A New Ranking Method Approach for Decision Making in Maintenance Management

  • Fausto Pedro Garc′ıa M′arquez
  • Alberto Pliego
  • Jos’e Lorente
  • Juan R. Trapero
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 241)

Abstract

Decision making process in maintenance management produces a final choice. Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) is proposed as a graphical representation of logical relationships between the elements that comprise the decision making process in maintenance management. A Fault Tree (FT) is compound by different events and logic gates. Complex systems analysis may produce thousands of combinations of events (cut-sets) that can cause the system failure. The determination of these cut-sets can be a large and time-consuming process even on modern computers. Binary Decision Diagrams (BDD) provides a new alternative to the traditional cut-set based approach for FTA that leads to the determination of the function output value through the examination of the input values. BDD is a directed acyclic graph that represents the Boolean functions. The cut sets generated by BDD will depend on the events ordering. The “Level”, “Top-Down-Left–Right”, “AND”, “Depth-First Search” and “Breadth-First Search” methods have been considered for listing the events, and a comparative analysis of them has been done. A new ranking approach is proposed in this paper, where its efficiency has been validated.

Keywords

Decision making Maintenance management Fault tree analysis Binary decision diagrams 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Moret BME (1982) Decision trees and diagrams. Computing Surveys 14:413–416Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burrus CS, McClellan JH, Oppenheim AV et al (1994) Computer-based exercises for signal processing using matlab. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 43–59Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee CY (1959) Representation of switching circuits by binary decision diagrams. Bell System Technology 38:985–999Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcia MFP, Vaibhav S, Mayorkinos P (2011) A review of wind turbine maintenance management procedure. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Condition Monitoring and Machinery Failure Prevention TechnologiesGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giebel G, Oliver G, Malcolm M et al (2006) Common access to wind turbines data for condition monitoring. Riso National Laboratory. In: Proceedings of the 27th Riso International Symposium on Material Science, Denmark 157–164Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lambert HE (1975) Measures of importance of events and cut sets. SIAM, Reliability and Fault Tree Analysis 77–100Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andrews JD, Moss TR (1993) Reliability and risk assessment. Longman Scientific & Technical, LongmansGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bartlett LM (2003) Progression of the binary decision diagram conversion methods. In: Proceedings of the 21st International System Safety Conference, August 4-8, 2003, Ottawa 116–125Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bartlett LM, Andrews JD (2001) Comparison of two new approaches to variable ordering for binary decision diagrams. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 17(3):151–158Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xie M, Tan KC, Goh KH et al (2000) Optimum prioritisation and resource allocation based on fault tree analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 17(2):189–199Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cozens NJ, Watson SJ (2003) State of the art condition monitoring techniques suitable for wind turbines and wind farm applications, Report for CONMOW projectGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bryant RE (1986) Graph-based algorithms for Boolean functions using a graphical representation. IEEE Transactions on Computing C-35(8):677–691Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Akers SB (1978) Binary decision diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Computing 27:509–516Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Watson SJ, Infield DG, Xiang J (2008) Condition monitoring of wind turbines C measurements and methods. IET Renewable Power GenerationGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malik S, Wang AR, Brayton RK, Vincentelli AS (1988) Logic verification using binary decision diagrams in a logic synthesis environment. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Aided Design, ICCAD 88. Santa Clara CA, USA 6–9Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jinglun Z, Quan S (1998) Reliability analysis based on binary decision diagrams. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 4(2):150–161Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Birnbaum ZW (1969) On the importance of different components in a multicomponent system. Multivariate Analysis 581–592Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Akers SB (1978) Binary decision diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Computing 27:509–516Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bartlett LM (2003) Progression of the binary decision diagram conversion methods. In: Proceedings of the 21st International System Safety Conference, August 4-8, 2003, Ottawa, Westin Hotel 116–125Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bartlett LM, Andrews JD (2001 Comparison of two new approaches to variable ordering for binary decision diagrams. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 17(3):151–158Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bryant RE (1986) Graph-based algorithms for Boolean functions using a graphical representation. IEEE Transactions on Computing C-35(8):677–691Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL et al (2001) Introduction to algorithms, second edition. MIT Press and McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-262-03293-7, Section 22.3: Depth-first search 540–549Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jensen R, Veloso MM (2000) OBDD-based universal planning for synchronized agents in non-deterministic domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 13:189–226Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jinglun Z, Quan S (1998) Reliability analysis based on binary decision diagrams. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 4(2):150–161Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee CY (1959) Representation of switching circuits by binary decision diagrams. Bell System Technology 38:985–999Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Malik S, Wang AR, Brayton RK et al (1988) Logic verification using binary decision diagrams in logic synthesis environment. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Aided Design, ICCAD’88, Santa Clara CA, USA 6–9Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moret BME (1982) Decision trees and diagrams. Computing Surveys 14:413–416Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jensen RM, Bryant RE, Veloso MM (2002) SetA*: An efficient BDD-based heuristic search algorithm. In: Proceedings of AAAI-2002, Edmonton, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xie M, Tan KC, Goh KH et al (2000) Optimum prioritisation and resource allocation based on fault tree analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 17(2):189–199Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fausto Pedro Garc′ıa M′arquez
    • 1
  • Alberto Pliego
    • 1
  • Jos’e Lorente
    • 1
  • Juan R. Trapero
    • 1
  1. 1.Ingenium Research GroupUniversity of Castilla-La ManchaCiudad RealSpain

Personalised recommendations