(h(X,y)≦t)=P(X≧h−1(t,y))=1−FX(h−1(t,y)).
The latter result corresponds to the horizontal slice case where T(y) represents the time to reach a crack of size y.
There are several possible ways to evaluate the cumulative distribution FY(t)(y). Either use the approach described above, illustrated in
The following method takes the values of the inverse function at a series of points and interpolates them. Then the output cumulative distribution is approximated by the composite function of the input cumulative distribution as a function of the interpolated inverse function (see equation (2)). This discussion describes approximating the inverse function as a function of two variables (e.g., a surface approximation), however, one of the variables could be held fixed (e.g., a horizontal or vertical slice), for example, t could be held fixed, and a one-dimensional curve approximation of the inverse mapping could be calculated.
For the sake of completeness, we briefly describe the alternative method for obtaining the mapping function in terms of a surface approximation. In general, with this approach it can be more difficult to achieve a smooth approximation, and the previously described method using the horizontal and vertical slices of the crack growth curve would be preferable.
Usually there is no simple closed form expression for the inverse of the physics function m(x,t) even if m(x,t) is increasing in x for t fixed. Therefore, the inversion function must be approximated. Let yij=m(xij, ti), j=1, . . . , Ni, i=1, . . . , M, where Ni and M are sufficiently large, then the function g(y,t) that fits the data xij=m−1(yij,ti), j=1, . . . , Ni, i=1, . . . , M (interpolation or least squares) will be a good approximation to m−1(y,t).
Therefore,
F
Y(t)(y)=FX(m−1(y,t))≈FX(g(y,t)) (2)
and the number of function evaluations needed to produce this approximation is much less than those needed for the Monte Carlo method. Note that the valid domain of y values for this approximation is equal to the domain of y values for which g(y,t) is defined.
Let the characteristic function of a set A be defined by
Then equation (1) can be written as
For the 1-dimensional case:
Equation (3) can be used to illustrate the limitations of the Monte Carlo (MC) method. A Monte Carlo simulation was executed with 1000 and with 5000 randomly sampled points for each value of y, t. At 1000 iterations the maximum difference between the exact cdf and the MC approximation was 0.045568, and occurred when (y, t)=(1.6, 3.2), and at 5000 iterations the maximum difference between the exact cdf and the MC approximation was 0.022007 and occurred when (y, t)=(0.95, 2.8). A million MC iterations (samples) over 5880 points gives an accuracy of 0.0005 and with a linear growth in central processing unit (cpu) time it takes 189,000 cpu seconds.
The method of this invention uses significantly fewer calculations than the Monte Carlo method, because it has an exact representation for the output probability distribution, which is used to compute values of the distribution. Furthermore, it does not require random samples of the input probability distribution (as Monte Carlo does) to produce the output probability distribution, therefore, the calculation for the probability at values in the tail of the distribution take no longer than at any other location. Finally, if there are changes or updates to the initial distribution(s) the Monte Carlo method must start over again, whereas the mapping function defined by this invention can still be used with the modified initial distribution(s).
The balance of this description shows how this idea can be generalized for multiple random inputs having more complex model functions. We will illustrate the multi-dimensional case by considering a simple example. Suppose we have a simple physics model that depends on two random inputs X1 and X2. Let the physics model of crack growth be defined by the equation Y(t)=e(X
The last term is the double integral of the joint density function for the jointly distributed random variables X1 and X2. The upper limit,
on the outer integral is due to the fact that x2 never exceeds this value, because x1 is non-negative. The joint probability density function would be known for the inputs to the physics model and could be determined by statistical methods.
An alternative method for this simple example is to use the formula that specifies the joint density function of two random variables that are functions of two other random variables. In this example, the equations that define two variables y and y2 in terms of the input variables x1 and x2 are
y=e
(X
+x
)
t
y2=x2 (5)
The first equation represents a physics model, and the second equation introduces an auxiliary variable y2 which is just equal to x2. The joint density for the variables y and y2 can be expressed in terms of the joint density for x1 and x2:
The denominator in equation (6) is the Jacobian of the transformation from the x1 and x2 to y and y2. The variables x1 and x2 are functions of y and y2 found by solving the system of equations (5) for x1 and x2 in terms of y and y2, which is shown in the last term. To determine the cdf FY(t)(y), we must integrate equation (6) over y2 to get the marginal probability density in y, then we must integrate the density to get the cdf since the density is the derivative of the cdf. Thus, we have
The limit on the inner integral is not infinity, because y2 never exceeds lny/t. If we now interchange the order of integration, we obtain
Finally, we make a change of variables where we define
and we obtain
If we replace the dummy variable y′2 with x2, we have the same expression as before (equation (4)). Either approach generalizes, and we will use the simpler, first approach for the general case of two or more random inputs to our physics model.
For a multi-dimensional input case, the physics model can be represented by the equation y=m(x1, . . . , xR,t); therefore, the cdf of the output for random inputs is given by
F
Y(t)(y)=P(Y(t)≦y)=P(m(X1,X2, . . . , XR)≦y)=∫,(x
To simplify the discussion, consider the case of two input random variables (R=2). Then
When integrating with respect to x1 for the inner integral, we have x2 fixed and t is fixed. Since y=m(x1,x2,t) is an increasing (or decreasing) function with respect to x1, we have the limits on the inner integral range from 0 to the value of the inverse point x1=m−1(y,x2,t) which we denote as x1(y,x2,t). The graph for this result is essentially the same as
The function x1=x1(y,x2,t) represents the mapping function for this case of two random inputs. The infinite integral can be approximated by a finite integral since a value A(y,t) can be computed where the integrand is sufficiently small for values outside the interval (−A(y,t),A(y,t)).
If y or t is small, then integration must be performed over a sufficiently large interval, therefore, the limit may need to depend on y and t. Note that a Monte Carlo method can be used on the integral in equation (8) where a uniform sampling or quasi-random sequences can be used.
If the variables X1, X2 are independent, then equation (8) simplifies to
The computation of the cdf defined by equations (8) or (9) is similar to the description given for the case of one random input and illustrated in
In one aspect, the invention can be used to predict the occurrence of defects such as cracks in components of an aircraft. For example, the input data would be an initial crack size distribution, FX(x) which represents a probability distribution of lengths of cracks determined from samples of measured cracks from a population of aircraft components.
A previously known physical model, such as, Fastran, which predicts crack growth would accept the input data and generate a plurality of estimated crack lengths at a plurality of future times for each of the input parameters. Thus, this physics model will produce a crack growth curve for each initial crack size input x, and this relationship between the output to the input of the model is represented by the equation y(t)=m(x,t) in the simple case of a single random input. With this relationship provided by the physics application we can define the mapping function and the desired probability distribution of the output (such as crack size) of the specific physics model.
Then these estimated crack lengths would be used in the process described above to determine the probability that a crack length would exceed a predetermined threshold at some future time. An operator can use the probability information to determine when the component should be replaced, or to determine the expected remaining life of the component.
While the invention has been described in terms of several embodiments, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that various changes can be made to the described embodiments without departing from the scope of the invention as set forth in the following claims.
This invention was made under Contract No. DARPA HR001-04-C-003. The United States Government has rights in this invention under the contract.