Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A maintenance strategy for hydraulic systems based on generalized stochastic Petri nets under epistemic uncertainty

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hydraulic systems are widely employed across diverse industrial production processes. Nevertheless, complexity of their system structure presents challenges in developing a maintenance strategy. This paper develops a maintenance strategy for hydraulic systems by proposing an integrated approach that takes into account epistemic uncertainty and multi-source information. Initially, a hydraulic system is modeled using a fault tree, which is subsequently converted into a generalized stochastic Petri net model. A Monte Carlo simulation algorithm is proposed to deal with the epistemic uncertainty that arises from the interval-value failure rates of basic events within its complex structure. As a result, importance measures are calculated for each component. Next, experts are invited to evaluate maintenance cost of components, and their evaluation results are aggregated. Moreover, importance measures and maintenance cost are used to construct an original decision table, and an improved combinative distance-based assessment method is developed to obtain the maintenance strategy for the system. Finally, a case study is conducted on a hydraulic system of a tipping truck with side-pressing mechanism to demonstrate the generality of the proposed methodology.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Khan K, Sohaib M, Rashid A et al (2021) Recent trends and challenges in predictive maintenance of aircraft’s engine and hydraulic system. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 43(8):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-021-03121-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Quatrini E, Costantino F, Pocci C et al (2020) Predictive model for the degradation state of a hydraulic system with dimensionality reduction. Procedia Manuf 42:516–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhu PC, Zhi Q, Wang Z et al (2019) Stochastic analysis and optimal design of majority systems. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst II-Express Briefs 66(1):131–135. https://doi.org/10.1109/tcsii.2018.2839095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhang TX, Liu XH (2013) Reliability design for impact vibration of hydraulic pressure pipeline systems. Chin J Mech Eng 26(5):1050–1055. https://doi.org/10.3901/cjme.2013.05.1050

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cepin M, Mavko B (2002) A dynamic fault tree. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 75(1):83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0951-8320(01)00121-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kabir S, Yazdi M, Aizpurua JI et al (2018) Uncertainty-aware dynamic reliability analysis framework for complex systems. IEEE Access 6:29499–29515. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2018.2843166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Marcot BG, Penman TD (2019) Advances in Bayesian network modelling: integration of modelling technologies. Environ Modell Softw 111:386–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.09.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Melani AH, Michalski MAC, Murad CA et al (2022) Generalized stochastic Petri nets for planning and optimizing maintenance logistics of small hydroelectric power plants. Energies 15(8):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15082742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang Y, Hu X, Wu L, et al (2022) A GSPN-based method for dynamic system reliability modelling and evaluation. In: 12th international conference on quality, reliability, risk, maintenance, and safety engineering (QR2MSE 2022), pp 338–343. https://doi.org/10.1049/icp.2022.2890

  10. Zeng YN, Duan RX, Feng T et al (2021) A fault diagnostic system based on Petri nets and gray relational analysis for train-ground wireless communication systems. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part O-J Risk Reliab 235(6):1102–1117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006x211006993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Birnbaum ZW (1968) On the importance of different components in a multicomponent system [R]: Washington Univ Seattle Lab of Statistical Research

  12. Kuo W, Zhu XY (2012) Some recent advances on importance measures in reliability. IEEE Trans Reliab 61(2):344–360. https://doi.org/10.1109/tr.2012.2194196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dui HY, Li SM, Xing LD et al (2019) System performance-based joint importance analysis guided maintenance for repairable systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 186:162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.02.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Borgonovo E, Aliee H, Glass M et al (2016) A new time-independent reliability importance measure. Eur J Oper Res 254(2):427–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.03.054

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Pei Y, Wang W, Li LS (2016) Ranking the vulnerable components of aircraft by considering performance degradations. J Aircr 53(5):1400–1410. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C033683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen R, Zhang C, Wang S et al (2023) Importance measures for critical components in complex system based on Copula Hierarchical Bayesian Network. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 230:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.108883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Feng Q, Liu M, Dui HY et al (2022) Importance measure-based phased mission reliability and UAV number optimization for swarm. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 223:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.108478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaushik M, Kumar M (2022) An α-cut interval based IF-importance measure for intuitionistic fuzzy fault tree analysis of subsea oil and gas production system. Appl Ocean Res 125:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2022.103229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bevilacqua M, Braglia M (2000) The analytic hierarchy process applied to maintenance strategy selection. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 70(1):71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(00)00047-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bertolini M, Bevilacqua M (2006) A combined goal programming—AHP approach to maintenance selection problem. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91(7):839–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pourjavad E, Shirouyehzad H, Shahin A (2013) Selecting maintenance strategy in mining industry by analytic network process and TOPSIS. Int J Ind Syst Eng 15(2):171–192. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISE.2013.056095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ho W, Xu XW, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shafiee M (2015) Maintenance logistics organization for offshore wind energy: current progress and future perspectives. Renew Energy 77:182–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.11.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ighravwe DE, Oke SA (2019) A multi-criteria decision-making framework for selecting a suitable maintenance strategy for public buildings using sustainability criteria. J Build Eng 24:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chandima Ratnayake R, Markeset T (2010) Technical integrity management: measuring HSE awareness using AHP in selecting a maintenance strategy. J Qual Maint Eng 16(1):44–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511011030327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Codetta-Raiteri D (2005) The conversion of dynamic fault trees to stochastic Petri nets, as a case of graph transformation. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 127(2):45–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2005.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bhattacharjee P, Dey V, Mandal U et al (2022) Quantitative risk assessment of submersible pump components using Interval number-based multinomial logistic regression (MLR) model. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 226:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.108703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Moore RE (1966) Interval analysis. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  29. Neumaier A, Neumaier A (1990) Interval methods for systems of equations. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  30. Pei Y, Cheng T (2014) Importance measure method for ranking the aircraft component vulnerability. J Aircr 51(1):273–279. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C032334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dui H, Si S, Zuo MJ et al (2015) Semi-Markov process-based integrated importance measure for multi-state systems. IEEE Trans Reliab 64(2):754–765. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2015.2413031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ayik A, Ijumba N, Kabiri C et al (2020) Selection of off-grid renewable energy systems using analytic hierarchy process: case of South Sudan. IEEE PES/IAS PowerAfrica 2020:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/PowerAfrica49420.2020.9219858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Afful-Dadzie E, Oplatkova ZK, Beltran Prieto LA (2017) Comparative state-of-the-art survey of classical fuzzy set and intuitionistic fuzzy sets in multi-criteria decision making. Int J Fuzzy Syst 19:726–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-016-0204-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ma J, Ruan D, Xu Y et al (2007) A fuzzy-set approach to treat determinacy and consistency of linguistic terms in multi-criteria decision making. Int J Approx Reason 44(2):165–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2006.07.007

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Asuquo MP, Wang J, Zhang L et al (2019) Application of a multiple attribute group decision making (MAGDM) model for selecting appropriate maintenance strategy for marine and offshore machinery operations. Ocean Eng 179:246–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.02.065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Keshavarz Ghorabaee M, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z et al (2016) A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making. Econom Comput Econom Cybernet Stud Res 50(3):25–44

    Google Scholar 

  37. Deveci K, Cin R, Kağızman A (2020) A modified interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy CODAS method and its application to multi-criteria selection among renewable energy alternatives in Turkey. Appl Soft Comput 96:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Huang S, Duan R, He J et al (2020) Fault diagnosis strategy for complex systems based on multi-source heterogeneous information under epistemic uncertainty. IEEE Access 8:50921–50933. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2980397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Acuña-Soto CM, Liern V, Pérez-Gladish B (2019) A VIKOR-based approach for the ranking of mathematical instructional videos. Manag Decis 57(2):501–522. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-03-2018-0242

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the contract No. 71961017.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Engineering, Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330031, Jiangxi, China

    Chengkai Yang, Rongxing Duan, Yihe Lin & Li Chen

Authors
  1. Chengkai Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rongxing Duan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yihe Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Li Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rongxing Duan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest:

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Ethical approval

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Chengkai Yang, Rongxing Duan, Yihe Lin and Li Chen. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Chengkai Yang and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. This manuscript is approved by all authors for publication. I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has not been published previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have approved the manuscript that is enclosed. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Technical Editor: Andre T. Beck.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, C., Duan, R., Lin, Y. et al. A maintenance strategy for hydraulic systems based on generalized stochastic Petri nets under epistemic uncertainty. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 46, 99 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-023-04672-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-023-04672-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation