Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A condition-based maintenance policy for a production system under excessive environmental degradation

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper a condition-based maintenance model is proposed for a single-unit system of production of goods and services. The system is subject to random deterioration which impacts not only the product quality but also the environment. We assume that the environment degrades whenever a specific level of system deterioration is reached. The proposed maintenance model aims to assess the degradation in such a way to reduce the deterioration of the environment. To control this deterioration, inspections are performed and after which the system is preventively replaced or left as it is. Preventive replacement occurs whenever the level of the system degradation reaches a specific level threshold. The objective is to determine optimal inspection dates which minimize the average total cost per unit of time in the infinite horizon. Cost function is composed of inspection and maintenance costs in addition to a penalty cost due to environmental deterioration. The maintenance optimization model is formally derived. On the basis of Nelder–Mead method, inspection dates as optimal solutions are computed. A numerical example is provided to illustrate the proposed maintenance model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aït-Kadi, D.,& Chelbi, A. (2010). Inspection strategy for availability improvement. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 21(2), 231–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badía, F., Berrade, M.,& Campos, C. A. (2002). Optimal inspection and preventive maintenance of units with revealed and unrevealed failures. Reliability Engineering& System Safety, 78(2), 157–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, R. E., Hunter, L. C.,& Proschan, F. (1963). Optimum checking procedures. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 11(4), 1078–1095.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bérenguer, C., Chu, C.,& Grall, A. (1997). Inspection and maintenance planning: An application of semi-Markov decision processes. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 8(5), 467–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bui, L. T.,& Kapon, S. (2012). The impact of voluntary programs on polluting behavior: Evidence from pollution prevention programs and toxic releases. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 64(1), 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chelbi, A.,& Aït-Kadi, D. (1999). An optimal inspection strategy for randomly failing equipment. Reliability Engineering& System Safety, 63(2), 127–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chelbi, A.,& Aït-Kadi, D. (2009). Inspection strategies for randomly failing systems. In M. Ben-Daya, S. O. Duffuaa, A. Raouf, J. Knezevic, D. Aït-Kadi (Eds.), Handbook of maintenance management and engineering (pp. 303–335). London: Springer.

  • Chelbi, A., Aït-Kadi, D.,& Aloui, H. (2008). Optimal inspection and preventive maintenance policy for systems with self-announcing and non-self-announcing failures. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 14(1), 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, L.,& Xie, M. (2005). Availability of a periodically inspected system with random repair or replacement times. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 131(1), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grall, A., Dieulle, L., Bérenguer, C.,& Roussignol, M. (2002). Continuous-time predictive-maintenance scheduling for a deteriorating system. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 51(2), 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, D. R. (2012). Two-stage adoption of different types of pollution prevention (P2) activities. Resource and Energy Economics, 34(3), 349–373.

  • Huynh, K., Barros, A., Bérenguer, C.,& Castro, I. (2011). A periodic inspection and replacement policy for systems subject to competing failure modes due to degradation and traumatic events. Reliability Engineering& System Safety, 96(4), 497–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, P., Imadabathuni, M., He, D., Al-Kateb, M.,& Bechhoefer, E. (2012). Application of the condition based maintenance checking system for aircrafts. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23(2), 277–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagarias, J. C., Reeds, J. A., Wright, M. H.,& Wright, P. E. (1998). Convergence properties of the Nelder-Mead simplex method in low dimensions. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 9(1), 112–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, W.,& Pham, H. (2005). An inspection-maintenance model for systems with multiple competing processes. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 54(2), 318–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, H., Elsayed, E. A.,& Chan, L. (2006). Maintenance of continuously monitored degrading systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 175(2), 821–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munford, A. G.,& Shahani, A. K. (1972). A nearly optimal inspection policy. Operational Research Quarterly, 23(3), 373–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munford, A. G.,& Shahani, A. K. (1973). An inspection policy for the weibull case. Operational Research Quarterly, 24(3), 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelder, J. A.,& Mead, R. (1965). A simplex method for function minimization. The Computer Journal, 7(4), 308–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orth, P., Yacout, S.,& Adjengue, L. (2012). Accuracy and robustness of decision making techniques in condition based maintenance. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23(2), 255–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrin, C. (1992). Choice of a periodic on-condition maintenance policy. International Journal of Production Research, 30(5), 1153–1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, C., Coope, I.,& Byatt, D. (2002). A convergent variant of the nelder-mead algorithm. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 113(1), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roux, O., Duvivier, D., Quesnel, G.,& Ramat, E.: Optimization of preventive maintenance through a combined maintenance-production simulation model. International Journal of Production Economics (2010). doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.11.004.

  • Sarkar, J.,& Sarkar, S. (2000). Availability of a periodically inspected system under perfect repair. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 91(1), 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, A., Yadava, G.,& Deshmukh, S. (2011). A literature review and future perspectives on maintenance optimization. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 17(1), 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadikamalla, P. R. (1979). An inspection policy for the gamma failure distributions. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 30(1), 77–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tian, Z., Lin, D.,& Wu, B. (2012). Condition based maintenance optimization considering multiple objectives. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23(2), 333–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turco, F.,& Parolini, P. (1984). A nearly optimal inspection policy for productive equipment. International Journal of Production Research, 22(3), 515–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Z., Djurdjanovic, D.,& Ni, J. (2008). Maintenance scheduling in manufacturing systems based on predicted machine degradation. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 19(1), 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LGIPM, University of Lorraine, UFR MIM, Metz, France

    H. Chouikhi & N. Rezg

  2. LGIPM, National Engineering School of Metz, Metz, France

    A. Khatab

Authors
  1. H. Chouikhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Khatab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. Rezg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Chouikhi.

A Appendix

A Appendix

A.1 Proof of Proposition 2

Let us recall that inspections are carried out until the degradation level exceeds the given level \(L\). It follows that the number \(N\) of inspections during a cycle is a geometric random variable whose expectation is such that:

$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle E(N)=\sum _{i=1}^{\infty }i ~Pr\left\{ N=i\right\} , \end{aligned}$$

where \(Pr\left\{ N=i\right\} \) is the probability of performing exactly \(i\) inspection actions during a cycle. To calculate such a probability, let us note that:

$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle Pr \left\{ N< i+1\right\} =Pr \left\{ N< i\right\} +Pr \left\{ N=i\right\} , \end{aligned}$$

which implies that:

$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle Pr\left\{ N=i\right\} =Pr \left\{ N< i+1\right\} -Pr \left\{ N< i\right\} . \end{aligned}$$

The event \(^{\prime \prime }N< i^{\prime \prime }\) is equivalent to the fact that the cycle ends with a corrective maintenance, i.e. the production system fails before the \(i^{th}\) inspection date \(\theta _i\). Under the assumption that the production system fails only after exceeding the threshold level of environmental degradation, the event \(^{\prime \prime }N< i^{\prime \prime }\) is equivalent to \(^{\prime \prime }T+X< \theta _i^{\prime \prime }\). Consequently, for all \(i\) we have:

$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle Pr \left\{ N< i\right\} =Pr \left\{ T+X \le \theta _{i} \right\} . \end{aligned}$$

Since random variable \(X\) is assumed to be the residual lifetime of the production system after exceeding the alarm threshold, it follows that:

$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle Pr \left\{ T+X \le \theta _{i} \right\} =\int \limits _{0}^{\theta _{i}} G(\theta _{i} -\tau )~f(\tau )d\tau . \end{aligned}$$

As a result, we have:

$$\begin{aligned}&\displaystyle Pr\left\{ N=i\right\} =\int \limits _{0}^{\theta _{i+1} }G(\theta _{i+1} -\tau ) ~f(\tau )d\tau \nonumber \\&\quad -\int \limits _{0}^{\theta _{i} }G(\theta _{i} -\tau ) ~f(\tau )d\tau . \end{aligned}$$

This ends the proof.

A.2 Proof of Proposition 3

Let us assume that the degradation level exceeds the threshold value \(L\) at \(T=\tau \), and \(\theta _{i-1} < T \le \theta _{i} \). It follows that duration \(T_d\) of excessive environmental degradation in a cycle could be written as:

$$\begin{aligned} T_d=\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} X&~~~~&if ~~X \le \theta _{i} +H-\tau \\ \theta _i+H-\tau&~~~~&otherwise \end{array} \right. \end{aligned}$$

In other words, \(T_d = min(X, \theta _i+H-\tau )\). The average time \(E(T_d)\) of excessive environmental degradation in a cycle can be expressed as:

$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle E(T_d )&= \sum _{i=1}^{\infty }\int \limits _{\theta _{i-1} }^{\theta _{i} } E\left(T_d\left|_{\tau < T\le \tau +d\tau } \right.\right) ~f(\tau )d\tau \\&= \sum _{i=1}^{\infty }\int \limits _{\theta _{i-1} }^{\theta _{i} } E\left(min(X, \theta _i+H-\tau )\left|_{\tau < T\le \tau +d\tau } \right.\right) ~f(\tau )d\tau \\&= \sum _{i=1}^{\infty }\int \limits _{\theta _{i-1} }^{\theta _{i} } \left(\int \limits _{0}^{\theta _{i}+H-\tau } \left[1 - G(x)\right]dx \right) ~f(\tau )d\tau \end{aligned}$$

This ends the proof.

A.3 Proof of Proposition 4

To prove Proposition 4, let us note that the cycle time represented by the random variable \(T_c\) can be written as:

$$\begin{aligned} T_c = T + T_d. \end{aligned}$$

It follows that the average cycle time \(E(T_c)\) is:

$$\begin{aligned} E(T_c) = E(T) + E(T_d). \end{aligned}$$

By exploiting the result of Proposition 3, the average cycle time \(E(T_c)\) can be written as:

$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle E(T_c )&= \sum _{i=1}^{\infty }\int \limits _{\theta _{i-1} }^{\theta _{i} } \tau ~f(\tau )d\tau \nonumber \\&\quad +\sum _{i=1}^{\infty }\int \limits _{\theta _{i-1} }^{\theta _{i} } \left(\int \limits _{0}^{\theta _{i}+H-\tau } \left[1 - G(x)\right]dx \right) ~f(\tau )d\tau \\&= \sum _{i=1}^{\infty }\int \limits _{\theta _{i-1} }^{\theta _{i} } \left(\tau +\int \limits _{0}^{\theta _{i}+H-\tau } \left[1 - G(x)\right]dx \right) ~f(\tau )d\tau . \end{aligned}$$

This ends the proof.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chouikhi, H., Khatab, A. & Rezg, N. A condition-based maintenance policy for a production system under excessive environmental degradation. J Intell Manuf 25, 727–737 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-012-0715-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-012-0715-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation