Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Industry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compind

Data-driven failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to enhance

maintenance planning
Marc-André Filz ∗ , Jonas Ernst Bernhard Langner, Christoph Herrmann, Sebastian Thiede
TU Braunschweig, Institute of Machine Tools and Production Technology, TU Braunschweig Institut für Werkzeugmaschinen und Fertigungstechnik, Langer
Kamp 19 b, 38106, Braunschweig, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Nowadays, the availability of data from the manufacturing environment, such as process and operation
Received 12 November 2020 related data or past maintenance activities enable new possibilities for advanced data analytics like
Received in revised form 11 February 2021 prediction of failure behavior. Possible predictions could consider faults of specific components or even
Accepted 22 March 2021
the current product and component properties.
Available online 3 April 2021
The paper presents a data-driven Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) methodology by using deep
learning models on historical and operational data from the use stage of industrial investment goods.
Keywords:
The developed methodology is supposed to support the maintenance planning for industrial investment
Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA)
Maintenance
goods by enhancing transparency and providing decision support.
Fault prediction The developed framework is applied to and validated by a case study from the aviation sector. The
Decision support results show that the accuracy of the fault prediction is around 95 %. By integrating these results into a
Data analytics data-driven FMEA framework, risk and failure occurrence estimations are no longer subjective. Especially
Deep learning the estimation of failure probabilities no longer solely depends on the experience and knowledge from
Artificial intelligence employees.
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction between machines and workpieces. Within these procedures, huge

Maintenance processes have a large share on total cost over the
life cycle of industrial equipment. Studies underline that energy
and maintenance are typically major cost drivers over an indus-
trial product life cycle. Therefore, it is a major task for production
companies to minimize maintenance costs and optimise related
processes like spare part supply. Next to this economic perspec-
tive, maintenance processes also have an impact on environmental
variables over the life cycle of a product or equipment. This is espe-
cially important when logistical or operational processes are also
included in addition to the basic maintenance activities (Herrmann
et al., 2007a; Hinow and Mevissen, 2011; Xie et al., 2018; Herrmann
et al., 2007b).
Digitalization is a major technological development trend in
industrial applications, often summarized under the term Indus-
try 4.0. The core of this concept is the communication between
machines among each other, between machines and humans or
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m.filz@tu-braunschweig.de (M.-A. Filz),
jonas.langner@tu-braunschweig.de (J.E.B. Langner),
c.herrmann@tu-bbraunschweig.de (C. Herrmann), s.thiede@utwente.nl (S. Thiede).
amount of data can be acquired. This gathered data usually comes
from different sources (Kagermann et al., 2013; Kang et al., 2016;
Monostori, 2014). To utilize these data is of high importance for the
industry in order to stay competitive. From the point of research,
combining and analyzing the data to derive usable knowledge and
decision support is a major goal (Kang et al., 2016; Monostori,
2014; Thiede, 2018). The acquired data from the physical world
can be modelled by using data mining methods. These methods
are specialized to access knowledge hidden in a vast amount of
data (Fayyad et al., 1996).
By increasing digitalization and the associated expanded
amount of data as well as derived knowledge, different chal-
lenges within the field of maintenance can be overcome. Value loss
through wear and unused equipment can be reduced through data
acquisition by monitoring of equipment status and associated data
analytics. In addition, the behavior of components and parts can
be predicted by means of modeling and simulation. Here, a lack
of transparency regarding machine and equipment states can be
overcome and a basis for improving maintenance planning can be
given.
Furthermore, the improvement of maintenance planning can be
supported by component specific prediction of failure behaviour.
Thus spare part supply and storage processes as well as mainte-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2021.103451
0166-3615/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al.
Fig. 1. Framework of Maintenance Terminology based on (DIN, 31051; Wang, 2002; Takata et al., 2004; Herrmann et al., 2007a).
nance scheduling of industrial investment goods can be optimized.
In addition, decision support can be made available to workers with
different training levels to ensure consistent process and quality
standards. This can also be used to optimize the planning of per-
sonnel resources.
Therefore, a data based FMEA framework to enhance mainte-
nance planning for industrial investment goods such as production
equipment or airplanes has been developed and validated. By
using historical and operational data as a source of knowledge,
data analytics tools are used to predict component specific failure
probabilities. The results are integrated into a FMEA methodol-
ogy to ensure a dynamic risk evaluation of specific components
and higher-level modules. Moreover, this framework is intended to
increase the accuracy of maintenance planning by reducing related
uncertainties regarding specific failure probabilities in order to
achieve an economic and environmental improvement of main-
tenance activities.
2. Theoretical background of maintenance and fault
prognosis
With the focus on industrial investment goods such as produc-
tion equipment or airplanes, different methodological approaches
for a fault prognosis related to maintenance activities exist. Tradi-
tionally, these are mainly performed manually and are integrated in
a higher-level risk or quality assessment procedure. Mostly, these
approaches are used for condition-based maintenance and prog-
nostics on component health management. Due to the ongoing
digitalization, data from different sources such as sensors can be
used for fault prognosis in the context of maintenance processes.
2.1. Maintenance terminology
Maintenance has been an important topic in machinery and
equipment research for several years. Besides standards and certain
configuration alternatives, there are several studies and calculation
2
Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451
models to derive optimal strategies under certain circumstances
(Herrmann et al., 2007a; Wang, 2002; Nilsson and Bertling, 2007).
To create a common understanding of the term maintenance, a hier-
archical framework of maintenance terminology is presented in
Fig. 1 based on literature findings (DIN, 31051; Wang, 2002; Takata
et al., 2004).
The hierarchical framework divides the maintenance terminol-
ogy into four different layers: concepts, strategies, activities and
operations. The maintenance activity (e.g. of an industrial invest-
ment good) is a specific operation that can be differentiated into
service, inspection and repair. Different operations are assigned to
each of these activities. For example, the activity repair includes
the operations replace or restore (Herrmann et al., 2007b; Takata
et al., 2004; Wang, 2002).
On the next higher layer, those activities can be assigned to
different maintenance strategies. Basically three different mainte-
nance strategies exist within this layer that can be classified into
the two main types of corrective and preventive strategies. These
strategies have been grown evolutionary over time. In case of the
corrective strategy, maintenance is conducted in case of a break-
down and only repair activities are performed. Since this strategy
leads to a high risk of failure costs due to unplanned production
stops, manufacturing companies pursue preventive maintenance
strategies. These can be divided into condition and time based
strategies. Time based strategies are triggered by the age of the
components or parts or by fixed time intervals. However, condi-
tion based strategies depend on predefined thresholds of certain
parameters like deterioration symptoms. Counted repairs or fixed
time limits trigger activities like service or inspection (Herrmann
et al., 2007b; Takata et al., 2004; Wang, 2002; Sheut and Krajewski,
1994).
In reality, a mixture of diverse maintenance activities can be
observed and are also discussed in literature. For systems with
multiple components or parts, the question whether to handle
components or parts isolated or use superordinate measurements
to handle the system as a whole arise. Moreover, to define the
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al.
Fig. 2. Main steps of FMEA (based on (Liu, 2016)).
specific maintenance degree of executing activities is of great
importance since this has direct influence on the success of the
maintenance activity in terms of cost and availability of the
equipment. Therefore, on the highest layer, different concepts
aggregate the above-mentioned strategies, activities and opera-
tions. This includes concepts like Reliability Centered Maintenance
(RCM), Risk Based Maintenance (RBM) or Total Productive Mainte-
nance (TPM). These concepts consider overarching trade-offs and
influences and, in order to achieve certain goals, add different main-
tenance strategies (Herrmann et al., 2007b; Takata et al., 2004; Gits,
1992).
RCM focusses on systematic consideration of system function
and failure mode by optimizing preventive maintenance activities
based on reliability related criteria. By the success in cost reduc-
tion and availability improvement in the context of aviation, this
concept is transferred to other industries (Guo et al., 2016; Dekker,
1996). However, TPM is a production driven concept that strives
to improve equipment reliability and the efficient management of
plant assets and equipment (Robinson and Ginder, 2007; Ahuja and
Khamba, 2008).
2.2. Failure mode and effect analysis
The FMEA is a widely used and recognized method in the indus-
try to determine defect conditions of components, parts or larger
investment goods preventively. FMEA is often used during product
design and development phases and aims at preventing errors and
failures already during the development stage. This can increase
the reliability of individual components or even an entire system
(Mohanty, 2014; Linß, 2016).
However, through the application of FMEA during the opera-
tional phase, faults are systematically detected and their effects
can be carried out in order to be able to initiate targeted preven-
tive or corrective measurements, e.g. in the context of maintenance
(Geiger and Kotte, 2008). Fig. 2 shows the main steps of the FMEA
process.
First, a structural analysis of the system is carried out to deter-
mine the scope of the FMEA. These results contain the structure
and limits of the system. Based on this, a functional analysis is per-
formed. Moreover, within the second step, a cross-functional team
is built of subject matter experts from various disciplines since the
FMEA cannot be done by one person alone.
3
Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451
After the function of the system has been described, various
possible failure modes are determined in step three. The concrete
failure analysis is carried out in this process step. Based on these
results, the risk of each failure mode is quantified by evaluating the
probability of occurrence (O), the probability of detection (D) and
the severity (S) of the fault sequence on a scale from 1 to 10 within
the fourth step.
A risk priority number (RPN) is calculated for each failure mode
in step 5.
RPN = Occurence × Severity × Detection = O × S × D (1)
A high value for S indicates a high effect of the fault/error on
the targeted system, a high value of D indicates a small probability
to find the fault/error and a high value of O indicates high prob-
ability that the fault/error occurs. On the basis of this evaluation,
various measures are defined to prevent faults or, in the worst case,
breakdowns. (Wälder and Wälder, 2017; Mohanty, 2014).
The RPN helps to find the highest risks and recommend actions
(step 6). Therefore, the failure modes are prioritized by rank-
ing them based on the RPN value in decreasing order. Especially
activities for high-risk failure modes should be developed and
recommended to enhance the overall system performance. These
actions can be divided into three categories: “eliminating failures
modes”, “increasing failure detectability” and “minimize loss in
case that a failure occurs” (Liu, 2016).
Although FMEA is widely used in industry, the method has major
shortcomings. The traditional method is based on equally weighted
factors for the three indicators probability, severity and detectabil-
ity even though in practical use cases an equilibrium of importance
is barely applicable. In addition, different combinations of scores
of the three indicators may lead to the same risk priority number.
However, the risk impact can be completely different from case to
case. In the worst case, this can lead to unnoticed high risk failure
modes (Chang and Cheng, 2010; Pillay and Wang, 2003; Vahdani
et al., 2015).
Due to the methodological approach of the FMEA, the three
risk factors are determined by selected team members. Therefore,
information of the FMEA are often vague or uncertain. Instead of
quantification, the risk factors can often be expressed linguisti-
cally as “very high”, “important” or “likely”. Furthermore, the FMEA
is conducted by “experts” and hence is based on subjectivity and
incompleteness (Liu, 2016).
If the risk factors are analyzed more closely, it can be seen
that the direct and indirect relationships between failure modes
and different causes of failure are not taken into account (Liu,
2016). Furthermore, the FMEA considers three risk factors within
the RPN. However, for the planning and the efficient operation of
industrial investment goods, the prediction of the individual failure
occurrence probability is particularly crucial. Therefore, existing
approaches to determine the occurrence have a significant disad-
vantage in that they are qualitative and difficult to track or verify.
2.3. State of art and research for FMEA and maintenance activities
In literature, different methods have been proposed to enhance
maintenance processes for industrial investment goods. Roy et al.
(2016) present foundations and technologies required to offer a
continuous maintenance service of high value products such as
machine tools, aircraft engines or trains. The paper covers technolo-
gies that are relevant for components and the whole system level.
Moreover, approaches for workshop-based and “in-situ” mainte-
nance of large industrial goods (e.g. gas turbines) are included.
Moreover, the paper excludes a focus on short life cycle products
such as consumer goods. It concludes with a summary of a key
technology for maintenance such as Industry 4.0 or big data. Major
challenges faced to achieve change in availability of long life equip-
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al.
ment with optimum through-life cost are discussed (Roy et al.,
2016).
Chen (2013) introduces an autonomous preventive mainte-
nance approach that integrates FMEA techniques with root cause
analysis to improve manufacturing and equipment efficiency as
well as support workers with decision support. The method is
carried out manually by teams of experts and are applied to and
verified by means of a use case within the semiconductor industry
(Chen, 2013).
Sharma and Sharma (2010) present an approach for system fail-
ure behaviour analysis and maintenance decision making using
root cause analysis, FMEA and fuzzy methodology. They provide an
integrated framework to model, analyse and predict the behaviour
of industrial systems in a more realistic and consistent manner
and to plan suitable maintenance strategies (Sharma and Sharma,
2010).
Tracht et al. (2013) propose an approach for failure probability
prediction for spare parts supply based on condition monitoring
data. Moreover, it is stated that condition monitoring systems are
installed in many companies but information are barely used to
predict the failure probability of machines and single units. There-
fore, they developed an enhanced prediction model that considers
several data sources such as SCADA data. The model itself is based
on a proportional hazards model to predict the spare part demand
to prevent long lead times of spare parts to decrease the necessity
for stock keeping (Tracht et al., 2013).
In the publication of Lee et al. (2008), the evolution of CAD,
CAM and CAE tools through product data management systems into
product life cycle management (PLM) is analysed. Moreover, based
on two case studies, current practises and potential applications
of PLM in aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul are discussed
(Lee et al., 2008).
Yu et al. (2013) introduce a preventive maintenance cycle opti-
mization model for the metro vehicle based on a generic algorithm
method. To obtain optimal maintenance cycles, statistically ana-
lysed fault data and the Heinrich safety rule are integrated. The
model can be used for decision support for maintenance depart-
ments (Yu et al., 2013).
With focus on specific machine tool components, Lanza et al.
(2009) introduce an approach for dynamic preventive maintenance
schedule optimization. Therefore, a stochastic model based on the
Weibull cumulative damage generalized log-linear model and the
Monte Carlo simulation is suggested. Furthermore, the approach
considers the effect of the dynamic optimization on component
selection for different maintenance strategies. The authors state
that the ideal strategy can be selected from corrective, preven-
tive and condition-based maintenance for every component of a
complex system (Lanza et al., 2009).
Chukwuekwe et al. (2016) present a conceptual framework
using data mining and smart algorithms for a closed loop feedback
data driven predictive maintenance system for implementation
within an Industry 4.0 environment. The authors expect, based on
literature findings and the developed concept, that it has the poten-
tial to reduce maintenance frequency and increase safety around
production equipment (Chukwuekwe et al., 2016).
Bukkapatnam et al. (2019) provide a long-term prognosis of
machine breakdowns based on a manufacturing system-wide non-
parametric machine learning approach that can model complex
dynamic dependencies. For this purpose, a Balanced Random Sur-
vival Forest algorithm is used and trained with data from shop
floor automation and information systems. The approach is applied
and validated within an automotive manufacturing use case of 20
machines (Bukkapatnam et al., 2019).
Wang et al. (2019) present a novel hybrid machine learning
tool that uses heterogeneous production data for tool condition
prognosis. Therefore, structured process parameters, unstructured
4
Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451
power profiles and tool wear images are integrated as data basis.
The methodology firstly analyses wear images by a convolutional
neural network. The results are subsequently integrated into a
recurrent neural network to deduce the relationship between tool
condition degradation and power profiles. The developed tool is
applied and validated within a milling use case with different mate-
rials (Wang et al., 2019).
Ferreira et al. (2016) discuss the advantages and benefits of
predictive maintenance that can be achieved through the use of
the Industry 4.0 concept and by focussing on remote monitor-
ing and self-diagnosis of health condition for the equipment. The
main focus emphasises the data acquisition and analysis process
for predictive maintenance algorithm development. The concept
is evaluated based on a frequency analysis of current signals in a
machine spindle (Ferreira et al., 2016).
With focus on existing data sources, Villarini et al. (2017) intro-
duce a new assessment of reliability centred maintenance carried
out by using a failure mode and effect analysis approach to photo-
voltaic systems. Therefore, large data amounts are used from real
maintenance activities to derive a more realistic analysis and infor-
mation. The data is interpreted and analysed by a team of experts
from different divisions, such as maintenance, engineering or oper-
ation. The aim of this approach is to improve maintenance actions
and to optimize their effectiveness by concentrating on selected
failure modes that mostly affect the system (Villarini et al., 2017).
Liu et al. (2016) developed a new risk priority model that uses
an extended qualitative flexible multiple criteria method for han-
dling FMEA problems with incomplete weight information. This
addresses various uncertainties in the assessment information of
FMEA team participants. The model is applied to and validated by a
case study conducted on a healthcare risk analysis (Liu et al., 2016).
Yazdi et al. (2020) extend the classical FMEA approach by con-
sidering decision making within a group under fuzzy environment
that is sensitive to all inputs including linguistic variables or impor-
tance weights of experts. This approach is called fuzzy developed
FMEA and is applied to an aircraft landing system (Yazdi et al.,
2020).
Yang et al. (2013) propose a framework for data-mining based
fault isolation with FMEA rank. Therefore, they use updated FMEA
parameters to rank data driven models and applying it on a case
study from APU by focusing on a predefined failure mode. The
results show that the method is effective for fault isolation and
identification in complex systems maintenance.
2.4. Research demand
To get a comprehensive overview on the reviewed papers about
the state of art and research with regard to maintenance activities
and FMEA in general, a matrix is used to assess and document the
scope of each paper. This matrix (see Table 1) does not only help
to classify each paper, it does also help to identify the research gap
and therefore to justify the need of this research. The matrix covers
an overall of four areas which are the scope, the application field,
the characteristics of methodology and the modelling approach.
Within the scope, each paper is assessed by checking if the paper
focusses on maintenance planning, fault prognosis and if a struc-
tured approach that can be applied generically was implemented.
Within the second area the paper is assessed by its application field,
which means if the paper focusses on fault prediction or FMEA
on component level, part level or on industrial investment goods.
These criteria are used to ensure applicability to various aspects in
the context of maintenance. The third area covers the characteris-
tics of the used methodology. Here, it is checked if the described
approaches in the paper considered expert knowledge, operational
data and if some kinds of decision support tool are developed
and integrated in the respective results. Moreover, each paper is
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al.
Table 1
Overview of literature review.
checked against the used modelling approach. Here, it is checked if
any kind of data analytics, a standard FMEA or a hybrid modelling
approach was used. In this context, a hybrid is classified by a stan-
dard FMEA, which used data analytics to calculate at least one of
the needed FMEA parameters based on existing operational data.
Table 1 gives a graphical overview of the assessed publications.
It is distinguished between completely, partially and not fulfilled
criteria.
On the one hand, the literature review shows that FMEA is a
widely used risk assessment tool for industrial applications. Espe-
cially for industrial investment goods with high values and long
lives, it is an important preventive management approach to iden-
tify potential faults already during engineering and the planning
phase or prevent them to happen during operation to reduce the
overall life cycle costs. However, the traditional RPN calculation
has some major shortcomings that have been discussed extensively
in literature. Especially when it comes to the planning and opera-
tion of efficient maintenance activities, dealing with uncertainties
is indispensable and possible faults need to be predicted and iden-
tified. On the other hand, the literature review illustrates that due
to the technological development, increased amounts of data from
the use stage of products can be acquired and stored. This enables
new possibilities like advanced data analytics applications. Never-
theless, the combination and analysis of this data to derive usable
knowledge is a major challenge.
However, there is a significant research gap in combining histor-
ical operating data from the use stage with a structured procedure
for fault prognosis combined with FMEA in order to provide tar-
geted, comprehensible and feasible data driven decision support
that can be used for dynamic maintenance planning of high value
industrial investment goods such as production equipment and
airplanes.
3. Development of a data-driven FMEA methodology
With reference to the defined research gap, a data-driven FMEA
methodology to support the planning of maintenance activities
is developed. Fig. 3 shows the data driven FMEA methodology
based on the framework of a cyber-physical production system
5
Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451
(CPPS). Basically, CPPS can be defined as “systems of collaborating
computational entities which are in intensive connection with the
surrounding physical world and its on-going processes, providing
and using, at the same time, data-accessing and data-processing
services” (Kang et al., 2016).
The framework is divided into four areas which are: physical
world (I), data acquisition (II), cyber world (III) and decision sup-
port (IV). Since the process is repeated continuously, the latest
operational data is always used to optimize the fault prediction
algorithm and therefore the data driven FMEA. The physical world
(I) represents actual maintenance activities and KPIs of consid-
ered technical equipment like machines. The data acquisition (II)
acquires operational data from the observed components or parts
and performs a data preprocessing. Within the cyber world (III),
the preprocessed data is used for fault prediction and based on the
assumption that a data driven FMEA is performed. The decision sup-
port (IV) provides recommendations for maintenance actions based
on the data driven FMEA. To standardize the data-driven FMEA
the “Cross Industry Standard Process for Data Mining” (CRISP-DM)
is used. Therefore, the following chapters are aligned with each
process step of the CRISP-DM (see Fig. 3).
3.1. Business understanding
An essential step within the calculation process of FMEA risk pri-
ority numbers is the selection of appropriate values for S, O and D.
From a business perspective, new data analytics approaches could
be used to select values for the occurrence (O) based on data, which
will help to make the results of the FMEA more reliable and less
dependent on individuals and their subjective assessment.
With the proposed framework, the powerful FMEA method
and new data analytics techniques should be combined. To use
data analytics in this context, some data, regarding the compo-
nents/products and their use/exposure to harmful environmental
influences, need to be accessible or acquired. If enough past main-
tenance data is available, an algorithm can be trained to predict
the occurrence of faults, which then can be used as input for the
calculation of the RPN.
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al.
Fig. 3. Framework of data-driven FMEA methodology.
To address targeted maintenance activities, the scope of the
data-driven FMEA is determined based on a structural analysis of
the system. Here, the structure and limits of the considered sys-
tem are carried out. Moreover, within the business understanding
step, a cross-functional team is built of subject matter experts from
various disciplines to conduct the FMEA. Since the assessment of
occurrence (O) is data-driven, only the severity (S) and the prob-
ability of detection (D) need to be determined by the FMEA team
(see Fig. 6).
KPIs in terms of possible failure modes are defined based on the
FMEA scope by the expert team. These KPI are the basis for later
maintenance activities since the methodology is based on these
failure modes.
Finally, this framework is a helpful guide to implement a data
driven FMEA to any maintenance related business. The results can
be used to coordinate resources, e.g. man-power or spare parts, and
as decision support to implement specific maintenance activities
like service, inspection or repair.
3.2. Data understanding and preparation
Fig. 4 shows the developed procedure for the data acquisition
and preprocessing to generate a database for the fault prediction
model. The procedure is divided into the two parts “data acquisi-
tion and database development” as well as “data processing and
preparation”.
To generate the raw database during the data acquisition and
database development step, the most important failure modes,
such as damages, are selected. These failure modes are more impor-
tant than others since their occurrence has high influence on the
overall performance of the respective technical equipment. There-
fore, they are selected as desired output data of the prediction tool.
With regard to a practical example, these output data could be
“highest maintenance/repair cost” or “most time consuming repair
process”.
6
Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451
Besides the output data, input data is needed to represent
the various influences that can cause the failure modes. Input
parameters can be chosen from different data sources. These
parameters have in common that they are generated during the
operational phase. Therefore, relevant parameters and variables
are design and control parameters (e.g. machine characteristics
such as age of component or useful life), state variables (e.g.
power demand), performance criteria (e.g. process time) or inter-
nal/external influencing factors (e.g. environmental conditions).
The input parameters will later be used to predict a failure, which
makes it essential to select parameters which influence the occur-
rence of faults most likely. Therefore, a correlation analysis between
the input parameters and the damages (output data) should be car-
ried out to reveal which input parameters are important for each
failure mode.
Moreover, the second part of the procedure focusses on the
processing and preparation of the raw databases, so that they
can be used by appropriate algorithms to generate the prediction
model. As a first step, data samples with missing values have huge
influence on the accuracy of fault predictions and data analysis
in general, since it is difficult to reveal correlations and to find
patterns within these data (Hand, 2007). Missing values are often
replaced by “NaN” or “NULL”, which cannot be processed by compu-
tational models. Therefore, a process to handle these data samples
is needed. In literature, two approaches are proposed. The first one
is to delete the whole data sample containing missing values. Since
this approach also deletes values which could contain important
data, this approach is not selected within this framework. As an
alternative, the missing values can be replaced by the mean value
of the entire column feature (Raschka and Mirjalili, 2017). This
will ensure that no important data is deleted and not used for the
generation of the prediction model.
In addition, different input parameters can be available in a dif-
ferent range of values and can cause problems for the algorithm.
Therefore, the dataset is normalised using the min-max-method
due to its usability and good results. The values of the dataset are
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al.
Fig. 4. Data acquisition and preprocessing pipeline.
normalised in a range of 0–1 by comparing the value to the min-
imum and maximum value of the entire column feature (Raschka
and Mirjalili, 2017).
Additionally, the output data needs to be processed before train-
ing the prediction algorithm. A fault prediction can be seen as a
binary classification task (0 = no fault, 1 = fault). All output data
must be set to either 0 or 1, which indicates if a specific failure
mode occurred or not.
As a final step of the preprocessing, the database is split into
training, test and validation data. Only the training- and test dataset
are used to train, test and generate the prediction model. The val-
idation datasets will later be used to validate the final prediction
model. Since the model has never seen the data samples of the
validation dataset, a reliable validation of the results is possible. A
possible rule to divide the database is the 70 : 20 : 10 rule. Around
70 % of the data samples are used to train the model, 20 % are used
to test the model and 10 % are used for validation of the final model
(Raschka and Mirjalili, 2017).
If the available dataset is small, it is possible to use data aug-
mentation to generate more data samples. This method uses the
original dataset to generate new, slightly noisy datasets. Especially
when the available dataset is small, this technique cannot only be
used to generate a sufficient amount of training data but also to
increase the robustness of the model (Shanmugamani, 2018).
3.3. Modeling
Since use cases of various companies are based on different
datasets, there are no perfect settings of the algorithm parameters
which fit all use cases best. Therefore, this framework proposes a
general process, which can be applied to different use cases, in order
to optimise the accuracy of the model.
One main task of the data-driven FMEA framework is the pre-
diction of fault probabilities. For this task, preprocessed operational
data (see chapter 3.2) from the observed components and parts of
the technical equipment are used. Since the parameter and data
types may vary widely, the choice of the data analytics model
strongly depends on these characteristics.
Fig. 5 gives an overview of possible modelling approaches based
on existing data and parameter structure. Here, three differen-
tiations in “statistical analysis of one (or few) variables”, “deep
analysis of one or few variables” and “interdependencies between
many variables” are based on the present data structure. Moreover,
potential modelling approaches are given.
The data analytics modelling approaches shown in Fig. 5 are
intended to provide orientation for the selection of possible data
analytics models. For instance, in case of many variables that
are independent, artificial neural networks (ANN) or multi-variate
regressions can be used. In this context, the performance of the
prediction results also strongly depends on the optimization of the
specific hyper parameters, since each data has unique correlations
7
Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451
between the variables, and the algorithms need to be trained for
that specific correlation given in the data. There is no set of hyper
parameters which fits all data perfectly.
The fault prediction is carried out for each failure mode sep-
arately. The predicted fault probabilities for a respective failure
mode are then converted to values between 1 and 10 (e.g. 84 %
= 8 or 27 % = 3) to determine the occurrence value for the FMEA.
Moreover, the FMEA team determines the values for severity and
detection based on their knowledge and experience.
The calculation of the RPN and the respective input sources are
shown in Fig. 6.
The RPN, with values between 1 and 1000 is calculated by
multiplying the values (1–10) for severity (S), occurrence (O) and
detection (D) for each failure mode of the corresponding compo-
nents and parts (see chapter 2.2). Moreover, the total RPN of a whole
system or inspected area (e.g. engine) can also be calculated by
adding all individual RPN.
3.4. Evaluation and deployment
With help of the data-driven FMEA framework, the calculated
RPN can be used as decision support for recommendations related
to maintenance activities as well as during the definition of main-
tenance strategies. Therefore, the failure modes can be prioritized
by ranking their RPN in a descending order.
In addition, a user centric visualization of FMEA results is neces-
sary due to the complexity of the data-driven FMEA methodology
and the requirements regarding the applicability for different per-
sons like colleagues with different experience levels and skills as
well as user groups like managers, engineers or workers on shop
floor level.
Fig. 7 shows the visualization of RPN for different failures for
two different areas. Here, the left wing and the tail of an airplane
are exemplarily chosen as areas.
The different RPN values for failure modes A to D are printed out.
In addition, in order to provide decision support and an initial inter-
pretation of the results, the individual RPN values are highlighted in
colour according to the principle of a heat map. This allows a quick
and easy interpretation of the results, e.g. to derive further main-
tenance activities like condition based inspection for particularly
critical failure modes.
Based on these results, recommendations for high-risk failure
modes are developed. In this context, especially condition based
maintenance strategies can be developed. For example, if the RPN
of a failure mode exceeds a specific limit, appropriate measures
can be derived. Here, for example, an inspection can be scheduled
and corresponding resources like machines, materials as well as
workers be provided.
By the integration of data from the operational phase of the
inspected systems, the automation is increased and less subjec-
tive and less experience based. Therefore, even unexperienced
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al. Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451

Fig. 5. Overview of possible modelling approaches based on data structure.

Fig. 6. Calculation of Risk Priority Number.

Fig. 7. Visualization of RPN for different Failure Modes and Areas.

employees can detect and analyse failure modes as well as plan
necessary maintenance activities more efficiently and accurately.
Moreover, by using operational data, the comparability between
FMEA results is increased and the accuracy of strategies and mea-
sures is improved.
4. Application of data-driven FMEA for maintenance
planning in the aviation industry
4.1. Business understanding
The previously developed data-driven FMEA framework was
applied to a use case within the aviation industry. Therefore, the
focus of the use case is on the data driven FMEA of individual air-
craft equipment to improve and support maintenance as well as
repair planning processes. Overall, this will also lead to an improved
reliability of the aircrafts.
Within the airline industry, a dependency between the envi-
ronmental influences on an airplane and the condition of its
components is assumed. Different weather situations in which an
aircraft is flying and the flight profiles can be merged with his-
torical maintenance data to build a database to train a prediction
algorithm. The effect of bad environmental influences on the com-
ponent condition could be higher maintenance costs, higher failure
frequency and intensity or also which type of fault appears.
The data-driven fault prediction tool is then used to support the
data driven FMEA. Therefore, several steps are necessary to enable
the data driven FMEA. First of all, the data acquisition and pre-
processing is performed based on the specific use case to generate
the necessary basis to analyze and optimize the model parameter.
Finally, the fault prediction and FMEA risk evaluation is applied for
previous selected failure modes. A team of managers, engineers and
shop floor workers only need to determine the severity (S) and the
probability of detection (D) for each failure mode to be able to cal-
culate the RPN (see Fig. 6). A failure mode is always linked with an
area in which it occurs. An area is a specific region of the technical
equipment of an aircraft like the left wing or the elevator rudder
(see Fig. 7).
With the provided RPN for each failure mode a more focused
use of resources (e.g. manpower) and selection of maintenance
activities like service, inspection or repair can be carried out.

8
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al.
Fig. 8. Input Data.
4.2. Data understanding and preparation
The selection of the correct input parameters is an important
task, since they are used to predict faults and influence the achieved
fault prediction accuracy. Fig. 8 gives an overview on the used input
data.
Environmental influences such as different weather conditions,
not merely effect the damage types but also the damage frequen-
cies (Verhagen and Boer de, 2018). The available data of weather
conditions like humidity, temperature and sand concentration are
very important factors for damages based on the experience of the
people working in the maintenance department. Therefore, these
data will be considered within this case study and related to data
from past maintenance and repair events.
The major causes of aviation accidents and incidents are envi-
ronmental influences. This can be justified as harsh weather
conditions can physically damage the airplane and increase the risk
of pilot errors (Kushwaha and Sharma, 2014). Predictions of pilot
errors are difficult. Due to the pilots’ individual experience they will
not react in the same way. The physical damages of the airplane,
on the other hand, can be predicted. Each component will react in a
similar way to specific weather conditions. This is the reason why
this case study only focuses on the prediction of physical damages
caused by environmental influences.
Various maintenance related data sources are linked to each
other to build a comprehensive database within this case study.
Specifically, information about the environmental influences on the
airplane as well as information about its flight profiles and usage
are combined with specific maintenance/shop findings. The result
is a separate database for each damage area and failure mode.
Since different prediction algorithm require different prepro-
cessed data formats as input to perform best, it is necessary to
decide first which algorithm is used for the final fault prediction. To
select the prediction algorithm, different prediction models were
tested with a database, which includes all input parameters and
outputs (failure modes).
4.2.1. Data processing and preparation
The second step of the data structure and database development
framework (shown in Fig. 4) includes the preprocessing tasks and
the splitting into a test, a train and a validation database to be used
by the deep learning algorithm in order to generate the prediction
model.
The following four main tasks are carried out in this part
(Raschka and Mirjalili, 2017):
• Replace missing values with mean value of column
• Set output data to binary
• Normalisation of datasets
• Divide database in training-, test- and validation datasets
Regarding the selected algorithm, several processing steps are
necessary before the database can be split into test, train and valida-
tion data. Values of different input parameters can be available in a
different range of values and cause problems for the algorithm. ANN
9
Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451
works best with normalised datasets. Two normalisation methods
are proposed in the literature. This framework uses the min-max-
method, because it is easy to apply and showed good results in other
examples. The min-max-method means that all values are nor-
malised in a range of 0–1 by comparing the value to the minimum
and maximum value of the entire column feature.
The following Fig. 9 shows an example of how the input param-
eters I1 to I3 of the raw database are processed.
After these process steps are finished, the final database is pro-
cessed and prepared to be used to train the prediction algorithm.
However, the training process must not contain the test- and vali-
dation datasets, since then a reliable validation of the model would
not be possible. Due to this, the database is split in a training-, a
test- and a validation-dataset.
4.3. Modeling
Before the modeling of the algorithms can be carried out, a fea-
ture selection for each area and failure mode needs to be done to
only select the features which help to predict that specific failure
mode. Therefore, a correlation analysis between the input param-
eters and the damages (output data) is carried out to reveal which
input parameters are important for each failure mode.
This ensures that only the input parameters with the highest
correlation are used as input parameters to train the algorithms.
In this case study, only input parameters with correlations higher
than 0.05 are selected to be used to train the algorithm.
In a next step, the selection and optimization of the prediction
model is carried out for each area and failure mode. First, several
prediction models are compared until one is selected and optimized
along the six steps described in Fig. 10.
4.3.1. Comparison of prediction models - algorithm selection
With the generated database, which includes input data like
flight profiles and weather data as well as output data like informa-
tion about shop findings (failure modes), a first analysis is used to
select the most suitable prediction model for this specific data and
use case. The following seven prediction models were compared
with basic model settings to predict if a failure occurred or not:
• Naive Bayes
• Generalized Linear Model
• Logistic Regression
• Deep Learning
• Decision Tree
• Random Forest
• Gradient Boosted Trees
To determine which model fits the best for the use case, an anal-
ysis for all considered failures with all available models was carried
out and the two quality criteria “classification error” and “class
recall” were compared with each other. The classification error
gives a percentage of how many datasets are predicted wrongly
for both scenarios (true = 1 and false = 0). As the class of true failure
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al. Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451

Fig. 9. Preprocessing of input parameters.

Fig. 10. Use case specific model parameter optimization.

Table 2
Results of average classification error and class recall for selected prediction algorithm.

Naive Bayes Generalized Logistic Deep Decision Random Gradient

Linear Model Regression Learning Tree Forest Boosted Trees

Average classification error 33 % 23 % 23 % 23 % 21 % 21 % 20 %

Average class recall 61 % 43 % 42 % 64 % 45 % 42 % 59 %

modes is more important, the second criteria focus on the case that
a specific failure mode occurs.
Table 2 shows the average values of the classification error and
the class recall for all failure modes and all prediction models.
The classification error gives a percentage of how many datasets
are predicted wrongly for both scenarios (true = 1 and false =
0). As the class of true shop finding or corrective actions is more
important from a business perspective, the second class recall
focuses on the case that a specific shop finding or corrective action
occurs.
The three highest values for the class recall are achieved by
deep learning, naive bayes and gradient boosted trees. The com-
parison of these three models in consideration of the classification
error shows that naive bayes has the worst classification error of
all compared algorithms. Deep learning and gradient boosted trees
achieved the best overall performance in terms of average class
recall.
Since the class recall is the more important criterion and the
deep learning algorithm achieved the best recall with an acceptable
error, the deep learning algorithm was selected as prediction model
for further analysis.
To start the optimization process for a specific use case, an ini-
tial network structure and parameters must be selected. Based
on the review of several papers about prediction examples with
deep learning, the initial neural network parameters are selected
(Morfidis and Kostinakis, 2018; Chollet, 2018; Ren et al., 2018a, b;
Ren et al., 2018a; Kaymak et al., 2017).The initial ANN parameters
within this paper are shown in Table 3.
In order to optimize the algorithm parameters specifically for
the use case, various parameter settings must be determined. In
the literature often only some hyper parameters are (Sun et al.,
2016; Morfidis and Kostinakis, 2018). However, within this paper
a holistic approach for hyper parameter optimization is followed
and therefore all hyper parameters found in the literature are con-

10
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al. Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451

Fig. 11. Grid Search for Activation Functions for Area 2 and Failure Mode D.

Table 3 4.3.3. Activation function

Overview of initial ANN parameters.
A grid search is carried out to evaluate and select the best com-
ANN parameters Input layer Hidden layer Output layer bination of activation functions. The following two plots are the
Number of Layers 1 6 1 results of each grid search (see Fig. 11), one plot for the accuracies
Neurons per Layer same as input parameter 50 1 and another for the losses. A grid search like this was carried out
Activation function RELU RELU Sigmoid five times for each failure mode to ensure that the result is valid.
Epochs 50 For all failure modes a combination of TANH for the input layer
Batch Size 25
and RELU for the hidden layer achieved the best performance.
Learning Rate automatic
Data Dropout No Data Dropout
Optimiser ADADELTA
4.3.4. Number of layers and neurons
A grid search was carried out and tested several layers in com-
sidered. Fig. 10 presents an overview of the central parameters to bination with several neurons. Fig. 12 shows the grid search for
be optimized for this use case application. failure mode D in Area 2.
The best combination can be found for 6 hidden layers with 150
4.3.2. Optimizer type neurons each. For each failure mode the grid search was carried out
For the comparison of the three chosen optimizers (RMSPROP, five times for validation accuracy and validation loss to ensure that
ADADELTA and ADAM), the training process of the neural network the results are valid.
is carried out five times and the average values are calculated. A summarised overview with the best combinations is given in
Table 4 shows the achieved loss and accuracy values for five Table 4 for all component areas with corresponding failure modes
selected failure modes (FM) of several component areas for all con- (Table 5).
sidered optimizer types. The results show that there is no overall optimal combination
The loss function measures the performance of the classification. for all failure modes. The best number of layers varies between 4
Since all outputs are between 0 and 1, the binary cross-entropy and 10 and the best number of hidden neurons is either 150 or 250.
loss function is used for all neural networks. Low values of the loss Therefore, these combinations are used during the next optimiza-
function indicate a good performance of the model. tion steps.
Since the loss function alone is not enough to evaluate a model,
the accuracy is also calculated. The accuracy gives the percentage
of correct predicted data samples. Therefore, high values for the 4.3.5. Number of epochs and batch size
accuracy indicate a good prediction accuracy of the model. With Fig. 13 shows the results of the grid search for Area 2 and fail-
the combination of both values (loss and accuracy) the training and ure mode D under consideration of the validation accuracy and
optimization process can start. validation loss.
For some failure modes, the initial network settings already By comparing both plots, it can be clearly seen that the lowest
achieve quite good accuracies around 90 %. However, the fault loss and the highest accuracy and therefore the best performance
predictions in the component area 2 are lower and only reach accu- is achieved with 500 epochs and a batch size of 25.
racies around 80 %. The results show that the best performance A summarized overview of the best combinations is given in
(lowest loss and highest accuracy) is achieved with the optimizer Table 6. The results show that at least 100 epochs are needed to
ADADELTA for all failure modes. Therefore, ADADELTA is used as achieve the best performance. With values from 25 to 100, the batch
optimizer for all further improvement steps. size is relatively close to each other. With these individual settings,

Table 4
Comparison of optimizers for loss and accuracy for considered failure modes.

Failure Modes (FM)

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

Optimizer Attribute FM A FM B FM C FM D FM E

Loss 0.2562 0.3772 0.5057 0.4304 0.2573

RMSPROP
Accuracy 0.8745 0.8303 0.7465 0.7833 0.8904
Loss 0.1620 0.2621 0.4624 0.4018 0.1702
ADADELTA
Accuracy 0.9217 0.9032 0.7962 0.7845 0.9232
Loss 0.1841 0.3107 0.4818 0.4323 0.2056
ADAM
Accuracy 0.9086 0.8827 0.7757 0.7714 0.9187

11
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al. Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451

Fig. 12. Grid search for number of neurons and layer exemplarily for Area 2 and Failure Mode D.

Table 5
Performance after Selection of best Combinations of Neurons and Layers.

Component Area Failure Mode (FM) no. Layer no. Neurons Attribute Values

Loss 0.0630
FM A 10 250
Accuracy 0.9856
Area 1
Loss 0.1808
FM B 6 150
Accuracy 0.9378
Loss 0.4045
FM C 8 250
Accuracy 0.8217
Area 2
Loss 0.2591
FM D 6 150
Accuracy 0.8869
Loss 0.0696
Area 3 FM E 4 250
Accuracy 0.9718

Fig. 13. Grid search for number of epochs and batch size for Area 2 and Failure Mode D.

Table 6
Performance after selection of best combinations of epochs and batch size.

Component Area Failure Mode Epochs Batch Size Attribute Values

Loss 0.0325
FM A 150 50
Accuracy 0.9856
Area 1
Loss 0.1285
FM B 500 100
Accuracy 0.9514
Loss 0.3259
FM C 500 100
Accuracy 0.8408
Area 2
Loss 0.1337
FM D 500 25
Accuracy 0.9524
Loss 0.0330
Area 3 FM E 100 100
Accuracy 0.9887

the networks are further optimized and the settings are used during ter study, but in this use case this step can be skipped (Kingma and
the following optimization steps. Ba, 2015).

4.3.6. Learning rate

In this use case, all five selected failure modes achieved the
best performance with ADADELTA as optimizer. Since ADADELTA
changes its learning rate automatically based on a moving window
of gradient updates, there is no need to test manual changes of the
learning rate for this optimizer (Zeiler, 2012). For other optimizers
like ADAM and RMSPROP, it might be useful to carry out a parame-
4.3.7. Data dropout
Fig. 14 shows the progress of the final performance of the neural
network for Area 1 and failure mode A. On the left side, the training
and validation accuracy is plotted over the number of epochs and
on the right side, the training and validation loss is also plotted over
the number of epochs.

12
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al. Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451

Fig. 14. Final performance for Failure Mode A in the Area 1.

Table 7
Final algorithm parameters for specific failure modes.

Component Area and Failure Modes (FM)

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

FM A FM B FM C FM D FM E

Number of Layers 1
Input Layer Neurons 7 7 7 5 10
Activation function tanh
Number of Layers 10 6 8 6 4
Hidden Layer Neurons 250 150 250 150 250
Activation function relu
Number of Layers 1
Output Layer Neurons 1
Activation function sigmoid
Epochs 150 500 500 500 100
Batch Size 50 100 100 25 100
General Settings Learning Rate automatic
Data Dropout not needed
Optimizer ADADELTA

Table 8
Accuracies and Loss after each Optimization Step.

Component Area and Failure Modes

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

Step Attribute FM A FM B FM C FM D FM E

Loss 0.1620 0.2621 0.4624 0.4018 0.1702

1 Optimizer
Accuracy 0.9217 0.9032 0.7962 0.7845 0.9232
Loss 0.1043 0.1932 0.4454 0.3121 0.1266
2 Activation Function
Accuracy 0.9591 0.9297 0.8112 0.8512 0.9548
Loss 0.0630 0.1808 0.4045 0.2591 0.0696
3 Layers and Neurons
Accuracy 0.9856 0.9378 0.8217 0.8869 0.9718
Loss 0.0325 0.1285 0.3259 0.1326 0.0330
4 Epochs and Batch Size
Accuracy 0.9856 0.9514 0.8408 0.9286 0.9887

The plot on the right side shows clearly that the validation loss
does not start to increase after 150 epochs. The validation loss is still
at a minimum and therefore the model is not overfitted. The left plot
shows that the validation accuracy started to increase during the
first 40 epochs and then reached a steady value. This is an indication
that the model is not underfitted. Since the model is neither under-
nor overfitted, there is no need to add data dropout to any layer.
Similar plots are generated for all five failure modes and do not
show any indication of over- or underfitted networks. Therefore,
there is no need to add data dropout to any layer or network of any
failure mode and this step can be skipped in this use case.
ters like the number of neurons for the input and hidden layer, the
number of layers and neurons as well as the number of epochs and
the batch size are individual for all failure modes.
Moreover, the following Table 8 shows the validation loss and
accuracy after each optimization step. It can be seen that with
each step of the framework. The loss decreased and the accuracy
increased. Therefore, the optimization process helps to improve the
overall performance in prediction.
4.4. Evaluation

Before using the results for data-driven FMEA applications, the

4.3.8. Final model parameters and performance
Table 7 gives an overview of the finally selected settings for the
neural networks after the optimization process. Some parameters
like the activation function, the optimizer and the number of input
and output layers are the same for all failure modes. Other parame-
validation of the fault prediction is needed. Therefore, for each fail-
ure mode and component area 15 validation data samples are used
to test the fault prediction accuracy.
Since the output probabilities are between 0% and 100 % and
the true values are either 0 for “no fault” or 1 for “fault exists”, a

13
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al.
Fig. 15. Results of the Fault Prediction Tool for the Validation Data.
method how the probabilities are assigned is needed. Therefore, all
probabilities of 45 % or lower are assigned to class 0 for no fault and
all probabilities of 55 % or higher are assigned to class 1 for fault
existence. Values between 45 % and 55 % are not assigned to any
class and just handled as unclear prediction.
All predicted probabilities and the true values of the valida-
tion dataset are summarised in Fig. 15. The predicted probabilities
are assigned to a class with the described method and compared
with the real values. A green background colour indicates that
the assigned class and the real value are matching. A red back-
ground colour indicates that the assigned class and the real value
diverge, which means the prediction was wrong. Unclear predic-
tions are marked with a yellow background colour. The results
show a high conformity with the true values, which allows the
developed method to be used for further prediction applications.
To calculate the overall performance (prediction accuracy), the
percentage of correct predicted failures is calculated. Unclear pre-
dictions between 45 % and 55 % count as incorrect predictions, since
they do not provide enough information to be allocated to one of the
classes with certainty. Table 9 gives an overview of the prediction
accuracy for each failure mode and component area.
With accuracies of 80 % or higher for all failure modes and an
overall accuracy of around 95 %, the developed tool achieves quite
good results. Therefore, the results of the fault prediction tool are
not only reproducible but also representative.
4.5. Deployment
With the tested and validated fault predictions, the final risk
evaluation can now be assessed. The calculation of the risk priority
number, with values between 1 and 1000, is calculated by multi-
plying the values for severity (S), occurrence (O) and detection (D).
This helps to determine which failure mode of several failure modes
with similar probabilities represents the highest risk.
The calculated fault probabilities from the developed fault pre-
diction are converted to values between 1 and 10 with decimal
numbers (e.g. 84 % = 8.4 or 27 % = 2.7) and used as occurrence
value for the FMEA. Since the values for severity and detection are
fixed values for each failure mode and component area, these values
14
Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451
are set by experienced workers involved in the use case. By using
the trained fault prediction algorithm, the developed framework
is tested by using an example dataset. The failure probabilities are
calculated, converted and finally used to calculate the FMEA risk
priority numbers based on the predefined severity and detection
values (see Table 10).
Besides the interpretation of the RPN value, the background
colour of each risk priority number indicates whether the risk
is high (red for 100 ≤ RPN ≤ 1000), medium (orange for 50 ≤
RPN ≤ 100), small (yellow for 2 ≤ RPN ≤ 50) or little (green for
RPN = 1). The choice of threshold for the different risk areas is
dependent on the specific use case and can be changed individ-
ually.
With the calculated FMEA RPN, a graphical user interface (GUI)
was developed to visualize the results. For each component area a
small drawing as well as the RPN for each failure mode is shown in
Fig. 16.
It is now possible to compare faults and see which failure mode
represents the highest risk. The FMEA also shows that some failure
modes with different probabilities (e.g. “FM B” in “Area 1 with a
fault probability of 94 % and “FM D” in the “Area 2 with 42 %)
reach about the same RPN of around 216. Therefore, even if the
probabilities are different, the risk can be the same due to different
values for severity and detection.
With the FMEA results, the planning of maintenance activities
can be carried out precisely and more accurately. From the exam-
ple above, even if the probability for “FM D” in the “Area 2 is
low with 42 %, the risk is quite high. Therefore, an instruction for
the next maintenance activity could be to plan some extra time to
inspect the component for “FM D” in the “Area 2 to ensure that the
operation of the aircraft can be maintained until the next planned
maintenance.
The RPN can also be used for components in the product use
phase. For example, as soon as the RPN for a specific failure mode
and area exceeds a predefined threshold, the next condition based
maintenance activity can be scheduled. This allows for calculat-
ing the remaining useful life of components as well as enabling
predictive maintenance precisely on the current condition of the
component.
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al. Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451

Table 9
Results of the Fault Prediction Tool for the Validation Data (0 = no fault, 1=fault).

Component Area Failure Mode True Values Average Prediction Accuracy [%]

0 100.00%
FM A
1 100.00%
Area 1
0 87.50%
FM B
1 100.00%
0 80.00%
FM C
1 90.00%
Area 2
0 100.00%
FM D
1 100.00%
0 87.50%
Area 3 FM E
1 100.00%
Average prediction accuracy: 94.50 %

Table 10
Data-based FMEA Prediction.

Fig. 16. Data-driven FMEA Result Overview GUI.

With focus on the organisation of maintenance activities, the
data-driven FMEA combines the revealed correlation from past
maintenance events with the experience of employees and pro-
vides support especially for unexperienced employees during the
planning of maintenance and repair. Therefore, by using the devel-
oped framework the FMEA risk assessment is no longer subjective
since every employee will come to the same results. The results
are comparable because the particularly relevant factors are deter-
mined on the data basis of the use phase.
5. Conclusion & outlook
Within this paper, a data-driven FMEA methodology to sup-
port the planning and operation of maintenance activities was
developed and validated by a use case within the aviation indus-
try. This methodology gives a step-by-step instruction from data
acquisition and preprocessing, over analyzing and optimizing algo-
rithm parameters to the final fault prediction. We carried out a
more holistic approach to the hyper parameter optimization and
therefore considered all hyper parameters were other papers only
considered a few of them. With the calculated failure probabili-
ties and the predefined parameters for severity and detection, a
data driven FMEA can be generated. These available risk prior-
ity numbers for each failure mode are now available and can be
used for the maintenance planning by enhancing transparency and
providing decision support. Especially for unexperienced or new
employees these fault predictions are very helpful to estimate costs
and the needed time for the next maintenance or repair. Since fail-
ure probability prediction alone is not the only attribute linked to
the expected risk, an FMEA is used to give the employees a more
detailed assessment of the failure modes.
Besides time saving advantages, one major advantage of this
developed methodology is that the risk assessment is no longer
subjective, since every employee will come to the same results by
using the developed tool. Moreover, by predicting failures already
during the planning phase, production-related processes and areas,
such as logistics or spare part procurement, can be optimized.
In addition, the presented methodology contributes to a sus-
tainable organisation and planning of maintenance activities. Due
to the high accuracy of the data driven fault prediction, components
are only exchanged at the necessary time and can therefore be used
longer. On the one hand, this saves resources through fewer mainte-

15
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al.
nance activities. On the other hand, the components are exchanged
less frequently.
Further research should be carried out regarding a completely
data driven FMEA. Therefore, further research on how severity and
detection parameters of the RPN could be completely calculated,
instead of being predefined by experts, should follow.
With more focus on the optimization of production processes
and process chains, there is enough room for further progress in
developing an automated FMEA that updates dynamically the cur-
rent RPN. With the help of this tool, failures of individual parts or
components of machines can be predicted using a “Live RPN”. This
can be used to optimize the entire system. For example, this could
allow a manufacturing system to developed into a self-controlling
system regarding maintenance activities based on current param-
eters.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Marc-André Filz: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Writing - original draft, Visualization. Jonas Ernst Bernhard
Langner: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing -
review & editing. Christoph Herrmann: Project administration,
Writing - review & editing. Sebastian Thiede: Conceptualization,
Writing - review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was carried out within the “QU4LITY” project. The
project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and innovation program with the grant agreement
NO 825030.
References
Ahuja, I., Khamba, J.S., 2008]. Total productive maintenance: literature review and
directions. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 25 (7), 709–756.
Bukkapatnam, S.T., Afrin, K., Dave, D., Kumara, S.R., 2019]. Machine learning and AI
for long-term fault prognosis in complex manufacturing systems. CIRP Ann. 68
(1), 459–462.
Chang, K.-H., Cheng, C.-H., 2010]. A risk assessment methodology using intuitionistic
fuzzy set in FMEA. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 41 (12), 1457–1471.
Chen, C.-C., 2013]. A developed autonomous preventive maintenance programme
using RCA and FMEA. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (18), 5404–5412.
Chollet, F., 2018. Deep Learning mit Python und Keras: Das Praxis-Handbuch; vom
Entwickler der Keras-Bibliothek. Frechen: mitp.
Chukwuekwe, D.O., Schjølberg, P., Rødseth, H., Stuber, A., 2016]. Reliable, Robust and
resilient systems: towards development of a predictive maintenance concept
within the industry 4.0 environment. Euromaintenance 2016 Conference 24.
Dekker, R., 1996]. Applications of maintenance optimization models: a review and
analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 51 (3), 229–240.
DIN 31051, 2019. DIN 31051:2019-06, Grundlagen der Instandhaltung. Beuth Verlag
GmbH, Berlin, Juni.
Fayyad, U.M., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., Smyth, P., undefined 1996. Knowledge Discovery
and Data Mining: Towards a Unifying Framework.
Ferreira, S., Konde, E., Fernández, S., Prado, A., 2016]. Industry 4.0: predictive intelli-
gent maintenance for production equipment. Third European Conference of the
Prognostics and Health Management Society.
Geiger, W., Kotte, W., 2008. Handbuch Qualität: Grundlagen und Elemente des Qual-
itätsmanagements: Systeme, Perspektiven. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlag | GWV
Fachverlage GmbH Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden.
Gits, C.W., 1992]. Design of maintenance concepts. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 24 (3), 217–226.
Guo, J., Li, Z., Wolf, J., 2016]. Reliability centered preventive maintenance opti-
mization for aircraft indicators. In: Annual Reliability and Maintainability
Symposium, Tucson, AZ, USA., pp. 1–6, 1/25/2016 - 1/28/2016, 2016, S.
Hand, D.J., 2007]. Principles of data mining. Drug Saf. 30 (7), 621–622.
Herrmann, C., Bergmann, L., Thiede, S., 2007a]. An integrated approach for the
evaluation of maintenance strategies to foster sustainability in manufactur-
16
Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451
ing. Sustainable Manufacturing V: Global Symposium on Sustainable Product
Development and Life Cycle Engineering 2007.
Herrmann, C., Bergmann, L., Thiede, S., Torney, M., Zein, A., 2007b]. Framework for
the dynamic and life cycle oriented evaluation of maintenance strategies. 3rd
International Virtual Design and Automation Conference 2007, 277–284, ISBN
978-83-7143-388-7, S.
Hinow, M., Mevissen, M., 2011]. Substation maintenance strategy adaptation for
life-cycle cost reduction using genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 26
(1), 197–204.
Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., Helbig, J., Hellinger, A., 2013]. Recommendations for
Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0 ; Securing the Future of Ger-
man Manufacturing Industry ; Final Report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group ;
Securing the Future of German Manufacturing Industry, 2013. Forschungsunion,
Berlin, pp. 112.
Kang, H.S., Lee, J.Y., Choi, S., Kim, H., Park, J.H., Son, J.Y., Kim, B.H., Noh, S.D., 2016].
Smart manufacturing: past research, present findings, and future directions. Int.
J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. Technol. 3 (1), 111–128.
Kaymak, S., Helwan, A., Uzun, D., 2017]. Breast cancer image classification using
artificial neural networks. Procedia Comput. Sci. 120, 126–131.
Kingma, D.P., Ba, J., 2015]. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. In: 3rd
International Conference for Learning Representations, San Diego.
Kushwaha, Madhavi, Sharma, Somesh Kumar, 2014]. Impact of environmental fac-
tors on aviation safety. Adv. Aerospace Sci. Appl. Vol. 4 (1).
Lanza, G., Niggeschmidt, S., Werner, P., 2009. Behavior of dynamic preventive
maintenance optimization for machine tools. 2009 Annual Reliability and Main-
tainability Symposium 2009, 315–320.
Lee, S.G., Ma, Y.-S., Thimm, G.L., Verstraeten, J., 2008]. Product lifecycle manage-
ment in aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul. Comput. Ind. 59 (2–3),
296–303.
Linß, G., 2016]. Qualitätssicherung - technische Zuverlässigkeit: Lehr- und Arbeits-
buch. Hanser, München.
Liu, H.C., 2016]. FMEA Using Uncertainty Theories and MCDM Methods. Springer
Singapore.
Liu, H.-C., You, J.-X., Li, P., Su, Q., 2016]. Failure mode and effect analysis under uncer-
tainty: an integrated multiple criteria decision making approach. IEEE Trans.
Reliab. 65 (3), 1380–1392.
Mohanty, A.R., 2014. Machinery Condition Monitoring. CRC Press.
Monostori, L., 2014]. Cyber-physical production systems: roots, expectations and
R&D challenges. Procedia CIRP 17, 9–13.
Morfidis, K., Kostinakis, K., 2018]. Approaches to the rapid seismic damage prediction
of r/c buildings using artificial neural networks. Eng. Struct. 165, 120–141.
Nilsson, J., Bertling, L., 2007]. Maintenance management of wind power systems
using condition monitoring systems—life cycle cost analysis for two case studies.
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 22 (1), 223–229.
Pillay, A., Wang, J., 2003]. Modified failure mode and effects analysis using approxi-
mate reasoning. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 79 (1), 69–85.
Raschka, S., Mirjalili, V., 2017]. Python Machine Learning: Machine Learning and
Deep Learning with Python, Scikit-Learn, and TensorFlow. Packt Publishing,
Birmingham, Mumbai, September.
Ren, H., Song, Y., Wang, J., Hu, Y., Lei, J., 2018a]. A deep learning approach to the
citywide traffic accident risk prediction. In: 21st International Conference on
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Maui, HI, pp. 3346–3351, 11/4/2018
- 11/7/2018, 2018a, S.
Ren, L., Sun, Y., Cui, J., Zhang, L., 2018b]. Bearing remaining useful life prediction
based on deep autoencoder and deep neural networks. J. Manuf. Syst. 48, 71–77.
Robinson, C.J., Ginder, A.P., 2007. Implementing TPM: The Nroth American Experi-
ence: Productivity Pr.
Roy, R., Stark, R., Tracht, K., Takata, S., Mori, M., 2016]. Continuous maintenance
and the future – foundations and technological challenges. CIRP Ann. 65 (2),
667–688.
Shanmugamani, R., 2018]. Deep Learning for Computer Vision: Expert Techniques to
Train Advanced Neural Networks Using TensorFlow and Keras. Packt Publishing,
Birmingham, UK.
Sharma, R.K., Sharma, P., 2010]. System failure behavior and maintenance decision
making using, RCA, FMEA and FM. J. Qual. Maint. Eng. 16 (1), 64–88.
Sheut, C., Krajewski, L.J., 1994]. A decision model for corrective maintenance man-
agement. Int. J. Prod. Res. 32 (6), 1365–1382.
Sun, W., Shao, S., Zhao, R., Yan, R., Zhang, X., Chen, X., 2016. A sparse auto-encoder-
based deep neural network approach for induction motor faults classification.
Measurement 89, 171–178.
Takata, S., Kirnura, F., van Houten, F., Westkamper, E., Shpitalni, M., Ceglarek, D., Lee,
J., 2004]. Maintenance: changing role in life cycle management. CIRP Ann. 53 (2),
643–655.
Thiede, S., 2018]. Environmental sustainability of cyber physical production systems.
Procedia CIRP 69, 644–649.
Tracht, K., Goch, G., Schuh, P., Sorg, M., Westerkamp, J.F., 2013]. Failure probability
prediction based on condition monitoring data of wind energy systems for spare
parts supply. CIRP Ann. 62 (1), 127–130.
Vahdani, B., Salimi, M., Charkhchian, M., 2015]. A new FMEA method by integrating
fuzzy belief structure and TOPSIS to improve risk evaluation process. Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 77 (1), 357–368.
Verhagen, W.J., Boer de, L.W., 2018]. Predictive maintenance for aircraft components
using proportional hazard models. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 12, 23–30.
Villarini, M., Cesarotti, V., Alfonsi, L., Introna, V., 2017]. Optimization of photovoltaic
maintenance plan by means of a FMEA approach based on real data. Energy
Convers. Manage. 152, 1–12.
M.-A. Filz, J.E.B. Langner, C. Herrmann et al.
Wälder, K., Wälder, O., 2017. Methoden zur Risikomodellierung und des Risikoman-
agements. Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden.
Wang, H., 2002]. A survey of maintenance policies of deteriorating systems. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 139 (3), 469–489.
Wang, P., Liu, Z., Gao, R.X., Guo, Y., 2019]. Heterogeneous data-driven hybrid machine
learning for tool condition prognosis. CIRP Ann. 68 (1), 455–458.
Xie, H.-B., Wu, W.-J., Wang, Y.-F., 2018]. Life-time reliability based optimization of
bridge maintenance strategy considering LCA and LCC. J. Clean. Prod. 176, 36–45.
17
Computers in Industry 129 (2021) 103451
Yazdi, M., Nedjati, A., Zarei, E., Abbassi, R., 2020]. A reliable risk analysis approach
using an extension of best-worst method based on democratic-autocratic
decision-making style. J. Clean. Prod. 256, 120418.
Yu, X., Xing, Z., Qin, Y., Jia, L., Cheng, X., 2013. The optimization of metro vehicle pre-
ventive maintenance cycle based on the reliability and genetic algorithm. 2013
IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Rail Transportation Proceedings,
291–295.
Zeiler, M.D., 2012]. ADADELTA: an adaptive learning rate method. Comput. Sci.