Reliability Engineering and System Safety 237 (2023) 109313

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Reliability Engineering and System Safety

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

Maintenance optimization of a system subject to two-stage degradation,

hard failure, and imperfect repair
Tom Ivar Pedersen *, Xingheng Liu , Jørn Vatn
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Norwegian University of Science & Technology (NTNU), Trondheim 7491, Norway

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

Keywords: This paper develops a condition-based maintenance (CBM) policy for a two-component system subject to
Maintenance optimization continuous degradation and hard failure. The cumulative degradation of one of the components is modeled by a
Imperfect repair two-stage degradation process, which then determines the failure probability of the other component via a
Hard failure
proportional hazards model. Imperfect repair reduces the degradation level without changing the degradation
Condition-based maintenance (CBM)
Long-run cost rate
rate, whereas preventive renewal restores both components to the as-good-as-new condition. The CBM policy is
Process industry optimized by finding the imperfect repair threshold and the preventive renewal time that minimize the long-run
cost rate. We propose a numerical procedure to find the solution without Monte Carlo simulation. Furthermore,
the modeling framework is flexible enough to account for maintenance delay and opportunistic maintenance. A
case study of the maintenance of a cooling system taken from a company in the process industry is presented to
illustrate the applicability of the proposed maintenance policy.

1. Introduction
Assets in the process industry have for many years been equipped
with sensors that monitor the condition of the systems [1], prompting
the application of condition-based maintenance (CBM) [2]. CBM opti­
mization models have received increasing attention in the literature [3],
but their application in practice lags [4,5]. This is partly because of the
complexity of real-life systems compared to the stylized ones commonly
studied [6]. When using analytical methods for maintenance optimiza­
tion, simplifications must be made to make the calculations tractable.
However, by deviating from the actual system, the results may become
misleading and less cost-effective [7]. To avoid such consequences, it is
tempting to plan and optimize the maintenance policy for a specific
system in a targeted manner.
This paper investigates the optimization of a CBM policy for a two-
component system. This is motivated by the operation and mainte­
nance of a cooling system used on some electric arc furnaces in the
process industry, where we have had access to industrial sensor data and
maintenance records. This system consists of a cable supplying cooling
water, named the upstream component (UC), and a downstream
component (DC) that needs cooling. When the UC degrades, this results
in a drop in the cooling water flow rate to the DC. Meanwhile, the need
for cooling the DC fluctuates depending on several factors related to the
production process and the ambient condition. However, the risk of hard
failure in the DC increases as the cooling water flow rate decreases. Hard
failure is, in this paper, understood as a type of failure characterized by a
sudden breakdown. This contrasts with soft failures, where a component
is considered failed when the degradation reaches a predefined
threshold [8]. In the motivating case study, hard failure occurs when a
lack of cooling causes damage to the DC so that this component can no
longer contain the cooling water. As this causes water to leak into the
furnace, production must be stopped, and the DC must be renewed.
Furthermore, the renewal cost of the UC is small compared to the DC.
The ability of the UC to fulfill its required function is easily monitored
with online sensors, while the health of the DC can only be revealed with
prohibitively expensive inspections.
Maintenance actions for this system include imperfect repair (IR), a
cleaning procedure that partially restores the performance of the UC,
and preventive renewal (PR), which requires a shutdown of the system
and causes an unavailability cost. Although IR can temporarily restore
the flow rate, it does not influence the degradation rate. As the degra­
dation rate increases with time, IRs are needed more and more
frequently, and eventually, the system reaches a state where it is no
longer economical to continue performing IRs. PR, on the other hand,
brings both the UC and the DC to the as-good-as-new (AGAN) state.
Because of this, performing PR at the right time is important to minimize

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tom.i.pedersen@ntnu.no (T.I. Pedersen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2023.109313
Received 7 July 2022; Received in revised form 21 November 2022; Accepted 15 April 2023
Available online 20 April 2023
0951-8320/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
T.I. Pedersen et al.
the long-run cost rate.
Although the maintenance policies proposed in this paper are
tailored to a specific system, the presented approach can also be used as
a basis for the maintenance optimization of similar systems. Examples of
systems with a relatively simple and easily monitored UC, where an IR
action is available, and which support a more complex DC, where the
cost of failure is high, are numerous in the process industry. This can be
other cooling systems with heat exchangers as the UC. Other examples
are hydraulic or lubrication systems with the hydraulic oil or the
lubricant as the UC. These are all examples of UCs where a reduction in
their ability to perform the required function affects the failure rates of
the DCs.
1.1. Literature review
Maintenance optimization of the above system must consider the
following two aspects: the health of the UC when degradation, renewals,
and imperfect repairs are taken into account and the stochastic depen­
dence between the UC and the DC.
1.1.1. Modeling of the baseline degradation
The baseline degradation, the evolution of the health indicator when
the system is not subject to any maintenance interventions, of continu­
ously deteriorating systems are usually described by a general path
model or stochastic processes such as the Wiener process, the Gamma
process, the inverse Gaussian (IG) process [9–12], or their variations
[13–15]. The Wiener process is most suitable for modeling
non-monotonic degradation paths, while the Gamma and the IG pro­
cesses are widely used for systems that degrade monotonically. Choosing
the most appropriate baseline degradation is vital but often receives less
attention. For example, authors in [16] point out that despite its popu­
larity, the Gamma process can be wrongly used when there is no evi­
dence that the variance-to-mean ratio is a constant.
In the case study in this paper, the baseline degradation is non-
monotonic. As shown in the literature review by [17], extensive devel­
opment of Wiener-process-based methods has improved the capability
and flexibility of approaches for modeling non-homogeneous degrada­
tion processes. Examples of this development are models that consider
non-linearity, covariates, and heterogeneity among the individual
degrading components. Recent papers that propose variants of
Wiener-based degradation processes are [18], which proposed a
Winer-based degradation process for a two-stage degradation process,
and [19], which models a multi-stage Wiener-based degradation
process.
1.1.2. Modelling the effect of imperfect maintenance
When it comes to modeling the effect of imperfect maintenance,
there are, according to [20], mainly three different approaches: reduce
the virtual age [21–24], reduce the degradation rate [25,26], or reduce
the degradation level. The latter is relevant to the system in the moti­
vating example in this paper. The reduction in degradation level can
either be proportional and deterministic [27–30], inspired by the
arithmetic reduction of age (ARA) models, or can be modeled by a
continuous random variable [31–34].
In the case study in this paper, IR has not been shown to affect the
degradation rate or the virtual age. When IR is performed, the health
indicator (HI) is restored to a level between as-bad-as-old (ABAO) and
as-good-as-new (AGAN) based on a continuous probability distribution.
In this study, the switch between IR and PR is time-based [35] rather
than based on the number of IRs [33,36]. This is because a time-based
policy generally facilitates the administration and material prepara­
tion work.
1.1.3. Stochastic dependence between components
Another important feature of this paper is the joint consideration of
continuous degradation and hard failure. This issue was first addressed
2
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 237 (2023) 109313
in [37], then investigated in [38–40]. These studies aim to determine
whether the exponential formula for reliability still applies when the
failure rate is conditioned on a stochastic process governed by cova­
riates. A practical application can be found in [41], where a general path
model is used to describe the continuous degradation that determines
the failure rate. If the hazard rate at an inspection exceeds a certain
threshold, preventive renewal is performed. This threshold is then
optimized based on the long-run cost rate criteria. Similar problems are
addressed in [42] and [43], where the baseline degradation is modeled
by a Wiener process, and the optimal predictive maintenance strategy is
developed.
In this paper, we apply the proportional hazards model, as in [42],
and assume that the failure rate is constant within a short time interval
(piecewise constant). There are two reasons for this. Firstly, our system
is monitored at a relatively high frequency, so the information loss by
such an approximation is limited. Secondly, this approximation facili­
tates estimating the system’s degradation level when including the effect
of IR and PR.
1.2. Contributions and scope of the paper
CBM optimization models that consider preventive renewal and
imperfect repair together with hard failure are rare in the existing
literature, except for a recent stream of papers using the semi-Markov
decision process (SMDP) framework [44–47]. To the best of our
knowledge, this is the first paper to jointly consider the optimization of
both imperfect repair (IR), preventive renewal (PR), and the
degradation-dependent failure rate with a two-stage degradation pro­
cess and maintenance delay. The main methodological contribution of
this paper is to present a novel numerical routine that can efficiently find
the long-run cost rate for the maintenance of the studied system without
resorting to Monte Carlo simulation. Our method does not rely on a
particular choice of the baseline degradation process: it does not matter
whether a Wiener process or a general degradation path model is used.
As long as the degradation process happens in independent increments
with respect to time and a function providing a probability distribution
of the baseline degradation in any time increment is available, the
evolution of the health indicator can be tracked using the proposed
numerical routine.
Moreover, our modeling framework is flexible enough to incorporate
maintenance delay and opportunistic maintenance, making it useful for
many practical situations. We have previously used a similar approach
in [48]. In this paper we demonstrate the flexibility and pertinence of
our proposed numerical routine by showing how it can be tailored to a
specific industrial case study that would have been hard to model
analytically. However, human errors, harmful maintenance, and
parameter estimation are beyond the scope of this paper.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the
maintained system and assumptions are presented. The proposed
maintenance policies are formulated in Section 3. A case study to
illustrate the applicability of the proposed policies is presented in Sec­
tion 4. The paper ends with conclusions in Section 5. The notations used
in this paper are listed in Table 1.
2. System description and assumptions
Below are some general assumptions on the failure and degradation
of the investigated system:
• The system consists of an upstream component (UC) and a down­
stream component (DC).
• The UC is subjected to a two-stage continuous degradation process,
monitored at instants τ, 2τ, 3τ…
• Monitoring is done nearly continuously, i.e., τ is short, and there is
no inspection cost.
• The DC is subject to hard failures. The failure cost is cf .
T.I. Pedersen et al.
Table 1
Notation.
Xk state of the health indicator for the upstream component (UC) at
time kτ
τ inspection interval
MIR1 , MIR2 , MPR , maintenance threshold for imperfect repair (IR) of type 1 and 2
Mc and preventive renewal, and lower control limit (LCL)
Ts , TD , TR duration of the S-phase, duration of the D-phase, and the renewal
cycle length, TR = TS + TD
Tf , TC the hard failure time in the S-phase, time of change from S to D-
phase, TS = min(Tf , TC )
Tf,D , TMPR the local hard failure time in the D-phase, the local time of
preventive renewal in the D-phase, TD = min(Tf,D , TMPR )
μ(t; aμ , bμ ), time-dependent drift and diffusion coefficient of the degradation
σ(t; aσ , bσ ) process
Qk the baseline degradation in the time interval ((k − 1)τ, kτ]. Qk =
X−k − X+
k− 1
gk PMF of the baseline degradation in the time interval ((k − 1)τ,kτ]
C(t), c∞ cumulative cost in the time interval (0, t], long-run cost rate
H(t; x) probability of hard failure in the interval (0, t] given the state of
the health indicator, x
r(x; α, β, ξ) distribution of the effect of imperfect repair (IR)
λIR1 , λIR2 arrival rate for IR of type 1 and 2
ci1 , ci2 , cp , cf , cu cost of IR of type 1 and 2, preventive renewal (PR), failure, and
unavailability
Ni1 (k), Ni1 (k) number of IR of type 1 and 2 in the time interval (0, kτ]
μS the expected state of the HI in the S-phase
w, Z time between arrival of maintenance windows, waiting time for
the next maintenance window
• The DC is not subject to aging, and its failure rate at time t depends
solely on the UC’s health indicator (HI) at time t.
Assumptions on the maintenance activities are as follows:
• Imperfect repair (IR) requests are made at two predefined thresholds
of the HI of the UC: MIR1 and MIR2 . The delay from the requests is
made to the execution of IR is exponentially distributed. Execution of
IR does not disturb the production process.
• IR restores the UC’s HI to a state between AGAN and ABAO but does
not affect the rate, μ(t), of the baseline degradation process.
• Preventive renewal (PR) of the UC is performed at a predetermined
D-phase length, TPR , with a cost of cp . When PR of the UC has been
performed, both the UC and the DC are considered AGAN. This is
because the failure rate of the DC is assumed time-invariant.
• If PR of the UC is performed outside a maintenance window, this
leads to an unavailability cost, cu , due to production losses.
• Maintenance windows arrive periodically with a fixed interval
length, w. If PR is performed in a maintenance window cu = 0.
Further details are given below.
2.1. The degradation stages
The degradation of the UC happens in a two-stage process. The
component is healthy until the arrival of a shock that introduces a po­
tential failure. The first phase is named the stable phase (S-phase). The
second phase is named the degradation phase (D-phase). This is similar
to the PF model, see e.g., [49], ch.12, and is often encountered in
practice [50]. In the absence of active maintenance, the health declines
in the D-phase, based on an increasing and non-monotonic stochastic
degradation process. The transition point between the two phases is
assumed to be easily detected based on the condition monitoring data.
2.1.1. The stable phase (S-phase)
In the S-phase, the health indicator of the UC is denoted as XS with
mean μS and is subject to small random fluctuations. Let the system be
inspected every τ time unit. The duration of the S-phase, Ts , is said to be
equal to kτ if a hard failure occurs between (k − 1)τ and kτ, or if the
3
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 237 (2023) 109313
inspection at time kτ reveals that the UC has entered the D-phase. The
definition of entry into the D-phase may be based on crossing a defined
threshold of the health indicator or on the detection of changes in the
characteristics of the degradation process [51,52]. Tf is the hard failure
time of the DC, and Tc is the time when the UC is found to have entered
the D-phase. Thus TS = min(Tf , Tc ).
The probability of TC = kτ is P[TC = kτ] = FTC (kτ) − FTC ((k − 1)τ),
k ≥ 1 where FTC (t) = P[Tc ≤ t]. In this paper, we model the length of
the S-phase with the Weibull distribution. Thus,
FTC (t) = P[Tc ≤ t]
( ( )αW )
t (1)
= 1 − exp − , for t ≥ 0.
θW
We assume that the failure rate of the DC is time-invariant but de­
pends on the HI of the UC:
λ(x) = λ0 exp(γ (η − x)), (2)
where the baseline failure rate is λ0 and η and γ are shape parameters.
Because the fluctuations in XS are assumed small the cumulative prob­
ability of hard failure in the S-phase in the interval (0, t] is approximated
⃒
as H(t; μS ) = P[Tf ≤ t ⃒Xu = μs , 0 ≤ u ≤ t]. Thus:
⎛ ⎞
∫kτ
⎝
H(kτ; μS ) = 1 − exp − λ(μS ) du⎠ = 1 − exp( − kτ λ0 exp(γ(η − μS )) ).
0
(3)
We simplify the notation of H(kτ; μS ) as Hk,S .
2.1.2. The degradation phase (D-phase)
In the D-phase, the HI of the UC at time kτ is denoted Xk with
probability mass function (PMF) fXk (x) = P[Xk = x]. We assume that the
degradation in the D-phase follows a process with the following prop­
erties. First, the distribution of the health indicator at the start of the D-
phase is known. Second, the degradation increments between two in­
spection times are independent and have a known distribution: Xk −
Xk− 1 ∼ gk .
In the rest of this paper, the HI is discretized to simplify the calcu­
lation of its distribution as it evolves over time. The discretization error
can be reduced if the HI is defined on a more finely spaced lattice but
with an increased computational cost. Now, consider the interval ((k −
1)τ, kτ], and assume there is no DC failure and no maintenance in­
terventions in this interval. A convolution argument now yields, fXk =
fXk− 1 ∗ gk for k = 1, 2…, where ∗ is the convolution operator and gk is the
PMF of the degradation increment in the interval ((k − 1)τ, kτ].
Because the length of τ is short, we assume that the health indicator is
constant within this time interval. Thus, the probability of hard failure of
the DC in the same time interval given that health indicator x is: P[T ≤
kτ|x, (k − 1)τ ≤ u ≤ kτ] = H(τ; x), where H(⋅) is defined in Eq. (3). Next,
we give more details about the triggering mechanism and effects of
imperfect repair actions.
2.2. Imperfect repair (IR)
When the HI of the UC is found to be ≤ MIR1 , an imperfect repair (IR)
order is placed. This is denoted IR1, with cost ci1 if successfully imple­
mented. The operators also have a large number of other activities
causing exponentially distributed delays, with mean 1/λIR1 . If the IR is
not performed before the health indicator falls below another threshold,
MIR2 , a higher priority is given to performing the IR, and additional
personnel is called out. This is denoted IR2, with cost ci2 . The arrival rate
of the additional personnel is λIR2 . It is assumed that ci2 > ci1 and
λIR2 > λIR1 .
Let Y be the improvement in the HI by performing IR. It is reason­
able to assume that the improvement is capped between AGAN (μS ) and
ABAO (Xk− ), where μS is the mean of the HI in the S-phase and Xk− is the
T.I. Pedersen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 237 (2023) 109313

state of the HI just before the IR is performed. A scaled beta distribution
is used to model the distribution of Y, i.e., the PMF is given by:
yα− 1 (ξ − y)β− 1
r(y; α, β, ξ) = , α, β, ξ > 0,
ξα+β− 1 B(α, β)
where α and β are shape parameters and B(⋅) is the beta function. ξ = μS
− Xk− is a scale parameter to adjust the support of Y to the range [0, ξ].
2.3. Opportunistic maintenance (OM)
For systems where unavailability causes large losses, there may be
potential for considerable cost savings by performing opportunistic
maintenance [53]. In this paper, opportunistic maintenance (OM) is
understood as maintenance activities performed when production is
stopped due to reasons external to the maintained system and thus does
not cause any additional downtime.
Maintenance windows are assumed to arrive at fixed intervals for
this maintained system. Thus, the interarrival time of the maintenance
windows, denoted w, is constant. Zτ is the waiting time for the next
maintenance window, with the PMF fZ (z). Z is assumed to have a uni­
form distribution, i.e., fZ (z) = 1/w for z = 0, 1, …, w − 1.
3. Maintenance policies
Four different maintenance policies are presented in this section.
First, a procedure for finding the long-run cost rate for a simple pre­
ventive renewal (PR) policy without imperfect repair (IR) is presented.
We then adjust the policy to include OM. Subsequently, two IR policies
and cf are the costs of PR, unavailability loss, and the added cost of
failure, respectively. The procedures for finding Qf,D and E[TD ] are pre­
sented in the following sub-sections.
(4)
3.1.1. Probability calculations for the PR policy
To simplify the notation, we use in the rest of this section a local time
for the D-phase with TC = 0. The duration of the D-phase, TD , is equal to
kτ if either a hard failure occurs between (k − 1)τ and kτ or if Xk at time
kτ is ≤ MPR . We denote the time of failure in the D-phase as Tf,D and the
first time that Xk is found to be at or below MPR as TMPR . Thus, TD =
min(Tf,D , TMPR ).
To find Qf,D and TD , we introduce the following notation: Let Sk be
the event that the system works at time kτ, while Ak is the event that a
hard failure of the DC occurs in the interval ((k − 1)τ, kτ ] and Bk is the
event that a PR is performed at kτ. I is the set of values that X can take
with the chosen discretization level. The unconditional PMF of Xk is
denoted as fXk (x) = P[Xk = x].
In the following, we distinguish between Xk− and Xk+ , where the
former refers to the degradation level at time kτ without considering
failure or maintenance, and the latter is the degradation level after the
occurrence of these events are taken into account. We define,
[ ]
fXk+ (x) = P Xk+ = x, Sk
and
[ ]
fXk− (x) = P Xk− = x, Sk− 1 .
Note that fX+ (x), k = 1, 2, … has zero probability mass for
k

with and without OM are presented. The motivation for choosing these x ≤ MPR . This is because the occurrence of the event Sk implies that Xk−
∑
four policies is that the company in the case study operates two plants is above the preventive renewal threshold. Also note that x fX+ (x) =
k− 1

with similar equipment and failure modes but with different mainte­ P[Sk− 1 ] is the probability that the system survives until (k − 1)τ. As the
nance policies. At one plant, only PR is performed. In contrast, in the probability of failure in the interval ((k − 1)τ, kτ] is determined by Xk− ,
other plant, the frontline personnel have implemented a modification we first compute its distribution by convolution,
that allows for performing IR of the UC without disturbing the produc­
fXk− = fXk−+ 1 ∗ gk . (6)
tion process. Therefore, the first two policies highlight the cost-
effectiveness of OM for the first plant, and the other two policies (with The probability of a hard failure in the interval ((k − 1)τ, kτ] is,
IR and possibly OM) can be applied to the second plant to further reduce ∑ [ ] [ ] ∑
the maintenance cost. P[Ak ] = P Ak | Xk− = x P Xk− = x = H(τ; x)fXk− (x), (7)
x x

3.1. The preventive renewal (PR) policy where H(⋅) is given by Eq. (3). Event Bk can only occur if the renewal
cycle has not already been terminated by a hard failure at time kτ. Thus,
We consider in this section a maintenance policy where no IR is ∑ [ ] [ ]
performed. The HI of the UC is monitored every τ time unit. A preventive P[Bk ] = P Bk |X−k = x P X−k = x, Sk− 1
x∈I
renewal (PR) of the UC is triggered if Xk ≤ MPR . Both components are ∑ [ ] (8)
= l(x ≤ MPR )(1 − H(τ; x))P X−k = x, Sk− 1
renewed if a hard failure occurs on the DC. The goal is to find the x∈I ∑
renewal threshold, MPR , that minimizes the long-run cost rate. The long- = f X−k (x)⋅(1 − H(τ; x)),
run cost rate can be found by dividing the expected renewal cycle cost by x≤MPR

the expected renewal cycle length [12]:

where l is the indicator function. We then update fX+ (x) which is
k
E[C(TR )]
c∞ (MPR ) = . required for the calculation of P[Ak+1 ] and P[Bk+1 ],
E[TR ] [ ]
fXk+ (x) = P X+ k = x, Sk
When the S and D phases are combined, the long-run cost rate for the ∑ [ ]
PR policy can be found by, = P Xk+ = x, Sk , Xk− = y (9)
y∈I
∑ [ ] [ ] [ ]
c∞ (MPR ) = = P Xk+ = x|Sk , Xk− = y P Sk | Xk− = y P Xk− = y
∑+∞ ( ( ( ) )) y∈I
∑
k=1
P[Tc = kτ] cp + cu + cf Hk,S + 1 − Hk,S Qf ,D = l(x = y)l(y > MPR )(1 − H(τ; y))fXk− (y)
∑ +∞ ( ( ) ) , y∈I
k=1
P[Tc = kτ] E[TS |TC = kτ] + 1 − Hk,S E[TD ] = l(x > MPR )(1 − H(τ; x))fXk− (x).
(5) ∑
Note that P[Sk ] = fX+ (x). By combining Eqs. (7), (8), and (9), we
k
x
where the expected length of the S-phase with a given TC is E[TS |TC = kτ]
∑ have,
= ki=1 (1 − Hi,S ). Hk,S is the cumulative probability of failure in the S- ∑ ∑
phase in the period (0,kτ], as presented in Eq. (3). Qf ,D is the probability P[Ak ] + P[Bk ] + P[Sk ] = fXk− (x) = P[Sk− 1 ] = fXk−+ 1 (x).
that the renewal cycle ends with a hard failure given that the UC has x x

entered the D-phase. E[TD ] is the expected length of the D-phase. cp , cu

4
T.I. Pedersen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 237 (2023) 109313

Finally, the probability that the renewal cycle ends with a hard OM is added to the policy, we must track the evolution of the PMF of the
failure in the D-phase is, HI after crossing the renewal threshold, MPR .
We introduce Xz,− TM =k and Xz,+ TM =k to represent the degradation level
∑
+∞
Qf ,D = P[Ak ], (10) before and after failure and maintenance at time (k + z)τ, for the
k=1 probability mass where TMPR = kτ. The subscript z ∈ [0, 1, ⋯, w − 1]
represents possible realizations of Z, while the subscript TM is equivalent
and the expected length of the D-phase is,
to TMPR . Similarly, we define Sz,TM =k as the event that the system is
∑
+ ∞ working at time (k + z)τ, while Az,TM =k is the event that a hard failure
E[TD ] = kτ P[TD = kτ]
occurs while waiting for a maintenance window in the interval
(11)
k=1
∑
+∞ ((k +z − 1)τ, (k +z)τ ] and Bz,TM =k is the event that a maintenance win­
= kτ (P[Ak ] + P[Bk ]).
dow arrives and PR is performed at (k + z)τ. The event A∗k refers to a
k=1
hard failure that occurs in the time interval ((k − 1)τ, kτ] with x > MPR , i.
The flowchart in Fig. 1 illustrates the calculation procedure for the e.,
PR policy. [ ] ∑
P A∗k = H(τ; x)fXk− (x). (12)
3.1.2. The PR policy with opportunistic maintenance (OM) x>MPR

When opportunistic maintenance (OM) is introduced to the PR pol­ We define,

icy, renewal is done at the first maintenance window after TMPR . The [ + ]
length of the D-phase now becomes, TD = min(TMPR +Zτ, Tf,D ) where Zτ, fXz,T
+
M =k
(x) = P Xk+z = x, Sk+z , TMPR = kτ
the waiting time for the maintenance opportunity, is uniformly
distributed as defined in Section 2.3. To find the long-run cost rate when and
[ − ]
fXz,T
− (x) = P Xk+z = x, Sk+z− 1 , TMPR = kτ .
M =k

The distribution of Xz,T

−
M =k
with z = 0 is:

fXz=0,T
− (x) = l(x ≤ MPR )⋅fXk− (x).
M =k

For the other values of z, Xz,T

−
M =k
can be found by the convolution,

fXz,T
− = fXz−+ 1,T ∗ gk+z .
M =k M =k

The probability of a hard failure in the interval ((z +k − 1)τ, (z +k)τ]

while waiting for a maintenance window is,
[ ] ∑ [ ] [ ]
P Az,TM =k = P Az,TM =k | X−z,TM =k = x P X−z,TM =k = x
x∈I
∑ (13)
= f X−z,T =k (x) H(τ; x).
M
x∈I

The probability of a maintenance window arriving and PR being

performed at time (z +k)τ is,
[ ] ∑ [ ] [ ]
P Bz,TM =k = P Bz,TM =k |X−z,TM =k = x P X−z,TM =k = x, Sz− 1,TM =k
∑x∈I
= f X−z,T =k (x)⋅(1 − H(τ; x))⋅P[Z = z|Z > (z − 1)] (14)
M
x∈I
∑ 1
= f X−z,T (x)⋅(1 − H(τ; x))⋅ .
x∈I
M =k w− z

We then update fX+ (x),

z,TM =k

[ ]
+
fXz,T
+ (x) = P Xz,TM =k
= x, Sz,TM =k
M =k

∑ [ + −
]
= P Xz,TM =k = x, Sz,TM =k , Xz,TM =k
=y
y

∑( [ ]
+ −
P Xz,TM =k
= x|Sz,TM =k , Xz,TM =k
=y ⋅
y
= [ ] [ (15)
− −
] )
P Sz,TM =k |Xz,TM =k
= y P Xk+z =y
( )
∑ 1
= l(x = y)fXz,T
− (y) (1 − H(τ; y)) 1−
M =k w− z
Fig. 1. Flowchart illustrating the calculation procedure for the preventive y

renewal (PR) policy. If the downstream component is subject to a hard failure, ( )

1
both the downstream component (DC) and the upstream component (UC) are = fXz,T
− (x) (1 − H(τ; x)) 1− .
=k
w− z
renewed. The UC’s health indicator (HI), X, is assumed to be equal to the lower
M

control limit (LCL) when the D-phase is entered. A recursive routine is used to The probability of a hard failure in the D-phase is found by
track the evolution of X for every time increment, kτ, in the D-phase. If the HI is combining Eqs. (12) and (13),
found to be at or below the preventive renewal threshold (Xk ≤ MPR ) preventive
renewal of the UC is performed.

5
T.I. Pedersen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 237 (2023) 109313

( )
∑
+∞
[ ∗] ∑w− 1
[ ]
(16) ∑ ∑
MIR1 MIR1
Qf ,D = P Ak + P Az,TM =k , [ ⃒ ] [ ]
k=1 z=0
P[Bk ] = P Bk ⃒Xk− = x P Xk− = x, Sk = ψ (x)⋅fXk− (x)⋅(1 − H(τ; x)),
x> MIR2 x>MIR2

and by using Eqs. (12), (13), and (14), the expected length of the D- (20)
phase is found by,
and,
∑
+ ∞
E[TD ] = k P[TD = kτ] ∑
MIR2
[ ⃒ ] [ ] ∑MIR2
k=1 P[Dk ] = P Dk ⃒Xk− = x P Xk− = x, Sk = ψ (x)⋅fXk− (x)⋅(1 − H(τ, x)) .
( ) x = 0 x=0
∑
+ ∞ ( [ ]) w−∑1 ( [ ] [ ])
= k P A∗k + (z + k) P A z,TM =k + P Bz,TM =k . (21)
k=1 z=0
Let TPR = r τ. The expected number of IRs is given by:
(17)
∑
r
Finally, the long-run cost rate for the PR policy with OM can be found E[NIR1 (r)] = P[Bk ], (22)
by using Eq. (16) for Qf,D and Eq. (17) for E[TD ] in Eq. (5) and setting cu = k=1

0.
and,
∑
r
3.2. The imperfect repair (IR) policy E[NIR2 (r)] = P[Dk ]. (23)
k=1

With the introduction of the ability to perform IR without distur­ We then update fX+ (x),
bance to the production process, the HI can be kept above MPR arbi­ k

[ ]
trarily long. However, with a degradation rate that increases with time, fXk+ (x) = P Xk+ = x, Sk
the frequency of IRs will, at some point, become so high that it is no ∑ [ + ]
longer economical to continue performing IRs on the UC. Furthermore, = P Xk = x, Sk , Xk− = y
y∈I
since there is no evidence in the case study that the performance of IR ∑ [ + ] [ ⃒ − ] [ − ]
⃒
influences the degradation rate, we adopt a time-based switching policy
−
= y∈I P Xk = x| Sk , Xk = y P Sk Xk = y P Xk = y .
rather than based on the number of IRs performed.
Based on this, a planned renewal time for the UC, TPR , is introduced
We have that P[Xk− = y] = fXk− (y) and P[Sk |x−k = y] = 1 − H(τ; y). Then,
as one of the decision variables. TPR is defined in the local time in the D-
phase. The other decision variables are the two maintenance thresholds [ ] [ ]
P Xk+ = x|Sk , Xk− = y = P (Bk ∪ Dk )C l(x = y) + P[(Bk ∪ Dk )]fX0 (x)
for IR1 and IR2, named MIR1 and MIR2 , respectively. When the S and D
(1 − ψ (y)) l(x = y) + ψ (y)fX0 (x) ,
phases are combined, the long-run cost rate for the IR policy is found by, =

c∞ (MIR1 , MIR2 , TPR ) =

∑+∞ ( ( ) )
P[Tc = kτ] cp + cu + cf Hk,S + 1 − Hk,S E[CD ] (18)
k=1
∑ +∞ ( ( ) ) .
k=1
P[Tc = kτ] E[TS |TC = kτ] + 1 − Hk,S E[TD ]

where fX0 is the PMF of X after the IR, again found by the convolution
E[CD ] = ci1 E[NIR1 ]+ci2 E[NIR2 ] + cf Qf,D is the expected cost in the D- argument:
phase. E[NIR1 ] and E[NIR2 ] are the expected numbers of IR1 and IR2
within the renewal period, while Qf,D is the probability of failure in the ∑
x
fX0 (x) = fXk− (x − y)⋅ r(y; α, β, μS − x + y ), ∀ x < μS ,
D-phase. TD denotes the duration of the D-phase, i.e., TD = min(TPR , y=0
Tf,D ). TPR is the planned renewal time of the UC and Tf,D is the hard
failure time of the DC in the D-phase. where r(⋅) is the PMF of the IR effect given by Eq. (4).
Let TPR = r τ. The probability that a renewal cycle ends with a hard
3.2.1. Probability calculations for the IR policy failure is given by:
To calculate Qf ,D , E[NIR1 ], E[NIR2 ], and E[TD ], we must find the dis­ ∑
r
tribution of Tf,D . The same notation as in Section 3.1.1 is used here Qf ,D (r) = P[Ak ]. (24)
except for Bk , which in this section denotes the event that IR1 is per­ k=1

formed with MIR2 < x ≤ MIR1 at kτ. Dk denotes that IR2 is performed Eq. (7) still applies for P[Ak ]. Thus, the expected length of the D-phase
with x ≤ MIR2 at kτ. Let ψ (x) be the probability of IR in the time interval is:
((k − 1)τ, kτ] given the degradation level x,
∑
r ∑
r
⎧
⎪ 0 if x > MIR1 E[TD ] = kτ P[TD = k τ] = kτ P[Ak ]. (25)
⎪
⎨ k=1 k=1
ψ (x) = 1 − exp( − λIR1 τ) if MIR2 < x ≤ MIR1 (19)
⎪
⎪ Finally, by combining Eqs. (22), (23), and (24), the expected cost in
⎩
1 − exp( − (λIR1 + λIR2 )τ) if 0 < x ≤ MIR2 . the D-phase, CD , when TPR = r τ is found by,
The probability of events Bk and Dk are, E[CD (r)] = ci1 E[NIR1 (r)] + ci2 E[NIR2 (r)] + cf Qf ,D (r). (26)

The flowchart in Fig. 2 illustrates the calculation procedure for the IR

6
T.I. Pedersen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 237 (2023) 109313

Fig. 2. Flowchart illustrating the calculation procedure for the imperfect repair (IR) policy. If the downstream component is subject to a hard failure, both the
downstream component (DC) and the upstream component (UC) are renewed. The UC’s health indicator (HI), X, is assumed to be equal to the lower control limit
(LCL) when the D-phase is entered. A recursive routine is used to track the evolution of X for every time increment, kτ, in the D-phase. Preventive renewal (PR) of the
UC is performed at a predetermined length of the D-phase (TPR ). An imperfect repair (IR) order is placed if Xk− ≤ MIR1 . If Xk− ≤ MIR2 additional personnel are called
out in order to increase the arrival rate of the IR. Y is the improvement in the HI by performing IR.

7
T.I. Pedersen et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 237 (2023) 109313

policy. paths. The sensor data indicated both temporal and unit-to-unit vari­
ability in the degradation process. However, as parameter estimation is
3.2.2. The IR policy with opportunistic maintenance (OM) not the focus of this paper, only point estimates for the parameters were
When opportunistic maintenance (OM) is introduced to the IR pol­ used.
icy, the length of the D-phase becomes TD = min(TPR + Zτ,Tf,D ). Unlike Because the operator had used a conservative maintenance policy,
the policy presented in Section 3.1.2, where the renewal decision is there were no known examples of failure in the downstream component
based on a degradation threshold, MPR , the renewal decision for the IR (DC) caused by a lack of cooling from the upstream component (UC) in
policy is based on a threshold in the time domain, TPR . This simplifies the the available data. However, based on a physical understanding of the
calculations of the expected length and expected cost of the D-phase system, it is evident that a lack of cooling water flow from the UD in­
when OM is introduced. creases the probability of failure of the DC. Because of this, we had to
The expected length of the D-phase with TPR = r τ and OM is found resort to expert judgments to come up with estimates for the hazard
by: model parameters.
The cost parameters, interarrival time of maintenance windows, and
1 ∑
w− 1
[ ( )]
maintenance delay for IR2 were set based on available maintenance
E[TD |TPR = r τ] = E min TPR + zτ, Tf,D
w z=0 records and company procedures. The cost parameters have been scaled,
(27) but the relative size of these parameters has been retained. The unit for
w− 1 ∑
1 ∑ r+z
the HI of the UC, the cooling water flow, is m3 /h. The sampling rate for
= w kτ P[Ak ].
z=0 k=1 the collected sensor data was one hour and the sensor readings were
specified with two decimal points. This discretization of time, τ = 1
The expected cost in the D-phase with OM can be found in a similar
hour, and the HI, dx = 0.01, proved to give a reasonable trade-off be­
way,
tween accuracy and computational time and was used in the case study.
1 ∑
w− 1
E[CD |TPR = r τ] = E[CD (MIR1 , MIR2 , TPR + zτ)]
w z=0 4.2. The degradation process in the case study

1 ∑ The expected length of the S-phase was found to be 10 324 h, based

w− 1 ∑
r+z
( )
cf P[Ak ] + ci1 P[Bk ] + ci2 P[Dk ] .
= w z=0 k=1
(28)
The long-run cost rate for the IR policy with OM can be found by
using Eq. (27) for the expected length and Eq. (28) for the expected cost
in the D-phase and letting cu = 0 when calculating Eq. (18).
4. Case study
This section presents the application of the proposed policies to the
motivating case study. The estimated parameters for the case study,
shown in Table 2, are based on a combination of available sensor data,
maintenance records, and expert judgments collected from the company
operating the system investigated in this study.
on Eq. (1) and the parameters in Table 2. The change from the S to the D-
phase was, in the case study, defined as the first time the health indicator
was found to be below a defined lower control limit, LCL, for the third
inspection in a row. Based on this, we approximated that X(t =
TC ) ≈ LCL. From inspections of historical degradation paths, such as the
example shown in Fig. 3, we chose to model the degradation of the UC in
the D-phase as an increasing and non-monotonic degradation process
with normally distributed degradation increments. The following func­
tions for the mean and standard deviation of the degradation increments
were used: μ(t) = aμ exp(bμ t) and σ(t) = aσ exp(bσ t) with t = 0 at TC .
Thus, the distribution of the degradation increments in the D-phase, at
time kτ, can be modeled as:
( )
( ) √̅̅̅
Qk ∼ N τ aμ exp bμ (kτ − TC ) , τ aσ exp(bσ (kτ − TC )) , for kτ > TC .

The PMF of Qk is denoted as gk (q) with,

4.1. The parameters used in the case study
gk (q) = Gk (q +0.5 dx) − Gk (q − 0.5 dx). Gk is the cumulative distribution
of the degradation increments at time kτ,
The effect of the imperfect repair (IR), the maintenance delay for IR1,
and the distribution of the S-phase were found using maximum likeli­ Gk (q) = P[q ≤ Q]
( ( ))
hood estimates (MLE) based on available sensor data and maintenance 1 q − μ(kτ − TC )
records. The parameters for the degradation process were also estimated =
2
1 + erf √̅̅̅
σ (kτ − TC ) 2
,
based on available sensor data by using a curve fitting routine based on
the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm on one of the previous degradation √̅̅̅ ∫x
where erf(⋅) is the error function, i.e., erf(x) = (2 / π) exp(− u2 )du . An
0
Table 2
Parameters used in the case study.
Parameters Value

Degradation process
aμ , bμ − 1.7⋅10− 7 , 1.4⋅10− 3

aσ , bσ 0.01, 1.6⋅10− 4
Cost structure
ci1 , ci2 , cu , cp , cf 1, 4, 100, 100, 10 000
Interarrival time of the maintenance windows
w 730
Maintenance delay
λIR1 , λIR2 0.038, 1
Hazard model
λ0 , η, γ 6.3⋅10− 6 , 5.0, 3.8
IR parameters
α, β 1.32, 1.27
S-phase
αW , θW , μs , LCL 2.8, 13 179, 7.80, 7.47
Fig. 3. An example of a degradation path from the industrial dataset.

8
T.I. Pedersen et al.
Fig. 4. The long-run cost rate, c∞ , for the PR policy depending on the threshold
for PR (MPR ). The dotted line represents the PR policy when PR of the UC is
performed immediately at TMPR . The solid line is the PR policy with OM, with w
= 730. LCL is the lower control limit used to detect the shift from the S-phase to
the D-phase.
advantage of using the error function is that there are several fast nu­
merical approximations for this function, which makes it well-suited for
use in the numerical routine.
4.3. Results
A grid search was performed to find the optimal threshold for the
decision variable in the PR policy, with and without OM, using Eq. (5).
The optimal threshold for MPR when PR is performed immediately at
TMPR is 5.27, with a cost rate of 0.01097 (Fig. 4). If the PR is delayed until
the next maintenance window, with w = 730, the long-run cost rate is
minimized by setting MPR > LCL. In other words, the optimal time for
performing the PR is at the first maintenance window that arrives after
TC . Because no unavailability cost is incurred when renewals are per­
formed during maintenance windows, i.e., cu = 0, the optimal cost rate
for the PR policy with OM is 0.00828.
Similarly, a grid search was performed to find the optimal thresholds
for the decision variables for the IR policy using Eq. (18). Fig. 5 shows a
grid plot of the long-run cost rate with the optimal threshold for TPR ,
Fig. 5. Grid plot of the long-run cost rate, c∞ , for the IR policy depending on
the levels of MIR1 and MIR2 . The point at MIR1 = 6.04 and MIR2 = 4.77 marks the
IR thresholds that minimize the long-run cost rate.
9
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 237 (2023) 109313
Fig. 6. The long-run cost rate, c∞ , for the IR policy with the optimal thresholds
for MIR1 and MIR2 . The dotted line represents the policy where PR is performed
immediately at TPR , while the solid line represents the policy with OM, with
w = 730.
depending on MIR1 and MIR2 for the IR policy without OM. For this
policy, the IR thresholds that minimize the long-run cost rate are MIR1 =
6.04 and MIR2 = 4.77, while the level of TPR that minimizes the long-run
cost rate is 7785. For the IR policy with OM, the optimal thresholds for
the decision variables are MIR1 = 6.01, MIR2 = 4.76, and TPR = 6979.
The long-run cost rate for the IR policy without and with OM are
0.01097 and 0.00543, respectively (Fig 6).
When opportunistic maintenance was not used, the difference in the
minimal long-run cost rate between the PR and the IR policy was found
negligible. The reduction in cost rate when using the IR policy is only
(0.01097 − 0.01059)/0.01097 ≈ 3% compared with the PR policy.
However, when OM is introduced, the reduction in cost rate by using the
IR policy is ((8.28 − 5.43)/8.31) ⋅10− 3 ≈ 34%. This exemplifies the
benefit of having the option to perform imperfect repairs so the per­
formance of the UC can be kept in check while waiting for the next
maintenance window to arrive.
4.4. The performance of the proposed numerical procedures
The numerical routines for all four policies were implemented in
Python 3.8.10 with the NumPy 1.20.2 [54] and SciPy 1.7.0 [55] li­
braries. The computational times for finding the expected cost (E[CD ])
and duration (E[TD ]) of the D-phase with the proposed numerical rou­
tines are compared with Monte Carlo (MC) simulations with 104 sample
paths in Table 3. For the PR policy with OM, the numerical procedure
took twice as long time compared to the Monte Carlo simulation due to
Table 3
Comparison of computational times for finding the expected cost and duration of
the D-phase. For the PR policy, the decision variable, MPR = 5.0, was used, and
the numerical routine was evaluated for k ∈ [1, 10 000]. The decision variables,
MIR1 = 6.0, MIR2 = 4.8, and TPR = 8000, were used for the IR policy. The
values presented in Table 2 were used for the remainder of the parameters. The
values in the table are the mean duration based on ten runs on the NTNU IDUNN
computer cluster [56].
Policy Numerical [seconds] MC simulation [seconds] Ratio
PR 3.6 790 219
PR with OM 2017 1061 0.5
IR 28a 1231 44a
IR with OM 33a 1303 39a
a
For the IR policies, the numbers are not entirely comparable because, for the
numerical routine, the expected cost and duration in the D-phase were evaluated
for all values of TPR in the range [1,8000]. In contrast, only TPR = 8000 was
evaluated with the MC simulation.
T.I. Pedersen et al.
the inefficient procedure for separate calculations of the PMF of Xk after
TMPR for each kτ, as presented in Section 3.1.2. Thus, the practical
advantage of using the numerical procedure for this policy is limited
when w is large. However, for the other three policies, considerable
computational time can be saved using the proposed numerical routine
compared to Monte Carlo simulations. For the IR policies, the ratio is not
entirely comparable. For the numerical routine, the expected cost
(E[CD ]) and duration (E[TD ]) of the D-phase were evaluated for each
TPR ∈ [1, 8000] as the routine is recursive. In contrast, only E[CD ] and
E[TD ] at TPR = 8000 were evaluated with the Mont Carlo simulation.
4.5. Further considerations when applying the proposed method
There are several aspects outside the scope of this paper that are
important to take into consideration if the proposed policy is to be
applied. Among these are parameter uncertainty and the choice of
optimization technique. As this study present no novelty in these areas,
we will only present a brief discussion on these aspects in this
subsection.
One way to take parameter uncertainty into account is by doing a
sensitivity analysis. This can be done by calculating how changing each
individual parameter affects the long-run cost rate [57]. The results of
this analysis can be visualized either through spider plots or tornado
diagrams [58] and may help the operator make decisions that take
better account of the parameter uncertainty. Another benefit of such an
analysis is identifying parameters where the parameter uncertainty
should be propagated into the model. As the HI is subject to continuous
monitoring, better estimates of the degradation parameters of an indi­
vidual UC can be found as data from that degradation path becomes
available.
Recently several papers have proposed approaches for adaptive
parameter estimation for non-monotonic degradation processes. In [59],
the drift of a nonlinear Wiener-based degradation process is updated by
taking account of temporal uncertainty and unit-to-unit variability. In
[60], temporal variability in the environmental covariate that affects the
degradation is implemented in a Wiener-based degradation process. A
Bayesian framework is then used for online updating of the parameter
estimates. [61] presents another example of Bayesian updating of
parameter estimation for Wiener-based degradation processes.
With the parameters used in the case study, the cost function appears
unimodal in the plots in Section 4. However, the cost function for the IR
policies may become multimodal because the cost of performing IR can
occur several times within a renewal cycle. If, for instance, the variance
of the degradation process is low, the cost of the IRs will come at almost
the same time for all degradation paths, causing a cost function with
multiple local minima. Because of this, algorithms suitable for multi­
modal optimization problems should be considered when optimizing the
IR policies. See, e.g., [62] for an introduction to numerical optimization
methods.
5. Conclusions
This paper proposes a condition-based maintenance policy (CBM) for
a two-component system subject to two-stage continuous degradation
and hard failure. The policy also includes maintenance delay and
opportunistic maintenance. The numerical procedures for finding the
long-run cost rate for the CBM policies with imperfect repair (IR), pre­
sented in this paper, were found to be considerably faster than Monte
Carlo simulations.
For the specific case study in this paper, the potential cost savings
from using imperfect repair (IR) are substantial when maintenance
windows are available. This exemplifies the potential for cost savings by
combining maintenance modeling and optimization with the inven­
tiveness of frontline personnel to develop maintenance policies tailored
to the maintained system and maintenance capabilities on hand.
In this paper, all model parameters are assumed to be known. A
10
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 237 (2023) 109313
potential direction of further work is to include parameter uncertainty in
the model, as discussed in Section 4.5. Another potential direction of
future work is exploring whether other modeling frameworks can
further reduce the long-run cost rate. In this paper, the maintenance
decisions are based on control limits that are fixed during the renewal
cycle. An advantage of using fixed thresholds is that this makes the
arrival of maintenance activities predictable for the operators. However,
there is probably potential for further reduction of the long-run cost rate
by using frameworks where the maintenance policy can be adapted as
new information arrive in an online manner, e.g., factors such as the
current health state or time to the next maintenance window. An
example of such a framework is the semi-Markov Decision Process.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tom Ivar Pedersen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation,
Writing – original draft, Visualization. Xingheng Liu: Methodology,
Validation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Jørn Vatn: Methodology, Writing – review & editing,
Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgment
This research is a part of BRU21 – NTNU Research and Innovation
Program on Digital and Automation Solutions for the Oil and Gas In­
dustry (www.ntnu.edu/bru21) and the Norwegian Center for Research
based Innovation on Subsea Production and Processing (SUBPRO, www.
ntnu.edu/subpro). The work of the second author is funded by the
Research Council of Norway (SUBPRO, project 237893).
References
[1] Van De Kerkhof RM, Akkermans HA, Noorderhaven NG, Zijm H, Klumpp M,
Clausen U, Ten Hompel M. Knowledge lost in data: organizational impediments to
condition-based maintenance in the process industry. editors. Logistics and supply
chain innovation: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Springer; 2015.
p. 223–37.
[2] Lee J, Wu F, Zhao W, Ghaffari M, Liao L, Siegel D. Prognostics and health
management design for rotary machinery systems—Reviews, methodology and
applications. Mech Syst Signal Process 2014;42:314–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ymssp.2013.06.004.
[3] de Jonge B, Scarf PA. A review on maintenance optimization. Eur J Oper Res 2020;
285:805–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.09.047.
[4] Bokrantz J, Skoogh A, Berlin C, Wuest T, Stahre J. Smart Maintenance: an
empirically grounded conceptualization. Int J Prod Econ 2020;223:107534.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107534.
[5] Veldman J, Klingenberg W, Wortmann H. Managing condition-based maintenance
technology: a multiple case study in the process industry. J Qual Maint Eng 2011;
17:40–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511111116240.
[6] Olde Keizer MCA, Flapper SDP, Teunter RH. Condition-based maintenance policies
for systems with multiple dependent components: a review. Eur J Oper Res 2017;
261:405–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.02.044.
[7] Zio E. The Monte Carlo simulation method for system reliability and risk analysis.
London: Springer; 2013.
[8] Zhu W, Fouladirad M, Bérenguer C. A multi-level maintenance policy for a multi-
component and multifailure mode system with two independent failure modes.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2016;153:50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.03.020.
[9] Si XS, Wang W, Hu CH, Zhou DH, Pecht MG. Remaining useful life estimation
based on a nonlinear diffusion degradation process. IEEE Trans Reliab 2012;61:
50–67. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2011.2182221.
T.I. Pedersen et al.
[10] Wang X, Xu D. An inverse gaussian process model for degradation data.
Technometrics 2010;52:188–97. https://doi.org/10.1198/TECH.2009.08197.
[11] Ye Z-S, Chen N. The inverse Gaussian process as a degradation model.
Technometrics 2014;56:302–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00401706.2013.830074.
[12] van Noortwijk JM. A survey of the application of gamma processes in maintenance.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2009;94:2–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2007.03.019.
[13] Giorgio M, Guida M, Pulcini G. A new class of markovian processes for
deteriorating units with state dependent increments and covariates. IEEE Trans
Reliab 2015;64:562–78. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2015.2415891.
[14] Liu X, Matias J, Jäschke J, Vatn J. Gibbs sampler for noisy transformed Gamma
process: inference and remaining useful life estimation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2022;
217:108084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.108084.
[15] Wang X, Balakrishnan N, Guo B. Residual life estimation based on a generalized
Wiener degradation process. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2014;124:13–23. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ress.2013.11.011.
[16] Guida M, Postiglione F, Pulcini G. A time-discrete extended gamma process for
time-dependent degradation phenomena. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2012;105:73–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.12.016.
[17] Zhang Z, Si X, Hu C, Lei Y. Degradation data analysis and remaining useful life
estimation: a review on Wiener-process-based methods. Eur J Oper Res 2018;271:
775–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.02.033.
[18] Gao H, Cui L, Dong Q. Reliability modeling for a two-phase degradation system
with a change point based on a Wiener process. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2020;193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106601.
[19] Liao G, Yin H, Chen M, Lin Z. Remaining useful life prediction for multi-phase
deteriorating process based on Wiener process. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2021;207:
107361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.107361.
[20] Huynh KT. A hybrid condition-based maintenance model for deteriorating systems
subject to nonmemoryless imperfect repairs and perfect replacements. IEEE Trans
Reliab 2020;69:781–815. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2019.2942019.
[21] Baraldi P, Balestrero A, Compare M, Benetrix L, Despujols A, Zio E. A modeling
framework for maintenance optimization of electrical components based on fuzzy
logic and effective age. Qual Reliab Eng Int 2013;29:385–405. https://doi.org/
10.1002/qre.1388.
[22] Mercier S, Castro IT. On the modelling of imperfect repairs for a continuously
monitored gamma wear process through age reduction. J Appl Probab 2013;50:
1057–76. https://doi.org/10.1239/jap/1389370099.
[23] Ahmadi R. A new approach to modeling condition-based maintenance for
stochastically deteriorating systems. Int J Reliab Qual Saf Eng 2014;21:1450024.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218539314500247.
[24] Ahmadi R. Scheduling preventive maintenance for a nonperiodically inspected
deteriorating system. Int J Reliab Qual Saf Eng 2015;22:1550029. https://doi.org/
10.1142/S0218539315500291.
[25] Deloux E, Dijoux Y, Fouladirad M. Generalization of the proportional hazards
model for maintenance modelling and optimization. Proc Inst Mech Eng O J Risk
Reliab 2012;226:439–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X12448149.
[26] Zhang M, Gaudoin O, Xie M. Degradation-based maintenance decision using
stochastic filtering for systems under imperfect maintenance. Eur J Oper Res 2015;
245:531–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.02.050.
[27] Letot C, Dehombreux P, Fleurquin G, Lesage A. An adaptive degradation-based
maintenance model taking into account both imperfect adjustments and AGAN
replacements. Qual Reliab Eng Int 2017;33:2043–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/
qre.2166.
[28] Zhao X, He S, Xie M. Utilizing experimental degradation data for warranty cost
optimization under imperfect repair. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2018;177:108–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2018.05.002.
[29] Ponchet A, Fouladirad M, Grall A. Maintenance policy on a finite time span for a
gradually deteriorating system with imperfect improvements. Proc Inst Mech Eng
O J Risk Reliab 2011;225:105–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006XJRR349.
[30] Castro IT, Mercier S. Performance measures for a deteriorating system subject to
imperfect maintenance and delayed repairs. Proc Inst Mech Eng O J Risk Reliab
2016;230:364–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X16641789.
[31] Meier-Hirmer C, Riboulet G, Sourget F, Roussignol M. Maintenance optimization
for a system with a gamma deterioration process and intervention delay:
application to track maintenance. Proc Inst Mech Eng O J Risk Reliab 2009;223:
189–98. https://doi.org/10.1243/1748006XJRR234.
[32] Guo C, Wang W, Guo B, Si X. A maintenance optimization model for mission-
oriented systems based on Wiener degradation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2013;111:
183–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.10.015.
[33] Van PD, Bérenguer C. Condition-based maintenance with imperfect preventive
repairs for a deteriorating production system. Qual Reliab Eng Int 2012;28:624–33.
https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.1431.
[34] Nicolai RP, Frenk JBG, Dekker R. Modelling and optimizing imperfect maintenance
of coatings on steel structures. Struct Saf 2009;31:234–44. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.015.
11
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 237 (2023) 109313
[35] Chen Y, Gong W, Xu D, Kang R. Imperfect maintenance policy considering positive
and negative effects for deteriorating systems with variation of operating
conditions. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 2018;15:872–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TASE.2017.2675405.
[36] Do P, Voisin A, Levrat E, Iung B. A proactive condition-based maintenance strategy
with both perfect and imperfect maintenance actions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2015;
133:22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.08.011.
[37] Yashin A, Arjas E. A note on random intensities and conditional survival functions.
J Appl Probab 1988;25:630–5. https://doi.org/10.2307/3213991.
[38] Singpurwalla ND. Survival in dynamic environments. Stat Sci 1995:86–103.
https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177010132.
[39] Finkelstein MS. On the exponential formula for reliability. IEEE Trans Reliab 2004;
53:265–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2004.829164.
[40] Lehmann A. Joint modeling of degradation and failure time data. J Stat Plan
Inference 2009;139:1693–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2008.05.027.
[41] Liu B, Liang Z, Parlikad AK, Xie M, Kuo W. Condition-based maintenance for
systems with aging and cumulative damage based on proportional hazards model.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2017;168:200–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.04.010.
[42] Hu J, Chen P. Predictive maintenance of systems subject to hard failure based on
proportional hazards model. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2020;196:106707. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106707.
[43] Zheng H, Kong X, Xu H, Yang J. Reliability analysis of products based on
proportional hazard model with degradation trend and environmental factor.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2021;216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107964.
[44] Najafi S, Zheng R, Lee CG. An optimal opportunistic maintenance policy for a two-
unit series system with general repair using proportional hazards models. Reliab
Eng Syst Saf 2021;215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107830.
[45] Zheng R, Chen B, Gu L. Condition-based maintenance with dynamic thresholds for
a system using the proportional hazards model. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2020;204:
107123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.107123.
[46] Zheng R, Makis V. Optimal condition-based maintenance with general repair and
two dependent failure modes. Comput Ind Eng 2020;141. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cie.2020.106322.
[47] Zheng R, Wang J, Zhang Y. A hybrid repair-replacement policy in the proportional
hazards model. Eur J Oper Res 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.05.020.
press.
[48] Pedersen TI, Vatn J. Optimizing a condition-based maintenance policy by taking
the preferences of a risk-averse decision maker into account. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
2022;228:108775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.108775.
[49] Rausand M, Barros A, Høyland A. System reliability theory: models, statistical
methods, and applications. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2021.
[50] Moubray J. Reliability-centered maintenance. 2nd ed. New York: Industrial Press;
1997.
[51] Fouladirad M, Grall A, Dieulle L. On the use of on-line detection for maintenance of
gradually deteriorating systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2008;93:1814–20. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.03.020.
[52] Lei Y, Li N, Guo L, Li N, Yan T, Lin J. Machinery health prognostics: a systematic
review from data acquisition to RUL prediction. Mech Syst Signal Process 2018;
104:799–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.11.016.
[53] Wang H. A survey of maintenance policies of deteriorating systems. Eur J Oper Res
2002;139:469–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00197-7.
[54] Harris CR, Millman KJ, van der Walt SJ, Gommers R, Virtanen P, Cournapeau D,
et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature 2020;585:357–62. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2.
[55] Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D, et al.
SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods
2020;17:261–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2.
[56] Själander M., Jahre M., Tufte G., Reissmann N. EPIC: an energy-efficient, high-
performance GPGPU computing research infrastructure. arXiv 2019. https://arxiv.
org/abs/1912.05848.
[57] Howard R, Abbas A. Foundations of decision analysis, global edition. Harlow,
England: Pearson Education Limited; 2016.
[58] Eschenbach TG. Spiderplots versus tornado diagrams for sensitivity analysis.
Interfaces Provid 1992;22:40–6. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.22.6.40.
[59] Yu W, Shao Y, Xu J, Mechefske C. An adaptive and generalized Wiener process
model with a recursive filtering algorithm for remaining useful life estimation.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2022;217:108099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ress.2021.108099.
[60] Xu X, Tang S, Yu C, Xie J, Han X, Ouyang M. Remaining useful life prediction of
lithium-ion batteries based on wiener process under time-varying temperature
condition. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2021;214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ress.2021.107675.
[61] Liu D, Wang S. A degradation modeling and reliability estimation method based on
Wiener process and evidential variable. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2020;202. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.106957.
[62] Nocedal J, Wright S. Numerical optimization. 2nd Ed. New York: Springer; 2006.