Skip to main content
Log in

Review, analysis and synthesis of prognostic-based decision support methods for condition based maintenance

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In manufacturing enterprises, maintenance is a significant contributor to the total company’s cost. Condition based maintenance (CBM) relies on prognostic models and uses them to support maintenance decisions based on the predicted condition of equipment. Although prognostic-based decision support for CBM is not an extensively explored area, there exist methods which have been developed in order to deal with specific challenges such as the need to cope with real-time information, to predict the health state of equipment and to continuously update maintenance-related recommendations. The current work aims at providing a literature review for prognostic-based decision support methods for CBM. We analyse the literature in order to identify combinations of methods for prognostic-based decision support for CBM, propose a practical technique for selecting suitable combinations of methods and set the guidelines for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adhatrao, K., Gaykar, A., Dhawan, A., Jha, R., & Honrao, V. (2013). Predicting students’ performance using ID3 and C4. 5 classification algorithms. arXiv:1310.2071

  • Aissani, N., Beldjilali, B., & Trentesaux, D. (2009). Dynamic scheduling of maintenance tasks in the petroleum industry: A reinforcement approach. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 22(7), 1089–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battese, G. E., Rao, D. P., & O’Donnell, C. J. (2004). A metafrontier production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 21(1), 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besnard, F., & Bertling, L. (2010). An approach for condition-based maintenance optimization applied to wind turbine blades. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 1(2), 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besnard, F., Patriksson, M., Stromberg, A., Wojciechowski, A., Fischer, K., & Bertling, L. (2011). A stochastic model for opportunistic maintenance planning of offshore wind farms. InIEEE Trondheim on PowerTech (pp. 1–8).

  • Bousdekis, A., Magoutas, B., Apostolou, D., & Mentzas, G. (2015). A proactive decision making framework for condition-based maintenance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(7), 1225–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouvard, K., Artus, S., Berenguer, C., & Cocquempot, V. (2011). Condition-based dynamic maintenance operations planning and grouping. Application to commercial heavy vehicles. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 96(6), 601–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Businoska, A. (2010). Kingaroy flagship UCG project roars into life. The Australian mining review. May 2010, Publications & Exhibitions, 8–9.

  • Castro, I. T., Huynh, K. T., Barros, A., & Berenguer, C. (2012). A predictive maintenance strategy based on mean residual life for systems subject to competing failures due to degradation and shocks. In Proceedings of the 11th international probabilistic safety assessment and management conference and the annual European safety and reliability conference-PSAM 11/ESREL 2012, pp. 375–384.

  • Chen, X. J., Zhang, Z. G., & Tong, Y. (2014). An improved ID3 decision tree algorithm. Advanced Materials Research, 962, 2842–2847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechert, W. D., & Nishimura, K. (2012). A complete characterization of optimal growth paths in an aggregated model with a non-concave production function. In J. Stachurski, A. Venditti, & M. Yano (Eds.), Nonlinear Dynamics in Equilibrium Models (pp. 237-257). Berlin: Springer.

  • Elwany, A. H., & Gebraeel, N. Z. (2008). Sensor-driven prognostic models for equipment replacement and spare parts inventory. IIE Transactions, 40(7), 629–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel, Y., & Etzion, O. (2011). Towards proactive event-driven computing. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM international conference on Distributed event-based system. ACM 2011 (pp. 125–136).

  • Engel, Y., Etzion, O., & Feldman, Z. (2012). A basic model for proactive event-driven computing. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM international conference on distributed event-based systems (pp. 107–118).

  • Gaddam, S. R., Phoha, V. V., & Balagani, K. S. (2007). K-Means+ ID3: A novel method for supervised anomaly detection by cascading K-Means clustering and ID3 decision tree learning methods. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 19(3), 345–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garg, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2006). Maintenance management: Literature review and directions. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 12(3), 205–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (2004). Managerial incentives and the international organization of production. Journal of International Economics, 63(2), 237–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huynh, K. T., Barros, A., & Berenguer, C. (2012). Maintenance decision-making for systems operating under indirect condition monitoring: value of online information and impact of measurement uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 61(2), 410–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iung, B., Levrat, E., Marquez, A. C., & Erbe, H. (2009). Conceptual framework for e-maintenance: Illustration by e-maintenance technologies and platforms. Annual Reviews in Control, 33(2), 220–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivy, J. S., & Nembhard, H. B. (2005). A modeling approach to maintenance decisions using statistical quality control and optimization. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 21(4), 355–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jardine, A. K., Lin, D., & Banjevic, D. (2006). A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 20(7), 1483–1510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, C., De-lin, L., & Fen-xiang, M. (2009). An improved ID3 decision tree algorithm. In 4th International conference on computer science and education, ICCSE’09 (pp. 127–130).

  • Kaiser, K. A., & Gebraeel, N. Z. (2009). Predictive maintenance management using sensor-based degradation models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 39(4), 840–849.

  • Kietz, J., Serban, F., Bernstein, A., & Fischer, S. (2009). Towards cooperative planning of data mining workflows. In Proceedings of the third generation data mining workshop at the 2009 European conference on machine learning. ECML 2009, pp. 1–12.

  • Li, Y., Chun. L., Nee. A., & Ching Y (2005). An agent-based platform for webenabled equipment predictive maintenance. In: Proceedings of IAT’05 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology, Compie‘gne, France, 2005.

  • Magoutas, B., Stojanovic, N., Bousdekis, A., Apostolou, D., Mentzas, G., & Stojanovic, L. (2014). Anticipation-driven architecture for proactive enterprise decision making. CAiSE (Forum/Doctoral Consortium) , 2014 (pp. 121–128)

  • Mitchell, T. M. (1997). Machine Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.

  • Muller, A., Suhner, M. C., & Iung, B. (2007). Maintenance alternative integration to prognosis process engineering. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 13(2), 198–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, A., Marquez, A. C., & Iung, B. (2008). On the concept of e-maintenance: Review and current research. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 93(8), 1165–1187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pal, M., & Mather, P. M. (2003). An assessment of the effectiveness of decision tree methods for land cover classification. Remote Sensing of Environment, 86(4), 554–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, Y., Dong, M., & Zuo, M. J. (2010). Current status of machine prognostics in condition-based maintenance: A review. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 50(1–4), 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sathyadevan, S., & Nair, R. R. (2015). Comparative analysis of decision tree algorithms ID3, C4.5 and random forest. Computational Intelligence in Data Mining, 1(1), 549–562. Springer India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, N., & Bansal, K. L. (2015). Comparative study of data mining tools. Journal of Advanced Database Management & Systems, 2(2), 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Telford, S., Mazhar, M. I. & Howard, I. (2011). Condition based maintenance (CBM) in the oil and gas industry: An overview of methods and techniques. In Proceedings of the 2011 international conference on industrial engineering and operations management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

  • Voisin, A., Levrat, E., Cocheteux, P., & Iung, B. (2010). Generic prognosis model for proactive maintenance decision support: Application to pre-industrial e-maintenance test bed. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 21(2), 177–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waeyenbergh, G., & Pintelon, L. (2002). A framework for maintenance concept development. International Journal of Production Economics, 77(3), 299–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waeyenbergh, G., & Pintelon, L. (2009). CIBOCOF: A framework for industrial maintenance concept development. International Journal of Production Economics, 121(2), 633–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, S. J., Gebraeel, N., Lawley, M. A., & Yih, Y. (2007). A neural network integrated decision support system for condition-based optimal predictive maintenance policy. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 37(2), 226–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yam, R. C. M., Tse, P. W., Li, L., & Tu, P. (2001). Intelligent predictive decision support system for condition-based maintenance. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 17(5), 383–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeo, B. (2010). Shale gas versus CSG: Shale the new flavour (pp. 22–25). May/June, Aspermount Limited

  • Zikopoulos, P., & Eaton, C. (2011). Understanding big data: Analytics for enterprise class hadoop and streaming data. New York: McGraw-Hill Osborne Media.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is partly funded by the European Commission project FP7 STREP ProaSense “The Proactive Sensing Enterprise” (612329).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandros Bousdekis.

Appendix

Appendix

The current section provides details about background of ID3 algorithm and its logic adapted to the problem examined, that is the synthesis of the combinations of methods existing in literature for prognostic-based decision support in CBM. More specifically, it provides the theoretical background of ID3 algorithm, the notation that we used for the formulation of the problem, the ID3 equations as well as the pseudo-code of the application of the ID3 algorithm for constructing the decision tree.

The ID3 DT algorithm is based on information theory and tries to minimize the number of comparisons among the data of the training set. The core idea behind the algorithm is asking questions the answers of which provide the most information. The splitting criteria are prioritized according to the information gain; splitting criteria with more information gain are used first. The decision tree is constructed by employing a top-down, greedy search through the given sets to test each attribute at every tree node. Information is measured by the entropy which represents the amount of uncertainty of a data set D (Chen et al. 2014). Based on the entropy, the information gain can be measured. Information gain is the difference in entropy from before to after the data set D is split on an attribute A or equally, how much uncertainty in the data set was reduced after splitting it on an attribute A (Gaddam et al. 2007; Jin et al. 2009).

Next, we apply the ID3 algorithm by using the following notation:

  • X is a set of feature vectors, also called feature space.

  • C is a set of classes.

  • D is an input dataset

  • c: Ideal DT classifier

The main goal of ID3 is to construct (based on D) a decision tree T to approximate c: X -\(>\) C, where c is the ideal classifier for X (Adhatrao et al. 2013). In our case, the method classification problem is formulated in the ID3 notation as follows:

  • X: the four criteria-attributes (desired output, available input, domain knowledge as utility function, knowledge of the degradation process) with all possible values

  • C: Labels of methods (e.g. BN-MDP)—Several research works may use the same combination of methods

  • D: Combinations of methods derived from the literature review (see Table 3)

  • c: The resulting DT

As it has been already mentioned, information entropy represents the amount of uncertainty of a given data set D and can be expressed as:

$$\begin{aligned} H\left( D \right) =-\sum \nolimits _{x\in X} p\left( x \right) log _2 p\left( x \right) \end{aligned}$$
(1)

where \(p\left( x \right) \) is the percentage of the number of elements in class \(\hbox {x}_{i}\) to the number of elements in data set D.

Equation 1 is used for calculating entropy in each remaining attribute. The attribute with the lowest entropy is needed for splitting the data set D in each iteration. The classification in the other attributes, which have higher entropy, can be improved (Adhatrao et al. 2013).

Calculation of entropy is needed in order to calculate the information gain, which is defined as the difference in entropy after splitting a data set on an attribute comparing to the entropy before splitting (Sathyadevan and Nair 2015). So, information gain can be expressed as:

$$\begin{aligned} IG\left( {D,X} \right) =H\left( D \right) -\sum \nolimits _{s\in S} p\left( s \right) H\left( s \right) \end{aligned}$$
(2)

where S is the set of subsets that are created after splitting the data set.

The pseudo-code of the application of the ID3 algorithm for the classification of the combinations of methods according to the four criteria is shown below (adapted from (Jin et al. 2009) and (Kietz et al. 2009)):

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bousdekis, A., Magoutas, B., Apostolou, D. et al. Review, analysis and synthesis of prognostic-based decision support methods for condition based maintenance. J Intell Manuf 29, 1303–1316 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1179-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1179-5

Keywords

Navigation