Availability Model of Equipment Based on
Three-Levels Maintenance System
Qi Gao, You-Wei Li, Yang Ge, Bing Hao
Department of Management Engineering
Mechanical Engineering College
Shijiazhuang, China
gy090@163.com.cn
Abstract—Targeting at the complex equipment guaranteed by
three-levels maintenance institution, on the assume that “after
minor repair is as good as old and after middle or overhaul repair
is not as good as new”, it presented a switching chart of
equipment application and repair condition transformation in a
lifecycle by analyzing equipment application and repair flowing
procedure. It also established the connection model between
maintenance interval period and availability in the lifecycle, and
worked out the average availability related to the fixed
maintenance interval period and switch rule. Through analyzing
an application case, the optimal maintenance interval period that
can ensure the availability is maximal was received, and
comparing with “after overhaul repair is as good as new”, in
which the applicability and sensitivity of the model are proved.
This approach can be used for maintenance decision-making.
Keywords-three-levels maintenance; complex equipment;
availability; maintenance interval period; maintenance switch rule
I. INTRODUCTION
Currently, a few scholars have done some work in
maintenance decision-making modeling and optimization of
multi-levels maintenance system.
According to the traditional maintenance system, through
using Markov process theory, Galina [1] optimized the
maintenance rule of airplane based on three maintenance
system, and which be used to improve the availability.
Targeted at the thermal power stations supported by two-levels
maintenance institution, on the assume that after first-level
maintenance is as good as old and after second-level
maintenance is as good as new, the allowable reliability was
selected as constraint, Masatoshi [2] established the
maintenance cost decision-making model that based on the
dimensional reduction method. Targeted at the equipment that
need imperfect maintenance, Cassady [3] established the
availability simulation model, and analyzed the influence of
imperfect maintenance effect that refer to the availability of
equipment. Targeted at the multi-components and series
parallel mechanical devices, on the assume that after repair is
between as good as old and as good as new, the allowable
availability was selected as constraint, the maintenance cost
was identified as optimization objective, Su Chun [4]
established the maintenance optimization model. The Monte
Carlo simulation was used to compute the model. In order to
accurately decide vehicle optimum maintenance period under
availability objective, the renewal function of renewal theory
978-1-4577-1232-6/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
and optimum concept was analyzed, Xu [5] established two
mathematical models of optimum maintenance cycle. Through
analyzing an application case, the optimal two-level
maintenance cycle that can ensure the availability is maximal
was received. Targeted at the complex equipment of three
maintenance levels, Gao [6] presented a switching chart of
equipment application and repair condition transformation by
analyzing equipment application and repair flowing procedure.
The paper also established the connection model between
maintenance interval period and availability in a updating
cycle, and also gave an application case, in which the
applicability and sensitivity of the model are proved.
However, based on the three-levels maintenance support
system, the maintenance decision-making modeling that
consider different level maintenance has different effect was
unfamiliar.
Targeting at the complex equipment guaranteed by
three-levels maintenance institution, on the assume that
different level maintenance has different maintenance effect, it
presented the connection model between maintenance interval
period and availability in the lifecycle, and worked out the
average availability in a lifecycle. What we consider in this
paper is: on the assume that the maintenance rule is set up,
how to change the maintenance interval period can insure the
average availability is maximal.
The complex equipment in this paper is: it is guaranteed by
three-levels maintenance institution, adopt the maintenance
mode that combine with periodic maintenance and corrective
maintenance. Usually, if simple failure occurs on the
equipment, the surfaceman will implement minor maintenance
in the local. If the assembly and discreteness of the
equipment occur failure or implement complicated periodic
maintenance, it will implement middle maintenance. If the
important assembly and discreteness of the equipment occur
complex failure or implement all-sided periodic
maintenance, it will implement overhaul maintenance.
According to the current support scheme, the maintenance
switch rule is: the equipment implements once maintenance at
most in every maintenance interval( If the working hours is
longer than T , implement preventive maintenance. Otherwise,
corrective maintenance). If the equipment implements twice
minor maintenance, the second times minor maintenance will
translate into middle maintenance. If the equipment
implements twice middle maintenance, the second times
middle maintenance will translate into overhaul maintenance.
If the equipment implements twice overhaul maintenance, the
second times overhaul maintenance will translate into reject
(Because of maintenance cost and stock cost are relatively
high, and the need of update, the equipment will be deal with
reject). Namely, according to the definite maintenance interval
period and maintenance rule, the equipment implement
maintenance that when and which maintenance deepness are
selected.
II. MODELING
A. Hypothesis
Most of the models made the system as good as new after
maintenance, basing on the hypothesis that replacing
was the only maintenance way, and ignored maintenance
time. However, system (or equipment, assembly) have
different maintenance ways actually, and different
maintenance ways effects different results, and sometimes
the maintenance time can not be ignored. So researchers
advanced some other maintenance ways besides replacing,
Minor Maintenance: maintenance man repairs
broken-down system less, makes the system come back to the
state before failure, i.e. the failure rate after
maintenance is same to before failure; Middle
Maintenance: maintenance man repairs system less,
improves the system’s aging less; Overhaul Maintenance:
maintenance man repairs system adequately, improves the
system’s aging evidently. Basing on these, we propose
hypothesis as follows:
(1) The usage and maintenance of equipment both are
continuous, without interruption.
(2) After minor repair, the equipment is as good as old,
after middle or overhaul repair, the equipment is not as good as
new.
B. Notation
T ──maintenance interval;
t0 , t1 ──Respectively denote the prolonged time of the
equipment that after middle and overhaul maintenance (known,
t1 ＞ t0 )
R ( t ) , F ( t ) ──Respectively denote the reliability function
and fallibility function of the equipment
(known), R ( t ) + F (t ) =1.
f ( t ) ──The failure density function (known).
M ptj , M ctj ──Respectively denote the average
maintenance time in the j level institution of the equipment
that not failure and failure (known, j = 1 denote the
organization maintenance, j = 2 denote the intermediate
maintenance, j =3 denote the depot maintenance)
p ──The overhaul maintenance instance of the equipment
( p = 0,1,2), p = 0 denote the instance that the equipment
doesn’t implement overhaul, p =1 denote the instance that the
equipment has implemented once overhaul, p =2 denote the
instance that the equipment has been rejected.
i ──The maintenance states that the i times maintenance
has been implemented in a overhaul cycle ( i =0,1,2,3,4),
specially, i =0 denotes the fire-new states.
M pi , θ pi ──Respectively denote the average maintenance
time and the average working hours from the i − 1
maintenance state to the i maintenance state when the
equipment has been implemented the p overhaul.
M , θ ──The average maintenance time and the average
working hours in a lifecycle.
C. the switching chart
According to hypothesis, if the equipment implements
twice overhaul maintenance, the second times overhaul
maintenance will translate into reject, namely there are two
overhaul cycles from new to reject in a lifecycle of the
equipment. The equipment application and repair flowing
procedure in a lifecycle as shown in Fig. 1.
p =0 p =1 p =2
N O R
new first overhaul reject
first overhaul cycle second overhaul cycle
Figure 1. Equipment application and repair flowing procedure in a lifecycle
Because of the comparability of every overhaul cycle, in
this paper, it only considered the overhaul cycle of the
equipment from new to the first overhaul. In the first overhaul
cycle, if the working hours is longer than T, implement
preventive maintenance, namely implement the corresponding
minor maintenance, middle maintenance or overhaul.
Otherwise, implement corrective maintenance, namely
implement the corresponding minor maintenance, middle
maintenance or overhaul. In order to illuminate the question,
in this paper, it only analyzed the two states from i − 1 state
to i state, the switching chart of equipment between two
states as shown in Fig. 2.
i ' state─the equipment implemented preventive
maintenance in the j level insititution when there was
no-one failure in the maintenance interval,
 ⎧3 i = 4 So, according to the definition of average availability,
⎪ average availability by formula is:
j = ⎨2 i = 2 (1)
⎪1 the rest θ
⎩ A1 = (4)
''
i state ── the equipment implemented corrective θ +M
maintenance in the j level insititution when there was some If the equipment is as good as new after overhaul, the
application and maintenance flow of the equipment is
failure in the maintenance interval, and the j equate (1). regenerative, in this paper, it only considered the overhaul
cycle of the equipment from new to the first overhaul. The
i' preventive formula of average availability can predigest:
using maintenance 4

i -1 i θ 0i ∑θ 0i
A2 = = i =1
(5)
θ 0i + M 0i 4 4

using
corrective ∑ θ 0i + ∑ M 0i
maintenance i =1 i =1
i ''
III. MODEL CALCULATION
θ 0i M 0i Through above analysis, there were two likelihood in the
first overhaul cycle from new 0 to 1 state: one was 0→1'→1,
Figure 2. The switching chart of equipment between two states specially the probability is R (T ) , the equipment entered into 1 state
In a word, the maintenance state order in the first overhaul after M pt1 . The other was: 0→1''→1, the probability is
cycle is: new→minor maintenance→middle F (T ) , the equipment entered into 1 state after M ct1 .
maintenance→minor maintenance→overhaul, so the switching
chart of equipment application and repair state in the first Therefore, the average working hours and maintenance time of
overhaul cycle as shown in Fig. 3. the equipment from 0 state to 1 state were:
T T

1' 2' 3' 4' θ 01 = R (T ) T + ∫ tf (t )dt = ∫ R(t )dt

0 0

M 01 = R (T ) M pt1 + F (T ) M ct1
0 1 2 3 4
Before entered into 1state, the already average working
hour of the equipment was θ 01 . There were two likelihood
from 1state to 2 state: one was 1→2'→2, the probability is
1'' 2'' 3'' 4'' R (T + θ 01 ) , the equipment entered into 2 state after M pt 2 .

Figure 3. The switching chart of equipment application and repair condition

in the first perfect maintenance lifecycle
From the Fig. 3, we can find the application and
maintenance flow of the equipment in the first overhaul cycle
is: 0→1'（or 1''）→1→2'（or 2''）→2→3'（or 3''）→3→4'
The other was: 1→2''→2, the probability is F (T + θ 01 ) , the
equipment entered into 2 state after M ct 2 . Therefore, the
average working hours and maintenance time of the equipment
from 1 state to 2 state were:
T +θ 01

（or 4''）→4. θ 02 = (T + θ 01 ) R (T + θ 01 ) − θ 01 R (θ 01 ) + ∫ tf (t )dt

θ01
D. Availability model T +θ 01

The average working hours θ of the equipment in a = ∫ R(t)dt

lifecycle is the sum of average working hours in every phase, θ01

namely M 02 = R (T + θ 01 ) M pt 2 + F (T + θ 01 ) M ct 2
1 4 According to hypothesis, the prolonged time of the
θ = ∑∑ θ pi (2) equipment that after middle maintenance was t0 , so before
p = 0 i =1

The average not working hours M of the equipment in a entered into 2 state, the already average working hours of the
lifecycle is the sum of average maintenance time in every equipment was θ 01 + θ 02 − t0 . Therefore, the average working
phase, namely hours and maintenance time of the equipment from 2 state to 3
state were:
1 4
M = ∑∑ M pi (3)
p = 0 i =1
 T+
0 2

∑∑θ pk − t0 is 100h: A1 =0.8129.

p =0 k =1

θ 03 = ∫ R ( t )dt When the equipment is as good as new after overhaul:

0 2
∑∑θ pk − t0 A2 =0.8245
p =0 k =1

⎛ 0 2 ⎞ ⎛ 0 2 ⎞ TABLE I. THE RELATIONAL TABLE BETWEEN T AND A

M 03 = R ⎜ T + ∑ ∑ θ pk − t0 ⎟ M pt1 + F ⎜ T + ∑ ∑ θ pk − t0 ⎟ M ct1
⎝ p = 0 k =1 ⎠ ⎝ p = 0 k =1 ⎠ the prolonged time is 100h after overhaul
Because of the comparability of every state, so before NO. T (h) A1 NO. T (h) A1
entered into i − 1 state, the already average working hours of
1 120 0.7382 11 320 0.8036
the equipment was (in order to analyze easily, θˆ instead of pi 2 140 0.7663 12 340 0.8001
3 160 0.7877 13 360 0.7968
that) 4 180 0.8032 14 380 0.7934
p i −1 5 200 0.8129 15 400 0.7900
∑ ∑θlk − p ( t0 + t1 ) − ⎢⎣⎢ i −21⎥⎦⎥ t0 6 220 0.8170 16 420 0.7865
l =0 k =1
7 240 0.8167 17 440 0.7830
Specially, ⎢⎣ x ⎥⎦ denotes the value of the real number x 8 260 0.8140 18 460 0.7796
9 280 0.8106 19 480 0.7765
that evaluate the alow integer. 10 300 0.8071 20 500 0.7740
T +θˆpi the equipment is as good as new after overhaul
θ pi = ∫ R ( t )dt NO.
1
T
120
(h) A2
0.7385
NO.
11
T
320
(h) A2
0.8767
θˆpi
2 140 0.7671 12 340 0.8801
(
M pi = R T + θˆpi M ptj + F T + θˆpi M ctj ) ( ) 3
4
160
180
0.7901
0.8089
13
14
360
380
0.8821
0.8827
5 200 0.8245 15 400 0.8820
Through above results, We could worked out the average 6 220 0.8376 16 420 0.8801
working hours θ by formula (2), the average maintenance 7 240 0.8486 17 440 0.8775
time M by formula (3) in a lifecycle and the average 8 260 0.8580 18 460 0.8745
9 280 0.8656 19 480 0.8715
availability A by formula (4) or (5) in a lifecycle. 10 300 0.8719 20 500 0.8690
IV. CASE
The some kind of complex equipment guaranteed by
three-levels maintenance insititution, the life obeys Weibull
distribution that the parameters are 7 and 1750h, the
maintenance interval is 200h, and on the assume that the
prolonged time is 50h after middle maintenance and 100h after
overhaul. Through statisticing and analysing the older
maintenance data, we found: the average preventive
maintenance time and corrective maintenance time of this
equipment were 10h and 20h in organization insititution, 50h
and 100h in middle insititution, 100h and 200h in depot
insititution respectively. On the assume that after overhaul is
not as good as new and as good as new, please try to calculate
the average availability A and analyse the connection in a
lifecycle.
Figure 4. The variational graph of A along with T
From above case we know:
⎛t⎞
m Targeted at two instances: one is the prolonged time of the
−⎜ ⎟
R (t ) = e ⎝η ⎠
, F ( t ) = 1 − R ( t ) , m =7， η =1750h, T ＝ equipment after overhaul is 100h, the other is the equipment is
as good as new after overhaul. The relational table between T
200h, t0 =50h, t1 =100h, M pt1 ＝10h, M ct1 ＝20h, M pt 2 ＝ and A as shown in Table I and fig. 4 was received through
50h, M ct 2 ＝100h, M pt 3 ＝100h, M ct 3 ＝200h. calculating, which the maintenance interval T was
120h,140h,160h,…,460h,480h and 500h. Specially, in figure 4,
Through making use of the computer procedure, the graph 1 denote the instance that the prolonged time of the
average availability can be worked out by formula (4) and equipment after overhaul is 100h, graph 2 denote the instance
formula (5): that the equipment is as good as new after overhaul.
When the prolonged time of the equipment after overhaul Form the Table I and Fig. 4, we found that, when the
maintenance interval T <160h, the average availability A
increased gradually along with the increase of the maintenance
interval T , graph 1 and graph 2 were very similar because of
the maintenance interval T was smaller and the prolonged
time t1 was bigger. When the maintenance interval T >160h,
the average working hours θ and the average availability A
increased along with the increase of the maintenance interval
T , specially, because of the difference of the overhaul
instances: one is the prolonged time is 100h after overhaul
(instance 1), the other is the equipment is as good as new after
overhaul (instance 2), graph 1 and graph 2 were very different,
and the average availability of the instance 2 was bigger than
the instance 1. At the same time, through statisticing and
analysing the older application and maintenance data, the
instance 1 was very actual was found. Targeted at instance 1,
according to the actual maintenance scheme, when the
maintenance interval T =200h, the average availability A
was 0.8129. But when the maintenance interval T =220h, the
average availability A was 0.8170. Therefore, when the
maintenance interval T =220h, the average availability A
was maximal, and the A was very sensitive along with T .
V. CONCLUSIONS
Targeting at the complex equipment guaranteed by
three-levels maintenance institution, on the assume that “after
minor repair is as good as old and after middle or overhaul
repair is not as good as new”, it presented a switching chart of
equipment application and repair condition transformation in a
lifecycle by analyzing equipment application and maintenance
flowing procedure. It also established the connection model
between maintenance interval period and availability in the
lifecycle, and worked out the average availability. Through
analyzing an application case, the optimal maintenance
interval (220h) that can ensure the availability is maximal was
received, and comparing with “after overhaul repair is as good
as new”, in which the applicability and sensitivity of the model
are proved. This approach can be used for maintenance
decision-making.
REFERENCES
[1] G. M. Susova, and A. N. Petrov, “Markov model-based reliability and
safety evaluation for aircraft maintenance-system optimization,” In
Proceedings of Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium,
pp.29-36, 1997.
[2] M. Nakamura, T. Katafuchi, and H. Hatazaki, “Decisions for
maintenance-intervals of equipment in thermal power stations based on
few data,”. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 4, pp.360-364, 2001.
[3] C. R. Cassady and I. M. Iyoop, “A generic model of equipment
availability under imperfect maintenance,” IEEE Transactions on
Reliability, vol. 4, pp.564-571, 2005
[4] C. Sun, Z. Huang, and Y. Xu, “Modeling and optimization for devices’s
maintenance based on allowable availability constraint and maintenance
Cost,” China Mechanical Engineering, vol. 9, pp. 1096-1099, 2007.
[5] A. Xu and X. Qiao, “Vehicle optimum maintenance period under
availability objective,” Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering,
vol. 2, pp. 23-26, 2008.
[6] Q. Gao, Y. Li, and B. Hao, “Availability model of equipment based on
three-levels maintenance system,” Fire Control & Command Control,
vol. 5, pp.107-109, 2010.
[7] M. Gan, J. Kang and Q. Gao, Military Equipment Maintenance
Engineerimg Science. Beijing: National Defense Industry Press, 1999.
[8] J. Cao and K. Cheng, Introduction to Reliability Mathematics, Beijing:
Higher Education Press, 2006.