You are on page 1of 9

Quasi-Renewal Approach to Spares Provisioning for

Deteriorating Systems under Imperfect Maintenance


Sang-chin Yang, Ph.D., Chung-Cheng Institute of Technology, Ta-Hsi
Shou-ling Kuo, Chung-Cheng Institute of Technology, Ta-Hsi

Key Words: Availability, Imperfect maintenance, Quasi-renewal process, Spares provisioning

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS Nakagawa [2] proposed an imperfect maintenance model that
after preventive maintenance the component is restored to the
This paper presents algorithms for deriving optimal spares as-good-as-new condition with probability p and to the as-bad-
provisioning under the assumption of imperfect maintenance as-it-was condition with probability q, q = 1 – p. Brown and
policies for deteriorating systems. The spares provisioning Proschan [3] followed this track and derived that if the life
models are developed to calculate the upper and lower bounds of distribution of a component is F and its failure rate is , then the
system availability using a generalized quasi-renewal process. It distribution of the time between successive perfect repairs
is assumed that the system will deteriorate gradually with Fp = 1 − (1 − F ) p and the corresponding failure rate λ p = pλ .
decreasing operation and increasing repair intervals. The optimal
spares investment is obtained by using the numerical approach. (2) Improvement factor models
The annual procurement of spares can be acquired and allocated Malik [4] and Chan and Shaw [5] considered the degree of
with the optimal mix and amount to fulfill the operational improvement in failure rate after maintenance. Two types of
availability requirements. Numerical examples are presented to failure-rate reduction were proposed: (i) failure rate with fixed
illustrate the models results through a set of real field data. reduction; and (ii) failure rate with proportional reduction.
(3) Virtual age models
1. INTRODUCTION Uematsu and Nishida [6] proposed a general virtual age
model. Let q (T1 ,..., Tn ; X 1 ,..., X n −1 ) be the age of the system at
The problem of spares provisioning is critical for a system to the nth failure. After finishing the nth maintenance, the age of
maintain its readiness. For deteriorating systems, under the the system can be expressed as:
traditional renewal assumption to predict spares requirements n n

usually experiences inaccuracy. The critical components of a q(T1 ,..., Tn ; X 1 ,..., X n ) = ∑∑ X iT j (1)
j =1 i = j
deteriorating system are often in short supply while overstocking
lots of unnecessary spares. It is assumed that, every time, after where Tj is the time interval between the (n – 1)st and the nth
repair the system is retained and/or restored to an as-good-as- failure for j = 1,…, n; and Xi is a r.v. that represents the degree
new condition. This type of maintenance models is categorized of maintenance for i = 1,…, n. For Xi = 0, the maintenance is
as the perfect maintenance model. Another category is to assume perfect repair; and for Xi = 1, the maintenance is perfect repair.
that a system, after repair, will only be restored to an as-bad-as- (4) Additive age models
it-was condition, the same condition before failure or Kijima and Nakagawa [7, 8] considered imperfect preventive
maintenance. However, most deteriorating systems are in neither maintenance and proposed a cumulative damage shock model.
category. A deteriorating system after maintenance will be They assumed that the occurrence of shocks is according to a
restored to a condition between as-good-as-new (perfect repair) Poisson process and each time the system suffers an additive
and as-bad-as-it-was (minimal repair). That is, after repair a random damage. After each preventive maintenance, the damage
deteriorating system will be restored and/or retained to a level can be reduced by a fraction of the total damage.
condition which is better than it before failure or maintenance,
but worse than the brand new one. This type of maintenance (5) Quasi-renewal models
model is called the imperfect maintenance. Renewal theory provides a fundamental tool for constructing
The study of imperfect maintenance models indicates that simple maintenance models. The simplicity comes from the i.i.d.
they are most consistent with realistic maintenance situations. assumption of the time between successive events. Thus, after
Imperfect maintenance models include perfect and minimal maintenance, the equipment is assumed to be “as-good-as-new.”
maintenance as two extreme cases. Pham and Wang [1] provided However, in practice, after maintenance the lifetime of a
a thorough survey and review of the imperfect maintenance equipment will usually become shorter while requiring longer
models. In this research, we classified the imperfect maintenance repair times for its next maintenance. In order to use renewal
as follows: theory to model a gradual deterioration, Lam [9] introduced a
(1) (p, q) models non-homogeneous process, called geometric process, which is a
sequence of independent non-negative r.v.’s, { Xn , n = 1, 2,…},

RAMS 2004 - 577 - 0-7803-8215-3/04/$17.00 © 2004 IEEE


such that the distribution function of X n is F(an-1x) where a is a M (t ) : the quasi-renewal function of operating-and-repair cycle
positive constant. He applied the geometric process to model a times.
deteriorating system with decreasing operation intervals and Q (t ) : the quasi-renewal function of operating times.
increasing repair intervals. Wang and Pham [10, 11] followed
this track to define a non-homogenous process, called quasi- u and v : the deterioration parameter of system operating and
renewal process, where the i.i.d. assumption is reduced to repair times.
assume only that the successive inter-arrival times are Ξ n : the sum of the first n operating times of the system.
independent. A quasi-renewal process models a system Ω n : the sum of the first n operating and repair cycles of the
deteriorating or improving behavior by a parameter taking system.
values from the interval [0,1) or (1,∞), respectively. The quasi-
renewal model is also called the (α, β) model that after each Acronym
maintenance the operating time will be reduced to a fraction α (0 i.i.d.: Independently and identically distributed.
< α < 1) and the next repair time will be increased to a multiple r.v.(’s): Random variable(s).
β (β > 1) of the immediate preceding operating and repair time, Cdf: Cumulative distribution function.
respectively. After the nth quasi-renewal, the pdf of the pdf: Probability density function.
operating time of a system will remain in the same category as
its original initial operating time. Rehmert [12] continued to 2.1 Quasi-Renewal Process
construct quasi-renewal models and derived the numerical
results for the corresponding point availability function. Wang and Pham [12, 13] defined the quasi-renewal process
However, none of the above-mentioned models were used in as the following.
the prediction of spares requirements. Kumar and Knezevic [13] Definition 1: Let {N (t ), t ≥ 0} be a counting process and let X n
proposed a optimization model for spares by using a renewal be the operating time between the (n – 1)st and nth event of the
process for a multi-component series system. The operating process for n ≥ 1 . Observe a sequence of non-negative r.v.’s
times of the components are statistically independent and the
repair time is assumed to be negligible. They derived the {X 1, X 2 , X 3 ,...} . If X 1 = Z1 , X 2 = uZ 2 , X 3 = u 2 Z 3 , …, where
availability function of the system in terms of the number of the the Z i are i.i.d. and u > 0 is a constant, then the counting
spare components. The optimal combination of the spares is process {N (t ), t ≥ 0} is said to be a quasi-renewal process with
obtained by formulating the problem as a mixed integer
programming model that can be solved using a branch-and- parameter u and the first inter-arrival time X 1 . [12, 13]
bound method. For a deteriorating system with imperfect According to Definition 1, for a quasi-renewal process, the
maintenance, their model seems to be unrealistic and inaccurate Cdf and pdf of the subsequent operating times can be expressed,
in spares provisioning. This can be tackled and solved by respectively, by the Cdf and pdf of the first operating time as:
incorporated with the quasi-renewal process in the problem FX (t ) = FX u − ( n −1)t and
n 1
( (2) )
formulation. Following the idea, this research applied the quasi-
renewal theory proposed by Wang and Pham [10, 11] and
f X (t ) =
fX
1
(u − ( n −1)
t)
. (3)
Rehmert [12] to solve the spares provisioning problem for a n
u n −1
deteriorating system.
2.2 Quasi-Renewal Function
2. QUASI-RENEWAL THEORY
n
Notation
AUpper (t ) and ALower (t ) : the upper and lower bounds of the
Let Ξ n = ∑ X i , the sum of the first n operating times of the
i =1
point availability function. system. The quasi-renewal function Q(t), or equivalently the
AD (t ) and AU (t ) : the downtime- and uptime-based point expected number of quasi-renewal E[N(t)], can be expressed in
availability function. terms of the n-fold convolution of FΞ (t ) as follows:
f X (t ) and FX (t ) : the pdf and Cdf of the ith operating times.
∞ ∞
i i Q(t ) = E[N(t )] = ∑nPr{N(t) = n} = ∑n(Pr{N(t ) ≥ n}− Pr{N(t ) ≥ n +1})
n=0 n=1
FX i (t ) : the reliability function of the ith operating time.
∑n(FΞ(n) (t ) − FΞ(n+1) (t )) = ∑ FΞ(n) (t )
∞ ∞
(4)
gY1 (t ) and GY (t ) : the pdf and Cdf of the ith repair times. =
n n=1 n=1

L{f(t)} or f * (s ) : the Laplace transform of f(t). where FΞ( n) (t ) is the n-fold convolution of FΞ (t ) . For the
L-1{f(t)}: the inverse Laplace transform of f(t). mathematical tractability, it is useful to take FΞ( n) (t ) into the

RAMS 2004 - 578 - 0-7803-8215-3/04/$17.00 © 2004 IEEE


Laplace transformation to derive the following: maintenance policy, if a system fails since the last maintenance
  n  action then it will be immediately repaired. The maintenance
{ }
FΞ( n)* (s ) = L FΞ( n) (t ) = L Pr ∑ X i ≤ t  actions (corrective maintenance) are i.i.d. distributed with repair-
  i =1 
time pdf gYn (t , u ) and Cdf GYn (t , u ) , n = 1, 2, …. Assume
1 ( n )*
= L{Pr{X 1 + X 2 + ... + X n ≤ t}} = f Ξ (s ) the repair times behave according to a quasi-renewal process
s
with parameter v ≥ 1 and the first inter-arrival time Y1 . The
=
1 *
s 1
1
s
(
f X (s ) f X* 2 (s )... f X* n (s ) = f X*1 (s ) f X*1 (us )... f X*1 u n −1s . ) (5) maintenance actions are assumed to be imperfect so that after
Taking Laplace transforms for both sides of eq (4) and maintenance the failed system is restored to a condition between
substituting eq (5) into eq (4), then the quasi-renewal function of as-good-as-new and as-bad-as-it-was states. Thus, the system is
a deteriorating system can be expressed as: said to be quasi-renewed after each maintenance action.
 ∞  ∞ 1
Let H Z (t ) be the common distribution of cycle i, i.e.,

Q* (s ) = L  FΞ( n ) (t ) = ∑ f X*1 (s ) f X*2 (s )... f X*n (s )
i

n =1  n=1 s Z i = X i + Yi , with joint pdf hZ (t ) . Then H Z (t ) is the


i i

1 ∞  convolution of FX i (t ) and GYi (t ) . Let Ω n = Z1 + Z 2 + L + Z n


=  f X*1 (s ) + f X*1 (s ) ∑ f X*2 (s ) f X*3 (s )... f X*n (s ) (6)
s  n−1=1 
with Cdf H Ω (t ) . Thus,
Taking Laplace transform for eq (4), thus n

( ) ( )
f X* n (s ) = f X*1 u n −1s = f X*1 u n − 2us
(7)  n 
= f X* 2 (u us ) = L = f (us )
n −3 *
X j −1
H Ω (t ) = Pr{Ω n ≤ t} = Pr  Z i ≤ t 
n
 i =1 

Substituting eq (7) into eq (6) to derive = Pr{( X 1 + Y1 ) + ( X 2 + Y2 ) + L + ( X n + Yn ) ≤ t}
1 ∞ 
Q ( s) =  f X*1 (s ) + f X*1 (s ) ∑ f X* 2 (s ) f X* 3 (s )... f X* n (s )
*
1 
= L−1  hZ* 1 (s )hZ* 2 (s )...hZ* n (s )
s  
n −1=1 s 
1 
( ) ( )

 1 
=  f X*1 (s ) + f X*1 (s ) ∑ f X*1 (us ) f X*2 (us )... f X*n −1 (us ) = L−1  f X*1 (s) f X*1 (us)... f X*1 u n −1s gY*1 (s)gY*1 (vs)...gY*1 vn −1s  (12)
s  n−1=1   s 

=
s
[
1 *
] 1
f X 1 (s ) + f X*1 (s )q* (us) = f X*1 (s ) + f X*1 (s )Q* (us)
s 3.1 Availability functions
= FX* 1 (s ) + sFX*1 (s )Q* (us ) (8)
Assume a new system is in operation at t = 0 and is
Taking the inverse transform of eq (8) to derive a expression in functioning. The system will be available at any future time t if:
the original time domain, (i) it survives until t, or (ii) it fails and is repaired/replaced for
Q(t ) = FX (t ) + u −1 f X (t ) ⊗ Q(u −1t ) , (9) some duration of time by a duration before t and the copy of
1 1

where ⊗ is the binary operator that denotes the convolution of system installed at that point survives until t. We follow the
two distributions. Eq (8) can be solved to yield the follows: approach of Rehmert [12] to develop the point availability
function for the system. It is easy to show that the point
sQ* ( s ) availability function of the system may be expressed as:
f X*1 ( s ) = , or equivalently (10)
1 + sQ* (us ) t

Q* ( s )
A(t ) = FX1 (t ) + ∫0 FX 2
(t − x)dHΩ1 ( x)
FX*1 ( s ) = . (11) t
1 + sQ* (us ) + ∫0 FX (t − x)dHΩ ( x) + L
3 2
(13)
Some useful numerical results of eqs (10) and (11) can be found t
in Rehmert [12].
+ ∫0 FX n+1
(t − x)dHΩn ( x) + L,
or equivalently,
3. MODEL DEVELOPMENT ∞ t
A(t ) = FX 1 (t ) + ∑ ∫ FX n+1 (t − x)dH Ω n ( x) . (14)
0
Consider a deteriorating system with a sequence of non- n =1

negative random lifetime denoted by X n with distribution The Laplace transform of eq (14) can be expressed as follows:
functions given by FX n (t ) , n = 1, 2, …. Assume the system  ∞ t 
A* ( s) = L FX 1 (t ) + ∑ ∫ FX n+1 (t − x)dH Ω n ( x)
operating times behave according to a quasi-renewal process  n =1
0 
with parameter u ≤ 1 and the first inter-arrival time X1 . Assume
systems fail permanently and independently. Under a

RAMS 2004 - 579 - 0-7803-8215-3/04/$17.00 © 2004 IEEE


  θ   
1
( ) [ ( 
)]

 1
=  1 − f X*1 (s) + ∑ hΩ* n (s) 1 − f X* n+1 (s)  (15) 1 
AUpper ( s ) = L−1  1 − ∑ hΩ* n ( s ) * − 1  . (21)
s    g ( s ) 
n=1
 s  n =1   Yn  
Eq (15) is called as the uptime-based point availability function. 
[12]
Another approach proposed by Rehmert [12] is to develop the 3.3 Spares Provisioning
point availability function via the “complement” of the event that
the system is down at any point in time t. This is expressed as The bounds of point availability function, illustrated in eqs
follows: (20) and (21), can be calculated and utilized as a constraint to
A(t ) = 1 − Pr{The systemis down at any point in timet} evaluate the system effectiveness. Applying eqs (20) and (21),
the phase-out point of the system can be determined. Thus, the
∞  total life span of the system can be derived. The accuracy of the
= 1 − ∑ f Z + X ( x) ⊗ GYi+1 (t − x) . (16) availability is determined by the constant that indicates the
 i = 0 
i i +1

number of quasi renewals considered in the total system life


That is at time x, the nth operating time ends and the nth repair span. Then, the quasi-renewal function, as illustrated in eq (6),
time is greater than or equal to (t – x). Take the Laplace can be applied to estimate the component spares requirements of
transform of eq (16) and substitute eq (12) into it to derive: the system at any point of time and/or in a interval of time [ t a ,
1  ∞  1  
tb ] ( ta > 0, tb > 0 , and tb > t a ). The spares provisioning
A* ( s) = 1 − ∑  s ⋅ H Ω* n ( s) * − s ⋅ H Ω* n ( s) 
s  n =1  gYn ( s)   procedure is illustrated in Figure 1.
  
 ∞   1 
   3.4 Numerical analysis
1
= 1 − ∑ hΩ* n ( s ) * − 1   (17)
s  n =1   g ( s ) 
   Yn  
The numerical results of the upper and lower bounds on
Rehmert [12] refers Eq (17) to as the downtime-based point system point availability, eqs (20) and (21), can be calculated by
availability function. Mathematica® or Matlab®. Example calculation results are
If the operating times are i.i.d. then eq (15) can be expressed illustrated in Figure 2. In Figure 2, different number of quasi
as: renewals, θ (for θ = 1, 2, …, 9), indicate the shifts and changes
1
(
AU* ( s ) =  1 − f X*1 ( s )
s 
) of the approximation results of the system point availability
bounds. The error of the upper and lower bounds is increasing
; (18) quickly as the time increases. One way to reduce the error is to
n 
∞   n *  *
( *

) 

(
+ ∑  1 − f X n+1 ( s ) ∏ f X i ( s ) gY1 ( s ) 
 )  increase the number of convolutions, θ.
n =1 
  i =1   
and if repair times are also i.i.d. then eq (17) can be expressed as 4. CASE STUDY
follows:
A high reliability system is selected to illustrate and
1   1  ∞  n  n 

AD* (s) = 1−  *
s   gY1 (s) n=1  i =1 
(
−1∑ ∏ f X*i (s)  gY*1 (s)  (19) ) implement the spares provisioning model. The objective is to
apply the quasi-renewal theory in spares provisioning so that the
     system availability requirements with the lowest inventory cost
can be acquired. One of the system’s critical components is
3.2 Bounds on Availability Functions selected to identify the applicability of spares provisioning
model. The total number of the equipment is 198 and has been in
Take the truncations of eqs (15) and (17) and inverse them service for 16 years. The following questions are faced by the
back to the time domain, then the bounds on the system point system program manager and can be solved by the proposed
availability function can be derived. The inversed truncations of spares provisioning procedure as shown in Figure 1. How long
eqs (15) and (17) form a lower and an upper bound of the can the system be still in service at the required availability
system point availability, respectively. These bounds are performance? What is the total amount of annual spares
approximations and expressed by truncating the function up to provisioning for the selected component of the system in its total
an integer as follows: life cycle before phased-out?
1  
) [ )]
θ
( (
ALower(s) = L−1  1− f X*1 (s) + ∑ hΩ* n (s) 1− f X*n+1 (s)  (20)
 s  n=1 

RAMS 2004 - 580 - 0-7803-8215-3/04/$17.00 © 2004 IEEE


Step 1
Fitting general distributions to the ith
operating times {X i } and the ith repair
times {Yi } to estimate the scale
Step 5
parameters of f X i (t ) and gYi (t ) , Calculate the availability bounds
respectively. AUpper (t ) and ALower (t ) and evaluate
the error to determine the value of θ.

Step 2 Step 6
Determine the deterioration parameters, Based on the availability constrain
ui and vi , for the system operating and determine the point of time that the
system is to be phase-out.
repair times, respectively.

Step 3 Step 7

Construct Laplace transforms: f X*1 (s ) , Analyze and solve the inverse Laplace
transforms of f X 1 (t ) , and f X n (t ) .
f X*n (s ) , f X*n+1 (s ) , g Y*1 (s ) , and g Y*n (s ) .
Step 8
Step 4
Calculate the quasi-renewal function,
Construct the Laplace transforms of the
Q(t ) , to obtain the expected number
downtime- and uptime-based point of quasi renewals and predict the
availability functions, A (s ) and
*
D spares requirements in any interval of
A (s ) .
*
U time [ t a , t b ].

Figure 1. The procedure of spares provisioning.


1
A(t )
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

200 400 600 800 1000

Figure 2. Bounds on the system point availability for θ. time


( λ = 0.01, µ = 0.1, u = 0.8, v = 1.1,θ = {1,2,L,9} )

4.1 Step 1 f X (t ) and g Y (t ) , respectively. The system failure and repair


i i

Fitting general distributions to the ith operating times {X i } statistics can be analyzed by commercial softwares, e.g.,
Weibull++®, SPSS®, or SAS®, etc. The analysis results indicate
and the ith repair times {Yi } to estimate the scale parameters of

RAMS 2004 - 581 - 0-7803-8215-3/04/$17.00 © 2004 IEEE


that the operating times was best fitted by the exponential 1 1 ∞ n 1
distribution for the quasi-renewal process. The repair is = − ∑ v n −1(µλ )n ∏ (23)
corrective maintenance at depot level. The repair intervals are
s µ n =1 i =1 (λ + u s )(µ + v s )
i −1 i −1

standard working-hours and also best fitted by the exponential


distribution. 4.5 Step 5
1  1 
f X 1 (t ) = λe − λt , f X (t ) = n −1 f X  n −1 t  , where Calculate the availability bounds, AUpper (t ) and ALower (t ) ,
n
u 1
u 
and evaluate the error to determine the value of θ.
λ = 0.000011085.
1  1 
{
AUpper (t ) = L−1 AD* (s ) }
gY1 (t ) = µe − µt
, g Y (t ) = g Y  n −1 t  , where µ = 0.00012.  1 1 
n
v n −1 1
v  θ n
1
= L−1  − ∑ b n−1 (µλ )n ∏  (24)
 s µ n =1 i =1 ( )(
λ + u i −1s µ + v i −1s  )
4.2 Step 2
{
ALower (t ) = L−1 AU* (s ) }
Let the deterioration parameters, u = 0.7 and v = 1 , for the
 1  θ  (uµλ )n n
1 
system operating and repair times, respectively. = L−1  +  ∑
 λ + s  n =1  λ + u s
n ∏ (λ + u i −1s )(µ + v i −1s )  (25)
i =1 
4.3 Step 3 ®
Apply the Mathematica software to determine the value of
θ by consulting the required system availability value. Let θ = 6,
Construct the following Laplace transforms: 10, and 13. The upper and lower bounds on the system point
f X*1 (s ) = L{f X (t )}=
1
λ+s
λ
, f X* n (s ) = f X*1 (u s ) =
n −1
λ + u n −1s
λ
, availability is illustrated in Figure 3. The error of the upper- and
lower- bounds on the system point availability is very small
when the system availability is 80% and θ > 10 . The time that
( )
f X* n +1 (s ) = f X*1 u n s =
λ
λ +u s n
, gY*1 (s ) = L gY1 (t ) =
µ
µ+s
{ , and } the system has been in service is between 150,000 and 200,000
hours.
(
gY*n (s ) = gY*1 v n −1s = ) µ
µ + v n −1s
.
4.6 Step 6

4.4 Step 4 Assume θ = 13 and if the system availability is 80%. Then


the point of time can be solved, i.e., t = 172,700 hours, where
Assume the operating times and repair times are i.i.d., the system will be phased out. It means that when t > 172,700
respectively. Construct the Laplace transforms of the downtime- the system availability will start to below 80%. Thus, the system
and uptime-based point availability functions as follows: can be phased out after in service for 19 years and 261 days.
1 
( ) ( )
∞ n
AU* (s) =  1 − f X*1 (s) + ∑ 1 − f X*n+1 (s) ∏ f X*n (s)gY*n (s)
s  n=1 i =1  4.7 Step 7

 1  ∞  (uµλ) 
n n
= + ∑
 λ + s  n=1  λ + u s
n ∏
( i −1 i −1
i =1 λ + u s µ + v s 
1

)(

)
(22) {
f X*1 (s ) = L f X1 (t ) = } λ
λ+s
and

λ
AD* (s ) =
1 ∞ 
1 −  ∑
1  n
− 1 ∏

f X* n (s )gY*n (s ) f X* n (s ) = f X*1 u ( n −1
)
s =
λ + u n −1s
(26)
s  n =1  gYn (s )  i =1
*

   
The numerical results are shown in Table 1.

RAMS 2004 - 582 - 0-7803-8215-3/04/$17.00 © 2004 IEEE


1.0
AH (t )
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

100000 200000 300000 400000 500000

Figure 3 Bounds on the system point availability for θ time


( λ = 0.000011085, µ = 0.00012 , u = 0.7, v = 1,θ = 6, 10, 13 )

Table 1. The numerical results. ( λ = 0.000011085, µ = 0.00012, u = 0.7, v = 1,θ = 13 )

t =100000~200000 t = 170000~180000 t = 172000~173000


t ALower (t ) AUpper (t ) t ALower (t ) AUpper (t ) t ALower (t ) AUpper (t )

100000 0.875183 0.875186 170000 0.800585 0.80372 172000 0.79749 0.801022


110000 0.867816 0.86783 171000 0.799045 0.802374 172100 0.797333 0.800887
120000 0.85956 0.859608 172000 0.79749 0.801022 172200 0.797177 0.800751
130000 0.850291 0.850429 173000 0.795919 0.799665 172300 0.79702 0.800616
140000 0.839879 0.840232 174000 0.794332 0.798310 172400 0.796863 0.80048
150000 0.828199 0.829 175000 0.792729 0.796933 172500 0.796706 0.800344
160000 0.815134 0.816785 176000 0.791111 0.795559 172600 0.796549 0.800208
170000 0.800585 0.80372 177000 0.789476 0.79418 172700 0.796392 0.800073
180000 0.784477 0.79002 178000 0.787826 0.792798 172800 0.796234 0.799937
190000 0.766769 0.775979 179000 0.786159 0.791411 172900 0.796076 0.799801
200000 0.747458 0.761953 180000 0.784477 0.79002 173000 0.795919 0.799665

4.8 Step 8 13
1 
Q(t ) = ∑ L−1  s f X* (s ) f X* (s )... f X* (s )
1 2 n
n =1
The quasi-renewal function can be derived as follows:
θ 13  1 n λ 
1 
Q (t ) = ∑ L−1  s f X* (s ) f X* (s )... f X* (s )
1 2 n
= ∑ L−1  s ∏ λ +u j −1
s 
 = 4.49504.
n =1 n =1  j =1
θ  1 n λ  The plot of Q(t) is shown in Figure 4. Because the total
= ∑ L−1  s ∏ λ +u i −1
s 
 (27)
number of the system is 198, when the system shall be phased
n =1  i =1
out, the spare requirement is
Let t = 172700 (hours), u = 0.65 , and λ = 0.000010282 4.49504 × 198 = 890.02 ≅ 891 .
be substituted into eq (27), for θ = 13 , then we can gain the We can compute the annual spares requirements numerically.
value of the quasi-renewal function of the system. The results are shown in Table 2.

RAMS 2004 - 583 - 0-7803-8215-3/04/$17.00 © 2004 IEEE


12
Q(t )
10
8
6
4
2
time
100000 200000 300000 400000 500000

Figure 4 Plot of Q(t ) ( λ = 0.000010282, u = 0.65, n = 13 )

Table 2. The numerical analysis results( λ = 0.000010282, u = 0.65, n = 13 )

Age Accumulate Annual Age Accumulate Annual


(year) Q(t ) QTY QTY (year) Q(t ) QTY QTY
1 0.09235 19 19 11 1.58783 315 46
2 0.189699 38 19 12 1.84526 366 51
3 0.292898 58 20 13 2.12725 422 56
4 0.403225 80 22 14 2.43244 482 60
5 0.522593 104 24 15 2.75876 547 65
6 0.653605 130 26 16 3.1036 615 68
7 0.799359 159 29 17 3.46397 686 71
8 0.963072 191 32 18 3.83668 760 74
9 1.14767 228 37 19 4.21846 836 76
10 1.35545 269 41 20 4.49504 891 55

5. CONCLUSIONS We are pleased to thank the National Science Council for


partially support under grant No. NSC-91-2213-E-014-012.
According to the example of this research, it is clear that the
annual spares requirements for the deteriorating equipment are REFERENCES
increasing gradually as the system ageing. In case study, the
annual spare requirements are increasing from 19 to 41 in the 1. H. Pham, H. Wang, “Imperfect Maintenance,” Euro. J.
first ten years. However, in the 19th year, it will be expected to Operational Research, vol. 94, 1996, pp.425-438.
increase up to 76. Thus, if the annual spares procurement is 2. T. Nakagawa, “Optimum policies when preventive
based on the average of the previous two or three years, then the maintenance is imperfect,” IEEE Trans.Reliability, vol. R-28, no.
spares will be insufficient to fulfill the equipment’s availability 4, 1979, pp. 331-332.
requirement. By applying the methodology and framework 3. M. Brown, F. Proschan, “Imperfect repair,” J. Applied
proposed in this research, the system program manager can be Probability, vol.30, 1993, pp. 851-859.
expected to predict the spare requirements more accurately 4. M.A.K. Malik, “Reliable preventive maintenance policy,”
during the system total life cycle. Therefore, the budget for AIIE Transactions, vol. 11, no. 3, 1979, pp. 221-228.
spares can be kept in hand exactly while reducing the storage 5. J.-K. Chan, L. Shaw, “modeling repairable systems with
space and lead time for spares. In the light of quasi-renewal failure rates that depend on age and maintenance,” IEEE Trans.
theory, the proposed spares provisioning model may help Reliability, vol. 42, no. 4, 1993, pp. 566-570.
program manager to deal with the problems of Diminishing 6. K. Uematsu, T. Nishida, “Branching nonhomogeneous
Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortage (DMSMS) in the Poisson process and its application to a replacement model,”
future. Microelectronics and Reliability, vol.27, 1987, pp. 497-513.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 7. M. Kijima, T. Nakagawa, “Accumulative damage shock
model with imperfect preventive maintenance,” Naval Research

RAMS 2004 - 584 - 0-7803-8215-3/04/$17.00 © 2004 IEEE


Logistics, vol.38, no.2, 1991, pp.145-156.
8. M. Kijima, T. Nakagawa, “Replacement policies of a Sang-chin Yang is Associate Professor and Head of the
shock model with imperfect preventive maintenance,” Euro. J. Department of General Courses and Director of Logistics
Operational Research, vol. 57, no.1, 1991, pp.100-110. Support Education Center at Chung Cheng Institute of
9. Y. Lam, “A note on the optimal replacement problem,” Technology (CCIT), National Defense University (NDU),
Advances in Applied Probability, Vol. 20, 1988, pp. 479-482. Taiwan, where he has served on the faculty since 1988. He
10. H. Wang, and H. Pham, “A quasi-renewal process and its received his B.S. in civil engineering from CCIT in 1988, his
applications in imperfect maintenance,” Intl. J. Systems Science, M.S. in systems engineering in 1994 and Ph.D. in industrial and
Vol. 27, No. 10, 1996, pp. 1055-1062. systems engineering in 1999, both from Virginia Polytechnic
11. H. Wang, H. Pham, “Changes to: 'A quasi-renewal Institute and State University. Dr. Yang is a Member of IEEE.
process and its applications in imperfect maintenance',” Intl. J. His research interests include reliability theory, maintenance
Systems Science, Vol.28, No. 12, 1997, pp. 1329. policies, integrated logistics support, and decision theory.
12. I. J. Rehmert, Availability Analysis for the Quasi-
Renewal Process; 2000, Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Shou-Ling Kuo
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Graduate School of Weapon System Engineering
13. U. D. Kumar, J. Knezevic, “Availability based spare Chung Cheng Institute of Technology, National Defense
optimization using renewal process,” Reliability Engineering University
and System Safety, Vol. 59, 1998, pp.217-223. 190 San-Yuan 1st Street,
Ta-His, Tao-Yuan 33509
BIOGRAPHIES TAIWAN

Sang-chin Yang, Ph.D. e-mail: g921732@ccit.edu.tw


Department of General Courses
Chung-Cheng Institute of Technology Shou-Ling Kuo is a graduate student of Weapon System
National Defense University Engineering Department at CCIT, NDU, Taiwan. He is a
190 San-Yuan 1st Street research assistant of the Integrated Logistics Education Center.
Ta-Hsi, Tao-Yuan 33509 He received his B.S. in mechanical engineering from CCIT in
TAIWAN 1992. His research interests include logistics engineering, and
systems engineering and management.
e-mail: scyang@ccit.edu.tw

RAMS 2004 - 585 - 0-7803-8215-3/04/$17.00 © 2004 IEEE