The International

Proceedings
Proceedings of Federation
of the
the 20th
20th World
Worldof Congress
Automatic Control
The International
Toulouse, France, Federation
July 9-14, of Congress
Automatic Control
2017
The International
Proceedings of Federation
the
The International 20th Worldof
of Automatic
Automatic Control
Congress
Toulouse, France,Federation
July 9-14, 2017 Control
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Toulouse,
The France,
International
Toulouse, July 9-14,
France,Federation 2017
of Automatic Control
July 9-14, 2017
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017
ScienceDirect
Degradation Modeling
IFAC PapersOnLine
Degradation and
and RUL RUL Estimation
50-1 (2017) 12249–12254
Modeling Estimation
Degradation
of Modeling
Deteriorating and
Systems RUL
in Estimation
S-Plane
Degradation
of Modeling
Deteriorating and
Systems
of Deteriorating Systems in S-Plane RUL
in Estimation
S-Plane
of Deteriorating
K.T. Huynh, Y.Systems Langeron, A. inGrall
S-Plane
K.T.
K.T. Huynh, Y. Langeron, A. Grall
K.T. Huynh,
Huynh, Y. Y. Langeron,
Langeron, A. A. Grall
Grall
Université de K.T. Champagne,
Huynh, Y. Université
Langeron, de Technologie
A. Grall de Troyes
Université
Université de
de Champagne,
Champagne, Université
Université de
de Technologie
Technologie de
de Troyes
Troyes
CNRS,
Université ICD/LM2S,
de 12 RueUniversité
Champagne, Marie Curie, de 10004 Troyes,
Technologie de France
Troyes
CNRS,
CNRS, ICD/LM2S,
ICD/LM2S, 12
12 RueRue
Rue Marie Curie,
Marie Curie,
Curie, 10004
10004 Troyes,
Troyes, France
France
(e-mail:
CNRS, tuan.huynh@utt.fr,
Université de
ICD/LM2S, Champagne,
12 yves.langeron@utt.fr,
Université
Marie de antoine.grall@utt.fr)
Technologie
10004 Troyes, de Troyes
France
(e-mail:
(e-mail: tuan.huynh@utt.fr,
tuan.huynh@utt.fr, yves.langeron@utt.fr,
yves.langeron@utt.fr, antoine.grall@utt.fr)
antoine.grall@utt.fr)
CNRS,
(e-mail: ICD/LM2S, 12 Rue
tuan.huynh@utt.fr, Marie Curie, 10004
yves.langeron@utt.fr, Troyes, France
antoine.grall@utt.fr)
(e-mail: tuan.huynh@utt.fr, yves.langeron@utt.fr, antoine.grall@utt.fr)
Abstract: Degradation modeling and RUL estimation of systems are two essential problems
Degradation modeling
Abstract: Degradation modeling and and RUL RUL estimation
estimation of of systems
systems are are two
two essential
essential problems
problems
in the research
Abstract:
Abstract: field of prognostics
Degradation modeling and and health management.
RUL estimation In the literature,
of systems are two one usually
essential deals
problems
in
in the research
thethese
research field
field of of
of prognostics
prognostics health
and health
health management.
management. In
In thethe literature,
the literature,
literature, one
one usually
usually deals
deals
with
Abstract:
in the researchproblems
Degradation
field in prognostics
the time domain.
modeling and RUL Here, we propose
estimation
management. of another
systems
In perspective
are two onusually
essential
one thisproblems
subject
deals
with
with these
these problems
problems in the time
in prognostics
the time
time domain.
domain. Here,
Here, we propose
weestimation another
propose another
another perspective
perspective on
on this subject
thisissubject
subject
by the
in
with studying
research
these thefield
problemsdegradation
of
in the modeling and and
domain. health RUL
Here, management.
we propose in the literature,
In s-plane.
perspective Theoneonstudy
usually
this based
deals
by studying
by studying the degradation
the degradation modeling
modeling and
and RUL
RUL estimation
estimation in the
in the s-plane.
s-plane. The
The study
study is based
is based
on astudying
with
by well-known
these problems
the mass-spring-damper
in
degradation the time domain.
modeling deteriorating
and Here,
RUL we system. another
propose
estimation Ain complete
the procedure
perspective
s-plane. The on consisting
this
study issubject
basedof
on aa well-known
on well-known mass-spring-damper
mass-spring-damper deteriorating deteriorating system.system. A A complete
complete procedure
procedure consisting
consisting of of
data
by
on a collection,
studying
well-known the degradation
degradation
mass-spring-damper indicator
modeling implementation,
and RUL
deteriorating estimation
system.parameters
Ain the
completeestimation,
s-plane. The
procedure failure
study definition
is
consisting basedof
data
data collection,
collection, degradation
degradation indicator
indicator implementation,
implementation, parameters
parameters estimation,
estimation, failure
failure definition
definition
anda RUL
on
data estimation
well-known
collection, degradationfor theindicator
mass-spring-damper considered system is outlined.
deteriorating
implementation, system. ASome
parameters completenumerical experiments
procedure
estimation, failure consisting have
definition of
and RUL
and RUL estimation
estimation for the
for the considered
considered system is
system is outlined.
outlined. Some
Some numerical
numerical experiments
experiments have
have
been
data
and carried
collection, out to illustrate
degradation the procedure.
indicator implementation, parameters estimation, failure definition
beenRUL
been carried
carried
estimation
out to
out
for the considered
to illustrate
illustrate the procedure.
the procedure. system is outlined. Some numerical experiments have
and
been RUL
carried estimation
out to for the considered
illustrate the procedure. system is outlined. Some numerical experiments have
© 2017,
been IFAC out
carried (International
to illustrate Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
the procedure.
Keywords: Degradation modeling; Gamma process; Mass-Spring-Damper system; Monte Carlo
Keywords:
Keywords: Degradation
Degradation modeling;
modeling; Gamma
Gamma process;
process; Mass-Spring-Damper
Mass-Spring-Damper system; system;
system; MonteMonte
Monte Carlo Carlo
Carlo
simulation;Degradation
Keywords: RUL estimation; S-plane;
modeling; GammaSystem reliability
process; Mass-Spring-Damper
simulation; RUL
simulation;Degradation estimation;
RUL estimation;
estimation; S-plane;
S-plane; System
System reliability
reliability
Keywords:
simulation; RUL modeling;
S-plane; GammaSystem process; Mass-Spring-Damper system; Monte Carlo
reliability
simulation; RUL estimation; S-plane; System reliability
1. INTRODUCTION Accordingly, the system poles are impacted by the degra-
1.
1. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION Accordingly, the system poles are impacted by the degra-
1. INTRODUCTION Accordingly,
dation
Accordingly,phenomenathe system
the system poles are
and stochastically
poles are impacted
impacted
evolve in by the
by thes-plane
the degra-
degra-
In control engineering, the degradation of a system is dation
dation phenomena
phenomena and
andSebestochastically
stochastically evolve
evolve in
in the
the s-plane
s-plane
In control 1.
engineering, INTRODUCTION
the degradation of (see
dation e.g.,
Accordingly, Suyama
phenomenathe and
system
and (2010)).
poles are
stochastically As
impacted such,
evolve by
inthe the
the location
degra-
s-plane
In In control
control
usually engineering,
related to a loss
engineering, theof degradation
the degradation
its static and/or of aaa system
of
system
system
dynamic
is
is (see
is
(see
(see
of the
dation
e.g.,
e.g., Suyama
Suyama
system
phenomena
e.g., Suyama poles
and
and
and
Sebe
Sebe
in Sebe
and s-plane
(2010)).
(2010)).
gathers
stochastically
(2010)).
As
As such,
such,
all
evolve
As such,
the
the
theinthe
location
location
information
thelocation
s-plane
usually
usually related
related to
to a
a loss
loss of
of its
its static
static and/or
and/or dynamic
dynamic of the system poles in s-plane gathers all the information
Inperformances.
usually control relatedWhen When
engineering, such
to a such thea faulty
degradation
loss aof faulty
its staticsituation of
and/oraarises,
system
dynamica re-
is of
(see
of the
about
the system
the
e.g., system
Suyama
system poles
polesand in s-plane
degradation
in Sebe
s-plane gathers
(2010)). whatever
gathers As all the
such,
all is
the information
the number
location
information
performances.
performances. When such situation arises, a re- about the system degradation whatever is the number
configuration
usually
performances.
configuration relatedof of to
Whenthe loss aaof faulty
thea control
such
control
faulty
law
its is
law
is situation
achieved
static and/or
situation
achieved
arises,
in dynamic
order
arises,
in order aa re-
re-
to about
to
about
of the the system
degrading
system
the system degradation
components.
poles degradation
in s-plane whatever
Thegathers
evolution
whatever all theis the
in the
is time number
of the
information
number
configuration
restore
performances. the system of
Whenthe control
performances
such a law
faulty is
(see achieved
e.g., Zhang
situation inandorder
arises, Jiang
a to
re- of
of degrading
degrading components.
components. The
The evolution
evolution in
in time
time of the
of the
the
configuration
restore the system of the control
performances law is
(see achieved
e.g., Zhang inandorderJiang to system
about
of poles
the
degrading is
system modeled
components. by
degradation a
The bivariate
whatever
evolution stochastic
is
in the
time process.
number
of
restore the
(2008)). theThesystem presentperformances
paper law (see
focuses e.g., Zhang
on Zhang and
the degradation Jiang system
system poles
poles is
is modeled
modeled by
by a
a bivariate
bivariate stochastic
stochastic process.
process.
configuration
restore
(2008)). Thesystem of the
present control
performances
paper is
(see
focuses achieved
e.g.,
on the inandorder
degradationJiang to It
of is
system assumed
degrading
poles isthat
modeled the
components. system
by The
a inputs
evolution
bivariate and the
in
stochastic system
time of re-
the
process.
(2008)).the
modeling The
ofsystempresent
a present
system paper
by taking focuses on Zhang
into e.g., the degradation
account degradation It
It is
is assumed
assumed that
that the
the system
system inputs
inputs and
and the
the system
system re-
re-
restore
(2008)).
modeling The
of a system performances
paper
by taking (see
focuses
into on the
account and Jiang
degradation It sponses
system can
poles
is assumed beis collected
modeled
that at
by
the system specific
a times
bivariate
inputs (e.g.,
stochastic
and(e.g., solicitation
process.
the solicitation
system re-
modelingon ofits sponses can be collected at specific times
impacts
(2008)).
modeling
impacts The
on of aa present
its
system
performances.
system
performances.
by
paper
by taking
takingOn
On
into
focuses
into
this
account
this subject,
on the many
account
subject,
many works sponses
degradation
works
sponses
time,
It can be
inspection
is assumed
time, can
inspection
bethat
collected
time,
time,
at specific
etc.).
theetc.).
collected specific
system
at Such
Such
times
data
inputs
times
data
are (e.g.,
used
and(e.g.,
are
solicitation
to find the
the solicitation
used system
to find re-
the
impacts
in
modeling
impacts onofits
the literature
on its
a performances.
have by
system
performances. considered
takingOn into
On this
this subject,
the subject,
system many
account many works time,
degradation
works time,
locations
sponses inspection
canof
inspectionthe
be time,
system
collected
time, etc.). Such
poles,
at
etc.). Such and
specific data
thence
times
data are
are used
to
(e.g.,
used to
estimatefind
solicitation
to find the
the
in the
in the
the literature
literature have
have considered
considered the system
the subject,
system degradation
degradation locations of the system poles, and thence to estimate the
in as
impacts a deterministic
on its performances.
literature havephenomenon
considered On this (see
the e.g., Grosso
system many
degradationet al. locations
works locations
parameters
time, of of
inspection
of the
the system
the bivariate
time,
system poles,
etc.). Such
poles, anddata
degradation
and thence
thenceare to estimate
estimate
process.
used
to Knowing
toKnowing the
find the
as a
as the deterministic
a deterministic
deterministic phenomenon
phenomenon (see
(see e.g.,
e.g., Grosso
Grosso et
et al. parameters
al. parameters of the bivariate degradation process.
in
as (2012);
a Medjaherhave
literature etphenomenon
al.considered
(2014)). Here, the
(see as in Grosso
system
e.g., Virkler
degradationet al.
et parameters
the model,
locations of of
one
the
of thecan bivariate
system
thecan estimate
bivariate degradation
poles, the
and
degradation process.
probability
thence to lawKnowing
estimate
process.law of
Knowing the
(2012);
(2012); Medjaher
Medjaher et al. (2014)).
etphenomenon
al.Spencer
(2014)).(1992),Here,
Here, as
as in Virkler
insystem
Virklerdegra-et al.
et al.
al. the the model, one estimate the probability of the
as(1979);
(2012); Sobczyk and
a deterministic
Medjaher et al. (2014)). Here, thein
(see e.g.,
as Grosso
Virkler et
et the model,
model, of
conditional
parameters one
system
one can
thecan estimate
RUL
bivariate given
estimate the probability
the probability
degradation
the last location
process.lawlaw
of of the
the
system
Knowing
of
(1979); Sobczyk
(1979); isMedjaher
Sobczyk and
and Spencer
Spencer (1992),
(1992), the
the system
system degra-
degra- conditional system RUL given the last location of system
dation
(2012);
(1979); assumedand
Sobczyk etofal.stochastic
(2014)).
Spencer nature.
Here,
(1992), as
theThis
in assumption
Virkler
system et
degra-al. conditional
poles.
the To
model,
conditional system
this
one
systemend,
can RUL
we given
define
estimate
RUL given the
in
the
the last
s-plane location
probability
last a
locationworkingof
law
of system
ofzone
the
system
dation
dation ais is assumed
isSobczyk
assumedmodel of stochastic
of stochastic
stochastic nature.
nature. This
This assumption
assumption poles. To this end, we define in s-plane a working zone
allows
(1979);
dation generic
assumed andof which is
Spencer independent
(1992),
nature. the system
This of material
degra- poles.
assumption poles.corresponds
that
conditional To this
To this
systemend,toRUL
end, we
we define
authorized
given in
define in s-plane
system
thesystem
s-plane aa working
working
states
last location for zone
which
of system
zone
allows
allows a generic
ais generic
generic model
model which
which is
iscanindependent
independent of material
of material
material that corresponds to authorized states for which
and
dation
allows technological
a assumed features,
of
model and is
stochastic
which take into
nature.
independent This account
assumption
of vari- that that
the
poles. corresponds
performances
To this
corresponds are end, to
are weauthorized
satisfactory.
define
to authorized in system
When
s-plane
system states
the
a system
working
states for which
poles
zone
for which
and technological
and uncertainties.
technological features,
features, and
and can
can take
take into account
into account
account vari-
vari- the the performances satisfactory. When the system poles
andous
allows a generic model
technological When
features, theand
whichsystemiscan is of single-component,
independent
take into of materialvari- the performances
move
that performances
outside this are
corresponds are
zone,satisfactory.
the system
to authorized
satisfactory. When the system
is considered
system
When states
the system poles
as failed.
for which
poles
ous uncertainties.
ousdegradation
uncertainties. When
When the system
theand
system is
is of single-component,
of single-component,
single-component, move outside this zone, the system is considered as failed.
ousits
and technological
uncertainties. level
When is usually
features, the system measured
can take
is of or estimated
into account for move
vari- move
the outside this
performances
outside this arezone,
zone, the system
systemWhen
satisfactory.
the is considered
is considered
the system as failed.
as failed.
poles
its degradation
its degradation
degradation level
level is usually
is usually
usually measured
measured or estimated
orofestimated
estimated for
for move The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
itsassessing
ous the remaining
uncertainties. When
level is useful
the system life is
measured(RUL) or the system.
of single-component, for The outside this
remainder of zone,
this the system
paper is is considered
organized as as failed.
follows. In
assessing
assessing the
the remaining
remaining useful life
life (RUL)
(RUL)or of the
ofestimated system.
the system.
system. The remainder
Section
The remainder of this
2, we describe
of thisthe paper is organized
deteriorating
paper is organized systemas follows.
as follows.con-
under In
In
The
its
assessing RULthe
degradation prognosislevel
remaining isisusually
useful measured
useful to make
life (RUL) anof intervention
the for Section 2, we describe the deteriorating system under con-
The
The RUL
RUL prognosis
prognosis is
is useful
useful to
to make
make an
an intervention
intervention Section
sideration.
The
Section 2, we
we
remainder
2, Thisdescribe
is
of
describe athis the
the deteriorating
mass-spring-damper
paper is
deterioratingorganized system
system
systemas under
whose
follows.
under con-
the
In
con-
decision
assessing onthethe system,
remaining such as predictive
life (RUL) maintenance
of intervention
the system. (see sideration. This is
The
decision
decision
e.g.,
RUL
Huynh
on prognosis
the
on the
the system,
system,
et al. (2014,
issuch
useful
such as to make
predictive
as predictive
2017)) predictive
or control
an
maintenance
maintenance
law reconfigura-
(see sideration.
spring
Section
(see sideration. and
2, weThis
the
This is aaa mass-spring-damper
damper
describe
is
mass-spring-damper
mass-spring-damper
thearedeteriorating
system
systemunder
subject to stochastic
system
system
whose
whose
Gamma
whose
the
the
con-
the
The
decision
e.g., RUL
Huynh on prognosis
et system,
al. (2014, is useful
such as
2017)) to
or make
control an intervention
maintenance
law reconfigura- (see spring and the damper are subject to stochastic Gamma
spring
degradation
sideration. and the
This damper
processes.
is a are
The subject
impacts
mass-spring-damper to
of stochastic
the degradation
system Gamma
whose of
the
e.g., Huynh
tion
decision
e.g.,
tion
Huynh
(seeon
(see
e.g.,et Langeron
the
e.g.,et al. (2014,such
system,
al. (2014,
Langeron
2017))
et al. or control
as (2015)).
2017))
et al.
control
(2015)).
predictive
or law reconfigura-
However, reconfigura-
maintenance
law
However,
a system
a (see spring
system degradation and the damperThe
processes. are impacts
subject to of stochastic
the degradationGamma of
tionpractice
(see e.g.,
e.g., Langeron et al.of(2015)).
(2015)). However, degradation
these
spring
degradationcomponents
and processes.
the damper
processes. on The
the
are
The impacts
system
subject
impacts of
poles
to
of the degradation
and
stochastic
the the
degradation system
Gamma of
of
in
e.g.,
tion
in Huynh
(see
practice
usually
et Langeron consists
al. (2014,
usually consists2017))
et al.
of
multiple
or control
multiple
components
components aa system
system
law reconfigura-
However, with these components on the system poles and the system
with these components
responses components
areprocesses. on the
also studied. the system
In Section poles 3, and
the the system
failure system
zone
in practice
tion practice
complex (see usually
structural,
e.g., Langeron consists
stochastic
et of(2015)).
al. multiple
and economic components
However, dependencies
a with these
system degradation
responses are also on The system
studied. impacts
In Section of 3,
poles theanddegradation
the the
failure zoneof
incomplex usually
structural, consists
stochastic of multiple
and economic components
dependencies with responses
and a are
degradation also studied.
indicator In
of Section
the whole 3, the
system failure
in zone
s-plane
in complex
amongpractice structural,
them (see
usually stochastic
e.g.,
consists Huynhof and et economic
multipleal. (2015)).dependencies
components For such
with these
responses
and components
are
a degradation also on the
studied.
indicator system
In
of Section
the poles
whole 3, and
the
system the
failure
in system
zone
s-plane
complex
among structural,
them (see stochastic
e.g., Huynh and et economic
al. (2015)).dependencies
For such anddefined.
aamong
among system,
complex them
them the(see(see
structural, e.g.,
degradation
e.g., Huynh
stochastic
Huynhmodeling
and et economic
et al. and
al. (2015)).
(2015)). For such
especially
dependencies
For the and
such is
is aa degradation
responses degradation
defined.
A procedure
are
A
indicator
also indicator
procedurestudied. to In
to
of
of the
estimate
estimate
whole
Section
the wholethe
the
system
parameters
3,system
the
parameters
in s-plane
failure
in s-plane
and
zone
and
aa system,
system, the
the(see degradation
degradation modeling
modeling and
and especially
especially the is
the
and
is defined.
probability
a A
degradation
defined. A procedure
law of the
indicator
procedure to
to estimate
system
of the
estimate
the the probability law of the system degradation process wholethe
degradation
the parameters
system
parameters process
in and
s-plane
andis
stochastic
aamong system, them interactions
the degradation among
e.g., among
Huynh deteriorating
modeling et al. and(2015)). components
For such
especially the is
stochastic
stochastic interactions
interactions among deteriorating
deteriorating components
components thedefined.
is
the probability
outlined next.
probability A law of
Section
procedure
law of 4the
theto system
focuses on
estimate
system degradation
computing
the
degradation the
parameters process
survival
process andis
is
become
abecome
system,
stochastic hard to achieve.
the todegradation
interactions Accordingly,
among modeling and
deteriorating the system
especially
components RUL
the outlined next. Section 4 focuses on computing the survival
become hard hard
hard to as achieve.
achieve. Accordingly,
Accordingly, the system
the system
system RUL
RUL outlinedoutlined
function
the next.
of
probability the
next. Section
system
law
Section of 4 focuses
conditional
the system
4conditional on
focuses on RUL computing
RUL when
degradation
computing the
a
the survival
simplified
process
survival is
prognosis
stochastic
become asinteractions
well
to the intervention
achieve. among
Accordingly, decision-making
deteriorating the components could
RUL function of the system when a simplified
prognosis
prognosis as
asto well
well as
as the intervention
the intervention
intervention decision-making
decision-making could
could function
failure
outlined
function of the
zone the
next.
of system 4conditional
is assumed.
Section
system conditional
Finally,
focuses on RUL
theRULpaper
computingwhen aa with
endsthe
when simplified
with some
survival
simplified
be
become sensitive
prognosis hard
as such
to
well as dependencies
achieve.
the Accordingly,(seedecision-making
e.g.,the
Li et al. (2016)).
system RUL
could failure zone is assumed. Finally, the paper ends some
be sensitive
be sensitive to
to such
such dependencies
dependencies (see e.g., Li et
(seedecision-making
e.g., Li
Li et al.
et al. (2016)).
al. (2016)).
(2016)). failure
conclusions
function
failure zone
of
zone is
and
the
is assumed.
perspectives
system
assumed. Finally,
in
conditional
Finally, the
the paper
Section
RUL
paper 5. ends
when
ends a with some
simplified
with some
prognosis
be asto well as dependencies
the intervention could conclusions and perspectives in Section 5.
In sensitive
this paper, such
we propose a new (see e.g.,
perspective for degrada- conclusions
failure
conclusions and
zone and perspectives
is assumed.
perspectives in Section
Finally,
in Section
the paper 5. ends with some
5.
In
be this
In this
this paper,
sensitive to
paper, of we
such propose
dependencies
weapropose
propose a new
a new perspective
(see
new perspective e.g.,
perspective Li for
et al. degrada-
(2016)).
fordeteriorat-
degrada- conclusions
In tion modeling
paper, we system consisting
a of variousfor degrada- 2. DETERIORATING
and perspectives SYSTEM
in Section DESCRIPTION
5.
tion modeling
tionthis
modeling of
of a system consisting of various deteriorat- 2. DETERIORATING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Ining
tion
ing
components.
paper, of
modeling
components. weaaThesystem
The system
propose
system
system
consisting
a new
consisting
is
of various
is characterizedvariousfor
perspective
of
characterized
by
by
deteriorat-
an usual
degrada-
deteriorat-
an usual
2. DETERIORATING
2. DETERIORATING SYSTEM SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
ing
tion
ing components.
differential
modeling
components. equation
of aThe system
whose
system
Thewhose
system is
consisting characterized
coefficients of
is characterizedare
various by
varying an
by andue usual
due
deteriorat-
usual to A physical
2. system
DETERIORATING usually suffers
SYSTEM gradual wear and tear
DESCRIPTION
differential equation coefficients are varying to A
A physical
physical system
system usually
usually suffers
suffers gradual
gradual wear
wear and and
and tear
tear
ingdifferential
the stochastic
components.
differential equation
equation The whose
degradation
system coefficients
in is
whose coefficients time of are
characterizedeach
are varying due
component.
by
varying an usual
due to Ato with usage
physical or
systemage. Such
usually a degradation
suffers process
gradualprocesswear reduces
tear
the stochastic degradation in time of each component. with
with usage or
usage system age.
or age. Such
age. usually a degradation
Such aasuffers
degradation process reduces
reduces
the the stochastic
stochastic
differential equationdegradation in time
whose coefficients
degradation in time of ofareeach
each component.
varying due to with
component. A physical
usage or Such gradualprocess
degradation wear and tear
reduces
the stochastic
Copyright © 2017 degradation
IFAC in time of each component. 12760with usage or age. Such a degradation process reduces
Copyright © 2017 IFAC 12760
2405-8963 ©
Copyright
Copyright 2017
2017 IFAC
© 2017, 12760
IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control)
IFAC 12760Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Peer review under responsibility
Copyright © 2017 IFAC of International Federation of Automatic
12760Control.
10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.2036
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
12250
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 K.T. Huynh et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 12249–12254

the performances of the system, and eventually causes the X(t) − X(s), 0 ≤ s ≤ t, characterized by the Gamma
system random failure. Here, we consider a well-known probability density function with shape-parameter α·(t−s)
mass-spring-damper system whose degradation is due to and shape-parameter β (see e.g., Van Noortwijk (2009))
the loss of stiffness of the spring and to the loss of friction of β α·(t−s) uα·(t−s)−1 e−βu
the damper, and we study the impacts of these degradation fα·(t−s),β (u) = · 1{u≥0} , (5)
sources on the performances of the system. Γ(α · (t − s))
where 1{·} denotes the indicator function which equals 1
2.1 Mass-Spring-Damper System if the argument is true and 0 otherwise, and Γ(·) is the
complete Gamma function given by
 ∞
The considered mass-spring-damper system is represented
in Fig. 1. It consists of a spring with stiffness constant K Γ(y) = uy−1 e−u du, y > 0. (6)
0
(N/m), a damper with friction coefficient C (Ns/m), and
a mobile mass M (kg). The system input is an external The couple of parameters (α, β) allows to model various
evolution behaviors from almost-deterministic to very-
chaotic, and its mean rate and variance rate are m = α/β
and σ 2 = α/β 2 respectively. The stiffness K(t) of the
spring and the friction C(t) of the damper are decreasing
with usage or age, so we can express K(t) and C(t) as
K(t) = K0 − XK (t) and C(t) = C0 − XC (t), (7)
where K0 and C0 are the stiffness constant and the
friction coefficient at nominal mode of the system (i.e.,
without degradation), {XK (t)}t≥0 and {XC (t)}t≥0 are
Fig. 1. Mass-Spring-Damper system homogeneous Gamma processes with parameters (αK , βK )
force F (t) (N) that triggers the mass in movement, and and (αC , βC ) respectively.
the system output is the shifting y(t) (m) of the mass Obviously, the decrease of K(t) and C(t) degrades the
around its balance position. Using the Newton’s second system performances. Here, we investigate more in detail
law, we get the relation between F (t) and y(t) as follows the impacts of K(t) and C(t) on the system poles and
d2 y(t) dy(t) on the system responses through numerical studies. As in
M 2
+C + Ky(t) = F (t). (1) Coughanowr and LeBlanc (2008), the system parameters
dt dt
By the Laplace transform, the transfer function of the in nominal mode are chosen as K0 = 5, C0 = 2 and
system is given by M = 1. Next, we fix the mean rates and the variance
rates of {XK (t)}t≥0 and {XC (t)}t≥0 at mK = 0.04,
Y (p) 1 2 2
H(p) = = 2
. (2) σK = 0.005, mC = 0.015 and σC = 0.002. Then, we
F (p) M p + Cp + K simulate {XK (t)}t≥0 and {XC (t)}t≥0 in the time interval
This is a second-order system characterized by the 2 poles [0, 100] in Fig. 2. We sketch in Fig. 3 the system step
√
−C ± C 2 − 4M K responses at some discrete times τi and the associated
P1,2 = . (3) evolution a dominant pole of the system (i.e., the real
2M
2 pole or the complex pole with positive imaginary part
When C − 4M K ≥ 0, the system poles are real, and which is nearest to origin of the s-plane). We can see
only the dominant one is significant; otherwise, they are
complex conjugate, and the real and imaginary parts are 5 2
respectively
√
C 4M K − C 2
Pr = − and Pi = ± . (4)
2M 2M
3.9 1.4
2.2 Stochastic Evolution of Degradation Sources & Their
C(t)
K(t)

Impact on The System Performances

The considered mass-spring-damper system undergoes a 2.8 0.8

gradual stochastic degradation. As shown in Medjaher
et al. (2014) and Travé-Massuyès et al. (2015), the loss of
stiffness of the spring and the loss of friction of the damper
are the main sources of this degradation phenomenon. 1.7 0.2
According to Singpurwalla (1995), the evolution of these 0 50 100 0 50 100
t t
degradation sources could be described by stochastic pro-
cesses. In this paper, homogeneous Gamma processes are Fig. 2. Stochastic evolutions of K(t) and C(t)
resorted to. The choice of Gamma processes for degrada-
tion modeling has been justified by practical applications clearly that the losses of the spring stiffness and of the
(see e.g., Van Noortwijk (2009)) and considered appropri- damper friction in time make the system more oscillating
ate by experts (see e.g., Blain et al. (2007)). Let {X(t)}t≥0 (i.e., less stable), slow down the system response, increase
be a homogeneous Gamma process parameterized by α the response overshoot, etc. Accordingly, the system pole
and β, it is a positive, increasing jump processes with moves down and to the right in the s-plane towards the
X(0) = 0 and with independent stationary increments lower performance area limited by the Evans contour (see

12761
 Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 K.T. Huynh et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 12249–12254 12251

2.05 1.5 as steady-state error, response time, rise time, overshoot,

τ =0 τ =0
0 0 etc. (see Fig. 4) are no longer satisfied. In the s-plane,
τ 1 = 25 τ = 25
1
τ = 50 τ 2 = 50 1.5
1.85 2
τ = 75
1 3
τ = 100
4
P (t)

y(t)
1.65
i

τ = 75
3 1
0.5
1.45

τ = 100 0.5
4
1.25 0
−1 −0.7 −0.4 −0.1 0 5 10 15
P (t) t
r

Fig. 3. System pole evolution and associated step responses

0
e.g. Maret (1987), page 194). This observation is very 0 2 4 6
important in determining a degradation indicator of the
Fig. 4. Quantities related to the system performances
system in the next section.
all these required performances are expressed by an area
3. SYSTEM FAILURE & DEGRADATION limited by the Evans contour. Thus, the failure zone of the
INDICATOR IN S-PLAN system in s-plane can be given as in Fig. 5. In this paper,

We seek here a way to characterize the failure and the

degradation indicator of the mass-spring-damper deterio-
rating system. Since the losses of the spring stiffness and
of the damper friction damage the system, the measures
of the stiffness constant K(t) and of the friction coefficient
C(t) can be used as multiple degradation indicators. The
system fails when K(t) and/or C(t) reach a given crit-
ical threshold. This possible definition of system failure
and of degradation indicator has been considered in the
literature (see e.g., Travé-Massuyès et al. (2015); Lorton
et al. (2013)). However, using jointly or separately the
above measures lead to link the system degradation to
the deterioration level of specific components. The defi-
nition of the associated system failure is justified by the
acceptance of physical characteristics or performance of
some components. Using measures on different compo- Fig. 5. Evans contour - System failure zone in s-plane
nents as different degradation indicators for the system
can make the mathematical formulation intractable when the study is just limited to a simplified system failure zone
the number of indicators increases, owing to the use of illustrated as in the right of Fig. 5.
high order multivariate stochastic processes. Of course,
one can resort to feature extraction techniques such as
3.2 Degradation Indicator Definition & Probability Law
principal component analysis to reduce the dimension of
stochastic processes (see e.g., Le Son et al. (2013)), but this
can lead to a loss of information. The system failure and The location of a system pole in s-plane (i.e., the dominant
the degradation indicator that we propose can avoid the one) can properly gather all the system characteristics as
above drawbacks and limit the dimension of multivariate well as its performances (see e.g. Bolton (1992)). More-
stochastic processes to two. Moreover the system failure over, as shown in Section 2, the poles of a deteriorat-
can directly be considered with respect to the global re- ing system gradually move near to its failure zone in
sulting dynamic performances of the controlled system. time. So, we can define the system pole location as a
degradation indicator of the system. Note that we just
consider the complex dominant pole of the system who
3.1 System Failure Definition has the positive imaginary part. As such, the evolution of
the system degradation can be assimilated to a bivariate
In practice, a system failure is not always a total break- stochastic process {Pr (t), Pi (t)}t≥0 , where Pr (t) and Pi (t)
down of the system, but is rather an important defect or are random variables representing respectively the real and
deterioration that causes the system unable to fulfill its imaginary parts of the considered dominant system pole.
requirements anymore even still working (see e.g., Nguyen From (4) and (7), these random variables can be expressed
et al. (2015); Langeron et al. (2015)). Based on this idea, as
the studied mass-spring-damper system is considered as C0 − XC (t)
failed when some required performances quantities such Pr (t) = − , (8)
2M

12762
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
12252
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 K.T. Huynh et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 12249–12254

record data in order to construct the system pole locations


2
4M (K0 − XK (t)) − (C0 − XC (t)) {(p̂r (τ1 ), p̂i (τ1 )), (p̂r (τ2 ), p̂i (τ2 )), . . . , (p̂r (τn ), p̂i (τn ))}.
Pi (t) = . (9)
2M
From system pole locations to degradation parameters
Using the classical change of variables theorem (see e.g.,
Krishnan (2016)), one obtain the joint conditional density The second stage aims at estimating the set of parameters
function of (Pr (t), Pi (t)) at time t knowing that the system (αK , βK , αC , βC ) from the system pole locations deter-
is still running at time τk ≤ t and (Pr (τk ), Pi (τk )) = mined in the first stage. The classical maximum likelihood
(pr,k , pi,k ) by estimation method (see e.g., Myung (2003)) has been used
fPr (t),Pi (t)|Pr (τk ),Pi (τk ) (pr , pi | pr,k , pi,k ) = for this purpose. It is easy to show that the changes
between two successive locations of the system poles
4M 2 pi fαC ·(t−τk ),βC (2M (pr − pr,k )) × [(Pr (τ1 ) − Pr (τ0 ), Pi (τ1 ) − Pi (τ0 )) , . . . , (Pr (τn ) − Pr (τn−1 ),
fαK ·(t−τk ),βK M p2r,k − p2r + p2i,k − p2i , Pi (τn ) − Pi (τn−1 ))] are independent and follow the same
  
(10)
probability density function (10)
where fαC ·(t−τk ),βC (·) and fαK ·(t−τk ),βK (·) are given from
(5). For an illustration, we consider the system character- (Pr (τk ) − Pr (τk−1 ), Pi (τk ) − Pi (τk−1 )) ∼
ized by parameters K0 = 5, C0 = 2, M = 1, mK = 0.03, fPr (τk ),Pi (τk )|Pr (τk−1 ),Pi (τk−1 ) (pr,k , pi,k | pr,k−1 , pi,k−1 ),
2 2
σK = 0.0005, mC = 0.015, σC = 0.0005, and we sketch the where k = 1, 2, . . . , n. The log-likelihood function of Θ =
shape of fPr (t),Pi (t)|Pr (τk ),Pi (τk ) (pr , pi | pr,k , pi,k ) at t = 50 [αK , βK , αC , βC ] knowing the data ∆p̂ = [(p̂r,1 − p̂r,0 ,
knowing τk = 10 and (pr,k , pi,k ) = (−0.9, 1.97) in Fig. p̂i,1 − p̂i,0 ) , . . . , (p̂r,k − p̂r,k−1 , p̂i,k − p̂i,k−1 )] is then
6. The figure on top is given by numerical computation n

Numerical computation l (Θ; ∆p̂) = ln fPr (τk ),Pi (τk )|Pr (τk−1 ),Pi (τk−1 )
k=1
P (t),P (t) P (τ ),P (τ )
i k

40 (p̂r,k , p̂i,k | p̂r,k−1 , p̂i,k−1 ). (11)

r k

20
Thus, an estimation Θ̂ = [α̂K , β̂K , α̂C , β̂C ] of Θ is given by
i

0
1.97
0
Θ̂ = arg max l (Θ; ∆p̂) . (12)
r

1.77 −0.3 Θ
f

1.57 −0.6
1.37 −0.9
Pi(t) P (t) The above procedure can be used offline or online. To show
r
Stochastic simulation the effectiveness of the proposed estimation procedure, we
P (t),P (t) P (τ ),P (τ )

apply it to the same system in the illustration part of

i k

40
Section 3, and we compare the estimated vector of param-
r k

20 eters Θ̂ to the real one Θ = [αK , βK , αC , βC ]. The chosen

trigger dates are τk = 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and
i

0
1.97
0 the trigger time interval is δτ = 10. Note that the units
r

1.77 −0.3
f

1.57 −0.6
1.37 −0.9 of the trigger date and the trigger time interval are not
P (t) Pr(t)
i the same: the former is in week, month, year, etc., while
the latter is in second, minute, etc. Fig. 7 shows the
Fig. 6. Joint condition density function of the system pole recorded step responses of the studied system. The forms
of (10), while the figure at the bottom is obtained by 1.2
[F(τ ), F(τ +δτ)]
stochastic simulation and by the kernel density estimation k k

method via diffusion proposed in Botev et al. (2010). The 0.9 τ 9=90
similarity of these two figures justifies the exactness of the
τ 8=80
mathematical formulation of (10).
τ 7=70
[y(τ k), y(τ k+δτ)]

0.6
τ 6=60
3.3 Parameters Estimation of Degradation Process τ 5=50
0.3
In practice, computing the joint conditional density func-
tion (10) need to know the set of parameters (αK , βK ) τ 0=0
0 τ 1=10
and (αC , βC ) of the processes {XK (t)}t≥0 and {XC (t)}t≥0 . τ 2=20
Here, we propose a two stages procedure to estimate these τ 3=30
τ 4=40
parameters from recorded step responses. −0.3
0 5 10 15 20
[τ k, τ k+∆τ]
From recorded step responses to system pole locations
The first stage is to determine the locations of the system Fig. 7. Recorded step responses of the system
pole in the s-plan from recorded step responses of the
system. To this end, we trigger the system at each date of these signals clearly represent the degradation evolution
τk , k = 1, 2, . . . , n, by a unit step input in a time in the system. Fig. 8 illustrates the locations of the real
interval δt, and we record the associated output. Note system poles and of the ones estimated by the prediction
that, the time interval δτ is much more smaller than the error estimation method. We can see that this estimation
time interval between two successive trigger dates (i.e., method is very efficient. The real and estimated vector
δτ ≪ ∆τ = τk+1 − τk ). Then, we apply the prediction of degradation parameters Θ and Θ̂ are given in Table 1.
error estimation method presented in Ljung (2002) to the These parameters are estimated from 50 samples of system

12763
 Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 K.T. Huynh et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 12249–12254 12253

2.1 τ =0 conditional distribution; i.e., knowing that the system is

0 τ =10 Real locations
1 τ =20 still running at time τk and (Pr (τk ), Pi (τk )) = (pr,k , pi,k ),
2 Estimated locations
τ =30
3
the conditional probability law is expressed by
1.9
L (ρ (τk ) | pr,k , pi,k )
τ =40 τ 5=50 τ 6=60
4 = L (τf − τk | pr,k , pi,k , (pr,k , pi,k ) ∈ W ) (14)
τ =70
Pi(t)

1.7 7 where W denotes the working zone of the system. When

τ =80
8 (pr,k , pi,k ) ∈ W , the conditional RUL survival function is
τ =90
9
given by
1.5 P (ρ (τk | pr,k , pi,k ) > u) = R (τk + u | pr,k , pi,k ) , (15)
where R (τk + u | pr,k , pi,k ) denotes the system conditional
reliability at time τk +u given (pr,k , pi,k ) ∈ W . The expres-
1.3
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 sion (15) indicates that the conditional survival function of
Pr(t) the system RUL at a current time is equivalent to the cor-
responding system conditional reliability at a future time.
Fig. 8. Real and estimated locations of the system pole This explains why RUL is suitable for predictive mainte-
Table 1. Degradation parameters nance planning and decision-making. R (τk + u | pr,k , pi,k )
can be computed by
Real parameters Θ Estimated parameters Θ̂ 
αK βK αC βC α̂K β̂K α̂C β̂C R (τk + u | pr,k , pi,k ) = fPr (τk +u),Pi (τk +u)|Pr (τk ),Pi (τk )
1.8 60 0.45 30 1.9099 64.1615 0.4766 32.2934 W
(pr , pi | pr,k , pi,k )dpr dpi , (16)
pole locations. The estimated parameters are close to the
real ones. where the density fPr (τk +u),Pi (τk +u)|Pr (τk ),Pi (τk ) is given by
(10). Since fPr (τk +u),Pi (τk +u)|Pr (τk ),Pi (τk ) is valid when
4. SYSTEM FAILURE TIME & CONDITIONAL RUL 
ESTIMATION IN S-PLAN pr ≥ pr,k and pi ≤ p2r,k + p2i,k − p2r , (17)
the integral domain of (16) is limited as in Fig. 9. Conse-
There are many ways to define the failure time of the quently, explicit expression of R (τk + u | pr,k , pi,k ) is
system. For instance, it may be the first hitting time of a
degradation process to a critical threshold (see e.g., Huynh R (τk + u | pr,k , pi,k ) = 4M 2 ×
et al. (2015)), the last hitting time (see e.g., Barker and  wr  p2 +p2 −p2r
r,k i,k
Newby (2009)), or a certain moment between the two pi fαC u,βC (2M0 (pr − pr,k )) ×
above times (see e.g., Le Son et al. (2013)). With the pr,k 0
simplified failure zone considered in Section 3, the system fαK u,βK M0 pr,k − p2r + p2i,k − p2i dpi dpr , (18)
  2 
degradation process is “monotonous” in the sense that
the real part of the dominant pole gradually increases in where fαC ·(t−τk ),βC (·) and fαK ·(t−τk ),βK (·) are obtained
time. In Fig. 9, the degradation process evolves towards from (5). For an illustration, we consider the same sys-
2.5
tem as in the above examples and a failure threshold
wr = −0.2, and we sketch in Fig. 10 the system con-
ditional reliability at time τk = 10 and τk = 30. The
2
p = −0.9 + 1.97i p = −0.7 + 1.90i
τ =10 τ =30
k k
1 1
1.5 Num. comp.
MC sim.
Pi (t)

0.8 0.8
1
R(τ +u p ,p )

R(τ +u p ,p )
i,k

i,k

0.6 0.6
r,k

r,k

0.5

0.4 0.4
k

0
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0
Pr (t)
0.2 0.2
Num. comp.
Fig. 9. System failure time - System conditional RUL MC sim.
0 0
the failure zone F by different paths due to its stochastic 10 60 110 160 30 80 130 180
τ +u τ +u
nature. Once hitting the failure zone, the degradation k k

process never goes back to the working zone. Therefore,

we can define the system failure time τf as the first time
that the degradation process reaches the failure zone F
τf = inf t ∈ R+ | (Pr (t) , Pi (t)) ∈ F .
(13)
The RUL of the system at time τk is the random variable
ρ (τk ) = τf −τk which has to be considered according to its
Fig. 10. System conditional reliability at τk = 20, 30
identical curves given by numerical computation of (18)
and by Monte Carlo simulation justify the exactness of
the mathematical formulation of (18). We can see that the
curve on the right is steeper than the one on the left. This

12764
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
12254
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 K.T. Huynh et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 12249–12254
means that the system RUL prediction is more and more
accurate when the pole location is near the failure zone.
5. CONCLUSIONS & PERSPECTIVES
In this paper, we have proposed a new idea that allows
to model the system degradation and estimate the sys-
tem RUL in s-plane. Based on a well-known mass-spring-
damper deteriorating system, a procedure consisting of
data collection, degradation indicator construction, pa-
rameters estimation, failure definition, and RUL estima-
tion has been outlined. Numerical experiments show that
the work is promising and opens many perspectives for
future research. For instance, how to estimate the system
parameters when more than two degradation sources are
considered? When the system failure zone becomes more
complexe, and/or when the system failure time is not any
more the first hitting time of the degradation process
to the failure zone, how to compute the system RUL?
How to validate our proposed approach? These questions
are even more challenging when the considered system
becomes more complexe. Given that a system represen-
tation in s-plane allows analyzing together the impacts
of maintenance operations and automatic control on the
system, we can exploit such representation to develop e.g.,
new predictive maintenance strategies for control systems
whose the reconfiguration of the controller is used as
a complement maintenance action to traditional actions
such as inspection, repair, replacement, etc. Our future
works follow these directions.
REFERENCES
Barker, C.T. and Newby, M.J. (2009). Optimal non-
periodic inspection for a multivariate degradation
model. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 94(1),
33–43.
Blain, C., Barros, A., Grall, A., and Lefebvre, Y. (2007).
Modelling of stress corrosion cracking with stochastic
processes–application to steam generators. In Proc. of
the European Safety and Reliability Conference 2007,
2395–2400.
Bolton, W. (1992). Control Engineering. Longman Scien-
tific & Technical.
Botev, Z.I., Grotowski, J.F., and Kroese, D.P. (2010).
Kernel density estimation via diffusion. The Annals of
Statistics, 38(5), 2916–2957.
Coughanowr, D.R. and LeBlanc, S.E. (2008). Process
Systems Analysis and Control. McGraw-Hill Education,
3 edition.
Grosso, J.M., Ocampo-Martinez, C., and Puig, V. (2012).
A service reliability model predictive control with dy-
namic safety stocks and actuators health monitoring for
drinking water networks. In Proc. 51st IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control, 4568–4573.
Huynh, K.T., Barros, A., and Bérenguer, C. (2015). Multi-
level decision-making for the predictive maintenance k-
of-out-of-n:f deteriorating systems. IEEE Transactions
on Reliability, 64(1), 94–117.
Huynh, K.T., Castro, I.T., Barros, A., and Bérenguer, C.
(2014). On the use of mean residual life as a condition
index for condition-based maintenance decision-making.
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics:
Systems, 44(7), 877–893.
12765
Huynh, K.T., Grall, A., and Berenguer, C. (2017). As-
sessment of diagnostic and prognostic condition indices
for efficient and robust maintenance decision-making of
systems subject to stress corrosion cracking. Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, 159, 237–254.
Krishnan, V. (2016). Probability and random processes.
John Wiley & Sons, 2 edition.
Langeron, Y., Grall, A., and Barros, A. (2015). A modeling
framework for deteriorating control system and predic-
tive maintenance of actuators. Reliability Engineering
& System Safety, 140, 22–36.
Le Son, K., Fouladirad, M., Barros, A., Levrat, E., and
Iung, B. (2013). Remaining useful life estimation
based on stochastic deterioration models: A comparative
study. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 112,
165–175.
Li, H., Deloux, E., and Dieulle, L. (2016). A condition-
based maintenance policy for multi-component systems
with lévy copulas dependence. Reliability Engineering
& System Safety, 149, 44–55.
Ljung, L. (2002). Prediction error estimation methods.
Circuits, Systems and Signal Processing, 21(1), 11–21.
Lorton, A., Fouladirad, M., and Grall, A. (2013). Compu-
tation of remaining useful life on a physic-based model
and impact of a prognosis on the maintenance process.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 227(4), 434–449.
Maret, L. (1987). Régulation automatique. Presses Poly-
techniques Romandes. In French.
Medjaher, K., Skima, H., and Zerhouni, N. (2014). Condi-
tion assessment and fault prognostics of microelectrome-
chanical systems. Microelectronics Reliability, 54(1),
143–151.
Myung, I.J. (2003). Tutorial on maximum likelihood
estimation. Journal of mathematical Psychology, 47(1),
90–100.
Nguyen, D.N., Dieulle, L., and Grall, A. (2015). Remaining
useful lifetime prognosis of controlled systems: A case
of stochastically deteriorating actuator. Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, 2015. Article ID 356916.
Singpurwalla, N.D. (1995). Survival in dynamic environ-
ments. Statistical Science, 10(1), 86–103.
Sobczyk, K. and Spencer, B.F. (1992). Random fatigue:
from data to theory. Academic Press.
Suyama, K. and Sebe, N. (2010). Probabilistic safety
management of control laws against deviations from
normal operating-range. In Proc. 1st IEEE Conference
on Control and Fault-Tolerant Systems, 442–449.
Travé-Massuyès, L., Pons, R., Ribot, P., Pencole, Y., and
Jauberthie, C. (2015). Condition-based monitoring and
prognosis in an error-bounded framework. In Proc. 26th
International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, 83–
90.
Van Noortwijk, J.M. (2009). A survey of the application
of gamma processes in maintenance. Reliability Engi-
neering & System Safety, 94(1), 2–21.
Virkler, D.A., Hillberry, B.M., and Goel, P.K. (1979). The
statistical nature of fatigue crack propagation. Journal
of Engineering Materials and Technology, 101(2), 148–
153.
Zhang, Y. and Jiang, J. (2008). Bibliographical review
on reconfigurable fault-tolerant control systems. Annual
reviews in control, 32(2), 229–252.