Fault Risk Assessment of Underwater Vehicle Steering System Based on Virtual Prototyping and Monte Carlo Simulation

Open access


Assessing the risks of steering system faults in underwater vehicles is a human-machine-environment (HME) systematic safety field that studies faults in the steering system itself, the driver’s human reliability (HR) and various environmental conditions. This paper proposed a fault risk assessment method for an underwater vehicle steering system based on virtual prototyping and Monte Carlo simulation. A virtual steering system prototype was established and validated to rectify a lack of historic fault data. Fault injection and simulation were conducted to acquire fault simulation data. A Monte Carlo simulation was adopted that integrated randomness due to the human operator and environment. Randomness and uncertainty of the human, machine and environment were integrated in the method to obtain a probabilistic risk indicator. To verify the proposed method, a case of stuck rudder fault (SRF) risk assessment was studied. This method may provide a novel solution for fault risk assessment of a vehicle or other general HME system.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Zhao Tingdi Safety Design Analysis and Validation. 2011 Beijing: National Defense Industry Press.

  • 2. Qin Liyan Shao Chunfu and Jia Hongfei Analysis on Express Way Traffic Accidents and Their Countermeasures. China Safety Science Journal 2003. 13(6): p. 64-67.

  • 3. LI Jin-long and S. Wan-hu Cause Analysis ofTraffic Accidents on Express Highway and Study on Their Countermeasures. China Safety Science Journal 2005. 15(1): p. 59-62.

  • 4. Mei-Chen Hsueh T.K.T. and Ravishankar K. Iyer Fault Injection Techniques and Tools. Computer 1997(April): p. 75-82.

  • 5. Carmel Y. et al. Assessing fire risk using Monte Carlo simulations of fire spread. Forest Ecology and Management 2009. 257(1): p. 370-377.

  • 6. Sarajcev P. J. Vasilj and R. Goic Monte Carlo analysis of wind farm surge arresters risk of failure due to lightning surges. Renewable Energy 2013. 57(0): p. 626-634.

  • 7. Rocha J.M. A.A. Henriques and R. Calcada Probabilistic safety assessment of a short span high-speed railway bridge. Engineering Structures 2014. 71(0): p. 99-111.

  • 8. Olaru M. M. Şandru and I.C. Pirnea Monte Carlo Method Application for Environmental Risks Impact Assessment in Investment Projects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2014. 109(0): p. 940-943.

  • 9. Lonati G. and F. Zanoni Monte-Carlo human health risk assessment of mercury emissions from a MSW gasification plant. Waste Management 2013. 33(2): p. 347-355.

  • 10. LeBlanc D.I. et al. A national produce supply chain database for food safety risk analysis. Journal of Food Engineering 2015. 147(0): p. 24-38.

  • 11. Amigun B. D. Petrie and J. Gorgens Economic risk assessment of advanced process technologies for bioethanol production in South Africa: Monte Carlo analysis. Renewable Energy 2011. 36(11): p. 3178-3186.

  • 12. K. Durga Rao V. Gopika V.V.S. Sanyasi Rao H.S. Kushwaha A.K. Verma A. Srividy Dynamic fault tree analysis using Monte Carlo simulation in probabilistic safety assessment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2009(94): p. 872-883.

  • 13. Montewka J. et al. A framework for risk assessment for maritime transportation systems -A case study for open sea collisions involving RoPax vessels. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2014(124): p. 142-157.

  • 14. Ferrario E. and E. Zio Goal Tree Success Tree-Dynamic Master Logic Diagram and Monte Carlo simulation for the safety and resilience assessment of a multistate system of systems. Engineering Structures 2014. 59(0): p. 411-433.

  • 15. Smid J.H. et al. Strengths and weaknesses of Monte Carlo simulation models and Bayesian belief networks in microbial risk assessment. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2010. 139 Supplement(0): p. S57-S63.

  • 16. Faghih-Roohi S. M. Xie and K.M. Ng Accident risk assessment in marine transportation via Markov modelling and Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. Ocean Engineering 2014. 91(0): p. 363-370.

  • 17. Chen H. L. Li and Y. Sun Risk Assessment of Aero Engine Failure based on Monte Carlo Simulation. Procedia Engineering 2014. 80(0): p. 415-423.

  • 18. Sobhani A. W. Young and M. Sarvi A simulation based approach to assess the safety performance of road locations. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 2013. 32(0): p. 144-158.

  • 19. Chen F. and S. Chen Probabilistic Assessment of Vehicle Safety under Various Driving Conditions: A Reliability Approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2013. 96(0): p. 2414-2424.

  • 20. HU Liang-mou CAO Ke-qiang and XU Hao-jun Fault Diagnosis for Hydraulic Actuator Double Closed-loop System Based on Improved LS-SVM. Journal of System Simulation 2009. 21(17): p. 5477-5480.

  • 21. Zhe Cheng. A Hybrid Prognostics Approach to Estimate the Residual Useful Life of a Planetary Gearbox with a Local Defect Journal of Vibroengineering 2015 17(2): 682-694.

  • 22. Yang Chen G.C. Zhenpeng Zhang Yulong Huang Multi-field coupling dynamic modeling and simulation of turbine test rig gas system. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 2014(44): p. 95-118.

  • 23. Balci O. Verification Validation and Accreditation in Winter Simulation Conference. 1998. p. 41-48.

  • 24. 5000.61 DoD Verification Validation and Accreditation (VV&A) Recommended Practice Guide 1996.

  • 25. MIL-STD-3022 DoD Documentation of Verification Validation and Accreditation (VV&A) for Models and Simulations 2008.

  • 26. WANG Jing-qi SHI Sheng-da and ZHANG Wei-kang Safe Maneuvering Technology for Ensuring Submarine’s Survivability. Journal of Naval University of Engineering 2009. 21(1): p. 63-67.

  • 27. Khan F.I. P.R. Amyotte and D.G. DiMattia HEPI: A new tool for human error probability calculation for offshore operation. Safety Science 2006. 44(4): p. 313-334.

  • 28. Park K.S. and J.i. Lee A new method for estimating human error probabilities: AHP-SLIM. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2008. 93(4): p. 578-587.

Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.214
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.086

CiteScore 2018: 1.48

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.391
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.141

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 242 81 3
PDF Downloads 150 91 1