International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

A deep learning approach for integrated

production planning and predictive maintenance

Hassan Dehghan Shoorkand, Mustapha Nourelfath & Adnène Hajji

To cite this article: Hassan Dehghan Shoorkand, Mustapha Nourelfath & Adnène Hajji
(2023) A deep learning approach for integrated production planning and predictive
maintenance, International Journal of Production Research, 61:23, 7972-7991, DOI:
10.1080/00207543.2022.2162618

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2162618

Published online: 24 Jan 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 664

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
2023, VOL. 61, NO. 23, 7972–7991
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2162618

A deep learning approach for integrated production planning and predictive

maintenance
Hassan Dehghan Shoorkanda,c , Mustapha Nourelfatha,c and Adnène Hajjib,c
a Department of Mechanical Engineering, Laval University, Quebec, Canada; b Department of Operations and Decision Systems, Laval University,
Quebec, Canada; c Interuniversity Research Center on Enterprise Networks, Logistics and Transportation (CIRRELT), Quebec, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper considers a multi-period multi-product capacitated lot-sizing problem. It develops an Received 12 August 2021
integrated predictive maintenance and production planning framework using deep learning and Accepted 2 November 2022
mathematical programming. The objective is to minimise the sum of maintenance, setup, holding, KEYWORDS
backorder, and production costs, while satisfying the demand for all products over the horizon under Deep learning; production
consideration. Based on a rolling horizon approach, the model dynamically integrates data-driven planning; rolling horizon;
predictive maintenance and production planning. The used maintenance policy includes replace- predictive maintenance;
ments and minimal repairs that are considered as preventive and corrective maintenance, respec- data-driven approach
tively. To select preventive maintenance actions, a long short-term memory model is employed to
accurately predict the health condition of the machine. Each rolling horizon consists of ordinary and
forecast stages, and by collecting new sensor data, the maintenance and production decisions are
simultaneously updated. The resulting integrated framework is validated using a benchmarking data
set. The results are compared for different approaches to highlight the advantages of the proposed
framework.

Acronyms w0 Pre-determined time window

Wt Upper bound of Qi,t
LSTM Long Short-Term Memory
PF,tr Failure probability in period t r
PM Preventive Maintenance
PF,tr +k Failure probability in period t r + k
PdM Predictive Maintenance
Atr Available capacity after maintenance for period
CM Corrective Maintenance
tr
RUL Remaining Useful Life
Atr +k Available capacity after maintenance for period
RHP Rolling Horizon Planning
tr + k
TPM Total Productive Maintenance
Gtr Average production rate of the machine during
period t r
Parameters Gtr +k Average production rate of the machine during
i Number of products, {i = 1, 2, . . . , P} period t r + k
t Number of periods, {t = 1, 2, . . . , T} CR Cost of PM (replacing)
T Total planning horizon TR Time of PM (replacing)
L Length of each period CCM Cost of CM (minimal repair)
r Index of rolling horizons TCM Time of CM (minimal repair)
k Index of periods in forecast stage in rolling hori- πi Cost of production for product i
zon r hi Cost of inventory holding for product i
tr Index of the ordinary stage in rolling horizon r bi Cost of backorder for product i
tr + k Index of the forecast stage in rolling horizon r si Cost of setup for product i
u Number of remaining periods xl Input of LSTM at time l
di,t Demand of product i in period t hl Output of LSTM at time l
g Nominal production rate of the machine Cl Cell state of LSTM at time l
(items/month) fl Forget gate of LSTM at time l

CONTACT Hassan Dehghan Shoorkand hassan.dehghan-shoorkand.1@ulaval.ca Departement of Mechanical Engineering, Pavillon Adrien-Pouliot,
local 1314A, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada (G1V 0A6)

© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group


ol Output gate of LSTM at time l
il Input gate of LSTM at time l
N Number of nods in each LSTM unit
Decision variables
Qi,tr Quantity of product i which should be pro-
duced during ordinary stage t r
Qi,tr +k Quantity of produced product i which should
be produced during forecast stages t r + k
Bi,tr Quantity of backorder during ordinary stage
tr
Bi,tr +k Quantity of backorder during forecast stages
tr + k
Ii,tr Quantity of inventory holding during ordi-
nary stage t r
Ii,tr +k Quantity of inventory holding for remaining
periods in each rolling horizon for product i
Seti,tr Binary variable equals 1 if machine is setup
to produce product i in ordinary stage t r , and
otherwise 0
Seti,tr +k Binary variable equals 1 if machine is setup to
produce product i in stage t r + k, and other-
wise 0
mR,tr Binary variable equals 1 if replacing is per-
formed at the beginning of the period t r , and
otherwise 0
mR,tr +k Binary variable equals 1 if replacing is per-
formed at the beginning of the period t r + k,
and otherwise 0
nR Binary variable that is 1 if replacing is per-
formed during the current period, and other-
wise 0
nCM Binary variable that is 1 if CM is performed
during the current period, and otherwise 0
1. Introduction
Even though maintenance and production planning are
often performed separately, there is a significant inter-
dependency between these two manufacturing activities.
Preventive maintenance (PM) actions are generally car-
ried out at predetermined intervals to reduce the system
failure probability. Production planning addresses the
issue of determining the production lot-sizes of various
items, while maintenance is carried out to restore the
production system so as to reach a certain level of reli-
ability. A more reliable system would only be guaranteed
if the equipment is kept in a proper condition. Reach-
ing this level of reliability requires applying maintenance
actions on the system. A temporary capacity decline can
occur as a result, and production could be disrupted
(Bajestani 2014). In this case, integrated maintenance and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 7973
production planning can be a cost-effective way to ensure
more efficiency as claimed by many research studies in
recent years. In the last decades, many researches have
been done to take advantage of integrated models for
production problem and PM for manufacturing systems.
These studies generally integrated PM and production
planning to evaluate the impact on the total cost. More
recently, some studies have extended these integrated
models to deal with the capacitated lot-sizing problem
(Beheshti Fakher, Nourelfath, and Gendreau 2017).
On the other hand, due to the recent develop-
ment of sensor technologies, increasing research efforts
have been made on predictive maintenance (PdM).
PdM approaches are recognised as an advanced type of
planned maintenance that is preventing machine fail-
ure, by analysing the real-time condition and sensory
data to identify patterns and predict issues before they
occur. Generally, PdM models are categorised into two
groups: model-based and data-driven approaches. To
estimate any damage caused by a certain failure mecha-
nism, a model-based approach requires a combination of
experiment, observation, geometry, and data condition
monitoring (Okoh, Roy, and Mehnen 2017). As the per-
formance of these approaches relies heavily on the prior
statistical knowledge of the system’s lifetime, formulating
the real deterioration mechanism of a complex system is
not easy. On the other hand, a simplified model of the real
working conditions of a system, such as considering sim-
ilar components with the same degradation behaviour,
could yield less efficient maintenance decisions (Nguyen
and Medjaher 2019). Therefore, employing the statistical
method to estimate the failure probability might cause
the real condition of the system to be ignored. Unlike
model-based approaches, data-driven prognostic tech-
niques use sensory data to represent the behaviour of
the system’s degradation (Tobon-Mejia et al. 2012). In
real manufacturing environments, the impact of faraway
unknown events is normally low. As a result of having
access to sensory data after a specific working period,
data-driven approaches can be modified with new data.
The performance of these models can be determined by
feature extracting and data processing methods. More
recently, deep learning, as the latest research area of arti-
ficial neural networks, has been used in fault detection.
The conducted literature review shows that the prob-
lem of integrating PdM and multi-period multi-product
capacitated lot-sizing planning is still open. So, there is a
need to propose an improved methodology to help deci-
sion makers with integrated production and PdM plan-
ning based on the recent technological developments.
From this point of view, the present paper develops a
new method to integrate PdM and medium-term tacti-
cal production planning in a multi-product production
7974 H. DEHGHAN SHOORKAND ET AL.
system, by considering a rolling horizon approach to
take advantage of dynamic decisions. Deep learning algo-
rithms are used to predict the health class of the machine,
and the probability of each class membership based on
different time windows. Each time window reflects the
length of the next period since the system is consid-
ered operating during the whole period. The integrated
predictive maintenance and production planning frame-
work can provide accurate information to avoid impend-
ing failures and the reduction of system availability. The
developed mixed-integer programming model is solved
by CPLEX.
The remainder of the paper is arranged as follows.
Section 2 includes a literature review to better high-
light the paper’s contribution in comparison to exist-
ing papers. Section 3 presents the proposed dynamic
integrated predictive maintenance and production plan-
ning. Section 4 describes the data set used to validate
the model. Numerical examples are given in Section 5
to illustrate the advantages of the proposed framework.
Section 6 concludes the paper.
2. Literature review
The advantages of joint planning have been widely
reported in the literature. Two main literature groups
are discussed in this section. The first one, which con-
stitutes a major part of the existing integrated models,
considers model-based approaches for PM and PdM. The
second group corresponds to the growing research using
data-driven approaches for PdM.
2.1. Model-based approaches
Cassady and Kutanoglu (2005) integrated PM with
single-machine scheduling planning by minimising the
total expected weighted completion time of jobs. They
used a linear relationship between the PM cost and
the improvement of the machine condition. Aghezzaf,
Jamali, and Ait-Kadi (2007) introduced an integrated
model for the capacitated lot-sizing problem and an
interval-based PM plan for a single-component system.
They have shown the economic effectiveness of such an
integrated model. Wang and Liu (2013) included the
concept of economic production quantity in the inte-
grated production and maintenance planning, where
the optimal number of inspections, the economic pro-
duction quantity, and the PM level should be dynami-
cally determined. They demonstrated that the integrated
model has a significant impact on economic produc-
tion quantity results. Géhan, Castanier, and Lemoine
(2014) developed an integrated production and mainte-
nance tactical planning model for a single system under a
feasibility constraint. They showed that maintenance had
an impact on production capacity and machine availabil-
ity. Yildirim and Nezami (2014) analysed an integrated
production and PM planning for a single-component sys-
tem where system degradation had an effect on product
processing times and energy consumption with aim of
minimising the total incurred production cost. Hnaien
et al. (2016) integrated production planning and PM for
a single machine by minimising the total production, PM,
minimal repair, set-up, and backorder costs. Beheshti
Fakher, Nourelfath, and Gendreau (2017) suggested an
integrated model of the production capacitated lot-sizing
problem with numerous products and PM planning for
a multi-machine system, where the objective function
minimises the total cost. They linked the machine age
to the production capacity and system reliability. Arani
et al. (2020) considered the problem of the integrated pro-
duction process and maintenance planning on a machine
which is subject to random failure. The purpose of this
paper was to minimise the cost of production accom-
panying PM, the expected CM, and production cost.
To solve the problem, a mixed-integer linear program-
ming model was developed. Bahria et al. (2020) proposed
new production and maintenance strategies for a produc-
tion system composed of a single machine, which must
continuously satisfy demand and may randomly shift to
an ‘out-of-control’ state due to equipment degradation.
Alimian, Ghezavati, and Tavakkoli-Moghaddam (2020)
presented an integrated production and PM planning for
a dynamic cellular manufacturing system to reduce the
number of sudden failures which leads to a lower total
cost. Kaddachi, Gharbi, and Kenné (2022) addressed a
production planning and maintenance control problem
for unreliable manufacturing systems, which combines
a production control policy of a feedback nature with
multiple hedging levels and, an age-based replacement
policy for maintenance control. They aimed to develop an
integrated production and maintenance control policy to
minimise the total production cost. Pourghader Chobar
(2022) developed a mathematical model that integrates
production, PM, and human resources. They considered
personnel skills, equipment usage rate and equipment
failure rate as the model parameters. For a two-stage dete-
riorating manufacturing systems, Shao, Chen, and Sarker
(2022) considered a joint decision-making issue of pro-
duction and maintenance plan with imperfect and perfect
maintenances. They employed a model-based approach
to analyse the costs of the perfect maintenance as well
as the risk of random failures for each stage. The results
indicated that the proposed policy and the model are
feasible and effective.
Recently, due to the development of sensor technolo-
gies, PdM has become even more attractive in several

other fields where the safety, reliability, and availability
of systems need to be critically considered. Few stud-
ies have been conducted to integrate PdM and pro-
duction planning. Pan, Liao, and Xi (2012) proposed
a mathematical model to minimise the maximum tar-
diness of a single machine where scheduling produc-
tion and PdM based on machine remaining useful life
(RUL) prediction would be scheduled at the same time.
Fitouri et al. (2016) proposed a heuristic model to solve a
job shop production and PdM problem while minimis-
ing the make span and the total cost of maintenance.
They used prognostic information to deal with this prob-
lem. Liu, Dong, and Chen (2018) proposed an inte-
grated model that considers PdM planning for a single
machine, based on the health status and dummy age with
respect to machine degradation, in order to minimise the
total expected cost. Bougacha et al. (2019) represented a
health management technique in an integrated approach,
based on the prognostic information of the component to
reduce the conflict between production and maintenance
services. Khatab et al. (2019) proposed an integrated
model for production and condition-based maintenance
in a stochastically deteriorating single-product, single-
machine production system to determine the optimal
inspection cycle, degradation threshold level, and which
maintenance should be carried out, while minimising
the total cost. Wang, Lu, and Ren (2020) presented an
integrated model for production planning and condition-
based maintenance under uncertainty of demand and of
failure by considering the limited capacity for the produc-
tion system. Ghaleb et al. (2020) tackled an integrated
production scheduling and PdM for a single-machine
production environment. They considered that machine
deterioration and failures affect processing times and
energy consumption. Paprocka, Kempa, and Skołud
(2021) developed an integrated model of production
scheduling and PdM to make the production system
insensitive to disruption. Their goal was to find the opti-
mal predictive schedule for multiple factors, including
makespan, total tardiness, flow time, and machine idle
time. Han et al. (2021) proposed a RUL prediction model
based on PdM to improve the mission reliability of the
manufacturing system by considering the components’
dependence for product quality requirements. El Cadi
et al. (2021) proposed an integrated model for production
and PdM control of manufacturing systems by consider-
ing operation-dependency for both reliability and quality.
The main purpose was to minimise the total cost by
optimising the production and maintenance control set-
tings simultaneously. Triska et al. (2021) suggested an
adaptive method for integrating production and mainte-
nance planning by taking advantage of simulation-based
optimisation. When compared to scenarios with simple
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 7975
dispatching rules, the results indicate improvements in
key performance indicators. Due to the current evolu-
tion of technologies and maintenance strategies in the
industrial field, Arena et al. (2022) developed an inte-
grated model for maintenance and production problems
by combining the knowledge of the data collected from
physical assets for PdM management. They took advan-
tage of the model-based approach to estimate the system’s
RUL, while maintenance is performed based on this RUL.
Most of the current existing models are based on
stochastically modelling the system degradation process
using model-based approaches, which take advantage of
statistical methods.
Nevertheless, the prior statistical knowledge of the
system’s lifetime has a significant impact on the effective-
ness of model-based approaches. Therefore, developing
a theoretical model for the real deterioration process
of a complex system can be highly difficult. In addi-
tion, admitting a theoretical model is developed, it can-
not be systematically used in other industrial contexts
under different operation condition changes. For exam-
ple, variations in loads over time can make the proposed
model no longer valid. However, simplifying a system’s
real working conditions can result in poor maintenance
decisions (Hesabi, Nourelfath, and Hajji 2022). Recently,
data-driven approaches have been developed to over-
come such problems of model-based approaches.
2.2. Data-driven approaches
More recently, due to the rapid development of criti-
cal technologies, machine learning and deep learning
algorithms have attracted more attention to be used as
a fault detection method through real-time condition
monitoring. A substantial literature has recently grown
around data-driven maintenance approaches employed
on production systems to improve system availability and
reliability while reducing production losses. The papers
reviewed in this part have considered PdM based on
data-driven approaches.
To investigate the impact of the imperfect prognostics
on maintenance decision, Nguyen and Medjaher (2019)
proposed a dynamic data-driven approach by consider-
ing long short-term memory (LSTM) method as a PdM
model for a manufacturing system. They highlighted
the efficiency and performance of their proposed model
comapred to the classical periodic PM policy. Morariu
et al. (2020) considered a hybrid control solution that uses
Big Data techniques and machine learning algorithms to
process in real-time information streams for a produc-
tion system. Chen et al. (2021) developed a novel main-
tenance strategy for a repairable complex system by tak-
ing advantage of data-driven PdM. Appropriate time to
7976 H. DEHGHAN SHOORKAND ET AL.
perform maintenance is determined based on the failure
probability, which has been calculated using the LSTM
method. Cui, Wang, and Li (2021) developed a model
for a manufacturing system by considering data-driven
PdM to improve the product quality and reduce the num-
ber of unplanned machine failure. They have ignored the
production planning part and just considered the main-
tenance part. Bampoula et al. (2021) represented a data-
driven approach for maintenance actions to be planned
according to the actual machine’s condition using the
LSTM model. Ayvaz and Alpay (2021) developed a data-
driven PdM to monitor manufacturing production lines
by using machine learning methods to take advantage of
real-time sensor data. Yousefi, Tsianikas, and Coit (2021)
took advantage of a deep learning algorithm to provide
a dynamic PdM model for a degrading manufacturing
system subject to random failures.
A few studies considered a data-driven approach for
integrated models. Regler (2020) suggested an integrated
production and data-driven PdM planning model with
random machine failures. The result revealed cost savings
as compared to the classical method. Zhai, Kandemir,
and Reinhart (2022) proposed an integrated production
scheduling and PdM using the deep learning method as
a data-driven approach. Zonta et al. (2022) suggested a
model to optimise maintenance and production sched-
ules predictively based on the available data, which gener-
ate the information that allows decision-makers to min-
imise the production cost. To predict the system’s RUL,
they used a deep neural network method as a data-driven
approach.
The above literature review shows that only very few
papers take advantage of data-driven models to integrate
maintenance and production planning. The majority of
the existing papers ignored the production side of the
problem and is rather concentrated on the maintenance
part.
2.3. The proposed integrated PdM and production
planning framework
The above literature review shows that there is no existing
paper integrating tactical production planning and pre-
dictive maintenance (PdM). To fill this gap, the present
paper develops an integrated dynamic PdM and pro-
duction planning framework based on Rolling Horizon
Planning (RHP), and using deep learning and mathemat-
ical programming. Considering a multi-period multi-
product capacitated lot-sizing problem, tactical produc-
tion planning decisions aim to minimise the total cost
associated with integrated production and maintenance.
Deep learning is used to predict the machine health state.
The proposed approach introduces a data-driven PdM
model for a production system that has the ability to be
implemented and integrated to manufacturing decisions,
even in different dynamic loading conditions. The pro-
posed methodology makes it possible to integrate pro-
duction and PdM actions with regards to the health con-
dition of the system by monitoring sensor data. The used
maintenance policy includes replacements and minimal
repairs. A long short-term memory model is advanta-
geously used to accurately predict the health condition
of the machine. The results are compared with different
approaches to highlight the advantages of the proposed
framework.
3. Dynamic integrated predictive maintenance
and production planning
3.1. Assumptions
The following assumptions are considered.
• The manufacturing system consists of a single machine.
• The classical assumptions of the multi-product capac-
itated lot-sizing problem are satisfied.
• PM actions restore the machine to an ‘as-good-as-
new’ state and are performed at the beginning of some
production periods.
• CM actions restore the machine to an ‘as-bad-as-old’
state (minimal repair) and should be carried out as
soon as the failure occurs.
• The planning time horizon initially begins with a new
or as good as new machine.
• The manufacturing system is a resource-sharing pro-
duction system. Due to high set-up costs, when the
system operates only for a portion of the production
period, it is assumed that the machine is used for other
production purposes until the end of the period. For
example, the machine can be used by the other depart-
ments of the company for the remaining time. When
this assumption does not hold, it is worth mention-
ing that, especially for relatively high demands, the
portion of the production period when the system
is not producing is negligible and will not affect the
availability computation.
• It is assumed that the state probabilities follow a
steady-state distribution. Regarding this assumption,
the stationary state will be obtained for each period
(Nourelfath and Châtelet 2012). This assumption is
made regarding a tactical production planning prob-
lem since determining items’ quantity is typically con-
sidered a tactical planning decision. Tactical planning
which is a medium-term activity bridges the transition
from the strategic planning level (long-term) to the
operational planning level (short-term). Depending

on the industry, the time horizons for each planning
level can be various. Typical values for operational
planning, tactical planning, and strategic planning are
one week (or less), one month (or more), and one
year (or more), respectively (Nourelfath, Fitouhi, and
Machani 2010). The components of many modern
production systems are frequently dependable, and
PM tasks must be integrated at the tactical level.
3.2. System description
Let consider a machine that produces a set of products i ∈
{1, 2, . . . , P} over a defined finite planning horizon T with
t periods, t = {1, 2, . . . , T}. Each period has the same
fixed length L. Depending on the production environ-
ments, the time horizon of tactical planning may vary and
a typical value is one month or more. In the numerical
example, the period length is one month corresponding
to what is typically observed for tactical planning in many
industrial contexts. For each product i, during period t, a
pre-determined demand di, t should be satisfied. We con-
sider a multi-period multi-product capacitated lot-sizing
problem. Maintenance actions can make the machine
‘as good as new’, and they are executed only when the
total cost is less than the total cost when ‘doing nothing’.
Maintenance actions can be carried out depending on the
machine’s health condition. The manufacturing machine
can only be preventively maintained at the beginning of
the next period. We also consider that minimal repair
(as a corrective maintenance) is conducted whenever an
unpredicted failure takes place. The objective is to min-
imise the sum of maintenance, setup, holding, backorder,
and production costs, while the demand for all products
is satisfied over the entire horizon.
To integrate data-driven PdM and production plan-
ning, a long short-term memory (LSTM) model is con-
sidered. LSTM is a specific recurrent neural network
architecture that is widely used in sequence prediction,
machine health monitoring, speech recognition, and
fault detection (Dargan et al. 2019; Namuduri et al. 2020).
In this paper, LSTM is used in the context of rolling hori-
zon planning (RHP). Using RHP is common in dynamic
environments (Chand, Hsu, and Sethi 2002), and it is
widely investigated and used in both academia and indus-
try (de Sampaio, Wollmann, and Vieira 2017). There are
T rolling horizons in the total RHP that each rolling
horizon includes t periods. At the beginning of each
rolling horizon, new information of the system is avail-
able, including quantity of demand, inventory, backorder,
and level of system’s degradation.
There are two stages in each rolling horizon planning
except of the last rolling horizon. The first stage is an ordi-
nary stage that includes only the current period. At this
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 7977
stage, all information is available, and the LSTM network
utilises this information to predict the health condition of
the machine. Then, the maintenance plan is made based
on the current degradation level. Therefore, the produc-
tion plan in this stage is solved after updating the sys-
tem availability by subtracting the maintenance time. In
practice, the decision made at this stage is implemented.
The second stage is the forecast stage and includes the
remaining periods. Contrary to the ordinary stage, due
to the lack of sensory data, information is expected at
this stage. A model-based approach is used to determine
the results, which are not implemented in practice. In this
case, a tentative maintenance plan is made based on the
expected degradation level. Then, after updating the sys-
tem availability in the remaining periods by subtracting
the maintenance time. These solutions are only used to
evaluate the performance of the ordinary stage. The pro-
posed model to determine the production plan is solved
by CPLEX. The dynamic RHP approach is performed
from one planning horizon to the next one in order to
update the information for each period. Figure 1 repre-
sents the detail of implementation of the RHP approach
used in our integrated framework.
Before beginning the rolling horizon, the LSTM net-
work design is necessary to accurately predict the RUL of
the machine and the failure probabilities in the different
time windows in future operations. To this purpose, the
RUL classification considers two classes. The first class
indicates that the system’s RUL is greater than a pre-
determined time window, while the second class shows
that the system’s RUL is less than this pre-determined
time window. The pre-determined time window which is
indicated by w0 is equal to the period length L. As a result,
by taking advantage of the LSTM method, the probability
of each class membership can be calculated. The prob-
ability for the second class, in contrast to the first one,
returns the system’s failure probability in the next period.
The LSTM takes time-series sensor data as inputs to
extract the representations of the system’s health con-
dition. This data is imported to the LSTM network in
two steps. In the first step, which is the training one, his-
torical data are used to construct a model to learn RUL
classification. In the second one, that is the test step, the
constructed model is used to determine the probabil-
ity of each class member. Eventually, after evaluating the
accuracy of the model, it can predict the health condi-
tion of the system by using new data. This point is the
beginning of the next period in the ordinary stage. The
new collected data feeds the LSTM, and the RUL classi-
fication and probability of each class member are com-
puted. At this point, based on the obtained results of the
LSTM, the decision-maker can determine what decisions
should be performed. As soon as this decision is made,
7978 H. DEHGHAN SHOORKAND ET AL.
Figure 1. An example of rolling horizon planning.
production capacity is determined for both ordinary and
forecast stages. This decision specifies the amount of pro-
duction, backorder, and inventory, and the whole process
is repeated up to the end of the last period in the rolling
horizon.
The present paper deals with tactical aggregate pro-
duction planning decisions that aim to develop an inte-
grated production and PdM planning model. Produced
items at the tactical planning level often relate to a prod-
uct family which is defined as a group of finished items
that could be produced by a common manufacturing set-
up. The whole process of preparing the equipment to
correspond to the next product family is called set-up. To
accomplish this, it could be necessary to adjust the equip-
ment or non-adjustable pieces may need to be changed
to accommodate the product family. To have an effec-
tive maintenance plan according to the Total Produc-
tive Maintenance approach (TPM), maintenance tasks
should be considered as components of the production
plan rather than as interruptions to that plan. Regard-
ing this issue, we assume that machine operators who
are in charge of set-up tasks also carry out PM activities.
The set-up activities are performed at the end of a plan-
ning period (before the beginning of the next period). As
a result of sharing common labour and time resources
under TPM, it enables the successful integration of PM
tasks into these set-up tasks at the beginning of planning
periods. In this case, the time and the cost of PM actions
will be significantly lower than interrupting production
to perform PM tasks during a production cycle due to
executing PM tasks by machine operators responsible for
set-up activities (Nourelfath and Châtelet 2012).
The next sub-section develops the LSTM network
used to predict the RUL classification and the probability
of failure in the next period. Then, Subsection 3.4 inte-
grates the PdM and production planning within an opti-
misation problem so as to minimise the total incurred
cost.
3.3. Predictive maintenance model based on the
LSTM network
The prognostic information is required for the prediction
of the RUL classification and the probability of failure in
the next period. Fault prognostics can be divided into two
main approaches: model-based prognostics and data-
driven prognostics. The model-based approaches use
different probability distributions and design the degra-
dation mechanism of the system to predict the RUL.
Designing a model-based approach depends on the avail-
ability of a degradation model. Problems associated with
cracks by fatigue, corrosion and wear are among the
instances of degradation models (Medjaher and Zer-
houni 2013). In contrast to model-based approaches,
data-driven prognostics techniques use the collected data
by sensors to extract features and learn the health pat-
terns to predict the RUL. In recent years, deep learn-
ing methods have become widely used as a data-driven
approaches for a time-series data. Accurate RUL pre-
diction plays a critical role in Prognostics and Health
Management. There are some popular methods in deep
learning context for prediction. In this context, Zheng
et al. (2017) compared the accuracy of the convolutional
neural network, recurrent neural network, and LSTM for

RUL prediction on time-series data. They show that the
LSTM model’s prediction accuracy is higher than the
other models and gives the best performance in RUL
prediction. In addition, the result of RUL prediction for
LSTM and neural network showed that the LSTM model
outperforms other existing models. The LSTM model
can retain important or remove unnecessary information
during long-term data sequences due to its memories.
This ability makes LSTM more accurate than the other
methods where the data is time-series. Since the model
proposed in this paper is a tactical model, the data will
be long-term sequences. Therefore, taking advantage of
the ‘sequence-to-sequence’ LSTM method may improve
the ability of the studied multi-period model to predict
the machine’s condition.
LSTM is in fact a specific recurrent neural network
architecture, especially designed to overcome exploding
and vanishing gradient problems in classical recurrent
neural networks, which typically occur while learning
long-term dependencies, even in case of very long min-
imal time lags (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber 1996).
Instead of neurons, LSTM networks have memory blocks
that are connected through layers. A block has compo-
nents that make it smarter than a classical neuron and a
memory for recent sequences. A block contains gates that
manage the block’s state and output. A block operates
upon an input sequence and each gate within a block uses
the sigmoid activation units to control whether they are
triggered or not, making the change of state and addition
of information flowing through the block conditional.
The cell remembers values over arbitrary time intervals
and the three gates regulate the flow of information into
and out of the cell. LSTM networks are well-suited to clas-
sifying, processing and making predictions based on a
time-series. It is well-established that LSTM has a great
capacity to retain memory and learn from data sequences
(Aydin and Guldamlasioglu 2017).
In this study, we use the LSTM model in ordinary
stages to predict the RUL classification and the proba-
bility of failure in the next period. In the first ordinary
stage, as the sensory data is not available, a model-
based approach is used. In the LSTM model, the machine
performs the next period only when the RUL of the
machine is greater than the pre-determined threshold
w0 (Ptr (RUL > w0 )). The incurred total cost consists of
the total production, inventory, backorder, set-up, and
maintenance costs. The maintenance decision made is
based on the comparison between the total costs of all
alternatives, to select the lower cost alternative.
The LSTM takes time-series sensors data as inputs to
extract the representations of the machine’s health con-
dition. This data feeds the LSTM network in two steps.
Over the first step, which is the training step, historical
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 7979
data is used to construct a model and to learn RUL clas-
sification. In the second one, which is the test step, the
constructed model is used to determine the probability of
each class member. After evaluating the accuracy of the
model, it is used to make forecasts for the new collected
data.
The fundamental idea of LSTM lies in the fact that at
each time step, only a handful of gates control the passage
of information over the sequences, as a result of which
long-range dependencies can be captured more accu-
rately (Zhao et al. 2016). Figure 2 represents the structure
of the LSTM unit at time l. A cell state and three gates (a
forget, an input, and an output gates) are included in a
typical LSTM unit. The flow of information regulates and
manages into and out of the cell state. In the LSTM unit,
xl , hl , and Cl are assumed to present the input, output,
and cell state. Let us assume that there are N nodes in each
LSTM unit, therefore, hl ∈ RN×1 and Cl ∈ RN×1 .
Input gate (il ∈ RN×1 ) determines important informa-
tion in the current input (xl ) and the output of previous
LSTM unit (hl−1 ) which should be used in computing cell
state (Cl ). Then, forget gate (fl ∈ RN×1 ) removes unnec-
essary information from the previous cell state (Cl−1 ) and
updates the current cell state (Cl ) based on the retained
information in Cl−1 . In the last step, the information
from cell state (Cl ) that should become the output of the
present LSTM unit (hl ) is determined by the output gate
(ol ∈ RN×1 ). The formulas below are used to calculate the
aforementioned gates.
fl = σ (Wf xl + Rf hl−1 + bf ) (1)
il = σ (Wi xl + Ri hl−1 + bi ) (2)
ol = σ (Wo xl + Ro hl−1 + bo ) (3)
where σ is a nonlinear activation function.
Usually, the sigmoid function is employed as an activa-
tion function for the gates in LSTM; because it produces a
value between 0 and 1, there can be either no flow or com-
plete flow of information throughout the gates. Equation
(4) represents it:
1
sigmoid(x) = (4)
1 + e−x
l is generated
Inside the LSTM, the intermediate state C
as:
l = ϕ(WC xl + RC hl−1 + bC )
C (5)
where ϕ is a tanh which is used as a nonlinear activation
function
ex − e−x
tanh(x) = (6)
ex + e−x
7980 H. DEHGHAN SHOORKAND ET AL.
Figure 2. LSTM cell.
To overcome the problem of vanishing gradient, we
need a method whose second derivative may last for a
long-range before vanishing. tanh is a useful function that
possesses all of the aforementioned characteristics.
Then, the memory cell and hidden state of this LSTM
are updated as:
l
Cl = fl ∗ Cl−1 + il ∗ C (7)
hl = ol ∗ ϕCl (8)
where ∗ denotes the element-wise product.
During the training process, the bias vector parame-
ters bf , bi , bo , bC ∈ RN×1 as well as the weights matrices
Wf , Wi , Wo , WC ∈ RN×k should be computed. As the
LSTM model is responsible to predict the machine’s state,
its error should be computed throughout this process
using a loss function. Regarding our binary classifica-
tion model in this paper, the average difference between
the actual and predicted classes is calculated by using a
binary cross-entropy loss function as follows:
1 
N
J= − yi . log(p(yi )) + (1 − yi ).log(1 − p(yi ))
N Accuracy =
i=1
(9)
To minimise the error of the next evaluation, the esti-
mated weights and biases are updated as the LSTM model
is responsible to make a prediction. Based on the best
score for cross-entropy which is 0, the error is minimised
to achieve this number.
For each observation i, we use yi as the real machine’s
state, and p(yi ) as the probability of the predicted
machine’s state.
Table 1. Confusion matrix for binary classification.
Predicted RUL
Class 1 Class 0
Actual RUL Class 1 True Positive False Negative
Class 0 False Positive True Negative
The testing data set is used with the aim of validation
to yield an unbiased estimate of accuracy over the learn-
ing process. The most common performance metrics to
evaluate the binary classification are confusion matrix
and accuracy. These metrics are explained as follows.
3.3.1. Confusion matrix
This is a table that illustrates the performance of classi-
fication on a set of test data where the true values are
known. Table 1 shows this concept.
3.3.2. Accuracy
This is the percentage of correctly classified records to
total records. If the false positives and false negatives have
similar costs, the best accuracy will be achieved.
TP + TN
(10)
TP + TN + FP + FN
where TP and FP represent the number of true posi-
tives and false positives, respectively. On the other hand,
FN and TN show the number of false negatives and true
negatives.
The input layer is used to import data to be processed
in the network, while the hidden layer attempts to build
the relation between the input and output layers. In this
paper, two hidden layers are utilised. Eventually, the out-
put layer is used as a prototype between the network and

the output, allowing transforming multiple multivariate
data at the hidden layer to a one-dimensional array at the
LSTM classifier output (Nguyen and Medjaher 2019).
3.4. Integrated model
The proposed dynamic PdM and production planning in
each rolling horizon consists of a dynamic LSTM deci-
sion in the ordinary stage, and model-based planning
for the forecast stages, except for the first rolling horizon
where the sensory data are not available. In fact, a model-
based approach is first used to plan for the entire rolling
horizon; then, in the other rolling horizons, decisions are
updated at the beginning of each ordinary stage, as the
new sensory data feeds the LSTM model and the health
condition of the machine can be predicted. That is, by
starting a new rolling horizon, information on degrada-
tion, inventory and backorder levels will be updated for
both stages. According to the proposed rolling horizon
planning, there are two planning stages:
(1) An ordinary stage that includes only the current
period. At this stage, the LSTM network predicts the
health condition of the machine based on available
sensory data.
(2) The second stage is a forecast stage that includes the
remaining periods. Contrary to the ordinary stage,
machine health information is expected at this stage
using a model-based approach (Weibull distribution
in our numerical example).
That is, the results of LSTM and the statistical Weibull
distribution are separately employed at different stages.
As the rolling horizon moves, the RUL class and the
failure probability are predicted by the LSTM for the
next ordinary stage. To solve the whole integrated multi-
period optimisation problem, the statistical distribution
is used only for the forecasting stage periods (but not at
the ordinary stage period, for which the machine health
prediction is rather based on LSTM).
For the ordinary stage (next period), the LSTM net-
work predicts the health condition of the machine based
on available sensory data from the previous period.
Therefore, for each ordinary stage, the maintenance is of
a predictive nature. Only the forecast stage uses statis-
tical information to feed the multi-period optimisation
model. Once new sensory data are available at the end
of the next period, the information is updated and new
PdM decisions are made. In practice, only the decisions
made at the beginning of each ordinary stage are imple-
mented. The decisions made for the forecast stage are
not implemented; they will be updated once new sen-
sory data are available at the end of the next period.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 7981
Therefore, at the end of the planning horizon, all imple-
mented decisions will be based on health state informa-
tion RUL predictions, based on a real sequence of sensory
data collected from the past period as the rolling hori-
zon moves. As indicated before, the LSTM network is
a sequence-to-sequence model, which is well-suited for
predictive maintenance (PdM) in the context of multi-
ple period planning problems. This characteristic was
advantageously exploited to develop the integrated PdM
and tactical production planning model proposed in this
paper.
Two maintenance options are considered in the pro-
posed model as a PM action: replacing and doing noth-
ing. To find the best planning strategy, the total cost of
each one should be evaluated. Between different possible
alternatives, we choose the one which has the minimum
total cost in both ordinary and forecast stages.
First, the integrated model considered in an ordinary
stage can be formulated as follows:
p
Expected

Xt r = (Qi,tr .πi + Ii,tr .hi + Bi,tr .bi + Seti,tr .si )
i=1
+ (CR,tr .mR,tr ) + (PF,tr .CCM,tr ) (11)
Qi,tr − Ii,tr + Ii,tr −1 − Bi,tr + Bi,tr −1 = di,tr ; ∀i (12)
Qi,tr ≤ Seti,tr .Wt , ∀i (13)
 
L − (TR .mR,tr ) − (PF,tr .TCM,tr )
Atr = Max 0, (14)
L
Gtr = g.Atr (15)

iP Qi,tr
≤ Gtr (16)
L
Seti,tr ∈ {0, 1}, ∀i (17)
mR,tr ∈ {0, 1} (18)
The objective function (Equation 11) in the ordinary
Expected
stage is the total cost Xtr , which includes the total
production, holding, backorder, set up, maintenance, and
expected failure costs. In this equation, the PF,tr repre-
sents the failure probability during the current period
and the last term illustrates the expected failure cost.
The decision variables are quantity of production, back-
order, inventory (Qi,tr , Bi,tr , and Ii,tr ), and the two binary
variables Seti,tr and mR,tr which express the existence or
absence of setup and replacement in the current period,
respectively.
Constraint (12) presents the standard inventory and
backorder balance equation in the ordinary stage t r .
Equation (13) is a production setup constraint where a
binary variable, Seti,tr is used to force Qi,tr = 0 if Seti,tr =
0 and free Qi,tr ≥ 0 if Seti,tr = 1. In Constraint (13), the
7982 H. DEHGHAN SHOORKAND ET AL.

quantity Wt is an upper bound of Qi,tr which can be pro- Gtr +k = g.Atr +k (23)
duced during each period. Equation (14) presents the 
iP Qi,tr +k
steady-state availability, which depends on the mainte- ≤ Gtr +k (24)
nance decision in period t r . If the machine’s nominal L
production rate is denoted by g, Constraint (15) rep- Bi,tr = Bi,tr +1 , Ii,tr = Ii,tr +1 ; ∀i (25)
resents the constraint of the average production rate of Seti,tr +k ∈ {0, 1}, ∀i (26)
the machine during a period t r . Equation (16) represents
mR,tr +k ∈ {0, 1} (27)
the constraint of the available production capacity. Con-
straints (17) and (18) represent the binary conditions,
where in (18) mR,tr is used to determine if replacing the The objective function in the forecast stage, Ytr +k ,
Expected
machine is performed. aims to minimise the total cost as presented in Equation
Note that the proposed model covers the situation (19), where mR,tr +k is a binary variable to express the exis-
where the maintenance time is higher than the produc- tence or absence of replacing in the period t r + k. In this
tion period duration. In fact, according to Equation (14), equation, the CM cost is an expected cost which is cal-
when the maintenance time, (TR .mR,tr + PF,tr .TCM,tr ), culated by the failure probability (PF,tr +k ) in period t r +
is higher than the production period duration L, the k. Equation (20) ∼ Equation (24) express the standard
availability is 0 (because the difference between L and inventory balance, production, steady-state availability,
the maintenance time is negative). On the other hand, average production rate, and available production capac-
when the maintenance time is lower than the produc- ity constraints in forecast stages, respectively. Equation
tion period duration, the availability is estimated by (25) presents the quantity of backorder and inventory,
L−(TR .mR,tr )−(PF,tr .TCM,tr )
L . Note however that due to the which are passed from the ordinary stage to the fore-
Max operator, this extension introduces a non-linearity. cast stage. Equation (26) is a binary constraint that is
The resulting optimisation model is therefore a mixed- used to determine if the product i will be produced, so
integer non-linear programming model that is more dif- Seti,tr = 1 or not, Seti,tr = 0. Constraint (27) represents
ficult to solve, for large scale instances, than the mixed- the binary conditions, where mR,tr +k is used to determine
integer linear programming one. if replacing the machine is performed, so mR,tr +k = 1 or
Next, in the forecast stage, the planning for mainte- not, mR,tr +k = 0.
nance actions is performed based on failure probability Eventually, a dynamic integrated production and
distribution. As only the decisions of the ordinary stage maintenance planning for both ordinary and forecast
are implemented, the manager should investigate opti- stages is considered by Equation (28)
mal solutions for the remaining periods, which leads
to an optimisation model for the forecast stage that is
Expected Expected
formulated as follows: Minimise: Zr,Expected = Xtr + Ytr +k ,

 p ∀r, k = 1, . . . , u (28)
Expected

T 
u  Subject to: Constraints (12)−(18) and (20)−(27) (29)
Ytr +k = (Qi,tr +k .πi + Ii,tr +k .hi
t=t r k=1 i=1 Qi,tr , Ii,tr , Bi,tr ≥ 0 and are integers (30)
+ Bi,tr +k .bi + Seti,tr +k .si )

The total cost in each rolling horizon, Zr,Expected , con-
+(C R,tr +k .m R,tr +k ) + (P F,tr +k .C CM,t r +k ) sists of production cost, inventory cost, backorder cost,
set-up cost, expected failure cost, and replacement cost in
(19) both ordinary and forecast stages. As soon as the main-
Qi,tr +k − Ii,tr +k + Ii,tr +k−1 − Bi,tr +k + Bi,tr +k−1 tenance option based on the total cost is selected for
each individual stage, the production capacity for all peri-
= di,,tr ; ∀i, k = 1, . . . , u (20) ods is updated by subtracting the maintenance time. The
Qi,tr +k ≤ Seti,tr +k .Wt ; ∀i, k = 1, . . . , u; (21) expected failure cost is considered to penalise the possi-
⎛ ⎞ ble occurrence of failures. In real conditions, if the failure
L − (TR .mR,tr +k )
⎜ −(PF,tr +k .TCM,tr +k ) ⎟ does not occur, there is no need to assign CM time and
Atr +k = Max ⎜ ⎝0,
⎟;
⎠ cost for each period.
L Considering this part can reduce the total available
time in each period. So, the planning is updated again
∀t, k = 1, . . . , u (22) based on the following equations. The integrated model
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 7983

in the ordinary stage is: Bi,tr = Bi,tr +1 , Ii,tr = Ii,tr +1 ; ∀i (45)

Seti,tr +k ∈ {0, 1}, ∀i (46)
p
Planning
 mR,tr +k ∈ {0, 1} (47)
Xt r = (Qi,tr. πi + Ii,tr .hi + Bi,tr .bi + Seti,tr .si )
i=1
Finally, all planning processes in both ordinary and
+ (CR,tr .mR,tr ) (31) forecast stages are performed by minimising the total cost
Qi,tr − Ii,tr + Ii,tr −1 − Bi,tr + Bi,tr −1 as follows:
Planning Expected
= di,tr ; ∀i (32) Minimise : Zr,Planning = Xtr + Ytr +k ,
Qi,tr ≤ Seti,tr .Wt , ∀i (33) ∀r, k = 1, . . . , u (48)
 
L − (TR .mR,tr ) Subject to : Constraints(32)−(38) and (40)−(47) (49)
Atr = Max 0, (34)
L
Qi,tr , Ii,tr , Bi,tr ≥ 0 and are integers (50)
Gtr = g.Atr (35)
 Qi,tr +k , Ii,tr +k , Bi,tr +k ≥ 0 and are integers (51)
iP Qi,tr
≤ Gtr (36) The actual cost in the RHP is the sum of all actual costs
L
Seti,tr ∈ {0, 1}, ∀i (37) of each ordinary stage. As the decisions that are made
in the planning steps and are actually implemented may
mR,tr ∈ {0, 1} (38) cause different results, we use the following equations to
calculate the total actual cost in RHP:
The only difference between expected and planning 
T
steps is considering the expected failure cost in the ZrReal = XtReal
r (52)
first step and assigning CM anytime that is neces- t r =1
sary. So, in the objective function, instead of this term, p

PF,tr +k .CCM,tr +k , we consider CCM,tr . This process will be XtReal
r = (Qi,tr πi + Ii,tr .hi + Bi,tr .bi + Seti,tr .si )
repeated until the last period is reached. i=1
On the other hand, the idea in the forecast stage is + (CR,tr .nR ) + (CCM,tr .nCM ) (53)
calculated the same as the last step.
nR ∈ {0, 1} (54)
 p nCM ∈ {0, 1} (55)
Expected

T 
u 
Ytr +k = (Qi,tr +k .πi + Ii,tr +k .hi
t=t r k=1 i=1 4. Numerical experiments
+B i,tr +k .bi + Set i,tr +k .si ) + (C
R,tr +k .
4.1. Data set

mR,tr +k ) + (PF,tr +k .CCM,tr +k ) (39) In this section, the suggested integrated model is applied
using a benchmarking data set developed by NASA
(Saxena and Geodel 2008). This public data set con-
Qi,tr +k − Ii,tr +k + Ii,tr +k−1 − Bi,tr +k
sists of multiple run-to-failure data simulated using a
+ Bi,tr +k−1 = di,,tr ; ∀i, k = 1, . . . , u thermo-dynamical simulation model, and includes four
(40) subsets generated under different operational conditions
Qi,tr +k ≤ Seti,tr +k .Wt , ∀i, k = 1, . . . , u (41) and health states. All experiments are performed using
⎛ ⎞ the first subset, FD001. This subset contains a training
L − (TR .mR,tr +k ) and testing set which consists of 26 columns, including
⎜ −(PF,tr +k .TCM,tr +k ) ⎟ the unit numbers (Id), cycle numbers, three operational
Atr +k = Max ⎜ ⎝0,
⎟;
⎠
L parameters, and 21 data of various sensors, respectively.
We divided the training data into two parts. The first
∀t, k = 1, . . . , u (42) part, which includes the first five records, is considered
for numerical examples and the others for training the
Gtr +k = g.Atr +k (43) model.

iP Qi,tr +k
The training set is composed of instances with com-
≤ Gtr +k (44) plete run-to-failure data, which can be used to develop
L
7984 H. DEHGHAN SHOORKAND ET AL.
life prediction models. The test set, on the other hand,
is made of instances with data recorded before a spe-
cific time prior to system failure, which can be employed
for RUL estimation and algorithm performance evalua-
tion. The test instances are modelled as run-to-failure;
although only an earlier part of the history is given in
the data set, the actual lives of the test instances are still
known – the ground true RUL of the test instances is also
provided for prediction validation purposes.
4.2. Running and validating the LSTM model for the
ordinary stage
In this study, the proposed models are programmed in
Python and the Keras (Chollet 2015) Deep Learning
library with the open-source software library TensorFlow
(Abadi et al. 2015) as the backend. All our experiments
are performed on a personal computer with an Intel Core
i7 (3.3 GHz) CPU, 16 GB memory and mac OS 11 operat-
ing system. The first step of designing the LSTM model is
defining the network configuration. Table 2 presents the
configuration parameters of the LSTM model.
The number of epochs is a hyperparameter that con-
trols how many times the learning algorithm runs over
the whole training dataset. The batch size is a hyperpa-
rameter that specifies how many samples must be pro-
cessed before the internal model parameters are updated.
Dropout is a basic method of preventing overfitting in the
model. During the training process, some layer outputs
are ignored or ‘dropped out’ randomly. This causes the
layer to look like and behave as a layer with a different
number of nodes and connections to the previous layer.
Units define the number of neurons in a particular layer.
When this number is higher, the model has more parame-
ters to update during the learning process. The same may
be said about layers.
The second phase that needs to be taken into consid-
eration is compiling and fitting the network. An optimi-
sation algorithm is used to train the model and a loss
function is applied to evaluate the network are applied
during the compiling process. In our binary classification,
an Adam optimiser is used to update the network weights
and a binary cross-entropy loss function is implemented
to calculate the model’s error. The weights on training
data are extracted in the fitting step, and then the net-
work uses the training data to be determined. The model
is prepared to make a prediction after optimisation.
At this point, the test set is used to evaluate the per-
formance of the conducted model during the learning
process.
As already mentioned, to evaluate the performance of
our prediction model, we calculated the accuracy, and
confusion matrix. The results of the confusion matrix on
the first data set are represented in Figure 3.
In this figure, the number of correctly classified
records is shown in the original diameters. The accuracy
of our model is 94.63% . This result for the neural net-
work is 92% based on our data set. The above results show
that we have a model that better fits the data. Therefore,
we can safely use the model to make a prediction on new
data in the context of the proposed integrated production
and maintenance optimisation model.
4.3. Running the model-based approach for the
forecast stage
Since our framework requires also a model-based
approach for the forecast stage, we define the best statis-
tical method that fits the run-to-failure data set FD001.
We found that a Weibull distribution fits with this data
set. Weibull distribution is a two-parameter distribution
function represented by a dimensionless shape parame-
ter β and scale parameter α in units of hours (Chaurasiya,
Ahmed, and Warudkar 2018). The Weibull density func-
tion, f (x) is as follows:
   
β  x β−1 x β
f (x) = exp − (56)
α α α
While several different approaches can be taken to esti-
mate the parameters β and α, the maximum likeli-
hood estimator (MLE) is commonly used, because of its
numerical stability (Cohen 1965). The calculated shape
and scale parameters, by maximising the likelihood func-
tion for our data set, are β = 4 and α = 225. The shape
parameter of the Weibull distribution represents the fail-
ure rate behaviour; when it is greater than 1, it means the
failure rate increases with time, which is known as wear-
out life. In mechanical components, this is mainly due
to thermal-mechanical fatigue, stress, corrosion, or the
degradation process (Abernethy 2004).
In this example, we consider a machine with a plan-
ning horizon consisting of 12 months, where the deci-
sions are determined monthly at the beginning of each
ordinary stage. At this point, new sensory data, which
are collected during the previous period, feeds the LSTM
classifier, and RUL classification and associated proba-
bilities are calculated. Based on the health condition of
the machine, maintenance and production planning are
performed for the ordinary stage at the basis of the deep
learning LSTM model.
As the operating time increases, some functions of
the machine are degraded. So, to make an accurate pre-
diction, at each decision point, new sensory data are
required to evaluate the machine’s lifetime. Since the sen-
sory information is available only at the beginning of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 7985

Table 2. Configuration parameters of the LSTM model.

Number of
epochs Batch size Dropout rate 1st layer units 2nd layer units
20 32 0.2 100 50

Figure 3. Confusion matrix for the LSTM model on FD001 data set.

Table 3. Some characteristics of the machine. Table 4. Demands of products.

g (items/month) CCM ($) CR ($) T CM (month) T R (month) Period t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
50 2800 800 0.02 0.09 d1,t (items) 22 21 24 25 22 24 20 23 23 22 22 20
d2,t (items) 23 22 20 23 23 22 23 21 20 26 22 23

the ordinary stage, we use the Weibull distribution for

the rest of the periods, which are known as the forecast Table 5. Cost data of products.
stages. In this case, the Weibull distribution is respon-
Product i hi ($) bi ($) si ($) π i ($)
sible for determining the maintenance and production
1 40 160 1000 90
planning for the forecast stages. However, from a practi- 2 40 160 1000 90
cal viewpoint, these decisions are not implemented. This
decision procedure is repeated by collecting new infor-
mation at the beginning of each ordinary stage. Let us
consider a machine with the additional characteristics each product i are constant for all periods and are given
given in Table 3. in Table 5.
In this example, each period of 1 month consists of
50 cycles and the machine should produce two types of
products (i = 1, 2) to satisfy the demands. The informa-
4.4. Results
tion of periodic demands for each product i is given in
Table 4. This Subsection presents the total cost of the introduced
We also assume that the inventory holding cost hi , model. Moreover, to evaluate the performance of this
backorder cost bi , set-up cost si , and production cost πi of model, three other approaches are considered as follows.
7986 H. DEHGHAN SHOORKAND ET AL.

Table 6. Evolution process of production in each rolling horizon.

Period
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Rolling 1 Q(22, 23) Q (21, 22) Q (24, 20) Q (25, 23) Q (22, 23) Q (24, 22) Q (20, 23) Q (23, 21) Q (23, 20) Q (22, 26) Q (22, 22) Q (20, 23)
2 – Q(21, 22) Q (24, 20) Q (25, 23) Q (22, 23) Q (24, 22) Q (20, 23) Q (23, 21) Q (23, 20) Q (22, 26) Q (22, 22) Q (20, 23)
3 – – Q(27, 20) Q (22, 23) Q (22, 23) Q (24, 22) Q (20, 23) Q (23, 21) Q (23, 20) Q (22, 26) Q (22, 22) Q (20, 23)
4 – – – Q(22, 23) Q (22, 23) Q (24, 22) Q (20, 23) Q (23, 21) Q (23, 20) Q (22, 26) Q (22, 22) Q (20, 23)
5 – – – – Q(22, 23) Q (24, 22) Q (20, 23) Q (23, 21) Q (23, 20) Q (22, 26) Q (22, 22) Q (20, 23)
6 – – – – – Q(24, 22) Q (20, 23) Q (23, 21) Q (23, 20) Q (22, 26) Q (22, 22) Q (20, 23)
7 – – – – – – Q(20, 23) Q (23, 21) Q (23, 20) Q (22, 26) Q (22, 22) Q (20, 23)
8 – – – – – – – Q(23, 21) Q (23, 20) Q (22, 26) Q (22, 22) Q (20, 23)
9 – – – – – – – – Q(23, 20) Q (22, 26) Q (22, 22) Q (20, 23)
10 – – – – – – – – – Q(22, 26) Q (22, 22) Q (20, 23)
11 – – – – – – – – – – Q(22, 22) Q (20, 23)
12 – – – – – – – – – – – Q(20, 23)

Table 7. Optimal decisions at each ordinary stage of the proposed model.

Production decisions for Product 1 Production decisions for Product 2
Period Maintenance decisions Production Inventory Backorder Set-up Production Inventory Backorder Set-up
1 0 22 0 0 1 23 0 0 1
2 0 21 0 0 1 22 0 0 1
3 0 27 3 0 1 20 0 0 1
4 1 22 0 0 1 23 0 0 1
5 0 22 0 0 1 23 0 0 1
6 0 24 0 0 1 22 0 0 1
7 0 20 0 0 1 23 0 0 1
8 0 23 0 0 1 21 0 0 1
9 1 23 0 0 1 20 0 0 1
10 0 22 0 0 1 26 0 0 1
11 0 22 0 0 1 22 0 0 1
12 1 20 0 0 1 23 0 0 1

4.4.1. Approach 1
In the simulated run-to-failure data set, the LSTM clas-
sifier predicts the RUL and associated probabilities. The
actual RUL is still known to determine the accuracy of
prediction. In this approach, we assume the decision-
maker accesses these actual RULs before anything, and
he can accurately plan the maintenance and production
before any failures. So, this is the ideal scenario access
that can provide the minimum total cost. In reality, it is
impossible to access the ‘perfect information’ on the exact
degradation behaviour of each specific machine to per-
form accurate planning. This scenario is used only as a
reference to evaluate the other scenarios.
4.4.2. Approach 2
We assume that the RUL probabilities of forecast stages
are the same as the ordinary stage. In this case, the whole
decision procedure is performed based on the results of
the LSTM classifier at the ordinary stage.
4.4.3. Approach 3
In this case, we only take advantage of the Weibull func-
tion for both stages to determine the best PM tasks that
must be performed at the beginning of each period, and
also these decisions are updated after finishing each ordi-
nary stage. This corresponds to a pure statistical method
(using only Weibull distribution).
Table 6 represents the obtained results of the inte-
grated production and maintenance planning in the con-
text of RHP by minimising the total cost while satisfying
the demands for all products in the proposed model. Each
row of this Table shows one of the 12 rolling horizons that
consist of 12 periods. Each column presents the quantity
of product 1 and product 2 for each ordinary and fore-
cast stages. For example, in the fourth row of Table 6, the
fourth period is the ordinary stage and periods 5 ∼ 12
are forecast stages. Q(22, 23) in the fourth rolling hori-
zon and fourth period presents the optimal quantity of
products 1 and 2 that are 22 and 23 items in the pro-
posed model, respectively. We should consider that only
decisions of the ordinary stage are implemented in prac-
tice. That is, in practice only the decisions of the ordinary
stages that are bold in Table 6 are implemented.
In the proposed model, the LSTM is used to accurately
predict the RUL of the machine and the probabilities
that it will fail in the time windows w0 that equals the
length of the ordinary stage L. Maintenance actions are
executed only when the total cost when replacing is less
than the total cost when doing nothing. Next, the pro-
duction capacity is updated in both ordinary and forecast
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 7987

Table 8. Total cost comparison results. Table 9. Sensitivity analysis results under demand variation.
Proposed model Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3 Variation of Proposed
demand model Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3
Total cost $74, 760 $74, 640 $75, 120 $77, 600
−15% $66,040 $66,000 $68,870 $68,040
−10% $68,720 $68,680 $71,430 $70,720
−5% $71,840 $71,680 $73,450 $74,840
stages separately. This process is repeated from one to the Base case $74,760 $74,640 $75,120 $77,600
next planning horizon until the last period is reached (see +5% $77,360 $76,960 $77,640 $80,560
+10% $80,120 $79,960 $84,200 $85,760
Table 6). +15% $98,650 $98,050 $100,450 $106,160
In Approach 1, by considering the access to the per-
fect information, the quantity of production, inventory,
backorder, and set-up for each ordinary stage is already
is, under Approach 2, the whole decision procedure is
planned. So, there is no need to collect new informa-
performed based on the results of the LSTM classifier
tion and analyse it. In Approach 2, we assume the failure
at the ordinary stage. Such superiority of the proposed
probabilities of the machine for forecast stages are the
approach is explained here by the fact that the LSTM pre-
same as the ordinary stage. First, the failure probability
diction period is too large under Approach 2, which affect
of the ordinary stage is predicted by the LSTM classi-
LSTM prediction accuracy.
fier and next, it is generalised for the rest of the periods.
In Approach 3, after each period, if no maintenance is
performed, the age of the machine is increased by one 4.6. Sensitivity analysis
month.
We have 12 periods and 12 rolling horizons. For each Sensitivity analysis is carried out to indicate how small
rolling horizon, there are different PM alternatives. The variations of input parameters can affect the optimal solu-
aim is to select the best PM strategy and production plan tion. In this section, a set of experiments will be con-
minimising the total cost in the integrated optimisation ducted to clarify the sensitivity of the proposed model
model. to the variations of demand. That is, to investigate the
Table 7 shows the obtained results related to mainte- effect of uncertainty, this sensitivity analysis is carried out
nance and production decisions. It is suggested to per- by changing the demand by ±15% of its basic level. The
form replacements at the beginning of periods 4, 9 and obtained results are reported in Table 9.
12. Table 7 also presents the production quantity, inven- Table 9 shows that the proposed model outperforms
tory, backorder, and set-up decision for each ordinary the others in all cases, with the exception of Approach
stage and each product. 1, which is ideal because of its access to perfect informa-
tion. Furthermore, Approach 3 provided the worst results
for high demand, whereas Approach 2 is the worst for
4.5. Comparison results low demand. Figure 4 shows that under all variations,
The total cost of each approach is presented in Table 8. As the results of the proposed approach remain close to
it can be expected, the minimum total cost is associated the results of the reference ideal situation presented by
with Approach 1 as it assumes an access to the perfect Approach 1. In summary, this sensitivity analysis illus-
information. The proposed approach is close to the ideal trates the effectiveness of the proposed approach under
situation presented by Approach 1 (a small difference of different demand variations.
$120). The difference between Approach 2 and Approach
1 is $480; and the total cost of Approach 2 is higher than
5. Conclusion
the proposed model. The difference between Approach
3 and Approach 1, is higher and equals $2960, which is This paper has presented a dynamic integrated model
$2840 more than the proposed model. for tactical production and predictive maintenance plan-
In conclusion, we remark that the proposed approach ning. Based on a rolling horizon approach, the model
provides a solution with a total cost closer to the reference dynamically integrated data-driven predictive mainte-
approach than the other approaches. In fact, as expected, nance and production planning. In the context of a multi-
the proposed approach is better than the pure statistical period multi-product capacitated lot-sizing problem, the
method (Approach 3). It is also better than Approach 2. objective was to minimise the sum of maintenance, setup,
While the proposed approach uses LSTM for the ordi- holding, backorder, and production costs, while satisfy-
nary stage and Weibull distribution for the forecast stage, ing the demand for all products over the horizon under
Approach 2 rather considers that the RUL probabilities consideration. Each rolling horizon consists of ordinary
of forecast stages are the same as the ordinary stage. That and forecast stages, and by collecting new sensor data,
7988 H. DEHGHAN SHOORKAND ET AL.
Figure 4. The impact of demand variation on the total cost.
the decisions were simultaneously updated. A long short-
term memory model was used to accurately predict the
health condition of the machine. In deep learning lit-
erature, the LSTM network is known as a sequence to
sequence (Seq2Seq) model, which is well-suited to classi-
fying, processing and making predictions based on time
series data, since there can be lags of unknown duration
between important events in a time series. LSTM can
process not only single data points, but also the entire
sequence of data. This characteristic makes it very suit-
able for studying multiple-period planning problems. In
the proposed framework, each period can be seen as a
sequence. PdM actions are performed at the beginning of
the period. The obtained results confirm the LSTM effi-
ciency to predict the RUL class for the next period based
on the data available from the previous period (‘period to
period’). The proposed framework was validated using a
benchmarking data set. The numerical results not only
validate the LSTM prediction model by evaluating the
accuracy and the confusion matrix, but also compare the
performance of the proposed integrated model to a ref-
erence model (Approach 1) corresponding to the actual
run-to-failure data. In this (reference) case, we assume
that the decision-maker has a ‘perfect information’ on
the actual RUL to accurately plan the maintenance and
production. So, this is the ‘ideal’ situation that can pro-
vide the minimum total cost. In reality, it is impossible
to access the exact degradation behaviour of each spe-
cific machine to perform accurate planning. This is made
possible using the available benchmarking data set devel-
oped by NASA, and is used as a reference to evaluate the
other approaches. This public data set is always used in
the literature as a reference to test new deep learning algo-
rithms. Our numerical results show that the newly pro-
posed integrated model provides a solution with a total
cost closer to the reference model than other approaches.
We are currently developing an integrated model for a
system composed of several machines. Besides, defining
different levels of PM is another possible extension of the
proposed model.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editors, and the anonymous
referees for their constructive comments and recommenda-
tions, which have significantly improved the presentation of
this paper. They would like to thank also NASA Ames Research
Center for developing and providing the run-to-failure bench-
marking data set used in this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was financially supported by grants awarded by
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada through the Discovery Grant Program [numbers
RGPIN/04484-2016 and RGPIN/084141-2020]. This support is
gratefully acknowledged.

Notes on contributors
Hassan Dehghan Shoorkand is a Ph.D.
candidate in Mechanical Engineering at
Laval University, Canada. His thesis con-
cerns integrating predictive maintenance
and production planning by taking advan-
tage of deep learning methods. He also
received his M.Sc. in Economics from
Allameh Tabataba’i University, Iran, in
2016. From 2016 to 2019, he was a member of the Central
Bank of Iran (CBI) as a data analyst. His research interest
includes artificial intelligence (AI), industry 4.0 concepts, Inter-
net of Things (IoT), predictive maintenance (PdM), Big Data,
optimisation, and their applications in the industry.
Mustapha Nourelfath is a professor of
Industrial Engineering at the Department
of Mechanical Engineering of Laval Uni-
versity (Canada). He received his Ph.D.
from the National Institute of Applied Sci-
ence (INSA) of Lyon (France) in 1997.
He is a regular member of CIRRELT
(Interuniversity Research Centre on Enter-
prise Networks, Logistics and Transportation). His specific
topics of interest are operations research and artificial intel-
ligence applications in supply chains, reliability, logistics and
manufacturing. He is Associate Editor of INFOR: Information
Systems and Operational Research (Area: Queueing Theory,
Stochastic modelling and simulation), member of the Editorial
Board of Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, Interna-
tional Journal of Performability Engineering (System Analy-
sis and Computational Intelligence), International Journal of
Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, Jour-
nal of Applied Mathematics, and Mathematical Problems in
Engineering. Prof. Nourelfath has received several research
grants and awards, including the Brockhouse Canada Prize for
Interdisciplinary Research in Science and Engineering.
Adnène Hajji is a full professor of oper-
ations and decision systems at Université
Laval in Québec City, Canada. He is the
director of the Center for Research on
Intelligent Communities (CeRCI). He is
a member of the Interuniversity Research
Center on Enterprise Networks, Logis-
tics and Transportation (CIRRELT). He
received the Engineering degree in Mechanical Engineering
from Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis, Tunisia (1999) and
his M.Eng (2003) and PhD (2007) in Automated Production
Engineering both from Ecole de Technologie Supérieure, Mon-
tréal. His main research interest includes production system
modelling and control, simulation, integrated reactive mod-
els in ERP systems, performance management systems design
and implementation, Industry 4.0 concepts, and reconfigurable
manufacturing systems.
Data availability statement
The data that supports the findings of this study is openly avail-
able on NASA at https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/dash/groups/pcoe/
prognostic-data-repository/#turbofan (Saxena and Geodel
2008).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 7989
References
Abadi, M., A. Agarwal, P. Barham, E. Brevdo, Z. Chen, C. Citro,
G. S. Corrado, et al. 2015. TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine
Learning on Heterogeneous Systems. https://www.tensorflow.
org/.
Abernethy, R. B. 2004. The New Weibull Handbook: Reliability
and Statistical Analysis for Predicting Life, Safety, Supporta-
bility, Risk, Cost and Warranty Claims. 5th ed. North Palm
Beach, FL: Dr. RobertAbernethy.
Aghezzaf, E. H., M. A. Jamali, and D. Ait-Kadi. 2007. “An Inte-
grated Production and Preventive Maintenance Planning
Model.” European Journal of Operational Research 181 (2):
679–685. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.06.032.
Alimian, M., V. Ghezavati, and R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam.
2020. “New Integration of Preventive Maintenance and
Production Planning with Cell Formation and Group
Scheduling for Dynamic Cellular Manufacturing Systems.”
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 341–358. doi:10.1016/j.
jmsy.2020.06.011.
Arani, M., M. Dastmard, Z. D. Ebrahimi, M. Momenitabar, and
X. Liu. 2020. “Optimizing the Total Production and Main-
tenance Cost of an Integrated Multi–Product Process and
Maintenance Planning (IPPMP) Model.” In IEEE Interna-
tional Symposium on Systems Engineering (ISSE), Vienna,
Austria, 1–8. IEEE.
Arena, M., V. Di Pasquale, R. Iannone, S. Miranda, and S.
Riemma. 2022. “A Maintenance Driven Scheduling Cock-
pit for Integrated Production and Maintenance Operation
Schedule.” Advances in Manufacturing, 1–15. doi:10.1007/
s40436-021-00380-z.
Aydin, O., and S. Guldamlasioglu. 2017. “Using LSTM Net-
works to Predict Engine Condition on Large Scale Data
Processing Framework.” In 2017 4th International Confer-
ence on Electrical and Electronic Engineering (ICEEE), April,
281–285. Ankara: IEEE.
Ayvaz, S., and K. Alpay. 2021. “Predictive Maintenance System
for Production Lines in Manufacturing: A Machine Learn-
ing Approach Using IoT Data in Real-Time.” Expert Systems
with Applications 173. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114598.
Bahria, N., I. H. Dridi, A. Chelbi, and H. Bouchriha.
2020. “Joint Design of Control Chart, Production and
Maintenance Policy for Unreliable Manufacturing Sys-
tems.” Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering.
doi:10.1108/JQME-01-2020-0006.
Bajestani, M. A. 2014. “Integrating Maintenance Planning
and Production Scheduling: Making Operational Decisions
with a Strategic Perspective.” Doctoral diss., University of
Toronto.
Bampoula, X., G. Siaterlis, N. Nikolakis, and K. Alexopou-
los. 2021. “A Deep Learning Model for Predictive Mainte-
nance in Cyber-Physical Production Systems Using LSTM
Autoencoders.” Sensors, 972. doi:10.3390/s21030972.
Beheshti Fakher, H., M. Nourelfath, and M. Gendreau.
2017. “A Cost Minimisation Model for Joint Produc-
tion and Maintenance Planning Under Quality Con-
straints.” International Journal of Production Research 55.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2016.1201605.
Bougacha, O., C. Varnier, N. Zerhouni, and S. Hajri-Gabouj.
2019. “Integrated Production and Predictive Maintenance
Planning Based on Prognostic Information.” In International
Conference on Advanced Systems and Emergent Technologies,
363–368. doi:10.1109/ASET.2019.8871007.
7990 H. DEHGHAN SHOORKAND ET AL.
Cassady, C. R., and E. Kutanoglu. 2005. “Integrating Preven-
tive Maintenance Planning and Production Scheduling for
a Single Machine.” IEEE Transactions on Reliability 54 (2):
304–309. doi:10.1109/TR.2005.845967.
Chand, S., V. N. Hsu, and S. Sethi. 2002. “Forecast, Solution,
and Rolling Horizons in Operations Management Problems:
A Classified Bibliography.” Manufacturing & Service Oper-
ations Management 4 (1): 25–43. doi:10.1287/msom.4.1.25.
287.
Chaurasiya, P. K., S. Ahmed, and V. Warudkar. 2018. “Study
of Different Parameters Estimation Methods of Weibull Dis-
tribution to Determine Wind Power Density Using Ground
Based Doppler SODAR Instrument.” Alexandria Engineer-
ing Journal 57 (4): 2299–2311. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2017.08.
008.
Chen, C., C. Wang, N. Lu, B. Jiang, and Y. Xing. 2021. “A Data-
Driven Predictive Maintenance Strategy Based on Accurate
Failure Prognostics.” Eksploatacja i Niezawodność 23 (2):
387–394. doi:10.17531/ein.2021.2.19.
Chollet, F. 2015. Keras. https://keras.io/.
Cohen, A. C. 1965. “Maximum Likelihood Estimation in
the Weibull Distribution Based on Complete and on Cen-
sored Samples.” Technometrics 7 (4): 579–588. doi:10.1080/
00401706.1965.10490300.
Cui, P. H., J. Q. Wang, and Y. Li. 2021. “Data-Driven Mod-
elling, Analysis and Improvement of Multistage Production
Systems with Predictive Maintenance and Product Qual-
ity.” International Journal of Production Research, 1–18.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2021.1924412.
Dargan, S., M. Kumar, M. R. Ayyagari, and G. Kumar.
2019. “A Survey of Deep Learning and Its Applica-
tions: A New Paradigm to Machine Learning.” Archives
of Computational Methods in Engineering 27: 1071–1092.
doi:10.1007/s11831-019-09344-w.
de Sampaio, Raimundo J. B., Rafael R. G. Wollmann, and
Paula F. G. Vieira. 2017. “A Flexible Production Planning
for Rolling-Horizons.” International Journal of Production
Economics 190: 31–36. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.01.003.
El Cadi, A. A., A. Gharbi, K. Dhouib, and A. Artiba. 2021.
“Joint Production and Preventive Maintenance Controls for
Unreliable and Imperfect Manufacturing Systems.” Jour-
nal of Manufacturing Systems, 263–279. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.
2020.12.003.
Fitouri, C., N. Fnaiech, C. Varnier, F. Fnaiech, and N. Zer-
houni. 2016. “A Decision-Making Approach for Job Shop
Scheduling with Job Depending Degradation and Predic-
tive Maintenance.” IFAC-PapersOnLine 49 (12): 1490–1495.
doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.782.
Géhan, M., B. Castanier, and D. Lemoine. 2014. “Integra-
tion of Maintenance in the Tactical Production Planning
Process under Feasibility Constraint.” In IFIP International
Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems,
467–474. Berlin: Springer.
Ghaleb, M., S. Taghipour, M. Sharifi, and H. Zolfagharinia.
2020. “Integrated Production and Maintenance Schedul-
ing for a Single Degrading Machine with Deterioration-
Based Failures.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 143.
doi:10.1016/j.cie.2020.106432.
Han, X., Z. Wang, M. Xie, Y. He, Y. Li, and W. Wang.
2021. “Remaining Useful Life Prediction and Predic-
tive Maintenance Strategies for Multi-State Manufacturing
Systems Considering Functional Dependence.” Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, 107560. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2021.107
560.
Hesabi, H., M. Nourelfath, and A. Hajji. 2022. “A Deep Learn-
ing Predictive Model for Selective Maintenance Optimiza-
tion.” Reliability Engineering & System Safety 219: 108191.
doi:10.1016/j.ress.2021.108191.
Hnaien, F., F. Yalaoui, A. Mhadhbi, and M. Nourelfath. 2016.
“A Mixed-Integer Programming Model for Integrated Pro-
duction and Maintenance.” IFAC-PapersOnLine 49 (12):
556–561. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.694.
Hochreiter, S., and J. Schmidhuber. 1996. “LSTM Can Solve
Hard Long Time Lag Problems.” Advances in Neural Infor-
mation Processing Systems 9: 473–479.
Kaddachi, R., A. Gharbi, and J. P. Kenné. 2022. “Integrated
Production and Maintenance Control Policies for Failure-
Prone Manufacturing Systems Producing Perishable Prod-
ucts.” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 1–23. doi:10.1007/s00170-021-08273-y.
Khatab, A., C. Diallo, E. H. Aghezzaf, and U. Venkatadri.
2019. “Integrated Production Quality and Condition-Based
Maintenance Optimisation for a Stochastically Deteriorating
Manufacturing System.” International Journal of Production
Research 57. doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.1521021.
Liu, Q., M. Dong, and F. F. Chen. 2018. “Single-Machine-Based
Joint Optimization of Predictive Maintenance Planning and
Production Scheduling.” Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing 50: 238–247. doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2018.01.002.
Medjaher, K., and N. Zerhouni. 2013. “Hybrid Prognostic
Method Applied to Mechatronic Systems.” The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 69 (1–4):
823–834. doi:10.1007/s00170-013-5064-0.
Morariu, C., O. Morariu, S. Răileanu, and T. Borangiu. 2020.
“Machine Learning for Predictive Scheduling and Resource
Allocation in Large Scale Manufacturing Systems.” Comput-
ers in Industry 120. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2020.103244.
Namuduri, S., B. N. Narayanan, V. S. P. Davuluru, L. Burton,
and S. Bhansali. 2020. “Deep Learning Methods for Sen-
sor Based Predictive Maintenance and Future Perspectives
for Electrochemical Sensors.” Journal of the Electrochemical
Society 167 (3): 037552. doi:10.1149/1945-7111/ab67a8.
Nguyen, K. T., and K. Medjaher. 2019. “A New Dynamic Pre-
dictive Maintenance Framework Using Deep Learning for
Failure Prognostics.” Reliability Engineering & System Safety
188. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2019.03.018.
Nourelfath, M., and E. Châtelet. 2012. “Integrating Produc-
tion, Inventory and Maintenance Planning for a Parallel Sys-
tem with Dependent Components.” Reliability Engineering
& System Safety, 59–66. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2012.02.001.
Nourelfath, M., M. C. Fitouhi, and M. Machani. 2010. “An
Integrated Model for Production and Preventive Mainte-
nance Planning in Multi-State Systems.” EEE Transactions
on Reliability, 496–506. doi:10.1109/TR.2010.2056412.
Okoh, C., R. Roy, and J. Mehnen. 2017. “Predictive Mainte-
nance Modelling for Through-Life Engineering Services.”
Procedia CIRP 59: 196–201. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.09.033.
Pan, E., W. Liao, and L. Xi. 2012. “A Joint Model of
Production Scheduling and Predictive Maintenance for
Minimizing Job Tardiness.” The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 60 (9–12): 1049–1061.
doi:10.1007/s00170-011-3652-4.
Paprocka, I., W. M. Kempa, and B. Skołud. 2021. “Predic-
tive Maintenance Scheduling with Reliability Characteristics

Depending on the Phase of the Machine Life Cycle.”
Engineering Optimization 53. doi:10.1080/0305215X.2020.
1714041.
Pourghader Chobar, A. 2022. “Mathematical Modeling and
Problem Solving Integrated Production Planning and Pre-
ventive Maintenance with Limited Human Resources.” Jour-
nal of New Researches in Mathematics.
Regler, A. 2020. “Data-Driven Integrated Production and
Maintenance Optimization.” Operations Research Proceed-
ings, 43–49. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-48439-2_6.
Saxena, A., and K. Geodel. 2008. Turbofan Engine Degradation
Simulation Data Set, NASA Ames Prognostics Data Reposi-
tory. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
Shao, X., Z. Chen, and B. R. Sarker. 2022. “An Joint Deci-
sion of Production and Maintenance Plan (Q, N) for
a Two-Stage Deteriorating JIT Production System with
Random Breakdowns.” Production Engineering, 89–107.
doi:10.1007/s11740-021-01079-7.
Tobon-Mejia, D. A., K. Medjaher, N. Zerhouni, and G.
Tripot. 2012. “A Data-Driven Failure Prognostics Method
Based on Mixture of Gaussians Hidden Markov Mod-
els.” IEEE Transactions on Reliability 61 (2): 491–503.
doi:10.1109/TR.2012.2194177.
Triska, Y., ÍRS Agostino, P. M. Penna, L. F. Braghirolli, and
E. M. Frazzon. 2021. “Integrated Production and Mainte-
nance Planning Method with Simulation-Based Optimiza-
tion.” IFAC-PapersOnLine, 349–354. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.
2021.08.160.
Wang, S., and M. Liu. 2013. “A Branch and Bound Algorithm
for Single-Machine Production Scheduling Integrated with
Preventive Maintenance Planning.” International Journal of
Production Research 51 (3): 874–868. doi:10.1080/00207543.
2012.676683.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 7991
Wang, L., Z. Lu, and Y. Ren. 2020. “Integrated Produc-
tion Planning and Condition-Based Maintenance Consid-
ering Uncertain Demand and Random Failures.” Proceed-
ings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 310–323.
doi:10.1177/0954405419852479.
Yildirim, M. B., and F. G. Nezami. 2014. “Integrated Mainte-
nance and Production Planning with Energy Consumption
and Minimal Repair.” The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 1419–1430. doi:10.1007/s00170
-014-5834-3.
Yousefi, N., S. Tsianikas, and D. W. Coit. 2021. “Dynamic Main-
tenance Model for a Repairable Multi-Component System
Using Deep Reinforcement Learning.” Quality Engineering,
1–20. doi:10.1080/08982112.2021.1977950
Zhai, S., M. G. Kandemir, and G. Reinhart. 2022. “Pre-
dictive Maintenance Integrated Production Scheduling by
Applying Deep Generative Prognostics Models: Approach,
Formulation and Solution.” Production Engineering, 1–24.
doi:10.1007/s11740-021-01064-0
Zhao, R., J. Wang, R. Yan, and K. Mao. 2016. “Machine Health
Monitoring with LSTM Networks.” In 2016 10th Interna-
tional Conference on Sensing Technology (ICST), 1–6. Nan-
jing: IEEE.
Zheng, S., K. Ristovski, A. Farahat, and C. Gupta. 2017. “Long
Short-Term Memory Network for Remaining Useful Life
Estimation.” In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Prog-
nostics and Health Management (ICPHM), 88–95. Dallas,
TX: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICPHM.2017.7998311.
Zonta, T., C. A. da Costa, F. A. Zeiser, G. de Oliveira Ramos,
R. Kunst, and R. da Rosa Righi. 2022. “A Predictive Main-
tenance Model for Optimizing Production Schedule Using
Deep Neural Networks.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems,
450–462. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.12.013.