Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DOI 10.1007/s40092-014-0087-1
CASE STUDY
Received: 19 December 2013 / Accepted: 22 August 2014 / Published online: 13 September 2014
The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
123
102 J Ind Eng Int (2015) 11:101110
and Mathematical formulation of the system are analysis to obtain hybrid reliability and availability analysis.
described. (c) In the Results and discussion are pre- Rezg et al. (2004) proposed an integrated method for pre-
sented with a numerical example, and finally, (d) in the ventive maintenance and inventory control of a production
Conclusions are drawn. line, composed of n machines subject to failures without
intermediate buffers. Marseguerra et al. (2004) calculated
optimal reliability and availability of uncertain systems via
Literature review multi-objective genetic algorithms. Born and Criscimagna
(1995) developed a methodology to evaluate the need of
The literature survey on production systems is quite vast; reliability, maintainability and diagnostics for translation
Karim et al. (2008) presented the results of a study con- processes. Sharma et al. (2008) proposed a methodological
ducted to identify some of the effective manufacturing and structured framework that makes use of both qualitative
practices that have a significant impact on manufacturing and quantitative techniques aiming at risk and reliability
performance. Patti and Watson (2010) reported that com- analysis of the system. Tsarouhas (2013) studied the reli-
binations of different downtime such as mean time between ability and maintainability analysis, which are the funda-
failures (frequency) and mean time to repair (duration) mental issues for the operation management of a dialysis
affect serial production lines differently even when the system. Markeset and Kumar (2001) have discussed the
total downtime remains equal. Freiheit et al. (2004) application of reliability, maintainability and risk analysis
developed models to predict the productivity of pure serial methods to minimize life cycle cost of the system. Tatry et al.
and parallel-serial bufferless production lines with reserve (1997) have presented an advance study on reliability,
capacity that is the provision of flexible stand by machines availability, maintainability and safety-RAMS for a reusable
capable of performing any operation carried out in the main launch vehicle. Lin (2009) studied system reliability evalu-
production line. Faghihinia and Mollaverdi (2012) pre- ation for a multistate supply chain network with failure nodes
sented a multi-criterion decision-aided maintenance model using minimal paths.
with three criteria that have more influence on decision Furthermore, stochastic models are displayed under a
making: reliability, maintenance cost and maintenance stochastic environment with tool failure and replacement
downtime. Adamyan and He (2002) presented a method- consideration. Simeu-Abazi et al. (1997) applied decom-
ology to identify the sequences of failures and probability position and iterative analysis of Markov chains to obtain
of their occurrence in an automated manufacturing system. numerical solutions for the reliability and dependability of
Glassey and Hong (1993) developed an efficient method to manufacturing systems. Lai et al. (2002) have developed
analyse the behaviour of an unreliable n-stage transfer line Markov model and equations for distributed software/
with (n - 1) finite inter-stage storage buffers. The method hardware systems to obtain the steady-state availability.
is based on the thorough examination of the steady-state Kim and Geshwin (2005) proposed a new model for
behaviour of the n-stage line and the decomposed lines and machines with both quality and operational failures and
the relationship between the failure and repair rates of the developed a Markov process-based method for perfor-
individual stages and the aggregate stages. This method mance analysis of production systems consisting of such
was improved later on by Burman et al. (1998). machine. Taghizadeh and Hafezi (2012) used supply chain
There are several studies related to reliability, availability operational reference for investigating the reliability eval-
and maintainability of manufacturing systems. Cockerill uation of available relationships in supply chain. Tan
(1990) has presented a Reliability, Availability and Main- (1999) proposed a method to calculate both average and
tainabilityRAM analysis of a turbine-generator system. variance of transient throughput by further assuming that
Tsarouhas (2012) reviewed the reliability, availability and the series system at steady-state is in an irreducible Markov
maintainability (RAM) analysis in the food industries and chain. Golrizgashti (2014) proposed a developed balanced
aims to identify the critical points of the production systems scorecard approach to measure supply chain performance
that should be improved by the operational performance and with the aim of creating more value in manufacturing and
the maintenance effectiveness. Collas (1994) has given a business operations. Hou and Okogbaa (2002) proposed a
simple methodology for assessing the complex system simplified availability modelling worksheet (SAMOW), a
availability and reliability. Koulamas (1992) and Savsar computational tool that incorporates Markov analysis and
(2000) developed Markov models to study the effects of tool reliability block diagram methodologies to model and
failures on system performance measures for a flexible analyse the availability of a typical end-to-end solution
manufacturing cell with a single machine served by a robot consisting of multiple complex component systems, where
for part loading/unloading and a pallet for part transfers to the failure of each component system is attributed to
estimate the reliability and maintenance. Hassett et al. (1995) software failures and hardware failures. Srinivasa Rao and
have combined time varying failure rates and Markov chain Naikan (2014) proposed a hybrid approach called as
123
J Ind Eng Int (2015) 11:101110 103
Markov system dynamics (MSD) approach which com- probability distribution. Some of the reasons for failure
bines the Markov approach with system dynamics simu- occurrence may be undetectable defects, abuse, low-safety
lation approach for reliability analysis and to study the factor, etc.
dynamic behaviour of systems.
The mean time to failure (MTTF) is defined by
In many high-speed lines, especially in the process
industries, it may not be possible to store in-process Z1
1
material, because buffers may hurt the quality of the MTTF Rtdt : 2
k
material by allowing it to deteriorate over time (Libero- 0
poulos et al. 2007). For these reasons, high-speed lines The mean time to repair is defined by
generally do not have buffers between workstations. Dogan
Z1
and Altiok (1998) mentioned that in a pharmaceutical 1
MTTR 1 Htdt ; 3
transfer line with several workstations in series connected r
with conveyor segments and buffers between workstations, 0
when a workstation fails, the part in it is scrapped. Chen where H(t) is the cumulative distribution function of the
and Yuan (2004) presented a method to calculate and time to repair a failed system, and r is the constant repair
estimate the performance indices such as the mean and rate of the system. Eqations (2) and (3) are valid for a
variance of the transient throughput and the probability that single component.
the total outputs will meet the demand on time for a series The maintainability quantifies the repair time for the
of unreliable machines with the same production rate and failed system and is defined as the probability that the
without intermediate buffers. Raissi and Gatmiry (2012) failed system will be restored to its satisfactory operational
addressed a systematic method for measuring multi-stage state when maintenance is performed. Maintainability is
service reliability function using failure rate analysis beside related to the duration of outages. The most important
a systematic Six Sigma approach to improve total system measure of maintainability is the mean time to repair
reliability. Jin et al. (2011) proposed a Six Sigma based (MTTR) that focuses on downtime. In the case where the
framework to deploy high product reliability commitment repair time is exponentially distributed,
in distributed subcontractor manufacturing processes.
Mt 1 exp t=MTTR : 4
Dhouib et al. (2008) studied the steady-state availability
and throughput of production lines without buffers com- Also Maintainability ? Unmaintainability = 1 is valid.
posed of several serial machines subject to random oper- Availability is the probability that a system is available
ation-dependent failures. for use when required. The availability depends on both
reliability and maintainability because first of all failure
and repair distribution must be defined. The average
Methods availability over the interval [0, T] is defined as follows
(Ebeling 1997):
Reliability, availability and maintainability equations
ZT
AT 1=T Atdt: 5
Reliability of a system is the probability that the item will
perform its intended function throughout a specified time 0
period when operated in a normal environment (Brischke The steady-state or long-run equilibrium availability is
and Murthy 2003; Dhillon 2006; Pecht 2009). The reli- defined
ability of a system at operational time t can be expressed as MTTF
Rt PT t expkt; 1 A lim AT 6
T!1 MTTR + MTTF
where the continuous random variable T is the time to and Availability ? Unavailability = 1
failure and k is the constant failure rate of the system. The High availability means high reliability with suitable
parameters of reliability are mean time to failure/repair, maintainability which characterises the efficiency of the
failure/repair rate and maximum number of failures in a entire system. Therefore, system availability can never be
specific time interval: less than system reliability.
Reliability + Unreliability = 1
Mathematical formulation of the system
To describe the failure and repair process of the produc-
tion systems we consider a failure distribution that has a It is considered that a production line where the probability of
constant failure and repair rate representing the exponential a transition will undergo from one state to another state
123
104 J Ind Eng Int (2015) 11:101110
M1 M2 Mi-1 Mi Mi+1 Mn
depends only on the current state of the line (Markov process P2 t Dt P2 t k2 DtP0 t r2 DtP2 t; 9
assumption). Therefore, the exponential distribution satisfies for state 3,
the times of failure and repair of the machines. The line
which is considered as a system consists of n-machines in P3 t Dt P3 t k3 DtP0 t r3 DtP2 t 10
series with no buffers between them, see Fig. 1. It was also etc., and for state n,
assumed the process is stationary, meaning that the transition
probabilities do not change with time. In this study we model Pn t Dt Pn t kn DtP0 t rn DtPn t 11
a machine as a discrete state, continuous time Markov pro- The Eq. (7) can be rewritten as
cess. The state transitions of the machine denote the opera-
tional state of the machine with up and the under repair state P0 t Dt P0 t
k1 k2 kn P0 t
of the machine with down. Dt
In addition, the following are considered: state 0: all r1 P1 t r2 P2 t rn Pn t
machines are up; state 1: only the machine 1 is down, 12
whereas the rest of the machines are up; state 2: only the
machine 2 is down, whereas the rest of the machines are In the limiting case it becomes
up, etc. In the case of a single machine, when a machine is P0 t Dt P0 t
in state 0, it can fail (i.e. mechanical, electrical, pneumatic lim
Dt!1 Dt
causes or human error) and goes to state 1 with probability
dP0 t
or failure rate k, which is the reciprocal of the Mean Time k1 k2 kn P0 t
dt
to Failure (MTTF). After that the maintenance staff fixes
r1 P1 t r2 P2 t rn DPn t 13
it, and the machine goes back to operational state 0 with
probability or repair rate r, which is the reciprocal of the Similarly, for Eqs. (8), (9), (10) and (11),
Mean Time to Repair (MTTR).
dP1 t
The production system in study consists of n-machines k1 P0 t r1 P1 t 14
dt
in series, a failure of M1 or M2 or Mn obliges the system
(or workstation) to stop. The system is operated when all dP2 t
k2 P0 t r2 P2 t 15
the machines are up, state 0; otherwise, a failure in any dt
machine (i.e. Mi) can make the system down, state dP3 t
k3 P0 t r3 P3 t 16
i where i = 1, 2, 3,n (see Fig. 2). dt
The transition diagram of the system is shown in Fig. 2,
and for state 0 the following can be derived:
dPn t
P0 t Dt P0 t k1 DtP0 t k2 DtP0 t kn P0 t rn Pn t 17
dt
kn DtP0 t
The transition rates can be expressed in form of a
r1 DtP1 t r2 DtP2 t rn DtPn t 7 transition matrix as follows:
123
J Ind Eng Int (2015) 11:101110 105
2 3 0 12 3
d=dtP0 t k1 k2 kn r1 r2 r3 rn P0 t
6 d=dtP1 t 7 B r1 0 C 6 7
6 7 B k1 0 0 C6 P1 t 7
6 d=dtP2 t 7 B k2 0 r2 0 0 C 6 P2 t 7
6 7 B C6 7
6 d=dtP3 t 7 B r3 C 6 7
6 7 B k 3 0 0 C6 P3 t 7
6 7 B C 6 7
6 7 B C6 7
4 5 @ A4 5
d=dtPn t kn 0 0 0 rn Pn t
The system must be one of the n states at any given Equation (25) has been also proposed, in homogeneous
time. Consequently, cases by researchers (Buzacott 1968; Buzacott and Shant-
P0 t P1 t Pn t 1 18 hikumar 1993; Gershwin 1994; and Papadopoulos and
Heavey 1996), whereas Eq. (26) is the unavailability that is
By solving Eqs. (13)(18) for steady state as t ! 1 and
the sum of the failure probabilities for each machine of the
dP(t)/dt ? 0,we obtain the state probabilities
!1 system.
Xn
ki
P0 1 19
r
i1 i
1 Results and discussion
r1 k2 kn
P1 1 1 20
k1 r2 rn The advantage of the proposed method is to estimate the
1 production system parameters (i.e. reliability availability
r2 k1 k3 kn
P2 1 1 21 and maintainability) on system performance in the actual
k2 r1 r3 rn croissant production line. The analysis provides a useful
1 insight into the systems behaviour and helps to find design
r3 k1 k2 k4 kn
P3 1 1 22 inherent faults and to suggest optimal modifications to
k3 r1 r2 r4 rn
upgrade the system and improve its performance. Then, it
. re-estimates the system parameters of the production line to
1 measure its efficiency and productivity within the frame of
rn k1 k2 k3 kn1
Pn 1 1 23 total quality management (TQM) principles.
kn r1 r2 r3 rn1
In general form the Eqs. 2023 can be expressed as Numerical example
2 0 131
6 ri B X kj C 7 Description of croissant production system
Pi 4 1 @ 1 A5 ; for i 1; 2; . . .n 24
ki j6i
rj
1jn The croissant line consists of six independent workstations in
series integrated into one system with a common transfer
Equation (24) represents analytically the failure proba-
mechanism and control system. Each workstation consists of
bility for individual machine with respect to the failure and
one-three machines connected in series. The movement of
repair rate of the rest of the machines system.
material between stations is performed automatically with
Thus, the availability and unavailability of the system,
mechanical means. There are six distinct stages in croissant
respectively, are
!1 production: kneading, forming, proofing, baking, cooling-
Xn
ki filling and wrapping. The process flow of the line is as fol-
As P 0 1 25 lows (see Fig. 3).
r
i1 i
In workstation 1 (kneading), flour from silo and water
X
n
are automatically fed into the removable bowl of the spiral
UAs P1 P2 P3 Pn Pi
kneading machine. After the dough is kneaded, the bowl is
2 0 1i1
31 unloaded from the spiral machine and loaded onto the
Xn 6 B X kj C 7 elevator-tipping device that lifts it and tips it to moisten the
61 ri B1 C7 26 dough into the dough extruder of the lamination machine in
4 k i
@ r j
A5
i1 j6i
1jn
the next workstation.
123
106 J Ind Eng Int (2015) 11:101110
The Croissant
Production
Line
Cooling-
Kneading Forming Proofing Baking Wrapping
30 min * 35 min 240 min 18 min
Filling 5 min
52 min
Elevator Carton
Tipping Machine
Device 1 min
1 min
*
Cycle time per croissant in minutes
Fig. 3 A schematic presentation of croissant production line
In workstation 2 (forming), the dough fed into the sealed with an electronic wrapping machine. The final
lamination machine is laminated, folded, reduced in products are picked up and placed in cartons. The filled
thickness by a multiroller and refolded a few times by a cartons are placed on a different conveyor that takes them
retracting unit to form a multilayered sheet. The multi- to a worker who stacks them onto palettes and transfers
layered dough is fed into the croissant-making machine, them to the finished-goods warehouse. The empty baking
which cuts it into pieces of triangular shape. Finally, the pans are automatically returned to the croissant-making
triangles are rolled up and formed into crescents. At the machine.
exit of the croissant-making machine, the croissants are
laid onto metal baking pans, and the pans are inserted into Calculation of reliability, availability and maintainability
carts. for croissant line
In workstation 3 (proofing), the carts are automatically
pushed into the proofing cell, where they remain under The croissant production line operates for 8-h shifts during
strict uniform temperature and humidity conditions for each workday and usually pauses during the weekends.
240 min so that croissants can rise to their final size. From the technical department we collected data that
In workstation 4 (baking), the carts are automatically covered a period of 16 months. The data are records of
pushed from the proofing cell to the oven. The baking pans failures that the maintenance staff kept during each shift.
are unloaded from the carts and are placed onto a metal During this period the croissant production line operated
conveyor that passes through the oven. The baking pans for 24 h per day in three 8-h shifts during each day, for a
remain in the oven for 18 min until the croissants are fully total of 320 working days. The records included the failures
baked. that had occurred during each shift, the action taken to
In workstation 5 (cooling-filling), the baking pans with repair the failure, the down time and the exact time of
the baked croissant remain on the conveyor and follow a failure. Table 1 shows the failure rate ki,j and repair rate ri,j,
trajectory (cooling system) for 50 min to cool the crois- for machine i at workstation j.
sants down and avoid any condensation phenomena (drops)
after packaging. The croissants may then be filled with an Workstation 1
injecting machine.
In workstation 6 (wrapping), the croissants are auto- The WS1 consists of 3 machines in series; a failure of M1.1
matically lifted from the trays and are flow-packed and or M2.1 or M3.1 constrains the workstation to stop. Using
123
J Ind Eng Int (2015) 11:101110 107
Table 1 Failure and repair rate for all the machines of croissant and (24) for state 0, 1 and 2 as t ! 1, the following
production line equations can be derived:
Workstation Machine ki,j (failures/h) ri,j (repairs/h) !1
X2
ki;2
P0;WS2 1 31
WS1 M.1.1 0.00890 4.6512 r
i1 i;2
M.2.1 0.04100 0.7491
1
M.3.1 0.00010 0.9901 r1;2 k2;2
P1;WS2 1 1 32
WS2 M.1.2 0.09800 2.9762 k1;2 r2;2
M.2.2 0.00739 0.7994 1
r2;2 k1;2
WS3 M.1.3 0.00946 1.1751 P2;WS2 1 1 33
WS4 M.1.4 0.00299 0.3044
k2;2 r1;2
WS5 M.1.5 0.02006 0.6988 From Table 1, substituting the values of ki,2 and ri,2 we
M.2.5 0.00957 1.9531 found: P0,WS2 = 0.95953369, P1,WS2 = 0.03159553,
WS6 M.1.6 0.00694 2.1882 P2,WS2 = 0.00887078. Therefore, from Eqs. (25) and (26),
M.2.6 0.00196 0.6523 the availability and the unavailability of the WS2 are
M.3.6 0.01690 1.6000 AWS2 = 95.95 % and UAWS2 = 4.05 %, respectively.
The reliability and the maintainability of the WS2 are:
RWS2 t exp0:105t and MWS2 t 1 exp2:49t;
the Eq. (19) for state 0, and the Eq. (24) for state 1, 2 and 3 respectively, where MTTFWS2 P21 1
0:105 9:49h
i1
ki;2
as t ! 1, the following equations can be derived:
and MTTRWS2 = 0.40 h and rWS2 = 2.49.
!1
X 3
ki;1
P0;WS1 1 27
r
i1 i;1 Workstation 3
1
r1;1 k2;1 k3;1 WS3 consists of 1 machine; a failure of M1.3 constrains the
P1;WS1 1 1 28
k1;1 r2;1 r3;1 workstation to stop. Using Eqs. (19) and (24) for state 0
1 and 1, respectively, as t ! 1, the following equations can
r2;1 k1;1 k3;1
P2;WS1 1 1 29 be derived:
k2;1 r1;1 r3;1
1
r3;1 k1;1 k2;1 k1;3 1
P3;WS1 1 1 : 30 P0;WS3 1 34
k3;1 r1;1 r2;1 r1;3
From Table 1, substituting the values of ki,1 and r i,1 we r1;3 1
P1;WS3 1 : 35
found the following: k1;3
P0,WS1 = 0.946298058, P1,WS1 = 0.001810741,
From Table 1, substituting the values of k3,1 and r3,1 we
P2,WS1 = 0.051795624, P3,WS1 = 9.55761E-05. There-
found the following:
fore, from Eqs. (25) and (26), the availability and the
P0,WS3 = 0.992014, P1,WS3 = 0.007986. Therefore,
unavailability of the WS1 are AWS1 = 94.63 % and
from Eqs. (25) and (26), the availability and the unavail-
UAWS1 = 5.37 %, respectively.
ability of the WS3 are AWS3 = 99.20 % and
From Eq. (5) it is easy to deduce that
UAWS3 = 0.8 %, respectively.
1 AWS1 The reliability and the maintainability of the WS3 are:
MTTRWS1 MTTFWS1 ;
AWS1 RWS3 texp0:00946t and MWS3 t1exp1:17t;
where MTTFWS1 P31 1
0:05 20h; then respectively, where MTTFWS3 1k0:00946 1
105:70h and
k
i1 i;1
MTTRWS1 = 1.135 h and rWS1 = 0.881 MTTRWS3 = 0.852 h and rWS3 = 1.17.
The reliability and the maintainability of the WS1 are
RWS1 t exp0:05t and MWS1 t 1 exp0:881t; Workstation 4
respectively.
WS4 consists of 1 machine as WS3; a failure of M1.4
Workstation 2 constrains the workstation to stop.
From Table 1, substituting the values of k1,4 and r1,4 in
WS2 consists of 2 machines in series; a failure of M1.2 or Eqs. (19) and (24), we found that
M2.2 constrains the workstation to stop. Using the Eqs. (19) P0,WS4 = 0.990273, P1,WS4 = 0.009727.
123
108 J Ind Eng Int (2015) 11:101110
Workstation 5
Workstation 6
In Fig. 4, the diagrams of reliability and maintain-
The WS6 consists of 3 machines in series as WS1; a failure ability for all workstations and the entire production
of M1.6 or M2.6 or M3.6 constrains the workstation to stop. system were plotted, and the following observations were
From Table 1, substituting the values of ki,6 and ri,6 in made: (a) the reliability of the line in an hour of oper-
Eqs. (19) and (24) we found that ation is 80.00 %, in 8-h (a shift) of operation is 16.76 %
P0,WS6 = 0.983537, P1,WS6 = 0.003119, P2,WS6 = and in 24-h (a working day) of operation drops down to
0.002955, P3,WS6 = 0.010389. 0.47 %; (b) a failure at all workstations and for the
Therefore, from Eqs. (25) and (26), the availability and entire line will be repaired within 100 min, except for
the unavailability of the WS6 are AWS6 = 98.35 % and WS4 (baking) where the repair time is more than
UAWS6 = 1.65 %, respectively. 500 min. This is obvious because the maintenance staff,
The reliability and the maintainability of the WS6 are: apart from the time it takes them to repair a failure,
RWS6 texp0:0258t and MWS5 t1exp1:537t; spends time waiting for the oven to cool down and
respectively, where MTTFWS6 P31 0:0258 1
38:76h; following repair also spends time to reheat the oven;
k
i1 i;6 (c) the highest reliabilities are reported for WS4 (baking)
then MTTRWS6 = 0.65 h and rWS6 = 1.537. and WS3 (proofing), whereas the lowest reliabilities for
The reliability, availability and maintainability of the WS2 (forming) and WS1 (kneading); (d) the best main-
entire croissant production line, respectively, are tainability occurs at WS6 (wrapping), whereas the worst
Y
6 maintainability occurs at WS4 (baking). The maintain-
Rs t RWSi t exp0:2232t 35 ability at WS1 (kneading), WS2 (forming) and WS5
i1 (cooling-filling) must be revised as well; and (e) the WS1
Y
6 (kneading), WS2 (forming) and WS5 (cooling-filling)
As AWSi 0:84878 36 WS6 (wrapping) appear to display the major unavail-
i1 ability of the line with 5.37, 4.05, 3.26 and 1.65 %,
Ms t 1 exp1:3358t: 37 respectively.
123
J Ind Eng Int (2015) 11:101110 109
123
110 J Ind Eng Int (2015) 11:101110
Marseguerra M, Zio E, Podofillini L (2004) Optimal reliability/ Tatry PH, Deneu F, Siomonotti JL (1997) RAMS approach for
availability of uncertain systems via multi-objective genetic reusable launch vehicle advanced studies. Acta Astronaut
algorithms. IEEE Trans Reliab 53(3):424434 41(11):791797
Papadopoulos HT, Heavey C (1996) Queueing theory in manufac- Tsarouhas P (2012) Reliability, availability, and maintainability
turing systems analysis and design: a classification of models for (RAM) analysis in food production lines: a review. Int J Food
production and transfer lines. Eur J Oper Res 92:127 Sci Technol 47(11):22432251
Patti LA, Watson JK (2010) Downtime variability: the impact of Tsarouhas P (2013) Reliability analysis into hospital dialysis system:
duration-frequency on the performance of serial production a case study. Qual Reliab Eng Int 29(8):12351243
systems. Int J Prod Res 48(19):58315841 Xie XL (1993) Performance analysis of a transfer line with unreliable
Pecht M (2009) Product reliability, maintainability, and supportability machines and finite buffers. IIE Trans 25:99108
handbook, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton, Yusuf I (2014) Comparative analysis of profit between three
FL, USA dissimilar repairable redundant systems using supporting exter-
Raissi S, Gatmiry Z (2012) A Six Sigma approach to boost up time nal device for operation. J Ind Eng Int 10:77
domain reliability in multi-stage services. Afr J Bus Manag
6(4):13671374
Rezg N, Xie X, Mati Y (2004) Joint optimization of preventive Dr. Panagiotis H. Tsarouhas Dipl. Eng., Ph.D. is Assistant Professor
maintenance and inventory control in a production line using at Technological Educational Institute of Central Macedonia
simulation. Int J Prod Res 42(10):20292046 (Greece), Department of Supply Chain Management and Logistics
Savsar M (2000) Reliability analysis of a flexible manufacturing cell. and a tutor in postgraduate course on Quality Assurance in Hellenic
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 67(1):147152 Open University. He received his Diploma in Mechanical Engineer-
Sharma RK, Kumar D, Kumar P (2008) Fuzzy modelling of system ing from Universita degli studi di Napoli Federico II (Italy) and both
behaviour for risk and reliability analysis. Int J Syst Sci Ph.D. and M.Sc. from the Department of Mechanical and Industrial
39(6):563581 Engineering from the University of Thessaly in Volos, Greece. For
Simeu-Abazi Z, Daniel O, Descotes-Genon B (1997) Analytical about 10 years he was at the Technical Department as production and
method to evaluate the dependability of manufacturing systems. maintenance operation head in food industry Chipita International
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 55:125130 SA in Lamia, Greece. He has about 23 years of research/teaching
Srinivasa Rao M, Naikan VNA (2014) Reliability analysis of experience and more than 40 research papers in international journals,
repairable systems using system dynamics modeling and simu- book chapters and conference proceedings. He has been involved in
lation. J Ind Eng Int 10:69 many research and practical projects in the field of reliability analysis
Taghizadeh H, Hafezi E (2012) The investigation of supply chains and maintenance engineering. His areas of interest are reliability and
reliability measure: a case study. J Ind Eng Int 8:22 maintenance engineering, quality engineering and supply chain
Tan B (1999) Variance of the output as a function of time: production management.
line dynamics. Eur J Oper Res 117(3):470484
123