European Journal of Operational Research 156 (2004) 712718

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Production, Manufacturing and Logistics

Analysis of a production/inventory system

with randomly failing production unit submitted
to regular preventive maintenance
a,* b,1
Anis Chelbi , Daoud Ait-Kadi
a

Ecole Sup

erieure des Sciences et Techniques de Tunis, Centre de Recherche en Productique (CEREP), 5, Avenue Taha Hussein,
BP 56, Bab Menara, Tunis, Tunisia
b
D
epartement de G
enie M
ecanique, Universit

e Laval, Sainte Foy, Qu

e., Canada G1K 7P4
Received 18 April 2002; accepted 25 November 2002

Abstract

In this paper we consider a repairable production unit subject to random failures, which supplies input to a sub-
sequent assembly line operating according to a just-in-time conguration. Preventive maintenance actions are regularly
performed on the production unit at instants T ; 2T ; 3T ; . . . The corrective and preventive maintenance actions have
random durations.
In order to palliate perturbations caused by breakdowns and by planned maintenance actions, a buer stock is built
up to ensure the continuous supply of the assembly line at a constant rate b. To build up this buer stock, the pro-
duction unit produces at a rate a b.
The proposed strategy consists in building up, at the beginning of each preventive maintenance cycle, a buer stock
whose size S covers at least the average consumption during the repair periods following breakdowns within the period
of length T . At the instant T when the production unit has to be stopped to undertake the planned preventive main-
tenance actions, a certain level of buer stock must still be available in order to avoid stoppage of the subsequent
assembly line.
A mathematical model has been developed for this strategy. It takes into account the probability distributions as-
sociated to lifetime, repair time, preventive maintenance duration, as well as the renewal process associated to the
operationrepair cycles of the production unit.
The optimum values of the decision variables S and T are obtained by trading o the maintenance cost, the in-
ventory holding cost, and the shortage cost such as their sum is minimum.

2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Maintenance; Inventory; Reliability; Decision support systems

*
1. Introduction
Corresponding author. Tel.: +216-98-323-590; fax: +216-
71-347-644.
E-mail addresses: anis.chelbi@planet.tn (A. Chelbi), dao-
It has been largely shown in the literature that
uda@gmc.ulaval.ca (D. Ait-Kadi). implementing preventive maintenance strategies
1
Tel.: +1-418-656-2131x2378; fax: +1-418-656-7415. for several randomly failing production units can

0377-2217/$ - see front matter
2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00254-6
 A. Chelbi, D. Ait-Kadi / European Journal of Operational Research 156 (2004) 712718
be an eective way to extend their lives and reduce
operating costs (Barlow and Proschan, 1965;
Nakagawa, 1981; Nakagawa and Yasui, 1991).
The eect of preventive maintenance on produc-
tion systems has become increasingly important in
a just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing context, which
advocates minimizing inventory and turnover
times (Hall, 1983). Lee and Rosenblatt (1987)
studied the case where preventive maintenance is
performed on a deteriorating machine after it
produces the economical manufacturing quantity.
Groenevelt et al. (1992a) analyzed a randomly
failing production system with constant demand.
Under the assumption of negligible machine res-
toration times, they addressed the lot-sizing
problem. This work has been extended to the case
where repair times are randomly distributed and
excess demand is lost (Groenevelt et al., 1992b).
When two machines operate in a system inter-
dependently, it is generally not clear when or how
to implement preventive maintenance in a way to
continuously satisfy the demand (Pintelon and
Gelders, 1992). Wijngaard (1979) examined a two
randomly failing machine system where both ma-
chines have random processing times. He used
dierential equations to model the long-run steady-
state behavior of the system and obtained explicit
formulas for dierent performance measures.
Many authors have examined the conditions of
building buer stocks to guarantee the continuous
supply of the subsequent production unit during
the interruptions of service due to repair or pre-
ventive maintenance. Van der Duyn Schouten and
Vanneste (1995) proposed for two machines and
one buer between them, a preventive mainte-
nance policy based not only on the age of the
machine but also on the size of the buer which are
both used to determine when to perform a pre-
ventive maintenance action. Meller Russell and
David (1996) studied the impact of a preventive
maintenance policy on a two-machine system with
xed-capacity buer between machines. They
suppose in their model that the machines failure
rates are constant and that repair time is expo-
nentially distributed and preventive maintenance
actions have known and constant duration.
Still under the assumption of preventive main-
tenance action constant duration, Cheung and
713
Hausmann (1997) developed a unied framework
in which they considered jointly the implementa-
tion of preventive maintenance and buer stock.
They derived the optimality conditions under a
general time to failure distribution with increasing
failure rate and for the cases where repair time is
constant or exponentially distributed.
In this paper we consider a repairable pro-
duction unit subject to random failures, which
supplies input to a subsequent assembly line
operating according to a just-in-time congura-
tion. Such a situation is found in many industries
like for example automobile, motorbikes and
semi-conductor manufacturing industries. For
instance, the frame and other motorbike com-
ponents are painted in the painting unit, they are
then assembled on the assembly line. Any activ-
ity suspension of the painting unit due to
breakdown or preventive maintenance would
hinder the continuous supply of the assembly
line. There are many other examples in industry
where buer stocks are used to cope with ma-
chine (parts) failures and preventive maintenance.
In the packaging industry for example and spe-
cially the production of corrugated carton cases,
a buer stock must be built by the corrugating
machine (a huge production unit around 6080
m long and 4 m high) which produces sheets of
corrugated carton board to be supplied to the
converting machines called case makers. This
buer stock of sheets allows a continuous supply
of the case makers during corrective and regular
preventive maintenance actions performed on the
corrugating machines.
Considering the technical complexity of the
machine, the absence of detailed historical data on
failures and undertaken corrective actions, and the
lack of competent resources to eliminate chronic
failures and improve the machine availability, one
can assume being in a context of preventive and
corrective actions with random durations.
In compliance with the machine maker recom-
mendations aiming at reducing the likelihood of
breakdowns, preventive maintenance actions have
to be regularly performed at instants T ; 2T ; 3T ; . . .
It is assumed that these actions do not degrade the
state of the machine and that the unitary mainte-
nance costs are known and constant.
714 A. Chelbi, D. Ait-Kadi / European Journal of Operational Research 156 (2004) 712718
In order to palliate perturbations caused by
breakdowns and by planned maintenance actions,
a buer stock is built up to ensure the continuous
supply of the assembly line at constant rate b. To
build up this buer stock, the production unit
produces at a rate a b.
The proposed strategy consists in building up,
at the beginning of each preventive maintenance
cycle, a buer stock whose size S covers at least the
average consumption during the repair periods
following breakdowns within the period of length
T . At the instant T when the production unit has
to be stopped to undertake the planned preventive
maintenance actions, a certain level of buer stock
must still be available in order to avoid stoppage
of the subsequent assembly line.
A mathematical model has been developed for
this strategy. It takes into account the probability
distributions associated to lifetime, repair time,
preventive maintenance duration, as well as the
renewal process associated to the operationrepair
cycles of the production unit.
A numerical procedure is proposed to generate
the optimum values of the decision variables S and
T that minimize the average total cost per time
unit, which includes the maintenance cost, the in-
ventory holding cost, and the shortage cost.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: in
the next section we dene the proposed strategy
and state the working assumptions and the used
notations. In Section 3, the mathematical model is
presented expressing the total expected cost per
time unit. The fourth section is dedicated to the
numerical procedure developed for nding the
optimal values of the decision variables S and T .
This procedure is tested in Section 5 through a
numerical example. Finally, a summary of the
work together with indications about extensions
currently under consideration is provided in the
last Section of the paper.
2. Working assumptions and notations
We consider an unreliable production unit which
is submitted to regular preventive maintenance of
random duration. The production unit which is
assimilated to only one machine must supply, at a
constant rate b, an assembly line operating on a
just-in-time basis. Any delay leads automatically to
the stoppage of the assembly line. The machine
could stop producing either following failure or to
undergo regular preventive maintenance actions
every T time units. The nominal production rate of
the machine is higher than the demand rate b.
A buer stock is considered to ensure the con-
tinuous supply of the assembly line at a constant
rate b during repair or preventive maintenance. At
the beginning of each preventive maintenance
cycle, a buer stock is built up at a rate a b. Its
size covers at least the average consumption dur-
ing the repair periods following breakdowns
within the time interval of length T . At the instant
T when the production unit has to be stopped to
undertake the planned preventive maintenance
actions, a certain buer stock level must still be
available in order to avoid stoppage of the subse-
quent assembly line.
In addition, the following assumptions are
made:
(a) Lifetime and maintenance duration probabil-
ity distributions are known.
(b) Failures are detected instantaneously.
(c) Maintenance actions are perfectly performed.
Each action restores the equipment to a state
as good as new.
(d) After undertaking a preventive maintenance
action, the machine can simultaneously satisfy
the demand and produce S additional units be-
fore failure may occur. The stock level S must
be at least equal to the average consumption
during the repair periods following break-
downs within the time interval of length T .
(e) Sucient capacity is present to allow rapid ac-
cumulation of the buer stock S at rate a com-
pared to the preventive maintenance period T
(i.e.: T  S=a).
(f) All costs related to maintenance and inventory
are supposed to be known and constant.
(g) The preventive maintenance instants are
planned in advance and cannot be changed.
(h) The stock is imperishable with time.
Throughout the paper, the following notation
will be used:
 A. Chelbi, D. Ait-Kadi / European Journal of Operational Research 156 (2004) 712718 715

f  probability density function associated to Cs holding cost of a product unit during a

preventive maintenance duration unit of time
g probability density function associated to Cp shortage cost of a product unit during a
machine lifetime unit of time. This cost is associated with
G probability distribution function associ- additional eort to provide the assembly
ated to machine lifetime line with the unavailable product in the
Z t short run.
Gt gx dx
0

h probability density function associated to 3. The mathematical model

repair time;
H  probability distribution function associ- Our objective is to determine simultaneously
ated to repair time: the optimal preventive maintenance period T and
Z t the size of the buer stock S which minimize the
H t hxdx total average cost per time unit. The following
0
analysis will lead to the expression of this cost.
MTBF machine average lifetime: For a given couple (MTBF, MTTR), the evo-
Z 1 lution of the stock is illustrated as follows (Fig. 1).
MTBF t dGt The quantity [MT  bMTTR] corresponds to
0
the average consumption during the repair periods
MTTR machine average repair time: following breakdowns within the period of T time
Z 1
units.
MTTR t dH t MT corresponds to the expected number of
0
cycles from operation to repair of a production
S buer stock size unit within preventive maintenance period T .
T preventive maintenance actions periodic- From (Barlow and Proschan, 1965, p. 75), the
ity expression of MT is
MT average number of cycles (operationre-
pair) within the time interval of length T X
1
MT Ln T ; 1
a, b production rates
n1
C1 corrective maintenance action cost
C2 preventive maintenance action cost where Lt is the convolution product of the life
(C2 < C1 ) time and repair time distributions,

MTBF MTTR
Zones V

Zone III

S - M(T).MTTR

Zone II
Zone I Zone IV

S/ T

Fig. 1. Evolution of the buer stock.

716 A. Chelbi, D. Ait-Kadi / European Journal of Operational Research 156 (2004) 712718

Z t 3.3. Shortage cost

Lt Gt  x dH x; 2
0
Shortage is possible in case the preventive
and Ln t is the nth convolution of Lt with it maintenance action lasts longer than the period
self, i.e. necessary for the consumption of the remaining
Z t buer stock R S  MT  MTTR  b. The
n
L t Ln1 t  x dLx: 3 shortage cost can then be expressed as:
Z 1  
0 SR
cpt Cp  b t dF t: 6
The total expected cost per time unit includes the SR=b b
maintenance cost, the inventory holding cost, and Thus, the total average exploitation cost of the
the shortage cost. production unit is given by the sum of the three
dierent costs expressed by Eqs. (4)(6):
3.1. Maintenance cost
Ctot cm cst cpt: 7
The total average maintenance cost is given by
the following expression: 3.4. Average duration of a preventive maintenance
cycle
cm C1  MT C2 : 4
A preventive maintenance cycle is dened as the
3.2. Inventory holding cost period of time between the completion of consec-
utive preventive maintenance actions. Its average
Considering MT  MTTR  b
6 S < aT (refer duration is given by
Z 1
assumptions 4 and 5), the total average holding
cost can be expressed as follows (see Fig. 1): ET Tpm T t dF t; 8
0
 
S S where Tpm is a random variable denoting the time
cst Cs   required to perform preventive maintenance. It is
a 2
   independent of preventive maintenance period T ,
S and has a probability distribution function F t.
Cs  S  MT  MTTR  b  T 
a Hence, the total expected cost per time unit can
 
be written as follows:
T  Sa  MT  MTTR  b

Cs Ctot
2 CT : 9
 ET Tpm
S  MT  MTTR  b
Cs  We nally obtain for a given situation, the fol-
b
    lowing non-linear optimization problem:
S  MT  MTTR  b S
 Cs  M T  Minimize Z CT S; T
2 a
subject to: T > 0 and MT  bMTTR
6 S < aT :
MTBF MTTR  MTTR  b
 In the next section we suggest a numerical proce-
2
 
 dure using a simple enumeration to obtain the best
MTTR  b feasible solution S  ; T  .
  MTTR :
2
5
4. Numerical procedure
The rst line of Eq. (5) corresponds to the area of
zone I of Fig. 1. The second line corresponds to the The following iterative numerical procedure
area of Zone II, and so forth. (Fig. 2) has been developed to nd the optimal
 A. Chelbi, D. Ait-Kadi / European Journal of Operational Research 156 (2004) 712718 717

T Ti Repair time distribution. Exponential with an

average of 0.005 month.
Smin = M(Ti)MTTR ; Smax = Ti Preventive maintenance duration distribution.
Gamma distribution with shape parameter
c 2 and scale parameter k 0:02 (mean
Find Si* = Min CT(S,Ti), for Smin S Smax value 0.04 month).
C1 2500$, C2 100$.
Store CT(Si*,Ti)
Cs 1$/unit/month, Cp 2$/unit/month.
a 7200 units/month, b 28800 units/month.
Ti = Ti + T
These data were arbitrarily chosen. However,
Yes Ti < Tmax we take into account realistic settings frequently
No
encountered in many manufacturing companies
like, for example, considering that the average time
needed to accomplish a preventive maintenance ac-
CTopt(Sopt,Topt) = Min [CT(Si*,Ti] ; for i = 0 to (Tmax T0)/ T
tion (2/50 0.04 month) is short compared with the
Fig. 2. Iterative numerical procedure. mean time between failures (MTBF 0.5 month).

5.2. The obtained results

conguration (Sopt , Topt , CTopt ) for a given set of
parameters h, f , g, C1 , C2 , Cs, Cp , a, b and The following table shows the obtained results.
Tmax .
Tmax must be chosen large enough to cover a
Ti Smin Smax Si CT Si ; Ti
wide range of values of T . The values of Smin and
Smax are rounded to the next integer. 0.1 1 720 680 9043.0
Also, note that the major diculty in the nu- 0.2 1 1440 1400 3029.5
merical procedure resides in the computation of 0.3 1 2160 2080 2019.1
the total expected cost per time unit CT S; T for 0.4 9 2880 2489 2323.4
any couple S; T , particularly the computation of 0.5 42 3600 2042 3372.8
the renewal function MT denoting the average 0.6 97 4320 1816 4635.9
number of cycles (operationrepair) within the 0.7 132 5040 1611 5079.6
time interval T (Eq. (1)). To allow a proper com- 0.8 148 5760 1508 4996.9
putation of this function for any lifetime and re- 0.9 163 6480 1443 4902.4
pair distribution functions we considered an 1.0 193 7200 1313 5063.2
extension of the algorithm developed by Cl
eroux 2.0 485 14400 602 5537.0
and Mc Conalogue (1976) and improved by Chelbi 3.0 718 21600 745 5251.7
and Ait-Kadi (2000).
By the light of these results, the best strategy which
5. Numerical results would minimize the total average cost per time
unit consists in stopping the production unit every
The following numerical example is considered Top 0:3 month and build up a buer stock of
to illustrate our approach. Sop 2080 units as soon as production resumes
after the completion of each preventive mainte-
5.1. The input data nance action. By doing so, it would cost 2019.1$/
month to operate the production unit.
Lifetime distribution. Normal distribution with It is interesting to notice that as the period T
an average of 0.5 month and a standard devia- becomes large and tends to innity (no preventive
tion of 0.1 month. maintenance, only corrective actions following
718 A. Chelbi, D. Ait-Kadi / European Journal of Operational Research 156 (2004) 712718
failures), Sop tends to Smin . That means, in fact, the
buer stock would cover only the needs caused by
failures.
6. Conclusion
This paper presented a joint strategy of buer
stock production and preventive maintenance for
a randomly failing production unit operating in an
environment where repair and preventive mainte-
nance durations are random.
The proposed strategy is characterized by two
decision variables: the period T at which preven-
tive maintenance must be performed, and the level
S of buer stock which must be built after the
completion of each preventive maintenance action
in order to palliate perturbations caused by
breakdowns and by planned maintenance actions.
The optimal policy is obtained by minimizing the
total expected cost per time unit using a numerical
procedure.
There are a number of possible extensions of
this work currently under consideration. These
include extensions of the model to the case where
stock is perishable with time and the case where
production and/or demand rates are variable.
References
Barlow, R.E., Proschan, F., 1965. In: Mathematical Theory of
Reliability. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 108117.
Chelbi, A., Ait-Kadi, D., 2000. Generalized inspection strategy
for randomly failing systems subjected to random shocks.
International Journal of Production Economics 64, 379
384.
Cheung, K.L., Hausmann, W.H., 1997. Joint determination of
preventive maintenance and safety stocks in an unreliable
production environment. Naval Research Logistics 44, 257
272.
Cl
eroux, R., Mc Conalogue, D.J., 1976. A numerical algorithm
for recursively-dened convolution integrals involving dis-
tribution functions. Management Science 22 (10), 1138
1146.
Groenevelt, H., Pintelon, L., Seidmann, A., 1992a. Production
lot sizing with machine breakdowns. Management Science
38 (1), 104123.
Groenevelt, H., Pintelon, L., Seidmann, A., 1992b. Production
batching with machine breakdowns and safety stocks.
Operations Research 40 (5), 959971.
Hall, R., 1983. Zero Inventories. Dow Jones-Irwin, Home-
wood, IL.
Lee, H.L, Rosenblatt, M.J, 1987. Simultaneous determination
of production cycle and inspection schedules in a produc-
tion system. Management Science 33 (9), 11251136.
Meller Russell, D., David, S.K., 1996. The impact of preventive
maintenance on system cost and buer size. European
Journal of Operational Research 95, 577591.
Nakagawa, T., 1981. A summary of periodic replacement with
minimal repair at failure. Journal of the Operations
Research Society of Japan 24, 213227.
Nakagawa, T., Yasui, K., 1991. Periodic replacement models
with threshold levels. IEEE Transactions of Reliability 40.
Pintelon, L.M., Gelders, L.F., 1992. Maintenance management
decision making. European Journal of Operational Re-
search 58, 301317.
Van der Duyn Schouten, F.A., Vanneste, S.G., 1995. Mainte-
nance optimization of a production system with buer
capacity. European Journal of Operational Research 82 (2),
323338.
Wijngaard, J., 1979. The eect of inter-stage on the output of
two unreliable production units in series with dierent
production rates. AIIE Transactions, 4247.