Design and Implementation of a Model Selection Pipeline for Prognostics and Health Management in the Operational Environment



Published Oct 26, 2023
Peter Bishay Lukens Sarah Rousis Damon Danneman Nathan


Model selection is a crucial aspect of Prognostics and Health Management (PHM). However, many PHM models are de- veloped for specific datasets and lack flexibility to adapt to different datasets with varying data quality considerations. To address this gap, we propose a generalizable model selection pipeline for PHM. Our approach involves creating a pipeline for testing models that users can tune in various ways. We designed a sequential pipeline of steps for model selection with a focus on implementation considerations which include recommendations for handling environmental variables, ca- pabilities for remote and local work environments, and stor- age considerations of the serialized pipeline. Performance metrics are designed to consider data quality characteristics such as ambiguous labeling. We illustrate the generalizability of our approach through a case study of our model selection pipeline applied to a field dataset with ambiguous labels. Our design accommodates data characteristics commonly found in field data, such as ambiguous labels and data wrangling. Our contribution fills a gap in real-world implementations of PHM by offering technology considerations and recommen- dations for effective deployment.

How to Cite

Bishay, P., Sarah, L., Damon, R., & Nathan, D. (2023). Design and Implementation of a Model Selection Pipeline for Prognostics and Health Management in the Operational Environment. Annual Conference of the PHM Society, 15(1).
Abstract 203 | PDF Downloads 182



Fault Detection, Modeling Pipeline, Data/Model Operations

Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., Brevdo, E., Chen, Z., Citro, C., . . . Zheng, X. (2015). TensorFlow: Largescale machine learning on heterogeneous systems. Retrieved from available from

Atamuradov, V., Medjaher, K., Dersin, P., Lamoureux, B., &Zerhouni, N. (2017). Prognostics and health management for maintenance practitioners-review, implementation and tools evaluation. International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, 8(3), 1–31

Brundage, M. P., Sexton, T., Hodkiewicz, M., Dima, A., & Lukens, S. (2021). Technical language processing: Unlocking maintenance knowledge. Manufacturing Letters, 27, 42–46.

Chen, Y. (2012). Data quality assessment methodology for improved prognostics modeling (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati.

Chen, Y., Zhu, F., & Lee, J. (2013). Data quality evaluation and improvement for prognostic modeling using visual assessment based data partitioning method. Computers in industry, 64(3), 214–225.

Coble, J., & Hines, J. W. (2009). Identifying optimal prognostic parameters from data: a genetic algorithms approach. In Annual Conference of the PHM Society (Vol. 1).

Coble, J., & Hines, J. W. (2011). Applying the general path model to estimation of remaining useful life. International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, 2(1), 71–82.

Cofre-Martel, Sergio and Correa-Jullian, Camila and L ˆ opez ´ Droguett, E and Groth, Katrina M and Modarres, MM. (2021). Defining degradation states for diagnosis classification models in real systems based on monitoring data. In Proceedings of the 31st European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2021), Angers, France (pp. 19–23).

Cofre-Martel, S., Lopez Droguett, E., & Modarres, M. (2021). Big machinery data preprocessing methodology for data-driven models in prognostics and health management. Sensors, 21(20), 6841.

Correa, D., Polpo, A., Small, M., Srikanth, S., Hollins, K., & ˆ Hodkiewicz, M. (2022). Data-driven approach for labelling process plant event data. International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, 13(1).

Correa-Jullian, Camila and Groth, Katrina M. (2022). Oppor- ˆ tunities and data requirements for data-driven prognostics and health management in liquid hydrogen storage systems. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47(43), 18748–18762.

Elattar, H. M., Elminir, H. K., & Riad, A. (2016). Prognostics: a literature review. Complex & Intelligent Systems,
2(2), 125–154.

Fink, O., Wang, Q., Svensen, M., Dersin, P., Lee, W.-J., & Ducoffe, M. (2020). Potential, challenges and future directions for deep learning in prognostics and health management applications. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 92, 103678.

Goebel, K., Daigle, M. J., Saxena, A., Roychoudhury, I., Sankararaman, S., & Celaya, J. R. (2017). Prognostics: The science of making predictions.

Hu, Y., Miao, X., Si, Y., Pan, E., & Zio, E. (2022). Prognostics and health management: A review from the perspectives of design, development and decision. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 217, 108063.

Jia, X., Zhao, M., Di, Y., Yang, Q., & Lee, J. (2017). Assessment of data suitability for machine prognosis using maximum mean discrepancy. IEEE transactions on industrial electronics, 65(7), 5872–5881.

Jimenez, J. J. M., Schwartz, S., Vingerhoeds, R., Grabot, B., & Salaun, M. (2020). Towards multi-model approaches ¨ to predictive maintenance: A systematic literature survey on diagnostics and prognostics. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 56, 539–557.

Lukens, S., Rousis, D., Baer, T., Lujan, M., & Smith, M. (2022). A data quality scorecard for assessing the suitability of asset condition data for prognostics modeling. In Annual Conference of the PHM Society (Vol. 14).

Marti-Puig, P., Blanco-M, A., Cardenas, J. J., Cusid ´ o,´ J., & Sole-Casals, J. (2018). Effects of the ´ pre-processing algorithms in fault diagnosis of wind turbines. Environmental Modelling Software, 110, 119-128. Retrieved from (Special Issue on Environmental Data Science and Decision Support: Applications in Climate Change and the Ecological Footprint) doi:

Myrberg, J. (2022). aakr. Retrieved from

Saxena, A., Goebel, K., Simon, D., & Eklund, N. (2008).Damage propagation modeling for aircraft engine runto-failure simulation. In 2008 International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management (pp. 1–9).

Saxena, A., Roychoudhury, I., Celaya, J., Saha, S., Saha, B., & Goebel, K. (2010). Requirements specification for prognostics performance-an overview. AIAInfotech@ Aerospace 2010, 3398.

Vachtsevanos, G., Lewis, F. L., Roemer, M., Hess, A., & Wu, B. (2006). Intelligent fault diagnosis and prognosis for engineering systems. In 1st ed. hoboken.

Walker, M., & Kapadia, R. (2009). Integrated design of online health and prognostics management. In Annual Conference of the PHM Society (Vol. 1).

Wang, T., Yu, J., Siegel, D., & Lee, J. (2008). A similaritybased prognostics approach for remaining useful life
estimation of engineered systems. In 2008 international conference on prognostics and health management (pp. 1–6).

Wang, Y., Zhao, Y., & Addepalli, S. (2020). Remaining useful life prediction using deep learning approaches: A review. Procedia manufacturing, 49, 81–88.

Zhang, T., Chen, J., Li, F., Zhang, K., Lv, H., He, S., & Xu, E. (2022). Intelligent fault diagnosis of machines with small & imbalanced data: A state-of-the-art review and possible extensions. ISA transactions, 119, 152–171.

Zhao, R., Yan, R., Chen, Z., Mao, K., Wang, P., & Gao, R. X. (2019). Deep learning and its applications to machine health monitoring. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 115, 213–237.
Technical Research Papers