Stochastic model of reliability for use in the evaluation of the economic impact of a failure using life cycle cost analysis. Case studies on the rail freight and oil industries
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2012
Stochastic model of reliability for use in the evaluation of the economic impact of a failure using life cycle cost analysis. Case studies on the rail freight and oil industries
This paper aims to investigate the technical and economic factors related to failure costs (non-reliability costs) within the life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) of a production asset. Life cycle costing is a well-established method for the evaluation of alternative asset options. It is a structured approach that addresses all the elements of this cost and can be used to produce a spend profile for an asset over its anticipated life-span. The results of an LCCA are used to assist management in the decision-making process when there is a choice of options. The main costs can be classified as the capital expenditure incurred when the asset is purchased, and the operating expenditure incurred during the asset’s life. This paper explores different aspects related to the failure costs within the LCCA, and describes the most important aspects of the stochastic model: a non-homogeneous Poisson process. This model is used to estimate the frequency of failures and their impact which can cause various failures in the total costs of a production asset. This paper also contains a case study for the rail freight industry (Chile) and the oil industry (Petronox, Venezuela) where the proposed model and concepts are applied, and respectively compared in terms of results. Finally, the presented model provides maintenance managers with a decision tool that optimizes the LCCA of an asset and increases the efficiency of the decision-making process related to the control of failures.
MarkesetTKumarU. RM & risk analysis tools in product design to reduce life-cycle cost and improve product attractiveness. In: The annual reliability and maintainability symposium, Philadelphia, PA, 22–25 January 2001, pp. 116–122. Philadelphia: IEEE.
4.
BlanchardBS. Maintenance and support: a critical element in the system life cycle. In: The international conference of maintenance societies (ed SageAP), Melbourne, Australia, May 2001, paper 003.
5.
BlanchardBSFabryckyWJ. Systems engineering and analysis. Third ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998.
6.
GoffinK. Design for supportability: essential component of new product development. Res-Technol Mgment2000; 43(2): 40–47.
7.
SmithCKnezevicJ. Achieving quality through supportability: part 1: concepts and principles. J Qual Maint Engng1996; 2(2): 21–29.
8.
WoodwardDG. Life cycle costing – theory, information acquisition and application. Int J Project Mgment, 1997; 15(6), 335–344.
9.
DurairajSOngS. Evaluation of life cycle cost analysis methodologies. Corp Environ Strat2002; 9(1): 30–39.
10.
KirkSDellisolaA. Life cycle costing for design professionals. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 1996, pp. 6–57.
11.
WoodhouseJ. Turning engineers into businessmen. In: The 14th national maintenance conference, London, UK, 1991.
12.
FabryckyWJBlanchardBS. Life cycle costing and economic analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.
13.
AhmedNU. A design and implementation model for life cycle cost management system. Inform Mgment1995; 28: 261–269.
14.
LevyHSarnatM. Capital investment and financial decisions. Fourth ed. New York, NY: Prentice Hall, 1990.
15.
RuffDNPaaschRK. Consideration of failure diagnosis in conceptual design of mechanical systems. In: Design theory and methodology. New York NY: ASME, 1993, pp. 175–187.
DowlatshahiS. Product design in a concurrent engineering environment: an optimization approach. Int J Prod Res1992; 30(8): 1803–1818.
18.
LouitDMPascualRJardineA. A practical procedure for the selection of time to failure models on the assessment of trends in maintenance data. Reliab Engng Syst Saf2009; 94: 1618–1628.
19.
SaldanhaPLCDe SimoneEAFrutoso e MeloPF. An application of non-homogeneus Poisson point processes to the reliability analysis of service water pumps. Nucl Engng Des2001; 210: 125–133.
20.
WeckmanGRShellRLMarvelJH. Modeling the reliability of repairable systems in the aviation industry. Comput Ind Engng2001; 40: 51–63.
21.
AscherHFeingoldH. Repairable system reliability: modeling, inference, misconceptions and their causes. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 1984.
22.
RigdonSEBasuAP. Statistical methods for the reliability of repairable systems. New York, NY: Wiley, 2000.
23.
AnsellJIPhillipsMJ. Practical problems in the statistical analysis of reliability data (with discussion). Appl Stat1989; 38: 205–231.
24.
ThompsonWA. On the foundations of reliability. Technometrics1981; 23: 1–13.
25.
CalabriaRPulciniG. Inference and test in modeling the failure/repair process of repairable mechanical equipments. Reliab Engng Syst Saf2000; 67: 41–53.
26.
KijimaMSumitaN. A useful generalization of renewal theory: counting process governed by non-negative Markovian increments. J Appl Prob1987; 23: 71–88.
27.
WhitakerLRSamaniegoFJ. Estimating the reliability of systems subject to imperfect repair. J Am Stat Assoc1989; 84: 301–309.
28.
SyamsundarANaikanVNA. A proportional intensity segmented model for maintained systems. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk Reliab2008; 222(4): 643–654. DOI: 10.1243/1748006XJRR15810.1243/1748006XJRR158.
29.
BaxterLAKijimaMTortorellaM. A point process model for the reliability of a maintained system subject to general repair. Comm Stat Stochast Models1996; 12: 37–65.
30.
DoradoCHollanderMSethuramanJ. Nonparametric estimation for a general repair model. Ann Stat1997; 25: 1140–1160.
31.
FinkelsteinM. Modeling a process of non-ideal repair. In: LimniosNNikulinM (eds) Recent advances in reliability theory. Boston, MA: Birkhauser, 2000, pp. 41–53.
32.
KaminskiyMKrivtsovV. A. Monte Carlo approach to repairable system reliability analysis. In: Probabilistic safety assessment and management. New York, NY: Springer, 1998, pp. 1063–1068.
33.
VeberBNagodeMFajdimaM. Generalized renewal process for repairable systems based on finite Weibull mixture. Reliab Engng Syst Saf2008; 93: 1461–1472.
34.
YañezMJoglarFMohammadM. Generalized renewal process for analysis of repairable systems with limited failure experience. Reliab Engng Syst Saf2002; 77: 167–180.
35.
CoetzeeJ. The role of NHPP models in the practical analysis of maintenance failure data. Reliab Engng Syst Saf1997; 56: 161–168.
36.
CrowLH. Reliability analysis for complex repairable systems. In: ProschanFSerflingRJ (eds) Reliability and biometry. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, 1974, pp. 379–410.
37.
ModarresMKaminskiyMKrivtsovV. Reliability engineering and risk analysis. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 1999.
38.
AsieduYGuP. Product lifecycle cost analysis: state of art review. Int J Prod Res1998; 36(4): 883–908.
39.
PulciniG. A bounded intensity process for the reliability of repairable equipment. J Qual Technol2001; 33(4): 480–492.
40.
HurtadoJLJoglarFModarresM. Generalized renewal process: models, parameter estimation and applications to maintenance problems. Int J Perform Engng2005; 1(1): 37–50.
41.
ZhaoJChanAHCRobertsCStirlingAB. Assessing the economic life of rail using a stochastic analysis of failures. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2006; 220(2): 103–111. DOI: 10.1243/09544097JRRT3010.1243/09544097JRRT30.
42.
VasiliyV. Recent advances in theory and applications of stochastic point process model in reliability engineering. Reliab Engng Syst Saf2007; 92(5): 549–551.
43.
MartorellSCarlosSSánchezASerradellV. Constrained optimization of test intervals using a steady-state genetic algorithm. Reliab Engng Syst Saf2000; 67: 215–232.
44.
MartorellSVillanuevaJFNebotY. RAMS+C informed decision-making with application to multi-objective optimization of technical specifications and maintenance using genetic algorithms. Reliab Engng Syst Saf2005; 87: 65–75.
45.
BarringerHPWeberDP. Life cycle cost tutorial. In: The fifth international conference on process plant reliability, Houston, TX, USA, October 1996, p.25. Gulf Publishing Company.
46.
BarringerHPWeberDP. Life cycle cost & reliability for process equipment. In: The eighth annual energy week conference & exhibition, Houston, TX, January 1997, p.22. Houston: ASME and PenWell Publishing.
47.
ElsayedEA. Reliability analysis of a container spreader. Microelectron Reliab1982; 22(4): 723–734.
48.
IresonWGCoombsCFMossRY. Handbook of reliability engineering and management. Second ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
49.
ElsayedEA. Reliability engineering. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, 1996.
50.
ZioEDi MaioFMartorellS. Fusion of artificial neural networks and genetic algorithms for multi-objective system reliability design optimization. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk Reliab2008; 222(2): 115–126. DOI: 10.1243/1748006XJRR12610.1243/1748006XJRR126.
51.
SyamsundarANaikanVNA. A proportional intensity segmented model for maintained systems. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk Reliab2008; 222(4): 643–654. DOI: 10.1243/1748006XJRR15810.1243/1748006XJRR158.
52.
DhillonBS. Engineering maintainability: how to design for reliability and easy maintenance. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company, 1999.
53.
BriandDHuzurbazarAV. Bayesian reliability applications of a combined lifecycle failure distribution. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk Reliab2008; 222(4): 713–720. DOI: 10.1243/1748006XJRR15710.1243/1748006XJRR157
54.
WelteTM. A rule-based approach for establishing states in a Markov process applied to maintenance modeling. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk Reliab2009; 223(1): 1–12. DOI: 10.1243/1748006XJRR19410.1243/1748006XJRR194
55.
Bloch-MercierS. Stationary availability of a semi-Markov system with random maintenance. Appl Stochast Models Bus Ind2000; 16: 219–234.
