Advertisement

Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 272–289 | Cite as

Condition-based scheduled maintenance optimization of structures based on reliability requirements under continuous degradation and random shocks

  • Xiao-sheng Zhang
  • Jian-qiao ChenEmail author
  • Jun-hong Wei
Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, a condition-based scheduled maintenance model with aperiodic inspections of structures is developed. The structures are experiencing both a gradual degradation process and a random shock process. The former is characterized by a stationary gamma process (SGP), and the latter is assumed to be a homogeneous Poisson process (HPP). Two typical common failure modes are considered in the reliability and the condition-based maintenance model, namely: (1) soft failures caused by the continuous degradation process, together with sudden damage increments due to shocks with moderate impacts, and (2) hard failures caused by the same shock process when a severe shock occurs. A remaining useful lifetime-based (RUL-based) inspection policy is utilized to determine the inspection schedule. Thereafter, at each inspection point, different maintenance actions are to be determined to minimize the average cost rate for either an infinite or a finite time span. The developed models are demonstrated by a numerical example. Sensitivity analyses of the optimal solution with various model parameters are also performed. It is illustrated that, as compared with the pure continuous degradation process, the additional shock loads exert notable impacts on the optimal maintenance strategies.

Key words

Soft failure Hard failure Remaining useful lifetime (RUL) Reliability Maintenance Cost rate Finite horizon 

连续退化和随机冲击下基于状态的结构维修策略优化

摘要

目的

结构在使用过程中,其性能往往发生劣化而导致其安全性能(可靠度)不断降低。本文旨在探讨结构在连续退化和冲击荷载共同作用下,其可靠度随时间的变化情况。此外,研究结构的最佳维修策略,使其在满足可靠度约束条件的同时,将平均费用降到最低。

创新点

1. 在连续退化和冲击荷载的共同影响下,建立结构时变可靠度计算模型。2. 在前述可靠度分析的基础上,建立基于状态维修的非周期检测模型;基于剩余使用寿命检测策略,确定检测时间,并确定系统的最优维护策略,旨在将平均维护成本率降至最低。3. 针对无限时间域和有限时间域,分别确定对应的最佳维修策略。

方法

1. 通过理论推导,构建结构时变可靠度计算公式(公式(13)),分析各参数与可靠度之间的变化关系(图4)。2. 通过仿真模拟,运用蒙特卡洛法确定结构在使用过程中的最佳维修策略(图5和6)。

结论

1. 与仅考虑连续退化的情况相比,随机冲击荷载的存在,使得系统的可靠度降低,更容易发生失效。2. 冲击载荷的存在,对最佳维修策略具有显著影响。3. 有限时间域的最优解与无限时间域的最优解之间存在很大的不同,因此,有必要对这两种情况分别进行研究。

关键词

软失效 硬失效 剩余寿命 可靠度 维修 成本率 有限时域 

CLC number

TU607 TH17 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahmad R, Kamaruddin S, 2012. An overview of time-based and condition-based maintenance in industrial application. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 63(1):135–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2012.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. An ZW, Sun DM, 2017. Reliability modeling for systems subject to multiple dependent competing failure processes with shock loads above a certain level. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 157:129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.08.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castro IT, 2009. A model of imperfect preventive maintenance with dependent failure modes. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(1):217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.02.042 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen JQ, Zhang XS, Jing Z, 2018. A cooperative PSO-DP approach for the maintenance planning and RBDO of deteriorating structures. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 58(1):95–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-017-1879-x MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coria VH, Maximov S, Rivas-Dávalos F, et al., 2015. Analytical method for optimization of maintenance policy based on available system failure data. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 135:55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Fátima Araújo T, Uturbey W, 2013. Performance assessment of PSO, DE and hybrid PSO-DE algorithms when applied to the dispatch of generation and demand. Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 47:205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Do P, Voisin A, Levrat E, et al., 2015. A proactive condition-based maintenance strategy with both perfect and imperfect maintenance actions. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 133:22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.08.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Do Van P, Bérenguer C, 2012. Condition-based maintenance with imperfect preventive repairs for a deteriorating production system. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 28(6):624–633. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.1431 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doksum KA, Hóyland A, 1992. Models for variable-stress accelerated life testing experiments based on Wiener processes and the inverse Gaussian distribution. Technometrics, 34(1):74–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/1269554 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Doyen L, Gaudoin O, 2004. Classes of imperfect repair models based on reduction of failure intensity or virtual age. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 84(1):45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00173-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. El-Ferik S, Ben-Daya M, 2006. Age-based hybrid model for imperfect preventive maintenance. IIE Transactions, 38(4):365–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170500232545 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Esary JD, Marshall AW, Proschan F, 1973. Shock models and wear processes. The Annals of Probability, 1(4):627–649. https://doi.org/10.1214/aop/1176996891 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Ge R, Chen JQ, Wei JH, 2008. Reliability-based design of composites under the mixed uncertainties and the optimization algorithm. Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica, 21(1): 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10338-008-0804-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guo CM, Wang WB, Guo B, et al., 2013. Maintenance optimization for systems with dependent competing risks using a copula function. Eksploatacja I Niezawodnosc-Maintenance and Reliability, 15(1):9–17.Google Scholar
  15. Huang XX, Chen JQ, 2015. Time-dependent reliability model of deteriorating structures based on stochastic processes and Bayesian inference methods. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 141(3):04014123. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huynh KT, Castro IT, Barros A, et al., 2012. Modeling age-based maintenance strategies with minimal repairs for systems subject to competing failure modes due to degradation and shocks. European Journal of Operational Research, 218(1):140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.10.025 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Jiang L, Feng QM, Coit DW, 2015. Modeling zoned shock effects on stochastic degradation in dependent failure processes. IIE Transactions, 47(5):460–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/0740817X.2014.955152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li WJ, Pham H, 2005. An inspection-maintenance model for systems with multiple competing processes. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 54(2):318–327. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2005.847264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lin DM, Zuo MJ, Yam RCM, 2001. Sequential imperfect preventive maintenance models with two categories of failure modes. Naval Research Logistics, 48(2):172–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6750(200103)48:2<172::AID-NAV5>3.0.CO;2-5MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Nakagawa T, 1988. Sequential imperfect preventive maintenance policies. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 37(3): 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1109/24.3758 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Nickabadi A, Ebadzadeh MM, Safabakhsh R, 2011. A novel particle swarm optimization algorithm with adaptive inertia weight. Applied Soft Computing, 11(4):3658–3670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2011.01.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peng H, Feng QM, Coit DW, 2010. Reliability and maintenance modeling for systems subject to multiple dependent competing failure processes. IIE Transactions, 43(1):12–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/0740817X.2010.491502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ponchet A, Fouladirad M, Grall A, 2011. Maintenance policy on a finite time span for a gradually deteriorating system with imperfect improvements. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 225(2):105–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006XJRR349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rafiee K, Feng QM, Coit DW, 2014. Reliability modeling for dependent competing failure processes with changing degradation rate. IIE Transactions, 46(5):483–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/0740817X.2013.812270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ross SM, 1996. Stochastic Processes. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Saydam D, Frangopol DM, 2015. Risk-based maintenance optimization of deteriorating bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering, 141(4):04014120. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Si XS, Wang WB, Hu CH, et al., 2011. Remaining useful life estimation-a review on the statistical data driven approaches. European Journal of Operational Research, 213(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.11.018 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tan L, Cheng ZJ, Guo B, et al., 2010. Condition-based maintenance policy for gamma deteriorating systems. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 21(1): 57–61. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-4132.2010.01.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Noortwijk JM, 2009. Asurvey of the application of gamma processes in maintenance. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 94(1):2–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2007.03.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Noortwijk JM, van der Weide JAM, Kallen MJ, et al., 2007. Gamma processes and peaks-over-threshold distributions for time-dependent reliability. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 92(12):1651–1658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2006.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang GJ, Zhang YL, 2005. A shock model with two-type failures and optimal replacement policy. International Journal of Systems Science, 36(4):209–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207720500032606 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang YP, Pham H, 2011. Imperfect preventive maintenance policies for two-process cumulative damage model of degradation and random shocks. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 2(1): 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-011-0055-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wu SM, Zuo MJ, 2010. Linear and nonlinear preventive maintenance models. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 59(1):242–249. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2010.2041972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zequeira RI, Bérenguer C, 2006. Periodic imperfect preventive maintenance with two categories of competing failure modes. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 91(4): 460–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Zhejiang University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hubei Key Laboratory for Engineering Structural Analysis and Safety Assessment, Department of MechanicsHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations