Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-022-01973-6

Knowledge-embedded machine learning and its applications in smart

manufacturing
Farzam Farbiz1 · Mohd Salahuddin Habibullah1 · Brahim Hamadicharef1 · Tomasz Maszczyk1 ·
Saurabh Aggarwal1

Received: 19 October 2021 / Accepted: 21 May 2022 / Published online: 21 June 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Demands for more accurate machine learning models have given rise to rethinking current modeling approaches that were
deemed unsuitable, primarily due to their computational complexity and the lack of availability and accessibility to repre-
sentative data. In Industry 4.0, rapid advancements in Digital Twin (DT) technologies and the pervasiveness of cost-effective
sensor technologies have pushed the incorporation of artificial intelligence, particularly data-driven machine learning models,
for use in smart manufacturing. However, the persistent issue with such models is their high sensitivity to the training data
and the lack of interpretability in the outcomes, at times generating unrealistic results. The incorporation of knowledge into
the machine learning pipeline has been earmarked as the most promising approach to address such issues. This paper aims
to answer this call through a Knowledge-embedded Machine Learning (KML) framework for smart manufacturing, which
embeds knowledge from experience and, or physics information into the machine learning pipeline, thus making the outcomes
from these models more representative of real applications. The merits of KML were then presented through comparative
studies showing its capability to outperform knowledge-based and data-driven models. This promising outcome led to the
development of frameworks that can potentially incorporate KML for smart manufacturing applications such as Prognostics
and Health Management (PHM) and DT, further supporting the usefulness of the proposed KML framework.

Keywords Artificial intelligence · Smart manufacturing · Knowledge-embedded machine learning · Physics-based model ·
Data-driven model · Prognostics and health management · Digital twin · Inductive learning · Deductive learning · Abductive
learning

Abbreviations
CPS Cyber-Physical-Systems
AI Artificial Intelligence
CRM Customer Relation Management
BPFI Ball Pass Frequency at Inner
DDML Data-Driven Machine Learning
BPFO Ball Pass Frequency at Outer
DT Digital Twin
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning
B Farzam Farbiz IIoT Industrial Internet of Things
Farzam_Farbiz@ihpc.a-star.edu.sg
KML Knowledge-embedded Machine Learning
Mohd Salahuddin Habibullah MSE Mean Square Error
mohdsh@ihpc.a-star.edu.sg
PHM Prognostics and Health Management
Brahim Hamadicharef RUL Remaining Useful Life
brahim_hamad@ihpc.a-star.edu.sg
SM Smart Manufacturing
Tomasz Maszczyk SMAI Smart Manufacturing AND Artificial Intelligence
maszczyk_tomasz_karol@ihpc.a-star.edu.sg
SMAIK Smart Manufacturing AND Artificial Intelligence
Saurabh Aggarwal AND Knowledge
saurabh_aggarwal@ihpc.a-star.edu.sg
WIP Work-in-process
1 Department of Computing & Intelligence, WoS Web of science
Institute of High Performance Computing,
1 Fusionopolis Way, #16-16 Connexis,
Singapore 138632, Singapore

123
2890
Introduction
Over the last few decades, scientific and technological
advancements have pushed the manufacturing industry
towards multiple stages: mechanization, electrification, and
now digitalization. Coined as “Industry 4.0”, there is a greater
emphasis on moving the manufacturing industry towards
smart factories. This is where accessibility to big data and the
availability of digitalization technologies such as smart sen-
sors, Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), and Cyber-Physical
Systems (CPS) have transformed the industry into “smart
manufacturing” Kusiak (2018, 2017).
Among these technologies, IIoT and big data are most
commonly adopted as smart factories aim to use informa-
tion gathered from sensors attached to machines to manage
the entire factory more efficiently Shrouf et al. (2014); Yan
et al. (2017). In essence, smart manufacturing (or industrial
intelligentization Zhou (2013); Ding (2020) is the fusion
of advanced manufacturing processes using Artificial Intel-
ligence (AI) that enables intelligent perception, analysis,
reasoning, decision-making, and control.
One of the impacts of adopting these technologies is in
providing Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) solu-
tions Liu et al. (2018); Zhang et al. (2018). Such solutions
offer better strategies for maintenance and repair, which will
ultimately reduce the machines’ downtime and improve the
products’ quality.
Lee et al. (2018) proposed an industrial intelligence
ecosystem comprising four key components: big data, data
analytics, cloud computing, and cyber technologies. These
key components play crucial roles in developing models for
prediction, optimization, and decision-making applications.
Existing approaches for developing such models can be
classified into three main categories: knowledge-based, data-
driven, and hybrid. Knowledge-based approaches Downey et
al. (2019); Daigle and Goebel (2013); Hosseinkhani and Ng
(2015) incorporate prior knowledge (e.g., physics or empiri-
cal laws about the physical processes) to diagnose, optimize
and predict the system’s health. They can achieve accurate
solutions if physical simulation models of the processes and
interactions between the components are known. However,
the characteristics of real physical systems are generally
challenging to be mathematically formulated. Furthermore,
physics-based simulations are often too complex and com-
putationally expensive.
On the other hand, data-driven models Torabi et al. (2016);
Tsui et al. (2015) use Machine Learning (ML) techniques,
relying on collected data, to develop models for anomalies
and, or faults and, or predictions. Thus, these ML algorithms
provide viable alternatives to those complex physics-based
simulation models and can accurately model systems if
substantial data under various health states is available for
training.
123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906
The third approach is hybrid Liao and Kottig (2014);
Ahmad et al. (2018); Siddhpura and Paurobally (2013),
which combines knowledge about the physical process with
information from the observed data. The aim is to improve
the model by incorporating the strengths and reducing the
limitations associated with both approaches.
These three approaches have found their applications in
real-world problems, with the use of the data-driven approach
being more prominent due to its independence from physi-
cal processes in the systems Bektas et al. (2020). However,
the requirements for more robust and interpretable models in
smart manufacturing to mimic real scenarios have prompted
a paradigm shift towards the use of knowledge-based and
hybrid approaches. This is primarily driven by the advance-
ments made in DT technologies that combine physics and
ML models to simulate these complex systems.
The primary aim of this paper is also aligned with this
direction, whereby the concept of Knowledge-embedded
Machine Learning (KML), is introduced as a bridge between
traditional physics-based simulation models and current
data-driven ML modeling approaches. The usefulness and
feasibility of the KML framework are illustrated through sim-
ulated and real-case studies. The results show more robust
and accurate models, in particular for smart manufacturing
applications.
The structure and technical contributions of this paper are
as follows: In ‘An overview of knowledge-based and data
-driven models’, following a brief overview of Knowledge-
based (Kb) and Data-Driven Machine Learning (DDML)
modeling approaches, the concept of Knowledge-embedded
Machine Learning (KML) is introduced. Using simulation
studies, the improved performance of KML compared to Kb
and DDML is shown. In ‘KML and smart manufacturing’,
through a real-case example, the suitability of KML for
smart manufacturing is presented, leading to a general
KML framework for smart manufacturing applications. In
‘Potential KML applications in smart manufacturing’, fol-
lowing a bibliometric study of “AI and knowledge”
in smart manufacturing, potential ways of incorporating
KML in Prognostics and Health Management (PHM)
and Digital Twin (DT) are presented. Finally, in
‘Conclusions and future work’, conclusions and future work
are presented.
An overview of knowledge-based
and data-driven models
In this section, prior to introducing Knowledge-embedded
Machine Learning (KML), a definition of what is meant by
the two key terms “knowledge” and “learning” is provided
here. In general, it is difficult to have a precise definition of
the term knowledge, as there have been several definitions
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906 2891

and debates among scientists in the field of epistemology
(the branch of philosophy dealing with the theory of knowl-
edge Steup and Neta (2020); Zagzebski (2017); Machamer
and Silberstein (2002)). Although the precise definition of
knowledge is beyond the scope of this paper, the defini-
tion provided by Poole and Mackworth (2017) is adopted,
whereby “knowledge” is defined as “the information about a
domain that can be used to solve problems in that domain”.
As for “learning”, the definition provided by Gross (2005) as
“learning is the process of acquiring knowledge” is adopted.
Hence, learning can be defined as the process of acquiring
skills that are used to solve problems in a particular domain.
Knowledge-based vs data-driven models
As mentioned by Read (2016), humans learn in 2 ways.
Firstly, deductive approach, whereby concepts are first intro-
duced and the instructed theories/hypotheses are then applied
to the specific cases. Secondly, inductive approach, whereby
learners discover rules/theories by observing examples and
sample data before reaching broad generalizations. In the
field of computer science, both deductive and inductive learn-
ing approaches have been applied to ML Aggarwal (2021).
For deductive-based ML models, often called Expert Systems
(ES) Stefik (1995), knowledge sources or rules are pre-coded
into a computer program, enabling the program to make deci-
sions based on pre-defined sets of rules to be applied to
new incoming data. For example, in simulating physical and
chemical properties, it has been shown Durkin (1990) that ES
performed very well when those properties can be accurately
defined by pre-defined sets of rules/theories. However, ES
does not perform well when these properties are too complex.
In contrast to deductive-based approaches, inductive-
based ML Aggarwal (2021) provided AI researchers with
novel ways to deal with modeling complex systems for appli-
cations such as Computer Vision (CV) and Natural Language
Processing (NLP). In this approach, at first, a ML model is
trained using a large dataset. Once the training process is
completed, new data is presented to the model to estimate the
model’s performance and compare it with the expected out-
comes (i.e., ground truth). Furthermore, due to the model-free
nature of these so-called data-driven models, these methods
have the ability for online learning. This means that these
models can be changed over time as they learn from new
incoming data.
The comparison between knowledge-based and data-
driven models is shown in Table 1. It can be observed that
purely knowledge-based models generally provide reason-
able interpretation and can often be generalized for adoption
across different systems. However, these models tend to suf-
fer from low accuracy, especially when modeling complex
systems.

Table 1 Comparisons between knowledge-based and data-driven models (summarized from Karpatne (2017), Yang (2016), Yang et al. (2021), Liu
et al. (2021)
Knowledge-based Model

Learning method Deductive learning Read (2016)

Data requirements Minimal or not required
Advantages Independent on data quality and quantity
Provide good interpretability for domain experts to comprehend
Provide good generalizability across different systems
Successfully applied to real applications such as fluid simulation, material discovery, and product design
Disadvantages Requires deep domain knowledge
Lack of flexibility as it tends to be domain-specific
Computationally expensive
Low accuracy, especially for complex systems
Data-Driven Model
Learning Method Inductive learning Aggarwal (2021)
Data Requirements Quantity and quality are paramount
Advantages Flexible for applications in different problems without (or minimal) domain knowledge
Accuracy can be improved with the availability of more data
Successfully applied to real applications such as smart manufacturing, aerospace, and maritime
Disadvantages Requires large amount of data that might not be available in real applications
Possible lack of interpretability as output might be scientifically inconsistent, unrealistic, or unpredictable
Lack of generalizability, especially in scenarios not represented in the training phase
Models tend to be sensitive to training data

123
2892
On the other hand, data-driven models are more flexible.
They can be used in various domains. In addition, the model’s
accuracy can be improved simply by adding more data into
the training phase. However, despite the rapid advancements
in data-driven models Pecht and Jaai (2010), they gener-
ally suffer from inherited problems: The models’ outputs
are generally unpredictable, and they are very sensitive to
the training data, whereby outliers can potentially lead to
unrealistic results.
Combining knowledge-based and data-driven
approaches
Based on the individual merits of knowledge-based
(deductive-learning) and data-driven (inductive-learning)
approaches, researchers have attempted to combine them
to extract utmost benefits from both approaches Liao and
Kottig (2014); Atamuradov et al. (2017); Lee (2014). These
combinations can be broadly undertaken in the following
approaches.
Optimizing models’ hyperparameters using data
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the first approach involves optimiz-
ing the hyperparameters in a knowledge-based model, often
represented by physics-based or experience-based models,
using data collected from the system. For example, Chinnam
and Baruah (2004) developed an experience-based model for
monitoring and estimating the Remaining Useful Life (RUL)
of a cutting tool. This was done using an Adaptive Neuro-
Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) method based on domain
expert knowledge. The authors demonstrated the feasibility
of the approach for use in online reliability estimation of
high-speed-steel drill-bits. In another example, Chen et al.
(2012), Chen et al. (2011) used an ANFIS, trained with his-
torical data to simulate a degradation process. Applied to
both machine condition predictions and RUL case studies,
the authors concluded that their approach outperformed the
classical predictors.
For modeling physical properties (e.g., in geology
Zhang (2019) or atmospheric sciences Lopatin and Zhirov
Fig. 1 Optimizing hyperparameters in a knowledge-based model using
offline data and ML model
123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906
(2017)) a complex physical object is often simulated by
a simplified physical approximated model, whose hyper-
parameters values are estimated from observed data Chan
and Elsheikh (2017). ML models have been applied in
this domain to achieve more efficient optimization of those
hyperparameters (so called “parametrization”). For instance,
Hansen (2013) showed that ML-based parametrization for
atomic energy use-case in computing quantum-chemical
properties can be achieved in a few seconds compared to
a few days using traditional methods.
Thus, it can be observed that such a way of combin-
ing knowledge-based and data-driven is useful in optimizing
parameters of the physics-based model and achieving higher
accuracy. However, this approach is still limited by the overall
structure of the physics-based model, as they cannot accu-
rately simulate complex systems Willard et al. (2020).
Fusing knowledge-based and data-driven models
The second approach is the so-called hybrid model, whereby
the outputs from both knowledge-based (extracted from
experience-based/rules-based or physics-based models) and
data-driven models are fused together, as shown in Fig. 2.
For example, Erge and van Oort (2020) used a physics-based
model together with a data-driven deep learning model. The
authors then included these two models into a hidden Markov
model, to predict the pressure in a well construction. The
results showed higher accuracy when these two models were
combined as compared to cases where each model was used
independently.
In another case study Bikmukhametov and Jäschke (2020),
at first a physics-based model was developed to estimate mul-
tiphase flowrate in a petroleum production system. Then, a
data-driven model was trained to learn the mismatch between
the output of the physics-based model and the target, as
shown in Fig. 3a. Finally, the outputs of these two models
were combined to improve the prediction accuracy, as shown
in Fig. 3b.
Due to the decoupled nature of physics-based and data-
driven models, many fusing methods have been proposed in
Fig. 2 General architecture of a hybrid model in which knowledge is
represented through experience—based or physics—based models
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3 Hybrid model architecture proposed by Bikmukhametov and
Jäschke (2020) with a training pipeline for learning mismatch between
the physics-based model and the expected target, and b deployment
pipeline for using the estimated mismatch for improving the prediction
the lietrature. For instance, Liao and Kottig (2014) provided
a comprehensive review of using hybrid models for RUL pre-
diction in engineering systems. Similarly, in the field of PHM,
Atamuradov et al. (2017) presented a detailed overview of
implementation steps in PHM systems and highlighted areas
where a hybrid approach can be adopted in different stages
of the systems.
However, despite the potential advantages of a hybrid
approach, it still suffers from three potential challenges: (i)
the selection of knowledge/information and source of data
to be considered in the hybrid model, (ii) the dependence
on proper fusing mechanism on the available knowledge and
data, and (iii) the need to manage uncertainties in the final
predictions as each model may produce different prediction
results Liao and Kottig (2014).
Knowledge-embedded machine learning (KML) model
Recently, a third approach has emerged in the research com-
munity Karpatne et al. (2017); Camps-Valls (2018); Raissi et
al. (2019), which incorporates knowledge (experience and/or
Fig. 4 Information flow in a
ML pipeline, where knowledge
can be integrated von Rueden et
al. (2021)
2893
physics information) into the ML pipeline. The aim is to
bring the results of the ML models closer to theory, thus
making them more realistic and interpretable. In this paper,
we call this approach Knowledge-embedded Machine Learn-
ing (KML). Based on our adopted definition of knowledge
as “information about a domain that can be used to solve
problems in that domain”, the main challenge in developing
a KML solution is how the domain information can be effec-
tively integrated/embedded into the ML pipeline. As shown
in Fig. 4, von Rueden et al. (2021) showed that knowledge
can generally be embedded into the following four stages of
a ML pipeline:
1. Training Data It is the most common way for knowl-
edge integration, where knowledge is used to generate
simulated/augmented data. This augmented data is then
added to the available data for training the ML model. For
example, Stoecklein et al. (2017) used simulated data on
physics-based models in training deep neural networks.
2. Hypothesis Set It involves designing the ML architecture
and its associated hyperparameters, whereby an expert
chooses a proper architecture for the model based on
his/her experience, using the nature of the problem and
details about the types of data (image, voice, time series,
...) as the criteria. A known example in this field is the
architecture of convolution neural networks Krizhevsky et
al. (2017), where knowledge is used in making the model
translation-invariant to the objects’ location in the image.
3. Learning Algorithm It includes the selection, design of
the loss function, and optimization algorithms to be used.
For instance, Jia et al. (2019) used a physics-based model
of lake temperature as a loss function in the training phase
of a neural network, aiming for the model’s prediction for
unlabeled data to be more consistent with physical sim-
ulation model of the lake. The main advantage of such
knowledge incorporation is to have more physically con-
sistent solutions even when the training data is limited.
4. Final Hypothesis In this stage, the output of the ML model
is tested against existing or known knowledge, and will be
discarded if the result for a particular input is inconsistent
with prior knowledge. For example, Fang et al. (2017)
123
2894
Fig. 5 General expectation of accuracy improvement in DDML, Kb,
and KML models over increasing data
used a graph model to adjust the probability outputs from
a deep learning model for object classification in a image.
In their method, based on objects detected with high con-
fidence levels, the knowledge graph model will assist to
reclassify remaining objects in the image.
Comparison between DDML, Kb, and KML models
A schematic representation comparing the three models,
namely, Data-Driven Machine Learning (DDML) model,
Knowledge-based (Kb) model, and Knowledge-embedded
Machine Learning (KML) model is shown in Fig. 5. It can be
observed that the accuracy of DDML is improved by adding
more training data to the model. In contrast to DDML, the
Kb model does not rely on the amount of data, and hence its
accuracy remains flat (i.e., plateau).
Similar to DDML, the accuracy of KML also improves
with additional data, but with higher accuracy for the low
amount of data. This is because the KML model also uses
(a)
Fig. 6 Training datasets used in the simulated test-case study with a 10 data, b 100 data, and c 1000 data, randomly selected from Eq. 1
123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906
prior knowledge about the system that has been embedded
into its modeling pipeline. For example, simulated data gen-
erated from the Kb model can be fed into the KML model
during the training stage to improve its accuracy. However,
this add-on knowledge also limits the accuracy of KML as the
number of available data increases. Knowledge-based mod-
els (e.g., physical equations to model the system behavior)
are only approximations of the real systems. When integrated
into KML, they cause the KML model output to remain
close to those of approximated knowledge-based models.
Although this reduces the accuracy of KML as compared
to DDML when dealing with a high amount of data, it helps
the model not to generate unrealistic outputs.
To verify the accuracy of different modeling approaches
shown in Fig. 5, a simulated test case example is studied.
Assume a system defined by Eq. 1, and the Kb model defined
by Eq. 2 as an approximation of this system. In conducting
the comparative studies, as shown in Fig. 6, three sets of
training data with 10, 100, and 1000 data points were used.
Results from the models trained using DDML, and the
two models developed using KML are shown in Fig. 7. For
the KML–Data–Augmented model, extra 100 data samples
were generated using Equation 2 and added to the three
datasets shown in Fig. 6 for training the model. For the KML–
Knowledge–Loss model, the Kb model was used as extra
loss function for the model training, as described by Eq. 3.
As expected, and shown in Fig. 7, all models’ performance
improve as the number of training data is increased. The
results from this study, as summarized in Table 2 and Fig. 8,
support what presented earlier in Fig. 5.
y = sin (2π x) + 0.2sin (10π x) + 0.1sin (100π x) (1)
y K b = sin (2π x) (2)
(b) (c)
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906
(a)
(c)
Fig. 7 Results from the proposed two KML models and Data-Driven Machine Learning (DDML) model, compared to the actual system model
(using Eq. 1)
T rainingLoss = M S E_Loss ( pr ediction, target)
+M S E_Loss ( pr ediction, y K b ) (3)
KML and abductive learning
The authors also see a synergy between the concept of
KML and abductive learning, which refers to the process
of inferring hypotheses that give the best explanation to cur-
rent observations based on background knowledge Magnani
(2009). Figure 9 adapted from Ketokivi and Choi (2014)
2895
(b)
(d)
shows a comparison among abductive reasoning vs. deduc-
tive vs. inductive.
A typical application of abductive learning is in fault
detection, whereby using knowledge about the faults, abduc-
tive reasoning can derive sets of faults that are likely to
happen Dai et al. (2019). Indeed, this can be interpreted as
the case of generating results from a ML-based model based
on an incomplete set of data, such that the results are consis-
tent with the background knowledge. This can be achieved
by embedding the knowledge as part of the constraints or
loss functions in the KML pipeline. However, this synergy
123
2896 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906

Table 2 Results of the losses (in

Training Kb DDML KML-data augmented KML-knowledge loss
MSE) for different models used
data model model model model
to simulate the system described
by Eq. 1 10 0.025 0.2956 0.0314 0.1598
100 0.025 0.0215 0.0137 0.0143
1000 0.025 0.0092 0.0116 0.0104

sensors’ information and some physical models are also

available for simulating the machines and processes.
It is also important to note it is not economically feasible to
generate large amount of data needed for training the DDML
models for such applications. This is because in many man-
ufacturing environments data collection is not trivial, as it
requires proper Design of Experiment (DoE) planning, which
is generally costly and time-consuming.
On that basis, it can be argued that the information flow
von Rueden et al. (2021) described in Fig. 4 lacked crucial
first steps where knowledge can also be embedded in the
ML pipeline. Essentially, this is in relation to data collection
where expert knowledge of the manufacturing processes is
necessary. Thus, the authors propose a more comprehensive
Fig. 8 Comparative results from the different approaches in modeling
ML pipeline for manufacturing environment, as illustrated in
the system of Eq. 1 against increasing the number of training data
Fig. 10, by adding the following three stages, where knowl-
edge can also be embedded into them.
study requires further investigations, which is not the focus
of this paper. (i) Sensorization: It is used to extract representative key
process variables from the machines. This includes i)
the type and suitability of sensors to be deployed, ii)
mounting of identified sensors at suitable positions on
KML and smart manufacturing the machines, and iii) the design and running of cus-
tomized DoE for data collection.
Studies conducted in Comparison between DDML, Kb, and
(ii) Data Preparation: This step is crucial as it ensures
KML models shows that the use of KML is more suitable
the integrity of the collected data. It verifies that the
in cases where i) there are some data available for model
captured raw data can represent the entire machining
training, and ii) some physics-based models (or expert knowl-
process. It also includes suitable techniques to han-
edge) are available to be used for training the model. Thus,
dle incomplete or missing data and prepare a ‘cleaned’
KML can be a promising candidate for smart manufacturing
dataset for feature engineering Habibullah et al. (2021).
applications, where some data is usually available through
(iii) Feature Engineering: As the collected raw data is usu-
ally not useful for model development, some features
from the raw data can be extracted to reduce the data
size while preserving the important characteristics of
the original data. Typical feature extraction techniques
include time-domain Wu et al. (2012), frequency-
domain and time-frequency domain Me (2015). Once
the key features are extracted, feature selection can then
be used to identify the most important features.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time

such a framework been proposed for smart manufacturing
Fig. 9 Graphical comparison of deductive vs. inductive vs. abductive applications. In showing the benefits of adopting the KML
in using knowledge and data for their inferences (adapted from Ketokivi framework presented in Fig. 10, its application on roller
and Choi (2014)) element bearing, a component often used in smart manufac-

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906
Fig. 10 General framework of
KML for smart manufacturing
applications
turing, is investigated. The objective is to build a ML model
to detect potential faults in roller element bearing using
an accelerometer sensor. In general, a typical rolling ele-
ment bearing can experience four common faults (or cracks),
namely, outer race, inner race, cage, and rolling element.
Each of these faults affects the performance of the bearings
differently, and evaluating the lifetimes of these bearings will
require comprehensive studies, which is not the focus of this
investigation.
Figure 11 shows the diagram of a typical roller element
bearing, with induced inner race and outer race faults where
Bd is the ball diameter, Pd is the pitch diameter, Nb is the
number of balls, S is the rotational speed and  is the contact
angle. In our analysis, the data from the Machinery Failure
Prevention Technology Challenge Data Bechhoefer (2013),
containing 23 recordings collected from a machine with dif-
ferent roller bearing conditions was used.
Most recordings were sampled at 48828Hz, (based on a
12.5MHz system clock followed by a clock divider with a
ratio of 128 or 256. Recordings sampled at 97656Hz were
downsampled to 48828Hz using MATLAB signal process-
ing toolbox functions. The dataset contained 3 recordings
with healthy bearing condition (baseline), 10 recordings with
Fig. 11 Roller bearing with
outer race and inner race faults
2897
outer race fault, and 7 recordings with inner race fault. For
each recording, only a few seconds of signal from accelerom-
eters were made available. Thus, the recordings were split
into one—second segments and time—domain features, as
defined in Table 3, were applied to them. In simulating a
real environment, where the data is always contaminated
with some noise, 15% Gaussian noise was also added to the
dataset. The detail of the experimental settings is shown in
Table 4.
Figure 12a shows the DDML pipeline for the analysis.
Using the equations in Table 3, time-domain features were
extracted from the raw data. The data was then split into train-
ing (70%) and testing (30%) and fed to an eXtreme Gradient
Boosting (XGBoost) Chen and Guestrin (2016) classifier.
The prediction accuracy against the size of the training data
was then evaluated. As shown in Fig. 13, the model accuracy
increases as we increase the number of training data.
As mentioned in Randall and Antoni (2011), when rolling
elements strike a local fault on the outer or inner race, a
shock is introduced that excites high-frequency resonances
of the whole structure between the bearing and the response
transducer. These shocks modulate a signal at the associ-
ated bearing pass frequencies, such as Ball Pass Frequency
123
2898 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906

Table 3 List of time-domain features Table 4 Settings for the roller element bearing experiment
Feature Formula ∗
Item Setting value
k
Average amplitude p1 = 1
k i=1 s(i) Number of samples 23
 1 Sampling rate 48,828 Hz
k 2
i=1 (s(i)− p1 )
2
Standard deviation p2 = k−1 Segmentation length 1s
  1 Shaft speed 1500 rpm
k 2
Root mean square amplitude p3 = 1
k i=1 s(i)
2
Load weight 0–300 lbs
  √ 2
k
Square mean rooted absolute amplitude p4 = 1
k i=1 |s(i)| Ball diameter (Bd ) 0.235 in
Peak value p5 = max(| s(i) |) Pitch diameter (Pd ) 1.245 in
k Number of balls (Nb ) 8
i=1 (s(i)− p1 )
3
Skewness coefficient p6 = (k−1)( p2 )3
k
Contact angle () 0
i=1 (s(i)− p1 )
4
Kurtosis coefficient p7 = (k−1)( p2 )4
p5
Peak factor (Crest factor) p8 = p3
Margin factor p9 = p5 be predicted.
p4
Waveform factor p10 = k
p3  
1
s(i) Nb Bd
BPFI = ∗S∗ 1+ ∗ cos 
k i=1

Impulse factor p11 = 

p5 (4)
1 k 2 Pd
k i=1 s(i)
 
Min amplitude p12 = min(s(i)) Nb Bd
BPFO = ∗S∗ 1− ∗ cos  (5)
Max amplitude p13 = max(s(i)) 2 Pd
Max-min p14 = p13 − p12
Peak-mean p15 = p5 − p1 This knowledge about roller bearings can also be used to
create a Kb model for the problem. In doing this, the Power
∗ s(i) is the i th sample of the signal, k is length of the signal Spectral Density (PSD) for B P F I and B P F O frequencies
were calculated, and knowledge-based rules from Eq. 6 were
then applied for fault detection. Figure 12b shows the Kb
pipeline based on these rules. The result of the fault prediction
for the same test data is shown in Fig. 13. As expected, the
Outer Race (BPFO), and Ball Pass Frequency Inner Race accuracy of the Kb model is not affected by increasing the
(BPFI) Bechhoefer (2018). Thus by calculating these two training data.
frequencies (see Eqs. 4 and 5), the rolling bearing fault can

Fig. 12 Different pipelines for

roller element bearing fault
detection with a DDML, b Kb,
and c KML

(a)

(b)

(c)

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906
Fig. 13 Comparison of the accuracy for the different models
⎧
⎨ IF (P S D(B P F I )  P S D(B P F O)) THEN inner race f ault
IF (P S D(B P F I )  P S D(B P F O)) THEN outer race f ault
⎩
ELSE H ealthy bearing
(6)
Finally, in developing the KML pipeline, as shown
in Fig. 12c, two additional attributes, P S D(B P F I ) and
P S D(B P F O), were added to the time–domain features,
which is categorized under the “Feature Engineering” part
of the KML’s general framework shown in Fig. 10. It can
be observed in Fig. 13 that KML was able to achieve higher
accuracy by using less training data. The encouraging results
from this real case example demonstrated the usefulness
and feasibility of the KML framework, thereby opening
the doors for its potential use in other smart manufacturing
applications.
Potential KML applications in smart
manufacturing
In this section, potential applications of KML in smart man-
ufacturing are proposed. Starting with a bibliometric study
on the current landscape in this field to obtain a better
understanding of the current trends, the use of KML in two
important areas of smart manufacturing: Prognostics and
Health Management (PHM) and Digital Twin (DT) are then
reviewed.
2899
Bibliometric study
From the previous sections, it was clearly shown that out of
the different ways of combining knowledge-based and data-
driven approaches, the usability and applicability of KML
are evident. To understand its adoption in smart manufactur-
ing, a multi-level bibliometric state-of-the-art study on AI
in smart manufacturing was carried out. Each search was
performed using Web of Science (WoS) Clarivate Analytics
(2021), with the combination (additive with AND operator)
of keywords in the topic. Records for each year were saved
as text files, with full records and cited references, and pro-
cessed by analysis scripts to create the figures in this study.
Two searches were performed. One with “Smart Manufac-
turing AND Artificial Intelligence (SMAI)” and another with
‘Smart Manufacturing AND Artificial Intelligence AND
Knowledge (SMAIK)”. The growth of SMAI literature fol-
lows a power law while the growth of SMAIK literature
follows a linear progression, as shown in Fig. 14a and b,
respectively. It is worth noticing that the data available for
SMAIK is only limited to 4 years. This trend is not surpris-
ing due to the performance improvements of AI compared
to known conventional methods, driven mainly by initiatives
such as Industry 4.0 Bassi (2017) and IIoT Whitmore et al.
(2015).
In the SMAI search, it was observed that 30 countries con-
tributed to this research field (WoS has 110 entries with the
field country of origin), with USA (36), China (13), Taiwan
123
2900
(a)
Fig. 14 Growth of the literature in a smart manufacturing with AI and b with both AI and Knowledge
(7), Germany (6), Spain (5), U.K. (5), Italy (4), South Korea
(4), France (3), Ireland (3), Canada (2), Finland (2), Greece
(2), etc. For the SMAIK search, it was found that only 9 coun-
tries contributed to this research field (WoS has 22 entries
with the field country of origin), with USA (10), China (2),
France (2), Germany (2), Spain (2), Finland (1), Japan (1),
Singapore (1) and Taiwan (1). These findings showed that
the incorporation of knowledge in smart manufacturing is
still in its infancy, and would indicate a potential for research
in these domains.
Results from the state-of-the-art bibliometric studies
showed that KML (and/or even AI) adoption in smart man-
ufacturing is still early, with its value and benefit not fully
established. Still, there have been already a few attempts in
incorporating knowledge and/or physics into ML for smart
manufacturing applications. As shown in Fig. 14b, the main
research activities can be grouped into the following three
groups: Prognostics and Health Management (PHM), Digital
Twin (DT), and others (including IIoT, networking, security,
etc.). Since PHM and DT are the two largest, a deeper dive
into these two topics were undertaken. The aim is to better
understand how researchers have incorporated knowledge
and/or physics into ML as well as proposing KML frame-
works for these two research topics.
Prognostics and health management (PHM)
One of the primary aims of PHM in the manufacturing
industries is to achieve better planning for the scheduling of
123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906
(b)
the machines’ maintenance. The challenge here is to obtain
accurate health and lifetime prediction of the machines’ com-
ponents through direct or indirect sensing and then analyze
the current and historical sensors’ data. This has become fea-
sible due to the rapid advancements made in big data analytics
as well as the availability of cost-effective sensing technolo-
gies. Atamuradov et al. (2017) and Lee (2014) provide a
comprehensive description of PHM systems, covering the
different types of tools, critical components, and algorithms
used.
One of the machine components that requires close mon-
itoring and directly affects the quality of the products being
machined is the degradation of the tool. Typically, this
involves the need to continuously detect anomalies, which
could potentially lead to faults, followed by the prognosis
of the lifetimes of the tool. In order to estimate the lifetime
of these tools using data-driven approaches, it is essential to
collect the complete degradation data during the machining
process. However, in reality, it is often timely and expensive
to generate such complete degradation data, either due to the
cost of the workpieces involved or the time required for the
tool to be completely worn out.
Literature Camci et al. (2013); Diamanti and Soutis (2010)
have proposed the use of specific accelerated DoEs to gen-
erate representative data for analysis. This implies the need
to incorporate knowledge in these experiments that aims to
“best-mimic” the degradation of the tool, aligning to the
KML’s general framework under the “sensorization” stage in
Fig. 10. For instance, in Das et al. (2019), the incorporation of
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906
Fig. 15 Proposed KLM framework for PHM applications
knowledge led to experiments on the new-tool, medium-worn
tool, and full-worn tool to be conducted on a limited number
of workpieces. These experiments were then repeated on five
different tools and the same tool was “worn out” for all of
the three experiments. Using limited degradation data from
these knowledge-embedded experiments, a ML model was
trained. The results showed the ability of the model to esti-
mate the current wear value of a tool and to predict the time
to full-worn.
In predicting a machine’s RUL, knowledge can also be
incorporated as a Health-Index (HI), with the assumption
that the HI is continuously and gradually decreasing over
time. For instance, Wang et al. (2008) used a linear regression
model for HI calculation, and then a similarity-based prog-
nostics approach was used to estimate the RUL. As another
example, Riad et al. (2010) used a similar linear regression
model smoothed with a third-order polynomial curve fitting
in calculating the HI. The HI was fed as an input to a neu-
ral network for RUL prediction. Liu et al. (2018) developed
a composite HI through the weighted summation of mul-
tiple degradation-based sensor data. In this approach, the
weights were determined by optimizing a quadratic program-
ming problem. A probability model with the composite HI
for RUL prediction Xi et al. (2013) was then employed. Bech-
hoefer et al. (2011) proposed the construction of a HI using
the Cholesky decomposition-based whitening transform for
a condition monitoring application.
In another example where knowledge was incorporated,
Yang (2016) used the HI to represent the health status of an
induction motor, by assuming that the HI degrades linearly
from 100% to 0%. In their work, a model for HI estimation
2901
was first built, with the input features extracted from multiple
raw sensory signals, and subsequently, the estimated HI was
mapped to the RULs. Multiple motors’ data were utilized in
the learning process. Each motor’s data is used for training
a single model and then predicting the RUL. The predicted
RULs from the multiple single models were then combined in
an ensemble process to produce the final RUL prediction. The
authors showed that the smoothed HI has lower variations and
higher closeness to the true HI of the motor over its lifetime.
This generic prognostics framework for RUL prediction has
since been extended to different types of HI degradations
Yang et al. (2021).
Based on the above study, the proposed KML general
framework in Fig. 10 can also be revised to include a HI
module for PHM applications, as illustrated in Fig. 15. This
framework also includes the prediction pipeline, which is
the user-facing portion of the KML framework. This pipeline
captures the new data, performs feature engineering, and uses
the developed KML model in the training pipeline to predict
the current state of the equipment as well as the RUL. Fur-
thermore, while the results are being shown to the users,
performance evaluation of the system can be concurrently
done regularly if the system parameters are non-stationary.
Digital twin
Digital Twin (DT) is defined as a physical and/or virtual
machine or computer-based model that simulates, emulates,
mirrors, or twins the life of a physical entity, which can be a
process, an object, a human, or a human-related feature Kir-
itsis (2011); Grieves (2015). In essence, each DT is linked
123
2902 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906

While authors in Alam and El Saddik (2017), Negri et

al. (2017), Tao and Qi (2019), Lu et al. (2020), Gabor et
al. (2016), Zheng (2018), Rios et al. (2016) have proposed
different DT frameworks for specific applications, a generic
DT framework, as shown in Fig. 16), can be defined with the
specific spaces defined as follows:

1. Physical Space: A container that brings manufacturing

resources together. Here, the manufacturing resources
Fig. 16 Generic framework for a Digital Twin include Work-In-Process (WIP), and smart manufactur-
ing devices (such as wired or wireless sensors, and smart
gateways), where the status of WIP and smart manufac-
to its physical twin through a unique key that first identifies
turing devices are perceived by sensors or other input
the physical twin and then establishes a bijective relation-
mechanisms. Thus, this space captures individual aspects
ship (i.e., one-to-one correspondence) between the DT and
and parameters for which DT is being implemented, often
the physical asset.
referred to as the physical world Barricelli et al. (2019)
It has been argued that a DT is more than a simple
or physical things Alam and El Saddik (2017). Theoret-
model or simulation Grieves (2015); Kritzinger et al. (2018);
ically, DT aims to include a comprehensive structuring
Boschert and Rosen (2016). Rather, it is an intelligent, liv-
of heterogeneous kinds of data available on the manu-
ing, and evolving model, being the virtual counterpart of a
facturing shop floor. This data will then be connected to
physical entity or process. Typically, it follows the lifecy-
their respective semantics in order to facilitate retrieval,
cle of its physical twin asset, which monitors, controls, and
interpretation, and exploitation.
optimizes its processes and functions. It continuously pre-
2. Social Space: This space integrates a variety of service
dicts future statuses such as defects, damages, and failures
systems, such as Customer Relation Management (CRM)
and allows for simulating and testing novel configurations.
and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), which bridges
Specifically, the twinning process is made possible due to the
the gap between the supply of DT and the demand of cus-
continuous interactions, communications, and synchroniza-
tomers in service-oriented manufacturing. In essence, this
tions (closed–loop optimization) between the DT, its physical
space will cognize and analyze customer demands based
twin, and the external environment Barricelli et al. (2019).
on social data from customs and historical knowledge in
Authors in Alam and El Saddik (2017), Negri et al. (2017),
dynamic knowledge bases. It will then provide manufac-
Tao and Qi (2019) defined DT as an enabling technology
turing services by producing production orders through
of CPS. It contains high-fidelity digital models of physical
service systems, guiding the production process of the
equipment based on physical laws, which acquires real-time
DT.
sensing data during the operation of the equipment and stores
3. Digital Space: A container made up of virtual DT models
the historical running data for further utilization.
such as virtual WIP, virtual manufacturing devices, and
Uhlemann et al. (2017) pointed out that DT as a core
virtual machining processes. This is done using real-time
component of CPS makes it able to sense and accurately
manufacturing data published by data space and historical
reflect the behavior and real-time state of production systems
knowledge in knowledge space, whereby it will simulate,
so that the processes can be analyzed, simulated, predicted,
understand, predict and finally optimize the performance
and optimized Lu et al. (2020). These technologies enable a
of the DT. This space consists of the data space and AI
large volume of data from various manufacturing activities
space for data and information management.
to be collected and managed. In its implementation, DT con-
sists of various spaces that need to communicate with each (a) Data space: It is the core of the DT, often referred
other seamlessly, especially the perpetual communications to as the world model Barricelli et al. (2019), cyber
between the physical asset (or physical space) and the dig- model Gabor et al. (2016), and digital mock-up Zheng
ital asset (or digital space). This continuous data exchange (2018). It is a container for real-time manufactur-
can be direct or through cloud-based connections Zhang et ing data related to the status of WIP, manufacturing
al. (2019). Its importance is in the knowledge space where devices, and the manufacturing environment. It is
data needs to be stored, processed, and analyzed for decision responsible for pre-processing and publishing real–
making. Furthermore, in systems that need to be monitored time data from the physical space and subscribing
regularly, the social space is a necessity as it integrates the control orders from the digital space or social space
variety of service systems connected to the physical world. through smart gateways.

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906
Fig. 17 An example of DT
architecture that includes
simulation, visualization, and
support for decision-making
(b) AI space: It acts as the brain of DT by integrat-
ing multiple AI algorithms for self-decision making
to handle various manufacturing problems in physi-
cal, digital, and social spaces. One of the requests is
to have AI algorithms that are dynamic and adapt-
able so it can learn and be improved by itself and
adapt to new conditions and environments. This is
where KML can play an important role, as domain
knowledge can be embedded into the ML models for
those decision-making tasks. Such a KML model can
reduce unstable behaviors of commonly used DDML
models. A close example of this concept is the DT
presented in Qiao et al. (2019) that combined knowl-
edge management and data analytics systems. An
ontology-based knowledge model was used as a com-
mon repository, which is based on different types
of insights such as industrial data and knowledge,
business rules provided by experts, and knowledge
learned from data analytics. The employed knowl-
edge management method enabled the integration of
inferred knowledge. Furthermore, the data analytics
method relied on unsupervised machine learning for
the classification of machining contexts and detection
of detrimental incidents. As a case study, the feasibil-
ity of the DT framework for tool failure detection
was presented, where DT enhanced production per-
formance by supporting decision-making.
Indeed, knowledge is often integrated and embedded in the
development of DT. For example, researchers in Aivaliotis
et al. (2019) and Aivaliotis et al. (2017) presented a physics
modeling approach used for predictive maintenance appli-
cations and RUL prediction. Aivaliotis et al. (2019) also
developed a Kb model in predictive maintenance applica-
tions. Along the same lines, Aivaliotis et al. (2017) then
presented an approach for predicting the condition and status
of machines using simulations without ceasing the operation
of these machines. Vathoopan et al. (2018) also presented
2903
a DT for corrective maintenance developed using distance
sensor values and corresponding error classification in the
simulation. These developed models act as a sub-module or
entire module in the DT block of Fig. 16.
Thus, one way of using KML in DT applications is through
the development of a model that can simulate the manufac-
turing machines. Here, knowledge from essential aspects of
the physical machines should be included in the KML mod-
eling. As suggested by Aivaliotis et al. (2019), these aspects
include dynamic behavior of the machine, modeling of vir-
tual sensors needed for simulation, and settings of necessary
hyperparameters related to physics equations to be used in
KML model.
Such a simulation model can be considered as a subset
of AI space or as a separate module in a DT architecture.
For example, Ladj (2021) used a similar simulation model
that relied on core components of AI space. It enables the
management and analysis of real-time data coming from the
actual physical counterpart Schuh et al. (2019), to commu-
nicate with the simulation model as shown in Fig. 17. As
another example, using a similar architecture, Zhang et al.
(2019) proposed and implemented a DT for an industrial
robot as a case study that is able to perceive and simulate the
manufacturing process using real-time data published from
the data space while understanding, predicting and optimiz-
ing the manufacturing performance using AI space.
Conclusions and future work
This paper introduced Knowledge-embedded Machine
Learning (KML), being one of the three possible methods
of combining knowledge-base and data driven models into
the ML pipeline. Using data from simulations and real test
cases, the comparative performance improvements in KML
models against Kb and DDML models were evident. The
choice of modeling approach based on the data availability
is summarized in Table 5.
123
2904
Table 5 Modeling approach recommendation from data availability perspective
Information available
None or little data is available
Large amount of data is available
Knowledge from experience-based rules and/or physics equations about the
system coupled with representative data is available
Applied to smart manufacturing case studies, our findings
showed the suitability of adopting KML frameworks when-
ever physical (or experience-based) models together with
DoE data are available. The outcome of these findings also
led to a general KML framework.
Bibliometric studies, conducted on smart manufacturing
articles, which contained knowledge and AI, showed that the
majority of them are related to PHM or DT. Hence, how
these applications can potentially benefit from KML were
then discussed. Although it can be argued that some of the
referred publications on DT are closer to hybrid rather than
KML models, the expectation is that KML will add value
when applied in this field. However, this realization requires
further investigation and is left as future work.
The main limitation of the study is the need for representa-
tive data about the system that might not always be available,
or even if it is available, the quantity of the representative
data might be insufficient. One potential solution using com-
puter simulation models to generate representative simulated
datasets that can best represent the system that is being con-
sidered. These simulated datasets can then be used together
with knowledge from experience-based rules and/or physics
equations about the system, as demonstrated by KML–Data–
Augmented model in Comparison between DDML, Kb, and
KML models. The authors aim to conduct this study in the
near future.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Mr. Eric Bech-
hoefer (Green Power Monitoring Systems (GPMS) International, Inc.,
USA) for the detailed information on the bearing dataset, data acquisi-
tion system, and the related sampling rate.
References
Aggarwal, C. C. (2021). Machine learning: The inductive view. Artifi-
cial Intelligence, 1, 167–210.
Ahmad, W., Khan, S. A., & Kim, J.-M. (2018). A hybrid prognostics
technique for rolling element bearings using adaptive predictive
models. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 65(2), 1577–
1584.
Aivaliotis, P., Georgoulias, K., & Chryssolouris, G. (2017). A RUL cal-
culation approach based on physical–based simulation models for
predictive maintenance. Proceedings of the 23rd international con-
ference on engineering, technology and innovation (ICE/ITMC),
Madeira, Portugal, June 27–29, pp. 1284–1287.
Aivaliotis, P., Georgoulias, K., Arkouli, Z., & Makris, S. (2019).
Methodology for enabling digital twin using advanced physics-
123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906
Recommended modeling approach
Knowledge-based (Kb) model
Data-Driven Machine Learning (DDML) model
Knowledge-embedded Machine Learning (KML) model
based modelling in predictive maintenance. Procedia of the 52nd
CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems, 81, 417–422.
Alam, K. M., & El Saddik, A. (2017). C2PS: A digital twin architecture
reference model for the cloud-based cyber-physical systems. IEEE
Access, 5, 2050–2062.
Atamuradov, V., Medjaher, K., Dersin, P., Lamoureux, B., & Zerhouni,
N. (2017). Prognostics and health management for maintenance
practitioners - review, implementation and tools evaluation. Inter-
national Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, 8(3),
1–31.
Barricelli, B. R., Casiraghi, E., & Fogli, D. (2019). A survey on digital
twin: Definitions, characteristics, applications, and design impli-
cations. IEEE Access, 7, 167653–167671.
Bassi, L. (2017). Industry 4.0: Hope, hype or revolution? Proceed-
ings of the 2017 IEEE 3rd international forum on research and
technologies for society and industry (RTSI’2017), Modena, Italy,
September 11–13.
Bechhoefer, E. (2013). Condition based maintenance fault database for
testing of diagnostic and prognostics algorithms. https://mfpt.org/
fault-data-sets/.
Bechhoefer, E. (2018). A quick introduction to bearing envelope
analysis. (Society for Machinery Failure Prevention Technology).
https://mfpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/MFPT-Bearing-
Envelope-Analysis.pdf.
Bechhoefer, E., He, D., & Dempsey, P. (September, 2011). Gear health
threshold setting based on a probability of false alarm. Proceedings
of the annual conference of the Prognostics and Health Manage-
ment Society, Montreal, Canada, pp. 275–281.
Bektas, O., Marshall, J., & Jones, J. A. (2020). Comparison of compu-
tational prognostic methods for complex systems under dynamic
regimes: A review of perspectives. Archives of Computational
Methods in Engineering, 27, 999–1011.
Bikmukhametov, T., & Jäschke, J. (2020). Combining machine learn-
ing and process engineering physics towards enhanced accuracy
and explainability of data-driven models. Computers & Chemical
Engineering, 138, 106834.
Boschert, S. & Rosen, R. (2016). Digital Twin – The Simulation Aspect.
Mechatronic Futures, pp. 59–74.
Camci, F., Medjaher, K., Zerhouni, N., & Nectoux, P. (2013). Feature
evaluation for effective bearing prognostics. Quality and Reliabil-
ity Engineering International, 29(4), 477–486.
Camps-Valls, G., et al. (2018). Physics-aware Gaussian processes in
remote sensing. Applied Soft Computing, 68, 69–82.
Chan, S. & Elsheikh, A. (2017). Parametrization and generation
of geological models with generative adversarial networks.
arXiv:1708.01810
Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. (August 2016). XGBoost: A scalable tree boost-
ing system. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international
conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD’16),
San Francisco, USA, pp. 785–794.
Chen, C., Vachtsevanos, G., & Orchard, M. E. (2012). Machine remain-
ing useful life prediction: An integrated adaptive neuro-fuzzy and
high-order particle filtering approach. Mechanical Systems and
Signal Processing, 28, 597–607.
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906
Chen, C., Zhang, B., Vachtsevanos, G., & Orchard, M. E. (2011).
Machine condition prediction based on adaptive neuro-fuzzy and
high-order particle filtering. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Elec-
tronics, 58(9), 4353–4364.
Chinnam, R. B., & Baruah, P. (2004). A neuro-fuzzy approach for esti-
mating mean residual life in condition-based maintenance systems.
International Journal of Materials and Product Technology, 20(1),
166–179.
Clarivate Analytics. Web of Science (2021). http://apps.
webofknowledge.com.
Daigle, M. J., & Goebel, K. (2013). Model-based prognostics with
concurrent damage progression processes. IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 43(3), 535–546.
Dai, W.-Z., Xu, Q., Yu, Y., & Zhou, Z.-H. (2019). Bridging machine
learning and logical reasoning by abductive learning. Advances in
Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019.
Das, A. K., Feng, Y., Habibullah, M. S., Yu, Z. & Farbiz, F. (October
2019). Tool Wear Health Monitoring with Limited Degradation
Data. Proceedings of 2019 IEEE region 10 conference (TENCON–
2019), Kochi, India, pp. 17–20.
Diamanti, K., & Soutis, C. (2010). Structural health monitoring tech-
niques for aircraft composite structures. Progress in Aerospace
Sciences, 46(8), 342–352.
Ding, H., et al. (2020). State of AI-based monitoring in smart manufac-
turing and introduction to focused section. IEEE/ASME Transac-
tions on Mechatronics, 25(5), 2143–2154.
Downey, A., Lui, Y.-H., Hu, C., Laflamme, S., & Hu, S. (2019). Physics-
based prognostics of lithium-ion battery using non-linear least
squares with dynamic bounds. Reliability Engineering and Sys-
tem Safety, Elsevier, 182(C), 1–12.
Durkin, J. (1990). Research review: Application of expert systems in
the sciences. The Ohio Journal of Science, 90(5), 171–179.
Erge, O. & van Oort, E. (January 2020). Combining Physics–Based
and Data–Driven Modeling for Pressure Prediction in Well Con-
struction. Proceedings of the 19th Python in Science Conference
(SCIPY–2020), pp. 125–131.
Fang, Y., Kuan, K., Lin, J., Tanand, C., & Chandrasekhar, V. (2017).
Object detection meets knowledge graphs. Proceedings of the 26th
international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-17),
Melbourne, Australia, August 19–25, pp. 1661–1667.
Gabor, T., Belzner, L., Kiermeier, M., Beck, M. T., & Neitz, A. (2016).
A Simulation–Based Architecture for Smart Cyber–Physical Sys-
tems. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE international conference on
autonomic computing (ICAC2016), Wuerzburg, Germany, July 17–
22 .
Grieves, M. (2015). Digital twin: Manufacturing excellence through
virtual factory replication. Digital Twin White Paper.
Gross, R. (2005). Psychology: The science of mind & behaviour (5th
ed.). London: Hodder Education Publishers.
Habibullah, M. S., et al. (2021). A perspective into analysing tool wear
condition in hard-turning process - The key lessons learnt. In
C. Toro, W. Wang, & H. Akhtar (Eds.), Implementing Industry
4.0. Intelligent Systems Reference Library (Vol. 202, pp. 79–111).
Cham: Springer.
Hansen, K., et al. (2013). Assessment and validation of machine
learning methods for predicting molecular atomization energies.
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 9(8), 3404–3419.
Hosseinkhani, K., & Ng, E. (2015). A combined empirical and numeri-
cal approach for tool wear prediction in machining. Procedia CIRP,
31, 304–309.
Jia, X., et al. (2019). Physics guided RNNs for modeling dynamical
systems: A case study in simulating lake temperature profiles.
Proceedings of the 2019 SIAM International Conference on Data
2905
Mining (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics), May
2019, pp. 558–566.
Karpatne, A., Watkins, W., Read, J., & Kumar, V. (2017). Physics-
guided Neural Networks (PGNN): An application in lake temper-
ature modeling. arXiv:1710.11431
Karpatne, A., et al. (2017). Theory-guided data science: A new
paradigm for scientific discovery from data. IEEE Transactions
on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 29(10), 2318–2331.
Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a
scientific method. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 232–
240.
Kiritsis, D. (2011). Closed-loop PLM for intelligent products in the era
of the Internet of things. Computer Aided Design, 43(5), 479–501.
Kritzinger, W., Karner, M., Traar, G., Henjes, J., & Sihn, W. (2018).
Digital Twin in manufacturing: A categorical literature review and
classification. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 51(11), 1016–1022.
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017). ImageNet classifi-
cation with deep convolutional neural networks. Communications
of the ACM, 60(6), 84–90.
Kusiak, A. (2017). Smart manufacturing must embrace big data. Nature,
544, 23–25.
Kusiak, A. (2018). Smart manufacturing. International Journal of Pro-
duction Research, 56(1–2), 508–517.
Ladj, A., et al. (2021). A knowledge-based Digital Shadow for machin-
ing industry in a Digital Twin perspective. Journal of Manufactur-
ing Systems, 58(Part B), 168–179.
Lee, J., et al. (2014). Prognostics and health management design
for rotary machinery systems-Reviews, methodology and appli-
cations. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 42(1–2),
314–334.
Lee, J., Davari, H., Singh, J., & Pandhare, V. (2018). Industrial arti-
ficial intelligence for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems.
Manufacturing Letters, 18, 20–23.
Liao, L., & Kottig, F. (2014). Review of hybrid prognostics approaches
for remaining useful life prediction of engineered systems, and
an application to battery life prediction. IEEE Transactions on
Reliability, 63(1), 191–207.
Liu, C., Wang, K., Wang, Y., & Yuan, X. (2021). Learning deep multi-
manifold structure feature representation for quality prediction
with an industrial application. IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2021.3130411.
Liu, T., Zhu, K., & Zeng, L. (2018). Diagnosis and prognosis of
degradation process via hidden Semi-Markov Model. IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronic, 23(3), 1456–1466.
Lopatin, D. V., & Zhirov, A. I. (2017). Geomorphology in the system of
Earth sciences. Geography and Natural Resources, 38, 313–318.
Lu, Y., Liu, C., Wang, K.I.-K., Huang, H., & Xu, X. (2020). Dig-
ital Twin-driven smart manufacturing: Connotation, reference
model, applications and research issues. Robotics and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing, 1, 101837.
Machamer, P., & Silberstein, M. (2002). The Blackwell guide to the
philosophy of science (Vol. 19). Oxford: Blackwell.
Magnani, L. (2009). Abductive cognition: The epistemological and eco-
cognitive dimensions of hypothetical reasoning (1st ed.). Berlin:
Springer.
Me, M. (2015). A review on applications of the wavelet transform tech-
nique in spectral analysis. Journal of Applied & Computational
Mathematics, 4(4), 1–6.
Negri, E., Fumagalli, L., & Macchi, M. (2017). A review of the roles of
digital twin in CPS-based production systems. Proceedings of the
27th international conference on flexible automation and intelli-
gent manufacturing (FAIM–2017), Modena, Italy, June 27–30, pp.
939–948.
123
2906
Pecht, M., & Jaai, R. (2010). A prognostics and health management
roadmap for information and electronics-rich systems. Microelec-
tronics Reliability, 50(3), 317–323.
Poole, D. L., & Mackworth, A. (2017). Artificial intelligence: Founda-
tions of computational agents (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Qiao, Q., Wang, J., Ye, L., & Gao, R. X. (2019). Digital Twin for machin-
ing tool condition prediction. Procedia CIRP, 81, 1388–1393.
Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2019). Physics-
informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving
forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differen-
tial equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 378, 686–707.
Randall, R. B., & Antoni, J. (2011). Rolling element bearing diagnostics
- A tutorial. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 25(2),
485–520.
Read, C. (2016). Logic deductive and inductive (2nd ed.). Scotts Valley:
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Riad, A. M., Elminir, H. K., & Elattar, H. M. (2010). Evaluation of neu-
ral networks in the subject of prognostics as compared to linear
regression model. International Journal of Engineering & Tech-
nology, 10(6), 52–56.
Rios, J., Morate, F. M., Oliva, M., & Hernandez, J. C. (2016). Frame-
work to support the aircraft digital counterpart concept with an
industrial design view. International Journal of Agile Systems and
Management, 9(3), 212–231.
Schuh, G., Kelzenberg, C., Wiese, J., & Ochel, T. (2019). Data struc-
ture of the digital shadow for systematic knowledge management
systems in single and small batch production. Procedia CIRP, 84,
1094–1100.
Shrouf, F., Ordieres, J., & Miragliotta, G. (2014). Smart Factories
in Industry 4.0: A Review of the Concept and of Energy Man-
agement Approached in Production Based on the Internet of
Things Paradigm. Proceedings of the IEEE International Con-
ference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management
(IEEM’2014), Selangor, Malaysia, December 9–12 697–701 .
Siddhpura, A., & Paurobally, R. (2013). A review of flank wear predic-
tion methods for tool condition monitoring in a turning process.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 65,
371–393.
Stefik, M. (1995). Introduction to knowledge systems (1st ed.). San
Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
Steup, M. & Neta, R. (2020). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi-
losophy: Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Online), Stanford, CA, USA, 2020). https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/epistemology.
Stoecklein, D., Lore, K. G., Davies, M., Sarkar, S., & Ganapathysub-
ramanian, B. (2017). Deep learning for flow sculpting: Insights
into efficient learning using scientific simulation data. Scientific
Reports, 7, 1.
Tao, F., & Qi, Q. (2019). Make more digital twins. Nature, 573, 490–
491.
Torabi, A. J., Er, M. J., Li, X., Lim, B. S., & Peen, G. O. (2016). Appli-
cation of clustering methods for online tool condition monitoring
and fault diagnosis in high-speed milling processes. IEEE Systems
Journal, 10(2), 721–732.
Tsui, K. L., Chen, N., Zhou, Q., Hai, Y., & Wang, W. (2015). Prognos-
tics and health management: A review on data driven approaches.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1(17), 1–17.
Uhlemann, T.H.-J., Lehmann, C., & Steinhilper, R. (2017). The Dig-
ital Twin: Realizing the Cyber-Physical Production System for
123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2023) 34:2889–2906
Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP (24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle
Engineering), 61, 335–340.
Vathoopan, M., Johny, M., Zoitl, A., & Knoll, A. (2018). Modular fault
ascription and corrective maintenance using a digital twin. IFAC-
PapersOnLine, 51(11), 1041–1046.
von Rueden, L., et al. (2021). Informed machine learning— A taxonomy
and survey of integrating prior knowledge into learning systems.
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.
Wang, T., Yu, J., Siegel, D., & Lee, J. (October, 2008). A similarity-
based prognostics approach for remaining useful life estima-
tion of engineered systems. In Proceedings of the international
conference on prognostics health management (PHM–2008)
pp. 1–6.
Whitmore, A., Agarwal, A., & Xu, L. D. (2015). The internet of things
- A survey of topics and trends. Information Systems Frontiers, 17,
261–274.
Willard, J., Jia, X., Steinbach, M., Kumar, V., & Xu, S. (2020). Inte-
grating physics-based modeling with machine learning: A survey.
arXiv:2003.04919v4
Wu, Q., Yang, X., & Zhou, Q. (2012). Pattern recognition and its appli-
cation in fault diagnosis of electromechanical system. Journal of
Information and Computational Science, 9(8), 2221–2228.
Xi, Z., Jing, R., Wang, P., & Hu, C. (2013). A Copula-based sampling
method for data–driven prognostics and health management. Pro-
ceedings of the 2013 IEEE conference on prognostics and health
management (PHM–2013), Gaithersburg, USA, June 24–27, pp.
2–82.
Yan, J., Meng, Y., Lu, L., & Guo, C. (2017). Big–Data–Driven Based
Intelligent Prognostics Scheme in Industry 4.0 Environment. Pro-
ceedings of the 2017 Prognostics and System Health Management
Conference (PHM–2017), Harbin, China, July 9–12 1–5 .
Yang, F., et al. (2016). Health index-based prognostics for remaining
useful life predictions in electrical machines. IEEE Transactions
on Industrial Electronics, 63(4), 2633–2644.
Yang, F., Habibullah, M. S., & Shen, Y. (2021). Remaining useful
life prediction of induction motors using nonlinear degradation
of health index. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 148,
1–17.
Zagzebski, L. (2017). What is Knowledge? The Blackwell Guide to
Epistemology (Book Editors: J. Greco, E. Sosa)(Chapter 3) (pp.
92–116). (ISBN: 9780631202912) .
Zhang, C. et al. (2018). A multi-state diagnosis and prognosis
framework with feature learning for tool condition monitoring.
arXiv:1805.00367 (pp. 1–12).
Zhang, G., et al. (2019). Effects of uniaxial and triaxial compression
tests on the frozen sandstone combining with CT scanning. Inter-
national Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 19(5),
261–274.
Zhang, C., Zhou, G., He, J., Li, Z., & Cheng, W. (2019). A data- and
knowledge-driven framework for digital twin manufacturing cell.
Procedia CIRP, 83, 345–350.
Zheng, P., et al. (2018). Smart manufacturing systems for Industry 4.0:
Conceptual framework, scenarios, and future perspectives. Fron-
tiers of Mechanical Engineering, 13, 137–150.
Zhou, J. (2013). Digitalization and intelligentization of manufacturing
industry. Advances in Manufacturing, 1, 1–7.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing is a copyright of Springer, 2023. All Rights Reserved.