Research Article

( DOI: 10.1002/qre.1393
Published online in Wiley Online Library

State-Based Prognostics with State Duration Information
O. F. Ekera,b and F. Camcia,b*†
Failure prediction (i.e. prognostics) is critical for effective maintenance because it greatly impacts the competitiveness of organizations through its direct connection with operating and support costs, system availability, and operational safety. In recent years, research has focused on state-based prognostics that forecast future progression by first identifying the current state. The duration spent in a state is a factor that influences the expected time to be spent in that state in the future; however, previous works on state-based prognostics have ignored the effect of duration. Hidden Markov Models are the most famous state-based prognostics methods in the literature with practicality problems such as computational complexity, requirement of excessive data, and dependency on initialization. This paper presents a new, simple and easy to implement state-based prognostic method using state duration information. The presented method is applied to two real systems (railway turnout systems and drill bits), and the results are compared with the existing methods presented in the literature. The results show that the presented method outperforms the existing methods. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Keywords: fault diagnosis; failure analysis; forecasting; prognostics; remaining useful life estimation; condition-based maintenance

1. Introduction
n effective maintenance plan greatly impacts the competitiveness of organizations through its direct connection with operating and support costs, system availability, and operational safety. Many examples that quantify maintenance efficiency exist in the literature. For example, the cost of maintenance in medium-sized power utility companies will exceed their profits.1 The annual maintenance cost for domestic plants in the USA has increased from $600 billion to $1.2 trillion in almost 20 years (from 1981 to 2000).2 The U.S. Department of Defense spends $40 billion annually for maintenance.3 However, one-third to one-half of this cost could be saved with more effective maintenance.4 Predictive maintenance is considered key to achieving effective maintenance and in recent years has attracted interest from academia and industry.5–17 In predictive maintenance, sensory information is collected in real time from machinery equipment, analyzed to identify an incipient failure, and used to predict the time left before the failure damages the system (i.e. remaining useful life (RUL)). The process of failure identification is called diagnostics, and the prediction of the RUL is called prognostics. RUL is the time left until the system or component will not perform its intended functionality with required safety and efficiency 37 and has been formulated in 23 as follows:


RUL ¼ n; where St ¼ i; Stþ1 ¼ j ; . . . StþnÀ1 ¼ l ; Stþn ¼ f ; t; t þ 1; . . . ; t þ n; represent the discrete time sequence; t is current time; i; j; . . . l ; and f are the health states; and f is the failure state ðf > l⩾ . . . ⩾j⩾i Þ:


Prognostics has the potential to play a critical role on maintenance planning, spare parts provision, operational performance, in the management of product reuse and recycle affecting energy consumption, raw material use, pollution, and the users’ profitability.5–9 Many different industrial components have been studied for prognostics such as rotating machinery,4 batteries,10 and electronics.11 The literature on diagnostics is relatively mature, 29–31 and the research trend now focuses on prognostics. The goal of prognostic methods is to predict the degradation of the machinery under observation. In early studies, degradation was directly measured by extracting features from sensory information.12 However, degradation is often too complex to predict without processing the features. Hence, statistical and computational intelligence methods are used to process the features for prediction.

IVHM Centre, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK Meliksah University, Kayseri, Turkey *Correspondence to: F. Camci, IVHM Centre, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK. † E-mail:
a b

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2012

in 15. the probability of leaving the state increases as the time spent in that state increases. i ¼1 kxi À zc k c ¼1 kÀ1 nÀk k c¼1 nc kzc (2) Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons. Although integrating HMMs into one model (HHMM) allows health state transition probability to be calculated.1. 14 a degradation path satisfying Brownian motion drift model was used to predict the RUL.21–23 In 1 and 21. progressing from fault free to failure states. Discrete health states are not observable. A linear degradation path is not suitable for applications in which cumulative damage has a significant effect on the rate of degradation. The more time spent in that state indicates that the state is more likely to jump to the consecutive states. but the failure progression through the states will change the observed signal. Once the health state is identified as the HMM with the highest probability based on the signal collected from the system. 13 times series analysis was used for physical performance prediction but was found to be unsuitable for long-term prediction. and dependency of results to parameter initialization. A simple. These approaches increase the existing complexity of HMM-based prognostics methods by introducing extra parameters. where survival probabilities are used to predict the future survival probabilities. health state identification is a clustering problem. the health state transition probabilities will be unaffected by the time spent in the health state. Reference 32 presents Non-stationary Segmental Hidden SMM to model non-stationary state transition probabilities. the structure of the degradation path is assumed unknown. However. new concepts. State-based prognostics with duration information (SBPD) The presented State-Based Prognostics with Duration information (SBPD) consists of two steps: health state identification and RUL calculation. Ltd. In 23. Several cluster validity indexes to measure the goodness of clusters have been proposed in the literature. Examples of continuous degradation measures include physical performance used in 13. Health states are the discrete states that progress from a failure-free state to a failure state. and a finite number of health states exist. The state transition probabilities are constant and independent of the time spent in that state. the progression of the states cannot be modeled efficiently. Calinski-Harabasz (CH). and Krzanowski-Lai are used.20 In16. but the failure degradation is assumed to be linear.23 This concept has recently been modeled in HMM-based approaches in 24. In other words. in a real system. Although each HMM represents a distinct health state in this approach. 2012 . it is more likely to jump to the ‘failure state’ for a component that has been ‘close to failure state’ for a long time compared to the one that recently reached to ‘close to failure state’. Int. 2. Segmental Hidden Semi-Markov Model (HSMM) is presented in 22 to model this reality. the time to travel through the remaining healthy states is is number of data in cluster c.1. discrete state-based prognostics method is presented in. state duration information is not considered in the transition probability.O. 25 however. xi is the ith data point. and failure probability used in16.34. Given that the health states are not observable.21–24 A discrete degradation measure consists of individual degradation levels called health states. which suggest that the failure health state might be understood by analyzing the observed signal. An aging factor is introduced in HMMs to create decreasing health state transition probability based with duration spent in the health state in. As in general clustering problems. The transition probability to the next state increases as the time spent in that state increases. continuous failure progression states used in 14. and algorithms. 23. a health state is represented by a distinct HMM within an HMM pool. Section 4 provides a sensitivity analysis of the method. This paper presents a discrete-state prognostic method that uses state duration information to provide a more realistic model and better RUL estimation with ease of implementation and simple computational complexity. Experiments and results are given in section 3. Neural networks and kernel methods are used in 17 to estimate the conditional probability distribution of the system output. In this study.19 In.35 They basically evaluate the closeness of data points within the clusters and distance between clusters.36 The driving force of this paper is the need of a simple and easy to implement state-based prognostics method that uses the duration information in health states without dealing with the complexity of HMM-based methods. Employment of standard HMMs for prognostics has some practicality issues such as computational difficulty in training.15. CH index shown in (2) has been selected due its most robust results. Note that the duration modeling in 22 is for states that represent the non-stationary property of the collected data. a Hierarchical HMM (HHMM) that integrates distinct HMMs into one model with transition probabilities between health states is employed with better prognostic results. the transition probability from one state to another does not depend on the time spent in that state. 24 Three kinds of aging factors have been used in 33 to obtain non-stationary state transition probabilities.17. zis the center of the all data. and a Monte Carlo simulation estimates the RUL. In. the transition probabilities between health states are learned from the training data. Qual. No such degradation model is assumed with a discrete degradation measure. Dunn. not a classification problem. Each health state changes the observed signal differently. not the system health states. and section 5 concludes the paper. which is untrue in a real system.22 excessive number of parameters to learn. Engng. zcis center of the cluster c. kis number of clusters. Davies-Bouldin. Section 2 gives the presented method.36 requirement of huge data for training. CAMCI Computational models for prognostics can be categorized by their degradation type: continuous or discrete degradation. cluster validity indexes Silhouette.18. These health states are represented by distinct independent HMMs in 1 and 21.32. Hidden Markov Model (HMM)-based methods are mostly used in discrete degradation measures. In an HMM. EKER AND F. prognostics are based on the system health states and their progression. C-index. However. F. the number of clusters to be used for health state identification is unknown.33 with aforementioned disadvantages of HHM. Reliab. "P CH ¼ # "P P # k nc 2 À z k2 . In contrast. In HHMM. a neural network model is used to predict the RUL. The general difficulty with using a continuous degradation measure is assuming a model for the degradation path.

The transition probabilities are identified using the k-means clustering applied to a training dataset. respectively. and 11 time units.O. 2012 . and then the expected RUL was calculated. CAMCI For the SBPD. Total of 16 transitions. and samples fail after 12. Example of health states for three samples Life 1 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 5 2 2 1 6 2 2 2 7 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 9 2 3 2 10 2 2 11 3 3 12 3 Table II.2 qd 2.3 qd 3. was tested and evaluated with a CH validity index. it is assumed that transition from a state can only occur to the same state or consecutive states. 3 of which to state 3 and the rest to itself. Similarly. state transition probabilities from state 2 with duration 1 are 3/16 to state 3 and 13/16 to state 2. Similar to the calculation above. the transition probability of a state is assumed to be independent of the time spent in that state. To simplify the calculation. and thus the transition probability from state 1 to state 2 (itself) for duration 2 is 3/9 (6/9). any observed signal received was clustered. Reliab. When the duration is 1. transitions that are not allowed are restricted with zero transition probability.3 qd 2. Table II gives the transition probabilities obtained from the given example in Table I. Engng.1 qd 3. Int. For example. The current health state of the system is obtained by clustering and is represented by h.j ). a transition from state 1 to state 3 is not allowed (only a transition to itself or state 2 is allowed). State transition probabilities with duration Duration stayed in the states d=1 qd 1. The probability of transition to the next state (the same state) increases (decreases) as the time spent in the state increases. Thus.1 qd 2. Because all samples transitioned to state 2 after spending 5 or less time units in state 1. Thus.23–25 However. respectively. For example. Hence. 4. the transitions that occurred before the duration under consideration have not been considered in transition probability calculation. In previous studies. F. All three samples have been used under the same operation conditions and have degraded with health states numbered sequentially from 1 to 3 (from the failure-free to the close-to-failure state) exist as shown in Table I. Each row in Table I represents the failure progression of one sample. have occurred from state 2. Qual. The transition probabilities obtained are used to calculate the expected RUL. For duration 4. and 1. Expected RUL can be defined as the sum of the expected time to be spent in the current and futures states until reaching the failure Table I. 3/7. When the duration is 2. this assumption is untrue for real systems. 9. the transition probability from state 2 is calculated by considering all transitions from state 2. Ltd. each sample has degraded and failed differently. Transition probabilities between health states are utilized to calculate the expected RUL.1 qd 1. transition probability from state 1 to state 2 (state 1 to itself) becomes 3/6 (3/6) when the duration is 3. 21. 3. Thus. The time spent in state h and the age of the system are represented by d and t. 5. the transition probability of a state is described as (qd i .2 qd 3. consider three samples of a component that were manufactured by the same company with the same specifications. a simple k-means clustering method that groups the data by minimizing the sum of squares of distances between data and the corresponding cluster center is used. After determining the best number of clusters. the transition probabilities from state 2 to states 3 for durations 2. the total number of transitions is 9 after 2 units. transition probability from state 1 to state 2 (state 1 to itself) becomes 2/3 (1/3). The transition probability (qi. the transitions that occurred in duration 1 are ignored. in this paper. the probability of transition from state i to state j given that the system stayed in state i for d times. the transition probability from state 1 to state 2 is 3/12 because only three transitions occur from state 1 to state 2 out of 12 transitions. 38 The number of clusters.3 9/12 3/12 0 0 13/16 3/16 0 0 3/3 d=2 6/9 3/9 0 0 10/13 3/13 0 0 3/3 d=3 3/6 3/6 0 0 7/10 3/10 0 0 3/3 d=4 1/3 2/3 0 0 4/7 3/7 0 0 3/3 d=5 0/1 1/1 0 0 1/4 3/4 0 0 3/3 d=6 0 1 0 0 0/1 1/1 0 0 3/3 Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons. starting from two to ten. Due to uncontrollable variations. qd i .2 qd 1. EKER AND F. It is not allowed to jump over states. since the total number of transitions from state 1 after duration 2 is reduced to 6. 3/10. j) in state i is defined as the probability of the transition to state j. the transition probability from state 1 to itself is defined as 9/12 for duration 1. Similar to state 1. and 6 are calculated as 3/13. 3/4. In other words. Similarly. the transition probability from state 1 to 2 is defined as 1 for duration values greater than 5. State 3 (close-to-failure state) is the final state before failure.j is calculated as the ratio of the number of transitions from state i to state j after staying at least d time to the total number of transitions occurred after staying at least d time from state i.

sþ1 À1  À1  dà  E Tc ¼ qd ¼ 1 À qd c. where Ss ¼ i .s s. 1) end Figure 2. Calculation of expected values of Tc and Ts are given in (4) and (5). . Experiment and results The presented method was applied to two different systems: railway turnout systems and drilling machines. crepresents the current state. Ssþ1 ¼ i.cþ1 d 1 and Ts follow geometric distribution with parameters qd Tc c.cþ1 . where i 6¼ j E ½Ts Š ¼ ns. The pseudo-code for calculating the transition probabilities is given in Figure 1. . % Expected RUL Calculation for a sample in health % state c with duration d expected RUL = 1/TP(s. . Figure 2 displays the pseudo-code for the RUL calculation using transition probabilities. Stþnsþ1 ¼ j. Ts and Tc follow geometric distribution with transition probabilities qs.s and qc. .c and qs. state transition probability calculation incorporates duration information after some time has been spent in a health state. CAMCI d state as given in (3) based on RUL formulation given in (1). d respectively.O. . Hence. since no time has been spent in state s and d time has already been spent in current state.s .s+1 / Ns delete values in hsTable where state = s & duration = d update Ns and Ns+1 based on new hsTable end end Figure 1. (4) (5) 3. Sccþnc ¼ i. Ssþns ¼ i . respectively.sþ1 and qc. Ts is the time to be spent in the health state s. and Tc is the time to be spent in the current health state given that dtime has already been spent in the current health state. Engng. .c . In other words. Scþ1 ¼ i . Pseudo-code for transition probability calculation. and frepresents the last state before failure. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons. The time spent in the health states increases until the transition to the other health state d d 1 d occurs with probabilities q1 s. Pseudo-code for expected RUL calculation. f  à X E ½RULŠ ¼ E Tcd þ E ½T s Š s¼cþ1 (3)  à E Tcd ¼ nc.c c. F. Sc ¼ i . Ltd. based on expected value calculation for geometric distribution. 2012 .25 The results of the presented method are compared to the existing results in the literature. Scþncþ1 ¼ j. s+1 :The number of transitions from state s to s+1 % Ns : The number of all transitions from state s % TP(s. 23. Reliab. % Transition probability calculations % hsTable: Sample health states as shown in Table 1 % Ns. d) for i from c+1 to f expected RUL = expected RUL + 1/TP( i. Data from both systems have been previously used for prognostics in the literature. 39 Note that the exponent of q (duration) in Ts is 1 and in Tcd is d. Int. EKER AND F.d) : Transition probability of state s & duration d for s from 1 to all states for d from 1 to all durations TP(s. d) = Ns. where i 6¼ j  À1  À1 1 ¼ q E ½Ts Š ¼ 1 À q1 s. Qual.

The details of the failure progression and data collection are discussed in. Reliab. Although there are several types of turnout systems. during which the sensory information related to turnout health has been collected. as shown in Figure 3. the symptoms can be observed through the force sensor since more or less than normal force might be required to move the tracks. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons. Int. is used for experiments. There are several failure modes in railway turnout systems. such as electro-mechanic. Two of the turnout samples were left for testing. and several other components. Figure 4. CAMCI 3. which is one of the most important failure modes. Railway and turnout system. Sensors were installed on the turnout system. Engng. and dry slide chair failure mode. and the rest was used for training. When a failure occurs. 2012 . Total of 109 move data obtained from 8 turnout samples have been used for Figure 3. Details of railway turnout system. An electric motor applies force to the drive rods of the railway turnout. as shown in Figure 4. The turnout system is a relatively complex system with a motor. 25 Figure 5 displays the effect of failure progression on the force data collected for one turnout sample through 15 moves of the track. hydraulic.O. F. Railway turnout system Railway turnout systems move the tracks to change the route of the train. and pneumatic systems. the data are collected from an electro-mechanical turnout system.1. EKER AND F. reduction gear. Qual. Total of ten turnout samples with varying number of moves from ‘failure-free state’ to ‘close-to-failure state’ are used. Each move takes approximately 10 s. Ltd. and data were collected when the tracks were being moved back and forth as shown in Figure 4.

When sensory data from a move is given for failure prediction. The x-axis in the figures represents the age of the system. The same dataset used in 25 was employed for the experiments. Ltd. Force signals from ‘fault-free’ to ‘failure’ state.5 -1 -1. the RUL is calculated. training in k-means clustering model. two quantitative measures (i. Real RUL is also presented in the figure as linear line. and the y-axis represents the RUL for the corresponding age. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons.5 2 1. After training. Engng. 2012 . As seen from the figures.5 0 50 A sample Close to Failure state 100 150 200 250 300 350 Life of the turnout Figure 5. R-square measures the similarity of the 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 15 15 Turnout System 1 10 5 0 Turnout System 2 10 5 0 Turnout System 3 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 15 15 15 Turnout System 4 10 5 0 10 5 0 Turnout System 5 10 5 0 Turnout System 6 Expected RUL 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 15 15 15 Turnout System 7 10 5 0 10 5 0 Turnout System 8 10 5 0 Turnout System 9 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 15 Turnout System 10 10 5 0 Real RUL SBPD SSBP 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 System Current Age Figure 6. RUL predictions for ten turnout systems with SSBP and SDBP. Then.O. the RUL prediction of SDBP is more accurate than the SSBP. Qual. Reliab.5 0 -0. Though it is clear from the figure above that the presented method outperforms SSBP. as the RUL estimates match the real RUL values more closely.e.5 Fault Free State Failure Progresses Force 1 0. Figure 6 displays the RUL predictions of the presented method (SBPD) and the method (SSBP) used in 25 for ten samples. CAMCI 3 2. r-square and root mean square error (RMSE)) were used to evaluate the effectiveness of RUL prediction. the current state to which the data belongs is identified using the trained k-means clustering algorithm. Int. F. EKER AND F. all data containing training and testing data are used for RUL calculation.

As seen from the figures. CAMCI time series of predicted and real RUL values. The formulation of r-square and RMSE are shown in (6) and (7). Engng. F. Int. Figure 8. the r-square values of the SSBP are low for a small number of states. RMSE is square root of the differences between real (yi)nd estimated (fi)UL values. Comparison of SSBP and SBPD using a) RMSE b) R-square. Both parameters measure the similarity of the estimated RULs and real RULs. increase up to a point as the number of states increases.  y s mean of real RUL values and in formula 2. Reliab. respectively. A high r-square value and low RMSE indicate better prediction. SBPD outperforms SSBD. (a) (b) Figure 7. EKER AND F.O. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons. 2012 . Figure 8 displays the average r-square values of all samples with different numbers of states. r-square values for different numbers of states. Qual. P ðyi À fi Þ2 R À square ¼ 1 À Pi (6) y Þ2 i ðyi À  sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Pn 2 i¼1 ðyi À fi Þ (7) RMSE ¼ n Where. ns number of observations. As seen from the figure. and then decrease. Figure 7 displays the RMSE and r-square values of SSBP and SBPD. Ltd.

it is important to predict the failure of drill bits to produce good products. [27]. involve drilling.5 0. HMM-based methods are used for failure prediction. and the degradation Table III.438889 0. As seen from the table. the number of states in SSBP is critical and should be optimized. Drill bits The drilling process is one of the most commonly used processes in machining [26].990182 60% 0. Standardized Torque Standardized Thrust-force HOLE END Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons.990187 80% 0. CAMCI Thus. Qual. Figure 9 illustrates the data acquisition system for the drilling process.43125 0. Int. 2012 .990059 90% 0.446429 0. EKER AND F. The same dataset will be used to compare the presented method with the results of the HHMM. However. Ltd. 23 Among these methods.99044 Figure 9. Sensor signals during hole drilling.2. Thrust force and torque signals are collected during the actual drilling process as shown in Figure 10.97937 0.433333 0.5 0.45 0. 1. The failure prediction for drill bits has been reported in. which gave the best results of the HMM-based methods.990027 50% 0.990234 70% 0. The signals collected during the life of a drill bit are displayed in Figure 11.S. Engng. 80% of the dataset gives good results leaving reasonable amount of data for testing. Experimental setup for data collection during drilling process. the accuracy of the method increases with the increase in the size of the training dataset. Trend Rapid Decrease Rapid Increase HOLE START Figure 10. For example.O.985502 0.6 R-square 0. Reliab.21 and. the number of states is not as critical in SBPD because duration information is considered in RUL calculation. 3. RMSE and r-square values with training size Training size (%) 10% 20% 30% 40% RMSE 0. F. 27 Thus. The quality of drilled holes may affect the quality of the product. The effect of the size of the training data is illustrated in Table III.475 0. up to 50% of all machining operations in the U.989579 0. 28 Drill bit breakage and/or excessive wear during the drilling process may cause fatal defects in the product.12. For example. approximately 60% of rejected parts are often attributed to the poor quality of the hole.

Thrust-force – Newtons A hole Torque – Newton meters Time Figure 11. F.01 Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons. Table IV displays the r-square and RMSE values. Thrust-force and torque data from a drill bit. Table IV.94 RMSE 4. 30 20 10 0 30 20 30 Drill Bit 1 Drill Bit 2 20 10 0 30 20 10 0 15 30 20 10 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 Drill Bit 3 Drill Bit 5 Expected RUL 10 0 30 20 10 0 30 5 10 2 4 6 8 10 12 Drill Bit 7 Drill Bit 8 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 14 30 20 10 5 10 15 20 Drill Bit 9 20 10 0 5 Real RUL SBPD HHMM Drill Bit 12 10 15 0 5 10 15 Life of drill-bit (holes) Figure 12. Thus. Engng. Real RUL and RUL predicted by HHMM and SBPD. EKER AND F. Qual. and distances have been measured within two dimensional space. Int. The samples were taken as two-dimensional vectors. SBPD outperforms HHMM.O. R-square and RMSE values of predicted RUL by HHMM and SBPD r-square HHMM SBPD 0. both thrust force and torque are used in clustering. 2012 . Ltd.04 2. Figure 12 displays the RUL values predicted by SBPD and HHMM. Reliab.91 0. CAMCI of the drill bit from its brand new state to the failure state can be seen. As seen from the figure.

04 2. Discussion This section discusses the robustness of the methods. Outliers in the training data do not represent the system behavior and may lead to poor prognostic results. where robustness is defined by the method sensitivity to the quality of the training data. The sensitivity analysis of the presented method was also reported in the paper. Considering the aforementioned difficulties for practicality of HMM based methods. we recommend using the presented method on a dataset without outliers that do not represent the failure progression. this drill bit dataset included outlier samples that did not represent the failure progression. This transition is ignored in most state-based prognostic methods. the second dataset (drill bit) was collected from a system that ran until failure. The presented method was applied to two real cases: railway turnout systems and drill bits. When the outliers are not removed. State transition probabilities are used to calculate the RUL. Thus.74 RMSE 4.91 0. The results presented in previous sections removed these outliers from the dataset. In the first dataset (railway turnout systems). Failure progression of an outlier sample. Int. To obtain good prognostic results. SBPD outperforms the HMM-based methods. The sensitivity of the presented method to the outliers should be studied as future work. 5.O. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons. Conclusion Prognostics is an important tool in effective maintenance management. Thus.77 4. F. CAMCI 5 4 Thrust force (Newtons) 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 Hole #7 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Life of the drill-bit Figure 13. the dataset represented the failure progression with no outlier samples. the HMMbased methods outperform the presented method. Table V. Figure 13 shows the failure progression of an outlier sample. failure progression was obtained using a degradation model. Engng. This paper presents a state-based prognostic method that incorporates the state duration information.96 3. SBPD has more potential to be used. The presented method should be enhanced to deal with outliers without using distinct outlier detection methods.91 0. Qual. The results show the presented method outperforms other methods in the literature.01 3. Hence. Thus. Reliab. The sensitivity of the method to the outliers is called the robustness of the method. Ltd. the outliers that do not represent the failure degradation should be removed from the training data. and data were collected based on this failure progression by manually creating the health state. There was no pre-determined failure degradation model. the failure occurs suddenly in hole number 7. As seen from the figure. In state-based prognostics. which suggests a sudden failure rather than an incipient failure. EKER AND F. The datasets used in this paper represent two different aspects of data collection. When the outliers are removed. In contrast. r-square values with entire dataset without removing outlier samples r-square No Outlier Outlier HHMM SBPD HHMM SBPD 0. we can conclude that SBPD is more sensitive to outliers than HMM-based methods and the data should be cleaned from outliers before applying SBPD. 2012 .94 0. as shown in Table V. the time spent in each state affects the transition probability from its current state to the next.

O. Ertunc HM. Heng A. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 2011. Ocak H. 7(3):581–596. 9th International Conference on Neural Information Processing (ICONIP’02). Baruah P. Chinnam RB. 193:140–151. 25(2):485–520. Autonomous diagnostics and prognostics in machining processes through competitive learning-driven HMM-based clustering. Muth JS. 23. Ying P. 196(15):6007–6014. Ferret. 8. Accelerated testing of on-board diagnostics. Sevkli M. 34. Montgomery N. Performance Evaluation of Some Clustering Algorithms and Validity Indices. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 2010. 25:1184–1193. Comparison of Genetic and Binary PSO Algorithms on System Maintenance Scheduling Using Prognostics Information. Papachatzakis P. Chu J. 213(1):1–14. Baruah P. Ming D. Sia XS. Camci F. Xu Z. 28. Intelligent Condition–based Prediction of Machinery Reliability. Chinnam RB. A statistical monitoring approach for automotive on-board diagnostic systems. Madhura H. 57(2):230–242. 58(7):2605–2616. Camci F. Ozdemir E. Optimal burn-in for maximizing reliability of repairable non-series systems. 43(6):1275–1293. Reliab. Mathew J. A Simple Prognostic Method For Railway Turnout Systems. Journal of Power Sources 2011. 4. Soren B. Papakostas N. Gebraeel N. The basics of predictive/preventive maintenance. Ji Y. Mazhar I. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 2009. 7:22–30. 23(5):565–575. Expert Systems with Applications 2011. Germany. 2010 3. Real-Time Performance Reliability Prediction. challenges and opportunities. 978–3838335667.ferret.002. 687–691. 23(2):189–201. Camci F. Das S. 15. International Journal of Production Research 2005. Xu Z. Prognostication of Residual Life and Latent Damage Assessment in Lead-Free Electronics Under Thermomechanical Loads. 10. accessed April LAP Lambert Academic Publishing: Saarbrücken. Lu SS. Mao W. 21:2248–2266. Ji Y. Detection and Prognostics on Low-Dimensional Systems. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 1999. Chryssolouris G. Ltd. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 2009. Furness (http://www. A New Real-Time Reliability Prediction Method for Dynamic Systems Based on Online Fault Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 2009. 21.A review on the statistical data driven approaches. 26. and Resources. Elwany A. 31. 24. 32. A prognosis method using age-dependent hidden semi-Markov model for equipment health prediction. Kolarik WJ. Health-State Estimation and Prognostics in Machining Processes. Pan J. 22.pdf). An approach to operational aircraft maintenance planning. 38:12946–12953. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 2007. 5. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 2009. Jingliang Z. Xanthakis V. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 2007. Eker OF. D’Ambrosio P. 2010 13. 39(1):44–54. 7. Chandan B. Chinnam RB.04. 24(12):1650–1654. Barone S. Heng A. Dong M. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 2011. Lu H. Ming D. Proc. Tan ACC. Kim OK. 2002. Camci F. Int. Remaining life estimation of used components in consumer products: Life cycle data analysis by Weibull and artificial neural networks. 58(3):523–537. Bandyopadhyay S. Sritavastava AN. Yılboga H. HMMs for diagnostics and prognostics in machining processes. 33. Equipment PHM using non-stationary segmental hidden semi-Markov model. Engng. Rankin JS. European Journal of Operational Research 2009. Mourtzis D. Kaebernick H. 27. 17. A segmental hidden semi-Markov model (HSMM)-based diagnostics and prognostics framework and methodology. Chinnam RB. References 1. et al. He D. 48:604–612. Rotating machinery prognostics: State of the art. Tan ACC. ISSN 0888–3270. 29. 58(1):106–116. European Journal of Operational Research 2011.osd. A review on prognostics and health monitoring of Li-ion battery. Mathew J. Antoni J. 2001. Man. 23(3):724–739. 2054–2058. Zhou DH. EKER AND F. 10. IEEE Transactions on Systems. Kara S. 41(2):119–136. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 2007. 6.acq. Remaining useful life estimation . Tsao T. 25(1):237–252.ymssp. Zhang S. Journal of Operations Management 2007. 20. 194:184–205. 2. and Cybernetics-Part C: Applications and Reviews 2009. Qual. Neural Network Based Online Detection of Drill Breakage in Micro Drilling Process. 47(23):6739–6758.1016/j. Real-time Reliability Prediction for a Dynamic System Based on the Hidden Degradation Process Identification. Wang L. Proc IEEE International Conference Electric Machines and Drives. IEMDC 2001. Banjevic D. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 2009. 23:1600–1614. 50(4):353–357. 58(3):539–552. 19. Camci F. 25. Randall RB. Hua CH. Ling S. Loparo KA. Ying P. Pradeep L. Rolling element bearing diagnostics—A tutorial. F. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 2011. 9. Baskan S. 2012 . Residual Life Predictions in the Absence of Prior Degradation Knowledge. Maulik U. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 2011. A hybrid approach of HMM and grey model for age-dependent health prediction of engineering assets. http://www. Zhou D. Programs. Fact Book 2000. Real Time Monitoring of Tool Wear Using Multiple Modeling Method. 58(5):1718–1726. Jay L. Murat K. 12. Erto P. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 2001. Zhou D. Diagnostics and Prognostics in Machining Processes. 16. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 2011. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 2002. Fu L. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 2008. Engineering Optimization 2009. 18. CAMCI Acknowledgements This research was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under project number 108M275. et al. Torque control for a form tool drilling operation. System Maintenance Scheduling With Prognostics Information Using Genetic Algorithm. Process Monitoring. Wang W. Peng Y. Jan. Kuo organizations/mppr/assetts/factbooks/factbook/factbook. A condition-based replacement and spare provisioning policy for deteriorating systems with uncertain deterioration to failure.2010. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons. 11. Dong M. 14. Guclu A. European Journal of Operational Research 2009. International Journal of Production Research 2009. 30. 27(3):581–590. Department of Defense Maintenance Policy. Spencer G. Decision Support System 2010. Manes KW.

Istanbul. Campello RJGB. degree in industrial engineering from Wayne State University. intelligence engineering systems. 36(2):451–461. UK. His expertise includes prognostics health management. Istanbul. Ltd. 39. 157(21):2858–2875. Turkey. Istanbul. UK. 37. Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers. pattern recognition and data mining. and video processing. ISBN: 9780470053041. Engng. and the M. condition based maintenance. Sugar CA. Hess A. Montgomery DC. His research interests include failure diagnostics and prognostics. United States. 2006.S. Turkey. Cranfield University. Int.O. Roemer M. engineering optimization. in Computer Engineering from Fatih University. He is a senior research fellow at IVHM Centre. Detroit. Gareth MJ. ISBN 0471-72999-X. Reliab. Vachtsevanos G. and the Ph. He worked in several projects related to prognostic health management in USA and Turkey. degree in Mathematics from Marmara University and MSc. Fatih Camci received the B. Hidden Markov models for longitudinal comparisons. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons. 2012 . EKER AND F. CAMCI 35. 38. F. Lewis FL.Sc. The global k-means clustering algorithm. degree in computer engineering from Fatih University. 36. Likas A. 100:359–369. MI. Verbeek JJ. Intelligent fault Diagnosis and Prognosis for Engineering Systems. Cranfield University. Qual. Authors' biographies Omer Faruk Eker is a PhD student in School of Applied Sciences and works as researcher at IVHM Centre. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2005. Wiley: NJ. Runger GC. A fuzzy extension of the silhouette width criterion for cluster analysis. Steven LS. Wu B.D. He received his B. degree in computer engineering from Istanbul University. Vlassis N.S. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2006. Hruschka ER. 2010. Pattern Recognition 2003.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times