Computer Aided Diagnostic Methods to Forecast Condition-Based Maintenance Tasks

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 151)

Abstract

Nowadays, production and service processes rely heavily on computerized supervision. The data provided by these supervisory systems are also crucial for decision-making, involving maintenance and revision. However, these data can include various measurement and sampling errors. Taking measurement uncertainty into consideration the loss can be decreased. In our model the realized (or lost) revenue is treated along with the occurred costs, in order to maximize the profit with the help of analytic calculation and simulations. This paper presents that by treating measurement results as a time series the time of probable failure can be predicted at a given confidence level. The uncertainty of measurement and uncertainty of forecasting can be treated in the same model.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was written as the part of “Livable environment and healthier people—Bioinnovation and Green Technology research at the University of Pannonia,” a successful tender project of New Hungary Development Plan, TÁMOP-4.2.2. The project is being co-financed by the European Social Fund with the support of the European Union.

References

  1. 1.
    BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML (1995) Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forbes AB (2006) Measurement uncertainty and optimized conformance assessment. Measurement 39:808–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pendrill LR (2006) Optimised measurement uncertainty and decision-making when sampling by variables or attribute Measurement 39:829–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rossi G, Crenna F (2006) A probabilistic approach to measurement-based decisions. Measurement 39:101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kosztyán ZsT, Schanda J (2006) Flatbed scanners and CCD-cameras: colorimetric characterization and uncertainties, 2nd expert symposium on measurement uncertainty, 11–17 June, pp 219–228Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arunraj NS, Maiti J (2009) A methodology for overall consequence modeling in chemical industry. J Hazard Mater 169:556–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krishnasamy L, Khan F, Haddara M (2005) Development of a risk-based maintenance (RBM) strategy for a power-generating plant. J Loss Prev Process Ind 18:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kosztyán ZsT, Csizmadia T, Hegedűs Cs, Kovács Z (2008) Treating measurement uncertainty in complete conformity control system. In: Sobh T (ed) Innovations and advances in computer sciences and engineering. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 79–84Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kosztyán ZsT, Csizmadia T, Hegedűs Cs, Kovács Z (2009) A new approach to forecasting conformity treating measurement uncertainty in SPC, AVA (International congress on the aspects and vision of applied economics and informatics), Debrecen 26 March 2009Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pintelon R, Schoukens J (2006) Box-Jenkins identifications revisited—part I: theory. Automatica 42:63–75MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kosztyán ZsT, Csizmadia T, Hegedűs Cs (2008) Treating measurement uncertainty in sampling conformity control (Mérési bizonytalanság figyelembe vétele mintavételes megfelelőségvizsgálatnál), XX. Nemzetközi Karbantartási Konferencia, pp 152–163Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen Z, Lu S, Lam S (2007) A hybrid system for SPC concurrent pattern recognition. Adv Eng Inf 21:303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Åkesson BM, Toivonen HT (2006) State-dependent parameter modelling and identification of stochastic non-linear sampled-data systems. J Process Control 16:877–886Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementUniversity of PannoniaVeszprémHungary

Personalised recommendations