best one

© All Rights Reserved

23 vues

best one

© All Rights Reserved

- 2012_worldpulp
- Equipment Criticality Analysis.doc
- How to Identify a FAKE Spinner II
- BSCU - BRAKES RELEASED AUTO BRK FAULT AT LANDING.pdf
- Use of Pareto optimisation for tuning power system stabilizers
- Network Analysis - Resource Restrictions
- Resume
- Design Out For Reliability & Long Term Profitability
- weibull model
- Reliability Analysis of Offshore Structures
- 1 Intro
- Condition Monitoring Systems
- Manager or Superintendent
- Rajib Mall Lecture Notes
- Proposal 2
- (52-4)321
- Ashwin Vijayasai Resume Apl
- SICK - Functional Safety for Machine Controls.pdf
- BD9883AF,FV
- Reliability Block Diagrams

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

HIKARI Ltd, www.m-hikari.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.12988/ams.2015.57503

a System with Two Types of Failure

Bashir Yusuf 1, Ibrahim Yusuf 2 and Bashir M. Yakasai 3

1

2,3

Copyright 2015 Bashir Yusuf, Ibrahim Yusuf and Bashir M. Yakasai. This article is

distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This paper considers an optimal replacement model for a system subject to two

types of failure. If the failure is of type 1, the system is minimally repaired. In the

case of type 2 failure, the system is minimally repaired with probability p and

replaced with probability q 1 p . A modified random and age replacement

model is considered in which the system is replaced at a planned time T, at a

random working time Y, or at the first non repairable type 2 failure whichever

occurs first. Explicit expression for the expected total cost and the optimal

replacement time T, minimizing the expected total cost are derived analytically.

Finally, numerical example is considered to highlight the characteristics of the

policy.

Keywords: Replacement, Expected cost, Minimal repair, Random working time,

Optimal time

1. Introduction

Most systems deteriorate and subsequently fail due to age and usage. Such

failures have negative effect on revenue, production of defective items and causes

delay in customer services. To reduce the incidences of system failures,

management of organizations is always interested with implementing an

appropriate preventive replacement policy for normal system operation. For this

reason, many researchers developed several optimal replacement policies for

reducing unnecessary high operating costs. Barlow and Hunter [1] developed a

periodic replacement policy in which the system is replaced at time T, while a mi-

6868

nimal repair is conducted at any intervening failures. This is the basic minimal

repair policy and has been modified by many researchers in different ways.

Beichelt [2] developed a repair cost limit policy in which when a unit fails, the

repair cost is estimated and repair is done if the estimated cost is less than a

predetermined limit, otherwise a replacement is carried out. Nakagawa [3]

considered age replacement in which a unit is replaced at time T, or at a number

of N failures, whichever occurs first and undergoes minimal repair at failure. Sheu

and Griffith [4] developed a generalized age replacement policy with age

dependent minimal repair and random lead time and derived the explicit

expression of the average cost per unit time based on the stochastic behavior of

the assumed system which reflects the cost of storing a spare as well as the cost of

the system down time. Mamabolo and Beichelt [5] considered a maintenance

policy where each failure is removed by a minimal repair and on the first failure

after a given system age T, an unplanned replacement is carried out. Zhao and

Nakagawa [6] considered age and periodic replacement last models with working

cycles, where a unit is replaced before failure at a total operating time T, or at a

random working cycle whichever occurs last. Ali and ibrahim [7] presented a

sructural dependence replacement model for two units parallel system in which

both units operate simultataneously and the system is subjected to two types of

failures. The type I failure is minor and occur with the failure of a sigle unit and is

rectified by a minimal repair while the type II failure is catastroph in which both

units failed and the system is replaced. Suguira et al [8] considered a replacement

policy in which the system is replaced at time T or at random working time Y and

undergoes minimal repair at failure. Chen [9] considered age and random

replacement policy in which the system is replaced at time T, Y or at failure,

whichever occurs first. Nakagawa [10] considered a system in which corrective

replacement is performed at failure and the system is preventively replaced at a

total operating time T. Aven and Castro [11] considered a replacement model in

which the system is subject to two types of failure. If the failure is of type 1, the

system is minimally repaired. In the case of

type 2 failure, the system is

minimally repaired with probability p and replaced with probability q=1-p. The

system is replaced at a planned time T or at a non repairable type 2 failure

whichever occurs first. Chang [12] considered a preventive maintenance policy

with two types of failure. The type I failure (repairable) occurs with probability q

and is rectified by a minimal repair, whereas the type II failure (non-repairable)

occurs with probability p 1 q is removed by a corrective replacement. The

system is replaced at a random working time Y, or at a planned time T or at a first

type II failure which ever occurs first.

This paper extends the works of [11] and [12] by considering a system subject to

two types of failure. The type 1 failure (repairable) is removed by a minimal

repair. If the failure is of type 2, the system is rectified by a minimal repair with

probability p and replaced with probability q=1-p. A random and age replacement

model is considered in which the system is preventively replaced at a random

working time or at a planned time T or is correctively replaced at a non repairable

type 2 failure whichever occurs first. Explicit expression for the expected total cost is

6869

obtained and computed numerically.

We consider a preventive replacement model for a system in which repairs and

replacements take place according to the following scheme:

1. A new system with failure time X begins to operate at time 0. When X has the

general distribution F (t ) and probability density function f(t ). A preventive

replacement is planned to be conducted when the system reaches age T.

2. The system failure at time t can be of two types: a type 1 failure (minor) which

is repairable occurs with intensity function r1 (t ) and cumulative failure intensity

t

0

corrected by a minimal repair. The type 2 failure occurs with intensity function

t

0

type 2 failure, the system is minimally repaired with probability p and replaced by

a new one with a probability q 1 p , where 0 p 1 .

3. It is assumed that Y is a random working time of the system with a general

distribution G(t ) and does not take into account any actual failure (i.e. Y is

independent of X). It will be necessary to replace a system at random times as its

working times in cases where the working time is large (Nakagawa, 2005, p.245).

Another preventive replacement is conducted at the completion of the working

time.

4. In summary, the system is replaced at time T or Y or immediately after non

repairable type 2 failure, whichever occurs first, where T is constant and Y is a

random variable with distribution G(t ) .

5. The minimal repair cost associated with type 1 and type 2 failures are c1 and c m

respectively. The preventive replacement cost due to age T and due to random

working time are cT and cY respectively. The corrective replacement cost due to

type 2 failure is c Z . It is assumed that cZ cT and cZ cY .

6. After a replacement, the system is as good as new and the replacement time is

negligible.

The problem is to determine a replacement time T which balances the costs of

unplanned repairs/replacements and the cost of planned replacement.

Following Ross [13], we define the total expected cost per unit time as follows

C (T )

E (length of cycle)

(1)

6870

of the system caused by non repairable type 2 failures or by a planned

replacement at time T or Y . Let Z be the waiting time until the first type 2 failure

resulting in replacement and hence is independent of Y. From Beichelt [14] the

survivor function of Z can be expressed as

F (t ) P(Z t ) e(1 p ) h2 (t ) , t 0.

(2)

0

The probability that the system is replaced at age T is

(3)

T

P(Y T, Y Z) F (t ) d G(t )

(4)

And the probability that it is replaced at the first non repairable type 2 failures is

T

(5)

T

(6)

Let C (T ) denote the total expected cost, then the total expected cost is given by,

C (T )

0

T

F (t ) G(t)dt

cY F (t )dG (t ) cT F (T ) G(T)

0

(7)

F (t )G (t )dt

d ( F (t ) G(t)) 1 F (T )G(T )

We obtain

T

and we can write the expected total cost as

C (T )

F (t )G (t )dt

(8)

6871

3. Optimization

The problem is to find a value of T that minimizes C (T ) given by (8). Let T be

an optimal value of T .

The derivative of C (T ) is

C '(T )

(9)

F (t ) G(t)dt

0

At T , C '(T ) 0 ,

(cY cT ) r(T) c1r1 (T) (cm p (cZ cT )(1 p))r2 (T) C (T ) 0

Where,

dG (T )

r (T )

G(T )

The second derivative of C (T ) is

H (T )

C ''(T ) T

,

( F (t ) G(t)dt ) 2

(10)

(11)

where

T

0

C ' (T ))](F(T) G(T)) (c1 r1 (T ) (cm p (cZ cT )(1 p))r2 (T ) C(T))(F(T) G(T))'

At T , the second derivative becomes

C ''(T)

F (t ) G(t)dt

C(T))(F(T) G(T))]' 0

Then C ''(T ) 0 and the T obtained from (9) minimizes of C (T ) .

(12)

Some replacement models are special cases of this model. They are demonstrated

as follows

which the system is replaced at time T, Y or at a non repairable type II failure

whichever occurs first and undergoes minimal repair with probability q at a

repairable type I failure. If we set r1 (t ) 0 in (8), the expected total cost is

6872

C1 (T )

cT (cY cT ) F (t )dG (t )

0

F (t )G (t )dt

T

0

(13)

F (t )G (t )dt

in which the system is replaced at T, Y or at complete failure whichever occurs

first. If we set p 0 and r1 (t ) in (8), then the expected total cost is

T

C2 (T )

0

(14)

F (t )G (t )dt

Case 3. If G(t ) 0 . This is the case considered by Aven and Castro (2008,

p.513), in which the type 1 failures are corrected by a minimal repair and the type

2 failure is rectified by a minimal repair with probability p and replaced with

probability q 1 p. The system is replaced at T, or at a non repairable type 2

failure whichever occurs first. and undergoes minimal repair at a repairable type 1

failure. If we set G(t ) 0 in (8), the expected total cost is

C3 (T )

c1 r1 (t ) F (t ) dt c2 p r2 t F (t )dt c2,r F (t ) cr F (t )

T

(15)

F (t )dt

replacement (SAR) considered by Barlow and Proschan (1965, p.87) and

Nakagawa(2005, p.72), in which corrective replacement is done immediately after

failure, and preventive replacement is done before failure at a total operating time

T. If we set G(t ) 0 , p 0 and r1 0 in (8), the expected total cost is

C4 (T )

cT (cZ cT ) F (T )

(16)

F (t)dt

Suguira et al (2004) in which the system is replaced at time T or Y whichever

occurs first and undergoes minimal repair at complete failure. If we set F (t ) 0 ,

r2 (t ) 0 and p 1 in (8), the expected cost rate is

6873

C5 (T )

0

(17)

G (t )dt

Where, r (t ) r1 (t ) and cm c1 .

4. Numerical example

Let the failure distribution of the system has a gamma distribution of order 2 i.e.

f (t ) 2te t , t 0 , 0 and the random working distribution has exponential

distribution G(t ) 1 e t . c1 60 , cm 115 , cT 200 , cY 350 , cZ 1000 ,

1 5 , 2 1 .

The intensity functions of the processes are given by

ri (t )

i 2t

, i 0 , t 0 , i 1, 2.

1 i t

(18)

25t

t

and r2 (t )

r1 t

1 5t

1 t

(19)

Table 1 Optimal replacement time and minimum expected cost rate for

different values of p and

0.1

p

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

T

1.05

1.15

1.25

1.30

1.50

1.60

1.85

2.15

2.75

0.3

C (T )

646.6

624.3

601.1

576.9

551.3

524.3

495.5

464.6

430.3

T

1.15

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.05

2.50

3.40

0.5

C (T )

689.2

668.8

643.5

619.1

593.4

566.4

537.2

505.8

471.3

T

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.70

2.00

2.30

2.95

4.40

0.7

C (T )

732.6

710.2

686.8

662.5

636.7

609.4

580.4

649.0

514.6

T

1.25

1.40

1.50

1.70

1.90

2.25

2.75

3.70

4.95

0.9

C (T )

777.0

754.6

731.3

706.9

681.3

654.2

625.4

594.5

561.4

T

1.35

1.50

1.60

1.85

2.25

2.55

3.40

4.60

4.95

C (T )

822.5

800.2

777.1

752.9

727.5

700.9

672.7

643.0

611.8

It can be seen from Table1 that, the value T which minimizes C (T ) for different

values of p exists as predicted by our results. Also, we can see that when the

minimal repair probability p increases, the minimum expected cost rate decreases

and the optimal replacement time increases. This is intuitive, as lower probability

of replacement leads to lower expected total cost and increases the replacement

schedule.

6874

5. Conclusion

In this paper, age and random preventive maintenance policy for a system with

two types of failures is presented. Explicit expression for the total expected cost

and the optimal replacement time are derived analytically. Numerical example is

given to highlight the characteristic of the policy.

References

[1]

Operations Research, 8 (1960), 90-100.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.8.1.90

[2]

F. Beichelt, A replacement policy based on limits for repair cost rate, IEEE

Transactions on Reliability, 31 (1982), 401-403.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/tr.1982.5221393

[3]

Research Logistics Quaterly, 31 (1984), 33-40.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nav.3800310106

[4]

dependent minimal repair and random lead time, IEEE Tansactions on

Reliability, 50 (2001), no, 3, 302-309.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/24.974128

[5]

Economic Quality Control, 19 (2004), no. 2, 143-166.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/eqc.2004.143

[6]

reliability theory, European Journal of Operational Research, 223 (2012), 141149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.05.035

[7]

parallel system of two units, Nigerian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences,

20 (2012), no. 4, 324-326.

[8]

International Conference on Reliability and Quality Design, (2004), pp. 99103.

[9]

6875

Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering, 17 (2010), no. 1, 27-39.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/s0218539310003652

[10]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-221-7

[11]

T. Aven, and I.T. Castro, A minimal repair replacement model two types of

failure and a safety constraint, European Journal of Operations Research, 188

(2008), 506-515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.04.038

[12]

random working times, replacement, and minimal repair, Computers and

industrial engineering, 67 (2014), 185-194.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.11.011

[13]

1970.

[14]

Naval Research Logistics, 40 (1993), 51-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/15206750(199302)40:1<51::aid-nav3220400104>3.0.co;2-v

- 2012_worldpulpTransféré parAyie Rawk
- Equipment Criticality Analysis.docTransféré parprsiva2420034066
- How to Identify a FAKE Spinner IITransféré parfaustus
- BSCU - BRAKES RELEASED AUTO BRK FAULT AT LANDING.pdfTransféré parWei Liao
- Use of Pareto optimisation for tuning power system stabilizersTransféré parjagarov4954
- Network Analysis - Resource RestrictionsTransféré parvirajthepower
- ResumeTransféré paranon-338933
- Design Out For Reliability & Long Term ProfitabilityTransféré parnousgas
- weibull modelTransféré parmadhumadan
- Reliability Analysis of Offshore StructuresTransféré parYakubu Kasimu Galadima
- 1 IntroTransféré parKotresh Munavallimatt
- Condition Monitoring SystemsTransféré parrajronson6938
- Manager or SuperintendentTransféré parapi-121658877
- Rajib Mall Lecture NotesTransféré parAnuj Nagpal
- Proposal 2Transféré parNiroshan Karunarathna
- (52-4)321Transféré parcr231181
- Ashwin Vijayasai Resume AplTransféré parAshwin Vijaysai
- SICK - Functional Safety for Machine Controls.pdfTransféré pariasys
- BD9883AF,FVTransféré parYusuf Agustaf Satriani
- Reliability Block DiagramsTransféré parpkannan
- Hazard Study ModifiedTransféré parOladimeji Taiwo
- SCE ManagementTransféré parnganga_milo
- PHYSICAL ASSET MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK.docTransféré parFachransjah Aliunir
- TLP124_datasheet_en_20170426Transféré parSundar Rajan
- 289Transféré parIkhlas Kitta
- Vita Kishor s TrivediTransféré parGurjar Devyani
- 4140.pdfTransféré parJheremy Sebastian Torres
- when-s2.0-S016747301730022X-main.pdfTransféré parOkan Akpınar
- Assignment of Testing WritingTransféré parZafar Ullah
- Root Cause AnalysisTransféré parRohith

- Main Parts of CmmTransféré parRamprakashSundaram
- 12M025Transféré parRamprakashSundaram
- MrpTransféré parRamprakashSundaram
- LPPTransféré parRamprakashSundaram
- GATE-2017-Answer-ME1.pdfTransféré parRamprakashSundaram
- GATE-2017-Answer-ME2.pdfTransféré parRamprakashSundaram
- Syllabus for MAth OlympiadTransféré parRamprakashSundaram
- Cost Estimation 15P406Transféré parRamprakashSundaram

- Erl Scada BrochureTransféré parBehzad
- The Australian Science CurriculumTransféré parNahr Nahr
- CopywritingTransféré parfrank05
- ISC 2015 Chemistry Paper 2 Practical SolvedTransféré parUtsyo Chakraborty
- Python Advanced_ Pipes in PythonTransféré parPedro Elias Romero Nieto
- Oracle Row Chaining and MigrationTransféré parnassr50
- Ochratoxin-45532Transféré parJuanManuelAmaroLuis
- wcms_185863Transféré parviethuong96
- Bank GuranteeTransféré parJennifer Jones
- Fuel CellTransféré paramarahhtahir786
- LA-A972P.pdfTransféré parnicolae7887169
- Visual Studio 2005 Known IssuesTransféré parraviee
- TestingTransféré parAnant Nihalani
- 214799106-P-ID-Tutorial.docTransféré parShahrizatSmailKassim
- Pioneer Pdp-508xg 508xda 508xc SmTransféré pardrone001
- Polca (Dia de Canarias)Transféré parmusicafranchy
- 57 SoporteCongreso IEEECCAC 2017 CopiaTransféré parnorhaposada
- Complex Numbers IntroductionTransféré parBrandon BigNig McCartney
- 2Copy of QCYCIN4001 as of aug 28 2018-version.xlsxTransféré parInnovator Adrian
- Picturing Paradise SampleTransféré parNanelline
- Americans on Target U S Army Tank Gunnery Excellence Canadian Army Trophy Competition USA 1989Transféré parLaVictorion
- Hisex White Production Report Cage Production System Vs1408aTransféré parleonardollat
- Assignment 5 Risk AssessmentTransféré parThrishnaa BalasupurManiam
- observation katja 2-17Transféré parapi-315099975
- Application for Certification as a Welding Inspector Form 450ETransféré parJoshnewfound
- Guided Notes for Larch FinalTransféré parowen dougherty
- 14- Training Schedule Dated 07.04.2016Transféré paratingoyal1
- DD_CEN_TS_1992-4-2-2009Transféré parbruno_oliveira_emilio
- HP10BIITransféré parmario
- ST11Transféré partankitytank

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.