MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297628255

Optimal Inspection Interval for a Two-Component System with Failure Dependency

2012· article· en· W2297628255 on OpenAlexaff
Golmakani Hamid Reza, Hamid Moakedi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)Interval (graph theory)Failure rateReliability engineeringProcess (computing)Dependency (UML)MathematicsComputer scienceEngineeringPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, optimization of periodic inspection interval for a twocomponent system with failure dependency is presented. Failure of the first component is soft, namely, it does not cause the system stop, but it increases the system operating costs. The second component’s failure is hard, i.e. as soon as it occurs, the system stops operating. Any failure of the second component increases the first component’s failure rate. Failure of the first component is only detected if inspection is performed. Thus, the first component is periodically inspected and if found failed, it is perfectly repaired and it is restored to as good as new. Failure of the second component is detected as soon as it occurs. Since this failure causes the system stop, it is immediately replaced. It is assumed that the time for replacement or repaired is negligible. We model the first component’s failure as a non-homogeneous Poisson process (NHPP) with increasing failure rate and the second component’s failure as a homogeneous Poisson process (HPP) with constant failure rate. The objective is to find the optimal inspection interval for the first component such that the expected total cost per unit time is minimized. A simplified numerical example along with sensitivity analysis on cost parameters is given.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207