skip to main content
research-article

Unsupervised Dynamic Sensor Selection for IoT-Based Predictive Maintenance of a Fleet of Public Transport Buses

Published:19 July 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In recent years, big data produced by the Internet of Things has enabled new kinds of useful applications. One such application is monitoring a fleet of vehicles in real time to predict their remaining useful life. The consensus self-organized models (COSMO) approach is an example of a predictive maintenance system. The present work proposes a novel Internet of Things based architecture for predictive maintenance that consists of three primary nodes: the vehicle node, the server leader node, and the root node, which enable on-board vehicle data processing, heavy-duty data processing, and fleet administration, respectively. A minimally viable prototype of the proposed architecture was implemented and deployed to a local bus garage in Gatineau, Canada.

The present work proposes improved consensus self-organized models (ICOSMO), a fleet-wide unsupervised dynamic sensor selection algorithm. To analyze the performance of ICOSMO, a fleet simulation was implemented. The J1939 data gathered from a hybrid bus was used to generate synthetic data in the simulations. Simulation results that compared the performance of the COSMO and ICOSMO approaches revealed that in general ICOSMO improves the average area under the curve of COSMO by approximately 1.5% when using the Cosine distance and 0.6% when using Hellinger distance.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Amarasinghe Malintha, Kottegoda Sasikala, Arachchi Asiri Liyana, Muramudalige Shashika, Bandara H. M. N. Dilum, and Azeez Afkham. 2015. Cloud-based driver monitoring and vehicle diagnostic with OBD2 telematics. In Proceedings of the 2015 15th International Conference on Electro/Information Technology (EIT’15).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. [2] Bonomi Flavio, Milito Rodolfo, Natarajan Preethi, and Zhu Jiang. 2014. Fog computing: A platform for Internet of Things and Analytics. In Big Data and Internet of Things: A Roadmap for Smart Environments, Nik Bessis and Ciprian Dobre (Eds.). Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 546. Springer, 169–186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] Braden Derek R. and Harvey David M.. 2014. A Prognostic and Data Fusion Based Approach to Validating Automotive Electronics. SAE Technical Paper 2014-01-0724. SAE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [4] Budakoti Jyoti. 2018. An IoT Gateway Middleware for Interoperability in SDN Managed Internet of Things. Ph.D. Dissertation. Carleton University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. [5] Butylin Sergei. 2018. Predictive Maintenance Framework for a Vehicular IoT Gateway Node Using Active Database Rules. Master’s Thesis. University of Ottawa. https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/38568.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. [6] Byttner Stefan, Nowaczyk Slawomir, Prytz Rune, and Rognvaldsson Thorsteinn. 2013. A field test with self-organized modeling for knowledge discovery in a fleet of city buses. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] Byttner Stefan, Rögnvaldsson Thorsteinn, and Svensson Magnus. 2011. Consensus self-organized models for fault detection (COSMO). Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 24, 5 (2011), 833839.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. [8] Calikus Ece, Fan Yuantao, Nowaczyk Slawomir, and Sant’Anna Anita. 2019. Interactive-COSMO: Consensus self-organized models for fault detection with expert feedback. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Interactive Data Mining. 19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] Cha Sung-Hyuk. 2008. Taxonomy of nominal type histogram distance measures. In Proceedings of the American Conference on Applied Mathematics (MATH’08). 325330.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. [10] Chen Wenjie. 2020. A Rule-Based Expert System for Predictive Maintenance of a Hybrid Bus. Master’s Thesis. University of Ottawa. https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/40661.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. [11] Chira Codrin-Mihai, Portase Raluca, Tolas Ramona, Lemnaru Camelia, and Potolea Rodica. 2020. A system for managing and processing industrial sensor data: SMS. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 16th International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing (ICCP’20). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 213220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Das Santanu, Matthews Bryan L., Srivastava Ashok N., and Oza Nikunj C.. 2010. Multiple kernel learning for heterogeneous anomaly detection: Algorithm and aviation safety case study. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 4756.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. [13] Datta Soumya Kanti, Bonnet Christian, and Nikaein Navid. 2014. An IoT gateway centric architecture to provide novel M2M services. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT’14). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 514519.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Mosquitto Eclipse. 2018. Eclipse Mosquitto Home Page. Retrieved December 14, 2021 from https://mosquitto.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. [15] Fan Yuantao, Nowaczyk Sławomir, and Rögnvaldsson Thorsteinn. 2020. Transfer learning for remaining useful life prediction based on consensus self-organizing models. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 203 (2020), 107098. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Farouq Shiraz, Byttner Stefan, and Bouguelia Mohamed-Rafik. 2018. On monitoring heat-pumps with a group-based conformal anomaly detection approach. In Proceedings of the 2018 Internal Conference on Data Science (ICDATA’18).6369.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Farouq Shiraz, Byttner Stefan, Bouguelia Mohamed-Rafik, Nord Natasa, and Gadd Henrik. 2020. Large-scale monitoring of operationally diverse district heating substations: A reference-group based approach. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 90 (2020), 103492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [18] Furch Jan, Turo Tomas, Krobot Zdenek, and Stastny Jiri. 2017. Using telemetry for maintenance of special military vehicles. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Modelling and Simulation for Autonomous Systems. 392401.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. [19] Gama Joao. 2010. Knowledge Discovery from Data Streams. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. [20] Jin Chao, Djurdjanovic Dragan, Ardakani Hossein D., Wang Keren, Buzza Matthew, Begheri Behrad, Brown Patrick, and Lee Jay. 2015. A comprehensive framework of factory-to-factory dynamic fleet-level prognostics and operation management for geographically distributed assets. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE’15). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 225230.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Kargupta Hillol, Puttagunta Vasundhara, Klein Martin, and Sarkar Kakali. 2006. On-board vehicle data stream monitoring using MineFleet and fast resource constrained monitoring of correlation matrices. New Generation Computing 25, 1 (2006), 532.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. [22] Kargupta Hillol, Sarkar Kakali, and Gilligan Michael. 2010. MineFleet®: An overview of a widely adopted distributed vehicle performance data mining system. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, New York, NY, 3746.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. [23] Kelleher John D., Namee Brian Mac, and D’Arcy Aoife. 2015. Fundamentals of Machine Learning for PredictiveAnalytics:Algorithms, Worked Examples, and Case Studies. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. [24] Killeen Patrick. 2020. Knowledge-Based Predictive Maintenance for Fleet Management. Master’s Thesis. University of Ottawa. https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/40086.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Killeen Patrick, Ding Bo, Kiringa Iluju, and Yeap Tet. 2019. IoT-based predictive maintenance for fleet management. Procedia Computer Science 151 (2019), 607613.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. [26] Killeen Patrick and Parvizimosaed Alireza. 2018. An AHP-Based Evaluation of Real-Time Stream Processing Technologies in IoT. Technical Report. University of Ottawa. https://www.mudlakebiodiversity.ca/papers/ahp-based-evaluation-iot-2018.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Kumar Sachin, Dolev Eli, and Pecht Michael. 2010. Parameter selection for health monitoring of electronic products. Microelectronics Reliability 50, 2 (2010), 161168.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. [28] Lapira Edzel R.. 2012. Fault Detection in a Network of Similar Machines Using Clustering Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Cincinnati.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. [29] Libelium. 2018. LoRaWAN Coverage for LATAM and Asia-Pacific on Its IoT Sensor Platform. Retrieved November 20, 2018 from http://www.libelium.com/libelium-expands-lorawan-coverage-for-latam-and-asia-pacific-on-its-iot-sensor-platform/?utm_source=NewsletterLB&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=NLB-301018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. [30] Liu Zongchang. 2018. Cyber-Physical System Augmented Prognostics and Health Management for Fleet-Based Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Cincinnati.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Lui Liansheng, Wang Shaojun, Liu Datong, Zhang Yujie, and Peng Yu. 2015. Entropy-based sensor selection for condition monitoring and prognostics of aircraft engine. Microelectronics Reliability 55 (2015), 20922096. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] Michau Gabriel and Fink Olga. 2019. Unsupervised fault detection in varying operating conditions. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management (ICPHM’19). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. [33] Netzer Markus, Michelberger Jonas, and Fleischer Jürgen. 2020. Intelligent anomaly detection of machine tools based on mean shift clustering. Procedia CIRP 93 (2020), 14481453.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. [34] Nowaczyk Sławomir, Sant’Anna Anita, Calikus Ece, and Fan Yuantao. 2018. Monitoring equipment operation through model and event discovery. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning. 4153.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. [35] Obaidat Mohammad S. and Nicopolitidis Petros. 2016. Smart Cities and Homes: Key Enabling Technologies. Morgan Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] Transpo OC. 2021. Home | OC Transpo. Retrieved December 7, 2021 from https://www.octranspo.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. [37] Palau Adrià Salvador. 2020. Distributed Collaborative Prognostics. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. [38] Palau Adrià Salvador, Dhada Maharshi Harshadbhai, Bakliwal Kshitij, and Parlikad Ajith Kumar. 2019. An industrial multi agent system for real-time distributed collaborative prognostics. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 85 (2019), 590606.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. [39] Palau Adrià Salvador, Dhada Maharshi Harshadbhai, and Parlikad Ajith Kumar. 2019. Multi-agent system architectures for collaborative prognostics. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 30, 8 (2019), 29993013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. [40] Prytz Rune, Nowaczyk Sławomir, Rögnvaldsson Thorsteinn, and Byttner Stefan. 2015. Predicting the need for vehicle compressor repairs using maintenance records and logged vehicle data. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 41 (2015), 139150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. [41] Redelinghuys A. J. H., Basson A. H., and Kruger K.. 2020. A six-layer architecture for the digital twin: A manufacturing case study implementation. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 31 (2020), 13831402.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. [42] Rögnvaldsson Thorsteinn, Norrman Henrik, Byttner Stefan, and Järpe Eric. 2014. Estimating p-values for deviation detection. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 8th International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems (SASO’14). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 100109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [43] Rögnvaldsson Thorsteinn, Nowaczyk Sławomir, Byttner Stefan, Prytz Rune, and Svensson Magnus. 2018. Self-monitoring for maintenance of vehicle fleets. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 32, 2 (March 2018), 344384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. [44] l’Outaouais Société de transport d. 2021. STO | Société de Transport d l’Outaouais. Retrieved December 7, 2021 from http://www.sto.ca/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. [45] International Society of Automotive Engineers. 2017. J1939 Digital Annex October 2017. Retrieved April 18, 2022 from https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j1939da_201710/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. [46] Svensson Magnus, Byttner Stefan, and Rognvaldsson Thorsteinn. 2008. Self-organizing maps for automatic fault detection in a vehicle cooling system. In Proceedings of the 2008 4th International IEEE Conference Intelligent Systems.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. [47] Teng Xudong, Fan Yuantao, and Nowaczyk Sławomir. 2016. Evaluation of micro-flaws in metallic material based on a self-organized data-driven approach. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management (ICPHM’16). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. [48] Thangavel Dinesh, Ma Xiaoping, Valera Alvin, Tan Hwee-Xian, and Tan Colin Keng-Yan. 2014. Performance evaluation of MQTT and CoAP via a common middleware. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 9th International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks, and Information Processing (ISSNIP’14). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. [49] Stietencron Moritz von, Lewandowski Marco, Lepenioti Katerina, Bousdekis Alexandros, Hribernik Karl, Apostolou Dimitris, and Mentzas Gregoris. 2020. Streaming analytics in edge-cloud environment for logistics processes. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems. 245253.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. [50] Wu Dazhong, Terpenny Janis, Zhang Li, Gao Robert, and Kurfess Thomas. 2016. Fog-enabled architecture for data-driven cyber-manufacturing systems. In Proceedings of the International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference, Vol. 49903.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. [51] Xiong Chuan. 2020. Secured System Architecture for the Internet of Things Using a Two Factor Authentication Protocol. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Ottawa.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. [52] Zhang Yilu, Du Xinyu, and Salman Mutasim. 2012. Peer-to-peer collaborative vehicle health management—The concept and an initial study. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. [53] Zhang Yilu, Gantt Gary W., Rychlinski Mark J., Edwards Ryan M., Correia John J., and Wolf Calvin E.. 2009. Connected vehicle diagnostics and prognostics, concept, and initial practice. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 58, 2 (2009), 286294.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. [54] Zimek Arthur, Schubert Erich, and Kriegel Hans-Peter. 2012. A survey on unsupervised outlier detection in high-dimensional numerical data. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining 5, 5 (2012), 363387.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Unsupervised Dynamic Sensor Selection for IoT-Based Predictive Maintenance of a Fleet of Public Transport Buses

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Full Text

        View this article in Full Text.

        View Full Text

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format