A Remaining Useful Life Model for Optimizing Maintenance cost and Spare-parts replacement of Production Systems in the Context of Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In reliability and maintenance engineering, predictive methods play a major role for estimating the remaining useful life (RUL) of equipment. However, in the most cases the RUL estimation is based on two types of approaches: model-based solution and data-driven solution. Data-driven solution is a very realistic solution, but requires the availability of large quantity of collected data using sensors networks, big storage capacity, supercomputers for processing, and high-level algorithms such as machines learning, convolutional Neural Networks, Hidden Markov Models. While model-based solution methods are less difficult to deploy, they use techniques based on the mean residual life (MRL) value. This paper proposes an integrated decision support model for minimizing the maintenance expected cost, and for reducing the excess of spare-parts usage of multi-component production systems. This decision support model includes three performance indicators that are: the renewal function (RF), the mean residual lifetime (MRL) and the renewal mean residual lifetime (RMLR). The contribution of this research consists of (1) introducing the MRL function for a class of useful probability distributions, (2) proposing the Renewal MRL (RMRL) as a predictive maintenance strategy, (3) applying the approach-MRL to maintenance scheduling problems, (4) dressing a comparative numerical study between the different proposed models using an industrial case study. Besides, the comparative study performing the RF, MRL, and RMRL is carried out using basic and modified replacement strategies consisting of an age replacement policy (ARP) and an opportunistic maintenance solution. In addition, a case study from an Electrical power system is proposed by providing numerical results that discuss and illustrate the outcome gains in terms of maintenance costs saving and spare parts replacements’ minimization. However, the proposed solution is demonstrated to have a positive effect to enhance sustainable development systems, and it is provided soon to cover other theoretical and application aspects of the MRL.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".