An ontological modelling of multi-attribute criticality analysis to guide Prognostics and Health Management program development

Abstract

Digital technologies are becoming more pervasive and industrial companies are exploiting them to enhance the potentialities related to Prognostics and Health Management (PHM). Indeed, PHM allows to evaluate the health state of the physical assets as well as to predict their future behaviour. To be effective in developing PHM programs, the most critical assets should be identified so to direct modelling efforts. Several techniques could be adopted to evaluate asset criticality; in industrial practice, criticality analysis is amongst the most utilised. Despite the advancement of artificial intelligence for data analysis and predictions, the criticality analysis, which is built upon both quantitative and qualitative data, has not been improved accordingly. It is the goal of this work to propose an ontological formalisation of a multi-attribute criticality analysis in order to i) fix the semantics behind the terms involved in the analysis, ii) standardize and uniform the way criticality analysis is performed, and iii) take advantage of the reasoning capabilities to automatically evaluate asset criticality and associate a suitable maintenance strategy. The developed ontology, called MOCA, is tested in a food company featuring a global footprint. The application shows that MOCA can accomplish the prefixed goals; specifically, high priority assets towards which direct PHM programs are identified. In the long run, ontologies could serve as a unique knowledge base that integrate multiple data and information across facilities in a consistent way. As such, they will enable advanced analytics to take place, allowing to move towards cognitive Cyber Physical Systems that enhance business performance for companies spread worldwide.

Keywords

Criticality analysis / Ontology / Artificial intelligence / Prognostics and Health Management / PHM / Maintenance

References

[1] GuillénA.J., CrespoA., MacchiM., GómezJ.. On the role of Prognostics and Health Management in advanced maintenance systems. Prod. Plan. Control, 2016, 27: 991-1004

[2] LeeJ., WuF., ZhaoW., GhaffariM., LiaoL., SiegelD.. Prognostics and Health Management design for rotary machinery systems—reviews, methodology and applications. Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 2014, 42: 314-334

[3] LeeJ., JinC., LiuZ., Davari ArdakaniH.. Ekwaro-OsireS., GonçalvesA.C., AlemayehuF.M.. Introduction to data-driven methodologies for Prognostics and Health Management. Probabilistic Prognostics and Health Management of Energy Systems, 2017 Cham Springer 9-32

[4] LeiY., LiN., GuoL., LiN., YanT., LinJ.. Machinery health prognostics: a systematic review from data acquisition to RUL prediction. Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 2018, 104: 799-834

[5] PolenghiA., RodaI., MacchiM., PozzettiA.. Information as a key dimension to develop industrial asset management in manufacturing. J. Qual. Maint. Eng., 2021

[6] JavedK., GouriveauR., ZerhouniN.. State of the art and taxonomy of prognostics approaches, trends of prognostics applications and open issues towards maturity at different technology readiness levels. Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 2017, 94: 214-236

[7] CattaneoL., PolenghiA., MacchiM.. A framework to integrate novelty detection and remaining useful life prediction in Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 2021 1–21

[8] BragliaM., FrosoliniM., MontanariR.. Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int., 2003, 19: 425-443

[9] SavinoM.M., MacchiM., MazzaA.. Investigating the impact of social sustainability within maintenance operations. J. Qual. Maint. Eng., 2015, 21: 310-331

[10] DuránO., DuránP.A.. Prioritization of physical assets for maintenance and production sustainability. Sustainability, 2019, 11

[11] GopalakrishnanM., SkooghA., SalonenA., AspM.. Machine criticality assessment for productivity improvement. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag., 2019, 68: 858-878

[12] MárquezA.C., LeõnP.M.D., RosiqueA.S., FernándezJ.F.G.. Criticality analysis for maintenance purposes: a study for complex in-service engineering assets. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int., 2016, 32: 519-533

[13] GopalakrishnanM., SubramaniyanM., SkooghA.. Data-driven machine criticality assessment–maintenance decision support for increased productivity. Prod. Plan. Control, 2020

[14] PolenghiA., RodaI., MacchiM., PozzettiA.. LalicB., MajstorovicV., MarjanovicU., von CieminskiG., RomeroD.. A conceptual model of the IT ecosystem for asset management in the global manufacturing context. Advances in Production Management Systems. Towards Smart and Digital Manufacturing, 2020 Berlin Springer 711-719

[15] FlasińskiM.. FlasińskiM.. Symbolic artificial intelligence. Introduction to Artificial Intelligence, 2016 Cham Springer 15-22

[16] PolenghiA., RodaI., MacchiM., PozzettiA.. Multi-attribute ontology-based criticality analysis of manufacturing assets for maintenance strategies planning. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 2021, 54: 55-60

[17] MossT.R., WoodhouseJ.. Criticality analysis revisited. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int., 1999, 15: 117-121

[18] BragliaM.. MAFMA: multi-attribute failure mode analysis. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., 2000, 17: 1017-1033

[19] IEC 60812, Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA and FMECA), BSI Standards Publication (2018)

[20] JaderiF., IbrahimZ.Z., ZahiriM.R.. Criticality analysis of petrochemical assets using risk based maintenance and the fuzzy inference system. Process Saf. Environ. Prot., 2019, 121: 312-325

[21] BowlesJ.B.. An assessment of RPN prioritization in a failure modes effects and criticality analysis. Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium 2003, 2003 380-386

[22] NiuG., YangB.-S., PechtM.. Development of an optimized condition-based maintenance system by data fusion and reliability-centered maintenance. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 2010, 95: 786-796

[23] RodaI., MacchiM., AlbaneseS.. Building a Total Cost of Ownership model to support manufacturing asset lifecycle management. Prod. Plan. Control, 2020, 31: 19-37

[24] MárquezA.C., LeónP.M.D., FernndezJ.F.G., MárquezC.P., CamposM.L.. The maintenance management framework: a practical view to maintenance management. J. Qual. Maint. Eng., 2009, 15: 167-178

[25] CavalieriS., GarettiM., MacchiM., PintoR.. A decision-making framework for managing maintenance spare parts. Prod. Plan. Control, 2008, 19: 379-396

[26] EbrahimipourV., RezaieK., ShokraviS.. An ontology approach to support FMEA studies. Expert Syst. Appl., 2010, 37: 671-677

[27] Montero JiménezJ.J., VingerhoedsR., GrabotB., SchwartzS.. An ontology model for maintenance strategy selection and assessment. J. Intell. Manuf., 2021

[28] ZhouA., YuD., ZhangW.. A research on intelligent fault diagnosis of wind turbines based on ontology and FMECA. Adv. Eng. Inform., 2015, 29: 115-125

[29] DefèrF., SchuhG., StichV.. LalicB., MajstorovicV., MarjanovicU., von CieminskiG., RomeroD.. Towards a unified reliability-centered information logistics model for production assets. Advances in Production Management Systems. The Path to Digital Transformation and Innovation of Production Management Systems, 2020 Cham Springer 11-18

[30] AliN., HongJ.-E.. Failure detection and prevention for cyber-physical systems using ontology-based knowledge base. Computers, 2018, 7

[31] LeeJ., BagheriB., KaoH.A.. A Cyber-Physical Systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manuf. Lett., 2015, 3: 18-23

[32] CastetJ., BarehM., NunesJ., OkonS., GarnerL., ChackoE., IzygonM.. Failure analysis and products in a model-based environment. 2018 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2018 1-13

[33] RehmanZ., KiforC.V.. An ontology to support semantic management of FMEA knowledge. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control, 2016, 11: 507-521

[34] ISO 15926-1, Industrial automation systems and integration—integration of life-cycle data for process plants including oil and gas production facilities—part1: overview and fundamental principles, International Organization (2004). https://doi.org/10.1021/es0620181

[35] WuZ., LiuW., NieW.. Literature review and prospect of the development and application of FMEA in manufacturing industry. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2021, 112: 1409-1436

[36] PolenghiA., RodaI., MacchiM., PozzettiA., PanettoH.. Knowledge reuse for ontology modelling in maintenance and industrial asset management. J. Ind. Inf. Integr., 2021 100298

[37] Suárez-FigueroaM.C., Gómez-PérezA., Fernandez-LopezM.. The NeOn methodology framework: a scenario-based methodology for ontology development. Appl. Ontol., 2015, 10: 107-145

[38] SpynsP., TangY., MeersmanR.. An ontology engineering methodology for DOGMA. Appl. Ontol., 2008, 3: 13-39

[39] AmeriF., SormazD., PsarommatisF., KiritsisD.. Industrial ontologies for interoperability in agile and resilient manufacturing. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2021 1–22

[40] ArpR., SmithB., SpearA.D.. Building Ontologies with Basic Formal Ontology, 2015 Cambridge MIT Press

[41] BorgoS., MasoloC.. Foundational choices in DOLCE. Handbook on Ontologies, 2004

[42] MascardiV., CordìV., RossoP.. A comparison of upper ontologies. Woa, 2007 55-64

[43] MageeL.. CopeB., KalantzisM., MageeL.. 9—Upper-level ontologies. Towards a Semantic Web—Connecting Knowledge in Academic Research, 2011 Oxford Chandos Publishing 235-287

[44] SmithB., CeustersW.. Ontological realism: a methodology for coordinated evolution of scientific ontologies. Appl. Ontol., 2010, 5: 139-188

[45] B. Smith, Coordinated holistic alignment of manufacturing processes (CHAMP), State Univ. of New York at Buffalo Buffalo (2018)

[46] SousaC., SoaresA., PereiraC., CostaR.. Supporting the identification of conceptual relations in semi-formal ontology development. Proceedings of ColabTKR, 2012

[47] ISO/IEC DIS 21838-1, Information technology. Top-level ontologies (TLO). Part 1. Requirements, BSI Standards Publication (2019)

[48] ZhouL.. Ontology learning: state of the art and open issues. Inf. Technol. Manag., 2007, 8: 241-252

[49] BedenS., CaoQ., BeckmannA.. Semantic asset administration shells in Industry 4.0: a survey. 2021 4th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Cyber-Physical Systems (ICPS), 2021 31-38

[50] CUBRC, CCO—common core ontologies for data integration, data science and information fusion (2020), https://www.cubrc.org/index.php/data-science-and-information-fusion/ontology. Accessed 4 May 2020

[51] CeustersW.. An information artifact ontology perspective on data collections and associated representational artifacts. MIE, 2012 68-72

[52] ISO 14224, Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries—collection and exchange of reliability and maintenance data for equipment, BSI Standards Publication (2016). https://doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2010.1513

[53] CUBRC, An overview of the common core ontologies (2019)

[54] SmithB.. On classifying material entities in basic formal ontology. Interdisciplinary Ontology: Proceedings of the Third Interdisciplinary Ontology Meeting, 2012 Keio University Press

[55] KarrayM.H., AmeriF., HodkiewiczM., LougeT.. ROMAIN: towards a BFO compliant reference ontology for industrial maintenance. Appl. Ontol., 2019, 14: 155-177

[56] IEC 60812, Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA and FMECA), BSI Standards Publication (2018)

[57] Al-ShdifatA., EmmanouilidisC., KhanM., StarrA.. Ontology-based context resolution in Internet of things enabled diagnostics. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 2020, 53: 251-256

[58] GuptaG., MishraR.P.. Identification of critical components using ANP for implementation of reliability centered maintenance. Proc. CIRP, 2018, 69: 905-909

[59] SilvestriA., De FeliceF., PetrilloA.. Multi-criteria risk analysis to improve safety in manufacturing systems. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2012, 50: 4806-4821