2017-Sustainable Industrial Processing Summit
SIPS 2017 Volume 2. Dodds Intl. Symp. / Energy Production
| Editors: | Kongoli F, Buhl A, Turna T, Mauntz M, Williams W, Rubinstein J, Fuhr PL, Morales-Rodriguez M |
| Publisher: | Flogen Star OUTREACH |
| Publication Year: | 2017 |
| Pages: | 306 pages |
| ISBN: | 978-1-987820-63-8 |
| ISSN: | 2291-1227 (Metals and Materials Processing in a Clean Environment Series) |
CD shopping page
An Integrated Information Architecture for Lifecycle Prognostics and Reliability Improvement
Wes Hines1; Zach welz1;1UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, Knoxville, United States;
Type of Paper: Keynote
Id Paper: 56
Topic: 17
Abstract:
Energy system on-line-monitoring is becoming a crucial component of improving safety, reliability, and profitability. The Holy Grail is the development prognostic methodologies to accurately predict the Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a system or component for predictive maintenance and effective risk mitigation. Calculating precise RUL estimates requires both system specific maintenance information and performance data to develop representative lifecycle models. Current conventional prognostic methods focus on process data and do not utilize maintenance data to directly influence the modeling and data analysis. However, equipment maintenance impacts future system degradation and is dependent on the maintenance actions taken. Differences in the amount of degradation removed from a system are common for repaired equipment compared to replacements. This talk discusses methods of incorporating maintenance information into Lifecycle Prognostics and the effect it has on prediction error and uncertainty compared to maintenance independent models. <br />Conventional Lifecycle Prognostics is a term used when the RUL is seamlessly predicted from beginning of component life (BOL) to end of component life (EOL). When a component is put into use, the only information available may be past failure times, and the predicted failure distribution can be estimated with reliability methods such as Weibull Analysis (Type I). As the component operates, it begins to consume its available life. This life consumption may be a function of system stresses, and the failure distribution should be updated (Type II). When degradation becomes apparent, this information can be used to again improve the failure distribution estimate (Type III) of the specific component. <br />The results of integrating past maintenance information into conventional lifecycle prognostics indicate that maintenance specific models produce significantly lower prediction error and model uncertainty. This serves as a proof of concept for investigation into more effective ways to utilize maintenance data in prognostic modeling, while also emphasizing the importance of digital maintenance records in industry.
Keywords:
Energy; Optimization;References:
[1] A. Jardine, D. Lin and D. Banjevic, "A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance," Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 20 (2006), 1483-1510.[2] K. Goebel, B. Saha, A. Saxena, J. R. Celaya, and J. Christophersen, “Prognostics in Battery Health Management”, Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine, IEEE , 11(4), (2008) 33-40.
[3] X. Lei, P.A. Sanborn, PHM-Based Wind Turbine Maintenance Optimization Using Real Options International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, 7(1) (2016), 008, 14.
[4] C. Sankavaram, B. Pattipati, A. Kodali, K. Pattipati, M. Azam, S. Kumar and M. Pecht, "Model-based and Data-driven Prognosis of Automotive and Electronic Systems," in 5th Annual IEEE Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, Bangalore, India, (2009).
[5] J. Bird and G. Shao, "A View of Standards for Prognostics and Health Management," International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, (2013).
[6] J. Hines, J. Garvey, J. Preston and A. Usynin, "Tutorial: Empirical Methods for Process and Equipment Prognostics," in 53rd Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Las Vegas, Nevada, (2008a).
[7] J. Hines and A. Usynin, "Current Computational Trends In Equipment Prognostics," International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 1(1), (2008b), 94-102,
[8] J. Coble, J.W. Hines, Prognostic Algorithm Categorization with Application to the PHM Challenge Problem, Prognostics and Health Management Conference PHM (2008).
[9] M. Sharp, J. Coble, A. Nam, J.W. Hines, B. Upadhyaya, Lifecycle Prognostics: Transitioning Between Information Types, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability (2014).
[10] A. Jardine, A. Tsang, Maintenance, Replacement, and Reliability: Theory and Applications. 2nd Ed., Florida, US: CRC Press, (2013).
[11] J. Welz, A Nam, M. Sharp, J.W. Hines, B. Upadhyaya, “Improved Heat Exchanger Lifecycle Prognostic Methods for Enhanced Light Water Reactor Sustainability, International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management (IJPHM) (Special Issue on Nuclear Energy PHM), 6, (2015).
[12] J. Welz, Integrating Disparate Nuclear Data Sources for Improved Predictive Maintenance Modeling: Maintenance-Based Prognostics for Long-Term Equipment Operation, PhD Dissertation, The University of Tennessee, Nuclear Engineering Department, (2017).
[13] C.J. Lu and W. Meeker, Using Degradation Measures to Estimate a Time-to-Failure Distribution, Technometrics, 35 (2), (1993), 161 – 174.
[14] D. Thompson, "Fluid mechanics and transfer processes," The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 65(3), (1985).
[15] T. Ardsomang, J. Hines and B. Upadhyaya, "Heat Exchanger Fouling and Estimation of Remaining Useful Life," 2013 Prognostics and Health Management Society Conference, New Orleans, LA, (2013).