Jet Engine Optimal Preventive Maintenance Scheduling Using Golden Section Search and Genetic Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jet engines are critical assets in aircraft, and their availability is crucial in the modern aircraft industry. Therefore, their maintenance scheduling is one of the major tasks an airline has to make during an engine’s lifetime. A proper engine maintenance schedule can significantly reduce maintenance costs without compromising the aircraft's reliability and safety. Different maintenance scheduling approaches have been used for jet engines, such as corrective, preventive, and predictive maintenance strategies. Regarding the safety demands in aircraft industries, preventive maintenance is a frequent maintenance method for jet engines. However, preventive maintenance schedules are often use fixed maintenance intervals, which is usually suboptimal. This paper focuses on minimizing a jet engine's overall maintenance cost by optimizing its preventive maintenance schedule based on an engine’s comprehensive reliability model. A hierarchical optimization framework including the golden section search and genetic algorithms is applied to find the optimal set of preventive maintenance number and their times and the components to be replaced at those times during the jet engine's overall lifetime. The Monte Carlo simulation is used to estimate the engine’s failure times using their lifetime distributions from the reliability model. The estimated failure times are then used to determine the engine's overall corrective and preventive maintenance costs during its lifetime. Finally, an optimal preventive maintenance schedule is proposed for an RB 211 jet engine using the presented method. In the end, comparing the proposed method's overall maintenance cost with two other maintenance methods demonstrates the proposed schedule's effectiveness. The method presented in this paper is generic, and it can be used for other similar engineering systems.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".