IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v236y2022i2p348-356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preventive maintenance model based on the renewal-geometric process

Author

Listed:
  • Caiyun Niu
  • Jiang Jiang
  • Bingfeng Ge
  • Yingwu Chen

Abstract

Renewal-geometric process is used to describe such a non-homogeneous deteriorating process that a system will deteriorate after several consecutive repairs, not after each repair described by the geometric process. In the maintenance domain, the effect of corrective maintenance after failure is generally not repairable as new (e.g. geometrically deteriorating). Preventive maintenance is critical before a system failure, due to economic losses and security threats caused by a sudden shutdown. Therefore, this article assumes that a system is geometrically deteriorating after corrective maintenance, wherein preventive maintenances sequence in the same repair period form a renewal process since it can restore the system to the initial state of the period. Furthermore, a binary policy ( N , T ) is utilized to minimize the long-run average cost rate, where N represents the number corrective maintenances and T denotes the time interval between two consecutive preventive maintenances. In particular, pseudo-age replacement model represents a special case of N = 1 , which is considered as a generalization of the traditional age-based replacement model. Subsequently, the optimal policy N * can be verified in theory and an asymptotic optimal policy ( N * , T * ) can be obtained based on a heuristic grid search. Finally, numerical examples verify the effectiveness of this proposed model and show that implementation of preventive maintenance for some repairable systems is superior to no preventive maintenance in both economic and reliability aspects.

Suggested Citation

  • Caiyun Niu & Jiang Jiang & Bingfeng Ge & Yingwu Chen, 2022. "Preventive maintenance model based on the renewal-geometric process," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 236(2), pages 348-356, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:236:y:2022:i:2:p:348-356
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X20918787
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X20918787
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X20918787?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caiyun Niu & Xiaolin Liang & Bingfeng Ge & Xue Tian & Yingwu Chen, 2016. "Optimal replacement policy for a repairable system with deterioration based on a renewal-geometric process," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(1), pages 49-66, September.
    2. MERCIER, Sophie & CASTRO, I.T., 2019. "Stochastic comparisons of imperfect maintenance models for a gamma deteriorating system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(1), pages 237-248.
    3. Le, Minh Duc & Tan, Cher Ming, 2013. "Optimal maintenance strategy of deteriorating system under imperfect maintenance and inspection using mixed inspectionscheduling," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 21-29.
    4. Ding Siew Hong & Shahrul Kamaruddin & Ishak Abdul Azid, 2012. "Maintenance policy selection: a review towards building proper selection model," International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(3), pages 355-375.
    5. Do, Phuc & Voisin, Alexandre & Levrat, Eric & Iung, Benoit, 2015. "A proactive condition-based maintenance strategy with both perfect and imperfect maintenance actions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 22-32.
    6. Y. S. Sherif & M. L. Smith, 1981. "Optimal maintenance models for systems subject to failure–A Review," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 47-74, March.
    7. Mercier, Sophie & Pham, Hai Ha, 2012. "A preventive maintenance policy for a continuously monitored system with correlated wear indicators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 222(2), pages 263-272.
    8. Wang, Guan Jun & Zhang, Yuan Lin, 2013. "Optimal repair–replacement policies for a system with two types of failures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(3), pages 500-506.
    9. Alaswad, Suzan & Xiang, Yisha, 2017. "A review on condition-based maintenance optimization models for stochastically deteriorating system," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 54-63.
    10. Chen, Jianwei & Li, Kim-Hung & Lam, Yeh, 2010. "Bayesian computation for geometric process in maintenance problems," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 81(4), pages 771-781.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lirong Cui & David W Coit, 2022. "Guest Editorial: SMRLO-2019 Special Issue," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 236(2), pages 223-224, April.
    2. Rasay, Hasan & Taghipour, Sharareh & Sharifi, Mani, 2022. "An integrated Maintenance and Statistical Process Control Model for a Deteriorating Production Process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Jonge, Bram & Scarf, Philip A., 2020. "A review on maintenance optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 805-824.
    2. Zhang, Fengxia & Shen, Jingyuan & Ma, Yizhong, 2020. "Optimal maintenance policy considering imperfect repairs and non-constant probabilities of inspection errors," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Wang, Yukun & Li, Xiaopeng & Chen, Junyan & Liu, Yiliu, 2022. "A condition-based maintenance policy for multi-component systems subject to stochastic and economic dependencies," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    4. de Jonge, Bram & Teunter, Ruud & Tinga, Tiedo, 2017. "The influence of practical factors on the benefits of condition-based maintenance over time-based maintenance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 21-30.
    5. Alaswad, Suzan & Xiang, Yisha, 2017. "A review on condition-based maintenance optimization models for stochastically deteriorating system," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 54-63.
    6. Badía, F.G. & Berrade, M.D. & Cha, Ji Hwan & Lee, Hyunju, 2018. "Optimal replacement policy under a general failure and repair model: Minimal versus worse than old repair," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 362-372.
    7. Liu, Qiannan & Ma, Lin & Wang, Naichao & Chen, Ankang & Jiang, Qihang, 2022. "A condition-based maintenance model considering multiple maintenance effects on the dependent failure processes," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    8. Wang, Weikai & Chen, Xian, 2023. "Piecewise deterministic Markov process for condition-based imperfect maintenance models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    9. Lam, Ji Ye Janet & Banjevic, Dragan, 2015. "A myopic policy for optimal inspection scheduling for condition based maintenance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-11.
    10. Cholette, Michael E. & Yu, Hongyang & Borghesani, Pietro & Ma, Lin & Kent, Geoff, 2019. "Degradation modeling and condition-based maintenance of boiler heat exchangers using gamma processes," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 184-196.
    11. Toledo, Maria Luíza Guerra de & Freitas, Marta A. & Colosimo, Enrico A. & Gilardoni, Gustavo L., 2015. "ARA and ARI imperfect repair models: Estimation, goodness-of-fit and reliability prediction," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 107-115.
    12. Badía, F.G. & Berrade, M.D. & Lee, Hyunju, 2020. "An study of cost effective maintenance policies: Age replacement versus replacement after N minimal repairs," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    13. Vanderschueren, Toon & Boute, Robert & Verdonck, Tim & Baesens, Bart & Verbeke, Wouter, 2023. "Optimizing the preventive maintenance frequency with causal machine learning," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    14. Zhang, Zhengxin & Si, Xiaosheng & Hu, Changhua & Lei, Yaguo, 2018. "Degradation data analysis and remaining useful life estimation: A review on Wiener-process-based methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(3), pages 775-796.
    15. Mosayebi Omshi, E. & Grall, A. & Shemehsavar, S., 2020. "A dynamic auto-adaptive predictive maintenance policy for degradation with unknown parameters," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(1), pages 81-92.
    16. Arnold, Richard & Chukova, Stefanka & Hayakawa, Yu & Marshall, Sarah, 2020. "Geometric-Like Processes: An Overview and Some Reliability Applications," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    17. Thiago Lima de Barros & Rodrigo Sampaio Lopes, 2021. "Continuous improvement of imperfect maintenance actions in PAS and PAR models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 235(5), pages 941-958, October.
    18. Efraim Laksman & Ann-Brith Strömberg & Michael Patriksson, 2020. "The stochastic opportunistic replacement problem, part III: improved bounding procedures," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 292(2), pages 711-733, September.
    19. Cai, Yue & Teunter, Ruud H. & de Jonge, Bram, 2023. "A data-driven approach for condition-based maintenance optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 311(2), pages 730-738.
    20. Liu, Jie & Zio, Enrico, 2017. "Weighted-feature and cost-sensitive regression model for component continuous degradation assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 210-217.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:236:y:2022:i:2:p:348-356. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.