Soft Computing

, Volume 23, Issue 10, pp 3365–3382 | Cite as

Conception and implementation of a data-driven prognostics algorithm for safety–critical systems

  • Hatem M. ElattarEmail author
  • Hamdy K. Elminir
  • A. M. Riad
Methodologies and Application


Complex engineering systems suffer from internal wears and tears that cannot be measured by sensors. Sudden failure of such systems is hazardous and may endanger human life. To avoid sudden failures, a prognostics system that takes multivariate sensor data and infers system health and then projects the inferred system health into future based on damage progression for remaining useful life (RUL) estimation in real time is needed. Logisticians, engineers, project managers, and others can also benefit from prognostics information to improve performance and reduce cost. Our contribution in this paper is to present a data-driven prognostics approach for RUL estimation of aircraft turbofan engines that run onboard in real time. Kalman filter and neural network are used together to infer system health from several sensor readings. The inferred system health is then projected by another neural network till the end of life for RUL calculation. The algorithm is implemented on Raspberry Pi 2 single-board computer running Windows 10 Internet of Things Core to enable efficient development and deployment of onboard prognostics applications. Data from PHM08 data challenge competition are used for algorithm development and testing. The results show the applicability of this approach for RUL estimation onboard in real time.


Internet of Things (IoT) Onboard computer Prognostics and health management Raspberry Pi Real-time computing (RTC) 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest


  1. Alexandru S, Cristian P, Cristina Ş, Florin P (2017) Predicting provisioning and booting times in a metal-as-a-service system. Future Gener Comput Syst 72:180–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arduino (2005) Accessed 01 Dec 2015
  3. Arduino (2005) Accessed 01 Dec 2015
  4. Balaban E, Saxena A, Narasimhan S, Roychoudhury I, Koopmans M, Ott C, Goebel K (2015) Prognostic health-management system development for electromechanical actuators. J Aerosp Inf Syst 12(3):329–344. Google Scholar
  5. Bond L (2008) Diagnostics and prognostics: state of the art and programs. PHM08 tutorial materials. IAEA Workshop, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonissone P (2006) Knowledge and time: a framework for soft computing applications in prognostics and health management (PHM). In: International symposium on evolving fuzzy systems, Ambleside, Cumbria, pp 19–24.
  7. Daeil K, Melinda R, Jiajie F, Tadahiro S, Michael G (2016) IoT-based prognostics and systems health management for industrial applications. IEEE Access 4:3659–3670. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Draper N, Smith H (1998) Applied regression analysis, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Elattar H (2011) Intelligent information system to forecast the remaining life of aircraft turbofan engine. MSc. thesis. Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
  10. Evans D (2011) The internet of things how the next evolution of the internet is changing everything. White paper, CiscoGoogle Scholar
  11. Feather M, Hicks K, Mackey R, Uckun S (2008) Guiding technology deployment decisions using a quantitative requirements analysis technique. In: 2008 IEEE international conference on requirements engineering, September 8–12, Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  12. Goebel K, Qiu H, Eklund N, Yan W (2007) Modeling propagation of gas path damage. In: IEEE aerospace conference, Big Sky, MT.
  13. Heimes F (2008) Recurrent neural networks for remaining useful life estimation. In: 2008 international conference on prognostics and health management. October 6–9, Marriott Tech Center Denver, CO, USA.
  14. Hu C, Youn BD, Wang P (2012) Ensemble of data-driven prognostic algorithms for robust prediction of remaining useful life. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 103:120–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kalman R (1960) A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Trans ASME J Basic Eng 82:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maybeck P (1979) Stochastic models, estimation and control, vol 1. Academic Press Inc, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Medjahar K, Zerhouni N (2009) Residual-based failure prognostic in dynamic system. In: 7th IFAC international symposium on fault detection, supervision and safety of technical processes, June-30–July 3, Sants Hotel, SpainGoogle Scholar
  18. Peel L (2008) Data driven prognostics using a Kalman filter ensemble of neural network models. In: 2008 international conference on prognostics and health management. October 6–9, Marriott Tech Center Denver, CO, USA.
  19. Platzer P, Cappaert J (2012) ArduSat: your Arduino experiment in space. Summer CubeSat Developer’s workshop, Nanosatisfi LLC, August, p 17Google Scholar
  20. Raspberry Pi (2015) Accessed 01 Dec 2015
  21. Riad A, Elminir H, Elattar H (2010) Evaluation of neural networks in the subject of prognostics as compared to linear regression model. Int J Eng Technol 10:52–58Google Scholar
  22. Rouet V, Delye A, Vichare N, Pecht M, Foucher B (2007) Embedded remaining life prognostics and diagnostics of electronics. In: 1st international congress on microreliability and nanoreliability in key technology applications (micronanoreliability congress), September 2–5, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  23. Saha S, Saha B, Saxena A, Goebel K (2010) Distributed prognostic health management with Gaussian process regression. In: 2010 IEEE aerospace conference, March 6-13, Big Sky, MT, pp 1 – 8.
  24. Saxena A, Celaya J, Saha B, Saha S, Goebel K (2010) Metrics for offline evaluation of prognostic performance. Int J Progn Health Manag 1(1):001Google Scholar
  25. Saxena A, Balaban E, Goebel K, Saha B, Saha S, Schwabacher M (2008) Metrics for evaluating performance of prognostic technique. In: 2008 international conference on prognostics and health management, October 6–9, Marriott Tech Center Denver, CO, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Saxena A, Goebel K (2008) PHM08 challenge data set, NASA Ames prognostics data repository (, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
  27. Saxena A, Goebel K, Simon D, Eklund N (2008) Damage propagation modeling for aircraft engine run-to-failure simulation. In: 2008 international conference on prognostics and health management, pp 1–9, October 6-9, Marriott Tech Center Denver, CO, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Saxena A, Roychoudhury I, Celaya J, Saha S, Saha B, Goebel K (2010) Requirements specifications for prognostics: an overview. American institute of aeronautics and astronautics (AIAA). Accessed 01 Dec 2015
  29. Saxena A, Sankararaman S, Goebel K (2014) Performance evaluation for fleet-based and unit-based prognostic methods. In: Annual conference of the PHM society, fort worth, Texas, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwabacher M, Goebel K (2007) A survey of artificial intelligence for prognostics. In: Proceedings of AAAI fall symposium, November 9–11, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith B (2011) Satellite enabled vehicle prognostic and diagnostic system. United States patent application publication US 2011/0046842 AlGoogle Scholar
  32. Telecommunication Standardization sector of International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) (2012) Overview of the Internet of things Y. 2060. Genève, Switzerland: International Telecommunication Union (ITU)Google Scholar
  33. Vachtsevanos G, Lewis F, Roemer M, Hess A, Wu B (2006) Intelligent fault diagnosis and prognosis for engineering systems. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Voisin A, Levrat E, Cocheteux P, Iung B (2010) Generic prognosis model for proactive maintenance decision support: application to pre-industrial emaintenance test bed. J Intell Manuf 21(2):177–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang P, Youn BD, Hu C (2012) A generic probabilistic framework for structural health prognostic and uncertainty management. Mech Syst Signal Process 28:622–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang T, Lee J (2008) The operating regime approach for precision health prognosis. In: Proceedings of 62th meeting of the MFPT society: failure prevention for system availability, pp 87–98, May 6–8, Virginia Beach, VA, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang T, Yu J, Siegel D, Lee J (2008) A similarity-based prognostics approach for remaining useful life estimation of engineered systems. In: 2008 international conference on prognostics and health management. October 6–9, Marriott Tech Center Denver, CO, USA.
  38. Welch G, Bishop G (2006) An introduction to the Kalman filter. UNC-Chapel Hill, TR 95-041, July 24Google Scholar
  39. Wheeler K, Kurtoglu T, Poll S (2010) A survey of health management user objectives in aerospace systems related to diagnostic and prognostic metrics. Int J Progn Health Manag 1(1):003Google Scholar
  40. Yan J, Koc M, Lee J (2004) A prognostic algorithm for machine performance assessment and its application. Prod Plan Control 15(08):796–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zio E, Di Maio F (2010) A data-driven fuzzy approach for predicting the remaining useful life in dynamic failure scenarios of a nuclear power plant. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95(n1):49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information System Department, Faculty of Computers and Information SciencesMansoura UniversityMansouraEgypt
  2. 2.Obour city, CairoEgypt
  3. 3.Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringKafr Elshiekh UniversityKafr ElshiekhEgypt

Personalised recommendations