Predictive maintenance

Extract evidence for condition-based maintenance from sensor and operating data.

Your challenge

Rare failures, incomplete fault labels and unknown relationships between sensors make conventional prediction difficult.

How IAP approaches it

IAP examines relationships between sensor measurements, their development over time and control-unit responses. Semi-supervised methods can reveal structures even when confirmed faults are rare and some labels are incorrect.

Project deliverables

You receive an assessment of the condition patterns studied and a prototype that flags unusual operating conditions. Evaluation considers false alarms and missed events, helping your maintenance team decide which alerts should trigger further investigation.

Read the technical detail ↓

Methods and technical detail

Rare faults and unreliable labels

Expensive components fail infrequently, leaving few confirmed training examples. At the same time, reported faults can be unconfirmed and defective machines can continue running undetected. False-positive and false-negative labels complicate direct learning from fault annotations.

Examine sensor relationships and vibration together

Temperature, voltage, vibration and other operating measurements form an interconnected system. The approach learns expected relationships and examines deviations. Fine-grained vibration patterns and larger changes in operation can complement one another, rather than treating individual thresholds in isolation.

Evidence about the affected component

Control-unit responses can provide evidence of particular component faults. Semi-supervised analysis and explicit treatment of weak labels support investigation when fault counts are small. Suitability is assessed by component, considering warning time, false alarms and missed failures.

Projects related to this service

DB Cargo

Commissioned development · delivered solution

Condition-based maintenance from operating data

Train operating data was to provide indications of conditions relevant to maintenance. Changes caused by varying loads and operating conditions needed to be distinguished from possible component faults.

Project details →

The right form of handover

Option 1

Prototype for your IT team

IAP investigates the problem, develops and evaluates the approach, and hands over the agreed prototype with documentation. Your IT team takes responsibility for further product development and operation.

Option 2

Application through integration

IAP develops the agreed application, including its interface and integrations, connects it to the intended workflow, and completes acceptance and handover. Your organisation or operating partner takes responsibility for subsequent operation.

Which decision do you want to improve?

In a free, non-binding 20-minute introductory discussion, we clarify your objective, starting point and a useful next step.

Request an introductory discussion