MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338059164 · doi:10.1109/rams.2016.7448039

Joint maintenance and inspection optimization of a k-out-of-n system

2016· article· en· W2338059164 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInterval (graph theory)Component (thermodynamics)Reliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringFunction (biology)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Preventive maintenanceMathematical optimizationPoisson processPoisson distributionMaintenance actionsOptimal maintenanceMathematicsPower (physics)EngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Redundantly-configured k-out-of-n systems have wide applications in various industries. Even though the reliability and availability of k-out-of-n systems have been studied in the literature, not many models have been proposed for inspection and maintenance optimization of such systems. In addition, for majority of k-out-of-n systems, it is assumed that a failed component is always rectified by replacement, which is not a realistic assumption for many systems in the real world. In this paper, we consider a k-out-of-n system with components whose failures follow a non-homogeneous Poisson process with power law intensity function. The system is periodically inspected, and if the number of failed components in an inspection interval does not exceed n-k+1, the failed components are detected and rectified only at a periodic inspection. However, if the number of failures reaches n-k+1, the system fails and this is when all the failed components are detected and fixed. When a failure is detected, we should decide whether to minimally repair the component or replace it. Thus, two types of optimal decisions should be made simultaneously: obtaining the optimal maintenance action for a failed component and finding the optimal periodic inspection interval for the entire system. We formulate a model to obtain jointly the optimal maintenance actions and the periodic inspection interval which results in the minimum total expected cost of the system over a finite planning horizon. The optimal maintenance decision is the optimal number of minimal repairs that should be performed before a component is replaced. The total cost includes the cost of periodic inspections, the penalty cost for system failures, minimal repairs and replacements of the components, and the penalty cost for the downtime of the components before they get rectified. We then develop a simulation model to obtain the required model parameters. The application of the proposed model is shown in case studies of a 1-out-of-5 (parallel), 2-out-of-5 and 5-out-of-5 (series) systems. The 1-out-of-5 system incurs the smallest optimal total expected cost of inspection and maintenance, while the 5-out-of-5 system incurs the highest optimal cost. The optimal inspection period is the longest for the 5-out-of-5 system, since the greater number of failures provides a greater number of opportunistic inspections, which reduces the need for frequent periodic inspections.

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.

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 score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207