Proportional hazards modeling of engine failures in military vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to present a case study where proportional hazards modeling software is used to evaluate the potential benefits of a condition‐based maintenance policy for military vehicle diesel engines. Design/methodology/approach Maintenance records for diesel engines were supplied by the UK Ministry of Defence. A proportional hazards model based on these data was created using EXAKT software. Covariate parameters were estimated using the maximum likelihood method and transition probabilities were established using a Markov Chain model. Finally, decision parameters were entered to create an optimal decision model. Findings Two significant covariates were identified as influencing the hazard rate of the engines. In addition, the optimal decision model indicated a potential economic saving of up to 30 per cent. Practical implications A model of this nature is particularly useful to predict failures, improve maintenance policies, and possibly reduce maintenance costs. In addition, the cost of implementing maintenance policies based on this model should be balanced with the potential to reduce the risk of danger to personnel. Originality/value The model presented provides military personnel with a decision tool that optimizes the maintenance policy for diesel engines installed in military vehicles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".