IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v133y2015icp223-236.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Practical options for selecting data-driven or physics-based prognostics algorithms with reviews

Author

Listed:
  • An, Dawn
  • Kim, Nam H.
  • Choi, Joo-Ho

Abstract

This paper is to provide practical options for prognostics so that beginners can select appropriate methods for their fields of application. To achieve this goal, several popular algorithms are first reviewed in the data-driven and physics-based prognostics methods. Each algorithm’s attributes and pros and cons are analyzed in terms of model definition, model parameter estimation and ability to handle noise and bias in data. Fatigue crack growth examples are then used to illustrate the characteristics of different algorithms. In order to suggest a suitable algorithm, several studies are made based on the number of data sets, the level of noise and bias, availability of loading and physical models, and complexity of the damage growth behavior. Based on the study, it is concluded that the Gaussian process is easy and fast to implement, but works well only when the covariance function is properly defined. The neural network has the advantage in the case of large noise and complex models but only with many training data sets. The particle filter and Bayesian method are superior to the former methods because they are less affected by noise and model complexity, but work only when physical model and loading conditions are available.

Suggested Citation

  • An, Dawn & Kim, Nam H. & Choi, Joo-Ho, 2015. "Practical options for selecting data-driven or physics-based prognostics algorithms with reviews," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 223-236.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:133:y:2015:i:c:p:223-236
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2014.09.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832014002245
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2014.09.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guo, Zhenhai & Zhao, Weigang & Lu, Haiyan & Wang, Jianzhou, 2012. "Multi-step forecasting for wind speed using a modified EMD-based artificial neural network model," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 241-249.
    2. An, Dawn & Choi, Joo-Ho & Kim, Nam Ho, 2013. "Prognostics 101: A tutorial for particle filter-based prognostics algorithm using Matlab," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 161-169.
    3. Yan, Jie & Liu, Yongqian & Han, Shuang & Qiu, Meng, 2013. "Wind power grouping forecasts and its uncertainty analysis using optimized relevance vector machine," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 613-621.
    4. Si, Xiao-Sheng & Wang, Wenbin & Hu, Chang-Hua & Zhou, Dong-Hua, 2011. "Remaining useful life estimation - A review on the statistical data driven approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 1-14, August.
    5. Rebba, Ramesh & Mahadevan, Sankaran & Huang, Shuping, 2006. "Validation and error estimation of computational models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(10), pages 1390-1397.
    6. Walter R. Gilks & Carlo Berzuini, 2001. "Following a moving target—Monte Carlo inference for dynamic Bayesian models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(1), pages 127-146.
    7. Zio, Enrico & Di Maio, Francesco, 2010. "A data-driven fuzzy approach for predicting the remaining useful life in dynamic failure scenarios of a nuclear system," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 49-57.
    8. Ling, You & Mahadevan, Sankaran, 2013. "Quantitative model validation techniques: New insights," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 217-231.
    9. Brahim-Belhouari, Sofiane & Bermak, Amine, 2004. "Gaussian process for nonstationary time series prediction," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 705-712, November.
    10. Khosravi, Abbas & Nahavandi, Saeid & Creighton, Doug, 2013. "Quantifying uncertainties of neural network-based electricity price forecasts," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 120-129.
    11. Huiyan Sang & Jianhua Z. Huang, 2012. "A full scale approximation of covariance functions for large spatial data sets," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 74(1), pages 111-132, January.
    12. Kang, LiuWang & Zhao, Xuan & Ma, Jian, 2014. "A new neural network model for the state-of-charge estimation in the battery degradation process," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 20-27.
    13. Tang, Baoping & Song, Tao & Li, Feng & Deng, Lei, 2014. "Fault diagnosis for a wind turbine transmission system based on manifold learning and Shannon wavelet support vector machine," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1-9.
    14. Andrianakis, Ioannis & Challenor, Peter G., 2012. "The effect of the nugget on Gaussian process emulators of computer models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(12), pages 4215-4228.
    15. Xiao Liu & Jingrui Li & Khalifa Al-Khalifa & Abdelmagid Hamouda & David Coit & Elsayed Elsayed, 2013. "Condition-based maintenance for continuously monitored degrading systems with multiple failure modes," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(4), pages 422-435.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hai-Kun Wang & Yan-Feng Li & Yu Liu & Yuan-Jian Yang & Hong-Zhong Huang, 2015. "Remaining useful life estimation under degradation and shock damage," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 229(3), pages 200-208, June.
    2. Faisal Khan & Omer F. Eker & Atif Khan & Wasim Orfali, 2018. "Adaptive Degradation Prognostic Reasoning by Particle Filter with a Neural Network Degradation Model for Turbofan Jet Engine," Data, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-21, November.
    3. Hu, Yang & Baraldi, Piero & Di Maio, Francesco & Zio, Enrico, 2015. "A particle filtering and kernel smoothing-based approach for new design component prognostics," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 19-31.
    4. Costa, Nahuel & Sánchez, Luciano, 2022. "Variational encoding approach for interpretable assessment of remaining useful life estimation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    5. Le Son, Khanh & Fouladirad, Mitra & Barros, Anne & Levrat, Eric & Iung, Benoît, 2013. "Remaining useful life estimation based on stochastic deterioration models: A comparative study," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 165-175.
    6. Alaswad, Suzan & Xiang, Yisha, 2017. "A review on condition-based maintenance optimization models for stochastically deteriorating system," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 54-63.
    7. Samet, Haidar & Marzbani, Fatemeh, 2014. "Quantizing the deterministic nonlinearity in wind speed time series," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1143-1154.
    8. Zendehboudi, Sohrab & Rezaei, Nima & Lohi, Ali, 2018. "Applications of hybrid models in chemical, petroleum, and energy systems: A systematic review," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 2539-2566.
    9. Matteo Barbieri & Khan T. P. Nguyen & Roberto Diversi & Kamal Medjaher & Andrea Tilli, 2021. "RUL prediction for automatic machines: a mixed edge-cloud solution based on model-of-signals and particle filtering techniques," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1421-1440, June.
    10. Abdenour Soualhi & Mourad Lamraoui & Bilal Elyousfi & Hubert Razik, 2022. "PHM SURVEY: Implementation of Prognostic Methods for Monitoring Industrial Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-24, September.
    11. Al-Dahidi, Sameer & Di Maio, Francesco & Baraldi, Piero & Zio, Enrico, 2016. "Remaining useful life estimation in heterogeneous fleets working under variable operating conditions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 109-124.
    12. Long, Junqi & Chen, Chuanhai & Liu, Zhifeng & Guo, Jinyan & Chen, Weizheng, 2022. "Stochastic hybrid system approach to task-orientated remaining useful life prediction under time-varying operating conditions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    13. Sankararaman, Shankar & Mahadevan, Sankaran, 2015. "Integration of model verification, validation, and calibration for uncertainty quantification in engineering systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 194-209.
    14. Huynh, K.T. & Grall, A. & Bérenguer, C., 2017. "Assessment of diagnostic and prognostic condition indices for efficient and robust maintenance decision-making of systems subject to stress corrosion cracking," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 237-254.
    15. da Costa, Paulo Roberto de Oliveira & Akçay, Alp & Zhang, Yingqian & Kaymak, Uzay, 2020. "Remaining useful lifetime prediction via deep domain adaptation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    16. García Nieto, P.J. & García-Gonzalo, E. & Sánchez Lasheras, F. & de Cos Juez, F.J., 2015. "Hybrid PSO–SVM-based method for forecasting of the remaining useful life for aircraft engines and evaluation of its reliability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 219-231.
    17. Ao, Dan & Hu, Zhen & Mahadevan, Sankaran, 2017. "Design of validation experiments for life prediction models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 22-33.
    18. Zhiguo Zeng & Francesco Di Maio & Enrico Zio & Rui Kang, 2017. "A hierarchical decision-making framework for the assessment of the prediction capability of prognostic methods," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(1), pages 36-52, February.
    19. Xi, Zhimin & Jing, Rong & Wang, Pingfeng & Hu, Chao, 2014. "A copula-based sampling method for data-driven prognostics," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 72-82.
    20. Wang, Hai-Kun & Li, Yan-Feng & Huang, Hong-Zhong & Jin, Tongdan, 2017. "Near-extreme system condition and near-extreme remaining useful time for a group of products," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 103-110.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:133:y:2015:i:c:p:223-236. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.