Turbofan Sensor-FDI-Bench: A Synthetic Dataset for Sensor Fault Detection & Isolation under Degradation and Operating Variability
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Martin Bolemant Marvin Noethen
Abstract
Aircraft engine monitoring relies on sensor measurements to assess gas path condition and to distinguish gradual degradation from abrupt performance changes. In practice, however, sensor signals are influenced simultaneously by the engine state, changing operating conditions, and sensor side effects such as step, drift, random outliers, and measurement noise. This makes it difficult to determine whether an observed deviation originates from the engine, the environment, or the sensing system. For the development and fair comparison of sensor fault detection and isolation methods, a benchmark is required that represents these effects in a controlled and labelled manner. Most publicly available turbofan datasets, however, are primarily intended for remaining useful life prediction and do not provide standardised sensor fault cases for reproducible FDI evaluation. To address this gap, the Turbofan Sensor-FDI-Bench is introduced as a synthetic steady state benchmark dataset generated with a physics based turbofan performance model. The benchmark consists of cruise operating point snapshots and provides, for each flight, environmental conditions, an extended sensor package, and gradual multi component performance degradation. Structured sensor faults with controlled onset and severity are superimposed, including step and drift faults as well as stochastic measurement disturbances. The benchmark is organised as a progressive suite of subsets with increasing complexity, covering fixed and variable operating conditions as well as single fault and multi fault diagnosis settings. For each engine unit, clean reference sensor values are released alongside noisy or faulty measurements, enabling supervised denoising and controlled evaluation of sensor fault diagnosis methods. The resulting benchmark provides a reproducible basis for comparing sensor fault detection and isolation methods under degradation and operating variability.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Turbofan engines, Sensor fault detection, Sensor fault isolation, Gas path diagnostics, Synthetic benchmark dataset, Engine degradation, Operating variability, Sensor noise, Sensor drift, Measurement outliers, Supervised denoising
Chatterjee, S., & Litt, J. (2003). Online model parameter estimation of jet engine degradation for autonomous propulsion control. In Proceedings of AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit. Austin, Texas: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. doi: 10.2514/6.2003-5425
Fentaye, A. D., Baheta, A. T., Gilani, S. I. U., & Kyprianidis, K. G. (2019). A review on gas turbine gas-path diagnostics: State-of-the-art methods, challenges and opportunities. Aerospace, 6(7), 83. doi: 10.3390/aerospace6070083
Fentaye, A. D., Kyprianidis, K. G., Stamoulis, K., Papanikou, M., Apostolidis, A., Plioutsias, A., & Karakoc, H. (2020). An intelligent data filtering and fault detection method for gas turbine engines. MATEC Web of Conferences, 314, 02007. doi: 10.1051/matecconf/202031402007
Koskoletos, A. O., Aretakis, N., Alexiou, A., Romesis, C., & Mathioudakis, K. (2018). Evaluation of aircraft engine gas path diagnostic methods through ProDiMES. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 140(12), 121016. doi: 10.1115/1.4040909
Marinai, L. (2004). Gas-path diagnostics and prognostics for aero-engines using fuzzy logic and time series analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cranfield University.
Mathioudakis, K., Kamboukos, P., & Stamatis, A. (2002). Turbofan performance deterioration tracking using non-linear models and optimization techniques. In Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2002: Power for Land, Sea, and Air (pp. 65–73). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ASME. doi: 10.1115/GT2002-30026
Raikar, C., & Ganguli, R. (2017). Denoising signals used in gas turbine diagnostics with ant colony optimized weighted recursive median filters. INAE Letters, 2(3), 133–143. doi: 10.1007/s41403-017-0023-y
Ramasso, E., & Saxena, A. (2014). Performance benchmarking and analysis of prognostic methods for CMAPSS datasets. International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, 5(2). doi: 10.36001/ijphm.2014.v5i2.2236
Reitenbach, S., Vieweg, M., Becker, R., Hollmann, C., Wolters, F., Schmeink, J., ... Siggel, M. (2020). Collaborative aircraft engine preliminary design using a virtual engine platform, Part A: Architecture and methodology. In AIAA SciTech 2020 Forum. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. doi: 10.2514/6.2020-0867
Sallee, G. P. (1978). Performance deterioration based on existing (historical) data JT9D jet engine diagnostics program (Tech. Rep. No. NASA-CR-135448; PWA-5512-21). East Hartford, CT, United States: Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Group.
Sallee, G. P. (1979). Performance deterioration based on in-service engine data: JT9D jet engine diagnostics program (Tech. Rep. No. NASA-CR-159525; PWA-5512-35). East Hartford, CT, United States: Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Group.
Saxena, A., Simon, D., & Eklund, N. (2008). Damage propagation modeling for aircraft engine prognostics. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management 2008. Denver, CO, United States: IEEE.
Simon, D. L. (2010). Propulsion diagnostic method evaluation strategy (ProDiMES) user’s guide: Technical memorandum (Tech. Rep. No. NASA/TM-2010-215840). Cleveland, OH, United States: NASA Glenn Research Center.
Simon, D. L., Borguet, S., Léonard, O., & Zhang, X. (2014). Aircraft engine gas path diagnostic methods: Public benchmarking results. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 136(4). doi: 10.1115/1.4025482
Zhao, J., Li, Y., & Sampath, S. (2022). Convolutional neural network denoising autoencoders for intelligent aircraft engine gas path health signal noise filtering. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 1–22. doi: 10.1115/1.4056128

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
The Prognostic and Health Management Society advocates open-access to scientific data and uses a Creative Commons license for publishing and distributing any papers. A Creative Commons license does not relinquish the author’s copyright; rather it allows them to share some of their rights with any member of the public under certain conditions whilst enjoying full legal protection. By submitting an article to the International Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society, the authors agree to be bound by the associated terms and conditions including the following:
As the author, you retain the copyright to your Work. By submitting your Work, you are granting anybody the right to copy, distribute and transmit your Work and to adapt your Work with proper attribution under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States license. You assign rights to the Prognostics and Health Management Society to publish and disseminate your Work through electronic and print media if it is accepted for publication. A license note citing the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License as shown below needs to be placed in the footnote on the first page of the article.
First Author et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1075-3398