Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 219–224
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

29th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Conference

Adaptive Remanufacturing – Decision Model for the Intelligent

Maintenance of Production Resources
Peter Burggräfa,b, Tobias Adlona, Jonas Dackweilera, Florian Bröhla,*, Carsten Föllinga
a
Laboratory for Machine Tools and Production Engineering (WZL) of RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany
b
Chair of International Production Engineering And Management, University of Siegen, Paul-Bonatz-Str. 9-11, 57076 Siegen, Germany

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 (0) 151 65695109; fax: +49 241 8022293. E-mail address: f.broehl@wzl.rwth-aachen.de

Abstract

The life cycle extension of capital goods holds considerable ecological and economic potential in terms of improved resource efficiency in view
of increasing resource scarcity and rising environmental awareness. The innovative approach of Adaptive Remanufacturing (AdR) allows to raise
these potentials. The objective of this article is the detailed introduction of the structure and functioning of the AdR decision model. AdR describes
a proactive, intelligent maintenance strategy based on structured decisions about the optimal time and scope of maintenance and remanufacturing
measures. The basis of assessment are the remanufacturing-relevant components of a capital good. To protect these components from critical
wear and tear, component conditions are monitored, and sensor measurement data are transferred into the decision model as dynamic input. Based
on condition monitoring and defined threshold values per sensor, critical states of the monitored components are predicted. These forecasts trigger
the decision process to identify and suggest suitable measures and the optimal point in time for their application based on a catalogue of measures,
which serves as static input for the decision model. From this catalogue, feasible measures are preselected according to their technical suitability
for specific components and wear mechanisms. To determine the optimal measure for a given component and wear, measures are assessed in
terms of benefits regarding the state of a component as well as economic and ecological efforts. The decision model is implemented in a web-
based software application. As a main result, it provides key figures regarding short- and long-term expenses, the CO2 consumption, and the
effective duration per measure. Moreover, a prioritised measure recommendation is issued. The AdR decision model thus enables the substantiated
selection of the optimal maintenance or remanufacturing measure per component.
© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 29th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Conference.
Keywords: Adaptive Remanufacturing; resource efficiency; intelligent maintenance strategy; maintenance decision model; condition monitoring

1. Introduction
The growing world population along with high global
economic performance leads to increasing resource
consumption and environmental impacts [1]. The global
economy faces the challenge of contributing to climate
neutrality by reducing CO2 emissions. Europe is committed to
achieving the goal of climate neutrality by 2050 [2]. An
important indicator of the increasing relevance to develop and
implement solutions addressing this challenge is reflected in
rising CO2 certificate prices. Over the last few years, a
continuously rising trend in costs per tonne of emitted CO2 can
be observed [2]. While the average cost per tonne is €37.68 in
2021, prices were below €10 until 2018 [2]. In order to reduce
the expected social consequences and environmental damage,
an essential solution step is to decouple the resource
consumption from economic growth. Extended product
lifecycles can improve resource efficiency [3, 4]. Common
approaches to extending the life cycles of capital goods include
the use of remanufacturing and maintenance [5, 6].
Maintenance approaches can be corrective, preventive,
predictive or prescriptive with the latter suggesting specific
maintenance actions [7]. Remanufacturing measures, in turn,
are more extensive than maintenance measures and can be

2212-8271 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 29th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Conference.
10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.036

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 220 Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 219–224
applied to entire capital goods or individual components.
Remanufacturing is one of the core elements of a circular
economy [8–10].
Within the research project ReLIFE, the concept of
Adaptive Remanufacturing (AdR) is being developed to exploit
the potential of life cycle extension through intelligent
maintenance and remanufacturing strategies with a focus on
capital goods.
The term Adaptive Remanufacturing describes an intelligent
and adaptive strategy for the application of maintenance and
remanufacturing measures. AdR aims at ensuring predefined
performance levels of capital goods by applying appropriate
measures leading to increased resource efficiency. Apart from
that, AdR enables new business models for the manufacturers,
owners and operators of capital goods.
The core element of AdR is a decision model supporting
users in deciding upon the optimal timing and scope of
maintenance and remanufacturing measures. The AdR decision
model assists in prioritising and proposing different measure
alternatives according to the users’ economic and ecological
preferences. Using condition monitoring, real-time sensor data
enable the analysis of the state of wear [11]. Sensor data are
processed within the AdR decision model to predict the optimal
time for carrying out maintenance or remanufacturing
measures on specific components of a capital good.
This paper explains the structure and functions of the AdR
decision model. The following chapter deals with the
recommendations for measure scheduling and the
implementation of specific measures. Chapter three describes
the implementation of the decision model within a prototypical
software application including an empirical evaluation of its
potentials. Chapter four summarises the paper and provides an
outlook for the practical application of the decision model.
2. The AdR decision model
In this chapter, the AdR decision model is explained in detail.
To guarantee the contractually agreed minimum performance
level of a capital good, application-related maintenance and
remanufacturing measures are recommended for efficient and
effective life cycle extensions. The AdR decision model
prioritises maintenance and remanufacturing measure
alternatives based on quantitative indicators regarding their
ecological and economic impact to enable users in selecting the
best-suited measure. Since the timing and scope of these
measures can be selected situation-specifically, AdR is an
adaptive strategy.
The AdR decision-making process is represented in Figure 1.
The state of a capital good is continuously monitored through
several sensors. Based on historical and live sensor data, a
forecast algorithm predicts critical conditions for the monitored
machine components. These forecasts enable the scheduling of
maintenance or remanufacturing measures before exceeding
the predefined performance level of the capital good. When a
sensor signal reaches a warning threshold, an action
recommendation is issued to the user to prevent the component
from reaching a critical state. The action recommendation
contains the proposition of a maintenance or remanufacturing
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
measure and a recommendation for the optimal implementation
date.
Threshold
reached?
Condition
monitoring [no] [yes]
Forecast for
threshold values
Recommendation
for measure
schedule and scope
Figure 1: The AdR decision-making process
In the following, the two decision elements of the AdR decision
model are explained. In section 2.1, the optimal scheduling of
maintenance or remanufacturing measures is described. The
recommendation for a specific maintenance or
remanufacturing measure is derived within section 2.2.
2.1. Recommendation for measure scheduling
The aim of measure scheduling within AdR is to provide
recommendations for the optimal time to perform maintenance
or remanufacturing measures. These recommendations are
based on the condition monitoring (CM) [12] of the
remanufacturing-relevant components of a capital good. The
remanufacturing relevance of a component is defined and
evaluated to prioritise those components, whose wear
behaviour especially requires maintenance or remanufacturing
measures due to high wear or high criticality in terms of the
damage impact for the entire capital good. In order to monitor
the condition of these components, sensor data are collected
and evaluated considering indicators of potential wear [13].
Real-time sensor readings are processed within the AdR
decision model as dynamic input. The collected sensor data and
measuring signals are evaluated in relation to thresholds, which
are individually defined for specific components and sensors as
static input. A distinction is made between the critical and the
warning threshold. The critical threshold value of a sensor
defines the point of failure of a component, which corresponds
to the performance of the entire capital good falling below the
agreed minimum performance level. It is therefore imperative
to prevent a component from reaching the critical threshold.
The warning threshold, in turn defines a limit before reaching
the critical threshold. The specific values of both kinds of
threshold depend on the specific monitored components and
the sensors’ signal patterns, which can be categorised as
oscillatory, declining, linear or progressive. When the warning
threshold is reached, a warning notification including the
current component state is issued to the user and the decision-
making process is initiated. The period between the warning
(t0) and the critical threshold (t1) is defined as the
implementation period. Within this timeframe, selected
maintenance or remanufacturing measures can be applied to the
respective components of the capital good to avoid machine
 Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 219–224
failures. Figure 2 illustrates the thresholds and the
implementation period.
Sensor value
Implementation period
Warning threshold
Critical threshold
t0 t1
Planned machine downtime
Figure 2: Determining the implementation period
The implementation period is calculated within a multi-step
forecast based on both real-time and historical sensor data as
well as the defined threshold values. Multi-step forecasting
refers to predicting multiple values in the future rather than
only predicting the next value of a time series [14]. This enables
the forecasting of the point in time when the critical threshold
will be reached. The AdR decision model initially uses
statistical methods. Once the sample size is large enough for
valid predictions, the decision model uses an implemented
machine learning approach to forecasting since machine
learning algorithms offer better prediction quality than
statistical methods for large sample sizes [15]. On this basis,
recommendations for maintenance or remanufacturing
measures can be given preventively and the implementation of
specific measures can be prepared and initialised in advance
following the approach of predictive maintenance [12, 16, 17].
The implementation period describes the maximum time
window in which maintenance or remanufacturing measures
can be applied to the respective component to prevent machine
failures and to ensure the agreed minimum performance level.
To optimise the scheduling of measures, the implementation
period is considered in more detail in the following. In order to
maximise the productive life of a capital good and its
components, maintenance and remanufacturing measures are
applied as late as possible within the implementation period in
the interest of sustainability. A detailed analysis of the
implementation period is especially relevant for measures,
whose implementation requires a shutdown of the capital good,
thereby reducing productivity. Following the approach of
opportunistic maintenance [12, 18–21], these measures should
be scheduled for regularly planned machine downtimes in
order to minimise productivity losses. Planned machine
downtimes can, inter alia, result from planned production
interruptions or company holidays. If several planned
downtimes are scheduled for a specific implementation period,
necessary maintenance or remanufacturing measures should be
implemented during the latest possible planned downtime to
maximise sustainability. Yet, maintenance or remanufacturing
measures cannot always be shifted to the very end of an
implementation period due to restrictions such as the
availability of spare parts, planning uncertainties or the
accuracy of the forecast algorithm. Thus, a component-specific
safety margin is added to prevent malfunctions or failures. The
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
221
safety margin for a specific component is defined through
empirical evidence and user experience. It describes a time
buffer shortening the implementation period to reduce the risk
of reaching the critical threshold due to uncertainties.
This first decision element of the AdR decision model
contains elements of the approach of predictive maintenance
and serves to determine the optimal point in time to perform a
maintenance or remanufacturing measure. However, the first
decision element alone does not yet support the user in
selecting the most appropriate measure from the vast variety of
technically available measures. To maximise sustainability and
efficiency, it is essential to ensure the best possible selection of
available maintenance or remanufacturing measures.
Consequently, the recommendation of specific measures is
Time
implemented within the second element of the AdR decision
model, which is explained in the following section.
2.2. Recommendation for specific measure implementation
After having determined the best suited point in time for
applying measures within the implementation period, the
second decision element of the AdR decision model supports
the selection of specific maintenance or remanufacturing
measures for the components of a capital good. By
recommending appropriate measures, the AdR decision model
comprises the approach of prescriptive maintenance approach
[12, 22, 23].
As a basis for the identification of technically appropriate
measures, the comprehensive AdR measure catalogue has been
compiled. Through a literature review of relevant norms and
standards, 952 maintenance and remanufacturing activities,
have been aggregated within the catalogue [13]. As static input,
the AdR measure catalogue forms the basis from which
technically suitable measures can be selected. In a first decision
step, technically appropriate maintenance or remanufacturing
measures for the respective remanufacturing-relevant
components are preselected from the catalogue according to the
specific wear mechanisms affecting these components.
Technically appropriate measures are effective
countermeasures by which the wear impacts are reduced or
rectified. Within the AdR decision model, a distinction is made
among the technically appropriate measures. For each
remanufacturing-relevant component the most appropriate
maintenance or remanufacturing measure is selected from the
set of technically suitable measures. This decision is based on
an effort-benefit ratio, which is presented in the following.
The cost-benefit ratio of measure i for component j is
expressed in the evaluation score Ei,j, in which the achievable
benefits and the necessary efforts are weighted against each
other. On the one hand, the benefits from applying maintenance
or remanufacturing measures correspond to the effect duration
of a measure di,j, i.e. the average time between the measure
application and the point in time until a subsequent measure is
required to prevent the component from reaching a critical
condition. On the other hand, the required effort comprises the
economic effort eeconomic,i,j as well as the ecological effort
eecological,i,j. Economic effort includes labour costs based on the
duration for implementing a specific measure, material costs
 222
and potential downtime costs. Downtime costs are only
considered if the application of a measure cannot be realized
while the capital good is in operation and if there is no
scheduled downtime available. Thus, the AdR decision model
takes into account the users’ downtime schedule and the
corresponding implications for maintenance and
remanufacturing measures.
Ecological effort to be considered when selecting a measure
relates to its environmental impact and is measured in
emissions [kg CO2e] caused by the implementation of a
specific measure. This effort is assessed within a lifecycle
assessment (LCA) according to DIN EN ISO14040/14044 [24,
25]. The assessment process includes the modules component
assembly, transportation, installation, use-phase and end-of-
life. The AdR decision model comprises a consequential LCA
with a scope on measure alternatives for the components of a
capital good instead of the components themselves in a cradle-
to-cradle approach.
In order to quantitatively aggregate both types of effort, the
ecological effort is factorised with a pricing factor p in [€/kg
CO2e]. Based on the pricing factor, the ecological effort can be
monetarily evaluated and thus be combined with the economic
effort. Per default, the pricing factor equals the average market
price for CO2 certificates. However, the AdR user can
individually deviate from the market price to include a personal
prioritization of economic and ecological efforts in the
assessment and thus to configure the trade-off between
economic and ecological effort according to the company’s
preferences. The following equation shows how the various
components of the effort-benefit ratio are considered within the
evaluation score Ei,j.
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒,𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 + 𝑝𝑝 ∗ 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙,𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗
𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 = =
𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 Evaluation score of measure i for
component j [€/year]
𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 Duration of effect of measure i for
component j [years]
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒,𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 Ecological effort of measure i for
component j [kg CO2]
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒,𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 Economic effort of measure i for
component j [€]
𝑝𝑝 Average pricing factor of CO2
certificate [€/kg CO2]
The evaluation score Ei,j is used to prioritise all technically
appropriate maintenance or remanufacturing measures in a
ranking, where lower values of Ei,j correspond with more
favourable measures. Combining with the first and the second
element the AdR decision model provides a recommendation
regarding the time and scope of a maintenance or
remanufacturing measure to be applied.
The application specific selection of the time and scope of
maintenance and remanufacturing measures reflects the
adaptive nature of AdR. The AdR decision model takes into
account both the condition of a capital good itself as well as
user-specific planning requirements in terms of downtime
scheduling, implementation phases or a company’s preferences
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 219–224
between economic and ecological efforts. Considering these
factors, AdR is able to adaptively recommend the most
appropriate maintenance or remanufacturing measure for a
user.
3. Model implementation within the ReLIFE-Application
As part of the research project ReLIFE, the AdR decision
model is implemented within a browser-based software
application (ReLIFE App) which is also accessible from
mobile devices. In cooperation with the ReLIFE consortium
partner Achenbach Buschhütten GmbH & Co. KG
(Achenbach), an exhaust air purification system as a capital
good manufactured by Achenbach is the subject of a
demonstration [13]. Prototypically, data from an exhaust air
purification system being in operation at a customer of
Achenbach are integrated into the ReLIFE App. On the one
hand the integration of operational data is required to enable
the application of AdR within the App. On the other hand it
enables the validation during the App development. The
sensors provide the data via the cloud technology Google
BigQuery as interface to the application. In order to increase
the usability and to enhance user experience, the ReLIFE App
is implemented as a single-page-application. Receiving a
constant transmission of sensor data, the software application
is able to monitor machine conditions and thus provide
information to the capital good manufacturer and user (e.g.
customer).
Currently, the ReLIFE App is in a prototypical development
stage. As a preceding stage of a final validation of the finished
ReLIFE app, a pre-validation with the current, advanced
development status of the ReLIFE app was performed to meet
the nature of iterative agile app-development. To identify
𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 expected potentials of the ReLIFE App, a qualitative interview
study was conducted with Achenbach. These potentials from
the manufacturer perspective are presented in the following.
The validation from the user's and especially the customer's
point of view takes place after completion of the ReLIFE App
development.
According to Achenbach, the ReLIFE App is expected to be
used reactively triggered by ReLIFE App notifications when a
component reaches its warning threshold (see Section 2.1).
Achenbach estimates the potential to guarantee the agreed
minimum performance of the exhaust air purification system
and thus reduce unexpected downtimes to approx. 70%
reduction in downtimes. In general, the exhaust air purification
system is defined as an auxiliary unit of an aluminium rolling
mill. According to Achenbach, in practice, auxiliary units are
often less monitored and maintained than main units due to
additional efforts without direct influence on the value added.
Signs of wear or impending component failure, such as
emerging noise emissions, are rarely detected in time due to the
lack of monitoring or insufficient expertise of the employees.
Achenbach expects that the ReLIFE App allows these negative
tendencies to become more visible, thereby creating greater
transparency about the condition of the capital good for its
owner or user. As a result, Achenbach expects an increase in
the time available to react and prepare necessary measures,
which allows an optimisation of the measure scheduling. Due
 Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 219–224
to the increased reaction and preparation time, the root causes
of sensor deviations can be better analysed, allowing to
examine the effect of different possible measures in a more
targeted manner. This reduces the risk of over-engineering or
under-engineering of measures. Moreover, the use of the
ReLIFE App is expected to increase the ability to
remanufacture before capital good damage occurs. Through the
early detection of a need for action, for example, the component
may be replaced before irreparable damage occurs. The
component may then be remanufactured and reused when the
alternative component wears out.
In addition to the selection of suitable measures at an
appropriate time, further potentials result from the collected
data. Achenbach expects potentials for long-term product
improvement, an increase in customer relationship as well as
an expansion and optimisation of the spare parts business
through the collection of relevant data.
By comparing and aligning the states of different capital
goods at different locations, Achenbach gains the possibility to
better identify recurring anomalies and to make adjustments to
the capital good properties in product development (e.g.
adjustment of heating capacities or motor capacities of the
installed components). The connection of the ReLIFE App via
cloud technology enables Achenbach to perform remote
maintenance and remote diagnostics and thus ensuring a short
response time. Among other benefits, this improves customer
relations. Condition monitoring also enables Achenbach to
provide customers with early warnings to maintain the agreed
minimum performance level of the capital good. In addition,
Achenbach is able to check the customer's operating modes
(e.g. operating temperatures, pressures) and to demonstrate
potentials to customers in this respect.
The additional information derived from the gathered data
enable Achenbach to provide customers with replacement
components and to guarantee the supply with original spare
parts with regard to the spare parts business. Furthermore,
components with frequent failure rates and long delivery times
can be stored at Achenbach itself. This enables Achenbach to
provide their customers with the necessary spare parts within a
short reaction time and thus to minimise expensive downtimes.
4. Summary and Outlook
In this paper, the AdR decision model as key element of
AdR has been introduced. The decision model enables the AdR
user to make informed and substantiated decisions on the
optimal time and scope of maintenance and remanufacturing
measures in order to keep the productivity of a capital good
above a contractually agreed performance level.
The recommendations offered by the AdR decision model
are based on condition monitoring and corresponding
information on the wear-related state of the remanufacturing-
relevant components of a capital good. By predicting the
development of the wear conditions of remanufacturing-
relevant components, the decision model can predict critical
states of capital goods and provide recommendations on the
scheduling and selection of maintenance or remanufacturing
measures in advance. The recommendation of specific
measures based on the associated efforts and benefits assures
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
223
adaptive and situation-specific decisions, which are optimised
economically and ecologically for the users’ target system.
Thus, AdR enables efficient and economically viable
maintenance and remanufacturing procedures while supporting
the sustainability of capital goods by extending their useful life.
As a result, AdR allows the implementation of innovative
business models built upon the guarantee of a minimum
performance level of capital goods [26].
The decision model is currently implemented in a
prototypical app. The fully developed app is designed to make
AdR applicable in practice and exploit the already described
benefits. Users (manufacturer or customer) can access the
information directly on the shop floor as well as remotely, e.g.
from a central office within or outside of the plant. This enables
multiple maintenance and remanufacturing use cases like
maintenance services since the user does not need to be located
at the operating company, but is able to initiate maintenance
services from remote [26]. Moreover, the capability of
simultaneously obtaining an overview of upcoming needs for
measure applications at multiple capital goods enables the use
of synergies in the planning and scheduling of measures. On
the one hand, these factors enable companies to maintain the
required long-term productivity of their capital goods. On the
other hand, companies are enabled to reduce their CO2
consumption and thus to enhance sustainability.
Acknowledgements
The results in this paper were achieved as part of the research
project Adaptive Remanufacturing for Lifecycle Optimization
of Capital Goods (ReLIFE) sponsored by the German Federal
Ministry of Education and Research (033R238A-C).
References
[1] UNEP, 2011. Decoupling natural resource use and
environmental impacts from economic growth, Kenya,
UNEP.
[2] Ciesielska-Maciągowska, D., Klimczak, D., Skrzek-
Lubasińska, M., 2021. Central and Eastern European
CO2 Market—Challenges of Emissions Trading for
Energy Companies 14, p. 1–14.
[3] Kurilova-Palisaitiene, J., Sundin, E., Poksinska, B.,
2018. Remanufacturing challenges and possible lean
improvements 172, p. 3225–3236.
[4] Remøy, H., Wandl, A., Ceric, D., van Timmeren, A.,
2019. Facilitating Circular Economy in Urban Planning
4, p. 1–4.
[5] Sundin, E., 2004. Product and process design for
successful remanufacturing. Univ, Linköping.
[6] Kampker, A., Hollah, A., Triebs, J., Aidi, I., 2019 -
2019. Remanufacturing of electric vehicles: Evaluation
of economic potential, in 2019 IEEE 10th International
Conference on Mechanical and Intelligent
Manufacturing Technologies (ICMIMT), IEEE, p. 122–
127.
[7] Strunz, M., 2012. Instandhaltung: Grundlagen -
Strategien - Werkstätten. Springer Vieweg, Berlin,
Heidelberg.
[8] Sauvé, S., Bernard, S., Sloan, P., 2016. Environmental
sciences, sustainable development and circular
 224 Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 219–224
economy: Alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary
research 17, p. 48–56.
[9] Kampker, A., Triebs, J., Hollah, A., Lienemann, C.,
2019. Remanufacturing of electric vehicles: Challenges
in production planning and control 33, p. 280–287.
[10] Kampker, A., Heimes, H., Ordung, M., Lienemann, C.
et al., 2016. Evaluation Of A Remanufacturing For
Lithium Ion Batteries From Electric Cars.
[11] Chatti, S., Laperrière, L., Reinhart, G., Tolio, T.,
Editors, 2019. CIRP Encyclopedia of Production
Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[12] Burggräf, P., Wagner, J., Dannapfel, M., Adlon, T. et
al., 2020. Adaptive remanufacturing for lifecycle
optimization of connected production resources – A
literature review 90, p. 61–66.
[13] Burggräf, P., Adlon, T., Müller, K., Föhlisch, N. et al.,
2021. Adaptive Remanufacturing – Methodology
towards an intelligent maintenance strategy for
production resources 98, p. 330–335.
[14] Cheng, H., Tan, P.-N., Gao, J., Scripps, J., 2006.
Multistep-Ahead Time Series Prediction, in Advances in
knowledge discovery and data mining, Springer, Berlin,
p. 765–774.
[15] Cerqueira, V., Torgo, L., Soares, C., 2019. Machine
Learning vs Statistical Methods for Time Series
Forecasting: Size Matters.
[16] American Society for Quality, 2015. 2015 Annual
Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS
2015): Palm Harbor, Florida, USA, 26 - 29 January
2015 ; [proceedings & tutorials. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ.
[17] Vasudevan, H., Kottur, V.K.N., Raina, A.A., Editors,
2019. Proceedings of International Conference on
Intelligent Manufacturing and Automation: ICIMA
2018. Springer Singapore.
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
[18] Reininghaus, H., Kolbenhub, G., 2005. Verbindung von
ökonomischen Daten mit Online Condition Monitoring
(German) 121, p. 90–92.
[19] Wang, J., Zhao, X., Guo, X., 2019. Optimizing wind
turbine’s maintenance policies under performance-based
contract 135, p. 626–634.
[20] Erguido, A., Crespo Márquez, A., Castellano, E.,
Gómez Fernández, J.F., 2017. A dynamic opportunistic
maintenance model to maximize energy-based
availability while reducing the life cycle cost of wind
farms 114, p. 843–856.
[21] Cavalcante, C.A.V., Lopes, R.S., Scarf, P.A., 2018. A
general inspection and opportunistic replacement policy
for one-component systems of variable quality 266,
p. 911–919.
[22] Eckart Uhlmann, Eckhard Hohwelier, Claudio Geisert.
Intelligent Production Systems in the Era of Industrie
4.0 – Changing Mindsets and Business Models.
[23] Chen, Y.L., Ma, Y.X., Zhang, D., Tang, J., 2012.
Research on Modeling Method for Equipment
Maintenance Strategy Based on Reliability and Residual
Life 215-216, p. 817–825.
[24] DIN EN ISO 14040:2009-11. Environmental
Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and
Framework Conditions.
[25] DIN EN ISO 14044:2018-05. Environmental
Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements
and Instructions.
[26] Burggräf, P., Wagner, J., Heinbach, B., Wigger, M.,
2021. Design of a Methodological Framework for
Adaptive Remanufacturing-based Business Models 98,
p. 547–552.