Robots don’t break often, but when they do, they usually take part of the factory down with them.
Image Credit: panuwat phimpha/Shutterstock.com
For years, maintenance strategy in robotics has been defined by routine: scheduled inspections, component swaps at fixed intervals, and occasional surprises that disrupt operations. It worked well enough when systems were simpler. But with modern robotic platforms operating in tighter cycles, harsher conditions, and more interconnected lines, the margin for reactive maintenance is narrowing.
Predictive maintenance offers a different approach—one based on what’s actually happening inside the robot, not just what the calendar says. By continuously monitoring the robot’s mechanical and electrical state and using that data to forecast degradation, predictive maintenance lets you intervene just before a fault occurs—not after.
But implementing it is more than installing sensors and buying analytics software. It’s a shift in how robotic systems are monitored, modeled, and managed across the entire lifecycle.
Download your PDF copy now!
Rethinking Robotic Maintenance: From Schedule to Signal
The shift from traditional to predictive maintenance is less about tools and more about assumptions.
Preventive maintenance assumes wear is predictable across time: if a gearbox lasts 10,000 hours in lab testing, replace it after 8000 in the field—just to be safe. But in practice, robotic wear is usage-specific. Two identical arms doing different jobs will degrade at different rates. Cycle loads, orientation, and environmental exposure all make a difference.
Predictive maintenance drops the assumption of uniformity. Instead, it treats each robot as a unique system with its own operating signature. Data from sensors, whether that be thermal, vibrational, positional, or electrical, is captured and analyzed continuously. What matters isn’t the date on the calendar, but the shape of the signal over time.
This shift reframes maintenance from a calendar-driven obligation into a condition-aware decision, based on real degradation trajectories.
So, What Exactly is Predictive Maintenance?
Think of predictive maintenance as a health-monitoring system for your robots. It constantly asks: How are you doing? Feeling any off vibrations? Heating up more than usual? Struggling with precision? And instead of waiting for a technician to investigate, it flags these concerns automatically.
A functioning predictive maintenance system in robotics begins with the ability to sense degradation while the robot is still operating normally. The system must detect meaningful patterns in physical data, interpret those signals in context, and produce timely recommendations—ideally without interrupting workflow or requiring human interpretation at every step.
This involves four tightly connected layers: sensing, signal processing, machine learning inference, and operational integration.
1. Sensing: Capturing Internal Conditions in Real Time
Sensors are placed at critical points within the robot (gearboxes, joints, actuators, motor housings, and control boards) where mechanical or thermal stress tends to accumulate first. Each sensor is selected based on what kind of failure it's meant to expose.
- Accelerometers near gear trains can detect subtle shifts in vibration frequency, indicating early-stage wear or imbalance.
- Temperature sensors (thermistors or RTDs) monitor overheating due to increased friction, electrical resistance, or load misalignment.
- Current sensors measure electrical draw at the motor level, flagging increases that could point to binding, drag, or torque overload.
- Rotary encoders and position sensors track micro-deviations in movement that suggest backlash, drift, or fatigue in mechanical linkages.
These readings are continuous. The system doesn't wait for a fault—it watches for change over time.
2. Feature Extraction: Making the Data Useful
Sensor readings, especially vibration and current, can be noisy, high-volume, and not inherently meaningful. Raw values need to be converted into engineered features that can be tracked and interpreted. This step happens locally, often on the robot’s controller or at an edge-processing node. It includes:
- Statistical features like RMS, peak-to-peak, standard deviation, and spectral entropy capture the shape and spread of the signal.
- Frequency-domain analysis via FFT or wavelet transforms to isolate shifts in dominant frequencies (e.g., a bearing defect frequency).
- Time-windowing and trend shaping allow the system to compare the current signal to recent baselines, not just static thresholds.
The goal is to reduce noise, highlight deviation, and compress raw signals into structured data that describes how the robot’s behavior is evolving.
3. Inference: Identifying Anomalies and Forecasting Failures
Once the signal has been reduced to a set of meaningful features, the system passes this structured data to a predictive model. These models vary depending on complexity and available failure history, but they generally fall into two categories:
- Anomaly detection models learn a baseline of “normal” behavior and flag when current data deviates from it. This is useful when labeled failure data is limited or unavailable.
- Failure classification or RUL prediction models are trained on historical data to recognize failure modes and estimate remaining useful life (RUL) for specific components.
The models evaluate not just whether something has changed, but what it likely means—whether a drive is showing signs of fatigue, whether a bearing is beginning to misalign, or whether a thermal pattern indicates deteriorating insulation in the motor windings.
Many modern systems also calculate confidence intervals and risk scores, which is essential for planning. It's one thing to say a component might fail soon. It's more valuable to say: “Given current patterns, failure is likely within the next 50–100 hours, with 80% confidence.”
4. Integration: Acting on Predictions Without Disruption
The final step is operational. Predictions are only useful if they lead to the right kind of response.
Once a potential failure is detected, the system must trigger action. This might include:
- Creating a maintenance ticket, automatically populated with the affected robot, likely component, and suggested timeline
- Notifying production planning to reschedule tasks or reduce cycle loads during non-critical periods
- Adjusting robot motion profiles to reduce stress on the degrading axis, buying time before repair
These actions can be automated, human-reviewed, or embedded into broader manufacturing execution systems (MES). What matters is that the insights move from model output to physical response, in time to make a difference.
Digital Twins: Testing Assumptions Before Acting on Them
Predictive models are only as good as the assumptions they’re built on. That’s where digital twins become critical, not as visualizations, but as operational simulations.
A digital twin of a robotic system can simulate physical behaviors under varied loading and environmental conditions. This allows engineers to ask: If this temperature pattern continues, will the harmonic drive reach a thermal limit in 36 hours or 200? Or: Is the increased vibration a sign of degradation, or just a shift in the task profile?
By simulating scenarios with real data, digital twins help avoid false positives and over-maintenance. They also allow for pre-validation of maintenance actions before shutting down the line. In more advanced setups, digital twins are also updated in near real-time and linked directly to the robot’s controller logic, enabling live risk assessment and even workload rebalancing across the line.
Strategic Benefits (Beyond Fewer Breakdowns)
Reducing downtime is the most immediate and measurable impact of predictive maintenance, but the longer-term advantages are structural. Over time, the value shifts from reaction prevention to system refinement.
One major benefit is how it changes the way parts are serviced. Instead of following vendor-recommended lifespans, which are often conservative and generalized, PdM allows components to be replaced based on how they’ve actually performed in their specific environment. This leads to highly efficient maintenance cycles that extend component life without risking failure, especially valuable for expensive or supply-constrained parts like harmonic drives or precision reducers.
Predictive logs also provide something maintenance records often don’t: a trail of degradation leading up to failure. This history helps identify whether the root cause was operational (overloading), environmental (heat, humidity), or design-related (material fatigue). When multiple robots in different cells show similar degradation trends, those patterns become a feedback channel—not just for service teams, but for procurement, integration, and even upstream engineering decisions.
Precision stability is another key advantage. In many robotic applications, especially in electronics, packaging, or pharma, a component doesn’t need to fail catastrophically to impact quality. Even small shifts in repeatability or motion smoothness can introduce defects. PdM catches these signs before tolerances slip out of spec, protecting not just throughput but output quality.
Over time, predictive maintenance shifts the role of robotics support from reactive service to performance management, turning every maintenance record into operational insight.
What it Really Takes to Deploy Predictive Maintenance at Scale
Implementing predictive maintenance in a single robotic arm is manageable. Deploying it across a line, facility, or fleet is where the complexity emerges—and where the foundational requirements become clear.
First, there’s the data. Accurate predictions require labeled examples of degradation and failure, and in robotics, those events are relatively rare. That scarcity makes early implementation difficult. Most organizations need to collect months of data before training useful models. Some accelerate this using synthetic data or by transferring models trained on similar equipment, but even then, the tuning process is iterative. It only improves with usage.
Second is the need for tight coordination across disciplines. Mechanical engineers understand failure modes and tolerances. Controls engineers understand signal flow and PLC logic. Data scientists understand how to extract features and build models. Predictive maintenance lives in the intersection of these domains. If each works in isolation, the system stalls—either from misaligned thresholds or false-positive overload.
Another layer is trust. PdM systems can’t work in the background without credibility. Maintenance teams need to understand what’s being flagged, how the prediction was made, and whether it lines up with what they’ve seen before. That means model transparency, failure attribution, and a clear channel for human feedback.
Finally, there must be a feedback loop. Predictions need to be logged, evaluated, and used to retrain models over time. Without this, accuracy degrades as systems evolve. PdM works best when it’s treated not as a static product, but a living process—tuned continuously by its own results.
Looking Ahead: Toward Self-Aware Robotic Systems
The logical progression of predictive maintenance isn’t just better alerts—it’s automation of the response itself. Robotic systems are already capable of recognizing when their behavior deviates from expected norms. The next step is enabling them to adjust in real time and coordinate their own service schedules.
This kind of adaptive behavior could take many forms. A robot detecting increased vibration might shift its acceleration profile to reduce mechanical strain. If its remaining useful life drops below a threshold, it could signal to adjacent robots in a multi-arm cell to take over a larger share of the workload. The affected unit could then schedule downtime during a known production lull, order a replacement part from inventory, and notify the floor technician—all without human prompting.
These scenarios are already being piloted in industries where uptime is non-negotiable, such as semiconductor fabrication or aerospace assembly. Over time, this logic will migrate into broader industrial use, especially in facilities where robotics are tightly coupled with supply chain constraints, energy optimization, or highly variable production flows.
As robotic systems become more interconnected, predictive maintenance will evolve into a shared intelligence layer—a form of machine self-awareness that supports operational flexibility, not just reliability.
Want to Learn More?
If you're looking to advance your knowledge further, why not read some of the below article?
Download your PDF copy now!
References and Further Reading
- Benhanifia, A. et al. (2025). Systematic review of predictive maintenance practices in the manufacturing sector. Intelligent Systems With Applications, 26, 200501. DOI:10.1016/j.iswa.2025.200501. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667305325000274
- Pech, M., Vrchota, J., & Bednář, J. (2021). Predictive Maintenance and Intelligent Sensors in Smart Factory: Review. Sensors, 21(4), 1470. DOI:10.3390/s21041470. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/4/1470
- Morettini, S. (2021). Machine learning in predictive maintenance of industrial robots. KTH Royal Institute Of Technology. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1609771/FULLTEXT01.pdf
- Enhancing Manufacturing Asset Reliability with Anomaly Detection. iLink Digital. https://www.ilink-digital.com/insights/case-studies/enhancing-manufacturing-asset-reliability-with-anomaly-detection/
- Boltshauser, F. (2023). Anomaly detection for prediction of failures in manufacturing environments : Machine learning based semi-supervised anomaly detection for multivariate time series to predict failures in a CNC-machine. KTH School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?dswid=-44&pid=diva2%3A1783647
- Fault Diagnosis & Anomaly Detection. Kyungpook National University. https://sites.google.com/site/knuscislab/research/fault-diagnosis-anomaly-detection
- How to Reduce Unplanned Downtime in Manufacturing with CMMS. LLUMIN. https://llumin.com/how-to-reduce-unplanned-downtime-in-manufacturing-with-cmms/
- Smith, D. (2024). How to Minimize Downtime During Digital Change. Automation World. https://www.automationworld.com/factory/plant-maintenance/article/55246153/minimize-downtime-with-predictive-maintenance
- Naiya, S. (2025). AI-Powered Predictive Maintenance in IoT-Enabled Smart Factories. Research Annals of Industrial and Systems Engineering. https://raise.reapress.com/journal/article/view/34
- Puthanveettil Madathil, A. et al. (2025). A review of explainable artificial intelligence in smart manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research, 1–44. DOI:10.1080/00207543.2025.2513574. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00207543.2025.2513574
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.