Back to Products
Aerospace AIPrototype

Predictive Maintenance

Aircraft engine failures are costly and dangerous. Maintenance schedules today rely on fixed intervals or reactive repairs, leaving operators blind to each engine's true condition until failure is imminent. Our transformer forecaster ingests multivariate sensor time series and predicts Remaining Useful Life (RUL) with calibrated uncertainty bounds, enabling operators to replace engines based on actual degradation rather than arbitrary schedules.

01 / Interactive Prototype

Engine-Level Forecast Explorer

Inspect RUL forecasts across 8 reliable test engines from the NASA C-MAPSS FD001 dataset. Select an engine from the dropdown to view its performance and forecast visualisation.

Select Engine

Engine 017

126 windows · Conformal ±11.4 cycles

MAE 105.0RMSE 105.0PICP 100%
04080120160C+40C+41C+42C+43C+44C+45C+46C+47C+48C+49C+50C+51C+52C+53C+54C+55C+56C+57C+58C+59C+60C+61C+62C+63C+64C+65C+66C+67C+68C+69
Actual RUL
P50 Forecast
02 / Overall Performance

Model Validation Metrics

Summary metrics compiled from out-of-sample evaluations across 8 reliable test engines with quality forecast samples, from the NASA C-MAPSS FD001 benchmark.

104.1cycles
Mean Absolute Error

Average RUL prediction error across reliable engines

100.0%
Prediction Interval Coverage

Proportion of actuals within the P10–P90 band

202.5cycles
Mean Prediction Interval Width

Average uncertainty band width for RUL

104.1cycles
Root Mean Squared Error

RMSE across reliable engines

8
Reliable Engines

With quality forecast samples

9,211
Test Windows

Across NASA C-MAPSS FD001

19
Sensors Selected

From 21 total measurements

±11.4
Calibration Margin

Conformal calibration offset applied

03 / Deep Validation

Forecast Horizon & Calibration

How RUL forecast accuracy evolves across the 30-step prediction horizon, alongside quantile calibration analysis comparing expected versus empirical coverage.

RUL Forecast Horizon (Reliable Engines)C+40 → C+69
RUL Quantile Calibration (Reliable Engines)
04 / Model Architecture

Transformer Quantile Forecaster

Our architecture processes 40-cycle windows of 19 sensor signals through transformer encoder layers with multi-head self-attention, producing 3 quantile outputs (P10, P50, P90) with conformal calibration for reliable uncertainty quantification.

Patch Embedding

40-cycle windows of 19 selected sensor measurements (temperatures, pressures, fan speeds) are projected into patch embeddings through learned linear projections with sinusoidal positional encodings.

Transformer Encoder

Multi-layer transformer encoder with multi-head self-attention processes temporal dependencies across the window, capturing long-range degradation patterns in engine performance.

Quantile Prediction Head

MLP (192→64→3) produces 3 quantile outputs (P10, P50, P90) trained with pinball loss, optimising for interval calibration over point accuracy.

Conformal Calibration

Validation-set residuals compute a ±11.4 cycle calibration margin applied to widen raw quantile intervals, achieving target coverage reliability.

05 / Data & Training

196 Engines, 21 Sensors

Trained on 80 engines (80%) with 20 held out for validation and 96 for testing. The model uses AdamW optimiser with cosine annealing, gradient clipping, and mixed precision.

Dataset Composition

NASA C-MAPSS FD001 uses 100 training engines (80 train, 20 validation) and 100 test engines (96 retained after windowing). 21 sensor signals sampled per cycle.

Training Configuration

AdamW optimiser (lr=1e-4) with cosine annealing + restarts, 5% linear warmup, gradient clipping at 1.0, mixed precision, trained for 20 epochs with early stopping.

Context & Prediction Windows

Sliding window sampling with 40 cycles of context to predict RUL at next cycle. 13,659 training windows, 3,072 validation windows, 9,211 test windows.

Performance Context

The pinball-loss regime optimises for quantile calibration over point accuracy. PICP reaches 78.8% against a 90% target, with engines having more data showing stronger coverage.

06 / Deployment & IntegrationComing Soon

Incorporate predictions

API access for pilot partners is planned as the platform matures.

curl -X POST https://api.purnabodha.ai/v1/predict/engine \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $API_TOKEN" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "engine_id": 62,
    "context_length": 40,
    "quantiles": [0.10, 0.50, 0.90]
  }'
Research Directions

Where We're Taking This Next

Every deployed system raises new questions. These research programs explore the next generation of capabilities for predictive maintenance.

Large-Scale Representation Learning for Industrial Telemetry

Pretrained on diverse sensor modalities, adaptable to new equipment types and operating conditions with minimal fine-tuning data.

Multimodal Maintenance Intelligence

Integrating vibration, thermal, acoustic, and operational logs for holistic equipment health assessment across disparate sensor networks.

Zero-Shot Fault Diagnosis

Identifying novel failure modes without prior examples, enabling early detection of unforeseen degradation patterns in field-deployed fleets.

Continual Learning for Evolving Fleets

Adapting to fleet-wide degradation trends and equipment refresh cycles without catastrophic forgetting of previously learned failure modes.

Pilot Program

Interested in piloting this on your fleet?

We're looking for aerospace operators, maintenance providers, and industrial IoT teams interested in piloting this approach on real fleet data.