2017 International Conference on Sensing, Diagnostics, Prognostics, and Control

Fault Diagnosis and Health Assessment of Landing Gear Hydraulic Retraction System
based on Multi-source Information Feature Fusion

Kuijian Liu1, Yunwen Feng2, Xiaofeng Xue

Department of Aircraft Design Engineering
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University
Xi’an, China
E-mail: 1liukuijian@mail.nwpu.edu.cn, 2fengyunwen@nwpu.edu.cn

Abstract—In order to solve the problems that a single signal
cannot provide sufficient fault information, while the direct
using of multi-sensor signals for fusion diagnosis will lead to a
heavy calculation which will reduce the diagnostic efficiency, a
multi-source information feature fusion method is proposed in
this paper. The stacked denoising autoencoders (SDAE) is used
to extract the abstract features of time-domain features of
multi-source signals, and then locality preserving projection
(LPP) is used to dimension reduction to complete the feature
fusion. Finally, the fused low-dimensional features act as inputs
to the support vector machine (SVM) to realize the failure
detection and fault location of typical fault modes of the
landing gear hydraulic retraction system. The inhibitory effect
of the closed-loop system on the incipient fault is discussed as
well. Moreover, a health assessment method is presented
considering the gradual degradation of leakage fault of the
actuator. The results show that the proposed method is more
accurate and reliable than any single signal result. The model
of health assessment can give the internal leakage severity of
the actuator. The significance of this paper is to provide a
feasible idea of the fault diagnosis and health assessment of the
landing gear hydraulic retraction system.
Keywords- fault diagnosis; health assessment; landing gear;
hydraulic retraction system; multi-source; SDAE; LPP; feature
fusion; closed-loop
I. INTRODUCTION
The aircraft landing gear is generally taken the hydraulic
system as the power of retraction and extension, whether the
hydraulic retraction system can work normally will affect the
safety of aircraft and occupants [1]. The hydraulic system
has a high failure rate according to the historical use of
landing gear, but the current landing gear fault diagnosis can
only rely on experience of maintenance personnel and
ground test [2]. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out on-line
fault diagnosis study on the landing gear hydraulic retraction
system to reduce maintenance cost and improve the
reliability and safety of the system [3, 4].
At the aspect of knowledge-based fault diagnosis, Abbott
et al. [5] proposed a fault diagnosis expert system for the
hydraulic system on the space shuttle, which is used to assist
the hydraulic system design and improve the reliability.
Yang [6] analyzed the working principle of the landing gear
at first, and a fault diagnosis expert system was established
for the health management of the landing gear. However,
there are some shortcomings in knowledge-based method,
such as difficulty for knowledge acquisition, and the
diagnostic accuracy depends on the experience of experts in
a great degree. Data-based diagnostic method is based on the
historical data of the system. And the analytical model need
not to be established and has strong applicability. Pollmeier
et al. [7] used artificial neural network for fault diagnosis of
electro-hydraulic servo system. The neural network can
identify multiple fault modes. Zhao et al. [8] proposed a
hydraulic pump fault diagnosis method based on rough set
and support vector machine. Kim [9] compared the
diagnostic results of HP-LNG pump using three different
methods and proved that the distance evaluation technique
(DET) has a better feature extraction capacity. Byington [10]
proposed an aircraft hydraulic system fault diagnosis and
health management method using neural network and
realized remaining life predictions for aircraft actuator
components. Balaban et al. [11] developed a health
management system for electromechanical actuators that
could be used for next generation aircraft and spacecraft.
They proposed a diagnostic algorithm using a combined
model-based and data-driven reasoner.
Although the above methods had been applied success-
fully, there are still some restrictions in these data-driven
diagnosis methods [7-11]. For example, the above methods
extract features from a single signal, which cannot provide
sufficient fault information [12]. Though multi-sensor
signals were used for fault diagnosis in [13], the features
extraction was carried out without fusion. And the direct use
of multi-sensor signals for fusion diagnosis will lead to a
heavy calculation which will reduce the fault diagnosis
efficiency. Zhou et al. [14] pointed out that information
fusion is the trend of the data-driven diagnosis of hydraulic
system. The purpose of information fusion is to integrate
multiple signals in order to obtain more reliable information,
while reducing the complexity of the data. Traditional
shallow learning model, like BP neural network, can also
merge multi-source information, but it is easy to be over-
fitting, which means a weak generalization capacity. Unlike
the shallow model, the deep learning model can extract
higher-level and more abstract features from the input data
through a series of nonlinear maps [15]. In this paper, a
method of feature fusion using stacked denoising
autoencoders (SDAE) and locality preserving projection
(LPP) [16] is proposed to realize the fault diagnosis and
location of the typical fault modes of landing gear hydraulic

978-1-5090-4020-9/17 $31.00 © 2017 IEEE 321

DOI 10.1109/SDPC.2017.68
system such as actuator leakage, insufficient opening volume
of the selector valve, hydraulic pump leakage, oil filter
blockage. The SDAE is used to obtain abstract features of
the pre-processed multi-source signals. Then, the LPP is
used to merge abstract features and extract the most
representative information while reducing feature
dimensions and improving the efficiency of diagnosis.
Finally, the SVM algorithm is used to implement fault
classification. Moreover, considering the gradual degradation
of leakage fault of the actuator, having the ability to judge
whether the actuator is normal or faulty is not enough. The
y = gθ ' (h ) = f ( WT h + b ' ) (3)
Sigmoid function f (z ) act as a decoder activation
function, θ ' ={WT ,b' } are the decoder parameters, W T is
the weight matrix of the decoder which called tied weights,
and b ' is the bias unit.
The parameters set ș={θ ,θ ' }={W,b, WT ,b' } of the
autoencoder are used to minimize the reconstruction error
between the input and output layers
n

paper also carried out a study on the health assessment of the J AE (ș) = L(x, y ) = −¦ [ x k log(y k ) + (1 − x k ) log(1 − y k )] (4)
leakage fault of the hydraulic actuator. k =1
where L(x, y ) is a loss function that is used to measure the
II. THEORY OF THE PROPOSED METHOD reconstruction error between the reconstructed output vector
and the input vector. The parameters are updated by using
A. Traditional Autoencoder the gradient descent method for each step.
An Autoencoder (AE) is a simple, unsupervised, three
B. Stacked Denoising Autoencoder
layer neural networks that can learn the abstract representa-
tion of input data. The autoencoder contains an encoder and Stacked Denoising Autoencoder firstly being proposed by
a decoder. The encoder constructs the hidden layer through Vincent et al. [17] in 2010. The idea of this method is to add
the input layer. The decoder constructs the output layer a certain degree of noise into the input vector, that is, the
through the hidden layer based on the optimization of corruption of the raw input. Then the corruption data is used
minimizing the reconstruction error between the input layer to do the conventional encoding and decoding process. The
and the output layer. Then the hidden layer is the abstract target is to reconstruct the raw input that is the same as the
representation of the input layer. Fig. 1 is the basic structure autoencoder. Denoising autoencoder can reduce the effect of
of autoencoder, the first layer is the input layer, the middle background noise and establish a more robust reconstruction.
layer is the hidden layer, the third layer is the output layer. Gaussian noise is usually selected in the corruption process.
The whole process of DAE is shown in Fig. 2.
hidden layer h Loss funtion
x1 y1 h1 h2 h3 hm L( x, y )
h1 fθ
gθ '
x2 y2 x1 x2 x3 xn
İ
x1 x2 x3 xn y1 y 2 y 3 y n
h2 corruption x rowinput x reconstruction y
x3 y3
Fig. 2. Architecture of DAE
Encoder Decoder
hm Similar to the autoencoder, the goal of a DAE is to
xn yn
minimize the reconstruction error as well. The loss function
hbias of the DAE is
xbias n
J DAE (ș) = L(x, y ) = −¦ [ xk log( yk ) + (1 − xk ) log(1 − yk ) ] (5)
1

k =1
Fig. 1. Autoencoder.
With
The encoder maps the input vector x ={x1 ,x 2 ,! ,x D } (for  ) = f ( WT h
y =gθ ' (h  + b' ) (6)
each sample x i = [ x1 , x2 , ! , xn ] ∈  ) to the hidden layer
T n
h = f (x) = f ( Wx + b ) (7)
θ

(for each hidden layer h i = [h1 , h 2 , ! , h m ] ∈  )through

T m
the sigmoid function f (z ) .
h = fθ (x) = f ( Wx + b)
f (z ) = 1/ (1 + exp(−z ))
where θ ={W,b} are the encoder parameters, W ∈  m× n is
weight matrix, and b ∈  m is the bias unit.
Then, the decoder reconstructs the input layer at the
output layer, the output reconstruction vector is y =
[ y1 , y 2 , ! , y n ]T as followed
x=x + İ, İ ~ N (0, σ I) 2
(8)

where x is the raw data, x is the corruption data, and İ is the
(1) additive Gaussian noise.
The stacked denoising autoencoders consist of multiple
(2)
DAE, and each output of the previous layer is taken as the
input to the next layer. A SDAE is trained through the
greedy layerwise approach by training each layer in turn.
Each time only one DAE’s parameters will be updated and
the other layer’s remain unchanged. In this paper, the SDAE
is trained in an unsupervised way. The time-domain features

322
obtained from multiple signals are input to the SDAE with from the deep networks, the LPP is then used for further
two hidden layers for deep feature fusion. The fusion process fusion.
is shown in Fig. 3. After the higher-level features are learned
Stacked Denoising autoencoders

x1
Signal 1 Time − domain features LPP for deep fusion
h1(2)
h1(1)
x2 y = AT x
Signal 2 Time − domain features h2(2)
h2(1)
x3
"

"
h3(2)
(1)
h m
Signal n Time − domain features
xn hl(2)
+1
+1

Fig. 3. Feature fusion using SDAE and LPP

Monitoring data: Pre-processing Feature fusion Classification

Hydraulic pump pressure Time-domain features Stacked DAE LPP SVM

Mode detect

Data mean class 1

Inlet acutator pressure variance
T
y =A x
peak class 2
Angular displacement residual
skewness

"
Mode
Selector valve current kurtosis class n
crest factor
Inlet acutator flow rate root mean square
""

Fig. 4. Steps of the proposed method

[16]. The LPP is able to keep the geometric structure of the

C. Fault diagnosis steps for landing gear hydraulic system
based on multi-souce information feature fusion
The idea of the proposed feature fusion diagnostic
method in this paper is shown in Fig. 4. The method
accomplished multi-source information feature fusion by
using stacked denoising autoencoders and locality preserving
projection.
First of all, for the landing gear hydraulic system, signals
such as the flow rate, pressure et al. will be used to monitor
the state of the system. These signals are usually non-
stationary, so it is difficult to extract features through
traditional FFT analysis. Therefore, time-domain features
such as mean, root mean square, skewness and other
statistical features are calculated, as showed in Table I.
These preprocessed features need to be normalized by (9)
before feature fusion.
x (i ) = ( x( i ) − xmin
(i ) (i )
) / ( xmax (i )
− xmin ) (9)
Secondly, the SDAE is used for the initial multi-source
information fusion, which can learn higher-level abstract
representation from the input statistical features. It is pointed
out in [17] that the method is able to improve the
performance of classifier like SVM.
Thirdly, the dimension of abstract features learned from
the SDAE is reduced by using LPP. Deep features learned
from multiple signals are often high-dimensional, and some
measures need to be taken to reduce the dimensions and to
improve the efficiency of diagnosis. LPP is an effective
feature dimension reduction method [18, 19]. The detailed
algorithm of locality preserving projection can be found in
original data after the low-dimensional mapping which
ensures that the learned deeper features will not be lost.
Finally, using the support vector machine to complete the
fault diagnosis. SVM algorithm is based on the theory of
statistical learning and structural risk minimization principle.
The key of this method is to find a hyper plane which is
defined by the support vectors while the distance of two data
sets to the hyper plane being maximized. Its theoretical
introduction can be seen in [20]. Multiple modes
classification problem of SVM can be solved by converting
into series binary classification problem.
III. LANDING GEAR HYDRAULIC SYSTEM SIMULATION
A. Simulation Model
In this paper, AMESim software is used to establish the
aircraft nose landing gear hydraulic system. Fig. 5. shows the
system can be divided into three subsystems: 1. Hydraulic
energy system 2. Hydraulic servo system 3. Hydraulic
control system.
The hydraulic energy system provides suitable pressure
and flow rate for the hydraulic system. The oil flows through
the oil filter, the check valve, the accumulator and the relief
valve to the selector valve. According to the received signals
(retraction, extension or neutral) of the hydraulic control
system, the corresponding hydraulic pressure and flow rate
will be supplied to lock actuator and retracting actuator by
the selector valve.

323
 TABLE I STATISTICAL FEATURES
Statistical characteristics Formula Statistical characteristics Formula
1 N 1 N
x = ¦ xk ¦ ( xi − x )
2
mean Variance var =
N k =1 N − 1 k =1
2
1 N ª1 N º
¦ xk xsra = « ¦ xk
2 12
Root mean square xrms = Square root Amplitude value »
N k =1 ¬ N k =1 ¼
N
1 1 N
3 ¦ ¦ xk
Skewness xskew = ( xk − x ) 3 Absolute mean Amplitude value xave =
( N − 1)σ k =1 N k =1
N
1
Kurtosis xkurtosis = ¦
( N − 1)σ 4 k =1
( xk − x ) 4 Peak-to-Peak x p − p = max( x) − min( x)

Crest factor CF = x peak / xrms Peak x peak = max x

Impulse factor IF = x peak / xkurtosis Shape factor SF = xrms / xave
Kurtosis factor KF = xrms / xkurtosis

extension/retraction failure of the landing gear, which

9
contributes to serious flight accidents. According to the
10 8 historical failure records and ground testing results, this
paper mainly considers four kinds of typical failure modes of
5 6
7 landing gear hydraulic system (including the normal state are
4 3 5 classes), as shown in Table II.
1
TABLE II TYPICAL FAULT MODES OF LANDING GEAR HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
11 Class Fault mode Fault Fault reason
Phenomenon
Class1 Normal None None
Unable to
2 Hydraulic actua-
complete the Piston rod wear,
Class2 tor internal leak-
specified action oil seal failure
Hydraulic energy system age
or with delay
Hydraulic servo system Insufficient outlet
Hydraulic control system
Insufficient ope- pre-ssure and Deterioration of
1. hydraulic pump 2. motor 3. tank 4. oil filter 5. throttle valve Class3 ning of the se- small outlet flow spool coil or cy-
6. relief valve 7. accumulator 8. check valve 9. selector valve lector valve rate of selector linder wear
10. actuator 11. hydraulic lock
valve
Fig. 5. Nose landing gear hydraulic system Insufficient outlet
Cylinder wear
Hydraulic pump pre-ssure and
Class4 or oil seal
The designed unlock time of landing gear is 2s, extension internal leakage flow rate of
failure
hydraulic pump
time is 10s, and retraction time is 7s. Set the landing gear to
Small outlet flow
the down position (the corresponding angle is 0°). After the Oil filter block- rate of filter and
Blockage
unlocking process is completed, the landing gear starts to Class5 caused by oil
age the pressure is
contami-nation
retraction and to be locked in the up position (corresponding too high
to 87°). Few seconds later, the landing gear starts to
extension and to be locked in the down position. The total
simulation time is set to 35s. The response angle C. Landing gear hydraulic system signal selection
displacement curve of landing gear is shown in Fig. 6. It can considering closed-loop control system
be seen that the system have good dynamic response. A variety of dynamic signals will be generated during the
Simulation result shows that the landing gear hydraulic landing gear hydraulic system operation. And the appropriate
system is able to complete the specified retraction action and signals which can reflect the system's operating state are
the simulation results are credible. conducive to fault diagnosis. Ref. [21] pointed out that the
closed-loop control will make the slight fault covered. Fig. 7.
B. Typical Fault Modes shows the angle displacement responses under different
The landing gear hydraulic system is a system with a leakage coefficients. It can be seen that the closed-loop
high failure rate on the aircraft, and its failure can cause control system suppresses the impact of leakage.

324
 100 100

Retraction and extension angle (°)

Retraction and extension angle (°)
Response angle displacement 0
90 90
Input control signal 0.01
80 80 0.02
0.05
70 70
0.10
60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0

-10 -10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (s) Time (s)
Fig. 6. Input control signal and response signal curve Fig. 7. Response curve under different leakage coefficients

1
 250

Angle displacement residual (°)

0.8
200

0.6

Pressure (bar)
150
0.4

0.2
100

50
-0.2

-0.4 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (s) Time (s)
Fig. 8. Angular displacement residual Fig. 9. Hydraulic pump pressure

Although when the leakage coefficient is 0.05 and 0.1,
the extension time are delayed by 1.97s and 3.83s,
respectively, in the leakage coefficient of 0.01 and 0.02 the
landing gear is still able to accomplish extension on time,
which means that monitoring the landing gear
retraction/extension time or angular displacement cannot be
a good judge criterion of whether the landing gear hydraulic
system failure or not. When the state of the hydraulic system
is abnormal, the selector valve current and the angle
displacement residual signal are changed correspondingly by
the closed-loop in order to maintain the initial state of the
system. The pressure and the flow rate signal can directly
reflect the working condition of the hydraulic system. These
signals above-mentioned are easily available in real
hydraulic retracting system. In summary, we select the
pressure and the flow rate signal of the hydraulic actuator,
the current signal of the selector valve, the angular
displacement residual signal and the pressure signal of the
hydraulic pump as the original data for fault diagnosis.
IV.
A. Diagnostic Results of Landing Gear Hydraulic System
There are five classes in total as we have discussed in
part B, section III. And each class have 200 samples, 50%
are used for training and 50% for testing. The five original
signals are the hydraulic pump pressure, the actuator
pressure and flow rate, the servo valve current, the angular
displacement residual. Fig. 8. and Fig. 9. show the angular
displacement residual and the hydraulic pump pressure.
Then, the time-domain statistical features given in Table I
are extracted for each of the five signals, and each obtained
time-domain feature is input to SDAE to learn deeper
features.
The biggest problem with deep learning model such as
stacked denoising autoencoders applying to the fault
diagnosis is the need for more training time than the shallow
learning model. However, this should be unacceptable in
aircraft systems fault diagnosis if the training time was too
long. And the more the number of hidden layers and nodes
per layer, the longer the training time. Therefore, both the
number of hidden layers and nodes should not be too large.
In this paper, each SDAE’s input layer has 5 nodes,
corresponding to the selected 5 signals. In order to reduce the
training time, each SDAE used in this paper contains two
hidden layers. The first layer has 8 nodes, the second layer
has 15 nodes, to dig out more abstract features from the time-
domain features. Table III is the parameter settings of SDAE.
TABLE III CONFIGURATION OF EACH SDAE
RESULTS SDAE
Number of hidden layer 2
Node per layer 5-8-15
Learning rate 0.15
Number of epochs 20
Batch sizes 100
Gaussian noise variance 0.2
Weight Penalty 0.01

325
 1 0.6
0.5
PCA 3
0 0.2
-0.5
-1
1 1.5
0 1
PCA 2 -1
-2
-2 -3
Fig. 10. PCA
-0.497
-0.498
LPP 3
-0.499
-0.5
-0.501
0.43
0.428
-0.388
0.426
-0.39
0.424 -0.392
LPP 2 LPP 1
Fig. 12. The proposed method
The LPP is used to reduce the dimension of the deep
features, and finally obtain the information with the least
dimension for diagnosis. Then, the fused features are input to
the SVM classification algorithm to complete the fault
diagnosis of the hydraulic system. Fig. 10. is the result of
traditional methods using PCA for direct feature fusion and
dimension reduction, only class2 (hydraulic actuator
leakage) can be completely distinguished and other types of
fault modes having a certain degree of mixing. The result of
directly using LPP for feature fusion is shown in Fig. 11. It
can be seen that class3 (insufficient opening of selector
valve) and class 4 (hydraulic pump leakage) are further
separated and the remaining two fault modes still have a
tendency to be mixed together. Fig. 12. is the result of using
the proposed method, we can see that all the fault modes can
be separated in a great extent. The proposed method using
SDAE and LPP for multi-source information feature fusion
can increase the degree of separation of fault modes and have
stronger feature fusion ability. Fig. 13. shows the diagnostic
accuracy of the training set and testing set using different
methods for fault diagnosis. The correct rate of using a single
signal for diagnosis is only 40%-60%, which is unacceptable
in hydraulic system fault diagnosis. The correct rate of the
proposed methods is 97.6%, which has a better performance
than PCA (89.8%) or LPP (92.6%). The proposed method in
this paper has high fault diagnosis accuracy for the landing
gear hydraulic system.
B. Health Assessment of Hydraulic Actuator
Hydraulic actuator leakage is one of the most common
faults in the landing gear hydraulic system. The fault mode is
0.4
LPP 3
0
-0.2
1 1.5
0 1
0.5
-1
PCA 1 0.5
LPP 2 0 0 LPP 1
-0.5 -0.5
Fig. 11. LPP
-0.382
-0.384
-0.386
Fig. 13. Accuracy of different diagnostic methods
a gradual fault, and its severity increases with the
aggravation of the seal wear. Considering the gradual
evolution of the leakage fault, only having the ability to
divide the actuator into normal or fault state is not enough,
but it should be the severity of its leakage can be measured
as well. Usually, the confidence value (CV) is used to
describe the health of equipment. The closer the CV value is
to 1 indicates that the actuator is in good health and the
closer to 0 indicates that the actuator leaks more severe.
TABLE IV REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS
coefficients θ0 θ1 θ2 θ3
values 0.1630 2.6066 -1.9189 -8.4583
In this paper, Logistic Regression model is used to
evaluate the health state of the actuator. In[22], the
derivation and application of the logistic regression model
are introduced in detail. The inlet pressure and flow signal of
the actuator are selected as the original data for the health
assessment. 200 samples were collected at different leakage
levels (corresponding to a series of different CVs), of which
75% were used for regression model training and tested with
the remaining 25%. The trained regression parameters are
shown in Table IV. According to the previous fault analysis,
we know that when the leakage coefficient is less than 0.05,
the landing gear can still complete the extension on time.
When this value is larger, the retraction time is delayed, so
the corresponding CV value (0.8) is taken as the threshold
value. Below this value, it is considered that the actuator
leaks too severe which needs to be repaired. Fig. 14. shows
the results of the health assessment of the actuator, showing
326
that the regression model can assess the health state of the
actuator and meet the actual situation of performance
degradation of actuator.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CV
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Samples
Fig. 14. Health assessment for actuator performance degradation
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a multi-source information feature fusion
method using SDAE and LPP for fault diagnosis is proposed,
which realizes the failure detection and fault location of
typical fault modes of landing gear hydraulic retraction
system, such as actuator leakage, insufficient opening of the
selector valve, hydraulic pump leakage, oil filter blockage.
Taking into account the effect of closed-loop control, five
signals which are the inlet pressure and flow rate of actuator,
the selector valve current, the angular displacement residual,
outlet hydraulic pump pressure have been selected as the
original data of fault diagnosis. The time-domain features of
these signals are input to the SDAE to learn the high-level
abstract features. Then, the LPP is used to reduce the
dimension to complete the feature fusion process. Finally the
SVM is used to complete the fault diagnosis and
classification. The results show that the proposed feature
fusion method has better feature fusion ability than the direct
fusion using PCA or LPP, and has higher fault diagnosis
accuracy. Considering the gradual evolution of leak fault, it
is necessary to do the health assessment of the actuator since
the leakage failure occurred frequently in real landing gear
hydraulic system. The established health assessment model
can monitor the confidence value of the actuator, which can
be helpful for maintenance decision. The significance of this
paper is to provide a feasible way for the fault diagnosis and
health assessment of the landing gear hydraulic system.
Further research is to discuss what kind of maintenance
methods should be taken after getting the diagnosis results
and deeper exploration of the impact of closed-loop control
on diagnostic accuracy.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is supported by the Civil Aircraft Special
Technology and Research Project (MJZ-2014-F-06).
REFERENCES
[1] Y. Li, Aircraft Hydraulic Transmission and control: Science Press,
2009.(in Chinese)
[2] Y. Tang, Z. Liu, Z. Wang, and J. Sun, "The Analysis &
countermeasure of the reason for Military Aircraft Hydraulic System
Fault," Chinese Hydraulics & Pneumatics, vol. 2009, pp. 84-87, 2009.
(in Chinese)
[3] H. Zhang, R. Kang, and M. Pecht, "A hybrid prognostics and health
management approach for condition-based maintenance," in
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2009. IEEM
2009. IEEE International Conference on, 2009, pp. 1165-1169.
[4] A. Ahmadi, T. Fransson, A. Crona, M. Klein, and P. Soderholm,
"Integration of RCM and PHM for the next generation of aircraft," in
Aerospace conference, 2009 IEEE, 2009, pp. 1-9.
[5] K. H. Abbott, P. C. Schutte, M. T. Palmer, and W. R. Ricks,
"Faultfinder: A diagnostic expert system with graceful degradation
for onboard aircraft applications." 1988.
[6] Y. Yang, "Aircraft landing gear extension and retraction control
system diagnostics, prognostics and health management." 2012.
[7] K. Pollmeier, C. Burrows, and K. Edge, "Condition Monitoring of an
Electrohydraulic Position Control System Using Artificial Neural
180 200 Networks," in ASME 2004 International Mechanical Engineering
 Congress and Exposition, 2004, pp. 137-146.
[8] S. Zhao, S. Wang, and Y. Shang, "Prognostics and health
management system of hydraulic power supply," Journal of Beijing
University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, vol. 36, pp. 14-17, 2010.
(in Chinese)
[9] H. Kim and T. Jeon, "Evaluation of Feature Extraction Techniques
for Intelligent Fault Diagnostics of High-Pressure LNG Pump," in
Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Engineering Asset
Management (WCEAM 2015), 2016, pp. 553-562.
[10] C. S. Byington, M. Watson, and D. Edwards, "Data-driven neural
network methodology to remaining life predictions for aircraft
actuator components," in Aerospace Conference, 2004. Proceedings.
2004 IEEE, 2004, pp. 3581-3589.
[11] E. Balaban, A. Saxena, S. Narasimhan, I. Roychoudhury, M.
Koopmans, C. Ott, et al., "Prognostic health-management system
development for electromechanical actuators," Journal of Aerospace
Information Systems, vol. 12, pp. 329-344, 2015.
[12] F. He, X. Liu, X. Lu, and Y. Ta, "A Research on Fault Detection
Diagnosis Technology for Sensor," Science Technology and
Engineering, pp. 6481-6487, 2010. (in Chinese)
[13] P. Chopra and S. K. Yadav, "Fault detection and classification by
unsupervised feature extraction and dimensionality reduction,"
Complex & Intelligent Systems, vol. 1, pp. 25-33, 2015.
[14] R. Zhou, Z. Jiao, and S. Wang, "Current research and developing
trends on fault diagnosis of hydraulic systems," Chinese Journal of
Mechanical Engineering, vol. 42, pp. 6-14, 2006. (in Chinese)
[15] Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, "Deep learning," Nature, vol.
521, pp. 436-444, 2015.
[16] X. He and P. Niyogi, "Locality preserving projections," in NIPS,
2003.
[17] P. Vincent, H. Larochelle, I. Lajoie, Y. Bengio, and P.-A. Manzagol,
"Stacked denoising autoencoders: Learning useful representations in a
deep network with a local denoising criterion," Journal of Machine
Learning Research, vol. 11, pp. 3371-3408, 2010.
[18] X. Ding, Q. He, and N. Luo, "A fusion feature and its improvement
based on locality preserving projections for rolling element bearing
fault classification," Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 335, pp.
367-383, 2015.
[19] Q. Fan, D. Gao, and Z. Wang, "Multiple empirical kernel learning
with locality preserving constraint," Knowledge-Based Systems, vol.
105, pp. 107-118, 2016.
[20] C. Cortes and V. Vapnik, "Support-vector networks," Machine
learning, vol. 20, pp. 273-297, 1995.
[21] D. Zhou, Y. Liu, and X. He, "Review on Fault Diagnosis Techniques
for Closed-loop systems," Acta Automatica Sinica, vol. 39, pp. 1933-
1943, 2013. (in Chinese)
[22] D. W. Hosmer Jr, S. Lemeshow, and R. X. Sturdivant, Applied
logistic regression, vol. 398: John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
327