Framework for a Uniform Description of Prognostics and Health Management



Mark Henß Peter Zeiler Bernd Bertsche


The successful application of Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) systems is increasing steadily worldwide. One reason for this is the increasing number of smart products entering the market. Mirroring smart products, PHM systems are now developed and applied in a
variety of engineering disciplines, all using different models and methods. Model, method, and product type diversity all lead to highly complex systems. To handle the complexity in an efficient way, this paper introduces a common base for PHM systems, in the form of a framework – the goal being a generic model with clear formalization of both notation and semantics. Accordingly, the PHM System is separated into both a RUL-Health model and a context model. Both are described and connected through a roles and relation model of their modules. Diagnosis and prognosis modules – estimating the components’ health using lifetime models – are RUL-Health based. For a holistic description, the general lifetime model (GLM) is introduced. This allows different measures of component health to be represented in a single model and reduces the complexity to two metrics – remaining useful life (RUL) and health index (HI). These metrics – combined with internal/external requirements & targets – are
the input for the context modules’ optimization and decision making.

Abstract 7 | PDF Downloads 18




Ahmadzadeh, F., & Lundberg, J. (2013). Remaining Useful Life Estimation: Review. In Kapur P. K.., & Verma A. K., & Kumar U. (Eds.), International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management (461-474): Springer
Association of German Engineers [VDI] (2004). Design Methodology for Mechatronic Systems. VDIRICHTLINIEN, 2206. ICS 03.100.40; 31.220
Bachleitner, R., & Weichbold, M., & Pausch, M. (2016). Empirische Prognoseverfahren in den Sozialwissenschaften. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Fachmedien.
Bertsche, B. (2008). Reliability in Automotive and Mechanical Engineering. Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer
Celaya Galván, J. R., & Saxena, A. (2014). Electronics Prognostics Tutorial 4. 2nd European Conference of the PHM Society (22), July 8-10, Nantes, France.
Coble, J. B., & Ramuhalli, P., & Bond, L. J., & Hines, J. W., & Upadhyaya, B. R. (2012). Prognostics and Health Management in Nuclear Power Plants: A Review of Technologies and Applications”. Alexandria, USA: National Technical Information Service.
Fries, A. et. al. (2014). Reliability Growth – Enhancing Defense System Reliability. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Hines, J., & Usynin, A. (2008). Current Computational Trends in Equipment Prognostics. In International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, Vol. 1 (No. 1): Atlantis Press.
Korn, G. A., & Korn, T. M. (2000). Mathematical Handbook for Scientists and Engineers: Definitions, Theorems, and Formulas for Reference and Review. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Meeker, W. Q., & Escobar, L. A. (1998). Statistical Methods for Reliabillity Data. Canada: Wiley-Interscience.
Saxena, A. (2010). Prognostics – The Science of Prediction. Annual Conference of the PHM Society (15), October 10-14, Portland, OR.
Wang, P., & Youn, B., & Hu, C. (2012). A Generic Probabilistic Framework for Structural Health Prognostics and Uncertainty Management. In Mottershead J. E. (Eds.), Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing (622-637): Elsevier Ltd.
Special Session Papers