A Multicriteria Decision Model for a Combined Burn-In and Replacement Policy

  • Cristiano Alexandre Virgínio Cavalcante
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6576)


This paper considers a multicriteria model for a combined burn-in and replacement process for a simple system comprising a single component from a heterogeneous population, consisting of two sub-populations that possess different failure characteristics. There are several papers that have dealt with mixed distributions. Nevertheless, suitable procedures for dealing with the distinct failure behaviours from these two sub-populations are limited. Furthermore, some combined policies of burn-in and replacement have not achieved consensus on their efficiency. Therefore, we consider a multicriteria model for supporting the decision-maker in a combined burn-in-replacement policy. This model enables the decision-maker to set up a combined burn-in-replacement policy by taking advantage of the broader view provided by a simultaneous evaluation of cost and post-burn-in reliability while also providing the possibility of inserting the decision-maker’s preferences into the model. A case study is used to illustrate some advantages in comparison with results from the classical model (minimum cost).


combined policies of burn-in and replacement multicriteria model mixture 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Jiang, R., Jardine, A.K.S.: An optimal burn-in preventive-replacement model associated with a mixture distribution. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 23, 83–93 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jiang, R., Murthy, D.N.P.: Mixtures of Weibull distributions-parametric characterization of failure rate function. Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis 14, 47–65 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klutke, G.A., Kiessler, P.C., Wortman, M.A.: A Critical Look at the Bathtub Curve. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 52 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Almeida, A.T.: Multicriteria modelling of repair contract based on utility and ELECTRE I method with dependability and service quality criteria. Annals of Operations Research 138, 113–126 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cha, J.H., Lee, S., Mi, J.: Bounding the optimal burn-in time for a system with two types of failure. Naval Research Logistics 51, 1090–1101 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cha, J.H., Mi, J.: Bounds to optimal burn-in and optimal work size. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry 21, 227–239 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sheu, S.H., Chien, Y.H.: Minimizing Cost-Functions Related to Both Burn-In and Field-Operation Under a Generalized Model. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 53, 435–439 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mi, J.: Age-smooth properties of mixture models. Statistics & Probability Letters 43, 225–236 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drapella, A., Kosznik, S.A.: short communication combining preventive replacement and burn-in procedures. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 8, 423–427 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Finkelstein, M.S., Esaulova, V.: On an inverse problem in mixture failure rates modeling. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry 17, 221–229 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Block, H.W., Savits, T.H., Wondmagegnehu, E.T.: Mixtures of distributions with increasing linear failure rate. Journal of Applied Probability 40, 485–504 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abraham, B., Nair, N.U.: On Characterizing mixtures of some life distributions. Statistical papers 42, 387–393 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barlow, R.E., Proschan, F.: Mathematical Theory of Reliability. Wiley, New York (1965)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Finkelstein, M.S., Esaulova, V.: Why the mixture failure rate decreases. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 71, 173–177 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Belton, V., Stewart, J.: Multiple criteria decision analysis - An integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M.: Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, USA (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fishburn, P.C.: Independence in utility with whole product sets. Operations Research 13, 28–45 (1965)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raiffa, H.: Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices Under Uncertainty. Hill College Custom Series (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Keeney, R.: Value-focused Thinking: a path to creative decisionmaking. Harvard University Press, United States of America (1992)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cha, J.H.: On a better Burn-in Procedure. J. Appl. Prob. 37, 1099–1103 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kuo, W., Kuo, Y.: Facing the Headaches of Early Failures: A State-of-the-Art Review of Burn-In Decisions. Proceedings of The IEEE 71, 1257–1266 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cha, J.H.: Stochastic Model for Burn-In Procedures in Accelerated Environment. Naval Research Logistics 53, 226–234 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mi, J.: Burn-in and Maintenance policies. Adv. Appl. Prob. 26, 207–221 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ferreira, R.J.P., de Almeida, A.T., Cavalcante, C.A.V.: A multi-criteria decision model to determine inspection intervals of condition monitoring based on delay time analysis. Reliability Engineering & Systems Safety 94, 905–912 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cavalcante, C.A.V., de Almeida, A.T.: A multicriteria decision aiding model using PROMETHEE III for preventive maintenance planning under uncertain conditions. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 13, 385–397 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Scarf, P.A., Cavalcante, C.A.V., Dwight, R., Gordon, P.: An age-based inspection and replacement policy for heterogeneous components. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 58, 641–648 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scarf, P.A., Cavalcante, C.A.V.: Hybrid block replacement and inspection policies for a multi-component system with heterogeneous component lives. European Journal of Operational Research 206, 384–394 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Almeida, A.T.: Multicriteria decision making on maintenance: Spares and contracts planning. European Journal of Operational Research 129, 235–241 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cavalcante, C.A.V., Ferreira, R.J.P., de Almeida, A.T.: A preventive maintenance decision model based on multicriteria method PROMETHEE II integrated with Bayesian approach. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics 21, 333–348 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Almeida, A.T., Bohoris, G.A.: Decision theory in maintenance decision theory. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 1, 39–45 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cavalcante, C.A.V., de Almeida, A.T.: A multicriteria decision aiding model using PROMETHEE III for preventive maintenance planning under uncertain conditions. J. Qual. Maint. Eng. 13, 385–397 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristiano Alexandre Virgínio Cavalcante
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Engineering, Centre for Technology and Geosciences, Department of Production EngineeringFederal University of PernambucoRecifeBrazil

Personalised recommendations