Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 333–340 | Cite as

Condition based maintenance optimization considering multiple objectives

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

In condition based maintenance (CBM) optimization, the main optimization objectives include maximizing reliability and minimizing maintenance costs, which are often times conflicting to each other. In this work, we develop a physical programming based approach to deal with the multi-objective condition based maintenance optimization problem. Physical programming presents two major advantages: (1) it is an efficient approach to capture the decision makers’ preferences on the objectives by eliminating the iterative process of adjusting the weights of the objectives, and (2) it is easy to use in that decision makers just need to specify physically meaningful boundaries for the objectives. The maintenance cost and reliability objectives are calculated based on proportional hazards model and a control limit CBM replacement policy. With the proposed approach, the decision maker can systematically and efficiently make good tradeoff between the cost objective and reliability objective. An example is used to illustrate the proposed approach.

Keywords

Condition based maintenance Physical programming Proportional hazards model Reliability Multi-objective optimization 

Abbreviations

CBM

Condition based maintenance

PHM

Proportional hazards model

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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ansell J. I., Phillips M. J. (1997) Practical aspects of modeling of repairable systems data using proportional hazards models. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 58: 165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banjevic D., Jardine A. K. S., Makis V. (2001) A control-limit policy and software for condition-based maintenance optimization. INFOR 39: 32–50Google Scholar
  3. Baykasoglu A., Ozbakir L., Sonmez A. I. (2004) Using multiple objective tabu search and grammars to model and solve multi-objective flexible job shop scheduling problems. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 15(6): 777–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campean, I. F., Day, A. J., & Wright, S. (2001). Camshaft timing-belt reliability model ling. In Proceedings annual reliability and maintainability symposium.Google Scholar
  5. Dong M., He D. (2007a) A segmental hidden semi-Markov model (HSMM)-based diagnostics and prognostics framework and methodology. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 21(5): 2248–2266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dong M., He D. (2007b) Hidden semi-Markov model-based methodology for multi-sensor equipment health diagnosis and prognosis. European Journal of Operational Research 178(3): 858–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elsayed E. A., Chan C. K. (1990) Estimation of thin-oxide reliability using proportional hazards models. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 39: 329–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ghasemi A., Yacout S., Ouali M. S. (2007) Optimal condition based maintenance with imperfect information and the proportional hazards model. International Journal of Production Research 45: 989–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huang H. Z., Tian Z., Zuo M. J. (2005a) Intelligent interactive multi-objective optimization method and its application to reliability optimization. IIE Transactions 37(11): 983–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huang H. Z., Tian Z., Zuo M. J. (2005b) Multiobjective optimization of three-stage spur gear reduction units using interactive physical programming. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 19(5): 1080–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jardine A. K. S., Anderson M. (1987) Use of concomitant variables for reliability estimations. Maintenance management International 5: 135–140Google Scholar
  12. Jardine A. K. S., Ralston P., Reid N., Stafford J. (1989) Proportional hazards analysis of diesel engine failure data. Quality Reliability Engineering International 5: 207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jardine A. K. S., Lin D., Banjevic D. (2006) A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 20: 1483–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jardine, A. K. S., Banjevic, D., & Joseph, T. (2008a). Optimizing condition-based maintenance decisions for vibration monitored bearings. http://www.omdec.com.
  15. Jardine, A. K. S., Banjevic, D., Wiseman, M., Kahn, K., & Lin, D. (2008b). An optimized policy for the interpretation of inspection data from a CBM program at a nuclear reactor station. http://www.omdec.com.
  16. JoWiak I. J. (1992) Use of concomitant variables for reliability exploration of microcomputer systems. Microelectronic Reliability 32: 341–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kobbacy K., Fawzi B. B., Percy D. F., Ascher H. E. (1997) A full history proportional hazards model for preventive maintenance scheduling. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 13: 187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Konak A., Coit D. W., Smith A. E. (2006) Multi-objective optimization using genetic algorithms: A tutorial. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 91(9): 992–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kumar D., Klefsjo B., Kumar U. (1992) Reliability analysis of power transmission cables of electric mine loaders using the proportional hazards model. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 37: 217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kumar D., Energi Ab S., Sweden V. (1997) Maintenance scheduling under age replacement policy using proportional hazards model and ttt-plotting. European Journal of Operational Research 99: 507–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li Z. J., Liao H. T., Coit D. (2009) A two-stage approach for multi-objective decision making with applications to system reliability optimization. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 94(10): 1585–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin D., Banjevic D., Jardine A. K. S. (2006) Using principal components in a proportional hazards model with applications in condition-based maintenance. Journal of the Operational Research Society 57: 910–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Makis V., Jardine A. K. S. (1992) Optimal replacement in the proportional hazards model. INFOR 30: 172–183Google Scholar
  24. Makis V., Wu J., Gao Y. (2006) An application of dpca to oil data for CBM modeling. European Journal of Operational Research 174: 112–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Messac A. (1996) Physical programming: Effective optimization for computational design. AIAA Journal 34: 149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prasad, P. V. N., & Rao, K. R. M. (2002). Reliability models of repairable systems considering the effect of operating conditions. In Proceedings annual reliability and maintainability symposium.Google Scholar
  27. Rao, K. R. M., & Prasad, P. V. N. (2001). Graphical methods for reliability of repairable equipment and maintenance planning. In Proceedings annual reliability and maintainability symposium.Google Scholar
  28. Taboada H. A., Espiritu J. F., Coit D. W. (2008) MOMS-GA: A multi-objective multi-state genetic algorithm for system reliability optimization design problems. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 57(1): 182–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tian Z., Zuo M. J. (2006) Redundancy allocation for multi-state systems using physical programming and genetic algorithms. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 91(9): 1049–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tian Z, Zuo M. J., Huang H. Z. (2008) Reliability-redundancy allocation for multi-state series-parallel systems. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 57(2): 303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vlok P. J., Coetzee J. L., Banjevic D., Jardine A. K. S., Makis V. (2002) Optimal component replacement decisions using vibration monitoring and the proportional-hazards model. Journal of the Operational Research Society 53: 193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xu R., Gamst A. (2007) On proportional hazards assumption under the random effects models. Lifetime Data Analysis 13: 317–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yang Q., Chen Y. (2009) Sensor system reliability modeling and analysis for fault diagnosis in multistage manufacturing processes. IIE Transactions 41(9): 819–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Concordia Institute for Information Systems EngineeringConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations