Browsing by Author "Kannan, Hanumanthrao"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Thumbnail Image
    Boundary Resilience: A New Approach to Analyzing Behavior in Complex Systems
    Wilhelm, Julia Claire Wolf (Virginia Tech, 2024-04-30)
    Systems engineering has many subdisciplines which would be useful to study in terms of complex system behavior. However, it is the interactions between a complex system and its operating environment which drive the motivation for this analysis. Specifically, this work introduces a new approach to assessing these interactions called "boundary resilience." While classical resilience theory measures a system's internal reaction to adverse event, boundary resilience evaluates the impacts such an event may have on the surrounding environment. As the scope of this analysis is quite large, it was deemed appropriate to conduct a case study to determine the fundamental tenants of boundary resilience. SpaceX's satellite Internet mega-constellation (StarLink) was chosen due to its large potential to impact the space environment as well as its size and complexity. This study produced two boundary resilience measures, one for local boundary resilience of a single component and one for the global boundary behavior of the entire system. The local metric measures the likelihood of an adverse event occurring at that boundary location as well as its potential to impact the surrounding environment. The global boundary resilience metric reflects a nonlinear relationship among the system components.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Design of Joint Verification-Correction Strategies  for Engineered Systems
    Xu, Peng (Virginia Tech, 2022-06-28)
    System verification is a critical process in the development of engineered systems. Engineers gain confidence in the correct functionality of the system by executing system verification. Traditionally, system verification is implemented by conducting a verification strategy (VS) consisting of verification activities (VA). A VS can be generated using industry standards, expert experience, or quantitative-based methods. However, two limitations exist in these previous studies. First, as an essential part of system verification, correction activities (CA) are used to correct system errors or defects identified by VAs. However, CAs are usually simplified and treated as a component associated with VAs instead of independent decisions. Even though this simplification may accelerate the VS design, it results in inferior VSs because the optimization of correction decisions is ignored. Second, current methods have not handled the issue of complex engineered systems. As the number of activities increases, the magnitude of the possible VSs becomes so large that finding the optimal VS is impossible or impractical. Therefore, these limitations leave room for improving the VS design, especially for complex engineered systems. This dissertation presents a joint verification-correction model (JVCM) to address these gaps. The basic idea of this model is to provide an engineering paradigm for complex engineered systems that simultaneously consider decisions about VAs and CAs. The accompanying research problem is to develop a modeling and analysis framework to solve for joint verification-correction strategies (JVCS). This dissertation aims to address them in three steps. First, verification processes (VP) are modeled mathematically to capture the impacts of VAs and CAs. Second, a JVCM with small strategy spaces is established with all conditions of a VP. A modified backward induction method is proposed to solve for an optimal JVCS in small strategy spaces. Third, a UCB-based tree search approach is designed to find near-optimal JVCSs in large strategy spaces. A case study is conducted and analyzed in each step to show the feasibility of the proposed models and methods.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Formal Inconsistencies of Expertise Aggregation Techniques Commonly Employed in Engineering Teams
    Stephen, Cynthia; Kannan, Hanumanthrao; Salado, Alejandro (MDPI, 2024-05-18)
    Engineering managers leverage the expertise of engineers in their teams to inform decisions. Engineers may convey their expertise in the form of opinions and/or judgements. Given a decision, it is common to elicit and aggregate the expertise from various engineers to capture a broader set of experiences and knowledge. Establishing an internally and externally consistent aggregation framework is therefore paramount to yield a meaningful aggregation, that is, to make sure that the expertise of each engineer is accounted for reasonably. However, we contend that most de facto aggregation techniques lack such consistency and lead to the inadequate use and aggregation of engineering expertise. In this paper, we investigate the consistency or lack thereof of various expertise aggregation techniques. We derive implications of such inconsistencies and provide recommendations about how they may be overcome. We illustrate our discussion using safety decisions in engineering as a notional case.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Impediments to Effective Safety Risk Assessment of Safety Critical Systems: An Insight into SRM Processes and Expert Aggregation
    Stephen, Cynthia (Virginia Tech, 2020-06-25)
    Safety risk assessment forms an integral part of the design and development of Safety Critical Systems. Conventionally in these systems, standards and policies have been developed to prescribe processes for safety risk assessment. These standards provide guidelines, references and structure to personnel involved in the risk assessment process. However, in some of these standards, the prescribed methods for safety decision making were found to be deficient in some respects. Two such deficiencies have been addressed in this thesis. First, when different safety metrics are required to be combined for a safety related decision, the current practices of using safety risk matrices were found to be inconsistent with the axioms of decision theory. Second, in the safety risk assessment process, when multiple experts are consulted to provide their judgment on the severity and/or likelihood of hazards, the standards were lacking detailed guidelines for aggregating experts' judgements. Such deficiencies could lead to misconceptions pertaining to the safety risk level of critical hazards. These misconceptions potentially give rise to inconsistent safety decisions that might ultimately result in catastrophic outcomes. This thesis addresses both these concerns present in SRM processes. For the problem of combining safety metrics, three potential approaches have been proposed. Normative Decision Analysis tools such as Utility Theory and Multi-attribute Utility Theory were proposed in the first and second approaches. The third approach proposes the use of a Multi-Objective Optimization technique - Pareto Analysis. For problems in Expert Aggregation, behavioral and mathematical solutions have been explored and the implications of using these methods for Safety Risk Assessment have been discussed. Two standard documents that contain the Safety Risk Management Processes of the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) and the U.S. Navy were used to structure the case studies. This thesis has two main contributions. First, it evaluates the use of decision analysis in safety decision process of Safety Critical Systems. It provides guidelines to decision makers on how to meaningfully use and/or combine different safety metrics in the decision process. Second, it identifies the best practices and methods of aggregating expert assessments pertaining to safety decision making.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Mathematical Foundations for Validation in Systems Engineering
    Kannan, Hanumanthrao; SureshKumar, Mayuranath (2022)
    The primary goal of Systems Engineering is to develop a solution that best satisfies the needs of stakeholders. Validation is the process of checking if the developed solution satisfies the needs of the stakeholders. Current validation practices are heuristics-based and lack mathematical foundations, which may lead to suboptimal validation strategies. To ensure the correct and accurate validity of the system of interest, several artifacts throughout the system lifecycle must be considered, including but not limited to stakeholders’ needs, requirements, design, verification, etc. This paper characterizes validation in terms of these artifacts by proposing novel theoretical insights using Propositional logic as the foundation. The mechanism of representation for stakeholders’ needs plays a significant role in performing validation. This paper discusses the challenges associated with using existing textual stakeholder needs and preference functions with respect to validation in relation to the theoretical insights proposed. In addition, this paper highlights how the previously developed Modal preference logic can be used as an effective mechanism to develop a normative approach to validation in Systems Engineering.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Study of Equivalence in Systems Engineering within the Frame of Verification
    Wach, Paul F. (Virginia Tech, 2023-01-20)
    This dissertation contributes to the theoretical foundations of systems engineering (SE) and exposes an unstudied SE area of definition of verification models. In practice, verification models are largely qualitatively defined based on heuristic assumptions rather than science-based approach. For example, we may state the desire for representativeness of a verification model in qualitative terms of low, medium, or high fidelity in early phases of a system lifecycle when verification requirements are typically defined. Given that fidelity is defined as a measure of approximation from reality and that the (real) final product does (or may) not exist in early phases, we are stating desire for and making assumptions of representative equivalence that may not be true. Therefore, this dissertation contends that verification models can and should be defined on the scientific basis of systems theoretic principles. Furthermore, the practice of SE is undergoing a digital transformation and corresponding desire to enhance SE educationally and as a discipline, which this research proposes to address through a science-based approach that is grounded in the mathematical formalism of systems theory. The maturity of engineering disciplines is reflected in their science-based approach, such as computational fluid dynamics and finite element analysis. Much of the discipline of SE remains qualitatively descriptive, which may suffer from interpretation discrepancies; rather than being grounded in, inherently analytical, theoretical foundations such as is a stated goal of the SE professional organization the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). Additionally, along with the increased complexity of modern engineered systems comes the impracticality of verification through traditional means, which has resulted in verification being described as broken and in need of theoretical foundations. The relationships used to define verification models are explored through building on the systems theoretic lineage of A. Wayne Wymore; such as computational systems theory, theory of system design, and theory of problem formulation. Core systems theoretic concepts used to frame the relationship-based definition of verification models are the notions of system morphisms that characterize equivalence between pairs, problem spaces of functions that bound the acceptability of solution systems, and hierarchy of system specification that characterizes stratification. The research inquisition was in regard to how verification models should be defined and hypothesized that verification models should be defined through a combination of systems theoretic relationships between verification artifacts; system requirements, system designs, verification requirements, and verification models. The conclusions of this research provide a science-based metamodel for defining verification models through systems theoretic principles. The verification models were shown to be indirectly defined from system requirements, through system designs and verification requirements. Verification models are expected to be morphically equivalent to corresponding system designs; however, there may exist infinite equivalence which may be reduced through defining bounding conditions. These bounding conditions were found to be defined through verification requirements that are formed as (1) verification requirement problem spaces that characterize the verification activity on the basis of morphic equivalence to the system requirements and (2) morphic conditions that specify desired equivalence between a system design and verification model. An output of this research is a system theoretic metamodel of verification artifacts, which may be used for a science-based approach to define verification models and advancement of the maturity of the SE discipline.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Theoretical Foundations for Preference Representation in Systems Engineering
    Kannan, Hanumanthrao; Bhatia, Garima V.; Mesmer, Bryan L.; Jantzen, Benjamin (MDPI, 2019-12-12)
    The realization of large-scale complex engineered systems is contingent upon satisfaction of the preferences of the stakeholder. With numerous decisions being involved in all the aspects of the system lifecycle, from conception to disposal, it is critical to have an explicit and rigorous representation of stakeholder preferences to be communicated to key personnel in the organizational hierarchy. Past work on stakeholder preference representation and communication in systems engineering has been primarily requirement-driven. More recent value-based approaches still do not offer a rigorous framework on how to represent stakeholder preferences but assume that an overarching value function that can precisely capture stakeholder preferences exists. This article provides a formalism based on modal preference logic to aid in rigorous representation and communication of stakeholder preferences. Formal definitions for the different types of stakeholder preferences encountered in a systems engineering context are provided in addition to multiple theorems that improve the understanding of the relationship between stakeholder preferences and the solution space.