Machine Learning for Equipment Failure Prediction in Smart Manufacturing Plants: A Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4108/dtip.13164Keywords:
predictive maintenance, machine learning, smart manufacturing, Industry 4.0, equipment failure prediction, remaining useful life, anomaly detection, industrial IoTAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Smart manufacturing plants generate continuous streams of vibration, acoustic, thermal, electrical, process-control and quality data. These data make it possible to move from reactive or calendar-based maintenance toward predictive maintenance, but they also introduce problems of missing labels, non-stationary operating regimes, rare failures and unequal costs of false alarms and missed failures.
OBJECTIVES: This review analyses how machine learning is used to forecast equipment failures and remaining useful life in intelligent production environments, with emphasis on the suitability of methods for real industrial deployment rather than benchmark accuracy alone.
METHODS: A structured narrative review was conducted over established prognostics and health management literature, Industry 4.0 predictive-maintenance surveys, and representative empirical studies using public and industrial datasets such as C-MAPSS, PRONOSTIA, IMS bearings, Bosch Production Line Performance, semiconductor ion-implantation data and IoT-enabled production-line data.
RESULTS: The reviewed literature shows that feature-based classifiers, gradient boosting, support vector machines and random forests remain competitive when labels are scarce and process knowledge is available. Deep learning improves representation learning for multivariate sequences, especially for vibration and run-to-failure data, but requires careful validation against temporal leakage and domain shift. Hybrid approaches that combine signal processing, physics, digital twins and cost-aware decision rules are increasingly important for plant-level use.
CONCLUSION: Machine learning can substantially improve failure prediction in smart factories, yet its value depends on data governance, uncertainty handling, maintainability and integration with maintenance planning. The most credible systems treat prediction as a socio-technical decision process, not as a stand-alone model.
Downloads
References
[1] Ahmad R, Kamaruddin S. An overview of time-based and condition-based maintenance in industrial applications. Comput Ind Eng. 2012;63(1):135-149. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2012.02.002.
[2] Jardine AKS, Lin D, Banjevic D. A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance. Mech Syst Signal Process. 2006;20(7):1483-1510. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2005.09.012.
[3] Si XS, Wang W, Hu CH, Zhou DH. Remaining useful life estimation: a review on the statistical data driven approaches. Eur J Oper Res. 2011;213(1):1-14. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2010.11.018.
[4] Lee J, Bagheri B, Kao HA. A Cyber-Physical Systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manuf Lett. 2015;3:18-23. doi:10.1016/j.mfglet.2014.12.001.
[5] Lee J, Lapira E, Bagheri B, Kao HA. Recent advances and trends in predictive manufacturing systems in big data environment. Manuf Lett. 2013;1(1):38-41. doi:10.1016/j.mfglet.2013.09.005.
[6] Carvalho TP, Soares FAA, Vita R, Francisco RP, Basto JP, Alcala SGS. A systematic literature review of machine learning methods applied to predictive maintenance. Comput Ind Eng. 2019;137:106024. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2019.106024.
[7] Cinar ZM, Nuhu AA, Zeeshan Q, Korhan O, Asmael M, Safaei B. Machine learning in predictive maintenance towards sustainable smart manufacturing in Industry 4.0. Sustainability. 2020;12(19):8211. doi:10.3390/su12198211.
[8] Zonta T, da Costa CA, da Rosa Righi R, de Lima MJ, da Trindade ES, Li GP. Predictive maintenance in the Industry 4.0: a systematic literature review. Comput Ind Eng. 2020;150:106889. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2020.106889.
[9] Wen Y, Gao L, Li X. Recent advances and trends of predictive maintenance from data-driven machine prognostics perspective. Measurement. 2022;187:110276. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2021.110276.
[10] Susto GA, Schirru A, Pampuri S, McLoone S, Beghi A. Machine Learning for Predictive Maintenance: A Multiple Classifier Approach. IEEE Trans Ind Inform. 2015;11(3):812-820. doi:10.1109/TII.2014.2349359.
[11] Mangal A, Kumar N. Using big data to enhance the Bosch production line performance: a Kaggle challenge. arXiv:1701.00705; 2017.
[12] Malhotra P, Ramakrishnan A, Anand G, Vig L, Agarwal P, Shroff G. LSTM-based encoder-decoder for multi-sensor anomaly detection. arXiv:1607.00148; 2016. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1607.00148.
[13] Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A. Deep Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2016.
[14] Zhao R, Yan R, Chen Z, Mao K, Wang P, Gao RX. Deep learning and its applications to machine health monitoring. Mech Syst Signal Process. 2019;115:213-237. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.05.050.
[15] Khan S, Yairi T. A review on the application of deep learning in system health management. Mech Syst Signal Process. 2018;107:241-265. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.11.024.
[16] Lei Y, Li N, Guo L, Li N, Yan T, Lin J. Machinery health prognostics: a systematic review from data acquisition to RUL prediction. Mech Syst Signal Process. 2018;104:799-834. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.11.016.
[17] Wu F, Wu Q, Tan Y, Xu X. Remaining useful life prediction based on deep learning: a survey. Sensors. 2024;24(11):3454. doi:10.3390/s24113454.
[18] Saxena A, Goebel K. Turbofan engine degradation simulation data set. NASA Prognostics Data Repository, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA; 2008.
[19] Li X, Ding Q, Sun JQ. Remaining useful life estimation in prognostics using deep convolution neural networks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2018;172:1-11. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2017.11.021.
[20] Ellefsen AL, Bjorlykhaug E, Aesoy V, Ushakov S, Zhang H. Remaining useful life predictions for turbofan engine degradation using semi-supervised deep architecture. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2019;183:240-251. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2018.11.027.
[21] Zheng S, Pan K, Liu J, Chen Y. Empirical study on fine-tuning pre-trained large language models for fault diagnosis of complex systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf.2024;252:110382. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2024.110382.
[22] Jose S, Nguyen KTP, Medjaher K, Zemouri R, Lévesque M, Tahan A. Advancing multimodal diagnostics: Integrating industrial textual data and domain knowledge with large language models. Expert Syst Appl. 255, 124603, DOI 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124603.
[23] ISO. ISO 23247-1:2021 Automation systems and integration - Digital twin framework for manufacturing - Part 1: Overview and general principles. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2021.
[24] Tao F, Zhang H, Liu A, Nee AYC. Digital twin in industry: state-of-the-art. IEEE Trans Ind Inform. 2019;15(4):2405-2415. doi:10.1109/TII.2018.2873186.
[25] Ran Y, Zhou X, Lin P, Wen Y, Deng R. A survey of predictive maintenance: systems, purposes and approaches. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2019;21(4):3783-3816. doi:10.1109/COMST.2019.2905569.
[26] ul Hassan I, Panduru K, Walsh J. Predictive maintenance in Industry 4.0: a review of data processing methods. Procedia Comput Sci. 2025;257:896-903. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2025.03.115.
[27] Ramasso E, Saxena A. Performance benchmarking and analysis of prognostic methods for CMAPSS datasets. Int J Progn Health Manag. 2014;5(2):1-15.
[28] Nectoux P, Gouriveau R, Medjaher K, Ramasso E, Morello B, Zerhouni N, Varnier C. PRONOSTIA: an experimental platform for bearings accelerated degradation tests. In: IEEE International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management; 2012. p. 1-8. doi:10.1109/PHM.2012.6221634.
[29] Qiu H, Lee J, Lin J, Yu G. Wavelet filter-based weak signature detection method and its application on rolling element bearing prognostics. J Sound Vib. 2006;289(4-5):1066-1090. doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2005.03.007.
[30] Tasci B, Omar A, Ayvaz S. Remaining useful lifetime prediction for predictive maintenance in manufacturing. Comput Ind Eng. 2023;184:109566. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2023.109566.
[31] Guo C, Pleiss G, Sun Y, Weinberger KQ. On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning; 2017. arXiv:1706.04599.
[32] Gal Y, Ghahramani Z. Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning; 2016. p. 1050–1059.
[33] Lakshminarayanan B, Pritzel A, Blundell C. Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems; 2017.
[34] Angelopoulos AN, Bates S. Conformal Prediction: A Gentle Introduction. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning. 2023;16(4):494–591. doi:10.1561/2200000101.
[35] Gneiting T, Raftery AE. Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation. J Am Stat Assoc. 2007;102(477):359–378. doi: 10.1198/016214506000001437.
[36] Lundberg SM, Lee SI. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. NeurIPS 30; 2017, p. 4765–4774.
[37] Ribeiro MT, Singh S, Guestrin C. "Why should I trust you?": Explaining the predictions of any classifier. KDD 2016, p. 1135–1144, doi:10.1145/2939672.2939778.
[38] Vogl GW, Weiss BA, Helu M. A review of diagnostic and prognostic capabilities and best practices for manufacturing. J Intell Manuf. 2019;30:79-95. doi:10.1007/s10845-016-1228-8.
[39] Pruckovskaja V, Weissenfeld A, Heistracher C, Graser A, Kafka J, Leputsch P, Schall D, Kemnitz J. Federated learning for predictive maintenance and quality inspection in industrial applications. arXiv:2304.11101; 2023.
[40] Hector I, Panjanathan R. Predictive maintenance in Industry 4.0: a survey of planning models and machine learning techniques. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2024;10:e2016. doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.2016.
[41] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). Gaithersburg, MD: NIST; 2023. doi:10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1
[42] ISO. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2006.
[43] ISO. ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2006.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Kamil Musiał, Anna Barduk, Karolina Iwańczyk
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, which permits copying, redistributing, remixing, transformation, and building upon the material in any medium so long as the original work is properly cited.
