Advertisement

A mixture frailty model for maintainability analysis of mechanical components: a case study

  • Rezgar Zaki
  • Abbas BarabadiEmail author
  • Ali Nouri Qarahasanlou
  • A. H. S. Garmabaki
Original Article
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Knowing the maintainability of a component or a system means that repair resource allocations, such as spare part procurement and maintenance training, can be planned and optimized more effectively. Repair data are often collected from multiple and distributed units in different operational conditions, which can introduce heterogeneity into the data. Part of such heterogeneity can be explained and isolated by the observable covariates, whose values and the way that they can affect the item’s maintainability are known. However, some factors which may affect maintainability are typically unknown (unobserved covariates), leading to unobserved heterogeneity. Nevertheless, many researchers have ignored the effect of observed and un-observed covariates, and this may lead to erroneous model selection, as well as wrong conclusions and decisions. Moreover, many authors have simplified their analysis by considering a complex system as a single item. In these studies, the assumption is that all repair data represent an identical repair process for the item. In practice, mechanical systems are composed of multiple parts, with various failure mechanisms, which need different repair processes (repair modes) to return to the operational phase; classical distribution, such as lognormal, which is only a function of time, may not be able to model such complexity. The paper utilizes the mixture frailty model (MFM) in the presence of some specific observed or unobserved covariates to predict maintainability more precisely. MFMs can model the effect of observed and unobserved covariates, as well as identifying different repair processes in the repair dataset. The application of the proposed model is demonstrated by a case study.

Keywords

Mixture Weibull Failure model Repair process Covariates Repair time Maintainability Frailty model 

Notes

References

  1. Aggarwal A, Kumar S, Singh V (2017) Performance modeling of the serial processes in refining system of a sugar plant using RAMD analysis. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 8:1910–1922.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-016-0496-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmadzadeh F, Lundberg J (2014) Remaining useful life estimation: review. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 5:461–474.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-013-0195-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asfaw ZG, Lindqvist BH (2015) Unobserved heterogeneity in the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 134:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayele YZ, Barabadi A, Barabady J (2016) Dynamic spare parts transportation model for Arctic production facility. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 7:84–98.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-015-0379-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayele Y, Barabadi A, Fuqing Y (2018) Mixture lognormal cox regression repair model for prediction of the repair time. In: IEEE, pp 1155–1159Google Scholar
  6. Barabadi A, Markeset T (2011) Reliability and maintainability performance under Arctic conditions. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 2:205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barabadi A, Barabady J, Markeset T (2010) Application of accelerated failure model for the oil and gas industry in Arctic region. In: IEEE, pp 2244–2248Google Scholar
  8. Barabadi A, Barabady J, Markeset T (2011) Maintainability analysis considering time-dependent and time-independent covariates. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96:210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barabadi A, Gudmestad OT, Barabady J (2015) RAMS data collection under Arctic conditions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 135:92–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barabadi A, Garmabaki A, Zaki R (2016) Designing for performability: an icing risk index for Arctic offshore. Cold Reg Sci Technol 124:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cha JH, Finkelstein M (2014) Some notes on unobserved parameters (frailties) in reliability modeling. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 123:99–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clayton DG (1978) A model for association in bivariate life tables and its application in epidemiological studies of familial tendency in chronic disease incidence. Biometrika 65:141–151MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finkelstein M (2007) Shocks in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92:569–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Furuly S, Barabadi A, Barabady J (2013) Reliability analysis of mining equipment considering operational environments: a case study. Int J Perform Eng 9:287–294Google Scholar
  15. Gao X, Barabady J, Markeset T (2010) An approach for prediction of petroleum production facility performance considering Arctic influence factors. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95:837–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garmabaki A, Ahmadi A, Ahmadi M (2016a) Maintenance optimization using multi-attribute utility theory. In: Kumar U, Ahmadi A, Verma AK, Varde P (eds) Current trends in reliability, availability, maintainability and safety. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garmabaki A, Ahmadi A, Block J et al (2016b) A reliability decision framework for multiple repairable units. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 150:78–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.01.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garmabaki AHS, Ahmadi A, Mahmood YA, Barabadi A (2016c) Reliability modelling of multiple repairable units. Qual Reliab Eng Int 32:2329–2343.  https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.1938 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gharahasanlou AN, Ataei M, Khalokakaie R et al (2017) Risk based maintenance strategy: a quantitative approach based on time-to-failure model. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-017-0607-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gimenez O, Cam E, Gaillard J-M (2018) Individual heterogeneity and capture–recapture models: what, why and how? Oikos 127:664–686.  https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.04532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giorgio M, Guida M, Pulcini G (2014) Repairable system analysis in presence of covariates and random effects. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 131:271–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.04.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gudmestad OT, Markeset T (2015) Oil and gas operations under extreme conditions in the cold north. Int J Comput Methods Exp Meas 3:7–12Google Scholar
  23. Hoseinie SH, Ataei M, Khalokakaie R, Kumar U (2011) Reliability and maintainability analysis of electrical system of drum shearers. J Coal Sci Eng (China) 17:192–197.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12404-011-0216-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hougaard P (1995) Frailty models for survival data. Lifetime Data Anal 1:255–273.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knezevic J (1993) Reliability, maintainability, and supportability: a probabilistic approach. McGraw-Hill, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumar D, Klefsjö B (1994) Proportional hazards model: a review. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 44:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kumar L, Kumar M, Rath S (2017) Maintainability prediction of web service using support vector machine with various kernel methods. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 8:205–222.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-016-0415-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Naseri M, Barabady J (2016) On RAM performance of production facilities operating under the Barents Sea harsh environmental conditions. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 7:273–298.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-016-0463-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Patel K, Kay R, Rowell L (2006) Comparing proportional hazards and accelerated failure time models: an application in influenza. Pharm Stat 5:213–224.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rausand M, Høyland A (2004) System reliability theory: models, statistical methods, and applications. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosen O, Tanner M (1999) Mixtures of proportional hazards regression models. Stat Med 18:1119–1131.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990515)18:9%3c1119:AID-SIM116%3e3.0.CO;2-V CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sellitto MA, Brusius W Jr (2017) Maintenance strategy based on reliability analytical models for three parallel mechanical transformation machines. IEEE Latin Am Trans 15:988–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Slimacek V, Lindqvist BH (2016) Reliability of wind turbines modeled by a Poisson process with covariates, unobserved heterogeneity and seasonality. Wind Energy 19:1991–2002.  https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1964 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Slimacek V, Lindqvist BH (2017) Nonhomogeneous Poisson process with nonparametric frailty and covariates. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 167:75–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.05.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tortorella M (2015) Reliability, maintainability, and supportability: best practices for systems engineers. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tsarouhas PH (2015) Maintainability analysis in the yogurt industry. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 6:119–128.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-014-0254-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tsarouhas P (2018) Reliability, availability and maintainability (RAM) analysis for wine packaging production line. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 35:821–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tsarouhas PH, Arvanitoyannis IS (2012) Reliability and maintainability analysis to improve the operation of the limoncello production line. Int J Food Sci Technol 47:1669–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tsarouhas PH, Arvanitoyannis IS, Ampatzis ZD (2009) A case study of investigating reliability and maintainability in a Greek juice bottling medium size enterprise (MSE). J Food Eng 95:479–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Horenbeek A, Pintelon L, Muchiri P (2010) Maintenance optimization models and criteria. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 1:189–200.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-011-0045-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vaupel JW, Manton KG, Stallard E (1979) The impact of heterogeneity in individual frailty on the dynamics of mortality. Demography 16:439–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang J (2014) Proceedings of the first symposium on aviation maintenance and management-volume II. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wijaya AR, Lundberg J (2012) The effect of the operator, the mine room and their interaction on the measured vibration level of a scaling machine. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 3:145–152.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-012-0096-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Reliability Engineering, Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM), India and The Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Technology and SafetyUiT The Arctic University of NorwayTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Faculty of Mining Engineering, Petroleum and GeophysicsShahrood University of TechnologyShahroodIran
  3. 3.Division of Operation and Maintenance EngineeringLuleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden

Personalised recommendations