A dynamic approach for maintenance evaluation and optimization of multistate system

Journal of Industrial Engineering International

دوره 17، شماره 1، خرداد 2021، صفحه 1-13   

نوع مقاله: Original Article

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30495/jiei.2021.1926554.1110

نویسندگان

Zakaria Dahia^{* 1}؛ Ahmed Bellaouar²؛ Jean-Paul Dron³

¹University of Constantine 1, Constantine, Algeria

²University of Constantine 1,Constantine,Algeria

³University of Reims Champagne Ardenne

چکیده

This work presents a quantitative approach on the basis of Dynamic Bayesian Network to model and evaluate the maintenance of multi-state degraded systems and their functional dependencies. The reliability and the availability of system are evaluated taking into account the impact of maintenance repair strategies (perfect repair, imperfect repair and under condition-based maintenance (CBM)). According to transition relationships between the states modeled by the Markov process, a DBN model is established. Using the proposed approach, a DBN model for a separator Z1s system of Sour El-Ghozlane cement plant in Algeria is built and their performances are evaluated. Through the result of diagnostic, for improving the performances of separator, the components E, R and F should given more attention and the results of prediction evaluation show that in comparing with perfect repair strategy, the imperfect repair strategy cannot degrade the performances of separator, whereas the CBM strategy can improve the performances considerably. These results show the utility of this approach and its use in the context of a predictive evaluation process, which allows to offer the opportunity to evaluate the impact of the decisions made on the future performances measurement. In addition, the maintenance managers can optimize and improve maintenance decisions continuously.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Availability؛ Reliability؛ Dynamic Bayesian Network؛ Performance evaluation؛ Maintenance optimization

مراجع

[1] Weber, P., Medina-Oliva, G., Simon, C., & Iung, B.
(2012). Overview on Bayesian networks
applications for dependability, risk analysis and
maintenance areas. Engineering Applications of
Artificial Intelligence, 25(4), 671–682.

[2] Li, Y.-F., & Peng, R. (2014). Availability modeling
and optimization of dynamic multi-state series–
parallel systems with random reconfiguration.
Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 127, 47–
57.

[3] Sheu, S.-H., Chang, C.-C., Chen, Y.-L., & Zhang, Z.
G. (2015). Optimal preventive maintenance and
repair policies for multi-state systems. Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, 140, 78–87.

[4] Yuan, W. Z., & Xu, G. Q. (2012). Modelling of a
deteriorating system with repair satisfying general
distribution. Applied Mathematics and Computation,
218(11), 6340–6350.

[5] Soro, I. W., Nourelfath, M., & Ait-Kadi, D. (2010).
Performance evaluation of multi-state degraded
systems with minimal repairs and imperfect
preventive maintenance. Reliability Engineering &
System Safety, 95(2), 65–69.

[6] Liu, Y., & Huang, H.-Z. (2010). Optimal
replacement policy for multi-state system under
imperfect maintenance. IEEE Transactions on
Reliability, 59(3), 483–495.
[7] Lisnianski, A., Elmakias, D., Laredo, D., & Haim,
H. B. (2012). A multi-state Markov model for a
short-term reliability analysis of a power generating
unit. Reliability engineering & system safety, 98(1),
1–6.

[8] Pourhassan, M. R., Raissi, S., & Apornak, A. (2021).
Modeling multi-state system reliability analysis in a
power station under fatal and nonfatal shocks: a
simulation approach. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-07-2020-0244.
[9] Pourhassan, M. R., Raissi, S., & Hafezalkotob, A.
(2020). A simulation approach on reliability
assessment of complex system subject to stochastic
degradation and random shock. Eksploatacja i
Niezawodność, 22(2) 370-379.
[10] Attar, A., Raissi, S., & Khalili-Damghani, K. (2017).
A simulation-based optimization approach for free
distributed repairable multi-state availability-
redundancy allocation problems. Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, 157, 177–191.
[11] Gol-Ahmadi, N., & Raissi, S. (2018). Residual
Lifetime Prediction for Multi-State System Using
Control Charts to Monitor Affecting Noise Factor on
Deterioration Process. Journal of Applied Research
on Industrial Engineering, 5(1), 27–38.
[12] Nematkhah, F., Raissi, S., & Ghezavati, V. (2017).
An integrated fuzzy DEMTEL-fuzzy ANP approach
to nominate diagnostic method and measuring total
predictive performance score. In Safety and
Reliability (Vol. 37, pp. 48–72).
https://doi.org/10.1080/09617353.2017.1411676.
[13] Leigh, J. M., & Dunnett, S. J. (2016). Use of Petri
nets to model the maintenance of wind turbines.
Quality and Reliability Engineering International,
32(1), 167–180.
[14] Cai, B., Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., Fan, Q., & Yu, S. (2013).
Dynamic Bayesian networks based performance
evaluation of subsea blowout preventers in presence
of imperfect repair. Expert systems with
applications, 40(18), 7544–7554.
[15] Zhang, Q., Zhou, C., Tian, Y.-C., Xiong, N., Qin, Y.,
& Hu, B. (2017). A fuzzy probability Bayesian
network approach for dynamic cybersecurity risk
assessment in industrial control systems. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 14(6),
2497–2506.
[16] Cai, B., Liu, Y., Liu, Z., Chang, Y., & Jiang, L.
(2020). Risk analysis of subsea blowout preventer by
mapping GO models into Bayesian networks. In
Bayesian Networks for Reliability Engineering (pp.
165–187). Springer.
[17] Wang, Z., Wang, Z., Gu, X., He, S., & Yan, Z.
(2018). Feature selection based on Bayesian network
for chiller fault diagnosis from the perspective of
field applications. Applied Thermal Engineering,
129, 674–683.

[18] Lakehal, A., Nahal, M., & Harouz, R. (2019).
Development and application of a decision making
tool for fault diagnosis of turbocompressor based on
Bayesian network and fault tree. Management and
Production Engineering Review, 10, 16–24.
[19] Neil, M., & Marquez, D. (2012). Availability
modelling of repairable systems using Bayesian
networks. Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence, 25(4), 698–704.
[20] Iung, B., Veron, M., Suhner, M.-C., & Muller, A.
(2005). Integration of maintenance strategies into
prognosis process to decision-making aid on system
operation. CIRP annals, 54(1), 5–8.
[21] Weber, P., & Jouffe, L. (2006). Complex system
reliability modelling with dynamic object oriented
Bayesian networks (DOOBN). Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, 91(2), 149–162.
[22] Wilson, A. G., & Huzurbazar, A. V. (2007).
Bayesian networks for multilevel system reliability.
Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 92(10),
1413–1420.
[23] Wang, S. H., Zhang, Y. H., Xu, L. Y., & Liu, H. X.
(2017). Optimal condition-based maintenance
decision-making method of multi-component
system based on simulation. Acta Armament. II, 38,
568–575.
[24] Chang, Y., Li, J., Zhang, C., Chen, G., Li, X., Zhang,
S., Sheng, L. (2019). Dynamic risk assessment
approach of riser recoil control failure during
production test of marine natural gas hydrate.
Energy Science & Engineering, 7(5), 1808–1822.
[25] Li, Z., Xu, T., Gu, J., Dong, Q., & Fu, L. (2018).
Reliability modelling and analysis of a multi-state
element based on a dynamic Bayesian network.
Royal Society open science, 5(4), 171438.
[26] Adjerid, S., Aggab, T., & Benazzouz, D. (2012).
Performance Evaluation and Optimisation of
Industrial System in a Dynamic Maintenance.
American Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2(5), 82–
92.
[27] Houhou, M., Smaili, Y., & Adjerid, S. (2012). THE
ARDEBAYES APPROACH FOR THE
RELIABILITY EVALUATION.
[28] Weber, P., & Jouffe, L. (2006). Complex system
reliability modelling with dynamic object oriented
Bayesian networks (DOOBN). Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, 91(2), 149–162.
[29] Kohda, T., & Cui, W. (2007). Risk-based
reconfiguration of safety monitoring system using
dynamic Bayesian network. Reliability Engineering
& System Safety, 92(12), 1716–1723.
[30] Li, X., Chen, G., Chang, Y., & Xu, C. (2019). Risk-
based operation safety analysis during maintenance
activities of subsea pipelines. Process Safety and
Environmental Protection, 122, 247–262