Integrating Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) and Fault Management (FM)
As NASA and the space community, in general, strive to push the boundaries of space travel with planned deep-space missions, increased system autonomy and resiliency have inevitably become key technology needs. Designing these complex systems requires a multi-disciplinary approach that connects fault management (FM) with model-based systems engineering (MBSE) to ensure that resilient, fault-tolerant systems are architected and modeled during the design phase. NASA has been using TEAMS® as their fault management tool of choice for several decades. NASA also uses Systems Modeling Language (SysML) for systems engineering, including the design, specification, verification, and validation of systems.
SysML v2 is the upcoming revision of the SysML, and QSI is working with SysML v2 Submission Team (SST), a diverse group of end users, vendors, academics, and government liaisons involved in the development of SysML v2 specifications, to extend the SysML v2 for Fault Management and Diagnostics. In a SBIR project funded by NASA, QSI demonstrated translation capabilities from a SysML v2 model to a TEAMS® model, which will enable Systems Engineers to analyze the fault management aspects of a system design captured in SysML v2 using QSI’s Model based reasoning COTS product, TEAMS®-Designer. Using TEAMS®-Designer, analysts may perform Fault Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and Fault Tree Analysis to analyze, quantify and improve the diagnostics and availability of the system. The improvements resulting from such analysis can be brought back into SysML in industry standard formats such as the Risk Analysis and Assessment Modeling Language (RAAML), facilitating broader stakeholder visibility.
Recently, the DoD SysML v2 Transition Project hosted a 1-day SysML v2 Transition Information Session at the INCOSE 2024 IW in Torrance, California. The project, led by the DoD Digital Engineering, Modeling, and Simulation Office, provides guidance to assist organizations in their transition to SysML v2. QSI’s multidisciplinary approach to integrate Fault Management analysis with Systems Engineering was presented in INCOSE 24.
For further information, please contact QSI.
Budget Cuts and the case for QSI’s TEAMS Solution.
Lean times warrant more cost effective solutions. Over the past few years government and private agencies groping with the looming budget cuts have begun charting plans to align spending with the reduced funding. These cost-cutting measures are impacting government and private businesses in the form of scale-backs on the number of new contracts, program stretch-outs, and cuts in funding levels available for procurement of new equipment.
The fact that funding vehicles being restructured and re-purposed towards maximizing the utilization of current capabilities has led the industry to put increased focus on extending the life of their current equipment. Several defense journals and newsweeklies cite the increased impetus on maintenance and sustainment of existing fleet. Aviation Week article (dt. Sept 25, 2012) cites the U.S. Air Force as “… pushing to more than double the life of its stalwart F-15 Eagles…” and “…delay fleet retirements…” while Defense News (dt. Aug 31, 2012) mentions the same military arm is planning F-16’s modifications to “…extend the life and upgrade more than 300 jets in the coming years…”. Stripes (dt. Apr 26, 2012) talks about Congressional momentum to “…extend the service life of the Navy’s nuclear ballistic missile submarines…”. Defense News (dt. May 31, 2011) also says this about US Navy and service lives of ships “…Revised U.S. Fleet Plan Extends Some Ships…”.
Defense News (dt. May 31, 2011) – “Revised U.S. Fleet Plan Extends Some Ships to 70 Years”
Aviation Week (dt. Sept 25, 2012) – “USAF Seeks Afterlife For F-15s”
Defense News (dt. Aug 31, 2012) – “Boeing Looks To Get into F-16 Sustainment Business Market”
This has intensified the spotlight on MRO operations. Over the recent years the MRO markets have scaled up and the MRO landscape continues to expand ever so rapidly.
The development of IT in the MRO sector has evolved into a vital part of fleet operations. Many operators have begun updating/upgrading their IT infrastructure software, into a more capable and powerful tool for managing maintenance costs. Current proposed solutions include “…software upgrade that is focused on the health management…” (Aviation Week, dt. Nov 5, 2012) and “…integrating (more storage-capable) software into existing hardware on newer airplanes…” (Defense News, dt. Dec 31, 2012).
Aviation Week (dt. Nov 5, 2012) – “Airlines Seeking Software Solutions For Avionics Upgrades”
Defense News (dt. Dec 31, 2012) – “Taiwan Plans to Upgrade About 60 Fighter Jets in 2013”
QSI has long been a provider of niche software solution which is a perfect fit for MRO IT infrastructure. QSI’s software interfaces are designed to work with existing legacy architecture, and at the same time can be integrated within enterprise systems. For the past two decades the TEAMS Tool-set has been an integral part of industry forecasting, maintenance-planning and scheduling processes thereby improving fleet reliability. QSI provides a suite of reliability-centered maintenance management products designed to eliminate mechanic research time, minimize excess inventory on hand, and increase service levels.
Learn more about QSI’s Integrated Diagnostics philisophy and the legacy of 20 years of providing cutting-edge fleet health management solutions:
http://www.teamqsi.com/solutions/
We believe that a partnership with QSI will go a long way in reducing supplier-side working capital costs and creating customizable service packages driven by innovative solutions. Let us be a principal factor driving your business strategies in this rapidly evolving world.
Do you do Prognosis?
I am often asked by a prospective customer this simple question – do you do Prognosis?
If the customer is in DoD/Aerospace world, or has an established R&D and Health Management program, the short answer is yes!
However, customers asking this question often are field service organizations that maintain expensive assets and are looking for an alternative to the traditional break-fix service model. The term Prognosis has become quite popular over the years, thanks to millions of dollars invested by the US Department of Defense in programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter. The promise of Prognostics is simple — wouldn’t it be nice if you could predict how much life each component has left, so that you could replace them just before they failed? But is Prognosis the right tool for you?
First, how good is your Diagnosis? If you are struggling with faults that have already happened, chances are you won’t do any better with faults that have not happened yet! Think of Prognosis as something that involves Diagnosing impending failures and predicting when they will develop into full blown faults. So, Diagnosis is the foundation for Prognosis, and the need for predictive capability makes Prognosis a powerful but expensive technique that should be used wisely only where it is necessary.
This brings us the second question: do you really need Prognosis? For example, your car has two headlights. While it is no fun driving in the rain with one headlight (have you noticed how headlights always seem to fail on rainy days?), having two headlights means that you can still get back home when one has failed. So, redundancy and fault-management are effective ways of reducing unscheduled downtime. For your critical components, evaluate what is the most cost-effective method to avoid disruption in service, and choose wisely.
And now, the all important third question: why do you want Prognosis?
Some people will answer I want to use less maintenance. For example, you may be used to changing the oil in your car every 3 months (schedule-based maintenance) or 3000 miles (usage-based maintenance), but by monitoring the condition of the oil and the filter, you could change the oil only when needed (condition-based maintenance or CBM). This is a valid application of condition monitoring, although strictly speaking, this is not Prognosis. Also, keep in mind that you may not be able to extend maintenance interval for safety critical components without exposing yourself to more liability.
However, most of our customers answer they need prognosis to reduce unscheduled downtime by doing preemptive repairs. Here too, Prognosis is not the only answer.
Let’s take an example — supposing you want to avoid being stranded on the highway due to tire failures. You could add sophisticated techniques that monitor the tread of the tires and how it is wearing out, how the underlying structure of the tire is holding up, the stress on the tire, etc, and predict when failure is imminent. You could develop such Prognosis at significant R&D expense, or, you could simply replace the tires when they look worn (CBM) (e.g., cracks on sidewall and/or tread-depth of 1/32nd inch or less). The second method may cause you to use at most one extra set of tires over the life of the car since you will throwaway tires with still some useful life left on it, but newer tires also improves your safety and performances, which has its own reward. Best of all, you can use the second technique on your current installed base without having to develop new technology.
Let’s also not forget, Prognosis or CBM does not completely prevent unscheduled downtime. You could still hit a pothole and get a flat tire – no matter how new your tire is!
To sum up, there is more than one way to reduce unscheduled downtime: Prognosis, Condition Based Maintenance, redundancy and fault tolerance and fault management. QSI can help you implement all of the techniques discussed here in a balanced health management solution. Health Management is not just Diagnosis or Prognosis, but an effectively engineered delivery of uptime at a reasonable cost.
Let us help you find the right balance of techniques to achieve your objectives.
© 2025 Qualtech Systems, Inc
