Cited by 8Reliability and Maintenance OptimizationMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFault Detection and Control Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Data Quality Scorecard for Assessing the Suitability of Asset Condition Data for Prognostics Modeling

Open access
Lukens, Sarah, Rousis, Damon, Baer, Travis, Lujan, Michael, Smith, Marshall·2022·Annual Conference of the PHM Society

Abstract

High efficacy algorithm development for prognostics requires quality data from sensors and other contextual sources, such as maintenance, usage and inspection data. Data quality challenges, such as lack of sensor-based history (depth) across the entire fleet of components (breadth), can prohibit the ability to develop algorithms which are both cost-effective and useful. Therefore, the first step in prognostics modeling is determining the sufficiency of the data required to support the development of predictive algorithms. We present an assessment process for determining data suitability in the development of prognostic models based on available data that determines which modeling approaches are feasible, allowing for a first determination of decision-making for data adequacy. The assessment process follows a full data quality framework which also identifies where data eligibility and quality may be further enhanced using advanced technologies for data quality improvement approaches such as imputation, increasing the probability of obtaining the required data needed for the successful development of predictive algorithms. Use of this framework maximizes the quantity of quality data harvested from industrial data sources, increasing the probability of obtaining the required data needed for the successful development of predictive algorithms. Additionally, repeating this assessment as further data becomes available enables further expansion of the set of usable prognostic models as data availability grows.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.36001/phmconf.2022.v14i1.3188

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Alam, M., Jalali, L., Ghosh, D., Farahat, A., & Gupta, C. (2021). Remaining useful life estimation using event data. In Annual Conference of the PHM Society (Vol. 13).
  2. Arias Chao, M., Kulkarni, C., Goebel, K., & Fink, O. (2021). Aircraft engine run-to-failure dataset under real flight conditions for prognostics and diagnostics. Data, 6(1), 5.
  3. Atamuradov, V., Medjaher, K., Dersin, P., Lamoureux, B., & Zerhouni, N. (2017). Prognostics and health manage- ment for maintenance practitioners-review, implemen- tation and tools evaluation. International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, 8(3), 1-31.
  4. Chen, Y. (2012). Data quality assessment methodology for improved prognostics modeling (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati.
  5. 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.
  6. Coble, J., & Hines, J. W. (2009). Identifying optimal prog- nostic parameters from data: a genetic algorithms ap- proach. In Annual Conference of the PHM Society (Vol. 1).
  7. Coble, J., & Hines, J. W. (2011). Applying the general path model to estimation of remaining useful life. Interna- tional Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, 2(1), 71-82.
  8. Cofre-Martel, S., Lopez Droguett, E., & Modarres, M. (2021). Big machinery data preprocessing methodol- ogy for data-driven models in prognostics and health management. Sensors, 21(20), 6841.
  9. Corrêa, D., Polpo, A., Small, M., Srikanth, S., Hollins, K., & Hodkiewicz, M. (2022). Data-driven approach for la- belling process plant event data. International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, 13(1).
  10. Dangut, M. D., Skaf, Z., & Jennions, I. K. (2021). An in- tegrated machine learning model for aircraft compo- nents rare failure prognostics with log-based dataset. ISA transactions, 113, 127-139.
  11. Elattar, H. M., Elminir, H. K., & Riad, A. (2016). Prognos- tics: a literature review. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 2(2), 125-154.
  12. Gulati, R., & Smith, R. (2021). Maintenance and reliability best practices (3rd ed.). Industrial Press Inc.
  13. Hodkiewicz, M., Kelly, P., Sikorska, J., & Gouws, L. (2006). A framework to assess data quality for reliability vari- ables. In Engineering Asset Management (pp. 137- 147). Springer.
  14. Jia, X., Zhao, M., Di, Y., Yang, Q., & Lee, J. (2017). As- sessment of data suitability for machine prognosis us- ing maximum mean discrepancy. IEEE transactions on industrial electronics, 65(7), 5872-5881.
  15. Kwon, D., Hodkiewicz, M. R., Fan, J., Shibutani, T., & Pecht, M. G. (2016). IoT-based prognostics and systems health management for industrial applications. IEEE Access, 4, 3659-3670.
  16. Lukens, S., Naik, M., Saetia, K., & Hu, X. (2019). Best prac- tices framework for improving maintenance data qual- ity to enable asset performance analytics. In Annual conference of the phm society (Vol. 11).
  17. Nguyen, D., Kefalas, M., Yang, K., Apostolidis, A., Ol- hofer, M., Limmer, S., & Bäck, T. (2019). A review: Prognostics and health management in automotive and aerospace. International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, 10(2), 35.
  18. Saxena, A., Goebel, K., Simon, D., & Eklund, N. (2008). Damage propagation modeling for aircraft engine run- to-failure simulation. In 2008 International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management (pp. 1-9).
  19. Simon, H., & Schoenhof, S. (2021). Enhancing the diagnostic performance of condition based maintenance through the fusion of sensor with maintenance data. In Annual Conference of the PHM Society.
  20. Walker, M., & Kapadia, R. (2009). Integrated design of on- line health and prognostics management. In Annual Conference of the PHM Society (Vol. 1).
  21. Zhang, L., Lin, J., Liu, B., Zhang, Z., Yan, X., & Wei, M. (2019). A review on deep learning applications in prognostics and health management. IEEE Access, 7, 162415-162438.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lukens, S., Rousis, D., Baer, T., Lujan, M., & Smith, M.
Affiliations
Logistics Management Institute (United States) (US)
Venue
Annual Conference of the PHM Society
Publisher
PHM Society
Published
2022-10-28
Volume
14
Issue
1
ISSN
2325-0178 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4307716625
Cited by
8
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
5.06
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Annual Conference of the PHM Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Reliability and Maintenance Optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Machine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Fault Detection and Control Systems
Keywords
data quality, sensor data, missing data imputation, predictive maintenance, maintenance data, inspection data, fleet data

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review