Advertisement

Combining Autoencoder with Similarity Measurement for Aircraft Engine Remaining Useful Life Estimation

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 622)

Abstract

Remaining useful life (RUL) estimation is very important for the maintenance of aircraft engines. We can evaluate the current condition of an aircraft engine and predict its RUL by constructing its degradation curve. However, the degradation curve is often difficult to obtain due to the unobserved degradation patterns. Currently, many researchers estimated RUL by setting a fixed RUL target function or making assumptions about how an engine degrades. But in the real world, degradation models of aircraft engines are generally individualized. To obtain personalized degradation curves and predict RUL accurately, we propose a method based on autoencoder and similarity measurement. First, an autoencoder trained with normal data is adopted to extract degradation curves of aircraft engines and build a degradation model template library. Then, we measure each test object with all template curves to get similarities and corresponding RULs based on a sliding window and complexity-invariant distance. At last, the estimated RUL can be obtained by calculating the weighted average of highly relevant corresponding RULs. We conduct the proposed method on the aircraft engine dataset provided by NASA. The experimental results demonstrate that our method can utilize the information of multi-sensor data to generate personalized degradation curves effectively and estimate RUL more accurately.

Keywords

Aircraft engine Remaining useful life Autoencoder Degradation curve Similarity measurement 

References

  1. 1.
    Wang T (2010) Trajectory similarity based prediction for remaining useful life estimation. University of Cincinnati, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marble S, Morton BP (2006) Predicting the remaining useful life of propulsion system bearings. In: Proceedings of the IEEE aerospace conference, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giantomassi A, Ferracuti F, Benini A, Longhi S, Petrucci A (2011) Hidden Markov model for health estimation and prognosis of turbofan engines. In: ASME 2011 international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu DT, Pang J, Zhou J, Peng Y (2012) Data-driven prognostics for lithium-ion battery based on gaussian process regression. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference on PHM, May 2012, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ren L, Sun Y, Wang H, Zhang L (2018) Prediction of bearing remaining useful life with deep convolution neural network. IEEE Access 6:13041–13049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xue F, Bonissone P, Varma A, Yan W, Eklund N, Goebel K (2008) An instance-based method for remaining useful life estimation for aircraft engines. J Fail Anal Prev 8(2):199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hochreiter S, Jürgen Schmidhuber (1997) Long short-term memory. Neural Comput 9(8):1735–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zheng S, Ristovski K, Farahat A, Gupta C (2017) Long short-term memory network for remaining useful life estimation. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on prognostics and health management (ICPHM). IEEE, pp 88–95Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heimes FO (2008) Recurrent neural networks for remaining useful life estimation. In: International conference on prognostics and health management, PHM 2008. IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Babu GS, Zhao P, Li XL (2016) Deep convolutional neural network based regression approach for estimation of remaining useful life. In: International conference on database systems for advanced applications. Springer, pp 214–228Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aamodt A, Plaza E (1994) Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Commun 7(1):39–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Batista GEAPA, Keogh EJ, Tataw OM, Souza VCMA (2014) CID: an efficient complexity-invariant distance for time series. Data Min Knowl Disc 28(3):634–669MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rumelhart DE (1986) Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature 323(6088):533–536ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park D, Hoshi Y, Kemp CC (2018) A multimodal anomaly detector for robot-assisted feeding using an LSTM-based variational autoencoder. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 3(3):1544–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malhotra P, Ramakrishnan A, Anand G, Vig L, Agarwal P, Shroff G (2016) LSTM-based encoder-decoder for multi-sensor anomaly detection. In: Presented at ICML 2016 anomaly detection workshop, July 2016Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salvador S, Chan P (2007) Toward accurate dynamic time warping in linear time and space. Intell Data Anal 11(5):561–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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, Denver, CO., pp 1–9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Eastern Airlines Technic Co., Ltd.ShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations