Complex System Prognostics : a New Systemic Approach

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published Mar 26, 2021
Flavien Peysson Mustapha Ouladsine Rachid Outbib

Abstract

Profitability and rentability are two key features for industrial companies that exploit complex engineered systems. One way to improve these features is the maintenance. Indeed, companies need to keep and improve equipments availability while reducing the maintenance costs. The maintenance optimization is now more than ever an industrial concern. The goal is to avoid failure and to have the right equipment with the right person at the right moment, at the right place. In the Prognostics and Health Management cycle, a prognostic function is used to predict the future system damage states in order to improve the maintenance plan. This paper addresses the prognostic domain by presenting a generic framework for prognostic. This framework allows to make a prediction of the system damage state by taking into account how and where the system will be used. The framework is described by a specific formalism and methodology to analyze the system damage dynamic of elementary resources and to trace the subsystem and system damage state according to the system structure. The framework is based on the system decomposition according to three levels: Environment, Mission, Process. This paper introduces the maintenance plan and a systemic view in the framework.

How to Cite

Peysson, . F., Ouladsine, M., & Outbib, R. (2021). Complex System Prognostics : a New Systemic Approach. Annual Conference of the PHM Society, 1(1). Retrieved from https://papers.phmsociety.org/index.php/phmconf/article/view/1427
Abstract 2 | PDF Downloads 1

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

logistics, prediction

References
(Byington et al., 2003) Carl S. Byington, Patrick W. Kalgren, Robert Johns, and Richard J. Beers. Prognosis enhancements to diagnostic system for improved condition based maintenance. In IEEE Systems Readiness Technology Conference, AU- TOTESTCON, pages 320–329, California, USA, September 2003.
(Lebold and Thurston, 2001) Mitchell Lebold and Michael Thurston. Open standards for condition- based maintenance and prognostic systems. In 5th Annual Maintenance and Reliability Conference, MARCON, Gatlinburg, USA, 2001.
(Peysson et al., 2008a) Flavien Peysson, Mustapha Ouladsine, Rachid Outbib, and Jean-Baptiste Leger. Pronostic de l’e ́tat de de ́gradation d’un syste`me complexe. In Confe ́rence Internationale Francophone d’Automatique, Bucharest,Roumanie ,September 2008.
(Peysson et al., 2009a) Flavien Peysson, Mustapha Ouladsine, Rachid Outbib, and Jean-Baptiste Leger. Expert knowledge impact on damage trajectory analysis based prognostics. In IFAC, editor, 7th IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety of Technical Processes, SAFEPRO- CESS’09, Barcelone, Espagne, jun 2009.
(Peysson et al., 2009b) Flavien Peysson, Mustapha Ouladsine, Rachid Outbib, Jean-Baptiste Leger, Claude Allemand, and Olivier Myx. A Generic Prognostic Methodology using Damage Trajec- tory Models. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 58(2):277–285, jun 2009.
(Racoceanu, 2006) Daniel Racoceanu. Me ́moire d’habilitation a` diriger des recherches, Contribu- tion a` la surveillance des Syste`mes de Production en utilisant les Techniques de l’Intelligence Artifi- cielle. Universite ́ de Franche-Comte ́ de Besanc ̧on, France, January 2006.
(Vachtsevanos et al., 2006) George .J. Vachtsevanos, Lewis Frank L., Michael Roemer, Andrew Hess, and Wu Biqing. Intelligent Fault Diagnosis and Prognosis for Engineering Systems. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2006
Section
Poster Presentations