International Journal of Automation and Computing
DOI: 10.1007/s11633-009-0364-4
On Problems of Multicomponent System Maintenance
Modelling
Tomasz Nowakowski
Department of Logistics and Transportation Systems, Wroclaw University of Technology, Wroclaw, Poland
Abstract: We present an overview of some recent developments in the area of mathematical modeling of maintenance decisions for
multi-unit systems. The emphasis is on three main groups of multicomponent maintenance optimization models: the block replacement
models, group maintenance models, and opportunistic maintenance models. Moreover, an example of a two-unit system maintenance
process is provided in order to compare various maintenance policies.
Keywords: Multicomponent systems, corrective and preventive maintenance, maintenance free operating periods (MFOP) concepts.
1 Introduction
The prime maintenance objective is to ensure that a sys-
tem performs its intended functions. Thus, generally main-
tenance can be divided into two main types: corrective
maintenance and preventive maintenance.
Corrective maintenance (CM) is any maintenance action
that occurs when a system has been already failed; so, there
is no possibility to optimize its performance with respect to
a given economic or reliability criteria.
In the situation, when it is necessary to avoid system
failures during operation, especially when such an event is
costly or/and dangerous, it is important to perform planned
maintenance actions. Preventive maintenance (PM), ac-
cording to MIL-STD-721B, means all actions performed in
an attempt to retain an item in a specified condition by
providing systematic inspection, detection, and prevention
of incipient failures.
The interest in development and investigation of mainte-
nance problems has been extensively discussed in the liter-
ature since the early 1960s. Thus, there are many possible
ways to classify the literature related to maintenance opti-
mization models based on the following[1−4] :
1) information availability,
2) single-unit versus multi-unit systems,
3) time-dependent/action relationship,
4) model types,
5) optimization criterion,
6) methods of solution,
7) planning time horizon (finite/infinite),
8) maintenance effect (perfect, minimal, imperfect).
The excellent basic review in the area of maintenance
models for proper scheduling maintenance actions was pre-
pared by Pierskalla and Voelker[2] , where authors inves-
tigated discrete time vs. continuous time maintenance
models, which was later updated by Valdez-Flores and
Feldman[5] . For other surveys see [1, 4, 6–11].
A review of the current literature in maintenance mod-
eling problems indicates that the existing models can be
classified under four main categories[12] :
Manuscript received July 24, 2008; revised February 13, 2009
*Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sylwia.werbinska@pwr.wroc.pl
6(4), November 2009, 364-378
Sylwia Werbińka∗
1) inspection maintenance,
2) preventive maintenance for single-unit and multi-unit
systems,
3) condition-based maintenance,
4) maintenance information management.
The first category consists of those studies that consider
the problem of optimally scheduling of inspections for sys-
tems that deteriorate or age.
The second category of research work, which is particu-
larly relevant to this paper, includes studies that examine
the problems of execution of maintenance actions for single-
unit or multi-unit systems.
If the deterioration of a system or a control parameter,
strongly correlated with the state of the system, can be
directly measured, and if the system is subject to failure
only if it deteriorates beyond a given threshold level, it is
more appropriate to base the maintenance decision on the
actual deterioration state of the system. This leads to the
choice of the third category – condition-based maintenance
policy.
The last category takes into account all those studies that
discuss the proper organization of maintenance information
management processes necessary to effective performance of
a system.
In the investigated literature, most of the PM models
consist in optimizing the execution of maintenance pro-
cesses of single-unit systems and consider a single decision
variable. The well-known maintenance models for single-
unit systems are the age and the block replacement models.
The basic references in this area are [3, 4]. Aven et al.[13]
and Frostig[14] give a comparison of those maintenance poli-
cies for stochastically failing equipment.
However, for a complex multi-component system, it may
not be advisable to replace the entire system just because
of the failure of one component. In fact, the system comes
back into operation after repair or replacement of the failed
component by an operative one. As a result, there is an
increasing interest in analyzing the maintenance models for
multi-unit systems.
One reason for that is that the problem of proper main-
tenance scheduling is much more difficult to analyze. On
the one hand, interactions between components complicate
 T. Nowakowski and S. Werbińka / On Problems of Multicomponent System Maintenance Modelling
the maintenance modeling and optimization process. On
the other hand, the components dependencies also offer
the opportunity to group maintenance actions, which may
save costs of system performance.
The other reason is that there is now more awareness
of the importance of developing and using more realistic
models. Maintenance and replacement models for single-
unit systems are usually too simple when compared to the
complex systems where the applications occur. Moreover,
improvements in analytical techniques and the availability
of fast computers have allowed more complex systems to be
investigated.
The maintenance optimization surveys by Cho and
Parlar[1] , Nicolai and Dekker[7] , Thomas[5] , Wang[4] , review
the growing body of literature on multi-unit systems. More
comprehensive discussion in maintenance from application
point of view can be found in [12, 15].
The definition of multi-component maintenance models
is given by Cho and Parlar[1] as: multi component main-
tenance models are concerned with optimal maintenance
policies for a system consisting of several units of machines
or many pieces of equipment, which may or may not depend
on each other.
Interactions between components can be classified into
three different types (see e.g., [5]): economic dependence,
structural dependence, and stochastic dependence. In this
paper, an economic dependence implies that an opportunity
for a group replacement of several components costs less
than separate replacements of the individual components.
Stochastic dependence, also named as failure or probabilis-
tic dependence, occurs if the condition of components influ-
ences the lifetime distribution of other components. Finally,
structural dependence means that components structurally
form a part, so that maintenance of a failed component
implies maintenance of working components.
If all units in a system are economically or stochasti-
cally independent of one another, maintenance policies for
single-unit models can be applied to the multi-unit main-
tenance problems analysis. However, if there can be de-
fined components interactions, then the optimal mainte-
nance policy is not the one of considering each subsystem
separately, and maintenance decisions will not be indepen-
dent.
Following the introduction, this paper is focused on
multi-unit systems. Moreover, authors present the review
of maintenance modeling devoted to the case of binary
states. Consequently, the paper is organized as follows. In
Section 2, we present an overview of the most often applied
multicomponent maintenance models. We do not aim to
give a list of all papers that have appeared. Instead, we
want to investigate the main ways of the multicomponent
maintenance models development, presented in the recent
literature. Moreover, in Section 2.5, we mention about the
problem of multi-state deteriorating system maintenance
modeling, investigating the main research directions in this
area. Later, there is an example provided of a two-unit
system to compare the obtained results for various mainte-
nance policies, and a briefly summary.
365
2 Multicomponent maintenance mod-
els
The general classification scheme for multicomponent
maintenance models is presented in Fig. 1.
Nicolai and Dekker[7] surveyed and summarized the re-
search in the area of multicomponent maintenance opti-
mization models. Their classification scheme mostly bases
on the type of dependency between system components.
Thus, the focus of this overview is on the other defined
group of multicomponent maintenance models.
As it has been mentioned, the two standard maintenance
policies, the age and the block replacement models, are gen-
erally used for optimization of maintenance action perfor-
mance of single-unit systems or such multi-unit systems,
where neither economic dependence, failure dependence,
nor structural dependence exists. Fig. 1 shows Classifica-
tion scheme of maintenance optimization models for multi-
unit systems.
Fig. 1 Classification scheme of maintenance optimization mod-
els for multi-unit systems[1,4,7]
The most common maintenance policy is the block re-
placement policy. Under such a policy, an operating unit
is preventively replaced by new ones at times kT (k =
1, 2, 3, · · · ) independently on the age and state of the sys-
tem. Such a policy is rather wasteful, since sometimes al-
most new systems are replaced. To overcome this unde-
sirable feature, various modifications have been developed.
The age replacement policy can also be used. Under this
policy, a unit is always replaced at its deterioration age T
or failure, which ever occurs first, where T is a constant.
If there exists any dependence between components (eco-
nomic/stochastic/structural) to optimize maintenance deci-
sions, we may use one of the three groups of maintenance
policies:
1) group maintenance policies,
2) opportunity-based replacement policies,
3) cannibalization maintenance policies.
First, the group maintenance policies may be used. Un-
der such a policy, a group of items is replaced at the same
time to take advantage of economies of scale. The main
problems connected with analyzing the group maintenance
policies for multicomponent systems have been defined as:
1) definition of categories of units that should be replaced
when failure occurs,
366 International Journal of Automation and Computing 6(4), November 2009
2) cost reduction by including redundant parts into sys-
tem design,
3) maintenance scheduling for systems of independently
operating machines.
Opportunity-based replacement models base on the rule,
that replacement is performed at the time when an oppor-
tunity arrives, like scheduled downtime, planned shutdown
of the machines, or failure of a system in close proximity
to the item of interest. The analyzed problems are likely
the same either for opportunity replacement models or for
group replacement models.
In the situation, when one machine is inoperative due
to, e.g., lack of components and, at the same time, one
or more other machines are inoperative due to the lack of
different components, maintenance personnel may “canni-
balize” operative components from one or more machines to
repair the other(s). This practice is common in systems that
are composed of sufficiently identical component parts (see,
e.g., [16]). Thus, cannibalization is performed to increase
system availability when spare parts or repair facilities are
not available. As a result, the main problems that are in-
vestigated in this area mostly regard to inventory planning
problem, spares allocation problem, or supply cannibaliza-
tion issue.
Following these considerations, in the next sections, we
examine various types of maintenance policies for multi-unit
systems, which are the most commonly used.
2.1 Block replacement models
Taking into account the basic assumptions of simple
block replacement policies, each unit is replaced at failure.
Moreover, all units in the system are replaced at periodic
intervals regardless of their individual age. The mainte-
nance problem is usually aimed at finding the optimal cycle
length T in order, either to minimize total maintenance and
operational costs or to maximize system availability.
The classification of block replacement policies depen-
dent on the types of considered maintenance problems of
deteriorating systems is presented in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 Block replacement policies for deteriorating systems
Scarf and Deara[17] investigated various block replace-
ment policies under general type of costs structure for two-
unit system in series. Taking into account the following
assumptions,
1) perfect repair policy,
2) failures detected immediately,
3) negligible replacement times of components and sys-
tem,
there are proposed two simple maintenance policies. First,
independent block replacement policy, which assumes that
the replacement of system components is performed on sys-
tem failure and at fixed intervals Ti (i= 1, 2). The total
long-run cost per unit time for defined policy over [0, T1 ] is
given by
  T2
1
C(T1 ) = c12
w1 H(T2 ) + [1 + H(T2 − t)] u(t)dt+
T
2
 T12  12 0
cw2 + 0 cw1 H(T1 − T2 )+
 T1 −T2  
0
[1 + Hy (T1 − T2 − y)]uy (t)dt dFy (t) + c12
w2
(1)
where c12
w1 is cost of failure replacement of both components,
H(t) is system renewal function, Hy (t) is system renewal
function as a function of time y, Ti is time between PM
actions of unit i, u(t) is supportive function dependent on
maintenance costs and distribution function of time to sys-
tem renewal[17] , and c2w2 is cost of preventive replacement
of component 2.
The second interesting maintenance policy is combined
block replacement policy. Under this policy, replacement
of both components simultaneously is performed at fixed
intervals or on failure of the system, whether units failed
or not. When system satisfies the same assumptions, the
analytical function of the long-run cost per unit time for
this policy is given as
  T
1
C(T ) = 2 · c12
w1 H(T ) + [1 + H(T − t)] u1 (t)dt +
T  0
c2w2 + c12w2
(2)
where c12w2 is cost of preventive replacement of both compo-
nents, and u1 (t) is supportive function dependent on main-
tenance costs and distribution function of time to system
renewal[17] .
The solutions of presented replacement policies were ob-
tained with the use of simulation process, by approximating
the time to failure distribution of the system by a Gamma
distribution.
The problems of periodic replacement of failed compo-
nents, named as modified block policies, were extended by
other researchers. Lai and Yuan[18] considered a parallel
redundant system that consists of n identical components
and fails when all components have failed. In the presented
model, there are taken into account two types of failures:
1) independent failures of one component in a system,
2) failures of many components of the system at the same
time, not necessary independent.
The second type of failure event may be synchronized
and is named as a common cause shock failure. This kind
of event is classified depending on its effect into two kinds:
1) Non-lethal. When each component is assumed to fail
 T. Nowakowski and S. Werbińka / On Problems of Multicomponent System Maintenance Modelling
independently with probability p; the number of failed com-
ponents is then a random variable,
2) Lethal. When every components in the system fails.
The defined maintenance actions performed in a system
include replacement when system fails (lethal shock) or at
scheduled times kT (k = 1, 2, 3, · · · ), and minimal repair in
case of non-lethal shock occurrence.
Taking into account the following assumptions:
1) independent failure process of any component,
2) continuous monitoring and detection of component
failures,
3) negligible replacement and minimal repair times,
the long-run expected cost per unit time is obtained as
C(T ) =
n−1 T T
cmr 0
λk (u)F (u)du + c0 0 λn (u)F (u)du + cw2
k=1
T (3)
0
F (u)du
where cw2 is cost of periodic replacement of a system, c0 is
additional penalty cost, cmr is cost of minimal repair of a
component, F (t) is common survival function of a system,
F (t) = 1−F (t), λn (t) is intensity function of the unplanned
replacement process, and λk (t) is intensity function of the
independent failures of components process.
Most studies on the periodic replacement policy focus
on the expected maintenance and operational costs func-
tion. However, there are also studies, which also take into
account the reliability criteria. One of those is a simple
block replacement model for series component system de-
veloped by Duarte et al.[19] The problem is to determine
the optimum frequency to perform preventive maintenance
in equipment in order to ensure its availability. For the
simplified assumptions:
1) constant repair rate of components,
2) increasing hazard rate of the components,
3) perfect repair policy,
the objective function (defined as a cost function per unit
time) is evaluated by
n  i 
cw2 · ai · Ai ai · ciw1
C(A1 , A2 , · · · , An ) = + (4)
i=1
2μ(1 − Ai ) μ(1 − Ai )
subject to
367
formulated the maintenance scheduling problem to main-
tain a set of machines for a given determined T . The study
presents the completely deterministic approach to decide
for each period t ∈ T , which machine to service (if any)
such that total servicing costs and operating costs are min-
imized. The solution is obtained with the use of branch and
price algorithm.
The block replacement policy is usually the basis for
group maintenance policies presented in the next section.
2.2 Group maintenance models
Maintenance activity carried out on technical systems
usually regards to the group of components. A group main-
tenance is performed either when a fixed time interval is ex-
pired or when a fixed number of units are failed, whichever
comes first. There are four main classes of group replace-
ment policies (see Fig. 3). A T -age policy, which assumes
that system replacement is performed after every T units of
time. An m-failure policy calls for replacing the system at
the time of the m-th failure. The last policy, named (m, T )-
policy, combines features of both of the described classes.
Under such a policy, system replacement is performed at
the time of the m-th failure or at time T , whichever occurs
first. The T -policy refers to the assumptions of the block
replacement.
Fig. 3 Group replacement policies classification
Group replacement policies are very popular due to the
ease with which they can be implemented in a real pro-
duction setting. As systems become more complicated and
require new technologies or methodologies, various modifi-
cations of basic group maintenance model have been devel-
oped to solve maintenance problems.
Types of group replacement models are presented in
Fig. 4.
A number of replacement models have been proposed for
two-unit systems. Scarf and Deara[17] considered group

n
Ai  A (5)
i=1
where ciw2 is cost of preventive maintenance of component
i, ciw1 is cost of corrective maintenance of component i,
ai is linear coefficient of hazard rate of component i, Ai
is component iavailability, and μ is constant repair rate of
components.
The algorithm calculates the interval of time between PM
actions for each component, minimizing the costs in a cer-
tain period of time when times to failure are increasingly
and repair times are non-negligible.
However, presented models are aimed at optimization of
the cycle length T between preventive maintenance actions
performance. There is also a number of research works that
deal with the problem of cyclically scheduling maintenance
activities assuming a fixed cycle length. Grigoriev et al.[20]
maintenance policies for two-unit system with failure de-
pendence. In their paper, the failure dependence is assumed
that whenever one component fails, it can induce the failure
of the other components.
The simple replacement policy assumes that the system
is replaced when either both components fail or at fixed
intervals, whichever occur first. Taking into account the
assumptions presented in Section 2.1, where it described
block replacement policies investigated, the long-run cost
per unit time can be estimated as
  T 
1 12
C(T ) = cw1 H(T ) + [1 + H(T − t)] u1 (t)dt + c12
w2 .
T 0
(6)
More recently, Zequeira and Berenguer[21] introduced a sim-
ple group replacement policy with periodic testing and in-
spections for two-unit standby parallel system with failure
368
Fig. 4 Static models for deteriorating systems
dependence. Under such a policy, components failures oc-
cur randomly but are detected only by periodic testing or
inspections. If the component is found failed during the
inspection, then the corrective maintenance of the whole
system is performed.
Besides periodic inspections, preventive maintenance ac-
tions are scheduled for the system at a fixed time T since
the end of the last maintenance action (corrective or pre-
ventive). Taking into account the following assumptions:
1) maintenance actions render both components to “as
good as new” condition,
2) maintenance actions have constant durations,
3) lifetimes of both components after system maintenance
action are s-independent up to the failure of a component,
4) inspections or tests are reliable,
the expected costs per unit time due to testing, mainte-
nance, and accident consequences are given by
1 (8)
C(T ) = [cins Nins (T, M ) + cw1 (1 − Pop (M T ))+
Tc
cw2 Pop (M T ) + κcdw E(Tdw )]
where cins is mean cost of testing or inspection, cw1 is mean
cost of CM or replacement of the system when at least one
components has failed, cw2 is mean cost of renewal of the
system when neither component has failed, cdw is mean cost
of downtime in a cycle, Nins (T, M ) is expected number of
components tests or inspections in a cycle, Pop (t) is prob-
ability that neither component is failed at time t, Tdw is
random variable of downtime during a cycle, κ is frequency
of true demands calling for the system to start up or func-
tion, and E(Tdw ) mean downtime in a cycle.
The solution of presented model is provided for a simple
case with numerical examples.
In another study, Lai and Chen[22] presented an eco-
nomic periodic replacement model for a two-unit system
International Journal of Automation and Computing 6(4), November 2009
with failure dependence and minimal repair. In the pre-
sented model, whenever unit 1 fails, it causes an increase
in the failure rate of unit 2 by a certain degree. Moreover,
each unit 2 failure induces unit 1 into instantaneous failure.
As a result, there is a system failure occurrence.
Investigated maintenance policy bases on system replace-
ment at age T or at failure, whichever occurs first. Before
the complete replacement of the two-unit system, each unit
1 failure is assumed to be reconditioned by minimal repairs.
For simplified assumptions:
1) continuously monitoring of the system,
2) negligible repair and replacement times,
the long-run expected cost per unit time in the steady state
are evaluated by
T
cw2 F 2 (t) + cw1 F 2 (t) + 0 F 2 (y)cmr (y)r1 (y)dy
C(T ) = T
0
F 2 (z)dz
where r1 is failure rate of unit 1, F2 (t) is lifetime distribu-
(7)
tion function of unit 2 and F 2 (t) = 1 − F2 (t), and cmr (y)
is cost of minimal repair of a unit (dependent on the occur-
rence time of its failure).
Possible extension of the presented maintenance mod-
els for a two-unit system is to develop multi-unit systems.
Haurie and L Ecuyer[23] considered a simple group replace-
ment model for a multicomponent system having identical
elements. The system is comprised of n elements working
independently under the same conditions. During the op-
erational cycle, if the element fails it has to be replaced
by a new one. Simultaneously, there are performed pre-
ventive actions, when a repairman can replace any number
of working elements. The maintenance problem is solved
by using the dynamic programming equation in the frame-
work of the theory of optimal control of jump processes. In
another study, Yasui et al.[24] summarized the main basic
 T. Nowakowski and S. Werbińka / On Problems of Multicomponent System Maintenance Modelling 369

group replacement policies for an n-unit parallel redundant where T c is mean of the cycle length.
system. The first investigated replacement policy assumes Finally, the expected cost per unit time for (m, T ) policy
that the system is replaced when all components fail or at can by estimated as
the determined time T1 . The expected cost rate is derived 1
from C(T ) = [cw2 + ncs + (cw1 − cs )E(N ) + cdw E(Tdw ) ]
Tc
nc1 + cw2 F (T1 )n
C(T1 ) =  T1 (9) (14)
0
[1 − F (t)n ] dt where N is total number of components that fail during a
cycle.
where c1 is acquisition cost of one unit, and F (t) is probabil- However, in order to adapt the presented basic group re-
ity density function (pdf) of time to failure of a component. placement policies for practical use, the minimal repair of
Next, suppose that system is replaced only at scheduled failed components in a system before the scheduled preven-
moments kT (k = 1, 2, 3, · · · ) if the total number of unit tive maintenance action performance is introduced.
failures exceeds N2 until this moment. Expected cost ratio Sandve and Aven[26] considered the optimal replacement
may be obtained as problem of a multicomponent system, where components
are minimally repaired at failures.
C(N ) =
 2 ∞ N −1 Taking into account the following assumptions:
1 
cdw (n i (k+1)T
i )[F (kT )] kT [F (t) − F (kT )]n−i dt + 1) random and independent components failures,
k=0 i=0
 ∞ N −1 −1 2) repair times of component i are independent and iden-
1
tically distributed,
nc1 } × T n i
(i )[F (kT )] [F (kT )]n−i
k=0 i=0 3) maintenance actions restores system to “as good as
(10) new” condition,
where cdw is downtime cost per unit per unit of time. two main replacement policies under the cost constraint are
To modify this policy, assume that the replacement of investigated.
the system is performed at system failure or at periodic First, the standard T -policy is analyzed. The expression
times kT (k = 1, 2, 3, · · ·) if the total number of unit fail- for the long-run average cost per unit time is given by
ures exceeds N1 until moment of preventive replacement.   T 
1
Expected cost ratio is given as C(T ) = cw2 + E [a(t)] dt (15)
T 0
C(N ) = where a(t) is the expected cost per unit of time at tdue to
 1 ∞ N −1
1
minimal repairs and downtime costs[26] .
cw2 i )[F (kT )] [F ((k + 1)T ) − F (kT )]
(n i n−i
+
k=0 i=0 An extension of the presented policy is the (T, S)-policy.
n
∞ N 1 −1
Under such a policy, the system is replaced at time S or at
nc1 } × (i )[F (kT )]i [F (kT )]n−i ·
the first failure after time T , whichever comes first. Now,
 k=0 i=0
 n−i  −1
 (k+1)T F (t) the average cost per unit time has the following form:
1− 1− dt .   
kT
F (kT ) min{YT ,S}

(11) C(T ) = cw2 + E a(t)dt ·

The expected cost ratio for the presented group replacement
−1
policies is also obtained for a “k-out-of-n” system.
Later, Popova and Wilson[25] presented a comparison of
closed-form results for expected cost function and variance
per unit time, derived for the three major classes of group
replacement policy (T -age, m-failure and (m, T )).
There is a system investigated comprising of n indepen-
dent components working in parallel structure. Failure time
of the components has a phase distribution. The assump-
tions taken into account are
1) variability of costs from cycle to cycle,
2) maintenance actions render system components to “as
good as new” condition,
3) negligible repair time.
Expected cost per unit time for T -age policy equals to
  T 
1
C(T ) = cw2 +ncs +(cw1 −cs )nF (T )+ncdw F (t)dt
T 0
(12)
where cs is cost of a functioning component maintenance.
Expected cost per unit time for m-failure policy is given
by
1 all functioning units are overhauled so that they become as
C(T ) = [cw2 + mcw1 + (n − m)cs + cdw E(Tdw ) ] (13)
Tc
0
 
S
T+ P (YT > t)dt (16)
T
where YT is time to the first component failure after T .
Unfortunately, the computation of E[a(t)] is possible only
to obtain with an approximation under some simplified
assumptions[26] .
Another possible extension of the described replacement
policy is to propose a two-phase maintenance policy for a
group of identical repairable units with two types of com-
ponent failure (minor/catastrophic), presented in Sheu and
Jhang[27] .
Under such a policy, there is a defined time-interval (0, T ]
as the first phase, and the time interval (T, T + W ] as the
second phase. Individual units have two types of failures.
Type I failures (minor) are removed by minimal repairs (in
both phases), whereas type II failures (catastrophic) are re-
moved by replacements in the first phase, or are left idle in
the second phase.
The group maintenance in a system is performed at time
T + W or upon the k-th idle, whichever comes first. At an
inspection, all idle units are replaced with new units and
good as new.
370 International Journal of Automation and Computing 6(4), November 2009

The long-run average cost per unit time for a generalized The presented classes of maintenance models are based
group maintenance policy is given by on the assumption, that the failure distribution of the sys-
tem is known with certainty. However, the failure distri-
Cop + Cmr1 + Cdw1 + Con + Cw1 + Cins1 bution of a system is usually unknown or known with un-
C(T, W, k) =
T + E(b) certain parameters in practice (see Fig. 5). In this case,
(17) the Bayesian group replacement policies are proposed. In
where Cop is expected total operational costs over the time particular, Popova[29] presented the optimal structure of
interval (0, T ], Cmr1 is expected total minimal repair costs Bayesian group replacement policies for a parallel system
over the time interval (T, T + τ ], Cdw1 is expected total of n items with exponential failure times and random fail-
downtime costs over the time interval (T, T + τ ], Con is ure parameter. Each time a replacement decision is made,
expected total overhaul costs at the time T + τ , Cw1 is ex- all n items are replaced.
pected total replacement costs at the time T + τ , Cins1 is
expected total inspections costs at the time T + τ , and b is
minimum of the order statistics[27] .
Most of the multicomponent maintenance models are
aimed at optimizing the expected maintenance and oper-
ational cost per unit time. In the article, Chelbi et al.[28]
proposed a preventive maintenance strategy for a serial sys-
tem consisting of ncomponents, which are not necessarily
identical. For the following assumptions:
1) random and stochastically independent components
failures,
2) instantaneous detection of failures,
3) availability at any given time of resources required to
undertake the replacements,
there are two replacement policies investigated under relia-
bility constraint.
The first proposed strategy is defined as follows: a pre-
ventive replacement of a system is undertaken at the same
Fig. 5 Types of group replacement models
moments kT (k = 1, 2, 3, · · · ). When any component fails
between consecutive PM actions, it is replaced by a new From the renewal theory, the expected cost per unit time
one. equals to
Taking into account, that the maintenance of every com-
ponents in a system is made separately, the PM of every cw2 − csal E(Nsal ) + cdw E(Tdw )
C(T ) = (21)
component i is undertaken at moments kT i . The station- T
ary availability of every component i would be given by
where csal is salvage cost of a component, and Nsal is num-
Tw1i Hi (Ti ) + Tw2i ber of working items salvaged.
Ai (Ti ) = 1 − (18) For the defined cost constraint, there is a discussion pre-
Ti
sented about optimality results for group replacement poli-
where Hi (t) is component i renewal function, Tw1i is aver- cies for system withn machines.
age time of corrective replacement of component i, and Tw2i Taking a further step, Sheu et al.[30] proposed an adap-
is average time of preventive replacement of component i. tive preventive maintenance model with minimal repair for
The penalty function that allows measuring the differ- repairable system and developed a Bayesian technique to
ence between group PM or separately replacement of every derive optimal maintenance policy.
component for any given period T ∗ follows: In the discussed model, a planned maintenance is car-
ried out as soon as T time units have elapsed since the last

n
(n − 1)TF maintenance action. When the system fails before age T ,
Dp (T ) = (Ai (T ∗ ) − Ai (T )) − (19)
i=1
T it is either correctively maintained (or replaced after (N -
1) maintenances) or minimally repaired, depending on the
where TF is fixed average time duration of PM operation. random repair cost at failure. At the N -th maintenance,
For the situation, when there is a considered minimal the system is replaced rather than maintained. There are
repair performance instead of replacement of failed com- also defined two types of system failures defined: minor fail-
ponents, the stationary availability of the system is given ure, when the minimal repair is performed, and catastrophic
by failure, where corrective maintenance takes place.
n T n For the following assumptions:
Tw1i 0 ri (t)dt + TF + Tiv 1) random repair cost for system failures,
i=1 i=1
A(T ) = (20) 2) increasing failure rate of a system,
T
3) negligible times of any maintenance actions,
where ri (t) is failure rate of component i, and Tiv is variable 4) infinite time span,
average time duration of a preventive replacement relating the objective is to determine the optimal maintenance plan
to the component i. that minimizes expected cost per unit of time, which is
 T. Nowakowski and S. Werbińka / On Problems of Multicomponent System Maintenance Modelling 371

given by the following equation: tenance models can be classified as stationary or dynamic.
In stationary models, there is assumed a long-term stable
C(N,
 T ) =   situation when the rules for maintenance do not change
δ(cw2 +cwN )
1
N over the planning horizon. The presented models in this
cdw + xhc (x)dx Fi,pII (T ) +
pII 0 i=1
overview mostly regard to this type. However, stationary
 N 

−1 models cannot incorporate dynamically changing informa-
T
(N − 1)cw2 + cwN } × 0
F i,pII (z)dz tion during operational process performance, such as a vary-
i=1
ing deterioration of components or unexpected opportuni-
(22)
ties.
where cwN is planned replacement cost at the N -th main-
To take such short-term circumstances into account,
tenance, hc (t) is density function of random repair cost cr ,
there are dynamic models proposed which can adapt the
pII is probability of catastrophic failure occurrence, and
long-term plan according to information becoming available
Fi,pII (t) is survival distribution of the time between the
on the short term. This yields a dynamic grouping policy.
(i − 1)-th and i-th unplanned maintenance.
Wildeman et al.[32] described a rolling-horizon approach
The maintenance of deteriorating systems is also fre-
that takes a long-term tentative plan as a basis for a sub-
quently modeled using Markov decision theory. Gurler and
sequent adaptation according to information that becomes
Kaya[31] considered a multicomponent system where the
available on the short term.
lifetime of each component is described by several stages,
In this paper, there is a multicomponent system consid-
which are further classified as good, doubtful, PM due, and
ered with n components. On each component i, a PM ac-
down. The system is composed of n identical and indepen-
tivity i can be carried out. The approach presented in this
dently operating components that are connected in series.
work enables interactive planning, taking into account op-
The maintenance policy assumes that system is replaced
portunities and a varying use of components during opera-
when a component enters a PM due or down state, and
tional processes performance. There is proposed a dynamic-
the number of components in doubtful states at that mo-
programming algorithm.
ment is at least N . The maintenance time is assumed to be
During the performance processes of a multi-unit sys-
negligible.
tem, some maintenance opportunities may occur due to,
The proposed maintenance policy is described by a multi
e.g., breakdowns of a unit in a series configuration. In most
dimensional Markov process. For the model under study,
cases, opportunities cannot be predicted in advance, and
there is an expression derived for the long-run average cost
because of their random occurrence, there can be used op-
per unit time given by
portunistic maintenance models to make effective mainte-
C(K, N ) = nance planning.
cw1 (E(N1 ) + (1 − p)E(N2 )) + cw2 pE(N2 ) + cw3 2.3 Opportunistic maintenance models
(23)
E(Tr ) + P (Tr = 0)E(Tr1 )
In a system with several stochastically failing parts, it
where cw3 is system replacement cost, N1 is number of tran- may be advantageous to follow an opportunistic mainte-
sition from node i to itself before a system replacement per- nance policy, in which the maintenance action to be taken
formance, N2 is number of transition from node i to (i-1) on a given part at a given time depends on the rest of the
before a system replacement performance, p is probability system. Types of group maintenance policies considered in
of preventive replacement performance, Tr is time to system the paper are presented in Fig. 6.
replacement, Tr1 is time to system replacement given that
there are N +1 doubtful components at t= 0, and P (T2 = 0)
is probability of system termination when there are more
than N doubtful components.
Optimization of the maintenance parameters is carried
out with the use of numerical methods.
Other model of group maintenance policy based on
marginal cost considerations, formulated as a Markov deci-
sion chains, is given by Dekker and Roelvink[15] . The group
age replacement problem is considered as a replacement de-
cision which is based on sufficient information about the
history of the process, being a vector containing all compo-
nent ages.
Although, lots of studies can be found that investigate
the group maintenance of multicomponent systems as a
Fig. 6 Types of opportunistic maintenance models
Markov decision process, the state space in such prob-
lems grows exponentially with the number of components. One of the earliest treatments of the opportunistic re-
Therefore, the Markov decision modeling is not tractable placement policy is the study of Radner and Jorgensen[33] .
for systems with more than three components. There are There is an opportunistic replacement of a single unin-
also a limited number of problems that can be solved based spected part considered in the presence of several moni-
on assumptions of Markov decision theory. tored parts. The policy has the (ni , N ) structure such that
Taking into account the planning aspect, the group main- an uninspected part is replaced alone on its failure or the
372 International Journal of Automation and Computing 6(4), November 2009
arrival of its preventive replacement age N , and replaced
opportunistically with a failed part i, if its age has reached
a critical age ni .
The presented approach is continued by van der Duyn
Schouten and Vanneste[34] , where authors investigated the
maintenance problem of a two-component series system,
taking into account the possibility of (n, N )-strategies ap-
plication.
In another study, Epstein and Wilamowsky[35] presented
the deterministic approach to investigate an opportunistic
replacement problem of a two-component system. The con-
sidered problem is defined as finding the optimal mainte-
nance plan when the exact time of both failure and main-
tenance opportunities are known at the outset.
More recently, Fard and Zheng[36] discussed an oppor-
tunistic failure rate replacement policy for a non-repairable
multi-unit system.
The considered maintenance policy assumes that a unit
is replaced when it fails or when its failure rate reaches a
given limit L. When a failed unit is replaced or its hazard
rate exceeds limit L, all operating units with their failure
rates falling in (L − u, L) are also replaced.
Taking into account the following simplified assumptions:
1) increasing in cycle time hazard rate of units,
2) negligible replacement time of units,
3) infinite planning horizon,
4) s-independent failure events,
from the renewal theory, the expected system cost rate in
the steady state is given:
n1
1
C(L, u) = ni [(cw2 + cw5 )P (fi ) + cw2 P (pi ) +
i=1 T ci
(cw2 + cw5 )P (ai )]
(24)
where cw5 is fixed replacement cost, fi , pi , ai are event of
corrective, preventive, or active replacement of type i unit,
n1 is number of types of units in a system, and ni is number
of type i units.
The presented model has been modified by Zheng and
Fard[37] . In this paper, there is a repairable multi-unit sys-
tem considered operating under the same replacement pol-
icy with one exception. When a unit fails with the hazard
rate in (0,L − u), then it is minimally repaired, with known
repair rate, instead of replacing it.
For the same assumptions presented above, the expected
system cost rate is evaluated as
C(L, u) = 
n1
1 rmr1
ni (cmr1 + )H(Di ) + cw2 P (pi)+
i=1 T ci μ  (25)
cw5
(cw1 + cw5 )P (f i) + (cw2 + )P (ai)
1 + mi
where cmr1 is fixed repair cost, rmr1 is repair cost rate, μ
is repair rate, mi is mean value of number of type i units
which are actively replaced at the end of cycle j given an
active replacement on unit l of type i at the end of cycle j,
hi (t) is hazard rate of a type i unit, and Di is h−1
i (L − u).
Taking a further step, Jhang and Sheu[38] investigated
a multi-unit system that has two types of failures. Type
I failures (minor failures) are removed by minimal repairs,
whereas type II failures (catastrophic failures) are removed
by replacements. Both types of the failures are age depen-
dent. The system is replaced at type II failure or at the
opportunity after age T , whichever occurs first.
Taking into account the following assumptions:
1) cost of minimal repair depends on the random and
deterministic part,
2) instantaneous detection and reparation of failures, and
3) infinite horizon planning,
the total expected long-run cost per unit time is given as
 ∞
C(T ) = 0 [cwT + (cwII − cwT )Fp (T + ω)+ 
T 
u2 (z)F p (z)pI (z)r(z)dz gw (ω)dω ×
0 (26)
 −1
T
0
F p (T − z)g p (z)dz
where cwT is cost of replacement at the opportunity after
T , cwII is cost of replacement at type II failure, Fp (t) is
survival distribution of the time between successive type II
failures, u2 (z) is expectation with respect to random re-
pair costs, pI (t) is probability of type I failure occurrence,
r(t) is system failure rate, and gw (t) is pdf of time between
successive opportunities.
In another study, Pham and Wang[39] discussed the op-
portunistic maintenance of a k-out-of-n: G system with
imperfect PM and allowable partial failure occurrence.
The following maintenance policy was designed: each
failure of a system component in the time interval (0, τ )
is immediately removed by a minimal repair. Components
that fail in the time interval (τ, T ) can be lying idle. The
system is replaced when the total operating time reaches
T or with CM and PM actions when there is exactly m
components idle, whichever occurs first. That is, if m com-
ponents fail in the time interval (τ, T ), CM combined with
PM is undertaken; if less than m components fail in the
time interval (τ, T ), then PM is carried out at time T .
For the following supplementary assumptions:
1) s-independent failure events,
2) negligible time of minimal repair,
3) age-dependent and number of minimal repairs-
dependent minimal repair costs,
4) increasing failure rate of every component,
5) perfect preventive maintenance,
the limiting average system availability for an infinite plan-
ning horizon are obtained:
  T −τ 
A(τ, T ) = τ + 0 F m (t)dt ×

T −τ
0
F m (t)dt + τ + Tw2 + Fm (T − τ )(Tf − Tw2 )}−1
(27)
where Fm (t) is cumulative distribution function (cdf) of
time between maintenance, Tf is time to perform CM to-
gether with PM, and Tw2 is time to perform PM alone the
long-run. The expected system maintenance cost per unit
time is
 τ
C(τ, T ) = n 0φ(y)rc (y)dy+Fm (T − τ )(cf − cw2 )+
 T −τ
cw2 } × 0 F m (t)dt + Fm (T − τ )(Tf − Tw2 )+
τ + Tw2 }−1
(28)
where φ(t) is expectation with respect to minimal repair
costs and number of performed minimal repairs, rc (t) is
 T. Nowakowski and S. Werbińka / On Problems of Multicomponent System Maintenance Modelling
failure rate of a component, and cf is cost of CM combined
with PM.
When taking into account, that PM actions are imper-
fect, the expressions for expected system maintenance cost
per unit time and limiting system stationary availability
also have been developed.
However, a key conclusion from the literature on multi-
component maintenance models is that the optimal main-
tenance policies are difficult to compute. In addition, be-
cause of their complex form, it is very difficult to use them
in practice. For this reason, some other methods have been
developed, which give the opportunity to obtain models de-
signed to yield practical and easy to implement policies. For
example, Hopp and Kuo[40] developed the three heuristics
and a lower bound for a system with all non-safety-critical
components. First, hierarchical approach for scheduling re-
placement epochs for n components is defined. Later, the
obtained results are compared to the other heuristics: se-
quential approach and base interval approach. In another
study, Haque et al.[41] applied genetic algorithm with fuzzy
logic controller to get a near optimal decision for oppor-
tunistic replacement of a multi-unit system.
2.4 Maintenance modeling using MFOP
concepts
Maintenance and reliability problems of technical sys-
tems have received considerable attention by many re-
searchers and practitioners. The main models that address
maintenance strategy have been presented above.
The presented literature review should be also extended
on the reliability measure that considers reliability require-
ments to be based on operational requirements. Moreover,
the investigated measure depends on the planned and un-
planned maintenance action performance.
Reliability can be measured and investigated in a dif-
ferent ways. Generally, overall multi-system performance
373
2) MTBF can only be accurately calculated after a con-
siderable period of time,
3) MTBF relies on probabilistic.
As a result, the high costs driven by the consequences
of the systems unreliability have been the starting point
for searching new measures to describe the reliability of a
system — especially in a field of aircraft maintenance.
The new reliability measure, having been investigated
since mid 1990s, is maintenance free operating periods
(MFOP). This measure is defined as a period of operation
during which the equipment must be able to carry out all
its assigned missions without any maintenance action and
without the operators being restricted in any way due to
system faults or limitations[45,46] . The main classification
scheme is presented in Fig. 7, and the comparison of both
the measures, MTBF and MFOP, is given in [44].
The first MFOP mathematical models are developed in
[45]. In the presented paper, MFOP is defined as a period
during which the equipment shall operate without failure
and without the need for any maintenance (however, mi-
nor, planned maintenance is permissible). The probability
of not having any unscheduled maintenance for a period of
tmf life units is given as maintenance-free operation period
survivability (MFOPS).
Authors developed two mathematical models to predict
MFOPS:
1) MFOP prediction is the mission reliability approach.
2) MFOP prediction is the alternating renewal theory.
Let us consider a system with n components connected
in series. Let us also assume that
1) system time to failure and time to repair follows arbi-
trary distributions,
2) time to failure distributions of various items of a sys-
tem are independent.
The probability that the system will survive the i-th cy-
cle of MFOP, given that it survives (i − 1) cycles is given
as
depends on individual system availability, which is quan- n
Rk (i · tmf )
M F OP S(tmf , i) = (29)
tifiable by the measures time to failure (TTFi ) or time to Rk ([i − 1] · tmf )
k=1
restoration (TTRi ) (see, e.g., [42]). Example of such a real
system can be found in [43]. where Rk (tmf ) is reliability of the k-th component for (the
However, the most common reliability measure is main- first) tmf life units.
tenance time between failures (MTBF), which has become In the second model, there is used alternating renewal
a way of defining the acceptability of failures by counting theory approach. MFOPS is found during a stated period
the number of failures per hour[44,45] . of T along with the maintenance recovery period.
However, the presented measure has limitations, e.g., Let us consider a repairable system, assuming that
[44]: 1) time to failure distribution of an item follows arbitrary
1) MTBF assumes a constant failure rate, distribution with density function f (t),

Fig. 7 MFOP modelling concepts

374 International Journal of Automation and Computing 6(4), November 2009
2) maintenance recovery time of the item follows arbi-
trary distribution with density function g(t),
3) the item can be in one of two states {1,0}, where “1”
is up state and “0” is down state.
The probability which is the system will operate for at
least tmf life units before it fails during T hours of operation
is given by
 T
P1 (T ) = R (tmf ) + f (μ |tmf ) P0 (T − μ) dμ (30)
0 (state-dependent deterioration), replacement policies and
and  T
P0 (T ) = g (ν) P1 (T − ν) dν (31)
0
where f (μ |tmf ) is probability that system fails at time μ.
There are also some numerical solutions for various fail-
ure distributions provided in the paper.
Another way of MFOP concepts model is presented in
[47]. Authors describe the ultra reliable aircraft model
(URAM): an aircraft reliability and maintenance discrete
event simulation model that is designed to investigate
MFOP concepts. There are also identified key factors de-
termining MFOP achievement.
The extension of MFOP model is given by Todinov[48−50] .
The author proposed the new reliability measure: minimum
failure-free operating period (MFFOP), which can be de-
fined as a combination of specified minimum intervals before
random variables in a finite time interval, whose existence
is guaranteed with a minimum probability PM F F OP [49] .
Assuming that a system is composed of a non-repairable
component, and taking into account the following assump-
tions:
1) “as good as new” replacement of a component,
2) “critical repair” to be a critical event that leads to a
system halt or degeneration of the required, function below
a minimum acceptable level and to require an immediate
intervention for repair,
3) random failures following a homogeneous Poisson pro-
cess,
minimum probability PM F F OP is given by
r  k integer, non-linear programming problem is used the short-
(λa)k exp(−λa) ks
PM F F OP = × 1− (32)
k! a
k=0
where (λa) exp(−λa)/k! is probability of exactly k failures
k
in the finite time interval a, and p(S |k) = (1 − ks/a)k is
conditional probability that given k random failures, before
each failure there will be a failure-free gap of length at least
s.
Author also provide some application examples, and
presents simulation algorithms for evaluating the probabil-
ity of MFFOP existence.
2.5 Multi-state system maintenance mod-
eling
The plethora of existing studies in reliability and main-
tenance modeling has been devoted to the case of binary
states. That is, a system and its components could, at any
point in time, presume only two operational states: func-
tion or failure. For this issue, maintenance policy problem
is usually connected with determination of optimal number
of standby components, subject to factors such as mainte-
nance capability, or system availability maximization, cost
of standby items, or operational cost minimization. Many
of maintenance models which investigate such problems are
presented below. However, real systems and its components
can function in degraded states.
Systems that can exist in more than two states are called
multi-state systems. For a stochastically failure system in
which deterioration takes place only from state to state
inspection policies using Markov processes were investi-
gated. An interesting example of such a model is presented
in [51], where an optimal inspection time interval for a pe-
riodically inspected 4-state Markov system is determined.
However, under the Markovian formulation, the deteriora-
tion of a system is indicated only by the changes of states.
Thus, there is an assumption made that performance of a
system within each state does not age. In practice, this
assumption may be invalid.
To overcome this simplification, more general system
configurations, in which random shocks could occur or
deterioration could take place within a state (state-age-
deterioration) were examined with the use of semi-Markov
processes.
State-age-dependent replacement policies for a multi-
state deteriorating system is considered, e.g., in [52]. The
optimization criterion in this model is to minimize the ex-
pected long-run cost rate.
Some practical application frameworks for multi-state
systems maintenance modeling also have been developed.
For example, see [53], where a flow transmission water pipe
system is analyzed. In that paper, a statistical model for
condition-based maintenance policy of multi-state systems
has been developed by combining the universal generating
function and Markov chain analysis theories.
Another interesting problem in the area of multi-state
system maintenance modeling is selective maintenance op-
timization for multi-state systems (see, e.g., [54]), where
the problem is what maintenance activities should be per-
formed during the limited amount of time. To solve the
est path method.
3 An example
According to the replacement policies, described in the
presented overview, a system is maintained to different op-
eration levels with various time intervals. Moreover, every
maintenance strategy takes into consideration various in-
put and output parameters (e.g., cost constraints) or model
assumptions (e.g., non-/negligible maintenance time, ran-
dom/constant repair cost, different dependencies between
components) in order to obtain the optimal maintenance
policy. Consequently, the issue of this section is to study
a described below system performance under the different
maintenance policies. The presented comparison is limited
only to those policies that can be evaluated analytically.
We consider a system that is composed of two identi-
cal components (denoted as units 1 and 2), whose failures
are random and stochastically independent. This kind of a
system with no redundancy will often be better to model
 T. Nowakowski and S. Werbińka / On Problems of Multicomponent System Maintenance Modelling 375

as one component or to model each component separately. According to the presented model assumptions, to eval-
Despite this, the various maintenance policies, described in uate the long-run cost per unit time, there must be defined
Section 2, can be compared on the basis of economic cost cost of minimal repair of failed unit 1 denoted by cm (t).
and system reliability. Suppose that cm (t) is a constant equal to 60 per failure, for
The problem of proper maintenance schedule planning the exponential time to failure of both components the ex-
for a two-unit system can be considered for the following pected cost per unit time given by (8) are easily obtainable.
main cases: Fig. 10 shows plots of the expected cost per unit time as
1) identical/various probability distributions of time to a function of T for both age policies: T -age policy and pe-
failure of a given components, riodic replacement with minimal repair. Moreover, Fig. 11
2) identical/various failure rates of components, illustrates the long-run cost per unit time as a function of
3) minimal repair performance instead of replacement of T for various failure rates of system components.
failed components,
4) failure dependence occurrence.
First, to obtain the maintenance scheduling plan for
the presented system, the simple group replacement model
is proposed by Scarf and Deara[17] . Under such a pol-
icy, failed components are replaced immediately. The sys-
tem itself is only renewed when both components are re-
placed simultaneously at failure or at scheduled moment
kT (k = 1, 2, 3, · · ·) (see Fig. 8).

Fig. 9 The expected cost per unit time as a function of T for

considered group replacement model
Fig. 8 System maintenance plan

The exponential distribution F (t) = 1 − exp(−λt) is used

to model the lifetimes of both components. The parameters
are λ1 = λ2 = 0.001, and λ1 = 0.1 and λ2 = 0.001.
Considered costs are as follows:
1) cost of failure replacement of both components c12
w1 =
1500,
2) cost of corrective replacement of component 2 c2w1 =
1000,
3) cost of preventive replacement of both components c12
w2
= 100.
According to the defined model assumptions, the long-
run cost per unit time described by formula (6), when p = 1
and q = 0 is given by Fig. 10 The expected cost per unit time as a function of T for
T -age policy and periodic replacement with minimal repair
C(T ) =
T
c12 2
w1 H1 (T ) + cw1 0
[1 + H1 (T − t)] F 1 (t)dH2 (t) + c12
w2
T
(33)

Fig. 9 presents the long-run cost per unit time as a func-

tion of time interval T for various values of components
failure rates.
In the second approach, the T -age policy proposed by
Popova[29] is investigated.
To obtain the long-run cost per unit time for this model,
according to (13), there is a need to estimate the down-
time cost of cdw per unit time until the failed component
is replaced and the cost of either replacing or repairing a Fig. 11 The expected cost per unit time as a function of T for
functioning component to as good as new, denoted by cs . periodic replacement with minimal repair
Thus, the long-run cost per unit time is evaluated for the
same simplified assumptions, when cdw is equal to 250 and To complete the analysis, the expected cost per unit time
cs equals 70. Taking a further step, a more difficult model, as a function of failure rate λ for the investigated replace-
defined by Lai and Chen[22] , can be considered. ment policies (see Figs. 12–14) is also presented.
376 International Journal of Automation and Computing 6(4), November 2009
Presented examples are given to illustrate the methods,
and let us make the following conclusions:
1) It can be seen that the cost C(T ) can vary for a dif-
ferent level of parameter λi . When the failure intensity for
both components is the same, the lower long-run cost per
unit time as a function of T can be obtained for age re-
placement policy with minimal repairs. However, taking
into account the failure dependence between components
the decision which policy should be chosen is less obvious.
2) It is also clear, that for small values of parameter λ,
there will be more failures in the system. Thus, the choice
between the policies in terms of system performance should
be confirmed also by the reliability analysis.
Moreover, the implementation of replacement policies re-
quires some level of maintenance reporting and control to
gain successful results. The principal advantage of the block
policies is that component age does not need to be moni-
tored. Thus, the requirements of the maintenance manage-
ment becomes simpler. The incorporation of minimal re-
pair performance instead of failed component replacement
requires the definition and evaluation of any costs which are
involved in this maintenance action.
This demonstrates once again, that the decision whether
to consider independent or grouped block replacement poli-
cies or an age policy depends on the relative mean times to
failure of the two components working in a system.
A possible extension of this work is to model the system
performance with the use of other probability distributions
of components lifetimes, and to propose a simulation model
that let us obtain the optimal policy parameters.
Fig. 12 The expected cost per unit time as a function of λ when
T = 2000 time units
Fig. 13 The expected cost per unit time as a function of λ1
when T = 2000 time units and λ2 = 0.001
Fig. 14 The expected cost per unit time as a function of λ2
when T = 2000 time units and λ1 = 0.001
4 Conclusions
In this paper, we have reviewed the literature on the most
commonly used optimal multicomponent maintenance mod-
els. This let us draw following conclusions:
1) The main mathematical methods used for analyzing
maintenance scheduling problems include applied probabil-
ity theory, renewal reward processes, and Markov decision
theory. However, there are a lot of maintenance problems,
where the functional relationship between the system s in-
put and output parameters cannot be described analyti-
cally. Thus, in practice, various maintenance models have
been developed, which apply linear and nonlinear program-
ming, dynamic programming, simulation processes, and
heuristic approaches. These were only mentioned in the
presented overview.
2) Most maintenance models, to obtain the optimal main-
tenance parameters, take into account only the cost con-
straint. However, maintenance actions are aimed at improv-
ing system dependability. For complex systems, where var-
ious types of components have different maintenance cost
and different reliability importance in the system, it is more
appropriate to analyze the optimal maintenance policy un-
der cost and reliability constraints simultaneously.
3) Many maintenance models consider the grouping of
maintenance activities on a long-term basis with an infini-
tive horizon. In practice, planning horizons are usually fi-
nite for a number of reasons: information is only available
over the short term, a modification of the system changes
the maintenance problem completely, and some events are
unpredictable.
4) In most existing literature on maintenance theory, the
maintenance time is assumed to be negligible. This as-
sumption makes, e.g., availability modeling impossible or
unrealistic. Obtained results are not traceable to practical
situations.
5) Most of the maintenance models for complex system
are based on the following assumptions: infinite system
planning horizon, steady-state conditions, perfect repair
policy, etc. The models resulting from these assumptions
are often an oversimplified version of the real-world system
behavior.
6) Most maintenance models assume that whenever a sys-
tem component is to be replaced, a new component is imme-
diately available. This implies that either the components
 T. Nowakowski and S. Werbińka / On Problems of Multicomponent System Maintenance Modelling
are highly standardized so that they can be immediately
delivered from suppliers, or that they are so inexpensive,
that there can be stored large amount of spares as a protec-
tion against system failures. Taking into account the “real
life situations”, the number of spare parts is usually lim-
ited, and the procurement lead time is non-negligible. This
implies, that the maintenance policy and spare provisioning
policy must be closely coupled, because separate treatment
of them will not result in the system optimal maintenance
policy.
7) Maintenance modelling development during the last
decades has taken into account the application of imper-
fect PM, system performance under uncertainty (e.g., lack
of information, unknown distribution functions of compo-
nents), different type of system failures occurrence, dynamic
grouping, inspection maintenance, etc. However, the more
extended model is considered with various maintenance pa-
rameters and more complex system behavior, to obtain the
the robust optimal solution.
From the theoretical point of view, much of the mainte-
nance work is of mathematical interest only exploring the
modelling methods. That is one of the reasons, why the
application of maintenance models has been rather limited
in practice. The difficulty with application of maintenance
models lies in making the models simple enough to be both
tractable and accessible to practitioners.
8) Moreover, maintenance and replacement decisions
base on the information, e.g., failure data of the equipment
under consideration, maintenance performance times, and
type and number of necessary support resources. Sufficient
data rarely exist for estimating parameters in a complex
model, and if data do exist, they are often unreliable. This
makes the application of mathematical models to support
maintenance and replacement decisions less obvious.
References
[1] D. I. Cho, M. Parlar. A Survey of Maintenance Models for
Multi-unit Systems. European Journal of Operational Re-
search, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 1991.
[2] W. P. Pierskalla, J. A. Voelker. A Survey of Maintenance
Models: The Control and Surveillance of Deteriorating Sys-
tems. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 3,
pp. 353–388, 1976.
[3] C. Valdez-Flores, R. M. Feldman. A Survey of Preven-
tive Maintenance Models for Stochastically Deteriorating
Single-unit Systems. Naval Research Logistics, vol. 36,
no. 4, pp. 419–446, 1989.
[4] H. Wang. A Survey of Maintenance Policies of Deteriorat-
ing Systems. European Journal of Operational Research,
vol. 139, no. 3, pp. 469–489, 2002.
[5] L. C. Thomas. A Survey of Maintenance and Replacement
Models for Maintainability and Reliability of Multi-item
Systems. Reliability Engineering, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 297–
309, 1986.
[6] T. Nakagawa. A Summary of Discrete Replacement Poli-
cies. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 17,
no. 3, pp. 382–392, 1984.
[7] R. P. Nicolai, R. Dekker. Optimal Maintenance of Multi-
component Systems: A Review, Economic Institute Report
2006–29, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Holand, 2006.
[8] H. Pham, H. Wang. Imperfect Maintenance. European
Journal of Operational Research, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 425–
438, 1996.
377
[9] Y. S. Sherif. Reliability Analysis: Optimal Inspection &
Maintenance Schedules of Failing Equipment. Microelec-
tronics and Reliability, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 59–115, 1982.
[10] R. Dekker. Applications of Maintenance Optimization Mod-
els: A Review and Analysis. Reliability Engineering and
System Safety, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 229–240, 1996.
[11] R. P. Nicolai, R. Dekker. A Review of Multi-component
Maintenance Models. In Proceedings of European Safety
and Reliability Conference, pp. 289–296, 2007.
[12] P. A. Scarf. On the Application of Mathematical Models in
Maintenance. European Journal of Operational Research,
vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 493–506, 1997.
[13] T. Aven, R. Dekker. A Useful Framework for Optimal
Replacement Models. Reliability Engineering and System
Safety, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 61–67, 1997.
[14] E. Frostig. Comparison of Maintenance Policies with Mono-
tone Failure Rate Distributions. Applied Stochastic Models
in Business and Industry, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 51–65, 2003.
[15] R. Dekker, I. F. K. Roelvink. Marginal Cost Criteria for
Preventive Replacement of a Group of Components. Eu-
ropean Journal of Operational Research, vol. 84, no. 2,
pp. 467–480, 1995.
[16] W. W. Fisher. Markov Process Modelling of a Maintenance
System with Spares, Repair, Cannibalization and Man-
power Constraints. Mathematical Computer Modelling,
vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 119–125, 1990.
[17] P. A. Scarf, M. Deara. Block Replacement Policies for a
Two-component System with Failure Dependence. Naval
Research Logistics, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 70–87, 2003.
[18] M. T. Lai, J. Yuan. Periodic Replacement Model for a Par-
allel System Subject to Independent and Common Cause
Shock Failures. Reliability Engineering and System Safety,
vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 355–367, 1991.
[19] J. A. C. Duarte, J. C. T. A. Craveiro, T. P. Trigo. Op-
timization of the Preventive Maintenance Plan of a Series
Components System. International Journal of Pressure Ves-
sels and Piping, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 244–248, 2006.
[20] A. Grigoriev, J. van de Klundert, F. C. R. Spieksma. Mod-
eling and Solving the Periodic Maintenance Problem. Eu-
ropean Journal of Operational Research, vol. 172, no. 3,
pp. 783–797, 2006.
[21] R. I. Zequeira, C. Berenguer. Maintenance Cost Analysis
of a Two-component Parallel System with Failure Interac-
tion. In Proceedings of Annual Symposium on Reliability
and Maintainability, IEEE Press, pp. 220–225, 2004.
[22] M. T. Lai, Y. C. Chen. Optimal Periodic Replacement Pol-
icy for a Two-unit System with Failure Rate Interaction.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technol-
ogy, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 367–371, 2006.
[23] A. Haurie, P. L Ecuyer. A Stochastic Control Approach to
Group Preventive Replacement in a Multicomponent Sys-
tem. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 27,
no. 2, pp. 387–393, 1982.
[24] K. Yasui, T. Nakagawa, S. Osaki. A Summary of Optimum
Replacement Policies for a Parallel Redundant System. Mi-
croelectronics and Reliability, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 635–641,
1988.
[25] E. Popova, J. G. Wilson. Group Replacement Policies
for Parallel Systems Whose Components have Phase Dis-
tributed Failure Times. Annals of Operations Research,
vol. 91, pp. 163–189, 1999.
[26] K. Sandve, T. Aven. Cost Optimal Replacement of Mono-
tone, Repairable Systems. European Journal of Operational
Research, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 235–248, 1999.
[27] S. H. Sheu, J. P. Jhang. A Generalized Group Maintenance
Policy. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 96,
no. 2, pp. 232–247, 1996.
378 International Journal of Automation and Computing 6(4), November 2009
[28] A. Chelbi, D. Ait-Kadi, H. Aloui. Availability Optimiza-
tion for Multi-component Systems Subjected to Periodic
Replacement. In Proceedings of European Safety and Reli-
ability Conference, pp. 1109–1114, 2007.
[29] E. Popova. Basic Optimality Results for Bayesian Group
Replacement Policies. Operations Research Letters, vol. 32,
no. 3, pp. 283–287, 2004.
[30] S. H. Sheu, R. H. Yeh, Y. B. Lin, M. G. Yuang. A Bayesian
Approach to an Adaptive Preventive Maintenance Model.
Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 71, no. 1,
pp. 33–44, 2001.
[31] Ü. Gürler, A. Kaya. A Maintenance Policy for a System
with Multi-state Components: An Approximate Solution.
Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 76, no. 2,
pp. 117–127, 2002.
[32] R. E. Wildeman, R. Dekker, A. C. J. M. Smit. A Dy-
namic Policy for Grouping Maintenance Activities. Eu-
ropean Journal of Operational Research, vol. 99, no. 3,
pp. 530–551, 1997.
[33] R. Radner, D. W. Jorgenson. Opportunistic Replacement of
a Single Part in the Presence of Several Monitored Parts.
Management Science, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 70–84, 1963.
[34] F. A. van der Duyn Schouten, S. G. Vanneste. Analysis
and Computation of (n, N )-strategies for Maintenance of a
Two-component System. European Journal of Operational
Research, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 260–274, 1990.
[35] S. Epstein, Y. Wilamowsky. Opportunistic Replacement in
a Deterministic Environment. Computers and Operational
Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 311–322, 1985.
[36] N. Fard, X. Zheng. An Approximate Method for Non-
repairable Systems Based on Opportunistic Replacement
Policy. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 33,
no. 2, pp. 277–288, 1991.
[37] X. Zheng, N. Fard. A Maintenance Policy for Repairable
Systems Based on Opportunistic Failure-rate Tolerance.
IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 237–
244, 1991.
[38] J. P. Jhang, S. H. Sheu. Opportunity-based Age Replace-
ment Policy with Minimal Repair. Reliability Engineering
and System Safety, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 339–344, 1999.
[39] H. Pham, H. Wang. Optimal (τ ,T) Opportunistic Mainte-
nance of a k-out-of-n: G System with Imperfect PM and
Partial Failure. Naval Research Logistics, vol. 47, no. 3,
pp. 223–239, 1999.
[40] W. J. Hopp, Y. L. Kuo. Heuristics for Multicomponent
Joint Replacement: Applications to Aircraft Engine Main-
tenance. Naval Research Logistics, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 435–
458, 1998.
[41] S. A. Haque, A. B. M. Z. Kabir, R. A. Sarker. Optimization
Model for Opportunistic Replacement Policy Using Genetic
Algorithm with Fuzzy Logic Controller. In Proceedings of
the Congress on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Press,
vol. 4, pp. 2837–2843, 2003.
[42] U. K. Rakowsky. Modelling Reliability-adaptive Multi-
system Operation. International Journal of Automation and
Computing, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 192–198, 2006.
[43] C. Dietl, U. K. Rakowsky. An Operating Strategy for
High-availability Multi-station Transfer Lines. Interna-
tional Journal of Automation and Computing, vol. 3, no. 2,
pp. 125–130, 2006.
[44] M. A. Brown, C. J. Hockley. Cost of Specifying Mainte-
nance/Failure Free Operating Periods for Royal Air Force
Aircraft. In Proceedings of Annual Reliability and Main-
tainability Symposium, IEEE Press, Philadelphia, PA,
USA, pp. 425–432, 2001.
[45] U. D. Kumar, J. Knezevic, J. Crocker. Maintenance Free
Operating Period – An Alternative Measure to MTBF and
Failure Rate for Specifying Reliability? Reliability Engi-
neering and System Safety, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 127–131, 1999.
[46] H. Wu, Y. Liu, Y. Ding, J. Liu. Methods to Reduce Di-
rect Maintenance Costs for Commercial Aircraft. Aircraft
Engineering and Aerospace Technology, vol. 76, no. 1,
pp. 15–18, 2004.
[47] L. Warrington, J. A. Jones, N. Davis. Modelling of Mainte-
nance, within Discrete Event Simulation. In Proceedings of
Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, IEEE
Press, Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 260–265, 2002.
[48] M. T. Todinov. Reliability and Risk Models. Setting Reli-
ability Requirements, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., England,
2005.
[49] M. T. Todinov. A New Reliability Measure Based on Spec-
ified Minimum Distances before the Locations of Random
Variables in a Finite Interval. Reliability Engineering and
System Safety, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 95–103, 2004.
[50] M. T. Todinov. Minimum Failure-free Operating Inter-
vals Associated with Random Failures of Non-repairable
Components. Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 45,
no. 3, pp. 475–491, 2003.
[51] J. Karpiński. A Multistate System under an Inspection and
Repair Policy. IEEE Transactions of Reliability, vol. 35,
no. 1, pp. 76–77, 1986.
[52] C. T. Lam, R. H. Yeh. Optimal Replacement Policies
for Multi-state Deteriorating Systems, Technical Report
No. 92–41, DEEPBLUE, 1993.
[53] C. M. Tan, N. Raghavan. A Framework to Practical Pre-
dictive Maintenance Modeling for Multi-state Systems. Re-
liability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 93, no. 8,
pp. 1138–1150, 2008.
[54] C. Chen, M. Q. H. Meng, M. J. Zuo. Selective Mainte-
nance Optimization for Multi-state Systems. In Proceedings
of IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer
Engineering, IEEE Press, Canada, vol. 3, pp. 1477–1482,
1999.
Tomasz Nowakowski is a professor of
Wroclaw University of Technology, Wro-
claw, Poland. He is a head of Division
of Logistics and Transportation Systems at
Mechanical Engineering Faculty. He is also
a president of Polish Logistic Association,
member of teams of Polish Academy of Sci-
ences, vice-president of Polish Maintenance
Society. He is editor of Terotechnology sec-
tion of quarterly Scientific Problems of Ma-
chines Operation and Maintenance.
His research interests include reliability, maintainability,
safety of technical (generally transportation and logistic) sys-
tems, computer aided operation, knowledge based (expert) sys-
tems, uncertainty of operation, and maintenance data.
Sylwia Werbińka received her M. Sc. in
mechanical engineering (specialty: logis-
tics) from Wroclaw University of Technol-
ogy, Poland in 2004. She is currently a
Ph. D. candidate in Division of Logistics
and Transportation Systems at Wroclaw
University of Technology.
Her research interests include logistic
support systems modelling, systems relia-
bility, and maintenance processes design-
ing.