9th

9th IFAC
IFAC Conference
Conference on
on Manufacturing
Manufacturing Modelling,
Modelling, Management
Management and
and
9th IFAC Conference on Manufacturing
Control
Control Modelling,
Available Management
online and
at www.sciencedirect.com
9th IFAC Conference on Manufacturing Modelling, Management and
Control
Berlin,
9th IFAC
Berlin, Germany, August
Conference
Germany, 28-30,
28-30, 2019
on Manufacturing
August 2019 Modelling, Management and
Control
Berlin,
Berlin, Germany,
Control Germany, August
August 28-30,
28-30, 2019
2019
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 ScienceDirect
IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 2152–2157
Applying
Applying machine
machine learning
learning to
to AHP
AHP multicriteria
multicriteria decision
decision making
making method
method to
to assets
assets
Applying
Applying machine
machine learning
learning
prioritization into
to AHP
AHP
the multicriteria
multicriteria
context of decision
decision
industrial making
making
maintenance method
method
4.0 to
to assets
assets
prioritization
Applying machine learning
prioritization intothe
AHP
in the
the context
context of industrial
multicriteria maintenance
decision
of industrial
industrial making
maintenance 4.0
method
4.0 to assets
prioritization
Erick in
Erick Lima*,
Lima*, context
Ewerton
Ewerton of
Gorski**,
Gorski**, Eduardo
Eduardo F. R.maintenance
F. R. Loures***,
Loures***, 4.0
prioritization
Erick
Eduardo inPortela
Erick Lima*,
A. the context
Ewerton
A. Portela
Lima*,
Eduardo
of Fernando
Gorski**,
Santos****,
Ewerton Gorski**,
Santos****,
industrial
Eduardo
Fernando
F. R.maintenance
F. R. Loures***,
Eduardo Deschamps*****
Loures***,
Deschamps*****
4.0
Erick Lima*,
Eduardo
Eduardo A. Ewerton
A. Portela
Portela Gorski**,
Santos****,

Santos****, Eduardo Deschamps*****
Fernando
Fernando F. R. Loures***,
Deschamps*****
Industrial and Systems Eduardo
Engineering A.
GraduatePortela Santos****,
Program, 
Pontifícia
Industrial and Systems Engineering Graduate Program, Pontifícia
 Fernando Deschamps*****
Universidade
Universidade Católica
Católica do
do Paraná,
Paraná, Curitiba,
Curitiba, Brazil
Brazil (e-mail:
(e-mail:
Industrial
Industrial and
and Systems
Systems Engineering Graduate Program, Pontifícia
Engineeringerick.douglas@pucpr.br*,
Graduate Program, Universidade Católica
 ewerton.gorski@pucpr.br**)
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do
do Paraná,
Paraná, Curitiba,
Curitiba, Brazil
Brazil (e-mail:
(e-mail:
erick.douglas@pucpr.br*, ewerton.gorski@pucpr.br**)
Industrial and Systems
***Industrial Engineering Graduate Program, Pontifícia
erick.douglas@pucpr.br*, Universidade Católica
ewerton.gorski@pucpr.br**) do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil (e-mail:
***Industrial and Systems Engineering Graduate Program, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná & Department of
and Systems Engineering Graduate Program,
erick.douglas@pucpr.br*, Pontifícia Universidade
ewerton.gorski@pucpr.br**) Católica do Paraná & Department of
***Industrial and
and Systems
Electrotechnology, erick.douglas@pucpr.br*,
Systems Engineering
Federal Graduate Program, ewerton.gorski@pucpr.br**)
Pontifícia
– Universidade Católica
Católica do
do Paraná &
& Department
Department of
***Industrial
Electrotechnology, Federal University
Engineering Graduate
University of Technology
ofProgram,
Technology – Paraná
Pontifícia
Paraná (e-mail:
(e-mail: eduardo.loures@
Universidadeeduardo.loures@ pucpr.br***)
Paraná
pucpr.br***) of
***Industrial and Systems Engineering
Electrotechnology,
****Industrial Graduate
Federal University
University ofProgram,
Technology – Paraná
Pontifícia
Paraná Universidade Católica do
(e-mail: eduardo.loures@
eduardo.loures@ Paraná & Department
pucpr.br***) of
****Industrial and Systems Engineering Graduate Program, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná & Department of
and Systems
Electrotechnology,Engineering
Federal Graduate
of Program,
Technology –
Pontifícia Universidade
(e-mail: Católica do Paraná & Department
pucpr.br***) of
Electrotechnology,
****Industrial and
Applied Systems
and Federal University
Engineering of
Graduate Technology
Program, – Paraná
Pontifícia (e-mail:
Universidadeeduardo.loures@
Católica do pucpr.br***)
Paraná & Department of
****Industrial
Applied and General
and Systems
General Management,
Engineering
Management, Federal
Graduate University
Program,
Federal Paraná
Pontifícia
University Paraná (e-mail:
(e-mail: eduardo.portela@pucpr.br)
Universidade Católica do Paraná & Department of
eduardo.portela@pucpr.br)
****Industrial
*****Industrial and
Applied
and Systems
and Engineering
General
Systems Graduate
Management,
Engineering Program,
Federal
Graduate Pontifícia
University
Program, Paraná
Pontifícia Universidade
(e-mail:
Universidade Católica do Paraná &
eduardo.portela@pucpr.br)
Católica Department of
Applied
*****Industrial and and General
Systems Management,
Engineering Federal
Graduate University
Program, Paraná
Pontifícia Católica do
do Paraná
Paraná && Department
(e-mail: eduardo.portela@pucpr.br)
Universidade Department ofof
Applied
*****Industrial and and
Mechanical General
Systems Management,
Engineering
Engineering, Federal Federal
Graduate University
Program,
University of Paraná
Pontifícia (e-mail:
Universidadeeduardo.portela@pucpr.br)
Católica do Paraná & Department of
*****Industrial and Systems
Mechanical Engineering
Engineering, Graduate
Federal University of Paraná
Program, Paraná (e-mail:
Pontifícia fernando.deschamps@pucpr.br
Universidade
(e-mail: Católica do Paraná & Department of
fernando.deschamps@pucpr.br
*****Industrial and Systems
Mechanical Engineering
Engineering, Graduate
Federal Program,
University of Pontifícia
Paraná Universidade
(e-mail: Católica do Paraná
fernando.deschamps@pucpr.br
Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Paraná (e-mail: fernando.deschamps@pucpr.br & Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Paraná (e-mail: fernando.deschamps@pucpr.br
Abstract: The
Abstract: increasing competition
The increasing competition among
among industries
industries has
has led
led to
to the
the emergence
emergence of of numerous
numerous toolstools and
and
Abstract:
methods The increasing competition among industries has
has led
led to
to the emergence of numerous tools and
methods to
Abstract: support
toThe
support decision
increasing
decision making
making focused
competition among on
focused assets
assets maintenance
industries
on maintenance thein aa company,
inemergence
company, of since ensuring
numerous
since toolsgood
ensuring and
good
Abstract:
methods
maintenance
methods toTheis increasing
support
to support decision
directly
decision competition
linked making
with
making among
focused
greater industries
on assets
reliability has
and led
maintenanceto
uptime thein emergence
for a company,
equipment,of numerous
since tools
ensuring
reducing and
good
losses in
maintenance is directly linked with focused
greater on assets maintenance
reliability and uptime in fora equipment,
company, since ensuring
reducing good
losses in
methods
maintenance
production
maintenanceto processes
support
is
is decision
directly
directlyand linked making
with
consequently
linked with focused
greater on
increasing
greater assets
reliability maintenance
and
profitability.
reliability and uptime
This
uptime in
for
work
for a equipment,
company,
aims to
equipment,usesince ensuring
reducing
Machine
reducing good
losses
Learning
losses in
in
production processes and consequently increasing profitability. This work aims to use Machine Learning
maintenance
production
(ML) is directly
processes
algorithms
production -
processes and
Bayesian
and linked with greater
consequently
Networks
consequently (BN) reliability
increasing
and
increasing attributeand
profitability. uptime
This
relevance
profitability. This for equipment,
work
analysis
work aims
aims to use
(ARA),
to use reducing
Machine
implemented
Machine losses
Learning
in in
the
Learning
(ML) algorithms - Bayesian Networks (BN) and attribute relevance analysis (ARA), implemented in the
production
(ML)
Weka®
(ML) processes
algorithms
platform,
algorithms and consequently
--toBayesian
process
Bayesian a Networks
dataset
Networks of increasing
(BN)
event
(BN) and
logs
and profitability.
attribute
failure
attributeof This analysis
relevance
industrial
relevance work
machine
analysis aims to useimplemented
(ARA), Machine
components.
(ARA), The
implemented Learning
in the
approach
in the
Weka® platform, to process a dataset of event logs failure of industrial machine components. The approach
(ML)
Weka®
aims algorithms
platform, -to
toBayesian
process aaNetworks
dataset
dataset of (BN)
eventand
event logs attribute
failure
failure ofrelevance
industrial analysis
machine (ARA), implemented
components. The in the
approach
aims to
Weka® to use the
the conditional
platform,
use processprobability
conditional probability ofrelations
relationslogsgenerated
generated ofby the
the BN
BN and
byindustrial the
the ranking
machine
and of
of criteria
components.
ranking The relevance
criteria approach
relevance
Weka®
aims
for to platform,
use the to process
conditional a dataset
probability of event
relationslogs failure
generated of
by industrial
the BN machine
and the components.
ranking of The
criteria approach
relevance
for the
aims to design
the use theof
design an
an AHPAHP decision-making
ofconditional model
probability relations
decision-making model within
within the
generated by scope
the the BNof
scope industrial
ofand maintenance
the ranking
industrial of criteria
maintenance to prioritize
to relevance
prioritize
aims
for
which tocomponents
the use theof
design ofconditional
an
an of AHP probability
decision-making
aa specific relations
machine model
are generated
within by scope
the the BN ofand
of the ranking
industrial of criteria
maintenance to relevance
prioritize
for the
which design
components AHP
of decision-making
specific machine modelare more
more susceptible
within the scope
susceptible to
to failures.
industrial
failures. The proposed
proposed tointegration
maintenance
The prioritize
integration
for the
which design
components
mechanism aimsof an AHP
of a decision-making
specific machine model
are within
more the scope
susceptible of
to industrial
failures. maintenance
The proposed to prioritize
integration
which aims to
components
mechanism to bring greater
greater reliability
of a specific
bring machine to
reliability arethe
to weights
themore assigned
assignedtoto
susceptible
weights the
the criteria
to failures. Theof
criteria the
the AHP
AHP model,
of proposed and
integration
model, and
which components
mechanism
consequently,
mechanism aims
a
aims to
more of
bring a
accurate
to bring specific
greater
greater machine
reliability
decision are
to
support.
reliability the
to the more
The susceptible
weights
results
weights assigned
showed toto failures.
thatthe
the AHPThe
criteria of proposed
the
model AHP integration
model,
generated fromand
andaa
consequently, a more accurate decision support. The resultsassigned
showed to thatthe
thecriteria of the generated
AHP model AHP model, from
mechanism
consequently,
Bayesian aims
Network
consequently, toisbring
aa more accurategreater
consistent reliability
decision
with the to the
support. The
conditional weights
resultsassigned
showed
probabilities to
thatthe
estimated thecriteria
AHP
by theofBN,
thegiving
model AHP model,
generated fromanda
robustness
Bayesian Network is consistent with the conditional probabilities estimated by the BN, giving robustnessa
more accurate decision support. The results showed that the AHP model generated from
consequently,
Bayesian
to asphere
Network more is accurate
consistent decision
with the support. The
conditional results showed
probabilities that the
estimated AHP
by themodel
BN, generated
giving from
robustness a
to the decision sphere in the context of industrial maintenance. This AHP model can serve as a basis to be
the decision
Bayesian Network is in the
consistent context
with of
theindustrial
conditionalmaintenance.
probabilitiesThis AHP
estimated model
by can
the serve
BN, as
givinga basis to
robustness be
Bayesian
to
to the
complemented
the Network
decision
decision sphere
by
sphere is consistent
in the
qualitative
in the withof
context
analysis
context the
of conditional
industrial
criteria according
industrial probabilities
maintenance.
to
maintenance. the estimated
This
need
This AHP
of
AHP the by the
model canBN,
individual
model can servegiving
as
specialist,
serve as robustness
aa basis to
allowing
basis to be
be
complemented by qualitative analysis criteria according to the need of the individual specialist, allowing
to
thethe decision sphere
complemented by in the context
qualitative ofcriteria
analysis industrial maintenance.
according to the This
to the need AHP
of
of the model can serve
individual as a basis
specialist, to be
allowing
the construction
complemented
constructionby of strategic
strategic maintenance
ofqualitative analysis
maintenance action
criteria plans.
plans. Copyright
actionaccording Copyright ©
© 2019
need 2019 theIFAC
individual
IFAC specialist, allowing
complemented
the
the construction
construction byof qualitative
strategic analysis
maintenance
of strategic Federation
maintenance criteria
actionaccording
plans.
action plans. to the
Copyright
Copyright need
© of
2019
© 2019 the individual
IFAC specialist,
IFAC Ltd. All rights reserved.allowing
© 2019,
the IFAC (International
construction of strategic maintenance of Automatic
action plans. Control) Hosting
Copyright by Elsevier
© 2019 IFAC
Keywords: AHP,
Keywords: AHP, Industrial
Industrial Maintenance,
Maintenance, Bayesian
Bayesian Networks,
Networks, ARA ARA -- Attribute
Attribute Relevance
Relevance Analysis
Analysis
Keywords:
algorithms. AHP, Industrial Maintenance, Bayesian Networks, ARA - Attribute Relevance Analysis
algorithms. AHP, Industrial Maintenance, Bayesian Networks, ARA - Attribute Relevance Analysis
Keywords:
algorithms. AHP, Industrial Maintenance, Bayesian Networks, ARA - Attribute Relevance Analysis
Keywords:
algorithms.
algorithms.
made.
made. Thus,
Thus, decisions
decisions made
made by by humans
humans analysing
analysing aa large
large
1.
1. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION made. Thus, decisions made by humans
1. INTRODUCTION amount
made.
amountThus,of
of data and
and criteria
datadecisions made
criteria can
can bybe humans analysing
be flawed.
flawed. analysing aa large
large
1. INTRODUCTION made.
amountThus,of datadecisions
of data and made
and criteria can by
can be humans analysing a large
be flawed.
According to
According to Ruschel
Ruschel et al. (2017)
et al.
1. INTRODUCTION (2017) thethe competitiveness
competitiveness of of amount
Based
Based on
amount onofthedataneed
the
criteria
and to
need to make
makecan
criteria complex
complex
flawed.
decisions
decisions in
be flawed. in the
the context
context
According
organizations
According to Ruschel
requires et
to Ruschel et
goodal. (2017) the
maintenance competitiveness
planning. Proper
(2017) the competitiveness
al. maintenance Proper of
of Based on the need to make complex decisions in the context
organizations requires good planning. of
of industrial
Based on
industrial the maintenance,
need to make
maintenance, where
complex
where the
the analyst
decisions
analyst often
in
often has
the
has no
no idea
context
idea
According
organizations
organizations to
management provides Ruschel
requires
provides
requires good et
goodal. (2017) the
maintenance
greatermaintenance competitiveness
planning.
reliability planning.
and uptime
uptimeProper
Proper of
for Based
of on the
industrial need should
to makebe
maintenance, complex
where the decisions
analyst in has
often the aims
context
no idea
management greater reliability and for of which
industrial
which criteria
maintenance,
criteria should where
be prioritized,
the analyst
prioritized, this
this paper
often has
paper no
aims to
idea
to
organizations
management
equipment, greatly
management requires
provides
greatly reducing
provides good
greater
greater maintenance
reliability
production process
reliability planning.
and uptime
losses.
andlosses.
uptimeProper
Bardeyfor
for of industrial
which maintenance,
criteria should where
be the analyst
prioritized, thisoften has
paper no idea
aims to
equipment, reducing production process Bardey promote
of which
promote the integration
criteria
the should
integration between
be three
prioritized,
between three methods,
this
methods, paper Analytical
aims
Analytical to
management
equipment,
(2005) states provides
greatly
that reducing greater
maintenance reliability
production process
effectiveness and uptime
losses.
is directly
directly Bardeyfor of
linked which the
promote criteria should between
integration be prioritized,
three this paperAnalytical
aims to
equipment,
(2005)
equipment,
statesgreatly
that
greatly
reducing
maintenance
reducing
production
production
process
effectiveness
process
is losses. Bardey
linked
losses. Bardey
Hierarchical
promote
Hierarchical the Process (AHP),
Process
integration between
(AHP), three methods,
Bayesian
Bayesian Networks
methods, (BN)
(BN) and
Networks Analytical and
(2005)
to
(2005)good states
states that
planning
that maintenance
of intervention
maintenance effectiveness
intervals,
effectiveness and is
is directly
managers
directly linked
often
linked
to good planning of intervention intervals, and managers often promote Hierarchical
Attribute
Hierarchical
Attribute
the integration
Process
Relevance
Process
Relevance
between
(AHP),
Analysis
(AHP),
Analysis
three methods,
Bayesian
(ARA),
Bayesian
(ARA),
Networks
for
Networks
for the
the
Analytical
(BN)
automatic
(BN)
automatic
and
and
(2005)
to
to good
make good states that
planning
decisions
planning maintenance
of
with
of inadequateeffectiveness
intervention
intervention intervals,
criteria. andismanagers
intervals, and directly linked
managers often
often Hierarchical
Attribute Process Analysis
Relevance (AHP), Bayesian
(ARA), Networks
for the (BN) aand
make decisions with inadequate criteria. estimation
Attribute of
of weights
estimation Relevanceweights of the
the AHP
Analysis
of AHP(ARA),structure
structureforby the automatic
by analyzing a set
automatic
analyzing set
to
make
make good planningwith
decisions
decisions of intervention
with inadequate intervals, and managers often Attribute
inadequate criteria.
criteria. estimation Relevance
of weights Analysis
of the AHP (ARA),
structure for
by the automatic
analyzing aa set
Shafiee (2015) declares that the selection of an appropriate of
of event
estimation
event data
of
data that
weights
that describes
of the
describesAHP the
the behavior
structure
behaviorby of
of industrial
analyzing
industrialset
make decisions with inadequate criteria.
Shafiee (2015) declares that the selection of an appropriate estimation oftoweights
Shafiee
maintenance (2015) declares
strategy for that
that the selection of
of an appropriate of event
event data
equipment
of
equipment data that of
that the
describes
to prioritize
describes
prioritize
AHPthe
which
which the
structure
behavior
components
behavior
components
by analyzing
of
of
a set
of aaindustrial
of specific
industrial
specific
Shafiee (2015)
maintenance declares
strategy for each
each piece
the
piece of
of equipment
selection
equipment an or
or system
system is
appropriate is of event
equipment
machine data
to that describes
prioritize which the behavior
components of
of a industrial
specific
Shafiee
maintenance
aa very (2015)
very complex
maintenancecomplex
declares
strategy
task
strategy for
task fordue that
each
dueeachto the
piece
to the
piece
the
selection
of
difficulties ofconcerning
of equipment
equipment
difficulties
an or
appropriate
or
concerning
system
systemdata
data
is machine are
is equipment aretomore
more susceptible
prioritize whichto
susceptible failures.
failures. Thus,
to components Thus, of the
the method
a specific
method
maintenance
aacollection,
very complex strategy
task for
due each
to piece
the of equipment
difficulties or
concerningsystemdatais equipment
machine
integration
machine are
are to prioritize
more
seeks
more to whichto
susceptible
examine
susceptible to components
failures.
the
failures. Thus,
dependency
Thus, of the
a between
the specific
method
method
very complex
collection, diversity
task of
diversity ofduecomponents
components and
and their
to the difficulties functions,
theirconcerning
functions,data the integration
the machine seeks to examine the dependency between
integration
attributes are seeks
more susceptible
to
to examine to the
failures. Thus, the between
dependency method
acollection,
very complex
large
large number
collection,
number of task of
diversity ofdue
of criteria
diversity
criteria thattoneed
the difficulties
components
need to
components
that to be
and their
taken
beand
concerning
into
their
taken
functions,
account, data
account, and
intofunctions,
the
and attributes by
the integration
analyzing
byseeks
analyzing aa set
set of
examine of thedata to
to assign
assign importance
data dependency between
importance
integration
attributes by seeks
AHP to
analyzing examine
a
decision set of
criteria.the
data dependency
to
the weights to the AHP decision criteria. Even if a specialist is
weights to the Even assign
if a between
importance
specialist
collection,
large
their number diversity
of of that
of criteria
their subjectivity.
large number
subjectivity. criteria components
that need
need to beand
to be their
taken
taken intofunctions,
into account,
account, andand
attributes by analyzing a set of data to assign is not
importance not
large
their attributes
weights
able
weightsto to
to by
the analyzing
AHP
precisely
the AHP specifya
decision
decision
number of criteria that need to be taken into account, and able to precisely specify the importance of a determined set
the of
criteria.data
importance
criteria. to
Even
Even assign
if
if a
of
a a importance
specialist is
determined
specialist is not
not
their subjectivity.
subjectivity.
Almeida
Almeida
their and
and Bohoris
subjectivity.Bohoris (1995) (1995) discuss
discuss the the application
application of of weights
able to to
to
criteria,
able
criteria,
the AHPspecify
aaprecisely
technique
precisely decision
presented
techniquespecify
presented
criteria.
the
the in thisEven if of
importance
this article
inimportance
article of
acould
specialist
could be is not
aa determined
be used
used to
determined to
Almeida and
decision-making Bohoris
theory (1995)
to discuss the application of able to
criteria, a precisely
technique specify
presented the inimportance
this article of a
could determined
be used to
Almeida and Bohoris
decision-making theory(1995) to maintenance
discuss the with
maintenance particular
application
with particular assist
assist in
of criteria, decision-making.
ina technique presentedThe
decision-making. The unknown
in this criteriabe will
article could
unknown criteria will
used be be
to
Almeida and Bohoris
decision-making theory(1995)
theory to discuss the with
to maintenance application
particularof criteria,
attention
attention to
to multicriteria
decision-makingmulticriteria utility
utility theory.
theory. However,
maintenance with
However, the greater
particular
the assist
greater prioritized
assist ina technique
in
prioritized presented
decision-making.
autonomously
decision-making.
autonomously inThe
in
in this
the
The
the AHParticle
unknown
unknown
AHP and,could
and, withbethis,
criteria
criteria
with
usedthe
will
this,
will to
be
be
the
decision-making
attention
the number
attention to of theory
multicriteria
criteria
to multicriteria and to
utility maintenance
data
utility theory.
to
theory. be with
However,
analysed, particular
the
thegreater
more assist in
prioritized
specialist can decision-making.
autonomously
can even complement
complement in The
the unknown
AHP
theAHP and,
AHP and, criteria
with
modelwith will
this,
generated be
the
on
the number of criteria and data to beHowever,
analysed,the thegreater
more specialist
prioritized autonomously
even in thethe AHP model this, the
generated on
attention
the number
difficult to multicriteria
it of
of criteria utility
and datatheory.
to beHowever,
be analysed, the
thegreater
the more prioritized
specialist autonomously
can even complement in thetheasAHP
AHP asand,
model with this, the
generated on
the number
difficult it becomes
criteriato
becomes estimate
to and data
estimate towhich
which criteria
criteria are
analysed, are more
more thethe basis
basis of
specialist of their
can own
even
their judgments,
complement
own judgments, the
as well
AHPas
well include
model
include qualitative
generated
qualitative on
the number
difficult
relevant,
difficult it
and
it of criteria
becomes
which
becomes are to
to and
most data towhich
estimate
influential
estimate beinanalysed,
which criteria
the the more
are
decisions
criteria are to
morebe specialist
the basis ofcan even
their complement
own judgments, the
as AHP
well asmodel
include generated
qualitative on
relevant, and which are most influential in the decisions to be the basis of their own judgments, as well as include qualitative
difficult
relevant, it becomes
relevant, and
and which
which arearetomostestimate
most which
influential
influential in criteria
in the
the are more
decisions
decisions to
to be
be the basis of their own judgments, as well as include qualitative
relevant, ©
2405-8963
Copyright and2019,
© 2019
IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
which
IFACare most influential in the decisions to be2202
Copyright
Peer review©under
2019 responsibility
IFAC 2202Control.
of International Federation of Automatic
Copyright © 2019 IFAC 2202
Copyright © 2019 IFAC
10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.524 2202
Copyright © 2019 IFAC 2202
 2019 IFAC MIM
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 Erick Lima et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 2152–2157 2153
criteria that cannot be described numerically, such as safety or
preference.
The article is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the
theoretical foundations of the proposed approach. Section 3
presents the application case using a maintenance database and
how it is manipulated. Section 4 demonstrates the proposed
algorithm integration framework for obtaining the AHP
structure weights and finally, section 5 concludes this article.
2. THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
2.1 AHP method
The AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) method, originally
proposed by Saaty (1980), is one of the multi-criteria decision
methods found in the literature that creates a hierarchy for the
decision divided into levels. At the first level the goal is
defined. At the middle levels the criteria used for decision-
making are located, where these criteria can be grouped into
clusters. At the last level decision alternatives are made
available. The advantage of a hierarchical method is the clarity
of information (Mu et al., 2017) devoted to decision-making.
AHP uses pairwise comparison between criteria, according to
a scale of importance of one criterion over the other. This scale
is called the Saaty scale (1980) and quantitatively evaluates
between 1 and 9, being 1 for equivalent importance and 9 for
very important (Mu et al., 2017).
2.2 Bayesian Networks
Bayesian Networks (BN) constitute a graphical model that
represents the causal relationships of the variables of a system
(Bobbio et al., 2001). To obtain the BN model, one must define
(1) the variables of interest, (2) the network structure
(dependence relations), and (3) the conditional probabilities
for variables (Cheng et al., 2013).
The main reasons for using Bayesian networks include their
ability to model complex systems to make predictions and
diagnosis, update evidence-based probabilities, and allow a
compact graphical approach (Weber et al., 2012). It is
represented by directed acyclic graphs, where nodes represent
variables of interest and arcs, which connect nodes, represent
dependencies between variables, where the degree of
dependence is represented by a Conditional Probability Table
or CPT (Cheng et al., 2013). The joint distribution of the
variables into a BN is obtained from the product of conditional
probabilities, based on the probabilities of the parents' states
and the CPT, as shown in Equation 1.
𝑛𝑛
𝑃𝑃(𝑥𝑥1 , 𝑥𝑥2 , … , 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛 ) = 𝑃𝑃(𝑋𝑋1 , | , 𝑋𝑋𝑛𝑛 ) ∏ 𝑃𝑃(𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 |𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃(𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 ))
𝑖𝑖=1
where 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 = 𝑃𝑃(𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 = 𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖 ) is the probability that the variable 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋
has the value 𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖, 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃(𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 ) is the set of parents of the node 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋,
𝑝𝑝(𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 |𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃(𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 )) is the CTP for the node 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋, and n is the number
of random variables (nodes) of the BN (Bensi et al., 2013).
It is important to note that all conditional probability relations
follow the principle of Bayes' theorem, presented in Equation
2.
𝑃𝑃(𝑎𝑎|𝑏𝑏) ∗ 𝑃𝑃(𝑏𝑏)
𝑃𝑃(𝑏𝑏|𝑎𝑎) = (2)
𝑃𝑃(𝑎𝑎)
In Equation 2, P(b|a) is the probability of occurrence of event
"b", given that event "a" is true, which is calculated using:
P(a|b), the probability of occurrence of event "a" given that
event "b" is true; P(b), the probability of occurrence of event
"b" independently of event “a”; and P(a) is the probability of
occurrence of event "a" independently of event “b” (Marques
et al., 2002). This rule is very important because it can be
observed that the causality relation is bidirectional, that is, we
can analyze the probability of occurrence of events in reverse
order for both P(b|a) and P(a|b).
In this work the K2 inference algorithm of the Bayesian
network structure was used. K2 is considered one of the most
important scoring algorithms for estimation of Bayesian
network structures (Souza, 2010). Its basic idea is, starting
from an ordering of variables, in order to make the structure
n(n−1)
acyclic, to search among the 2 2 types of network structure
configurations and to verify which among them maximizes the
function score given by Equation 3 (Hruschka, 1997).
𝑚𝑚 𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
(𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖 − 1)!
P( | X) = C ∏ ∏ ∏ 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ! (3)
(𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖 − 1)!
𝑖𝑖=1 𝑗𝑗=1 𝑘𝑘=1
Where X is the database with n observations,  represents the
structure dimension, m is the number of variables, and ri is the
total number of possible values that the variable Xi (i = 1, ...,
m) can take. The term qi is related to the possible
configurations of the parents. The value of Nijk represents the
total number of observations in X where the variable Xi is in
the k-th state and its parents present the j-th configuration. The
constant c is the proportionality constant. Nij is the total
number of observations in X where Xi has any of its possible
values and with the j-th configuration (Souza, 2010).
2.3 Attribute Relevance Analysis ARA
The attribute evaluation algorithm used in this study is the
InfoGainAttributeEval + Ranker implemented in the Weka
software (Soni et al., 2016). Its use is justified because the
Bayesian network is not able to directly infer the relevance of
a given attribute in relation to the final class.
In machine learning, the use of attribute evaluators is also very
common, because depending on the dimensions of the
database to be analyzed and the computational resources
available, it is necessary to select only the attributes that have
(1) the greatest influence on the classification of events. It is
exactly this feature that the InfoGainAttributeEval algorithm
analyzes. It calculates what is the entropy and information gain
that an attribute gives to the given class, measuring how each
resource contributes to decrease the general entropy (Hornik
et al., 2009), given by Equation 4.
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸(𝑡𝑡) = − ∑𝑗𝑗 𝑃𝑃(𝑗𝑗|𝑡𝑡)𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙2 𝑝𝑝(𝑗𝑗|𝑡𝑡) (4)
2203
2019 IFAC MIM
2154
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 Erick Lima et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 2152–2157

Where P is the probability of class j in data set t. Entropy
basically measures the degree of "impurity". The closer to 0,
the less "impurities" there are in your data set.
In addition to the InfoGainAttributeEval algorithm, the Ranker
algorithm is used (Soni et al., 2016). It uses the attribute
evaluator to establish a ranking based on the information gain
of each attribute. This ranking ranges from 0 (no information)
to 1 (maximum information), where the attributes that
contribute more information will have a higher information
gain value and can be selected, while those that do not add
much information will have a lower score and may be
removed.
and ensure a database for training ML methods to support
weight estimation in the AHP.
4. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK
To formulate the framework that will make integration
between the AHP and the algorithms (Bayesian Network and
InfoGainAttributeEval + Ranker), it is important to understand
the methods separately (following the theoretical foundation
section) and how they will interact. Figure 1 illustrates the
components and how they relate.
COMP1 COMP2

3. APPLICATION CASE READ STORE

Sensoring
DATA DATA
To remain competitive, firms are looking for new ways to COMP3
Database
maximize asset performance using data collected from WEKA
multiple channels (Holmes et al., 1994). One relevant way of
EXECUTE
analyzing this information is to use machine learning MAINTENANCE
techniques to perform predictive analyzes by detecting Bayesian Network ARA InfoGainAttributeEval
recorded event patterns to classify future results. An effective Inference Algorithm + Ranker Algorithms
way to solve this problem is to use data mining and machine SCHEDULE WEIGHTS
MAITENANCE (PERCENTAGE)
learning algorithms. However, when talking about machine
learning algorithms one of the biggest challenges found in the
literature is to model a database that characterizes in detail the
HELP IN
behavior of the final class of each event (Blasch and Cruise, MAINTENANCE
Weight Conversion
2016). For this, it is necessary to collect several samples of Algorithm (MATLAB)
DECISION
WEIGHTS
attributes that qualify a certain event. RANK OF (PAIRWAISE)
COMPONENTS
For this study a predictive maintenance dataset (Microsoft TO PRIORITIZE
COMP2 MAITENANCE
Azure, 2016) was used, containing a series of criteria such as COMP1
vibration, rotation, tension, pressure and machine model with COMP3 AHP Model
the objective of predicting the occurrence of failure events in
four types of components in each of the four machine models Fig. 1. Proposed framework.
of the production line of an aerospace equipment
manufacturer. To implement the proposed algorithm integration framework
to get the AHP pairwise weights to help in asset maintenance
Our aim in this application case is to demonstrate that it is priority, the following steps should be followed: (1) identify a
possible to estimate criteria weights in AHP through Machine database that has the attributes to be evaluated – Figure 1
Learning algorithms, without the need of a specialist to decide illustrates the process in which training is acquired and
criteria prioritization. Thus, the AHP method will not estimate consumed; (2) identify the separation of these attributes in
failures, because the BN method already does. The AHP clusters; (3) applying the Bayesian Networks inference
method will help decide which asset should be prioritized in algorithm to the database to obtain the conditional
maintenance, based on stored sensor data, what the BN method probabilities table and the BN model; (4) model the
does not do. The BN method will help only in determining the hierarchical AHP method according to the BN model; (5)
AHP weights. apply the relevance assessment algorithm; (6) perform the
To simplify the AHP model for the application case, the weights estimation algorithm to convert the probabilistic
criteria used were the mean value of the previous 24 hours of values of the CPT attributes and the attribute relevance ranking
vibration, pressure, rotation and voltage, considering the into weights pairwise; and (7) assign the weights obtained by
model of each machine that had events recorded through the weight estimation algorithm in the AHP method to
telemetry during the year 2015 and 2016. The decision support generate the multicriteria decision support model, ranking the
that the AHP makes is to verify which machine should be components to have their maintenance prioritized. In this way,
prioritized for maintenance, since it presents greater the maintenance manager has a helpful tool to prioritize the
indications of failures. There are four machines being maintenance and schedule maintenance activities.
analyzed: comp1, comp2, comp3 and comp4. In the scope of Getting in some more details, the first step has as main
maintenance, decision support can be used in prioritizing objective to select the dataset that has the criteria to be used in
machines, prioritizing labor and selecting suppliers of parts the AHP from which the decision model is sought. The second
and equipment, for example. For each scenario, the and third steps are to execute the Bayesian Network inference
alternatives should be mapped in as much detail as possible

2204
 2019 IFAC MIM
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 Erick Lima et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 2152–2157 2155

algorithm (algorithm K2) and obtain the probabilistic Bayesian Network model generated by the K2 algorithm that
relationships that will be calculated according to the events of was applied in the database can be observed in Figure 2.
the database. As a result of the BN obtained by the K2
algorithm, the conditional probability table is used to obtain Through this model of the BN, it is possible to determine
the prioritization relationships used in the AHP in the fourth which AHP model better adapts to it. In this study, the
step. As the BN method is a probabilistic method, it can help interpreted model can be seen in Figure 3, where the ranges of
weight estimation in the AHP, where the probabilistic numerical values that some attributes have were classified into
conversion to pairwise comparisons will be done. From the BN levels, where the lowest value interval is classified as "Low",
it is possible to analyze a series of relationships of events the highest value as "High", and intermediate values as
involving each attribute of the database and the class, but the "Medium", "Relatively Low" and "Relatively High".
BN algorithm does not have as objective to evaluate how
influential an attribute is regarding to the final class, that is, to
compare attributes to calculate how much an attribute affects
an event that characterizes a given class of each sample of the
dataset.
This is solved in the fifth step by using an attribute evaluator
which is an algorithm that evaluates how relevant and
influential an attribute is in relation to the class. In this
framework the ARA InfoGainAttributeEval algorithm
accomplishes this task, which is extremely important to
establish the first layer weights of the AHP, that is, to evaluate
a criterion (database attribute) in comparison to another
criterion. The InfoGainAttributeEval algorithm together with
the Ranker algorithm ranks the attributes between a value from
0 to 1. The closer to 1 these attributes are, the highest the
ranking. After being normalized, these influence rankings are
used in the sixth step to feed the input vector of the estimation
algorithm of the AHP criterion weights written in MATLAB®
due to the amount of computational interactions that are Fig. 2. Weights extracted from BN.
required to achieve optimal results.
The weight estimation algorithm created in MATLAB® has as
input a priority vector that can be obtained through the
probability relationships generated by the BN and by the
attribute influence ranking generated by ARA, where the most
likely event or the most influential attribute receives the
highest value in the ranking of the AHP. As an output, the
algorithm returns a vector of pairwise weights, so that they can
be used in the AHP. The idea is then to work with trial and
error, that is, all the possible possibilities of pairwise
comparisons will be performed, generating priority rankings
of the chosen criteria, and the result of this AHP ranking is
then compared with the expected value of the prioritization
generated by the Bayesian network and the ARA algorithm.
Both the AHP prioritization ranking and the ranking generated
by the ARA and BN algorithms have variables varying from 0
to 1, so the best solution will be the iteration that presents the
lowest absolute error between the AHP pairwise weights,
according to Equation 5.
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = ∑𝑛𝑛𝑘𝑘=1|(𝑥𝑥 − 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 ) + (𝑦𝑦 − 𝑦𝑦𝑘𝑘 ) + (𝑧𝑧 − 𝑧𝑧𝑘𝑘 )| (5)

Finally, having obtained the result generated by the
MATLAB® algorithm of weight estimation, the seventh and
last step is to pass all the values to the AHP structure according
to the respective criterion that was analyzed.
5. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Following the steps of the proposed framework and taking into
account the chosen dataset (Microsoft Azure, 2016), with the
appropriate adjustments as reported in the previous session, the
Fig. 2. AHP model extracted from BN.
From this AHP model, the conditional probability
relationships are used to estimate the weights of level 4
(subcriteria for alternatives) and level 3 (criteria for
subcriteria). The weights of the first layer were obtained
through the attribute relevance analysis obtained from the
InfoGainAttributeEval + Ranker algorithms, since the BN
does not provide an analysis of which attribute is most relevant
for determining the classification of an event. The attributes

2205
2019 IFAC MIM
2156
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 Erick Lima et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 2152–2157

ranked by the InfoGainAttributeEval + Ranker can be seen in Table 3. Conditional probability relationships Model x Failure
Table 1.
comp1 comp2 comp3 comp4
Table 1. Ranking of relevance of attributes Model 1 0,161728 0,249898 0,360589 0,227645
Model 2 0,176819 0,243826 0,378171 0,201156
Position Influence (0-1) Attribute Model 3 0,296170 0,407247 0,000000 0,296162
1 0,693 rotatemean_24hrs Model 4 0,328076 0,460662 0,000000 0,211010
2 0,628 voltmean_24hrs
From Table 3, it is noticeable that each row represents a
3 0,513 pressuremean_24hrs
ranking of probabilities that demonstrate the probability of
4 0,354 vibrationmean_24hrs
failure of component “x since these components are on the
5 0,229 model
machine of a certain "y" model. In this way, each row of the
One way that AHP can establish a prioritization ranking is table is used to feed the prioritization vector that the weight
through normalization by the criterion of higher value, that is, conversion algorithm needs. Figure 5 shows the results
the most important criterion is the ideal, with a value equal to generated by the weight conversion algorithm after being fed
1, and the others are divided by their value to obtain an ideal with the probability vector of model 1 according to Table 3.
comparative ranking. Following this logic, the most relevant
Comp1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Comp2
attribute in this study is rotatemean_24hrs, dividing its value Comp1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Comp3
of 0.693 by all attributes gives the ideal ranking seen in Table Comp1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Comp4
2. However, since the weight-conversion algorithm of the Comp2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Comp3
proposed framework uses only the normalized ranking to do Comp2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Comp4
Comp2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Comp4
the computational calculations, normalization is made by
dividing each influence value of the attributes by a reference Fig. 4. Matrix of pairwise comparisons generated by the
value, which in this case is the sum of the numerical value of algorithm of weight conversion – Model 1 x Alternatives.
relevance of each attribute. Table 2 exemplifies the results.
Following this methodology, all remaining weights were
Table 2. Ideal and normalized attribute ranking obtained to complete the pairwise matrix of all AHP model
clusters. The inconsistency of the model was minimal, in some
Position Influence Ideal Normalized Attribute cases even presented zero inconsistency. Another factor that
1 0,693 1,0000 0,28671 rotatemean_24hrs corroborates the results obtained was the polarization of the
2 0,628 0,9062 0,25982 voltmean_24hrs alternatives being similar to that obtained by the Bayesian
3 0,513 0,74025 0,21224 pressuremean_24hrs Network as can be seen in Figure 6.
4 0,354 0,51082 0,14646 vibrationmean_24hrs
5 0,229 0,33044 0,09474 model
Applying as input to the weight conversion algorithm a
prioritization vector with the normalized values of the attribute
relevance ranking, the matrix of pairwise comparisons was
obtained, according to Figure 4.
Model 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pressure
Fig. 6. Comparation between AHP and BN.
Model 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rotate
Model 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vibration
Model 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Volt
6. CONCLUSION
Pressure 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rotate
Pressure 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vibration
This work aimed to propose a framework as a means to
Pressure 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Volt integrate different methods to automate the assignment of
Rotate 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vibration pairwise weights to the AHP method. The purpose was to
Rotate 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Volt minimize any inconsistencies in comparison to the manual
Vibration 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Volt
method, but still allowing the specialist the possibility of fine-
Fig. 3. Matrix of pairwise comparisons obtained through the tuning this ranking of qualitative variables based on his own
algorithm of weight conversion. knowledge.
After defining the level 2 weights (objective for criteria) Using Machine Learning algorithms, it was possible to extract
through the InfoGainAttributeEval + Ranker algorithms, the the structure for the AHP method and the respective weights
Bayesian Network is used to define the weights of the for each of its clusters and nodes. The purpose of this study is
remaining levels. Due to the amount of existing data, it to use the expertise of each of the algorithms to aid in the
becomes difficult to present the whole process. Thus, the determination and conversion of numerical variables in
method of using the Bayesian Network to obtain AHP level 4 qualitative analysis models, such as AHP itself or any other
weights (alternatives) in comparison to the cluster of machine model existing in the literature.
models (level 3 - subcriteria of AHP model obtained) in the
database is shown. The table of conditional probability A decision-making support tool serves as a way of managing
relationships obtained by the Bayesian Network inference the impact of criteria on possible alternatives. In this way it is
algorithm K2 for failure probability of coponents given the possible to carry out prediction scenarios and elaborate
model of the machine can be observed in Table 3. maintenance strategies for organizations to prepare future
action plans or even to improve some current processes. The

2206
 2019 IFAC MIM
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 Erick Lima et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 2152–2157 2157
objective of this study was reached as it was noticed that the
AHP qualitative analysis model ranked the probability of
failure events in a way very similar to the Bayesian Network
model generated by the K2 algorithm to predict these failures.
Usually, analysts are the people responsible for allocating
weights in the AHP. This model depicts the trend of
component failures, with the aid of BN weighting, reducing
the error of weighting that can be caused by the attribution of
weights by analysts. Based on this model, it can be modified
to obtain decision-making support structures that represent
different scenarios, so that it can elaborate maintenance action
plans in advance.
Finally, this work aims to provide a tool that improves and
assists the work of managers and professionals who need to
make complex decisions in the context of industrial
maintenance where the variables in question are constantly
changing and have a great impact on the costs associated with
delays in the process due to unscheduled downtime. Thus, it is
justified the interest in solutions that seek to improve accident
prevention strategies, significantly reducing the costly impact
caused by equipment downtime.
REFERENCES
Almeida AT, Bohoris GA. Decision theory in maintenance
decision making. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering 1995;1(1):39–45.
Bensi M., A. Kiureghian D., Straub D. (2013). Efficient
Bayesian Network Modeling of Systems. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety 112 200–213.
Blasch, E. and Cruise, R., (2016). Information fusion
management: Collection to diffusion. IEEE National
Aerospace and Electronics Conference (NAECON) and Ohio
Innovation Summit (OIS).
Bobbio, A., Portinale, L., Minichino, M., Ciancamerla, E.
(2001). Improving the analysis of dependable systems by
mapping fault trees into Bayesian networks. Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, 71p.
Cheng, Y., Xu, T., Yang, L. (2013). Bayesian network based
fault diagnosis and maintenance for high-speed train control
systems. Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety
Engineering (QR2MSE), International Conference on. pp.
1753 – 1757.
D. Bardey, F. Riane, A. Artiba, L. Eeckhoudt, (2005). To
maintain or not to maintain? What should a risk‐averse
decision maker do?, Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol. 11 Issue: 2, pp.115-120
Holmes, G., Donkin, A., Witten, I. H. (1994). WEKA: a
machine learning workbench. Proceedings of ANZIIS '94 -
Australian New Zealnd Intelligent Information Systems
Conference, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, pp. 357-361
Hornik, K., Buchta, C. & Zeileis, A. (2009). Open-source
machine learning: R meets Weka. Comput. Stat. 24(2), 225–
232.
2207
Hruschka, J., Silva, E., Teixeira, W. (1997). Propagação de
crenças em Redes Bayesianas. Universidade Federal de
Brasília, Brasil.
Iden N., Pustejovsky, J. (2010). What Does Interoperability
Mean, Anyway? Toward an Operational Definition of
Interoperability for Language Technology. U.S. National
Science Foundation, 8p.
Luiz Ara-Souza, A. L. (2010). Redes Bayesianas: Uma
introdução aplicada a credit scoring, 19º SINAPE, São Paulo,
Brasil.
Marques, R. L., Dutra, I. (2002). Redes Bayesianas: o que são,
para que servem, algoritmos e exemplos de aplicações, Coppe
Sistemas – UFRJ.
Microsoft Azure (2016). Predictive Maintenance Modelling
Guide R Notebook. Disponível em
https://gallery.azure.ai/Notebook/Predictive-Maintenance-
Modelling-Guide-R-Notebook-1#x_Maintenance acessado
em 13/03/2018.
Microsoft Azure (2018). Guia de IA do Azure para soluções
de manutenção preditiva. Disponível em
https://docs.microsoft.com/pt-br/azure/machine-
learning/team-data-science-process/cortana-analytics-
playbook-predictive-maintenance. Acessado em 13/03/2018.
Mu, E., Pereyra-Rojas, M. (2017). Understanding the Analytic
Hierarchy Process. XIII. 111p. Springer International
Publishing.
Rossetti, A. &; Morales, A. B. (2007). The Role of Information
Technology in Knowledge Management. Online, vol.36, no.1,
pp. 124-135.
Ruschel, E.; Santos, E. A. P.; Loures, E. de F. R., Industrial
maintenance decision-making: A systematic literature review,
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, Volume 45, Out. 2017, p. 180--194.
Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw
Hill, Inc., New York.
Saaty, T.L. (2012). Decision Making for Leaders: The
Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World.
Third Revised Edition. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Soni P. M., Varghese Paul, M. Sudheep Elayidom (2016).
Effectiveness of classifiers for the credit data set : An analysis,
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology, Volume: 05 Issue: 11.
Weber, P., Oliva, G.M., Simon, C., and Lung, B. (2012).
Overview on Bayesian networks for dependability, risk
analysis and maintenance areas. Engineering applications of
Artificial Intelligence. 25(4): 671-682.