Comparision of different machine learning algorithms used for

predictive maintenance of an induction machine

Abstract - The utilization of predictive maintenance has become imperative in
guaranteeing the dependability and durability of induction devices, which are vital
elements in numerous industrial operations. A wide range of algorithms is available that
can be used for predictive maintenance chores as a result of the widespread use of
machine learning techniques. In the context of predictive maintenance for induction
machines, this research study systematically examines the performance of four well-
known machine learning algorithms: Support Vector Machine (SVM), Deep Neural
Networks (DNN), k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN), and Logistic Regression. This paper
investigates the theoretical underpinnings, implementation strategies, and strengths of
each algorithm in identifying and forecasting errors in induction machines through a
thorough examination of the literature. The predicted accuracy, computational
efficiency, and robustness of the algorithms under various operating settings and fault
scenarios are assessed and compared using real-world datasets and case studies. This
research also examines each algorithm's interpretability and scalability while taking
industrial application needs and practical limitations into account. The comparison
analysis yielded insights that could help researchers and maintenance practitioners
choose the best machine learning technique for induction machine-specific predictive
maintenance tasks. This work advances the state-of-the-art in predictive maintenance
methodologies for induction machines by illuminating the relative performance of
various machine learning algorithms. This helps to make informed decisions and
improves the dependability and efficiency of industrial operations.
1. Introduction
The effectiveness and dependability of machinery are essential components of operational
success in today's industrial environment. Among these essential parts, induction machines
are crucial for a number of industries, including manufacturing and energy production.
Unexpected malfunctions, on the other hand, might cause operations to be disrupted and
result in expensive downtime and maintenance costs. Predictive maintenance solutions have
become popular as a proactive way to reduce hazards and maximize machine performance in
response to this challenge. By using sophisticated data analytics methods, especially machine
learning algorithms, predictive maintenance is able to anticipate equipment breakdowns
before they happen. Using the abundance of data produced by induction machines, predictive
maintenance models look for trends that could point to upcoming problems or performance
decline. By taking a proactive stance, it is possible to intervene promptly and carry out
focused maintenance procedures, which reduces downtime and increases operational
effectiveness. Choosing the best machine learning algorithms for induction machine
predictive maintenance can be difficult given the variety of options available. Every
algorithm demonstrates distinct advantages and disadvantages, differing in terms of
computational efficiency, scalability, and predicted accuracy. Consequently, in order to
determine which algorithmic solution is most suited to the particular needs of predictive
maintenance in the context of induction machines, a thorough comparative analysis is
necessary. By thoroughly comparing several machine learning methods used for induction
machine predictive maintenance, this research work seeks to close this gap. This study aims
to provide light on the relative efficacy of each strategy by comparing the performance of
several algorithms against important criteria including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and
computing overhead. Furthermore, the paper aims to clarify the practical consequences and
difficulties related to applying these algorithms in industrial settings through empirical
experimentation and real-world dataset analysis. Essentially, by providing insightful
information about the relative effectiveness of machine learning algorithms, this research
project aims to further predictive maintenance practices in the context of induction machines.
This study aims to provide industrial stakeholders with the necessary knowledge to make
informed decisions regarding the selection and implementation of predictive maintenance
strategies, ultimately promoting improved operational efficiency and reliability in industrial
environments. To this end, it will clarify the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
2. Different Approaches
The project desires to have a machine learning algorithm which can differentiate between the
faulty and healthy machines and afterwards write an algorithm to calculate the health of the
Induction machine .The different algorithms that we followed in this research paper are K-
nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machine, Logistic regression, Deep Neural network and
Decision tree.
A. K-Nearest Neighbors
One straightforward but effective machine learning method for classification and regression
problems is the K-nearest neighbors (KNN) algorithm. KNN functions by calculating the
distance between data points in a multidimensional feature space in the context of predictive
maintenance for induction machines. KNN identifies fresh instances of an induction machine
failure based on the majority class of their K nearest neighbors when applied to a dataset
containing different sorts of failures. For example, if we had features that represent various
operational factors and the related types of failures experienced, KNN would use the labels of
its closest neighbors to forecast the type of failure of a new data point. The number of
neighbors to take into account, or parameter K, has a big impact on how well the algorithm
works and how much it can be generalized. When it comes to induction machine predictive
maintenance, engineers and maintenance staff may quickly detect possible problems based on
operational data by applying KNN to a variety of failure types in a dataset. Through the
utilization of analogies between past failure cases and present-day operating circumstances,
KNN enables prompt interventions and preventive maintenance measures, ultimately
augmenting the dependability and durability of induction machines in industrial
environments. In this paper, as a comparative part we investigated the use of the K-nearest
neighbors (KNN) method for predictive maintenance on induction machines. We specifically
apply the approach to a dataset that includes a variety of failure modes. The majority class of
a new instance's closest neighbors in the feature space determines the class of that instance.
KNN is a non-parametric, instance-based learning method that works on this idea. This KNN
model provided us with an accuracy of 62.34% with our dataset which was an unsatisfactory
result the major reason for such a drop maybe the data being highly distributed resulting in a
great loss in the accuracy of the algorithm. The confusion matrix for the KNN algorithm is
shown in Figure 1.
 Figure 1: confusion matrix KNN

B. Support Vector machine

In this part of the paper, we examine the use of the Support Vector Machine (SVM) method
for predictive maintenance on induction machines, with particular attention to its use on a
dataset that includes a variety of failure modes. Finding the ideal hyperplane to divide data
points of distinct classes while maximizing the margin between them is the fundamental idea
behind support vector machines (SVM). The capacity of Support Vector Machines (SVM) to
build ideal hyperplanes for data point classification in a high-dimensional feature space
makes it a potent supervised learning technique.
Support Vector Machine (SVM) is an excellent choice for predictive maintenance jobs
because of the following reasons:
 Efficient in High-Dimensional Spaces: Support Vector Machines (SVM) are well-
suited for the analysis of extensive industrial datasets that consist of many sensor
readings and operational parameters due to their ability to efficiently model high-
dimensional feature spaces.

 Resilience against Overfitting: By adjusting the trade-off between model complexity

and generalization, the regularization parameter of SVM reduces the possibility of
overfitting and improves model resilience.

 Nonlinear Modelling: Without explicitly describing feature interactions, SVM's kernel

trick allows it to capture complicated patterns in the data and simulate nonlinear
relationships.
The SVM model only met the desired performance threshold with an accuracy of 58.2% in
fault classification, despite careful efforts in data preprocessing and model training. This
surprising result triggered a careful investigation of all the variables that could be causing the
difference between the expected and actual outcomes. The Reasons For this poor
performance may be first off, the model's ability to correctly identify faults was probably
hampered by the imbalanced nature of the dataset, where instances of fault occurrences were
sparse relative to normal operating conditions. Second, the model's discriminatory strength
might have been hampered by insufficient representation of pertinent features. The feature
selection method was essential to identifying the underlying fault patterns in the dataset. The
regularization parameter (C) and kernel type selection were two other important SVM
hyperparameter choices that influenced the model's performance and capacity for
generalization. The confusion matrix of SVM is represented as in figure 2.

Figure 2: Confusion Matrix SVM

C. LOGISTIC REGRESSION
A popular statistical technique for modeling binary outcome variables in a variety of
domains, including machine learning, social sciences, and medicine, is logistic regression. In
contrast to linear regression, which forecasts a continuous result, logistic regression estimates
the likelihood of a binary result, which has only two possible values, typically denoted as 0
and 1. The logistic function, commonly referred to as the sigmoid function, is the
fundamental component of logistic regression. The anticipated values are mapped to
probabilities using this function.A logistic regression model forecasts the likelihood that an
instance falls into a specific class. Maximum likelihood estimation is the approach used to
estimate the logistic regression model's coefficients (MLE). Maximizing the likelihood of the
observed data is the aim of Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) techniques. The log
chances of the dependent variable are represented by the coefficients in logistic regression.
The ratio of the chance of an event happening to the likelihood of it not happening is known
as the odds of an event occurring.
The reasons to use linear regression in our research approach are firstly clear probabilistic
predictions are produced by logistic regression. Maintenance engineers and decision-makers
may simply analyse the output probabilities to determine the probability of failure. Given its
ease of implementation and processing efficiency, logistic regression is a useful tool for
handling the enormous datasets frequently seen in predictive maintenance scenarios. Its
efficiency allows for real-time or near-real-time predictions, enabling timely maintenance
actions. Given its ease of implementation and processing efficiency, logistic regression is a
useful tool for handling the enormous datasets frequently seen in predictive maintenance
scenarios. Based on the estimated chance of failure, risk ratings or thresholds that can initiate
maintenance procedures can be created using the probabilistic output of logistic regression.
This adaptability is useful when scheduling maintenance.
 Figure 3: Confusion matrix for Logistic regression

D. DEEP NEURAL NETWORK

Deep neural networks (DNNs) are a type of machine learning model inspired by the structure
and function of the human brain. They are made up of several layers of networked nodes, or
neurons, that analyse information so the model can identify intricate patterns and
representations. A DNN consists of three main types of layers input layer, hidden layer and
the output layer. Predictions are produced as data is transmitted via the network. A loss
function (e.g., mean squared error for regression, cross-entropy for classification) is used to
quantify the difference between the actual target and the expected output. Using the chain
rule, the gradients of the loss with respect to each weight are computed. Propagating the error
backwards over the network is required for this. To minimize the loss, an optimization
technique such as Adam or Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) is used to modify the weights
of the network.
Using past data, DNNs are used to forecast when equipment is likely to break. DNNs
anticipate upcoming failures by examining trends in sensor readings, operational data, and
environmental conditions. This enables prompt maintenance interventions hence DNNs are a
good choice for predictive maintenance algorithms. DNNs are able to recognize anomalous
patterns in the behavior of equipment that might point to upcoming malfunctions. By first
training the network under typical operating settings and then detecting deviations from this
norm, these anomalies can be found. Equipment's remaining usable life is estimated using
DNNs. DNNs are able to forecast how long a piece of machinery will last before requiring
repair or replacement by using past data on equipment lifespan and operating conditions. The
analyse real-time sensor data streams to continuously monitor equipment health. Proactive
maintenance is made easier by the ability to notice slow declines in equipment performance
due to ongoing monitoring. By examining patterns and correlations in data, DNNs can assist
in locating the underlying causes of malfunctions. With the help of this analysis, maintenance
teams may identify underlying problems and take appropriate action to stop failures in the
future. DNNs are able to identify possible problems before they become problems. These
networks can provide maintenance staff early warnings and diagnostic data by identifying
trends that predate known failure modes. By anticipating the ideal times to do maintenance
tasks in order to reduce downtime and operational interruptions, DNNs can optimize
maintenance schedules. The equipment's criticality and anticipated failure times serve as the
foundation for this optimization. To improve the predictive maintenance capabilities of
Internet of Things (IoT) devices, DNNs can be integrated with them. Continuous streams of
data are provided by IoT devices, which DNNs can process in real time to produce precise
forecasts and set off maintenance alarms. Over time, DNNs can adjust to changes in the
behavior of the equipment and the surrounding environment. The predictive maintenance
models are guaranteed to stay accurate and applicable when operating conditions change
thanks to this adaptive learning capabilities.
When we used a deep neural network (DNN) model in our predictive maintenance study to
evaluate the dataset and forecast equipment breakdowns. With an accuracy of 86% on the test
dataset, the DNN model accurately predicted the equipment's operational condition in 86% of
the cases. In addition, the model's loss was observed to be 14%, which represents the typical
discrepancy between the expected and observed results.

Figure 4: Accuraccy Curve of Deep Neural Network

E. LIGHTGBM MODEL (Gradient Based Decision Tree)

The Light Gradient Boosting Machine, or LightGBM, is a potent and extremely effective
gradient boosting system. It was created by Microsoft with the goal of handling massive
amounts of data quickly and effectively. Machine learning activities requiring high accuracy
and efficiency, like classification, regression, and ranking issues, are especially well-suited
for LightGBM. The decision tree learning algorithm used by LightGBM is based on
histograms, which drastically cuts down on calculation time and memory consumption. This
is accomplished by discretizing continuous features into bins, which speeds up and improves
memory efficiency of the training process. In contrast to conventional level-wise growth
techniques, LightGBM grows trees leaf-by-leaf, selecting the leaf that minimizes loss.
Although it can produce deeper trees, this method frequently produces models that are more
accurate. Large datasets and high-dimensional data can be handled effectively by LightGBM.
It is perfect for big data applications since it can handle enormous volumes of data without
experiencing noticeable slowdowns. The framework can take advantage of several cores and
machines to speed up the learning process because it enables distributed and parallel training.
In a range of real-world applications and machine learning challenges, LightGBM routinely
achieves excellent accuracy. Its strong prediction accuracy is partly attributed to its capacity
to catch complicated patterns in data effectively. Processing enormous volumes of sensor
data, operational records, and environmental data is frequently required for predictive
maintenance. LightGBM is perfect for these big datasets because of its scalability and
efficiency, which allow for rapid cycles of training and prediction. Precise forecasting is
essential for predictive maintenance in order to reduce downtime and maximize maintenance
plans. Because of LightGBM's great accuracy, dependable failure predictions may be made,
resulting in efficient and timely maintenance interventions. Maintenance engineers can better
understand which elements are most important in predicting equipment failures by using
LightGBM's feature importance scores. This realization is helpful for both enhancing model
performance and learning more about the fundamental causes of failure. By predicting an
equipment's remaining usable life (RUL) and identifying the best times for maintenance,
LightGBM can cut down on pointless repairs and concentrate resources where they are most
needed. LightGBM helps save a lot of money by extending the lifespan of equipment,
preventing expensive repairs, and precisely anticipating breakdowns and improving
maintenance plans. LightGBM's economy, scalability, high accuracy, and real-time
processing capabilities make it an effective tool for predictive maintenance. Through the
utilization of LightGBM, entities can precisely forecast equipment malfunctions, enhance
maintenance plans, and drastically lower maintenance expenses and downtime. Predictive
maintenance benefits greatly from its capacity to manage huge datasets, offer interpretability
through feature importance, and avoid overfitting.
In summary, LightGBM shows to be an excellent predictive maintenance tool, with an
accuracy of roughly 94%. Because of its remarkable mix of speed, scalability, accuracy, and
interpretability, it may be used to predict equipment failures and optimize maintenance
procedures, which will ultimately increase the machinery and equipment's longevity and
dependability.

Figure 5: Confusion matrix for LightGBM

3. Conclusion
We analyzed five machine learning algorithms in detail as part of our extensive investigation
into predictive maintenance models: k-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Machines
(SVM), Logistic Regression, Deep Neural Networks (DNN), and Light Gradient Boosting
Machine (LightGBM). Our goal was to identify the best performing model for equipment
failure prediction and to optimize maintenance schedules according to the model's accuracy
performances. First, we carefully assembled data from multiple sources, including sensor
readings, operation logs, and maintenance records, before preprocessing the dataset. By
means of feature encoding and normalization, we made certain that the data was consistent
and compatible with all models. Each model was then put through a rigorous training process
using a standardized dataset, and its hyperparameters were carefully adjusted to get the best
possible performance. The outcomes of our review method were informative. With an
accuracy of 62.34%, KNN demonstrated its ease of use, sensitivity to parameter selection,
and inefficiency while working with larger datasets. Even with its capacity for high-
dimensional spaces and variable kernel choices, SVM only produced an accuracy of 59.1%,
suggesting that model complexity and parameter complexities may be the cause of its
limitations. The accuracy of Logistic Regression was 69.21%, which was a marginal
improvement. Although it provided a trade-off between interpretability and performance,
more advanced models were able to capture complex data patterns better than it did. With an
accuracy of 86%, Deep Neural Networks (DNN) showed itself to be a formidable competitor,
demonstrating its capacity to learn intricate associations from large amounts of data, even if it
requires more processing power. In our comparative investigation, LightGBM emerged as the
obvious winner with an accuracy of 94%. Its leaf-wise tree growth technique, histogram-
based algorithm, and reliable handling of large-scale, high-dimensional datasets are all
responsible for its remarkable performance. LightGBM is a great option for predictive
maintenance activities because of its efficiency, scalability, and superior tree-based learning
technique, which greatly increase the dependability and affordability of maintenance
operations.
In conclusion, while easier to understand models such as Logistic Regression, KNN, and
SVM are available, more advanced algorithms have proven to be more predictive than these
simpler models. The two best performances were DNN and LightGBM, with LightGBM
showing the highest accuracy and efficiency. LightGBM is the preferred model for predictive
maintenance applications due to its outstanding performance, which guarantees prompt and
proactive maintenance interventions to reduce equipment failures and maximize maintenance
schedules.