4.6 Article

Deep Bidirectional Recurrent Neural Networks Ensemble for Remaining Useful Life Prediction of Aircraft Engine

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS
卷 53, 期 4, 页码 2531-2543

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TCYB.2021.3124838

关键词

Predictive models; Feature extraction; Recurrent neural networks; Data models; Prognostics and health management; Degradation; Data mining; Aircraft engine (AE); bidirectional recurrent neural networks (BDRNNs); deep learning; ensemble learning (EL); prognostics and health management (PHM); remaining useful life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article proposes a novel deep bidirectional recurrent neural networks (DBRNNs) ensemble method for the remaining useful life (RUL) prediction of aircraft engines. The method achieves high accuracy in RUL prediction by extracting hidden features from sensory data and iteratively training regression decision tree (RDT) models.
Remaining useful life (RUL) prediction of aircraft engine (AE) is of great importance to improve its reliability and availability, and reduce its maintenance costs. This article proposes a novel deep bidirectional recurrent neural networks (DBRNNs) ensemble method for the RUL prediction of the AEs. In this method, several kinds of DBRNNs with different neuron structures are built to extract hidden features from sensory data. A new customized loss function is designed to evaluate the performance of the DBRNNs, and a series of the RUL values is obtained. Then, these RUL values are reencapsulated into a predicted RUL domain. By updating the weights of elements in the domain, multiple regression decision tree (RDT) models are trained iteratively. These models integrate the predicted results of different DBRNNs to realize the final RUL prognostics with high accuracy. The proposed method is validated by using C-MAPSS datasets from NASA. The experimental results show that the proposed method has achieved more superior performance compared with other existing methods.

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

4.6
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