Advertisement

Probabilistic Model-Based Prognostics Using Meshfree Modeling

  • Stephen Ekwaro-Osire
  • Haileyesus Belay Endeshaw
  • Fisseha M. Alemayehu
  • Ozhan Gecgel
Chapter

Abstract

Improved system reliability and reduced maintenance cost are guaranteed if the prediction of remaining useful life (RUL) is deemed to be accurate. Energy systems, like wind turbines, are the primary beneficiaries of this achievement as they tend to suffer from an unexpected early life failure of components that resulted in the loss of revenue and high maintenance costs. The issue of uncertainty in the prediction of a future state is yet a prevailing issue in prognostics and due attention is paramount. Hence, there is a need for establishing a comprehensive framework to quantify uncertainty in prognostics and this research addresses this issue by considering a research question that reads ‘can uncertainty considerations improve the prediction of RUL?’ The following specific aims were developed to answer the research question: (1) develop a meshfree cantilever beam with uncertainty in loading conditions, and (2) predict remaining useful life reliably. A probabilistic framework was developed that efficiently predicts remaining useful life of a component using a combination of meshfree model and degradation model. To account for prediction uncertainty, modeling and loading uncertainties are quantified and incorporated into the framework. As an example, the problem of a cantilever beam subjected to a fatigue loading was considered and local radial point interpolation method was used to find the stresses. The cyclic stresses and the damage model, constructed using the S-N equation, are implemented in the prognostics framework to predict the RUL. Uncertainties in the RUL were quantified in terms of probability density functions, cumulative distribution functions, and 98% confidence limit. The prognostics framework is flexible and can be used as a starting point for RUL prediction of other physical phenomena such as crack propagation, by incorporating more sources of uncertainties in order to make it comprehensive.

Keywords

Uncertainties Prognostics and health management Remaining useful life Probabilistic Meshfree modeling 

References

  1. 1.
    A.K. Garga, K.T. McClintic, R.L. Campbell, C.-C. Yang, M.S. Lebold, T.A. Hay, C.S. Byington, Hybrid reasoning for prognostic learning in CBM systems, in Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 6, 2957–2969 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G.W. Bartram, System health diagnosis and prognosis using dynamic bayesian networks (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Sankararaman, Significance, interpretation, and quantification of uncertainty in prognostics and remaining useful life prediction. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 52–53(1), 228–247 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.G. Pecht, Prognostics and health management, in Solid State Lighting Reliability: Components to Systems, ed. by W.D. van Driel, X.J. Fan (Springer New York, New York, NY, 2013), pp. 373–393Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Sankararaman, K. Goebel, An uncertainty quantification framework for prognostics and condition-based monitoring, in 16th AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Conference (2014), pp. 1–9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Bartram, S. Mahadevan, Probabilistic prognosis with dynamic bayesian networks. Int. J. Progn. Health Manag. 6(SP4), 1–23 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. An, J.H. Choi, N.H. Kim, Prognostics 101: a tutorial for particle filter-based prognostics algorithm using Matlab, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 115, 161–169 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Liu, A. Saxena, K. Goebel, B. Saha, W. Wang, An Adaptive Recurrent Neural Network for Remaining Useful Life Prediction of Lithium-ion Batteries (2010), pp. 0–9Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Saha, K. Goebel, J. Christophersen, Comparison of prognostic algorithms for estimating remaining useful life of batteries. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 31(3–4), 293–308 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    X.S. Si, W. Wang, C.H. Hu, D.H. Zhou, Remaining useful life estimation—a review on the statistical data driven approaches. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 213(1), 1–14 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. An, N.H. Kim, J.H. Choi, Statistical aspects in neural network for the purpose of prognostics. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 29(4), 1369–1375 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. An, N.H. Kim, J.H. Choi, Practical options for selecting data-driven or physics-based prognostics algorithms with reviews. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 133, 223–236 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Zhao, Z. Tian, Y. Zeng, A stochastic collocation approach for efficient integrated gear health prognosis. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 39(1–2), 372–387 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Daigle, A. Saxena, and K. Goebel, An efficient deterministic approach to model-based prediction uncertainty estimation, in Annual conference of the prognostics, 2012, 1–10Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. Zhao, Z. Tian, Y. Zeng, Uncertainty quantification in gear remaining useful life prediction through an integrated prognostics method. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 62(1), 146–159 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Sankararaman, K. Goebel, Why is the remaining useful life prediction uncertain ? in Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society 2013 (2013), pp. 1–13Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Sankararaman, M.J. Daigle, K. Goebel, Uncertainty quantification in remaining useful life prediction using first-order reliability methods. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 63(2), 1–17 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J.Z. Sikorska, M. Hodkiewicz, L. Ma, Prognostic modelling options for remaining useful life estimation by industry. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 25(5), 1803–1836 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    H.B. Endeshaw, F.M. Alemayehu, S. Ekwaro-Osire, J.P. Dias, A probabilistic model-based prognostics using meshfree modeling: a case study on fatigue life of a cantilever beam, in Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (2016), pp. 1–13Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    F. Chaari, T. Fakhfakh, M. Haddar, Analytical modelling of spur gear tooth crack and influence on gearmesh stiffness. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 28(3), 461–468 (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    B.N. Rao, S. Rahman, An efficient meshless method for fracture analysis of cracks. Comput. Mech. 26(4), 398–408 (2000)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    F. Liu, R.I. Borja, A contact algorithm for frictional crack propagation with the extended finite element method. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 76, 1489–1512 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    V.P. Nguyen, T. Rabczuk, S. Bordas, M. Duflot, Meshless methods: a review and computer implementation aspects. Math. Comput. Simul. 79 (3), 763–813 (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G.-R. Liu, Y.-T. Gu, An Introduction to Meshfree Methods and their Programming (Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Bordas, P.V. Nguyen, C. Dunant, H. Nguyen-dang, A. Guidoum, An extended finite element library. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 41, 1–33 (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Yixiu, L. Yazhi, A simple and efficient X-FEM approach for non-planar fatigue crack propagation. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2, 2550–2557 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    G.R. Liu, Meshfree Methods: Moving Beyond the Finite Element Method, 2nd edn. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2010)MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Y.P. Chen, A. Eskandarian, M. Oskard, J.D. Lee, Meshless simulation of crack propagation in multiphase materials. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 45(1), 13–17 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    T. Belytschko, L. Gu, Y.Y. Lu, Fracture and crack growth by element free Galerkin methods. Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2(3A), 519–534 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    S.N. Atluri, T. Zhu, A new Meshless Local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) approach in computational mechanics. Comput. Mech. 22(2), 117–127 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    E. Zio, G. Peloni, Particle filtering prognostic estimation of the remaining useful life of nonlinear components. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 96(3), 403–409 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    E. Phelps, P. Willett, T. Kirubarajan, C. Brideau, Predicting time to failure using the IMM and excitable tests. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 37(5), 630–642 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    A. Ray, S. Tangirala, Stochastic modeling of fatigue crack dynamics for on-line failure prognostics. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 4(4), 443–451 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    D.C. Swanson, J. Michael Spencer, S.H. Arzoumanian, Prognostic modelling of crack growth in a tensioned steel band. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 14(5), 789–803 (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    M.J. Daigle, K. Goebel, A model-based prognostics approach applied to pneumatic valves. Int. J. Progn. Health Manag. 2, 1–16 (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Daigle, K. Goebel, A comparison of filter-based approaches for model-based prognostics (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. Orchard, G. Vachtsevanos, A particle filtering approach for on-line fault diagnosis and failure prognosis. Meas. Control 31(3–4), 1–18 (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    R. Dupuis, Application of oil debris monitoring for wind turbine gearbox prognostics and health management, in Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society (2010)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    M.S. Arulampalam, S. Maskell, N. Gordon, T. Clapp, A tutorial on particle filters for online nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian tracking. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 50(2), 174–188 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    S.J. Lee, G. Zi, S. Mun, J.S. Kong, J.H. Choi, Probabilistic prognosis of fatigue crack growth for asphalt concretes. Eng. Fract. Mech. 141, 212–229 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    M.E. Orchard, G.J. Vachtsevanos, A particle-filtering approach for on-line fault diagnosis and failure prognosis. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 31(3–4), 221–246 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    M. Orchard, G. Kacprzynski, K. Goebel, B. Saha, G. Vachtsevanos, Advances in uncertainty representation and management for particle filtering applied to prognostics, in 2008 International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management, PHM 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    R. Budynas, K. Nisbett, Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design, 10th edn. (McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2015)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    S. Ekwaro-Osire, H. B. Endeshaw, D. H. Pham, and F. M. Alemayehu, Uncertainty in remaining useful life prediction, in 23rd ABCM International Congress of Mechanical Engineering, 2015Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    A. Haldar, S. Mahadevan, Probability, Reliability and Statistical Methods in Engineering Design.(John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    F.M. Alemayehu, S. Ekwaro-Osire, Uncertainty considerations in the dynamic loading and failure of spur gear pairs. J. Mech. Des. 135(8), 84501-1–7 (2013)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    F.M. Alemayehu, S. Ekwaro-Osire, Loading and design parameter uncertainty in the dynamics and performance of high-speed-parallel-helical stage of a wind turbine gearbox. J. Mech. Des., 136(9), 91002–1–91002–13 (2014)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    C.J. Li, H. Lee, Gear fatigue crack prognosis using embedded model, gear dynamic model and fracture mechanics. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 19(4), 836–846 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    F.M. Alemayehu, S. Ekwaro-Osire, Probabilistic performance of helical compound planetary system in wind turbine. J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 10(4), 41003 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Z. Tian, T. Jin, B. Wu, F. Ding, Condition based maintenance optimization for wind power generation systems under continuous monitoring. Renew. Energy 36(5), 1502–1509 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Z. Tian, An artificial neural network method for remaining useful life prediction of equipment subject to condition monitoring. J. Intell. Manuf. 23(2), 227–237 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Ekwaro-Osire
    • 1
  • Haileyesus Belay Endeshaw
    • 1
  • Fisseha M. Alemayehu
    • 2
  • Ozhan Gecgel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  2. 2.School of Engineering, Computer Science and MathematicsWest Texas A&M UniversityCanyonUSA

Personalised recommendations