Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Reliability Engineering and System Safety

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ress

Maintenance cost-based importance analysis under different

maintenance strategies
Liwei Chen a, Chunchun Cheng a, Hongyan Dui b, *, Liudong Xing c
a
School of Electrical Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
b
School of Management Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
c
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, MA 02747, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: As system components and their interactions become more and more complex, system reliability problems
Reliability become increasingly prominent. In the reliability research, component importance measures have been widely
Maintenance strategy used as an important decision-making aid index. Particularly, importance measures have been used in designing
Importance
or selecting the optimal maintenance strategy. However, the practical factor of maintenance cost is not
Maintenance cost-based importance measure
comprehensively considered in the existing importance analysis. This paper proposes new importance measures
based on two types of maintenance costs under different maintenance strategies, including the failure-triggered
replacement strategy that replaces damaged components, the age-based replacement strategy where a compo­
nent is preventively replaced and when it has been used for a certain period of time, and the hybrid strategy that
integrates the former two strategies. Methods for computing the proposed maintenance cost-based importance
measures for series systems and parallel systems are given. A case study of a propeller plane system is provided to
illustrate and validate the proposed method.

1. Introduction
Modern industrial and technological systems are growing more and
more powerful and complex. At the same time, the damage and eco­
nomic losses caused by component failures in the system are worse than
ever. Therefore, it is an important issue to study the influence of com­
ponents on the system function, maintain the system components
reasonably, reduce the system risk caused by component failures, and
improve the reliability of system operation. One potential solution is
through the component importance analysis.
Since 1969 when Birnbaum proposed the first importance measure
[1], considerable research efforts have been dedicated to introducing
and studying of component importance measures, reflecting the
different importance levels of different components of a
multi-component system. The following reviews some representative
works in defining new importance measures, importance analysis in
different types of systems (binary and multi-state), and importance
analysis considering maintenance cost and strategy.
In terms of importance measures, Dui et al. [2] proposed a new
importance measure to analyze the influence of external factors on
system performance, which can be used by engineers to identify factors
that have greater impacts on the system. Considering the component
states, Si et al. [3] suggested a comprehensive importance measure,
which can estimate the impact of a component on the performance of the
entire system in a certain state. Xing and Dugan [4] put forward a
weight-based performance importance measure for phased-mission
systems with combinatorial phase requirements and multiple perfor­
mance levels. In maritime transportation system, Dui et al. [5] used
Copeland method to comprehensively rank the importance of ports and
routes and studied the restoration priority of interrupted ports and
routes of different importance measures.
In terms of the importance analysis for different types of systems, a
lot of research and contributions [6–8] have been made to binary-state
systems. However, some systems may undergo performance degrada­
tions before the complete failure, i.e., the systems are multi-state sys­
tems [9]. Some research efforts have been devoted to the multi-state
importance analysis [10–15]. For example, in [16] the composite
importance measures of multi-state systems were defined and evaluated.
Some of these composite importance measures were extended by
considering the epistemic uncertainty associated with component state
assignment in [17]. Xu et al. [18] proposed a new elasticity-based
ordering metric for the importance of multi-state network

* Corresponding author at: Zhengzhou University, Kexue Road, Zhengzhou 450001, China.
E-mail address: duihongyan@zzu.edu.cn (H. Dui).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.108435
Received 4 December 2021; Received in revised form 25 January 2022; Accepted 2 March 2022
Available online 8 March 2022
0951-8320/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Chen et al.
components, which not only considers components’ multi-state char­
acteristics, but also quantifies the impact of component capacity
improvement and recovery time on network resilience.
In terms of importance analysis considering maintenance strategies
and cost, to the best of our knowledge, only a limited body of research
efforts has been conducted. Different maintenance strategies (e.g., pre­
ventive maintenance [19–23], predictive maintenance [24],
condition-based maintenance [25]) may have different significant ef­
fects on the system reliability and availability [26,27]. In [28] and [29],
it was shown that the system reliability is not only related to mainte­
nance strategy, but also related to maintenance cost. Thus, in [30] Dui
et al. considered the impact of maintenance cost and time on the system
reliability, and proposed a method of selecting components for main­
tenance in transportation networks.
To the best of our knowledge, the existing importance analysis
studies only consider the maintenance cost of upgrading the reliability
of system components and a single maintenance strategy. This paper
makes advancements by proposing a new importance measure that
consider multiple types of maintenance costs and different maintenance
strategy conditions. Specifically, the following contributions are made in
this work.
• Proposing a new maintenance cost-based importance measure
(MCIM) and its evaluation method under different maintenance
strategy conditions, including a failure-triggered replacement strat­
egy, an age-based replacement strategy, and a hybrid maintenance
strategy.
• Deriving formulas of computing the MCIM for series systems and
parallel systems under the failure-triggered replacement strategy and
the age-based replacement strategy.
• Conducting a case study of a propeller aircraft system that contains a
mix of series and parallel structures. Effectiveness of the proposed
important measures is investigated in comparison to that of the
traditional importance measures without considering maintenance
cost under the failure-triggered replacement strategy, and a hybrid
maintenance strategy that integrates the failure-triggered and age-
based replacement strategies.
The rest of this paper is as follows Section 2. gives the traditional
importance measurement equation Section 3. gives the calculation
method of maintenance cost Section 4. Proposed MCIM Section 5. pro­
poses the MCIM under the failure-triggered replacement strategy and
give the relevant formula Section 6. proposes the MCIM under the age-
based replacement strategy and also give the relevant formula. In sec­
tion 7, through the analysis of an application, some results are got to
demonstrate the proposed methods Section 8. concludes the paper.
2. Traditional importance measures
Birnbaum importance measure was first proposed by Birnbaum in
1969. The Birnbaum importance [1] for component i in a binary-state
system is defined as in (1).
IiBM (t) =
∂RS (t)
(1)
∂Ri (t)
Its physical meaning is the amount of change in system reliability
Rs (t) when the reliability of component i Ri (t) changes from 1 to 0.
In [31], Si et al. proposed the integrated importance measure (IIM),
whose definition for component iis shown in (2).
IiIIM (t) = Ri (t)λi (t)
∂RS (t)
=−
dRi (t) ∂RS (t)
(2)
∂Ri (t) dt ∂Ri (t)
dRi (t)/dt
where λi (t) = − Ri (t) is the failure intensity of component i.
2
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435
3. Maintenance cost
There are three major types of system maintenance costs:
1) Maintenance cost of improving the system reliability
The maintenance cost for improving the reliability of different
components is often different. For example, in a water supply system,
improving the reliability of a water pump incurs a different cost from
upgrading the reliability of a switchboard.
2) Maintenance cost associated with the component failure
The failure of a system component incurs certain maintenance cost
and different component failures may incur different maintenance
costs.
3) Cost associated with the system failure
A system is usually designed and built to accomplish a specific
task. When the system fails, it may cause some losses, such as damage
to health and the environment, release of dangerous substances,
direct or indirect economic losses, and so on. For example, the failure
of the water supply system can cause the system user’s production
line to stop running, resulting in economic losses.
Because the goal of the entire system design is to extend the working
time of the system with as little maintenance cost as possible, it is
necessary to consider the cost factors in the importance analysis. To the
best of our knowledge, only the first type of maintenance cost has been
considered in the existing importance analysis [32]. In this work, we
develop a new importance measure, which can reflect the impact of the
second and third types of maintenance costs related to component and
system failures.
Generally, the system failures caused by malfunctions of different
components require different system maintenance time, and thus the
corresponding maintenance costs are different. Therefore, we define the
maintenance cost Ck (t) of the system within (0, t) time due to the failure
of component kas in (3).
( )
Ck (t) = Cs,k (t) + Ck (t) = cs,k Λk (t) + ck Λk (t) = ck + cs,k Λk (t), (3)
where Cs,k denotes the total repair cost for the system failure caused by
the failure of component k, Ck denotes the total repair cost of component
k, Λk (t) represents the expected number of failures of component kin (0,
t), ck denotes the repair cost of component k per failure, cs,k denotes the
repair cost for the system failure caused by each failure of component k
and Minus the maintenance cost of component k. It should be noted that
the failure of a component does not necessarily lead to the failure of the
system. If the failure of component k does not cause the failure of the
system, then cs,k = 0.
4. Proposed maintenance cost-based importance measure
As reviewed in Section 2, the Birnbaum importance measure reflects
the change in the overall system reliability when the reliability of a
component changes by a certain amount. The greater the value of
Birnbaum importance for a system component, the higher the impor­
tance of this component.
When selecting a component for maintenance, our goal is to find the
component that incurs the smallest maintenance cost. If a component is
a single-point-of-failure, i.e., a critical component, upon being damaged,
it is repaired immediately or the system will not function properly. For
non-critical components, the importance analysis is used to select the
component that needs to be repaired when the system is maintained. The
Birnbaum importance of componentibased on maintenance cost for
binary-state systems is
Ci (t)
IiBM,c (t) = (4)
IiBM (t)
L. Chen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435

Fig. 1. Block diagram of the series system

The physical meaning of this formula is that when IiBM,c is large, a

small change in the importance of component i will cause a relatively
large change in the maintenance cost of the entire system in the time
period of (0, t).
We can extend (4) using the IIM, leading to the maintenance cost-
based importance measure (MCIM) of component i as

Ci (t)
IiMCIM (t) = (5)
IiIIM (t)
Ci (t)
At any moment t, the ratio IiIIM (t)
reflects the relative change trend of
maintenance cost with respect to the IIM in the time period (0, t). Ac­
cording to (2), we have

Ci (t) Ci (t) Ci (t)

IiMCIM (t) = IIM
= dRi (t) ∂RS (t) = − ′ (6)
Ii (t) − dt ⋅ ∂R (t) Ri (t)IiBM (t)
i

Therefore, when Ri (t)IiBM (t) > Rj (t)IjBM (t), under the same mainte­
′ ′

nance cost, the increase in importance of maintaining component jis less Fig. 2. Block diagram of the parallel system
than that of maintaining component i. Therefore, a higher priority
should be given to the maintenance of component i. (0, t) is
( )
5. MCIM under the failure-triggered replacement strategy Ci (t) = ci + cs,i λi t (11)

In the failure-triggered replacement strategy, the component is In a series system, the Birnbaum importance of component i is
repaired as new after the failure. Without loss of generality, under the
replacement strategy the age of a component is assumed to follow the ∏
n
Rk (t) ( )
exponential distribution with reliability functionR(t) = e− λi t , where λi ∂RS (t) k=1 ∏
n ∑n
IiBM (t) = = = Rk (t) = exp − t λk (12)
denotes the failure intensity of component i. The maintenance cost of ∂Ri (t) Ri (t) k=1,k∕
=i
k=1,k∕
=i

component i per unit time is the sum of the maintenance cost of the
component itself and the cost of system failure caused by the compo­ Therefore, according to (9), for any componenti, its MCIM is
nent. According to (3), it is evaluated as ( ) ( )
Ci (t) ci + cs,i λi t ci + cs,i λi t
( ) ( ) IiMCIM (t) = IIM = = ( ∑ )
Ci (t) = ci + cs,i Λi (t) = ci + cs,i λi t (7) BM
Ii (t) λi (t)Ri (t)Ii (t) λi e− λi t exp − t n
=i λk
(13)
k=1,k∕
( )
Thus, according to (2), the IIM of the component is = (
ci + cs,i t
∑n )
exp − t k=1 λk
dRi (t) ∂RS (t)
IiIIM (t) = − ⋅ = λi e− λi t
⋅IiBM (t) (8)
dt ∂Ri (t)
5.2. Properties in parallel systems under the replacement strategy
Therefore, according to (6), the MCIM of component i is
The system structure block diagram of the parallel system is shown in
( ) ( )
Ci (t) ci + cs,i λi t ci + cs,i teλi t Fig. 2.
IiMCIM (t) = IIM = − λ t BM = (9)
Ii (t) λi e i Ii (t) IiBM (t)
Theorem 2. In a parallel system, if each component is independent of
each other, then the IIM of component i based on maintenance cost is
5.1. Properties in series systems under the replacement strategy
ci t
IiMCIM (t) = ∏
n (14)
The system structure block diagram of the series system is shown in e− λi t (1 − exp( − λk t))
Fig. 1. k=1,k∕
=i

Theorem 1. In a series system, if the components are independent of
each other, and the age of each component i obeys the exponential
distribution with parameterλi , then the IIM of component i based on
maintenance cost is
( )
ci + cs,i t
IiMCIM (t) = ( ∑n ) (10)
exp − t k=1 λk
Proof. In a series system, when any component fails(Ri = 0), it
causes the entire system to fail(Rs = 0). Assuming that it is impossible
for more than one component to fail at the same time in any short time.
So only the system failure caused by a single component is considered.
According to (7), the maintenance cost of component i in the time period
Proof. In a parallel system, if and only if all components fail
∑
( ni=1 Ri = 0), the entire system fails (Rs = 0). Assuming that it is
impossible for more than one component to fail at the same time in any
short time. So, the probability of the system failure caused by any
component i is zero. Therefore, according to (7), the maintenance cost of
component i in the time period (0, t) in the parallel system is
( )
Ci (t) = ci + cs,i Λi (t) = ci λi t (15)
In a parallel system, the Birnbaum importance of component i is

3
L. Chen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435

( )
∏
n
∂ 1− (1 − Rk ) ECC(T) = cf F(T) + cp R(T) (21)
∂RS (t) k=1
∏
n
IiBM (t) = = = (1 − Rk )
∂Ri (t) ∂Ri (t) (16) where cf denotes the repair cost after the component failure, and
k=1,k∕
=i
∏
n cp denotes the preventive maintenance cost.
= (1 − exp( − λk t)) Because the IIM needs to consider the failure intensity, which is the
k=1,k∕
=i inverse of the ECL, as in (22).
For any component i, according to (9), its MCIM is 1 1
λi (T) = = ∫T (22)
C (t) i
ci λi t ECL(T) R(t)dt + τf F(T) + τp R(T)
0
IiMCIM (t) = IIM = ∏
n
Ii (t)
λi e− λi t (1 − exp( − λk t)) Reliability is the expected ratio of the expected working time to the
k=1,k∕
=i length of the cycle, as in (23).
ci t ∫T
= (17) E[U] R(x)dx
∏ (23)
n 0
λi t Ri (T) = = ∫T
e− (1 − exp( − λk t)) ECL(T) R(x)dx + τF(T) + τR(T)
0
k=1,k∕
=i

Thus, according to (2), the IIM for component i is

6. MCIM under the age-based replacement strategy
1 E[U] BM E[U]IiBM (T)
IiIIM (T) = λi (T)Ri (T)IiBM (T) = I (T) = (24)
ECL(T) ECL(T) i ECL2 (T)
In the age-based replacement strategy, when the component is still
functioning but have reached a specified age T, preventive maintenance The maintenance cost per unit time of component i in the steady state
is performed on the component. If the component fails before T, the of the system is
component will be replaced after failure. This kind of repair is referred
ECC(T) cf F(T) + cp R(T)
to as post-maintenance. The established time interval T is called the J∞ (T) = = ∫T (25)
ECL(T)
scheduled replacement time interval. R(t)dt + τf F(T) + τp R(T)
0

The maintenance cycle is defined as the time required for a compo­ Thus, according to (6), the MCIM of component i is evaluated as
nent to reach its preventive maintenance or subsequent maintenance
after preventive maintenance or post-maintenance. Thus, the expected Ci (T) tJ∞ (T) ECC(T) ECL(T)2 ECC(T)ECL(T)
IiMCIM (T) = = IIM =t =t
operational/up time (denoted as U) of a component in a maintenance IIM
Ii (T) Ii (T) ECL(T) E[U]IiBM (T) E[U]IiBM (T)
cycle is (26)
∫T
E[U] = R(x)dx (18) 6.1. Properties in series systems under the age-based replacement strategy
0

As the component is repaired in two ways: repair after the failure,

Theorem 3. In a series system, if the components are independent of
and the probability in this case is F(t). Preventive maintenance when
each other and obey the exponential distribution, the MCIM of compo­
reaching the certain age T, and the probability in this case isR(t) = 1 −
nent i is
F(t). Therefore, the expected maintenance time of the component in a
maintenance cycle is tECC(T)ECL(T)
IiMCIM (t) = ( ∑ ) (27)
̃ = τf F(T) + τp R(T),
E[V] (19) E[U]exp − t nk=1,k∕
=i λk

where τf denotes the repair time following the component failure, and τp Proof. According to (25), the maintenance cost of component i in
denotes the preventive maintenance time. Therefore, the expected cycle the time period (0, t) is
length (ECL) is the expected working/up time of the system plus the ECC(T)
expected repair time of the component. Ci (t) = tJ∞ (T) = t (28)
ECL(T)
∫T
̃ =
ECL(T) = E[U] + E[V] R(x)dx + τf F(T) + τp R(T) (20) Therefore, according to (12) and (26), for any component i, its MCIM
is
0

The expected cycle cost (ECC) can also be calculated in a similar way
as in (21).

Fig. 3. A propeller plane system

4
L. Chen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435

Ci (t) t ECC(T) tECC(T)ECL(T) one of them includes the maintenance costs for repairing the component
(29)
ECL(T)
IiMCIM (t) = = = ( ∑ ) and for system failure.
IiIIM (t) E[U]IiBM
2
(T)
E[U]exp − t n λk
ECL (T) k=1,k∕
=i

7.1. Single failure-triggered replacement strategy

6.2. Properties in parallel systems under the age-based replacement
strategy Assume that all the system components obey the exponential distri­
bution Ri (t) = e(− λi t) with parameters λi , where i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
The reliability function of the system is
Theorem 4. In a parallel system, if the components are independent of ( )
each other and obey the exponential distribution, the MCIM of compo­ Rs (t) = R7 (t)R8 (t)R9 (t)
1 − (R5 (t)(R1 (t) − 1)(R2 (t) − 1) − R5 (t) + 1)
nent i is ∗(R6 (t)(R3 (t) − 1)(R4 (t) − 1) − R6 (t) + 1)

tECC(T)ECL(T) According to (1), the Birnbaum importance measures of the nine

IiMCIM (t) = ∏n (30) components are
E[U] (1 − exp( − λk t)) ( )
k=1,k∕
=i
BM ∂RS (t) R5 (t)R7 (t)R8 (t)R9 (t)(R2 (t)− 1)
I1 (t)= =−
∂R1 (t) ∗(R6 (t)(R3 (t)− 1)(R4 (t)− 1)− R6 (t)+1)
Proof. According to (25), the maintenance cost of component i in ( )
the parallel system during the time period (0, t) is ∂RS (t) R5 (t)R7 (t)R8 (t)R9 (t)(R1 (t)− 1)
I2BM (t)= =−
ECC(T) ∂R2 (t) ∗(R6 (t)(R3 (t)− 1)(R4 (t)− 1)− R6 (t)+1)
Ci (t) = tJ∞ (T) = t (31) ( )
ECL(T) ∂RS (t) R 6 (t)R7 (t)R8 (t)R9 (t)(R4 (t)− 1)
I3BM (t)= =−
∂R3 (t)
For any component i, according to (1) and (26), its MCIM is ∗(R5 (t)(R1 (t)− 1)(R2 (t)− 1)− R5 (t)+1)
( )
BM ∂RS (t) R6 (t)R7 (t)R8 (t)R9 (t)(R3 (t)− 1)
t ECC(T) I4 (t)= =−
Ci (t) tECC(T)ECL(T) ∂R4 (t)
(32) ∗(R5 (t)(R1 (t)− 1)(R2 (t)− 1)− R5 (t)+1)
ECL(T)
IiMCIM (t) = = = ∏n
IiIIM (t) E[U]IiBM (T) ( )
2
ECL (T) E[U] (1 − exp( − λk t)) ∂RS (t) (R1 (t)− 1)(R2 (t)− 1)− 1)
BM
k=1,k∕
=i I5 (t)= =− R7 (t)R8 (t)R9 (t)
∂R5 (t) ∗(R6 (t)(R3 (t)− 1)(R4 (t)− 1)− R6 (t)+1
( )
7. An application ∂RS (t) (R 3 (t)− 1)(R4 (t)− 1)− 1)
I6BM (t)= =− R7 (t)R8 (t)R9 (t)
∂R6 (t) ∗(R5 (t)(R1 (t)− 1)(R2 (t)− 1)− R5 (t)+1
The structure diagram of a propeller plane system is shown in Fig. 3. ( )
Among the system components, engines 1, 2, 3, 4 are represented by ∂RS (t) (R5 (t)(R1 (t)− 1)(R2 (t)− 1)− R5 (t)+1)
I7BM (t)= =− R8 (t)R9 (t)
components 1, 2, 3, 4, portside and starboard are represented by com­ ∂R7 (t) ∗(R6 (t)(R3 (t)− 1)(R4 (t)− 1)− R6 (t)+1)− 1
ponents 5, 6, and control panels, wing 1 and wing 2 are represented by
components 7, 8, and 9, respectively.
From Fig. 3, as component 1 and component 2 are connected in ( )
parallel, the failure of component 1 or component 2 will not cause the ∂RS (t) (R5 (t)(R1 (t)− 1)(R2 (t)− 1)− R5 (t)+1)
I8BM (t)= =− R7 (t)R9 (t)
system failure. Therefore, the maintenance cost caused by the failure of ∂R8 (t) ∗(R6 (t)(R3 (t)− 1)(R4 (t)− 1)− R6 (t)+1)− 1
component 1 or component 2 only includes the cost of component ( )
maintenance and does not include the maintenance cost caused by the I9BM (t)=
∂RS (t)
=− R7 (t)R8 (t)
(R5 (t)(R1 (t)− 1)(R2 (t)− 1)− R5 (t)+1)
system failure. So cs,1 = 0, cs,2 = 0. Similarly,cs,3 = 0, cs,4 = 0, cs,5 = 0, ∂R9 (t) ∗(R6 (t)(R3 (t)− 1)(R4 (t)− 1)− R6 (t)+1)− 1
cs,6 = 0. Component 7, component 8 and component 9 are connected in
series with the rest of the system, so the failure of any of them leads to According to (2), the IIMs of the nine components are
the failure of the entire system. Therefore, the maintenance cost for any

dR1 (t) ∂Rs (t) dR2 (t) ∂Rs (t)

I1IIM (t) = − ⋅ = λ1 e(− λ1 t) BM
I1 (t), I2IIM (t) =− ⋅ = λ2 e(− λ2 t) BM
I2 (t)
dt ∂R1 (t) dt ∂R2 (t)
dR3 (t) ∂Rs (t) dR4 (t) ∂Rs (t)
I3IIM (t) = − ⋅ = λ3 e(− λ3 t) BM
I3 (t), I4IIM (t) =− ⋅ = λ4 e(− λ4 t) BM
I4 (t)
dt ∂R3 (t) dt ∂R4 (t)
dR5 (t) ∂Rs (t) dR6 (t) ∂Rs (t)
I5IIM (t) = − ⋅ = λ5 e(− λ5 t) BM
I5 (t), I6IIM (t) =− ⋅ = λ6 e(− λ6 t) BM
I6 (t)
dt ∂R5 (t) dt ∂R6 (t)
dR7 (t) ∂Rs (t) dR8 (t) ∂Rs (t)
I7IIM (t) = − ⋅ = λ7 e(− λ7 t) BM
I7 (t), I8IIM (t) =− ⋅ = λ8 e(− λ8 t) BM
I8 (t)
dt ∂R7 (t) dt ∂R8 (t)
dR9 (t) ∂Rs (t)
I9IIM (t) = − ⋅ = λ9 e(− λ9 t) BM
I9 (t)
dt ∂R9 (t)

5
L. Chen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435

Fig. 4. BM of components

Fig. 5. IIM of components

6
L. Chen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435

Fig. 6. BM based on maintenance cost

Fig. 7. IIM based on maintenance cost

7
L. Chen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435

According to (4), the maintenance cost-based Birnbaum importance

measures of the nine system components are According to (5), the MCIM of the nine components are

C1 (t) c1 λ1 t BM,c C2 (t) c2 λ2 t BM,c C3 (t) c3 λ3 t

I1BM,c (t) = = ,I (t) = BM = ,I (t) = BM =
I1BM (t) A1 2 I2 (t) A2 3 I3 (t) A3
C4 (t) c4 λ4 t BM,c C5 (t) c5 λ5 t BM,c C6 (t) c6 λ6 t
I4BM,c (t) = BM = , I5 (t) = BM = , I6 (t) = BM =
I4 (t) A4 I5 (t) A5 I6 (t) A6
7
( ) 8
( ) ( )
C (t) cs,7 + c7 λ7 t C (t) c s,8 + c 8 λ 8 t C9 (t) cs,9 + c9 λ9 t
I7BM,c (t) = BM = , I8BM,c (t) = BM = , I9BM,c (t) = BM =
I7 (t) A7 I8 (t) A8 I9 (t) A9

where

( λ5 t) (λ2 +λ5 )t)

)
e(− − e(− − e(− (λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) +
A1 = − (λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) e(− (λ7 +λ8 +λ9 )t)
e(− +e − e − e

( λ5 t) (λ1 +λ5 )t)

)
e(− − e(− − e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + (λ7 +λ8 +λ9 )t)
A2 = − e(−
e(− (λ1 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
+ e(− (λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t)

( λ6 t) (λ4 +λ6 )t)

)
e(− − e(− − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + (λ7 +λ8 +λ9 )t)
A3 = − e(−
e(− (λ1 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
+e (− (λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
− e(− (λ1 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
− e(− (λ2 +λ5 +λ6 )t)

( λ6 t) (λ3 +λ6 )t)

)
e(− − e(− − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + (λ7 +λ8 +λ9 )t)
A4 = − e(−
e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
+e (− (λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
− e(− (λ1 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
− e(− (λ2 +λ5 +λ6 )t)

⎛ ⎞
e(− λ1 t) + e(− λ2 t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ6 )t)
A5 = ⎝ +e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ4 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ4 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ4 +λ6 )t) ⎠e(− (λ7 +λ8 +λ9 )t)

+e(− (λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ2 +λ3 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ2 +λ4 +λ6 )t)

⎛ ⎞
e(− λ3 t) + e(− λ4 t) − e(− (λ3 +λ4 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ5 )t)
⎝
A6 = +e (− (λ1 +λ2 +λ4 +λ5 )t)
+e (− (λ1 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 )t)
− e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ5 )t)
− e(− (λ1 +λ4 +λ5 )t) ⎠ (−
e (λ7 +λ8 +λ9 )t)

+e(− (λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 )t) − e(− (λ2 +λ3 +λ5 )t) − e(− (λ2 +λ4 +λ5 )t)

8
L. Chen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435

Fig. 8. IIM of components

⎛ ⎞
e(− (λ1 +λ5 )t) + e(− (λ2 +λ5 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ5 )t) + e(− (λ3 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ4 +λ6 )t)
⎜− e 3 4 6 − e 1 2 3 4 5 6 + e 1 2 3 5 6
(− (λ +λ +λ )t) (− (λ +λ +λ +λ +λ +λ )t) (− (λ +λ +λ +λ +λ )t) ⎟ (−
A7 = ⎜
⎝ +e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
⎟e
⎠
(λ8 +λ9 )t)

(− (λ1 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
− e +e − e − e

⎛ ⎞
e(− (λ1 +λ5 )t) + e(− (λ2 +λ5 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ5 )t) + e(− (λ3 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ4 +λ6 )t)
⎜− e 3 4 6 − e 1 2 3 4 5 6 + e 1 2 3 5 6
(− (λ +λ +λ )t) (− (λ +λ +λ +λ +λ +λ )t) (− (λ +λ +λ +λ +λ )t) ⎟ (−
A8 = ⎜
⎝ +e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
⎟e
⎠
(λ7 +λ9 )t)

(− (λ1 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
− e +e − e − e

⎛ ⎞
e(− (λ1 +λ5 )t) + e(− (λ2 +λ5 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ5 )t) + e(− (λ3 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ4 +λ6 )t)
⎜ − e(− (λ3 +λ4 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + ⎟ (−
A9 = ⎜
⎝ e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
⎟e
⎠
(λ7 +λ8 )t)

(λ1 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
− e(− + e(− − e(− − e(−

9
L. Chen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435

Fig. 9. Maintenance cost-based Birnbaum importance of the nine components

C1 (t) c1 t C2 (t) c2 t C3 (t) c3 t

I1MCIM (t) = = , I MCIM (t) = IIM = , I MCIM (t) = IIM =
I1IIM (t) A1 e(− λ1 t) 2 I2 (t) A2 e(− λ2 t) 3 I3 (t) A3 e(− λ3 t)
C4 (t) c4 t C5 (t) c5 t C6 (t) c6 t
I4MCIM (t) = IIM = , I MCIM (t) = IIM =
(− λ4 t) 5
, I MCIM (t) = IIM =
(− λ5 t) 6
I4 (t) A4 e I5 (t) A5 e I6 (t) A6 e(− λ6 t)
( ) ( ) ( )
C7 (t) cs,7 + c7 t MCIM C8 (t) cs,8 + c8 t MCIM C9 (t) cs,9 + c9 t
I7MCIM (t) = IIM = , I 8 (t) = IIM = , I 9 (t) = IIM =
I7 (t) A7 e(− λ7 t) I8 (t) A8 e(− λ8 t) I9 (t) A9 e(− λ9 t)

Assuming the time interval is [0, 8], c1 = 15, c2 = 15, c3 = 15, c4 =
15, c5 = 10, c6 = 15, c7 = 5, c8 = 30, c9 = 30 (all unit prices are taken in
K RMB). The cost of system failure caused by components 7, 8, and 9 are
cs,7 = 50, cs,8 = 300, cs,9 = 300, which are much higher than the
maintenance cost associated with maintaining a single component. The
failure intensities of the system components are λ1 = λ2 = λ3 = λ4 = 0.1,
λ5 = λ6 = 0.08, λ7 = 0.05, λ8 = λ9 = 0.08 per year.
Figs. 4 and 5 show the Birnbaum importance and IIM of components.
From Figs. 4 and 5, the Birnbaum importance and IIM of components
7, 8, and 9 decrease with time. The importance of components 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, and 6 slowly increases with time, and the increasing trends of com­
ponents 1, 2, 3, and 4 are consistent because their failure intensities are
the same. The growth rates of components 5 and 6 also remain the same
because they have the same failure intensity. Since Birnbaum impor­
tance and IIM do not take into account the maintenance cost, although
component 5 and component 6 have different maintenance costs, there
is no difference in their importance levels, because their age distribution
and location in the system are the same. However, different mainte­
nance costs must be handled with different priorities in the maintenance
practice, so it is crucial to incorporate maintenance costs in the impor­
tance analysis.
Figs. 6 and 7 reflect the trend of the maintenance cost-based Birn­
baum importance and MCIM of the nine components.
From Figs. 6 and 7, the relative importance of components has
changed more significantly over time. The MCIM of components 1, 2, 3,
and 4 starts with a relatively high level, then decreases to a certain level
and then began to increase. The MCIM of components 5 and 6 has slowly
increased over time, but due to the difference in their maintenance costs,
the MCIM of component 6 is always higher than that of component 5.
Component 7 has the lowest overall importance based on the mainte­
nance cost in the first half of the interval due to its low maintenance cost,
and its MCIM slowly increases over time. The overall MCIM of compo­
nents 8, 9 has continuously increased from a lower level to the highest
by the end of the interval considered in this study.
In summary, as compared to the existing Birnbaum importance and
IIM that fail to consider maintenance costs-a crucial factor in actual
maintenance practices, the proposed maintenance cost-based impor­
tance measures can reflect the impact of different types of maintenance
costs, thus can better guide the practical maintenance work more
effectively.

10
L. Chen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435

Fig. 10. MCIM of components

7.2. Hybrid maintenance strategy

C2 (t) c2 λ2 t BM,c C4 (t) c4 λ4 t BM,c C6 (t) c6 λ6 t
I2BM,c (t) = = ,I (t) = BM = ,I (t) = BM =
In this case study, components 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 adopt the failure- I2BM (t) A2 4 I4 (t) A4 6 I6 (t) A6
( ) ( )
triggered replacement strategy, while components 1, 3, 5 and 7 adopt 8
C (t) cs,8 + c8 λ8 t BM,c 9
C (t) cs,9 + c9 λ9 t
the age-based replacement strategy. I8BM,c (t) = BM = , I9 (t) = BM =
I8 (t) A8 I9 (t) A9
The Birnbaum importance measures has nothing to do with the
maintenance strategy adopted by the component.
where
According to (2), the IIMs of the five components are

dR2 (t) ∂Rs (t) dR4 (t) ∂Rs (t)

I2IIM (t) = − ⋅ = λ2 e(− λ2 t)
⋅I2BM (t), I4IIM (t) = − ⋅ = λ4 e(− λ4 t)
⋅I4BM (t)
dt ∂R2 (t) dt ∂R4 (t)
dR6 (t) ∂Rs (t) dR8 (t) ∂Rs (t)
I6IIM (t) = − ⋅ = λ6 e(− λ6 t)
⋅I6BM (t), I8IIM (t) = − ⋅ = λ8 e(− λ8 t)
⋅I8BM (t)
dt ∂R6 (t) dt ∂R8 (t)
dR9 (t) ∂Rs (t)
I9IIM (t) = − ⋅ = λ9 e(− λ9 t)
⋅I9BM (t)
dt ∂R9 (t)

According to (4), the maintenance cost-based Birnbaum importance

measure of the five components 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 are

( λ5 t) (λ1 +λ5 )t)

)
e(− − e(− − e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) +
A2 = − (λ1 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) e(− (λ7 +λ8 +λ9 )t)
e(− +e − e − e

11
L. Chen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435

( λ6 t) (λ3 +λ6 )t)

)
e(− − e(− − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + (λ7 +λ8 +λ9 )t)
A4 = − e(−
e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
+e (− (λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
− e(− (λ1 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
− e(− (λ2 +λ5 +λ6 )t)

⎛ ⎞
e(− λ3 t) + e(− λ4 t) − e(− (λ3 +λ4 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ5 )t)
⎝
A6 = +e (− (λ1 +λ2 +λ4 +λ5 )t)
+e (− (λ1 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 )t)
− e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ5 )t)
− e(− (λ1 +λ4 +λ5 )t) ⎠ (−
e (λ7 +λ8 +λ9 )t)

+e(− (λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 )t) − e(− (λ2 +λ3 +λ5 )t) − e(− (λ2 +λ4 +λ5 )t)

⎛ ⎞
e(− (λ1 +λ5 )t) + e(− (λ2 +λ5 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ5 )t) + e(− (λ3 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ4 +λ6 )t)
⎜ − e(− (λ3 +λ4 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) ⎟ (−
A8 = ⎜
⎝ +e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
⎟e
⎠
(λ7 +λ9 )t)

(− (λ1 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
− e +e − e − e

⎛ ⎞
e(− (λ1 +λ5 )t) + e(− (λ2 +λ5 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ5 )t) + e(− (λ3 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ4 +λ6 )t)
⎜ − e(− (λ3 +λ4 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + ⎟ (−
A9 = ⎜
⎝ e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
⎟e
⎠
(λ7 +λ8 )t)

(− (λ1 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
− e +e − e − e

According to (9), the MCIM of the five components 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 According to (24), the IIM of the four components 1, 3, 5 and 7 are
are

C2 (t) c2 t C4 (t) c4 t
I2MCIM (t) = = , I MCIM (t) = IIM =
I2IIM (t) A2 e(− λ2 t) 4 I4 (t) A4 e(− λ4 t)
( ) ( )
C6 (t) c6 t C8 (t) cs,8 + c8 t MCIM C9 (t) cs,9 + c9 t
I6MCIM (t) = IIM = , I MCIM
(t) = = , I (t) = =
I6 (t) A6 e(− λ6 t) 8 I8IIM (t) A8 e(− λ8 t)
9
I9IIM (t) A9 e(− λ9 t)

∫ T
1( )
A1 R(x)dx 1 − e(− λ1 t) A1
E[U]I1BM (T) λ
I1IIM (T) = 2
= [∫ 0
]2 = 1 ( )
1
( )
ECL (T) T
(− λ1 t)
R(t)dt + τf F(T) + τp R(T) 1 − e + τf 1 − e(− λ1 t) + τp e(− λ1 t)
λ1
0
∫T
1( )
BM A3 R(x)dx A3 1 − e(− λ3 t)
E[U]I (T) λ
I3IIM (T) = 3
= [∫ 0
]2 = 1 ( )
3
( )
ECL2 (T) T
(− λ3 t)
R(t)dt + τf F(T) + τp R(T) 1 − e + τf 1 − e(− λ3 t) + τp e(− λ3 t)
λ3
0
∫T
1( )
BM A5 R(x)dx A5 1 − e(− λ5 t)
IIM E[U]I5 (T) 0 λ5
I5 (T) = = [∫ ]2 = 1 ( ) ( )
ECL2 (T) T
R(t)dt + τf F(T) + τp R(T) 1 − e(− λ5 t) + τf 1 − e(− λ5 t) + τp e(− λ5 t)
λ5
0
∫T
1( )
A 7 R(x)dx A7 1 − e(− λ7 t)
IIM E[U]I7BM (T) 0 λ7
I7 (T) = = [∫ ]2 = 1 ( ) ( )
ECL2 (T) T
R(t)dt + τf F(T) + τp R(T) 1 − e(− λ7 t) + τf 1 − e(− λ7 t) + τp e(− λ7 t)
λ7
0

12
L. Chen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435

( )
J∞ (t)t t cf F1 (t) + cp R1 (t)
t cf 1 − e(− λ1 t) + cp e(− λ1 t)
I1BM,c (t) = = ⋅∫ ⋅ =
A1 A1 T
A1 1 ( ) ( )
R1 (ξ)dξ + τf F1 (t) + τp R1 (t) 1 − e(− λ1 t) + τf 1 − e(− λ1 t) + τp e(− λ1 t)

0
λ1
( )
J∞ (t)t t c F
f 3 (t) + c R
p 3 (t) t cf 1 − e(− λ3 t) + cp e(− λ3 t)
I3BM,c (t) = = ⋅∫ T = ⋅ ( ) ( )
A3 A3 A3 1
R3 (ξ)dξ + τf F3 (t) + τp R3 (t) 1 − e(− λ3 t) + τf 1 − e(− λ3 t) + τp e(− λ3 t)

0
λ3
( )
J∞ (t)t t cf F5 (t) + cp R5 (t) t cf 1 − e(− λ5 t) + cp e(− λ5 t)
I5BM,c (t) = = ⋅∫ T = ⋅ ( ) ( )
A5 A5 A5 1
R5 (ξ)dξ + τf F5 (t) + τp R5 (t) 1 − e(− λ5 t) + τf 1 − e(− λ5 t) + τp e(− λ5 t)

0
λ5

According to (4) and (25), the maintenance cost-based Birnbaum

importance measures of the four components 1, 3, 5 and 7 are

J∞ (t)t t cf F7 (t) + cp R7 (t)

I7BM,c (t) = = ⋅∫ T
A7 A7 R7 (ξ)dξ + τf F7 (t) + τp R7 (t)
0
( )
t cf 1 − e(− λ7 t) + cp e(− λ7 t)
= ⋅1
A7 λ7 (1 − e(− λ7 t) ) + τf (1 − e(− λ7 t) ) + τp e(− λ7 t)

where

( λ5 t) (λ2 +λ5 )t)

)
e(− − e(− − e(− (λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) +
A1 = − (λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (− (λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) e(− (λ7 +λ8 +λ9 )t)
e(− +e − e − e

( λ6 t) (λ4 +λ6 )t)

)
e(− − e(− − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ5 +λ6 )t) +
A3 = − (λ1 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) e(− (λ7 +λ8 +λ9 )t)
e(− + e(− (λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ5 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ2 +λ5 +λ6 )t)

⎛ ⎞
e(− λ1 t) + e(− λ2 t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ6 )t)
A5 = ⎝ +e 1 2 4 6 + e 1 3 4 6 − e 1 3 6 − e 1 4 6 ⎠e(−
(− (λ +λ +λ +λ )t) (− (λ +λ +λ +λ )t) (− (λ +λ +λ )t) (− (λ +λ +λ )t) (λ7 +λ8 +λ9 )t)

+e(− (λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ2 +λ3 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ2 +λ4 +λ6 )t)

⎛ ⎞
e(− (λ1 +λ5 )t) + e(− (λ2 +λ5 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ5 )t) + e(− (λ3 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ4 +λ6 )t)
⎜ − e(− (λ3 +λ4 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + e(− (λ1 +λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) + ⎟ (−
⎜
A7 = ⎝ (− (λ1 +λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) ⎟e (λ8 +λ9 )t)
e + e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) − e(− (λ1 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) ⎠
(λ1 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (λ2 +λ3 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (λ2 +λ3 +λ5 +λ6 )t) (λ2 +λ4 +λ5 +λ6 )t)
− e(− + e(− − e(− − e(−

13
L. Chen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435

According to (26), the MCIM of the four components 1, 3, 5 and 7 are

[∫ T ]
[ ]
t cf F(T) + cp R(T) R(t)dt + τf F(T) + τp R(T)
ECC(T)ECL(T) 0
I1MCIM (t) = t⋅ = ∫T
E[U]I1BM (T)
A1 R(x)dx
0
[ ]
[ ( λ1 t)
) ] 1( (− λ1 t)
) ( )
t cf 1 − e(− + cp e 1 − e(− λ1 t) + τf 1 − e(− λ1 t) + τp e(− λ1 t)
λ1
=
1( )
A1 1 − e(− λ1 t)
λ1
[∫ T ]
[ ]
t cf F(T) + cp R(T) R(t)dt + τf F(T) + τp R(T)
ECC(T)ECL(T) 0
I3MCIM (t) = t⋅ = ∫T
E[U]I3BM (T)
A3 R(x)dx
0
[ ]
[ ( λ3 t)
) ] 1( ) ( )
t cf 1 − e(− + cp e(− λ3 t) 1 − e(− λ3 t) + τf 1 − e(− λ3 t)
+ τp e(− λ3 t)
λ3
=
1( )
A3 1 − e(− λ3 t)
λ3

[∫ T ]
[ ]
t cf F(T) + cp R(T) R(t)dt + τf F(T) + τp R(T)
ECC(T)ECL(T) 0
I5MCIM (t) = t⋅ = ∫T
E[U]I5BM (T)
A5 R(x)dx
0
[ ]
[ ( λ5 t)
) ] 1( ) ( )
t cf 1 − e(− + cp e(− λ5 t) 1 − e(− λ5 t) + τf 1 − e(− λ5 t) + τp e(− λ5 t)
λ5
=
1( )
A5 1 − e(− λ5 t)
λ5
[∫ T ]
[ ]
t cf F(T) + cp R(T) R(t)dt + τf F(T) + τp R(T)
ECC(T)ECL(T) 0
I7MCIM (t) = t⋅ = ∫T
E[U]I7BM (T)
A7 R(x)dx
0
[ ]
[ ( λ7 t)
) (− λ7 t)
] 1( ) ( )
t cf 1 − e(− + cp e 1 − e(− λ7 t) + τf 1 − e(− λ7 t)
+ τp e(− λ7 t)
λ7
=
1( )
A7 1 − e(− λ7 t)
λ7

importance does not consider the impact of component maintenance on

Assuming the time interval is [0, 8], c1 = 15, c2 = 15, c3 = 15, c4 =
15, c5 = 10, c6 = 15, c7 = 5, c8 = 30, c9 = 30 (all unit prices are taken in
K RMB). The cost of system failure caused by components 7, 8, and 9 are
cs,7 = 50, cs,8 = 300, cs,9 = 300, which are much higher than the
maintenance cost associated with maintaining single component. Pre­
ventive maintenance cost of components 1, 3, 5 and 7 arecp1 = 1, cp3 =
1, cp5 = 0.8, cp7 = 0.4, and their preventive maintenance time isτp1 = τp3
= τp5 = τp7 = 0.1. The maintenance cost of components 1, 3, 5 and 7
following their failure are cf1 = 5, cf3 = 5, cf5 = 4, cf7 = 2, and their
maintenance time after the failure areτf1 = τf3 = τf5 = τf7 = 0.5. Thus,
the time and cost of post-failure maintenance are 5 times that of pre­
ventive maintenance. Component failure intensity λ1 = λ2 = λ3 = λ4 =
0.1, λ5 = λ6 = 0.08, λ7 = 0.05, λ8 = λ9 = 0.08 per year.
As discussed at the beginning of Section 7.2, the Birnbaum impor­
tance values of the components under the hybrid maintenance strategy
are the same as those under the single failure-triggered replacement
strategy presented in Section 7.1 (Fig. 4). This is because Birnbaum
the component importance. Only the system’s mechanism and compo­
nent failure intensity affect the ranking of Birnbaum’s importance.
We show the importance analysis results using IIM, maintenance
cost-based Birnbaum importance, and MCIM in Figs. 8-10. The IIM
changes of components are shown in Fig. 8. While the failure intensities
of components 1 and 2 are the same, component 1 adopts the age-based
replacement strategy, and component 2 adopts the failure- triggered
replacement strategy.
From Fig. 8, the IIM of component 1 increases until it reaches a
certain height and then slowly decreases, while component 2 slowly
increases and then slowly decreases. This is because the maximum age of
the components under the age-based replacement strategy is limited to
the age threshold T, and the components exceeding T have undergone
preventive maintenance. Therefore, the maintenance of the components
under the age-based replacement strategy is more frequent and the
failure intensity is higher than that under the failure-triggered replace­
ment strategy, resulting in greater importance values.

14
L. Chen et al.
The maintenance cost-based Birnbaum importance values of the nine
components are shown in Fig. 9.
From Fig. 9, the importance values of components 1, 3 drop from a
high level to a certain height over time, and then begin to rise. Similarly,
the importance values of components 2, 4 drop from a high level to a
certain height over time, and then begin to increase rapidly. Over time,
the importance values of components 2, 4 exceed those of components 1,
3. It shows that the initial maintenance cost of the system under the age-
based replacement strategy has a great influence on the importance, but
in the long run, this influence becomes gradually smaller. This conclu­
sion can also be reflected by comparing the importance trends of
component 5 and component 6. Component 7 has a low maintenance
cost, so it has a low importance level, and its importance value does not
change much over time. The importance values of components 8 and 9
tend to increase exponentially over time, and eventually rise to the
highest level during the time interval considered in this case study.
Fig. 10 shows that the trends of components MCIM over time, which
are similar to those in Fig. 9 using the maintenance cost-based Birnbaum
importance measure.
8. Conclusions and future work
Considering the influence of different maintenance strategies and
costs of system components on component importance, this paper con­
tributes by proposing a new measure of MCIM and its evaluation method
under different maintenance strategy conditions, including the failure-
triggered replacement strategy, the age-based replacement strategy,
and the hybrid strategy. In contrast to the traditional measures that
reflect only the failure intensity and structure location of the compo­
nents in their importance values, the proposed importance measures
also take into account the component maintenance cost as well as
maintenance cost associated with the system failure, providing more
effective guidance in the practical system maintaining activities. As
revealed from the case study of an example propeller plane system, we
found that 1) as compared with the failure-triggered strategy, under the
age-based replacement strategy, the system components undergo more
frequent maintenance and have higher costs of maintenance, and 2) in
the case of the age-based replacement strategy being adopted, the initial
maintenance cost of system components has a great influence on its
importance, but this influence shows a diminishing trend over time.
In this work, we are considering only binary-state components, each
being characterized by its failure intensity. In the future, we are inter­
ested in extending the proposed importance measures and analysis to
multi-state systems that perform at multiple levels ranging from perfect
function to complete failure. This can be done by considering the state
distribution probability and state transition probability of a component
in the multi-state system. It is used to analyze how the state transition of
the component affects the overall performance of the system.
Author statement
Liwei Chen and Chunchun Cheng performed the experiments and
analyzed the data; Hongyan Dui and Liudong Xing proposed the idea of
this paper and revised the methodology and model; All authors have
contributed to the editing and proofreading of this paper.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors report no conflict of interest and have received no
payment in preparation of this manuscript.
15
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supports for this
research from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (nos.
72071182, 61807031, U1904211), the Ministry of education’s human­
ities and social sciences planning fund (no. 20YJA630012), the Program
for Science&Technology Innovation Talents in Universities of Henan
Province (no. 22HASTIT022), the Program for Young Backbone Teach­
ers in Universities of Henan Province (no. 2021GGJS007), Key Science
and Technology Program of Henan Province (nos. 222102520019,
132102210560, 162102210004), and Key Science and Technology
Special Projects of Henan Province (no. 201111210800).
References
[1] Birnbaum ZW. On the importance of different components in a multi-component
system. New York: Academic Press; 1969.
[2] Dui HY, Si SB, Wu SM, Yam RCM. An importance measure for multistate systems
with external factors. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2017;167:49–57.
[3] Si SB, Levitin G, Dui HY, Sun SD. Component state-based integrated importance
measure for multi-state systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2013;116:75–83.
[4] Xing LD, Dugan JB. Analysis of generalized phased-mission system reliability,
performance, and sensitivity. IEEE Trans Reliab 2002;51(2):199–211.
[5] Dui HY, Zheng XQ, Wu SM. Resilience analysis of maritime transportation systems
based on importance measures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2021;209:107461.
[6] Yeh W-C. Novel algorithm for computing all-pairs homogeneity-arc binary-state
undirected network reliability. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2021;216:107950.
[7] Yeh W-C. Novel binary-addition tree algorithm (BAT) for binary-state network
reliability problem. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2021;208:107448.
[8] Yeh W-C. A quick BAT for evaluating the reliability of binary-state networks. Reliab
Eng Syst Saf 2021;216:107917.
[9] Wei GZ, Zhao XJ, He SG, He Z. Reliability modeling with condition-based
maintenance for binary-state deteriorating systems considering zoned shock
effects. Comput Ind Eng 2019;130:282–97.
[10] Levitin G, Lisnianski A. Importance and sensitivity analysis of multi-state systems
using the universal generating function method. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 1999;65(3):
271–82.
[11] Levitin G, Podofillini L, Zio E. Generalised importance measures for multi-state
elements based on performance level restrictions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2003;82(3):
287–98.
[12] Levitin G. Protection Survivability Importance in Systems with Multilevel
Protection. Qual Reliab Eng Int 2004;20:727–38.
[13] Levitin G, Ben-Haim H. Importance of protections against intentional attacks.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2008;93(4):639–46.
[14] Wu SM. Joint importance of multistate systems. Comput Ind Eng 2005;49(1):
63–75.
[15] Dui HY, Tian TZ, Zhao JB, Wu SM. Comparing with the joint importance under
consideration of consecutive-k-out-of-n system structure changes. Reliab Eng Syst
Saf 2022;219:108255.
[16] Shrestha A, Xing LD, Coit DW. An efficient multistate multivalued decision
diagram-based approach for multistate system sensitivity analysis. IEEE Trans
Reliab 2010;59:581–92.
[17] Xiahou TF, Liu Y, Jiang T. Extended composite importance measures for multi-state
systems with epistemic uncertainty of state assignment. Mech Syst Sig Process
2018;109:305–29.
[18] Xu ZP, Ramirez-Marquez JE, Liu Y, Xiahou TF. A new resilience-based component
importance measure for multi-state networks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2020;193:
106591.
[19] Levitin G, Lisnianski A. Optimization of imperfect preventive maintenance for
multi-state systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2000;67(2):193–203.
[20] Levitin G, Finkelstein M, Dai YS. Optimization of cyclic preventive replacement in
homogeneous warm-standby system with reusable elements exposed to shocks.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2021;207:107351.
[21] Levitin G, Xing LD, Xiang YP. Optimal multiple replacement and maintenance
scheduling in two-unit systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2021;213:107803.
[22] Wu SM, Chen Y, Wu QT, Wang ZL. Linking component importance to optimisation
of preventive maintenance policy. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2016;146:26–32.
[23] Han X, Wang ZL, Xie M, He YH, Li Y, Wang WZ. Remaining useful life prediction
and predictive maintenance strategies for multi-state manufacturing systems
considering functional dependence. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2021;210:107560.
[24] de Pater I, Mitici M. Predictive maintenance for multi-component systems of
repairables with Remaining-Useful-Life prognostics and a limited stock of spare
components. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2021;214:107761.
[25] Zhang N, Cai KQ, Zhang J, Wang T. A condition-based maintenance policy
considering failure dependence and imperfect inspection for a two-component
system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2022;217:108069.
L. Chen et al.
[26] Zhang C, Chen RT, Wang SP, Dui HY, Zhang YD. Resilience efficiency importance
measure for the selection of a component maintenance strategy to improve system
performance recovery. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2022;217:108070.
[27] Nguyen K-A, Do P, Grall A. Joint predictive maintenance and inventory strategy for
multi-component systems using Birnbaum’s structural importance. Reliab Eng Syst
Saf 2017;168:249–61.
[28] Chen LW, Gao YS, Dui Y, Xing LD. Importance measure-based maintenance
optimization strategy for pod slewing system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2021;216:
108001.
[29] Wu SM, Coolen FPA. A cost-based importance measure for system components: an
extension of the Birnbaum importance. Eur J Oper Res 2013;225(1):189–95.
16
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 222 (2022) 108435
[30] Dui HY, Chen SS, Zhou YJ, Wu SM. Maintenance analysis of transportation
networks by the traffic transfer principle considering node idle capacity. Reliab
Eng Syst Saf 2022;221:108386.
[31] Si SB, Dui HY, Zhao XB, Zhang SG, Sun SD. Integrated importance measure of
component states based on loss of system performance. IEEE Trans Reliab 2012;61
(1):192–202.
[32] Dui HY, Xu Z, Chen LW, Xing LD, Liu B. Data-driven maintenance priority and
resilience evaluation of performance loss in a main coolant system. Mathematics
2022;10(4):563.