Condition Based Maintenance and Degradat

Condition-based maintenance
and degradation models
Author:
K.M.P. (Karin) Pielage
0811447
k.m.p.pielage@student.tue.nl Bachelor Thesis
Applied Mathematics
Supervisor:
Prof. dr. ir. O.J. (Onno) Boxma Eindhoven University
o.j.boxma@tue.nl of Technology
Date:
July 14, 2015
1
Abstract
This report focuses on condition-based and opportunity-based maintenance of
equipment subject to failures and deterioration. These strategies of preventive
maintenance attempt to avoid performing unnecessary maintenance task, by
taking actions only if the equipment reached a certain level of deterioration,
the threshold. A analytic approach was used to determine this level of deterio-
ration for which the costs of maintenance actions during a long period of time
are minimal. Minimizing the costs will lead to less downtime which will results
in both lower costs for maintenance actions but also in more profit from the
production. Several models were investigated by use of both simulation and
analytic models. The probabilities on a breakdown and on opportunities for
maintenance as well as the costs for maintenance are taken into account. When
the probability on a maintenance opportunity becomes larger, the threshold can
be set later. On the other hand, when the probability on a breakdown becomes
larger, this threshold must be set earlier. The analytic model is general, so spe-
cific data is needed to give an optimal advice per situation. Situation-specific,
adding planned maintenance after a certain amount of time will decrease the
costs even more and an optimal time span exist for which the costs are reduced
most.
CONTENTS 2
Contents
I Literature 3
1 Introduction 3
2 Prognostics 4
2.1 Gradual deterioration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Step-wise deterioration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Deterioration process 5
3.1 Markov chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
II Research 9
4 Failure epochs 10
4.1 Fixed time of deterioration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.1 Fixed time of deterioration with planned maintenance . . . . . 14
4.2 Fixed probabilities of deterioration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.1 Fixed probabilities of deterioration with planned maintenance 20
4.3 Distributed time of deterioration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.3.1 Distributed time of deterioration with planned maintenance . 26
5 Simulation and results 29

5.1 Analytic versus simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.2 Discrete versus continuous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3 Optimal planned maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.4 With versus without planned maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6 Conclusion and recommendations 33
References 34
A Fault detection 35
B Analytical and simulation results 37

B.1 Cc =3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.2 Cc =10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
B.3 Cc =100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
B.4 Cc =1000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3
Part I
Literature
The first part of this report will consist of a literature review. This review will be done on
the topic of maintenance of equipment. Multiple articles have been written on this topic
where a lot of them cast a critical eye on the subject. Since the article of Jardine [1] gives
a nice overview and the article of Panagiotidou [2] gives a clear idea of how a degradation
model is built, our survey will focus mainly on these two articles. Another contribution to
this report is the PhD thesis of Zhu [4]. Several maintenance approaches are discussed and
elaborated in that thesis. By combining these three articles, differences between the various
strategies can be exposed. In this report not only condition-based and opportunity-based
maintenance are presented, but also time-based maintenance is taken into consideration.
In Section 1 an introduction to the problem will be given. Section 2 will discuss several
deterioration situations and the one with the main focus in this report will be elaborated
in Section 3. The second part of this report contains own research, based on the literature
in the first three sections. In Section 4 several situations will be discussed and worked out.
Finally, the results of this section are compared to results by simulation in Section 5. The
conclusion and further recommendations are given in Section 6.
1 Introduction
No matter how good a product design is, products will deteriorate over time due to working
under workloads or stress. Eventually this will lead to product failure, a state in which the
equipment is no longer able to work properly. This is called a breakdown. Sooner or later,
maintenance for these products is needed. The easiest way to do so is corrective maintenance
(CM), which only occurs at breakdowns. A more proactive approach is to take preventive
maintenance (PM) actions. This is often cheaper than CM actions. One approach within
these PM actions is time-based preventive maintenance (or predetermined maintenance).
This maintenance is based on historical failure data. Statistical data analysis is used to esti-
mate the age of equipment and the maintenance can be planned based on this information.
Since products have become more complex, this has resulted in higher cost of preventive
maintenance. This has led to the implementation of a more efficient maintenance approach,
namely condition-based maintenance (CBM). CBM is based on, to some degree of accuracy,
appropriate measurements in order to retrieve data on the condition of the equipment. With
use of this condition data, CBM attempts to avoid performing a large number of unnecessary
maintenance tasks, by taking maintenance actions only if the condition of the (components
of) machines has reached a certain level of deterioration.
2 Prognostics 4
Two important aspects of a condition-based maintenance program are diagnostics and prog-
nostics [1]. Diagnostics is very useful in detecting, isolating and identifying faults when they
occur. It is used to indicate whether something is wrong in the system, where the component
that is faulty is located and what the nature of this fault is. This diagnostic information
can be useful for preparing more accurate event data and building a better CBM model
for prognostics. Also diagnostic information is used as feedback information for redesigning
the system. Prognostics deals with fault prediction, a task to determine whether a fault is
expected and to estimate how soon and how likely a fault will present itself. This literature
review will focus mainly on the prognostics of the CBM program.
2 Prognostics
In machine prognostics, there are two main prediction types. The first prognostics is to
predict how much time is left before a failure occurs. This is done based on the condition of
the machine and its historical data. The time that is left before the failure occurs, is called
the remaining useful life (RUL). Another type of prognostics is to predict the probability
that a machine proceeds to work without a fault or a failure up to some future time. The
chance that a machine operates without a fault or a failure until the next inspection, can
be a good indication to determine whether the inspection interval is appropriate or not. In
those intervals, a machine can be in several states.
2.1 Gradual deterioration

One option is to look at the complete deterioration process, with use of a stochastic model.
The system is considered as failed if the condition reaches or exceeds a predetermined failure
level. The aim of this approach is to find an optimal threshold and inspection schedule in
order to minimize the expected costs that are needed for maintenance. With this inspection
schedule there is no prefixed inspection interval, but a non-periodic inspection interval is
assumed. The method that Zhu [4] described also uses this continuous degradation model.
From a certain level H the equipment continues operating in a worse state. Another level
C, C < H is introduced. If C is exceeded then PM is performed at the next maintenance
point. The level C is optimized so that the total costs, capturing the costs of the total
downtime of the equipment during maintenance actions of both PM and CM, are minimized
[4].
2.2 Step-wise deterioration

An easier way to look at this is to fix the number of states. In case of only three states
there is the I-P (Installation - Potential failure) state in which the machine operates without
3 Deterioration process 5
faults or failure. Another state is the P-F (Potential failure - Functional failure) state. In
this state the machine is running with a problem. When the machine switches from the I-P
state to the P-F state in one interval, this means a fault occurred in this interval. It is also
possible that failure occurs when the machine operates in either the I-P or the P-F state.
Then the machine is broken (the third state) and CM is needed. Also in this approach with
a fixed number of states it is likely to use sequential intervals in the inspection schedule.
It is logical that when a machine is in the P-F state at the beginning of the interval, it is
more feasible another fault or failure will occur and therefore it is reasonable to have shorter
inspection intervals in this case. Detecting a fault is done with the help of statistical process
control (SPC) [3].
The intention of using SPC tools is to find changes in the statistical distribution of some
important quality features of the machines. These changes are equivalent to deterioration of
operation due to faulty or defect equipment. One disadvantage of these measurements is that
they are often subject to errors of type I and type II. A type I error detects a fault that is not
present (”false alarm”), while a type II error fails to detect a present fault (”miss error”).
These errors have to be taken into account when estimating the time until maintenance.
3 Deterioration process
This section is primarily based on [2]. This article takes the subject on condition-based
maintenance to proper depth and clarification. The most used method to describe the de-
terioration process is a Markov model. This method is ideal for the situation with a fixed
number of states. The whole machine life is characterized by several quality states and one
failure state.
For an indication of the actual equipment condition a random variable X is used. This
X is normally distributed, with mean µi when the process operates in state i, where µi =
µi−1 + δi σ. Here δi is a constant and σ represents the standard deviation. Also a distribu-
tion for the time to quality shifts and failure can be described. The time (equipment age)
to quality shifts from state i to j is a continuous random variable with its pdf denoted by
fi,j (t). Its cumulative distribution function (cdf) is denoted by Fi,j (t), with complement
F̄i,j (t). The time to failure when operating in state i is a generally distributed continuous
random variable with non-decreasing failure rate. Its pdf is given by ϕi (t) and its cdf is
Φi (t). It is assumed that the time to failure and the time to a quality shift are mutually
independent, so the failure process and the deterioration process of the equipment do not
affect each other. The time to a failure if a quality shift occurs at time tq has a pdf of
ϕi (t)/Φ̄i (tq ). Here Φ̄i is the complement of Φi .
3.1 Markov chain 6
Figure 1: Markov chain of equipment deterioration and maintenance
In Figure 1 it is possible to go from state i to each other state j for j > i corresponding to
fi,j (t). Not all of these probability density functions are displayed in this scheme, but the
lines noted with fi,j (t) along with the dotted lines show some of them. Operating in one of
the n states, the machine may suffer from a catastrophic breakdown and CM is necessary. If
the equipment operates in any of the other states, it is possible that CBM is needed to bring
the equipment back to its as-good-as-new state. All corrective and condition-based mainte-
nance actions are assumed to be perfect, i.e. they restore the equipment to mint condition [2].
3.1 Markov chain

To get a more clear image of how to work with this Markov chain, it is now assumed there
are only two operational states: I-P state, denoted as state 0, and P-F state, denoted as
state 1. The equipment is exposed to quality shifts from the better operating state 0 to the
worse operating state 1. It is assumed that the equipment operates in state 0 at t0 and both
PM and CM bring the equipment back to an effective equipment age t = 0.
Sample measurements of X are taken to describe the characteristics of the distribution.

The sample size is n. The sample mean X̄ is computed and plotted on a control chart with
the upper control limit (UCL) and the lower control limit (LCL). These control limits are
3.2 Probabilities 7
chosen so that almost all of the data points will fall within
√ these limits as long as the process
remains in-control and they are defined by µ0 ± kσ/ n. k is a control limit parameter and
is, just as sample size n, a decision variable. If the sample mean falls outside these limits, it
indicates that probably the mean of X changes and a quality shift has occurred.
√ With this
√ in-
formation α and β can be computed from α = 2Φ(−k) and β = Φ(k−δ/ n)−Φ(−k−δ/ n),
where Φ stands for the cdf of the normal standard distribution. The derivation of α and β
can be found in Appendix A.
The probabilities are denoted as follows:
pN
ti Probability that the equipment operates in state N immediately after the inspection
at ti where N ∈ {0, 1, 2}
pi,j Probability that the equipment changes from state i to state j in one interval
α Type I error probability
β Type II error probability
There are several occurrences that can take place in one inspection interval, which is shown
in Table 3.1.
From Table 3.1 it is clear that only in case (i) the equipment operates in state 0 at time
ti . CBM is not needed, but the inspection will call false alarm with probability α. In this
case, the equipment will start interval (ti , ti+1 ) in state 0 with certainty. In cases (iii) and
(v) the equipment operates in state 1 at the end of the interval. With probability 1 − β the
fault will be detected and the equipment starts the next interval at state 0. There is also a
chance that the fault is not detected. This happens with probability β and the machine will
start the next sampling interval operating in inferior state. In the cases (ii), (iv) and (vi)
the equipment encountered a breakdown and CM is necessary. A new production cycle will
start, where the equipment operates in the as-good-as-new-state again.
Note that for j < i it holds that pi,j = 0, except for j = 0, i = 1. Since CBM takes place it
holds that pi,j = 1 − β + α. Either CBM takes place if the fault is present and is detected
(1 − β), or when a fault is not present but is ’detected’ (α). Another exception is when
j = 0, i = 2, in this case the equipment underwent CM and will return to state 0 with
probability 1.
3.2 Probabilities
Not all of the functions and explicit probabilities for each of these cases will be addressed in
this section. Only case (i) will be worked out here, the probabilities for the other cases can
3.2 Probabilities 8
Table 3.1: Possible Events in an Inspection Interval
Quality state at ti−1 Event Case
0 (i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
1 (v)
(vi)
be found in the article of Panagiotidou [2].
For case (i) the situation is as follows: given that the equipment was operating in state
0 at ti−1 , the equipment reaches ti in state 0 if neither a quality shift nor a failure occurs
in interval (ti−1 , ti ). The probability that no quality shift occurs given that the equipment
operates in state 0 is
P [X ≥ ti ∧ X ≥ ti−1 ] P [X ≥ ti ] F̄ (ti )
P [X ≥ ti |X ≥ ti−1 ] = = = (3.1)
P [X ≥ ti−1 ] P [X ≥ ti−1 ] F̄ (ti−1 )
9
where X stands for the time to a quality shift in state 0. The probability that no failure will
occur in (ti−1 , ti ) when operating in state 0 can be computed similarly:
P [Y ≥ ti ∧ Y ≥ ti−1 ] P [Y ≥ ti ] Φ̄0 (ti )

P [Y ≥ ti |Y ≥ ti−1 ] = = = (3.2)
P [Y ≥ ti−1 ] P [Y ≥ ti−1 ] Φ̄0 (ti−1 )
where Y is the time to failure while operating in state 0. Combining equation (3.1) and (3.2)
leads to the following probability:
F̄ (ti ) Φ̄0 (ti )

p0,0 = · . (3.3)
F̄ (ti−1 ) Φ̄0 (ti−1 )
As said before, the (calculation of the) probabilities of the cases (ii) to (vi) can be found in [2].
There are many options to make a degradation model for condition-based maintenance.
The goal of all of these models is to reduce the costs of the maintenance over a period of
time. However, these costs depend strongly on the distribution of the times to quality shifts
and failures. Also, the costs of preventive and corrective maintenance is of great importance.
In the following section, several models will be discussed and the influence of the parameters
mentioned above is investigated.
Part II
Research
In the previous section all components were looked at separately. Maintenance actions were
performed for that particular component if the condition was in such a bad state that PM or
even CM was needed. Only one component at a time was taken into consideration. In order
to reduce the cost of maintenance actions, in particular the out-of-service-time of a machine,
it may be useful to perform maintenance actions on multiple components of a machine at the
same time. This is where opportunity-based maintenance (OBM) is addressed. This focuses
on the opportunities to perform maintenance on one component if another component (or
multiple components) is already out of service due to maintenance. If done properly, this will
save time to perform these maintenance actions. This leads to less out-of-service-time for
the components and along with lower costs for preventive maintenance instead of corrective
maintenance the approach of OBM is likely to reduce the costs. In the following section
OBM will be elaborated upon in order to determine the cheapest strategy of maintenance
actions.
4 Failure epochs 10
4 Failure epochs
For the following models n + 1 states will be regarded. In this case state 0 is the state in
which the equipment works perfectly and state N means failure. To start relatively easily,
it is assumed that the equipment can only deteriorate one step at a time. This means it
is not possible for the equipment that a failure occurs while operating in any of the states
{0, 1, ..., N − 2}, but only when the equipment operates in state N − 1. In this setting the
deterioration of one component (component 1) of a machine as well as the deterioration of
the other components all together are regarded. For the rest (R) the deterioration process
is not taken into account. Only the failure epochs are taken into consideration. When this
occurs the components of the rest will be sent in for CM. Depending on its state, it will be
decided whether it is beneficial for component 1 to perform PM at that same time or to wait
until the next failure of R. In the second case there is a risk that failure occurs earlier for
component 1 than for the other components. It had then been useful if PM was performed
on component 1 the previous time. It is likely that there is an optimal state D for which
it is beneficial to perform PM on component 1 if it operates in state {D, D + 1, ..., N − 1}.
If component 1 operates in state {0, 1, ..., D − 1} it is not profitable to perform PM on this
component. This is called a threshold strategy. Now the question arises whether the optimal
strategy is a threshold strategy. However, this will not be discussed in this report since this
will need more background theory.
To find an optimal threshold strategy for this decision model it is useful to look at the
total costs and to minimize these. It is logical that the costs for corrective maintenance (Cc )
are higher than the costs for preventive maintenance (Cp ).This is due to the fact that there
are probably more faults that need to be fixed. Also the higher number of faults leads to
a longer downtime for the component which results in a longer operational delay and in-
come is missed. Therefore Cc > Cp . The goal is to find a threshold strategy where the total
costs (TC) are minimal. The objective is to determine Min E[T C] for a particular time span.
In figure 2 three models are displayed. These models correspond to the following sections.
For the first model a fixed time of deterioration for component 1 and a fixed probability of
failure for R are taken into account. The second model uses a fixed probability for both the
deterioration of component 1 and the failure rate of R. The last model is continuous. Both
component 1 and R follow a distribution.
4.1 Fixed time of deterioration

The first model is based on a fixed time for component 1 to undergo a quality shift. This
time is set on one day, so every day the component has a quality shift and will go from state
m to state m + 1. In this case discrete time is used. This means one time step corresponds
4.1 Fixed time of deterioration 11
Figure 2: Different models for the threshold strategy
to one day. For R it holds that there is a fixed probability q of failure. This means that
R ∼ Geo(q). In this report the standard time unit will be a day, but any other time unit
can be used instead of this.
Figure 3: Markov chain for deterioration
The day after component 1 reaches state N , it will start a new cycle in perfect state after
the component needed CM. It is assumed that PM as well as CM are repaired between the
days. So if PM and/or CM was performed on component 1 and/or R after day k, both pieces
of equipment will start in perfect state on day k + 1. X will be denoted as the number of
days that have passed without failure until the occurrence of a failure for R. So P (X = i)
means that a failure occurs for R on day i + 1. Since component 1 has a quality shift each
day it means that this failure occurs while component 1 was operating in state i.
There are two possible cycles for component 1 for which it will need maintenance. The
first possibility is that no failure occurs for R before component 1 reaches state N . A failure
will occur before an opportunity for PM has occurred. In this case component 1 needs CM
at the end of its cycle to start a new cycle in perfect state. The other possibility is that an
opportunity for PM does occur. This will happen if R has a failure epoch while component
1 was operating in state {D, D + 1, .., N − 1}. PM is needed if, from the day component
1 reached state D, a failure occurs within N − D − 1 days. CM will be performed if no
failure occurs in the first N − D − 1 days. This can be done since a geometric distribution
is memoryless.
For one cycle of component 1 these are the probabilities for PM and CM [4]:
P (P M ) = P (D ≤ X ≤ N − 2) P (CM ) = P (X ≥ N − 1)
= P (0 ≤ X ≤ N − D − 2) = P (X ≥ N − D − 1)
NX
−D−2 ∞
X
= P (X = i) = P (X = i)
i=0 (4.1) i=N −D−1 (4.2)
NX
−D−2 X∞
= (1 − q)i · q = (1 − q)i · q
i=0 i=N −D−1
N −D−1 N −D−1
= 1 − (1 − q) , = (1 − q) .
This can be explained by the fact that the probability of a failure before a quality shift is q.
So no failure before the end of the day has probability 1 − q. Since CM is performed when
no failure occurs for N − D − 1 days, the probability of CM is (1 − q)N −D−1 . After N − D − 1
days it does not matter whether a failure or a quality shift occurs. This means that after the
N − D − 1th day CM is certainly needed. A quality shift certainly occurs the day after and,
additionally, a failure can occur on top of that. Either CM or PM must be performed in one
cycle so P (P M ) + P (CM ) = 1 and this leads to P (P M ) = 1 − P (CM ) = 1 − (1 − q)N −D−1 .
With the probabilities of PM and CM, the expected costs for one cycle (Ccycle ) can be com-
puted as follows:
E[Ccycle ] = Cp · P (P M ) + Cc · P (CM )
= Cp · (1 − (1 − q)N −D−1 ) + Cc · (1 − q)N −D−1 (4.3)
N −D−1
= Cp + (Cc − Cp ) · (1 − q) .
When computing the total costs for one cycle of component 1, also the expected length of
one cycle (E[Lcycle ]) must be regarded. It is known that component 1 survives the first D
days without any problems. After these days, the probability that component 1 survives a
day before a failure occurs is regarded. The length of a cycle is no longer than N days. The
length of one cycle is given by
NX
−D−1
E[Lcycle ] = D + P (X = i) · (i + 1) + (N − D) · P (X > N − D − 1)
i=0
NX
−D−1
=D+ (1 − q)i · q · (i + 1) + (N − D) · (1 − q)N −D (4.4)
i=0
1 − (1 − q)N −D + Dq
= .
q
By combining equations (4.3) and (4.4), the expected cost rate of component 1 is obtained by
E[T C] = E[Ccycle ]/E[Lcycle ]

(4.5)

Cp + (Cc − Cp )(1 − q)−D+N −1 q
= .
1 − (1 − q)N −D + Dq
The objective function for optimization is defined as

Cp + (Cc − Cp )(1 − q)−D+N −1 q
min (4.6)
D 1 − (1 − q)N −D + Dq
s.t. 0 ≤ D < N.
The result of the optimizing of this function is likely to depend on the different values of
Cp , Cc and q. It can not be seen very easily whether this function is monotonic decreasing
or increasing and whether the objective function has a minimum value for a specific D and
what this D will be. To get an insight, Table 4.1 below contains results for different values of
Cc and q, where the costs for preventive maintenance are fixed at Cp = 1. For these values,
the D is given for which the total costs are minimal. For these results N = 5 is used.
In Figure 4 the optimal state D is shown for different values of q and Cc . The first thing that
can be seen is that there is no general D for which the total costs are minimal independent
of the probability of failure for R and the costs for corrective maintenance. One can also see
that the value D is always 4 when Cc = 1 = Cp . This seems logical; since it does not matter
in costs whether CM or PM is performed, it is best to wait as long as possible. Also, when
the probability of a failure is 1, for D = 3 the cost are the lowest. Since each day a failure
occurs for R, one can wait until component 1 reaches state 4 the day after and then PM can
be performed with certainty.
Another thing that is noticed is that when the costs for CM become larger, it is better
to try to perform CM as early as possible. So the optimal state D will be earlier when
Cc becomes larger. The last thing that is striking it that when the probability of a failure
becomes smaller, the earlier the optimal state D becomes. Also, the larger the probability
Cc
1 3 10 100 1000
q D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs
0.1 4 0.200 1 0.554 0 1.686 0 16.106 0 160.300
0.2 4 0.200 1 0.512 0 1.394 0 12.360 0 122.022
0.3 4 0.200 2 0.473 0 1.140 0 8.932 0 86.856
0.4 4 0.200 2 0.434 1 0.927 0 5.999 0 56.589
0.5 4 0.200 2 0.400 1 0.739 0 3.710 0 32.742
0.6 4 0.200 2 0.371 1 0.601 0 2.143 0 16.110
0.7 4 0.200 2 0.348 1 0.514 0 1.264 0 6.380
0.8 4 0.200 2 0.333 2 0.420 1 0.797 0 2.080
0.9 4 0.200 3 0.293 2 0.350 1 0.521 1 0.947
1.0 4 0.200 3 0.250 3 0.250 3 0.250 3 0.250
Table 4.1: Optimal state D with corresponding costs
on a failure (the larger q), the lower the costs are.
In Figure 5 a plot is made for costs corresponding to different values of D. In this situ-
ation q is fixed at q = 0.7 and Cc = 3. This q is just chosen randomly, but it has the
purpose of showing that in most cases for a chosen q there is a state D for which the costs
are minimal. The plot shows that the function for E[T C] does have a minimum.
4.1.1 Fixed time of deterioration with planned maintenance

This situation is similar to the situation in the previous section except for one thing. In this
section planned maintenance is also taken into account. After K days from the beginning of
a new cycle PM will be performed. If PM or CM is already performed prior to K days, the
planned maintenance will not be performed in that cycle. Only if neither PM or CM was
performed prior to K days, after K days the planned maintenance will be performed. The
costs of this planned maintenance will be equal to the costs of preventive maintenance.
Since in the previous situation the maximum number of days of a cycle N was equal to
the number of states, it can be easily seen that if K ≥ N , the number of ’reachable’ states
stays N . The cycle will still last no longer than N days, since in day N component 1 will,
in the worst case, reach state N . If K < N , then K is the maximum number of days that
can be reached, but than CM will never be performed.
Therefore, if K < N , the equations will change. If K ≥ N the equations will remain
Figure 4: Plot for the optimal state D with Figure 5: Plot for the costs for each D
a fixed time of deterioration where q = 0.7 and Cc = 3
as they were. For K < N the equations become as follows, where L stands for the length of
the cycle in days:
(
(1 − q)j−D−1 · q if D + 1 < j < K
P (L = j) = (4.7)
(1 − q)K−D−1 if j = K
P (P M ) = 1, (4.8) P (CM ) = 0. (4.9)
E[Ccycle ] = Cp .
(P
K−1
j=D+1 (1 − q)j−D−1 · q · j + K · (1 − q)K−D−1 if D < K − 1
E[Lcycle ] = (4.11)
K if D = K − 1
Cp
E[T C] = . (4.12)
E[Lcycle ]
This means that the results for this new function do not depend on Cc since CM will never
be performed. Moreover, since PM will always be performed, it is best to keep the cycle
as long as possible and this is done by taking D = K − 1, where the cycle length always
becomes K and the costs will be K1 for Cp = 1. For K = 4 if N = 5 leads to the lowest
costs. If Cc > Cp it is therefore useful to use planned maintenance for K = N − 1 to reduce
the costs the most.
4.2 Fixed probabilities of deterioration 16
4.2 Fixed probabilities of deterioration

For the next model a probability p is used for the chance of a quality shift occurring for
component 1. So for each day the following holds: pm,m+1 = p and pm,m = 1 − p for
m ∈ {0, 1, .., N − 1} for component 1 and pf ailure = q for the other components. Now PM
is performed when component 1 operates in one of the states {D, D + 1, .., N − 1}. So com-
ponent 1 has experienced between D and N − 1 quality shifts before a failure epoch takes
place for R. On the other hand, CM will be needed if N quality shifts took place before an
opportunity for CM occurs, i.e. before a failure occurs for R. In both cases it is possible that
a failure epoch occurred but component 1 had not yet reached state D, so it was unnecessary
to perform PM.
The probability of a failure for R before exactly one quality shift for component 1 after
already D quality shifts is denoted by P (X < YD ) where YD stands for the time it takes
until a quality shift when component 1 operates in state D and X stands for the time it
takes for a failure to happen for R. For the time to a quality shift the following holds:
Yx ∼ Geo(p), so with probability p component 1 has a quality shift. The probability of a
failure while component 1 operates in state D is given below.
P (X ≤ YD ) = 1 − P (YD < X)
X∞
=1− (1 − p)j−1 · p · (1 − q)j
j=1
∞
X
= 1 − (1 − q) · p · ((1 − p)(1 − q))j−1
j=1
1
= 1 − (1 − q) · p ·
p + q − pq
p(1 − q)
=1−
p + q − pq
This leads to an expression for the probability that a failure occurs when component 1 op-
erates in state D + 1. This means that component 1 has ’survived’ state D, so X > YD .
p(1−q)
In the equation above it is shown that P (YD < X) = p+q−pq . Since the geometric distri-
bution is memoryless, also the probability P (YD + YD+1 < X) can be computed. First, for
X it must hold that X > YD and after this X is as good as new and X > YD+1 . This leads to
!2
p(1 − q)
P (YD + YD+1 < X) = . (4.13)
p + q − pq
!2
p(1 − q)
P (X ≤ YD + YD+1 ) = 1 − . (4.14)
p + q − pq
But it is also known that X > YD . So this must be included in the equation.
P (YD < X ≤ YD + YD+1 ) = P (X ≤ YD + YD+1 ) − P (X ≤ YD )
!2 !
p(1 − q) p(1 − q)
=1− − 1−
p + q − pq p + q − pq (4.15)
! !2
p(1 − q) p(1 − q)
= − .
p + q − pq p + q − pq
It is desirable to make this probability more generic. This leads to the following probability
of failure if component 1 operates in state D + i.
P (YD + ... + YD+i−1 < X ≤ YD + ... + YD+i )
= P (X ≤ YD + ... + YD+i ) − P (X ≤ YD + ... + YD+i−1 )
!i+1 ! !i !
p(1 − q) p(1 − q)
= 1− − 1− (4.16)
p + q − pq p + q − pq
!i !i+1
p(1 − q) p(1 − q)
= −
p + q − pq p + q − pq
It is useful to have an indicator (F ) for the state that component 1 operates in when a failure
for R occurs. The probability of a failure when component 1 operates in state D + i is given
by P (F = i). This is then defined by
!i !i+1
p(1 − q) p(1 − q)
P (F = i) = − (4.17)
p + q − pq p + q − pq
PM is needed if F = i for i ∈ {0, 1, .., N − D − 1}. What happened to R before component
1 reached state D is of no importance in this case. This first option is that a failure occurs
when component 1 operates in state D. So the probability of PM is given by
NX
−D−2
P (P M ) = P (F = i)
i=0
NX
−D−2
!i !i+1
p(1 − q) p(1 − q)
= − (4.18)
i=0
p + q − pq p + q − pq
!N −D−1
p(1 − q)
=1− .
p + q − pq
Either PM or CM is needed, so
!N −D−1
p(1 − q)
P (CM ) = . (4.19)
p + q − pq
Also this probability on CM is quite easy to see. The probability that R survives one quality
p(1−q)
shift was p+q−pq . So the probability is the probability that R survives N − D − 1 quality
p(1−q) N −D−1

shifts and this is P (CM ) = p+q−pq . And again P (P M ) = 1 − P (CM ).
Similar to the previous section, the expected costs cycle can be computed by
!N −D−1 ! !N −D−1
(1 − p)q (1 − p)q
= Cp · 1 − + Cc ·
1 − pq 1 − pq (4.20)
!N −D−1
(1 − p)q
= Cp + (Cc − Cp ) ,
1 − pq
The expected time component 1 spends in state i for i ∈ {0, 1, .., D − 1} is independent
of failures for R, while the expected time in state i for i ∈ {D, ..., N − 1} involves the
probabilities on a failure. E[Yi ] for i ∈ {0, 1, .., N − 1} is given below.
(
1
if 0 ≤ i < D
E[Yi ] = p 1
(4.21)
1−(1−p)(1−q)
if D ≤ i ≤ N − 1
D
The average number of days until state D is reached is equal to p
.
NX−D−1
D i+1 N −D
E[Lcycle ] = +· P (F = i) · + P (F ≥ N − D) ·
p i=0
1 − (1 − p)(1 − q) 1 − (1 − p)(1 − q)
NX−D−1
! i ! i+1 !
D p(1 − q) p(1 − q) i+1
= + − ·
p i=0
p + q − pq p + q − pq 1 − (1 − p)(1 − q)
!N −D
p(1 − q) N −D
+ ·
p + q − pq 1 − (1 − p)(1 − q)
N −D
p−pq
D 1 − p(−q)+p+q
= +
p q
(4.22)
Again the equation below holds:

N −D−1
p−pq
pq Cp + (Cc − Cp ) p(−q)+p+q (4.23)
= N −D .
p−pq
Dq + p − p p(−q)+p+q
The objective function to optimize is as follows:

N −D−1
p−pq
pq Cp + (Cc − Cp ) p(−q)+p+q
min N −D . (4.24)
D p−pq
Dq + p − p p(−q)+p+q
s.t. 0 ≤ D < N
Again the optimal D is likely to depend on Cp , Cc , p and q. Cp = 1 and N = 5 are fixed
again. For different values of Cc plots are made with p and q as variables. These plots are
shown in Figure 7. Figure 6 shows that also this function for E[T C] has a minimum.
Figure 6: Plot for the costs for each D where p = 0.3, q = 0.7 and Cc = 3
For Cc = 1 the costs were minimal when D = 4 in all cases, which is also logical again.
One can also see that when the costs for corrective maintenance increase, more situations
are optimal for an earlier state D. For large q and small p, i.e. the probability of a failure
is large and the probability of a quality shift is small, the threshold D can be set later. If
either q becomes smaller or p becomes larger, the optimal state D becomes earlier. For both
small q and large p it is better to fix D even earlier. A table with the exact values from the
plots and the corresponding costs can be found in Appendix B.
(a) Plot for Cc = 3 (b) Plot for Cc = 10
(c) Plot for Cc = 100 (d) Plot for Cc = 1000
Figure 7: Plot for the optimal state D with a fixed probability of deterioration and different
values for Cc
4.2.1 Fixed probabilities of deterioration with planned maintenance

For this case it is better to look at the probabilities for the length of a cycle, since it is known
that the maximum length is K. It is assumed that K > D. Within the first D days it is not
possible that the cycle ends, since component 1 will not have reached state D earlier than
D days.
What makes this situation difficult is that the day that component 1 reaches state D, deter-
mines the number of days on which a failure must not occur until the occurence of a failure.
(One can see this in the situation where D = 1.) An example will be given below. In this
example N = 2 and K = 4 will be fixed. This leads to the following equations for D = 0,
where L represents the length of the cycle:
P (L = 1) = P (component 1 in state 0 when failure)

+ P (component 1 in state 1 when failure)
(4.25)
= ((1 − p) · q) + (p · q)
=q

+ P (component 1 reaches state N = 2)
= (1 − p)(1 − p)(1 − q)q (4.26)
+ (1 − p)(p)(1 − q)q + p(1 − p)(1 − q)q
+ (p · p(1 − q)q + p · p(1 − q)(1 − q))
= (q − 1) p2 (q − 1) − q


= (1 − p)3 (1 − q)2 q
(4.27)
+ (1 − p)2 p(1 − q)2 q + (1 − p)p(1 − p)(1 − q)2 q + p(1 − p)2 (1 − q)2 q
+ p(1 − p)p(1 − q)2 q + p(1 − p)p(1 − q)3
+ (1 − p)p2 (1 − q)2 q + (1 − p)p2 (1 − q)3
= (q − 1)2 p2 (2p(q − 1) − 3q + 2) + q

P (L = 4) = 1 − (P (L = 1) + P (L = 2) + P (L = 3))
(4.28)
= (p − 1)2 (2p + 1)(1 − q)3
4.3 Distributed time of deterioration 22
For D = 1 the equations are as follows:

(4.29)
= (p(1 − p)q) + (p2 (1 − q) + p2 · q)
= p(p + q − pq)

= p(1 − p)2 (1 − q)q + (1 − p)p(1 − p)q
(4.30)
+ (1 − p)p2 (1 − q)q + (1 − p)p2 · q
+ p(1 − p)p(1 − q)q + p(1 − p)p(1 − q)2
= (p − 1)p(p(q − 1) + (q − 2)q)
P (L = 4) = 1 − (P (L = 2) + P (L = 3))
(4.31)
= (1 − p)(p(p(q − 1) + (q − 3)q + 1) + 1)
One can see in equation (4.30) for P (component 1 in state 1 when failure) that it makes a
difference if a quality shift occured on the first day (then one time no failure must occur
before the ocuurence of a failure) or on the second day (then a failure must occur immediaely
in the day after this happens). This made it hard, and in this amount of time not possible,
to come up with a general equation for this situation with planned maintenance. Results for
this section will be determined by use of simulation and can be found in Appendix B.
4.3 Distributed time of deterioration

The deterioration of the components does not follow a discrete distribution in real life. It
is more logical to look at the model with continuous distributions for component 1 and R.
It appeared that the Poisson distribution with parameter λ fits the deterioration of R quite
well. So X ∼ P oi(λ). T is called the time until the first failure from the instant component
1 reaches state D. Since the inter arrival time for a Poisson distribution is exponentially
distributed with parameter λ it holds that T ∼ Exp(λ). An exponential distribution is
memoryless so the number of failures before component 1 reaches state D can be discarded.
The deterioration of component 1 can be described by an exponential distribution. The time
spent in state i is given by Yi and Yi is distributed with Yi ∼ Exp(µ).The number of quality
shifts per day can also be regarded now. This is called S and is distributed with S ∼ P oi(µ).
The probability of a quality shift happening before a failure and the probability of a failure
before a quality shift are given by

µ
P (Yi < T ) =
µ+λ
λ (4.32)
P (T < Yi ) =
µ+λ
Since the failures before component 1 reached state D do not matter, only YD , ..., YN −1 will
be regarded in further calculations. Since P (Yi < T ) is known, also the probabilities for
a failure after two or more quality shift can be computed. The Poisson distribution and
exponential distribution have some useful characteristics, e.g. the memorylessness, that will
be used. The probabilities are given below.
µ 2
P (T > YD + YD+1 ) = (4.33)
µ+λ
In general it holds that
µ i+1
P (T > YD + ... + YD+i ) = . (4.34)
µ+λ
Now, it is also possible to compute the probability on exactly i quality shifts before a failure.
This means a failure occurs while component 1 is operating in state D + i. i quality shifts
have occurred and the following event must be a failure. The probability of this happening
is shown below.
P (F = i) = P (YD + ... + YD+i−1 < T < YD + ... + YD+i )
µ i λ (4.35)
= ·
µ+λ µ+λ
Knowing all probabilities leads to P (P M ) and P (CM ) as follows:

NX
−D−1
P (P M ) = P (F = i)
i=0
NX
−D−1
µ i λ
= ·
i=0
µ+λ µ+λ
N −D
µ
λ µ+λ
−1
= ·
µ+λ µ
−1
µ+λ
N −D (4.36)
µ
λ µ+λ
−1
= ·
µ+λ −λ
µ+λ
µ N −D
=1−
µ+λ
µ N −D
P (CM ) =
µ+λ
µ
The probability of one quality shift before a failure is µ+λ , so the probability of N −D quality
µ
N −D
shifts before a failure is P (CM ) = µ+λ . The expected cost for one cycle is given by
µ N −D µ N −D
= Cp · 1 − + Cc ·
µ+λ µ+λ (4.37)
µ N −D
= Cp + (Cc − Cp ) ,
µ+λ
For the calculation of the expected length it is important to notice a few things:
• E[Yi ] = µ1 . This time is needed for each of the first D states, where possible failures
for R do not affect the length of one cycle for component 1.
• Another characteristic of the exponential distribution is that for T ∼ Exp(λ) and

Yi ∼ Exp(µ) it holds that min(Yi , T ) ∼ Exp(µ + λ). This leads to the expected length
1
when T < Yi as follows: E[min(Yi , T )] = µ+λ
NX
−D−1
D i+1 N −D
E[Lcycle ] = + P (F = i) · + P (F ≥ N − D) ·
µ i=0
µ+λ µ+λ
NX
−D−1
D µ i λ i + 1 µ N −D N − D
= + · · + · (4.38)
µ i=0
µ + λ µ + λ µ + λ µ + λ µ+λ
N −D !
1 µ
= · Dλ + µ − µ
λµ λ+µ
This leads to the following equation for the total costs per day:

N −D
µ
λµ (Cc − Cp ) λ+µ + Cp (4.39)
= N −D
µ
Dλ + µ − µ λ+µ
Figure 8: Plot for the costs for each D where µ = 0.3, λ = 0.7 and Cc = 3
Again Cp = 1 and N = 5 are fixed. The plots for a distributed time of deterioration in Figure
9 have the same characteristics as the plots for the fixed probabilities of deterioration. A
difference in the time it takes for optimal state D to become 1 occurs between this section
and the previous one. Although in this situation it is not as clear as before, but Figure 8
shows that a minimum exists for these values, and probably also for other values of λ, µ and
Cc .
(a) Plot for Cc = 3 (b) Plot for Cc = 10
(c) Plot for Cc = 100 (d) Plot for Cc = 1000
Figure 9: Plot for the total costs with a distributed time of deterioration
4.3.1 Distributed time of deterioration with planned maintenance

Since this will become a more difficult part, a relatively simple example will be given to
get an insight. In this example N is fixed to N = 2. For D = 1 we have the following
situation,where L represents the length of the cycle:
P (L = K) = P (Component 1 in state 0 without failure)

+ P (Component 1 in state 1 without failure)
Z K
(4.40)
=e −µK
+ µe−µt · e−µ(K−t) · e−λ(K−t) dt
0
µ
=e −µK
+ e−µK (1 − e−λK )
λ
P (L ∈ (v, v + dv) < K)

= P (Component 1 in state 1 when failure) + P (Component 1 reaches state N =2)
Z v Z v
= µe · e
−µt −µ(v−t)
· λe −λ(v−t)
dv dt + µe−µt · µe−µ(v−t) · e−λ(v−t) dv dt
0 0
2
µ −µv
= µe−µv (1 − e−λv )dv + e (1 − e−λv )dv
λ
µ2 −µv
= (1 − e−λv )(µ + )e dv
λ
(4.41)
K
µ2 −µv
Z
P (L < K) = (1 − e−λv )(µ + )e dv
0 λ
(4.42)
µ2 1 1 −(λ+µ)K 1 1
= (µ + )(− e−µK + e + − )
λ µ λ+µ µ λ+µ
Now P (L = K) + P (L < K) = 1.
CM will only be performed if component 1 reaches state N before a failure occurs and if this
happens within K days. So
P (CM ) = P (Component 1 reaches state N =2 before a failure and within K days)
Z K 2
µ −µv
= e (1 − e−λv )dv
0 λ (4.43)
2
µ µ
= (1 − e−µK ) − (1 − e−(λ+µ)K ),
λ λ(λ + µ)
and
µ µ2
P (P M ) = 1 − ( (1 − e−µK ) − (1 − e−(λ+µ)K )). (4.44)
λ λ(λ + µ)
Then the expected costs per cycle can be calculated:
µ µ2 (4.45)
= Cp + (Cc − Cp ) · (1 − e−µK ) − (1 − e−(λ+µ)K ) .
λ λ(λ + µ)
K
µ2 −µv
Z
E[Lcycle ] = (1 − e−λv )(µ + )e · v dv + P (L = K) · K
0 λ
(4.46)
−(λ + µ)2 eKλ + λ(λ + 2µ)eK(λ+µ) + µ2

e−K(λ+µ)
= .
λµ(λ + µ)
If the limit K → ∞ is taken, planned maintenance would not take place. The equation
becomes
1 1
E[Lcycle ] = + . (4.47)
µ λ+µ
This makes sense, since µ1 is the time needed to reach state D = 1. Then 1
λ+µ
time is needed
for either a failure or another quality shift.
For D = 0 the equations are somewhat different:

P (L = K) = P (Component 1 in state 0 without failure)
+ P (Component 1 in state 1 without failure)
Z K
(4.48)
=e e
−µK −λK
+ µe−µt · e−µ(K−t) · e−λK dt
0
= e−µK e−λK + e−(µ+λ)K Kµ
P (L ∈ (v, v + dv) < K)

= P (Component 1 in state 0 when failure) + P (Component 1 in state 1 when failure)
+ P (Component 1 reaches state N =2)
Z v Z v
= λe e−λv −µv
+ µe · e
−µt −µ(v−t)
· λe dv dt +
−λv
µe−µt · µe−µ(v−t) · e−λv dv dt
0 0
2
−(λ+µ)v
= λµv + λ + µ v e dv
(4.49)
Z K
λµv + λ + µ2 v ev(−(λ+µ)) dv

P (L < K) =
0 (4.50)
= 1 − (Kµ + 1)e −(λ+µ)K
Now P (L = K) + P (L < K) = 1. And the probabilities on CM and PM are as follows:

P (CM ) = P (Component 1 reaches state N =2 before a failure and within K days)
Z K
= e−(λ+µ)v µ2 v dv
0 (4.51)
µ2 e−K(λ+µ) −K(λ + µ) + eK(λ+µ) − 1

= ,
(λ + µ)2
and
µ2 e−K(λ+µ) −K(λ + µ) + eK(λ+µ) − 1
P (P M ) = 1 − . (4.52)
(λ + µ)2
5 Simulation and results 29
Now it holds that

µ2 e−K(λ+µ) −K(λ + µ) + eK(λ+µ) − 1 (4.53)
= Cp + (Cc − Cp ) · ,
(λ + µ)2
and
Z K
λµv + λ + µ2 v e−(λ+µ)v v dv + P (L = K) · K

E[Lcycle ] =
0
e (−2Kµ(λ + µ) − K(λ + µ)(Kµ(λ + µ) + λ) − λ − 2µ) + λ + 2µ
−K(λ+µ)
=
(λ + µ)2
+ K(Kµ + 1)e−K(λ+µ) .
(4.54)
One can see there are big differences between the expected costs and length per cycle when
D = 0 compared to the situation when D = 1. This also leads to the fact that for more
difficult situations is becomes harder to find the proper equations. As a result, it was, in the
period of time available for this report, not possible to find general equations for E[Ccycle ]
and E[Lcycle ]. Therefore the results for this section will be determined only by simulation.
Those results can be found in Appendix B.
5 Simulation and results

In this section the results of the simulation will be discussed. They will also be compared
to the results of the determined formulas from the previous section. The average of 1000000
cycles are used to determine the results of the simulation. Both the costs and the length
were computed for one cycle. The results for the simulation of each section can be found in
Appendix B.
5.1 Analytic versus simulation

First, the results from the analysis and the simulation will be compared. Each situation will
be discussed separately. To a large extent, comparing the results serves as a verification for
both the analysis as the simulation.
Below the tables for the first situation can be found. These are the results for section
4.1. Table 5.1 is the same table as the table in section 4.1 and shows the results from the
analysis. Table 5.2 was retrieved from the data from the simulation results of section 4.2.
One can see that there are only a few small differences between the tables. The differences in
costs are all close to zero. This shows that if the simulation was built correctly, the analysis
5.1 Analytic versus simulation 30
Cc
1 3 10 100 1000
0.1 4 0.200 1 0.554 0 1.686 0 16.106 0 160.300
0.2 4 0.200 1 0.512 0 1.394 0 12.360 0 122.022
0.3 4 0.200 2 0.473 0 1.140 0 8.932 0 86.856
0.4 4 0.200 2 0.434 1 0.927 0 5.999 0 56.589
0.5 4 0.200 2 0.400 1 0.739 0 3.710 0 32.742
0.6 4 0.200 2 0.371 1 0.601 0 2.143 0 16.110
0.7 4 0.200 2 0.348 1 0.514 0 1.264 0 6.380
0.8 4 0.200 2 0.333 2 0.420 1 0.797 0 2.080
0.9 4 0.200 3 0.293 2 0.350 1 0.521 1 0.947
1.0 4 0.200 3 0.250 3 0.250 3 0.250 3 0.250
Table 5.1: Analytical: Optimal state D with corresponding costs
Cc
1 3 10 100 1000
0.1 4 0.200 1 0.554 0 1.686 0 16.112 0 160.352
0.2 4 0.200 1 0.512 0 1.393 0 12.367 0 122.177
0.3 4 0.200 2 0.472 0 1.139 0 8.926 0 86.820
0.4 4 0.200 2 0.435 1 0.927 0 5.995 0 56.365
0.5 4 0.200 2 0.400 1 0.737 0 3.709 0 32.680
0.6 4 0.200 2 0.371 1 0.600 0 2.148 0 16.090
0.7 4 0.200 2 0.348 1 0.515 0 1.267 0 6.262
0.8 4 0.200 2 0.333 2 0.420 1 0.794 0 2.048
0.9 4 0.200 3 0.293 2 0.351 1 0.520 1 0.944
1.0 4 0.200 3 0.250 3 0.250 3 0.250 3 0.250
Table 5.2: Simulation: Optimal state D with corresponding costs
is likely to be correct as well.
When regarding the results of section 4.2 as well as section 4.3 for both analysis and sim-
ulation, they are very alike. But there are some more differences compared to the tables
above. The costs for both methods are nearly the same, but the state in which these costs
are optimal are not always equal to each other. Some of these differences might be caused
5.2 Discrete versus continuous 31
by rounding errors within the simulation, but this can not be said with certainty. Another
possible explanation for these differences is yet to be found.
5.2 Discrete versus continuous

What can be seen between the results of the discrete (4.2) and the continuous (4.3) models is
that for small probabilities on a failure and/or a quality shift the costs are very close to each
other. When the probability on both a failure and a quality shift becomes larger, the larger
the differences between the two models becomes. In the continuous model the difference in
costs are smaller than the differences for the discrete model as can be seen in Table 5.3 and
5.4.
Cc 100 Cc 100
p 0.1 1.0 µ 0.1 1.0
q D Costs D Costs λ D Costs D Costs
0.1 0 0.323 0 16.106 0.1 0 0.371 0 16.456
1.0 3 0.025 3 0.250 1.0 3 0.051 3 3.710
Table 5.3: Discrete Table 5.4: Continuous
A possible explanation for this is that in the continuous model the cycles do not last an exact
number of days. In most cases it will last less than in the discrete model, since in this model
a failure or quality shift can only happen at the end of the day. When the probabilities on
other a failure or quality shift are small the length will not be reduced a lot since the cycle
will last ’long’ anyway. When both probabilities are large it is more likely that the cycle
length is reduced more strongly, but the costs are not effected in this way. This would mean
that in this situation the costs per day become larger.
5.3 Optimal planned maintenance

When taking planned maintenance into consideration, it is important to find the optimal
K in which the costs would be lowest. For Cc = 10 in the discrete situation all costs were
summed and for different K the differences between the sums determined the K with the
lowest overall costs. The differences were minimal, but the optimal K turned out to be
K = 38. Of course, if the probabilities p and q and the costs Cp and Cc are known, a more
specific K can be given for which the costs will be lowest. But with limited time it was not
possible to calculate for each Cc what the optimal K would be. Therefore, for the results of
section 4.2.1 and 4.3.1 K = 38 was used to determine the costs per day. In the next section
the results with and without planned maintenance will be compared.
5.4 With versus without planned maintenance 32
5.4 With versus without planned maintenance

In the discrete model there are nearly any differences between the situation with and without
planned maintenance for Cc = 3 and Cc = 10. In some cases performing planned mainte-
nance results in lower costs but in other cases it results in higher costs. The differences
are so small that use of planned maintenance hardly makes a difference, so it would not
matter if planned maintenance was used or not. In the case of Cc = 100 there are slightly
more differences. The situation with planned maintenance has lower costs more often. This
would mean it would be beneficial to perform planned maintenance to reduce the costs. For
Cc = 100 it is not beneficial to perform planned maintenance. Of course, this holds for
K = 38. Maybe for another K it will be beneficial if planned maintenance was used. This
is also the case for Cc = 3 and Cc = 10, where another K might actually be beneficial.
In the continuous case, for Cc = 3 and Cc = 10 it is not beneficial at all to use planned
maintenance. For some λ and µ the costs are lower, but in most cases the costs are signif-
icantly higher. Again, this might be due to the fact that K = 38 is not the optimal K for
these costs of CM. Another K might be more favorable and maybe planned maintenance will
turn out to be beneficial. In most cases where Cc = 100 the costs are lower for the situation
where planned maintenance is used. For Cc = 1000 these differences are even bigger. This
shows it would be favorable to use the strategy with planned maintenance for both Cc = 100
and Cc = 1000.
6 Conclusion and recommendations 33
6 Conclusion and recommendations

From the previous section several things can be concluded. First of all one could see that the
results of the analytic model and the simulation were virtually identical. This shows that
it is very likely that the analytic model was built correctly and that possible additions to
the model can be based on this analytic model. The overall higher costs for the continuous
model compared to the discrete model is due to the length of one cycle. In the continuous
model a cycle does not last an entire number of days day, but lasts less since a failure or
quality shift happens at one point along the day instead of at the end of the day. What
can be seen in all situations is that when the probability on a quality shift becomes larger,
the threshold must be set at an earlier state. On the other hand, if the probability on a
failure increases, the threshold can be set later. Also, for higher costs of CM it is better to
perform maintenance earlier in order to avoid the high costs of CM. The addition of planned
maintenance is likely to be beneficial. Only for one specific costs for CM this was shown,
but this could be done for all costs. However, this would take a lot of time.
A recommendation for further research would therefore be that research will be done on
the probabilities p and q, (or λ and µ). Also knowledge of Cc and Cp would be very helpful.
It is also possible that these probabilities are functions of time, which then should also be
taken into account. It is not very realistic to only look at component 1 and the rest. More
components should be looked at to get a more realistic approach to the problem. Addi-
tionally, one could take downtime into consideration when looking at the costs and yield of
the total production. Another important recommendation is that with the inspection of the
condition of the equipment errors can be made, the so-called type I and II errors. These
could also be taken into account. If gradual deterioration is preferred, this might also be
attained by choosing a large N , where every state represents a very small amount of time.
The final remark is that there might be a better distribution for component 1 and R, but
this must be shown from available data.
REFERENCES 34
References
[1] A.K.S. Jardine et al., A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing
condition-based maintenance, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 20 , 2006, 1483-
1501.
[2] S. Panagiotidou and G. Tagaras, Statistical process control and condition-based main-
tenance: a meaningful relationship through data sharing, Production and Operations
Management 19 (2), 2009, 156-171.
[3] K.B. Goode, J. Moore and B.J. Roylance, Plant machinery working life prediction method
utilizing reliability and condition-monitoring data, Proceedings of the Institution of Me-
chanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering 214, 2000, 109-
122.
[4] Q. Zhu, Maintenance optimization for multi-component systems under condition moni-
toring, PhD thesis Eindhoven University of Technology, 2014.
A Fault detection
In section 3 the probability pn,m = 1 − β + α was assumed to be in (0, 1). In this section
it is shown why this holds. The calculations of the probabilities for the type I and type II
errors are given below.
Figure 10: Visualization of α Figure 11: Visualization of β
α is the probability that a fault is detected, while this fault is not present. No error means
that the mean is µ = µ0 , which is called H0 . Now H1 means that there is an error, i.e. that
µ = µ0 + δσ. H0 is not rejected if the X̄ is between LCL and UCL.
α = P (H1 |H0 )
√ √
= P (X̄ ≤ µ0 − kσ/ n|H0 ) + P (X̄ ≥ µ0 + kσ/ n|H0 )
√ √
= P (X̄ ≤ µ0 − kσ/ n|µ = µ0 ) + P (X̄ ≥ µ0 + kσ/ n|µ = µ0 )
√ √
= P (X̄ − µ0 ≤ −kσ/ n) + P (X̄ − µ0 ≥ kσ/ n) (A.1)
X̄ − µ0 X̄ − µ
= P( √ ≤ −k) + P ( √ 0 ≥ k)
σ/ n σ/ n
= 2Φ(−k)
β is the probability that no error is detected, while a fault is present.
β = P (H0 |H1 )
√ √
= P (µ0 − kσ/ n ≤ X̄ ≤ µ0 + kσ/ n|H1 )
√ √
= P (µ0 − kσ/ n ≤ X̄ ≤ µ0 + kσ/ n|µ = µ0 + δσ)
√ √
= P (µ0 − kσ/ n − (µ0 + δσ) ≤ X̄ − (µ0 + δσ) ≤ µ0 + kσ/ n − (µ0 + δσ))
√ √ (A.2)
= P (−kσ/ n − δσ ≤ X̄ − (µ0 + δσ) ≤ kσ/ n − δσ)
√ X̄ − (µ0 + δσ) √
= P (−k − δ/ n ≤ √ ≤ k − δ/ n)
σ/ n
√ √
= Φ(k − δ/ n) − Φ(−k − δ/ n)
B Analytical and simulation results 37
B Analytical and simulation results

B.1 Cc =3
Cc 3
p 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
q D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs
0.1 3 0.041 3 0.091 2 0.146 2 0.202 2 0.260 2 0.319 2 0.378 2 0.437 1 0.495 1 0.554
0.2 3 0.038 3 0.079 3 0.129 2 0.179 2 0.231 2 0.286 2 0.342 2 0.398 2 0.456 1 0.512
0.3 3 0.037 3 0.072 3 0.116 3 0.166 2 0.212 2 0.261 2 0.312 2 0.364 2 0.418 2 0.473
0.4 3 0.037 3 0.068 3 0.108 3 0.152 2 0.200 2 0.244 2 0.289 2 0.335 2 0.384 2 0.434
0.5 4 0.036 3 0.066 3 0.102 3 0.142 3 0.186 2 0.231 2 0.271 2 0.312 2 0.355 2 0.400
0.6 4 0.036 3 0.064 3 0.098 3 0.134 3 0.174 3 0.216 2 0.260 2 0.296 2 0.332 2 0.371
0.7 4 0.035 3 0.064 3 0.095 3 0.128 3 0.164 3 0.201 3 0.204 3 0.282 2 0.316 2 0.348
0.8 4 0.035 3 0.063 3 0.093 3 0.124 3 0.155 3 0.188 3 0.222 3 0.257 3 0.295 3 0.333
0.9 4 0.035 3 0.063 3 0.092 3 0.120 3 0.149 3 0.177 3 0.205 3 0.233 3 0.263 3 0.293
1.0 4 0.034 3 0.063 3 0.091 3 0.118 3 0.143 3 0.167 3 0.189 3 0.21 3 0.231 3 0.250
Table B.1: Discrete, simulation, with planned maintenance: Optimal state D with
corresponding costs for Cc = 3
Cc 3
p 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 3 0.040 2 0.092 2 0.146 2 0.202 2 0.260 2 0.319 2 0.378 2 0.437 1 0.496 1 0.554
0.2 3 0.035 3 0.079 3 0.129 2 0.179 2 0.232 2 0.286 2 0.342 2 0.398 2 0.456 1 0.512
0.3 3 0.033 3 0.072 3 0.116 3 0.166 2 0.212 2 0.261 2 0.312 2 0.364 2 0.418 2 0.472
0.4 3 0.033 3 0.068 3 0.108 3 0.152 3 0.200 2 0.243 2 0.288 2 0.335 2 0.384 2 0.434
0.5 3 0.032 3 0.066 3 0.102 3 0.142 3 0.186 2 0.232 2 0.271 2 0.313 2 0.356 2 0.400
0.6 4 0.032 3 0.064 3 0.098 3 0.134 3 0.173 3 0.216 2 0.260 2 0.296 2 0.332 2 0.371
0.7 4 0.031 3 0.063 3 0.095 3 0.128 3 0.164 3 0.201 3 0.240 3 0.282 2 0.316 2 0.348
0.8 4 0.030 3 0.063 3 0.093 3 0.124 3 0.155 3 0.188 3 0.222 3 0.257 3 0.295 2 0.333
0.9 4 0.030 3 0.063 3 0.092 3 0.120 3 0.149 3 0.177 3 0.205 3 0.233 3 0.263 3 0.293
1.0 4 0.029 3 0.063 3 0.091 3 0.118 3 0.143 3 0.167 3 0.189 3 0.211 3 0.231 3 0.250
Table B.2: Discrete, simulation, without planned maintenance: Optimal state D

with corresponding costs for Cc = 3
Cc 3
p 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 2 0.050 2 0.105 2 0.162 2 0.218 2 0.274 2 0.331 2 0.387 2 0.444 1 0.499 1 0.554
0.2 3 0.045 2 0.096 2 0.147 2 0.199 2 0.251 2 0.304 2 0.356 2 0.409 2 0.461 1 0.512
0.3 3 0.041 2 0.091 2 0.137 2 0.184 2 0.232 2 0.280 2 0.328 2 0.376 2 0.424 2 0.473
0.4 3 0.039 3 0.084 2 0.131 2 0.174 2 0.217 2 0.260 2 0.304 2 0.347 2 0.391 2 0.434
0.5 3 0.037 3 0.079 3 0.123 2 0.167 2 0.207 2 0.245 2 0.284 2 0.323 2 0.361 2 0.400
0.6 3 0.036 3 0.074 3 0.115 3 0.156 3 0.198 2 0.234 3 0.269 2 0.303 2 0.337 2 0.371
0.7 3 0.034 3 0.071 3 0.108 3 0.145 3 0.183 3 0.221 3 0.259 2 0.289 2 0.319 2 0.348
0.8 3 0.034 3 0.067 3 0.101 3 0.135 3 0.169 3 0.202 3 0.236 3 0.269 3 0.301 2 0.333
0.9 3 0.033 3 0.065 3 0.096 3 0.126 3 0.155 3 0.184 3 0.212 3 0.240 3 0.266 3 0.293
1.0 3 0.032 3 0.063 3 0.091 3 0.118 3 0.143 3 0.167 3 0.189 3 0.211 3 0.231 3 0.250
Table B.3: Discrete, analysis, without planned maintenance: Optimal state D with
B.1 Cc =3 38
Cc 3
µ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
λ D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs D Costs
0.1 3 0.040 3 0.919 3 0.148 2 0.205 2 0.263 2 0.321 2 0.380 2 0.139 2 0.498 2 0.558
0.2 3 0.035 3 0.080 3 0.130 3 0.184 3 0.239 3 0.296 3 0.353 2 0.410 2 0.467 2 0.525
0.3 3 0.034 3 0.074 3 0.120 3 0.170 3 0.222 3 0.276 3 0.331 3 0.387 3 0.443 2 0.501
0.4 3 0.033 3 0.071 3 0.114 3 0.160 3 0.209 3 0.261 3 0.313 3 0.368 3 0.423 3 0.478
0.5 4 0.032 3 0.069 3 0.109 3 0.153 3 0.200 3 0.249 3 0.300 3 0.352 3 0.405 3 0.459
0.6 4 0.031 3 0.068 3 0.106 3 0.148 3 0.193 3 0.240 3 0.289 3 0.339 3 0.391 3 0.444
0.7 4 0.030 3 0.067 3 0.104 3 0.145 3 0.188 3 0.233 3 0.280 3 0.329 3 0.379 3 0.430
0.8 4 0.030 3 0.067 3 0.103 3 0.142 3 0.183 3 0.227 3 0.273 3 0.320 3 0.369 3 0.419
0.9 4 0.029 3 0.066 3 0.102 3 0.140 3 0.180 3 0.222 3 0.267 3 0.313 3 0.360 3 0.409
1.0 4 0.029 3 0.064 3 0.101 3 0.138 3 0.177 3 0.219 3 0.262 3 0.306 3 0.352 3 0.400
Table B.4: Continuous, analysis, without planned maintenance: Optimal state D

Cc 3
µ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 3 0.040 3 0.092 3 0.148 2 0.205 2 0.263 2 0.322 2 0.379 2 0.439 2 0.498 2 0.558
0.2 3 0.036 3 0.080 3 0.130 3 0.184 3 0.239 3 0.295 3 0.353 2 0.411 2 0.467 2 0.525
0.3 3 0.034 3 0.074 3 0.119 3 0.169 3 0.221 3 0.276 3 0.331 3 0.388 2 0.443 3 0.499
0.4 4 0.033 3 0.071 3 0.114 3 0.160 3 0.210 3 0.261 3 0.313 3 0.367 3 0.423 3 0.480
0.5 4 0.032 3 0.069 3 0.109 3 0.154 3 0.200 3 0.250 3 0.299 3 0.353 3 0.405 3 0.457
0.6 4 0.031 3 0.068 3 0.107 3 0.149 3 0.193 3 0.241 3 0.290 3 0.339 3 0.390 3 0.444
0.7 4 0.030 3 0.067 3 0.104 3 0.144 3 0.188 3 0.232 2 0.281 3 0.329 3 0.379 3 0.430
0.8 4 0.030 4 0.066 3 0.103 3 0.142 3 0.183 3 0.227 3 0.271 3 0.320 3 0.370 3 0.418
0.9 4 0.029 4 0.065 3 0.101 3 0.140 3 0.180 3 0.223 3 0.266 3 0.312 3 0.360 3 0.409
1.0 4 0.029 4 0.064 3 0.101 3 0.138 3 0.178 3 0.218 3 0.263 3 0.307 3 0.350 3 0.401
Table B.5: Continuous, simulation, without planned maintenance: Optimal state D

Cc 3
µ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 3 0.043 3 0.092 3 0.148 2 0.205 2 0.263 2 0.321 2 0.381 2 0.439 2 0.498 2 0.558
0.2 3 0.040 3 0.080 3 0.130 3 0.184 3 0.239 3 0.296 2 0.353 2 0.410 2 0.467 2 0.525
0.3 3 0.039 3 0.075 3 0.120 3 0.170 3 0.222 3 0.276 3 0.331 3 0.387 3 0.443 2 0.501
0.4 4 0.038 3 0.071 3 0.114 3 0.160 3 0.209 3 0.261 3 0.313 3 0.368 3 0.423 3 0.479
0.5 4 0.037 3 0.070 3 0.110 3 0.153 3 0.200 3 0.249 3 0.300 3 0.352 3 0.406 3 0.460
0.6 4 0.036 3 0.068 3 0.106 3 0.149 3 0.193 3 0.240 3 0.289 3 0.339 3 0.391 3 0.443
0.7 4 0.035 3 0.068 3 0.104 3 0.145 3 0.188 3 0.233 3 0.280 3 0.329 3 0.379 3 0.431
0.8 4 0.035 4 0.067 3 0.103 3 0.142 3 0.183 3 0.227 3 0.273 3 0.320 3 0.369 3 0.418
0.9 4 0.035 4 0.066 3 0.102 3 0.140 3 0.180 3 0.223 3 0.266 3 0.313 3 0.360 3 0.409
1.0 4 0.035 4 0.064 3 0.101 3 0.138 3 0.177 3 0.219 3 0.262 3 0.306 3 0.352 3 0.400
Table B.6: Continuous, simulation, with planned maintenance: Optimal state D

B.2 Cc =10 39
B.2 Cc =10
Cc 10
p 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 2 0.066 1 0.202 1 0.364 1 0.542 1 0.729 1 0.920 0 1.110 0 1.300 0 1.492 0 1.685
0.2 2 0.052 2 0.136 1 0.253 1 0.385 1 0.537 1 0.699 1 0.871 0 1.046 0 1.219 0 1.395
0.3 3 0.046 2 0.107 2 0.194 1 0.300 1 0.412 1 0.539 1 0.679 1 0.830 1 0.990 0 1.140
0.4 3 0.042 2 0.095 2 0.159 2 0.243 1 0.341 1 0.434 1 0.542 1 0.660 1 0.789 1 0.928
0.5 3 0.040 3 0.088 2 0.141 2 0.204 2 0.281 2 0.373 1 0.450 1 0.536 1 0.633 1 0.740
0.6 3 0.039 3 0.079 2 0.133 2 0.182 2 0.240 2 0.307 2 0.385 1 0.461 1 0.527 1 0.601
0.7 3 0.038 3 0.073 3 0.121 2 0.170 2 0.215 2 0.265 2 0.321 2 0.384 2 0.455 1 0.514
0.8 3 0.037 3 0.068 3 0.108 3 0.157 2 0.202 2 0.240 2 0.280 2 0.323 2 0.369 2 0.420
0.9 3 0.037 3 0.065 3 0.098 3 0.135 3 0.176 3 0.221 2 0.261 2 0.290 2 0.321 2 0.351
1.0 3 0.037 3 0.063 3 0.091 3 0.118 3 0.143 3 0.167 3 0.189 3 0.211 3 0.231 3 0.250
Cc 10
p 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 2 0.071 1 0.204 1 0.365 1 0.543 1 0.729 1 0.920 0 1.110 0 1.300 0 1.493 0 1.686
0.2 2 0.051 2 0.136 1 0.253 1 0.385 1 0.536 1 0.698 1 0.871 0 1.046 0 1.219 0 1.393
0.3 3 0.044 2 0.107 2 0.194 1 0.300 1 0.411 1 0.540 1 0.680 1 0.830 1 0.990 0 1.139
0.4 3 0.039 2 0.095 2 0.159 2 0.243 1 0.342 1 0.434 1 0.541 1 0.659 1 0.788 1 0.927
0.5 3 0.036 3 0.089 2 0.141 2 0.204 2 0.281 2 0.373 1 0.450 1 0.537 1 0.634 1 0.737
0.6 3 0.034 3 0.079 2 0.132 2 0.182 2 0.240 2 0.307 2 0.385 1 0.460 1 0.526 1 0.600
0.7 3 0.034 3 0.072 3 0.122 2 0.170 2 0.215 2 0.264 2 0.321 2 0.384 2 0.455 1 0.515
0.8 3 0.033 3 0.068 3 0.108 3 0.157 2 0.202 2 0.240 2 0.280 2 0.323 2 0.370 2 0.420
0.9 3 0.032 3 0.065 3 0.098 3 0.135 3 0.176 3 0.222 2 0.260 2 0.290 2 0.320 2 0.351
1.0 3 0.032 3 0.062 3 0.091 3 0.118 3 0.143 3 0.167 3 0.189 3 0.211 3 0.231 3 0.250

Cc 10
p 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 1 0.100 1 0.255 1 0.428 1 0.607 1 0.779 1 0.971 0 1.150 0 1.328 0 1.507 0 1.686
0.2 2 0.070 1 0.183 1 0.312 1 0.457 1 0.610 1 0.768 1 0.929 0 1.085 0 1.239 0 1.394
0.3 2 0.057 2 0.145 1 0.248 1 0.356 1 0.476 1 0.604 1 0.737 1 0.875 0 1.013 0 1.140
0.4 2 0.051 2 0.119 2 0.205 1 0.298 1 0.387 1 0.484 1 0.588 1 0.697 1 0.811 1 0.927
0.5 2 0.049 2 0.104 2 0.171 2 0.249 1 0.335 1 0.407 1 0.483 1 0.564 1 0.650 1 0.739
0.6 2 0.048 2 0.096 2 0.150 2 0.210 2 0.277 2 0.350 1 0.419 1 0.477 1 0.537 1 0.601
0.7 3 0.044 2 0.092 2 0.138 2 0.186 2 0.236 2 0.290 2 0.347 2 0.406 2 0.469 1 0.514
0.8 3 0.039 3 0.088 2 0.132 2 0.172 2 0.212 2 0.252 2 0.292 2 0.333 2 0.376 2 0.420
0.9 3 0.035 3 0.074 3 0.116 3 0.161 2 0.201 2 0.233 2 0.264 2 0.294 2 0.322 2 0.350
1.0 3 0.032 3 0.063 3 0.091 3 0.118 3 0.143 3 0.167 3 0.189 3 0.211 3 0.231 3 0.250
B.2 Cc =10 40
Cc 10
µ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 2 0.074 1 0.213 1 0.378 1 0.558 1 0.744 1 0.934 1 1.127 1 1.322 1 1.518 1 1.174
0.2 2 0.054 2 0.148 2 0.278 1 0.427 1 0.587 1 0.757 1 0.934 1 1.115 1 1.300 1 1.488
0.3 3 0.047 2 0.120 2 0.222 2 0.347 2 0.490 1 0.640 1 0.798 1 0.964 1 1.135 1 1.311
0.4 3 0.042 2 0.107 2 0.190 2 0.296 2 0.419 2 0.556 1 0.704 1 0.853 1 1.010 1 1.173
0.5 3 0.039 2 0.101 2 0.170 2 0.262 2 0.370 2 0.491 2 0.625 2 0.768 1 0.916 1 1.067
0.6 3 0.037 3 0.094 2 0.161 2 0.240 2 0.335 2 0.443 2 0.564 2 0.695 2 0.834 2 0.981
0.7 3 0.036 3 0.088 2 0.154 2 0.225 2 0.310 2 0.408 2 0.517 2 0.637 2 0.766 2 0.903
0.8 3 0.036 3 0.084 3 0.150 2 0.215 2 0.292 2 0.381 2 0.481 2 0.591 2 0.711 2 0.838
0.9 3 0.035 3 0.081 3 0.142 2 0.208 2 0.279 2 0.360 2 0.453 2 0.554 2 0.665 2 0.784
1.0 3 0.035 3 0.078 3 0.135 2 0.202 2 0.269 2 0.344 2 0.430 2 0.525 2 0.628 2 0.739

Cc 10
µ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 2 0.074 1 0.213 1 0.379 1 0.556 1 0.745 1 0.936 1 1.129 1 1.326 1 1.520 1 1.718
0.2 2 0.054 2 0.149 2 0.278 1 0.427 1 0.587 1 0.755 1 0.932 1 1.116 1 1.300 1 1.489
0.3 3 0.047 2 0.120 2 0.222 2 0.344 1 0.491 1 0.637 1 0.800 1 0.959 1 1.139 1 1.313
0.4 3 0.042 2 0.108 2 0.190 2 0.297 2 0.419 2 0.554 2 0.706 1 0.848 1 1.016 1 1.168
0.5 3 0.039 2 0.101 2 0.172 2 0.263 2 0.370 2 0.492 2 0.625 2 0.763 2 0.917 1 1.065
0.6 3 0.037 3 0.094 2 0.162 2 0.242 2 0.335 2 0.445 2 0.566 2 0.696 1 0.841 2 0.976
0.7 3 0.036 3 0.089 2 0.155 2 0.226 2 0.310 2 0.409 2 0.516 2 0.637 2 0.772 2 0.903
0.8 3 0.036 3 0.084 3 0.149 2 0.215 2 0.292 2 0.382 2 0.482 2 0.589 2 0.712 2 0.842
0.9 3 0.035 3 0.081 3 0.142 2 0.208 2 0.279 2 0.360 2 0.454 2 0.548 2 0.663 2 0.784
1.0 3 0.035 3 0.078 3 0.135 2 0.202 2 0.268 2 0.344 2 0.434 2 0.528 2 0.627 2 0.743
Table B.11: Continuous, simulation, without planned maintenance: Optimal state

D with corresponding costs for Cc = 10
Cc 10
µ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 2 0.072 1 0.213 1 0.379 1 0.558 1 0.744 1 0.936 1 1.127 1 1.322 1 1.518 1 1.713
0.2 2 0.056 2 0.148 2 0.278 1 0.426 1 0.587 1 0.757 1 0.933 1 1.114 1 1.301 1 1.485
0.3 3 0.049 2 0.120 2 0.222 2 0.348 2 0.490 1 0.640 1 0.797 1 0.964 1 1.135 1 1.311
0.4 3 0.045 2 0.108 2 0.191 2 0.296 2 0.418 2 0.556 1 0.704 1 0.852 1 1.011 1 1.174
0.5 3 0.043 2 0.101 2 0.172 2 0.262 2 0.370 2 0.491 2 0.624 2 0.767 1 0.917 1 1.066
0.6 3 0.042 3 0.094 2 0.161 2 0.240 2 0.335 2 0.443 2 0.565 2 0.696 2 0.835 2 0.981
0.7 3 0.041 3 0.089 2 0.154 2 0.225 2 0.310 2 0.407 2 0.517 2 0.637 2 0.763 2 0.902
0.8 3 0.040 3 0.084 3 0.149 2 0.215 2 0.293 2 0.380 2 0.481 2 0.592 2 0.711 2 0.838
0.9 3 0.040 3 0.081 3 0.141 2 0.207 2 0.279 2 0.360 2 0.452 2 0.554 2 0.666 2 0.783
1.0 3 0.039 3 0.079 3 0.135 2 0.202 2 0.269 2 0.344 2 0.431 2 0.524 2 0.626 2 0.738

B.3 Cc =100 41
B.3 Cc =100
Cc 100
p 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 1 0.282 0 1.465 0 2.990 0 4.715 0 6.520 0 8.397 0 10.293 0 12.223 0 14.154 0 16.098
0.2 1 0.119 1 0.592 0 1.462 0 2.625 0 3.984 0 5.500 0 7.128 0 8.814 0 10.568 0 12.362
0.3 2 0.082 1 0.295 1 0.777 0 1.457 0 2.331 0 3.401 0 4.623 0 5.982 0 7.374 0 8.899
0.4 2 0.062 1 0.195 1 0.434 1 0.863 0 1.370 0 2.027 0 2.827 0 3.755 0 4.821 0 6.000
0.5 2 0.055 2 0.160 1 0.292 1 0.517 1 0.865 0 1.236 0 1.687 0 2.246 0 2.917 0 3.711
0.6 2 0.052 2 0.120 1 0.239 1 0.358 1 0.538 1 0.797 0 1.095 0 1.359 0 1.711 0 2.129
0.7 2 0.051 2 0.101 2 0.184 1 0.294 1 0.384 1 0.510 1 0.680 1 0.900 0 1.080 0 1.256
0.8 3 0.045 2 0.094 2 0.148 2 0.221 2 0.321 1 0.392 1 0.466 1 0.552 1 0.666 1 0.800
0.9 3 0.040 2 0.091 2 0.133 2 0.176 2 0.225 2 0.278 2 0.346 2 0.428 1 0.481 1 0.520
1.0 3 0.037 3 0.063 3 0.091 3 0.118 3 0.143 3 0.167 3 0.189 3 0.211 3 0.231 3 0.250
Cc 100
p 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 1 0.337 0 1.470 0 2.995 0 4.717 0 6.534 0 8.384 0 10.297 0 12.216 0 14.154 0 16.112
0.2 1 0.122 1 0.596 0 1.468 0 2.607 0 3.980 0 5.505 0 7.124 0 8.805 0 10.593 0 12.367
0.3 2 0.084 1 0.294 1 0.774 0 1.452 0 2.342 0 3.398 0 4.612 0 5.976 0 7.420 0 8.926
0.4 2 0.061 1 0.196 1 0.438 1 0.860 0 1.367 0 2.015 0 2.830 0 3.760 0 4.850 0 5.995
0.5 2 0.052 2 0.159 1 0.294 1 0.519 1 0.863 0 1.246 0 1.680 0 2.255 0 2.909 0 3.709
0.6 2 0.049 2 0.120 1 0.240 1 0.356 1 0.536 1 0.801 0 1.086 0 1.356 0 1.712 0 2.148
0.7 2 0.048 2 0.102 2 0.184 1 0.294 1 0.384 1 0.511 1 0.673 1 0.905 0 1.080 0 1.267
0.8 3 0.041 2 0.094 2 0.148 2 0.219 2 0.321 1 0.391 1 0.462 1 0.553 1 0.669 1 0.794
0.9 3 0.036 2 0.091 2 0.133 2 0.176 2 0.223 2 0.281 2 0.345 2 0.428 1 0.482 1 0.520
1.0 3 0.032 3 0.062 3 0.091 3 0.118 3 0.143 3 0.167 3 0.189 3 0.210 3 0.231 3 0.250

Cc 100
p 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 1 0.591 0 2.012 0 3.666 0 5.399 0 7.163 0 8.941 0 10.727 0 12.517 0 14.311 0 16.106
0.2 1 0.221 1 0.988 0 2.052 0 3.334 0 4.735 0 6.203 0 7.712 0 9.246 0 10.797 0 12.360
0.3 1 0.125 1 0.505 0 1.168 0 1.965 0 2.929 0 4.010 0 5.170 0 6.387 0 7.645 0 8.932
0.4 1 0.098 1 0.296 1 0.681 0 1.192 0 1.761 0 2.452 0 3.240 0 4.103 0 5.027 0 5.999
0.5 2 0.083 1 0.208 1 0.416 1 0.738 0 1.116 0 1.490 0 0.946 0 2.474 0 3.065 0 3.710
0.6 2 0.064 1 0.174 1 0.292 1 0.462 1 0.696 1 0.996 0 0.213 0 1.477 0 1.788 0 2.143
0.7 2 0.054 2 0.142 1 0.241 1 0.334 1 0.451 1 0.597 1 0.777 1 0.991 0 0.118 0 1.264
0.8 2 0.050 2 0.109 2 0.187 1 0.287 1 0.349 1 0.418 1 0.496 1 0.584 1 0.684 1 0.797
0.9 2 0.048 2 0.094 2 0.142 2 0.193 2 0.249 2 0.312 2 0.382 1 0.446 1 0.483 1 0.521
1.0 3 0.032 3 0.063 3 0.091 3 0.118 3 0.143 3 0.167 3 0.189 3 0.211 3 0.231 3 0.250
B.3 Cc =100 42
Cc 100
µ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 1 0.371 1 1.578 1 3.179 1 4.944 1 6.791 1 8.684 1 10.604 1 12.543 1 14.495 1 16.456
0.2 1 0.149 1 0.742 1 1.800 1 3.156 1 4.698 1 6.357 1 8.095 1 9.888 1 11.721 1 13.582
0.3 1 0.104 1 0.429 1 1.113 1 2.109 1 3.338 1 4.735 1 6.252 1 7.860 1 9.536 1 11.263
0.4 2 0.080 1 0.298 1 0.755 1 1.484 1 2.447 1 3.599 1 4.898 1 6.313 1 7.818 1 9.396
0.5 2 0.066 1 0.238 1 0.559 1 1.100 1 1.855 1 2.798 1 3.898 1 5.129 1 6.466 1 7.891
0.6 2 0.595 1 0.208 1 0.446 1 0.857 1 1.454 1 2.226 1 3.155 1 4.219 1 5.399 1 6.677
0.7 2 0.056 2 0.183 1 0.379 1 0.700 1 1.177 1 1.812 1 2.597 1 3.515 1 4.553 1 5.694
0.8 2 0.053 2 0.159 1 0.338 1 0.595 1 0.983 1 1.510 1 2.174 1 2.968 1 3.879 1 4.895
0.9 2 0.052 2 0.144 1 0.312 1 0.524 1 0.844 1 1.286 1 1.852 1 2.538 1 3.339 1 4.243
1.0 2 0.051 2 0.133 2 0.296 1 0.475 1 0.744 1 1.117 1 1.603 1 2.199 1 2.904 1 3.710

Cc 100
µ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 1 0.375 1 1.584 1 3.214 1 4.949 1 6.788 1 8.682 1 10.565 1 12.553 1 14.470 1 16.411
0.2 1 0.151 1 0.729 1 1.820 1 3.178 1 4.698 1 6.363 0 8.106 1 9.879 1 11.714 1 13.525
0.3 1 0.105 1 0.441 1 1.124 1 2.109 1 3.319 1 4.774 1 6.182 1 7.840 1 9.480 1 11.235
0.4 2 0.080 1 0.307 1 0.765 1 1.488 1 2.469 1 3.581 1 4.914 1 6.346 1 7.841 1 9.379
0.5 2 0.067 1 0.245 1 0.546 1 1.097 1 1.841 1 2.786 1 3.894 1 5.142 1 6.522 1 7.883
0.6 2 0.059 1 0.208 1 0.451 1 0.875 1 1.436 1 2.190 1 3.133 1 4.216 1 5.435 1 6.700
0.7 2 0.055 2 0.184 1 0.383 1 0.717 1 1.172 1 1.820 1 2.573 1 3.542 1 4.560 1 5.713
0.8 2 0.054 2 0.161 1 0.34 1 0.601 1 1.002 1 1.540 1 2.141 1 2.943 1 3.893 1 4.935
0.9 2 0.052 2 0.140 1 0.302 1 0.506 1 0.844 1 1.264 1 1.873 1 2.516 1 3.382 1 4.228
1.0 2 0.051 2 0.137 2 0.281 1 0.470 1 0.746 1 1.108 1 1.613 1 2.237 1 3.006 1 3.706

Cc 100
µ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 1 0.339 1 1.567 1 3.185 1 4.944 1 6.795 1 8.689 1 10.602 1 12.543 1 14.504 1 16.451
0.2 1 0.147 1 0.740 1 1.803 1 3.155 1 4.699 1 6.358 1 8.065 1 9.881 1 11.698 1 13.577
0.3 1 0.105 1 0.430 1 1.113 1 2.112 1 3.339 1 4.746 1 6.253 1 7.860 1 9.527 1 11.246
0.4 2 0.081 1 0.297 1 0.757 1 1.487 1 2.450 1 3.606 1 4.908 1 6.319 1 7.813 1 9.412
0.5 2 0.068 1 0.239 1 0.557 1 1.100 1 1.846 1 2.805 1 3.884 1 5.130 1 6.489 1 7.876
0.6 2 0.062 1 0.208 1 0.444 1 0.859 1 1.451 1 2.216 1 3.158 1 4.237 1 5.413 1 6.657
0.7 2 0.059 2 0.182 1 0.380 1 0.701 1 1.178 1 1.811 1 2.600 1 3.512 1 4.554 1 5.692
0.8 2 0.057 2 0.161 1 0.337 1 0.596 1 0.978 1 1.507 1 2.165 1 2.972 1 3.882 1 4.905
0.9 2 0.055 2 0.144 1 0.313 1 0.525 1 0.842 1 1.300 1 1.852 1 2.521 1 3.347 1 4.239
1.0 2 0.054 2 0.132 2 0.290 1 0.475 1 0.743 1 1.114 1 1.603 1 2.195 1 2.890 1 3.715

B.4 Cc =1000 43
B.4 Cc =1000
Cc 1000
p 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 1 2.372 0 13.727 0 29.083 0 46.315 0 64.426 0 83.050 0 102.237 0 121.269 0 140.874 0 160.363
0.2 1 0.582 0 4.579 0 12.896 0 24.397 0 38.164 0 53.239 0 69.661 0 86.665 0 104.021 0 121.925
0.3 1 0.215 0 1.685 0 5.532 0 11.776 0 20.712 0 31.338 0 43.614 0 57.268 0 71.703 0 86.668
0.4 1 0.117 1 0.772 0 2.312 0 5.356 0 10.144 0 16.642 0 24.533 0 34.097 0 44.768 0 56.466
0.5 1 0.096 1 0.365 0 1.161 0 2.414 0 4.680 0 8.011 0 12.382 0 18.197 0 24.973 0 32.809
0.6 2 0.074 1 0.223 1 0.569 0 1.237 0 2.073 0 3.521 0 5.479 0 8.224 0 11.860 0 16.208
0.7 2 0.059 1 0.176 1 0.330 1 0.636 0 1.089 0 1.490 0 2.254 0 3.259 0 4.581 0 6.335
0.8 2 0.054 2 0.137 1 0.248 1 0.357 1 0.545 1 0.842 0 1.121 0 1.324 0 1.621 0 2.132
0.9 2 0.051 2 0.098 2 0.174 1 0.282 1 0.348 1 0.412 1 0.493 1 0.625 1 0.744 1 0.966
1.0 3 0.037 3 0.063 3 0.091 3 0.118 3 0.143 3 0.167 3 0.189 3 0.211 3 0.231 3 0.250
Cc 1000
p 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 0 2.780 0 13.796 0 29.086 0 46.324 0 64.552 0 83.142 0 102.163 0 121.332 0 140.602 0 160.352
0.2 1 0.618 0 4.705 0 12.876 0 24.277 0 37.942 0 53.202 0 69.676 0 86.471 0 103.964 0 122.177
0.3 1 0.220 0 1.687 0 5.403 0 11.834 0 20.659 0 31.442 0 43.676 0 56.978 0 71.639 0 86.820
0.4 1 0.117 1 0.769 0 2.361 0 5.377 0 10.215 0 16.617 0 24.865 0 34.133 0 44.719 0 56.365
0.5 1 0.095 1 0.357 0 1.196 0 2.404 0 4.604 0 7.939 0 12.676 0 18.125 0 24.839 0 32.680
0.6 2 0.075 1 0.224 1 0.597 0 1.246 0 2.112 0 3.439 0 5.438 0 8.243 0 11.806 0 16.090
0.7 2 0.056 1 0.171 1 0.335 1 0.641 0 1.107 0 1.529 0 2.250 0 3.172 0 4.598 0 6.262
0.8 2 0.051 2 0.140 1 0.244 1 0.357 1 0.550 1 0.836 0 1.109 0 1.312 0 1.624 0 2.048
0.9 2 0.048 2 0.098 2 0.173 2 0.284 1 0.350 1 0.413 1 0.501 1 0.601 1 0.762 1 0.944
1.0 3 0.032 3 0.062 3 0.091 3 0.118 3 0.143 3 0.167 3 0.189 3 0.211 3 0.231 3 0.250

Cc 1000
p 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 0 5.255 0 19.278 0 35.845 0 53.191 0 70.842 0 88.634 0 106.501 0 124.411 0 142.347 0 160.300
0.2 0 1.534 0 8.137 0 18.793 0 31.647 0 45.683 0 60.388 0 75.495 0 90.855 0 106.382 0 122.022
0.3 1 0.583 0 3.383 0 9.022 0 17.025 0 26.703 0 37.537 0 49.171 0 61.366 0 73.964 0 86.856
0.4 1 0.257 0 1.534 0 4.119 0 8.364 0 14.085 0 21.019 0 28.922 0 37.587 0 46.851 0 56.589
0.5 1 0.146 1 0.804 0 1.918 0 3.836 0 6.694 0 10.455 0 15.037 0 20.343 0 26.274 0 32.742
0.6 1 0.107 1 0.394 0 1.063 0 1.778 0 2.944 0 4.603 0 6.766 0 9.421 0 12.546 0 16.110
0.7 1 0.094 1 0.232 1 0.520 0 1.021 0 1.378 0 1.925 0 2.685 0 3.676 0 4.906 0 6.380
0.8 2 0.075 1 0.177 1 0.292 1 0.467 1 0.729 0 1.031 0 1.193 0 1.417 0 1.710 0 2.079
0.9 2 0.053 2 0.132 1 0.233 1 0.298 1 0.368 1 0.448 1 0.542 1 0.654 1 0.788 1 0.947
1.0 3 0.032 3 0.063 3 0.091 3 0.118 3 0.143 3 0.167 3 0.189 3 0.211 3 0.231 3 0.250
B.4 Cc =1000 44
Cc 1000
µ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 1 3.274 1 15.228 1 31.181 1 48.809 1 67.262 1 86.177 1 105.375 1 124.758 1 144.270 1 163.873
0.2 1 0.893 1 6.548 1 16.977 1 30.455 1 45.810 1 62.362 1 79.713 1 97.618 1 115.923 1 134.524
0.3 1 0.368 1 3.222 1 9.823 1 19.627 1 31.802 1 45.683 1 60.799 1 76.828 1 93.544 1 110.787
0.4 1 0.208 1 1.785 1 6.036 1 13.097 1 22.564 1 33.953 1 46.845 1 60.910 1 75.898 1 91.621
0.5 1 0.148 1 1.096 1 3.921 1 9.041 1 16.371 1 25.627 1 36.495 1 48.687 1 61.966 1 76.137
0.6 1 0.121 1 0.736 1 2.678 1 6.444 1 12.139 1 19.645 1 28.757 1 39.254 1 50.930 1 63.604
0.7 1 0.109 1 0.535 1 1.914 1 4.731 1 9.189 1 15.289 1 22.919 1 31.927 1 42.147 1 53.426
0.8 1 0.102 1 0.416 1 1.426 1 3.570 1 7.094 1 12.072 1 18.471 1 26.194 1 35.121 1 45.128
0.9 2 0.099 1 0.342 1 1.104 1 2.764 1 5.578 1 9.666 1 15.046 1 21.674 1 29.468 1 38.333
1.0 2 0.097 1 0.295 1 0.885 1 2.192 1 4.463 1 7.842 1 12.384 1 18.082 1 24.891 1 32.742

Cc 1000
µ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 1 3.265 0 15.213 0 31.198 1 48.843 1 67.293 0 86.086 0 105.319 1 124.673 1 144.303 0 163.898
0.2 1 0.897 1 6.523 1 17.026 1 30.434 1 45.779 0 62.404 1 79.558 0 97.464 1 115.801 0 134.534
0.3 1 0.370 1 3.228 1 9.816 1 19.651 1 31.688 1 45.644 1 60.783 1 76.946 1 93.640 1 110.907
0.4 1 0.205 1 1.806 1 6.068 1 13.088 1 22.526 1 33.987 1 46.870 1 60.884 1 75.970 1 91.532
0.5 1 0.151 1 1.083 1 3.961 1 9.049 1 16.375 1 25.619 1 36.353 1 48.537 0 62.127 0 75.866
0.6 1 0.123 1 0.740 1 2.665 1 6.447 1 12.258 1 19.757 1 28.877 1 39.079 1 50.844 1 63.538
0.7 1 0.109 1 0.534 1 1.917 1 4.712 1 9.117 1 15.245 1 22.850 1 31.897 1 41.935 1 53.459
0.8 1 0.101 1 0.412 1 1.452 1 3.591 1 7.124 1 11.948 1 18.416 1 26.203 1 35.350 1 45.155
0.9 2 0.096 1 0.342 1 1.096 1 2.770 1 5.588 1 9.740 1 14.987 1 21.580 1 29.414 1 38.460
1.0 2 0.082 1 0.299 1 0.868 1 2.152 1 4.437 1 7.913 1 12.381 1 18.026 1 24.935 1 32.879

Cc 1000
µ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.1 1 2.955 1 15.122 1 31.208 1 48.796 1 67.176 0 86.126 0 105.285 0 124.836 0 144.173 0 163.754
0.2 1 0.868 1 6.553 1 16.967 0 30.368 1 45.774 0 62.213 0 79.756 0 97.491 1 116.000 1 134.452
0.3 1 0.365 1 3.202 1 9.787 1 19.636 1 31.724 1 45.747 0 60.967 0 76.795 1 93.350 1 110.707
0.4 1 0.211 1 1.782 1 6.009 1 13.105 1 22.553 1 33.920 1 46.730 1 60.798 1 75.748 1 91.626
0.5 1 0.147 1 1.096 1 3.912 1 8.983 1 16.387 1 25.598 1 36.376 1 48.527 1 61.953 1 76.116
0.6 1 0.124 1 0.741 1 2.668 1 6.467 1 12.025 1 19.732 1 28.724 1 39.313 1 50.907 1 63.580
0.7 1 0.113 1 0.558 1 1.948 1 4.740 1 9.168 1 15.321 1 22.908 1 31.832 1 42.105 0 53.568
0.8 1 0.104 1 0.417 1 1.429 1 3.592 1 7.115 1 12.188 1 18.433 1 26.208 1 35.235 1 45.186
0.9 2 0.097 1 0.348 1 1.133 1 2.758 1 5.599 1 9.709 1 15.092 1 21.758 1 29.501 1 38.410
1.0 2 0.084 1 0.288 1 0.885 1 2.166 1 4.412 1 7.858 1 12.463 1 18.036 1 24.823 1 32.587


Condition Based Maintenance and Degradat

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Condition Based Maintenance and Degradat

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Condition-based maintenance

and degradation models

5 Simulation and results 29

6 Conclusion and recommendations 33

B Analytical and simulation results 37

2.1 Gradual deterioration

2.2 Step-wise deterioration

Figure 1: Markov chain of equipment deterioration and maintenance

3.1 Markov chain

Sample measurements of X are taken to describe the characteristics of the distribution.

The probabilities are denoted as follows:

α Type I error probability

β Type II error probability

Table 3.1: Possible Events in an Inspection Interval

Quality state at ti−1 Event Case

be found in the article of Panagiotidou [2].

P [Y ≥ ti ∧ Y ≥ ti−1 ] P [Y ≥ ti ] Φ̄0 (ti )

F̄ (ti ) Φ̄0 (ti )

4.1 Fixed time of deterioration

Figure 2: Different models for the threshold strategy

Figure 3: Markov chain for deterioration

E[T C] = E[Ccycle ]/E[Lcycle ]

The objective function for optimization is defined as

Table 4.1: Optimal state D with corresponding costs

on a failure (the larger q), the lower the costs are.

4.1.1 Fixed time of deterioration with planned maintenance

P (P M ) = 1, (4.8) P (CM ) = 0. (4.9)

4.2 Fixed probabilities of deterioration

Again the equation below holds:

E[T C] = E[Ccycle ]/E[Lcycle ]

The objective function to optimize is as follows:

(a) Plot for Cc = 3 (b) Plot for Cc = 10

(c) Plot for Cc = 100 (d) Plot for Cc = 1000

4.2.1 Fixed probabilities of deterioration with planned maintenance

P (L = 1) = P (component 1 in state 0 when failure)

P (L = 2) = P (component 1 in state 0 when failure)

P (L = 3) = P (component 1 in state 0 when failure)

For D = 1 the equations are as follows:

P (L = 2) = P (component 1 in state 1 when failure)

P (L = 3) = P (component 1 in state 1 when failure)

4.3 Distributed time of deterioration

before a quality shift are given by

Knowing all probabilities leads to P (P M ) and P (CM ) as follows:

• Another characteristic of the exponential distribution is that for T ∼ Exp(λ) and

E[T C] = E[Ccycle ]/E[Lcycle ]

(a) Plot for Cc = 3 (b) Plot for Cc = 10

(c) Plot for Cc = 100 (d) Plot for Cc = 1000

4.3.1 Distributed time of deterioration with planned maintenance

P (L = K) = P (Component 1 in state 0 without failure)

P (L ∈ (v, v + dv) < K)

For D = 0 the equations are somewhat different:

P (L ∈ (v, v + dv) < K)

Now P (L = K) + P (L < K) = 1. And the probabilities on CM and PM are as follows:

Now it holds that

5 Simulation and results

5.1 Analytic versus simulation

Table 5.1: Analytical: Optimal state D with corresponding costs

Table 5.2: Simulation: Optimal state D with corresponding costs

is likely to be correct as well.

5.2 Discrete versus continuous

Table 5.3: Discrete Table 5.4: Continuous

5.3 Optimal planned maintenance

5.4 With versus without planned maintenance