A Hybrid Fuzzy–Probabilistic Methodology for Machinery Reliability Assessment via Vibration Testing

  • Yogeesh N orcid

    Research Fellow, INTI International University, Nilai 71800, Malaysia; Department of Mathematics, Government First Grade College, Tumakuru 572102, India

  • Asokan Vasudevan orcid

    Faculty of Business and Communications, INTI International University, Nilai 71800, Malaysia

  • Mohammed Almakki orcid

    School of Engineering, Architecture and Interior Design, Amity University Dubai, Dubai 345019, United Arab Emirates

  • Puspanathan Doraisingam orcid

    Faculty of Business and Communications, INTI International University, Nilai 71800, Malaysia

  • Khan Sarfaraz Ali orcid

    Faculty of Business and Communications, INTI International University, Nilai 71800, Malaysia

Article ID: 3949
Keywords: Machinery reliability; Vibration testing; Hybrid uncertainty; Fuzzy Bayesian inference; Proportional hazards; Weibull model; α-cut propagation; Failure probability interval; Prognostics and health management; Process Innovation.

Abstract

Vibration testing is central to condition monitoring and fault prognosis in rotating and structural machinery, yet reliability conclusions drawn from vibration data often suffer from two competing uncertainty sources: stochastic variability in measured dynamic responses and epistemic imprecision in model parameters, thresholds, and degradation definitions. This paper proposes a hybrid fuzz probabilistic methodology for machinery reliability assessment that integrates vibration-derived health indicators with probabilistic hazard modeling under fuzzy parameter uncertainty. The approach begins with frequency-response and time-domain vibration features obtained from controlled excitation or operational monitoring, followed by normalization and fusion into a monotonic health indicator representing degradation progression. Reliability is then quantified using a probabilistic time-to-failure model (e.g., Weibull or proportional hazards), while uncertain parameters such as failure thresholds, feature-to-damage mappings, and prior hyperparameters are represented by fuzzy numbers. Using -cut decomposition, the fuzzy parameter set is propagated through the probabilistic model to produce interval-valued reliability and failure probability estimates over time. To ensure decision consistency, the resulting reliability bounds are evaluated with calibration and discrimination diagnostics adapted for time-to-event prediction, and maintenance decisions are supported through net-benefit based utility analysis. The proposed framework therefore provides both mathematical rigor and engineering practicality: it preserves probabilistic interpretation where randomness dominates, retains transparency under imprecise assumptions, and yields reliability intervals that explicitly reflect uncertainty in vibration-based inference. The methodology is suitable for machinery reliability assessment in laboratory vibration qualification and in-field monitoring, offering a structured route to robust maintenance planning under uncertainty.

Published
2026-04-22
How to Cite
N, Y., Vasudevan, A., Almakki, M., Doraisingam, P., & Sarfaraz Ali, K. (2026). A Hybrid Fuzzy–Probabilistic Methodology for Machinery Reliability Assessment via Vibration Testing. Sound & Vibration, 60(2). https://doi.org/10.59400/sv3949
Section
Article

References

[1]Cox DR. Regression Models and Life-Tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology. 1972; 34(2): 187–202. doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x

[2]Breslow N. Covariance Analysis of Censored Survival Data. Biometrics. 1974; 30(1): 89. doi: 10.2307/2529620

[3]Efron B. The Efficiency of Cox’s Likelihood Function for Censored Data. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1977; 72(359): 557–565. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1977.10480613

[4]Weibull W. A Statistical Distribution Function of Wide Applicability. Journal of Applied Mechanics. 1951, 18(3): 293–297. Available online: https://hal.science/hal-03112318/document

[5]Vlok PJ, Coetzee JL, Banjevic D, et al. Optimal component replacement decisions using vibration monitoring and the proportional-hazards model. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 2002; 53(2): 193–202. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601261

[6]Lin D, Banjevic D, Jardine AKS. Using principal components in a proportional hazards model with applications in condition-based maintenance. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 2006; 57(8): 910–919. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602058

[7]Heng A, Zhang S, Tan ACC, et al. Rotating machinery prognostics: State of the art, challenges and opportunities. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing. 2009; 23(3): 724–739. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2008.06.009

[8]Zheng R, Najafi S, Zhang Y. A recursive method for the health assessment of systems using the proportional hazards model. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2022; 221: 108379. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2022.108379

[9]Jardine AKS, Lin D, Banjevic D. A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing. 2006; 20(7): 1483–1510. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2005.09.012

[10]Martarelli M, Ewins DJ. Continuous scanning laser Doppler vibrometry and speckle noise occurrence. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing. 2006; 20(8): 2277–2289. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2005.06.003

[11]Zhu Y, Du Q, Li J. Vibration Pollution Assessment Method Based on Fuzzy Logic. Measurement. 2024: 226, 114609

[12]Chu T, Nguyen T, Yoo H, et al. A review of vibration analysis and its applications. Heliyon. 2024; 10(5): e26282. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26282

[13]Devriendt C, De Sitter G, Vanlanduit S, et al. Operational modal analysis in the presence of harmonic excitations by the use of transmissibility measurements. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing. 2009; 23(3): 621–635. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2008.07.009

[14]Zhao J, Wang W, Huang J, et al. A comprehensive review of deep learning-based fault diagnosis approaches for rolling bearings: Advancements and challenges. AIP Advances. 2025; 15(2): 020702. doi: 10.1063/5.0255451

[15]Khalid S, Jo SH, Shah SY, et al. Artificial Intelligence-Driven Prognostics and Health Management for Centrifugal Pumps: A Comprehensive Review. Actuators. 2024; 13(12): 514. doi: 10.3390/act13120514

[16]Lu W, Liu J, Lin F. The Fault Diagnosis of Rolling Bearings Is Conducted by Employing a Dual-Branch Convolutional Capsule Neural Network. Sensors. 2024; 24(11): 3384. doi: 10.3390/s24113384

[17]Pandiyan M, Babu TN. Systematic Review on Fault Diagnosis on Rolling-Element Bearing. Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies. 2024; 12(7): 8249–8283. doi: 10.1007/s42417-024-01358-4

[18]Samaila B, Sekar C. Quantum Power Flow: Revolutionizing Power Systems Analysis. SciWaveBulletin. 2023; 1(2): 1–9. doi: 10.61925/SWB.2023.1201

[19]Machaila VF, Waliu T. Unveiling Data’s Tapestry: Challenges, Opportunities, and Netflix’s Analytical Triumph. SciWaveBulletin. 2023; 1(4): 16–23. doi: 10.61925/SWB.2023.1403

[20]Abdullahi Saleh I, Srivastava A. Exploring the Intersection of Fuzzy Logic and Quantum Logic: A New Frontier in Non-Classical Logics. SciWaveBulletin. 2023; 1(2): 27–34. doi: 10.61925/SWB.2023.1204

[21]Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision Curve Analysis: A Novel Method for Evaluating Prediction Models. Medical Decision Making. 2006; 26(6): 565–574. doi: 10.1177/0272989X06295361

[22]Vickers AJ, Van Calster B, Steyerberg EW. Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests. BMJ. 2016; i6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6

[23]Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, et al. Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Medicine. 2019; 17(1): 230. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7

[24]Mendel JM, John RIB. Type-2 fuzzy sets made simple. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems. 2002; 10(2): 117–127. doi: 10.1109/91.995115

[25]Takagi T, Sugeno M. Fuzzy identification of systems and its applications to modeling and control. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 1985; SMC-15(1): 116–132. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.1985.6313399

[26]Jang JSR. ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 1993; 23(3): 665–685. doi: 10.1109/21.256541

[27]Li DF, Shan F, Cheng CT. On properties of four IFS operators. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 2005; 154(1): 151–155. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2005.03.004

[28]Yogeesh N, Raja N, Vasudevan A, et al. Type-2 fuzzy logic framework for adaptive noise control in vibrating structures. Sound & Vibration. 2025; 59(3): 3478. doi: 10.59400/sv3478

[29]Yogeesh N, Karthik M, Raja N, et al. Fuzzy-grey relational optimization for active vibration control in smart composite beams: a multi-objective framework with experimental validation. Sound & Vibration. 2025; 59(4). doi: 10.59400/sv3496

[30]Yogeesh N. Fuzzy Logic-Based Beat Tracking in Music Signals. Musik In Bayern. 2023; 88(9): 145–157.

Most read articles by the same author(s)