The Present Status of Maintenance Strategies and the Impact of Maintenance on Reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most frequently used maintenance strategies are reviewed. Distinction is made between strategies where maintenance consists of replacement by a new (or "good as new") component and where it is represented by a less costly activity resulting in a limited improvement of the component's condition. Methods are also divided into categories where maintenance is performed at fixed intervals and where it is carried out as needed. A further distinction is made between heuristic methods and those based on mathematical models; the models themselves can be deterministic or probabilistic. From a review of present maintenance policies in electric utilities it is concluded that maintenance at fixed intervals is the most frequently used approach, often augmented by additional corrections. Newer "as needed"-type methods, such as reliability-centered maintenance (RCM), are increasingly considered for application in North America, but methods based on mathematical models are hardly ever used or even considered. Yet only mathematical approaches where component deterioration and condition improvement by maintenance are quantitatively linked can determine the effect of maintenance on reliability. Although more complex, probabilistic models have advantages over deterministic ones, they are capable of describing actual processes more realistically, and also facilitate optimization for maximal reliability or minimal costs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".