An Uncertainty Quantification Framework for Prognostics and Condition-Based Monitoring

This paper presents a computational framework for uncertainty quantification in prognostics in the context of condition-based monitoring of aerospace systems. The different sources of uncertainty and the various uncertainty quantification activities in condition-based prognostics are outlined in detail, and it is demonstrated that the Bayesian subjective approach is suitable for interpreting uncertainty in online monitoring. A state-space model-based framework for prognostics, that can rigorously account for the various sources of uncertainty, is presented. Prognostics consists of two important steps. First, the state of the system is estimated using Bayesian tracking, and then, the future states of the system are predicted until failure, thereby computing the remaining useful life of the system. The proposed framework is illustrated using the power system of a planetary rover test-bed, which is being developed and studied at NASA Ames Research Center.

[1]  Kai Goebel,et al.  A Discussion on Uncertainty Representation and Interpretation in Model-based Prognostics Algorithms based on Kalman Filter Estimation Applied to Prognostics of Electronics Components , 2012, Infotech@Aerospace.

[2]  Hugh McManus,et al.  A framework for understanding uncertainty and its mitigation and exploitation in complex systems , 2006, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[3]  George Vachtsevanos,et al.  Methodologies for uncertainty management in prognostics , 2009, 2009 IEEE Aerospace conference.

[4]  G. Kacprzynski,et al.  Advances in uncertainty representation and management for particle filtering applied to prognostics , 2008, 2008 International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management.

[5]  Stephen J. Engel,et al.  Prognostics, the real issues involved with predicting life remaining , 2000, 2000 IEEE Aerospace Conference. Proceedings (Cat. No.00TH8484).

[6]  B. Saha,et al.  Uncertainty Management for Diagnostics and Prognostics of Batteries using Bayesian Techniques , 2008, 2008 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[7]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society , 2011 Deriving Bayesian Classifiers from Flight Data to Enhance Aircraft Diagnosis , 2011 .

[8]  Yuguo Xu,et al.  Uncertain generalized remaining useful life prediction-driven predictive maintenance decision , 2015, 2015 Prognostics and System Health Management Conference (PHM).

[9]  Charles R Farrar,et al.  Damage prognosis: the future of structural health monitoring , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[10]  Habib N. Najm,et al.  Uncertainty Quantification and Polynomial Chaos Techniques in Computational Fluid Dynamics , 2009 .

[11]  Keung-Chi Ng,et al.  Uncertainty management in expert systems , 1990, IEEE Expert.

[12]  Kai Goebel,et al.  Why is the Remaining Useful Life Prediction Uncertain , 2013 .

[13]  Sankaran Mahadevan,et al.  Model validation under epistemic uncertainty , 2011, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[14]  Matthew Daigle,et al.  An Efficient Deterministic Approach to Model-based Prediction Uncertainty Estimation , 2012 .

[15]  Sankaran Mahadevan,et al.  Uncertainty Quantification in Fatigue Damage Prognosis , 2009 .

[16]  Daming Lin,et al.  A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance , 2006 .

[17]  J. Celaya,et al.  Uncertainty Representation and Interpretation in Model-Based Prognostics Algorithms Based on Kalman Filter Estimation , 2012 .

[18]  K. Goebel,et al.  Analytical algorithms to quantify the uncertainty in remaining useful life prediction , 2013, 2013 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[19]  Zhonghua Han,et al.  Efficient Uncertainty Quantification using Gradient-Enhanced Kriging , 2009 .