MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321994534 · doi:10.1177/1748007810393826

Finite-time maintenance cost analysis of engineering systems affected by stochastic degradation

2011· article· en· W2321994534 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahesh D. Pandey, Taotao Cheng, J.A.M. van der Weide

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and Reliability · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Time horizonGamma processOptimal maintenanceMathematical optimizationPreventive maintenanceMinificationReliability engineeringComputer scienceProcess (computing)Stochastic processVariance (accounting)Set (abstract data type)EngineeringMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance and reliability of engineering systems and structures are usually affected by uncertain degradation that occurs in service as a result of various physical and environmental processes, such as corrosion, erosion, fatigue, and creep. To maintain reliability of degrading systems, periodic inspection and preventive maintenance programmes are adopted. In the literature, the optimization of a maintenance programme is typically based on the minimization of the asymptotic cost rate. However, many engineering systems operate in a relatively short and finite time horizon in which the application of the asymptotic approximation becomes questionable. This paper presents an accurate formulation for computing the expected value and variance of the cost of a condition-based maintenance programme over a defined time horizon. A stochastic gamma process is used to model uncertain degradation. This paper emphasizes that the consideration of variance of the cost is of utmost importance in maintenance optimization, because it helps to identify a more robust (less uncertain) solution in a set of competing optimum solutions based on expected cost.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and ReliabilitySame topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207