291 views

Uploaded by Eric Bechhoefer

Usage monitoring for Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS) equipped aircraft entails determining the actual
usage of a component over time. This allows the actually usage/damage from a flight to be assigning to that
component instead of the more conservative, worst case usage. By measuring the actually usage on the aircraft, the
life of components can be extended, resulting in reduced maintenance cost. Alternatively, for aggressively flown
aircraft, safety is maintained in that a component usage may be “consumed” to a greater extent than expected by the
original flight spectrum data.
Usage Monitoring requires an accurate representation of regime (e.g. Regime Recognition (RR)), where regime is the
flight profile of the aircraft at each instant of flight time. For each regime, there is a usage assigned for each component
that is life limited (e.g. accumulated damage over time). For example, the damage accumulated for a component would
be higher if the aircraft is undergoing a high G maneuver vs. straight and level flight.
In the past, RR algorithms have used logical tests or neural networks. Logical tests can be prone to errors due to
inherently noisy parameter used. Neural networks in general are difficult to certify and could require a large amount of
training data. Other methods, such as Markov Models show promise, but could be computationally expensive.
Presented here is a noise tolerant algorithm that does not present the problems associated with: logical test (dealing
with noise), certification of neural networks, or computational complexities.

- Initial Condition Monitoring Experience on a Wind Turbine
- Architecture for a Light Helicopter HUMS
- Algorithms for Embedded PHM
- Gear Health Threshold Setting Based On a Probability of False Alarm
- Time Synchronous Average Based Acoustic Emission Signal Analysis on Gear Fault Detection
- A Quick Introduction to Bearing Envelope Analysis
- Condition Monitoring Architecture To Reduce Total Cost of Ownership
- Rotor Track and Balance Improvements
- A Case for Health Indicators vs. Condition Indicators in Mechanical Diagnostics
- Rotor Track Balance
- Processing for Improved Spectral Analysis
- AN ENHANCED TIME SYNCHRONOUS AVERAGING FOR ROTATING EQUPIMENT ANALYSIS
- Analog Signal Processing to Improve Acoustic Emissions Sensing
- Vector Calc Final Solutions- Caltech
- A Process for Data Driven Prognostics
- Signal Processing Techniques to Improve an Acoustic Emmissons Sensor
- A Generalized Process for Optimal Threshold Setting in HUMS
- A Control Theory Approach to Machinery Health Prognostics
- Improved Rotor Track and Balance Performance Using an Expert System
- Use of Paris’ Law for Prediction of Component Remaining Life

You are on page 1of 7

Eric Bechhoefer

Goodrich Sensors and Integrated Systems

Vergennes, VT 05491

Diagnostics/Prognostics and Regime Recognition are two

Abstract1 functions that have not been fully exploited. Once validated,

RR could extend the service life of life-limited components,

Usage monitoring for Health and Usage Monitoring Systems

reducing maintenance cost and improving operational

(HUMS) equipped aircraft entails determining the actual

readiness. While the RR functionality in the IVHMU is

usage of a component over time. This allows the actually

enabled, the lack of investment in this functionality by the

usage/damage from a flight to be assigning to that

customer has allowed RR to lag other HUMS capabilities.

component instead of the more conservative, worst case

Essentially, the use of RR for the purpose of gaining

usage. By measuring the actually usage on the aircraft, the

maintenance credit is in its infancy.

life of components can be extended, resulting in reduced

maintenance cost. Alternatively, for aggressively flown The goal of this paper is to present an algorithms which is

aircraft, safety is maintained in that a component usage may quantitatively, the best. The “best” is a rather subjective

be “consumed” to a greater extent than expected by the statement, but here in the contest of HUMS, best is:

original flight spectrum data.

• Based on mathematically rigorous methodology

Usage Monitoring requires an accurate representation of which is optimal (in that sense that for a given

regime (e.g. Regime Recognition (RR)), where regime is the probability of false alarm, it maximizes the

flight profile of the aircraft at each instant of flight time. For probability of correct classification)

each regime, there is a usage assigned for each component • Computationally simple to implement and

that is life limited (e.g. accumulated damage over time). For configure

example, the damage accumulated for a component would • Scaleable: easily expanded to encompass new

be higher if the aircraft is undergoing a high G maneuver vs. regimes.

straight and level flight. • For a known regime class, calculated performance

In the past, RR algorithms have used logical tests (Goodrich characteristics: e.g. the Receiver Operating

IVHMU or that presented in Ref [1]) or neural networks Characteristics (ROC). From a certification

(VMEP, Ref [2]). Logical tests can be prone to errors due to perspective, this is essential.

inherently noisy parameter used. Neural networks in general In the method presented, a maximum likelihood estimator

are difficult to certify and could require a large amount of (MLE) methodology is derived. MLEs assume that input

training data. Other methods, such as Markov Models (Ref parameters are noisy, and weights the validity of a parameter

[3]) show promise, but could be computationally expensive. by the information the parameter conveys (the inverse of

Presented here is a noise tolerant algorithm that does not variance is information). The output of the algorithm is the

present the problems associated with: logical test (dealing regime that is most likely, as a function of the a priori

with noise), certification of neural networks, or parameter mean value and variance. This a priori

computational complexities. information constitutes configuration data.

calculates a normalized distance between the measurements

The equations that are described within this document use

and a notional set of regimes. The regime that is closest

BOLD upper case letters (A, etc) to represent a matrix of n

statistically to the measurement is most likely. In this

rows by m columns, and bold lower case letters (x, etc.) to

implementation, the MLE is a multiple dimension

represent a column vector. The basic arithmetic operations

hypothesis test, in which the aircraft parameters are used to

performed on a matrix are performed as per Ref[5].

test the hypothesis that the aircraft is in a given regime.

Introduction

Hypothesis Test Using the Bayes Classifier

While HUMS equipped aircraft are showing improved

Let us define P(Hi|z) as the probability that Hi was the true

operational readiness and a corresponding reduction in

regime given a measured observation, z. The correct

maintenance cost (Ref [4]), many of the HUMS

hypothesis is the one corresponding to the largest probability

of the m possible regimes. The decision rule will be to

1

Presented at the American Helicopter Society Specialist’s choose Ho if:

Meeting on Condition Based Maintenance, 2008. Copyright P(Ho|z) > P(H1|z), P(H2|z),… P(Hm|z).

@ 2008 by the American Helicopter Society International,

Inc. All rights reserved.

else choose the greatest P(Hi|z). The null hypothesis P(Ho|z) condition is a type II error. It will be shown that the Bayes

will represent the aircraft turning on the deck, or some other Classifier, for a given probability of error, maximizes the

default case. probability of correct detection.

For illustration, consider the binary case, where the rule

The Bayes Classifier for the Normal Distribution

becomes:

Under many circumstances, the Normal distribution is a

H1 valid model of the distribution of the data. Besides being

P (H1 | z) > attractive from a mathematical sense (e.g. there are well

1 established tools and procedures to address Gaussian data), it

P (H 0 | z) < is the case that many natural phenomena can be described

with a Gaussian probability function. Without loss of

H0 generality, the Gaussian model is assumed for a generalized

This is the maximum a posteriori probability criterion, n dimension decision space. This decision space describes

wherein the chosen hypothesis corresponds to the maximum the parameters associated with the RR algorithms.

of two posterior probabilities. Using Bayes’ rules to write As noted, the default case is the hypothesis H0, defined as

the criterion gives: the mean of the parameter vector space, m0, representing the

p(z | H i )P (H i ) parameters for regime 0. The probability distribution

P (H i | z) = , i = 0,1

p(z) function of the parameter vector, z, given H0 is defined by

the Gaussian distribution (centered on m0)

where P(Hi) is the probability of Hi in the observation space,

such that: H 0 : m0 = E [z 0 ]

P (H1 | z) p(z | H1 )P (H1 ) p(z | H 0 ) =

=

P (H 0 | z) p(z | H 0 )P (H 0 )

This allows the test to become: 1 (2π )

n 2

Σ0

−1 2

[

exp −1 2 (z − m0 ) Σ−1

T

0 (z − m0 ) ]

H1

An alternative hypothesis is;

p(z | H1 ) > P (H 0 )

H1 : m1 = E [z1 ]

p(z | H 0 ) < P (H1 )

p(z | H1 ) =

H0

Let us further define the ratio l(z) = p(z|H1)/p(z|H0) as the

likelihood ratio. If the likelihood ratio is assumed to be well

1 (2π )

n 2

Σ1

−1 2

[ T

]

exp −1 2 (z − m1 ) Σ1−1(z − m1 )

behaved and everywhere continuous and differentiable, then where Σi is the covariance of the regime parameters. The

without loss of generality, the natural logarithm of both sides normalized distance squared between the measured

can be taken. The logarithm is a monotonically increasing parameters z and any m:

function so that the inequality holds. The log-likelihood ratio

d 2 = (z − m) Σ−1(z − m)

become: T

Eq 1.

H1

Substituting the distance function into the log likelihood

> P (H 0 )

ln l(z) ln ratio test give:

< P (H1 )

H1

H0

>

It is desirable to take the log of the likelihood ratio because 1 2 [d02 − d12 ]+ 1 2ln(Σ 0 Σ1 ) ln(P0 P1 ) Eq 2.

the probability function P(Hi) is usually some exponential <

function, such as Rayleigh, Gaussian, etc. Taking the log

linearizes the function, simplifying the problem.

H0

In making a decision in a binary hypothesis-testing problem where |Σ| is the determinant of the covariance. This states

(e.g. Regime 0 vs Regime 1), there are four possible that if the normalized distance squared between z and m0

outcomes: (plus a threshold offset which represents the log ratio of test

case probabilities. It is assumed that P0 is equally likely with

Say Ho, and it is true that the AC is in regime 0; P1, such that the offset is ln(1) = 0) is greater than the

Say H1, and it is true that the AC is in regime 1; normalized distance between z and m1, then accept the

Say H1, but the AC is in regime 0; and alternate hypothesis, H1. In this specific aircraft regime case

Say Ho, but the AC is in regime 1. where there are 90 regimes, we conduct 89 tests against the

An error occurs when either the third or four conditions are null hypothesis. If after completing the 89 test, where each

chosen. The third condition is a type I error and the forth test is negative, one cannot reject the null hypothesis (e.g.

aircraft in regime 0). If there are positive test values, select Σ y = Λ−1/2ΦΤΣzΦΛ−1/2

the maximum test value: this accepts the alternative = Λ−1/2ΛΛ−1/2 = I

hypothesis and represents the maximum likely regime the

aircraft is in. This is the whitening process, and has the property that the

transformation is not orthonormal:

Transformation for Optimality

(ΦΛ−1/2)ΤΦΛ−1/2 = Λ−1/2ΦΤΦΛ−1/2

The normalized distance squared between z and m, defined = Λ−1

above, represents a shift in space that can be defined by a

new function: x = z – m, giving d2(x) = xTΣ-1x. We wish to i.e. ATA≠I, as was the case when the eigenvector matrix was

find an x that maximizes this distance function, subject to selected as transformation matrix, illustrating that Euclidean

the side constraint xTx = I (which enforces orthogonality). distances are not preserved (e.g. maximizes the distance).

This maximizes both the separation of the mean vector (for a

In the cases where the respective covariance Σ0, Σ1 of the

given hypothesis) from the general observation vector, and

two distributions are not equal, it is necessary to

the separation between the components of the observation

simultaneously diagonalize the covariance (as per the

space (i.e. regime parameters). Using the standard Lagrange

Lagrangian) to maximize the distance between the

multiplier to find the local extrema (i.e. the maximum)

gives: distributions. The process requires whitening Σ0. However,

applying the transformation to Σ1 results in:

∂

∂x {x Σ x − µ(x x − I)} = 2Σ x − 2µx

T −1 −1

Λ−1/2ΦΤΣ1ΦΛ−1/2 = K.

T

Setting to zero to find the extrema (thereby maximizing the The resulting covariance, K, of the transformed coordinates

separation) and solving for x results in: (y) in the decision space H1 is not diagonal. K can be

diagonlized by an appropriate orthnormal transformation:

Σ-1x = µx or Σx = λx

Where λ = 1/ µ. w = ΨTy,

The solution to λ must satisfy the determinant: |Σ-λI| =0: the where Ψ is the eigenvector matrix of K such that ΨΤΚΨ is

solution is defined as the eigenvalues of Σ (ref 5). Because Σ diagonal. Combining these processes yields the overall

is a symmetric n x n matrix (e.g. a covariance matrix), there transformation matrix A = ΦΛ−1/2Ψ

are n real eigenvalues (λ1…λn) and n real eigenvectors The Optimal Decision Rule

φ1...φn. The characteristic equation can then be written as:

Using the developed transformation matrix A, we can now

ΣΦ = ΦΛ apply this to the Bayes classifier to maximize the separation

between the decision spaces. This transformation is optimal

where Φ is an n x n matrix consisting of n eigenvectors and

in that no other transformation will provide a higher

Λ is a diagonal matrix of eigenvalues. Note that the

probability of correct classification (recall that the

eigenvectors corresponding to two different eigenvalues are

transformation A is based on the Eigenmatrix solution to the

orthonormal

characteristic function). Given Eq 1. and Eq 2, the following

ΦΤΦ=Ι, change of variables are made:

be used as a transformation matrix,

Τ

Π = AT Σ1 A

y = Φ x,

Λ = AT (Σ−1

0 − Σ1 ) A

−1 −1

independent, because:

L = AT (m1 − m0 )

Σy = ΦΤΣΦ = Λ,

V = −Π−1L

which is diagonal (no cross correlation). Note that the

eigenvalues are the variance of the respective components of c = − 1 2 LT V − 1 2 ln Π

the transformed variable (yi).

Substitution yields (ref 6):

Furthermore, this result can be expanded to find a

transformation that generates unit covariance (i.e. identity h(y) = 1 2 Y T Λ-1Y - V T Y +c Eq. 3

matrix). Selecting ΦΛ−1/2 as the new transformation matrix Note that many of the substituted variables can be pre-

A: computed and reside as configuration data, such as: Λ, V,

y = Λ−1/2ΦΤx and c.

= (ΦΛ−1/2)Tx, The Regime Data

it follows that the y space covariance is given by:

While parametric data for RR is collected with every population as a whole, performing a given maneuver/regime.

operation, there are few opportunities to evaluate the 20 flight cards for all 90 regimes might represent 60 flight

performance of the flight data. There simply is few flight hours of test pilot time from a squadron of aircraft. This is

where the ground truth is know for the flight. Ground truth an expensive proposition.

is obtained by flying an event where a test pilot flies a

Additionally, there are some regimes that are damaging (or

“flight card.” This flight card is a script on which a series of

even dangerous) to fly. Given the limited flight card data,

maneuvers have been designed to fly the aircraft for a given

and the fact that for some regimes based line data does not

set of flight regimes. For each regime, the entry and exit

exits, what can be done? The pragmatic engineer makes the

times are recorded, as well as specific flight parameters (e.g.

best of it and:

60 degree angle of bank, 90 knots airspeed, 1000 ft).

The data set consisted of three flight card events and the • Partitions the available flight card data for know

accompanying data files, covering 50 out of 90 possible regimes into training and test data.

regimes (see appendix for list. The regimes where defined • Uses engineering judgment and estimate what the

by the OEM). The regime data consists of 15 parameters mean and covariance would be for regimes without

sampled at 10 Hz (Table 1). know data.

Table 1. Monitored parameters in IVHMU Estimating mean and covariance for the regimes that are

Parameter Parameter Parameter missing is not as daunting a task as might be presumed. For

No. Name Description

example, in a logic based decision tree, which is currently

1

AOB Angle of Bank used on IVHMU, rules are given such as in table 2:

2

Alt/dt Altitude Rate Table 2: Logical Test Regime Example

3 Corrected Normal Regime Takeoff Power

CrNz Acceleration Climb

4 Parameter Operator Threshold

Lat/dt2 Lateral Acceleration

5 WOW = False

Nr Main Rotor RPM Roll Attitude >= -10

6 Roll Attitude <= 10

Ptch At Pitch Attitude

7 Altitude Rate > 600

Rad Alt Radar Altimeter

Lateral Acceleration >= -0.01

8

Roll At Roll Attitude Lateral Acceleration <= 0.15

9 Total Engine Yaw Rate >= -5

Torque Torque Yaw Rate <= 5

10 Turbine Gas Corrected NZ <= 1.2

TGT Temperature Corrected NZ >= 0.8

11 Vertical Derived TGT >= 850

Vert/dt2 Acceleration VH Fraction <= 1.05

12 Airspeed Vh VH Fraction > .3

Vh Fraction

13 Converting this to a mean and variance, the statistics are as

YawDt Yaw Rate

14

WOW Weight on Wheels

per table 3:

15 Time in ms of from Table 3: Estimated Regime Statistics

Time start of operation Parameter Mean Standard

Deviation

Implementation Issues WOW 0 0.001

Roll Attitude 0 6.079

There are two issues that must be addressed for successful Altitude Rate 1000 243.18

implementation: regime statistics data and computational Lateral Acceleration -.1+(.15-.01)/2=.06 0.0426

order of operations. Regime statistics involves estimating the Yaw Rate 0 3.04

mean and covariance for each regime. Computational order Corrected NZ 1 0.1216

of operations means that we are interested in a Derived TGT 975 75.99

computationally efficient design that requires as few VH Fraction .675 0.228

floating-point operations as possible to achieve a result.

Essentially, the mean is taken from the bounds of a

Estimation of the regime statistics requires a set of parameter (Table 2), and the standard deviation is calculated

parameters for a known regime. As noted, there is a limited such that the probability of being greater or less than the

data set of flight cards where parameters can be mapped to a given bounds is less that 95%. For example, the mean of

know regime. In fact, this study is based on a sample of one, the bounds of Nz is 1 ( (0.8+1.2)/2 = 1), and the standard

which realistically, is too small. Ideally, one would prefer deviation is that values from which the inverse of the normal

20+ flight cards from a variety of aircraft/pilots: the mean cumulative distribution is the threshold. In this case, the

and covariance should be representative of the aircraft/pilot

standard deviation for p = .95, such that x = (1-.8) = .2. In example, instead of 8 hypothesis testing, at most one would

this case, the standard deviation is 0.12. call the characteristic function 5 times).

In cases where there is no bounded limited, the mean is For flight regimes a structure similar to figure 2 is

derived by taking the lower bound, and the maximum implemented. Here the initial test determines if the aircraft

possible value. For example, TGT, which is may be lower is in a Hover, Reward or Forward flight. If the maximum

bounded at 850. The max TGT may be 1100, then the mean likely regime is hover, further test are conduct until the null

is 850+(1100-850)/2 = 975. The standard deviation is the hypothesis cannot be rejects. If the current null hypothesis is

value such that p = .95, exceeds (1100-850)/2 = 125, or forward flight, a structure similar to figure 3 is traversed.

75.99.

Admittedly this is a crude estimation of the “real” mean and

variance for this regime, but with the limited information

available, it is one method to derive these statistics. Note

that when implementing HUMS on a new fleet/type of

aircraft it may be that not flight card data exits. In this case,

the aforementioned methodology provides at least a starting

point for RR development.

In terms of order of operations, it is desirable to have RR run

on the limited computational resources of an embedded Figure 2 Initial Flight Regime Structure

system. From Eq. 3, it is seen that the characteristic

requires one n x n matrix operation, and two vector produces

of size n, where n is the number of parameters. This is

n2+2n operation. To find the maximum likely regime, it

requires m-1 calls to the characteristic function. The order

of operation is then O((m-1)(n2+2n)), or for this example,

O(19936*c) floating point operations. Relative to NN or a

series of logical test, it is admittedly slow.

Conversely, one can take advantage of the regime structure

and reduce the number of calls to the characteristic function. Figure 3 Forward Flight Regime Structure

Consider that WOW is a Boolean – when WOW is true, the If each node (e.g. current null hypothesis) has on average 3

aircraft is on he ground – thus, one can construct a series of sub nodes, then for 90 regimes, the tree structure would have

hypothesis test for ground regimes that have been organized a depth log390 = 4. This would give, on average 3 *4 = 12

into a tree structure (figure 1) calls the characteristic function. Using this structure, the

order for operation is now O(2340*c).

Performance of the Results

For the 50 regimes flown, where each regime was on

average 20 seconds long or 200 tests per regime (given the

10 Hz sample rate,). For 23 regimes, the probability of

being correct was 1. For the remaining 27 regimes, the

following confusion matrix identifies the regime, the

probability of being correct (Pc), and the regimes that where

miss identified (table 4). The minimum probability of

correct identification was for regime 24 (Pc = .86). The

mean Pc for all regimes was .9765.

Table 4: Confusion Matrix Results

Incorrect Regimes and

Regime Pc Pe

Figure 1 Ground Regime Tree Structure

3 5

Here one tests the hypothesis (e.g. call the characteristic 2 0.993 0.004 0.002

function) for Rotors Not Turning vs. Rotors Turning. If the 3

Rotors are Turning (e.g. now the new null hypothesis) test 5 0.965 0.035

the alternative hypothesis that the aircraft is Taxiing, Taking

5 8

off or Landed. If Taxing (promoted to the current null

hypothesis) one testing the alternative hypothesis that that 7 0.877 0.012 0.111

aircraft is in a left turn or a right turn. In this simple 7

8 0.996 0.004

10 generated using engineering judgment (e.g. a guess) and

9 0.945 0.055 obviously incorrect. It is felt that with some “tweaking” the

12

maximum error could be reduced to less that 1%.

11 0.982 0.018 However, it must additionally be noted that this algorithm

11 13 has not been tested on a larger aircraft data set. While it is

12 0.936 0.014 0.050 impractical to assume that 20 flight test cards from as many

16

aircraft would be generated, it is hoped that flight cards from

10 different flight cards could be made available for RR

15 0.968 0.032

development. The worry is that with small populations to

15 17 sample from, the regimes configuration will be “over

16 0.986 0.007 0.007 trained”.

31

Additionally, for the calculation of damage, not only regime

19 0.918 0.082

but gross weight (GW) is needed. The tools available to

31 automate the estimation of GW are limited. Inferred GW is

20 0.896 0.104 another area where research is still in its infancy.

30 31

Is this the best RR algorithm? From a mathematical

21 0.963 0.002 0.035

perspective, this statement is defensible. This algorithm is

31 also very scalable: simply add a new mean and variance for

22 0.994 0.006 each new regime, without retraining the existing regime

31 data. Because it is based on Gaussian statistical procedures,

23 0.970 0.030 for a set of regimes and measurements, an ROC could be

30 31 constructed. Thus, we are able to explicitly describe

24 0.859 0.003 0.138 performance (helpful when wishing to certify). Finally, the

algorithm is polynomial time, but the order of operation is

30 31 88

probably higher than a logic test tree or a NN. Again, “best”

25 0.943 0.007 0.046 0.004

is rather a subjective term: at the least it is hoped that this

27 28 algorithm will spur other researchers to consider this as a

26 0.953 0.034 0.014 viable technique for RR.

26 28

27 0.862 0.009 0.128 References

27 [1] Barndt, Gene; Miller, Charles; Sarkar, Subhasis,

28 0.911 0.089 “Maneuver Regime Recognition Development and

31 Verification for H-60 Structural Monitoring”, American

rd

42 0.996 0.004 Helicopter Society 63 Annual Forum, Virginia Bearch,

46 VA, May 1 – 3, 2007.

43 0.989 0.011 [2] Berry, J., Vaughan, R., Keller, J., Jacobs, J., Grabill, P.,

43 45 and Johnson, T., “Automatic Regime Recognition using

46 0.984 0.010 0.006 Neural Networks”, American Helicopter Society 62nd Annual

49 Forum, Phoenix, AZ, May 9 – 11, 2006.

48 0.983 0.017 [3] He, D., Wu, S., and Bechhoefer, E., “Development of

30 31 56 Regime Recognition Tools for Usage Monitoring”, IEEE

55 0.979 0.000 0.019 0.001 Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, March 3 – 10, 2007.

55 76 [4] Bonino, R., et al., “HUMS/MMIS as an Aviation Combat

56 0.983 0.005 0.012 Mulitplier” American Helicopter Society 63rd Annual

59 Forum, Virginia Bearch, VA, May 1 – 3, 2007.

60 0.999 0.001 [5] Strang, Gilbert. Linear Algebra and its Applications. San

31 Diego, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988.

63 0.996 0.004

[6] Fukunaga, Keinosuke. Introduction to Statistical Pattern

Discussion Recognition. Academic Press, San Diego, 1990, page 91 –

The greatest source of error in the RR algorithm was a result 93.

of poor mean and variance statistics for the missing regimes. Appendix: Regime Names

The confusion matrix show that most of the errors where a 1 Power On Aircraft, Rotors Not Turning

result of misidentifying a given regime as regime 30 and 31. 2 Power On Aircraft, Rotors Turning, Taxi or Stationary

Both of these regimes mean and standard deviation where 3 Left Taxi Turn

4 Right Taxi Turn Descending Right Turn: > 60 d AOB

Take Off Autorotation Left Turns

Landing Autorotation Right Turns

IGE Hover less than 80 feet Symmetrical Pullouts: 1.8 Gs

0GE Hover greater than 80 feet Symmetrical Pullouts: 3.0 Gs

Fwd Flight to 0.3 Vh Symmetrical Pullouts: 4.0 Gs

Right Sideward Flight Left Rolling Pullout: 1.8 Gs

Left Sideward Flight Left Rolling Pullout: 3.0 Gs

Rearward Flight Left Rolling Pullout: 4.0 Gs

Left Hover Turn Right Rolling Pullout: 1.8 Gs

Right Hover Turn Right Rolling Pullout: 3.0 Gs

Rudder Reversal in Hover Right Rolling Pullout: 4.0 Gs

Longitudinal Reversal in Hover Pushover: 0.8 Gs

Lateral Reversal in Hover Pushover: 0.3 Gs

Level Flight up to 0.3 Vh Pushover to 0 Gs

Level Flight up between 0.3 and 0.4 Vh Dynamic Yaw

Level Flight up between 0.4 and 0.5 Vh Other Maneuver 1, Left Climb Turn Exc AOB

Level Flight up between 0.5 and 0.6 Vh Other Maneuver 2, Right Climb Turn Exc AOB

Level Flight up between 0.6 and 0.7 Vh Other Maneuver 3, Lvl Flight Exd 1.0 Vh

Level Flight up between 0.7 and 0.8 Vh Other Maneuver 4, Dive Excd 1.2 Vh

Level Flight up between 0.8 and 0.9 Vh Other Maneuver 5, Symmetrical Pullout 1.2 Vh

Level Flight up between 0.9 and 1.0 Vh

Rudder Reversal in Level Flight to 1.0 Vh

Lateral Reversal in Level Flight to 1.0 Vh

Longitudinal Reversal in Level Flight to 1.0 Vh

Left Sideslip in Level Flight

Right Sideslip in Level Flight

Best Rate of Climb

Intermediate Power Climb

Takeoff Power Climb

Left Sideslip in Climb

Right Sideslip in Climb

Left Climbing Turn

Right Climbing Turn

Approach

Rough Approach

Autorotation

Autorotation with Left Sideslip

Autorotation with Right Sideslip

Rudder Reversal in Autorotation

Longitudinal Reversal in Autorotation

Lateral Reversal in Autorotation

Collective Reversal in Autorotation

Partial Power Descent

Rudder Reversal in Partial Power Descent

Longitudinal Reversal in Partial Power Descent

Lateral Reversal in Partial Power Descent

Dive

Rubber Reversal in Dive

Longitudinal Reversal in Dive

Lateral Reversal in Dive

Level Left Turn: 30 d AOB

Level Left Turn: 45 d AOB

Level Left Turn: 60 d AOB

Level Left Turn: > 60 d AOB

Level Right Turn: 30 d AOB

Level Right Turn: 45 d AOB

Level Right Turn: 60 d AOB

Level Right Turn: > 60 d AOB

Descending Left Turn: 30 d AOB

Descending Left Turn: 45 d AOB

Descending Left Turn: 60 d AOB

Descending Left Turn: > 60 d AOB

Descending Right Turn: 30 d AOB

Descending Right Turn: 45 d AOB

Descending Right Turn: 60 d AOB

- Initial Condition Monitoring Experience on a Wind TurbineUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Architecture for a Light Helicopter HUMSUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Algorithms for Embedded PHMUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Gear Health Threshold Setting Based On a Probability of False AlarmUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Time Synchronous Average Based Acoustic Emission Signal Analysis on Gear Fault DetectionUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- A Quick Introduction to Bearing Envelope AnalysisUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Condition Monitoring Architecture To Reduce Total Cost of OwnershipUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Rotor Track and Balance ImprovementsUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- A Case for Health Indicators vs. Condition Indicators in Mechanical DiagnosticsUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Rotor Track BalanceUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Processing for Improved Spectral AnalysisUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- AN ENHANCED TIME SYNCHRONOUS AVERAGING FOR ROTATING EQUPIMENT ANALYSISUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Analog Signal Processing to Improve Acoustic Emissions SensingUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Vector Calc Final Solutions- CaltechUploaded byDezire Get
- A Process for Data Driven PrognosticsUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Signal Processing Techniques to Improve an Acoustic Emmissons SensorUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- A Generalized Process for Optimal Threshold Setting in HUMSUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- A Control Theory Approach to Machinery Health PrognosticsUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Improved Rotor Track and Balance Performance Using an Expert SystemUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Use of Paris’ Law for Prediction of Component Remaining LifeUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Emotion Classification Using Facial ExpressionUploaded byEditor IJACSA
- Data Acquisition System for Condition-Based MaintenanceUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Condition Monitoring Architecture to Reduce Total Cost of OwnershipUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Bearing Envelope Analysis Window SelectionUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Ceva's Triangle Inequalities Arpad BrankoUploaded byFernandoDiaz
- matlabUploaded byAtersaw Tigyhun
- Introductory Methods Of Numerical Analysis_S. S. Sastry (1).pdfUploaded byrahul singh
- 9231_w14_qp_12Uploaded bye3320e66
- Introduction to Programming With OpenCVUploaded byUjjWal MahAjan
- Attachment 1Uploaded byMallela Sampath Kumar

- Generalized Prognostic Algorithm Implementing Kalman SmootherUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Signal Processing Techniques to Improve an Acoustic Emmissons SensorUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- A Quick Introduction to Bearing Envelope AnalysisUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- A Case for Health Indicators vs. Condition Indicators in Mechanical DiagnosticsUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Condition Monitoring Architecture To Reduce Total Cost of OwnershipUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Processing for Improved Spectral AnalysisUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Rotor Track BalanceUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Rotor Track and Balance ImprovementsUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- AN ENHANCED TIME SYNCHRONOUS AVERAGING FOR ROTATING EQUPIMENT ANALYSISUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Analog Signal Processing to Improve Acoustic Emissions SensingUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- WGS-84 Extended Kalman Filter Radar Tracker ExampleUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- A Process for Data Driven PrognosticsUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- A Generalized Process for Optimal Threshold Setting in HUMSUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- A Control Theory Approach to Machinery Health PrognosticsUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Bearing Envelope Analysis Window SelectionUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Data Acquisition System for Condition-Based MaintenanceUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Use of Semi Hidden Markov Models in the Prognostics of Shaft FailureUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- A State Space Model for Vibration Based PrognosticsUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Condition Monitoring Architecture to Reduce Total Cost of OwnershipUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Inverse Scattering ExampleUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Improved Rotor Track and Balance Performance Using an Expert SystemUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Bearing Envelope Analysis Window Selection Using Spectral Kurtosis TechniquesUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Optimal Allocation of Symbols to Chipping Codes and Error Control Codes to Achieve Low Bit Error RatesUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- Use of Paris’ Law for Prediction of Component Remaining LifeUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- AN OPTIMAL SHAFT BALANCE SOLUTION USING INTEGER PROGRAMMINGUploaded byEric Bechhoefer

- Generalized Linear Models ActuarialUploaded byJonahJunior
- 30234_Chapter4Uploaded bysaliboua
- MLE of Utility Function by Using StataUploaded bymeriem
- PSHA for Distributed Seismicity-LapajneUploaded byredpol
- Quadratic mean differentiability ExampleUploaded bymamurtaza
- TeachingQMUploaded bytotissoit
- Finance - Financial Models in Excel - VolatilityUploaded byShweta Srivastava
- bcpaUploaded byAbhishek Das
- Kaplan, 1958. Nonparametric Estimation From Incomplete Observations.Uploaded byJuan Carlos Reyes Hagemann
- Bello Joint Estimation of Delay, Doppler, And Doppler RateUploaded byHasan Noor Khan
- Pattern classification and scene analysis.pdfUploaded byjameelahmad
- (Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences 98) Tetsuo Takanami, Genshiro Kitagawa (auth.)-Methods and Applications of Signal Processing in Seismic Network Operations-Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (2003).pdfUploaded byFernando Hervert Perez
- 2018-A Weighted Negative Binomial Lindley Distribution With Applications to Dispersed DataUploaded bysss
- Exact LogisticUploaded byrahulsukhija
- On the SINR Statistics of a VFDM Cognitive Spectrum Sharing SystemUploaded bypeppas4643
- Intro to Nonmem 7.12Uploaded bygshgssg
- JMP-part023Uploaded byMarko Nikolic
- TsaUploaded bySteamWater
- R Numeric ProgrammingUploaded byvsuarezf2732
- Principles of Experimental Design and AnalysisUploaded byDiogo Leonardo
- The Method of Constant Stimuli is EfficientUploaded byjoaomartinelli
- Likelihood Theory using Score FunctionUploaded bylitter_trash
- Flex SurvUploaded byravindra.star
- Jam MSUploaded byPankaj Khureja
- Advanced Machine Learning: CS 281Uploaded byWill White
- Chapter 09 ParameterEstimationUploaded byayman
- ppcaUploaded byMaxGK
- survival_analysis_in_R.pdfUploaded byAndri Rifaldi
- Maximum LikelihoodUploaded byTewodros Tadesse
- Financial Econometrics NotesUploaded byboot_sectorz