4.7 Article

A deep learning predictive model for selective maintenance optimization

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2021.108191

关键词

Remaining useful life; Deep learning; Predictive models; Selective maintenance; Optimization

资金

  1. Canadian Natural Science and Engineering Research Council [RGPIN/04484-2016, RGPIN/084141-2020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a predictive selective maintenance framework for multi-component systems using deep learning and mathematical programming. The framework accurately predicts the health condition of each component and selects maintenance actions accordingly. The performance of the framework is validated using a benchmarking data set provided by NASA.
This paper develops a predictive selective maintenance framework using deep learning and mathematical programming. We consider a multi-component system executing consecutive production missions with scheduled intermission maintenance breaks. During the intermission breaks, several maintenance actions can improve each component's remaining useful life at a given cost. An optimization model is developed to identify a subset of maintenance actions to perform on the components. The objective is to minimize the total cost under intermission break time limitation. The total cost is composed of maintenance and failure costs; it depends on the success probabilities of the subsequent missions. To estimate these probabilities, the optimization model interacts with a long short-term memory network. The resulting predictive selective maintenance framework is validated using a benchmarking data set provided by NASA for a Modular Aero-Propulsion System Simulation of a Commercial Turbofan Engine. Its performance is highlighted when compared with the model-based approach. The results illustrate the advantages of the predictive selective maintenance framework to predict the health condition of each component with accuracy and deal with the selective maintenance of series systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据