Current generation mechanical diagnostic equipment is designed to identify individual events or trends in the output of sensors mounted on a mechanical component, subsystem, or system. Such equipment can provide a useful indication that a failure condition may be developing, but it cannot provide reliable predictions of the remaining safe or operational life. Typically, these diagnostic systems simply compare the output of individual sensors against a priori thresholds to establish a measure of the system’s health. Two problems result from this approach: (1) There is no advantage taken of possible synergy among the sensors, i.e., the determination of health is one dimensional; and (2) the diagnosis provides only a statement regarding the current equipment health, but does not provide a prediction of the time remaining to failure. This often leads to an operational environment in which diagnostic equipment outputs are either ignored because of frequent false alarms or frequent (and costly) time-based preventive maintenance is performed to avoid hazardous failures. This paper describes a new approach to the development of a more robust diagnosis and prognostic capability. It is based on the fusion of sensor-based and model-based information. Sensor-based information is the essence of current diagnostic systems. Model-based information combines dynamic models of individual mechanical components with micromechanical models of relevant failure mechanisms, such as fracture and crack propagation. These micromechanical models must account for initial flaw size distribution and other microstructural parameters describing initial components condition. A specific application of this approach is addressed, the diagnosis of mechanical failure in meshing gears. Four specific issues are considered: (a) how to couple a validated numerical simulation of gear transmission error (due to tooth spacing irregularity, contour irregularity, or material inhomogeneity) with physically and empirically based descriptions of fatigue crack growth to predict a failure precursor signature at the component level; (b) how to predict the manifestation of this signature at the subsystem or system level where sensors are located; (c) how to fuse this model-based information with the corresponding sensor-based information to predict remaining safe or operational life of a gear; and (d) issues associated with extending this methodology to bearings and other rotating machinery components.

1.
Colsher, R., Frank, R., Matusheski, R., McElroy, J., and Leonard, W., 1992, “The Benefits of an Integrated Predictive Maintenance Program in a Power Plant Environment,” PDM Conference, Knoxville, Sept. 21–23.
2.
Hall
D. L.
, and
Nauda
A.
,
1989
, “
Embedded AI-Based Diagnostic System for Signal Collection and Processing System
,”
Journal of Wave-Material Interaction
, Vol.
4
, pp.
1
14
.
3.
Hall, D. L., 1992, Mathematical Techniques in Multisensor Data Fusion, Artech House, Inc., Norwood, MA.
4.
Harris, D. O., 1992, “Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics With Applications to Inspection Planning and Design,” Reliability Technology, T. A. Cruse, ed., Vol. AD-28, pp. 57–76.
5.
Haugen, E. B., 1980, Probabilistic Mechanical Design, Wiley, New York.
6.
Hudak, S. J., et al., 1990, “Comparison of Single Cycle vs Multiple Cycle Proof Testing Strategies,” NASA Contractor Report No. 4318.
7.
Kapur, K. C., and Lamberson, L. R., 1977, Reliability in Engineering Design, Wiley, New York, Chap. 11.
8.
Kessler, O., Askin, K., Beck, N., Lynch, J., White, F., Buede, D., Hall, D., and Llinas, J., 1991, “Functional Description of the Data Fusion Process,” report prepared for the Office Naval Technology, published by NAWC, Warminster, PA.
9.
Kumar
S.
,
Kurtz
S. K.
,
Banavar
J. R.
, and
Sharma
M. G.
,
1992
, “
Properties of a Three-Dimensional Poisson-Voronoi Tesselation: A Monte Carlo Study
,”
Journal of Statistical Physics
, Vol.
67
, pp.
523
551
.
10.
Kumara, S. T., Kashyap, R. L., and Soyster, A. L., 1989, AI in Manufacturing: Theory and Practice, Institute of Industrial Engineering.
11.
Lanser, H., 1992, “Engine Condition Monitoring as a Tool for Lifetime Extension of HPT Rotor Blades,” panel discussion at the 37th ASME International Gas Turbine & Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition, Cologne, Germany, June 1-4.
12.
Lewis, E. E., 1987, Introduction to Reliability Engineering, Wiley, New York, Fig. 4.2.
13.
Mark
W. D.
,
1992
, “
Contribution to the Vibratory Excitation of Gear Systems From Periodic Undulations on Tooth Running Surfaces
,”
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
, Vol.
91
, pp.
166
186
.
14.
Mark, W. D., 1992, “Elements of Gear Noise Prediction,” Noise and Vibration Control Engineering—Principles and Applications, L. L. Beranck and I. L. Ver, eds., Wiley, New York, Chap.21.
15.
Provan, J. W., 1987, Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics and Reliability, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 176–183.
16.
Sobeyzk, K., and Spencer, B. F., 1992, Random Fatigue: From Data to Theory, Academic Press, New York, pp. 174–176, 234–235.
17.
Stover, J. A., and Gibson, R. E., 1993, “A Processing Architecture for Autonomous Systems,” submitted for publication in Artificial Intelligence Journal.
18.
Vasudevan
A. K.
,
Sadananda
K.
, and
Louat
N.
,
1993
, “
Two Critical Stress Intensities for Threshold Fatigue Crack Propagation
,”
Scripta Metallurgica et Materialia
, Vol.
28
, pp.
65
70
.
19.
Voight
B.
,
1989
, “
A Relation to Describe Role Dependent Material Failure
,”
Science
, Vol.
243
, pp.
200
203
.
20.
Waltz, E., and Llinas, J., 1990, Multisensor Data Fusion, Artech House, Inc., Norwood, MA.
21.
Wright, F. L., 1980, “The Fusion of Multisensor Data,” Signal, pp. 39–43.
22.
Zadeh
L. A.
,
1968
, “
Fuzzy Algorithms
,”
Information and Control
, Vol.
12
, pp.
94
102
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.