MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Maintenance Optimization of Multi-Component Systems Subjected to $s$-Dependent Competing Risks and Imperfect Maintenance

2023· article· en· W4381744499 on OpenAlexaff
Lin Zhang, Abdelhakim Khatab

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreventive maintenanceReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringMathematical optimizationComputer scienceImperfectComponent (thermodynamics)Time horizonOptimization problemMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops a novelreliability-based maintenance optimization approach in multi-componentsrepairable system (MCRS) subjected to both <tex>$s$</tex>-dependent competing risks andimperfect maintenance. The system operates a sequence of preventive maintenance(PM) cycles at the end of which a preventive replacement of the system iscarried out. Duration of each PM cycle is determined by a reliability thresholdwhich triggers either an imperfect PM or a preventive replacement; there are asmuch PM cycles as reliability thresholds. The objective of the proposedmaintenance approach is to determine the joint optimal reliability thresholdsand the number of PM cycles that minimize the total expected maintenance andbreakdown cost rate in the infinite time horizon. Conditions to derive optimalsolutions are formally established and discussed. Given the complexity of theresulting optimization problem, a fix-and-optimize numerical algorithm usingthe gradient descent method is developed. The numerical results obtained fromthe case study demonstrate the accuracy and the added value of the proposedapproach. These results clearly show that it is not only cost-effective butalso adaptive and allow then to increase the system availability. Indeed,except for the last PM cycle, it is shown that the optimal reliabilitythreshold increases by the increasing of the number of PM cycles.

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)0.001
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 score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207