Technical System Maintenance - Delay-Time-Based Modelling

Springer Series in Reliability Engineering
Sylwia Werbińska-Wojciechowska
Technical
System
Maintenance
Delay-Time-Based Modelling
Series editor
Hoang Pham, Piscataway, USA
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6917
Technical System
Maintenance
Delay-Time-Based Modelling
123
Wroclaw University of Science
and Technology
Wroclaw, Poland
ISSN 1614-7839 ISSN 2196-999X (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-030-10787-1 ISBN 978-3-030-10788-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10788-8
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018965885
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
The importance of maintenance has increasing for recent past decades. Till now,
many valuable contributions to maintenance modelling concepts have been made.
Thus, this book gives a detailed introduction to maintenance policies and provides
the current status and further studies of these fields, emphasizing mathematical
formulation and optimization techniques.
The emphasis of the book is mainly on a delay-time (DT) modelling technique,
which has been employed by many authors in the field of maintenance engineering
in the modelling of inspection intervals. The author focuses on the delay-time
modelling for multi-unit technical systems performing in various reliability struc-
tures, discussing the optimum maintenance policies both analytically and practically.
There are considered typical reliability system architectures: single-unit systems,
series systems, parallel systems, and nk-out-of-n systems. The new developed
maintenance models extend the approach used so far and allow analysing the
long-term operation time period and perfect inspection actions performance.
This book is intended to summarize the research results studied mainly by the
author in the past seven years. Furthermore, it is based on the author's experience
gained during the performance of research projects in the fields of logistic support,
maintenance, and delay-time modelling.
This book is composed of seven chapters. Chapter 1 is devoted to an introduction
to the maintenance theory. The main definitions connected with the analysed
research area are discussed. Moreover, the classification of the main maintenance
problems being investigated in the recent literature is given. The aim of this book and
its scope is also presented.
Chapter 2 summarizes the results of preventive maintenance, one of the most
commonly used maintenance strategy. The reviewed literature is classified into two
main groups of models for one-unit and multi-unit systems. The optimum policies
are discussed, and their several modified and extended models are presented.
Chapter 3 deals with inspection maintenance modelling issues. The discussed
models for single-unit systems include such modelling issues like shock occurrence,
information uncertainty, sequential inspection, or imperfect inspection perfor-
mance. The models for multi-unit systems regard to the two types of technical
v
vi Preface
objects—protective devices (or standby units) and operational units. The main
extensions of the developed models are discussed and summarized.
Chapter 4 presents the literature review on the delay-time modelling for single-
and multi-unit (complex) systems. The maintenance models for single-unit systems
assume two-stage or three-stage failure processes. In the case of complex systems,
the discussed problems regard to e.g. models’ parameters estimation issues, case
studies analysis, or hybrid modelling approach implementation.
In Chap. 5, the author introduces the delay-time based maintenance models for
multi-unit technical systems in various reliability structures (series, parallel, nk-
out-of-n types) for the two cases of perfect and imperfect inspection performance.
First, the necessity of the DT modelling for multi-unit systems performing in
various reliability structures is discussed. The research gap is underlined and
structure of the Chapter is presented. Moreover, preliminary simulation DT models
are characterized. They focus on availability and maintenance costs of technical
systems in series and non-series structures with perfect and imperfect inspection.
In Sect. 5.2 the new analytical delay-time maintenance models are developed.
First, the main assumptions for the DT models are defined. This gives the possi-
bility to obtain the main reliability functions for the modelled system performing in
various reliability structures. Later, the expected maintenance cost model is
introduced.
Section 5.3 provides the reader with extended delay-time maintenance models
for systems performing in various reliability structures. The maintenance models for
series and parallel systems are discussed. In the next Subchapters there are also
discussed and analysed the convergence of the given analytical model with the
simulation one and possibilities of the obtained simple DT models for determining
the best inspection time interval.
In Chap. 6 some important properties of the models are discussed with inves-
tigation of a problem of models’ parameters estimation process and its uncertainty.
Later, there is given a simple methodology of applying delay-time analysis to a
maintenance and inspection department. The defined algorithm is aimed at esti-
mation of optimal inspection interval basing on the DT models developed in
Chap. 5 and results obtained from the modelling parameters estimation analysis.
Finally, two case studies are proposed to investigate the optimal inspection
interval for two-unit systems performing in series and parallel structures. The
models used to analyse the given systems are based on the results of Chap. 5 and
Sect. 6.2. The first example regards to engine equipment maintenance (v-ribbed belt
with belt tensioner), the second example presents the maintenance of left and right
steering dumpers that are used in wheel loaders. In order to obtain the optimal
inspection interval the author focuses on cost optimisation. The third example
regards to the problem of maintenance policy selection based on the available
operational and maintenance data from a company.
In the last chapter, the main conclusions and directions for further research are
defined and discussed. The author also summarizes the main contribution of this
book. Moreover, the appropriate References section including works cited in the
book is given.
Preface vii
In the Attachment, there are presented exemplary simulation programs for the
developed delay-time based maintenance models (for perfect and imperfect
inspection cases). Moreover, the additional results for conducted analysis presented
in Sect. 6.2 are given. The Attachment 4 provides the reader with the list of the
main maintenance standards.
The articles referred to in this study were found using Google Scholar as a search
engine and ScienceDirect, JStor, SpringerLink, SAGEJournals, De Gruyter,
EBSCO, and Taylor & Francis as online databases. The author primarily searched
the relevant literature based on keywords, abstracts and titles. Moreover, she also
searched within the articles for relevant references. The following main terms
and/or a combination of them were used for searching the literature: maintenance,
maintenance optimization, maintenance management, preventive maintenance,
delay time maintenance, inspection maintenance. The literature overview was also
supplied with relevant books and proceedings that were available for the author
(e.g. based on AccessEngineering e-book resources database, and Springer Link, or
Taylor & Francis eBooks databases).
Although the author has tried to give a reasonably complete survey, the reader
may note that some papers are missing (e.g. untranslated Asiatic papers). Thus, the
author apologizes to both the readers and the researchers if she has omitted any
relevant papers in the analysed research area.
This book is a valuable resource for understanding the latest developments in
maintenance, inspection and delay-time based maintenance modelling issues. Thus,
it will be useful to many people including maintenance engineers, reliability spe-
cialists, graduate and senior undergraduate students, and researchers, who are
interested in reliability and maintenance. The sources of the material presented are
given in the reference Chapter at the end of the book for the benefit of the reader if
he/she wishes to delve deeper into particular topics. I believe that all the Chapters of
this book will introduce the readers to the major up-to-date theory and practice in
maintenance modelling issues especially in the field of delay-time modelling.
The author would like to express her sincere appreciation to all the contributors
to this book. I am also indebted to Professor Tomasz Nowakowski, Wroclaw
University of Technology, Poland, and PhD Eng. Anna Jodejko-Pietruczuk,
Wroclaw University of Technology, Poland for their valuable assistance and
comments. I also thank my family for their patience and support.
Wroclaw, Poland Sylwia Werbińska-Wojciechowska

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 Preventive Maintenance Models for Technical Systems . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2 Preventive Maintenance for a Single-Unit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.1 Age-Replacement Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.2 Block-Replacement Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.2.3 Other Maintenance Policies for a Single-Unit System . . . . 37
2.3 Preventive Maintenance for a Multi-unit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.3.1 Age-Replacement Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.3.2 Block-Replacement Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.3.3 Group Maintenance Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.3.4 Opportunity-Based Maintenance Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.3.5 Cannibalization Maintenance Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3 Inspection Models for Technical Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.2 Inspection Models for a Single-Unit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
3.3 Inspection Models for a Multi-unit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
4 Delay-Time Maintenance Models for Technical Systems . . . . . . . . . . 161
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
4.2 Basic Delay-Time Models for a Single-Unit System . . . . . . . . . . . 166
4.3 Basic Delay-Time for a Complex System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
ix
x Contents
5 Delay-Time Models for Multi-unit Technical Systems

Working in Various Reliability Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
5.2 Simple Delay-Time Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
5.2.1 Reliability Models for a System with Delay Time
Working in Various Reliability Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
5.2.2 Expected Maintenance Costs Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5.3 Extended Delay-Time Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
5.3.1 DT Maintenance Model for a Two-Element System
Performing in Series Reliability Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Performing in Parallel Reliability Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
5.4 Convergence of a Chosen Analytical Model with Developed
Simulation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
5.5 The Use of a Chosen DT Model to Determine the Best Inspection
Time Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
5.6 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
6 Delay Time Models Implementation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
6.2 Models’ Parameters Estimation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
6.3 Maintenance Decision-Making Process—Simple Decision Rules
and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
6.4 Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
6.4.1 Case Study for a Two-Component Series System . . . . . . . 288
6.4.2 Case Study for a Two-Component Parallel System . . . . . . 292
6.4.3 Case Study for a Maintenance Policy Decision Process
Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
6.5 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
7 Conclusions and Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
Appendix A: An Exemplary Simulation Program (Source Code)
for a DT Model for Multi-unit Systems in an nk-Out-of-n
Structure (Perfect Inspection Case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Appendix B: An Exemplary Simulation Program (Source Code)
for a DT Model for Multi-unit Systems in an nk-Out-of-n
Structure (Imperfect Inspection Case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Appendix C: Chosen Results for Optimal Period Tin from Delay Time
Dispersion Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Appendix D: Chosen Standards Related to Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
Abbreviations
AAM Aircraft Availability Model

ACPH Acyclic Phase-type
AIC Akaike Information Criterion
APB Advance-Postpone Balancing
ARP Age-based Replacement Policy
BI Block Inspection
BIP Block Inspection Policy
BRP Block-based Replacement Policy
BSC Balanced Scorecard
CBM Condition-Based Maintenance
CM Corrective Maintenance
CMMS Computerised Maintenance Management System
CR Corrective Replacement
CSF Continuum Structure Functions
DBM Dynamic Bayesian Networks
DRIVE Distribution and Repair in Variable Environments
DSS Decision Support System
DT Delay Time
DTA Delay Time Approach
DTM Delay Time Models
ELECTRE Elimination and Choice Expressing the Reality
ETA Event Tree Analysis
FMEA Failure Mode, Effects, and Analysis
FMECA Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis
FTA Fault Tree Analysis
GA Genetic Algorithm
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HAZOP Hazard and Operability Study
HBC Hybrid Bee Colony algorithm
HPP Homogeneous Poisson Process
xi
xii Abbreviations
IRR Inspection-Repair-Replacement
KPI Key Performance Indicators
LCC Life Cycle Costs
MAM Multi-attribute Model
MAUT Multi-Attribute Utility Theory
MC Monte Carlo
MCDA Multiple-Criterion Decision Analysis
METRIC Multi-Echelon Technique for Recoverable Item Control
MLE Maximum Likelihood Estimation
MRT Mean Repair Time
MSF Modelling System Failures
MTBF Mean Time Between Failures
MTSF Mean Time to the First System Failure
MTTCF Mean Time to Complete Failure
MTTF Mean Time to Failure
NHPP Non-Homogeneous Poisson Process
NORS Not Operationally Ready because of Supply
OEE Overall Equipment Effectiveness
OM Opportunistic Maintenance
PAR Proportional Age Reduction
PdM Predictive Maintenance
PDR Preventive Diagnostic Replacement
PM Preventive Maintenance
PR Preventive Replacement
PRM Preparedness Maintenance
PROMETHEE Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment
Evaluations
RBI Risk-based Inspection
RCM Reliability Centred Maintenance
SCC Stress Corrosion Cracking
SF System Failure
SRI Semi-regenerative Process
TPM Total Productive Maintenance
TTT Total Time on Test
Notations
A System availability ratio

Ai Component i availability ratio
ai Linear coefficient of hazard rate of component i
air Event of active replacement of type i unit
aNi Adjustment factor in hazard rate due to an ith PM
A(t) System availability function
Ai(t) Availability function in an ith PM cycle
b Minimum of the order statistics given in [Sheu’96]
bi Improvement factor in effective age due to an ith PM
C(T) Long-run expected cost per unit time
c(Tin) Expected cost over an each inspection cycle
c(Tini) Expected cost over an ith inspection cycle
C(T− Dd ) Expected costs for time interval [0,T−Dd)
C(T, Dd ) Expected costs for time interval [T−Dd,T)
ca(t) Expected cost per unit of time at t, given the history up to t
ccs Clean up cost that is connected with cleaning up any spillage that
may result in a failure
cdw Downtime cost per unit per unit of time
cdw Mean cost of downtime in a cycle
Cdw1 Expected total downtime costs over time interval (T,T+b]
cf Cost of CM combined with PM of all not failed but deteriorating
components
cf1 Unit consequence costs incurred in case of system failure
Ci(t) Long-run expected cost per unit time of component i
cin Cost of inspection action performance
cin Mean cost of testing or inspection performance
CinAB(Tin1) Expected costs of system inspection actions performance in time
period (0,Tin1]
cin1 Cost of first inspection action performance
Cin1 Expected total inspections costs at the time T+b
xiii
xiv Notations
cin2 Cost of second (and subsequent) inspection action performance

cmr Cost of minimal repair of a unit
Cmr1 Expected total minimal repair costs over time interval (T,T+b]
cmr(t) Random cost of minimal repair of a unit dependent on failure
occurrence at time t
cnm Repair cost of a unit/system
max
Cnm Repair cost limit
Con Expected total overhaul costs at the time T+b
Cop Expected costs of system operation
cop Cost of system operation
Cop1 Expected total operational costs over time interval (0,T]
Cop(t1,t2) Expected costs of system operation occurring in (t1,t2) time period
Cp Expected costs of preventive replacement
cp Cost of preventive replacement of a unit
cp Mean cost of preventive replacement of a unit
CpAB(Tin1) Expected costs of system preventive replacement
in time period (0,Tin1]
cip Cost of preventive replacement of component i
cip Mean cost of preventive replacement of component i
cijp Cost of preventive replacement of components i and j
Cr Expected costs of corrective maintenance
CrAB(Tin1) Expected costs of system corrective replacement
in time period (0,Tin1]
Cri_j(Tin1) Expected costs of first failure of ith element occurrence in time
moment x 2 (0,Tin1) and possible second failure of jth element
occurrence in time period (x,Tin1)
Crð0;tÞ ðtÞ Expected maintenance costs in (0,t) time period
cr Cost of failed unit replacement
crst Cost of failed standby unit replacement
cr Mean cost of unit replacement
cir Cost of failure replacement of component i
cir Mean cost of failure replacement of component i
cijr Cost of failure replacement of components i and j
cre Cost of system replacement at Nth failure
crf Fixed replacement cost
crT Cost of replacement at the opportunity after age T
Cr1 Expected total replacement costs at the time T+b
cr2 Mean cost of CM or replacement of a system when at least one
component has failed
crII Cost of replacement at type II failure
cs Cost of functioning component maintenance
csal Salvage cost of a component
C T ðTin Þ Total costs resulting from chosen maintenance policy
Notations xv
T
Cin ðTin Þ Total costs of performed inspections per unit time
Cp ðTin Þ
T Total costs of new elements resulting from PM performance per unit
time
CrT ðTin Þ Total costs of consequences resulting from system failure per unit
time
c0 Additional penalty cost
c1 Acquisition cost of one unit
c1 ðTax Þ Acquisition cost of a used unit of age Tax
c2 Cost of mission failure
Di Function given as h1 i ð L uÞ
din Time of single inspection action performance
dp The time of preventive replacement of a system
dr Time of corrective replacement of a system (after a failure)
dri Downtime of fault i
ei Indicator for ith element (working in an nk-out-of-n systems)
denoting its up/down state
E[x] Expected value of random variable x
Ed(Tin ) Expected downtime in an inspection cycle of length Tin
F(t) Probability distribution function of system/unit lifetime;
ðt Þ ¼ 1 F ðt Þ
F
f(t) Probability density function of system/unit lifetime
Fcn(t) Probability distribution function of repair cost; F cn ðtÞ ¼ 1 Fcn ðtÞ
Fh(h) Probability distribution function of system delay time
fh(h) Probability density function of system delay time
Fhi(h) Probability distribution function of ith element delay time
fhi(h) Probability density function of ith element delay time
fi Event of corrective replacement of type i unit
Fi(t) Probability distribution function of ith element lifetime;
i ðt Þ ¼ 1 F i ðt Þ
F
fi(t) Probability density function of ith element lifetime
FAB(Tin1) Probability distribution function of a two-element system in time
moment Tin1
m(t)
F Survival function of time to failure of a nk-out-of-n system
FrII(t) Probability distribution function of the time between successive
type II failures; F rII ðtÞ ¼ 1 FrII ðtÞ
fs(t) Supportive function dependent on maintenance costs and distribu-
tion function of time to system renewal given in [Scarf’03]
Fst(t) Probability distribution function of standby unit lifetime
FT(t) Probability distribution function of cycle length T;
T ðt Þ ¼ 1 F T ðt Þ
F
FyT(t) T y ðt Þ ¼ 1 F T y ðt Þ
Probability distribution function of time Ty; F
xvi Notations
Gh(t) Probability distribution function of the initial time u, which elapses

from the beginning of operation by “as good as new” elements of a
system until the moment of first symptoms of failure occurrence
Ghi(t) Probability distribution function of initial time u of ith element in a
system
gh(t) Probability density function of the initial time u, which elapses from
the beginning of operation by “as good as new” elements of a
system until the moment of first symptoms of failure occurrence
ghi(t) Probability density function of initial time u of ith element in a
system
gop(t) Probability density function of time between successive
opportunities
Gp(t) Probability distribution function of single element’s replacement
time (preventive maintenance)
Gr(t) Probability distribution function of single element’s
repair/replacement time (corrective maintenance)
h Delay time of a defect, denoting the period between the moment of
appearance of the first symptoms of potential failure and the
moment of an object failure occurrence
hi ith simulated delay time of a defect
H(t) System renewal function
h(t) Hazard rate function of a unit
Hi(t) Component i renewal function
hi(t) Hazard rate function in PM cycle i, i = 1, 2, …
hi(t) Hazard rate of a type i unit
Hy(t) System renewal function as a function of time Ty
Kin Cost coefficient for a technical system in the long-run
ku Constant rate for faults arrival in a technical system for any
inspection period
L Failure rate limit
LI(t ! ∞) Expected number of inspection actions performance in a single
renewal cycle of a system element, during which it will be up stated
M Parameter which determines the number of inspections between
system preventive maintenances performance
Mcs Measure of possible impact of a failure of a piece of equipment on
an environment
Menv(Tin) Environmental model of a technical object
m Number of failures till element replacement
mi 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
N Total number of components that fail during a cycle
Notations xvii
n Number of elements in a system

N(t) Expected number of failure/renewals for time interval (0,t)
Nfin(t) Expected number of components tests or inspections in a cycle
when there is a failure interaction
nh Number of elements for which thi t
ni Number of type i units
Nin Number of test or inspection intervals
Nin(t) Expected number of test or inspection actions for time interval (0,t)
NinPM Number of inspections when PM action is performed
nk Minimum number of operating components to make a system
function (performance in nk-out-of-n reliability structure)
Nmr Number of minimal repairs before replacement
Noin Number of omitted preventive maintenance actions during an
inspection action performance
NPM Number of PM actions before replacement
NPin(Tin) The number of preventive replacements of system elements
nPin(Tin) Number of elements that were preventively replaced after inspection
Nr Number of failures of a system at which the system is replaced
Nrin ðtin ; tin Þ
i1 i
Expected number of failures over inspection interval ðtin ; tin Þ
i1 i
Ns(t) Number of shocks up to time t

Nsal Number of working items salvaged
Nwc Number of working cycles of a unit
N1 Total number of unit failures until kT
n1 Number of types of units in a system
NI Number of failures of I type (minor type) occurred in a system
P(x) Probability of type x event occurrence
pcs Probability of a failure resulting in a spillage requiring clean up
pd Probability of defect of type 1 occurrence in a system
pf Probability of failure occurrence in a system
pfAB(x) Probability of system failure at time moment x due to both elements
(A and B) failures occurrence
PfAB(0,Tin1) Probability of a system corrective replacement over the entire period
between inspections (0,Tin1)
pfi(x) Probability of failure occurrence in ith element in time moment x
pfi(x,Tin1) Probability of failure occurrence in ith element
in time period (x,Tin1)
phi Simulated probability of ith element inspection quality
(perfect/imperfect)
pi Event of preventive replacement of type i unit occurrence
Pi_j(Tin1) Probability of ith and jth combination of scenario occurrence for a
series system, and i = 1,2,3 and j = 1,2, …,16
pPM
i Probability that at least i first pms are imperfect maintenances
pmr(x) Probability that a unit will be minimally repaired at failure when it’s
age reaches time x
xviii Notations
poi(x) Probability, that ith element is up-stated, when jth element fails in
time moment x
pop Probability of system preventive replacement during opportunity
occurrence
ppi(x) Probability of preventive replacement of an element i at time
moment x
PP(t !∞) Probability that a system element will be replaced during a single
renewal cycle
PPAB(0,Tin1) Probability of system elements preventive replacement over the
entire period between inspections (0,Tin1)
PPAB(Tin1) Probability of system element preventive replacement at time
moment Tin1
PPi(Tin1) Probability of ith maintenance scenario occurrence, i = 1, 2, 3, 4
PPi_j(Tin1) Probability of ith maintenance sub scenario occurrence for jth
element,i = 1, 2, 3, 4, and j = A, B
PR(t !∞) Probability of corrective replacement of a system element in a
single renewal cycle
ps Probability of shock occurrence in a system
PuF(Tin) Probability of a fault arising as a breakdown in a system
PuFi(Tin) Probability of a fault of type i arising as a breakdown in a system
Pw(t) Probability that neither component is failed at time t
pw Probability that during system inspection performance symptoms of
forthcoming failures (if they occur in a system) are identified
pk Probability that a system after repair has the same failure rate as
before a failure
pI(t) Probability of type I failure occurrence
R(t) Reliability function of a system
RAB(Tin1) Reliability function of two-element system in time moment Tin1
Rc Critical reliability level
Rh tin ; tin
1 2 Probability that in the time period between time moments tin ; tin
1 2
symptoms of forthcoming failure will occur, but at the end of this

2
time period (time moment tin ) a system is still partially up stated
Ri(t) Reliability function of ith unit
Rl(x) Probability of system correct operation related to lth combination of
up-stated elements providing the system being up state
RTin(t) Component reliability at time t
RcTini A cubic approximation of average reliability over an ith inspection
RLTini A linear approximation of average reliability over an ith inspection
rmr Repair cost rate
ðk Þ Reliability function for a component at time t
r Tin ðtÞ
Notations xix
ðk Þ Left-hand derivative of reliability function at t = kTin

r_ Tin ðkTin Þ
rUL(t) Mean residual life
S Buffer stock capacity
s Stock reorder level
si Number of system state (for multi-state systems)
T Time between preventive maintenance actions of a unit
Tas Product’s age when it is sold to a customer
Tax Used unit age
Tdw Random variable of downtime during a cycle
Tci Cycle length of type i unit
Tf Time to perform CM together with PM
tf Random moment of failure occurrence in a system
tfi Random moment of failure occurrence in ith element of a system,
(i = A, B)
tfs Simulated moment of a system failure
thi ith simulated elements’ defect moment
Ti Fixed time intervals for PM performance, i = 1, 2, …
Ti Time between PM actions of unit i
TI(Tin) Expected time of inspections carried out in a system during a single
renew period
Tin Time between inspection actions performance
Tini Time of ith inspection cycle performance (between two consecutive
inspection actions performance)
Tinmax Optimal regular inspection period for maximum reliability at some
future point in time t* for a given number of inspections i−1
i
tin Moment of ith inspection action performance, and i ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . .1
TM(Tin) Total expected length of a renewal cycle
TM(Tini) Expected length of ith inspection cycle
To System operational time
Tof Element’s time to failure
Toif ith simulated time to failure of a system
Top Time to failure with PM actions
p
To Mean time to repair for maintenance failure
r
To Mean time to repair for actual failure
TOP Random variable denoting system’s lifetime
TOP ðTin Þ Expected length of element/system lifetime
Tp Time for preventive actions performance
Tpf Fixed average time duration of PM operation
i Mean time for preventive actions performance on element i
Tp
TPi ith simulated preventive replacement time for a system
i Variable average time duration of preventive replacement relating to
Tpv
component i
tPMi Time moment of ith maintenance action performance
xx Notations
Tp2 Time to perform PM alone in the long-run

TP(Tin) Expected preventive replacement time of a system to the end of ith
inspection cycle
Tr Time for corrective actions performance
i Mean time for corrective actions performance on element i
Tr
TRi ith simulated corrective replacement time for a system
TR(Tin) Expected failure replacement time of a system to the end of ith
inspection cycle
Trmax Repair time limit
tu Moment of the first symptoms of potential failure occurrence
tui Moment of the first symptoms of potential failure occurrence of ith
element in a system (i = A, B)
Tw Warranty period of an item
Two Working time of a unit
Ty Random variable of a system age, when preventive replacement is
carried out
Ty Random variable of time between successive opportunities
Tiy Random variable of a system age of component i, when preventive
replacement is carried out
Tyin Random variable of a system age, when an inspection is carried out
uf Failure rate tolerance
u Initial time of a defect
ui Initial time of a defect for component i; and i = A, B
u2(t) Expectation with respect to random repair costs
yi Effective age of a system just before ith PM
YT Time to the first component failure after T
zh Number of system elements for which phi pw
aa Coefficient for an effective age of a unit after maintenance
performance (0 aa 1)
ai Shape parameter of Weibull distribution function for random
variable i
bi Scale parameter of Weibull distribution function for random
variable i
cD Level of a diagnostic signal
Dd Time integer used in maintenance decision making process
dh Standard deviation for Normal distribution of a delay time h
dr Standard deviation for Normal distribution of a time to failure
j Frequency of true demands calling for a system to start up or
function
KðtÞ Cumulative hazard rate
kðtÞ Failure intensity rate of a system
kd ðtÞ Rate of occurrence of defects in a system
kh ðtÞ Intensity function of a system delay time
Notations xxi
ki ðtÞ Failure intensity rate of component i, where i = 1, 2, …

kk ðtÞ Failure intensity rate of a system/unit up to kth failure
kp ðtÞ Intensity function of unplanned replacement process
kr ðtÞ Intensity function of independent failures of components process
ks Intensity rate of shocks occurrence in a system
ku ðuÞ Random rate for faults arrival in a technical system for any
inspection period
mðTdw Þ Continuous increasing function of cost raising due to system
downtime
l Constant repair rate of components
sis State-age of a component in ith state
sop Predetermined level of system age when it may be preventively
replaced at an opportunity
/ðtÞ Expectation with respect to minimal repair costs and number
of performed minimal repairs
Chapter 1
Introduction
Abstract Chapter includes an introduction to the maintenance theory. The main

definitions connected with the analysed research area are presented and discussed.
Later, the author discusses the main maintenance problems being investigated in the
recent literature. She focuses on the three main research categories: maintenance
theories, mathematical models and management models. A broader view of
mathematical modelling is provided. In this area the factors that influence the
process of optimal maintenance policy selection are presented. Moreover, the
classification of known maintenance strategies is presented and briefly analysed.
The main classification criterion is connected with a failure occurrence in a tech-
nical system. Following this, Corrective Maintenance, Time-Based Maintenance,
Preparedness Maintenance, Condition-Based Maintenance, Predictive Maintenance,
and Reliability Centred Maintenance are overviewed. At the end, the aim of this
book and its scope is also presented.
Maintenance and service logistics support are essential to ensure high availability
and reliability during assets life time [32]. Recently, maintenance is in a huge area
of interest and research for engineers [22], because poorly maintained equipment
may lead to more frequent equipment failures, poor utilization of equipment and
delayed operational schedules. Misaligned or malfunctioning equipment may result
in scrap or products of questionable quality manufacturing. Following this, more
and more companies are undertaking efforts to improve the effectiveness of
maintenance functions [98].
The second reason why both, maintenance researchers and practitioners have
devoted their efforts in developing models and methods to improve the maintenance
of technical systems, is an economic issue. Maintenance is known to be a signifi-
cant part of overall operating costs. For example, in the maritime sector, mainte-
nance activities can contribute in the range of 25–35% to the operating costs
(see e.g. [32]). In manufacturing industries, maintenance expenditure can achieve
15–70% of their production costs, depending on the type of an industry (see e.g.
[4, 27]). Taking one step further, based on developments and analysis of the EU
industry there can be found that based on GPD about 10% is spent on maintenance,
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

S. Werbińska-Wojciechowska, Technical System Maintenance,
Springer Series in Reliability Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10788-8_1
2 1 Introduction
which is about 1200 billion euro per year [12]. Half of this amount is spent on
buildings and infrastructure, and the second half goes towards keeping industrial
asset base in a good condition. Moreover, about 7% of the European population
(35 million people) is employed in maintenance.
In the literature there can be found many definitions of terms of maintenance,
maintenance strategy, or maintenance management. According to the European
Standard PN-EN 13306:2010 [79], maintenance is a combination of all technical,
administrative and managerial actions during the lifecycle of an item intended to
retain it, or restore it to a state, in which it can perform the required function. The
similar definition may be presented based on [30, 41] and is compliant with the
PN-IEC 60300-3-10 standard [81], where maintenance is defined as a combination
of activities to retain a component in, or restore it to, a state (specified condition) in
which it can perform its designated function. These activities generally involve
repairs and replacement of equipment items of a system and the maintenance
decision is based on the system condition or on a definite time interval [30]. On the
other hand, the author in [108] defines maintenance as a task, which ensures that
physical assets continue to fulfil their intended functions at a minimum economic or
human risk.
Taking one step further, following the European Standard PN-EN 13306: 2010
[79] maintenance management may be defined as all activities of the management
that determine the maintenance objectives, strategies, and responsibilities and
implement them by means such as maintenance planning, maintenance control and
supervision, improvement of methods in the organization including economic
aspects. In [41] the authors define the maintenance management as all maintenance
line supervisors, other than those supervisors that predominantly have crafts
reporting to them.
Based on these definitions, the main objective of maintenance, which is linked to
the overall organisational objectives, should be to maximise the profitability of the
organisation by performing activities which retain working equipment in an
acceptable condition, or return the equipment to an acceptable working condition
[92]. Thus, following [24, 55, 66, 86] the principal objectives of maintenance are
connected with (Fig. 1.1):
• ensuring system basic functions (availability, efficiency and reliability),
• ensuring system life through proper connections between its components (asset
management),
• ensuring safety for human operators, environment and system itself,
• ensuring cost effectiveness in maintenance, and
• enabling effective use of resources, energy and raw materials.
Moreover, following the PN-EN 60300-3-14 standard [80] the main mainte-
nance support activities include:
• maintenance policy development and updating,
• finances and budget providing,
• maintenance coordination and supervision.
1 Introduction 3
ENVIRONMENT
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CONTROL

SYSTEM
Primary inputs Primary outputs
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION
PLANNING, BUDGETING,
CONTROLLING
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

PERFORMANCE SYSTEM
Primary inputs Primary outputs
OPERATIONAL PROCESSES
Objectives PERFORMANCE
Work orders System maintained
Resources: for:
MAINTENANCE TASKS
- materials - capacity
PERFORMANCE - reliability
- labour
- spares - maintainability
- tools - availability
- money - safety
- technology, - quality
- information,
- facilities,
- outsourcing
Fig. 1.1 Maintenance of technical systems—the scope. Source Own contribution based on
[23, 24, 36, 57, 86, 97]
In addition, proper maintenance needs technical skills, techniques, methods to

properly utilize the assets like factories, power plants, vehicles, equipment, and
machines [36]. The main challenge for the maintenance manager is to structure the
maintenance procedures and activities to be undertaken in such a way that the
strategic objectives associated with them are achieved [25].
Papers published over the recent 50 years which contribute to the maintenance
theory, cover the full range of potential maintenance management problems. One of
the fundamental issue in this area, both in theoretical and practical ways, is optimal
decisions making problem that affects used technical objects state and also influ-
ences other participants of performed processes [25, 62]. Optimal strategic deci-
sions regard to e.g. technically, organizationally and economically reasonable
deadlines for service and repair work performance, residual lifetime of used
facilities, long-term practices in the context of defined maintenance philosophy, or
types of performed maintenance and operational tasks [63].
The authors in their work [37] present a literature review on maintenance
management, providing a comprehensive classification of the most important issues
in this field. Based on the analysis of 142 papers, the authors propose the six main
areas of maintenance management:
4 1 Introduction
• maintenance optimization models—classified according to the modelling of a

deterioration process as deterministic or stochastic,
• maintenance techniques—that include, among others, preventive maintenance,
condition-based maintenance, Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), or
Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM),
• maintenance scheduling—as bringing together in the precise timing the six
elements of a successful maintenance job,
• maintenance performance measurement—maintenance performance reporting
based on various criteria (e.g. costs, reliability characteristics) and using mea-
surement methods (e.g. Balanced Scorecard),
• maintenance information systems, and
• maintenance policies—that include the most widely known policies as age
replacement policy, bock repair policy, periodic repair policy, failure limit
policy, etc.
Moreover, the authors of the works [32, 86] mostly focus on the following
maintenance problems—maintenance optimization, system design, maintenance
strategy selection, maintenance planning, failure/prognosis/part-demand forecast-
ing, and spare parts inventory planning. The authors in [92] complete this list by
adding two maintenance elements—controlling the performance of maintenance
activities and budgeting.
According to Ahmad and Kamaruddin [1] most of the maintenance research
focuses on maintenance decision making process. The authors in their work
investigate three maintenance research categories: maintenance theories, mathe-
matical models and frameworks (management models), providing a literature
review in these areas. In the presented article, the authors mostly focus on the third
category—maintenance management models. This research category includes tasks
connected with the performance of decision-making process, by defining guideli-
nes, procedures, or scheduling operation processes [1]. It allows managers to solve
problems in a systematic way, using many known methods and statistical tools (see
e.g. [1, 94]). The importance of the maintenance management systems is also
discussed e.g. in work [11], where the authors provide a review of maintenance
management systems classifying them into two groups—declarative and
process-oriented models, or in work [21], where the authors define a process for
maintenance management and classify maintenance engineering techniques within
that process.
The first category of the analysed classification is related to the concepts of
maintenance practice used for continues improvement in an organisation. The
examples of maintenance practice concept may be TPM or Life Cycle Costs con-
cept. The first one was introduced in 1971 in Japan [34] and is defined as productive
maintenance carried out by all employees through small group activities [29]. It
bases on the integration of maintenance with other functions in companies. The
main objective of this approach is to maximize equipment effectiveness and pro-
ductivity, as well as eliminate all machine losses, create a sense of ownership in
equipment operators through a program of training and involvement, and promote
1 Introduction 5
continuous improvement. This policy is investigated in more depth e.g. in [25, 29,
59, 61, 98]. A comprehensive case study is given e.g. in [35, 82, 88]. The issues of
TPM modelling with taking into account system dependability are presented e.g.
in [47].
The second concept is connected with life cycle maintenance approach that
bases on close relationships between maintenance activities and those in other
phases of product life cycle, such as design, production and end of life phases
(see e.g. [60, 72, 101, 113]). The brief overview of LCC is given by Dhillon in his
book [26]. The role of maintenance from the perspective of life cycle management
is investigated in [99].
The last category regards to mathematical modelling (also known as mainte-
nance modelling). This research area is connected with implementing various tools
of maintenance management to solve particular maintenance problems [1] and is
also under investigation of the author of this book. In this area several maintenance
approaches have been developed. Their classification and discussion need intro-
duction of the main maintenance definitions, which are also followed by the author
of this book.
Maintenance policy is a statement of principle used to guide maintenance
management decision making [41]. Maintenance strategy or concept is a set of
directives (or policies) aimed at optimising an objective function, e.g. cost or
downtime, over a period of time [87]. The authors in [41] provide more detailed
definition of maintenance strategy, which is a long-term plan covering all aspects
of maintenance management which sets the direction and contains firm action
plans for achieving a desired future state for the maintenance function. The
maintenance strategy involves identification, researching and execution of many
repair, replacements, and inspect decisions and may vary from facility to facility
[36] (Fig. 1.2).
Moreover, selecting the best maintenance strategy depends on several factors
such as goals of maintenance, nature of a facility or an equipment to be maintained,
work flow patterns, and work environment [17, 36]. The main factors that should be
taken into account when selecting the best maintenance policy are presented in
Fig. 1.3. An optimal maintenance policy should properly consider various
TECHNICAL SYSTEM CONDITION MONITORING
DETECTION PROCESSES DIAGNOSTIC PROGNOSTIC PROCESSES

(PRESENT CONDITION/DEFECTS PROCESSES (FUTURE CONDITION
IDENTIFICATION) PREDICTION)
TECHNICAL SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PROCESS
Fig. 1.2 The main problems in maintenance of technical systems. Source Own contribution based
on [96, 114]
6 1 Introduction
OPTIMAL MAINTENANCE STRATEGY FOR

TECHNICAL SYSTEM
SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION MAINTENANCE MODELLING

CONFIGURATIONS CRITERIA ACTIONS TECHNIQUES
single-unit e.g. maintenance costs corrective continuous or discrete
series maintenance quality maintenance/replacement deterministic or
parallel system availability preventive probabilistic
„nk -out-of-n” system reliability maintenance/replacement static or dynamic
redundancy system downtime maintenance action duration system or component
stand-by OEE perspective
safety/risk MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE EFFECTIVENESS MAINTENANCE
COSTS PLANNING perfect/imperfect POLICIES
constant HORIZON minimal
variable/random failure-based maintenance
infinite (∞) worse
time/use-based
finite worst
SYSTEM maintenance
discrete/continuous DEPENDENCY condition-based
INFORMATION
BETWEEN SYSTEM maintenance
complete/incomplete LOGISTIC SUPPORT inspection maintenance
ELEMENTS
certain/uncertain
available none MAINTENANCE
data sources
not available economical CONCEPTS
structural
probabilistic e.g. TPM, RCM, LCC
Fig. 1.3 The main factors influencing the selection of the optimal maintenance policy. Source
Own contribution based on [74, 76, 104]
maintenance policies, modelling techniques, system architectures, maintenance

restoration degrees, correlated failures and repairs, failure dependence, economic
dependence, non-negligible maintenance times, etc.
The interesting analysis that bases on a cross-sectional survey results within
Swedish firms is presented in [5]. The author in his work investigates the main-
tenance practices that are used in manufacturing industries and that regard e.g. to
the level of their investment in maintenance, important factors used for maintenance
selection, or maintenance selection methods that are used in the surveyed compa-
nies. Furthermore, the relation between maintenance strategy and basic operational
parameters of a technical facility are presented in Fig. 1.4. For more information the
author recommends reading e.g. [2, 38, 41, 83, 87, 102].
Most researcher indicate that there are two main maintenance approaches namely
corrective maintenance (CM) and preventive maintenance (PM) (see e.g. [6, 36, 76]).
The comparison of the main maintenance strategies is given e.g. in [69].
Corrective maintenance (CM) is reactive and regards to 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
[76]. While, a failure is defined as an event, or inoperable state, in which any item
or part of an item does not, or would not, perform as previously specified [68]. This
type of maintenance cannot be planned and has the associated consequences con-
nected with system unavailability being the result of the failure. Therefore, using
this type of technical system maintenance policy, there is no possibility to make any
optimization of operational and maintenance parameters (see e.g. [39, 43, 44]).
1 Introduction 7
PROPER PERFORMANCE OF OPERATIONAL TASK (EFFECT)
LIFE CYCLE COSTS OF THE OBJECT

EFFICIENCY AVAILABILITY/ DEPENDABILITY
OTHER PARAMETERS RELIABILITY MAINTAINABILITY
OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT LOGISTIC MAINTENANCE

COSTS ACQUISITION SUPPORT COSTS POLICY
COSTS
MAINTENANCE
UNAVAILABILITY/ COSTS
OTHER RISKS
(FAULT/HAZARD)
Fig. 1.4 The relations between the main parameters that influence the proper performance of
technical facility operational task. Source Own contribution based on [86, 110]
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), according to
MIL-STD-721C [68], means all actions performed in an attempt to retain an item
in a specified condition by providing systematic inspection, detection and preven-
tion of incipient failures. Basically, this approach tries to forecast or predict the
wear and tear of life of equipment by using different approaches and recommends a
corrective action. In this area the most commonly referred strategies in the literature
are time-based PM and condition-based maintenance (CBM) [36].
Time-based inspection and maintenance are still ones of the dominant mainte-
nance policies used in an industry for certain types of assets that cannot be
condition-monitored or maintained on a predictive basis [109]. For complex sys-
tems such as transportation systems, production systems, or critical infrastructure
systems, the time-based inspection and maintenance policies can improve perfor-
mance, increase reliability and capability of assets concerned, and reduce the cost of
assets running [109]. More information can be found e.g. in [1, 17].
Condition-based maintenance bases on monitoring operating condition of a
system or its components [58] by using diagnostic methods/measures [9, 33]. When
it is applicable, CBM gives the possibility to perform maintenance actions just
before the system/components failure occurrence. Hence, unlike CM and PM, CBM
focuses not only on fault detection and diagnostics of components but also on
degradation monitoring and failure prediction. Thus, CBM can be treated as the
method used to reduce the uncertainty of maintenance activities [95]. The literature
review on CBM policy is presented e.g. in works [1, 3, 17, 40, 84, 95].
8 1 Introduction
A framework for condition monitoring and classification of decisions about

appropriate maintenance actions performance based on two decision criteria (av-
erage downtime per failure and frequency of failure) are presented e.g. in [89].
Another maintenance policy, which usually is treated as a synonymous to CBM
or is named as risk-based maintenance, is predictive maintenance (PdM) [90, 106].
This maintenance policy is used in these sectors where reliability is paramount, like
nuclear power plants, transportation systems or emergency systems. Its main scope
is to foresee faults or failures in a deteriorating system in order to optimize
maintenance efforts by monitoring of equipment operating conditions to detect any
signs of wear that are leading to a failure of a component [90]. The goal of the
PdM program is to track component wear with a methodology that insures that any
impending failure is detected [73]. The most commonly used monitoring and
diagnostic techniques include, among others, vibration monitoring, thermography,
tribology, or visual inspection [73]. The advantages of predictive or online main-
tenance techniques in identifying the onset of equipment failure are discussed e.g.
in [45]. For more information, the author recommends reading e.g. [29, 73]. The
advantages of this maintenance policy implementation are presented e.g. in [10].
Additionally, based on recent research studies, the next level in predictive
maintenance and asset management is PdM 4.0 concept and Internet of Things
issues. For more information the author recommends reading e.g. [85, 105].
Moreover, except the maintenance approaches discussed above, the authors in
their work [36] introduce two other approaches namely TPM (discussed earlier by
the author in this Chapter) and RCM (Reliability Centred Maintenance). According
to the MIL-STD-3034 [67], RCM is a method for determining maintenance
requirements based on the analysis of the likely functional failures of systems/
equipment having a significant impact on safety, operations, and lifecycle cost.
RCM supports the failure-management strategy for any system based on its
inherent reliability and operating context. RCM uses different tools (e.g. FMECA)
to determine the relationships between the system elements and the level of its
operation and then develops the effective maintenance management strategy (RCM
Task Selection) [15, 70]. A comprehensive overview of this concept is presented
e.g. in [25, 29, 56, 59]. Moreover, the authors in their work [28] discuss the optimal
maintenance policies for manufacturing companies introducing two other approa-
ches aimed at improvement, namely autonomous maintenance and design out
maintenance. The authors investigate the maintenance models and classify them
based on the certainty theory.
The classical decision diagram for selecting the type of maintenance strategy is
presented in Fig. 1.5.
The main classification of maintenance strategies is given in the Annex A of
British/PN-EN Standard 13306 [79]. The overview of maintenance approaches may
be found e.g. in [31, 71, 77, 107] and analysis of maintenance philosophies
development is given in [7]. An interesting example here may be also the Stable
Domain Model that results from DuPont Chemicals mid-180s research connected
with maintenance and asset management issues (see e.g. [46]). The model shows
manufacturing performance and behaviour of the benchmark companies that were
1 Introduction 9
REDESIGNING OF
high Time to unknown System condition no THE OBJECT IN
Failure costs monitoring is
failure ORDER TO IMPROVE
possible ITS OPERATIONAL
AND MAINTENANCE
low known yes
PARAMETERS
CORRECTIVE PERIODIC PM CONDITION-BASED

MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE
Fig. 1.5 Diagram of decision making for selecting the type of strategy to maintain a technical
object. Source Own contribution based on [65]
MAINTENANCE STRETEGIES FOR TECHNICAL OBJECTS/SYSTEMS
FAILURE HAS OCCURRED IN A FAILURE HAS NOT OCCURRED IN

SYSTEM/OBJECT A SYSTEM/OBJECT
CORRECTIVE TIME-BASED PREDICTIVE CONDITION- RELIABILITY

MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE BASED CENTERED
MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE
PERIODIC PREVENTIVE
PREPAREDNESS MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
INSPECTION MAINTENANCE
DELAY TIME–BASED
MAINTENANCE
Fig. 1.6 The main classification of maintenance strategies. Source Own contribution based on
[15, 17, 20, 33, 36, 75, 93, 103, 107]
clustered into “stable domains” from “Reactive” to “World Class” [8]. Recently, the
issues of world-class maintenance, being connected with the collection of the best
practices in maintenance, are investigated e.g. in [69]. Historical overview is given
e.g. in [92].
To sum up, there can be proposed a general classification of maintenance
strategies, which is presented in Fig. 1.6. It bases on the developments given in [15,
17, 33, 36, 75, 103, 107]. The short summary of the main maintenance strategies is
presented in Table 1.1. At the same time, based on, among others, works [15, 92]
there can be defined two basic categories of maintenance policies based on the
availability of information about a technical state of an object—periodic PM and
Preparedness Maintenance (PRM). PRM models assume that reliability of the
technical object, subject to a stochastic degradation process over time, is unknown
until a system diagnostics or replacement operation has been performed [15].
Many components may become defective prior to failure and still remain
operable. These types of components may benefit from an inspection policy
whereby a component is inspected for the defect and consequently replaced at
10 1 Introduction
Table 1.1 Summary of the main maintenance strategies

Maintenance PM CBM Inspection DTM
strategy maintenance
Decision PM frequency/ Inspection Inspection Inspection
variables maintenance frequency/ frequency/ frequency, delay
schedule maintenance inspection time parameter
threshold schedule
Main Minimize costs, maximize availability, maximize throughput
objectives
Source Own contribution based on [4]
inspection to prevent failure [87]. Recent reviews on inspection maintenance

modelling issues are presented e.g. in works [13, 14, 42, 100]. The principles of a
theory of diagnosis are presented e.g. in [115, 116].
The basic inspection models are extended by using a technique called Delay time
analysis (DTA), which has been developed for modelling the consequences of an
inspection policy for any systems [18, 30]. This maintenance concept bases on the
assumption that before a component breaks down, there will be some sings of
reduced performance or abnormalities. The time between the first identification of
abnormalities (called initial point) and the actual failure time (failure point) is called
a delay time and determines the best opportunity to carry out maintenance or an
inspection [78].
Many real life systems do display symptoms of forthcoming failure. One of the
example here may be a production process which may start producing defective
items after some random amount of time. If the situation is not corrected, a product
quality gradually deteriorates to a level, where it is self-evident to an operator that
the system has failed. By inspecting the product quality at some intervals, the
operator may be able to reduce the cost incurred with the system lifetime [91].
Another application of the delay-time-based inspection models could be in the
early detection of dangerous diseases like cancer, which generally displays symp-
toms at some time after the inception of the disease [91].
Over the past ten years, DT modelling has undergone considerable development
and is increasingly being accepted as an important concept for real world modelling
of maintenance of components and systems [87]. The applicability of the given
conception is confirmed by published case studies being reviewed in the Chap. 4.
Its usability is confirmed e.g. in work [54], where the authors compare the standard
group maintenance policy with delay-time based maintenance model in order to
analyse its cost-effectiveness in relation to the main models’ decision variables.
To sum up, from the reliability and safety points of view, it is important to
choose a maintenance strategy that is most likely to detect a hazard event before
its occurrence. This problem is especially important when modelling the opera-
tional and maintenance processes of such systems, where effects of hazard event
occurrence are very severe or even catastrophic to the environment (e.g. material
1 Introduction 11
damage, environmental pollution, injuries, or even death). Examples of areas par-

ticularly related to safety are: nuclear energy, space research, medicine and land
(rail, road), water and air transport.
In the traditional approach to maintenance processes modelling of technical
objects, known in the literature analyses primarily focus on the study of
cause-and-effect relations in processes of system operation and maintenance.
A detailed overview of these models and their limitations may be found also in the
works developed by the author of this book (see e.g. [71, 76, 111]).
The maintenance models considered in the literature deal primarily with deter-
mining the optimal performance parameters of a maintenance strategy when a
forthcoming failure is assumed to be a sudden one (PM). Moreover, the traditional
maintenance process is based on the use of operating process parameters, such as
failure rate and time between failures. It assumes, that these random variables can
be determined statistically, which provide replace/repair operations performance of
the object “just before the failure.” Usually, it is assumed that the maintenance
process is perfect, so it restores the system to “as good as new” condition. As a
result, the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) is commonly used as a measure of
system’s time between maintenance actions performance definition.
The main disadvantage of this maintenance approach is that it only allows to
determine an average value of failure intensity. However, failures occur at random
moments of time, and their frequency is not compatible with the average value of
failure intensity. Therefore, the PM strategy can be expensive and inefficient, when
we use this approach to real-life technical systems performance modelling process.
In systems, where their safety is important, reliability analysis performed with
respect to two-stated technical objects is insufficient. At the same time, the time
between system failures is a function of the accepted maintenance concept. Thus,
the relationship between time to failure and the theory of reliability needs to be
extended.
The solution to these problems is to consider a technical object in terms of three
reliability states—a third state of partially up-state, in which signals of future failure
can be observed.
The three-state safety models are most often developed using the Markov pro-
cess theory (see e.g. [16] for their review). Luss [64] develops one of the first
Markov models in which he uses the DTM concept. However, safety modelling of
systems using the Markov process theory does not allow for reliable results
obtaining in relation to the operation of real technical objects. The first problem
concerns the accuracy of approximation of model parameters. For example, for
Markov models with D degradation states, the parameters of the DxD transition
probability matrix should be determined. Although many of the elements of the
matrix will be equal to zero, many others must be estimated from the observation of
the real system performance processes [19]. Another problem is also the proper
definition of particular states of system reliability [112].
Moreover, in practice it is difficult to find such the system whose degradation
process would be compatible with the Markov model, i.e. that the future state of the
system does not depend on the states in which the object was before (the process
12 1 Introduction
without memory). Therefore, models based on the semi-Markov theory were devel-
oped (see e.g. [19]). However, although these models are not limited to the case of
exponential modelling of the system’s operating processes, the expanded formal
apparatus discourages the use of this method in practice. This is mainly connected with
the accuracy or effectiveness of the obtained results of analysis and the time of
implementation of the developed models.
Another solution for developing the time relations in the operational and
maintenance processes is the delay-time approach. This concept takes into account
the time analysis of the course of subsequent events in a system, leading to its
transition from the up state to the down state. Therefore, the author focuses on
working on the development of the new DT models for technical systems.
In the DT models, the integration between the technical object/system mainte-
nance strategy and the process of its operation is expressed by the relationship
between a frequency of system inspections and the number of failures occurrence.
The main issue in the DT models is to determine the optimal interval between
inspection actions performance. The models developed in the literature concern the
operation of single-element systems and complex ones [54].
Today, despite the existence of many DT models in the literature, only a small
part of them was developed for real-life systems performance optimization. This is
connected with the necessity of including many variables influencing a decision-
making process as well as reflecting on the effects of a failure as a function of
adopted optimization criteria. This requires the use of an extensive formal appa-
ratus, which in turn discourages managers to use known solutions in practice.
On the other hand, particularly attention should be given to the issue of selection of the
optimal maintenance strategy for multi-component systems that perform in various
reliability structures. The relationships existing between elements of such systems greatly
complicate the process of modelling and optimization of renewal processes. On the other
hand, the use of such components dependencies enable to reduce the maintenance costs
by group maintenance strategy implementation [76]. In the existing literature on DT
modelling there are developments for maintenance strategy optimization for series sys-
tems (based on HPP or NHPP of defects arrival process assumption). There is a little
works done in the field of delay-time based maintenance modelling for systems in
non-series reliability structure. However, the importance and influence of system relia-
bility structure on maintenance policy best parameters cannot be omitted according to the
conclusions from author’s research works (see e.g. [48, 50–53]).
Moreover, literature studies show that the problem of a proper estimation of
models’ parameters (especially a random variable delay time h) is extremely important
and there are developed methods for continuous improvement of these estimates. In
practice, there is not always the possibility of a correct and accurate approximation of
all the delay time model parameters for maintained systems. In many cases, the
available data allow only for estimation of the expected value and standard deviation
of the delay time variable. Following this, there can be asked a question about possible
consequences of incorrect estimation of the model parameters and the legitimacy of
estimation improvement process performance. These issues are analysed by the author
e.g. in works [49, 52].
1 Introduction 13
As a result, the author focuses on the development of the new delay-time

based maintenance models for technical systems performing in various relia-
bility structures, which extend the approach used so far and allow analysing
the long-term operation time period or the single (first) inspection cycle. The
models give the possibility to find a constant time period between inspection actions
performance that is optimal due to minimal maintenance costs or maximal avail-
ability criterion satisfaction. The solution bases on the use of renewal reward
theory and Monte Carlo simulation.
The conducted research study focuses on systems that are unrepairable or
repairable but their corrective maintenance performance is costly ineffective. At the
same time, it is assumed that the technical system’s components have a single
failure mode, and symptoms of forthcoming failure are identifiable during inspec-
tion actions performance.
Based on the relevant scientific literature, the implemented maintenance
policy is the Block Inspection policy (BIP). This maintenance policy assumes that
the performed inspections are carried out in order to check the working status of the
system and that they take place at regular time intervals. The purpose of such
inspection action is to establish if the technical system elements are still operable.
Due to the simplicity of this type of maintenance policy, it is still often recom-
mended by e.g. manufacturers. An example of this type of maintenance policy may
regard to the periodic inspections of hydraulic pressure in e.g. wheel loaders. Such
break pressure checking is performed in every 1000 machine working hours.
The next chapters present a structured review of maintenance strategies literature
according to the classification presented in the Fig. 1.7. Its scope is to summarize
the developed research issues and to present research gaps that require further
investigation. The author focuses on the periodic maintenance models development,
thus the literature on CBM and PdM is omitted.
MAINTENANCE MODELS FOR TECHNICAL SYSTEM
PREVENTIVE INSPECTION DELAY-TIME BASED

MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MODELS MAINTENANCE MODELS
MODELS
Inspection maintenance DTM for single-unit systems

PM models for single-unit systems
models for single-unit two- with two-stage and three-stage
state and multi-state systems failure process
PM models for multi-unit systems
with components dependency Inspection maintenance DTM for complex systems
occurrence models for standby systems
PM models for multi-unit systems Inspection maintenance

without components dependency models for multi-unit
occurrence operating systems
Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4
Fig. 1.7 The main classification of maintenance models for technical system
14 1 Introduction
Discussed in the Introduction chapter basic definitions concerning the mainte-

nance of technical system are the theoretical basis for the developed delay-time
based maintenance models for multi-unit systems performing in various reliability
structures.
References
1. Ahmad R, Kamaruddin S (2011) Maintenance management decision model for preventive

maintenance strategy on production equipment. Int J Ind Eng 7(13):22–34
2. Aladulkarim AA, Ball PD, Tiwari A (2013) Applications of simulation in maintenance
research. World J Model Simul 9(1):14–37
3. Alaswad S, Xiang Y (2017) A review on condition-based maintenance optimization models
for stochastically deteriorating system. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 157:54–63. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ress.2016.08.009
4. Alrabghi A, Tiwari A (2015) State of the art in simulation-based optimisation for
maintenance systems. Comput Ind Eng 82:167–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.12.
022
5. Alsyouf I (2009) Maintenance practices in Swedish industries: survey results. Int J Prod
Econ 121:212–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.05.005
6. Andrews J, Berenguer CH, Jackson L (eds) (2011) Maintenance modelling and applications.
DNV, Hovik
7. Arunaj NS, Maiti J (2007) Risk-based maintenance—techniques and applications. J Hazard
Mater 142(3):653–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.06.069
8. Blann DR (1997) Proactive maintenance as a strategic business advantage. Keynote
Presentation at Greater Chicago Plant Maintenance Show and Conference, a Putman
Publication, 11 Sept 1997
9. Blischke WR, Prabhakar Murthy DN (2000) Reliability: modelling, prediction and
optimization. Willey, New York
10. Bukowski L, Jazwinski J, Majewska K (2007) Maintenance of technical systems oriented to
reliability—a concept of modified RCM (in Polish). In: Proceedings of XXXV Winter
School on reliability—problems of systems dependability. Publishing House of Institute for
Sustainable Technologies, Radom, pp 117–129
11. Campos ML, Marques AC (2009) Review, classification and comparative analysis of
maintenance management models. J Autom Mobile Robot Intell Syst 3(3):110–115. https://
doi.org/10.3182/20081205-2-CL-4009.00043
12. Challenges for Industry in North-West Europe. Results of the More4core Project (2016)
EFNMS. Available at: http://www.more4core.eu/now-available-publication-challenges-for-
industry-in-north-west-europe/. Access date: 20 Mar 2017)
13. Chelbi A, Ait-Kadi D (2009) Inspection strategies for randomly failing systems. In:
Ben-Daya M, Duffuaa SO, Raouf A, Knezevic J, Ait-Kadi D (eds) Handbook of
maintenance management and engineering. Springer, London
14. Chelbi A, Ait-Kadi D, Aloui H (2008) Optimal inspection and preventive maintenance
policy for systems with self-announcing and non-self-announcing failures. J Qual Maint Eng
14(1):34–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552510810861923
15. Cho ID, Parlar M (1991) A survey of maintenance models for multi-unit systems. Eur J Oper
Res 51(1):1–23
16. Choi KM (1997) Semi-Markov and delay time models of maintenance. PhD thesis,
University of Salford, UK
17. Chowdhury Ch (1988) A systematic survey of the maintenance models. Periodica
Polytechnica. Mecha Eng 32(3–4):253–274
References 15
18. Christer AH (1982) Modelling inspection policies for building maintenance. J Oper Res Soc
33:723–732
19. Christer AH, Wang W, Choi K (2001) The robustness of the semi-Markov and delay time
single-component inspection models to the Markov assumption. IMA J Manag Math 12:75–
88. https://doi.org/10.1093/imaman/12.1.75
20. Christer AH, Whitelaw J (1983) An operational research approach to breakdown
maintenance: problem recognition. J Oper Res Soc 34(11):1041–1052
21. Crespo Marquez AC, Moreu De Leon P, Gomez Fernandez JF, Lopez Campos M (2009)
The maintenance management framework: a practical view to maintenance management.
J Quali Maint Eng 15(2):167–178. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552510910961110
22. Cunningham A, Wang W, Zio E, Allanson D, Wall A, Wang J (2011) Application of
delay-time analysis via Monte Carlo simulation. J Marine Eng Technol 10(3):57–72. https://
doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2011.11020252
23. Czuchnowski A, Romanowski P (1990) The fundamentals of equipment operation and
maintenance (in Polish). Publ. House of Gdansk University of Technology, Gdansk
24. Darabnia B, Demichela M (2013) Data field for decision making in maintenance
optimization: an opportunity for energy saving. Chem Eng Trans 33:367–372
25. De Almeida AT, Cavalcante CAV, Alencar MH, Ferreira RJP, De Almeida-Filho AT,
Garcez TV (2015) Multicriteria and multiobjective models for risk, reliability and
maintenance decision analysis. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland
26. Dhillon B (2013) Life cycle costing: techniques, models and applications. Routledge
27. Ding F, Tian Z (2012) Opportunistic maintenance for wind farms considering multi-level
imperfect maintenance thresholds. Renewable Energy 45:175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2012.02.030
28. Ding S-H, Kamaruddin S (2015) Maintenance policy optimization—literature review and
directions. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 76(5–8):1263–1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-
014-6341-2
29. Duffuaa S, Raouf A (2015) Planning and control of maintenance systems. Modelling and
Analysis. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland
30. Emovon I, Norman RA, Murphy AJ (2016) An integration of multi-criteria decision making
techniques with a delay time model for determination of inspection intervals for marine
machinery systems. Appl Ocean Res 59:65–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2016.05.008
31. Endrenyi J, Aboresheid S, Allan RN, Anders GJ, Asgarpoor S, Billinton R, Chowdhury N,
Dialynas EN, Fipper M, Fletcher RH, Grigg C, Mccalley J, Meliopoulos S, Mielnik TC,
Nitu P, Rau N, Reppen ND, Salvaderi L, Schneider A, Singh Ch (2001) The present status of
maintenance strategies and the impact of maintenance on reliability. IEEE Trans Power Syst
16(4):638–646
32. Eruguz AS, Tan T, Van Houtum G-J (2017) A survey of maintenance and service logistics
management: classification and research agenda from a maritime sector perspective. Comput
Oper Res 85:184–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2017.03.003
33. Feliks J, Majewska K (2006) Proactive maintenance as an aid for logistic of exploitation (in
Polish). In: Proceedings of Total Logistics Management TLM’06 Conference, Zakopane
34. Fredendall LD, Patterson JW, Kennedh WJ, Griffin T (1997) Maintenance: modelling its
strategic impact. J Manag Issues 9(4):440–453
35. Furman J (2016) Improvement of TPM implementation in production company—case study
(in Polish). In: Knosal R (ed) Innovations in production engineering and management 2,
Publ. House of Polish Association of Production Management, Opole, pp 548–557
36. Gandhare BS, Akarte M (2012) Maintenance strategy selection. In: Proceedings of ninth
AIMS international conference on management, 1–4 Jan 2012, pp 1330–1336
37. Garg A, Deshmukh SG (2006) Maintenance management: literature review and directions.
J Qual Maint Eng 12(3):205–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552510610685075
38. Gits CW (1992) Design of maintenance concepts. Int J Prod Econ 24:217–226
16 1 Introduction
39. Goel GD, Murari K (1990) Two-unit cold-standby redundant system subject to random
checking, corrective maintenance and system replacement with repairable and non-repairable
types of failures. Microelectron Reliab 30(4):661–665
40. Guizzi G, Gallo M, Zoppoli P (2009) Condition based maintenance: simulation and
optimization. In: Proceedings of ICOSSSE ‘09: proceedings of the 8th WSEAS international
conference on system science and simulation in engineering, 17–19 Oct 2009, Genova, Italy,
pp 319–325
41. Gulati R, Kahn J, Baldwin R (2010) The professional’s guide to maintenance and reliability
terminology. Reliabilityweb.com
42. Guo H, Szidarovszky F, Gerokostopoulos A, Niu P (2015) On determining optimal
inspection interval for minimizing maintenance cost. In: Proceedings of 2015 annual
reliability and maintainability symposium (RAMS), IEEE, pp 1–7
43. Gupta PP, Kumar A (1985) Cost analysis of a three-state parallel redundant complex system.
Microelectron Reliab 25(6):1021–1027
44. Gupta PP, Sharma RK (1986) Cost analysis of a three-state repairable redundant complex
system under various modes of failures. Microelectron Reliab 26(1):69–73
45. Hashemian HM, Bean WC (2011) State-of-the-art predictive maintenance techniques. IEEE
Trans Instrum Meas 60(10):3480–3492. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2010.2047662
46. Is there a “Stairway to asset management heaven?” (2017) Available at: http://www.lifetime-
reliability.com/free-articles/enterprise-asset-management/Stairway_to_Asset_Managment_
Heaven.pdf. Access date: Apr 2017
47. Jasinski W (2014) Model of technical maintenance of processes continuity in a company
from light industry sector (in Polish). PhD. Thesis, Publ. House of Poznan University of
Technology, Poznan
48. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Nowakowski T, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2013) Block inspec-
tion policy model with imperfect inspections for multi-unit systems. Reliab Theory Appl 8
(3): 75–86. http://gnedenko-forum.org/Journal/2013/032013/RTA_3_2013-08.pdf
49. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2016) Influence of data uncertainty on
the optimum inspection period in a multi-unit system maintained according to the block
inspection policy. In: Dependability engineering and complex systems: proceedings of the
eleventh international conference on dependability and complex systems
DepCoS-RELCOMEX, 27 June–July 1, 2016. Springer International Publishing, Brunów,
pp 239–256
50. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2015) A guide for block inspection
policy implementation. In: Safety and reliability: methodology and applications: proceedings
of the European safety and reliability conference, ESREL 2014, Wrocław, Poland, 14–18
Sept 2014. CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, pp 1263–1273
51. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Expected maintenance costs
model for time-delayed technical systems in various reliability structures. In: Proceedings of
probabilistic safety assessment and management, PSAM 12: Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 22–27
June 2014, pp 1–8. http://psam12.org/proceedings/paper/paper_572_1.pdf
52. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Analysis of maintenance
models’ parameters estimation for technical systems with delay time. Eksploatacja i
Niezawodnosc—Maint Reliab 16(2):288–294
53. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Block inspection policy for
non-series technical objects. In: Safety, reliability and risk analysis: beyond the horizon:
proceedings of the European safety and reliability conference, ESREL 2013, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 29 Sept–2 Oct 2013. CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, 889–898
54. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2012) Economical effectiveness of
delay time approach using in time-based maintenance modelling. In: Proceedings of 11th
international probabilistic safety assessment and management conference & the annual
European safety and reliability conference, PSAM 11 & ESREL 2012, Helsinki, Finland,
25–29 June 2012, pp 1–10
References 17
55. Johnson PD (2002) Principles of controlled maintenance management. The Fairmont Press,
Inc
56. Jones RB (1995) Risk-based management: a reliability centered approach. Gulf Pub
57. Konieczny J (1975) The fundamentals of machines operation and maintenance (in Polish).
Publ. House of Ministry of National Defence, Warsaw
58. Koochaki J, Bokhorst JAC, Wortmann H, Klingenberg W (2012) Condition based
maintenance in the context of opportunistic maintenance. Int J Prod Res 50(23):6918–6929.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.636924
59. Legutko S (2009) Development trends in machines operation maintenance. Eksploatacja i
Niezawodnosc—Maint Reliab 2(42):8–16
60. Ling D (2005) Railway renewal and maintenance cost estimating. Ph.D. Thesis, Cranfield
University
61. Lofton N (2014) Total productive maintenance. In: Mobley RK maintenance engineering
handbook. McGraw-Hill Professional
62. Loska A (2014) Exploitation policy model for the need of supporting of decision-making
process into network technical system (in Polish). In: Proceedings of XVIII
Międzynarodowa Szkoła Komputerowego Wspomagania Projektowania, Wytwarzania i
Eksploatacji MECHANIK 2014, pp 363–372
63. Loska A (2012) Remarks about modelling of maintenance processes with the use of scenario
techniques. Maint Reliab 14(2):92–98
64. Luss H (1976) Maintenance policies when deterioration can be observed by inspections.
Oper Res Int J 24(2):359–366
65. Mazzuchi TA, Van Noortwijk JM, Kallen MJ (2007) Maintenance optimization. Technical
Report, TR-2007–9
66. Mettas A (2013) Asset management supported by reliability engineering. J KONBiN 1
(25):117–128
67. MIL-STD-3034 (2011) Military standard: reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) process
Department of Defense, Washington D.C.
68. MIL-STD-721C (1981) Military standard: definitions of terms for reliability and maintain-
ability. Department of Defense, Washington D.C.
69. Mishra RP, Anand G, Kodali R (2007) Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
analysis for frameworks of world-class maintenance. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng
Manuf 221(7):1193–1208. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544054JEM810
70. Mlynczak M (2005) Preventive maintenance supported by dependability (in Polish). In:
Proceedings of PIRE 2005 conference, Publ. House of Research and Development Center
for Energy Renovation Economy, Wroclaw
71. Mlynczak M, Nowakowski T, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Technical systems
maintenance models classification (in Polish). In: Siergiejczyk M (ed.) Maintenance
problems of technical systems (in Polish). Warsaw University of Technology Publishing
House, Warsaw, pp 59–77
72. Mobley RK (2014) Maintenance engineer’s toolbox. In: Mobley RK maintenance
engineering handbook. McGraw-Hill Professional
73. Mobley RK (2014) Predictive maintenance. In: Mobley RK maintenance engineering
74. Nicolai RP Dekker R (2007) A review of multi-component maintenance models. In: Aven T,
Vinnem JM (eds) Risk, reliability and societal safety—proceedings of European safety and
reliability conference ESREL 2007, Stavanger, Norway, 25–27 June 2007. Taylor and
Francis, Leiden, pp 289–296
75. Nowakowski T, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2012) Developments of time dependencies
modelling concepts. In: Bérenguer Ch, Grall A, Guedes Soares C (eds) Advances in safety,
reliability and risk management: proceedings of the European safety and reliability
conference, ESREL 2011, Troyes, France, 18–22 Sept 2011. CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden,
pp 832–838
18 1 Introduction
76. Nowakowski T, Werbinska S (2009) On problems of multi-component system maintenance

modelling. Int J Autom Comput 6(4):364–378
77. Pariazar M, Shahrabi J, Zaeri MS, Parhizi Sh (2008) A combined approach for maintenance
strategy selection. J Appl Sci 8(23):4321–4329. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2008.4321.4329
78. Pillay A, Wang J, Wall AD (2001) A maintenance study of fishing vessel equipment using
delay-time analysis. J Qual Maint Eng 7(2):118–127
79. PN-EN 13306 (2010) Maintenance—maintenance terminology. European Committee for
Standardization, Bruxelles
80. PN-EN 60300–3-14 (2006) Dependability management, application guide—maintenance
and maintenance support. The Polish Committee for Standardization, Warsaw
81. PN-IEC 60300-3-10 (2006) Dependability management, application guide—maintainability.
The Polish Committee for Standardization, Warsaw
82. Pomietlorz-Loska M, Byrska-Bienias K (2016) Methods and technics of TPM—case study
(in Polish). In: Knosal R (ed) Innovations in production engineering and management, vol 2.
Publ. House of Polish Association of Production Management, Opole, pp 619–628
83. Popova E, Popova I (2014) Replacement strategies. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference
Online
84. Prajapati A, Bechtel J, Ganesan S (2012) Condition based maintenance: a survey. J Qual
Maint Eng 18(4):384–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511211281552
85. Predictive Maintenance 4.0. (2017) Predict the unpredictable. Report of PwC Belgium. Available
at: https://www.pwc.be/en/news-publications/publications/2017/predictive-maintenance-4-0.
html. Access date: 21.02.2018
86. Rau C-G, Necas P, Boscoianu M (2011) Review of maintainability and maintenance
optimization methods for aviation engineering systems. Sci Milit 2:54–60
87. Redmond DF (1997) Delay time analysis in maintenance. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Salford, Salford
88. Salamon S (2008) Total productive maintenance as a tool for manufacturing costs decrease
(in Polish). In: Proceedings of XXXVI Winter School on reliability—methods for system
availability maintenance. Publishing House of Institute for Sustainable Technologies,
Radom, pp 278–285
89. Scarf PA (2007) A framework for condition monitoring and condition based maintenance.
Qual Technol Quant Manag 4(2):301–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/16843703.2007.
11673152
90. Selcuk S (2016) Predictive maintenance, its implementation and latest trends. Proc Inst
Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 231(9):1670–1679. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544054
15601640
91. Senegupta B (1980) Inspection procedures when failure symptoms are delayed. Oper Res 28
(3/2):768–776
92. Shenoy D, Bhadury B (2003) Maintenance resource management: adapting materials
requirements planning MRP. CRC Press
93. Sheriff YS (1982) Reliability analysis: optimal inspection & maintenance schedules of
failing equipment. Microelectron Reliab 22(1):59–115
94. Shervin D (2000) A review of overall models for maintenance management. J Qual Maint
Eng 6(3):138–164
95. Shin H-H, Jun H-B (2015) On condition based maintenance policy. J Comput Des Eng
2:119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcde.2014.12.006
96. Slowinski B (2010) Engineering of machines operation and maintenance (in Polish). Publ.
House of Koszalin University of Technology, Koszalin
97. Socha M (1979) Maintenance processes of technical objects. The management aims and
rules (in Polish). Scientific and Technical Publishing House, Warsaw
98. Swanson L (2001) Linking maintenance strategies to performance. Int J Prod Econ 70:
237–244
99. Takata S, Kimura F, Van Houten FJAM, Westkamper E (2004) Maintenance: changing role
in life cycle management. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 53(2):643–655
References 19
100. Tang T (2012) Failure finding interval optimization for periodically inspected repairable
systems. PhD. Thesis, University of Toronto
101. Tjiparuro T, Thompson G (2004) Review of maintainability design principles and their
application to conceptual design. Proc Instit Mech Eng Part E J Process Mech Eng 218
(2):103–113. https://doi.org/10.1243/095440804774134280
102. Tsang AHC (1995) Condition-based maintenance: tools and decision making. J Qual Maint
Eng 1(3):3–17
103. Valdez-Flores C, Feldman R (1989) A survey of preventive maintenance models for
stochastically deteriorating single-unit systems. Naval Research Logistics 36:419–446
104. Van Horenbeek A, Pintelon L, Muchiri P (2010) Maintenance optimization models and
criteria. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 1(3):189–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-011-
0045-x
105. Varoneckas A, Mackute-Varoneckiene A, Rilavicius T (2017) A review of predictive
maintenance systems in Industry 4.0. Int J Design Anal Tools Integr Circuits Syst 6(1):68
106. Veldman J, Wortmann H, Klingenberg W (2011) Typology of condition based maintenance.
107. Wang H (2002) A survey of maintenance policies of deteriorating systems. Eur J Oper Res
139(3):469–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00197-7
108. Wang W (2002) A delay time based approach for risk analysis of maintenance activities.
Safety Reliab 23(1):103–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/09617353.2002.11690753
109. Wang W, Carr J, Chow TWS (2012) A two-level inspection model with technological
insertions. IEEE Trans Reliab 61(2):479–490
110. Werbinska S (2008) Model of logistic support for exploitation system of means of transport
(in Polish). PhD. Thesis, Wroclaw University of Technology, Wroclaw, report: PRE. 3/2008
111. Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Multicomponent technical systems maintenance
models—state of art (in Polish). In: Siergiejczyk M (ed) Technical systems maintenance
problems: monograph (in Polish). Publ. House of Warsaw Univ. Of Technology, Warsaw,
pp 25–57
112. Williams GB, Hirani RS (1997) A delay time multi-level on-condition preventive
maintenance inspection model based on constant base interval risk—when inspection
detects pending failure. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 37(6):823–836
113. Woud JK, Smit K, Vucinic B (1997) Maintenance programme design for minimal life cycle
costs and acceptable safety risks. Int Shipbuild Prog 44(437):77–100
114. Zio E (2013) 1-2-3… and the “fun” begins for reliability engineers and risk analysts.
Presentation given at the VII international conference on safety and reliability, Konbin 2013,
13–16 May 2013, Poznan
115. Zoltowski B (2012) Elements of rationale operation and maintenance of technical systems
(in Polish). Chem Eng Equip 51(2):34–36
116. Zoltowski B (2011) Fundamentals of diagnosing machines (in Polish). Publ. House of UTP
University of Science and Technology, Bydgoszcz
Chapter 2
Preventive Maintenance Models
for Technical Systems
Abstract There are analysed and summarized the results of preventive mainte-
nance, one of the most commonly used maintenance strategy. The reviewed liter-
ature is classified into two main groups of models for one-unit and multi-unit
systems. For single-unit systems the author investigates age-replacement policies,
block-replacement policies, sequential preventive maintenance policies, failure
limit policies and repair limit policies. The optimum policies are discussed, and
their several modified and extended models are presented. The main extensions
include imperfect maintenance implementation, shock modelling, or finite/infinite
time horizon modelling cases. The classification also includes optimality criterion
and used modelling method. For multi-component systems maintenance case there
are analysed the main replacement policies for systems with and without compo-
nents dependence. First, the simplest models are analysed, i.e. age-replacement and
block-replacement policies. Later, the maintenance policies for systems with
components dependence are introduced. The author summarizes the latest devel-
opments for group maintenance, opportunistic maintenance, and cannibalization
maintenance models. The discussion of models bases on criteria, among others,
planning horizon, modelling method, and optimization criterion. The main devel-
opment directions in preventive maintenance modelling are presented in a graphical
form. The brief summary of the conducted literature review is provided with
indicating the main research gaps in this modelling area.
2.1 Introduction
Among the different types of maintenance policy, preventive maintenance (PM) is

widely applied in many technical systems such as production systems, transport
systems, critical infrastructure systems, etc. However, “poor maintenance may
obviate the benefits of superior design and production technology” [49]. Thus, in the
past several decades, maintenance and replacement problems have been extensively
investigated in the literature.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10788-8_2
22 2 Preventive Maintenance Models for Technical Systems
One of the first survey of maintenance policies for stochastically failing

equipment is given in [154], where the author investigates PM for known and
uncertain distributions of times to failure. Another excellent survey in the area of
maintenance models for proper scheduling and optimizing maintenance actions is
prepared by Pierskalla and Voelker [189] and later updated by Valdez-Flores and
Feldman [253]. In 1977 the authors in their works [27, 84] summarize known
preventive maintenance optimization models for randomly failing equipment. Later,
optimization issues are investigated e.g. in [16, 181].
Other valuable surveys that summarize the research and practice in this area in
different ways are e.g. [25, 48, 49, 54, 66, 74, 105, 115, 120, 153, 154, 159, 160,
162, 165, 171, 174, 187, 189, 192, 195, 199, 207, 208, 211, 223, 245, 251, 258,
261, 264]. Surveys focused on maintenance models application are given e.g. in
[30, 61, 63, 211, 257]. Problems of imperfect maintenance are surveyed e.g. in
[29, 187, 263]. Moreover, comparison between time-based maintenance and
condition-based maintenance is the authors’ area of interest e.g. in works [5, 62, 91,
124, 128]. Linear and nonlinear PM models are investigated in [270]. Recently,
Nakagawa in his book [158] investigates optimum random maintenance policies for
various reliability models and stochastic modelling of random systems. Later, in
[168] the authors investigate the concepts of maintenance overtime policies,
focusing on age replacement, periodic replacement and inspection overtime. The
issues of stochastic modelling in maintenance are investigated e.g. in [7]. The work
extends the developments given e.g. in [111, 188].
On the other hand, system reliability and dependability influence on maintenance
strategy selection is summarized e.g. in [129, 177, 280].
Up till now, there are thousands of maintenance models that have been published
in the literature since 1960s. However, there are a limited number of preventive
maintenance policies which all these published maintenance models can be based
on. Following this, in this chapter the author summarizes maintenance policies
according to the main classification given in [261] and provides an extended and
updated literature review presented in [174, 266]. Thus, the main scheme for
classification of preventive maintenance models for technical systems is presented
in Fig. 2.1. The suggested classification includes two main groups of maintenance
strategies—for single- and multi-unit systems.
In the known literature, most of the PM models regard to the issues on main-
tenance processes of single-unit systems modelling and optimization taking into
account a single decision variable. The well-known maintenance models for
single-unit systems are age-dependent PM and periodic PM models. In these areas
the most frequently used replacement models are based on age replacement and
block replacement policies. The basic references in this area are [15, 253, 261, 262,
287]. Aven and Dekker [11], Block et al. [26], Christer and Keddie [51], Frostig
[88], and Langberg [142] give a comparison of those maintenance policies for
stochastically failing equipment.
The performance of real-life systems needs investigation more adjusted models
being developed for multi-unit systems. The definition of multi-component main-
tenance models is given by Cho and Parlar [48] as: multi component maintenance
2.1 Introduction 23
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE (PM) FOR TECHNICAL SYSTEM
PM FOR SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEM PM FOR MULTI-UNIT SYSTEM
Age-dependent PM policy with components dependence
Age replacement policy Group maintenance policy
Opportunistic maintenance policy

Other PM policies
Cannibalization maintenance
Periodic PM policy
models
Block replacement policy without components dependence
Block replacement policy

Other periodic PM policies
Age replacement policy
Failure limit policy
Sequential PM policy
Repair limit policies
Repair cost limit policy
Repair time limit policy
Other PM policies
Fig. 2.1 The general classification for preventive maintenance models for technical system.
Source Own contribution based on [48, 171, 251, 261]
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.
In 1986, Thomas in his work [251] presents classification of optimal mainte-
nance strategies for multi-unit systems. He focuses on the models, which are based
on one of the three types of dependence that may occur between system elements:
• economic dependence,
• structural dependence, and
• failure dependence.
Following [251], in this work the 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 probabilistic dependence occurs if the condition of components influences
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. These definitions are also valid for
this research study.
The literature reviews that are prepared later mostly relate to the classification
given in [251]. For example, Dekker et al. [66] review the literature on
multi-component maintenance models with economic dependence, updating the
survey presented in [48]. Later, the authors Nicolai and Dekker [172] and Lamberts
and Nicolai [141] also focus on the overview of the literature on multi-component
maintenance optimization extending surveys done in [48, 66, 261]. In work [3] the
author focuses on maintenance models for multi-unit systems subject to stochastic
failure. More comprehensive discussion in maintenance from application point of
view can be found in [85, 95]. For other references see e.g. [171, 262].
If all units in a system are economically or stochastically independent of one
another, maintenance policies for single-unit models can be applied to the
multi-unit maintenance problems analysis. However, if it is possible to define any
dependence between components (economic/stochastic/structural), to optimize
maintenance decisions we may use one of the three groups of maintenance policies
[174, 266]:
• group maintenance policies,
• opportunity-based replacement policies,
• cannibalization maintenance policies.
First, the group maintenance policies may be used. Under such the policy,
a group of items is replaced at the same time to take advantage of economies of
scale.
Opportunity-based replacement models base on the rule, that replacement is
performed at the time when an opportunity arrives, like scheduled downtime,
planned shutdown of machines, or failure of a system in close proximity to the item
of interest.
In the situation, when one machine is inoperative due to e.g. lack of components
and in the same time one or more other machines are inoperative due to the lack of
different components, maintenance personnel may “cannibalize” operative com-
ponents from one or more machines to repair the other(s). This practice is common
in systems, which are composed of sufficiently identical component parts
(see e.g. [85]).
Following these considerations, in the next Subchapters’ the author examines
various types of maintenance policies for single- and multi-unit systems, which are
the most commonly used.
2.2 Preventive Maintenance for a Single-Unit System 25
2.2 Preventive Maintenance for a Single-Unit System
Those maintenance models that may be applicable to single independent units are
referred to as models for single-unit systems. Here a unit may be perceived as a
component, an assembly, a subsystem or even the whole system (treated as a
complex system). The main classification for such systems is given in the Fig. 2.1.
The brief summary of the main replacement policies is presented below. Moreover,
the comparisons concerning different policies (e.g. block-, age-replacement poli-
cies, minimal repair policies) are given e.g. in works [11, 15, 24, 25, 88, 91, 142,
184, 214].
2.2.1 Age-Replacement Policies
One of the most common and popular maintenance policy is an age replacement
policy (ARP) that was developed in the early 1960s. [49]. Under this policy, a unit
is always replaced at its age T or at failure, whichever occurs first (Fig. 2.2) [92].
Age replacement policy (ARP) makes sense when a failure replacement costs
more than a planned replacement and the failure rate is strictly increasing [49, 92].
The age replacement problem has been discussed in general by several authors,
including [92, 201]. Since 1990s, this PM policy has been extensively studied in the
literature and various extensions and modifications of the ARP have been proposed.
The main extensions regard to minimal repair and imperfect maintenance imple-
mentation. Following this, in the known maintenance models the PM at T and CM
(corrective maintenance) at failure might be either minimal, imperfect, or perfect.
The main optimization criteria bases on maintenance cost structure. Following this,
in the case of the simple ARP, the expected cost per unit of time for an infinite time
span is given as [49, 201]:
cr FðTÞ þ cp FðTÞ
CðTÞ ¼ RT ð2:1Þ
0 FðtÞdt
The basic ARP and it’s the most widely known extensions are presented in
Fig. 2.3.
failure
T T T
T1
0 T 2T 2T + T1 3T 3T + T1 t
Fig. 2.2 Age replacement strategy. Source Own contribution based on [201]
26
ARP MODELS FOR SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEMS

* cost constraints
* replacement at failure or at age T, whichever occurs first
* negligible replacement time
[49, 201]
SIMPLE ARP MODEL
* minimal repair * Bayesian approach
performance *uncertainty analysis
ARP WITH MINIMAL REPAIR ARP FOR SYSTEMS MULTI-CRITERIA ARP ARP POLICY WITH [152]
* age-dependent cost * availability criteria SUBJECTED TO SHOCKS MODELS BAYESIAN
structure *non-negligible Presented in Fig. 2.4 * operational reliability PERSPECTIVE
* finite/infinite time repair times and cost structure
horizon * replacement policy for a
ARP WITH [37] used unit
ARP WITH RANDOM [229, 239] AVAILABILITY CRITERIA ARP WITH RELIABILITY
2
[214] ARP FOR A USED UNIT [163]

REPAIR COST CONSTRAINT
* finite/infinite horizon case
* optimal number of * preventive diagnostic * influence of working
minimal repairs * non-negligible replacement
replacement (PDR) conditions times
* age-dependent reliability * perfect maintenance
EXTENDED ARP ARP WITH PDR [143] model
WITH MINIMAL ARP WITH NON-ZERO
REPAIR [227] ARP WITH RELIABILITY [58]
* comparison of PM policies [151] DOWNTIMES
* warranty period CONSTRAINT
* imperfect repair with
random probability * multi-attribute value model * periodic testing and inspections
(cost, reliability, implementation
ARP BASED ON ARP MODEL WITH FREE- *availability and cost constraints
[146] availability, lifetime)
IMPERFECT REPAIR WARRANTY [46]
REPLACEMENT POLICY ARP WITH MULTI- ARP FOR
* age reduction PM model [259]
and failure rate model ATTRIBUTE VALUE [113] PERIODICALLY
* warranty cost analysis
implementation * virtual age/virtual failure MODEL INSPECTED UNIT
rate/virtual hazard functions * random failure and * working cycle times
ARP WITH RANDOM
MAINTENANCE [268] AGE-DEPENDENT replacement times *3 ARP models (continuous
[68] * optimal ARP and inspection ARP, discrete ARP, ARP with
QUALITY FAILURE/REPAIR MODEL
policy overtime)
RANDOM ARP WITH [169] ARP WITH WORKING [289]
INSPECTION POLICY CYCLE TIMES
Fig. 2.3 Age replacement policies for deteriorating single-unit systems

Preventive Maintenance Models for Technical Systems
There are many papers that investigate the basic form of ARP. First problem
regards to the implementation of Bayesian approach for determining optimal
replacement strategy [152]. In this paper the authors present a fully Bayesian
analysis of the optimal replacement problem for both the block replacement pro-
tocol with minimal repair and the simple age replacement protocol. The optimal
replacement strategies are obtained by maximizing the expected utility with
uncertainty analysis. In the next work [163] the author introduces an ARP for a used
unit of age Tax. In the presented model the author considers the used unit of age Tax,
which is replaced by a unit of the same age upon failure or at time T, whichever
occurs first. The two maintenance models are considered—periodic replacement
with minimal repair and age replacement policy. For the ARP case, the expected
cost rate until failure is given by:
c1 ðTax ÞFðTax Þ þ cr ½FðT þ Tax Þ FðTax Þ

CðT; Tax Þ ¼ R Tax ð2:2Þ
0 Fðt þ Tax Þdt
The introduction of an ARP with non-negligible downtimes is given e.g. in [58].

In the presented work, the author develops the sufficient conditions for the ARP in
the aspect of the existence of a global minimum to the asymptotic expected cost
rate.
In another model given in [259] the author introduces an ARP for components
whose failures can occur randomly but they are detected only by periodic testing or
inspections. The developed model includes finite repair and maintenance times and
cost contributions due to inspection (or testing), repair, maintenance and loss of
production (or accidents). The analytical solution encompasses general cost rate and
unavailability equations. The continuation of inspection maintenance and PM
optimization problems is also given in work [169], where the authors focus on the
issues of random failure and replacement times implementation.
In work [289] the authors introduce replacement policies for a unit that is run-
ning successive works with cycle times. In the paper there are defined three
replacement policies scheduled at continuous and discrete times:
• continuous age replacement—the unit is replaced before failure at a planned
time T,
• discrete age replacement—the unit is replaced before failure at completion of the
Nwcth working cycle,
• age replacement with overtime—the unit is replaced before failure at the first
completion of some working cycle over the planned time T.
There are provided analytical equations of the expected cost rate with numerical
solutions. The authors also present the comparison of given replacement policies.
Taking into account that the maintenance costs (especially cost of failure) are
difficult to determine in practice, other optimality criteria also may have some
bearing on maintenance policy. For example, in work [214] the authors take into
account the cost structure and operational reliability during maintenance
strategy definition. The developed approach gives the possibility to determine the
age limit for preventive replacement in an age-based replacement policy, when the
cost of failure is unknown. The analysed reliability measure is defined as a distri-
bution of time between operational failures.
The continuation of this problem is given e.g. in [151], where the authors
propose a new age-dependent reliability model that includes parameters related to
surveillance and maintenance effectiveness and working conditions of an equipment
(both environmental and operational). Another approach, where the authors present
four-attribute value model, is given in [113]. In this work the authors consider cost,
availability, reliability, and lifetime as maintenance decision criteria. In the paper
the authors also investigate 14 sub models as PM model special cases.
The third group of ARP models regard to minimal repair implementation.
Minimal repair is defined as the repair that put the failed item back into operation
with no significant effect on its remaining life time [49]. A simple ARP model with
minimal repair is given e.g. in [275], where the author investigates a one-unit
system that is replaced at first failure after age T. All failures that happen before the
age T—are minimally repaired. Taking into account the following assumptions:
• increasing failure rate,
• replacement and minimal repairs with negligible times,
• infinite planning horizon,
the mean cost rate is given as:
RT
cp þ cmr ðtÞkðtÞdt
CðTÞ ¼ 0
ð2:3Þ
T þ rUL ðTÞ
where: rUL(t)—mean residual life, given as:
Z1
rUL ðTÞ ¼ expðKðzÞ KðtÞÞdz ð2:4Þ
t
The extension of this model is given in [229, 239], where the authors develop the
age replacement policy with minimal repair and general random repair costs. In the
presented papers, the authors assume that:
• an operating unit is completely replaced whenever it reaches age Ty,
• the unit is minimally repaired with probability pmr(Ty) or replaced by a new unit
with probability 1 − pmr(Ty), when its age reaches Ty < T.
Moreover, the costs of PM depend on age and the number of the minimal
repairs.
The continuation of this research is also given in [227], where the author
introduces the model for determining optimal number of minimal repairs before
replacement. The main assumptions are compatible with [229, 239] and incorporate
minimal repair, replacement and general random repair cost.
The similar problem is later analysed in [146], where the authors investigate PM
with Bayesian imperfect repair. In the given PM model the occurred failure (for the
unit age Ty < T) can be either minimally repaired or perfectly repaired with random
probabilities. The expected cost per unit time is investigated for both the
infinite-horizon case and one-replacement-cycle case.
Another extension of ARP modelling is given in [269], where the authors
investigate the problem of PM uncertainty by assuming that quality of PM actions is
a random variable with defined probability distribution. Following this, the authors
analyse an age reduction PM model and a failure rate PM model. Under the age
reduction PM model, it is assumed that each PM reduces operational stress to that
existing time units previous to the PM intervention, where the restoration interval is
less than or equal to the PM interval. The optimization criteria also bases on
maintenance costs structure.
The issues of warranty policy are investigated in [46]. The author in his work
investigates a general age-replacement model that incorporates minimal repair,
planned and unplanned replacement for a product under a renewing free-
replacement warranty policy. The ARP main assumptions are compatible with
[229, 239]. The authors assume that all the product failures that cause minimal
repair, can be instantly detected and repaired instantaneously by a user. Thus, it is
assumed in this study that the user of the product should be responsible for all
minimal repairs before and after the warranty expires. Following this, for the
product with an increasing failure rate function, the authors show that there exists a
unique optimal replacement age such that the long-run expected cost rate is mini-
mized. The authors also compare analytically the optimal replacement ages for
products with and without warranty.
The warranty policy problem is also analysed in [68], where the authors propose
an age-dependent failure-repair model to analyse the warranty costs of products. In
the presented paper the authors consider four typical warranty policies (e.g. fixed
warranty, renewing warranty).
Another interesting problem is investigated in [143], where the authors present a
method for determining the optimal interval for PM using either an age-based or
diagnostic based renewal strategy. The optimization of the age-based PM policy is
given for non-repairable two-state items with taking into account the potential use
of diagnostic signal information on a change in a technical state. The authors
assume that the technical state of the item can be measured by means of the change
in level of the diagnostic signal (e.g. change in noise level, in critical dimension,
etc.). The analytical solutions are provided for the case of a finite-time horizon,
where a simple formula is proposed for modifying the commonly used infinite-time
solution.
The ARP with minimal repair mostly is investigated with the use of maintenance
costs constraints for optimization performance. However, there are also developed
few PM models that base on availability optimization. For example, in work [37]
the authors investigate the steady state availability of imperfect repair model for
repairable two-state items. The authors base on the renewal theory for providing
analytical solutions for single and multi-component systems.
The last group of ARP models regards to PM strategies that base on the
implementation of shock models (Fig. 2.4). The simple age-based policy with
shock model is presented in [107]. In this work the authors introduce the three main
cumulative damage models: first regards to a unit that is subjected to shocks and
suffers some damage due to shocks, the second model includes periodic inspections,
and the third assumes that the amount of damage increases linearly with time. For
the defined shock models optimal replacement policies are derived for the expected
cost rates minimization.
Following the Fig. 2.4, the extension of the given models is presented e.g. in
work [217], where the authors study technical object’s mean residual life as a
measure used in the age replacement model assessment. The analytical solution is
supplied with a new U-statistic test procedure for testing the hypothesis that the life
is exponentially distributed against the alternative that the life distribution has
renewal increasing mean residual property.
Another development of general replacement models of systems subject to
shocks is presented in [228], where the authors introduce the fatal and nonfatal
shocks occurrence. The fatal shock causes the system total breakdown and the
system is replaced, whereas the nonfatal shock weakens the system and makes it
more expensive to run. Following this, the authors focus on finding the optimal
T which minimizes the long run expected cost per unit time given as:
RT
cr FðTÞ þ cp RðTÞ þ 0 Cop ðuÞRðuÞdu
0 RðtÞdt
Another extension of the ARP with shock models is to introduce the minimal
repair performance. Following this, in work [236] the authors extend the general-
ized replacement policy given in [228] by introducing minimal repair of minor
failures. Moreover, in the given PM model the cost of minimal repair of the system
is age-dependent.
The introduction of random lead-time in a generalized ARP for systems subject
to shocks is given in [234], where the authors study the effect of spare-part
lead-time in an infinite time span. In the developed PM policy planned replace-
ments occur whenever an operational unit reaches age Ty and a spare unit is
available. The spare unit for replacement may be also delivered upon order, and the
lead-time for delivering the spare unit is random variable. The other assumptions
for the AR policy base on those presented e.g. in [236].
Later, the authors in work [137] introduce an extended ARP policy with minimal
repairs and cumulative damage model implementation. Under the developed
maintenance policy, the fatal shocks are removed by minimal repairs and the minor
shocks increases the system failure rate by a certain amount. Without external
shocks, the failure rate of the system also increases with age due to aging process.
The optimality criteria is also focused on the long-run expected cost per unit time.
This model is later extended e.g. in work [197], where the authors consider the ARP
with minimal repair for an extended cumulative damage model with maintenance at
ARP MODELS FOR SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEMS
SUBJECTED TO SHOCKS
* NHP process
* cumulative damage model
*two types of failures
SIMPLE ARP MODEL [107]
* fatal shock occurrence
* mean residual life
with random probability
measure
A GENERAL ARP FOR A [228] ARP WITH HYPOTESIS [217]

SYSTEM SUBJECT TO SHOCKS TESTING APPLICATION
* age-dependent cost * optimal number of
structure shocks occurrence
* minimal repair * minimal repair
EXTENDED ARP FOR A ARP WITH SHOCK [137]

SYSTEM SUBJECT TO [236] DAMAGE MODEL
SHOCKS
* lead-time * minimal repair at k th failure
* spare availability with specified probability
ARP FOR A SYSTEM ARP FOR A SYSTEM

SUBJECT TO SHOCKS AND [234] SUBJECT TO SHOCKS [47, 225]

RANDOM LEAD TIME AND MINIMAL REPAIR
* stochastically decreasing * maintenance performance at

operating intervals each shock
EXTENDED ARP MODEL EXTENDED ARP MODEL [197]

FOR DETERIORATING [224] WITH SHOCK DAMAGE
UNITS MODEL
* replacement at random
working time
EXTENDED ARP FOR A

[39]
SYSTEM SUBJECT TO
SHOCKS
Fig. 2.4 Age replacement policies with shock models for deteriorating single-unit systems
31
each shock. According to the developed PM policy, when the total damage does not
exceed a predetermined failure level, the system undergoes maintenance at each
shock. When the total damage has reached a given failure level, the system fails and
undergoes minimal repair at each failure. Moreover, the system is replaced at
periodic times T or at Nth failure, whichever occurs first.
The PM model given in [137] is also the base for maintenance considerations
presented in [225]. In the developed ARP model the decision to repair or replace the
system at failure depends on the number of shocks suffered since the last
replacement. The optimization criteria regard to the expected long-run cost per unit
time and the total discounted cost. This model is later extended in [242], where the
author introduces the process of stochastically deterioration of a system, i.e. the
lengths of the operating intervals are stochastically decreasing, whereas the dura-
tions of repairs are stochastically increasing.
The generalized ARP model that bases on the assumptions given in [137] (cu-
mulative damage model), [236] (age-dependent cost structure), and [197, 225]
(replacement scheme) is given in [47]. In the presented work the authors analyse
various special cases to extend many of the well-known results for the
age-replacement policies presented in the works investigated above. These con-
siderations are taken into account in work [39], where the author extends the
generalized ARP model by introducing additional random working time of the
system when it may be replaced preventively.
To sum up, many authors discuss age replacement policies of single-unit systems
mostly analytically. The main models that address this maintenance strategy should
be also supplemented by works, which investigate the problem of ARP modelling
with the use of semi-Markov processes (see e.g. [140, 216]), TTT-plotting (see e.g.
[131]), heuristic models (see e.g. [149]), or approximate methods implementation
(see e.g. [288]). Moreover, the authors in [121] introduce the new stochastic order
for ARP, based on the comparison of the Laplace transform of the time to failure for
two different lifetime distributions. The comparison of ARP models for a finite
horizon case based on a renewal process application and a negative exponential and
Weibull failure-time distribution is presented in [50]. The additional interesting
problems in ARP modelling may be connected with spare provisioning policy
implementation (see e.g. [118]) or multi-state systems investigation (see e.g. [140,
268, 274]). The quick overview of the given age-replacement policies is presented
in the tabular form in Table 2.1.
2.2.2 Block-Replacement Policies
One of the most investigated periodic PM policies is a block replacement policy

(BRP). Taking into account the basic assumptions of simple block replacement
policies, each unit is replaced at failure. Moreover, all units in a system are replaced
at periodic intervals regardless of their individual age in kT time moments, where
Table 2.1 Summary of age replacement policies for single-unit systems

Planning Optimality criterion Decision Modelling method Typical
horizon variables reference
Infinite The long-run expected cost per time unit T Bayesian approach [152]
(∞) Analytical [49, 92,
201, 228,
275]
The long-run expected cost per unit time, [214]
availability function
The expected cost rate [58, 107,
169, 288]
T, Tax [163]
Nmr [227]
The long-run expected cost per unit time T, NPM [269]
T, Tw [46]
The total cost rate, the expected T, Nin [259]
unavailability
The expected replacement cost rate T, Nwc [289]
The steady state availability function T [37]
The expected warranty cost T, Tas [68]
The survival function Ty [151]
The mean time to failure T Analytical (Laplace [121]
transform)
The long-run expected cost per unit time, Multi attribute value [113]
availability, lifetime, and reliability model
functions
The expected long-run cost rate Heuristic model [149]
Infinite The expected long-run cost rate T Semi-Markov [216]
(∞) decision process
si, sis Semi-Markov [140]
process
The long-run average cost per unit time T, Proportional hazard [131]
threshold model and
value TTT-plotting
The total system costs S, s, T Simulation model [118]
State-age-dependent policy si, sis Multi-phase [274]
Markovian model
Mean residual life Ns(t) Analytical/ [217]
Simulation
The long run expected cost per unit time T, Ty Analytical [47]
Ns(t) [137]
The expected cost rate T, Ns(t) [197, 224]
T, Ns(t) [236]
The expected cost of operating the system T [234]
over a time interval
The expected long-run cost per unit time, [225]
the total discounted cost
The mean cost rate [39]
Infinite The expected cost rate per unit time [146]
(∞)/ The long-run expected cost per unit time [143]
finite
T, Ty [229, 239]
Finite Customer’s expected discounted sis, rUL Continuous-time [268]
maintenance cost Markov process
Expected cumulative cost T Analytical [50]
failure
T T T
0 T 2T 2T + T1 3T t
Fig. 2.5 Block replacement strategy. Source Own contribution based on [201]
k =1, 2, 3 … (Fig. 2.5). The maintenance 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.
Following [55], for the simple BRP, when the maintenance times are negligible,
the expected long-run maintenance cost per unit time as a function of T is given as:
cr NðTÞ þ cp
CðTÞ ¼ ð2:6Þ
T
The main advantage of this policy is connected with its simplicity because no
recording of times of failure and ages of items is required. However, the main
drawback of simple block replacement policy is that at planned replacement times
we might replace practically new items and a major portion of the useful life of
these units is wasted. Thus, to overcome this disadvantage, various modifications
have been introduced in the literature. The classification of block replacement
policies in accordance to the types of considered maintenance problems of deteri-
orating systems is presented in Fig. 2.6.
Following the presented scheme (Fig. 2.6), one of the introduced modification
regards to performance of minimal repair at failure. First models that take into
account the discussed modification have been published already in the 70s (see e.g.
[200, 201]).
The model presented in [55] is extended by Nakagawa and Kowada in work
[164]. The authors investigate the replacement model where a system is replaced at
time T or at Nth failure. Taking into account, that maintenance times are negligible,
the expected cost per mean time is given as:
h P i
½RðTÞ j
cr N N1
j¼0 ðN jÞ j! expðRðTÞÞ þ cp
CðN; TÞ ¼ PN1 R T ½RðTÞ j ð2:7Þ
j¼0 0 j! expðRðTÞÞdt
This model is later extended in [82], where the authors analyse the situation
when each PM slows the rate of system degradation, while the hazard rate of the
system remains monotonically increasing.
Another extension of BRP models is given in [226]. The author considers a BRP
with minimal repair at failure for a used unit of age Tax. In the given model, the item
BRP MODELS FOR SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEMS
* negligible maintenance times
* preventive replacements at kT
* corrective replacement at failure
* analytical and simulation models
SIMPLE BRP MODEL [200, 201]
* system receives lethal and nonlethal shocks
* minimal repair at failure * finite working time * shocks occur according to a Poisson process
of a unit
BRP WITH MINIMAL REPAIR [201] BRP FOR FINITE TIME [165] BRP FOR A SYSTEM [138]
AT FAILURE SPAN SUBJECT TO SHOCK
DAMAGE
* replacement at Nth * replacement of units by the
failure used ones in defined * NHPP for shocks occurrence
operational time periods * probability of type II failure
depends of suffered shocks
EXTENDED BRP EXTENDED BRP WITH USED [226, 230] since the last replacement
WITHMINIMAL REPAIR [164] ITEM AND MINIMAL REPAIR
AT FAILURE AT FAILURE GENERAL BRP FOR A
SYSTEM SUBJECTED TO [225]
* PM slows the rate of SHOCKS
system degradation * inspections for detection of
potential failures of type I * two-variable policy with

EXTENDED BRP WITH
fixed replacement interval
MINIMAL REPAIR AT [182] EXTENDED BRP WITH and a threshold for the
FAILURE FOR A SYSTEM MINIMAL REPAIR AND [52] system age
SUBJECTED TO SLOW TWO TYPES OF FAILURES
DEGRADATION EXTENDED BRP FOR A
SYSTEM SUBJECT TO [233]
EXTENDED BRP WITH [235] SHOCKS
SHOCK MODELS AND
USED ITEMS * cost structure depends on time,
* jump size is of one unit magnitude
EXTENDED BRP WITH
SHOCK MODELS AND [2]
TIME-DEPENDENT COST
Fig. 2.6 Block replacement policies for deteriorating single-unit systems

35
is preventively replaced by new ones at times kT, k =1, 2, 3 … If the system fails in
[(k − 1)T, kT − Dd), the item is either replaced by new ones or minimally repaired.
If the failure occurs in [kT − Dd, kT,], the item is either replaced by used ones with
age varying from Dd to T or minimally repaired. The choice is random with
age-dependent probability. The cost structure is also age-dependent. The expected
long-run cost per unit time is given as:
Cop ðT Dd Þ þ Cop ðT; Dd Þ þ Cp

CðT; Dd Þ ¼ ð2:8Þ
T
The presented model is later extended in [230] for single and multi-unit cases.
An interesting model is introduced by Colosimo et al. in [52], where the authors
investigate optimal maintenance model for repairable systems under two types of
failures with different maintenance costs. The model assumes that there are per-
formed periodic visual inspections that detect potential failures of type I. For the
given assumptions, the total expected costs are estimated.
The presented models are developed for an infinite time span. The author in
[165] considers finite replacement models. Taking into account, that the working
time of a unit is given by a specified value Two, the long-run expected costs per unit
time are estimated as:

cr HðTÞ þ cp
CðTÞ ¼ Two ð2:9Þ
T
Few papers are also concerned with a periodical replacement policy for a system
which is subjected to shocks. For example, the authors in work [138] investigate the
system subjected to shocks, which occur independently and according to a Poisson
process with intensity rate ks. The occurred shocks may be either nonlethal with
probability ps or lethal with probability (1 − ps). For the assumptions:
• negligible repair and replacement times,
• steady-state conditions,
the long-run expected cost per unit of time is given as:
ðcp cr Þ½RðT; ps ; ks Þexpðð1 ps Þks T Þ þ cr

CðT; ps ; ks Þ ¼ RT ð2:10Þ
0 Rðx; ps ; ks Þexpðð1 ps Þks xÞdx
The extension of the given model is presented in [225]. In the given paper the
author analyses a system subject to shocks that arrive according to NHP process. As
shocks occur, the system has two types of failures:
• Type I (minor) failure—removed by minimal repair,
• Type II (catastrophic) failure—removed by unplanned replacement.
The probability of the type II failure is dependent on the number of shocks
suffered since the last replacement. The author derives the expressions for the
Table 2.2 Summary of block replacement policies for single-unit systems

Optimality criterion Planning Modelling method Decision Typical
The long-run expected Infinite Analytical T [2, 51, 55,
cost per time unit (∞) 164, 201]
N [182]
Dd, T [52, 226, 230,
233, 235]
T, ps [225]
T, ps, ks [138]
S, T [23]
Analytical/ T [1]
semi-Markov
processes
Finite Analytical T, Two [165]
expected long-run cost per unit time and the total a-discounted cost for each policy.
The presented model is later extended by Sheu and Griffith in work [235], where the
authors consider BPR model for system subjected to shock occurrence and with
minimal repair at failure for a used unit of age Tax. The proposed solution was based
on assumptions given in [226]. Another extension of the model given in [225]
regards to the implementation of a two variable policy with a fixed replacement
interval and a threshold for the system age [233]. The time-dependent cost structure
is investigated e.g. in [2], where the authors determine a replacement time for a
system with the use of counting process, whose jump size is of one unit magnitude.
To sum up, many authors discuss block replacement policies of single-unit
systems due to their simplicity. The main models that address this maintenance
strategy should be also supplemented by works, which investigate the problem of
imperfect maintenance (see e.g. [1, 290]), joint preventive maintenance with pro-
duction inventory control policy (see e.g. [23]), risk at failure investigation (see e.g.
[80]), or estimation issues (see e.g. [55]). The example of BRP implementation for a
set of filing valves in a canning line with the possibility of an age-based replacement
policy use is given in [51]. Other implementation areas regard to transportation
systems maintenance (see e.g. [191]), aircraft component maintenance (see e.g.
[132]), or preventive maintenance for milling assemblies (see e.g. [190]). The quick
overview of the given block-replacement policies is presented in the tabular form in
Table 2.2.
2.2.3 Other Maintenance Policies for a Single-Unit System
There can be found many maintenance models for single-unit systems that fit to
other PM policies than presented in the Sects. 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. One of such PM
policies is a sequential PM policy. Under this PM policy a unit is preventively

maintained at unequal time intervals. The unequal time interval usually is related
with the age of the system or is predetermined like in periodic maintenance policies
[261]. The classification of sequential policies in accordance to the types of con-
sidered maintenance problems of deteriorating systems is presented in Fig. 2.7. The
comparison of periodic and sequential PM is given e.g. in [161].
Due to the main assumptions, the sequential PM policy is more realistic when a
system requires more frequent maintenance as it ages. In the simple sequential PM
policy, maintenance scheduling is determined in the context of system expected
maintenance costs optimization. Following this, in work [201] the cost function is
given as:
T 1 6¼ TOP
for
RT 1 h i h i
ð0;tÞ ð0;tÞ
CðT 1 ; TOP Þ ¼ cr þ Cr ðTOP yÞ f ðyÞdy þ cp þ Cr ðTOP T 1 Þ ½1 FðT 1 Þ
0
for T 1 ¼ TOP
Th
R i
ð0;tÞ
CðT 1 ; TÞ ¼ cr þ Cr ðTOP yÞ f ðyÞdy
0
ð2:11Þ
Later, the author in work [161] considers sequential preventive maintenance for
a system with minimal repair at failure. Moreover, the policy assumes that the
system is replaced at constant time intervals and at the Nth failure. For the following
assumptions:
• infinite time span,
• negligible maintenance times,
the expected cost rate is given as:
PN R T k
cmr k¼1 0 kk ðtÞdt þ ðN 1Þcp þ cre
CðT ; T ; . . .; T Þ ¼
1 2 N
ð2:12Þ
T1 þ T2 þ þ TN
This model is compared to the optimal periodic policy also developed in the
analysed article. The presented model is later investigated in work [165], where the
author proposes the simple sequential PM policy with imperfect maintenance for a
finite time span.
Another interesting model of the sequential PM policy is presented in [166],
where the authors introduce a shock model and a cumulative damage model. In the
presented article, there are developed two replacement policies—a periodic PM and
a sequential PM policy with minimal repair at failure and imperfect PM. The
solutions are obtained for finite and infinite time spans. The presented problems are
later investigated in [232], where the authors adopt improvement factors in the
hazard rate function for modelling the imperfect PM performance. The model is
SEQUENTIAL PM POLICY FOR
SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEMS
* a unit is preventively maintained at unequal time
intervals and correctively repaired at failures
* infinite time span
* cost estimations
SIMPLE SEQUENTIAL PM [201]
POLICY
* minimal repair at failure
* replacement at Nth PM
SIMPLE SEQUENTIAL PM
[161]
POLICY WITH MINIMAL REPAIR
* finite time span * maintenance quality measure =

reduction factor
* age reduction model
SIMPLE SEQUENTIAL PM PM POLICY UNDER

[147]
POLICY FOR A FINITE [165] STOCHASTIC

INTERVAL MAINTENANCE QUALITY
* hazard and age reduction
* finite/infinite time span * finite time models
* imperfect PM * adjustment factor * Bayesian approach
* shock model (Poisson process)
SEQUENTIAL PM POLICY HYBRID SEQUENTIAL PM
SEQUENTIAL IMPERFECT [166] [185] [127]
UNDER ADJUSTMENT POLICY
PM POLICY
REDUCTION FEATURES
* improvement factor in hazard rate
function (hazard rate model)
EXTENDED SEQUENTIAL [232]

IMPERFECT PM POLICY
Fig. 2.7 Sequential PM policies for deteriorating single-unit systems

39
presented for an infinite time-horizon. The main characteristic of the given model is
connected with considering both, the age-dependent minimal repair cost and the
stochastic failure type.
In work [147] the authors present a sequential imperfect PM policy for a
degradation system. The presented model extends assumptions given in [161]. The
developed model bases on maximal/equal cumulative-hazard rate constraints. The
optimization is obtained with the use of a genetic algorithm. Later, the random
adjustment-reduction maintenance model with imperfect maintenance policy and
for a finite time span is presented in work [185]. The authors also base on the
genetic algorithm implementation.
The Bayesian approach implementation in the sequential PM problem is pre-
sented in [127]. The authors determine the optimal PM schedules for a hybrid
sequential PM policy, where the age reduction PM model and the hazard rate PM
model are combined together. Under such the hybrid PM model, each PM action
reduces the effective age of the system to a certain value and also adjusts the slope
of the hazard rate (slows down the degradation process of the maintained system).
For the following assumptions:
• PM performance at (N − 1)th cycle times and the system replacement is done at
Nth failure,
the mean cost rate is expressed as:
PN Qk1
cmr aNi ½Hðyk Þ Hðbk1 ; yk1 Þ þ ðN 1Þcp þ cre
CðT ; T ; . . .; T Þ ¼
1 2 N k¼1 i¼0
PN
k¼1 ð1 bk Þyk þ yN
ð2:13Þ
Sequential PM policies are practical for most units that need more frequent
maintenance with increased age. The quick overview of the main known sequential
PM models is given in Table 2.3.
The second PM policy depends on the failure model assumed for operated units
—a failure limit policy. Under this policy, PM is performed only when the defined
state variable, which describes the state of the unit at age T (e.g. failure rate),
reaches a predetermined level and occurred failures are corrected by repairs.
Following this, such the PM policy makes the unit working at or above the mini-
mum acceptable level of reliability Rc (see Fig. 2.8).
The classification of known maintenance models based on the failure limit
policy implementation for deteriorating systems is presented in Fig. 2.9.
One of the first works that investigates the optimal replacement model with the
use of the failure limit policy is published by Bergman [22]. The author in his work
presents the replacement policy that bases on the failure model defined for an
operating unit. In the presented model, a unit state at age T is defined by a random
variable. The replacement is performed either at failure, or when the unit state
reaches, or exceeds a given level, whichever occurs first. Model optimization bases
Table 2.3 Summary of sequential PM policies

Optimality criterion Planning Modelling Decision Typical
horizon method variables reference
Mean maintenance costs Infinite (∞) Analytical Top, Ti [201]
Expected cost rate N, Ti [161]
Expected cost till Finite N [165]
replacement
Expected cost rate till Infinite (∞)/ Ti [166]
replacement finite
Expected costs per unit Infinite (∞) N, Ti [232]
time
Expected profit Finite Genetic N [147]
Total expected Infinite (∞) algorithm N, Ti [185]
maintenance costs
Mean cost rate Bayesian yi, N [127]
approach
1 R1(t) R2(t) R3(t) R4(t)

Reliability, R(t)
Rc
1st PM cycle 2nd PM cycle 3rd PM cycle 4th PM cycle …
0 T1 T2 T3 T4 t
Fig. 2.8 Failure limit policy. Source Own contribution based on [286]
on the average long-run cost per unit time estimation. This problem is later
investigated in [35]. The author in his work introduces a PM model with the
monotone hazard function affected by system degradation. The author develops a
hazard model and achieves a cost optimization of system operation. The cost rate
for operating the system with PM is estimated as:
p
cp To
T þ cop
CðTop ; TÞ ¼ ð2:14Þ
T
The maintenance model with imperfect repair is introduced by Lie and Chun
[145]. The authors in their work consider two types of PM (simple PM and pre-
ventive replacement) and two types of corrective maintenance (minimal repair and
corrective replacement). The developed cost-rate model is based on adjustment of
the failure rate after simple PM with the use of a concept of improvement factor.
The expected costs are the sum of average costs of both types of PM and average
cost of downtime. This problem is later continued in work [110]. The authors in
42
FAILURE LIMIT POLICY MODELS FOR

SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEMS
* PM is performed only when the failure rate or other reliability
indices of a unit reach a predetermined level, corrective
repairs are made at failures
* increasing failure rate
* 2 types of PM (simple PM and PM) and
* increasing state variable 2 types of CM (corrective replacement
(e.g. wear) and minimal repair
2
REPLACEMENT POLICY UNDER A [22] REPLACEMENT MODEL WITH [145]

GENERAL FAILURE MODEL FAILURE LIMIT POLICY
* degradation process * 2 types of PM
(operational stress) * finite time horizon
*2 types of PM * dynamic reliability equation
* age reduction model
PERIODIC PM WITH [35]
IMPERFECT REPAIR PM FOR A SYSTEM WITH [110] REPLACEMENT POLICY
ASSURED RELIABILITY WITH FAILURE LIMIT [252]
POLICY AND GA
* reliability level
estimation * stochastic availability
EXTENDED PERIODIC PM GENERAL REPLACEMENT

[286] [38]
WITH IMPERFECT REPAIR POLICY FOR A SYSTEM WITH
ASSURRED RELIABILITY
Fig. 2.9 Failure limit policies for deteriorating single-unit systems

their work propose a cost model for two types of PM (as in [145]) and one type of
corrective maintenance (corrective replacement) that considers inflationary trends
over a finite time horizon.
The PM scheduling for a system with deteriorated components is also analysed
in [252]. The authors consider a PM policy compatible with those presented in
[110] but the degraded behaviour of maintained components is modelled by a
dynamic reliability equation. The optimal solution, based on unit-cost life estima-
tion, is obtained with the use of genetic algorithms.
An interesting preventive maintenance model is given in [286], where the
authors introduce parameter so-called degradation ratio to represent the imperfect
effect of PM on system availability. The modelled PM assumes that corrective
repair restores the system to “good-as-before the failure” condition. The PM actions
should be taken at an acceptable critical reliability level Rc. Taking into account the
repair time of corrective replacements and PM actions, an availability function in
the ith PM cycle is defined as:
To
Ai ðTo Þ ¼ R To ; where i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ð2:15Þ
To þ Tr 0 hi ðtÞdt þ Tp
The long-run expected cost per unit of time is given as:

R
T
Cop E½To þ Cr E½Tr 0 o hi ðtÞdt 1 þ Cp E½Tp
CðTo Þ ¼ R ð2:16Þ
T
E½To þ E½Tr 0 o hi ðtÞdt 1 þ E½Tp
Another example of PM modelling under the failure limit policy is presented in

[38], where the authors focus on system availability optimization. In the presented
model system failure rate is reduced after each PM and depends on age and on the
number of performed PM actions.
Maintenance models under the failure limit policy are summarized in Table 2.4.
Other interesting group of PM policies for single-unit systems are repair limit
policies. In the known literature, there are two types of repair limit policies: a repair
cost limit policy and a repair time limit policy [207]. Under the repair cost limit
policy, when a unit fails, a repair cost is estimated and repair is undertaken if the
estimated cost is less than a predetermined limit. Otherwise, the unit is replaced. For
the repair cost limit policy, a decision variable regards to time of repair. If the time
of corrective repair is greater than the specified time Tmax r , a unit is replaced.
Otherwise, the unit is repaired [167, 261]. First, the repair time limit policies are
overviewed (Fig. 2.10).
One of the first work dedicated to the problems of repair limit policies are [167,
178]. In work [167] the authors consider general repair limit replacement policies.
In work [178] the authors consider a repair limit replacement model with taking into
account a lead time to replace a new unit. The proposed model is solved with the
use of Markov renewal process. This model is later considered in work [130], where
Table 2.4 Summary of failure limit policies

Planning Modelling Optimality criterion Reliability index Typical
horizon method monitored reference
Infinite Analytical Total expected long-run Failure rate through [22]
(∞) cost per unit time wear/accumulated
damage or stress
Cost rate Failure rate [35, 145]
Availability function [38]
Total expected long-run Degradation ratio [286]
cost per unit time/
availability function
Genetic Unit-cost life of a system Failure rate [252]
algorithms
Finite Analytical Total costs function Age [110]
(branching
algorithm)
the authors discuss the optimal repair limit replacement policy based on graphical
approach with the use of the Total Time on Test (TTT) concept. This graphical
approach is also used in work [78] to determine the optimal repair limit replacement
policy. The authors in their work consider two PM policies, the first one compatible
with [178], the second one takes into account subjective repair completion time
probability distribution for decision maker. Both models are also solved and
compared with the use of Lorenz statistics approach.
An interesting model is also considered in [126], where the authors investigate
the replacement model with taking into account a repair time estimation error. The
model is formulated under earning criteria with and without discounting.
In the literature, there can be found also PM models with imperfect maintenance.
One of the first works that considers the repair-limit replacement problem with
imperfect repair is [77]. The authors in their work discuss the optimal repair limit
problem as a nonparametric solution procedure using the TTT concept. The authors
consider a single-unit system, where each spare is provided only by an order after a
lead time and each failed unit is repairable. The repair of the failed unit is imperfect.
This problem is later investigated in [73], where the authors apply the Lorenz
transform to solve the simple repair-limit replacement problem with imperfect
maintenance, presented e.g. in [77].
The extended repair limit policy model is given also in [72]. The authors in their
work base on the assumptions given in [126] and [73], and consider two repair-time
limit preplacement models with imperfect repair under earning rate criteria with and
without discounting. The solution is provided with the use of the Lorenz statistics.
The similar problem was analysed in [76] with the use of graphical method.
The repair limit replacement problem is also considered in [13], where the
authors propose a new repair-limit risk-free warranty policy. The model is devel-
oped for manufacturers to optimize their warranty period and to improve product
marketability.
REPAIR-TIME LIMIT POLICY MODELS FOR
[167]
SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEMS
* repair is undertaken if its time is shorten than a predetermined level
(usually connected with spare lead time), otherwise a unit is replaced
* infinite time horizon
* perfect maintenance * increasing failure rate
* time limit for repair action * 2 types of PM (simple PM and PM) and
performance is equal to a lead time 2 types of CM (corrective replacement
* Markov renewal process and minimal repair
SIMPLE REPAIR-TIME LIMIT [178] REPLACEMENT MODEL WITH [145]

POLICY WITH LEAD TIME FAILURE LIMIT POLICY
* Lorenz transform
* graphical solution (TTT concept) approach
REPAIR-TIME LIMIT POLICY [78, 130] REPAIR-TIME LIMIT POLICY

[73]
WITH LEAD TIME AND WITH IMPERFECT REPAIR
GRAPHICAL APPROACH
* earning rate criteria with and
* graphical method without discounting
implementation * analytical approach
REPAIR-TIME LIMIT POLICY REPAIR-TIME LIMIT POLICY

[76] [72]
WITH IMPERFECT REPAIR UNDER EARNING CRITERIA
AND DISCOUNTING * estimation error occurrence (for repair
time)
REPAIR-TIME LIMIT POLICY

[126]
WITH ESTIMATION ERROR
Fig. 2.10 Repair time limit policies for deteriorating single-unit systems
45
The second type of repair limit policies includes repair cost estimations at a
system failure and is defined as a repair-cost limit policy. The known replacement
policies with repair cost limit are presented in Fig. 2.11.
The general maintenance model with replacements and minimal repair as a base
for repair limit replacement policy is presented in [20]. The author in his work
presents three basic maintenance policies (based on age-dependent PM and periodic
PM) and two basic repair limit replacement policies. In the first repair-cost limit
replacement policy, the author assumes that a system is replaced by the new one if
the random repair cost exceeds a given repair cost limit, otherwise it is minimally
repaired. Taking into account the following assumptions:
• infinite time span,
the expected maintenance cost rate may be estimated as:
R Cnm
max
1
pf 0 FðxÞdx þ cr Cnm
max
CðTy ; Cnm
max
Þ ¼ R1 pf ð2:17Þ
0 ðFðtÞÞ dt
Taking into account the additional assumptions, that at system age Ty preventive
replacement is carried out, the expected maintenance cost rate may be estimated as:
h R max i
1pf 1 Cnm
cr þ pf pf 0 FðxÞdx Cnmmax
FT ðTy Þ þ cp FT ðTy Þ
CðTy ; Cnm
max
Þ¼ R Ty ð2:18Þ
0 F T ðtÞdt
The problem of the age replacement policy with the minimal repair cost limit is
later investigated in work [12]. In this work, the minimal repairs follows NHPP.
In another work [277] the authors introduce imperfect maintenance problem. In
this work the authors investigate the maintenance policy under imperfect repair.
According to this policy, after repair, a system may be “as good as new” with
probability (1 − pk), or it is minimally repaired with probability pk. When main-
tenance times are negligible and a planning horizon is infinitive, the expected cost
rate is given as:
cr F cn ðCnm
max
Þ þ E½cnm Fcn ðCnm
max
Þ
max
CðCnm Þ¼ R1 ð2:19Þ
1 pk Fcn ðCnm Þ 0 exp RðtÞ 1 pk Fcn ðCnm
max max Þ dt
The presented in [277] model is later extended in [276], where the authors
investigate the problem of imperfect estimation of repair cost (imperfect inspection
case). Following the assumptions given in [277], the expected cost rate is
estimated as:
REPAIR-COST LIMIT POLICY MODELS FOR
SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEMS
* repair is undertaken if its cost is less than a predetermined level,
otherwise a unit is replaced
* infinite time horizon
* perfect maintenance
* minimal repair cost limit * system replacement when total repair

* optimal stopping theory cost reaches or exceeds a certain level
*replacement at system age
AGE REPLACEMENT WITH [12, 20] OPTIMAL REPAIR-COST LIMIT TOTAL REPAIR COST LIMIT [21]
[114]
REPAIR COST LIMIT POLICY MODEL POLICY
* imperfect repair * 2 types of failures

* Markov renewal process
*mixed PM
COST LIMIT REPLACEMENT [277] GENERAL COST LIMIT [119]
POLICY UNDER IMPERFECT
REPLACEMENT POLICY
REPAIR
* additional cost constraints
* graphical solution (TTT concept)

REPAIR-TIME LIMIT POLICY [32] EXTENDED CUMULATIVE
WITH ESTIMATION ERROR [40, 41]
COST LIMIT REPLACEMENT REPAIR-COST LIMIT POLICY
[75]
POLICY UNDER IMPERFECT * imperfect inspection
REPAIR AND GRAPHICAL performance
SOLUTION
COST LIMIT
[276]
REPLACEMENT POLICY
WITH IMPERFECT
COST LIMIT REPLACEMENT INSPECTION
[135]
POLICY WITH CUMULATIVE
DAMAGE MODEL
Fig. 2.11 Repair-cost limit policies for deteriorating single-unit systems

47
cr þ E½cnm Fcn ðCnm

max
Þ=F cn ðCnm
max
Þ
max
CðCnm Þ¼ R1 ð2:20Þ
0 exp RðtÞF cn ðCnm Þ dt
max
The implementation of a graphical method (TTT concept) in the repair-cost limit

replacement problem with imperfect repair is presented in [75]. In the presented
model, the authors introduce the imperfect repair (according to [277]) and a lead
time for failed unit replacement. The solution bases on the assumption of negligible
replacement time and uses the renewal reward process.
The cumulative damage model for systems subjected to shocks is presented in
[135]. The author introduces a periodical replacement policy with the concept of
repair cost limit under a cumulative damage model and solves it analytically for an
infinite time span.
Another extension of the models presented in [12, 20] and [135] is given in
[119]. The authors in their work introduce a mixed maintenance policy that assumes
system replacement:
• at Nth type I failure (minimal failures),
• at first type II failure (catastrophic failures),
• at age Ty,
• when estimated repair cost of minimal failures exceeds the pre-determined limit,
whichever occurs earlier. Taking into account that failures of type I and type II are
age dependent and maintenance actions take negligible time, the mean cost rate is
estimated with the use of Markov renewal process. The presented maintenance
problem is later investigated in work [32], where the author extends the presented
maintenance models by additional cost constraints for system replacement
performance.
Another interesting approach to the repair-cost limit replacement policies is
presented in [21]. The author in his work proposes the total repair-cost limit
replacement policy, where a system is replaced by the new one as soon as its total
repair cost reaches or exceeds a given level. The comparison with the simple
repair-cost limit policy is given.
The presented problem is later investigated and extended in works [40, 41],
where the authors introduce two types of failures (repairable/non-repairable) and
propose a mixed maintenance policy similar to the one presented in [119].
The interesting maintenance problems that consider repair cost limit issues are
presented e.g. in works [114, 157, 215]. In the first work, the authors propose the
optimal repair/replacement problem with minimal repair and solve it with the use of
optimal stopping theory. Such the maintenance problem, where a system state at
failure is represented by two attributes—total number of its failures, which hap-
pened in the past and current failure level, is given in work [215]. The optimal
solution is provided with semi-Markov processes implementation. The problem of
products service warranty and their optimal maintenance is considered in work
[157]. The current repair limit policies and their extensions are summarized in
Table 2.5.
Table 2.5 Summary of repair limit policies

Planning Modelling Optimality criterion CM CM Limit Typical
horizon method before after reference
limit limit
Infinite Markov Expected cost per unit Perfect Perfect Time [178]
(∞) renewal time
process
Analytical [167]
Graphical The total expected Perfect Perfect [78, 130]
approach costs per unit time Imperfect Perfect [77]
(TTT)
Graphical The expected total Imperfect Perfect [76]
approach discounted cost
Analytical The long-run average Perfect Perfect [126]
Analytical/ profit rate/the total Imperfect Perfect [72]
nonparametric discounted profit
algorithms
Lorenz curve The expected cost per imperfect Perfect [73]
unit time
Quasi-renewal The warranty cost per Imperfect Perfect [13]
process unit sold
Analytical Cost rate Minimal Perfect Cost [20]
Mean cost rate Minimal Perfect [12, 41]
Cost rate Minimal/ Perfect [276,
imperfect 277]
Markov Mean cost rate Minimal Perfect [119]
renewal
process
Analytical The expected cost rate Minimal Perfect [32]
The long-term cost per Minimal Perfect [135]
unit time
The long-run total Minimal Perfect [21]
maintenance cost rate
The long-run expected Minimal Perfect [40]
cost per unit time
Graphical Total expected cost per Imperfect Perfect [75]
approach unit time
(TTT)
Infinite Optimal The expected average Minimal Perfect Cost [114]
(∞) stopping cost per unit time
theory
Semi-Markov The long-run average Minimal Perfect [215]
decision expected maintenance
process cost per unit time
Finite Analytical The expected cost of Minimal Perfect [157]
servicing
In the literature, one can also find some studies that introduce repair number
counting and reference time policies. These policies assume replacement of a unit at
Nth failure or before an accumulated operating time T. However, there is much less
research that investigates these maintenance problems. Moreover, usually they are
implemented to the previously presented maintenance policies types (as their
extensions). Thus, the author does not provide a separate survey of these mainte-
nance problems. For more information see e.g. [207, 261].
2.3 Preventive Maintenance for a Multi-unit System
The presented in the Sect. 2.2 types of maintenance policies are designed for
systems composed of a single stochastically deteriorating unit. A natural devel-
opment and generalization of these maintenance policies is to consider a system as a
multi-unit one (composed of at least two elements). This is connected with the
necessity to adjust maintenance models to the complex environment where possible
applications occur. The replacement models for single-unit systems are too simple
compared to the real-life performing systems. On the other hand, the current
development of existing analytical techniques and computer technology allow for
analyses of more computationally complex problems, enabling better definition of
relationships in the Man-Machine-Environment systems. The brief summary of the
main replacement policies for multi-component systems with and without com-
ponents dependence is presented below.
2.3.1 Age-Replacement Policies
The maintenance models with the use of the age replacement policy (ARP) for
multi-unit systems are shown in Fig. 2.12. The presented classification includes the
main directions of this replacement policy development given in the available literature.
One of the first work that regards to the simple age replacement policy imple-
mentation is [86]. The author in his work proposes the simple ARP model for an nk-
out-of-n warm stand-by system, where the lifetime of components is exponentially
distributed. The optimal maintenance policy for n failure-independent but
non-identical machines in series is given in [150]. Taking into account, that a
machine i is restored to a status ”as-good-as-new” at age Ti or at failure, whichever
comes first, the expected long-run maintenance costs per unit time are estimated as:
X
n cip Ri ðTi Þ þ cir Fi ðTi Þ
Ci ðTi Þ ¼ RT ð2:21Þ
i¼1 ðTi þ Tpi ÞRi ðTi Þ þ 0 i tfi ðtÞdt þ Tri Fi ðTi Þ
The solution is obtained with the use of nonlinear programming models.

AGE REPLACEMENT POLICY MODELS FOR
MUTLI-UNIT SYSTEMS
* warm standby system
*simple PM policy for identical components of a system
*estimation problem
ARP FOR MULTI-UNIT SYSTEM IN K-OUT- [86]

OF-N RELIABILITY STRUCTURE
* opportunity based maintenance
* two-unit system implementation
* non-identical components of a * shock model
system * opportunities come according to a Poisson
*NHP process of shocks occurrence process
* n machines in series * minimal repair
ARP FOR MULTI-UNIT [150] ARP FOR 2-UNIT SYSTEM [240] OPPORTUNITY-BASED ARP [53, 64]
SYSTEM IN SERIES SUBJECTED TO SHOCKS MODELS
* lead time constraint * minimal repair at failure
* Bayesian approach * two types of failures * two intensity rates of
* minimal repair * age-dependent cost process for opportunity
EXTENDED ARP FOR 2-UNIT [243] structure

EXTENDED ARP WITH * (τop,T) policy occurrence
[242] SYSTEM SUBJECTED TO
MINIMAL REPAIR AT SHOCKS
FAILURE
OPPORTUNITY-BASED OPPORTUNITY-BASED [210]
[112]
ARP WITH MINIMAL ARP WITH DIFFERENT
REPAIR INTENSITY RATES
EXTENDED OPPORTUNITY- [106]

BASED ARP
Fig. 2.12 Age replacement policies for deteriorating multi-unit systems

51
The main extension of the given simple ARP model for multi-unit systems
regards to minimal repair at failure performance. One of the works that investigates
the age replacement policy with minimal repair is [242]. In the presented paper, the
model assumes that a system is replaced at age T. When the system fails before age
T, it is either replaced or minimally repaired depending on the random repair cost at
failure. The model considers finite and infinite time spans and is solved with a
Bayesian approach implementation.
Another interesting extension of the simple age replacement policy is shock
modelling implementation. For example, in the paper [240] the authors introduce a
maintenance model for a two-unit system subjected to shocks and with failure rate
interaction. The two types of shocks (minor and catastrophic) stem from a
non-homogeneous pure birth process and their occurrence is dependent on the
number of shocks that have occurred since the last replacement. The expected cost
rate is derived by incorporating replacement costs and costs of minimal repairs
performance. The presented model is later extended in [243], where the authors
consider spare parts availability problem. In this context, the maintenance model
includes delayed preventive replacement and delayed corrective replacement, when
the spare parts have to be ordered and are delivered in a given lead time.
Moreover, in the literature there can be found age replacement models, in which
preventive replacements are only possible at maintenance opportunities. They are
called opportunity-based age replacement models. In [64] these opportunities arise
according to a Poisson process and are generated independently of the considered
components. Based on the renewal reward theorem, the long-term average costs are
given as:
cp þ ðcr cp ÞPðt\T þ T y Þ
CðTÞ ¼ R 1 R T þ T y ð2:22Þ
0 0 ð1 þ FðxÞÞdxdFT y ðyÞ
This problem is later investigated in [53], where the authors consider the
opportunity-based age replacement using nonparametric predictive interference for
the time to failure of a future unit.
The extended opportunity-based age replacement policy is presented in [106],
where the authors take into account the additional assumption connected with
system age and its opportunity to be maintained. Under the extended model, the
following maintenance actions may be taken:
• the system is replaced by the new one whenever it fails,
• when the system age satisfies sop t < T, there is taken an opportunity pre-
ventive replacement with probability pop and do not taken with probability
1-pop,
• when the system reaches age sop, it is preventively replaced independently of
opportunities.
2.3 Preventive Maintenance for a Multi-unit System 53
Taking a further step, Jhang and Sheu [112] investigate a multi-unit system,
which 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-dependent. The system is replaced
at type II failure or at the opportunity after age T, whichever occurs first. Taking
into account the following assumptions:
• cost of minimal repair depends on the random and deterministic part,
• instantaneous detection and reparation of failures,
• infinite horizon planning,
the total expected long-run cost per unit time is given:
R1 h R T þx i
0 crT þ ðcrII crT ÞFrII ðT þ xÞ þ 0 u2 ðzÞF rII ðzÞpI ðzÞkðzÞdz gop ðxÞdx
CðTÞ ¼ R 1 R T þx
0 0 F rII ðzÞdzgop ðxÞdx
ð2:23Þ
Another interesting approach is presented in [210], where the authors propose the
opportunity-based age replacement model with different intensity rates that are
dependent on system age. The authors assume, that maintenance opportunity occur-
rences have two intensity rates and preventive replacement can be carried out at the first
opportunity after age T. They provide an analytical solution of the presented problem.
The presented maintenance models do not exhaust the ARP modelling issues. In
the available literature, one can find also the models that regard to a repair priority
problem (see e.g. [144]), a machine repair problem (see e.g. [9]), or production
systems maintenance (see e.g. [255]). The quick overview of the given age-
replacement policies is presented in the tabular form in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6 Summary of age replacement policies for deteriorating multi-unit systems
Planning Optimality criterion Modelling method Decision Typical
Infinitive The expected long-run Analytical T [64, 86,
(∞) costs per unit time 210]
Analytical/nonparametric [53]
predictive interference
Analytical sop, T [255]
[106]
Nonlinear programming Ti [150]
Analytical [112]
The expected cost rate T [9, 240,
243]
Average loss rate Renewal process/geometric T [144]
process/Markov process
Infinitive The expected long-run Renewal reward theory/ T [242]
(∞)/finite costs per unit time Bayesian approach
2.3.2 Block-Replacement Policies
The main classification of block replacement policies for multi-unit systems is

presented in Fig. 2.13. It includes the main directions of this replacement policy
development given in available literature.
In work [213] the authors investigate various block replacement policies under a
general type of costs structure for a two-unit system in series. Taking into account
the following assumptions:
• perfect repair policy,
• failures detected immediately,
• negligible replacement times of components and system,
there are developed block replacement and modified block replacement policies.
First, an independent block replacement policy, which assumes that replacement of
system components is performed on system failure and at fixed intervals Ti, and
i = 1, 2.
The second interesting maintenance policy is a combined block replacement
policy. Under this policy, replacement of both components simultaneously is per-
formed at fixed intervals or on failure of a system, whether units failed or not. The
solutions of the presented replacement policies are obtained with the use of sim-
ulation process, by approximating the time to failure distribution of the system by a
Gamma distribution.
The maintenance problems of a two-unit parallel system are investigated in work
[278]. In the presented article the authors introduce a replacement model with
minimal repair at minor failure. The analysed system bases on structural depen-
dence. The interesting development of this model is given in [139], where the
authors focus on periodic replacement for an n-unit parallel system subject to
common cause shock failures. In the presented model, there are taken into account
two types of failures:
• independent failures of one component in the system,
• 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:
• non-lethal—when each component is assumed to fail independently with
probability pI; the number of failed components is then a random variable,
• lethal—when every components in the system fails.
The defined maintenance actions performed in the system include replacement
when the system fails (lethal shock) or at scheduled times kT (k = 1, 2, 3, …), and
minimal repair in case of non-lethal shock occurrence.
BRP MODELS FOR MULTI-UNIT SYSTEMS
* periodic replacement
* cost constraints
* various policies investigated
INDEPENDENT BRP FOR 2-COMPONENT [213]
SYSTEM
* structural dependence * n-unit parallel system
* shock model * four simple PM policies
* system in parallel investigated
BRP FOR 2-COMPONENT [278] BRP FOR N-UNIT SYSTEM [273]
SYSTEM IN PARALLEL
* n identical components * minimal repair at kth failure or
* system in series
* NHPP of shock occurrence when all components fail
* minimal repair model * availability optimization
BRP WITH COMMON CAUSE [235] BRP WITH AVAILABILITY BRP FOR MULTI-
[42] [116]
SHOCK FAILURES OPTIMIZATION COMPONENT SYSTEM WITH
* imperfect PM ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE
* minimal repair model
* age-dependent cost structure * availability optimization
* unavailability optimization criteria

BRP WITH IMPERFECT
[238] AVAILABILITY-BASED [81]
MAINTENANCE BRP WITH MINIMAL [230, 231]
BRP FOR MULTI-UNIT
REPAIR
* reliability optimization
* 2-unit parallel system
* periodic inspection performance
RELIABILITY-BASED BRP [176]
BRP WITH PERIODICAL FOR MULTI-UNIT SYSTEM
[281]
INSPECTION
* cost estimations
* n-unit system * n-unit series system
* heterogeneous component life
EXTENDED BRP WITH HYBRID BRP [212]

[183]
IMPERFECT
MAINTENANCE
Fig. 2.13 Block replacement policies for deteriorating multi-unit systems

55
Taking into account the following assumptions:

• independent failure process of any component,
• continuous monitoring and detection of component failures,
• negligible replacement and minimal repair times,
the long-run expected cost per unit time is obtained as:
Pn1 RT RT
k¼1 cmr kr ðtÞRðtÞdt þ c0 kp ðtÞRðtÞdt þ cp
CðTÞ ¼ 0
RT 0
ð2:24Þ
0 RðtÞdt
The summary of optimum replacement policies for an n-unit system in parallel is

given in [273]. The authors compare four replacement policies—two of them are a
simple block replacement policy and a mixed block replacement policy, when
replacement of the system is performed, e.g. when the total number of unit failures
exceeds N1 value until (j + 1)T time period. The long-run expected cost per unit
time for the simple block replacement policy is given as [273]:
ncr þ cp FðTÞn
CðTÞ ¼ R T n
ð2:25Þ
0 RðTÞ dt
This model is the base for other the authors to introduce many extensions of the
block replacement policies for multi-unit systems. First, the simple algorithm for block
maintenance policy parameters definition is given in [116]. The author analyses
systems composed with non-identical elements with component dependency. The
model bases on simulation use and is aimed at total cost per unit time optimization.
Another extension regards to imperfect maintenance case. In work [238] the
authors investigate a generalized PM model, where a system involves three types of
outcomes after PM:
• type I—imperfect maintenance,
• type II—perfect maintenance,
• type III—failed maintenance.
Taking into account the assumption of negligible PM times, the authors estimate
availability of the system:
P1 R iT
ðpPM
i1 pi Þ 0 RðtÞdt
PM
A T; fpPM
i g ¼ P
i¼1

1 PM R iT r P1 PM
p
To PM RðiTÞ þ T r
i¼1 pi1 pi 0 RðtÞdt þ 1 þ nk T o i¼1 pi1 pi
PM
o
ð2:26Þ
The periodic replacement with minimal repair at failure for a multi-unit system is
considered in [231]. In this work, the author investigates a simple model of
block-replacement policy with minimal repair, when repair costs depend on system
age and the number of performed minimal repairs. Following the assumptions given
in [275] the author estimates the expected long-run costs per unit of time.
A simplified version of the model presented in [231] is given in [42]. In this

work, the authors investigate a block replacement policy, where:
• only failed element is correctively replaced (series structure of the system),
• preventive replacement of the whole system is performed in one of two situa-
tions: when all components fail or in kT time moments.
The model is aimed at availability ratio estimation. The authors present two
modelling approaches for the given replacement policy: the first one consists of
minimizing the difference, in terms of the system availability, where periodic
replacement of the whole system is compared to periodic replacement of the
individual components considered separately. The second approach considers every
replacement of a failing component as a minimal repair of the system and pre-
ventive replacement of all the components by new identical ones at the same
moments kT (k = 1, 2, …).
The replacement policy given in [231] is also extended in work [281], where the
authors introduce a periodical inspection for a two-unit parallel system. The pre-
sented model takes into account the detection capacity of inspections (perfect/
imperfect), minimal repairs and failure interactions in order to consider dependence
between subsystems.
An interesting model is also developed in work [183], where the authors con-
tinue issues analysed in works [238, 281]. The authors in their work consider a
multi-unit system composed of identical units having periodic imperfect PM and
periodic inspection carried out every Tin time units. During the inspection action
performance units are checked whether they are working or not. Failed units are
replaced by new ones at inspection time. Assuming negligible PM times the authors
estimate an average cost per unit time function.
Most studies on a periodic replacement policy focus on expected maintenance
and operational costs functions. One of the works, which take into account relia-
bility criteria is [81], where the authors present a simple block replacement model
for a series component system. The problem is to determine the optimum frequency
to perform preventive maintenance in equipment in order to ensure its availability.
For the simplified assumptions:
• constant repair rate of components,
• increasing hazard rate of components,
• perfect repair policy,
the objective function (defined as a cost function per unit time) is evaluated by:
" #
X
n cip ai Ai
ai cir
C ðA1 ; A2 ; . . .; An Þ ¼ þ ð2:27Þ
i¼1
2lð1 Ai Þ lð1 Ai Þ
subject to:
Y
n
Ai A ð2:28Þ
i¼1
The algorithm calculates the interval of time between PM actions for each
component, minimizing the costs in a certain period of time, when times to failure
are increasingly and repair times are non-negligible.
This problem is later continued in work [176], where the authors analyse PM
with imperfect repairs of a system with redundant components and focusing on
reliability criterion. The authors also consider the possibility of stochastic diagnosis
implementation. The solution bases on simulation modelling use.
The main maintenance models are aimed at optimization of the cycle length
T between preventive maintenance actions performance. There is also a number of
research works, which deal with the problem of cyclically scheduling maintenance
activities assuming a fixed cycle length. Grigoriev et al. [93] formulate a mainte-
nance scheduling problem to maintain a set of machines for a given determined
T. The study presents the completely deterministic approach to decide for each
period t 2 T which machine to service (if any) such that total servicing costs and
operating costs are minimized. The solution is obtained with the use of branch and
price algorithm. Another interesting maintenance problems regard to uncertain
lifetime of system units investigation (see e.g. [122]), repairable and non-repairable
failures of a system introduction (see e.g. [265]), heterogeneous components lives
of a system (see e.g. [212]), ergodic Markov environment implementation
(see e.g. [8], or nearly optimal and optimal PM assessment for real-life systems (see
e.g. [31, 34]). The quick overview of the given block-replacement policies is
presented in the tabular form in Table 2.7.
The block replacement policy is usually the basis for group maintenance policies
presented in the next section.
2.3.3 Group Maintenance Policies
Most of known technical systems are complex ones, where a deterioration and
failures might incur high costs (e.g. due to production losses, service interrupt) and
safety hazards. Following this, there is a growing interest in the modelling and
optimization of maintenance of multi-unit systems with components dependency
(i.e. stochastic/economic). Maintenance activity in this area usually regards to a
group of components.
A group maintenance is performed either when a fixed time interval is expired or
when a fixed number of units are failed, whichever comes first [261]. The main
classification of group replacement policies includes two main groups of models
(Fig. 2.14):
Table 2.7 Summary of block replacement policies for deteriorating multi-unit systems
Planning Optimality criterion Decision Modelling method Typical
Infinitive The expected long-run cost Ti Analytical/simulation [116]
(∞) per unit time T1, T2 [213]
T Analytical (hybrid [212, 281]
PM)
Analytical (expected [122]
and critical value
models)
Markov processes [8]
Embedded Markov [183]
chain
Analytical [139, 230,
231, 273,
278]
The expected long-run cost [81]
per unit time, system
availability
System availability T, pPM
i [238]
Ti [42]
System availability and T Analytical (matrix [265]
reliability Laplace
transformations)
Total operating and servicing T, Ti Branch and price [93]
cost algorithm
System reliability T Simulation [176]
GROUP REPLACEMENT MODELS
STATIC MODELS
DYNAMIC MODELS
GROUP REPLACEMENT MARKOV MODELS

MODELS where the
failure distributions are:
Dynamic
known unknown grouping policy
models which adapt the
long-term plan according
BAYESIAN GROUP to information becoming
REPLACEMENT POLICIES available on the short
term
T-age policy m-failure policy (m,T)-policy T-policy

system replacement system replacement system replacement system replacement
is performed after is performed at time is performed at time is performed after
every T units of time of mth failure of mth failure or at every T units of time
time T, whichever or at system failure,
occurs first whichever occurs
first
Fig. 2.14 Group replacement policies classification

• static maintenance models,

• dynamic maintenance models.
In the group of static maintenance models, there can be defined four main classes of
group replacement policies. A T-age policy, which assumes that system replacement is
performed after every T units of time. An m-failure policy, which calls for replacing a
system at the time of mth failure. The last policy, named (m, T)-policy combines
features of both of the described classes. Under such the policy, system replacement is
performed at the time of the mth failure or at time T, whichever occurs first. The
T-policy refers to the assumptions of the block replacement.
The presented classes of maintenance models are based on the assumption that a
failure distribution of a system is known with certainty. However, in practice the
failure distribution of a system is usually unknown or known with uncertain
parameters. In this case, there are proposed Bayesian group replacement policies.
Moreover, there are few group maintenance policies that based on dynamic
models implementation in order to change the planning rules according to
short-term information and for a finite time horizon [71].
First, the static models are considered. This group of replacement policies is very
popular due to the ease with which these models can be implemented in a real
production setting. As systems become more complicated and require new tech-
nologies or methodologies, various modifications of a basic group maintenance
model have been developed to solve maintenance problems. Types of the most
common group replacement models are presented in Fig. 2.15.
A number of replacement models have been proposed for two-unit systems.
Scarf and Deara [213] consider group maintenance policies for a two-unit system
with failure dependence. In their paper, the failure dependence is assumed that
whenever one component fails, it can induce the failure of the other component.
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 main assumptions presented in the Sect. 2.3.2, the long-run cost per
unit time may be estimated as:
2 3
ZT
1 4 12 5
CðTÞ ¼ c HðTÞ þ ð1 þ HðT tÞÞfs ðtÞdt þ c12 ð2:29Þ
T r p
0
More recently, Zequeira and Berenguer [282] introduce a simple group

replacement policy with periodic testing and inspections for a two-unit standby
parallel system with failure dependence. Under such the policy, components fail-
ures occur randomly, but are detected only by periodic testing or inspections. If the
component is found failed during the inspection, then corrective maintenance of the
whole system is performed. Besides periodic inspections, preventive maintenance
actions are scheduled for the system at a fixed time T since the end of the last
maintenance action (corrective or preventive). Taking into account the following
assumptions:
STATIC MODELS
T-age policy m-failure policy (m,T)-policy

* cost constraints * two-unit system * cost constraints * cost constraints
* multi-unit system in parallel * failure dependence * multi-unit system in * multi-unit system
* periodic replacement * minimal repair parallel * periodic replacement
* phase type distributions performance * periodic replacement
* phase type distributions
General (m,T)- [202]
T-age policy with [196] Economic periodic
[196] m-failure policy with policy
phase distributions replacement model [196]
phase distributions * phase type distributions
* multi-unit
series system
(m,T)-policy with [196]
Age-based group PM phase distributions
[218] T-policy
policy
* cost constraints
* two-unit system in parallel
* reliability constraints * cost constraints
* periodic replacement
* multi-unit system in series * two-unit system
* periodic replacement * periodic replacement
* failure dependence T-policy for 2-unit system [Haur’82]
Simple group Simple group * multi-unit system in

[42] parallel
replacement policy replacement policy [213] * compound
Simple T-policy [273] maintenance tasks
* minimal repair * periodic inspections
performance performance Extended T-
* PM performed if the total * minimal repair [14]
number of unit failures performance policy
Simple group Simple group
exceeds N1 until T
replacement model [42] replacement model [282]
with minimal repair with periodic testing (N1,T)-policy [273] T-policy with
[206]
minimal repair
* two types of components
* maintenance actions
failures introducing
performed only if the total
(minor/catastrophic)
number of unit failures
exceeds N1 until T
(Δδ,T)-policy [206] Two-phase group
N1-policy [273] maintenance policy [237]
61
Fig. 2.15 Static models for deteriorating systems

• maintenance actions render both components to “as good as new” condition,

• maintenance actions have constant durations,
• lifetimes of both components after system maintenance action are s-independent
up to the failure of the component,
• inspections or tests are reliable,
the expected costs per unit time due to testing, maintenance and accident conse-
quences are given by:
1
CðTÞ ¼ cin Nfin ðT; MÞ þ cr2 1 Pop ðMTÞ þ cp Pop ðMTÞ þ jcdw E½Tdw
T
ð2:30Þ
The solution of the presented model is provided for a simple case with numerical
examples.
The maintenance problem is solved by using the dynamic programming equation
in the framework of the theory of optimal control of jump processes.
Possible extension of the presented maintenance models for a two-unit system is
to develop multi-unit systems. Haurie and L’Ecuyer [97] consider a simple group
replacement model for a multi-component system having identical elements.
The system is comprised of n elements working independently under the same
conditions. During the operational cycle, if an element fails it has to be replaced by
a new one. Simultaneously, there are performed preventive actions, when repairman
can replace any number of working elements.
In another study, Yasui et al. [273] summarize the main basic group replacement
policies for an n-unit parallel redundant system.
The first investigated replacement policy assumes that the system is replaced
when all components fail or at the determined time T. The expected cost rate is
derived from:
nc1 þ cr FðTÞn
CðTÞ ¼ R T n
ð2:31Þ
0 ð1 FðTÞ Þdt
Next, suppose that system is replaced only at scheduled moment’s kT (k = 1, 2,

3, …) if the total number of unit failures exceeds N1 until this moment. The
expected cost ratio may be obtained as:
8 9
>
< X X
1 N 1 1
ðkZþ 1ÞT >
=
n
CðN1 Þ ¼ cdw ½FðkTÞi ½FðtÞ FðkTÞni dt þ nc1
>
: k¼0 i¼0 i >
;
kT ð2:32Þ
( )1
X X
1 N 1 1
n i ni
T ½FðkTÞ FðkTÞ
k¼0 i¼0 i
To modify this policy, let’s assume that the replacement of the system is per-
formed at system failure, or at periodic times kT (k = 1, 2, 3, …) if the total number
of unit failures exceeds N1 until the moment of preventive replacement. The
expected cost ratio is given as:
( )
X X
1 N 1 1
n i ni
CðN1 Þ ¼ cr ½FðkTÞ ½Fððk þ 1ÞTÞ FðkTÞ þ nc1
k¼0 i¼0 i
8 91
> ðkZþ 1ÞT (
ni ) >
<X X
1 N 1 1
n ni FðTÞ =
½FðkTÞi FðkTÞ 1 1 dt
>
: k¼0 i¼0 i FðkTÞ >
;
kT
ð2:33Þ
The expected cost ratio for the presented group replacement policies is also
obtained for an “nk-out-of-n” system.
The problem of periodic replacement in a group optimization strategy is anal-
ysed also in [14]. In this work the authors focus on compound maintenance tasks
that integrate several kinds of maintenance types. The model optimizes periodic
replacement and functional check from the viewpoint of the system.
In order to adapt the presented basic group replacement policies for practical use,
there is introduced minimal repair of failed components in a system before the
scheduled preventive maintenance action performance. One of the first work here is
[206], where the authors consider an optimal replacement problem of a
multi-component system, when components are minimally repaired at failures.
Taking into account the following assumptions:
• random and independent components’ failures,
• repair times of component i are independent and identically distributed,
• maintenance actions restores the system to “as good as new” condition,
there are investigated two main replacement policies under the cost constraint.
First, there is analysed the standard T-policy. The expression for the long-run
average cost per unit time is given by:
2 3
ZT
14
CðTÞ ¼ cr þ E ½ca ðtÞdt5 ð2:34Þ
T
0
An extension of the presented policy is the (Dd, T)-policy. Under such a policy,
the system is replaced at time T or at the first failure after time Dd, whichever comes
first. Now, the average cost per unit time has the following form:
hR i
minfYT ;Tg
cr þ E 0 ca ðtÞdt
Dd þ d PðYT [ tÞdt
Unfortunately, the computation of E[ca(t)] is possible only to obtain with an

approximation under some simplified assumptions [206].
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 component failures (minor/catastrophic), presented by Sheu and Jhang in
[237].
Under such the policy, there is defined a time-interval (0, T] as the first phase,
and a time interval (T, T + Dd] 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 removed 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 + Dd or upon the kth
idle, whichever comes first. At an inspection, all idle units are replaced with new
units and all functioning units are overhauled so that they become as good as new.
The long-run average cost per unit time for the generalized group maintenance
policy is given by:
Cop1 þ Cmr1 þ Cdw1 þ Con þ Cr1 þ Cin1

CðT; Dd ; kÞ ¼ ð2:36Þ
T þ E½b
Most of the multi-component maintenance models are aimed at optimizing the

expected maintenance and operational cost per unit time. In the article [42] the
authors propose a preventive maintenance strategy for a serial system consisting of
n components, not necessarily identical. For the following assumptions:
• random and stochastically independent components failures,
• instantaneous detection of failures,
• availability at any given time of resources required to undertake the
replacements,
there are investigated two replacement policies under reliability constraint.
The first proposed strategy is defined as follows: preventive replacement of a
system is undertaken at the same moment’s kT (k = 1, 2, 3, …). When any com-
ponent fails between consecutive PM actions, it is replaced by a new one.
Taking into account, that the maintenance of every components in the system is
made separately, PM of every component i is undertaken at moments kTi. The
stationary availability of every component i would be given by:
Tri Hi ðTi Þ þ Tpi

Ai ðTi Þ ¼ 1 ð2:37Þ
Ti
For the situation, when there is considered minimal repair performance instead
of replacement of failed components, the stationary availability of the system is
given by:
Pn R
i T
Pn
i¼1 Tr 0 ki ðtÞdt þ Tpf þ
i
i¼1 Tpv
AðTÞ ¼ ð2:38Þ
T
A simple T-age policy is investigated in work [136], where the authors introduce
an economic periodic replacement model for a two-unit system with failure
dependence and minimal repair. In the presented model, whenever unit 1 fails
causes an increase of the failure rate of unit 2 by a certain degree. Moreover, each
unit 2 failure induces unit 1 into instantaneous failure, and as a result system failure
occurrence.
The investigated maintenance policy bases on system replacement 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:
• continuously monitoring of the system,
• negligible repair and replacement times,
the long-run expected cost per unit time in the steady state is evaluated by:
RT
cp F 2 ðtÞ þ cr F2 ðtÞ þ 0 F 2 ðyÞcmr ðyÞk1 ðyÞdy
0 F 2 ðzÞdz
Later, Popova and Wilson [196] present a comparison of closed-form results for
expected cost function and variance per unit time, derived for the three major
classes of group replacement policies (a T-age, an m-failure and an (m, T) policy).
There is investigated a system comprised of n independent components working in
parallel structure. Failure time of the components has a phase distribution. The
assumptions taken into account are:
• variability of costs from cycle to cycle,
• maintenance actions render system components to “as good as new” condition,
• negligible repair time.
The expected cost per unit time for the T-age policy equals:
2 3
ZT
14
CðTÞ ¼ cp þ ncs þ ðcr cs ÞnFðTÞ þ ncdw FðtÞdt5 ð2:40Þ
T
0
The expected cost per unit time for the m-failure policy is given by:
1
CðTÞ ¼ cp þ mcr þ ðn mÞcs þ cdw E½Tdw ð2:41Þ
T
Finally, the expected cost per unit time for the (m, T) policy can by estimated as:
1
CðTÞ ¼ cp þ ncs þ ðcr cs ÞE½N þ cdw E½Tdw ð2:42Þ
T
Another extension of a simple T-age policy is also given in work [218], where
the authors introduce an optimal age-based group PM policy for a multi-unit series
system with positive economic dependence between components. A new mainte-
nance optimization model is formulated to determine the optimal group replacement
age for systems with multiple types of independent degradation processes in the
units. The general (m, T) group maintenance policies are investigated in [202],
where the authors use a renewal approach to minimize the long-run average cost per
unit time. The developed algorithm gives the possibility to apply general distri-
bution and cost structures.
In the literature, there can be found other types of static models that base on
Markov processes and Bayesian approach implementation (Fig. 2.16).
In particular, Popova [194] presents the optimal structure of Bayesian group
replacement policies for a parallel system of n items with exponential failure times
and random failure parameter. Each time a replacement decision is made all n items
are replaced.
From the renewal theory, the expected cost per unit time equals:
cp csal E½Nsal þ cdw E½Tdw

CðTÞ ¼ ð2:43Þ
T
For the defined cost constraint there is presented a discussion about optimality
results for group replacement policies for systems with n machines.
Taking a further step, Sheu et al. [241] propose an adaptive preventive main-
tenance model with minimal repair for a repairable system and develop a Bayesian
technique to derive an optimal maintenance policy.
In the discussed model, planned maintenance is carried out as soon as T time
units have elapsed since the last maintenance action. When the system fails before
age T, it is either correctively maintained (or replaced after (N − 1) maintenances)
or minimally repaired, depending on the random repair cost at failure. At the Nth
maintenance, the system is replaced rather than maintained. There are also defined
two types of system failures—minor failure, when minimal repair is performed, and
catastrophic failure—then corrective maintenance takes place. The objective is to
determine the optimal maintenance plan, which minimizes expected cost per unit of
time.
Maintenance of deteriorating systems is also frequently modelled using Markov
decision theory. In Gurler and Kaya [95] there is considered a multi-component
GROUP REPLACEMENT MODELS
STATIC MODELS DYNAMIC MODELS
GROUP REPLACEMENT MARKOV MODELS [95] DYNAMIC GROUPING

MODELS where the * marginal cost considerations POLICY
failure distributions are: * discrete-time Markov
* cost constraints
decision chains
* multi-unit system in series
SIMPLE GROUP * dynamic programming
REPLACEMENT MODEL [65]
SIMPLE DYNAMIC GROUP [267]
WITH MARGINAL COSTS REPLACEMENT POLICIES
Known Unknown * maintenance
opportunities * dynamic environment
* cost constraints
Presented * multi-unit system in parallel

in Fig. 2.11 * periodic replacement DYNAMIC GROUP GROUP REPLACEMENT
[71] [260]
SIMPLE BAYESIAN GROUP REPLACEMENT POLICIES POLICIES WITH DYNAMIC
[194]
REPLACEMENT POLICIES WITH MAINENANCE ENVIRONMENT
OPPORTUNITIES
* minimal repair performance
* heuristic approach
* economic profit of a group
BAYESIAN GROUP
REPLACEMENT POLICIES [241] DYNAMIC GROUP [70]
WITH MINIMAL REPAIR REPLACEMENT POLICIES
WITH MAINENANCE
LIMITATIONS
Fig. 2.16 Other types of group replacement models

67
system, where the lifetime of each component is described by several stages, which
are further classified as good, doubtful, PM due and down. The system is composed
of n identical and independently operating components which are connected in
series. The maintenance policy assumes that the system is replaced when a com-
ponent enters PM due or down state and the number of components in doubtful
states at that moment is at least N. The maintenance time is assumed to be negli-
gible. The proposed maintenance policy is described by a multi-dimensional
Markov process and optimization of maintenance parameters is carried out with the
use of numerical methods.
Other model of group maintenance policies based on marginal cost considera-
tions and formulated as a Markov decision chain, is given in Dekker and Roelvink
[65]. There is considered the group age replacement problem as a replacement
decision which is based on sufficient information about the history of the process,
being a vector containing all component ages.
Although, there can be found lots of studies, which investigate group mainte-
nance of multi-component systems as a Markov decision process, the state space in
such problems grows exponentially with the number of components, so the Markov
decision modelling is not tractable for systems with more than three components.
There are also a limited number of problems which can be solved based on
assumptions of Markov decision theory.
Taking into account the planning aspect, group maintenance models can be
classified as stationary or dynamic. In stationary models, there is assumed a
long-term stable situation, when the rules for maintenance do not change over the
planning horizon. The presented models in this overview mostly regard to this type.
However, stationary models cannot incorporate dynamically changing information
during operational process performance, such as a varying deterioration of com-
ponents or unexpected opportunities.
To take such short-term circumstances into account there are proposed dynamic
models, which can adapt the long-term plan according to information becoming
available on the short term. This yields a dynamic grouping policy.
Wildeman et al. [267] describe a rolling-horizon approach that takes a long-term
tentative plan as a basis for a subsequent adaptation according to information that
becomes available on the short term.
In this paper, there is considered a multi-component system with n components.
On each component i a PM activity i can be carried out. The approach presented in
this work enables interactive planning taking into account opportunities and a
varying use of components during operational processes performance. There is
proposed a dynamic-programming algorithm.
Later, in work [71] the authors investigate a dynamic grouping maintenance
strategy for multi-unit systems with positive economic dependence. The dynamic
context of the presented maintenance model is connected with maintenance
opportunities defined as inactivity periods of the systems at which several main-
tenance activities could be executed with reduced maintenance costs. These
maintenance opportunities are random in time. The problem is later continued in
work [70], where the authors introduce a maintenance grouping approach for
multi-unit systems in series. The considered systems are required to serve a

sequence of missions with limited breaks/stoppage durations while repairmen are
limited and may vary over time. There is also a rolling horizon approach
investigated.
Another interesting problem is presented in work [260], where the authors
develop a finite horizon (dynamic) model in order to optimize online a maintenance
strategy in the presence of dynamic context (e.g. change of environment, working
condition, production process). The authors introduce a heuristic optimization
approach to solve the defined maintenance grouping strategy problem.
Other replacement problems that are investigated in the area of grouping main-
tenance models regard to e.g. risk management (see e.g. [175]), continuous deteri-
orating process implementation (see e.g. [284]), or joint optimization of production
scheduling (see e.g. [272]). In work [175] the author analyses the correlation
between potential human error, grouping maintenance and major accident risk. In
work [284] the authors introduce the novel stochastic Petri-Net and genetic algo-
rithm based approach to solve maintenance modelling and optimization problems.
The authors in [272] present a Bayesian approach to develop a joint optimization
model connecting group PM with production scheduling of a series system. The
quick summary of group maintenance policies is presented in Table 2.8.
2.3.4 Opportunity-Based Maintenance Policies
During performance processes of a multi-unit system some maintenance opportu-

nities may occur due to e.g. breakdowns of units in a series configuration. In most
cases opportunities cannot be predicted in advance and, because of their random
occurrence, there can be used opportunistic maintenance models to make effective
maintenance planning. Types of opportunistic maintenance policies, considered in
this Chapter are mostly based on [285] and includes four main groups of mainte-
nance policies:
• age-based opportunity maintenance models,
• failure-based opportunity maintenance models,
• opportunity and condition-based maintenance models,
• mixed PM models that consider different types of maintenance policies
implementation.
The detailed classification of the given opportunity-based maintenance policies
is presented in Fig. 2.17.
First, age-based PM models are summarized (Fig. 2.17). One of the earliest
treatments of the opportunistic replacement policy is the study of Radner and
Jorgensen [198]. There is considered an opportunistic replacement of a single
uninspected part in the presence of several monitored parts. The policy has the
(Tiy,T) structure such that uninspected part is replaced alone on its failure or at the
arrival of its preventive replacement age T, and replaced opportunistically with a
Table 2.8 Summary of group maintenance policies for deteriorating multi-unit systems
Planning Type of group Optimality criterion Modelling method Typical
horizon maintenance reference
Infinite Static (T- The long-run cost per Analytical [206,
(∞) policy) unit time 213,
282]
The expected cost per [237]
unit time
The expected cost rate [273]
System maintenance [14]
cost in a unit time
Stationary availability [42]
Expected discounted Control theory of [97]
cost to go jump process/
dynamic
programming
Static (T-age The long run expected Analytical [136,
policy) cost per unit of time 218]
Static (T-age The expected cost per [196,
policy, m- unit time 202]
failure policy,
(m, T)-policy)
Static The long run expected Bayesian approach [175,
cost per unit of time 194,
241]
The long-run average Markov processes [95]
maintenance cost per Discrete-time [65]
unit time Markov decision
chains/simulation
Total maintenance Petri-net and GA [284]
possession time and based approach
cost
Total maintenance Random-key genetic [272]
costs algorithm
Finite Dynamic The long-term tentative Dynamic [267]
rolling plan programming
horizon The economic profit of Heuristic approach [70]
group based on genetic
algorithm and
MULTIFIT
algorithm
The economic profit of Heuristic approach [260]
group based on GA
Penalty cost function, Analytical [71]
total maintenance cost
savings over the
scheduling interval
OPPORTUNISTIC MAINTENANCE MODELS
* economic * stochastic
dependence dependence
BASED ON AGE-BASED REPLACEMENT FAILURE-BASED BASED ON CBM MIXED MODELS

STRATEGY MAINTENANCE STRATEGY STRATEGY
* cost constraints
* single uninspected part
Presented in Fig. 2.18 Presented in Fig. 2.19 Presented in Fig. 2.19
* components’ age
in the presence of several thresholds values
monitored parts * imperfect maintenance * continuous operation of units
* periodic replacement * maintenance of wind farm * series n-element system
(Tyi,T)-policy [198] OPPORTUNISTIC OPPORTUNITY-BASED OPPORTUNISTIC

MAINTENANCE WITH [69] AGE-BASED [134]
* two-component MAINTENANCE FOR
series system IMPERFECT REPLACEMENT PRODUCTION SYSTEM
MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS
* data uncertainty
(Ty,T)-policies [254] Presented in details in
* age grouping of components
* deterministic Subchapter 2.2.1. EXTENDED
approach * production capacity availability
OPPORTUNISTIC OPPORTUNISTIC [133]

* imperfect production
MAINTENANCE WITH * production facility maintenance MAINTENANCE FOR
REPLACEMENT [209]
MULTI-LEVEL PRODUCTION SYSTEM
MODEL IN [82] OPTIMAL OPM WITH
DETERMINISTIC PREVENTIVE [283]
BUFFER INVENTORY * disassembly sequence
ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY * minimal repair of failed
components
OPPORTUNISTIC
* replacement interval MAINTENANCE FOR
MULTI-UNIT SYSTEMS [292]
OPPORTUNITSTIC WITH DISSASEMBLY
MAINTENANCE WITH [94]
SEQUENCE
INDIRECT GROUPING
Fig. 2.17 Opportunity-based maintenance policies for deteriorating multi-unit systems

71
failed part i, if its age has reached a critical age Tiy. The presented approach is
continued by van der Duyn Schouten and Vanneste in [254], where the authors
investigate a maintenance problem of a two-component series system, taking into
account the possibility of (Ty, T)-strategies application. The presented maintenance
policy is to be the natural two-dimensional generalization of the one-dimensional
control-limit rules.
In another study, Epstein and Wilamowsky [82] present the deterministic
approach to investigate an opportunistic replacement problem of a two-component
system. The considered problem is defined as finding the optimal maintenance plan,
when the exact time of both failure and maintenance opportunities are known at the
outset.
Moreover, in [94] the authors propose a different approach for opportunistic
maintenance performance with indirect grouping of preventive replacements. In the
presented article, the authors develop a depth-first shortest path algorithm that is
used as a solution of opportunistic indirect grouping of periodic events problem.
A system is comprised of a set of components undergoing PM activities with PM
periodicities having allowable windows for opportunistic grouping.
In this group of opportunistic maintenance models, there can be also defined
opportunity-based age-based maintenance problems that are analysed more deeply
in the Sect. 2.3.1. However, it’s worth mentioning here the maintenance models
developed for production systems performance. One of the first analysed work is
[283], where the authors investigate an optimal maintenance policy for a manu-
facturing facility and an optimal buffer inventory to satisfy a demand during the
interruption period connected with maintenance action performance. The authors
also consider the possibility of imperfect production. Later, the opportunistic
maintenance for production systems is investigated in [134]. The presented model
takes into account for example production losses due to unexpected shutdown
occurrence. The authors develop a preventive/corrective/opportunistic maintenance
plan for a multi-component system subjected to high production losses and eco-
nomic dependence. The solution is based on Monte Carlo technique use. This
problem is later continued in [133], where the authors investigate an opportunistic
maintenance model in the context of data uncertainty. The statistical uncertainties in
the evaluation of the expected maintenance and emergency costs are estimated with
the use of Bootstrap technique.
Later, in work [292] the authors develop a time window based PM model for a
multi-component system with stochastic dependence and disassembly sequence
involved. The given opportunistic maintenance model is based on the time window
theory, under which all the system components, whose original PM moments are
within the time window, will be preventively maintained together. The optimal PM
practice is obtained by minimizing the cumulative maintenance cost throughout the
given time horizon.
Moreover, in [69, 209] the authors focus on opportunistic maintenance for wind
farms. In work [69] the authors consider opportunistic maintenance policies that
base on component’s age threshold values and different imperfect maintenance
thresholds for failure turbines and working turbines. Three types of PM actions are
considered (perfect/imperfect/two-level action). This problem is later continued in

work [209], where the authors introduce age grouping of components. Both models
are solved with the use of simulation method.
The second group of opportunistic maintenance models regards to failure-based
maintenance strategies (Fig. 2.18).
Here, Fard and Zheng [83] discuss an opportunistic 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 − uf, L) are also replaced.
Taking into account the following simplified assumptions:
• increasing in cycle time hazard rate of units,
• negligible replacement time of units,
• infinite planning horizon,
• s-independent failure events,
from the renewal theory, the expected system cost rate in the steady state is
given:
X
n1
1
CðL; uf Þ ¼ ni ðcr þ crf ÞPðfi Þ þ cp Pðpi Þ þ ðcp þ crf ÞPðair Þ ð2:44Þ
i¼1
E½Tci
The presented model has been modified in Zheng and Fard [291]. In this paper,
there is considered a repairable multi-unit system operating under the same
replacement policy with one exception. When a unit fails with the hazard rate in (0,
L − uf), 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:
X
n1

1 rmr
CðL; uf Þ ¼ ni cmr þ
HðDi Þ þ ðcr þ crf ÞPðfi Þ
E½Tci l
i¼1
ð2:45Þ
crf
þ cp Pðpi Þ þ cp þ Pðair Þ
1 þ mi
In another study, Pham and Wang [186] discuss an opportunistic maintenance of

an nk-out-of-n: G system with imperfect PM and allowable partial failure
occurrence.
There is designed the following maintenance policy: each failure of a system
component in the time interval (0, Dd) is immediately removed by a minimal repair.
Components which fail in the time interval (Dd, 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 components
fail in the time interval (Dd, T), CM combined with PM is undertaken; if less than
m components fail in the time interval (Dd, T), then PM is carried out at time T.
74

BASED ON AGE-BASED FAILURE-BASED BASED ON CBM MIXED MODELS

REPLACEMENT STRATEGY MAINTENANCE STRATEGY STRATEGY
Presented in Fig. 2.17 * production system
Presented in Fig. 2.19 Presented in Fig. 2.19
* cost constraints
* non-repairable multi-unit system maintenance models
* shock models * multi-criteria models (multi-attribute model)
* periodic replacement implementation * advanced postpone balancing introduction
* non-linear deterioration
(L-uf,L)-policy FOR OPPORTUNISTIC process
OPPORTUNISTIC
2
[83] [56] * imperfect maintenance

NON-REPAIRABLE MAINTENNCE FOR MAINTENANCE FOR [271]
SYSTEM MULTI-UNIT SYSTEM PRODUCTION SYSTEM
SUBJECTED TO SHOCKS OPPORTUNISTIC
* multi-unit
MAINTENANCE FOR * maintenance decision making
repairable system [101]
* risk-based modelling PRODUCTION SYSTEM problem
* signal and reliability models * minimal repair, opportunistic
(L-uf,L)-policy [291] WITH IMPERFECT maintenance and PM
RISK-BASED MAINTENANCE
* minimal repair OPPORTUNISTIC
performance
OPPORTUNISTIC [19] * investigation of components MAINTENANCE FOR [36]
* nk-out-of-n:G system MAINTENANCE FOR failure influence on manufactured
* perfect/imperfect PM MULTI-UNIT SYSTEM COGENERATION
products quality
SYSTEM
(Δδ,T )-policy [186] * safety factors for maintenance
opportunities OPPORTUNISTIC
MAINTENANCE WITH [249, 250]
EXTENDED RISK- PRODUCT QUALITY
BASED [102] CONSIDERATIONS
OPPORTUNISTIC
MAINTENANCE FOR
MULTI-UNIT SYSTEM
Fig. 2.18 Failure-based opportunity maintenance policies for deteriorating multi-unit systems
For the following supplementary assumptions:

• s-independent failure events,
• negligible time of minimal repair,
• age-dependent and number of minimal repairs-dependent minimal repair costs,
• increasing failure rate of every component,
• perfect preventive maintenance,
there are obtained the limiting average system availability for an infinite planning
horizon:
R TDd
Dd þ F m ðtÞdt
AðDd ; TÞ ¼ R TDd
0
ð2:46Þ
Dd þ 0 F m ðtÞdt þ Tp2 þ Fm ðT Dd ÞðTf Tp2 Þ
and the expected system maintenance cost per unit time:

R Dd
n /ðyÞkðyÞdy þ Fm ðT Dd Þðcf cp Þ þ cp
CðDd ; TÞ ¼ 0
R TDd ð2:47Þ
Dd þ 0 F m ðtÞdt þ Tp2 þ Fm ðT Dd ÞðTf Tp2 Þ
When taking into account that PM actions are imperfect, the expressions for
expected system maintenance cost per unit time and limiting system stationary
availability also are developed.
The introduction of a multi-component cumulative damage shock model to study
opportunistic maintenance for a system with stochastically dependent components
is presented in [56]. The authors in their work investigate also the dependence
between components’ natural positive aging properties, shock damages, repair
degrees and the number of failure occurrences. The problem of shock models in
opportunistic maintenance is also considered in work [19]. The authors in their
work develop a signal model to compete risks of opportunistic maintenance. They
assume that a system vulnerability to shock occurrence is dependent on its dete-
rioration level. The presented solution takes into account signals related to changes
in the system’s deterioration state in order to assess risk and inform maintenance
decisions. The risk-based opportunistic maintenance model is also analysed in
[102]. In the given work the authors present the model that utilizes risk evaluation
of system shutdown caused by component failure. The proposed approach is based
on the analysis of fault coupling features of a complex mechanical system, taking
into account both of age and risk factors.
Another group of failure based opportunistic maintenance models is dedicated to
production system maintenance optimization. First work [101] proposes an
opportunistic maintenance policy for a multi-unit series production system with
imperfect maintenance. The model takes into account a nonlinear deterioration
process with age or time. The system state is deteriorating with the increasing
failure fate of the units. The reduction of failure rate of unit after a repair is
described by the effective age renewal factor.
The problem of components failure influence on manufactured products quality

is investigated in [249, 250]. The authors in these works develop an opportunistic
maintenance approach for a multi-component system to take an optimal mainte-
nance decision by selecting maintenance actions for each component during a
planned or an unplanned opportunity.
Moreover, there are a few papers that deal with an opportunistic maintenance
policy under a multi-criteria perspective. The main research studies regard to a
production system performance (see e.g. [271]) and a power plant (see e.g. [36]). In
the first paper [271] the authors develop a multi-attribute model (MAM) to obtain
maintenance intervals according to individual machine degradation. Moreover, the
advance-postpone balancing (APB) is used to define set-up times as opportunities to
make real-time schedules for system-level maintenance. The second model given in
[36] uses a multi-attribute value function in the field of maintenance decision-
making for a cogeneration system in north-eastern Brazil. The included mainte-
nance policies regard to minimal repairs, opportunistic maintenance and PM.
The overview of predictive maintenance policies is given in Fig. 2.19.
A classical opportunistic maintenance policy that combines corrective and pre-
ventive (predictive) maintenance activities for a two-unit system, which consists of
a deteriorating unit with CBM and a unit with Poisson failure, is given in [45]. To
get the multi-threshold control-limit policy, the authors introduce the improved
Markov decision approach.
A reliability-based opportunistic predictive maintenance model for deteriorating
systems in nk-out-of-n reliability structure is given in [104]. In the presented model
the authors assume that maintenance decision-making is based on the conditional
reliability instead of a classical condition index of degradation level. The intro-
duction of Gamma process for degradation failure description is given in [44]. The
authors in this work develop an improved opportunistic policy to combine cor-
rective and condition-based maintenance.
An opportunistic CBM policy for multi-bladed offshore wind turbine systems
subjected to stress corrosion cracking (SCC) and environmental shocks is given in
[219]. Following this, the system is subjected to internal (gradual degradation in
form of SCC) and external damages, which arise from marine incidents in the
offshore operating environment.
Condition-based opportunistic maintenance models include also the issues of
dynamic opportunistic maintenance policy optimization. First, the authors in [294]
develop a dynamic opportunistic maintenance policy for a continuously monitored
multi-unit series system with imperfect maintenance. The model bases on a
short-term optimization. It is also assumed that a unit’s hazard rate distribution in
the current maintenance cycle can be directly derived through condition-based
predictive maintenance. This problem is later investigated in [244], where the
authors present a dynamic opportunistic condition-based maintenance strategy
which is based on real-time predictions of the remaining useful life of components
that have stochastic and economic dependencies.
The last group of opportunistic maintenance models regards to mixed PM
models, where different kind of PM policies are implemented in order to achieve an
BASED ON AGE-BASED BASED ON CBM FAILURE-BASED MIXED MODELS

REPLACEMENT STRATEGY STRATEGY MAINTENANCE STRATEGY
Presented in Fig. 2.17 Presented in Fig. 2.18
* multi-unit series system * periodic maintenance
* short-term optimization * 2-unit system and minimal repair * periodic PM and
* hazard rate distribution * Markov decision * opportunistic sequential PM
approach inspection
DYNAMIC OPTIMAL MIXED PM MODEL WITH OPPORTUNISTIC
OPPORTUNISTIC [294] OPPORTUNISTIC OPPORTUNISTIC [248] MAINTENANCE WITH [293]
[45]
MAINTENANCE FOR MAINTENANCE BASED INSPECTIONS COMBINED PM
CONTINUOUSLY ON INSPECTION AND TECHNIQUES
MONITORED SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
* economic and stochastic POLICY
dependence * nk-out-of-n deteriorating system
* real-time prediction of
* reliability model
remaining useful life
EXTENDED DYNAMIC RELIABIILTY-BASED

[244] OPPORTUNISTIC [104]
OPPORTUNISTIC
MAINTENANCE MODEL MAINTENANCE MODEL
* series system
* shock models
* economic dependence
* offshore wind turbine
* deterioration rule
blades investigated
given by Gamma
process
EXTENDED OPTIMAL OPPORTUNISTIC CONDITION-
[44] [219]
OPPORTUNISTIC BASED MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE MODEL POLICY FOR OFFSHORE WIND
TURBINE BLADES
Fig. 2.19 Condition-based opportunity maintenance policies and mixed models for deteriorating multi-unit systems
77
optimal maintenance strategy for multi-unit systems. In work [293] the authors
propose a dynamic opportunistic PM optimization policy for multi-unit series
systems that integrates two PM techniques: periodic PM and sequential PM poli-
cies. Whenever one unit reaches its reliability threshold level, the whole system has
to stop and at that time PM opportunities arise for other units of the system. The
optimal PM policy is determined by maximizing the short-term cumulative
opportunistic maintenance cost savings of the whole system. The second interesting
model is given in [248], where the authors develop a maintenance model for
multi-component systems with two types of failures (soft failures and hard failures).
Soft failures do not stop the system from operating and are detected at inspections.
Hard failures provide an opportunity (opportunistic inspections) to inspect and fix
soft failures. The first model also introduces minimal repairs of soft and hard
failures, in the second model—components with hard failures are to be replaced.
However, a key conclusion from the literature on multi-component maintenance
models is that optimal maintenance policies are difficult to compute and, because of
their complex form, it is very difficult to use them in practice. For this reason, there
have been developed some other methods, which give the opportunity to obtain
models designed to yield practical, easy to implement policies. For example, Hopp
and Kuo [100] develop three heuristics and a lower bound for a system with all
non-safety-critical components. First, a hierarchical approach for scheduling
replacement epochs for n components is defined. Later, the obtained results are
compared to other heuristics: a sequential approach and a base interval approach. In
another study, Haque et al. [98] apply genetic algorithms with fuzzy logic controller
to get a near optimal decision for opportunistic replacement of a multi-unit system.
Other example of genetic algorithms implementation may be found in [205], where
the authors implement a maintenance records analysis to provide critical informa-
tion from past experience to improve current maintenance process. The example of
fuzzy modelling implementation is given in [67], where the authors present a new
fuzzy methodology to assess component proximity in the design phase to impact
design out maintenance. Bayesian perspective in opportunistic maintenance is
investigated in [103], where the authors propose a PM policy for multi-component
systems based on DBN (dynamic Bayesian networks)—HAZOP model. The use of
expert judgement to parameterize a model for degradation, maintenance and repair
is provided in [18].
Moreover, there can be found research studies that base on the implementation
of e.g. linear programming (see e.g. [96]), dynamic programming (see e.g. [123]),
theory of optimal stopping (see e.g. [108]), and simulations (see e.g. [10]).
A generalized modelling method for maintenance optimization of single- and
multi-unit systems is given in [285]. The summary of opportunity-based mainte-
nance policies is presented in Table 2.9.
Table 2.9 Summary of opportunity-based maintenance policies for deteriorating multi-unit

systems
Planning Maintenance Optimality criterion Modelling Typical
horizon model method reference
Infinite Age-based Expected total discounted time/ Analytical [198]
(∞) expected total discounted value
of good time minus costs, total
discounted good time versus
cost ratio
Cost rate [283]
Expected long-run cost per unit Analytical [82]
time (deterministic
problem)
Optimal production stops Odds [108]
algorithm-based
approach
One-step cost function Discrete-time [254]
Markov chain
Total expected maintenance cost Simulation [69]
per unit per day
Total maintenance cost [209]
The expected cost per unit time Monte Carlo [134]
simulation
MC simulation [133]
and Bootstrap
technique
Finite Total maintenance cost in a Shortest path [94]
given time period algorithm
The total maintenance cost Linear [96]
programming
The cumulative maintenance Monte Carlo [292]
cost in a given time horizon simulation
The average cost per unit time Heuristic [100]
approach
Infinite Failure-based Expected system cost rate Analytical [83]
(∞) The long-run mean cost rate [291]
Long-run expected system [186]
maintenance cost per unit time
Number of failures Analytical/ [56]
coupling
technique
The total maintenance cost rate Dynamic [102]
simulation
Signals of failure state and Signal model/ [19]
degradation state of a simulation
component
System availability MAM [36]
(continued)
Table 2.9 (continued)

Planning Maintenance Optimality criterion Modelling Typical
horizon model method reference
Finite Failure-based The expected total maintenance Analytical [101]
cost
The total maintenance cost Simulation [249]
Genetic [250]
algorithm
MAM-APB [271]
model
Survival function Expert judgment [18]
The total maintenance cost Genetic [205]
algorithm
Infinite Condition-based The long-run expected Simulation [104]
(∞) maintenance cost rate
The long-run average Markov decision [45]
maintenance cost rate process
Analytical [44]
The long-run average [219]
maintenance cost per blade and
per time unit
Finite Cumulative OM cost saving [294]
The long-term average [244]
maintenance cost
The expected total cost per unit Dynamic [103]
time Bayesian
networks
Infinite Mixed PM Joint stationary probability A deterioration [285]
(∞) state space
partition method
Optimal total cost Discrete-event [10]
simulation
model
Finite The expected cost incurred in a Analytical [248]
cycle
The total maintenance cost per [293]
unit time
Average net benefit over failure Genetic [98]
replacement policy algorithm
The expected maintenance cost Dynamic [123]
programming
– Components proximity measure Fuzzy approach [67]
2.3.5 Cannibalization Maintenance Policies
Cannibalization in maintenance occurs when a failed unit in a system is replaced

with a functioning component from another system that is failed for some other
reason [180]. The key issue in cannibalization is how to use the component of failed
units to maximize the number of working units. Thus, cannibalization actions are
often used in the systems with large costs associated with their critical components
maintenance and operation (e.g. critical infrastructures, transport systems, pro-
duction systems).
In the recent literature, there is a significant amount of research on the use of
mathematical modelling to analyse the effects of cannibalization. For literature
survey see e.g. [173, 221].
Following e.g. [148, 180], this research can be separated into the three main
approaches (Fig. 2.20):
• reliability-based models,
• inventory-based maintenance models,
• simulation (queueing) maintenance models.
The first group of maintenance models is focused on computing system relia-
bility. One of the first mathematical models of cannibalization is described by
Warren M Hirsch (according to the authors of [173]). This mathematician intro-
duces a reliability model of multi-component, multi-state systems subject to can-
nibalization. The system is assumed to consist of location linked together in some
manner, and associated with each location is a part type. It is assumed that initially
there are a finite number of spares of each part type and that no more spares become
available. If a failure occurs for which no spare replacement is available, the parts
are interchanged or cannibalized to allocate the shortages to locations, where they
have the least degrading effect on the systems state. This model is later extended in
work [247]. The author considers multi-component multi-state systems subject to
cannibalization in which only one-way interchangeability restrictions exist. The
allocation model is also analysed in work [17], where the author develops a theory
of cannibalization for continuum structure functions. Moreover, in work [125] the
authors investigate and compare six cannibalization policies, from no cannibal-
ization to unrestricted cannibalization providing four measures of system perfor-
mance. The simulation study consists of a factorial design with 14 levels of system
redundancy, 3 levels of the number of part-types, and 6 levels of the cannibalization
policy, for a total of 252 cells (every cell = 15 trials).
Another interesting approach is given in [148], where the authors develop a
selective maintenance model considering cannibalization. In the presented paper,
the model captures multiple systems, multiple maintenance actions (replacement,
PM, cannibalization, minimal repair), multiple maintenance resources, and multiple
tasks assignment. The model solution is based on a decomposition algorithm
implementation.
82
CANNIBALIZATION MODELS
RELIABILITY-BASED MODELS SIMULATION MODELS INVENTORY-BASED MAINTENANCE

* closed-network, discrete-event MODELS (METRIC MODEL)
simulation model * inventory cost with
* multi-component multi- *manufacturing system comprised of set cannibalization
state systems of parallel machines
* allocation model * cannibalization estimations
* decision support tool
MIXED MODELS (e.g. * multi-echelon model
CANNIBALIZATION [99]
SIMPLE RLIABILITY reverse logistics) DECISION SUPPORT RATES PREDICTION
MODEL FOR SYSTEMS [173] TOOL FOR EFFECTIVE [180] MODEL
SUBJECT TO MAINTENANCE
CANNIBALIZATION PERFORMANCE
* fleet performance
2
* admissible cannibalization * comparison of 6 different

* one-way restrictions maintenance policies * average readiness/total
maintenance costs
OPTIMAL CANNIBALIZATION DECISION SUPPORT
[125] * supply problem and multi-
REPLACEMENT POLICIES FOR TOOL FOR FLEET [204] item inventory problem
[247]
POLICY FOR SYSTEM MULTISTATE SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE *aircraft maintenance
SUBJECT TO * single-echelon model
* non-linear programming
CANNIBALIZATION * selective maintenance
EXTENDED METRIC [222]
* cannibalization for continuum SELECTIVE
structure functions (CSF)
MODEL
MAINTENANCE MODEL [148]
WITH * products retail problem
CANNIBALIZATION * multi-echelon model
[17] * demand cannibalization
MODEL WITH CSFs CANNIBALIZATION
index estimation
AIRCRAFT [90] MULTI-ITEM
AVAILABILITY MODEL INVENTORY PROBLEM [220]
FOR SYSTEMS WITH
* single site and multi- CANNIBALIZATION
indenture models
* DRIVE model
EXTENDED AIRCRAFT [221]
AVAILABILITY MODEL
Fig. 2.20 Cannibalization maintenance policies for deteriorating multi-unit systems

Moreover, in this group of maintenance policies there can be defined some mixed
maintenance models that regard to optimization of recovery policy parameters of
production systems (see e.g. [117, 173]), prediction of number of equipment’s units
available in the future (see e.g. [33]), or performance of a maintenance system with
spares, repair, cannibalization and manpower constraints (see e.g. [85]).
The beneficial extension to previous cannibalization research is the development
of simulation-based maintenance models with cannibalization. For example, the
authors in work [180] develop a closed-network, multi-echelon, discrete-event
simulation model that is used to investigate the effects of cannibalization and other
maintenance policies on a manufacturing system consisting of a set of parallel
machines. The presented model is also used as a decision-support tool for meeting
maintenance investment objectives while adhering to production capacity con-
straints. The problem of fleet maintenance is investigated in [204]. The authors in
their work focus on the development and analysis of a closed-network, discrete-
event simulation model that is used to assess the impacts of cannibalization, small
spare parts inventories and maintenance-induced damage on a fleet of systems. The
fleet performance is evaluated with the use of average readiness and total mainte-
nance cost.
The last class of models considers the use of cannibalization as compensation for
spare parts inventory shortages. In this research area, one of the first works that
address the cannibalization maintenance problems regards to a METRIC (Multi-
Echelon Technique for Recoverable Item Control) model development [173, 266].
This mathematical model utilizes Bayesian probability theory for estimating base
and depot stock levels for recoverable items [222]. Spare levels are allocated by
optimizing the minimum expected number of backorders for all bases. This model
serves the foundation for several future studies. First, an extended METRIC model
is given in [222], where the author develops NORS—the model that estimates the
expected number of aircraft not operationally ready at a random point in time due to
supply. The developed model is a multi-level problem, where demand on a
first-level line replaceable unit eventually causes second-level demands for one or
more modules that re-components of this replaceable unit. Only a single-echelon
model is here addressed.
The problem of aircraft availability as a function of stock levels allocated to a
single base is given in [90]. The authors in their work introduce an Aircraft
Availability Model (AAM), a multi-echelon computation of safety stock for aircraft
recoverable spares. The aircraft availability with and without cannibalization is here
investigated. Later, the author in [221] investigates a DRIVE (Distribution and
Repair in Variable Environments) model for aircraft maintenance. The obtained
solution covers a single site and multi-indenture models.
In the next work [220] the authors consider a model for a retailer multi-item
inventory problem with demand cannibalization and substitution. Based on a
heuristic approach, the authors focus on the twin problems of optimal portfolio
selection and optimal stocking under retailing evaluation.
The last problem regards to cannibalization rates prediction in order to achieve a
specified operational goals. This problem is considered in work [Hoov’02], where the
authors establish the relationship between cannibalization rates, customer waiting

time for needed spare parts, full-mission-capable rates, and gross effectiveness.
Moreover, cannibalization maintenance issues are investigated in the literature in the
aspect of performance indicators analysis (see e.g. [6, 57]), where the authors present
the main metrics used in Balanced Scorecard in naval aviation [6] and main canni-
balization metrics used in Naval and Air Force [57]. The problem of product canni-
balization influence on consumers behaviour is investigated e.g. in [155]. The quick
overview of the presented above maintenance models is given in Table 2.10.
Table 2.10 Summary of cannibalization maintenance policies for deteriorating multi-unit systems
Optimality criterion Approach Modelling method Typical
reference
System minimum condition Reliability-based Analytical [247]
Cannibalized structure function (allocation model) [17]
Four measures: expected system state, Analytical [125]
defectives per failed machine, MTTCF*, (allocation model)/
total cannibalizations simulation
The survival function of number of units Analytical [33]
of equipment available or use at the end of
given time period
System reliability for mission Non-linear [148]
programming
Total profit resulting from a component Simulation [117]
reusing
Reasons for product returns Case study [173]
Expected number of inoperative machines Markov process [85]
The average total maintenance Simulation-based A closed-network, [180]
investments discrete-event
Average total maintenance costs/average simulation [204]
fleet readiness
NORS rate Inventory-based NORS model [222]
Optimal portfolio, optimal stock level Allocation [220]
problem—
heuristic approach
The expected availability objective DRIVE model [221]
function
Aircraft availability Analytical (AAM [90]
model)
Cannibalization rates Analytical [99]
Cannibalization rates Performance [6]
indicators analysis
Product cannibalization Statistical data [155]
analysis
e.g. Inter-squadron cannibalization Balanced [57]
scorecard
*
MTTCF – Mean Time To Critical Failure
2.4 Summary 85
2.4 Summary
Those maintenance models that may be applicable to single independent units are
referred to as models for single-unit systems. Here a unit may be perceived as a
component,
In the presented chapter, there is reviewed the literature on the most commonly
used optimal single- and multi-component maintenance models. However, due to
the plethora of studies that regard to preventive maintenance issues, there is no
possibility to present all of the known models. Thus, the author would like to
underline just a few of the other problems that are investigated in the literature:
• influence of random environments on technical system performance (see e.g.
[109, 181]),
• maintenance of systems with obsolescence (see e.g. [28, 156, 295]),
• spare part optimization issues (see e.g. [43, 79, 89, 193, 256]),
• data uncertainty (see e.g. [179, 246, 279]),
• maintenance decision-making issues (see e.g. [170, 203]),
• prognostic health management (see e.g. [87]),
• selective maintenance issues for multi-state systems (see e.g. [59, 60]),
• integrated production and preventive maintenance problems (see e.g. [4]).
Moreover, the given literature overview let the author draw the following main
conclusions:
• The main mathematical methods used for analysing maintenance scheduling
problems include: applied probability theory, renewal reward processes, and
Markov decision theory. However, there are a lot of maintenance problems,
where the functional relationship between a system’s input and output param-
eters cannot be described analytically. Thus, in practice there have been
developed various maintenance models which apply linear and nonlinear pro-
gramming, dynamic programming, simulation processes, genetic algorithms,
Bayesian approach, and heuristic approaches, which were only mentioned in the
presented overview.
• Most maintenance models to obtain optimal maintenance parameters take into
account only the cost constraint. However, maintenance actions are aimed at
improving system dependability. For complex systems, where various types of
components have different maintenance cost and different reliability importance
in a system, it is more appropriate to analyse an optimal maintenance policy
under cost and reliability constraints simultaneously.
• Many maintenance models consider the grouping of maintenance activities on a
long-term basis with an infinitive horizon. In practice, planning horizons are
usually finite for a number of reasons: information is only available over the
short term, a modification of a system changes the maintenance problem
completely, and some events are unpredictable.
• In the most existing literature on maintenance theory, maintenance time is

assumed to be negligible. This assumption makes e.g. availability modelling
impossible or unrealistic. Obtained results are not traceable to practical
situations.
• Most of maintenance models for complex systems are based on 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 behaviour.
• Most maintenance models assume that whenever a system component is to be
replaced, a new component is immediately available. This implies either that
components are highly standardized so that there can be immediately delivered
from suppliers, or that they are so inexpensive, that there can be stored large
amount of spares as a protection against system failures. Taking into account the
‘real life situations’, a number of spare parts is usually limited and a procure-
ment lead-time is non-negligible. This implies, that a maintenance policy and a
spare provisioning policy must be closely coupled, because separate treatment
of them will not result in a system optimal maintenance policy achievement.
• Maintenance modelling development during the last decades has taken into
account the application of imperfect PM, system performance under uncertainty
(e.g. lack of information, unknown distribution functions of components), dif-
ferent type of system failures occurrence, dynamic grouping, inspection main-
tenance, etc. However, the more extended model is considered with various
maintenance parameters and more complex system behaviour, the robust opti-
mal solution is to obtain.
• From the theoretical point of view, much of the maintenance work is of
mathematical interest only exploring modelling methods. That is one of the
reasons, why application of maintenance models has been rather limited in
practice. The difficulty with application of maintenance models lies in making
models simple enough to be both tractable and accessible to practitioners.
• Moreover, maintenance and replacement decisions are based 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. Abdel-Hameed M (1995) Inspection, maintenance and replacement models. Comput Oper

Res 22(4):435–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00051-9
2. Abdel-Hameed M (1986) Optimum replacement of a system subject to shocks. J Appl
Probab 23:107–114
References 87
3. Aboulfath F (1995) Optimal maintenance schedules for a fleet of vehicles under the
constraint of the single repair facility. M.Sc. thesis. University of Toronto, Canada
4. Aghezzaf EH, Jamali MA, Ait-Kadi D (2007) An integrated production and preventive
maintenance planning model. Eur J Oper Res 181:679–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.
2006.06.032
5. Ahmad R, Kamaruddin S (2012) An overview of time-based and condition-based
maintenance in industrial application. Comput Ind Eng 63:135–149. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cie.2012.02.002
6. Albright TL, Geber CA, Juras P (2014) How naval aviation uses the balanced scorecard.
Strateg Finance
7. Andrzejczak K (2015) Stochastic modelling of the repairable system. J KONBiN 3(35):5–14
8. Anisimov VV (2005) Asymptotic analysis of stochastic block replacement policies for
multi-component systems in a Markov environment. Oper Res Lett 33:26–34. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.orl.2004.03.009
9. Armstrong MJ (2002) Age repair policies for the machine repair problem. Eur J Oper Res
138:127–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00135-7
10. Assid M, Gharbi A, Hajji A (2015) Production planning and opportunistic preventive
maintenance for unreliable one-machine two-products manufacturing systems.
IFAC-PapersOnLine 48–3:478–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.127
11. Aven T, Dekker R (1997) A useful framework for optimal replacement models. Reliab Eng
Syst Safety 58(1):61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00055-0
12. Bai DS, Yun WY (1986) An age replacement policy with minimal repair cost limit. IEEE
Trans Reliab 35(4):452–454
13. Bai J, Pham H (2005) Repair-limit risk-free warranty policies with imperfect repair. IEEE
Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 35(6):765–772
14. Bai Y, Jia X, Cheng Z (2011) Group optimization models for multi-component system
compound maintenance tasks. Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc—Maint Reliab 1:42–47
15. Barlow RE, Proschan F (1964) Comparison of replacement policies, and renewal theory
implications. Ann Math Stat 35(2):577–589. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177703557
16. Bartholomew-Biggs M, Christianson B, Zuo M (2006) Optimizing preventive maintenance
models. Comput Optim Appl 35:261–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-006-6449-x
17. Baxter LA (1988) On the theory of cannibalization. J Math Anal Appl 136:290–297. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(88)90131-X
18. Bedford T, Alkabi BM (2009) Modelling competing risks and opportunistic maintenance
with expert judgement. In: Martorell S, Guedes Soares C, Barnett J (eds) Safety, reliability
and risk analysis: theory, methods and applications—proceedings of European safety and
reliability conference ESREL 2008, Valencia, Spain, 22–25 Sept 2008. Taylor and Francis,
Leiden, pp 515–521
19. Bedford T, Dewan I, Meilijson I, Zitrou A (2011) The signal model: a model for competing
risks of opportunistic maintenance. Eur J Oper Res 214:665–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2011.05.016
20. Beichelt F (1992) A general maintenance model and its application to repair limit
replacement policies. Microelectron Reliab 32(8):1185–1196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0026-
2714(92)90036-K
21. Beichelt F (1999) A general approach to total repair cost limit replacement policies. ORiON
15(1/2):67–75
22. Bergman B (1978) Optimal replacement under a general failure model. Adv Appl Probab
10:431–451
23. Berthaut F, Gharbi A, Dhouib K (2011) Joint modified block replacement and production/
inventory control policy for a failure-prone manufacturing cell. Omega 39:642–654. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2011.01.006
24. Block HW, Langberg NA, Savits TH (1993) Repair replacement policies. J Appl Probab
30:194–206. https://doi.org/10.2307/3214632
25. Block HW, Langberg NA, Savits TH (1990) Maintenance comparisons: block policies.
J Appl Probab 27:649–657. https://doi.org/10.2307/3214548
26. Block HW, Langberg NA, Savits TH (1990) Comparisons for maintenance policies
involving complete and minimal repair. Lecture notes-monograph series, vol 16: Topics in
statistical dependence, pp 57–68
27. Bobrowski D (1977) On mathematical models of renewable technical objects (in Polish). In:
Proceedings of Winter School on reliability. Center for Technical Progress, Katowice,
pp 43–64
28. Borgonovo E, Marseguerra M, Zio E (2000) A Monte Carlo methodological approach to
plant availability modelling with maintenance, aging and obsolescence. Reliab Eng System
Safety 67:61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(99)00046-0
29. Brown M, Proschan F (1982) Imperfect maintenance. Lecture notes—monograph series, vol
2: Survival Analysis, pp 179–188
30. Budai G, Dekker R, Nicolai RP (2006) A review of planning models for maintenance and
production. Econometric Institute, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University
31. Bukowski L (1980) Optimization of technical systems maintenance policy (case study of
metallurgical production line) (in Polish). In: Proceedings of Winter School on reliability.
Centre for Technical Progress, Katowice, pp 47–62
32. Butani NL (1991) Replacement policies based on minimal repair and cost limit criterion.
Reliab Eng Syst Safety 32:349–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(91)90008-U
33. Byrkett DL (1985) Units of equipment available using cannibalization for repair-part
support. IEEE Trans Reliab R-34(1):25–28
34. Caldeira DJ, Taborda CJ, Trigo TP (2012) An optimal preventive maintenance policy of
parallel-series systems. J Polish Safety Reliab Assoc Summer Safety Reliab Semin 3(1):29–34
35. Canfield RV (1986) Cost optimization of periodic preventive maintenance. IEEE Trans
Reliab R-35(1):78–81. https://doi.org/10.1109/tr.1986.4335355
36. Cavalcante CAV, Lopes RS (2015) Multi-criteria model to support the definition of
opportunistic maintenance policy: a study in a cogeneration system. Energy 80:32–80
37. Cha JH, Kim JJ (2002) On the existence of the steady state availability of imperfect repair
model. Sankhya: Indian J Stat 64, series B(Pt. 1):76–81
38. Chan J-K, Shaw L (1993) Modeling repairable systems with failure rates that depend on age
and maintenance. IEEE Trans Reliab 42(4):566–571. https://doi.org/10.1109/24.273583
39. Chang Ch-Ch (2014) Optimum preventive maintenance policies for systems subject to
random working times, replacement, and minimal repair. Comput Ind Eng 67:185–194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.11.011
40. Chang Ch-Ch, Sheu S-H, Chen Y-L (2013) Optimal replacement model with age-dependent
failure type based on a cumulative repair-cost limit policy. Appl Math Model 37:308–317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2012.02.031
41. Chang Ch-Ch, Sheu S-H, Chen Y-L (2013) Optimal number of minimal repairs before
replacement based on a cumulative repair-cost limit policy. Comput Ind Eng 59:603–610.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2010.07.005
42. Chelbi A, Ait-Kadi D, Aloui H (2007) Availability optimization for multi-component
systems subjected to periodic replacement. In: Aven T, Vinnem JM (eds) Risk, reliability
and societal safety—proceedings of European safety and reliability conference ESREL 2007,
Stavanger, Norway, 25–27 June 2007. Taylor and Francis, Leiden
43. Cheng Y-H, Tsao H-L (2010) Rolling stock maintenance strategy selection, spares parts’
estimation, and replacements’ interval calculation. Int J Prod Econ 128:404–412. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.07.038
44. Cheng Z, Yang Z, Guo B (2013) Optimal opportunistic maintenance model of multi-unit
systems. J Syst Eng Electron 24(5):811–817. https://doi.org/10.1109/jsee.2013.00094
45. Cheng Z, Yang Z, Tan L, Guo B (2011) Optimal inspection and maintenance policy for the
multi-unit series system. In: Proceedings of 9th international conference on reliability,
maintainability and safety (ICRMS) 2011, 12–15 June 2011, Guiyang, pp 811–814
References 89
46. Chien Y-H (2008) A general age-replacement model with minimal repair under renewing
free-replacement warranty. Eur J Oper Res 186:1046–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.
2007.02.030
47. Chien Y-H, Sheu S-H (2006) Extended optimal age-replacement policy with minimal repair
of a system subject to shocks. Eur J Oper Res 174:169–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.
2005.01.032
Res 51(1):1–23
49. Chowdhury Ch (1988) A systematic survey of the maintenance models. Periodica
Polytechnica. Mech Eng 32(3–4):253–274
50. Christer AH (1986) Comments on finite-period applications of age-based replacement
models. IMA J Math Manag 1:111–124
51. Christer AH, Keddie E (1985) Experience with a stochastic replacement model. J Oper Res
Soc 36(1):25–34
52. Colosimo EA, Santos WB, Gilardoni GL, Motta SB (2006) Optimal maintenance time for
repairable systems under two types of failures. In: Soares CG, Zio E (eds) Safety and
reliability for managing risk—proceedings of European safety and reliability conference
ESREL 2006, Estoril, Portugal, 18–22 Sept 2006. Taylor and Francis, Leiden
53. Coolen-Schrijner P, Coolen FPA, Shaw SC (2014) Nonparametric adaptive
opportunity-based age replacement strategies. J Oper Res Soc 57(1):63–81. https://doi.org/
10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601954
54. Crookes PCI (1963) Replacement strategies. OR 14(2):167–184
55. Crowell JI, Sen PK (1989) Estimation of optimal block replacement policies. Mimeo series/
the Institute of Statistics, the Consolidated University of North Carolina, Department of
Statistics. Available at: stat.ncsu.edu
56. Cui L, Li H (2006) Opportunistic maintenance for multi-component shock models. Math
Methods Oper Res 63(3):493–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00186-005-0058-9
57. Curtin NP (2001) Military aircraft: Cannibalizations adversely affect personnel and
maintenance. US General Accounting Office, Washington DC
58. Dagpunar JS (1994) Some necessary and sufficient conditions for age replacement with
non-zero downtimes. J Oper Res Soc 45(2):225–229
59. Dao CD, Zuo MJ (2017) Selective maintenance of multi-state systems with structural
dependence. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 159:184–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.11.
013
60. Dao CD, Zuo MJ (2017) Optimal selective maintenance of multi-state systems in variable
loading conditions. Reliab Eng Sys Safety 166:171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.
11.006
61. Das AN, Sarmah SP (2010) Preventive replacement models: an overview and their
application in process industries. Eur J Ind Eng 4(3):280–307. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIE.
2010.033332
62. De Jonge B, Teunter R, Tinga T (2017) The influence of practical factors on the benefits of
condition-based maintenance over time-based maintenance. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 158:21–
30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.10.002
63. Dekker R (1996) Applications of maintenance optimization models: a review and analysis.
Reliab Eng Syst Safety 51(3):229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(95)00076-3
64. Dekker R, Dijkstra MC (1992) Opportunity-based age replacement: exponentially
distributed times between opportunities. Naval Res Logist 39:175–190
65. Dekker R, Roelvink IFK (1995) Marginal cost criteria for preventive replacement of a group
of components. Eur J Oper Res 84:467–480
66. Dekker R, Wildeman RE, Van Der Duyn Schouten FA (1997) A review of multi-component
maintenance models with economic dependence. Math Methods Oper Res 45:411–435
67. Derigent W, Thomas E, Levrat E, Iung B (2009) Opportunistic maintenance based on fuzzy
modelling of component proximity. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 58:29–32
68. Dimitrov B, Chukova S, Khalil Z (2004) Warranty costs: an age-dependent failure/repair

model. Naval Res Logist 51(7):959–976. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.20037
69. Ding S-H, Kamaruddin S (2012) Selection of optimal maintenance policy by using fuzzy
multi criteria decision making method. In: Proceedings of the 2012 international conference
on industrial engineering and operations management, Istanbul, Turkey, 3–6 July 2012,
pp 435–443
70. Do P, Vu HC, Barros A, Berrenguer Ch (2015) Maintenance grouping for multi-component
systems with availability constraints and limited maintenance teams. Reliab Eng Syst Safety
142:56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.04.022
71. Van Do P, Barros A, Berenguer Ch, Bouvard K (2013) Dynamic grouping maintenance with
time limited opportunities. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 120:51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.
2013.03.016
72. Dohi T, Ashioka A, Kaio N, Osaki S (2006) Statistical estimation algorithms for repairs-time
limit replacement scheduling under earning rate criteria. Comput Math Appl 51:345–356.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2005.11.004
73. Dohi T, Ashioka A, Kaio N, Osaki S (2003) The optimal repair-time limit replacement
policy with imperfect repair: Lorenz transform approach. Math Comput Model 38:1169–
1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-7177(03)90117-8
74. Dohi T, Kaio N, Osaki S (2003) Preventive maintenance models: replacement, repair,
ordering, and inspection. In: Pham H (ed) Handbook of reliability engineering. Springer,
London, pp 349–366
75. Dohi T, Kaio N, Osaki S (2000) A graphical method to repair-cost limit replacement policies
with imperfect repair. Math Comput Model 31:99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-7177
(00)00076-5
76. Dohi T, Kaio N, Osaki S (2003) A new graphical method to estimate the optimal repair-time
limit with incomplete repair and discounting. Comput Math Appl 46:999–1007. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0898-1221(03)90114-3
77. Dohi T, Matsushima N, Kaio N, Osaki S (1996) Nonparametric repair-limit replacement
policies with imperfect repair. Eur J Oper Res 96:260–273
78. Dohi T, Takeita K, Osaki S (2000) Graphical method for determining/estimating optimal
repair-limit replacement policies. Int J Reliab Qual Saf Eng 7(01):43–60
79. Do Rego JR, De Mesquita MA (2011) Spare parts inventory control: a literature review.
Producao 21(4):656–666
80. Drobiszewski J, Smalko Z (2006) The equable maintenance strategy. J KONBiN 2:375–383
81. Duarte AC, Craveiro Taborda JC, Craveiro A, Trigo TP (2005) Optimization of the
preventive maintenance plan of a series components system. In: Kołowrocki K
(ed) Advances in safety and reliability—proceedings of the European safety and reliability
conference (ESREL 2005), Gdynia-Sopot-Gdańsk, Poland, 27–30 June 2005. A.A.
Balkema, Leiden
82. Epstain S, Wilamowsky Y (1985) Opportunistic replacement in a deterministic environment.
Comput Oper Res 12(3):311–322
83. Fard N, Zheng X (1991) An approximate method for non-repairable systems based on
opportunistic replacement policy. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 33:277–288
84. Firkowicz S, Karpiński J (1977) Optimization methods of preventive maintenance actions
(in Polish). In: Proceedings of Winter School on reliability. Center for Technical Progress,
Katowice, pp 125–144
85. Fisher WW (1990) Markov process modelling of a maintenance system with spares, repair,
cannibalization and manpower constraints. Math Comput Model 13(7):119–125
86. Frees EW (1986) Optimizing costs on ager replacement policies. Stochastic Process Their
Appl 21:195–212
87. Fritzsche R, Gupta JND, Lasch R (2014) Optimal prognostic distance to minimize total
maintenance cost: the case of the airline industry. Int J Prod Econ 151:76–88. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.02.001
References 91
88. Frostig E (2003) Comparison of maintenance policies with monotone failure rate
distributions. Appl Stoch Models Bus Ind 19:51–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/asmb.485
89. Garg J (2013) Maintenance: spare parts optimization. M2 Research Intern Theses, Ecole
Centrale de Paris
90. Gaver DP, Isaacson KE, Abell JB (1993) Estimating aircraft recoverable spares requirements
with cannibalization of designated items. RAND, R-4213-AF
91. Geurts JHJ (1983) Optimal age replacement versus condition based replacement: some
theoretical and practical considerations. J Qual Technol 15(4):171–179
92. Glasser GJ (1967) The age replacement problem. Technometrics 9(1):83–91
93. Grigoriev A, Van De Klundert J, Spieksma FCR (2006) Modeling and solving the periodic
maintenance problem. Eur J Oper Res 172:783–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.
11.013
94. Gunn EA, Diallo C (2015) Optimal opportunistic indirect grouping of preventive
replacements in multicomponent systems. Comput Ind Eng 90:281–291. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cie.2015.09.013
95. Gurler U, Kaya A (2002) A maintenance policy for a system with multi-state components: an
approximate solution. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 76:117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-
8320(01)00125-9
96. Gustavsson E, Patriksson M, Stromberg A-B, Wojciechowski A, Onnheim M (2014)
Preventive maintenance scheduling of multi-component systems with interval costs. Comput
Ind Eng 76:390–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.02.009
97. Haurie A, L’ecuyer PL (1982) A stochastic control approach to group preventive
replacement in a multicomponent system. IEEE Trans Autom Control AC-27(2):387–393
98. Haque SA, Zohrul Kabir ABM, Sarker RA (2003) Optimization model for opportunistic
replacement policy using genetic algorithm with fuzzy logic controller. In: Proceedings of
the Congress on evolutionary computation 4:2837–2843
99. Hoover J, Jondrow JM, Trost RS, Ye M (2002) A model to study: cannibalization, FMC, and
customer waiting time. CNA, Alexandria
100. Hopp WJ, Kuo Y-L (1998) Heuristics for multicomponent joint replacement: applications to
aircraft engine maintenance. Naval Res Logist 45:435–458
101. Hou W, Jiang Z (2013) An opportunistic maintenance policy of multi-unit series production
system with consideration of imperfect maintenance. Appl Math Inf Sci 7(1L):283–290
102. Hu J, Zhang L (2014) Risk based opportunistic maintenance model for complex mechanical
systems. Expert Syst Appl 41(6):3105–3115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.10.041
103. Hu J, Zhang L, Liang W (2012) Opportunistic predictive maintenance for complex
multi-component systems based on DBN-HAZOP model. Process Saf Environ Prot 90:
376–386
104. Huynh TK, Barros A, Berenguer Ch (2013) A reliability-based opportunistic predictive
maintenance model for k-out-of-n deteriorating systems. Chem Eng Trans 33:493–498
105. Hsu JIS (1990) Equipment replacement policy: a survey. Hosp Mater Manag Q 2(1):69–75
106. Iskandar BP, Sandoh H (2000) An extended opportunity-based age replacement policy.
RAIRO Oper Res 34:145–154
107. Ito K, Nakagawa T (2011) Comparison of three cumulative damage models. Qual Technol
Quant Manag 8(1):57–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/16843703.2011.11673246
108. Iung B, Levrat E, Thomas E (2007) Odds algorithm’-based opportunistic maintenance task
execution for preserving product conditions. Ann CIRP 56(1):13–16
109. Janisz K, Krupa M (2007) Model of operating condition influence on element reliability of
rail vehicles using fuzzy sets (in Polish). Maint Probl 2:19–26
110. Jayabalan V, Chaudhuri D (1992) Cost optimization of maintenance scheduling for a system
with assured reliability. IEEE Trans Reliab 41(1):21–25. https://doi.org/10.1109/24.126665
111. Jędrzejowicz P (1977) Optimization models for renewal processes (in Polish). In:
Proceedings of Winter School on reliability. Center for Technical Progress, Katowice,
pp 181–198
112. Jhang JP, Sheu SH (1999) Opportunity-based age replacement policy with minimal repair.
Reliab Eng Syst Safety 64:339–344
113. Jiang R, Ji P (2002) Age replacement policy: a multi-attribute value model. Reliab Eng Syst
Safety 76:311–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00021-2
114. Jiang X, Cheng K, Makis V (1998) On the optimality of repair-cost-limit policies. J Appl
Probab 35:936–949
115. Jodejko A (2008) Maintenance problems of technical systems composed of heterogeneous
elements. In: Proceedings of summer safety and reliability seminars, 22–28 June 2008,
Gdańsk-Sopot, Poland, 187–194
116. Jodejko A, Werbińska S (2008) Block inspection maintenance policy of multi-component
systems with economic dependency. J KONBiN 3(6):265–280
117. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Plewa M (2012) The model of reverse logistics, based on reliability
theory with elements’ rejuvenation. Logist Transp 2(15):27–35
118. Kabir ABMZ, Farrash SHA (1996) Simulation of an integrated age replacement and spare
provisioning policy using SLAM. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 52:129–138
119. Kapur PK, Garg RB (1989) Optimal number of minimal repairs before replacement with
repair cost limit. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 26:35–46
120. Karpiński J (1988) Chosen problems of technical objects’ preventive maintenance strategy
(In Polish). In: Proceedings of Winter School on reliability. Center for Technical Progress,
121. Kayid M, Izadkhah S, Alshami S (2016) Laplace transform ordering of time to failure in age
replacement models. J Korean Stat Soc 45(1):101–113
122. Ke H, Yao K (2016) Block replacement policy with uncertain lifetimes. Reliab Eng Syst
Safety 148:119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.12.008
123. Kececioglu D, Sun F-B (1995) A general discrete-time dynamic programming model for the
opportunistic replacement policy and its application to ball-bearing systems. Reliab Eng Syst
Safety 47:175–185
124. Keomany B, Samuel A, Christophe B, Vincent C (2008) Maintenance cost study for
deteriorating systems: age-replacement policy vs. condition-based maintenance policy. In:
Proceedings of summer safety and reliability seminars, June 2008, Gdansk-Sopot, Poland,
pp 85–92
125. Khalifa D, Hottenstein M, Aggarwal S (1977) Technical note—cannibalization policies for
multistate systems. Oper Res 25(6):1032–1039
126. Kim HG, Yun WY (2010) A repair-time limit replacement policy with estimation error.
Commun Stat Theory Methods 39:2365–2378. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610920903402597
127. Kim HS, Sub Kwon Y, Park DH (2006) Bayesian method on sequential preventive
maintenance problem. Korean Commun Stat 13(1):191–204
128. Kim J, Ahn Y, Yeo H (2016) A comparative study of time-based maintenance and
condition-based maintenance for optimal choice of maintenance policy. Struct Infrastruct
Eng 12(12):1525–1536. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2016.1149871
129. Kołowrocki K, Soszyńska-Budny J (2010) Optimization of exploitation processes of
complex technical systems (in Polish). Maint Probl 1:31–40
130. Koshimae H, Dohi T, Kaio N, Osaki S (1996) Graphical/statistical approach to repair limit
replacement policies. J Oper Res 39(2):230–246
131. Kumar D, Westberg U (1997) Maintenance scheduling under age replacement policy using
proportional hazards model and TTT-ploting. Eur J Oper Res 99:507–515
132. Kustroń K, Cieślak Ł (2012) The optimization of replacement time for non-repairable
aircraft component. J KONBiN 2(22):45–58
133. Laggoune R, Chateauneuf A, Aissani D (2010) Impact of few failure data on the
opportunistic replacement policy for multi-component systems. Reliab Eng Syst Safety
134. Laggoune R, Chateauneuf A, Aissani D (2009) Opportunistic policy for optimal preventive
maintenance of a multi-component system in continuous operating units. Comput Chem Eng
33:1499–1510
References 93
135. Lai M-T (2014) Optimal replacement period with repair cost limit and cumulative damage
model. Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc—Maint Reliab 16(2):246–252
136. Lai M-T, Chen Y-CH (2006) Optimal periodic replacement policy for a two-unit system
with failure rate interaction. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 29:367–371
137. Lai M-T, Leu B-Y (1996) An economic discrete replacement policy for a shock damage
model with minimal repairs. Microecon Reliab 36(10):1347–1355
138. Lai M-T, Yuan J (1993) Cost-optimal periodical replacement policy for a system subjected
to shock damage. Microelectron Reliab 33(8):1159–1168
139. Lai M-T, Yuan J (1991) Periodic replacement model for a parallel system subject to
independent and common cause shock failures. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 31(3):355–367
140. Lam CT, Yeh RH (1994) Optimal replacement policies for multi-state deteriorating systems.
Naval Res Logist 41(3):303–315
141. Lamberts SWJ, Nicolai RP (2008) Maintenance models for systems subject to measurable
deterioration. Rozenberg Publishers, Rotterdam, University Dissertation
142. Langberg NA (1988) Comparisons of replacement policies. J Appl Probab 25:780–788
143. Legat V, Zaludowa AH, Cervenka V, Jurca V (1996) Contribution to optimization of
preventive replacement. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 51:259–266
144. Leung FKN, Zhang YL, Lai KK (2011) Analysis for a two-dissimilar-component cold
standby repairable system with repair priority. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 96:1542–1551.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.06.004
145. Lie CH, Chun YH (1986) An algorithm for preventive maintenance policy. IEEE Trans
Reliab R-35(1):71–75
146. Lim JH, Qu J, Zuo MJ (2016) Age replacement policy based on imperfect repair with
random probability. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 149:24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.
10.020
147. Liu Y, Li Y, Huang H-Z, Kuang Y (2011) An optimal sequential preventive maintenance
policy -under stochastic maintenance quality. Struct Infrastruct Engineering: Maint Manag
Life-Cycle Des Perf 7(4):315–322
148. Lv X-Z, Fan B-X, Gu Y, Zhao X-H (2013) Selective maintenance model considering
cannibalization and its solving algorithm. In: Proceedings of 2013 international conference
on quality, reliability, risk, maintenance, and safety engineering (WR2MSE). IEEE,
pp 717–723
149. Mahdavi M, Mahdavi M (2009) Optimization of age replacement policy using reliability
based heuristic model. J Sci Ind Res 68:668–673
150. Maillart LM, Fang X (2006) Optimal maintenance policies for serial, multi-machine systems
with non-instantaneous repairs. Naval Res Logis 53(8):804–813
151. Martorell S, Sanchez A, Serradell V (1999) Age-dependent reliability model considering
effects of maintenance and working conditions. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 64:19–31
152. Mazzuchi TA, Soyer R (1996) A Bayesian perspective on some replacement strategies.
Report, TR-2007–9
154. Mccall JJ (1965) Maintenance policies for stochastically failing equipment: a survey.
Manage Sci 11(5):493–524
155. Meenu G (2011) Identification of factors affecting product cannibalization in Indian
automobile sector. IJCEM Int J Comput Eng Manag 12:2230–7893
156. Mercier S, Labeau P-E (2004) Optimal replacement policy for a series system with
obsolescence. Appl Stoch Models Bus Ind 20:73–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/asmb.516
157. Murthy DNP, Nguyen DG (1988) An optimal repair cost limit policy for servicing warranty.
Math Comput Model 11:595–599
158. Nakagawa T (2014) Random maintenance policies. Springer, London
159. Nakagawa T (2005) Maintenance theory of reliability. Springer, Berlin
160. Nakagawa T (2003) Maintenance and optimum policy. In: Pham H (ed) Handbook of
reliability engineering. Springer, London, pp 397–414
161. Nakagawa T (1986) Periodic and sequential preventive maintenance policies. J Appl Probab
23:536–542
162. Nakagawa T (1984) A summary of discrete replacement policies. Eur J Oper Res 17(3):
382–392
163. Nakagawa T (1979) Optimum replacement policies for a used unit. J Oper Res Soc Jpn 22
(4):338–346
164. Nakagawa T, Kowada M (1983) Analysis of a system with minimal repair and its application
to replacement policy. Eur J Oper Res 12(2):176–182
165. Nakagawa T, Mizutani S (2009) A summary of maintenance policies for a finite interval.
Reliab Eng Syst Safety 94:89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2007.04.004
166. Nakagawa T, Mizutani S (2008) Periodic and sequential imperfect preventive maintenance
policies for cumulative damage models. In: Pham H (ed) Recent advances in reliability and
quality in design. Springer, London
167. Nakagawa T, Osaki S (1974) The optimum repair limit replacement policies. Oper Res Q 25
(2):311–317
168. Nakagawa T, Zhao X (2015) Maintenance overtime policies in reliability theory. Models
with random working cycles. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland
169. Nakagawa T, Zhao X, Yun WY (2011) Optimal age replacement and inspection policies
with random failure and replacement times. Int J Reliab Qual Saf Eng 18(5):405–416.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218539311004159
170. Nguyen K-A, Do P, Grall A (2015) Multi-level predictive maintenance for multi-component
systems. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 144:83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.07.017
Francis, Leiden, pp 289–296
172. Nicolai RP, Dekker R (2006) Optimal maintenance of multicomponent systems: a review.
Economic Institute Report
173. Nowakowski T, Plewa M (2009) Cannibalization—technical system maintenance method
(in Polish). In: Proceedings of XXXVII Winter School on reliability, Szczyrk, Publishing
House of Warsaw Univ. Of Technology, Warsaw, pp 230–238
174. Nowakowski T, Werbińska S (2009) On problems of multi-component system maintenance
175. Okoh P (2015) Maintenance grouping optimization for the management of risk in offshore
riser system. Process Saf Environ Prot 98:33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2015.06.007
176. Okulewicz J, Salamonowicz T (2008) Preventive maintenance with imperfect repairs of a
system with redundant objects. In: Proceedings of summer safety and reliability seminars
SSARS 2008, 22–28 June 2008, Gdańsk-Sopot, Poland, pp 279–286
177. Okulewicz J, Salamonowicz T (2006) Comparison of chosen preventive maintenance
strategies (in Polish). In: Proceedings of XXXIV Winter School on reliability. Publishing
House of Institute for Sustainable Technologies, Radom, pp 218–227
178. Okumoto K, Osaki S (1976) Repair limit replacement policies with lead time. Zeitschrift fur
Oper Res 20:133–142
179. Ondemir O, Gupta SM (2014) A multi-criteria decision making model for advanced
repair-to-order and disassembly-to-order system. Eur J Oper Res 233:408–419. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.09.003
180. Ormon SW, Cassady CR (2004) Cannibalization policies for a set of parallel machines. In:
Reliability and maintainability, 2004 annual symposium—RAMS, 26–29 Jan 2004,
Colorado Springs, pp 540–545
181. Ozekici S (1995) Optimal maintenance policies in random environments. Eur J Oper Res 82
(2):283–294
182. Park DH, Jung GM, Yum JK (2000) Cost minimization for periodic maintenance policy of a
system subject to slow degradation. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 68(2):105–112. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0951-8320(00)00012-0
References 95
183. Park JH, Lee SC, Hong JW, Lie CH (2009) An optimal Block preventive maintenance
policy for a multi-unit system considering imperfect maintenance. Asia-Pac J Oper Res 26
(6):831–847. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021759590900250X
184. Park M, Pham H (2016) Cost models for age replacement policies and block replacement
policies under warranty. Appl Math Model 40(9–10):5689–5702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apm.2016.01.022
185. Peng W, Liu Y, Zhang X, Huang H-Z (2015) Sequential preventive maintenance policies
with consideration of random adjustment-reduction features. Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc—
Maint Reliab 17(2):306–313
186. Pham H, Wang H (1999) Optimal (s, T) opportunistic maintenance of a k-out-of-n: G system
with imperfect PM and partial failure. Naval Res Logist 47:223–239
187. Pham H, Wang H (1996) Imperfect maintenance. Eur J Oper Res 94:425–438
188. Piasecki S (1984) Maintenance strategies for machines (in Polish). In: Proceedings of Winter
School on reliability. Center for Technical Progress, Katowice, pp 4–26
189. Pierskalla WP, Voelker JA (1976) A survey of maintenance models: the control and
surveillance of deteriorating systems. Naval Res Logist Q 23:353–388
190. Pilch R (2017) Determination of preventive maintenance time for milling assemblies used in
coal mills. J Mach Constr Maint 1(104):81–86
191. Pilch R, Smolnik M, Szybka J, Wiązania G (2014) Concept of preventive maintenance
strategy for a chosen example of public transport vehicles (in Polish). In: Siergiejczyk M
(ed) Maintenance problems of technical systems. Publishing House of Warsaw University of
Science and Technology, Warsaw, pp 171–182
192. Pophaley M, Ways RK (2010) Plant maintenance management practices in automobile
industries: a retrospective and literature review. J Ind Eng Manag 3(3):512–541. https://doi.
org/10.3926/jiem.v3n3.p512-541
193. Poppe J, Basten RJI, Boute RN, Lambrecht MR (2017) Numerical study on inventory
management under various maintenance policies. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 168:262–273.
194. Popova E (2004) Basic optimality results for Bayesian group replacement policies. Oper Res
Lett 32:283–287
195. Popova E, Popova I (2014) Replacement strategies. Statistics Reference Online, Wiley
StatsRef
196. Popova E, Wilson JG (1999) Group replacement policies for parallel systems whose
components have phase distributed failure times. Ann Oper Res 91:163–189
197. Qian C, Nakamura S, Nakagawa T (2003) Replacement and minimal repair policies for a
cumulative damage model with maintenance. Comput Math Appl 46:1111–1118
198. Radner R, Jorgenson DW (1963) Opportunistic replacement of a single part in the presence
of several monitored parts. Manage Sci 10(1):70–84
199. Radner R, Jorgenson DW (1962) Optimal replacement and inspection of stochastically
failing equipment. In: Arrow KJ, Karlin S, Scarf H (eds) Studies in applied probability and
management science. Stanford University Press, pp 184–206
200. Rakoczy A (1980) Simulation method for technical object’s optimal preventive maintenance
time assessment (in Polish). In: Proceedings of Winter School on reliability, Szczyrk,
pp 143–152
201. Rakoczy A, Żółtowski J (1977) About the issues on technical object renewal principles
definition (in Polish). In: Proceedings of Winter School on reliability, Szczyrk, pp 175–191
202. Ritchken P, Wilson JG (1990) (m, T) group maintenance policies. Manage Sci 36(5):
632–639
203. Salamonowicz T (2003) Methods of preventive maintenance time assessment for chosen
objects’ models (in Polish). In: Proceedings of XXXI Winter School on reliability—
prognostic methods in dependability engineering. Publishing House of Institute for
204. Salman S, Cassady CR, Pohl EA, Ormon SW (2007) Evaluating the impact of
cannibalization on fleet performance. Qual Reliab Engineering Int 23:445–457. https://doi.
org/10.1002/qre.826
205. Samhouri MS, Al-Ghandoor A, Fouad RH, Alhaj Ali SM (2009) An intelligent opportunistic
maintenance (OM) system: a genetic algorithm approach. Jordan J Mech Ind Eng 3(4):
246–251
206. Sandve K, Aven T (1999) Cost optimal replacement of monotone, repairable systems. Eur J
Oper Res 116:235–248
207. Sarkar A, Behera DK, Kumar S (2012) Maintenance policies of single and multi-unit
systems in the past and present. Int J Curr Eng Technol 2(1):196–205
208. Sarkar A, Panja SCh, Sarkar B (2011) Survey of maintenance policies of the last 50 years.
Int J Softw Eng Appl 2(3):130–148
209. Sarker BR, Ibn Faiz T (2016) Minimizing maintenance cost for offshore wind turbines
following multi-level opportunistic preventive strategy. Renew Energy 85:104–113. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.06.030
210. Satow T, Osaki S (2003) Opportunity-based age replacement with different intensity rates.
Math Comput Model 38:1419–1426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-7177(03)90145-2
211. Scarf PA (1997) On the application of mathematical models in maintenance. Eur J Oper Res
99:493–506
212. Scarf PA, Cavalcante CAV (2010) Hybrid block replacement and inspection policies for a
multi-component system with heterogeneous component lives. Eur J Oper Res 206:384–394.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.02.024
213. Scarf PA, Deara M (2003) Block replacement policies for a two-component system with
failure dependence. Naval Res Logist 50:70–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.10051
214. Scarf PA, Dwight R, Al-Musrati A (2005) On reliability criteria and the implied cost of
failure for a maintained component. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 89:199–207. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ress.2004.08.019
215. Segawa Y, Ohnishi M (2000) The average optimality of a repair-limit replacement policy.
Math Comput Model 31:327–334
216. Segawa Y, Ohnishi M, Ibaraki T (1992) Optimal minimal-repair and replacement problem
with age dependent cost structure. Comput Math Appl 24(1/2):91–101
217. Sepehrifar MB, Khorshidian K, Jamshidian AR (2015) On renewal increasing mean residual
life distributions: an age replacement model with hypothesis testing application. Stat Probab
Lett 96:117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2014.09.009
218. Shafiee M, Finkelstein M (2015) An optimal age-based group maintenance policy for
multi-unit degrading systems. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 134:230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ress.2014.09.016
219. Shafiee M, Finkelstein M, Berenguer Ch (2015) An opportunistic condition-based
maintenance policy for offshore wind turbine blades subjected to degradation and
environmental shocks. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 142:463–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.
2015.05.001
220. Shah J, Avittathur B (2007) The retailer multi-item inventory problem with demand
cannibalization and substitution. Int J Prod Econ 106:104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.
2006.04.004
221. Sherbrooke CC (2004) Optimal modeling inventory of systems. Multi-echelon techniques.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
222. Sherbrooke CC (1971) An evaluator for the number of operationally ready aircraft in a
multilevel supply system. Oper Res 19(3):618–635
224. Sheu S-H (1999) Extended optimal replacement model for deteriorating systems. Eur J Oper
Res 112:503–516
225. Sheu S-H (1998) A generalized age and block replacement of a system subject to shocks.
Eur J Oper Res 108:345–362
References 97
226. Sheu S-H (1994) Extended block replacement policy with used item and general random
minimal repair cost. Eur J Oper Res 79(3):405–416
227. Sheu S-H (1993) A generalized model for determining optimal number of minimal repairs
before replacement. Eur J Oper Res 69:38–49
228. Sheu S-H (1992) A general replacement of a system subject to shocks. Microelectron Reliab
32(5):657–662
229. Sheu S-H (1991) A general age replacement model with minimal repair and general random
repair cost. Microelectron Reliab 31(5):1009–1017
230. Sheu S-H (1991) Periodic replacement with minimal repair at failure and general random
repair cost for a multi-unit system. Microelectron Reliab 31(5):1019–1025
231. Sheu S-H (1990) Periodic replacement when minimal repair costs depend on the age and the
number of minimal repairs for a multi-unit system. Microelectron Reliab 30(4):713–718
232. Sheu S-H, Chang Ch-Ch, Chen Y-L (2012) An extended sequential imperfect preventive
maintenance model with improvement factors. Commun Stat Theory Methods 41(7):1269–
1283. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2010.542852
233. Sheu S-H, Chen Y-L, Chang Ch-Ch, Zhang ZG (2016) A note on a two variable block
replacement policy for a system subject to non-homogeneous pure birth shocks. Appl Math
Model 40(5–6):3703–3712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2015.10.001
234. Sheu S-H, Chien Y-H (2004) Optimal age-replacement policy of a system subject to shocks
with random lead-time. Eur J Oper Res 159:132–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217
(03)00409-0
235. Sheu S-H, Griffith WS (2002) Extended block replacement policy with shock models and
used items. Eur J Oper Res 140:50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00224-7
236. Sheu S-H, Griffith WS, Nakagawa T (1995) Extended optimal replacement model with
random repair cost. Eur J Oper Res 85:636–649
237. Sheu S-H, Jhang J-P (1996) A generalized group maintenance policy. Eur J Oper Res
96:232–247
238. Sheu S-H, Lin Y-B, Liao G-L (2006) Optimum policies for a system with general imperfect
maintenance. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 91(3):362–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.
01.015
239. Sheu S-H, Liou C-T (1992) An age replacement policy with minimal repair and general
random repair cost. Microelectron Reliab 32(9):1283–1289
240. Sheu S-H, Sung Ch-K, Hsu T-S, Chen Y-Ch (2013) Age replacement policy for a two-unit
system subject to non-homogeneous pure birth shocks. Appl Math Model 37:7027–7036.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.02.022
241. Sheu S-H, Yeh RH, Lin Y-B, Juang M-G (2001) A Bayesian approach to an adaptive
preventive maintenance model. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 71:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0951-8320(00)00072-7
242. Sheu S-H, Yeh RH, Lin Y-B, Juang M-G (1999) A Bayesian perspective on age replacement
with minimal repair. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 65:55–64
243. Sheu S-H, Zhang ZG, Chien Y-H, Huang T-H (2013) Age replacement policy with lead-time
for a system subject to non-homogeneous pure birth shocks. Appl Math Model 37:7717–
7725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.03.017
244. Shi H, Zeng J (2016) Real-time prediction of remaining useful life and preventive
opportunistic maintenance strategy for multi-component systems considering stochastic
dependence. Comput Ind Eng 93:192–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2015.12.016
245. Sikorski M (1984) Maintenance strategy of machines (in Polish). In: Proceedings of Winter
School on reliability. Center for Technical Progress, Katowice, pp 36–82
246. Silver EA, Fiechter C-N (1995) Preventive maintenance with limited historical data. Eur J
Oper Res 82:125–144
247. Simon RM (1970) Cannibalization policies for multicomponent systems. SIAM J Appl Math
19(4):700–711
248. Taghipour S, Banjevic D (2012) Optimal inspection of a complex system subject to periodic
and opportunistic inspections and preventive replacements. Eur J Oper Res 220:649–660.
249. Tambe PP, Kularni MS (2013) An opportunistic maintenance decision of a multi-component
system considering the effect of failures on quality. In: Proceedings of the World Congress
on engineering 2013, vol 1, WCE 2013, 3–5 July 2013, London, pp 1–6
250. Tambe PP, Mohite S, Kularni MS (2013) Optimisation of opportunistic maintenance of a
multi-component system considering the effect of failures on quality and production
schedule: a case study. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 69(5):1743–1756
251. Thomas LC (1986) A survey of maintenance and replacement models for maintainability
and reliability of multi-item systems. Reliab Eng 16(4):297–309
252. Tsai Y-T, Wang K-S, Teng H-Y (2001) Optimizing preventive maintenance for mechanical
components using genetic algorithms. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 74:89–97. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0951-8320(01)00065-5
stochastically deteriorating single-unit systems. Naval Res Logist 36:419–446
254. Van Der Duyn Schouten DA, Vanneste SG (1990) Analysis and computation of (n, N)-
strategies for maintenance of a two-component system. Eur J Oper Res 48:260–274
255. Van Dijkhuizen GC, Van Harten A (1998) Two-stage generalized age maintenance of a
queue-like production system. Eur J Oper Res 108:363–378
256. Van Horenbeek A, Bure J, Cattrysse D, Pintelon L, Vansteenwegen P (2013) Joint
maintenance and inventory optimization systems: a review. Int J Prod Econ 143:499–508.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.04.001
257. Van Noortwijk JM (2009) A survey of the application of gamma processes in maintenance.
258. Vasili M, Hond TS, Ismail N, Vasili M (2011) Maintenance optimization models: a review
and analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2011 international conference on industrial engineering
and operations management, Juala Lumbpur, Malaysia, Jan 22–24 2011, pp 1131–1138
259. Vaurio JK (1999) Availability and cost functions for periodically inspected preventively
maintained units. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 63:133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320
(98)00030-1
260. Vu HC, Do P, Barros A, Berenguer Ch (2014) Maintenance grouping strategy for
multi-component systems with dynamic contexts. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 132:233–249.
261. Wang H (2002) A survey of maintenance policies of deteriorating systems. Eur J Oper Res
139(3):469–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00197-7
262. Wang H, Pham H (2006) Reliability and optimal maintenance. Springer, London
263. Wang H, Pham H (2003) Optimal imperfect maintenance models. In: Pham H
(ed) Handbook of reliability engineering. Springer, London, pp 397–414
264. Wang H, Pham H (1997) A survey of reliability and availability evaluation of complex
networks using Monte Carlo techniques. Microelectron Reliab 37(2):187–209. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0026-2714(96)00058-3
265. Wells ChE (2014) Reliability analysis of a single warm-standby system subject to repairable
and non-repairable failures. Eur J Oper Res 235:180–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.
2013.12.027
266. Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Multicomponent technical systems maintenance
models—state of art (in Polish). In: Siergiejczyk M (ed) Technical systems maintenance
problems: monograph (in Polish). Publishing House of Warsaw Univ. Of Technology,
Warsaw, pp 25–57
267. Wildeman RE, Dekker R, Smit ACJM (1997) A dynamic policy for grouping maintenance
activities. Eur J Oper Res 99:530–551
268. Wu J, Ng TSA, Xie M, Huang H-Z (2010) Analysis of maintenance policies for finite
life-cycle multi-state systems. Comput Ind Eng 59:638–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.
2010.07.013
References 99
269. Wu S, Clements-Croome D (2005) Preventive maintenance models with random mainte-

nance quantity. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 90:99–105
270. Wu S, Zuo MJ (2010) Linear and nonlinear preventive maintenance models. IEEE Trans
Reliab 59(1):242–249. https://doi.org/10.1109/tr.2010.2041972
271. Xia T, Jin X, Xi L, Ni J (2015) Production-driven opportunistic maintenance for batch
production based on MAM-APB scheduling. Eur J Oper Res 240:781–790. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejor.2014.08.004
272. Xiao L, Song S, Chen X, Coit DW (2016) Joint optimization of production scheduling and
machine group preventive maintenance. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 146:68–78. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ress.2015.10.013
273. Yasui K, Nakagawa T, Osaki S (1988) A summary of optimum replacement policies for a
parallel redundant system. Microelectronic Reliab 28(4):635–641
274. Yeh RH (1997) State-age-dependent maintenance policies for deteriorating systems with
Erlang sojourn time distributions. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 58:55–60
275. Yun WY (1989) An age replacement policy with increasing minimal repair cost.
276. Yun WY, Bai DS (1988) Repair cost limit replacement policy under imperfect inspection.
277. Yun WY, Bai DS (1987) Cost limit replacement policy under imperfect repair. Reliab Eng
19:23–28
278. Yusuf I, Ali UA (2012) Structural dependence replacement model for parallel system of two
units. J Basic Appl Sci 20(4):324–326
279. Zamojski W (1984) Maintenance strategies for machines (some mathematical models) (in
Polish). In: Proceedings Winter School on reliability. Technical Progress Center, Katowice,
pp 27–41
280. Zamojski W, Mazurkiewicz J (2011) From reliability to system dependability—theory and
models. In: Summer safety and reliability seminars, SSARS 2011, Gdańsk-Sopot, Poland,
pp 223–232
281. Zequeira RI, Berenguer C (2005) A block replacement policy for a periodically inspected
two-unit parallel standby safety system. In: Kołowrocki K (ed) Advances in safety and
reliability—proceedings of the European safety and reliability conference (ESREL 2005),
Gdynia-Sopot-Gdańsk, Poland, 27–30 June 2005. A.A. Balkema, Leiden, pp 2091–2098
282. Zequeira RI, Berenguer C (2004) Maintenance cost analysis of a two-component parallel
system with failure interaction. In: Proceedings of reliability and maintainability, 2004
annual symposium—RAMS, pp 220–225
283. Zequeira RI, Valdes JE, Berenguer C (2008) Optimal buffer inventory and opportunistic
preventive maintenance under random production capacity availability. Int J Prod Econ
111:686–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.02.037
284. Zhang T, Cheng Z, Liu Y-J, Guo B (2012) Maintenance scheduling for multi-unit system: a
stochastic Petri-net and genetic algorithm based approach. Eksploatacja i Niezawodność
285. Zhang X, Zeng J (2015) A general modelling method for opportunistic maintenance
modelling of multi-unit systems. Reliabi Eng Syst Safety 140:176–190. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ress.2015.03.030
286. Zhao YX (2003) On preventive maintenance policy of a critical reliability level for system
subject to degradation. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 79:301–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-
8320(02)00201-6
287. Zhao X, Al-Khalifa KN, Hamouda AM, Nakagawa T (2017) Age replacement models: a
summary with new perspectives and methods. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 161:95–105. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.01.011
288. Zhao X, Al-Khalifa KN, Nakagawa T (2015) Approximate method for optimal replacement,
maintenance, and inspection policies. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 144:68–73. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ress.2015.07.005
289. Zhao X, Mizutani S, Nakagawa T (2015) Which is better for replacement policies with
continuous or discrete scheduled times? Eur J Oper Res 242:477–486. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ejor.2014.11.018
290. Zhao X, Qian C, Nakagawa T (2017) Comparisons of replacement policies with periodic
times and repair numbers. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 168:161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ress.2017.05.015
291. Zheng X, Fard N (1991) A maintenance policy for repairable systems based on opportunistic
failure-rate tolerance. IEEE Trans Reliab 40(2):237–244
292. Zhou X, Huang K, Xi L, Lee J (2015) Preventive maintenance modeling for
multi-component systems with considering stochastic failures and disassembly sequence.
293. Zhou X, Lu Z-Q, Xi L-F, Lee J (2010) Opportunistic preventive maintenance optimization
for multi-unit series systems with combing multi-preventive maintenance techniques.
J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ 15(5):513–518
294. Zhou X, Xi L, Lee J (2006) A dynamic opportunistic maintenance policy for continuously
monitored systems. J Qual Maint Eng 12(3):294–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13552510610685129
295. Zoltowski M, Hadzima B, Zoltowski B (2016) Elements of applied mechanics used in
engineering of technical systems degradation diagnostics (in Polish). In: Knosal R
(ed) Innovations in production engineering and management 2. Publishing House of
Polish Association of Production Management, Opole, pp 651–663
Chapter 3
Inspection Models for Technical Systems
Abstract The objective of this chapter is to present a literature review on

inspection maintenance modelling issues. The discussed maintenance models are
classified into two main groups—form single- and multi-unit systems. For
single-unit systems the reviewed research works include such modelling issues like
optimum and nearly optimum inspection policies, shock occurrence, information
uncertainty, sequential inspection, multi-state objects, or imperfect inspection per-
formance. The classification also includes optimality criterion, planning horizon,
and used modelling method. The maintenance models for multi-unit systems regard
to the two types of technical objects—protective devices (or standby units) and
operational units. The main extensions of the developed models are discussed and
summarized. Moreover, the main development directions in inspection maintenance
modelling are presented in a graphical form. The brief summary of the conducted
literature review is provided with indicating the main research gaps in this mod-
elling area.
3.1 Introduction
Both, inspection and maintenance have an important role in various technical

systems (especially production, transportation systems). Therefore, these issues
attract a lot of attention in the literature. In many situations there are no apparent
system indicating the forthcoming failure. Hidden failure refers here to the case
where a failure remains undiscovered unless an inspection or a test is performed
[88]. In such systems with non-self-announcing failures (also called unrevealed
faults, hidden failures or latent faults) the typical PM policies cannot be used [191].
In maintenance of such systems inspection actions performance is introduced.
Examples of these systems include e.g. protective devices, emergency devices, and
standby units (see e.g. [1, 191]).
The basic purpose of inspection action performance is to determine the state of a
system [183]. Following this, there can be presented the main definition of an
inspection. According to PN-EN 60300-3-11 standard [166], an inspection is

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10788-8_3
102 3 Inspection Models for Technical Systems
defined as examination of an item against a specific standard. More detailed def-

inition is provided in [87], where the inspection is defined as measuring, examining,
testing, and gauging one or more characteristics of a product or service and
comparing the results with specified requirements to determine whether conformity
is achieved for each characteristic.
The inspection maintenance optimization is strictly connected with system’s
deterioration processes that are generally stochastic. Thus, the condition of a system
is known only by its inspection. In other words, inspection models usually assume
that the state of a system is completely unknown unless an inspection is performed.
Following this, the knowledge about true status of an inspected system gives the
possibility to take appropriate maintenance actions. However, execution of frequent
inspections incurs much costs. Conversely, infrequent inspections result in higher
cost for system downtime because longer interval between these maintenance
actions performance. Following this, the main problem in modelling optimal
inspection policies lies in obtaining the minimal total expected cost composed of
costs for inspection and system down. This optimization criteria is the most com-
monly analysed in the developed research works. Research also focuses on other
important system parameters such as availability. Moreover, in the literature one
can find works that focus on inspection actions performance and maintenance
optimisation taking into account some degradation indicators determination (e.g.
technical condition index [39], or system’s reliability indicators [100]).
Moreover, inspection schemes may be periodic and non-periodic (sequential)
[163]. In this work the author focuses mostly on periodic inspection maintenance
modelling issues. The sequential modelling is included here due to the importance
of the chosen developed models, which constitute the base in modelling and
approximation issues in this research area. More information about non-periodic
inspection maintenance modelling may be also found e.g. in [22, 191]. The com-
parison of sequential and continuous inspection strategies for deteriorating systems
is given e.g. in [120].
The literature on inspection maintenance has been widely surveyed for the last
five decades. One of the first research work that surveys inspection models is [169],
where the authors focus on inspection and replacement problems of single and
multi-unit systems. The summary of optimal scheduling of replacement and
inspection of stochastically failing equipment is developed in work [103]. Later, in
[165] the authors review the research studies that appeared between 1965 and 1976.
In their work the authors present the discrete time maintenance models in which a
unit (or units) is monitored and a decision is made to repair, replace, and/or restock
the unit(s). Mostly there are included Markov models known in that period of time.
Later, the authors in [21] propose a classification of diagnostic processes (defining
such actions as e.g. diagnosis, forecasting, and inspection) and focus on the
investigation of the issues connected with inspection maintenance.
Moreover, the author in [183] gives a state-of-the-art review of the literature
related to optimal inspection modelling of failing systems. The surveyed research
papers were published in the sixties and seventies of the last century. Later, the
authors in [99] focus on the problem of maintenance planning taking into account
3.1 Introduction 103
mathematical modelling of system’s time to failure. In 1989, the authors in [201]

present a survey on the research published after the paper [165]. In this work the
authors focus on single-unit systems (one-unit and complex systems), providing the
chapter of inspection models. The authors indicate the main differences of the
developed models in regard to e.g. time horizon, available information, the nature
of cost functions, models objective, and system’s constraints. The focus on
multi-unit systems inspection problems is given in [55]. In another work [194] the
authors present the literature review on inspection maintenance models. The authors
focus on inspection models with different types of inspection information (perfect
or not) and different costs of inspections (costly or costless inspection information).
The same year, the author in [162] reviews recent developments in the methodology
for solving inspection problems. The author in his work focuses on the most
important issues that need further development (e.g. fallible tests performance).
Later, in work [125] the author investigates numerous models, known in the lit-
erature, which deal with the problem of finding optimal inspection policies for
systems, which are subject to failures.
In 2002, the authors in work [156] review classical maintenance models
including inspection strategies. They focus on the models developed in the sixties
and seventies of the last century, that base on the general inspection policy dis-
cussed by Barlow and Proschan in their work Mathematical Theory of Reliability.
The standard inspection policies are also investigated by the author in works [144,
145]. The review of nearly optimal inspection policies is presented in [68].
Recently, the authors in [233] provide a short introduction to the maintenance
strategies implementation taking into account diagnostic engineering use and
maintenance costs constraints.
Moreover, in the known literature there can be also found some research works
that are focused on various inspection maintenance policies comparison.
Comparisons between optimum and nearly optimum inspection policies are given
e.g. in works [105, 106], where the authors refer to the models developed by
Barlow and Proschan as standard optimal policies. In another work [140] three
sub-optimal inspection polices are proposed and compared—a periodic policy, a
mean residual life policy and a constant hazard policy. The review and comparison
of known classical optimum checking policies is given in [102]. Nakagawa in his
work [143] focuses on analysing periodic, random and sequential inspection poli-
cies. Comparisons for inspection and repair policies are developed e.g. in [38, 93,
136]. The comparison between inspection and preventive maintenance policies is
given e.g. in works [119, 179]. A dynamic maintenance policy for a system under
inspection is presented e.g. in [50].
To sum up, different authors have developed many interesting and significant
results for variations of the inspection models. Thus, the existing inspection models
can be classified into many ways. One is given in [162], where the author defines
the five main groups of optimal inspection models: imperfect inspection models,
inspection with replacement policies, inspection policies with delayed symptoms of
failure, inspection models for stand-by systems, and Bayesian models. In another
work [144] the author investigates the following types of inspection models: a
standard inspection policy, an asymptotic inspection scheduling, an inspection

policy for a standby unit, an inspection policy for a storage system, a periodic
inspection for intermittent faults, and inspection for a finite interval. More general
classifications divide existing maintenance models into inspection models for
two-state systems and multi-state systems (e.g. in [56]), or inspection models for
single- and multi-unit systems (e.g. in [46, 125]). According to [88, 191] inspection
models are classified taking into account the type of maintained systems: protective
devices (safety systems) or standby units, and operating devices. Following this, the
most important classification criteria include [46, 49, 88]:
• inspection effect on an equipment (affecting/not affecting the deterioration
process of a system),
• inspection quality (perfect/imperfect),
• inspection frequency (periodic/non-periodic),
• inspection sequence (finite or infinite time span),
• equipment structure (single- or multi-unit systems),
• equipment failure detection type (non-self-announcing failures, self-announcing
failures with non-self-announcing failures),
• type of hidden failures (protective devices or standby units, operating devices),
• system’s operating context (type of maintenance actions),
• performance criterion (cost or dependability constraints).
Following this, the main scheme for classification of inspection models for
technical systems is given in Fig. 3.1. As in Chap. 2, the proposed classification
divides the known models into the two main groups of inspection strategies—for
single- and multi-unit systems.
There should be also underlined research studies that investigate an inspection
policy issues together with PM optimization. The most commonly known models
incorporate an ARP or a BRP together with an inspection policy and are mostly
investigated in Sects. 2.2 and 2.3.
In the known literature, there can be also found some research on risk-based
inspection planning. According to [18] a risk-based inspection (RBI) is a mean to
design and optimize an inspection scheme based on the performance of a risk
assessment progress using historical database, analytical methods, experience and
engineering judgment. In this approach, risk assessment is used as a valuable tool to
assign priorities among inspection and maintenance activities by analysing the
likelihood of failure and its consequences [19, 229]. This approach is predominantly
used in the oil and gas industries (see e.g. [18, 89, 90, 207, 229]), but some
implementations may also be found for e.g. marine systems (see e.g. [19, 108]),
nuclear power plants (see e.g. [104, 107, 222]), or railway systems (see e.g. [167]).
A basic overview on RBI is given e.g. in [164].
Moreover, another issues in inspection maintenance area also are noticeable. For
example, the issues of condition indicators development in regard with an
inspection planning problem are considered in [79]. The authors in their work
formulate facilitates quality control based on sampling of indirect information about
3.1 Introduction
INSPECTION MODELS FOR TECHNICAL SYSTEM
INSPECTION MODELS FOR INSPECTION MODELS FOR

SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEM MULTI-UNIT SYSTEM
MODELS FOR TWO-STATE MODELS FOR MULTI-STATE MODELS FOR STANDBY MODELS FOR OPERATING
SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM
* finite/infinite horizon case * Markovian and semi Markovian * models for single, two-, and * single- and two-stage inspection
* optimal and nearly optimal models multi-unit systems policies,
inspection policies * test procedure/optimal policy
searching models,
* two- and multi-stated system’s
components
Fig. 3.1 The general classification of inspection maintenance models for a technical system. Source Own contribution based on [46, 125, 191]
105
the condition of analysed components. The solution bases on Bayesian formulation.

Safety inspection issues are analysed e.g. in [6, 41, 139, 163, 214, 234]. In work [6]
the authors focus on the development of a model for inspection planning and
scheduling in order to integrate safety issues with other technical and economic
issues. In work [41] the author presents a method for incorporating of periodic
inspections and repairs into Markov models of safety-critical systems. Safety sys-
tems inspection intervals optimisation are investigated in works [139, 163]. In work
[214] the authors propose a framework for development of strategies to support
inspectors and to aid novice knowledge acquisition. In the last work [234], the
author focuses on the relationship between the system state change and diagnostic
methods used to prevent causes and results of failures.
The problem of inspection optimization with the implementation of
reliability-based techniques for complex structures assessment is investigated e.g. in
[78, 155]. Critically time-dependent inspection problems are investigated e.g. in
work [43]. Additionally, in work [83] the author investigates the possibility of
application of semi-Markov processes in order to determine the reliability of
diagnosing system. This problem is also considered by the authors in works [30,
64], where the inspection actions quality is connected with possibility of fallible
tests performance. In work [29] the author analyses maintenance system bases on
the criteria function optimisation (cost and time constraints) for the pair of main-
tenance structure and diagnostic structure of technical object. The main definitions
and inspection actions classification are also provided. This problem is also anal-
ysed in more depth in Sect. 3.2.
There can also be found some examples of inspection schedule optimization for
railway carriers (see e.g. [193]), nuclear power plants (see e.g. [5, 77, 82]), tunnel
lighting systems (see e.g. [8]), a scale that weighs products in the final stage of
manufacturing process (see e.g. [176, 177]), or wooden poles structures (see e.g.
[85]). Some developments connected with direct and indirect methods for symp-
toms diagnosing in hydraulic systems of agricultural machines are given
e.g. in [213].
There are also worth taking a note widely investigated production process/
system inspection and maintenance issues. Research in this area focuses mostly on
Computer-Aided Inspection Planning systems (see e.g. [227] for state of the art), or
maintenance and inspection models for production inventory systems (see e.g. [20,
51, 62, 126, 138, 197]). In this research area, the authors are also interested in
development of inspection policies for systems in storage to provide their high
reliability (see e.g. [95–98, 134, 187]).
Following the introduction, based on the classification introduced e.g. in [125],
in the next sections the author examines various types of inspection policies for
single- and multi-unit systems, which are the most widely known in the literature.
3.2 Inspection Models for a Single-Unit System 107
3.2 Inspection Models for a Single-Unit System
At the beginning, the author investigates a one-unit stochastically failing or dete-

riorating system, in which a system’s failure can be detected only by actual
inspection. Following Fig. 3.1, first inspection models for two-stated single-unit
systems are investigated. The main classification for such systems is given in
Figs. 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. The comparison of optimal time and random inspection
policies is presented e.g. in [148, 228]. The risk analysis implementation in
inspection maintenance issues is presented e.g. in [3].
The fundamental initial contribution in optimal inspection scheduling for tech-
nical systems maintenance is that of Barlow and Proschan presented in their work
Mathematical Theory of Reliability. They formulate a pure inspection model for a
system, which is characterised by the following assumptions:
• two-stated system’s condition (functioning and failed state),
• the system’s condition is known only by inspections,
• inspections are perfect in the sense that a failure will be identified at inspection,
• inspections do not degrade or rejuvenate the system,
• system cannot fail or age during inspection performance,
• inspection actions take negligible time.
For the given assumptions, the expected total cost is obtained according to the
formula:
nþ1
1 Zin
t
X
nþ1
CðTin Þ ¼ cin1 ðn þ 1Þ þ cin2 ðtin xÞ dFðxÞ ð3:1Þ
n¼0 n
tin
One of the main extension of this model regards to preventive maintenance

implementation. The maintenance policy for a unit being inspected and maintained
preventively at periodic intervals is given in [146]. The author in his work develops
two maintenance models being an extension of the well-known age replacement
policy (analysed in Sect. 2.2) and an inspection model with constant checking time.
The problem of finding an optimal inspection schedule for the basic inspection
model (Barlow and Proschan, Mathematical Theory of Reliability, 1965) is given in
[10]. In his work the author extends the basic model and proposes new algorithm
for computation of the sequence of checking times that minimizes the long run
average cost per unit time. A finite horizon case is analysed in [37, 205].
Mathematical model of maintenance system for technical objects is given in the
work [37]. The author in his work develops the model that bases on the best
maintenance strategy selection with relation to the object’s reliability state. In [205]
the author analyses the problem of determining an optimum checking schedule over
the finite horizon with cost considerations.
However, due to the problems with optimal computation of checking procedures
for simple inspection models, there are developed few research works that are
108
INSPECTION MODELS FOR SINGLE-UNIT TWO-STATED SYSTEMS

* system subject to random deterioration * inspection actions take negligible time * inspections are perfect, inspections do not degrade or rejuvenate the system
* two-stated system’s condition, the system’s condition is *infinite time horizon, cost criteria * system cannot fail or age during inspection performance
known only by inspections
STANDARD INSPECTION POLICY
(Barlow and Proschan’s model)
* non-negligible maintenance and
* perfect replacement policy inspection times
* negligible maintenance times
* discrete dynamic programming
* finite time horizon STANDARD INSPECTION [146]
POLICY WITH REPLACEMENT INSPECTION POLICY WITH [131]
INSPECTION POLICY FOR [37] NON-NEGLIGIBLE CHECKINGS
FINITE HORIZON CASE * new approximation algorithm
* new results of model computation
* optimum checking schedule OPTIMAL INSPECTION [10]
SCHEDULING CASE
INSPECTION POLICY WITH
FINITE HORIZON [205] * approximate calculations of inspection * approximation based on model parameters
times * regression analysis
* heuristic approach ASYMPTOTIC INSPECTION [144, 149] EXTENDED OPTIMAL INSPECTION [180]
* health belief model POLICY SCHEDULING MODEL
* one-parameter policy
INSPECTION POLICY BASED [114] * cost comparisons * approximation based upon a continuous
ON HEURISTIC APPROACH checking density
NEARLY OPTIMAL INSPECTION
* a general profit maximization POLICY [142] OPTIMAL INSPECTION [110]
model SCHEDULING CASE
* Weibull distribution for time to failure
MAINTENANCE INSPECTION
MODEL WITH HEURISTIC [91] * Inspection strategies comparison
NEARLY OPTIMAL INSPECTION [141]
APPROACH POLICY FOR WEIBULL CASE
INSPECTION AND PREDICTIVE [48]
* system follows a gamma distribution
MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES
NEARLY OPTIMAL INSPECTION [188]
POLICY FOR GAMMA CASE
* comparison of nearly optimal inspection
policies
* perfect/imperfect inspection case
[105, 106,
NEARLY OPTIMAL INSPECTION 144]
* two- and three-parameter optimization models
POLICIES COMPARISON
OPTIMAL INSPECTION MODELS [102]
Fig. 3.2 Inspection models for two-state, single-unit systems—standard periodic and sequential policies
3 Inspection Models for Technical Systems
* imperfect inspection
* multiple correlated degradation process STANDARD INSPECTION POLICY
* cost model * ith test increases the remaining failure rate of a
(Barlow and Proschan’s model) system
IMPERFECT INSPECTION [128] * imperfect inspection case * exponential and uniform failure time distributions
POLICY *Markov decision model *mean loss per unit time criterion
* lifetime distribution of the system completely or STANDARD INSPECTION

partially unknown POLICY WITH EXPONENTIAL [181] INSPECTION STRATEGY MODEL [209]
* minimax approach for inspection CASE WHERE TESTS HASTEN FAILURES
optimization
* IRR policy for standby system
MINIMAX INSPECTION [24] * test may be harmful for inspected device
* cost and availability considerations
STRATEGY * four-state system
* renewal process/ non-linear
* expected life of the system optimization
programming
* basic inspection model with
extensions (perfect/imperfect HAZARDOUS-INSPECTION MODEL [42]
INSPECTION-REPAIR-
inspection, negligible and non-
REPLACEMENT POLICY [219] * non-Markovian stochastic failures
negligible inspection times)
* one-test and two-test policies considered
* minimal repair of unit being in down

EXTENDED MINIMAX [127] * cost criterion
state and correctly diagnosed
INSPECTION STRATEGY * system lifetime has increasing failure rate OPTIMAL INSPECTION AND [160]
* cost criterion REPLACEMENT POLICY WITH
* a basic inspection model
* variational method implementation EXTENDED INSPECTION- [218] FALLIBLE TESTS
INSPECTION POLICY WITH [154] REPAIR-REPLACEMENT POLICY * fallible and time consuming test procedures
VARIATIONAL METHOD * two types of tests (fallible and error-free but more
expensive)
* time period when failure may be noticed
* dynamic programming
* dynamic programming * infinite and finite horizon cases
* quasi-Bayes approach * cost criterion OPTIMAL INSPECTION POLICY [161]
* performance model uncertainty WITH FALLIBLE TESTS
OPTIMAL INSPECTION POLICY
EXTENDED INSPECTION WITH FAILURE DETECTION [88]
POLICY WITH PERFORMANCE [74]
ZONE
MODEL UNCETRAINTY
Fig. 3.3 Inspection models for two-state, single-unit systems—knowledge about system lifetime distribution unavailability and imperfect inspection/fallible
109
tests cases
110
STANDARD INSPECTION POLICY

(Barlow and Proschan’s model)
* expected operational readiness optimization
* periodic and random inspection period
OPTIMAL INSPECTION POLICY WITH [210] * multiple post repair inspection and accident during
RELIABILITY CONSIDERATIONS inspection investigation
* semi-Markov process and regenerative point technique
* cost and availability constraints
* replacement after Nin inspection actions
performance INSPECTION POLICY FOR
[172]
SYSTEMS WITH ACCIDENT
GENERAL INSPECTION EXTENDED INSPECTION POLICY [210] REPAIRMAN
POLICY WITH RELIABILITY [92] WITH RELIABILITY CONSIDERATIONS
CONSIDERATIONS * limiting average availability
* two types of inspection * simple/hybrid inspection policies
frequencies EXTENDED INSPECTION POLICY [217] INSPECTION POLICY WITH
TWO-PHASE INSPECTION WITH AVAILABILITY CONSTRAINTS
[25] SHOCK MODELS
POLICY * two maintenance models
* graph solution Presented in Figure 3.5
* two maintenance policies for
checking the validity of alarm IMPROVED INSPECTION POLICY WITH [178]
* finite time horizon AVAILABILITY CONSTRAINTS * periodic inspections take place at fixed time points after
IMPERFECT INSPECTION POLICY [26] * random walk model implementation repair or replacement in case of failure
OVER A FINITE HORIZON
INSPECTION POLICY WITH EXTENDET INSPECTION POLICY
[59] [58]
RANDOM WALK MODEL WITH RANDOM REPAIR AND
* self and non-self-announcing failures
* T-age policy * five models of periodic inspections REPLACEMENT TIMES
* imperfect inspection * instantaneous availability and
instantaneous repair rate calculation * minimal repairs before replacement or a
perfect repair
EXTENDED INSPECTION AND INSPECTION MODELS FOR
MAINTENANCE POLICY WITH [49] [60] EXTENDED INSPECTION
GENERAL SYSTEMS [216]
TWO TYPES OF FAILURES POLICY WITH MINIMAR REPAIR
* non-negligible downtimes due to inspection * geometric process model
and repair/replacement * bivariate policy based on optimisation of inspections interval
time and number of failures at which the system is replaced
EXTENDED INSPECTION
POLICY WITH NON- [192] EXTENDED INSPECTION AND
[52, 208]
NEGLIGIBLE DOWNTIMES MAINTENANCE POLICIES
Fig. 3.4 Inspection models for two-state, single-unit systems—models with reliability/availability constraints

SUBJECTED TO RANDOM SHOCKS
* random shocks occurrence
* shocks arrive according to a Poisson process
* inspections follow renewal process
* system availability criterion
* perfect replacement policy
OPTIMAL INSPECTION POLICY FOR SYSTEMS [215]

* numerical procedure allowing the evaluation of the
system up-time ratio
EXTENDED INSPECTION POLICY FOR [47, 48]
SYSTEMS SUBJECTED TO RANDOM SHOCKS
* deterioration process includes both shock
* PM with inspection, minimal repair for
degradation and graceful degradation
non-maintainable failure mode, imperfect
maintenance for maintainable failure
mode and perfect replacement [224] INSPECTION POLICY FOR SYSTEMS
SUBJECTED TO SHOCKS AND [116]
INSPECTION POLICY WITH IMPERFECT GRACEFUL DEGRADATION
MAINTENANCE FOR A SYSTEM WITH
*three types of inspections (perfect, partial, and imperfect)
TWO FAILURE MODES
* three competing failure types
* PM according to age-based policy
* perfect replacement of the
system after the NIth failures IMPERFECT INSPECTION POLICY [223]
* imperfect inspections
FOR A SYSTEM WITH THREE
* cost criterion
FAILURE MODES
IMPROVED INSPECTION POLICY FOR

[13, 14]
A SYSTEM UNDER AGE DEPENDENT
MINIMAL REPAIR
* perfect replacement of the system after the NIth
failures, failure of type II occurrence, or at age
Ty
EXTENDED INSPECTION POLICY FOR [185]
A SYSTEM WITH MULTIPLE FAILURE
MODES
Fig. 3.5 Inspection models for two-state, single-unit systems—shock models
focused on the issues of inspection models approximation. Following [102] there

are developed nearly optimal methods or algorithms that may fall into one of the
following categories:
• improvement of the original algorithm (see e.g. [144, 149, 180]),
• approximate methods associated with the concept of an inspection density
function (see e.g. [110]),
• one-parameter optimization models (see e.g. [48, 141, 142, 188]).
The new asymptotically optimal inspection policy, which computes checking
procedures backwards is discussed in works [144, 149]. The numerical example are
given for the Weibull distribution case. This problem is also considered by Schultz
[180], where the author evaluates an existing approximation of the optimal periodic
inspection interval with the use of regression analysis. In work [110] the author
proposes an asymptotic solution of the optimal periodic inspection interval
employing a continuous checking density.
One of the first work concerned with a one-parameter policy is given in [142]. In
their work the authors focus on cost comparisons (using linear cost functions) with
the optimal inspection policy, given by Barlow and Proschan. Later, this work is
extended by the authors in [141], where the proposed inspection policy is concerned
with a detection of failure of a system, when the time to failure is a Weibull variate.
Moreover, the one parameter inspection policy, given in [142], is considered in
work [188], where the time to failure of a system follows gamma distribution. The
problem is later continued in works [105, 106, 144], where the authors compare the
optimal inspection policy given by Barlow and Proschan in 1965 with the nearly
optimal ones given e.g. in [142, 149]. The results are obtained for Weibull and
gamma distributions cases.
The extension of the model developed in [142] is also given in [48]. In their
work the authors assume that the conditional failure probability is a specific
increasing function dependent on the inspection number. Later, in work [102] the
authors also study the appropriateness of typical optimum and nearly optimum
inspection policies and provide two optimization models (two- and three-parameter
models) of the optimum inspection problem.
A heuristic approach for determining the optimal inspection interval is investi-
gated in works [91, 114]. The authors in [114] assume that the optimal interval
between inspections depends on a likelihood of malfunction, a cost of inspection,
and a cost of treatment. The developed model is later examined in order to analyse
the relation of subjects’ judgments to the model prescription. Later, in work [91] the
author focuses on the development of a mathematical model for determining a
periodic inspection schedule in a preventive maintenance program for a single
machine. He also proposes alternative optimal and heuristic procedures to find exact
and approximate inspection intervals for the exponential time to machine failure
case.
Another extension of the pure inspection model of a system regards to
non-negligible checking times. The simple inspection policies with non-negligible
inspection times are given e.g. in [131]. The authors in their work develop optimal
checking policies for three different objective functions: expected loss per cycle, per
time unit, and per unit of good time, providing a solution with the use of differ-
entiation and dynamic programming.
The quick summary of the analysed models is presented in Table 3.1.
Moreover, in the literature, there can be found inspection strategies for the cases,
when there is no or only partial information on a lifetime distribution of a system
available. One of the first work that investigates this issue is given by Beichelt [24]
and the classification is presented in Fig. 3.3.
Beichelt in his work [24] develops a model for proper scheduling of inspections
for the two cases: replacement and no replacement of a failed system. Taking into
account the unavailability of information about system lifetime distribution, the
author proposes to use minimax inspection strategies with respect to cost criterions.
For the inspection with replacement case, the expected loss cost per unit time
amounts to:
Table 3.1 Summary of inspection policies for two-state, single-unit systems—standard periodic and sequential policies
Planning Problem category Optimality criterion Decision variables Modelling method/ Typical
horizon checking procedures reference
Infinite Original algorithm The expected cost per unit of time Tin, aa Analytical/– [146]
horizon Tin Analytical/optimal [10]
Optimal checking times sequence (optimal i –/Approximate [144, 149]
Check times tin
cost per inspection cycle) (sequence) calculations
The expected total costs Analytical [102]
Expected loss per cycle, per time unit, and Differentiation and [131]
per unit of good time dynamic programming
Optimal inspection interval (optimal cost i –/Regression analysis [180]
Time to failure, tin
per inspection cycle) (sequence)
The expected profit per unit of time Tin Analytical/heuristic [91]
approach
The expected cost function Heuristic approach [114]

The expected total cost Analytical [221]
Approximate method Optimal inspection interval i [110]
tin (sequence) –/Approximate
calculations
One-parameter The total cost function Analytical [141, 142,
optimization model 188]
The average total cost per time unit i [48]
tin (sequence/
periodic)
Nearly optimal The total expected cost i [105, 106]
tin (sequence)
policies comparison
Finite Original algorithm Expected costs due to inspections and [205]
horizon failure
Expected costs of loss State of the object Discrete dynamic [37]
at t0, Tin programming
113
Pn R tinn þ 1 nþ1

n
i¼0 tin ði þ 1Þcin þ vðtin tin
n
Þ dFðtÞ þ ðn þ 1Þcin ð1 FðTÞÞ þ cr
i
Cðtin ; FÞ ¼ P1 i i þ 1
i¼0 tin Fðtin Þ Fðtin Þ þ Tr
i
ð3:2Þ
The extensions of the given model is presented in e.g. [127], where the author
provides optimum checking schedules for systems subject to random failures and
under the assumption of entirely unknown system lifetime distribution. In the given
work, the author discusses four models—a basic inspection model, the basic
inspection model with imperfect inspection, the basic model with inspection time,
and the basic model with imperfect inspection and inspection time. The basic
inspection model is later also investigated by Okumura in his work [154], where the
author implements a variational method to determine optimal inspection schedules.
The imperfect inspections issues (see Fig. 3.3) are analysed e.g. in work [128],
where the authors develop an imperfect inspection policy for systems subject to a
multiple correlated degradation process. The degradation processes are then char-
acterized by a multivariate Wiener process, and dependency between the processes
is described by a covariance matrix. Periodic imperfect inspection is performed to
reveal the existence of hidden failures. The optimal inspection interval is obtained
by minimizing the long-run cost rate.
In another work [181] the author presents a problem of finding the optimum
inspection procedure for a system, whose time to failure is exponentially dis-
tributed. The problem is considered as a continuous-time Markovian decision
process with two states (before and after failure) and provides a basis for e.g.
extended model given in [127].
The optimization of inspection decisions under performance model uncertainty
is given in [74]. In their work, the authors present a model that simultaneously
optimizes maintenance, rehabilitation and inspection decisions for infrastructure
facility in a finite time horizon. The model bases on the implementation of a
Markov decision process and a quasi-Bayes approach to model the imperfect
information about system condition.
The introduction of an inspection-repair-replacement (IRR) policy is given in
works [218, 219]. In both works the authors assume that a system is inspected at
pre-assigned times to distinguish between the up and down states. If the system is
identified as in the down state during the inspection, a repair action will be taken
(perfect repair according to [219] or minimal repair according to [218]). Moreover,
periodic preventive replacement is also performed. The aim is to determine an
optimal IRR policy so that the availability of the system is high enough at any time
taking into account the minimization of cost criterion. The models base on the
renewal reward process use.
Worth taking an interest is also work given by Guo et al. [88], where the authors
introduce an optimal inspection policy that bases on failure detection zone imple-
mentation. The idea is similar to a delay-time approach (analysed in Chap. 4) or
Fault Trees with Time Dependencies modelling approach (see e.g. [132]). In the
presented model, if inspection is conducted in a pre-specified time zone, a failure

will be noticed before it occurs. Otherwise, the failure will remain undetected. The
analytical algorithm for searching optimal inspection interval is given taking into
account cost and availability criteria.
Another interesting problem is presented in [209], where the authors propose a
model in which the ith test increases a remaining failure rate without changing the
form of the conditional lifetime distribution. The solution algorithms for finding the
best testing times are developed for two cases of uniform and exponential failure
time distributions.
The problem of determination of an optimal inspection policy, when inspections
may be harmful to a maintained unit is also continued by Butler in [42]. The author
in his work develops a hazardous-inspection model, where every performed test
may impair the tested unit. The proposed model is developed based on a Markov
decision process implementation and the emphasis is put on maximization of the
expected lifetime of the inspected unit. A non-Markovian case is analysed in work
[161]. The author in his work develops two inspection policies: one-test and
two-test policies. The two-stage inspection procedure is dedicated to expensive
devices and bases on performing a fallible test first and an error-free test whenever
the first test reports a failure. The models base on the assumptions of arbitrary
failure distributions, general optimality conditions and algorithms for reduction the
infinite horizon optimization to two dimensions. This inspection problem is later
continued in work [160].
Moreover, in the literature one can find maintenance models that base on
maintenance-free operating period implementation in the area of inspection policy
development (see e.g. [61]). The maintenance model being a mixture of a standard
ARP and a maintenance procedure for unrevealed failures is given e.g. in work
[15]. The quick summary of the analysed models is presented in Table 3.2.
In the known literature, there can be also found inspection models that are
focused on checking schedule optimization with reliability/availability constraints
(see Fig. 3.4). One of the first models that is aimed at equipment inspection anal-
yses with reliability consideration is given in [210]. In his work the author develops
an optimal periodic inspection program for systems that do not have negative
exponential reliability functions. He proposes two inspection policies that optimize
two model parameters—inspection interval Tin and a time, when a system is to be
replaced by a new one if it has passed all of the previous inspections. Moreover, the
standard inspection policy is also extended by the author to the cases of random
inspection scheduling and system replacement after Nin actions performance.
The problem of imperfect inspections with the implementation of multiple post
repair inspection and accident during inspection is analysed in work [172]. The
authors in their model propose an inspection policy for single- and two-unit sys-
tems, where a repairman is called immediately to repair a failed unit. After repair
completion, accidents may happen during the inspection action performance that
the repairman is harmed and is no more able to repair the failed unit. The com-
pletion of maintenance action is then made by another repairman. The system
behaves as good as new after completion of maintenance actions performance.
Table 3.2 Summary of inspection policies for two-state, single-unit systems—knowledge about system lifetime distribution unavailability and imperfect
116
inspection/fallible tests cases

Planning Information about Quality of Optimality criterion Modelling method Typical
horizon system lifetime performed reference
distribution inspections
Infinite Unknown or partially Perfect The expected loss cost per time Analytical [24]
horizon unknown unit
Known or unknown The total expected cost [154]
Unknown Perfect/ [127]
imperfect
Known Imperfect The cost per unit of time [15]
The long-run expected cost per Renewal reward process/non-linear [219]
unit time/availability function programming
The long-run expected cost per Renewal reward process [218]
unit time Renewal theory, Wiener process [128]
The total cost over a lifetime Continuous-time Markovian decision [81]
process
The expected cost per time unit Markovian model [61]
Fallible/ The long-run cost per unit time Dynamic programming [161]
error-free tests
Fallible tests Analytical [160]
Mean loss per unit time [209]
The expected lifetime of the unit Markov decision process [42]
Infinite/ Failure detection The long-run cost per unit time Analytical [88]
finite zone
horizon
Finite Imperfect The expected sum of discounted Markov decision [74]
horizon cost process + quasi-Bayes
approach + dynamic programming
The analytical solutions are provided for various measures of reliability such as
mean time to system failure, steady state availability, busy period of repairman for
repair, and inspection per unit time by using semi-Markov processes and regen-
erative point technique.
Another interesting model is given in work [92]. The author in his work con-
siders a problem of the optimal choice of periodic inspection intervals for a
renewable equipment without preventive replacement performance. The model is
based on the two optimization criteria: minimization of maintenance costs and
maximization of system availability. He develops an approximate method for
inspection interval calculations and proves that the obtained solutions are very close
to the exact ones.
The extended inspection model with imperfect testing is later presented in [25].
The author in his work develops a two-phase inspection policy that takes into
account the changes in component’s aging. According to the given inspection
policy, a system may undergo different inspection frequencies to detect either early
failures or those due to the natural deterioration in the system. Moreover, the unit is
renewed whenever an inspection points out the occurrence of a failure and with no
effect on its reliability otherwise (“as-good-as-bad” maintenance). The analytical
solution is based on optimization of the limiting average availability function and
the cost per unit of time in the long run. In the presented model, the imperfect
testing is connected with introduction of false alarms that correspond to type I and
type II statistical errors. In another work [26] the authors also introduce the false
alarm occurrence, but with the additional checking of the alarm validity (“second
opinion”). There are considered two maintenance models: in the first model, the
authors assume that when an alarm occurs on inspection, a further investigation
follows at additional cost in order to check the validity of the alarm. If the system is
found to be good, it continues in operation. Otherwise, it is retired from service. In
the second model, the authors assume that inspection is the only source of infor-
mation about the system and therefore after an alarm the system is retired in case of
positive inspection. The optimisation of cost criterion is given for a finite horizon
case. The solution is based on the assumptions given in [27].
Simple and hybrid inspection policies aimed at guaranteeing a high level of
availability are investigated in work [217]. First, the simple periodical inspection is
analysed. To overcome its weaknesses and take into account the information about
remaining life of a system, the quantile-based inspections are introduced. This
inspection policy is valid for increasing failure rate of the system. Later, there is
developed a hybrid inspection policy that takes into account maintenance actions
performance (periodic inspections or quantile-based inspections), regarding the type
of lifetime distributions: increasing failure rate or decreasing failure rate. Analytical
solutions and numerical examples are provided for the limiting average availability
and the long-run inspection rate assumptions.
The continuation of periodic inspection issues is given in [178]. The authors in
their work consider two models in which a system found non-failed during
inspection is considered as good as new and is allowed to operate without any
intervention. A failed system is perfectly repaired and immediately restored to
operation (model A) or restored to operation only at the next scheduled inspection

time following completion of repair (model B). For both the models, the authors
develop expressions for the limiting average availability.
A randomly failing single unit system, whose failures may be self-announcing or
not self-announcing is later considered in work [49]. The authors in their work
consider a randomly failing single unit system that is submitted to inspection when
its age reaches Tyin units of time. The model includes imperfect inspection and
preventive replacement performance. The proposed model bases on the imple-
mentation of basic strategy of an ARP for the case of self-announcing failures. The
objective is to determine the inspection and preventive maintenance interval which
maximizes the stationary availability of the system.
The continuation of inspection modelling with availability constraints, given in
[178], is presented in [59]. The authors in their work analyse the instantaneous
availability of a system maintained under periodic inspection with the use of ran-
dom walk models. There are analysed two cases: deterministic and stochastic ones.
Some summary and extensions of the models presented in [59] are also given in
work [60]. In their work the authors focus on periodic inspection developing five
basic models with availability requirements. The models base on basic periodic
inspection, single-quantile-based inspection, hybrid inspection for increasing and
decreasing failure rates, multiple-quantile-based inspection, and time hybrid
inspection. All the inspection models base on the different approach to inspection
times determination.
Later, in work [58] the authors also extend the inspection models given in [178].
The main extension bases on the assumption that the periodic inspections take place
at fixed time points after repair or replacement in case of failure. The implemen-
tation of minimal repairs before replacement or perfect repair is analysed in work
[216]. The authors in their work propose a minimal repair model with periodic
inspection and constant repair time. The instantaneous availability of the proposed
model is derived by a set of recursive formulas, providing the introduction to
optimization of system reliability characteristics.
Recently, in work [192] the authors focus on the availability of a system under
periodic inspection with perfect repair/replacement and non-negligible downtime
due to repair/replacement for a detected failure and due to inspection. The model is
an extension of the works given in [58, 131, 178]. The authors in their work analyse
both, a calendar-based inspection policy and an age-based inspection policy.
The last works, given by Wang and Zhang [206] and Cheng and Li [52] focus on
an optimal repair-replacement problem for a simple repairable system with periodic
inspections. The authors in their works investigate a bivariate policy (Tin, Nr),
assuming that the consecutive lifetimes after failure repair are geometrically
decreasing and preventive repair is perfect in each working cycle. The algorithm for
searching optimal values of model parameters is provided.
To sum up, the quick summary of the analysed above models is presented in
Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Summary of inspection policies for two-state, single-unit systems—models with reliability/availability constraints
Planning Quality of performed Optimality criterion Modelling method Typical
horizon inspections/maintenance reference
Infinite Perfect inspections/perfect Limiting average availability and long-run inspection rate Analytical [217]
horizon replacement
Perfect inspections/perfect Limiting average availability [178]
repair The long-run average cost per unit time [52]
The average availability and the long-run average cost rate [206]
Imperfect inspections/ The expected operational readiness of a system [210]
perfect replacement System stationary availability [49]
Imperfect inspections/ Measures of system reliability Semi-Markov [172]
perfect repair process + regenerative point
technique
The stationary availability coefficient and total expected cost per Analytical [92]
one renewal period

Imperfect inspections/ Limiting average availability and the long-run average cost per [25]
imperfect renewal unit time
Finite/ Perfect inspections/perfect Limiting average availability, long-run inspection rate, [60]
infinite replacement or repair instantaneous availability, instantaneous inspection rate
horizon Perfect inspections/perfect Limiting average availability, instantaneous availability [58]
replacement or repair [192]
Finite Perfect inspections/perfect The instantaneous availability Analytical (random walk [59]
horizon replacement or repair model)
Perfect inspections/minimal Analytical [216]
repair
Imperfect inspection/perfect The long-run average cost per unit time or cost-rate over the time [26]
retirement to retirement
119
The last group of inspection policies for two-stated, single-unit systems regards
to shock models implementation (see Fig. 3.5). One of the first works aimed at
implementation of random shocks modelling for systems with non-self-announcing
failures is given by Wortman et al. [215]. The authors in their work consider a
periodic inspection model for a system with randomly occurring shocks that follows
a Poisson process and cumulatively damage the system. They develop an expres-
sion for system availability assessment when inspections follow a renewal process.
The formulas are also provided for a deterministic renewal process. The presented
model is later investigated and extended by Chelbi and Ait-Kadi in works [47, 48].
In their works the authors extend the assumption made in [215] about exponentially
distributed times between shock arrivals by proposing a generalised model. The
new inspection policy takes into account random shock magnitudes and times
between shock arrivals and is also aimed at availability criterion optimization.
Another extension of the model, presented in [215], is given in [116]. The
authors in their work incorporate a more general deterioration process that includes
both shock degradation and graceful degradation (continuous accumulation of
damage). With the use of regenerative arguments and taking into account a constant
rate of graceful degradation occurrence, an expression for the limiting average
availability is derived.
Later, in work [224] the authors develop a maintenance cost model for a system
with two failure modes: type I failure relative to non-maintainable failure mode, and
type II failure relative to periodically maintainable failure mode. They focus on
assessment and optimization of a preventive maintenance policy involving
inspections of the system, minimal repair (for non-maintainable failure mode),
imperfect maintenance (for maintainable failure mode), and perfect replacement for
the whole system. The presented policy is an extension of the classical block
replacement policy (investigated in Sect. 2.2). The expected maintenance cost rate
on an infinite time horizon is estimated with the use of classical renewal theory
results.
The same year, a model with three types of inspections is introduced in [223]. In
the presented article, the authors assume that a system can fail because of three
competing failure types: I, II, and III. Partial inspections detect without error type I
failures. Failures of type II can be detected by imperfect inspections. Type III
failures are detectable only by perfect inspections. If the system is found failed in an
inspection, a perfect repair is made. Moreover, the system is preventively main-
tained according to an age-based policy (perfect PM). Taking into account that all
types of inspections are characterized by different costs and detection capabilities,
the system cost rate function is evaluated.
Another extension of works [223] and [15] is given in [13, 14]. The authors in
their works develop a maintenance model for a system with two types of failures
(minor/catastrophic), based on imperfect inspection possibilities, minimal repair of
minor failures and perfect repairs for catastrophic failures implementation. The
inspection policy is aimed at minimization of the expected cost per time unit over
an infinite time span. This maintenance model is later extended by Sheu et al. in
[185]. In the given inspection model, the system is replaced at the NIth minor
failure, first catastrophic failure, or at working age Ty, whichever occurs first. Based
on the main assumptions given in among others [13, 184] the authors determine the
expected net cost rate and discuss various special cases of the model.
The quick summary of the inspection models for systems subjected to shocks is
presented in Table 3.4.
Other inspection problems for single-unit two-state systems regard to e.g. dis-
count factor implementation in order to take the time value of costs into account
(see e.g. [221]).
In systems, where their safety is very important, reliability analysis carried out in
relation to two-state technical objects is insufficient. At the same time, the time
between failures of a system is a function of the adopted maintenance concept.
Thus, the relationship between the parameter of time to failure and the theory of
Table 3.4 Summary of inspection policies for two-state, single-unit systems—shock models
Planning Maintenance Failure modes Optimality Modelling Typical
horizon actions taken criterion method reference
Infinite Perfect Random shocks The Analytical [47, 48,
horizon inspections/ arriving time-stationary (renewal 215]
perfect according to a availability process)
replacement Poisson process
Random shocks The limiting [116]
(a Poisson average
process) and availability
graceful
degradation
Perfect Two dependable The expected [224]
inspections/ failure modes: maintenance
minimal repair/ maintainable and cost per unit
imperfect PM/ non-maintainable time
perfect
replacement
Partial, perfect, Three competing The cost rate [223]
and imperfect failure modes: I, function
inspections/ II, III
perfect PM
Perfect Two failure The expected [13, 14]
inspections/ modes: minor cost per unit of
minimal repair/ failure and time
perfect repair/ catastrophic
perfect failures
replacement
Perfect The expected [185]
inspections/ net cost rate
perfect repair/
perfect
replacement
reliability requires extension. The solution to these problems is to consider a

technical object in terms of a minimum of three reliability states, where a third state
is the state of partial failure.
In the area of inspection maintenance modelling, there are many models dedi-
cated for optimization of multi-state deteriorating single-unit system maintenance.
In this research area, existing inspection models may be classified to the two main
groups: models for systems with perfect/imperfect inspection and models for sys-
tems subjected to shocks. The main directions of research done in these models
groups are presented below.
First, the main inspection models for multi-state, single-unit systems with
perfect/imperfect maintenance actions are investigated (Figs. 3.6 and 3.7).
One of the first work devoted to a maintenance policy with inspections is given
in [130]. In this work, the author develops a Markovian model for systems in which
the degree of deterioration can be observed through inspections. The model is
focused on proper scheduling of inspections and preventive repairs taking into
account the total expected cost per time unit minimization. The main assumptions
include periodic inspections performance, perfect repair and inspection actions
implementation, and random system’s holding times.
The semi-Markov processes are applied in work [211]. The author in his work
develops a maintenance model for systems with five states that constitute all possible
cycles, which begin with inspections. The solution is based on reliability charac-
teristics assessment (asymptotic availability, reliability function). This problem is
later continued in work [220], where the author proposes a phase-type approach to
derive optimal inspection and replacement policies for semi-Markovian deteriorating
systems. The model introduces the use of acyclic phase-type (ACPH) distributions to
approximate the general sojourn time distributions. Moreover, the model includes
two types of inspection: complete (identify both, the current state and the state-age of
the system) and incomplete inspections (identify only the current state of the sys-
tem). The phase-type approach includes four steps: approximation of the sojourn
time distributions, transformation of the semi-Markovian model into a Markovian
model, optimal inspection and replacement policy obtaining, and implementing the
optimal policy onto the semi-Markovian model. The solution also bases on cost
criteria assessment.
Maintenance of systems, whose deterioration can be expressed as a Markov
chain is considered e.g. in work [115]. The author proposes an inspection-
maintenance-replacement policy under cost considerations and provides optimal
solutions with the use of linear programming. Later, Ohnishi et al. [153] investi-
gates a system whose deterioration is expressed as a continuous-time Markov
processes. Unlike in previous works, the authors assume that operating costs and
replacement costs are dependent on system’s state. This model is later extended in
[57], where the author implements an imperfect test model and periodic inspections.
The developed algorithm for an optimal inspection policy computation bases on
upper and bound procedure and bisection-algorithm implementation.
There can be also found research works that propose a strategy that combines
both inspection and continuous monitoring to reduce unnecessary thorough
INSPECTION MODELS FOR SINGLE-UNIT MULTI-STATE SYSTEMS
* deterioration process observed * perfect inspection and maintenance
through inspections * control-limit policy
* Markovian model * negligible inspection time
* cost criteria * infinite horizon case
SIMPLE INSPECTION MODEL FOR SINGLE- [130]
UNIT MULTI-STATE SYSTEM
* sequential decision problems * availability constraint
* Markov chain implementation * imperfect inspection
* perfect/imperfect maintenance * semi-Markov process implementation
*linear programming model * non-negligible inspection time
SIMPLE INSPECTION MODEL UNDER SIMPLE INSPECTION MODEL WITH [211]
[115]
MARKOVIAN DETERIORATION AVAILABILITY CONSTRAINTS
* cost criteria
* non-homogeneous Markov
* continuous-time Markov process * acyclic phase-type distributions
model
* tolerable downtime model * state dependent cost structure
EXTENDED INSPECTION MODEL FOR [220]
SEMI-MARKOV DETERIORATING
INSPECTION POLICY WITH SIMPLE INSPECTION MODEL FOR

[23] [153] SYSTEM
TOLERABLE DOWNTIME CONTINUOUS-TIME MARKOV
MODEL DETERIORATION PROCESS
* a Markov process with * imperfect test model

sequential phases
SIMPLE INSPECTION MODEL UNDER [57]
INSPECTION MODEL OF
[107] INTERMITTENT FAULTS
DETERIORATION PROCESS WITH
SEQUENTIAL CONDITION STATES
* non-repairable system * imperfect maintenance
* cost and reliability * inspection with continuous monitoring
constraints
IMPERFECT INSPECTION EXTENDED INPECTION MODEL USING
[123]
POLICY FOR MULTI-STATE [26] MIXED INSPECTION SCHEDULING
SYSTEM
Fig. 3.6 Inspection models for multi-state, single-unit systems with perfect/imperfect maintenance actions
123
124

* discrete-time Markov process * imperfect information about the state of a
* costs increase with state process
number * monotonic four-region policy
SIMPLE INSPECTION MODEL WITH [173]

UNCERTAIN INFORMATION
* finite horizon case

* production problems * semi-Markov decision model
INSPECTION MODEL FOR PRODUCTION EXTENDED INSPECTION MODEL FOR [196]

[212]
PROCESS SYSTEM WITH PARTIAL
* semi-regenerative process INFORMATION
implementation * partially observable Markov decision
process * expected long-run discounted cost estimation
* non-negligible maintenance
time * infinite horizon case
EXTENDED INSPECTION MODEL [109]
EXTENDED INSPECTION INSPECTION MODEL UNDER WITH DISCOUNTED COST
MODEL FOR PRODUCTION [81] [152]
INCOMPLETE STATE INFORMATION
PROCESS
* two-level inspection policy (minor and major
inspection
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE MODEL [206]
WITH A TWO-LEVEL INSPECTION
POLICY
Fig. 3.7 Inspection models for multi-state, single-unit systems with imperfect maintenance/incomplete information
inspection performance and to improve the system’s reliability. First, the authors in
[123] develop an optimal maintenance strategy of a system with a continuous-time
Markov degradation process under imperfect maintenance. In the presented solu-
tion, each system state represents a level of degradation, which can be detected
accurately through inspection or partially by continuous monitoring. Due the
deterioration, the system can only transit to higher degradation level. The mainte-
nance brings the system to a probably better state (lower degradation level). At each
inspection time, the decision must be made based on the system’s detected con-
dition: to perfectly replace the system or to perform imperfect repair. The opti-
mization algorithm bases on cost criteria.
In another work [28] the authors implement periodic inspections with CBM
modelling. The authors present a maintenance model for a three-state system that
bases on imperfect inspections (false positive and false negative ones) performance.
At a false positive inspection the system is unnecessarily replaced. A false negative
inspection means a defect remains unrevealed with reliability implications for future
operation. Moreover, at the NinPM inspection preventive replacement is performed.
The model bases on operational reliability of the system under inspection and
maintenance optimization.
Another implementations of Markovian modelling in multi-state single-unit
systems maintenance problems are given e.g. in [23, 107]. The authors in their work
[23] use non-homogeneous Markovian techniques to model systems with tolerable
down times. In work [107] the authors base on a Markov process with sequential
phases use. The optimal periodic inspection is developed for systems, where the
deterioration process is defined as ageing process with a finite number of sequential
states. The model bases on the renewal theory use and is a continuation of research
works done e.g. in [115, 220].
The issues of partially observable process are also examined in work [173]
(Fig. 3.7). The author in this paper presents a model of a system that deteriorates
according to a discrete-time Markov processes and its operation and repair costs
increase with state number. He proposes a monotonic four-region policy with cost
considerations, where the decision process adopts a countable state space and a
finite action space. The continuation of this problem is given e.g. in [196], where
the authors propose a semi-Markov decision algorithm operating on the class of
control-limit rules. This problem is later extended by [109], where the authors allow
for delayed replacement performance and investigate the discounted cost structure.
The maintenance inspection issues of production systems and processes are
analysed e.g. in [81, 152, 208, 212]. In work [212] the author considers a problem
of optimally controlling a finite state production process subject to Markov dete-
rioration. During the production process performance, an inspector may make one
of the following decisions: produce without inspection, produce with inspection,
and repair. The state of the production process is perfectly observed at inspection
times and completely unobserved otherwise. The model includes three criteria: a
finite horizon case, discounted cost and average cost criteria. The presented model
is similar to the one predetermined in [173] under less stringent conditions.
The optimal inspection and replacement problem with partially observable

Markov decision process for an infinite horizon is also analysed in work [152]. In
their work, the authors assume that a system is monitored incompletely by a certain
mechanism, which gives a decision maker some information about the exact state of
the system. Following this, the decision maker has to pay an additional inspection
cost to identify the exact state of the system with certainty. The optimization is
performed for the expected total discounted cost criteria. Under some conditions,
the optimal policy has monotonic structural properties, which are similar to those
obtained in [173, 212].
A two-level inspection policy model for a single-component plant system is
analysed in work [208]. Moreover, it is assumed a three-stage failure process for the
system performance. The first level of inspection (the minor inspection) can only
identify a minor defective stage with a certain probability. The major inspection can
identify both defective stages perfectly. The modelled maintenance policy corre-
sponds to periodic inspections with planned PMs. The optimization problem is
focused on inspection intervals for minor and major inspections and threshold level
determination based on cost constraints.
The last interesting models is given in [81], where the authors analyse an optimal
inspection policy with generally distributed restoration and repair times. They base
on an implementation. The solution is given with the use of the Markov renewal
theory for assessment of the formulae of the long-run expected average cost per unit
time and steady-state probabilities of the SRI.
The quick summary of the analysed above inspection models is presented in
Table 3.5.
The last group of inspection policies for multi-state, single-unit systems regards
to shock models implementation (see Fig. 3.8).
One of the first works that considers inspection policies for multi-state,
single-unit systems with shock modelling is given by Zuckerman [231]. The author
in his work develops an inspection policy for a unit subjected to a shock process.
Based on the assumptions:
• perfect inspection and replacement actions performance,
• infinite time horizon,
• negligible inspection and replacement times,
• shocks occurrence according to a Poisson process.
The long-run average cost per unit of time is calculated with the use of the
renewal theory. The presented model is later extended in work [2], where the author
determines an optimal inspection policy for a system with deterioration process
assumed to be an increasing pure jump Markov process. Later, in work [117] the
authors develop an optimal inspection-replacement policy for an item subject to
cumulative damage. In the presented model, a unit fails depending on the accu-
mulated damage, caused by gradual damage. The authors calculate the optimal
damage limit according to the long-run expected cost rate criterion with the use of
renewal reward theory.
Table 3.5 Summary of inspection policies for multi-state, single-unit systems with perfect/imperfect maintenance actions
Planning Type of inspection/ Quality of inspections/ Optimality criterion Modelling method Typical
horizon maintenance model maintenance actions reference
Infinite Periodic inspection Perfect inspections and Discounted and average cost Discrete-time Markov [173]
horizon maintenance process
Markov decision process [212]
The total expected cost per time Markovian model [131]
unit
The long-run expected average Markov renewal theory [81]
cost per unit time
The expected average cost per unit Markov process with [107]
time sequential phases
Perfect inspections and The expected long-run discounted Semi-Markov decision [109]
replacement cost process
Imperfect inspections/ The long-run expected cost per Analytical [206]
perfect replacement unit time

Imperfect test model The mean cost until detection Continuous-parameter [57]
Markov process
Imperfect inspections The expected total discounted cost Discrete-time Markov [152]
chain
The reliability function Semi-Markov processes [211]
Sequential inspection The reliability problems and Non-homogeneous [23]
renewal frequency densities) Markov process
Complete and incomplete The expected long-run cost rate Semi-Markov processes [220]
inspections
(continued)
127
128
Planning Type of inspection/ Quality of inspections/ Optimality criterion Modelling method Typical
horizon maintenance model maintenance actions reference
Infinite Sequential inspection Perfect inspection/perfect The average cost per unit time Markov chain/linear [115]
horizon and imperfect repair programming problem
Perfect inspections and The expected total long-run Continuous-time Markov [153]
maintenance average cost per unit time process
Infinite Sequential inspection Imperfect inspection and The mean long-run cost rate Continuous-time Markov [123]
horizon with CBM modelling maintenance process
Periodic inspection with Imperfect inspection and The operational reliability Analytical [28]
CBM modelling replacement
Finite Periodic inspection Perfect inspections and The average cost Semi-Markov decision [196]
horizon maintenance model

* random shocks occurrence
* shocks arrive according to a Poisson process
* arbitrary state space
* negligible inspection and replacement times
SIMPLE INSPECTION MODEL FOR A SYSTEM [231]

SUBJECTED TO SHOCKS
* external and internal failures
* fatal shocks implementation * pure jump Markov process
* minimal and perfect repairs
* continuous-time Markov process * accumulated damage model
* Markovian arrival process
* state-dependent maintenance policy
INSPECTION POLICY UNDER EXTENDED INSPECTION MODEL FOR [54] OPTIMAL INSPECTION POLICY FOR [2]
TWO REPAIR MODES [65] A SYSTEM SUBJECTED TO SHOCKS SYSTEM SUBJECT TO DEGRADATION
* cost and availability criteria * damage dependent failure rate
EXTENDED INSPECTION POLICY [112] OPTIMAL INSPECTION POLICY FOR

[117]
WITH SHOCK MODEL AND SYSTEM SUBJECT TO CUMULATIVE
AVAILABILITY CONSTRAINTS DAMAGE
Fig. 3.8 Inspection models for multi-state, single-unit systems—shock models
Table 3.6 Summary of inspection policies for multi-state, single-unit systems—shock models
Planning Maintenance Failure modes Optimality Modelling Typical
horizon actions taken criterion method reference
Infinite Perfect Cumulative The Analytical [231]
horizon inspections damage attributed long-run (renewal reward
and to shocks average theorem)
replacement occurrence cost per
(Poisson process) unit time
Perfect Deterioration level Markov process/ [2]
inspections assumed as control-limit
and increasing pure policy
maintenance jump Markov
process
Cumulative The Analytical [117]
damage caused by expected (renewal reward
gradual damage long-run theorem)
cost rate
A Poisson shock The Continuous-time [112]
process limiting Markov chain
average
availability
Perfect Fatal shocks The Continuous-time [54]
inspections/ occurrence expected Markov process
non-ideal long-run
repair cost rate
Perfect/ Internal and The total Generalized [65]
imperfect external failures costs per Markov process
inspections/ occurrence unit time
minimal and
perfect repairs
The problem of imperfect inspections and imperfect repairs is investigated in

[65]. A model considers a system submitted to external and internal failures, whose
deterioration level is known by means of inspections. Moreover, the authors assume
the performance of two types of repairs: minimal and perfect, depending on the
deterioration level and following a different phase-type distribution. The solutions
are based on a generalized Markov process implementation, and the phase-type
renewal process use as a special case.
Another extension of the work [231] is given in [54], where the authors propose
a state-dependent maintenance policy for a multi-state continuous-time Markovian
deteriorating system subject to aging and fatal shocks. The model incorporates the
assumptions of state-dependent cost structure, imperfect repair, and perfect
inspections, and bases on periodic inspection implementation.
The availability of periodically inspected systems subjected to shocks are
analysed e.g. in work [112]. In their model, the authors analyse a system, whose
deterioration process is modulated by a continuous-time Markov chain and addi-
tional damage is induced by a Poisson shock process.
The quick summary of the inspection policies for multi-state, single-unit systems
with shock modelling is presented in Table 3.6.
3.3 Inspection Models for a Multi-unit System
The presented in Sect. 3.2 types of inspection policies are designed for a system
composed of a one unit with revealed and unrevealed failures. A natural devel-
opment and generalization of these models is to consider a system as a multi-unit
one (composed of at least two elements). The general classification of the main
inspection policies for multi-component systems is presented in the Fig. 3.1. The
defined classification takes into account the type of hidden failures. According to
[88] there are two types of systems in general:
• Type I: protective devices or standby units. The function of these devices is to
protect the main system in case of failures. Their failure will not cause direct loss
if they are not needed,
• Type II: operating devices. They are operating systems, and their failure will
cause direct loss.
First, there are investigated models for protective devices and standby units that are
not analysed in Sect. 3.2. The standby units are characteristic for many engineering
systems. Spare components, or systems, which are not in continuous operation are real
examples of this sort of units [16]. The main function of the spare unit is to replace the
component in use when the latter fails so as to restore the system to the operating
condition as soon as possible. However, the standby units also deteriorate and fail with
its failures remaining undiscovered until the next attempt to use them, unless some test
or inspection is carried out (unrevealed failures). The main classification of the
maintenance models for standby systems is given in Fig. 3.9.
INSPECTION MODELS FOR STANDBY SYSTEMS
* inspections follow renewal * failures detected only by test
process procedures
* perfect maintenance * cold standby
* negligible inspection time * finite horizon case
* cost criteria * identical units performance
SIMPLE INSPECTION POLICY FOR [146]

A STANDBY UNIT
* 5 models of inspection,
* non-negligible maintenance times
* Markov decision process
* perfect/hazardous inspection cases
EXTENDED INSPECTION [195]
POLICIES FOR A STANDBY UNIT * unavailability analysis
* two-unit cold standby system * human error during maintenance
* no failure interactions performance
* perfect switchover
SIMPLE INSPECTION POLICY FOR SIMPLE OPTIMAL INSPECTION [204]
* quantile-based inspections [135]
TWO-UNIT STANDBY SYSTEM POLICY FOR STANDBY SYSTEM
* failure interaction
* staggered and non-staggered * finite horizon case * various types of inspection and PM policies
inspections * preventive maintenance implementation
IMPROVED OPTIMAL
[203]
SIMPLE INSPECTION POLICY FOR TWO- [157]
OPTIMAL INSPECTION INSPECTION POLICY FOR

UNIT STANDBY SYSTEM WITH PM STANDBY SYSTEM
POLICY FOR TWO-UNIT [225] * minor and major repair * maximum waiting time for repairman
SYSTEM WITH FAILURE * finite horizon case
* reliability characteristics * repair facility performance
INTERACTION * finite/infinite horizon case
EXTENDED OPTIMAL
[202]
* no failure interaction EXTENDED INSPECTION POLICY FOR INSPECTION POLICY FOR
* non-identical units [133]
TWO-UNIT STANDBY SYSTEM WITH STANDBY SYSTEM
* staged inspections
REPAIR FACILITY * imperfect testing
OPTIMAL INSPECTION * warm standby configuration * components in standby or in operation mode
POLICY FOR TWO-UNIT [124]
* non-identical units INSPECTION POLICY FOR
PARALLEL SYSTEM [15]
EXTENDED INSPECTION POLICY FOR [159] MULTIVARIATE
TWO-UNIT WARM STANDBY SYSTEM STANDBY/OPERATIONAL UNITS
WITH REPAIR FACILITY * n-unit system
* n-unit system * a generalized Markov process
continuation at the second scheme
* a generalized Markov process
EXTENDED INSPECTION POLICY FOR N- [45] N-UNIT SYSTEM SUBJECT TO
UNIT WARM STANDBY SYSTEM SHOCKS
Fig. 3.9 Inspection models for standby systems (two schemes)

131
132
the second scheme:
EXTENDED INSPECTION POLICY FOR

[133]
TWO-UNIT STANDBY SYSTEM WITH
REPAIR FACILITY
* regenerative point technique and semi
Markov process
* cost benefit analysis
* reliability characteristics optimization
*priority subject to degradation
REDUNDANT SYSTEM WITH PRIORITY
* two non-identical units in cold standby
* non-identical units * priority to one unit
* reliability and profit function
* MC simulation and regenerative point
technique
OPTIMAL INSPECTION [124] * classical and Bayesian setups
POLICY FOR TWO-UNIT
EXTENDED INSPECTION POLICY [113]
PARALLEL SYSTEM
FOR N-UNIT WARM STANDBY
SYSTEM
Fig. 3.9 (continued)

3.3 Inspection Models for a Multi-unit System 133
One of the interesting research works dedicated to inspection problems of

standby systems is given in [147]. The author in his work considers inspection
policies for a single standby electric generator. He obtains the expected costs of the
following three inspection models:
• a standby generator is as good as new upon inspection or repair (general case),
• a failure rate of a standby generator remains undisturbed by any inspection,
• a standby generator fails during the time of the electric power supply failure.
The solution is based on renewal-type equations development and the main
assumptions regard e.g. to negligible maintenance times (inspection and repair
times), a perfect maintenance policy and a periodic inspection type. The total
expected cost during (0, Tin] is given by:
CðTin Þ ¼ cin Nin ðTin Þ þ cr NðTin Þ þ crst Fst ðTin Þ ð3:3Þ
In the next work [195] the authors investigate five main policies for periodic
inspection and maintenance that maximize the expected time until a catastrophe
occurs. The policies recognize that inspection, maintenance, and repair periods are
of non-zero duration. Moreover, the inspection may be imperfect (hazardous) in
such a way that it may damage the unit, and the repair may be perfect/imperfect.
The main inspection policy is provided for diesel generators on a reactor (nuclear
power industry) and is based on the assumption of “short-long-time” intervals
between inspection actions performance. Following this policy, after a generator is
found to be down on inspection and is repaired, it undergoes Nin inspections at short
intervals of time. If it is found to be up at each of these short inspections, then it is
inspected at long interval of time. Whenever the generator is found to be down and
is repaired, inspections start with the Nin short inspection intervals again. The
solutions for the analysed models are based on the use of various Markov decision
process models and renewal theoretic formulations.
The two-unit repairable system is analysed in work [135]. In the given work, the
first unit is operative and the other is in cold standby. The author in his work
considers two types of failure situations: (a) a failure of an active element is detected
instantaneously but a failure of a standby unit is revealed at inspection epochs only,
and (b) a failure of both the active and the standby units are revealed at the time of an
inspection only. Moreover, taking into account the assumptions of perfect repair and
inspection actions performance and perfect switching process, the author estimates
the main reliability characteristics providing analytical inspection model.
The extension of the given model is presented e.g. in [157], where the authors
discuss a two-unit cold standby redundant system with repair, inspection, and
preventive maintenance. The model bases on the assumption of arbitrary distribu-
tions of failure time, inspection time, repair and preventive repair times. Moreover,
following [135] all the switchover times are instantaneous and maintenance actions
are perfect. The model is focused on the estimation of two characteristics: distri-
bution function of time to the first system down and the mean time to the first
system down.
The reliability analysis of a two-unit cold standby system with the consideration
of single repair facility performance is given in [133]. In the presented work the
authors assume that a single repair facility acts inspection, replacement, preparation
and repair. Moreover, failure, delivery, replacement, and inspection times have
exponential distributions, whereas all other time distributions are general. In the
given model, the authors make an assumption that if the standby unit is in operating
condition and the working unit fails, one waits for a server man up to some
maximum time. The server man facility is called on immediately, when this
maximum time finishes or the system fails. Moreover, after the inspection the unit
(if found to be failed) goes to minor or major repair with prespecified probability. In
the presented model, the authors also investigate the preparation time before major
repair performance and supply ordering. The stochastic behaviour of the given
system is analysed with the use of a regenerative point technique with focusing on
the estimation of the main reliability characteristics (as e.g. MTSF, steady state
availability, expected busy period of the server man in (0, t] or in steady state) and
expected profit incurred in (0, t] and in the steady state.
The similar problem is analysed in work [159], where the authors investigate a
two-unit warm standby system with minor (internal) and major (external) repair.
Another extension of the presented above works regards to the analysis of two
non-identical units. Using the regenerative point technique, various pointwise and
steady state reliability characteristics of system effectiveness are obtained.
Later, a warm standby n-system with operational and repair times following
phase-type distributions is considered in [45]. The authors in their work investigate
the following aspects:
• the n-system includes degradation of the online unit,
• the units undergo two types of repairs (preventive and corrective ones),
depending on the degradation level of the online unit,
• inspections determine the degradation level of the online unit,
• preventive repair channel is interrupted for enlarging the lifetime of the system,
• lifetimes of the units and repair times follow different continuous phase-type
distributions, and inspection times are governed by a discrete phase-type
renewal process,
• a system cost is calculated in terms of the costs of the involved operations.
The analysed system is governed by a level-dependent-quasi-birth-and-death-
process and the general Markov model is provided. The main reliability charac-
teristics that are calculated include e.g. availability and rate of occurrence of
failures.
Another extension of the inspection model developed in [133] is given e.g. in
work [118]. In this work, the authors consider a reliability model for a two-unit cold
standby system with a single server. The single server attends the system imme-
diately whenever needed. After the repair, the unit becomes degraded. Thus, the
server inspects the degraded unit at its failure to see the feasibility of repair. If the
repair of the degraded unit is not feasible, it is replaced by the new one. The new
unit obtains priority in operation as well as in repair over the degraded unit. For
such assumptions, the various reliability measures of system effectiveness are
obtained by using a semi-Markov process and a regenerative point technique.
This model is later extended in work [113], where the authors investigate two
non-identical units, where the first unit goes for repair, inspection and post repair
(when needed), whereas the second unit becomes as good as new after repair. The
priority in operation is given to the first unit (lower running costs), while the
priority in repair is given to the second unit (less time consuming). The model is
also based on various reliability characteristics calculation with the use of regen-
erative point technique and Monte Carlo simulation.
Moreover, the extension of the work [113] is also given in [34]. The authors in
their work study two dis-similar (automatic and manual) cold standby systems. An
inspection policy is introduced for an automatic machine to detect the kind of a
failure. Thus, on the failure of an automatic unit, an inspection is being performed
before being repaired. For a manual one, a repairman is called for its repair (re-
placement with a new unit). The preference is given to the replacement of the
manual unit (less time consuming). The model solution bases on the estimation of
various measures of reliability and profit incurred to the system using a
semi-Markov process and a regenerative point technique.
The extension of the model given in [195] is presented in work [204], where the
authors focus on an exact, general synthesis unavailability model of a standby
component that allows general distributions of time variables and finite values for
many failure and error parameters. This model is later extended by the author in
[202, 203]. In the first work [203] the author investigates time-dependent
unavailability of periodically tested aging components under various testing and
repair policies encompassing:
• three different test/failure categories (inspection with and without PM, minimal
repair),
• three preventive maintenance types (e.g. block and age replacement policies),
• five different cost contributions (e.g. test cost, repair cost, accident cost, main-
tenance without repair cost),
• two different cost optimization criteria (the average cost rate with and without an
additional constraint for the maximum accident rate).
In the second work [202] the author extends works [203, 204] in the category of an
age replacement policy with periodic inspection having no influence on the reliability
characteristics. The main extension regards to finite time horizon investigation.
The investigation of maintenance for multi-component systems, which may be
either in operating condition or in the standby mode is presented also in work [16].
The authors in their work define an inspection policy along with a PM procedure
and imperfect testing for a series system. In the considered system there is per-
formed a global test of all its elements (as long as it is more reasonable than
individual testing performance). Whenever a failure is revealed, all the units are
replaced by new and identical ones. Moreover, a standard T-age policy is imple-
mented with perfect maintenance and negligible maintenance times. First, the
authors considers a perfect testing case, and later there is introduced the possibility
of false alarms occurrence during test procedure performance. The cost optimization
is performed based on the renewal theory use. This work is an extension of the
model given in [17].
The shock model implementation is considered in [111]. The authors in their work
consider a parallel redundant system, consisting of n components. Taking into account
the assumption that shocks arrival rate and components’ failure probabilities may
depend on an external Markovian environment, the authors propose several
state-dependent maintenance policies based on system availability and cost functions.
The components failure interaction is considered in work [225]. The authors in
their work investigate a two-component cold standby system under periodic
inspections. They assume that a failure of one component can modify the failure
probability of a component still alive with a constant probability and obtain the
system reliability function for the case of staggered inspections. The failure inter-
action scheme is similar to the shock model used in common cause failures studies
(known as a b-Factor model1).
The continuation of research studies about testing policies for two-unit parallel
standby systems with not identical components is presented e.g. in work [124]. The
authors in their work propose an optimal testing policy for a system under avail-
ability and maintenance costs criteria. The analytical solution is provided in the
context of common cause failure recognition.
Moreover, the comparison of various inspection models for redundant systems is
given in work [137]. In the presented work, the authors provide the comparison offour
models of two- and three-component systems with the use of discrete Markov chains.
The first model regards to active redundancy without component repair, the second
model includes active redundancy with component repair, the third and fourth models
analyse standby redundancy without and with component repair. The quick summary
of the inspection models for standby systems is presented in Table 3.7.
Inspection models for multi-unit operating systems include two main groups of
research works:
• models aimed at test procedure searching, and
• optimal inspection models.
The first group of models is focused on the development of the best maintenance
scheduling order—answering the question: In what order the components should be
tested in order to satisfy the time requirements. The second group of inspection
models is aimed at optimal maintenance policy searching with taking into con-
sideration cost and/or reliability criteria. The main classification of inspection
models for multi-unit operating systems is given in Figs. 3.10 and 3.11.
1
This model assumes that events which provoke a failure of all the system components at the same
time may occur in addition to events which provoke a failure of one component independently of
the other system components [170].
Table 3.7 Summary of inspection policies for standby systems
Planning System Standby Quality of performed Optimality criterion Modelling method Typical
horizon type unit type maintenance actions reference
Infinite Single-unit – Perfect inspection The main unreliability characteristics Analytical (regenerative [204]
horizon system and repair point technique)
n-unit Cold [203]
system standby
Two-unit Perfect inspection Reliability function, MTTF Analytical (renewal [135]
system and replacement The expected loss due to system theory) [124]
unavailability per time unit, the average
system unavailability per cycle
Perfect inspection The main reliability characteristics, the Semi-Markov process [34]
and repair expected total profit per unit of time and regenerative point
Perfect inspection The main reliability characteristics, the technique [118]
and imperfect repair profit function

The main reliability characteristics, the Regenerative point [113]
expected total profit per unit of time technique, MC
simulation, Bayesian
setup
n-unit Warm Perfect inspection The main reliability characteristics, the The generalized Markov [45]
system standby and repair total cost of a system per unit of time process
Perfect/imperfect The total cost per unit of time Analytical (renewal [16]
inspection and theory)
perfect replacement
Infinite n-unit Cold/ Perfect inspection The limiting average availability, the Analytical (renewal [111]
horizon system warm and replacement expected cost rate theory), Markov jump
standby process
(continued)
137
138
Planning System Standby Quality of performed Optimality criterion Modelling method Typical
horizon type unit type maintenance actions reference
Finite/ Two-unit Cold Perfect inspection, The main reliability characteristics Analytical (regenerative [133]
infinite system standby minor and major point technique)
horizon repair
Finite/ Two-unit Warm Perfect inspection The main reliability characteristics, the Analytical (regenerative [159]
infinite system standby and repair expected total profit in (0, t] and per unit of point technique)
horizon time
Multi-unit Cold Perfect inspection The main unreliability characteristics [202]
system standby and repair
Finite Single-unit – Perfect repair and The total expected cost during (0, t] Analytical (renewal [149]
horizon system perfect/imperfect theory)
inspection
Perfect/imperfect The expected time until a catastrophe Analytical (renewal [195]
repair, perfect/ occurs theory), Markov
imperfect inspection decision process
Two-unit Cold Perfect repair, Distribution function of time to the first Analytical (renewal [157]
system standby inspection and PM system down and the mean time to the first theory)
system down
Warm Perfect inspection The average unavailability in inspection Analytical [225]
standby and replacement interval
INSPECTION MODELS FOR MULTI-UNIT OPERATING SYSTEMS
aimed at test procedure aimed at optimal maintenance
searching policy development
OPTIMUM TEST PROCEDURE OPTIMAL INSPECTION MODELS

MODELS
* perfect inspection Fig. 3.11
* system composed of n identical components
* one component tested at a time * scheduling activities of several types
* negligible test time, perfect inspection
* renewal theory and dynamic programming
* finite horizon case EXTENDED OPTIMUM TEST [7]
SIMPLE SCHEDULING MODEL FOR PROCEDURE MODEL
[86]
SYSTEM UNDER STRESS * two-stage inspection process
* critical components with several characteristics * imperfect inspection

* imperfect inspection * Markov deterioration
* Bayes theorem * maintenance management model
IMPERFECT INSPECTION MODEL OPTIMUM TEST PROCEDURE

[70, 73] [182]
FOR MULTICHARACTERISTIC MODEL WITH TWO-STAGE
COMPONENTS INSPECTION PROCESS
* misclassification probability (6 types of errors)
* three classifications for the components under
inspection
EXTENDED IMPERFECT INSPECTION
[72]
MODEL FOR MULTICHARACTERISTIC
COMPONENTS
Fig. 3.10 Inspection models for multi-unit operating systems—optimum test procedure models
139
140
OPTIMAL INSPECTION MODELS FOR MULTI-UNIT OPERATING SYSTEMS

* coherent system * n component system
* exponential lifetime distributions * perfect repair and replacement actions
* semi Markovian decision process * negligible test time * imperfect inspection SIMPLE IMPERFECT
framework * infinite horizon case * complementary variable [186]
method
INSPECTION
SIMPLE INSPECTION POLICY FOR MODEL
[9]
A COHERENT SYSTEM * corroded pipelines
* multi-state systems performance maintenance
* series system
* renewal theory * two optimality cost criteria
* revealed and unrevealed * series system IMPERFECT
types of failures [174]
* non-negligible inspection time INSPECTION MODEL
SIMPLE INSPECTION * renewal theory
* renewal theory implementation FOR PIPELINES
POLICY MODEL FOR A [129] * finite horizon case
SIMPLE INSPECTION
MULTI-STATE SYSTEM * reliability model
SIMPLE INSPECTION POLICY FOR A MULTI- * Poisson inspection times
* three-state mechanical components [44] [230]
POLICY FOR A SERIES UNIT MACHINE * analytical solution
* double Wiener-process degradation
SYSTEM * new necessary optimality * finite horizon
model
* a series-parallel system conditions development SIMPLE INSPECTION
EXTENDED INSPECTION * GA technique implementation * testing schedule problem
[226] POLICY FOR A SYSTEM
POLICY MODEL FOR A * Birnbaum importance factor use [67]
EXTENDED INSPECTION WITH RELIABILITY
MULTI-STATE SYSTEM
EXTENDED INSPECTION POLICY FOR A MULTI- [168] CONSTRAINTS
* two types of components
[40]
POLICY MODEL FOR A UNIT MACHINE * inspections at random times
* opportunistic and periodic MULTI-STATE SYSTEM
inspection actions performance
* minimal repair model EXTENDED INSPECTION
[66]
POLICY FOR A SYSTEM
EXTENDED INSPECTION
[190] WITH RELIABILITY
POLICY FOR A COHERENT
CONSTRAINTS
SYSTEM
* structural reliability * minimal and perfect repair
* a k-out-of-n system * cost model * stochastic dependence of system
* GA technique implementation * quality of inspections analysed components
EXTENDED INSPECTION NEW MODEL FOR SYSTEM

[12] EXTENDED IMPERFECT [171]
POLICY MODEL FOR A K- [198] INSPECTION
INSPECTION MODEL FOR
OUT-OF-N SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
* inventory policy consideration STRUCTURE SYSTEMS
* simulation modelling
* NHPP of failure occurrence
JOINT OPTIMIZATION INSPECTION [36]
MODEL WITH INVENTORY POLICY
Fig. 3.11 Optimal inspection models for multi-unit operating systems

First, optimum test procedure models are investigated. One of the first research
works in this area is given by Greenberg [86]. The author in his work focuses on
searching for test procedure that maximize the probability of locating a failed
component within the given time. The solution is provided with the use of renewal
theory and dynamic programming. Later, the authors in work [7] study the problem
of scheduling activities of several types under time constraints. The developed
model is aimed at finding an optimal schedule specifying at which periods to
execute each of the activity types in order to minimize the long-run average cost per
period. The discrete time maintenance problem of n machines is solved for finite
and infinite time horizon cases.
The implementation of imperfect inspection case into a maintenance manage-
ment model is presented in [182]. The authors in their work analyse a two-stage
inspection process that considers detection and sizing activities. The purpose of
their study is to develop a method that simulates deterioration, inspection, repair
and failure of structures over time with the use of Markov matrices. The method
also takes into account the ability to consider many different forms of defect growth
and deterioration kinetics, allows for different materials and environments, as well
as studies limit states (three states: ultimate, fatigue, and serviceability).
Another inspection model that includes an imperfect inspection problem is given
in [70]. The authors in their paper present a model for determining optimal
inspection plans for critical multi-characteristic components. For the purpose of this
study, the authors assume that a component is critical if it causes disaster or a very
high cost upon failure. The inspection is performed in stages by inspectors that may
make mistakes—errors of false acceptance and false rejection occurrence possi-
bility. This problem is later continued in work [73] and the extension of the pre-
sented model is given in [72]. The main extension regards to the classifications for
the components under inspection. In the presented study, the inspection plan
assumes three classifications: characteristics meet specifications (good), need
rework, or are scrap. Following this, an inspector can make six types of errors
(instead of two defined earlier):
• a good characteristic is classified as rework or scrap,
• a rework characteristic is classified as good or scrap,
• a scrap characteristic (defective) is classified as good or rework.
The model is focused on finding the optimal number of inspections necessary to
minimize the total cost per accepted component.
The second group of models regards to the problem of inspection policy
parameters optimization. In this area, one of the preliminary models is given by
Aven in [9]. The author in his work develops an optimal inspection and replacement
model for a coherent system with components having exponential life-time distri-
butions. The solution bases on the semi-Markov decision process framework
implementation.
One of the extensions of the given model is presented in [230], where the author
develops an optimal inspection strategy under two optimality criteria: the long-run
average net income and the total expected discounted net income. He considers a
multi-unit machine in a series reliability structure, assuming that along the
inspection process only one unit can be tested. This problem is later investigated in
[168], where the author gives an example to demonstrate that the presented pre-
viously characterization of the optimal inspection policy for series systems is not
correct in the discounted case.
Another extension of the optimal inspection model given in [10] regards to
reliability characteristics investigation. For example, in work [67] the author pre-
sents an analytical method that gives upper and lower bounds for the reliability in
case of systems subject to inspections at Poisson random times. With the use of a
Markov process, he estimates the main reliability characteristics (such as MTTF) in
a finite time period case. The presented model is later extended in work [66] by
providing the exact expression of the reliability function, its Laplace transform, and
the MTTF of the system. Moreover, the author studies the asymptotic behaviour of
the reliability and determines the asymptotic failure rate of the system.
Later, perfect and minimal repair policies in a reliability model are considered in
work [171]. The author in his work considers two-unit systems with stochastic
dependence and two types of failures (soft and hard failures), providing analytical
reliability and cost models. The practical application bases on steam turbine system
maintenance optimization.
The issues of structural reliability are considered e.g. in work [198], where the
authors analyse the optimal time interval for inspection and maintenance of offshore
structures. The structural reliability is here expressed by means of closed-form
mathematical formulae, which are incorporated into the cost-benefit analysis. In the
given model there is also considered inspections quality as a probability of crack
detection.
The issues of imperfect inspections performance are also analysed in papers
[174, 186]. In [186] the authors investigate an imperfect-inspection model aimed at
processes of testing and estimation of model parameters. The probability of failure
detection is a constant variable and the solution bases on a Markov chain and
simulation modelling use. In the second paper [174] the authors develop a main-
tenance policy for pipelines subjected to corrosion, including predictive degradation
modelling, time-dependent reliability assessment, inspection uncertainty, and
expected cost optimization. Following this, there is assumed that each inspection is
affected by the probability of detecting small defects and the probability of wrong
assessment in terms of defect existence and size. The solution is obtained with the
use of Bayesian modelling. The influence of the type I and type II inspection errors
on maintenance costs is investigated in [84].
Moreover, in the literature there can be found inspection maintenance policies
for multi-state systems. For example, in work [129] the authors focus on a periodic
inspection maintenance model for a system with several multi-state components
over a finite time horizon. The degradation process of the components is modelled
by the non-homogeneous continuous-time Markov chain, and the particle swarm
optimization is used in order to optimize the maintenance threshold and inspection

intervals under cost constraint. Later, in [226] there is developed an optimization
model of an inspection-based PM policy for three-state mechanical components
subject to competing failure modes, which integrates continuous degradation and
discrete shock effect. In the given paper, a double-Wiener-process degradation
model of mechanical components is analysed. Moreover, the authors in their work
develop a five-scenario probability-based model in order to describe the state
evolution during one inspection interval. The optimization process bases on min-
imal cost per unit time as the objective, and inspection interval, control limit and
age threshold as the optimization variables.
Periodic inspection of series systems with revealed and unrevealed failures is
considered in work [44]. The presented model extends the one given in [10] by
introducing the probability of failure revealing. The simple maintenance model for
n independent components in series bases on the use of the renewal theory.
A series-parallel systems are considered in work [40]. The authors propose a
general preventive maintenance model used to optimize the maintenance cost. The
model is developed with the use of a simulation approach and a parallel simulation
algorithm for availability analysis. A special ratio-criterion is based on a Birnbaum
importance factor. The optimization is performed with the use of a genetic algo-
rithm technique.
Another interesting problem is presented in work [189], where the authors
consider periodic and opportunistic inspections of a system with hard-type and
soft-type components. Failures of soft-type components can only be detected at
inspections. Thus, a system can operate with a soft failure, but its performance may
be reduced. The hard-type components failures are self-announcing and create an
opportunity for additional inspection (opportunistic inspection) of all soft-type
components. Moreover, the system is also periodically inspected. Based on this
assumptions, the two optimization models are discussed in the paper with the use of
simulation modelling approach and cost criteria. This problem is also continued in
[190], where the authors analysed two optimization models for soft-type and
hard-type components. In the first, soft-type components undergo both periodic and
opportunistic inspections to detect possible failures. In the second, hard-type
components undergo periodic inspections and are preventively replaced depending
on their condition at inspection. Soft-type and hard-type components are either
minimally repaired or replaced when they fail. Based on this assumptions, there are
formulated objective functions for the two models and derived recursive equations
for their required expected values.
The opportunistic maintenance policy is also used in work [53], where the
authors consider optimal inspection and maintenance policy for the multi-unit series
system with economical dependence. The analyzed system is composed of two
kinds of units, which are subjected to the deterioration failure and the Poisson
failure respectively. The authors use Markov decision approach to get the
multi-threshold control-limit policy.
The problem of opportunistic inspection performance is also considered in work
[12]. The authors in their work investigate an nk-out-of-n system with hidden
failures and under periodic inspection. The developed model bases on the
assumption that every system failure presents an additional opportunity for
inspection. The objective is to find the optimal periodic inspection policy and the
optimal maintenance action at each inspection for the entire system. Moreover,
there are considered three types of maintenance: minimal repair, preventive
replacement and corrective replacement. The inspection maintenance model bases
on a genetic algorithm implementation and cost criteria. The extensions of the given
model is presented e.g. in [36], where the authors focus on an nk-out-of-n system
with components, whose failures follow a NHPP. The presented model does not
optimize the maintenance action, which bases on the components state
(age-dependent). However, the model considers an inventory policy that is aimed at
supporting the inspection policy in terms of ensuring the required spares when it is
necessary (at inspection times). The modelling approach also bases on the simu-
lation model development.
Other inspection problems that are investigated regard to e.g. aircraft periodic
inspection optimization (see e.g. [94]), transport systems maintenance with sub-
jective estimation approach (see e.g. [101]) or system reliability structure investi-
gation (see e.g. [175]), inspection frequency of safety-related control systems of
machinery (see e.g. [75, 76]), optimization of inspection and maintenance decisions
for infrastructure facilities (see e.g. [74]), inspection issues of hydraulic components
(see e.g. [4]), safety-related control systems (see e.g. [76]), or multi-stage inspection
problems (see e.g. [11]). Simulation modelling is investigated e.g. in [122].
Moreover, in work [38] the authors compare three inspection and repair policies
under cost criteria. The quick summary of the inspection models for multi-unit
operating systems is presented in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8 Summary of inspection policies for multi-unit operating systems
Planning Problem category Quality of performed Optimality criterion Modelling method Typical
horizon inspection actions reference
Infinite Optimal inspection policy Perfect inspection The long run expected cost per unit time Semi-Markov decision [9]
horizon framework
The long-run average net income and total Renewal theory [230]
expected discounted net income
The expected cost of operation per unit of [226]
time
The average total cost of maintenance for unit [44]
of time
Optimal inspection policy The total expected discounted net income Analytical [168]
with testing schedule
Finite/ Optimum test procedure Perfect inspection The long-run average cost per period [7]
infinite model
horizon
Finite The probability that the failed component is Renewal theory and [86]
horizon checked out before given time period dynamic programming
Imperfect inspection The total cost of inspection Analytical [72]
The expected annual total cost Markov model and Event [182]
based decision theory
The expected total cost per accepted Analytical and Bayes [70, 73]
component theorem
Perfect inspection The expected total cost Analytical [38]
Finite Optimization method Failure distribution parameters Nonlinear programming [94]
horizon
(continued)
145
146
Planning Problem category Quality of performed Optimality criterion Modelling method Typical
horizon inspection actions reference
Finite Optimal inspection policy Perfect inspection The total inspection cost Particle swarm optimization [11]
horizon algorithm
Availability function Analytical [76]
The expected total cost Simulation modelling [36]
Optimal inspection policy The sum of inspection, repair and risk cost Simulation modelling [4]
The expected cost incurred in a cycle [189]
GA and simulation [12]
modelling
The average total cost of maintenance for unit Renewal theory [44]
of time
Reliability characteristics [67]
Reliability function, MTTF Analytical [66]
The expected cost incurred in the inspection [171]
for each cycle
System availability function, inspection cost GA and MC simulation [40]
The maintenance cost rate in a renewal cycle Non-homogeneous [129]
continuous Markov chain
Perfect/imperfect The total expected social cost Markov decision process [74]
inspection and quasi-Bayes approach
Imperfect inspection The expected total cost function Analytical (cost-benefit [198]
analysis)
Analytical (and Bayes [174]
theory)
The probability functions Analytical and three-state [186]
Markov chain
3.4 Summary 147
3.4 Summary
In the presented chapter, there is reviewed the literature on the most commonly used
optimal single- and multi-component inspection models (being available in e.g.
ScienceDirect database and JSTOR database). However, similarly as in Chap. 2,
there is no possibility to present all the known models from this research area. The
most investigated ones that are not included in this chapter regard to:
• production planning and quality control issues (see e.g. [71]),
• cumulative damage modelling issues (see e.g. [80, 199]),
• condition-based maintenance with inspection modelling issues (see e.g.
[121, 150]),
• diagnostic systems designing (see e.g. [63, 69, 151, 232]),
• maintenance decision support (see e.g. [30–33, 200, 235, 236]),
• inventory policy joint optimization with inspection maintenance modelling (see
e.g. [35, 158]).
Moreover, the given literature overview let the author draw the following main
conclusions:
• the most commonly used mathematical methods applied for analysis of
inspection maintenance scheduling problems include (similarly as in the PM
modelling case): applied probability theory, renewal theory, Markov decision
theory, and GA technique. However, there can be found a lot of inspection
maintenance problems that are too complex (e.g. shocks modelling, information
uncertainty) to be solve in an analytical way. Thus, in practice simulation
processes and Bayesian approach can be widely used.
• most research on periodic inspections for hidden failures assumes that the times
for inspection are negligible. However, in some cases the inspection time cannot
be ignored due to its influence on system reliability characteristics.
• many inspection maintenance models (as well as PM models) base on simplified
assumptions of e.g. an infinite planning horizon, the steady-state conditions, a
perfect repair policy, available spare parts, etc. These assumptions are often not
valid for real-life systems performance.
• due to the complexity of developed inspection maintenance models, in many
cases there are problems with optimal computation of checking procedures.
Thus, in such situation the nearly optimal methods or algorithms should be
implemented. Such algorithms are mostly developed for the single-unit case.
The second problem is connected with limited possibility of such inspection
maintenance models implementation for real-life systems (the most commonly
used application areas regard to e.g. nuclear power plants, gas and offshore
platform, transportation systems).
• quality of maintenance models is mostly determined by the reliability of input

data. Following this, even the best maintenance model does not give the optimal
decisions without valid, up-dated and dependable information about e.g. failure
data of an analysed equipment, maintenance performance types and times, or
operational tasks performance.
• the widely known inspection maintenance models focus on an inspection action
performance that only gives the information about the state of a tested system
(up-state or down-state). There are no developed models that give additional
information about the signals of forthcoming failures (some defects occurrence).
Thus this type of maintenance models is not sufficient for systems in which such
symptoms may be diagnosed.
Based on the given conclusions, in the sense of developing a useable model with
estimable parameters, the delay time concept represents further improvement in the
modelling of inspection policies. Following this, in the next chapter the main
groups of maintenance models, which base on a delay time approach use, are
investigated.
References
1. Abdel-Hameed M (1995) Inspection, maintenance and replacement models. Comput Oper

Res 22(4):435–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00051-9
2. Abdel-Hameed M (1987) Inspection and maintenance policies of devices subject to
deterioration. Adv Appl Probab 19(4):917–931
3. Ahmadi A, Kumar U (2011) Cost based risk analysis to identify inspection and restoration
intervals of hidden failures subject to aging. IEEE Trans Reliab 60(1):197–209. https://doi.
org/10.1109/TR.2011.2104530
4. Alfares H (1999) A simulation model for determining inspection frequency. Comput Ind Eng
36:685–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-8352(99)00159-X
5. Ali SA, Bagchi G (1998) Risk-informed in service inspection. Nucl Eng Des 181:221–224
6. Angelo BP, Grazia GM, Rosaria VM (2008) Optimized planning and scheduling of pressure
equipment inspections at COMAH establishments. J KONBiN 3(6):127–136
7. Anily S, Glass CA, Hassin R (1998) The scheduling of maintenance service. Discrete Appl
Math 82(1–3):27–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-218X(97)00119-4
8. Aoki K, Yamamoto K, Kobayashi K (2007) Optimal inspection and replacement policy
using stochastic method for deterioration prediction. In: Proceedings of 11th world
conference on transport research, Berkeley, CA, pp 1–13
9. Aven T (1987) Optimal inspection and replacement of a coherent system. Microelectron
Reliab 27(3):447–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/0026-2714(87)90460-4
10. Aven T (1984) Optimal inspection when the system is repaired upon detection of failure.
11. Azadeh A, Sangari MS, Amiri AS (2012) A particle swarm algorithm for inspection
optimization in serial multi-stage process. Appl Math Model 36:1455–1464. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apm.2011.09.037
12. Babishin V, Taghipour S (2016) Joint optimal maintenance and inspection for a k-out-of-
n system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 87(5):1739–1749. https://doi.org/10.1109/RAMS.2016.
7448039
References 149
13. Badia FG, Berrade MD (2006) Optimal inspection of a system with two types of failures
under age dependent minimal repair. Monogr Semin Mat Garcia Galdeano 33:207–214
14. Badia FG, Berrade MD (2006) Optimum maintenance of a system under two types of failure.
Int J Mater Struct Reliab 4(1):27–37
15. Badia FG, Berrade MD, Campos CA (2002) Optimal inspection and preventive maintenance
of units with revealed and unrevealed failures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 78:157–163
16. Badia FG, Berrade MD, Campos CA (2002) Maintenance policy for multivariate standby/
operating units. Appl Stoch Model Bus Ind 18:147–155
17. Badia FG, Berrade MD, Campos CA (2001) Optimization of inspection intervals based on
cost. J Appl Probab 38(4):872–881
18. Bai Y, Bai Q (2014) Subsea pipeline integrity and risk management. Elsevier. https://doi.
org/10.1016/C2011-0-00113-8
19. Bai Y, Jin W-L (2015) Marine structural design. Elsevier
20. Ballou DP, Pazer HL (1982) The impact of inspector fallibility on the inspection policy in
serial production systems. Manage Sci 28(4):387–399. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.
28.4.387
21. Barcentewicz J, Miller J (1978) Chosen issues connected with diagnostics and reliability of
technical systems (in Polish). In: Proceedings of winter school on reliability, Center for
Technical Progress, Katowice, pp 89–106
22. Barlow RE, Hunter LC, Proschan F (1963) Optimum checking procedures. J Soc Ind Appl
Math 11(4):1078–1095. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2946496
23. Becker G, Camarinopoulos L, Ziouas G (1994) A Markov type model for systems with
tolerable down times. J Oper Res Soc 45(10):1168–1178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2584479
24. Beichelt F (1981) Minimax inspection strategies for single unit systems. Nav Res Logist Q
28(3):375–381
25. Berrade MD (2012) A two-phase inspection policy with imperfect testing. Appl Math Model
36:108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2011.05.035
26. Berrade MD, Cavalcante CAV, Scarf PA (2013) Modelling imperfect inspection over a finite
horizon. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 111:18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.10.003
27. Berrade MD, Cavalcante CAV, Scarf PA (2012) Maintenance scheduling of a protection
system subject to imperfect inspection and replacement. Eur J Oper Res 218:716–725.
28. Berrade MD, Scarf PA, Cavalcante CAV, Dwight RA (2013) Imperfect inspection and
replacement of a system with a defective state: a cost and reliability analysis. Reliab Eng
Syst Saf 120:80–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.02.024
29. Będkowski L, Dabrowski T (2010) Functional diagnosing as the basis for safety of operating
systems (in Polish). In: Proceedings of XXXVIII winter school on reliability—risk of
technical systems operation and maintenance performance, Publishing House of Institute for
Sustainable Technologies, Radom, Szczyrk, pp 5–15
30. Będkowski L, Dabrowski T (2007) Active in increasing the reliability of operational
processes (in Polish). In: Proceedings of XXXV winter school on reliability—problems of
systems’ dependability, Publishing House of Institute for Sustainable Technologies, Radom,
Szczyrk, pp 71–83
31. Będkowski L, Dabrowski T (2002) Diagnostic and reliability inference based on the
potential characteristics of a repairable system (in Polish). In: Proceedings of XXX winter
school on reliability—systems dependability, Publishing House of Institute for Sustainable
Technologies, Radom, Szczyrk, pp 42–51
32. Będkowski L, Dabrowski T (2002) Diagnostic and reliability inference based on the
potential characteristics of a non-repairable system (in Polish). In: Proceedings of XXX
winter school on reliability—systems dependability, Publishing House of Institute for
Sustainable Technologies, Radom, Szczyrk, pp 30–41
33. Będkowski L, Dabrowski T (1990) Cyclic diagnosing supporting by computer system (in
Polish). In: Proceedings of winter school on reliability, Centre for Technical Progress,
34. Bhatti J, Chitkara AK, Kakkar MK (2016) Stochastic analysis of dis-similar standby system
with discrete failure, inspection and replacement policy. Demonstratio Math 49(2):224–235
35. Bjarnason ETS, Taghipour S (2014) Optimizing simultaneously inspection interval and
inventory levels (s, S) for a k-out-of-n system. In: 2014 Reliability and maintainability
symposium, Colorado Springs, CO, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/rams.2014.6798463
36. Bjarnason ETS, Taghipour S, Banjevic D (2014) Joint optimal inspection and inventory for a
k-out-of-n system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 131:203–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.
06.018
37. Bobrowski D (1980) Optimisation of technical object maintenance with inspections (in
Polish). In: Proceedings of winter school on reliability, Center for Technical Progress,
38. Boland PJ, El-Neweihi E (1995) Expected cost comparisons for inspection and repair
policies. Comput Oper Res 22(4):383–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00047-C
39. Borowczyk H, Lindsted P, Magier J (2011) A complex diagnosis based on technical
condition index (in Polish). Maint Probl 2:33–41
40. Bris R, Chatelet E, Yalaoui F (2003) New method to minimize the preventive maintenance
cost of series-parallel systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 82:247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0951-8320(03)00166-2
41. Bukowski JV (2001) Modeling and analyzing the effects of periodic inspection on the
performance of safety-critical systems. IEEE Trans Reliab 50(3):321–329. https://doi.org/10.
1109/24.974130
42. Butler DA (1979) A hazardous-inspection model. Manage Sci 25(1):79–89
43. Canty MJ, Rothenstein D, Avenhaus R (2001) Timely inspection and deterrence. Eur J Oper
Res 131:208–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00082-5
44. Carvalho M, Nunes E, Telhada J (2009) Optimal periodic inspection of series systems with
revealed and unrevealed failures. In: Safety, reliability and risk analysis: theory, methods and
applications—proceedings of the joint ESREL and SRA-Europe conference, CRC Press,
pp 587–592
45. Cazorla DM, Perez-Ocon R (2008) An LDQBD process under degradation, inspection, and
two types of repair. Eur J Oper Res 190:494–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.04.056
46. Chelbi A, Ait-Kadi D (2009) Inspection strategies for randomly failing systems. In:
Ben-Daya M, Duffuaa SO, Raouf A, Knezevic J, Ait-Kadi D (eds) Handbook of
maintenance management and engineering. Springer, London
47. Chelbi A, Ait-Kadi D (2000) Generalized inspection strategy for randomly failing systems
subjected to random shocks. Int J Prod Econ 64:379–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-
5273(99)00073-0
48. Chelbi A, Ait-Kadi D (1998) Inspection and predictive maintenance strategies. Int J Comput
Integr Manuf 11(3):226–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/095119298130750
49. Chelbi A, Ait-Kadi D, Aloui H (2008) Optimal inspection and preventive maintenance
policy for systems with self-announcing and non-self-announcing failures. J Qual Maint Eng
14(1):34–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552510810861923
50. Chen Ch-T, Chen Y-W, Yuan J (2003) On dynamic preventive maintenance policy for a
system under inspection. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 80:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320
(02)00238-7
51. Chen Y-Ch (2013) An optimal production and inspection strategy with preventive
maintenance error and rework. J Manuf Syst 32:99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.
2012.07.010
52. Cheng GQ, Li L (2012) A geometric process repair model with inspections and its
optimisation. Int J Syst Sci 43(9):1650–1655. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207721.2010.
549586
53. Cheng Z, Yang Z, Tan L, Guo B (2011) Optimal inspection and maintenance policy for the
multi-unit series system. In: Proceedings of 9th international conference on reliability,
maintainability and safety (ICRMS) 2011, Guiyang, 12–15 June 2011, pp 811–814
References 151
54. Chiang JH, Yuan J (2001) Optimal maintenance policy for a Markovian system under
periodic inspection. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 71:165–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320
(00)00093-4
Res 51(1):1–23
56. Choi KM (1997) Semi-Markov and delay time models of maintenance. PhD thesis,
57. Chung K-J (1995) Optimal test-times for intermittent faults. IEEE Trans Reliab 44(4):
645–647
58. Cui L, Xie M (2005) Availability of a periodically inspected system with random repair or
replacement times. J Stat Plan Inference 131:89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2003.12.
008
59. Cui L, Xie M (2001) Availability analysis of periodically inspected systems with random
walk model. J Appl Probab 38:860–871. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021900200019082
60. Cui L, Xie M, Loh H-T (2004) Inspection schemes for general systems. IIE Trans 36:817–
825. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170490473006
61. Dagg RA, Newby M (1998) Optimal overhaul intervals with imperfect inspection and repair.
IMA J Math Appl Bus Ind 9:381–391
62. Darwish MA, Ben-Daya M (2007) Effect of inspection errors and preventive maintenance on
a two-stage production inventory system. Int J Prod Econ 107:301–313. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijpe.2006.09.008
63. Dąbrowski T, Bednarek M (2012) Reliability of threshold-comparative diagnosis processes
(in Polish). In: Proceedings of XL winter school on reliability—dependability of processes
and technical systems, Publishing House of Institute for Sustainable Technologies, Radom,
pp 1–23
64. Dąbrowski T, Bedkowski L (2010) The diagnosing and supervising of the state of an object
during exploitation (in Polish). Maint Probl 2:7–15
65. Delia M-C, Rafael P-O (2008) A maintenance model with failures and inspection following
Markovian arrival processes and two repair modes. Eur J Oper Res 186:694–707. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.02.009
66. Dieulle L (2002) Reliability of several component sets with inspections at random times.
67. Dieulle L (1999) Reliability of a system with Poisson inspection times. J Appl Probab 36
(4):1140–1154
68. Dohi T, Kaio N, Osaki S (2003) Preventive maintenance models: replacement, repair,
ordering, and inspection. In: Pham H (ed) Handbook of reliability engineering.
Springer-Verlag, London, pp 349–366
69. Duer S (2011) Diagnostic information renewal basis of complex technical objects.
J KONBiN 2(18):5–14
70. Duffuaa S, Al-Najjar HJ (1995) An optimal complete inspection plan for critical
multicharacteristic components. J Oper Res Soc 46(8):930–942
71. Duffuaa S, El-Ga’aly A (2013) A multi-objective mathematical optimization model for
process targeting using 100% inspection policy. Appl Math Model 37:1545–1552. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2012.04.008
72. Duffuaa S, Khan M (2008) A general repeat inspection plan for dependent multicharac-
teristic critical components. Eur J Oper Res 191:374–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.
2007.02.033
73. Duffuaa S, Khan M (2002) An optimal repeat inspection plan with several classifications.
J Oper Res Soc 53(9):1016–1026. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601392
74. Durango-Cohen PL, Madanat SM (2008) Optimization of inspection and maintenance
decisions for infrastructure facilities under performance model uncertainty: a quasi-Bayes
approach. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 42(8):1074–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.
2008.03.004
75. Dzwigarek M, Hryniewicz O (2012) Periodical inspection frequency of protection systems

of machinery—case studies (in Polish). J KONBiN 3(23):109–120
76. Dzwigarek M, Hryniewicz O (2011) Frequency of periodical inspections of safety-related
control systems of machinery—practical recommendations for determining methods. In:
Proceedings of summer safety and reliability seminars, SSARS 2011, Gdańsk-Sopot,
Poland, 03–09 July 2011, pp 17–26
77. Ellingwood BR, Mori Y (1997) Reliability-based service life assessment of concrete
structures in nuclear power plants: optimum inspection and repair. Nucl Eng Des 175:
247–258
78. Estes AC, Frangopol DM (2000) An optimized lifetime reliability-based inspection program
for deteriorating structures. In: Proceedings of the 8th ASCE joint specialty conference on
probabilistic mechanics and structural reliability, Notre Dame, IN
79. Faber MH, Sorensen JD (2002) Indicators for inspection and maintenance planning of
concrete structures. Struct Saf 24:377–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4730(02)00033-4
80. Feng Q, Peng H, Coit DW (2010) A degradation-based model for joint optimization of
burn-in, quality inspection, and maintenance: a light display device application. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 50:801–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2532-7
81. Fung J, Makis V (1997) An inspection model with generally distributed restoration and
repair times. Microelectron Reliab 37(3):381–389
82. Garnero M-A, Beaudouin F, Delbos J-P (1998) Optimization of bearing-inspection intervals.
In: IEEE proceedings of annual reliability and maintainability symposium, pp 332–338
83. Girtler J (2012) Possibility of application of the theory of semi-Markov processes to
determine reliability of diagnosing systems. J KONBiN 4(24):49–58
84. Godziszewski J (2001) The impact of errors of the first and second types made during
inspections on the costs of maintenance of a homogeneous equipment park (in Polish). In:
Proceedings of XIX winter school on reliability—computer aided dependability analysis,
Publishing House of Institute for Sustainable Technologies, Radom, pp 89–100
85. Gravito FM, Dos Santos Filho N (2003) Inspection and maintenance of wooden poles
structures. In: Global ESMO 2003, Orlando, Florida, pp 151–155
86. Greenberg H (1964) Optimum test procedure under stress. Oper Res 12(5):689–692
87. Gulati R, Kahn J, Baldwin R (2010) The professional’s guide to maintenance and reliability
terminology. Reliabilityweb.com
88. Guo H, Szidarovszky F, Gerokostopoulos A, Niu P (2015) On determining optimal
inspection interval for minimizing maintenance cost. In: Proceedings of 2015 annual
reliability and maintainability symposium (RAMS), IEEE, pp 1–7
89. Hagemeijer PM, Kerkveld G (1998) A methodology for risk-based inspection of pressurized
systems. Proc Inst Mech Eng E J Process Mech Eng 212(1):37–47
90. Hagemeijer PM, Kerkveld G (1998) Application of risk-based inspection for pressurized HC
production systems in a Brunei petroleum company. Proc Inst Mech Eng E J Process Mech
Eng 212(1):49–54
91. Hariga MA (1996) A maintenance inspection model for a single machine with general failure
distribution. Microelectron Reliab 36(3):353–358
92. Hryniewicz O (2009) Optimal inspection intervals for maintainable equipment. In:
Martorell S, Guedes-Soares C, Barnett J (eds) Safety, reliability and risk analysis: theory,
methods and applications. Taylor and Francis Group, London
93. Hu T, Wei Y (2001) Multivariate stochastic comparisons of inspection and repair policies.
Stat Probab Lett 51:315–324
94. Huang J, Song Y, Ren Y, Gao Q (2014) An optimization method of aircraft periodic
inspection and maintenance based on the zero-failure data analysis. In: Proceedings of 2014
IEEE Chinese guidance, navigation and control conference, Yantai, China, 8–10 August
2014, pp 319–323
95. Ito K, Nakagawa T (2000) Optimal inspection policies for a storage system with degradation
at periodic tests. Math Comput Model 31:191–195
References 153
96. Ito K, Nakagawa T (1995) An optimal inspection policy for a storage system with high
reliability. Microelectron Reliab 36(6):875–882
97. Ito K, Nakagawa T (1995) An optimal inspection policy for a storage system with three
types of hazard rate functions. J Oper Res Soc Jpn 38(4):423–431
98. Ito K, Nakagawa T, Nishi K (1995) Extended optimal inspection policies for a system in
storage. Math Comput Model 22(10–12):83–87
99. Jazwinski J, Borgon J, Ważyńska-Fiok K (1988) Algorithm of technical objects’
maintenance modernisation (in Polish). In: Proceedings of winter school on reliability,
Center for Technical Progress, Katowice, pp 129–150
100. Jazwinski J, Sypnik R (1978) Role of diagnostics in technical systems dependability
determining (in Polish). In: Proceedings of winter school on reliability, Center for Technical
Progress, Katowice, pp 25–40
101. Jazwinski J, Zurek J (2000) Principles of determining the maintenance set of the condition of
the transport system with the use of expert opinions (in Polish). In: Proceedings of XXVIII
winter school on reliability—decision problems in dependability engineering, Publishing
House of Institute for Sustainable Technologies, Radom, Szczyrk, pp 118–125
102. Jiang R, Jardine AKS (2005) Two optimization models of the optimum inspection problem.
J Oper Res Soc 56(10):1176–1183. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601885
103. Jorgenson DW, Mccall JJ (1963) Optimal scheduling of replacement and inspection. Oper
Res 11(5):732–746
104. Jovanovic A (2003) Risk-based inspection and maintenance in power and process plants in
Europe. Nucl Eng Des 226:165–182
105. Kaio N, Osaki S (1989) Comparison of inspection policies. J Oper Res Soc 40(5):499–503
106. Kaio N, Osaki S (1988) Inspection policies: comparisons and modifications. Revenue
française d’automatique, d’informatique et de recherché opérationnelle. Rech Opér 22
(4):387–400
107. Kallen MJ, Van Noortwijk JM (2006) Optimal periodic inspection of a deterioration process
with sequential condition states. Int J Press Vessels Pip 83:249–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijpvp.2006.02.007
108. Kallen MJ, Van Noortwijk JM (2005) Optimal maintenance decisions under imperfect
inspection. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 90:177–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.10.004
109. Kawai H, Koyanagi J (1992) An optimal maintenance policy of a discrete time Markovian
deterioration system. Comput Math Appl 24(1/2):103–108
110. Keller JB (1982) Optimum inspection policies. Manage Sci 28(4):447–450
111. Kenzin M, Frostig E (2009) M out of n inspected systems subject to shocks in random
environment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94:1322–1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2009.02.005
112. Kharoufer JP, Finkelstein DE, Mixon DG (2006) Availability of periodically inspected
systems with Markovian wear and shocks. J Appl Probab 43(2):303–317. https://doi.org/10.
1239/jap/1152413724
113. Kishan R, Jain D (2012) A two non-identical unit standby system model with repair,
inspection and post-repair under classical and Bayesian viewpoints. J Reliab Stat Stud 5
(2):85–103
114. Klatzky RL, Messick DM, Loftus J (1992) Heuristics for determining the optimal interval
between checkups. Psychol Sci 3(5):279–284
115. Klein M (1962) Inspection-maintenance-replacement schedules under Markovian deterio-
ration. Manage Sci 9(1):25–32
116. Klutke G-A, Yang Y (2002) The availability of inspected systems subject to shocks and
graceful degradation. IEEE Trans Reliab 51(3):371–374
117. Kong MB, Park KS (1997) Optimal replacement of an item subject to cumulative damage
under periodic inspections. Microelectron Reliab 37(3):467–472
118. Kumar J (2011) Cost-benefit analysis of a redundant system with inspection and priority
subject to degradation. IJCSI Int J Comput Sci Issues 8(6/2):314–321
119. Lam CT, Yeh RH (1994) Optimal maintenance-policies for deteriorating systems under
various maintenance strategies. IEEE Trans Reliab 43(3):423–430
120. Lam CT, Yeh RH (1994) Comparison of sequential and continuous inspection strategies for
deteriorating systems. Adv Appl Probab 26(2):423–435
121. Lam JYJ, Banjevic D (2015) A myopic policy for optimal inspection scheduling for
condition based maintenance. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 144:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.
2015.06.009
122. Landowski B, Woropay M (2003) Simulation of exploitation processes of technical objects
preventively maintained (in Polish). In: Proceedings of XXXI winter school on reliability—
forecasting methods in dependability engineering, Publishing House of Institute for
123. Le MD, Tan ChM (2013) Optimal maintenance strategy of deteriorating system under
imperfect maintenance and inspection using mixed inspection scheduling. Reliab Eng Syst
Saf 113:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.11.025
124. Lee BL, Wang M (2012) Approximately optimal testing policy for two-unit parallel standby
systems. Int J Appl Sci Eng 10(3):263–272
125. Lee C (1999) Applications of delay time theory to maintenance practice of complex plant.
PhD thesis, University of Salford, UK
126. Lee HL, Rosenblatt MJ (1987) Simultaneous determination of production cycle and
inspection schedules in a production systems. Manage Sci 33(9):1125–1136
127. Leung FKN (2001) Inspection schedules when the lifetime distribution of a single-unit
system is completely unknown. Eur J Oper Res 132:106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0377-2217(00)00115-6
128. Liu B, Zhao X, Yeh R-H, Kuo W (2016) Imperfect inspection policy for systems with
multiple correlated degradation processes. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49–12:1377–1382
129. Lu Z Chen M, Zhou D (2015) Periodic inspection maintenance policy with a general repair
for multi-state systems. In: Proceedings of Chinese automation congress (CAC), 27–29 Nov
2015, pp 2116–2121
130. Luss H (1976) Maintenance policies when deterioration can be observed by inspections.
Oper Res Int Journal 24(2):359–366
131. Luss H, Kander Z (1974) Inspection policies when duration of checkings is non-negligible.
Oper Res Q 25(2):299–309
132. Magott J, Nowakowski T, Skrobanek P, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2010) Logistic
system modeling using fault trees with time dependencies—example of tram network. In:
Bris R, Guedes Soares C, Martorell S (eds) Reliability, risk and safety: theory and
applications, vol 3. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 2293–2300
133. Mahmoud MAW, Mohie El-Din MM, El-Said Moshref M (1995) Reliability analysis of a
two-unit cold standby system with inspection, replacement, proviso of rest, two types of
repair and preparation time. Microelectron Reliab 35(7):1063–1072
134. Martinez EC (1984) Storage reliability with periodic test. In: IEEE proceedings of annual
reliability and maintainability symposium, pp 181–185
135. Mazumdar M (1970) Reliability of two-unit redundant repairable systems when failures are
revealed by inspections. SIAM J Appl Math 19(4):637–647
136. Mccall JJ (1963) Operating characteristics of opportunistic replacement and inspection
policies. Manage Sci 10(1):85–97
137. Mendes AA, Coit DW, Duarte Ribeiro JL (2014) Establishment of the optimal time interval
between periodic inspections for redundant systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 131:148–165.
138. Meyer RR, Rothkopf MH, Smith SA (1979) Reliability and inventory in a
production-storage system. Manage Sci 25(8):799–807
139. Mok JI, Seong PH (1996) Optimal inspection and replacement periods of the safety system
in Wolsung nuclear power plant unit 1 with an optimized cost perspective. Ann Nucl Energy
23(2):87–97
140. Munford AG (1981) Comparison among certain inspection policies. Manage Sci 27(3):
260–267
References 155
141. Munford AG, Shahani AK (1973) An inspection policy for the Weibull case. Oper Res Q 24
(3):453–458
142. Munford AG, Shahani AK (1972) A nearly optimal inspection policy. Oper Res Q 23
(3):373–379
143. Nakagawa T (2014) Random maintenance policies. Springer-Verlag, London
144. Nakagawa T (2005) Maintenance theory of reliability. Springer
145. Nakagawa T (2003) Maintenance and optimum policy. In: Pham H (ed) Handbook of
reliability engineering. Springer-Verlag, London, pp 397–414
146. Nakagawa T (1980) Optimum inspection policies for a standby unit. J Oper Res Soc Jpn 23
(1):13–26
147. Nakagawa T (1980) Replacement models with inspection and preventive maintenance.
Microelectron Reliab 20:427–433
148. Nakagawa T, Mizutani S, Chen M (2010) A summary of periodic and random inspection
policies. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95:906–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.03.012
149. Nakagawa T, Yasui K (1980) Approximate calculation of optimal inspection times. J Oper
Res Soc 31:851–853
150. Neves ML, Santiago LP, Maia CA (2011) A condition-based maintenance policy and input
parameters estimation for deteriorating systems under periodic inspection. Comput Ind Eng
61:503–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2011.04.005
151. Nizizski S (1990) Diagnostic systems of mechanical vehicles (in Polish). In: Proceedings of
winter school on reliability, OPT, Katowice, pp 143–155
152. Ohnishi M, Kawai H, Mine H (1986) An optimal inspection and replacement policy under
incomplete state of information. Eur J Oper Res 27:117–128
153. Ohnishi M, Kawai H, Mine H (1986) An optimal inspection and replacement policy for a
deteriorating system. J Appl Probab 23(4):973–988
154. Okumura S (2006) Determination of inspection schedules of equipment by variational
method. Math Probl Eng, Article ID 95843:1–16. Hindawi Publishing Corporation
155. Onoufriou T, Frangopol DM (2002) Reliability-based inspection optimization of complex
structures: a brief retrospective. Comput Struct 80:1133–1144
156. Osaki S (ed) (2002) Stochastic models in reliability and maintenance. Springer-Verlang,
Berlin
157. Osaki S, Asakura T (1970) A two-unit standby redundant system with repair and preventive
maintenance. J Appl Probab 7(3):641–648
158. Panagiotidou S (2014) Joint optimization of spare parts ordering and maintenance policies
for multiple identical items subject to silent failures. Eur J Oper Res 235:300–314. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.10.065
159. Pandey D, Tyagi SK, Jacob M (1995) Profit evaluation of a two-unit system with internal
and external repairs, inspection and post repair. Microelectron Reliab 35(2):259–264
160. Parmigiani G (1993) Optimal inspection and replacement policies with age-dependent
failures and fallible tests. J Oper Res Soc 44(11):1105–1114
161. Parmigiani G (1993) Optimal scheduling of fallible inspections. DP no. 92-38:1–30. https://
stat.duke.edu/research/papers/1992-38. Accessed on 17 Oct 2018
162. Parmigiani G (1991) Scheduling inspections in reliability. Institute of Statistics and Decision
Sciences Discussion Paper no. 92-A11:1–21. https://stat.duke.edu/research/papers/1992-11.
Accessed on 17 Oct 2018
163. Pascual R, Louit D, Jardine AKS (2011) Optimal inspection intervals for safety systems with
partial inspections. J Oper Res Soc 2(1):2051–2062. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2010.173
164. Peters R (2014) Reliable, maintenance planning, estimating, and scheduling. Gulf
Professional Publishing
surveillance of deteriorating systems. Nav Res Logist Q 23:353–388
166. PN-EN 60300-3-11:2010 (2010) Dependability management, application guide—reliability
centred maintenance. The Polish Committee for Standardization, Warsaw
167. Podofillini L, Zio E, Vatn J (2006) Risk-informed optimisation of railway tracks inspection
and maintenance procedures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:20–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.
2004.11.009
168. Qiu Y (1991) A note on optimal inspection policy for stochastically deteriorating series
systems. J Appl Probab 28:934–939
169. Radner R, Jorgenson DW (1962) Optimal replacement and inspection of stochastically
failing equipment. In: Arrow KJ, Karlin S, Scarf H (eds) Studies in applied probability and
management science. Stanford University Press, pp 184–206
170. Rausand M, Hoyland A (2004) System reliability theory: models, statistical methods, and
applications. Wiley, New York
171. Rezaei E (2017) A new model for the optimization of periodic inspection intervals with
failure interaction: A case study for a turbine rotor. Case Stud Eng Fail Anal 9:148–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csefa.2015.10.001
172. Rizwan SM, Chauhan H, Taneja G (2005) Stochastic analysis of systems with accident and
inspection. Emir J Eng Res 10(2):81–88
173. Rosenfield D (1976) Markovian deterioration with uncertain information. Oper Res 24
(1):141–155
174. Sahraoui Y, Khelif R, Chateauneuf A (2013) Maintenance planning under imperfect
inspections of corroded pipelines. Int J Press Vessels Pip 104:76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijpvp.2013.01.009
175. Salamonowicz T (2007) Maintenance strategy for systems in k-out-of-n reliability structure
(in Polish). In: Proceedings of XXXV winter school on reliability—problems of systems
dependability, Publishing House of Institute for Sustainable Technologies, Radom,
pp 414–420
176. Sandoh H, Igaki N (2003) Optimal inspection policies for a scale. Comput Math Appl
46:1119–1127
177. Sandoh H, Igaki N (2001) Inspection policies for a scale. J Qual Maint Eng 7(3):220–231
178. Sarkar J, Sarkar S (2000) Availability of a periodically inspected system under perfect repair.
J Stat Plan Inference 91:77–90
179. Scarf PA, Cavalcante CAV (2012) Modelling quality in replacement and inspection
maintenance. Int J Prod Econ 135:372–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.08.011
180. Schultz CR (1985) A note on computing periodic inspection policies. Manage Sci 31
(12):1592–1596
181. Senegupta B (1982) An exponential riddle. J Appl Probab 19(3):737–740
182. Sheils E, O’connor A, Breysse D, Schoefs F, Yotte S (2010) Development of a two-stage
inspection process for the assessment of deteriorating infrastructure. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
184. Sheu S-H (1999) Extended optimal replacement model for deteriorating systems. Eur J Oper
Res 112:503–516
185. Sheu S-H, Tsai H-N, Wang F-K, Zhang ZG (2015) An extended optimal replacement model
for a deteriorating system with inspections. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 139:33–49. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ress.2015.01.014
186. Srivastava MS, Wu Y (1993) Estimation and testing in an imperfect-inspection model. IEEE
Trans Reliab 42(2):280–286
187. Su Ch, Zhang Y-J, Cao B-X (2012) Forecast model for real time reliability of storage system
based on periodic inspection and maintenance data. Eksploat Niezawodn Maint Reliab 14
(4):342–348
188. Tadikamalla PR (1979) An inspection policy for the gamma failure distributions. J Oper Res
Soc 30(1):77–80
189. Taghipour S, Banjevic D (2012) Optimum inspection interval for a system under periodic
and opportunistic inspections. IIEE Trans 44:932–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/0740817X.
2011.618176
References 157
190. Taghipour S, Banjevic D (2012) Optimal inspection of a complex system subject to periodic
and opportunistic inspections and preventive replacements. Eur J Oper Res 220:649–660.
systems. PhD. Thesis, University of Toronto
192. Tang T, Lin D, Banjevic D, Jardine AKS (2013) Availability of a system subject to hidden
failure inspected at constant intervals with non-negligible downtime due to inspection and
downtime due to repair/replacement. J Stat Plan Inference 143:176–185. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jspi.2012.05.011
193. Ten Wolde M, Ghobbar AA (2013) Optimizing inspection intervals—reliability and
availability in terms of a cost model: a case study on railway carriers. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
194. Thomas LC, Gaver DP, Jacobs PA (1991) Inspection models and their application. IMA J
Math Appl Bus Ind 3:283–303
195. Thomas LC, Jacobs PA, Gaver DP (1984) Inspection policies for stand-by systems.
Technical report AD-A-141719/5; NPS-55-84-004, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,
CA (USA)
196. Tijms HC, Van Der Duyn Schouten FA (1984) A Markov decision algorithm for optimal
inspections and revisions in a maintenance system with partial information. Eur J Oper Res
21:245–253
197. Tirkel I (2016) Efficiency of inspection based on out of control detection in wafer
fabrication. Comput Ind Eng 99:458–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.05.022
198. Tolentino D, Ruiz SE (2014) Influence of structural deterioration over time on the optimal
time interval for inspection and maintenance of structures. Eng Struct 61:22–30. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.012
199. Tsai H-N, Sheu S-H, Zhang ZG (2016) A trivariate optimal replacement policy for a
deteriorating system based on cumulative damage and inspections. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
200. Tylicki H, Zoltowski B (2012) Use of a dedicated diagnostic system in recognizing the
condition of machines (in Polish). In: Proceedings of XL winter school on reliability,
Publishing House of Institute for Sustainable Technologies, Radom, Szczyrk, pp 1–10
stochastically deteriorating single-unit systems. Nav Res Logist 36:419–446
202. Vaurio JK (1999) Availability and cost functions for periodically inspected preventively
maintained units. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 63:133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(98)
00030-1
203. Vaurio JK (1997) On time-dependent availability and maintenance optimization of standby
units under various maintenance policies. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 56:79–89. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0951-8320(96)00132-9
204. Vaurio JK (1995) Unavailability analysis of periodically tested standby components. IEEE
Trans Reliab 44(3):512–522. https://doi.org/10.1109/24.406594
205. Viscolani B (1991) A note on checking schedules with finite horizon. Oper Res 25(2):203–
208. https://doi.org/10.1051/ro/1991250202031
206. Wang GJ, Zhang YL (2014) Geometric process model for a system with inspections and
preventive repair. Comput Ind Eng 75:13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.06.007
207. Wang J, Matellini B, Wall A, Phipps J (2012) Risk-based verification of large offshore
systems. Proc Inst Mech Eng M J Eng Marit Environ 226(3):273–298. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1475090211430302
208. Wang W, Zhao F, Peng R (2014) A preventive maintenance model with a two-level
inspection policy based on a three-stage failure process. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 121:207–220.
209. Wattanapanom N, Shaw L (1979) Optimal inspection schedules for failure detection in a
model where tests hasten failures. Oper Res 27(2):303–317
210. Weiss GH (1963) Optimal periodic inspection programs for randomly failing equipment.
J Res Natl Bur Stan B Math Math Phys 67B(4):223–228
211. Weiss GH (1962) A problem in equipment maintenance. Manage Sci 8(3):266–277
212. White ChC III (1978) Optimal inspection and repair of a production process subject to
deterioration. J Oper Res Soc 29(3):235–243
213. Wojdak J, Kostrzewa Z (1978) Diagnostic methods of selected machines’ assemblies with
regard to measurement technique (in Polish). In: Proceedings of winter school on reliability,
Center for Technical Progress, Katowice, pp 165–184
214. Woodcock K (2014) Model of safety inspection. Saf Sci 62:145–156
215. Wortman MA, Klutke G-A, Ayhan A (1994) A maintenance strategy for systems subjected
to deterioration governed by random shocks. IEEE Trans Reliab 43(3):439–445
216. Yang J, Gang T, Zhao Y (2013) Availability of a periodically inspected system maintained
through several minimal repairs before a replacement of a perfect repair. Abstr Appl Anal,
Article ID 741275:1–6. Hindawi Publishing Corporation
217. Yang Y, Klutke G-A (2000) Improved inspection schemes for deteriorating equipment.
Probab Eng Inform Sci 14(4):445–460
218. Yeh L (2003) An inspection-repair-replacement model for a deteriorating system with
unobservable state. J Appl Probab 40:1031–1042
219. Yeh L (1995) An optimal inspection-repair-replacement policy for standby systems. J Appl
Probab 32(1):212–223
220. Yeh RH (1996) Optimal inspection and replacement policies for multi-state deteriorating
systems. Eur J Oper Res 96:248–259
221. Yeh RH, Chen HD, Wang C-H (2005) An inspection model with discount factor for
products having Weibull lifetime. Int J Oper Res 2(1):77–81
222. You J-S, Kuo H-T, Wu W-F (2006) Case studies of risk-informed inservice inspection of
nuclear piping systems. Nucl Eng Des 236:35–46
223. Zequeira RI, Berenguer C (2006) Optimal scheduling of non-perfect inspections. IMA J
Manage Math 17:187–207. https://doi.org/10.1093/imaman/dpi037
224. Zequeira RI, Berenguer C (2006) An inspection and imperfect maintenance model for a
system with two competing failure modes. In: Proceedings of the 6th IFAC symposium:
supervision and safety of technical processes, pp 932–937
225. Zequeira RI, Berenguer C (2005) On the inspection policy of a two-component parallel
system with failure interaction. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 88:99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ress.2004.07.009
226. Zhang J, Huang X, Fang Y, Zhou J, Zhang H, Li J (2016) Optimal inspection-based
preventive maintenance policy for three-state mechanical components under competing
failure modes. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 152:95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.02.007
227. Zhao F, Xu X, Xie SQ (2009) Computer-aided inspection planning—the state of the art.
Comput Ind 60:453–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2009.02.002
228. Zhao X, Chen M, Nakagawa T (2014) Optimal time and random inspection policies for
computer systems. Appl Math Inform Sci 8(1L):413–417
229. Zhaoyang T, Jianfeng L, Zongzhi W, Jianhu Z, Weifeng H (2011) An evaluation of
maintenance strategy using risk based inspection. Saf Sci 49:852–860. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ssci.2011.01.015
230. Zuckerman D (1989) Optimal inspection policy for a multi-unit machine. J Appl Probab
26:543–551
231. Zuckerman D (1980) Inspection and replacement policies. J Appl Probab 17(1):168–177
References 159
232. Żoltowski B (2012) Improvement of machines’ exploitation systems (in Polish). Maint Probl
2:7–20
233. Żoltowski B (2011) Fundamentals of diagnosing machines (in Polish). Publ. House of UTP
234. Żoltowski B (2011) Systems safety in the aspect of diagnostics (in Polish). Napędy
Sterowanie 4:82–89
235. Żoltowski B, Zoltowski M (2011) Improvement of equipment maintenance strategy (in
Polish). J KONBiN 4(20):119–132
236. Żoltowski B, Kalaczynski T (2011) Searching for the ways of machines rational
maintenance (in Polish). Stud Proc Polish Assoc Knowl Manage 48:162–175
Chapter 4
Delay-Time Maintenance Models
for Technical Systems
Abstract The chapter presents a literature review on delay-time modelling for

single- and multi-unit (complex) systems. First, there are introduced the main
definitions connected with this maintenance approach. Later, there is presented the
analysis of known maintenance models being developed in this research area. The
maintenance models for single-unit systems assume two-stage or three-stage failure
processes implementation. The optimum policies are discussed, and their several
modified and extended models are presented. The main extensions include
imperfect inspection implementation, postponed replacement performance, or dif-
ferent types of failures investigation. The classification also includes optimality
criterion, planning horizon, and used modelling method. In the case of complex
systems, the discussed problems regard to e.g. models’ parameters estimation
issues, case studies analysis, or hybrid modelling approach implementation. The
main extensions of the developed models are discussed and summarized. At last,
the main development directions in delay-time-based maintenance modelling are
presented in a graphical form. The brief summary of the conducted literature review
is provided with indicating the main research gaps in this modelling area.
4.1 Introduction
One of the main maintenance functions is to control the condition of facilities

[21, 87, 91]. When there is analysed the relationship between the performance of
equipment and maintenance intervention, the conventional reliability analysis of time
to first failure or time between failures is not sufficient [24]. The presented interaction
can be captured with the use of Delay Time (DT) concept implementation.
One of the first models that bases on delay time implementation is given in [84].
The author in his work considers a typical random age replacement problem with a
delay time. In the given work, the delay time can be understood as an ordering time
to get a new item, a preparing (warming up) time for installation, or others. The
expected cost per unit time is analytically obtain for the presented case.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10788-8_4
162 4 Delay-Time Maintenance Models for Technical Systems
The problem of delayed failure symptoms for complex systems is later analysed
in work [99]. The author in his work considers a system characterized by a
two-stage failure process defined by “good”, “fair” and “bad” reliability states. In
the “good” state, the system operates without any failure or symptoms of forth-
coming failures. In a “fair” state, the symptoms of forthcoming failure may be
identified during the inspection action performance. In a “bad” state the system is
failed. Thus, detection of failure is possible either because the system displays
symptoms of failure or by means of an inspection before the appearance of
symptoms.
As a result, the mentioned models may be treated as an introduction to the
delay-time-based maintenance approach. DT technique has been developed for
modelling the consequences of an inspection policy for any systems [26]. The
mentioned approach was developed by Christer et al. (see e.g. [25, 26, 32, 33, 41]).
The delay time concept defines a two-stage process for a component. First, a fault
which has occurred in a system becoming visible at time u from new with prob-
ability density function, pdf gh(u), if an inspection is carried out at that time. If the
fault is not attended to, the faulty component fails after some further interval
h which is called delay time of the fault and is described by probability density
function, pdf fh(h) (Fig. 4.1). During the period of h, there is an opportunity to
identify and prevent failure. The variables u and h depends upon the inspection
technique adopted, as described in e.g. [25, 31–33, 126].
Following this, taking into account that failures may be revealed (can be detected
before they happen) or unrevealed, the DT modelling regards to revealed failures,
while inspection models mostly to unrevealed or both types (as reviewed in the
Chap. 3). Moreover, delay-time models can be used for decision-making, for
example choosing the optimal maintenance and inspection interval with mini-
mization of cost or system downtime.
Having the knowledge about distributions of the two main model parameters
(u and h) gives the possibility to model reliability/availability characteristics and
operating costs values. In general, there are two methods to estimate these model
parameters, namely subjective method and objective method. The first one is based
Delay time – during this

Initial time – during this time interval the defect
time interval the defect can be identified by an
cannot be visible inspection
u h
0 tu tf
t
Time point when a fault Time point when a component
could be first identified fails if no maintenance
intervention during time h is
conducted
Fig. 4.1 Time delay modelling concept

on subjective data obtained from maintenance engineers’ experience (see e.g.

[32, 33]). The snap-shop modelling implementation in this maintenance area is
presented e.g. in [41].
The second one is based on objective data including recorded failure times and a
number of defects identified at PM (see e.g. [12, 13, 93]). Moreover, in the nineties
of the last century, there have been published models, where the two model
parameters (u and h) are estimated using limited PM data and selective repair at PM
(see e.g. [29, 39]).
The issues on maintenance models with parameters estimation and data uncer-
tainty are reviewed and investigated by the author in [60, 63]. Moreover, the
authors in their work [31] investigate the problem of bias estimation of a basic DT
model for single-unit systems.
The inspection schemes in delay time models may be periodic or based on
condition-based maintenance implementation [86]. In this work the author focuses on
periodic inspection maintenance modelling issues. More information about condition-
based delay time models may be found e.g. in [31, 36, 73, 88, 89, 120, 132].
Delay time modelling applied to industrial maintenance problems can be traced
back to the seventies of the last century [26]. A literature review, in which delay-time
models are investigated along with other PM models is given e.g. in [45, 50, 51, 82,
94, 102, 103, 105]. The state of art works, dedicated to DT modelling, are mostly
developed in the 1990s. According to work [24] one of the first publications that
strictly investigates recent development in the delay-time modelling is given by
Christer and Redmond [31]. In the mentioned paper, the basic DT model for a single
unit case is provided. Moreover, problems of model parameters estimation are
discussed. Later, the state of art is updated in [30]. In this work, mathematical
methods for updating delay-time models of industrial inspection practice are pro-
posed. There are presented a linear delay time update method and a model parameter
variation. Moreover, the author also provides a combination of these methods in the
maintenance area and defines the criteria for choosing an updating method.
In 1993, Alzubaidi [2] investigates the known Operational Research models in
the area of:
• management problems,
• overhauls,
• inspection models, including DT modelling problems,
• preventive maintenance,
• capital equipment replacement, and
• stochastic maintenance and replacement.
The author focuses on problems of building maintenance. In this context, the
DTA is introduced as a convenient solution for modelling the consequences of an
inspection policy for industrial inspection maintenance. The author presents the
basic delay time model for complex systems with some variations (like e.g.
imperfect inspection performance). There is also investigated the problem of model
parameter estimation using one of the two known methods.
Later, in [9] the authors discuss the development of delay-time analysis as a

mean of modelling engineering aspects of maintenance problems. In this work, the
authors present the idea of DT modelling for multi-component systems. The basic
assumptions, common for all the known DT models (see e.g. [24]), are given with
the definition of some additional assumptions being widely used in this research
area. The authors present the history of DT models development, providing also a
briefly introduction to estimation and validation of models parameters. They give
also directions for further research in this area.
In the next work [93] the author provides a recent development in DT modelling
issues. The state of art classifies the known models from several points of view. In
his work, the author investigates and verifies the delay time models for complex
systems. The analysis includes also a problem of models parameter estimation
accuracy and effectiveness. The application of delay time analysis to concrete
structures is provided.
At the same time, the DT modelling literature review, taking into account the
possibility of using Semi-Markov Inspection models for single component and
multi-component systems, is provided in [22]. The author presents the literature
review on inspection modelling and discusses the recent development in delay time
modelling. These steps are the base for Semi-Markov and delay time models of
maintenance for single and multi-component system comparison. The author also
investigates the case study of compared models for industrial plant maintenance
processes performance including the problem of parameters estimation.
The issues on DT models’ parameters estimation with the use of subjective
estimation methods are discussed in work [119]. In this paper the author discusses a
brief literature survey on assessing subjective probability and expert judgment in
decision making in order to obtain a subjective estimate of the delay time
distribution.
Christer in [24] reviews the recent cumulative knowledge and experience of
delay time modelling. The author presents the basic delay-time model and discusses
the main development directions including:
• perfect/non-perfect inspection,
• steady state and non-steady state conditions,
• type of arrival rate of defects, or
• type of model’s parameters estimation process.
There are investigated simple DT models for a repairable component and for a
complex plant. Moreover, the author focuses on the problems of parameter esti-
mation process and DT models’ implementation possibilities. The work ends with
discussion of further developments in delay time modelling. The presented state of
art is extended in work [23]. The author in his work focuses on industrial main-
tenance problems investigation and presents basic maintenance models for a
repairable component and a complex plant. The main extensions of the basic
models include e.g. non-perfect inspection case and non-steady-state conditions.
Moreover, the author discusses possible further developments in DT modelling.
An investigation of known DT models is also proposed in [69], where the author

focuses on a maintenance practice of complex plant. The author investigates PM
modelling issues from the downtime and costs point of views, as well as the aspects
of parameter estimation methods verification. The author discusses the main
extensions of the basic DT model in accordance with work [24]. Moreover, there is
also provided a case study of modelling production plant maintenance for a tea
production machine.
The literature review on single component DT models and complex system DT
models is also discussed in [42]. The author also develops a software package on
modelling plant maintenance using the delay time concept. It includes such elements
as project analysis, database design, program design, and the developing work.
In another work [116] the author introduces the DT modelling for single and
multi-component systems and presents how it can be applied to various production
equipment to optimise inspection intervals. The author also analyses the problem of
parameter estimation methods selection and gives some directions for future
research in DT modelling development. The extension of this review is also given
in [114]. Later, this author provides a recent advances in delay-time-based main-
tenance modelling [108]. In this work, the author focuses on the main development
directions in delay-time-based models. As a result, he investigates the delay-time
models for optimised inspection intervals (distinguishing e.g. imperfect inspection
and maintenance issues or multiple inspection intervals problem), and DT mod-
elling application areas (including e.g. the problem of spare part inventory and
maintenance modelling or maintenance outsourcing issues). The author also defines
the main directions for further research in the analysed maintenance area.
There should be also underlined the research studies that investigate the delay
time modelling issues together with PM (see e.g. [64]) or CBM (see e.g. [55, 73]).
To sum up the above investigations, the main classification criteria for DT
models are the following [9, 24, 31, 86, 93]:
• single-/multi-unit (complex) case,
• perfect/imperfect inspection,
• known/unknown delay time parameter,
• method of DT model parameters estimation,
• finite/infinite time horizon,
• optimization criteria, and
• type of maintenance policy (e.g. time-based/condition-based/RCM-based).
Following these considerations, in Fig. 4.2, there is presented the main classi-
fication of existing delay time models. The proposed classification divides the
known models into two main groups of inspection strategies—for single- and
multi-unit systems.
Following the introduction, based on the classification introduced e.g. in
[108, 116], in the next sections the author examines various types of delay time
DELAY TIME (DT) MODELS FOR TECHNICAL SYSTEM
DT MODELS FOR SINGLE-UNIT DT MODELS FOR MULTI-UNIT

SYSTEM SYSTEM
MODELS FOR SYSTEM MODELS FOR SYSTEM WITH MODELS FOR COMPLEX MODELS FOR MULTI-
WITH TWO-STAGE THREE-STAGE FAILURE SYSTEM UNIT SYSTEM IN NON-
FAILURE PROCESS PROCESS SERIES RELIABILITY
STRUCTURE
SYSTEM WITH SYSTEM WITH

SINGLE FAILUE MULTIPLE
MODE FAILURE MODE
Fig. 4.2 Classification scheme of delay-time models (periodic inspection)
modelling approaches for single- and complex systems, which are the most widely
known in the literature.
4.2 Basic Delay-Time Models for a Single-Unit System
At the beginning, the author investigates the one-unit stochastically failing or

deteriorating system, in which the system’s defective state can be detected only by
actual inspection. When implementing the DT approach, a single-component sys-
tem is to be the system, whose only maintenance action is replacement (or repaired
to as new condition) either preventively, if identified to be faulty, or at failure (see
Fig. 4.3) [117].
Fig. 4.3 One-component system renewed by a preventive replacement, b failure replacement

(assuming that the system state is identified only during inspections). Source Based on [117]
4.2 Basic Delay-Time Models for a Single-Unit System 167
One-component analysis is an important case for study, since it is the building

block for the main cases of practical multi-unit systems. As a result, following
Fig. 4.2, first the delay-time maintenance models for single-unit systems are
investigated. The main classification for DT models for single-unit systems is given
in Figs. 4.4, 4.5.
One of the first developed DT models for a single-unit system is presented in
[25]. The author in his work develops a reliability model for a single component,
subject to one type of inspectable defect, which will subsequently lead to a failure.
In the presented model, under the policy of inspecting every Tin time units, the
author develops a function of component reliability at time t RTin(t).
Taking into account the following main assumptions:
• fault may arise randomly at time u since new with pdf gh(u),
• perfect maintenance policy,
• time required for inspection is negligible,
• variables u and h are assumed to be independent,
• infinite horizon case,
the required reliability function RTin(t) is given by [25]:
ðiÞ
RTin ðtÞ ¼ rTin ðtÞ; where ði 1ÞTin t\iTin ð4:1Þ
ðiÞ
where i is a positive integer and rTin ðtÞ is a reliability function for the component at
time t, given by the formula [25]:
8 20 1 3
>
<Xi1 ZjTin
ðiÞ 6B C ðijÞ 7
rTin ðtÞ ¼ 4@ gh ðuÞMh ðjTin uÞduArTin ðt jTin Þ5
>
: j¼1
u¼ðj1ÞTin
9
Z1 Zt >
= ð4:2Þ
þ gh ðuÞdu þ gh ðuÞM ðt uÞdu ;
>
;
u¼t u¼ði1ÞTin
where ði 1ÞTin t\iTin
where Mh(x) is defined as [25]:
Z1
M h ð xÞ ¼ fh ðuÞdu ð4:3Þ
x
In the absence of an inspection procedure (Tin = ∞) the reliability function is

given by the following formula [25]:
DT MODELS FOR SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEMS
168
* periodic inspections * defects detected only by test

* perfect maintenance procedures
* negligible inspection time * infinite and finite horizon cases
* one known inspectable * reliability model
defect * two-stage failure process
SIMPLE DTM OF EQUIPMENT continuation in the Fig. 4.5.

[25]
RELIABILITY
continuation in the Fig. 4.6. * n different types of inspectable defects
* software package for DT model
EXTENDED DTM OF EQUIPMENT * risk of asset maintenance analysis
[25] * single- and multi-unit system
RELIABILITY
* finite horizon case * two-defect system (minor and major)
* approximation model (linear * perfect and imperfect inspection
and cubic approximation) * cost criteria SIMPLE DTM AND SOFTWARE [118]
DT MODEL WITH TWO TYPES OF FOR EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY
[116]
SIMPLIFIED DTM OF EQUIPMENT [19] INSPECTIONS AND REPAIR * postponed replacement
RELIABILITY * PM cost as a non-increasing function of the
* two types of failures
* imperfect inspection postponed interval
* general converse problem
* cost criteria * exponentially distributed defect arrival time
* reliability model with cost
* deterministic and random delay time
considerations
DT MODEL WITH TWO TYPES OF * cost model
GENERAL DT RELIABILITY [79]
[18]
FAILURES
MODEL SIMPLE DT MODEL WITH [105]
* multi-defect system POSTPONED REPLACEMENT
* exponential distributions of * cumulative age model
time to failure and delay time * imperfect inspection * a mission-based system
densities * cost and reliability criteria * periodic and random inspections
GENERAL DT RELIABILITY [6] IMPERFECT DTM FOR SINGLE
[73] EXTENDED DT MODEL WITH [135]
MODEL WITH EXPONENTIAL COMPONENT WITH MULTIPLE
POSTPONED REPLACEMENT
DISTRIBUTIONS FAILURE MODES
* system failures are safety critical
* MC simulation model * opportunistic replacement
* two safety constraints
* cost model
* cost model
* inspection timeliness measure defined DT MODEL WITH POSTPONED [14]
DT MODEL WITH SAFETY [8] REPLACEMENT AND
NEW SIMPLIFIED DT MODEL FOR [56]
CONSTRAINTS OPPORTUNISTIC MAINTENANCE
SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEMS
Fig. 4.4 Delay-time maintenance models for single-unit system (first scheme)
4 Delay-Time Maintenance Models for Technical Systems
the second scheme:

* defects detected only by test procedures
* finite horizon case (first inspection cycle case)
* two-stage failure process
* periodic inspections
SIMPLE DTM OF EQUIPMENT * perfect maintenance
RELIABILITY [25] * negligible inspection time
* one known inspectable defect
* infinite horizon case * cost model
* availability criteria
BASIC DT MODEL FOR SINGLE- [94]
SIMPLE DTM FOR PREPAREDNESS [54] UNIT SYSTEMS
SYSTEM * infinite horizon case – the ith inspection cycle
* components from a heterogeneous population case
* two-phase inspection policy * block-based inspection model
* availability and cost criteria
EXTENDED DT MODEL FOR [58]
A TWO-PHASE INSPECTION [17] SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEMS
POLICY FOR PREPAREDNESS
SYSTEM *infinite horizon case
* availability model
* imperfect inspections * renewal theory and MC simulation use
* proportional age reduction (PAR) model * block-based inspection model
* MLE use
EXTENDED DT MODEL FOR [62]
EXTENDED AVAILABILITY MODEL
[108] SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEMS WITH
WITH DTA
AVAILABILITY CONSTRAINTS
* age- and block-based inspection models * cost and availability models
* components’ heterogeneity not considered * renewal theory and MC simulation use
* overlapping of inspection spans * improved analytical functions
* perfect inspections
BLOCK-BASED INSPECTION MODEL [59]
BLOCK- AND AGE-BASED DT FOR SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEMS
MODELS FOR SINGLE-UNIT
[138] * imperfect inspection case
SYSTEMS
* analytical cost model
BLOCK-BASED MAINTENANCE [60]

MODEL WITH IMPERFECT
INSPECTION
Fig. 4.5 Delay-time maintenance models for single-unit system (second scheme)
Zt
ð1Þ
RðTin Þ ¼ R1 ðtÞ ¼ rTin ðtÞ ¼1 Fh ðt uÞgh ðuÞdu ð4:4Þ
u¼0
For such the model a numerical example is provided.

Moreover, the author in his work also extends the presented above maintenance
model by considering the n different types of inspect able and independent defects
in a component and multi-unit cases.
The issues of multi-defect components maintenance modelling are later con-
tinued e.g. in work [115], where the author investigates a production process
subjected to two types of deterioration. The delay-time-based inspection model is
developed for a component with a minor defect and a major defect. It is assumed
that the minor defect is fixed by minor and perfect inspection and repair, while the
major defect is dealt with by major imperfect inspection and repair. Moreover, the
minor defects may influence the product quality and process productivity, but may
not cause the system to breakdown. The major defects, if they occur, may not be
identified by minor inspections and repairs. They have to be detected and rectified
by major inspections and repairs, otherwise they can lead to breakdown of the
process. The model also takes into account the possible relationship between the
two defined defects due to the possible influence of major defects on the minor
defects occurrence in the system. The authors are aimed at finding the optimal
values for both types of inspection intervals by minimising the long-run expected
cost per unit time.
The case of imperfect maintenance model for single components with two failure
types and adjustable inspection intervals is analysed by the authors in work [78].
The paper considers a single unit system subject to two types of failures, where one
failure mode is the traditional 0–1 logic failure and the other failure mode is
described by a two-stage failure process. As a result, PM and inspections are
implemented in order to optimise the expected long-run cost per unit time.
The problem of imperfect inspection of systems with multiple failure modes is
later analysed in work [72]. The authors in their work introduce an accumulative
age concept and imperfect inspection maintenance due to insufficient allocation of
maintenance resources. The model bases on the optimization of the average cost per
unit time over an infinite period and the average reliability function.
Another extension of the basic delay-time-based maintenance model for
single-unit systems regards to the approximation modelling. The inspection-
maintenance model given in [25] is simplified in the paper [19]. The author in his
work develops an average reliability over an ith inspection period RcTini as a cubic
approximation:
1 h ðiÞ ðiÞ
i T h
in ðiÞ ðiÞ
i
RcTini ¼ rTin ðiTin Þ þ rTin ðði 1ÞTin Þ r_ Tin ðiTin Þ þ r_ Tin ðði 1ÞTin Þ ð4:5Þ
2 12
and a linear approximation:
1 h ðiÞ ðiÞ
i
RLTini ¼ rTin ðiTin Þ þ rTin ðði 1ÞTin Þ ð4:6Þ
2
The author shows that the linear approximation gives a relative error of the order
of 10% and by a cubic resulting in a relative error of less than 1%.
In the next paper the author also bases on the model developed in [25]. Cerone in
his work [18] investigates the problem termed as ‘the Converse problem’.
Moreover, the author also extends existing work by the development of a cost
model, which involves determining both a number of inspections and an inspection
interval that will produce the maximum reliability at some future point in time at
minimum cost.
The author determines the optimal regular inspection period Tinmax for maximum
reliability at some future point in time t* for a given number of inspections i − 1.
Thus, we obtain [18]:
8 20 1 3
>
<ðX
i1Þ ZjTin
ðiÞ 6B C ðijÞ 7
rTin ðt Þ ¼ 4@ gh ðuÞMh ðjTin uÞduArTin ðt jTin Þ5
>
: j¼1
u¼ðj1ÞTin
9 ð4:7Þ
Z1 Zt >
=
þ gh ðuÞdu þ gh ðuÞMh ðt uÞdu
>
;
u¼t u¼ðmi1ÞTin
and
t t
Tin ð4:8Þ
m m1
When both densities, fh(h) and gh(u), are exponential the optimal inspection
interval is given as:
t
Tinmax ¼ ð4:9Þ
m
For the developed model there are considered also costs of an inspection policy.
Taking into account an inspection cost and a cost of mission failure c2, the cost
model is given by:
ðiÞ
Cði ; Tin Þ ¼ c2 þ ½ði 1Þcin c2 rTin ðt Þ ð4:10Þ
There is also a numerical example provided.

In the next work [6] a new simplified delay-time model of a reliability function
with inspections is obtained. Taking into account the same assumptions as in [18]
the author formulates the reliability functions, when the distributions of time of
defective u and delay time h are respectively negative exponential distributions with
parameter ku and kh. The reliability function for a component is given by [6]:
ðX
i1Þ
ðiÞ ðijÞ
rTin ðtÞ ¼ kj ðTin ÞrTin ðt jTin Þ þ kx ðtÞ ð4:11Þ
j¼1
where:
ku ku tTin
kj ðTin Þ ¼ e ekh Tin eðj1Þku Tin ð4:12Þ
kh ku
and:
1 ku t
kx ðtÞ ¼ k2 e k1 ekh t eðkh ku Þði1ÞTin ð4:13Þ
kh ku
The author also provides a numerical example, where for different values of ku
and kh the reliability function is given.
Another approximation model is presented in work [55], where the author
presents the model and a method to find the timeliness-based optimal inspection
interval. The proposed solution bases on the Monte Carlo simulation use and the
optimization process uses the cost rate function.
The safety constraints are considered by Aven and Castro in their work [8]. The
authors in their paper consider the basic delay-time model for a system, whose
failures are safety critical, thus risk should be controlled. The management con-
siders two types of safety constraints: (1) the probability of at least one failure in a
given time interval should not exceed a fixed probability level, and (2) the fraction
of time the system is in the defective state also should not exceed a fixed limit. The
model is aimed at determining optimal inspection intervals Tin, minimizing the
expected discounted costs under the safety constraints.
Another extension of the simple DT model for single-component systems
regards to availability function use as an optimization criterion. In the first work
[53] the authors consider periodic testing of a preparedness system based on the
two-stage failure process implementation. Based on the renewal theory, the
long-run availability of the system is developed. Moreover, the authors in their
work investigate various variants of the basic model, including the situations, when:
(1) a delay time period exists, but the technology to detect a defect is not available,
(2) the delay time is zero, so that only failures are detected, (3) the system is
replaced on a regular basis without any state testing.
The problem of preparedness system maintenance optimization is later continued
in work [17]. The authors in their work assume that a component may be either
weak or strong, so that the time in the good state has a distribution that is a mixture.
Following this, the main extensions of the work [53] regards to the implementation
of a two-phase inspection policy with an anticipated high inspection frequency in
early life and low inspection frequency in later life of the component. The cost and
reliability models are developed for finite and infinite horizon cases.
Another extension of the model given in [53] is presented in work [107]. The
authors in their work introduce the availability DT model with imperfect mainte-
nance at inspection. The proportional age reduction (PAR) model is used in order to
present that the accumulative age (wear) caused by previous imperfect maintenance
will affect instantaneous rates of defect and a failure at next maintenance stage. The
solution is based on the renewal theory use. Moreover, the authors present the
model parameters estimation method based on MLE (maximum likelihood esti-
mation) use.
An interesting block-based inspection model for a single component is presented
in work [137]. The authors in their work focus on the effect of possible overlapping
of inspection span with failure renewal on determining of inspection interval. Based
on the renewal theory, the s-expected interval availability function is developed for
an infinite horizon case. The solution is also provided with MC simulation
implementation. Moreover, the presented model is also compared with an age-
based inspection model in order to show its practical sense.
The extension of the DT model given in [25] is also presented by Wang in his
work [117]. The author focuses on delay time modelling in the context of risk
analysis of maintenance problems. The presented model regards to single- and
multi-unit cases. The worth mentioning here is the developed prototype software
packages that give the possibility to automate the delay time modelling process.
The software bases on the multiple component system DTM with perfect inspection
and the model parameters are estimated using the moment matching method.
The last problem regards to postponed replacement introduction. The authors in
[104] develop a DT model to determine an optimal maintenance policy relaxing
assumption of instantaneous replacement enforced as soon as a defect is detected at
an inspection. The authors’ key motivation is to achieve better utilization of sys-
tem’s useful life and to reduce replacement costs by providing a sufficient time
window to prepare necessary maintenance resources. As a result, the PM replace-
ment cost is modelled as a non-increasing function of the postponement interval.
Moreover, there are analysed two cases, when delay time is either a deterministic or
a random variable. This model is later extended in work [134], where the authors
investigate a system that successively executes missions with random durations.
Following this, inspections are carried out periodically and immediately after the
completion of each mission (random inspection). As a result, the replacement is
immediate if the system fails or is defective at a periodic inspection. However, in
the situation when the system is defective at a random inspection, then replacement
will be postponed if the time to the subsequent periodic inspection is shorter than a
pre-determined threshold, and immediate otherwise. Based on the main assump-
tions given e.g. in [117] the cost model is derived in order to obtain optimal
periodic inspection interval and postponement threshold. Moreover, the continua-
tion of the investigations on postponed replacement is presented in [14]. The
authors in their work investigate imperfect inspection performance and opportunity
replacements that arise after a positive inspection.
Another group of DT models for single-unit systems bases on the assumptions
given e.g. in [93, 116]. According to these works, there is a possibility to define the cdf
of time to failure, F(x), as the convolution of u and h such that u + h x [93, 116]:
Zx
F ð xÞ ¼ gh ðuÞFh ðx uÞdu ð4:14Þ
u¼0
and the reliability function, Rð xÞ ¼ 1 F ð xÞ.

Taking into account the following additional assumptions and notation
[93, 116]:
• a system is renewed at either a failure repair or at a repair done at an inspection
if a defect is identified,
• after either a failure renewal or inspection renewal the inspection process
restarts,
• maintenance actions restores maintained components to as good as new

condition,
• failures of the system are identified immediately and repairs or replacements are
made as soon as possible,
• perfect inspections case, i.e. every defect is assumed to be identified during
inspection action performance,
the expected cost over each cycle, c(Tin), may be defined by the following
equation [93, 116]:
ZTin

cðTin Þ ¼ cr F ðTin Þ þ cp þ cin gh ðuÞð1 Fh ðTin uÞÞdu þ cin ð1 Gh ðTin ÞÞ
u¼0
ð4:15Þ
The expected downtime Ed ðTin Þ of an inspection cycle of length Tin is given as [24]:

Ed ðTin Þ ¼ dr dp din F ðTin Þ þ dp Gh ðTin Þ þ din ð4:16Þ
Assuming instantaneous inspection and replacement times, the expected cycle

length, TM ðTin Þ, is given by [24, 93]:
ZTin
TM ðTin Þ ¼ xF 0 ð xÞdx þ Tin RðTin Þ ð4:17Þ
x¼0
The examples of such the model implementation are given e.g. in [93, 116], the
problem of model parameter estimation is analysed in [116].
This model is later extended by the author in works [57–59, 61]. In work [57] the
authors focus on the block-based inspection modelling. The developed analytical
model gives the answer for the question: If an element does not expose any
symptoms of a defect while is inspected first time, the next problem arises: when
should it be tested again? The solution bases on the definition of the length of the
first inspection cycle individually and then, dependently on inspection results, on
planning moments of inspection action performance in the future. The next
inspection cycles lengths may vary, when the decision about the nearest cycle is
taken during an inspection. Independently on a taken strategy of a period between
inspections determination, the cost model should be developed to the form, which
includes information about inspection effects [57]:
R tini i R ti i i
cr i1
tin
gh ðuÞFh tin u du þ cp þ cin ti1in
gh ðuÞ 1 Fh tin u du þ cin 1 Gh tin
cðTini Þ ¼
1 Gh ðtin
i1 Þ
ð4:18Þ
Following this, the long term expected costs may be expressed in the form of the
series [57]:
X
1
cðTin Þ ¼ cðTin1 Þ þ cðTini Þ ð4:19Þ
i¼2
where the cost function c(Tin1) is calculated according to the formulae (4.14).
The consideration of the lowest-cost inspection cycle cannot be done without
determining the expected length of element lifetime. If we assume that an element
may operate longer than to the first inspection, the expected value may be expressed
as follows:
X
1
TOP ðTin Þ ¼ TM ðTin1 Þ þ TM ðTini Þ ð4:20Þ
i¼2
and
Z i 0ðxÞ i
tin
x tin
i1
F 1 F tin
TM ðTini Þ ¼ dx þ Tini ð4:21Þ
i1
tin 1 Gh ðtin
i1 Þ 1 Gh ðtin
i1 Þ
Hence, the long-term expected costs per unit time C(Tin) is given by:
cðTin Þ
CðTin Þ ¼ ð4:22Þ
TOP ðTin Þ
Later, the work [57] is extended by Jodejko-Pietruczuk and Werbińska-

Wojciechowska in work [61], where for the given assumptions the availability
model for a single-unit system is provided. The availability ratio for the ith cycle
may be estimated according to the well-known formulae [61]:
TOP ðTin Þ
AðTin Þ ¼ ð4:23Þ
TOP ðTin Þ þ TI ðTin Þ þ TR ðTin Þ þ TP ðTin Þ
where:
X
1 i1 i
TI ðTin Þ ¼ din 1 Gh tin 1 F tin ð4:24Þ
i¼1
"Z #
X
1 i
tin i
TP ðTin Þ ¼ dp gh ðuÞ 1 Fh tin u du ð4:25Þ
i1
tin
i¼1
and
"Z #
X
1 ti i
TR ðTin Þ ¼ dr gh ðuÞ Fh tin u du ð4:26Þ
i1
tin
i¼1
In work [58] the analytical and MC simulation models are provided. Moreover,
the authors present the comprehensive sensitivity analysis of the proposed models.
Another extension is presented in work [59], where the assumption of imperfect
inspections is introduced.
In this work there is assumed that system inspection actions are imperfect, what
means that a defect occurrence in the system is identified with the given probability
pw. In such a situation, in the analysed system may occur the following maintenance
actions:
• preventive replacement during inspection action performance, provided that the
defect has occurred and has been identified with the probability pw,
• inspection action performance without preventive replacement, provided that the
defect has not occurred or has not been identified with probability (1 − pw).
Based on the main assumptions given e.g. in [58], the long-term expected
maintenance costs per unit time function is defined by:
cin ðLI ðt ! 1Þ þ PP ðt ! 1ÞÞ þ cp PP ðt ! 1Þ þ cr PR ðt ! 1Þ

C ðTin Þ ¼
TM ðTin Þ
ð4:27Þ
In the formulae (4.27), the expected cycle length TM(Tin) in the single renewal
cycle may be calculated as a sum of the expected system up times in the performed
inspection cycles, when tiin! ∞:
8
" #
1 > Ztin j¼i Z
i
X < X tinj
ij
TM ðTin Þ ¼ x gh ðuÞfh ðx uÞð1 pw Þ du dx
i¼1
>
: i1 j¼1
j1
tin
tin ð4:28Þ
)
i1 i
þ tin
i
Rh tin ; tin
and:
" Z #
X
1 i X
1 i
tin
LI ð t ! 1 Þ ¼ 1 Gh tin ¼ 1 gh ðuÞdu ð4:29Þ
i¼1 i¼1 0
2 3
j
1 6X
X Ztin
i i 7
PP ðt ! 1Þ ¼ 6 gðuÞ 1 Fh tin u du ð1 pw Þij pw 7 ð4:30Þ
4 5
i¼1 j¼1 j1
tin
2 3
j
i Z in
t
1 6X
X i i1 7
PR ðt ! 1Þ ¼ 6 gðuÞ Fh tin u Fh tin u du ð1 pw Þij 7
4 5
i¼1 j¼1 j1
tin
ð4:31Þ
Another extension of the DT models for single-unit systems regards to a

three-stage failure process implementation (Fig. 4.6). A delay-time-based inspec-
tion model based on the three-stage failure process is presented by Wang in work
[110]. The author extends the delay time concept assuming that the traditionally
defined delay time is divided into another two stages corresponding to a minor and
a severe defective stage. As a result, the investigated plant item can be in one of the
four states, namely good, minor defective, severe defective and failed at any one
time. In the developed maintenance model, the inspection actions may not be
perfect in that sense that the minor defective stage may be missed with a given
probability, but the severe defective stage of the item is always identified perfectly.

* periodic inspections * defects detected only by test
* perfect maintenance procedures
* negligible inspection time * infinite and finite horizon cases
* one known inspectable * reliability model
defect * two-stage failure process
SIMPLE DTM OF EQUIPMENT [25]
RELIABILITY
* three-stage failure process
* single/multi-unit cases
* cost model
* perfect and imperfect inspections (major/minor)
DTM FOR SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEMS

[111]
BASED ON THREE-STAGE FAILURE
PROCESS
*searching the optimal shortening * Age-replacement model

proportion of the inspection * two cost models
interval
EXTENDED DTM FOR SINGLE- [137] DT AND AGE-REPLACEMENT [139]

UNIT SYSTEMS WITH THREE- MODEL BASED ON A THREE-
STAGE FAILURE PROCESS STAGE FAILURE PROCESS
* imperfect maintenance at * two-phase inspection schedule

minor defect *Hybrid bee colony algorithm
* Age reduction concept
EXTENDED DT AND AGE- [107]
DTM FOR SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEMS [136] REPLACEMENT MODEL BASED
WITH THREE-STAGE FAILURE ON A THREE-STAGE FAILURE
PROCESS AND IMPERFECT PROCESS
MAINTENANCE
Fig. 4.6 Delay-time maintenance models for single-unit system (three-stage failure process
models)
As a measure to optimize the inspection interval, the author uses the long run
expected cost function for two main models with respect to the two options con-
nected with maintenance actions taken. The solution is also presented on the
example of maintenance optimization for cold water pumps used in a soft drink
company.
In work [136], the authors extend this model by assuming the proportion of
shortening the inspection interval, when the minor defective stage is identified as a
decision variable to be optimised. The imperfect maintenance in introduced in
[135]. The developed model uses an age reduction concept and bases on the MC
simulation method implementation.
In work [138] the authors introduce the three-stage failure process model with
inspection and age-based replacement. According to the assumptions, a system
needs to be repaired immediately in case of a severe defective stage identified at an
inspection, at a failure or when it reaches a certain age. The authors propose two
cost models and a numerical example to show the procedure of the model to solve
the optimal inspection and age-based replacement intervals.
This model is later extended in [106], where the authors introduce a two-phase
inspection schedule and an age-based replacement policy for a single plant item
with a three-stage degradation process. The solution bases in the implementation of
a hybrid bee colony algorithm.
Other delay-time maintenance modelling problems that are investigated regard
to, among others, optimization of inspection and maintenance decisions for
infrastructure facilities (see e.g. [133] for maintenance optimization of single ele-
vator performance), or transportation means (see e.g. [28] for modelling ship reli-
ability optimization). In work [54] the author investigates the relationship between
delay time and gamma process. Moreover, in work [38] the authors compare
semi-Markov and delay time single-component inspection models. The main
authors’ interest is to investigate to what extent the results of a semi-Markov
decision model remain valid, when the Markov property is assumed but is not valid.
This problem is also continued in work [38]. Next, in [90] a method for computing
central moments (mean, variance, skewness and kurtosis) of maintenance costs in a
finite time with the use of a Hermite polynomial method is given. Here, the authors
present the delay-time model in order to optimize the maintenance program for a
repairable system performance. A problem of human error in maintenance mod-
elling is analysed in [16]. In another work [85] the authors present two alternative
policies for preventive replacement of a component—age replacement during delay
time policy and an opportunistic age replacement policy and compare them in order
to define the possibilities of their implementation for real-life systems. The last
interesting problem regards to the integration of multi-criteria decision making
techniques with a delay time model for optimal inspection maintenance policy
definition (see e.g. [47, 48]). The authors in work [48] focus on a marine machinery
system maintenance, and the solution bases on ELECTRE and MAUT methods
implementation. In work [47] the PROMETHEE decision making technique is
used. The problem of supplier choice in preventive maintenance, including
inspection and replacement, is investigated in work [95].
Another interesting problem is presented in [79], where the authors present a

proportional delay time model, which includes parameters related to maintenance
effectiveness and working conditions (utilization rate) of the maintained medical
equipment. The continuation of maintenance modelling for medical equipment is
later continued in work [80]. The quick summary of delay-time inspection models
for single-unit systems is presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Summary of delay-time models for deteriorating single-unit systems

Planning Number of Quality of Optimality criterion Modelling Typical
horizon inspectable performed method reference
defects inspection
actions
Infinite Single Perfect The cost rate Monte Carlo [55]
horizon failure mode inspections simulation
Infinite Single Perfect The expected cost per HBC algorithm [106]
horizon failure mode inspections unit time
Infinite Single Perfect The s-expected interval Analytical/MC [137]
horizon failure mode inspections availability simulation
Infinite Single Perfect The long-run expected Analytical/MC [58]
horizon failure mode inspections maintenance cost per simulation
unit time and the
long-run availability
Infinite Single Perfect The long-run availability PAR model and [107]
horizon failure mode inspections of the system MLE
Infinite Single Perfect Analytical [61]
horizon failure mode inspections
Infinite Single Perfect [53]
horizon failure mode inspections
Infinite Single Perfect The long-run expected [57]
horizon failure mode inspections maintenance cost per
unit time
Infinite Single Perfect The expected long-run [134,
horizon failure mode inspections cost per unit time 136,
138]
Infinite Single Perfect The long-run expected [135]
horizon failure mode inspections downtime per unit time
Infinite Single Imperfect The long-run expected [59]
horizon failure mode inspections maintenance cost per
unit time
Infinite Two failure Imperfect The long-run expected Analytical [78]
horizon modes inspections maintenance cost per
Infinite Two-defect Perfect minor unit time [115]
horizon system inspections
and imperfect
major
inspections
Infinite Multi-defect Imperfect The long-run average [72]
horizon system inspections cost per unit time and the
long-run availability
One or Perfect Component reliability at [25]
n different inspections time t function
(continued)

Planning Number of Quality of Optimality criterion Modelling Typical
horizon inspectable performed method reference
defects inspection
actions
Infinite/ types of
finite inspectable
horizon defect
Single Imperfect The expected total cost [17]
failure mode inspections per cycle, the average
availability, the long-run
average cost per unit
time
Infinite/ Single Imperfect The long-run cost per [14]
finite failure mode inspections unit time, expected cost
horizon in a cycle
Finite Perfect Component reliability at [117]
horizon inspections time t function
Maximum reliability at Analytical [18]
some future point in time (general
converse
problem)
The average reliability Analytical [19]
over an inspection period (approximation
models)
Perfect The average reliability Analytical [6]
inspections over an inspection period
The long run average [104]
cost function
The total expected [8]
discounted cost
Perfect major The long-term expected [110]
inspections cost per unit time
and imperfect
minor
inspections
4.3 Basic Delay-Time for a Complex System
The previously investigated types of delay-time-based maintenance models are

focused on the case of a repairable component. For this case, it is possible to model
the reliability, operating cost and availability functions when pdfs fh(h) and
gh(u) are known. In this section, the author presents a complex system case, where
generally it is assumed that a system comprises of many independent component
parts, and a breakdown can be caused by any one component (a series structure).
The arrival pattern of defects within the system is modelled by an instantaneous
arrival rate parameter kh(u) at time u (Fig. 4.7). If kh(u) is constant, the model is a
Homogeneous Poisson Process type (HPP), otherwise it is of a Non-Homogeneous
Poisson Process type (NHPP) [69].
4.3 Basic Delay-Time for a Complex System 181
Fig. 4.7 A delay-time example with initial signs of failure
DELAY TIME (DT) MODELS FOR COMPLEX SYSTEM
HYBRID DT MODELS FOR BASIC DT MODELS FOR DT MODELS FOCUSED ON DT MODELS BASED ON CASE
COMPLEX SYSTEM COMPLEX SYSTEM ESTIMATION PROBLEMS STUDIES
DT modelling along with PM DT models with Subjective, objective or mixed Case problems investigations
maintenance (e.g. age- block- perfect/imperfect inspections, estimation modelling for e.g. vehicle fleets,
based RP, opportunistic HPP/NHPP defect arrival production plants, gearboxes,
maintenance) process, multiple nested work lifts
inspections
Fig. 4.8 The general classification of delay-time-based maintenance models for complex system
The general classification of the main delay-time-based maintenance models for

complex systems is presented in Fig. 4.8. The author defines four main groups of
DT models according to the main issues that are considered in the investigated
research works.
The first group of models that was developed in the 80s and 90s of the last
century bases mostly on the estimation modelling issues (Fig. 4.9).
One of the first models of an inspection maintenance policy is developed for
building complex systems and presented in work [33]. The authors in their work
develop the cost based system model for perfect inspection case. The main
assumptions given in this model include [33]:
• periodic inspection,
• inspections are perfect in that any defect present within the plant will be
identified,
• inspections are independent of each other,
• faults are independent and arise within the technical system at a constant rate ku
for any inspection period (HPP process),
• time of origin of the fault is uniformly distributed over time since the last
inspection,
• defects identified at an inspection will be repaired within the inspection period,
• breakdowns impose a small amount of downtime, dr, compared to the inspection
interval Tin and din.
For such assumptions, there is possible to estimate the probability of a fault
arising as a breakdown PuF (Tin) [33]:
DT MODELS FOR COMPLEX SYSTEMS – ESTIMATION MODELS
182
* periodic inspections * defects detected only by test procedures

* perfect maintenance * defects arise according to HPP
* negligible inspection time * infinite horizon case
* one known inspectable defect * cost model * vehicle fleet maintenance
* subjective estimation method * two-stage failure process * perfect/imperfect inspections
* flexibility in inspection scheduling
SIMPLE DTM FOR BUILDING
MAINTENANCE [26, 31, 33, 34] EXTENDED DTM FOR VEHICLE [32]
* objective and subjective estimation FLEET
* Block inspection policy
* Bayesian approach and maximum
* imperfect inspections
likelihood function method use * downtime model
* downtime and cost models SIMPLE DTM FOR INDUSTRIAL [31, 34] * Bayesian approach
PLANT MAINTENANCE * finite horizon case
BASIC DTM WITH OBJECTIVE [126] * NHPP of defects arrival process
AND SUBJECTIVE ESTIMATION * uniform distribution of time of origin
EXTENDED DTM WITH [5]
* manufacturing plant maintenance EXTENDED DTM FOR INDUSTRIAL BAYESIAN APPROACH
PLANT MAINTENANCE [31, 34]
* cost, downtime and environmental models
* methodology of DT applying in * objective estimation (AIC)
* revision models (bias estimations)
maintenance department * finite horizon case
* NHPP of defect arrival process
SIMPLE DTM WITH EXTENDED DTM WITH BIAS [31] * single/complex system maintenance
ENVIRONMENTAL MODEL [67] ESTIMATION * case study of medical equipment maintenance
* two types of defects
* fuzzy set modelling implementation SIMPLE DTM WITH OBJECTIVE
* finite horizon case [13]
* objective estimation ESTIMATION
EXTENDED DTM WITH [66] * downtime model
ENVIRONMENTAL MODEL * u and h depend on machine age
NEW DT- BASED PM MODEL FOR [140] * inspection affects the components maintenance
PRODUCTION PLANT * non-ideal machines
EXTENDED DT MODEL WITH [12]
* imperfect inspection * wearing parts maintenance OBJECTIVE ESTIMATION
* manufacturing plant maintenance * perfect/imperfect inspection
* general maintenance model
EXTENDED DTM WITH OBJECTIVE SIMPLIFIED DTM OF EQUIPMENT [102]
[78, 130] EXTENDED DT MODEL WITH
AND SUBJECTIVE ESTIMATION RELIABILITY [10]
NON-PERFECT MAINTENANCE
* occurred errors analysis
A GENERAL ESTIMATION MODEL [11]

BASED ON DT CONCEPT USE
Fig. 4.9 The delay-time-based maintenance models for complex system—estimation models
4 Delay-Time Maintenance Models for Technical Systems
ZTin
Tin h
PuF ðTin Þ ¼ fh ðhÞdh ð4:32Þ
Tin
0
The expected downtime per unit time to be incurred operating an inspection

policy of period Tin is given by Ed ðTin Þ, where [33]:
ku Tin dr PuF ðTin Þ þ din

Ed ðTin Þ ¼ ð4:33Þ
Tin þ din
With average breakdown and inspection repair costs cr and cin respectively, the
expected cost per unit time of maintaining the plant on an inspection system is C
(Tin) [33]:
1
CðTin Þ ¼ fku Tin ½cr PuF ðTin Þ þ cin ð1 PuF ðTin ÞÞ þ 1g ð4:34Þ
Tin þ din
For such the given basic delay time model, the authors focus on the issues
connected with model parameters estimation process. They report on a study of
snapshot modelling being applied to model the downtime consequences of a
high-speed production line maintained under an inspection system. They also
propose the structure of a questionnaire that may be used during the subjective
information gathering process (survey research). This problem is later continued
and extended in work [32], where the authors investigate the problem of a vehicle
fleet maintenance. In the proposed modelling procedure, the author defines three
distinct stages: (1) to identify items, which are absent from the schedule, (2) to
identify redundant items on the schedule, and (3) to determine the appropriate
frequency of its application.
The subjective estimation issues are also investigated by Christer in his work
[26]. In the presented research work the author proposes a technique for assessing
the subjective information connected with the expected number of defects identified
at an inspection and the consequential cost saving. This is the one of the first works
that gives the brief introduction on delay-time model’s parameters estimation
techniques. The presented approach is later discussed in the context of two
industrial case studies in work [41].
There exist many variations of the presented basic delay-time-based maintenance
model, being investigated in the known literature from maintenance theory. First,
let’s consider the case, when the inspections are non-perfect. This kind of DT model
is analysed e.g. in work [34]. In the presented work, there is introduced a proba-
bility pw that a specific defect will be identified at nth inspection, and a corre-
sponding probability (1 − pw) that it will not. For such an assumption the modified
form of PuF (Tin) is given by:
ZTin X
1
pw
PuF ðTin Þ ¼ 1 ð1 pw Þn1 RðnTin yÞdy; din Tin ð4:35Þ
T
n¼1 in
0
Moreover, the authors in their work relax another assumption connected with the
uniform spread of the initiation of defects after an inspection (NHP process).
The fully Bayesian approach in relation to an inspection maintenance decision
problem is discussed in work [5]. The authors in their work present the classical
approach to delay-time modelling and compare it with the new fully subjective
approach, investigating its key features, like integration of engineering judgements,
uncertainty treatment, and the type of performance measures to be used.
The issues of objective estimation of models parameters are analysed e.g. in
work [13]. The authors in their work consider a repairable machine that may fail or
suffer breakdown many times during the course of its service lifetime. The authors
present the DT models for single- and multi-unit systems and for perfect/imperfect
inspection cases. The model parameters are fitted by the method of maximum
likelihood and selection of the “best” model is made with the use of the Akaike
information criterion (AIC). Analysis is performed for infusion-pump components
under different inspection intervals. The authors continue their research works in
the paper [12], where several extensions to the basic DT model are derived. The
main extensions include: (1) allowing an age of a machine to influence both the
period u and the period h, (2) allowing an inspection to have a hazardous or
beneficial effect on the lifetime of a component, and (3) allowing several mecha-
nisms that induce a correlation between the two independent periods of u and h.
Later, work [10] is a continuation of research developments given in [12, 33,
34], where the authors discuss the problem of a sample size influence on the
possibility of determining cost-based maintenance policies. The example relating to
a simple model for determining the optimum inspection interval for medical
equipment is provided. The problem is also continued in work [11]. The authors’
focus in this work is also placed on the estimation of model parameters and their
errors from records of failure times and number of defects found at inspections of a
machine.
In another work [101] the authors focus on DT modelling of wearing parts in
technical systems based on model parameters objective estimation implementation.
They present the ideal inspection model, where the inspection is perfect. Later this
case is extended to the imperfect inspection case. For both the cases, the authors
provide the DT model algorithm that bases on a maximum likelihood function
method use.
The case for two types of defects modelling is analysed in work [139]. The
authors present a case study of delay-time-based PM modelling for a production
plant system. Based on the real data analysis, the authors focus on finding the
optimal PM interval with the use of DT modelling and maximum likelihood
function method.
In the previous studies, the parameter estimation of the DTM was solved by
using subjective data, or objective data. However, there is a majority of research
works that use a combination of subjective data and objective data, mainly because
there is rarely sufficient maintenance data to allow the use of fully objective data to
solve it.
In work [125] the authors develop an approach using a standard hierarchical
Bayesian method and the likelihood function. The new estimation method assumes
that the initial estimates are made using the empirical Bayesian method matching
with few subjective summary statistics provided by the experts. Then the updating
mechanism enters the process, which requires a repeated evaluation of the likeli-
hood function. The considered basic delay time inspection model of a complex
plant bases on the assumptions given e.g. in [33]. The extensions of the presented
DT model are indicated by the authors to be considered e.g. in [35, 69].
In the next work [129] the authors present a DT model and an estimation
procedure, which are different from previous DT models for complex plants. In the
given work, the authors assume that the historic data exist for failure time points
and PM times, but there exist no records for the number of the defects identified and
removed at PM. Thus, the authors obtain a subjective estimate of the mean number
of defects identified and removed at PM from factory engineers, who maintained a
plant. The analysed model mostly bases on the assumptions and modelling solu-
tions given in [39]. This problem is later continued by the authors in their work
[77]. In this work, the authors base on the main assumptions of the presented model
(given in their work [129]), providing more comprehensive case study of a pro-
duction plant maintenance interval optimization. The simulation model use con-
firms the validity of the presented estimation method.
Another interesting research work in this area is given by Jones et al. [66], where
the authors develop a methodology of applying delay-time analysis to a mainte-
nance and inspection department. The paper demonstrates the DTM use for
(1) minimising downtime and cost, (2) environmental model development in order
to establish parameters relating to a potential environmental catastrophe resulting
from failure of a piece of equipment or a component. The considered cost and
downtime models base on the assumptions given e.g. in [33]. The environmental
model is shown by:
1
Menv ðTin Þ ¼ fku Tin ½Mcs PuF ðTin Þ þ ccs pcs ð1 PuF ðTin ÞÞg ð4:36Þ
Tin þ din
To demonstrate the applicability of the developed methodology, the authors

provide a case study of a factory producing carbon black in the UK.
The presented delay-time cost, downtime, and environmental models are later
investigated in work [65]. In this work, the authors focus on the problems relating
to the standardization of information, when applying DT analysis to a maintenance
department. The main goal is to introduce a fuzzy set modelling methodology to
establish the delay-time environmental model. Moreover, the authors also provide
the comparison between the original model (given in [66]) with the extended one
that bases on the fuzzy set modelling implementation for the same case company’s
maintenance processes performance.
The second group of DTMs for complex system focuses on the modelling issues
(Fig. 4.10). Here the authors mostly develop the new DT models providing some
numerical examples and case studies that confirm their applicability. The estimation
problem is usually not considered or authors base on the estimation methods that
are previously introduced in this section.
One of the well-known DT models is given in work [35]. The authors in their
work extend the DT models given in [12, 13, 32, 33] into two main ways. The first
extension regards to the implementation of an opportunistic inspection at compo-
nent failure. Thus, the system is inspected on a planned basis and when a com-
ponent fails. The second extension is the use of a nonhomogeneous Poisson process
to describe defect arrivals in a system. For the perfect inspection case, the total
expected cost per unit time is minimized with respect to the inspection intervals and
the system replacement time:
2 3
Ztin
i
1 X
m þ1
6 7 cin
C ðTin Þ ¼ in ; tin þ cp
4cr Nrin ti1 i
ku ðuÞdu þ cin5 þ ð4:37Þ
TOP i¼1
TOP
i1
tin
Moreover, there is also discussed the estimation procedure in a general non-

homogeneous case, where sufficient objective data exist and give the possibility to
adopt the maximum-likelihood approach.
The developed model is later analysed in work [124], where the authors provide
three simple solution algorithms that use the recursive procedure to determine the
replacement time and reduce the number of decision variables to one, namely the
first inspection interval. The first algorithm is developed for obtaining the system
replacement time for NHPP defect arrival process. The second algorithm extends
the first one by providing the possibility of obtaining the non-constant optimal
inspection intervals. The last algorithm is a numerical algorithm for solving an
integral equation arising within the model in the case of opportunistic inspection at
failures.
In the next work [15] the authors analyse a DT model for aircraft structure
maintenance optimization to decrease maintenance cost rate. The model bases on
the assumptions of imperfect inspection, minimal repair of detected defects, and a
finite horizon case. In the proposed model, the NHP process is studied and adopted
to obtain the renewal probabilities due to defects or failures between the different
two successive inspections. The proposed algorithm is based on the Nelder-Mead
downhill simplex method use.
Another extension of the basic DT models given in [32, 33] is presented in work
[27]. The main extension of the developed model is made in the context of
downtime modelling. The paper presents the revised models with non-negligible
system downtime for perfect and non-perfect homogeneous processes.
DT MODELS FOR COMPLEX SYSTEMS – MODEL CASES
* monotone safety system

SIMPLE DTM FOR COMPLEX [32, 33, 34] * cost model
HYBRID INSPECTION POLICIES SYSTEM * arbitrary finite number of system states
* NHPP of defects arrival process
* heterogeneous components
* planned and opportunity inspections INSPECTION MODEL FOR
* age-based replacement [7]
* objective estimation based on [Bake’92, MONOTONE SAFETY SYSTEM
* cost model
Bake’93] assumptions
AGE-BASED INSPECTION AND [98]
REPLACEMENT POLICY FOR EXTENDED DTM FOR COMPLEX [35] * non-negligible system downtime
MULTICOMPONENT SYSTEMS SYSTEMS WITH OPPORTUNISTIC * NHPP and HPP of defect arrival process
INSPECTIONS * revised downtime models
* age-based, block-based and opportunistic
replacement models * 3 solution algorithms (numerical) for EXTENDED DTM FOR COMPLEX
* comparison analysis maintenance problems
SYSTEMS WITH NON- [27]
HYBRID INSPECTION AND MULTICOMPONENT INSPECTION [125] NEGLIGIBLE DOWNTIME
[97] MODEL WITH VARIOUS SOLUTION
REPLACEMENT POLICY FOR * negligible downtime
MULTI COMPONENT SYSTEMS ALGORITHMS * software package for DT modelling
* general Markov chain * imperfect inspection
DTM FOR COMPLEX SYSTEMS
* block-based inspection model * finite time horizon
WITH SOFTWARE [118]

* forward time distribution determination * aircraft structure maintenance
* minimal repair of detected defects DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK-BASED INSPECTION [122] * two different failure modes (two types of
EXTENDED DTM WITH IMPERFECT [15]
MODEL defects)
INSPECTION
* multiple nested inspections EXTENDED DTM FOR COMPLEX [141]
* failure-inducing inspection * HPP of defects arrival process SYSTEMS WITH TWO FAILURE
* passive system * branch-and-bound algorithm use MODES
* cost model
* multi-component systems
EXPECTED HYBRID DTM WITH MULTIPLE NESTED * multi-failure mode
[50] [119]
INSPECTION AND INSPECTIONS * opportunistic inspections
REPLACEMENT POLICY FOR EXTENDED DTM FOR
* finite horizon case [123]
MULTI COMPONENT SYSTEMS MULTICOMPONENT SYSTEMS
* dynamic inspection policy
* technological insertions investigation WITH MULTI-FAILURE MODES
EXTENDED DTM WITH MULTIPLE * NHPP of defect arrival process * multiple inspection methods
[124]
NESTED INSPECTIONS * imperfect inspection (non-
constant) EXTENDED DTM WITH [82]
EXTENDED DTM WITH VARIABLE [113] MULTIPLE INSPECTION
PROBABILIY OF DEFECT IDENTIFICATION METHODS
Fig. 4.10 The delay-time-based maintenance models for complex system—model cases
187
The investigated complex plant inspection models are numerically analysed, when
assuming that the pdf of delay time is exponentially distributed. Moreover, the
comparison of results obtained with the use of the basic DT models (given in
[32, 33]) and new refined DT models developed by the authors is given.
In addition, an interesting maintenance model for a multi-component complex
engineering system with many components is given in [112]. The author in his
work presents a delay-time based maintenance model, where the probability of
defect successfully identification is a function of the delay time and increases
towards the end of the delay time. The expected downtime per unit time and the
expected cost per unit time functions are developed bases on the assumption of
NHPP process of defect arrivals.
A prototype software packages, developed to automate the delay time modelling
process, are presented in work [117]. The software is developed based on the
complex system DTM with perfect inspection presented in [34] and subjective data
use. The model parameters are estimated using the moment matching method,
where the experts are supposed to provide three pieces of information: the mean
number of failures over a given time horizon, the mean number of defects identified
at Tin, and the mean delay time.
The influence of different failure modes for systems’ security and economic is
analysed in work [140]. The authors in their work base on the basic model given by
[34] with the following modification—there are two types of defects that lead to
two failure types and have their own occurrence probability pd. The revised model
for the NHPP case can be defined as:
R Tin RT
dr1 ku ðuÞpd Fh1 ðTin uÞdu þ dr2 0 in ku ðuÞð1 pd ÞFh2 ðTin uÞdu þ din
Ed ðTin Þ ¼ 0
Tin þ din
ð4:38Þ
and for the HPP case:
ku Tin dr1 PuF1 ðTin Þ þ ku Tin dr2 PuF2 ðTin Þ þ din

Ed ðTin Þ ¼ ð4:39Þ
Tin þ din
The authors also provide numerical examples for downtime models estimated
with the use of both, the basic and revised models.
The extension of the given model is presented in work [122], where the author
considers a system comprised of many components and subject to many different failure
modes. The model bases on the use of a stochastic point process for defect arrivals and a
common delay time distribution. Moreover, the model is developed in this way that it
addresses the situation, where each component and failure mode are modelled indi-
vidually and then pooled together to form the system inspection model. The inspections
are scheduled for the subsystem or system rather than for each individual component,
and there is also introduced an opportunistic inspections performance (as in the work
[35]). The analytical model and simulation algorithm are provided.
The implementation of multiple inspection methods is presented in [81]. The

authors consider the case where complex infrastructures can fail due to different
defects originating from various environmental or operational conditions. Thus,
there is made an assumptions that at each inspection epoch, there are multiple
inspection methods available for use. The problem is solved with the use of
mixed-integer nonlinear programming models and branch-and-cut global opti-
mization approach.
Another interesting extensions of the basic DT models regards to multiple nested
inspections implementation. One of the first work that develops a novel model
addressing multiple nested inspections of a production plant at different intervals is
given by Wang [118]. The author in his work presents the branch-and-bound
algorithm for finding the optimal intervals for all the inspections, which minimizes
the long-term expected total cost per unit time. The basic assumptions of the DT
model are compatible with the ones given in [33, 34].
This problem is later continued by the authors in their work [123]. The main
extensions regard to a finite horizon case implementation and a dynamic inspection
policy introduction due to technological insertions occurrence. Thus, the authors
develop a model of two-type inspection services and maintenance, where upgrading
activities and technological insertions are regarded as a part of a maintenance
planning process, and capability enhancement trade-off decisions are readily
incorporated. The solution procedure bases on the two stages, first the model for an
infinite horizon case is discussed, and later a finite horizon modelling scenario is
introduced.
Multi-component monotone safety system inspection issues are investigated in
work [7]. A developed model bases on the DT concept use for systems comprising
components having an arbitrary finite number of states. The proposed model is an
extension of the DT model given in [8], where the authors consider single-unit
system maintenance optimization issues. The DT models for simple two- and
three-unit systems are provided as special cases.
Moreover, there can be also found hybrid delay-time-based maintenance models
that combines various replacement and inspection policies. One of the interesting
work in this area is given by Scarf et al. in [97]. The authors in their work consider a
hybrid maintenance policy for components that arise from a mixture of two
sub-populations. The first sub-population represents weak, low quality components,
while the second represents stronger, more long-lived components. Thus, a hybrid
maintenance policy bases on the assumption that inspections are carried out over
the early life of the system (to mitigate early failures of weak components) and
age-based replacement is performed during later life of the system (to reduce
wear-out failures in later life). With the use of the renewal-reward theorem, the
long-run cost per unit time are obtained.
The problem of a hybrid maintenance policy is later continued in work [96],
where the authors propose hybrids of inspection maintenance and block-based/
age-based replacement for multi-component series system. Based on the assump-
tions and model of distribution of time to defect arrival given in [97], the authors
discuss various hybrid maintenance policies that mostly include:
• block replacement and block inspection,

• block replacement, opportunistic and block inspection,
• block replacement and age-based inspection.
In the next work [121] the authors consider a block-based inspection model and
focus on the problem of forward time distribution definition. Based on the general
Markov chain implementation, the authors propose a recursive algorithm for
determining a limiting distribution of forward time. The simulation verification
bases on the assumptions and the main model parameters taken from [13].
The last hybrid maintenance model that considers preventive age replacement
issues is investigated in work [49]. In this work the author presents an inspection-
based maintenance optimisation model, where inspections are imperfect and
potentially failure-inducing. The main maintenance problem is to determine the
optimal inspection interval Tin and preventive age replacement limit that jointly
minimise the long-run expected cost per unit time.
The last group of DT models regards to the case studies investigation
(Fig. 4.11).
In the first work [37] the authors investigate the problem of model parameters
estimation. Here the main goal of the paper is to apply the objective estimation
approach to delay-time modelling into a case study. The authors focus on the
performance of a copper products manufacturing company, providing a delay-time
maintenance model of a plant. This work is a continuation of research problems
analysed e.g. in [13], based on the assumptions given e.g. in [33]. Later, in 1998 the
authors continued their investigations on DT modelling issues in work [40] by
introducing the subjective estimation method for PM and DT modelling based on
the same data study as in [37], and adopting the assumptions given in [33]. They
present the implementation of DT model to an extrusion press maintenance.
Moreover, they propose a method for removing the bias in the initial subjective
estimate in order to improve the model fit. In another work [127] the authors also
base on the assumptions given e.g. in [32, 34, 37]. The paper presents the reliability
data analysis and modelling of offshore oil platform plant.
Later, in work [29] the authors focus on the problem of maintenance and
inspection for Tea bag production lines with a local company. The presented study
bases on the use of the objective estimation technique, but with failure data only
(not failure and PM data). The general model assumptions are adopted from [24].
Another interesting case study is given by Jardine and Hassounah in their paper
[52]. The authors focus on the maintenance model development for a large, urban
transit authority operating a fleet of approximately 2000 buses undertaking about 80
million kilometres per year. The main issue is to find the optimal inspection
interval, which maximizes buses’ availability. The main model assumptions base on
the developments given in [34].
The DT model given in [34] is also implemented in work [92], where the authors
analyse the maintenance of fishing vessels to assess their effectiveness. The
application of DT concept is demonstrated for a winch operating system on a
fishing vessel based on the gathered data as a combination of logged records and
reports, complemented by expert judgements (subjective estimation).
DT MODELS FOR COMPLEX SYSTEMS – CASE STUDIES
CASE STUDIES BASED ON OBJECTIVE CASE STUDIES BASED ON SUBJECTIVE

ESTIMATION METHOD USE ESTIMATION METHOD USE
* downtime model * downtime model * based on developments of [33]

* based on developments of [34] * failure and PM data obtainable based on
developments of [13, 33]
DTM FOR GEARBOXES [71]
OPTIMAL VEHICLE FLEET [53] DTM FOR PRODUCTION PLANT MAINTENANCE
INSPECTION POLICY BASED ON OBJECTIVE [37]
* based on developments of [30, 31, 33]
ESTIMATION METHOD USE
* exponentially developed distribution of
model parameters (h) * tea bag production line DTM FOR FRESH WATER PUMPS [72]
* only failure data available
DT MODEL FOR FISHING * based on developments of [24]
[93]
VESSEL EQUIPMENT * the same case company but only subjective
DTM FOR PRODUCTION [29] estimation method use
MACHINES
* reliability data analysis DTM FOR PRODUCTION PLANT [41]

BASED ON SUBJECTIVE
DTM FOR OFFSHORE OIL ESTIMATION
[128]
PLATFORM PLANT * based on developments of [27, 33, 37, 42]
* based on developments of [67]
* subjective and objective estimation
method use DTM FOR VEHICLE FLEET [47]
DTM FOR MANUFACTURING [68] * measure of performance based also
INDUSTRY EXTENDED DTM FOR [39] on [120]
MANUFACTURING PLANT
* objective and subjective modelling
DTM FOR MANUFACTURING [1]
(Bayesian network use)
PLANT
EXTENDED DTM FOR
[69]
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
* reliability and cost data analysis
EXTENDED DTM FOR LOGISTIC [131, 132]

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
191
Fig. 4.11 The delay-time-based maintenance models for complex system—case studies
The next two works [67, 68] incorporate the DTA methodology presented in
[66] with the use of both subjective and objective estimation methods. In the first
work [67] the authors provide a simple cost analysis for a factory producing carbon
black in the UK. In the second paper [68] the authors model maintenance and
inspection for the same case company as in [67], but incorporating the Bayesian
network modelling to consider certain influencing events which can affect param-
eters relating to the failure rate of the system. The authors conclude that applying
Bayesian network modelling provides an improved and accurate method of
establishing the parameter failure rate. The presented case study gives better
maintenance results due to reducing the optimum inspection interval for about 35%
(according to the results given e.g. in [66]).
The extension of the maintenance methodology given in [66] is also presented in
[130]. The authors in their work present the implementation algorithm for delay
time analysis use in the area of logistic systems maintenance performance. The case
study is provided for ten forklifts performance, based on the objective estimation of
CM and PM data and with the delay time parameter assumed to be exponentially
distributed. The problem of DTM implementation for logistic systems maintenance
optimisation is also analysed in [131]. The author bases on the implementation of
the assumptions and simple DTM given e.g. in [93].
The subjective estimation method is used in works [70, 71]. In the work [70] the
authors focus on the improving of effectiveness of maintenance policy for gear-
boxes being operated by a franchised bus company from Hong Kong. The main
modelling methodology bases on the assumptions given in [33]. The main issue
here is to minimize the maintenance cost of the gearboxes and estimate their reli-
ability. The next work [71] focuses on applying the DT analysis to model the
inspection frequency of fresh water pumping systems. The delay times data are
collected based on subjective estimations by the technicians responsible for
inspection work at three chosen estates of the Hong Kong Housing Authority. The
authors study the optimal inspection frequency, by which the costs of inspection,
inspection repair, and breakdown repair incurred per unit time are minimal and with
satisfying the requirement that the breakdown rate is not higher that of the current
situation. The model bases on the developments of modelling approaches given in
[30, 31, 33].
The subjective methods implementation for the case of bus fleet maintenance is
presented in work [46]. Due to the problem with maintenance data that was inad-
equate for gaining an overview and understating of the nature of the actual main-
tenance problems, the snapshot modelling approach is applied based on the
developments given in [27, 33, 37, 41].
Later, in work [1] the authors focus on investigating maintenance-related
problems in a chocolate cake manufacturing plant, taking into account production
downtime and equipment failure analyses. The data collection phase bases on the
implementation of Wang’s method for subjective estimation of the delay time
distribution, presented in [119]. The maintenance modelling uses snapshot mod-
elling (according to [41]) and assumptions presented e.g. in [27, 29, 37, 46].
The last work, given by Christer et al. [39], reports on a case study of delay-time
modelling of maintenance applied to a key subsystem of a complex machine used in
manufacturing brake linings. In the presented paper, the authors investigate a model
and estimation procedure of a complex plant, where exist historic data of failure
time points and PM times, but there exist no records of the condition found and
actions taken at the PM. Thus, the case of a mixture of the objective method for the
failure data (according to [13] developments) and the subjective method for the PM
data (according to e.g. [37] developments) is implemented. The adopted DT model
bases on the imperfect inspection case and HPP/NHPP arrival rate of failures.
Other delay-time maintenance modelling problems that are not classified into
one of the three modelling groups discussed above regard to, among others, pro-
duction system maintenance planning (see e.g. [74]), maintenance and inspection
policies development for marine systems (see e.g. [83]), or optimal inspection
policy determination for protection devices of electronic equipment (see e.g. [56]).
Worth taking a note is the paper given by Wang [113], where the author presents a
model for maintenance service contract design, negotiation and optimization. In the
presented paper, the three contract options are considered with regard to the extent
of outsourced maintenance activities. The aim of this paper is to develop the model
to obtain the optimal strategies for a customer (to optimise the contract parameter
under each option) with a required availability and reliability level and fixed budget.
Different problem is defined in work [76], where the authors propose a policy for
developing an inspection program and for establishing of inspection and mainte-
nance response teams. The application of these maintenance plans is directed for
equipment-leasing companies in construction industries.
Another interesting problem is considered in [98], where the authors focus on the
problem of modelling the cost of warranty extensions for a particular automotive
supplier in Malaysia. To model the effect of services during the warranty period, an
inspection maintenance model based on the delay time concept is used.
The last important research area regards to joint analysis of spare part provi-
sioning and maintenance planning issues. In this area, the valuable contribution is
given in works [109, 111, 128]. In the work [111] the author propose a
component-based delay time model to model the connection between spare parts
and maintenance of n identical items installed in a production line or a fleet of
transportation vehicles. The objective function is the long run expected cost per unit
time in terms of the three decision variables to be optimised: an ordering quantity,
an ordering interval, and an inspection interval. This research investigations are
later continued in [109], where the author introduces an enumeration algorithm with
stochastic dynamic programming for finding the joint optimal solutions over a
finite-time horizon.
The problem of demand for spare parts forecasting is later investigated by the
author in work [128]. The author compares demand forecasting obtained from a
statistical time-series forecasting method and maintenance-based methods using
simulated data from a well-known maintenance models given e.g. in [13, 116].
Another interesting work in this area is [75], where the authors consider a
production system that produces multiple products alternately. The authors
investigate the two preventive maintenance policies in order to optimize a lot-size

of each product together with the optimal PM epoch that minimizes the system’s
cost rate in the long-run.
Moreover, in works [3, 4] the authors present the comparison of a delay-time
maintenance model with two maintenance optimization techniques, namely Failure
Modes and Effect Criticality Analysis (FMECA) [4], and Modelling System
Failures (MSF) [3]. Both the papers discuss the concept, relevance and applicability
of the defined models to the wind energy industry. The methodology for the
application of delay time analysis via Monte Carlo simulation is also analysed in
work [43]. The authors in their work present the simplest delay-time model (based
on the assumptions given e.g. in [34]) and a methodology for a simulation based
approach. Later, an interesting framework for mode failure analysis and delay time
modelling is given in [44]. The authors in their work propose the framework for
definition of an inspection policy that based on a multiple-criterion decision anal-
ysis (MCDA) implementation. The solution for optimal Tin bases on the three main
elements: evaluation of failure modes of a system, selection of the criteria that best
represent each dimension of failure modes and a process for determining inspection
actions based on MCDA. The proposed model is later applied for a thermoelectric
plant maintenance optimisation.
Moreover, extensions are also introduced in order to relax the simplifying
assumptions connected with perfect/imperfect inspection case, and imperfect repair
performance. The two case studies for fishing vessel and cooling system mainte-
nance optimization are provided. The quick summary of delay-time inspection
models for complex systems is presented in Table 4.2. The articles are classified
according to the model type that defines the main scope of the analysed research
works (what is the trigger for their performance—estimation procedures, case
studies presentation, or modelling issues).
4.4 Summary
The delay time concept is a convenient one within the maintenance engineering
context. This concept can be used to build different qualitative models of the
inspection practice of different real-life systems like production plant, transportation
systems or civil engineering systems. These models’ attention is focused on what to
do, as opposed to the logistical decisions of how to do. This modelling technique is
specifically for inspection-based optimisation in terms of inspection intervals, but it
has a close connection with condition monitoring and spare part inventory control
[108].
The presented literature review focuses on the two main research areas: appli-
cations and developments in maintenance modelling based on DT concept use. The
presented theory is still developing and the discussion of further developments in
delay time modelling is given e.g. in [24, 108, 116].
4.4 Summary 195
Table 4.2 Summary of delay-time models for complex systems

Model type Planning Quality of Type Optimality criterion Modelling Typical
horizon performed of method reference
inspection defect
actions arrival
process
Estimation Infinite Perfect HPP The total expected savings Analytical [26]
models horizon inspections function per unit time, the (subjective [31]
expected downtime per unit estimation)
time
The expected downtime per [33]
unit time
The total expected Analytical/ [125]
downtime per unit time, the Bayesian
total expected cost per unit approach
time (objective and
subjective
estimation)
Imperfect The total expected Analytical [77, 129]
inspections downtime per unit time (objective and
subjective
estimation)
The cost per vehicle-year Analytical [32]
Perfect/ HPP/ The total expected cost per (subjective [34]
imperfect NHPP unit time, the total expected estimation)
inspections downtime per unit time
NHPP _ (Model’s parameters Analytical [101]
fitting without (objective
optimization) estimation)
Estimation Perfect HPP The total expected Analytical/fuzzy [65]
models/DTA inspections downtime per unit time modelling
analysis (objective and
methodology subjective
estimation)
The total expected Analytical [66]
downtime per unit time, the (objective and
total expected cost per unit subjective
time estimation)
Estimation Finite Perfect NHPP Overall maintenance costs Bayesian [5]
models horizon inspections in (0,T), downtime approach
characteristics, e.g. the (subjective
number of failures in the estimation)
next year, downtime in the
next year
Imperfect _ (Model’s parameters Analytical [13]
inspections fitting without (objective [12]
optimization) estimation, AIC)
Estimation Finite Imperfect NHPP _ (Model’s parameters Analytical [10]
models horizon inspections fitting without (objective [11]
optimization) estimation)
The total expected Analytical/ [139]
downtime simulation model
(continued)

inspection defect
actions arrival
process
Model case Infinite Perfect HPP The long-term total Analytical/branch [118]
horizon inspections expected operating cost per and bound
unit time algorithm
The expected cost per unit General Markov [121]
time chain
The total expected Analytical/DTM [117]
downtime per unit time, the software package
total expected cost per unit
time
The expected long-run cost Analytical [7]
per unit of time
Model case Infinite Perfect HPP/ The total expected Analytical [140]
horizon inspections NHPP downtime per unit time
Model case Infinite Perfect NHPP The long run cost per unit Analytical [96]
horizon inspections time, MTBF
Model case Infinite Perfect The long run cost per unit Analytical [97]
horizon inspections time
Model case Infinite Perfect The long-term expected Analytical [124]
horizon inspections cost per unit time
Model case Infinite Perfect The expected cost per unit Analytical/ [122]
horizon inspections time simulation model
Model case Infinite Perfect System reliability, Mixed-integer [81]
horizon inspections downtime ratio nonlinear
programming
Model case Infinite Perfect/ HPP/ The total expected Analytical [27]
horizon imperfect NHPP downtime per unit time
inspections
Model case/ Infinite Perfect HPP/ The total expected cost per [35]
estimation horizon inspections NHPP unit time
models
Model case Infinite/ Perfect HPP The expected loss per unit Analytical/ [123]
finite inspections time, the expected loss over dynamic
horizon the planned service life programming
Model case Infinite Imperfect HPP The expected downtime per Analytical [112]
horizon inspections unit time, the expected cost
per unit time
Model case NHPP The long run expected cost [49]
per unit time
Model case Finite NHPP The expected cost rate [15]
horizon
Case study Infinite Perfect HPP The total expected Analytical/ [68]
horizon inspections downtime per unit time Bayesian network
modelling
(objective and
subjective
estimation)
(continued)
4.4 Summary 197

inspection defect
actions arrival
process
Case study The total expected Analytical [67]
downtime per unit time, the (objective
total expected cost per unit estimation)
time
Case study Infinite Perfect HPP The long run expected Analytical [130,
horizon inspections maintenance cost per unit (objective 131]
time, the total expected estimation)
downtime per unit time
Case study The total expected [92]
downtime per unit time [52]
Case study The long run expected cost Analytical [70]
per unit time, the total (subjective
expected downtime per unit estimation)
time
Case study The total expected [1]
downtime per unit time (per
day)
Case study Infinite Perfect NHPP The long run expected cost Analytical [71]
horizon inspections per unit time (subjective
estimation)
Case study Imperfect HPP The total expected Analytical [29, 37,
inspections downtime per unit time (objective 39]
Case study estimation) [127]
Analytical [40]
Case study Finite Expected cost per bus per (subjective [46]
horizon operational year estimation)
Based on the presented overview, there can be presented some thoughts and
conclusions regarding the future research directions and topics. They partially
confirm research findings given in [24, 108, 116]:
• much work assumes a single and specific type of inspection. Few works regard
to multiple nested inspections and they are usually developed for a single-unit
case (e.g. [72, 115]). In practice, inspections can be hierarchical or synchro-
nised, where several systems are inspected and maintained at the same time.
This research direction can be viewed as an extension of the model given in e.g.
[123], where dynamic inspection policy is investigated.
• second problem is connected with components dependency. The analysed DT
models do not take into account the situation, when failure of one component
affects the reliability of other working components. The main DT modelling
issue, that may be treated as an extension in this area, regards to system’s
multiple failure mode investigation (see e.g. [122, 140]).
• there is a problem with reliable data obtaining. There exist in the literature three
main techniques to estimate the delay time parameters given objective data,
subjective data or a mixture. Set of known works with applications have given
consistent results. However, the author puts an emphasis on problems with
gathering well-tested methods to collect adequate date to enable the calculation
of optimum maintenance policies for dedicated systems. The problem of
effective estimation procedures for models’ parameters is also indicated as to be
worth investigating by the authors in [108, 116].
• following e.g. [100, 108] there is still the need to develop a simple and robust
parameter estimating algorithm and software packages to enable fast use of DT
models in practice. In this area, the preliminary research results are presented
e.g. in work [117] or in [66, 68]. The ideas presented in these works may be
further explored to fit to this purpose.
• another problem regards to assumptions of maintenance policy parameters’
probability density functions estimation. The well-known models assume
exponential approximation of model parameters’ distributions and Poisson
defect arrival time. It is convenient situation from a modelling point of view, but
usually not sufficient to real-life systems performance.
• next interesting research direction is connected with analysis of condition-based
maintenance and DT maintenance combination. For example, the condition
monitoring may give the possibility to identify the initial point of a random
defect at an earlier stage that that of using manual inspections. Some develop-
ments in this area may be found e.g. in [20, 88, 89, 120].
• the extension of the two-stage delay-time model is to consider the three-stage
delay-time models presented in [110], where a plant may be in one of four
reliability states. This assumption is actually motivated by real world observa-
tions, where the plant state is often classified by a three colour scheme, e.g.
green, yellow and red corresponding to the three states before failure. However
such extension provides more modelling options than the two-stage model and
is a step closer to reality since a binary description of the plat item’s state is
restrictive.
• another research direction, which needs further exploration, regards to linking of
maintenance with spare part inventory modelling. Some recent developments in
this area are presented e.g. in [109, 111, 128].
• the last important research problem regards to investigation of multi-unit sys-
tems as a complex ones (series reliability structure). Thus, delay-time-based
maintenance modelling omits the influence of system’s reliability structure on
the main optimization results. According to e.g. [62], such dependency exists
and should be taken into account when determining the best length of inspection
intervals.
References 199
References
1. Akbarov A, Christer AH, Wang W (2008) Problem identification in maintenance modelling:

a case study. Int J Prod Res 46(4):1031–1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540600960708
2. Alzubaidi HJ (1993) Maintenance modelling of a major hospital complex. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Salford, Salford
3. Andrawus JA, Watson J, Kishk M (2007) Wind turbine maintenance optimization: principles
of quantitative maintenance optimization. Wind Eng 31(2):101–110. https://doi.org/10.1260/
030952407781494467
4. Andrawus JA, Watson J, Kishk M, Gordon H (2008) Optimisation of wind turbine
inspection intervals. Wind Eng 32(5):477–490. https://doi.org/10.1260/
030952408786411921
5. Apeland S, Scarf PA (2003) A fully subjective approach to modelling inspection maintenance.
Eur J Oper Res 148:410–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00356-9
6. Attia AF (1997) Estimation of the reliability function using the delay-time models.
7. Aven T (2009) Optimal test interval for a monotone safety system. J Appl Probab 46:330–
341. https://doi.org/10.1239/jap/1245676090
8. Aven T, Castro IT (2009) A delay-time model with safety constraint. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
9. Baker RD, Christer AH (1994) Review of delay-time OR modelling of engineering aspects
of maintenance. Eur J Oper Res 73:407–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(94)90234-8
10. Baker RD, Scarf PA (1995) Can models fitted to small data samples lead to maintenance
policies with near-optimum cost? IMA J Math Appl Bus Ind 6:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/
imaman/6.1.3
11. Baker RD, Scarf PA, Wang W (1997) A delay-time model for repairable machinery:
maximum likelihood estimation of optimum inspection intervals. IMA J Math Appl Bus Ind
8:83–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/imaman/8.1.83
12. Baker RD, Wang W (1993) Developing and testing the delay-time model. J Oper Res Soc
44:361–374. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1993.66
13. Baker RD, Wang W (1992) Estimating the delay-time distribution of faults in repairable
machinery from failure data. IMA J Math Appl Bus Ind 3:259–281. https://doi.org/10.1093/
imaman/3.4.259
14. Berrade MD, Cavalcante CAV, Scarf PA (2017) A study of postponed replacement in a
delay time model. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 168:70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.04.
006
15. Cai J, Zhu L (2011) A delay-time model with imperfect inspection for aircraft structure
subject to a finite time horizon. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on grey
systems and intelligent services 2011, Nanjing, China, 15–18 Sept 2011, pp 716–719.
https://doi.org/10.1109/gsis.2011.6044102
16. Carr MJ, Christer AH (2003) Incorporating the potential for human error in maintenance
models. J Oper Res Soc 54:1249–1253. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601634
17. Cavalcante CAV, Scarf PA, De Almeida AT (2011) A study of a two-phase inspection
policy for a preparedness system with a defective state and heterogeneous lifetime. Reliab
Eng Syst Saf 96:627–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.12.004
18. Cerone P (1993) Inspection interval for maximum future reliability using the delay time
model. Eur J Oper Res 68:236–250
19. Cerone P (1991) On a simplified delay time model of reliability of equipment subject to
inspection monitoring. J Oper Res Soc 42(6):505–511. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1991.98
20. Chilcott JB, Christer AH (1991) Modelling of condition based maintenance at the coal face.
Int J Prod Econ 22:1–11
Res 51(1):1–23
22. Choi KM (1997) Semi-Markov and delay time models of maintenance. Ph.D. thesis,
23. Christer AH (2002) Review of delay time analysis for modelling plant maintenance. In:
Osaki S (ed) Stochastic models in reliability and maintenance. Springer, Berlin
24. Christer AH (1999) Developments in delay time analysis for modelling plant maintenance.
J Oper Res Soc 50:1120–1137
25. Christer AH (1987) Delay-time model of reliability of equipment subject to inspection
monitoring. J Oper Res Soc 38(4):329–334
26. Christer AH (1982) Modelling inspection policies for building maintenance. J Oper Res Soc
33:723–732
27. Christer AH, Lee C (2000) Refining the delay-time-based PM inspection model with
non-negligible system downtime estimates of the expected number of failures. Int J Prod
Econ 67:77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(00)00011-6
28. Christer AH, Lee C (1997) Modelling ship operational reliability over a mission under
regular inspections. J Oper Res Soc 48:688–699
29. Christer AH, Lee C, Wang W (2000) A data deficiency based parameter estimating problem
and case study in delay time PM modelling. Int J Prod Econ 67:63–76. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0925-5273(00)00010-4
30. Christer AH, Redmond DF (1992) Revising models of maintenance and inspection. Int J
Prod Econ 24:227–234
31. Christer AH, Redmond DF (1990) A recent mathematical development in maintenance
theory. IMA J Math Appl Bus Ind 2:97–108
32. Christer AH, Waller WM (1984) An operational research approach to planned maintenance:
modelling PM for a vehicle fleet. J Oper Res Soc 35(11):967–984
33. Christer AH, Waller WM (1984) Reducing production downtime using delay-time analysis.
J Oper Res Soc 35(6):499–512
34. Christer AH, Waller WM (1984) Delay time models of industrial inspection maintenance
problems. J Oper Res Soc 35(5):401–406
35. Christer AH, Wang W (1995) A delay-time-based maintenance model of a multi-component
system. IMA J Math Appl Bus Ind 6:205–222
36. Christer AH, Wang W (1992) A model of condition monitoring of a production plant. Int J
Prod Res 30(9):2199–2211
37. Christer AH, Wang W, Baker RD (1995) Modelling maintenance practice of production
plant using the delay-time concept. IMA J Math Appl Bus Ind 6:67–83
38. Christer AH, Wang W, Choi K (2001) The robustness of the semi-Markov and delay time
single-component inspection models to the Markov assumption. IMA J Manag Math 12:75–
88. https://doi.org/10.1093/imaman/12.1.75
39. Christer AH, Wang W, Choi K (1998) The delay-time modelling of preventive maintenance
of plant given limited PM data and selective repair at PM. IMA J Math Appl Med Biol
15:355–379
40. Christer AH, Wang W, Sharp J, Baker RD (1998) A case study of modelling preventive
maintenance of production plant using subjective data. J Oper Res Soc 49:210–219
41. Christer AH, Whitelaw J (1983) An operational research approach to breakdown
maintenance: problem recognition. J Oper Res Soc 34(11):1041–1052
42. Cui X (2002) Delay time modeling and software development. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Salford, Salford
delay-time analysis via Monte Carlo simulation. J Mar Eng Technol 10(3):57–72. https://doi.
org/10.1080/20464177.2011.11020252
44. Da Silva JG, Lopes RS (2018) An integrated framework for mode failure analysis, delay
time model and multi-criteria decision-making for determination of inspection intervals in
complex systems. J Loss Prev Process Ind 51:17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2017.10.
013
References 201
45. Dekker R, Scarf PA (1998) On the impact of optimisation models in maintenance decision
making: the state of the art. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 60:111–119
46. Desa MI, Christer AH (2001) Modelling in the absence of data: a case study of fleet
maintenance in a developing country. J Oper Res Soc 52:247–260. https://doi.org/10.1057/
palgrave.jors.2601107
47. Emovon I (2016) Inspection interval determination for mechanical/service systems using an
integrated PROMETHEE method and delay time model. J Mech Eng Technol 8(1):13–29
48. Emovon I, Norman RA, Murphy AJ (2016) An integration of multi-criteria decision making
techniques with a delay time model for determination of inspection intervals for marine
machinery systems. Appl Ocean Res 59:65–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2016.05.008
49. Flage R (2014) A delay time model with imperfect and failure-inducing inspections. Reliab
Eng Syst Saf 124:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.11.009
50. Guo R, Ascher H, Love E (2001) Towards practical and synthetical modelling of repairable
systems. Econ Qual Control 16(2):147–182. https://doi.org/10.1515/EQC.2001.147
51. Guo R, Ascher H, Love E (2000) Generalized models of repairable systems a survey via
stochastic processes formalism. ORiON 16(2):87–128
52. Jardine AKS, Hassounah MI (1990) An optimal vehicle-fleet inspection schedule. J Oper
Res Soc 41(9):791–799
53. Jia X, Christer AH (2002) A periodic testing model for a preparedness system with a
defective state. IMA J Manag Math 13:39–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/imaman/13.1.39
54. Jiang R (2013) Relationship between delay time and gamma process models. Chem Eng
Trans 33:19–24
55. Jiang R (2012) A timeliness-based optimal inspection interval associated with the delay time
model. In: Proceedings of 2012 prognostics and system health management conference
(PHM-2012 Beijing), pp 1–5
56. Jiang X-I, Zhao J-M, Li Z-W (2015) An optimal inspection policy for protection devices of
electronic equipment using delay time model. Int J u- e- Serv, Sci Technol 8(8):169–178
57. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Nowakowski T, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2013) Time between
inspections optimization for technical object with time delay. J Pol Saf Reliab Assoc Proc
Summer Saf Reliab Semin 4(1):35–41
58. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2017) Development and sensitivity
analysis of a technical object inspection model based on the delay-time concept use.
Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc Maint Reliab 19(3):403–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.17531/ein.
2017.3.11
59. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2017) Block inspection policy model
with imperfect maintenance for single-unit systems. Proc Eng 187:570–581. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.416
DepCoS-RELCOMEX, Springer, Brunów, Poland, June 27–July 1 2016, pp 239–256
61. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2015) Availability model of technical
objects—block inspection policy implementation. In: Safety and reliability: methodology
and applications: proceedings of the European safety and reliability conference, ESREL
2014, Wroclaw, Poland, CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, 14–18 Sept 2014, pp 1275–1280
62. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Expected maintenance costs
probabilistic safety assessment and management, PSAM 12, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 22–27
June 2014, pp 1–8. http://psam12.org/proceedings/paper/paper_572_1.pdf
63. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Analysis of maintenance
models’ parameters estimation for technical systems with delay time. Eksploatacja i
Niezawodnosc Maint Reliab 16(2):288–294

25–29 June 2012, pp 1–10
65. Jones B, Jenkinson I, Wang J (2010) The use of fuzzy set modelling for maintenance
planning in a manufacturing industry. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part E: J Process Mech Eng
224:35–48. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544089JPME267
66. Jones B, Jenkinson I, Wang J (2009) Methodology of using delay-time analysis for a
manufacturing industry. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94:111–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.
2007.12.005
67. Jones B, Jenkinson I, Wang J (2008) Application of the delay-time concept in a
manufacturing industry. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on manufac-
turing research, Brunel University, London, UK, 9–11 Sept 2008, pp 23–28
68. Jones B, Jenkinson I, Yang Z, Wang J (2010) The use of Bayesian network modelling for
maintenance planning in a manufacturing industry. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95:267–277. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2009.10.007
69. Lee C (1999) Applications of delay time theory to maintenance practice of complex plant.
Ph.D. thesis, University of Salford, UK
70. Leung FKN, Kit-Leung M (1996) Using delay-time analysis to study the maintenance
problem of gearboxes. Int J Oper Prod Manag 16(12):98–105
71. Leung FKN, Ma TW (1997) A study on the inspection frequency of fresh water pumps. Int J
Ind Eng 4(1):42–51
72. Li X, He R, Yan Z, Hu H, Cheng G (2015) A new imperfect maintenance model based on
delay-time concepts for single components with multiple failure modes. Int J Syst Assur Eng
Manag 6(4):479–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-014-0306-6
73. Lipi TF, Lim J-H, Zuo MJ, Wang W (2012) A condition- and age-based replacement model
using delay time modelling. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part O: J Risk Reliab 226(2):221–233.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X11421265
74. Liu X, Wang W, Peng R (2015) An integrated production and delay-time based preventive
maintenance planning model for a multi-product production system. Eksploatacja i
Niezawodnosc Maint and Reliab 17(2): 215–221
75. Liu X, Wang W, Peng R, Zhao F (2015) A delay-time-based inspection model for parallel
systems. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part O: J Risk Reliab 229(6):556–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1748006X15591618
76. Lopes RS, Cavalcante CAV, Alencar MH (2015) Delay-time inspection model with
dimensioning maintenance teams: a study of a company leasing construction equipment.
Comput Ind Eng 88:341–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2015.07.009
77. Lv W, Wang W (2011) Modelling preventive maintenance based on the delay time concept
in the context of a case study. Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc Maint Reliab 3:5–11
78. Ma X, Wang W, Liu X, Peng R (2017) Optimal inspection and replacement strategy for
systems subject to two types of failures with adjustable inspection intervals. J Shanghai Jiao
Tong Univ 22(6):752–755
79. Mahfoud H, El Barkany A, El Biyaali A (2016) Cost effectiveness of healthcare maintenance
policy: a new proportional delay time model. Int J Perform Eng 12(5):433–450
80. Mahfoud H, El Barkany A, El Biyaali A (2016) Reliability assessment of degradable
systems under imperfect maintenance and utilisation rate: a case study. Int J Eng Res Afr
26:184–194. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/JERA.26.184
81. Mahmoudi M, Elwany A, Shanhanagi K, Gholamian MR (2017) A delay time model with
multiple defect types and multiple inspection methods. IEEE Trans Reliab 66(4):1073–1084.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2017.2754519
Report, TR-2007-9
References 203
83. Mcnamara D, Cunningham A, Riahi R, Jenkinson I, Wang J (2015) Application of Monte

Carlo techniques with delay-time analysis to assess maintenance and inspection policies for
marine systems. Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mech Eng:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0954408915577336
84. Nakagawa T, Osaki S (1974) Optimum replacement policies with delay. J Appl Probab 11
(1):102–110
85. Nath Das A, Acharya D (2004) Age replacement of components during IFR delay time.
IEEE Trans Reliab 53(3):306–312. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2004.833422
86. Nowakowski T, Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2012) Means of transport maintenance
processes performance: decision support system. In: Proceedings of carpathian logistics
congress CLC’ 2012, Jesenik, Czech Republic, Tanger, Ostrava, 7–9 Nov 2012, pp 1–6
87. Nowakowski T, Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2011) Developments of time dependencies
modelling concept. In: Berenguer T, Grall A, Guedes-Soares A (eds) Advances in safety,
reliability and risk management—proceedings of European safety and reliability conference
ESREL 2011, Taylor and Francis Group, London
88. Okumura S (1997) An inspection policy for deteriorating processes using delay-time
concept. Int Trans Oper Res 4(5–6):365–375
89. Okumura S, Jardine AKS, Yamashina H (1996) An inspection policy for a deteriorating
single-unit system characterized by a delay-time model. Int J Prod Res 34(9):2441–2460
90. Pandey D, Cheng T, Van Der Weide JAM (2016) Higher moments and probability
distribution of maintenance cost in the delay time model. Proc IMechE Part O: J Risk Reliab
230(4):354–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X16641767
surveillance of deteriorating systems. Naval Res Logist Q 23:353–388
93. Redmond DF (1997) Delay time analysis in maintenance. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Salford, Salford
94. Scarf PA (1997) On the application of mathematical models in maintenance. Eur J Oper Res
99:493–506
95. Scarf PA, Cavalcante CAV (2012) Modelling quality in replacement and inspection
maintenance. Int J Prod Econ 135:372–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.08.011
96. Scarf PA, Cavalcante CAV (2010) Hybrid block replacement and inspection policies for a
multi-component system with heterogeneous component lives. Eur J Oper Res 206:384–394.
97. Scarf PA, Cavalcante CAV, Dwight RA, Gordon P (2009) An age-based inspection and
replacement policy for heterogeneous components. IEEE Trans Reliab 58(4):641–648.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2009.2026796
98. Scarf PA, Majid HA (2010) Modelling warranty extensions: a case study in the automotive
industry. Salford business school working paper series, paper no. 339/10
99. Senegupta B (1980) Inspection procedures when failure symptoms are delayed. Oper Res 28
(3/2):768–776
systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto
101. Tang Y, Jing JJ, Yang Y, Xie C (2015) Parameter estimation of a delay time model of
wearing parts based on objective data. Math Probl Eng, Article ID 419280:1–8
102. Thomas LC, Gaver DP, Jacobs PA (1991) Inspection models and their application. IMA J
Math Appl Bus Ind 3:283–303
stochastically deteriorating single-unit systems. Naval Res Logist 36:419–446
104. Van Oosterom CD, Elwany AH, Celebi D, Van Houtum GJ (2014) Optimal policies for a
delay time model with postponed replacement. Eur J Oper Res 232:186–197. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejor.2013.06.038
105. Wang H, Pham H (1997) A survey of reliability and availability evaluation of complex
networks using Monte Carlo techniques. Microelectron Reliab 37(2):187–209. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0026-2714(96)00058-3
106. Wang H, Wang W, Peng R (2017) A two-phase inspection model for a single component
system with three-stage degradation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 158:31–40. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ress.2016.10.005
107. Wang L, Hu H, Wang Y, Wu W, He P (2011) The availability model and parameters
estimation method for the delay time model with imperfect maintenance at inspection. Appl
Math Model 35:2855–2863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2010.11.070
108. Wang W (2012) An overview of the recent advances in delay-time-based maintenance
modelling. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 106:165–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.04.004
109. Wang W (2012) A stochastic model for joint spare parts inventory and planned maintenance
optimisation. Eur J Oper Res 216:127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.031
110. Wang W (2011) An inspection model based on a three-stage failure process. Reliab Eng Syst
Saf 96:838–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.03.003
111. Wang W (2011) A joint spare part and maintenance inspection optimisation model using the
Delay-Time concept. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96:1535–1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.
2011.07.004
112. Wang W (2010) Modeling planned maintenance with non-homogeneous defect arrivals and
variable probability of defect identification. Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc- Maint Reliab
2:73–78
113. Wang W (2010) A model for maintenance service contract design, negotiation and
optimization. Eur J Oper Res 201:239–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.02.018
114. Wang W (2009) Delay time modelling for optimized inspection intervals of production
plant. In: Ben-Daya M, Duffuaa SO, Raouf A, Knezevic J, Ait-Kadi D (eds) Handbook of
maintenance management and engineering, Springer
115. Wang W (2009) An inspection model for a process with two types of inspections and repairs.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(2):526–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.06.010
116. Wang W (2008) Delay time modelling. In: Kobbacy AH, Prabhakar Murthy DN
(eds) Complex system maintenance handbook. Springer, London
117. Wang W (2002) A delay time based approach for risk analysis of maintenance activities. Saf
Reliab 23(1):103–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/09617353.2002.11690753
118. Wang W (2000) A model of multiple nested inspections at different intervals. Comput Oper
119. Wang W (1997) Subjective estimation of the delay time distribution in maintenance
modelling. Eur J Oper Res 99:516–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(96)00318-9
120. Wang W (1992) Modelling condition monitoring inspection using the delay-time concept.
Ph.D. thesis, Salford, University of Salford, Salford
121. Wang W, Banjevic D (2012) Ergodicity of forward times of the renewal process in a
block-based inspection model using the delay time concept. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 100:1–7.
122. Wang W, Banjevic D, Pecht M (2010) A multi-component and multi-failure mode
inspection model based on the delay-time concept. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95:912–920. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.04.004
124. Wang W, Christer AH (2003) Solution algorithms for a nonhomogeneous multi-component
inspection model. Comput Oper Res 30:19–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(01)
00074-0
125. Wang W, Jia X (2007) An empirical Bayesian based approach to delay time inspection
model parameters estimation using both subjective and objective data. Qual Reliab Eng Int
23:95–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.815
References 205
126. Wang W, Liu X, Peng R, Guo L (2013) A delay-time-based inspection model for a
two-component parallel system. In: Proceedings of 2013 international conference on quality,
reliability, risk, maintenance, and safety engineering (QR2MSE), Chengdu, China, 15–18
July 2013
127. Wang W, Majid HBA (2000) Reliability data analysis and modelling of offshore oil platform
plant. J Qual Maint Eng 6(4):287–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552510010346824
128. Wang W, Syntetos AA (2011) Spare parts demand: linking forecasting to equipment
maintenance. Transp Res Part E 47:1194–1209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2011.04.008
129. Wen-Yuan LV, Wang W (2006) Modelling preventive maintenance of production plant
given estimated PM data and actual failure times. In: Proceedings of international conference
on management science and engineering, 2006 ICMSE ‘06, IEEE, pp 387–390. https://doi.
org/10.1109/icmse.2006.313857
130. Werbinska-Wojciechowska S, Zajac P (2015) Use of delay-time concept in modelling
process of technical and logistics systems maintenance performance. Case study.
Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc Maint Reliab 17(2):174–185
131. Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2013) Time resource problem in logistics systems depend-
ability modelling. Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc Maint Reliab 15(4):427–433
132. Williams GB, Hirani RS (1997) A delay time multi-level on-condition preventive
maintenance inspection model based on constant base interval risk—when inspection
detects pending failure. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 37(6):823–836
133. Yamashina H, Otani S (2001) Cost-optimized maintenance of the elevator—single unit case.
J Qual Maint Eng 7(1):49–70
134. Yang L, Ma X, Zhai Q, Zhao Y (2016) A delay time model for a mission-based system
subject to periodic and random inspection and postponed replacement. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
135. Yang R, Yan Z, Kang J (2015) An inspection maintenance model based on a three-stage
failure process with imperfect maintenance via Monte Carlo simulation. Int J Syst Assur Eng
Manag 6(3):231–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-014-0292-8
136. Yang R, Zhao F, Kang J, Zhang X (2014) An inspection optimization model based on a
three-stage failure process. Int J Perform Eng 10(7):775–779
137. Zhang X, Chen M, Zhou D (2012) Inspection models considering the overlapping of
inspection span and failure downtime. Chin J Chem Eng 20(6):1167–1173
138. Zhao F, Peng R, Wang W (2012) An inspection and replacement model based on a
three-stage failure process. In: IEEE conference on prognostics and system health
management (PHM), Beijing, China, 23–25 May 2012, pp 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1109/
phm.2012.6228928
139. Zhao F, Wang W, Peng R (2015) Delay-time-based preventive maintenance modelling for a
production plant: a case study in a steel mill. J Oper Res Soc 66(12):1–10. https://doi.org/10.
1057/jors.2015.20
140. Zhu L, Zuo H-F (2012) The delay-time maintenance optimization model with two failure
modes. Adv Mater Res 452–453:190–194. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.
452-453.190
Chapter 5
Delay-Time Models for Multi-unit
Technical Systems Working in Various
Reliability Structures
Abstract The objective of this Chapter is to present delay-time based maintenance

models for multi-unit systems performing in various reliability structures (series,
parallel, nk-out-of-n types) for the two cases of perfect and imperfect inspection
performance. First, the necessity of the DT modelling for multi-unit systems per-
forming in various reliability structures is discussed. The research gap is underlined
and structure of the Chapter is presented. Moreover, preliminary simulation DT
models are characterized. They focus on availability and maintenance costs of
technical systems performing in series and non-series structures with perfect and
imperfect inspection. Their sensitivity analysis is carried out and main results are
discussed. Moreover, first decision rules for maintenance managers are specified.
Later, the short overview of recent developments on delay-time based maintenance
modelling for systems in non-series reliability structures is presented and structure
for the next Sections is given. In Sect. 5.2 new analytical delay-time maintenance
models are developed. The implemented maintenance policy bases on Block
Inspection policy implementation and the analytical model is presented for the
perfect inspection case. The solution is based on renewal reward theory use and is
given for the first inspection cycle. The main decision variable is the time period
between successive system inspection actions performance Tin, while the purpose
of the developed model is to estimate the expected maintenance cost per unit of
system time. As a result, the main assumptions for the DT models are defined. This
gives the possibility to obtain the main reliability functions for the modelled system
performing in various reliability structures. Later, the expected maintenance cost
model is introduced. Section 5.3 provides the reader with extended delay-time
maintenance models for systems performing in two reliability structures—series
and parallel ones. The analysed system is a two-component system (including
component A and component B). The main assumptions are defined and compatible
with the ones determined in Sect. 5.2. The main difference is connected with the
possibility of planned and unplanned inspection actions performance during the
time interval (0, Tin). First, the number of event scenarios is presented and analysed.
Later, the probability functions of system failure and preventive replacement are
presented. This gives the possibility to obtain the expected maintenance cost model.
In the next Sections the author discusses and analyses the possibilities of use of the

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10788-8_5
208 5 Delay-Time Models for Multi-unit Technical Systems …
obtained simple delay-time based maintenance models for determining the best
inspection time interval. First, the convergence of the chosen analytical model with
the simulation model is given. Later, the optimization modelling issues are dis-
cussed and the new cost coefficient is proposed. The Chapter is completed by
concluding remarks that contain the most important conclusions obtained from the
performed research developments.
5.1 Introduction
In this Chapter, the author investigates delay-time based maintenance models and
optimal failure finding intervals to maximize the costs of multi-unit systems per-
forming in various reliability structures (series/parallel/nk-out-of-n).
The necessity of investigation of DT models use in accordance with various
reliability structures of systems was confirmed by preliminary analysis done by
Jodejko-Pietruczuk and Werbinska-Wojciechowska in [14]. The authors in their
work focus on the comparison of two common maintenance models with taking
into account the same assumptions for both of them. First model regards to the
group maintenance policy, the second model bases on the DT approach (BIP
implementation). The investigated system is a three-component one with an
nk-out-of-n reliability structure. The basic assumptions that are valid for both the
analysed models include:
• the system is a three state system where, over its service life, it can be either
operating, operating acceptably or down for necessary repair or planned
maintenance,
• failures are identified immediately, and repairs or replacements are made as soon
as possible,
• repair time and replacement time are assumed to be negligible,
• maintenance actions restores system’s elements to as good as new condition,
• steady-state conditions,
• the system incurs costs of: new elements, when they are preventively replaced,
inspection costs if it is inspected and some additional, consequence costs, when
the system fails and corrective maintenance is performed,
• elements’ lifetime is random and their probability distributions are known.
The comparison for both the presented models was possible thanks to simulation
modelling process use. The modelling process was performed with the use of a
GNUoctave software.1
The obtained main analysis results are divided into two main groups according
to the assumed research tasks:
1
www.gnu.org/software/octave/ (available June 13th, 2017).
2.5
2
Cost
1.5 BR
1 BI
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tin
Fig. 5.1 The total cost of the Group (BR) and the Block Inspection (BI) maintenance policy for a
2-out-of-3 system for cp = 1, cin = 1, cr = 10,000 [14]
• economic comparison of the group and BI maintenance models,

• the influence of a system reliability structure on the best maintenance
parameters.
The presented comparison of the two maintenance models shows that there is no
possibility to make a simple decision which maintenance policy should be imple-
mented for the given technical system. As one might expect, the BI policy should
give the better economic results than the group maintenance because of the pos-
sibility to decide, if and which operating elements should be replaced during an
inspection process performance (Fig. 5.1). However, the obtained analysis results
indicate that the cost-effectiveness of maintenance policy implementation depends
on the lengths of Tin time period and delay time period h. Thus, the authors state the
conclusion that the BI policy is better to implement from economical point of view
only when the following requirement is satisfied [11, 14]:
E½h
2 ð5:1Þ
Tin
This modelling requirement was confirmed in other authors’ works (see e.g. [8–
11]), where there were developed some rules for definition of the principal relations
between system performance under given inspection maintenance policy and
chosen BI policy parameters.
Moreover, the carried out analysis enables the authors to make the following
conclusions [14]:
• a system’s reliability structure has a strong influence on achieved economic
results of group maintenance and BI maintenance strategies performance and the
definition of appropriate policy parameters requires providing system structure
considerations (see e.g. Fig. 5.2),
2.5
Cost 2
1.5 nk = 1
1 nk = 2
nk = 3
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tin
Fig. 5.2 The expected cost of BI maintenance policy for system with nk-out-of-3 reliability
structure for cp = 1, cin = 1, cr = 10,000 [14]
• a system structure, which is more liable to system failures (series structure)

makes implementation of BI policy more economical.
The more detailed analysis of the BI maintenance model is given in [15]. The
investigated system is also comprised of 3 identical elements in an nk-out-of-n
(2-out-of-3) reliability structure, working independently under the same conditions.
The main assumptions for the investigated system are compatible with [14].
Figure 5.3 shows a scenario of defects and failures arrivals as well as inspections of
an exemplary system.
Fig. 5.3 Block inspection policy for the investigated system in 2-out-of-3 reliability structure (SF
system failure, CR corrective replacement, PR preventive maintenance, h (grey area) delay time,
tini block replacement/inspection moments) [15]
Table 5.1 Modelled system parameters [15]

Notation Basic value of the parameters Test range for the parameters (min–max)
n 3 –
nk 2 1–3
cp 1 0–100
cin 1 0–100
cr 10,000 0–100,000
din 0 0–100
Tin – 5–100
af
F(t) F ðtÞ ¼ 1 exp bt Basic: af = 3.5, bf = 100
f Range: af = –, bf = 35–300
ar
Gr(t) Gr ðtÞ ¼ 1 exp bt Basic: ar = 2.3, br = 100
r Range: ar = –, br = 0–100
ap
Gp(t) Gp ðtÞ ¼ 1 exp bt Basic: ap = 2.3, bp = 10
p Range: ap = –, bp = 0–100
ah
Fh(t) Fh ðtÞ ¼ 1 exp bt Basic: ah = 3.5, bh = 35
h Range: ah = 1–3.5, bh = 0–100
According to Fig. 5.3, in the analysed system may be performed one of the two
maintenance operations: failure repair or inspections that are performed at tPMi
moments of time. During the inspection, all failed and defective components are
replaced by new identical ones (perfect inspection and replacement). Thus, it is
assumed that when a system failure occurs, there is only performed replacement of
failed components without additional inspection action performance. However, in
the case of planned inspection action performance, replacement will be performed
for those elements with visible symptoms of forthcoming failure and for a failed
element (if any).
The list of tested system parameters, which were used in the simulation model of
system operational and maintenance processes, is given in Table 5.1. The simula-
tion procedure for the given BI policy is presented in Fig. 5.4. The exemplary
simulation program is presented in Appendix A.
The performed analysis is focused on the definition of the main guidelines for
determining the use of BI policy and includes:
• investigation of effects of availability determinants: the inspection times Tin and
the probability distribution functions F(t), Fh(t), Gr(t), Gp(t) of model parameters
on BI policy results,
• analysis of dependency of cost outputs of the model on unit cost parameters,
• test of the influence of a system’s reliability structure on model results.
The research is focused on the optimization of Tin in accordance with eco-
nomical and cost criterion. Thus, the investigated functions are estimated as fol-
lows. The total costs resulting from the chosen maintenance policy performance is
calculated as [14]:
Fig. 5.4 Simulation procedure for BI policy for nk-out-of-n system

CT ðTin Þ ¼ CpT ðTin Þ þ CrT ðTin Þ þ Cin

T
ðTin Þ ð5:2Þ
Following this, there may be estimated the total costs of new elements per unit
time, resulting from preventive maintenance actions performance [14]:
P
½ðn nk þ 1ÞN ðTin Þ þ NPin ðTin Þ nPin ðTin Þcp
CpT ðTin Þ ¼ ð5:3Þ
TOP ðTin Þ
In the next step, there is calculated the total cost of consequences resulting from
a system failure and, as a result, corrective maintenance action performance [14]:
N ðTin Þcr
CrT ðTin Þ ¼ ð5:4Þ
TOP ðTin Þ
The last cost component regards to the total costs incurred for performed
inspections and may be calculated as [14]:
NPin ðTin Þcin

T
Cin ðTin Þ ¼ ð5:5Þ
TOP ðTin Þ
In the next step, the availability ratio may be estimated as [14]:
TOP ðTin Þ
AðTin Þ ¼ ð5:6Þ
TOP ðTin Þ þ TR ðTin Þ þ TP ðTin Þ
Observation of the modelled operating process’ simple scheme (Fig. 5.3) leads
to believe that the main variables affecting the BI maintenance policy performance
are: an element’s time to failure (Tfo) and a delay time (h). Based on the presented in
[15] analysis results, there is possible to determine the relationship between time Tin
and the expected value of the variable Tof in systems with a series reliability
structure, as a supplement to the requirement given in Eq. (5.1) [14]:
E½Tof
4 6 ð5:7Þ
Tin
Systems with parallel reliability structure may be inspected even at longer time
intervals because of their higher resistance to single element failures. Thus,
Eq. (5.1) may be redefined as [14]:
E½h
1 ð5:8Þ
Tin
Taking into account the performed analyses, there can be stated the conclusion
that the best results of the BI maintenance policy may be achieved when the period
between inspections Tin is shorter than the system elements’ MTTF and their mean
delay time h. In order to confirm such a suggestion, the availability ratio and the BI
policy cost are presented in relation to the dependency between scale parameters
(bf) of probability distribution function for system’s time to failure and time period
Tin, for all the previously analysed cases. The effect of the developed investigations
for series and parallel systems is shown in Figs. 5.5¸ 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8 [14].
Following the presented results (Figs. 5.5¸ 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8), the optimal period
between inspections Tin in series systems should be even longer than the one given
Fig. 5.5 System availability (A) for various values of the relation bf/Tin
Fig. 5.6 The total cost CT(Tin) for various values of the relation bf/Tin
Fig. 5.7 System availability (A) for various values of the relation bf/Tin
Fig. 5.8 The total cost CT(Tin) for various values of the relation bf/Tin
in Eqs. (5.1) and (5.7). Reversed situation is for parallel systems. Thus, it may be
concluded, that the increase of number of up-stated elements being necessary for
having a system in an operational state shortens the optimal Tin period in relation to
elements’ MTTF and delay time.
The presented analysis is later extended in [11] for the cases of 5-element and
100-element systems performing in nk-out-of-n reliability structure. In the given
Fig. 5.9 The length of

inspection period in the
relation to element’s delay
time, which yields the best
availability (opt A) and cost
(opt C) results in a nk-out-of-5
system [11]
Fig. 5.10 The length of

inspection period in the
relation to element’s delay
time, which yields the best
availability (opt A) and cost
(opt C) results in a
nk-out-of-100 system [11]
work the authors conduct an analysis of optimal inspection period upon mainte-
nance costs and availability ratio optimization criterion for systems performing in
various reliability structures. The obtained results also confirm the suggestion made
above: the optimum inspection period should be defined taking into account reli-
ability structure of a system because the best inspection period of a series system
does not yield the best results in systems with another structure. This dependency is
showed more explicitly on the chosen results being presented in Figs. 5.9 and 5.10.
Following the conducted analysis, the figures present the length of inspection
period that provides the minimum cost and the maximum availability results in a
system with a given reliability structure. When nk is equal to 1 in the system
(a parallel structure), the cheapest solution have been found for the cases, when an
inspection period length is close to the mean value of element’s delay time
(h/Tin < 1). If the number of elements required for system operation rises
(1 < nk < n), inspection period should be reduced (1 h/Tin 2) in order the
system to obtain the best maintenance results. For the series system (nk = n) the
cheapest solutions exist for the condition 3 h/Tin 4, while the highest
availability ratio of the system is observable for the shortest inspection period,
which was tested in the study (h/Tin ! max).
Another problem is connected with imperfect inspection performance imple-
mentation that is common in practice. In real-world situations, inspection actions
may not reveal all defects present in a system, especially when considering large,
complex systems performance. This may be connected with e.g. used inspection
techniques, carried out inspection training, or human errors. However, the imperfect
inspection case is seldom considered in DTM. At the present moment, the research
that investigates the issue of imperfect inspection for delay-time-based mainte-
nance optimization of multi-unit systems performing in various reliability
structures is scarce. The necessity of imperfect inspection research performance is
confirmed by the author in [4, 8, 13].
In the first work [13] the authors focus on the investigation of dependency
occurrence between inspection precision and maintenance policy performance. For
the research purposes, the inspection precision is to be understood as an ability of a
system to detect (and correctly interpret) its elements’ defects during inspection if
their symptoms may be observable.
The investigated system is also comprised of 3 identical elements in an
nk-out-of-n (2-out-of-3) reliability structure, working independently under the same
conditions. The main assumptions for the investigated system and basic values for
the modelled system parameters are compatible with [15]. In addition, the
inspections are assumed to be imperfect. Thus, any component’s defect, which
occurred in the system till the moment of inspection, will be unnoticed with
probability pw or correctly identified with probability 1 − pw. Thus, when pw is
equal to 0, it means that all components are correctly diagnosed (perfect inspection
case). All elements with identified defects will be replaced within the inspection
Fig. 5.11 Block inspection policy with imperfect inspection for the investigated system in
2-out-of-3 reliability structure [13]
period. Figure 5.11 shows a scenario of defects and failures arrivals as well as
inspections of an exemplary system.
According to the figure, the system is inspected at tPMi moments. Diagnosis of
defect symptoms is imperfect thus elements 2 and 7 are allowed to further work
although their defects might be noticed. Because of the fact, during one of the
following periods between inspections (tPM1 − tPM2) two consecutive elements fail,
what causes the system failure. On the other hand, some elements’ defects are
properly diagnosed at the first possible inspection (elements: 1, 4, 5, 6) and the
components are preventively replaced but their potential lifetime is wasted.
The system presented above was also modelled in the GNU Octave software.
The simulation procedure for this BI policy is presented in Fig. 5.12. The list of
tested system parameters, which were used in the simulation model of the system
operation and maintenance processes, is given in Table 5.2. The exemplary sim-
ulation program is presented in the Appendix B.
The performed analysis is focused, among others, on the analysis, which oper-
ational results of the BI policy are the most sensitive to imperfect inspection per-
formance. The exemplary results that present system performance for various levels
of inspection accuracy and chosen vector of period between inspections are pre-
sented in Figs. 5.13, 5.14, 5.15, and 5.16 [13].
The analysis confirms the fact that all tested costs and availability ratio depend
on inspection precision and the strength of this impact is much stronger in the series
structured system (Figs. 5.14 and 5.16), more liable to system failures. Lower
precision of inspection (higher value of pw) increases the system failure cost but at
the same time it decreases the summary cost of new elements that are used in the
system for the both analysed reliability structures. Detailed analysis of the obtained
results also shows that the parallel system cost is rather insensitive to imperfect
inspection for very short periods between inspections Tin. Imperfect, but often
performed, inspections allows to avoid system failures and make system cost
independent on inspection precision. In contrast, the series system, being much
more liable to failures, is very sensitive to probability of defect omission pw for
short Tin periods. Extending the period between inspections causes similar effect as
lower precision of inspection—decreases probability of correct preventive main-
tenance and increases the risk of system failures.
In the second work [4] the authors extend the performed analysis of the DT
maintenance model with imperfect inspections by introducing the non-constant
probability pw for defect identification. In the presented paper the probability pw
linearly changes according to the defect symptoms visibility increase. The mod-
elling assumptions and the model’s parameters basic values remain the same. The
analysed system is composed from 5 or 100 identical elements.
The presented sensitivity analysis of the investigated BI policy model gives the
possibility to obtain some rules for definition of the principal relations between the
system performance under given PM policy with imperfect maintenance and chosen
PM policy parameters. The aim of this analysis was to check if the developed decision
rules, defined in Eqs. (5.1) and (5.7) are valid for the case of imperfect inspection
performance. The second issue was to compare the costs and the availability results of
Fig. 5.12 Simulation procedure for BI policy with imperfect inspection for nk-out-of-n system
Table 5.2 The modelled Notation Basic value

system’s parameters for
imperfect inspection case [13] n 3
nk 2
cp 1
cin 1
cr 1000
din 0
Tin [2,350]
pw [0,1]

F(t) F ðtÞ ¼ 1 exp ð100Þ3:5

Gr(t) Gr ðtÞ ¼ 1 exp ð100Þ2:3

Gp(t) Gp ðtÞ ¼ 1 exp ð10Þ2:3

Fh(h) Fh ðtÞ ¼ 1 exp ð35Þ3:5
Fig. 5.13 The total costs of

the parallel system maintained
according to BI policy
Fig. 5.14 The total costs of

the series system maintained
according to BI policy
Fig. 5.15 The availability

ratio A in the parallel system
replaced during inspection

ratio A in the series system
replaced during inspection
Fig. 5.17 Block Inspection

costs for nk-out-of-100 system
for the case of perfect
inspection [4]
Fig. 5.18 Block Inspection

costs (“C” index) for nk-out-
of-100 system imperfectly
inspected (pw decreases
linearly) [4]
Fig. 5.19 Availability ratio

A of nk-out-of-100 system for
the case of perfect inspection
[4]
Fig. 5.20 Availability ratio

A of nk-out-of-100 system
imperfectly inspected (pw
decreases linearly) [4]
the BI policy for the cases of perfect and imperfect inspection. The chosen results of
performed analysis are presented in Figs. 5.17, 5.18, 5.19, and 5.20. The chosen
effects depicted in the figures assume various length of the inspection period (Tin) and
the system reliability structure given by the number of elements (nk), which have to be
in the up-state in order the system to be up.
The analysis has proved the expected fact that all tested costs and an availability
ratio depend on inspection precision. As it might be expected, the strength of this
impact is much greater in series structured (n-out-of-n) and similar systems, more
liable to system failures. Lower precision of inspection increases the system failure
cost, which is dominant cost component, but at the same time it decreases the
summary cost of new elements that are used in the system. The total cost, directly
proportional to the number of system failures, is much higher in the cases when
inspection is not perfect. The corresponding effect is observable in availability ratio
analysis—low reliability of inspection reduces meaningfully the availability ratio of
a maintained system if it is not substituted by oftener inspections.
The summary of the conducted research and development of the guidelines for
determining the use of DT modelling approach are given in [8].
The presented analysis results were the first step of author’s investigation about
the DT modelling for multi-unit systems performing in various reliability structures.
The obtained research results give the preliminary answer how the reliability
structure or estimation of delay time parameters (see Chap. 6 for more details) can
influence on system performance and its optimal Tin period. There are also checked
some rules of principal relations between the system performance and maintenance
policy parameters. The presented research results have been also the basis for
author’s further developments connected with analytical modelling process (see
Sects. 5.2 and 5.3 for more details).
Moreover, the necessity to investigate the parallel systems maintenance with the
DT concept use is also confirmed by the authors in [16, 17, 22]. In work [22] the
authors consider a two-component system in parallel. They present an analytical
model for perfect inspection and maintenance with exponentially distributed time to
defect. They analyse eight different inspection renewal scenarios and one failure
renewal scenario that give them the possibility to estimate the expected cost per unit
time.
This model is later extended in [16], where the authors propose a new
delay-time-based inspection model for an n-component parallel system and study
optimal inspection interval that minimizes the long-term expected cost per unit
time. The inspection and maintenance actions are perfect. For the defined
assumptions, the authors consider two maintenance policies. The first maintenance
policy assumes that the defective or failed components are replaced only when all
components are either defective or failed at an inspection before a system failure.
This maintenance policy is estimated analytically. The second one, more general, is
solved with the use of simulation modelling.
In [17] the authors present the maintenance policy based on inspections and
replacement taking into account opportunities for a system composed of two com-
ponents, whose failure characteristics are different. They use simulation to obtain the
minimal expected maintenance costs. Moreover, this model is the first attempt to
model economic and structural dependency with the use of DT modelling.
To sum up, the literature on DT modelling for multi-unit non-series systems is
scarce. Almost all of the published DT models are restricted to single-component
systems subject to a single dominant failure mode or series systems with many
components (see Chap. 4 for more details). The known DT models for non-series
systems are limited to perfect inspection and maintenance policies investigation (as
in models presented in [16, 17, 22]).
On the other side, the parallel and nk-out-of-n systems widely exist in reality.
An example here may be the water pump system analysed e.g. in [23], where three
pumps work in parallel but the system just requires at least one of these pumps to be
in full working order. Another example may be the steam turbine rotor that is
studied as a two-component parallel system in work [21]. In this article the authors
present a new reliability model with minimal and perfect repair investigation. The
model is applied to steam turbine system, in which the rotor is considered as a soft
component and filter as a hard component.
The nk-out-of-n scheme is the widely accepted form of redundancy in
fault-tolerant systems to maintain their functionality in the presence of faults. This
systems’ reliability structure is considered e.g. in [24] for thermal power plant
inspection maintenance modelling and improvement. In the presented paper, the
authors considers PLCs with 1-out-of-2 voting configuration and the control valves
with 2-out-of-3 voting configuration in the thermal power plant, providing new
procedures in inspection maintenance strategy for common cause failure reduction.
Other examples may be found e.g. in [1, 3, 18–20]. Thus, the development of new
DT maintenance models for non-series multi-unit systems is well justified.
Following this, the obtained research results (e.g. in [7, 10, 14]) and iden-
tified research gap led the author to conduct further research in the area of DT
modelling for multi-unit systems performing in various reliability structures
(series/parallel/nk-out-of-n).
Thus, the author considers a repairable system with two-stage failure process
(defective state and failed state) under periodic inspections at equal intervals. She
also assumes that downtime due to inspection and downtime due to replacement/
repair are both non-negligible. The analysed inspection policy is the BI policy.
The structure of analysed models in this Chapter is summarized in Fig. 5.21.
5.2 Simple Delay-Time Model
The development and analysis of the first analytical DT maintenance model is

implemented in the following steps:
• definition of the main assumptions for the DT model,
• development of reliability functions for the modelled system performing in
various reliability structures,
• development of an expected maintenance cost model.
Following this, in this Section the author considers a multi-unit system subject to
periodic inspection and working in series, parallel and nk-out-of-n reliability
structures. For all the analysed cases, it is assumed that system elements work
independently under the same conditions.
5.2 Simple Delay-Time Model 225
Fig. 5.21 The structure of delay-time based maintenance models for system working in various
reliability structures
As it was mentioned in Chap. 1, the implemented maintenance policy is the

Block Inspection policy—one of the most commonly used in practice. The per-
formed inspections are carried out in order to check the working status of the
system or its elements and take place at regular time intervals of Tin. Each
inspection action requires a constant time and gives information whether the system
is normally working, or is in a defective state, which is in need of an immediate
attention. This maintenance policy is still often recommended by manufacturers due
to its simplicity.
Moreover, in this Section inspections are assumed to be perfect. Thus, a system
defect, which occurs till the moment of inspection will be identified and replaced
within an inspection period. In addition, a failure is observed immediately and the
system is replaced at a given cost and downtime. The main decision variable in the
model is the inspection interval. The objective of the model is to define and
estimate the long term expected cost per unit time in terms of the above decision
variable.
For the modelling purpose, the author proposes additional assumptions:
• the system is a three state system where, over its service life, it can be either:
• operating (able to fulfil the operational tasks and functions),
• operating acceptably (denoting the existence of the defect2 in the system

elements),
• or down for necessary repair or planned maintenance (the loss of an ability of
the system to perform the required functions—system failure that is dependent
on a system reliability structure),
• the system can remain functioning in an acceptable manner until breakdown
(despite having defects),
• the breakdown will be assumed to have been caused by n − nk+ 1 of the defects,
which have deteriorated sufficiently to affect the operating performance of the
system as a whole,
• defects, which may have arisen in the system, deteriorate over an operating time,
• components are prone to become defective independently of each other when
the system is in operating,
• failures of the system are identified immediately,
• repairs or replacements are made as soon as possible,
• inspection action performance begins a new inspection cycle for the analysed
system,
• maintenance actions restores system to as good as new condition,
• all elements with identified defects will be replaced within the inspection
performance,
• components have their own pdfs of initial and delay time,
• the component replacement costs are the same for all elements.
According to the given assumptions, in the analysed multi-unit system may be
performed one of the two maintenance operations:
• renewal after the system failure (without additional inspection action perfor-
mance), or
• planned inspection together with possible replacement of elements with iden-
tified defects.
Figure 5.22 shows a scenario of defect arrivals, failures and inspections of an
exemplary system performing in 2-out-of-3 reliability structure and using the Block
Inspection policy. In addition, the preliminary analytical DT model is presented in [14].
Moreover, there should be underlined here that the developed mathematical
model gives the possibility for estimation of expected maintenance costs for the
system, which elements are “as good as new” at the beginning of a maintenance
cycle (e.g. first maintenance cycle performance). The maintenance cycle is here
understood as the time between two consecutive inspection actions performance.
Following this restriction, the author focuses on the estimation of maintenance cost
model, which needs estimating the reliability functions of the system working in
various reliability structures.
2
Defect in the system elements—defined as the occurrence of symptoms of a potential future
failure.
Fig. 5.22 The example of Block inspection policy implementation in the case of a three-element
system working in 2-out-of-3 reliability structure [6]
5.2.1 Reliability Models for a System with Delay Time

Working in Various Reliability Structures
First, performance of a two-element system in series reliability structure is inves-

tigated. In such a situation the probability distribution function of system time to
failure, F(x), will be the product of unreliability functions of both the working
components. Thus, it may be defined as:
2 3 2 3
Zx Zx
F ð xÞ ¼ 1 4 1 gh1 ðuÞFh1 ðx uÞdu5 41 gh2 ðuÞFh2 ðx uÞdu5
u¼0 u¼0
ð5:9Þ
And the system reliability function is given as:
R ð xÞ ¼ 1 F ð xÞ ð5:10Þ
In the case of n-unit systems performance, formulae (5.9) may be defined as:
2 3
Y
n Zx
F ð xÞ ¼ 1 41 ghi ðuÞFhi ðx uÞdu5 ð5:11Þ
i¼1
u¼0
When the two-element system performs in a parallel reliability structure, the

Cumulative distribution function of time to failure, F(x), given by formulae (5.9)
may be estimated as:
Zx Zx
F ð xÞ ¼ gh1 ðuÞFh1 ðx uÞdu gh2 ðuÞFh2 ðx uÞdu ð5:12Þ
u¼0 u¼0
and respectively for n-unit systems case, this function is given as:
n Z
x
Y
F ð xÞ ¼ ghi ðuÞFhi ðx uÞdu ð5:13Þ
i¼1
u¼0
The last situation regards to the n-element system, when its elements work in the
most general, nk-out-of-n reliability structure. In such a situation, it is easier to
define the system reliability function, which may be estimated as:
X
m
Rð xÞ ¼ Rl ð xÞ ð5:14Þ
l¼1
And the system cumulative distribution function of time to failure is given

according to the well-known formulae:
F ð xÞ ¼ 1 Rð xÞ ð5:15Þ
For further analyses, formulae (5.14) needs development. Thus, the probability
of system correct operation for lth combination of system elements being in up-state
in order to system up-state providing Rl(x), may be estimated as:
Y
n
R l ð xÞ ¼ ½Ri ð xÞei ½1 Ri ð xÞð1ei Þ ð5:16Þ
i¼1
In formulae (5.16), the indicator ej may be defined as follows:

1; if ith element in lth combination is in up state
ei ¼ ð5:17Þ
0; if ith element in lth combination is failed
and the element’s reliability function Ri(x) is given by the formulae:
Zx
Ri ð xÞ ¼ 1 Fi ð xÞ ¼ 1 ghi ðuÞFhi ðx uÞdu ð5:18Þ
u¼0
Following this, Eq. (5.16) can be expressed as:

2 3ei 2 3ð1ei Þ
Y
n Zx Zx
Rl ð xÞ ¼ 41 ghi ðuÞFhi ðx uÞdu5 4 ghi ðuÞFhi ðx uÞdu5
i¼1
u¼0 u¼0
ð5:19Þ
Definition of functions of system failure probabilities gives a possibility to

estimate the expected maintenance costs for multi-element systems performance.
5.2.2 Expected Maintenance Costs Model
According to the renewal theory [2], the expected maintenance costs per unit of
time may be estimated based on Eq. (4.21):
cðTini Þ
CðTini Þ ¼ ; where Tini ¼ Tin1 ð5:20Þ
TM ðTini Þ
Following this, the expected costs of two-element system maintenance in one

inspection cycle are defined as:
cðTin1 Þ ¼ cr F ðTin1 Þ þ cp ð1 F ðTin1 ÞÞðGh1 ðTin1 Þ þ Gh2 ðTin1 ÞÞ þ cin ð1 F ðTin1 ÞÞ

ð5:21Þ
The maintenance cost expressed in Eq. (5.21) presents the sum of possible cost:
of system failure, replacement cost of working elements with observable defects
and inspection costs per a single inspection period. There should be underlined
here, that the developed mathematical model gives the possibility for estimation of
expected maintenance costs for the system, whose elements are as good as new at
the beginning of an inspection cycle of length Tin (e.g. first inspection cycle per-
formance being a part of a single renewal cycle).
Formulae (5.21) may be developed to the form usable for n-unit systems
performance:
!
X
n
cðTin1 Þ ¼ cr F ðTin1 Þ þ cp ð1 F ðTin1 ÞÞ Ghi ðTin1 Þ þ cin ð1 F ðTin1 ÞÞ ð5:22Þ
i¼1
According to formulae (5.20), the foregoing cost models for multi-component

systems working in a single inspection cycle should be related to the expected
system life-time TM in the same period:
ZTin1
TM ðTin1 Þ ¼ RðuÞdu ð5:23Þ
0
and the system reliability function R(x) is estimated according to equations: (5.11),
(5.13), or (5.14–5.19), depending on the system reliability structure.
The detailed sensitivity analysis of the developed analytical DT model is pre-
sented in [6], where the authors also focus on the problem of the model’s param-
eters estimation process that is investigated in more details in Chap. 6.
5.3 Extended Delay-Time Models
The presented above research results have been also the basis for development
of extended analytical DT maintenance models with perfect inspection for
systems working in two main reliability structures: series and parallel ones.
The development and analysis of the analytical DT maintenance models is
implemented in the following steps:
• definition of the main assumptions for the DT models for systems performing in
series and parallel reliability structures,
• development of reliability models for systems performing in series and parallel
reliability structures,
• development of expected maintenance cost models for systems performing in
series and parallel reliability structures.
The author focuses on the two-component system. For this case, the author
propose the two analytical models for perfect inspection case, which are presented
in the next Subsections of this Chapter.

Performing in Series Reliability Structure
First, there is analysed the series two-component system. For the modelling pur-
pose, the following assumptions are defined:
• a system is composed of two components (A and B) operating in a series
reliability structure, thus the system failure occurrence may result from the
occurrence of failure of element A or B,
• components failures in the system comes independently, which means that the
failure of one component does not affect the probability of failure occurrence to
the second operating component,
5.3 Extended Delay-Time Models 231
• system failures are diagnosed immediately and system is restored to the “as-
good-as-new” state,
• at the time of corrective replacement of the failed component, the second one is
inspected simultaneously and, if there are signs of forthcoming failure (element
is partially up-stated), it is preventively replaced and restored to the “as-good-
as-new” state,
• planned inspection actions of the system are performed at constant intervals of
time (Tin), determining consecutive and known time moments of inspections
tini= i * Tin for i = 1, 2, 3, …, ∞. These time moments do not depend on the
sequence of events that precede the system inspection action performance,
• at the system inspection time moments (planned and unplanned) there are
identified the existing symptoms of forthcoming failure for each of the system
components and, if they exist, the partially up-stated item is restored to the “as-
good-as-new” state. The fully up-stated element operates without any mainte-
nance action performance,
• performed in the system inspection actions (both planned and unplanned) are
perfect, which causes that existing symptoms of forthcoming failure will all be
identified within the inspection action,
• each maintenance action performance incurs costs: each failure of the system
entails a unit consequence costs cr, preventive actions performance generates cp
costs for every element replacement, and each inspection action performance
entails cost cin,
• inspection times and renewal times are negligible.
As in the model presented in Sect. 5.2, the main decision variable is the time
period between successive system inspection actions performance Tin, while the
purpose of the developed model is to estimate the expected maintenance cost per
unit of system time. This model can be used to evaluate and/or optimize the various
lengths of intervals between inspections for the given system.
In order to develop an analytical cost model for maintaining a multi-component
system, it is necessary to analyse the cases in which the system generates costs and
to describe the probabilities of their occurrence. For the considered simplest
two-element system, the number of event variants that can occur from the time of
the system starting to operate to the time of the first scheduled system’s inspection
may be infinite. Depending on the length of Tin time interval, the expected number
of restorations (both corrective and preventive—occasional) may be very different
and difficult to describe in an analytical manner.
Based on the BI policy implementation, later there is assumed that the model
will only be developed for the first inspection time period of the system (until the
first scheduled inspection action performance). Moreover, it will take into account
the possibility of up to two failures occurrence during that inspection cycle—one
for each component. The adopted simplifying assumption can be assessed in
practice by limiting the length of the possible inspection intervals Tin, e.g. it cannot
be longer than the smallest expected delay time of the system components. In
addition, at the occurrence of the second (second-time) failure in the system, the
inspection action and preventive replacement of the co-operating element (causing

the first system failure and being correctively restored in the same inspection cycle)
will not be considered.
Even for the strong assumptions listed above, the number of event scenarios that
may occur in the system is significant. Possible event scenarios are shown in
Table 5.3. The term “fully up-stated element” in the table is understood to mean
that, at the time of system inspection action performance, the diagnosed element
shows no symptoms of forthcoming failure, while the “partially up-stated element”
means the detection of symptoms of a future forthcoming failure and—in conse-
quence—preventive replacement of the element.
The determined in Table 5.3 events can be the basis for estimation of the
probabilities of the different scenarios of system’s operation performance occur-
rence and for analysis of the resulting maintenance costs that will be included.
Thus, in order to increase the readability, the occurrence of unit maintenance costs
is indicated by the colour:
• events that do not generate costs (white fields),
• events generating the cost of unit preventive restoration cp (bright grey fields),
• events generating the highest cost − cost of failure consequences cr (dark grey
fields).
Following this, there can be estimated the probabilities of system failure and
preventive replacement performance.
5.3.1.1 Probabilities of System Failure and Preventive Replacement
In the first step of analytical modelling, there are considered event scenarios,
possible to occur in the first period of the system operation performance—until the
first system inspection action performance. In that period of time (0, Tin1) there is a
possibility that:
• the system will operate without any disruptions occurrence (failures) till the
moment of the scheduled first inspection action performance ((0, Tin1) time
period):
This situation regards to the scenarios 1.1–1.4 that are presented in Table 5.3.
The probability of such event occurrence may be estimated based on the
probability distribution function of time to failures calculated for the series system.
As a result, the probability that system operates without failure till the moment of
scheduled inspection action performance may be estimated as:
Table 5.3 The possible scenarios of events occurrence in the series system for the analysed time
period (0, Tin1)
Time moment x (time moment of the first Time period (x – T in 1) Time moment T in 1
No. failure occurrence in the system)
A B A/B A B
1.1 Elements A and B operate without any disruptive events performance An element A is fully up- An element B is fully up-
during the time period (0– T in 1) stated stated
1.2 An element A is partially An element B is fully up-
up-stated stated
1.3 An element A is fully up- An element B is partially
stated up-stated
1.4 An element A is partially An element B is partially
up-stated up-stated
An element B operates An element A is fully up- An element B is fully up-

2.1 without failure in time period stated stated
(x – T in 1)
up-stated stated
stated up-stated
up-stated up-stated
An element B is fully
up-stated
2.5 An element A is fully up- An element B is fully up-
stated stated
2.6 Failure of an element B in An element A is partially An element B is fully up-

time period up-stated stated
(x – T in 1) An element A is fully up- An element B is partially
2.7
stated up-stated
up-stated up-stated
Failure of an
element A
An element B operates An element A is fully up- An element B is fully up-
2.9 without failure in time period stated stated
(x – T in 1)
An element B is partially up-stated stated
2.11 up-stated—preventive An element A is fully up- An element B is partially
replacement stated up-stated
performance An element A is partially An element B is partially
2.12
up-stated up-stated
Failure of an element B in An element A is fully up- An element B is fully up-

2.13 time period (x – T in 1) stated stated
up-stated stated
stated up-stated
up-stated up-stated
3.1 An element A is Failure of an element B An element A operates An element A is fully up- An element B is fully up-
fully without failure stated stated
… … … … … …
3.16 … … … … …
RAB ðTin1 Þ ¼ 1 FAB ðTin1 Þ

0 10 1
ZTin1 ZTin1
¼ 1 @1 ghA ðuÞFhA ðTin1 uÞduA@1 ghB ðuÞFhB ðTin1 uÞduA
0 0
ð5:24Þ
where FAB(Tin1) is the unreliability function for two-unit system performing in

series reliability structure.
• the system fails in time moment x 2 (0, Tin1), and this failure will result
from element A or element B failure occurrence:
Based on Eq. (5.24) of the system reliability function, we may directly deter-
mine the probability of system failure during the considered time period. For the
purpose of maintenance costs model estimation for the analysed system, it is
necessary to determine the probability of every component failure individually.
These events generate the consequence costs. Moreover, the probability of their
joint failure at the same time x is assumed to be negligible. Following this, the
probability of element A failure in time moment x is estimated as:
Zx
pfA ð xÞ ¼ ghA ðuÞfhA ðx uÞdu ð5:25Þ
0
According to previously described assumptions and following the possible

scenarios given in Table 5.3, at the time of the system failure, the defective com-
ponent (in this case A) is restored to “as-good-as-new” state and the associated
component in the system is inspected. Depending on the outcome of the performed
inspection, it continues to operate without any corrective action performance (if the
diagnosis does not detect any signs of forthcoming failures) or is restored pre-
ventively to “as-good-as new” condition (if it is found as partially up-stated). These
possibilities are presented in Fig. 5.23.
The probability, that the element B is fully up-stated, when the element A fails in
time moment x (case a in Fig. 5.23) may be estimated as:
Zx
poB ð xÞ ¼ ghA ðuÞfhA ðx uÞdu ð1 GhB ð xÞÞ ð5:26Þ
0
The second situation, presented in Fig. 5.23, is connected with preventive

replacement of an element at time moment x (e.g. working element B, if element A
caused failure to the system at time x—element B is found to be partially up-stated
and is preventively replaced). The probability of such scenario occurrence may be
estimated as:
Fig. 5.23 Representation for the situation, when element A fails in the time moment x and
a inspection does not detect any signs of forthcoming failure for element B, b element B is found
as partially up-stated during inspection and preventively replaced
Zx Zx
ppB ð xÞ ¼ ghA ðuÞfhA ðx uÞdu ghB ðuÞð1 FhB ðx uÞÞdu ð5:27Þ
0 0
Equation (5.27) takes into account the probability of two independent events: the
failure of the element A in the system at time x (the component included in the first
integral function) and the existence of signals of forthcoming failure for the element
B at the same time (second integral function). This formula is necessary to deter-
mine the expected preventive maintenance cost of element in the system (in this
case element B) at time x.
To determine the probability of system elements preventive replacement over the
entire period between inspections (0, Tin1), the probability of preventive replace-
ment at failure of both the components (A and B) should be summed up:
ZTin1 ZTin1
PpAB ð0; Tin1 Þ ¼ ppA ð xÞdx þ ppB ð xÞdx ð5:28Þ
0 0
Fig. 5.24 Representation for the situation of second possible failure occurrence in the system
during the first inspection cycle a element B was fully up-stated at time moment x (when element
A failed) and fails in the time period (x, Tin1), b element B was partially up-stated at time moment
x (when element A failed) and fails in the time period (x, Tin1)
The probability function ppA(x) for the component A in Eq. (5.28) should be
estimated in the same way as in Eq. (5.27) for the component B.
The analysis of the different scenarios of events that occur in the time period (0,
Tin1) (Table 5.3) also requires determining the probability of the second possible
failure occurrence that is acceptable in the system—in this case, the failure of
element B. Representation of these cases is given in Fig. 5.24.
If the element B is fully up-stated at time moment x (at the time of the first
system failure due to the failure of element A)—case a in Fig. 5.24, then proba-
bility of its failure in the time period (x, Tin1) may be estimated as:
ZTin1
pfB ðx; Tin1 Þ ¼ ghB ðuÞFhB ðTin1 uÞdu ð5:29Þ
x
However, if element B at time moment x (at the time of the first system failure
due to the failure of element A)—case b in Fig. 5.24, it will be partially up-stated,
the probability of its failure in the time period (x, Tin1) changes to:
TZ
in1 x
pfB ðx; Tin1 Þ ¼ ghB ðuÞFhB ðTin1 x uÞdu ð5:30Þ

0
The full description of the possible scenarios 2.1–2.16 occurrence (Table 5.3)
from the maintenance cost modelling point of view requires also an estimate of the
events that may occur at the time moment of the planned inspection action (Tin1).
According to the assumptions of the maintenance policy given for the analysed
system, the first planned inspection of its condition occurs at the time of tini = Tin1.
This inspection action is performed regardless of “whether” and “when” system
was failed during time period (0, Tin1). This assumption is often reflected in
operational practice, when systems are diagnosed at predetermined time points,
irrespective of the sequence of events preceding them (e.g. a weekly status report of
conveyor belts in mines, independent of current failure process of a conveyor). In
the case of construction equipment there is defined a service and maintenance
program that determines time moments of necessary preventive technical mainte-
nance actions performance. Such the schedule is mandatory for machine operators
and is the basis for a producer to accept users’ complaints. For this reason, another
point in the timeline, where there is a possibility of system maintenance costs
occurrence, is the moment of Tin1.
Based on the analytical delay-time-based maintenance models for technical
systems, developed e.g. in [6, 8], at the moment of inspection action performance
Tin1, it is necessary to consider the probabilities resulting from the appearance of:
• system failure,
• inspection actions performance,
• the necessity for performance of preventive maintenance of elements in the
system.
The first two of the above three possibilities can be easily estimated. The
probability of system failure needs analysing both, the possibility of occurrence of
the first failure of the system at the time moment x (0, Tin1) (resulting from the
failure of element A or B occurrence) and the possibility of the second failure of the
system occurrence in the time period (x, Tin1).
Taking into account the assumption that the inspections are performed at pre-
determined and fixed time moments, regardless of performed in the past system
maintenance activities, the probability of inspection action performance at the time
Tin1 is equal to 1.
The only event, whose occurrence probability at time moment Tin1 should be
described is the need for system elements preventive maintenance performance.
Therefore, on the one hand, the model should be supplemented by the following
situations:
• the elements (or any of them) that have worked faultlessly in the time
period (0, Tin1) show at the time Tin1 the symptoms of forthcoming future
failure and must be preventively replaced, e.g. element B:
ZTin1
ppB ðTin1 Þ ¼ ghB ðuÞð1 FhB ðTin1 uÞÞdu ð5:31Þ
0
• the elements (or any of them) that were replaced at time moment x (cor-
rectively or preventively) show at the time Tin1 the symptoms of forth-
coming future failure and must be preventively replaced, e.g. element B:
TZ
in1 x
ppB ðTin1 Þ ¼ ghB ðuÞð1 FhB ðTin1 x uÞÞdu ð5:32Þ

0
On the other hand, in order to estimate the probability of occurrence of scenarios

2.1–2.16 (Table 5.3), it is necessary to determine the probability of preventive
replacement of system elements at Tin1, which can be estimated as the sum of the
probabilities resulting from the occurrence possibility of four scenarios:
PpAB ðTin1 Þ ¼ Pp1 ðTin1 Þ þ Pp2 ðTin1 Þ þ Pp3 ðTin1 Þ þ Pp4 ðTin1 Þ ð5:33Þ
where:
• the 1st scenario—there was no failure occurrence in the system during time
period (0, Tin1), and at time moment Tin1 each of the system elements may show
symptoms of forthcoming failure. The probability of occurrence of such scenario
2T
Z in1
Pp1 ðTin1 Þ ¼ RAB ðTin1 Þ 4 ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 uÞÞdu
0
3 ð5:34Þ
ZTin1
þ ghB ðuÞð1 FhB ðTin1 uÞÞdu5
0
• the 2nd scenario—the system has failed due to the element B failure in the time
period (0, Tin1), thus the element B has been correctively replaced at time
moment x, and at time moment Tin1 the element B once again shows symptoms
of forthcoming failure. The probability of occurrence of such scenario may be
estimated as:
ZTin1 Z x
Pp2 B ðTin1 Þ ¼ ghB ðuÞfhB ðx uÞdu
0
0 ð5:35Þ
Z Tin1 x
ghB ðuÞð1 FhB ðTin1 x uÞÞdu dx
0
• the 3rd scenario—the element B has failed at the time moment x (0, Tin1), the
element A has shown signs of forthcoming failure, thus it has been preventively
replaced, and at time moment Tin1 the element A again shows symptoms of
forthcoming failure. The probability of occurrence of such scenario may be
estimated as:
2 3
ZTin1 TZ
in1 x
Pp3 A ðTin1 Þ ¼ 4ppA ð xÞ ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 x uÞÞdu5dx

0 0
2 x
ZTin1 Z Z x
¼ 4 ghB ðuÞfhB ðx uÞdu ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðx uÞÞdu
0
0 0
TZ
3
in1 x
ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 x uÞÞdu5dx

0
ð5:36Þ
• the 4th scenario—the element B has failed at the time moment x (0, Tin1), the
element A has shown no signs of forthcoming failure, but at time moment Tin1
the element A shows symptoms of forthcoming failure. The probability of
occurrence of such scenario may be estimated as:
2 3
ZTin1 ZTin1
Pp4 A ðTin1 Þ ¼ 4poA ð xÞ gA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 uÞÞdu5dx
0 x
2 0 1
ZTin1 Z x Zx
¼ 4 ghB ðuÞfhB ðx uÞdu @1 ghA ðuÞduA ð5:37Þ
0 0 0
3
ZTin1
ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 uÞÞdu5dx
x
In order to estimate the possibilities of occurrence of the second, third and fourth
scenarios, the estimated functions Pp2_B(Tin1), Pp3_A(Tin1), Pp4_A(Tin1), given in
Eqs. (5.35–5.37), should be doubled for the analogical cases, when the system
failure at the time moment x (0, Tin1) is caused by the element A failure and the
element B may be preventively replaced or remains in operation—depending on the
results of the performed inspection action at time moment x. Following this, we
obtain:
8
< Pp2 ðTin1 Þ ¼ Pp2 A ðTin1 Þ þ Pp2 B ðTin1 Þ
Pp3 ðTin1 Þ ¼ Pp3 A ðTin1 Þ þ Pp3 B ðTin1 Þ ð5:38Þ
:
Pp4 ðTin1 Þ ¼ Pp4 A ðTin1 Þ þ Pp4 B ðTin1 Þ
The presented analytical formulae may be also the basis for the estimation of
probability of occurrence of different scenarios presented in Table 5.3. For exam-
ple, we may estimate:
• the probability of the scenario 1.1 (given in Table 5.3) occurrence:
P1 1 ðTin1 Þ ¼ RAB ðTin1 Þ ½ð1 GhA ðTin1 ÞÞ þ ð1 GhB ðTin1 ÞÞ ð5:39Þ

2T 3
Z in1
P1 2 ðTin1 Þ ¼ RAB ðTin1 Þ 4 ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 uÞÞdu þ ð1 GhB ðTin1 ÞÞ5
0
ð5:40Þ

2T
Z in1
P1 4 ðTin1 Þ ¼RAB ðTin1 Þ 4 ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 uÞÞdu
0
3 ð5:41Þ
ZTin1
0
Definition of the system failure functions and preventive replacements proba-

bilities gives the possibility to estimate the expected maintenance costs in the first
inspection cycle for two-element systems performance.
5.3.1.2 Expected Maintenance Costs Model
For the maintenance scenarios given in Table 5.3, the expected maintenance costs
of the two-element system in the first inspection cycle are defined as:
cðTin1 Þ ¼ CrA B ðTin1 Þ þ CrB A ðTin1 Þ þ CpAB ðTin1 Þ þ CinAB ðTin1 Þ ð5:42Þ
and inspection costs per a single (first) inspection period.
First, the costs of system failure may be analysed. In this case, we have to
consider the two possible cases of element A possible failure occurrence and ele-
ment B possible failure occurrence. According to the model assumptions, during the
first inspection cycle every element may fail only once. Following this, there should
be estimated:
• costs offirst failure of the element A occurrence at the time moment x (0, Tin1) and
possible second failure of the element B occurrence in the time period (x, Tin1):
2
ZTin1 Z x
CrA B ðTin1 Þ ¼ cr
4 ghA ðuÞfhA ðx uÞdu
0 0
Zx ZTin1
þ ghA ðuÞfhA ðx uÞdu ghB ðuÞFhB ðTin1 uÞdu
0 x
ð5:43Þ
Zx Zx
þ ghA ðuÞfhA ðx uÞdu ghB ðuÞð1 FhB ðx uÞÞdu
0 0
TZ
3
in1 x
ghB ðuÞFhB ðTin1 x uÞdu5dx

0
In the given formulae, the first sum component represents the probability of the
element A failure at time moment x (0, Tin1), the second sum component repre-
sents the probability of the element B failure occurrence in the time period (x, Tin1)
without its preventive replacement at inspection at the time moment x (0, Tin1)
(fully up-stated at inspection). The last sum components determines the probability
of the element B failure occurrence in the time period (x, Tin1) when it was also
preventively replaced at inspection at the time moment x (0, Tin1) (partially
up-stated at inspection).
• costs of first failure of element B occurrence at the time moment x (0, Tin1) and
possible second failure of the element A occurrence in the time period (x, Tin1):
2
ZTin1 Z x
CrB A ðTin1 Þ ¼ cr
4 ghB ðuÞfhB ðx uÞdu
0 0
Zx ZTin1
þ ghB ðuÞfhB ðx uÞdu ghA ðuÞFhA ðTin1 uÞdu
0 x
ð5:44Þ
Zx Zx
þ ghB ðuÞfhB ðx uÞdu ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðx uÞÞdu
0 0
TZ
3
in1 x
ghA ðuÞFhA ðTin1 x uÞdu5dx

0
The second formulae represents the analogical case as for the CrA B ðTin1 Þ
function.
The second sum component in Eq. (5.42) represents the possible costs of pre-
ventive replacement of system elements in the time period (x, Tin1], and is expressed as:

CpAB ðTin1 Þ ¼ cp PpAB ð0; Tin1 Þ þ PpAB ðTin1 Þ ð5:45Þ
Equation (5.45) takes into account the probability of system elements preventive
replacement over the entire period between inspections (0, Tin1) [given by
Eq. (5.28)] and the probability of preventive replacement of system elements at Tin1
(given by Eq. (5.34)].
The last maintenance costs are connected with the inspection actions perfor-
mance during the first inspection cycle. These costs may be estimated as:
ZTin1

CinAB ðTin1 Þ ¼ cin þ cin pfA ð xÞ þ pfB ð xÞ dx ð5:46Þ
0
In the given equation, we have to sum up the probabilities of planned inspection

action occurrence at time moment Tin1 (equal to 1) and unplanned inspection
performed at the time moment x (0, Tin1) (connected with the element A or the
element B failure occurrence—first failure of the system).
time in the first scheduled inspection cycle may be estimated based on Eq. (5.20):
cðTini Þ
C ðTini Þ ¼ ; where Tini ¼ Tin1 ð5:47Þ
TM ðTini Þ
Based on the model assumptions, the expected length of the inspection cycle is
given as:
TM ðTin1 Þ ¼ Tin1 ð5:48Þ
A simulation model for the given modelling assumptions is presented in

work [5]. This model was also developed with the use of the GNU Octave software.
Moreover, the given analytical delay-time based inspection model is also extended
for the case of imperfect inspection performance.
The conducted analysis of the simulation model mostly regards to the investi-
gation whether the modelling assumptions are defined properly. The simulation
includes modelling of maintenance and operational processes of the two elements—
A and B with the parameters defined in Table 5.4. The assumed probability dis-
tribution function for the main two model’s variables is a Normal probability
distribution function (N). The tested range of probability pw is (0,1). The exemplary
obtained results are given in Figs. 5.25, 5.26, 5.27, and 5.28.
First, the analysis focuses on the assumption of only one system failure occur-
rence during the first inspection cycle performance. As we can see in Fig. 5.25, this
assumption is valid for all values of tested parameters and for both the elements.
Moreover, the elements failures are observable in the system, when the time period
Tin satisfies the following condition Tin E[ui].
Table 5.4 The modelled parameters for both the elements performing in the system
Notation An element A An element B
Gu(u) N(70,14) N(40,8)
Fh(h) N(30,6) N(30,6)
Fig. 5.25 The simulated average number of elements’ failures

Fig. 5.26 The simulated number of preventive maintenance actions that are performed
occasionally
Fig. 5.27 The simulated number of omitted replacements
When pw is equal to 1, the average number of element failures decreases because

of the higher probability of all defects proper identification. This effect is better
observable for the element A.
The number of preventive maintenance actions that are performed occasionally
during one of the elements failure in time moment x (Fig. 5.26) is constant and does
not depend on the probability pw till the value Tin ≅ E[ui] + dhi. After that value the
Fig. 5.28 The simulated probability of preventive replacement performed during inspection
action performance
obtained results are much dispersed. This effect is more visible for the element A,
where the average length initial time is relatively longer than for the element B.
Another interesting issue is the number of preventive replacements that will be
omitted due to imprecise inspection action performance. This number increases for
the lower values of probability pw and is more observable for the element A.
The last analysed results regard to the probability of preventive replacement
during the inspection actions performance (Fig. 5.28). For the element B, the
highest probability of “occasional” preventive replacement performance during the
inspection testing is obtained for the values Tin ≅ E[ui] + 2dhi and is independent of
the pw values.
The obtained results give some tips for determining the value of time period Tin
and indicate, when it is reasonable to implement the developed analytical DT model
in practice.

Performing in Parallel Reliability Structure
Now, there is analysed the parallel two-component system. For the modelling
purpose, the following assumptions (mostly compatible with assumptions given in
Sect. 5.3.1) are defined:
• the system is composed of two components (A and B) operating in a parallel

reliability structure, thus the system failure occurrence may result only from the
occurrence of failure of both the elements A and B,
• if only one component has failed, the failure will be found at the forthcoming
inspection and the corrective maintenance will be performed,
• components failures in the system come independently, which means that the
failure of one component does not affect the probability of failure occurrence to
the second operating component,
• the system failure is diagnosed immediately and the system is restored to the
“as-good-as-new” state,
• planned inspection actions of the system are performed at constant intervals of
time (Tin), determining consecutive and known time moments of inspections
tini= i * sTin for i = 1, 2, 3, …, ∞. These time moments do not depend on the
sequence of events that precede the system inspection action performance,
• at the system inspection time moments there are identified the existing symp-
toms of forthcoming failure for each of the system components and, if they exist,
the partially up-stated items are restored to the “as-good-as-new” state. The fully
up-stated element operates without any maintenance action performance,
• performed in the system inspection actions are perfect, which causes that
existing symptoms of forthcoming failure will all be identified,
• each maintenance action performance incurs costs: each failure of the system
elements entails a unit consequence costs cr, preventive actions performance
generates cp costs for every element replacement, and each inspection action
performance entails cost cin,
• inspection times and renewal times are negligible.
As in the previously presented models, the main decision variable is the time
period between successive system inspection actions performance Tin, while the
purpose of the developed model is to estimate the expected maintenance cost per
unit of system time. This model also can be used to evaluate and/or optimize the
various lengths of intervals between inspections for the given system.
Similarly to the model presented in Sect. 5.3.1, there is a necessity to analyse the
number of event variants that can occur from the time of system starting to operate
to the time of the first scheduled system’s inspection performance. Following the
defined assumptions, the model will be developed for the first inspection time
period of the system (until the first scheduled inspection action performance).
Moreover, the model is to be taken into account the possibility of one failure
occurrence during the inspection cycle—when both the components fail. During the
system failure, all the failed components are correctively replaced restoring the
system to the “as-good-as-new” state. Moreover, there is made an assumption that
when only one component fails during the inspection period—it remains undis-
covered till the moment of inspection action performance (then corrective main-
tenance will be performed). The preventive maintenance actions may be performed
only during the planned inspection for these components with defect state
identified.
Table 5.5 The possible scenarios of events occurrence in the parallel system for the analysed time
period (0, Tin1)
No. Time moment X (rime moment of the Time period (x – T in 1) Time moment T in 1
first failure occurrence in the system)
A B A/B A B
1.1 Elements A and B operate without any disruptive events performance during An element A is full up- An element B is fully up-
the time period (0–T in 1) stated stated
up-stated stated
1.3 An element A is full up- An element B is partially
stated up-stated
up-stated up-stated
1.5 Element A operates without any disruptive events performance during the An element A is fully up- An element B is failed
time period (0–T in 1), element B fails during the time period (0–T in 1) stated
1.6 An element A is partially An element B is failed
up-stated
1.7 Element B operates without any disruptive events performance during the An element A is failed An element B is fully up-
time period (0–T in 1), element A fails during the time period (0–T in 1) stated
l.8 An element A is failed An element B is partially
up-stated
2.1 Failure of an Failure of an Elements A and B operate without An element A is fully up- An element B is fully up-
element A element B failure in the time period (x – T in l) stated stated
up-stated stated
2.3 An element A is full up- An element B is partially
stated up-stated
up-stated up-stated
2.5 Element A operates without failure An element A is full up- An element B is failed
during the time period (0–T in 1). stated
element B fails during the time
2.6 period (0–T in 1) An element A is partially An element B is failed
up-stated
2.7 Element B operates without failure An element A is failed An element B is fully up-
during the time period (0–T in 1): stated
element A fails during the time
2.8 period (0–T in 1) An element A is failed An element B is partially
up-stated
For such the strong assumptions listed above, the event scenarios that may occur
in the system are shown in Table 5.5. The definitions of the terms “fully up-stated
element” and “partially up-stated element” are the same as for Table 5.3. Moreover,
the same way of determination of the occurrence of unit maintenance costs is used:
• events that do not generate costs (white fields),
• events generating the cost of unit preventive restoration cp (bright grey fields),
• events generating the highest cost - cost of failure consequences cr (dark grey
fields).
Based on this, there can be estimated the probabilities of system failure and
preventive replacement performance.
5.3.2.1 Probabilities of System Failure and Preventive Replacement
Following Table 5.5, there can be considered event scenarios, possible to occur in
the first inspection cycle. In that period of time (0, Tin1) there is a possibility that:
• the system will operate without any disruptions occurrence (failures) till the
moment of the scheduled first inspection action performance ((0, Tin1) time
period):
The probability of such event occurrence may be estimated based on the
probability distribution function of time to failures calculated for a parallel system.
As a result, the probability that the system operates without failure till the moment
of scheduled inspection action performance may be estimated as:
ZTin1 ZTin1
RAB ðTin1 Þ ¼ 1 ghA ðuÞFhA ðTin1 uÞdu ghB ðuÞFhB ðTin1 uÞdu ð5:49Þ
0 0
• the system fails at the time moment x 2 (0, Tin1), and this failure will result
from both the elements A and B failures occurrence:
According to the defined system reliability function, described in Eq. (5.49), we
may directly determine the probability of system failure during the considered time
period. For the purpose of maintenance costs model estimation for the analysed
system, it is necessary to determine the probability of both the components failures
occurrence. These events generate the consequence costs. Following this, the
probability of system failure at the time moment x is estimated as:
Zx Zx
pfAB ð xÞ ¼ ghA ðuÞfhA ðx uÞdu ghB ðuÞfhB ðx uÞdu ð5:50Þ
0 0
To determine the probability of system elements corrective replacement over the

entire period between inspections (0, Tin1), the probability function given in
Eq. (5.50) should be modified:
ZTin1
PfAB ð0; Tin1 Þ ¼ pfAB ð xÞdx ð5:51Þ
0
Due to the given assumptions (parallel reliability structure), both the failed
elements are correctively replaced at the time moment x. Moreover, there is no
possibility of second system failure occurrence during the first inspection cycle and
there is no additional preventive maintenance actions performance during the time
period (x, Tin1). Thus, the full description of possible scenarios 2.1–2.8 occurrence
(Table 5.5) from the maintenance cost modelling point of view requires an estimate
of the events that may occur at the time moment of the planned inspection
action (Tin1).
Based on the previously developed and presented analytical delay-time-based
maintenance models for technical systems (see e.g. [6, 8, 12] and Sect. 5.3.1), at the
moment of inspection action performance Tin1, it is necessary to consider the
probabilities resulting from the appearance of:
• system failure,
• inspection actions performance,
• the necessity for performance of preventive maintenance of elements in the
system.
The first two of the above three possibilities can be easily estimated. The
probability of system failure has been already presented in Eqs. (5.50) and (5.51).
Taking into account the assumption that the inspections are performed at pre-
determined and fixed time moments, regardless of performed in the past system
maintenance activities (CM), the probability of inspection action performance at the
time Tin1 is equal to 1. Following this, the last event, whose occurrence probability
at time moment Tin1 should be described is the need for system elements preventive
maintenance performance.
In order to estimate the probability of occurrence of the scenarios 2.1–2.8
(Table 5.5), it is necessary to determine the probability of preventive replacement
of system elements at Tin1, which can also be estimated as the sum of the proba-
bilities resulting from the occurrence possibility of four scenarios:
PpAB ðTin1 Þ ¼ Pp1 ðTin1 Þ þ Pp2 ðTin1 Þ þ Pp3 ðTin1 Þ þ Pp4 ðTin1 Þ ð5:52Þ
where:
• the 1st scenario—there was no failure occurrence in the system during time
period (0, Tin1), and at time moment Tin1 each of the system elements may show
2T
Z in1
Pp1 ðTin1 Þ ¼ RAB ðTin1 Þ 4 ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 uÞÞdu
0
3 ð5:53Þ
ZTin1
0
where the reliability function RAB ðTin1 Þ is given by Eq. (5.49).

• the 2nd scenario—the system has failed due to the both elements failure
occurrence in the time period (0, Tin1), thus the elements have been correctively
replaced at time moment x, and at time moment Tin1 each of them may show
2 T x
Zin1
Pp2 ðTin1 Þ ¼ PfAB ð0; Tin1 Þ 4 ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 x uÞÞdu
0
ð5:54Þ
TZ
in1 x
þ ghB ðuÞð1 FhB ðTin1 x uÞÞdu

0
• the 3rd scenario—one of the element (e.g. B) has failed while the second
element (e.g. A) remains up-stated in the time period (0, Tin1), and at time
moment Tin1 element A shows symptoms of forthcoming failure. The probability
of occurrence of such scenario may be estimated as:
2 3
ZTin1 ZTin1
Pp3 A ðTin1 Þ ¼ 4pfB ð xÞ ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 uÞÞdu5dx
0 0
2 3
ZTin1 Z x ZTin1
¼ 4 ghB ðuÞfhB ðx uÞdu ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 uÞÞdu5dx
0 0 0
ð5:55Þ
• the 4th scenario—the system has failed due to both the elements failure
occurrence at the time moment x (0, Tin1), thus the elements have been cor-
rectively replaced at time moment x, and during the time period (x, Tin1) one of
the element (e.g. B) has failed and the second element (e.g. A) remains
up-stated. During inspection performance at time moment Tin1 element A shows
2
ZTin1 TZ
in1 x
Pp4 A ðTin1 Þ ¼ 4pfAB ð xÞ ghB ðuÞFhB ðTin1 x uÞdu

0 0
3 ð5:56Þ
TZ
in1 x
ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 x uÞÞdu5dx

0
Where the probability function pfAB ð xÞ is given by Eq. (5.50).

In order to estimate the possibilities of occurrence of the third and fourth sce-
narios, the estimated functions Pp3_A(Tin1) and Pp4_A(Tin1), given in Eqs. (5.55–
5.56), should be doubled for the analogical cases, when the element A is failed and
the element B may show some symptoms of forthcoming failure. Following this, we
obtain:

ð5:57Þ
As in the previous Sections, the presented analytical formulae may be also the
basis for the estimation of probability of occurrence of different scenarios presented
in Table 5.4. For example, we may estimate:
2 3
ZTin1
P1 5 ðTin1 Þ ¼ RAB ðTin1 Þ 4ð1 GhA ðTin1 ÞÞ þ ghB ðuÞfhB ðTin1 uÞdu5
0
ð5:58Þ

2T
Z in1
P16 ðTin1 Þ ¼ RAB ðTin1 Þ 4 ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 uÞÞdu
0
3 ð5:59Þ
ZTin1
þ ghB ðuÞfhB ðTin1 uÞdu5
0
P2 1 ðTin1 Þ ¼ PfAB ð0; Tin1 Þ

20 TZ
1 0 TZ
13
in1 x in1 x
4 @1 ghA ðuÞduA þ @1 ghB ðuÞduA5 ð5:60Þ

0 0

2 T x
Zin1
P2 2 ðTin1 Þ ¼ PfAB ð0; Tin1 Þ 4 ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 x uÞÞdu
0
0 1 ð5:61Þ
TZ
in1 x
þ @1 ghB ðuÞduA
0

2 T x
Zin1
P2 5 ðTin1 Þ ¼ PfAB ð0; Tin1 Þ 4 ghA ðuÞdu
0
3 ð5:62Þ
TZ
in1 x
þ ghB ðuÞfhB ðTin1 x uÞdu5

0

2 T x
Zin1
P2 6 ðTin1 Þ ¼ PfAB ð0; Tin1 Þ 4 ghA ðuÞð1 FhA ðTin1 x uÞÞdu
0
ð5:63Þ
TZ
in1 x
þ ghB ðuÞfhB ðTin1 x uÞdu

0
Definition of functions of system failure and preventive replacements proba-

bilities gives the possibility to estimate the expected maintenance costs in the first
inspection cycle for two-element parallel systems performance.
5.3.2.2 Expected Maintenance Costs Model
For the maintenance scenarios given in Table 5.5, the expected maintenance costs
of the two-element system in the first inspection cycle are defined as:
cðTin1 Þ ¼ CrAB ðTin1 Þ þ cp PpAB ðTin1 Þ þ cin ð5:64Þ
and inspection costs per a single (first) inspection period.
Following the modelling assumptions, the probability of inspection action per-

formance at time Tin1 is equal to 1, thus the inspection costs entails unit inspection
cost cin. The preventive replacement costs are connected only with maintenance
actions performed at time Tin1 and are expressed by the unit preventive replacement
cost multiplied by the probability function given by Eq. (5.52).
As a result, only the system failure costs need to be determined. Based on the
modelling assumptions, the expected failure costs in the first inspection cycle may
be expressed as:
ZTin1

CrAB ðTin1 Þ ¼ 2cr PfAB ð0; Tin1 Þ þ cr 1 pfAB ð xÞ pfA ð xÞ þ pfB ð xÞ dx
0
2 0 T x
ZTin1 Zin1
þ cr 4pfAB ð xÞ @ ghA ðuÞFhA ðTin1 x uÞdu
0 0
TZ
3
in1 x
þ ghB ðuÞFhB ðTin1 x uÞduÞ5dx

0
ð5:65Þ
In the given equation the first component of the sum is connected with the
corrective replacement costs due to the system failure occurrence at the time
moment x (0, Tin1) (failure of both the components). The second sum component
is connected with the necessity of corrective replacement performance at time Tin1
that results from the possible failure of one of the working components during the
first inspection cycle (when there was no system failure occurred during that
inspection cycle). Following the assumptions, when only one working component
fails during the inspection cycle its failure remain undiscovered until the inspection
action performance. When such the failure is diagnosed, the corrective maintenance
of the failed component is done what increase the maintenance costs.
The last component of the sum given in Eq. (5.64) is connected with corrective
maintenance action performance during the inspection (at time Tin1), when system
failure occurred at the time moment x (0, Tin1). Following this, during the system
failure at the time moment x, both the failed components are replaced and system is
restored to the “as-good-as-new” state. Later, in the time period (x, Tin1) one of the
components may fail again what will be identified during the inspection action
performance. Again, such the positive diagnosis results in increasing the mainte-
nance costs in the first inspection cycle.
time in the first scheduled inspection cycle may be estimated with the use of
Eqs. (5.47) and (5.48) presented in Sect. 5.3.1.
5.4 Convergence of a Chosen Analytical Model

with Developed Simulation Models
The developed analytical models give the possibility to optimize the inspection
cycle length Tin1. The optimization process was performed with the use of simu-
lation modelling based on the GNU Octave program use. However, first the con-
vergence of the simulation and analytical models needs further investigations.
As an example, in this Section the author presents the analysis of the chosen
maintenance model developed in Sect. 5.2 in order to provide the results for various
system reliability structures.
The developed analytical model is investigated in order to present its convergence
to the simulation models, presented in Sect. 5.1 and in works [10, 11, 15]. The
analysis is conducted with the use of Monte Carlo simulation for system operation,
inspection and maintenance that are performed in the first inspection cycle
(Tini= Tin1). This gives the possibility to satisfy the assumption that all the working
elements are “as good as new” at the beginning of the inspection cycle. The author
focuses on the general case for systems in an nk-out-of-n reliability structure. The
preliminary results for series and parallel systems are presented in [12].
Table 5.6 presents system parameters assumed in the performed simulation
analysis.
The cost results for the chosen case of the nk-out-of-n system are presented in
Figs. 5.29, 5.30, 5.31, and 5.32. The costs are presented in the function of the
length of inspection period (Tin).
Figures 5.29, 5.30, 5.31, and 5.32 confirm the strong convergence of simulation
and analytical results of the presented maintenance model. The greatest divergence
is observable, when an inspection period becomes longer than the mean time to
failure of system components (Tin > 110) and is a result of almost zero reliability
level of the system. Both the models, simulation and analytical one yield the same
results, what may be the foundation to confirm their correctness.
Table 5.6 The modelled Notation Value

system’s parameters chosen
for the conducted nk out of n 2 out of 3
convergence analysis cp 5
cin 1
cr 100

Gu(u) u 3:5
Gu ðuÞ ¼ 1 exp 75

Fh(h) h 3:5
Fh ðhÞ ¼ 1 exp 35
5.4 Convergence of a Chosen Analytical Model with Developed Simulation Models 255
Fig. 5.29 The simulated

expected maintenance costs of
2-out-of-3 system in a single
inspection cycle [15]
Fig. 5.30 The expected

maintenance costs of
2-out-of-3 system in a single
inspection cycle obtained
analytically [15]
Fig. 5.31 The simulated

costs of a system failure (CF),
elements’ replacement
(CE) cost and inspection costs
(CI) in 2-out-of-3 system per
a single inspection cycle [15]
Fig. 5.32 The costs of a

system failure (CF), elements’
replacement (CE) cost and
inspection costs (CI) in
2-out-of-3 system per a single
inspection cycle obtained
analytically [15]
5.5 The Use of a Chosen DT Model to Determine the Best

Inspection Time Interval
The presented in Sects. 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 DT model may be used to support the
process of searching for the best length of inspection period Tin for given reliability
features of the system. In the single-element case, its desired value may be found
directly by numerical calculations of the model for a range of possible Tin.
However, in the case of the multi-element system, model results are not so obvious
due to model limitations. Thus, in this Section some cost results for the nk-out-of-
n system are shown and there are given some guidelines for the best length of time
period Tin estimation. The detailed analysis is also presented in works [11, 15].
The best length of an inspection period Tin depends on the costs coming from
inspection actions performance and possible preventive and corrective replacements
of system components. To illustrate the difference in relation of these costs for
parallel (1-out-of-3) and series (3-out-of-3) systems Fig. 5.33 is presented.
Figure 5.34 depicts the total expected maintenance costs per unit time (being a sum
of the foregoing) for the both analysed systems.
The total cost CT(Tin) for the assumed systems performance parameters depends
mostly on the failures and replacement costs. The minimum cost for the both
analysed cases is located in the neighbourhood of Tin = 20–25, where the expected
failure and the replacement cost are low (Fig. 5.33). The location of the optimum
Tin is the effect of model limitation regarding the fact that it takes into consideration
the single inspection cycle. However, if there is considered the long time horizon,
one should use the greatest benefit of the Block Inspection policy—the possibility
to replace system elements when they reveal defect symptoms and the system is still
up-state. Thus, the author uses the cost model for the single inspection period to
calculate Kin coefficient and, on its base, to determine the best inspection interval
for the long time horizon as follows:
5.5 The Use of a Chosen DT Model to Determine the Best Inspection Time Interval 257
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
Cr, Cp, Cin
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
10.00 30.00 50.00 70.00 90.00 110.00 130.00
-0.20
Tin
Cr_p Cp_p Cin_p Cr_s Cp_s Cin_s
Fig. 5.33 The expected costs Cr, Cp, Cin of 1-out-of-3 (“p” index) and 3-out-of-3 (“s” index)
system per unit of its up-time (cr = 100, cp = 5, cin = 1)
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
C
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
10.00 30.00 50.00 70.00 90.00 110.00 130.00
Tin C_p C_s
Fig. 5.34 The total expected cost CT(Tin) (“C” index) for 1-out-of-3 (“p” index) and 3-out-of-3
(“s” index) system per unit of its up-time (cr = 100, cp = 5, cin = 1)
Kin ¼ Cr Cf ð5:66Þ
The coefficient indicates the period Tin for which the probability of a system
failure is still low whereas probability of elements’ preventive replacement is high.
Thus, if a system works in the long time horizon such inspection period seems to be
the most reasonable choice. The graph of the Kin coefficient for the both analysed
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
Kin
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
10.00 30.00 50.00 70.00 90.00 110.00 130.00
Tin Kin_p Kin_s
Fig. 5.35 The Kin coefficient for 1-out-of-3 (“p” index) and 3-out-of-3 (“s” index) systems
systems is shown in Fig. 5.35. The presented results clearly indicate that inspection
actions in the series system should be performed much more often than in the
system with parallel reliability structure.
5.6 Concluding Remarks
The main target of the developed Chapter was to provide the synthetic approach to
the results on BI policy research, which gives the possibility to define guidelines for
determining its use and answers the questions:
• When to use the BIP policy?
• How to choose the optimal period Tin?
Following this, in this Chapter the author studies the delay-time based mainte-
nance models for multi-unit technical systems performing in various reliability
structures (series, parallel, and nk-out-of-n types) for the two cases of perfect and
imperfect inspection performance.
The Chapter proposes several cost function models for a periodically inspected
unrepairable system under different assumptions. It considers block-based inspec-
tion policies under assumptions of corrective replacement after a failure and pre-
ventive replacement at each inspection (planned and unplanned) performance. The
two-unit cost model in Sect. 5.3.2 also assumes that single failures of system
elements (that do not cause system failure) are only detected at regular inspection
performance and corrected accordingly. The developed analytical models bases on
the renewal theory use. The process of searching the best length of inspection cycle
Tin bases on the simulation modelling use.
5.6 Concluding Remarks 259
The simulation models are also developed for availability optimization criteria.
The obtained results present different optimum periods between inspections for the
nk-out-of-n system, dependently on the nk value. When the system is liable to every
component failures (3-out-of- 3), it should be inspected much more often than
systems being more resistant for elements’ unreliability (nk < 3). These results are
confirmed for both the optimization criteria.
The obtained analysis results indicate that the cost-effectiveness of maintenance
policy implementation depends on the lengths of Tin time period and delay time
period h. Taking into account these facts together and earlier performed analyses,
there can be stated some main conclusions that:
• the best results of the BI maintenance policy may be achieved when the period
between inspections Tin is shorter than the system elements’ MTTF and their
mean delay time h,
• the corrective maintenance policy is the worst of all the analysed policies given
in this Chapter (and basing on the defined assumptions),
• cost results of the BP policy obtained in the research are better than BI effects
(or mostly the same) for every tested case of inspection precision. Such a
situation happens because preventive replacement of all system elements
ensures the lowest consequence cost, which is the dominant cost component.
Another relation of new element and system failure costs may make the BI
policy more profitable in comparison to the BP policy,
• the optimal periods between inspections Tin is a function of MTOS that should
be precisely estimated in order to provide a high cost-effectiveness of the used
BI policy.
The next problem is connected with the possibility to obtain some rules for
definition of the principal relations between the system performance under given
PM policy with perfect/imperfect maintenance and chosen PM policy parameters.
This is one of the main areas of the author’s interest in Chap. 6.
References
1. Babishin V, Taghipour S (2016) Joint optimal maintenance and inspection for a k-out-of-n
system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 87(5):1739–1749. https://doi.org/10.1109/RAMS.2016.
7448039
2. Blischke WR, Prabhakar Murthy DN (2000) Reliability: modelling, prediction and
optimization. Willey, New York
3. Eryilmaz S (2010) Review of recent advances in reliability of consecutive k-out-of-n and
related systems. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part O J Risk Reliab 224(3):225–237. https://doi.org/10.
1243/1748006XJRR332
4. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Nowakowski T, Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2013) Block inspection
policy model with imperfect inspections for multi-unit systems. Reliab Theory Appl 8(3):75–
86. http://gnedenko-forum.org/Journal/2013/032013/RTA_3_2013-08.pdf
5. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2018) Delay-time based inspection

model with imperfect inspection for technical system. In: Proceedings of the XLVI winter
school on reliability 2018, Szczyrk, 7–13 Jan 2018, Poland, 1–26
6. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2016) Influence of data uncertainty on
DepCoS-RELCOMEX, June 27–July 1, 2016, Brunów, Poland: Springer International
Publishing, 239–256
7. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2015) Availability model of technical
objects—block inspection policy implementation. In: Safety and reliability: methodology and
applications: proceedings of the European safety and reliability conference, ESREL 2014,
Wroclaw, Poland, 14–18 Sept 2014. CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, 1275–1280
8. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2015b) A guide for Block Inspection
Policy implementation. In: Safety and reliability: methodology and applications: proc. of the
European safety and reliability conference, ESREL 2014, Wrocław, Poland, 14–18 Sept 2014.
CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, 1263–1273
9. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Expected maintenance costs
probabilistic safety assessment and management, PSAM 12: Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 22–27
June 2014, 1–8. http://psam12.org/proceedings/paper/paper_572_1.pdf
10. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Analysis of maintenance models’
parameters estimation for technical systems with delay time. Eksploat Niezawod (Maint
Reliab) 16(2):288–294
11. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2014b) Block inspection policy for
non-series technical objects. In: Safety, reliability and risk analysis: beyond the horizon:
proceedings of the European safety and reliability conference, ESREL 2013, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 29 Sept–2 Oct 2013. CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, 889–898
12. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Model of expected maintenance
costs for multi-unit technical objects with time delay. In: Siergiejczyk M (ed) Maintenance
problems of technical systems (in Polish). Warsaw University of Technology Publish, House,
Warsaw, pp 79–92
13. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2012) A delay-time model with
imperfect inspections for multi-unit systems. J Konbin 3(23):157–172
14. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2012b) Economical effectiveness of
European safety and reliability conference, PSAM 11 & ESREL 2012, Helsinki, Finland, 25–
29 June 2012, 1–10
15. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A. Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2012c) Analysis of Block-Inspection
Policy parameters from economical and availability point of view. In: Proceedings of 11th
European safety and reliability conference, PSAM 11 & ESREL 2012, Helsinki, Finland, 25–
29 June 2012, 1–10
16. Liu X, Wang W, Peng R (2015) An integrated production and delay-time based preventive
maintenance planning model for a multi-product production system. Eksploat Niezawod
(Maint Reliab) 17(2):215–221
17. Marsaro MF, Cavalcante CAV (2017) Random preventive maintenance policy based on
inspection for a multicomponent system using simulation. Eksploat Niezawod (Maint Reliab)
19(4):552–559
References 261
Francis, Leiden, 289–296
20. Nicolai RP, Dekker R (2006) Optimal maintenance of multicomponent systems: a review.
Economic Institute Report
21. Rezaei E (2017) A new model for the optimization of periodic inspection intervals with failure
interaction: a case study for a turbine rotor. Case Stud Eng Fail Anal 9:148–156. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.csefa.2015.10.001
22. Wang W, Liu X, Peng R, Guo L (2013) A delay-time-based inspection model for a
two-component parallel system. In: Proceedings of 2013 international conference on quality,
reliability, risk, maintenance, and safety engineering, (QR2MSE), 15–18 July 2013, Chengdu,
China
23. Wang W, Scarf PA, Smith MAJ (2000) On the application of a model of condition-based
maintenance. J Oper Res Soc 51(11):1218–1227. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.
2601042
24. Yuchomboom Y, Thepmanee T (2016) Inspection maintenance improvement for reducing
common cause failures of k-out-of-n configurations: a case study of power plant. In:
Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/SICE international symposium on system integration, Sapporo
Convention Center, Dec 13–15, 2016, Sapporo, Japan, 81–86
Chapter 6
Delay Time Models
Implementation Issues
Abstract This chapter is focused on a problem of developed maintenance models

implementation for real-life technical systems implementation. First, there are
investigated the issues of models’ parameters estimation process and its uncertainty.
The conducted analysis bases on simulation modelling use and is focused on eco-
nomic and reliability consequences of improper selection/estimation of modelling
parameters. Later, the research analysis focused on analytical delay-time models
(given in Sect. 5.2) and regards to, among others, definition of simple decision rules
for the best inspection period determining. In the next section the author presents a
simple methodology of applying delay-time analysis to a maintenance and inspec-
tion department. The defined algorithm is aimed at estimation of optimal inspection
interval basing on the DT models developed in Chap. 5 and results obtained from the
modelling parameters estimation analysis. Finally, two case studies are proposed to
investigate the optimal inspection interval for two-unit systems performing in series
and parallel structures. The models used to analyse the given systems are based on
the results of Chap. 5 and Sect. 6.2. The first example regards to engine equipment
maintenance (v-ribbed belt with belt tensioner), the second example presents the
maintenance of left and right steering dumpers that are used in wheel loaders. In
order to obtain the optimal inspection interval the author focuses on cost optimi-
sation. The third example regards to the problem of maintenance policy selection
based on the available operational and maintenance data from a company.
6.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the author investigates a problem of delay-time based maintenance

models implementation for real-life technical systems performance.
The identification of the best maintenance strategy and its parameters for real-life
systems is a complex problem. On the one side, there is a problem to define if and
what kind of signal of forthcoming failure may occur. On the other, some signals
about system defects cannot strictly indicate what kind of problem occur in the
system [12].

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10788-8_6
264 6 Delay Time Models Implementation Issues
For example, squealing of a vehicle belt during its operation process perfor-
mance indicates the need for its preventive replacement. However, the occurred
noise during operation processes performance of construction machines (e.g. wheel
loader) will only indicate a problem in a drive system, which may regard to e.g.
differential problems or transmission problems (e.g. propeller shaft).
Another good example is connected with self-lowering of lifting framework in
construction equipment. Occurrence of such a failure symptom may be connected
with e.g. a failure of one of hydraulic cylinders that work in parallel, internal
leakage occurrence, or a failure of main control valve. Moreover, the failure of main
control valve may be connected e.g. with a failure of shock valve, a failure of pilot
valve, or a failure of load holding valve. On the one hand, the procedure for
searching the exact cause of the failure bases on the use of failure potential causes
elimination method. On the other, if such the situation occurs and a serviceman fills
in service documentation providing only information on the hydraulic system
failure without indicating the exact cause, it is difficult to plan the future mainte-
nance operation of the given machine in a correct manner.
Moreover, one of examples, which serves to illustrate difficulty and complexity
of proper maintenance action definition my regard to a problem that occurred
during operational processes performance of a loader, which worked at different
surfaces. In the analysed case, at a speed of 17.5 km per hour, the construction
machine fall in resonance which even make its correct operation impossible. After a
long search for a cause of the problem (e.g. assessment of a potential damage to the
front axle and rear), it turned out that the tires have been wrongly selected what
caused such problems.
Taking one step further, preventive maintenance policy selection (e.g. Block
Replacement Policy) may be complicated and determined e.g. by changeable
working conditions. An example here would be the replacement of teeth in a
loader’s bucket. The time between successive replacements will depend on the class
of abrasion of excavated materials.
A maintenance inspections and preventive operations plan may be also deter-
mined by internal causes connected with operators’ procedures and working
requirements. One of good examples here is the use of biodegradable hydraulic oils
instead of mineral oils because of internal requirements defined by an operator who
bought and used a wheel loader. Because the operator was obligated to use the
biodegradable hydraulic oils for this concrete construction machine (due to financial
support provided by EU), it occurred that this wheel loader had lower dependability
characteristics than others construction machines of this type operated by this
owner. Based on the operation and maintenance data of the operator’s machines
fleet, it occurred that this wheel loader’s hydraulic system needed more frequent
maintenance actions performance connected with hydraulic oil and hydraulic oil
filters changing. Moreover, when using the biodegradable mineral oil, the necessity
to keep the technological requirements during maintenance actions performance
was higher.
Moreover, the proper maintenance strategy parameters are also dependent on a
human factor. A good example here may be a process of greasing of upper frame
joint bearing in a construction equipment (e.g. in wheel loaders, excavators). In

construction machines that are not equipped with an automatic lubrication system, a
producer defines time moments for this maintenance action performance (e.g.
maintain after every 50/250/500/1000 working hours) and indicates lubrication
points (e.g. a grease should be delivered between sleeves and pins). The problem
occurs, when operators do not follow producers’ instructions. In this situation
bearings wear out prematurely (signals that may indicate this problem are connected
with noise, plays, and creaks during operation process performance). If an operator
ignores this problem, then for example a pin may break. The automatic lubrication
system eliminates the human factor providing automatic greasing of the main points
in a working machine. The operator is only obligated to refill a grease tank.
Another problem is that some inspection (diagnostic) actions may be performed
only during planned maintenance actions performance. A good example here is a
planned replacement of engine oil in construction machines. During this mainte-
nance operation performance, one can use a sample of used oil and examine it for
the content of metallic elements. The increased level of their content may attest to
the usage of certain engine system components, such as wear out of cylinders,
piston rings or bearings.
Additionally, there is also possible continuous control of some signals which
indicate for defects. The example here may be the control process of temperature or
pressure of engine oil, transmission oil or axles’ oil. This control allows for ongoing
assessment if there appears in the system too high friction or leakage.
The given examples indicate the need for research work in the area of mainte-
nance decision process support tools development and definition of methods of
maintenance strategy and its parameters selection.
Following the above considerations, the main problem being addressed in this
chapter is reliable maintenance data gathering in order to use them in modelling and
optimization processes performance. As a result, there is a necessity to consider two
main problems—models’ parameters estimation possibilities and, indeed, proper
maintenance decision making performance.
Thus, in Sect. 6.2 the author discusses the issues of DT models parameters
estimation process. Later, there are investigated the issues of maintenance decision
making process in the area of maintenance strategy selection and DTMs imple-
mentation. Section 6.4 presents two case studies for two-unit systems performing in
series and parallel structures. The research analysis is focused on optimal inspection
interval estimation based on cost optimisation. The used models are based on the
results of Chap. 5 and Sect. 6.2.
The third example regards to the problem of maintenance policy selection based
on the available operational and maintenance data from a company.
6.2 Models’ Parameters Estimation Process
The effective implementation of the developed delay-time models depends upon an

estimation process of its parameters from available information sources. This
problem is connected with the necessity to obtain some reliable information
about [30]:
• failure times and repair times,
• rate of defects occurrence at time u,
• cumulative probability function of delay time h, and
• probability of defects identified at PM.
In general, there is no possibility to measure directly neither the delay time
associated with a defect, nor the initial point u. There can be proven a possibility to
estimate the delay time for a set of specific faults and failures, and from this deduce
the location of the initial point and estimate the delay-time and initial-point dis-
tributions [5]. The complexity of analysed problem is confirmed by many previous
studies that have paid attention to the issues of parameter estimation in delay-time
modelling (e.g. investigated by the author in Chap. 4).
The problem of DT model’s parameters estimation is analysed by the author for
the first time in work [16]. The main investigated issues regard to:
• economic and reliability consequences that should be taken into account for a
maintained system if only selected parameters of delay time will be possible to
estimate in practice,
• necessary delay time parameters estimation accuracy allowing selection of the
correct time between inspection actions performance in a multi-component
system.
The conducted analysis bases on the simulation modelling use and was per-
formed based on the simulation delay-time models being discussed in Sect. 5.1.
The analysis involves observation of the impact of expected values of the variable
h and the forms of three selected probability distributions (Weibull, Normal,
Uniform) of this random variable on the performance level of a multi-element
technical system in an “nk-out-of-n” reliability structure.
The list and basic values of tested system parameters, which were used in the
performed analysis, are mostly compatible with the ones given in Table 5.1. Thus, a
list of supplementary parameters with defined probability distribution functions is
presented in Table 6.1.
The carried out analysis results for economic and availability criteria are very
similar regardless of the type of the probability distribution of the variable h for all
the investigated cases (for all the probability distribution functions) [16]. It occurs
that both parameters: the time between maintenance action performance (Tin) and
the expected value of time delay (E[h]) have a significant impact on the level of
expected maintenance costs. However, obtained results rather do not depend on the
type of the probability distribution of the variable h.
6.2 Models’ Parameters Estimation Process 267
Table 6.1 The probability Notation Probability distribution functions

distribution functions for the
modelled system’s parameters F(t) FðtÞ ¼ 1 exp 100 t 3:5

Gr(t) Gr ðtÞ ¼ 1 exp 100 t 2:3

Gp(t) Gp ðtÞ ¼ 1 exp 10t
2:3
ah
fh(t) fh ðtÞ ¼ baah tah 1 exp bt
h
1
; if a t b
fh ðtÞ ¼ ba
0; if t a or b t

fh ðtÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi
1 ffi 2
2pr
exp tl
2r2
Moreover, in order to confirm that the type of the probability distribution of the
random variable h has no significant effect on the obtained economical results of
BIP use, the relationship described by Eq. (5.1) was analysed more deeply [16].
The research analysis carried out in [16] gives the possibility do define the
following conclusions:
• the main parameter that must be estimated as accurately as it is possible, based
on the available statistical data, is the expected duration of the delay time,
• the knowledge about the form of probability distribution of random variable h is
important only from the point of view of its dispersion and need not be esti-
mated on the basis of statistical data,
• when there is a possibility to estimate the dispersion of random variable h re-
sults, it should be assessed to properly define the time between inspections Tin.
Presented in [16] analyses’ results provide the conclusion that optimum time
between inspections (Tin) does not depend on the form of the element’s delay time
probability distribution. The optimal Tin seems to be determined mainly by the
expected delay time. This thesis may be additionally investigated by the delay time
dispersion testing. In order to find out if the same dispersion of the delay time for
various probability distributions gives similar costs and availability results,
parameters of every distribution were changed and thus dispersion was modified
similarly for all the distributions, while the expected delay time remained constant.
Figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 present chosen results of the analysed
probability distributions of the delay time for various values of Tin period and
obtained standard deviations of the delay time (dh). Consequently, all results are
presented for the two extreme cases of the nk-out-of-n system reliability structure:
the 1-out-of-3 (parallel—bright crosses) and the 3-out-of-3 (series structure—dark
crosses).
The tested range of the standard deviations obtained from the simulation sample
proved that cost and availability results are very similar for the same value standard
deviation dh of the delay time, independently on the distribution form. The same
results were obtained for Weibull probability distribution of the delay time h that is
Fig. 6.1 The expected cost

of the BI maintenance policy
CT(Tin) for various values of
the standard deviations of the
delay time (dh) assuming
normal distribution of delay
time

ratio (A) obtained for various
values of the standard
deviations of the delay time
(dh) assuming normal
distribution of delay time

of the BI maintenance policy
the standard deviations of the
delay time (dh) obtained by
modification of uniform
distribution parameters

ratio (A) obtained for various
values of the standard
deviations of the delay time
(dh) obtained by modification
of uniform distribution
parameters

of BI maintenance policy
CT(Tin) obtained for the
various parameters of Weibull
distribution of the variable h
causing different dispersion of
the variable (dh—standard
deviations of the delay time)

ratio (A) obtained for the
various parameters of Weibull
distribution of the variable h
causing different dispersion of
the variable (dh—standard
deviations of the delay time)
why the author resigned from its presentation. The implication of research results
confirms previously obtained outcomes and allows concluding that detailed infor-
mation about the form of probability distribution of the delay time has no significant
meaning from practical point of view.
Another effect observable in Figs. 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 is the similar
growth of expected cost and drop of availability ratio for higher values of the
standard deviation dh. Independently on the form of probability distribution of the
variable h, when the delay time is less predictable (bigger value dh) the profitable
period between inspections Tin should become shorter. Thus one may conclude that
the value of expected delay time is not sufficient to search the best period Tin for a
given system. The fact has been the ground of the following research that assessed
the dependency between the best period Tin and delay time dispersion. For this
reason all simulation results, coming from delay time dispersion tests, were anal-
ysed due to the optimal period between inspection Tin from the cost and the
availability point of views. The results are presented in Figs. 6.7 and 6.8. The
figures show the period between inspections Tin that was found as the cheapest
(Fig. 6.8) and the highest availability ratio (Fig. 6.17) solution for given parameters
of the delay time probability distribution in the series and parallel structured system.
Moreover, in the second step the same range of standard deviations was tested for
few expected delay times (E[h] = 20, 35, 50, 65), assuming normal distribution of
the variable h. The selected results are presented in Figs. 6.9, 6.10, 6.11 and 6.12
and in Appendix C.
Fig. 6.7 The 70

availability-optimal period Tin
60
for various values of standard
deviations dh of simulation 50
sample of delay times h in 40
Tin
series and parallel systems
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
δh
W_A_series N_A_series U_A_series
W_A_par N_A_par U_A_par
Fig. 6.8 The cost-optimal 60

period Tin for various values
of standard deviations dh of 50
simulation sample of delay 40
times h in series and parallel
systems 30
Tin
20
10
0
0 5 10 δh 15 20
W_K_series N_K_series U_K_series
W_K_par N_K_par U_K_par
Fig. 6.9 The 40

availability-optimal period Tin 35
for various values of variation 30 y = -39.507x + 30.541
coefficient v = dh/E[h] of R² = 0.6232
25
simulation delay times sample
Tin
in a series system 20
15
10
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
δh/E[h]
The results show that the optimum period between inspections Tin does not
depend on an absolute value of the standard deviation of the delay time (Figs. 6.7,
6.8), but rather on its variation coefficient (Figs. 6.9, 6.10). Nevertheless in order to
estimate optimal value of Tin, both parameters should be known. When dispersion
of delay times rises in the relation to the expected value, the best found simulated
period Tin decreases. Searching other, stronger relationships between the optimum
value of Tin and delay time dispersion gave the results presented in Figs. 6.11 and

period Tin for various values y = -18.697x + 16.053
of variation coefficient v = dh/ R² = 0.6385
20
E[h] of simulation delay times
sample in a series system 15
Tin
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
δh/E[h]

period Tin for various values
of 3-out-of-3 system MTOS 20
15
Tin
10
y = 0.2237x + 3.0049
5
R² = 0.5209
0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
MTBF-0*δh
Fig. 6.12 The 40

availability-optimal period Tin 35
for various values of
30
3-out-of-3 system MTOS
25
Tin
20
15
y = 0.5992x - 1.399
10
R² = 0.8172
5
0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
MTBF-0*δh
6.12. They depict cost- and availability-optimum Tin, obtained during simulation, as
a function of the expected delay time of the series system (MTOS). The MTOS is
the expected length of the period when signals of defects are observable in all
system components before a system failure (failure of any components). The MTOS
strongly depends on the system reliability structure, the elements expected delay
time E[h] as well as its dispersion and may be calculated analytically for a given
system or observed in practise. It means that if one wants to optimize parameter Tin,
he should estimate time MTOS the most precisely as it is possible from practise or
analytically.
The analysis of obtained results shows some rules that may be summarized:
• the lower predictability of the delay time (given by a higher value of standard
deviation dh) is observable only in a series-structured system. It is because the
system is more liable to failures of single elements. Its optimal period Tin (both:
cost and availability) shortens if only component’s delay time becomes less
predictable. The system with the “1-out-of-3” reliability structure is almost
insensitive to the changes of delay time dispersion in the range of probability
parameters that were tested.
• when variation coefficient rises in the series system, inspections should be
executed more often than in the case of lower delay time variation, in order to
minimize system costs and maximize its availability. The consequence of wrong
estimation of delay time dispersion may be very serious (Figs. 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4,
6.5 and 6.6), so it seems more profitable to inflate its value than to underestimate
it.
• the optimal periods between inspections Tin does not depend on the form of the
probability distribution of the delay time, what may confirm all the previously
presented conclusions.
• the optimal periods between inspections Tin is a function of MTOS that should
be precisely estimated.
On the ground of the above observations, the necessity (or its lack) to estimate
the variation of the delay time in practice may be assessed. Technical systems that
are relatively fail-safe of their single components do not require precise estimation
of the delay time dispersion, because the knowledge about its expected value should
be enough to assess time between inspections Tin correctly. On the other hand,
parameters of the BI maintenance policy in the system with series reliability
structure should not be determined without delay time dispersion measure. From the
practical point of view it is enough to estimate the standard deviation of the ele-
ments’ delay time. On the base of this conclusion, the author proposes to extend
Eq. (5.1) into:
E½h dh
½0:5; . . .; 2 ð6:1Þ
Tin
The value of the right side of the formula (6.1) is strongly dependent on the
criteria that are optimized and a reliability structure of a maintained system. The
chosen results of the proposed modification of the left side of Eq. (6.1) are pre-
sented in Figs. 6.13 and 6.14.
The presented research analysis of the investigated BI policy model gives the
preliminary answer how the estimation of delay time parameters can influence on
system performance. The tests regard to the expected value of h observation in
order to multi-unit system performance, and the most commonly used types of
probability distributions implementation. There are also checked some rules of
principal relations between the system performance and PM policy parameters,
which were defined in Chap. 5.
Fig. 6.13 System availability

(A) for various values of the
relation (E[h] − dh)/Tin
assuming normal distribution
of the variable h

the relation (E[h] − dh)/Tin
assuming normal distribution
of the variable h
The presented analysis is later extended by the authors in work [15]. The
analysis focuses on the analytical DT model presented in Sect. 5.2.
The authors in this work focus on the three main questions:
1. What is the importance of probability distribution parameters on the Block
Inspection Policy cost in a multi-unit systems?
2. Which of them should be accurately estimated on the base of objective data?
3. When simple decision rules are enough to apply when one wants to determine
the best (or just profitable) inspection period?
In order to implement the simple analytical DT model given in Sect. 5.2, two
basic reliability parameters that have to be specified: an estimation of system
components’ time to signal of a future failure appearance (time to their defect) and
delay time characteristics. These two times, together with other data (e.g. a system
reliability structure, unit costs, etc.) give the base to optimize an interval between
inspections that may provide the best economical results.
Thus, the authors assume that evaluations of expected initial time u and delay
time h are known, and conduct the analysis of system costs results for a chosen
range of parameters of times u and h probability distributions. Changes in distri-
butions’ parameters with constant expected values of distributions have resulted in
changes of standard deviations and hazard rate of the distributions.
The authors use Weibull probability distribution with its parameters yielding the
same expected times u and h but different hazard rate. The expected initial time of a
system element is assumed to be 65, while its expected delay time is equal 35 in
further analysis. A few examples of a hazard rate resulting from various values of
shape and scale parameters of the chosen Weibull distribution with constant delay
time are presented in Fig. 6.15 and probability distribution functions for random
variable of the delay time h are given in Fig. 6.16.
Figures 6.17, 6.18, 6.19 and 6.20 present chosen analysis results and are aimed
at defining the best intervals Tin between inspections found for given values of the
shape parameter au. After having carried out the calculations of the maintenance
costs for the whole range of tested Tin, it was possible to classify intervals Tin for the
sake of obtained cost results for every tested shape parameter au. Figures 6.17 and
Fig. 6.15 Hazard rate of

system elements’ delay times
assuming various values of a
λu=65;h=35(λh)
shape parameter ah in the

Weibull probability
distribution
Fig. 6.16 Probability 0.18
distribution functions of 0.16

system elements’ delay times 0.14
assuming various values of a
λu=65; h=35(λh)
0.12
shape parameter ah 0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
αh = 1,5 αh = 3,5 αh = 6 αh = 15
Fig. 6.17 The ith (i = 1, 5, 140.00

10, 60) best interval between 120.00
inspections in 1-out-of-3
system for various shape 100.00
parameters “au” in the 80.00
1
Tin
Weibull probability 5
60.00
distribution of system 10
elements’ initial times [15] 40.00
60
20.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
αu
Fig. 6.18 The ith (i = 1, 5, 140.00

100.00
system for various shape 1
parameters “au” in the 80.00
5
Tin
Weibull probability 60.00
elements’ initial times [15] 40.00 60
20.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
αu
Fig. 6.19 Kin coefficient 1.00

corresponding to the ith 0.80
(i = 1, 5, 10, 60) best interval 0.60
between inspections in 0.40
1
1-out-of-3 system for various 0.20
Kin
shape parameters “au” in the 0.00

5
Weibull probability -0.20 10
distribution of system -0.40 60
elements’ initial times [15] -0.60
-0.80
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
αu
Fig. 6.20 The expected cost 3.00

CT(Tin) corresponding to the
2.50
ith (i = 1, 5, 10, 60) best
interval between inspections 2.00
1
in 3-out-of-3 system for
CT(Tin)
various shape parameters 1.50 5

“au” in the Weibull 1.00 10
probability distribution of
60
system elements’ initial 0.50
times [15]
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
αu
6.18 present the 1st, the 5th, 10th and 60th best length of an inspection cycle in
parallel and series systems found for the given shape parameter au of initial time u,
whereas Figs. 6.19 and 6.20 show corresponding values of Kin coefficient for the
parallel system and the expected cost CT(Tin) for the series one.
Similar analysis can be done for defining the best intervals Tin between
inspections for given values of the shape parameter ah. To provide the possibility to
compare the conducted analysis results, Figs. 6.21 and 6.22 present the 1st, the 5th,
10th and 60th best length of an inspection cycle in parallel and series systems found
for the given shape parameter ah of delay time h, whereas Figs. 6.23 and 6.24 show
corresponding values of Kin coefficient for the parallel system and the expected cost
CT(Tin) for the series one.
Fig. 6.21 The ith (i = 1, 5, 140.00

inspections in 1-out-of-3 100.00
system for various shape 1
parameters “ah” in the 80.00
Tin
5
10
distribution of system 40.00
elements’ delay times 60
20.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
αh
Fig. 6.22 The ith (i = 1, 5, 140.00

100.00
system for various shape
1
parameters “ah” in the 80.00
Tin
Weibull probability 5
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
αh
Fig. 6.23 Kin coefficient 0.70

corresponding to the ith 0.60
(i = 1, 5, 10, 60) best interval 0.50
between inspections in
0.40
1-out-of-3 system for various 1
shape parameters “ah” in the 0.30
Kin
5
10
distribution of system 0.10
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
-0.10
-0.20
αh
Fig. 6.24 The expected cost 1.80

CT(Tin) corresponding to the 1.60
ith (i = 1, 5, 10, 60) best 1.40
interval between inspections 1.20
1
in 3-out-of-3 system for
CT(Tin)
1.00
various shape parameters 5
0.80
“ah” in the Weibull 0.60 10
probability distribution of 0.40 60
system elements’ delay times 0.20
0.00
-1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00 13.00 15.00
αh
As it may be seen, the hazard rate of initial time (determined by a shape

parameter au of the Weibull probability distributions) has a strong influence on the
best length of an inspection cycle Tin only for the cases when the rate is decreasing
(au < 1), constant (au = 1), or lightly increasing (au < 3.5). Thus, maintenance
managers of technical systems, especially parallel ones composed of elements with
such characteristic of initial and/or delay times (similar effect has been observed
when delay time parameters were studied), should pay a great attention to precise
estimation of probability parameters of times u and h. The costs effect of wrong
probability assumptions, when one uses the developed analytical model, may be
meaningful according to Figures 6.19, 6.20, 6.23 and 6.24. On the other hand, if
there are some basis to state that the hazard rates of times u and h are strictly
increasing, the cost consequences of imperfect estimation of probability distribution
parameters should not be severe.
The above mentioned fact may be of utmost importance from the practical point
of view, when there is not enough operational and maintenance data to use com-
plicated analytical models requiring precise information on probability distributions
forms and their parameters. In such cases, on the base of expert estimation of the
expected initial and delay times, the parameters may be assessed and the proposed
model may be used to determine the profitable (not necessary the best) time interval
between inspections without a great risk of severe cost consequences.
The carried out above research analysis and results let the author define the
following conclusions:
• in order to determine near-optimum inspection interval for a multi-unit system
with an nk-out-of-n reliability structure usually it is enough to estimate the three
parameters: expected values of initial and delay times as well as “a shape” of
initial time hazard rate,
• in the situation of when hazard rates of times u and h are strictly increasing
(mostly occurred in practice), the cost consequences of imperfect estimation of
probability distribution parameters should not be severe,
• if the hazard rates of the considered times are close to constant, the estimation of
probability characteristics should be made in details.
These research findings may be used during the maintenance decision-making
processes made by managers. Another issue is to determine the main guidelines for
maintenance databases and decision support systems development that will be
useful in managers’ everyday work.
Based on the obtained analysis results and literature review summarized in
Chap. 4, we may state that there is no simple decision rule how to estimate DT
model parameters. The known in the literature solutions are based on the use of
subjective and objective estimation methods (see e.g. [16] for their review). There
are also developed software packages aimed at automating and simplifying the use
of DT models in practice (e.g. [10, 28]). These solutions are, however, limited to the
complex system case.
6.3 Maintenance Decision-Making Process—Simple

Decision Rules and Requirements
There is no simple decision rule which maintenance policy should be taken to

provide the best effectiveness of technical systems during their life span. Some
developments in this area are provided e.g. in the British Standard BS EN-ISO
14224:2016 [3] or in the guide [6]. Moreover, while developing the methodology
for modelling the processes of technical systems maintenance, taking into account
the DT concept, it should be noted that the purpose of the model is usually to
minimize the expected duration of system downstate Ed(Tin), the expected main-
tenance costs CT(Tin), or maximize the system availability function A(Tin) (for
complex systems). These issues are under investigation of the authors in [17, 31].
For example, the authors in work [31] propose a preliminary algorithm for
assessment of an optimal period between inspections Tin based on DT concept use.
The solution bases on the developments given in [11, 17, 29] and is aimed at DT
modelling for complex systems. The proposed method is later implemented for
maintenance strategy development for a logistic system of ten forklifts performed in
a manufacturing company (a non-ferrous metal smelter).
However, in the author’s opinion, the proper decision making process about
maintenance strategy selection based on the DTM use and optimal time between
maintenance actions definition needs further development, especially in the view of
developed in Sect. 5.2. DT models and conclusions given in Sect. 6.2.
Following this, the algorithm for development of a maintenance model using DT
approach and for definition of optimal period between inspection actions perfor-
mance Tin should contain the following steps (Fig. 6.25):
• understanding the process of maintaining a selected company,
• identification of a technical object/system,
• definition of maintenance problem occurred in a selected technical object/
system,
• analysis if there is a possibility to implement DT approach,
• model and its assumptions establishment,
• data collection and analysis processes,
• parameters estimation,
• calculation of optimal Tin,
• decision result from the model.
1. Understanding the process

At the first step before the development of any maintenance model, it is essential
to understand maintenance processes performed in a selected company. The main
issues investigated at this stage regard to e.g.:
6.3 Maintenance Decision-Making Process—Simple Decision Rules … 279
Fig. 6.25 The algorithm for assessment of optimal period Tin using the DT approach
• determination of types of involved maintenance operations (e.g. repair,

replacement, inspection, opportunistic maintenance),
• required labour,
• required material resources, or
• task performed during maintenance actions,
• available decision support systems,
• available databases.
This preliminary analysis gives the possibility to define what kind of operational
and maintenance processes occur and how they are performed in an analysed
company.
2. Identification of a technical object/system

Here a maintenance manager should provide a clear overview of operated sys-
tems. Thus, there should be provided a generic categorization of these systems
usually according to their major functionality. Systems that serve the same func-
tions often have similar failure modes and require the same maintenance types,
what influences maintenance decisions and maintenance management process.
Moreover, the relationship between systems’ components should be defined.
When preparing such the operating systems categorization, we can base on the
British Standard [3] that describes a variety of equipment classes of similar types of
equipment units (Table 6.2).
Moreover, following the British Standard [3] “any applied categorization should
be appropriate for the intended use and purpose of the data being collected”. Thus,
usually this task is connected with the identification of maintenance problems
occurred in the systems and is supported by performance of FMECA method.
Table 6.2 An exemplary equipment categorization based on the British Standard BS EN ISO
14224:2016
Main group Group
Rotating equipment Combustion engine
Compressors
Electrical generators
Electrical Motors
Gas turbines
Pumps, centrifugal
Pumps, diaphragm
Pump, reciprocating
Steam turbines
Turbo expander
Fan
Mechanical/static equipment Heat exchanger
Heaters and boilers
Vessels
Piping
Winches
Valve, control
Valve, ESD/PSD
Valve, manual/check
Valve, PSV
Valve, solenoid
Filters
Electrical distribution, instrumentation and telecommunication (EIT) Telecom equipment
Electrical equipment
Instruments
3. Identification of maintenance problem occurred in a selected technical object/

system
At this stage several techniques using risk-based analysis can be useful. For
example one may use failure mode and effects analysis FMEA, fault tree FTA or
event tree analysis ETA.
FTA is concerned with identification and analysis of conditions and factors
which cause or contribute to the occurrence of a defined undesirable event, usually
one which significantly affects system performance, economy, safety or other
required characteristics [3].
ETA can be used to identify various possible outcomes for a given initiating
event.
FMEA can identify possible failure modes and effects on a selected technical
object/system. Moreover, it can also give a potential severity to the effect, what is
very useful when looking at e.g. safety critical items [34].
The result of these developments is connected with a definition of a list of dominant
failures/hazard events/defects associated with technical object/system’s elements.
More information about possible methods that may be used at this stage of the
decision-making process may be found e.g. in [4, 26]. Moreover, areas of appli-
cation and types of preferred analyses are presented in the Annex D of the British
Standard [3] (with referring to other relevant international and industry standards).
This gives a possibility to define the types of obtainable maintenance data and
sources of these data. Thus, a decision maker should identify potential data
obtainable from objective and subjective sources.
Based on e.g. the British Standard [3], we may define four data categories:
• equipment data—that include information necessary to identify a given object/
system, some design data (obtained from a manufacturer) and application data,
• failure data—connected with e.g. identification of a failure, it’s location, defi-
nition of its causes,
• maintenance data—that specify given maintenance actions, their performance
time, place, and necessary resources,
• state information—condition monitoring information that includes some
measurements/readings done during maintenance and observations during nor-
mal operation.
4. Analysis of DTM implementation possibilities
Choosing an appropriate model for maintenance performance is one of the most
important decision in maintenance management practice. The main questions that
should be answered at this stage include:
• What we can obtain and what is necessary to implement DTM?
• What are the criteria for selecting systems suitable for DTM implementation?
• How the maintenance system will be administered?
• How the necessary results will be recorded, monitored and analysed?
The possibility to implement the developed by the author DTMs is determined

mostly by the possibility of expected delay time E[h] and hazard rates of initial
point u and delay time h estimation (according to the research findings given in
Sect. 6.1). If there are possible to obtain some expert judgments or objective data in
this field, the DTMs are applicable. If not, a decision-maker should choose other
maintenance strategy.
The examples of maintenance decision-making processes are provided by the
author in the Introduction chapter, or are given in works [6, 27]. Moreover, we can
base on maintenance standards findings (see e.g. [3, 26]). Moreover, there is also
developed an expert system that supports a maintenance manager in selecting a
proper maintenance strategy (for more information see e.g. [1, 2, 20, 22]).
The purpose of the developed DSS performance is connected with possible
maintenance strategy (traditional/DTA based) for a technical object/system defini-
tion based on chosen maintenance and dependability indicators’ values. The
solution is based on decision rules implementation. These decision rules are the
base for computer procedure of decision support definition. The main decision
criteria encompass economical effectiveness, dependability and security.
The main assumptions taken during the DSS development include [2]:
• performance of a multi-component (or complex), repairable transportation
system investigation,
• investigation of maintenance strategies for systems with and without compo-
nents dependence,
• focusing on preventive maintenance strategies selection process
implementation.
In the DSS development process the authors examine various types of mainte-
nance policies for multiunit or complex systems, which are the most commonly
used (for review see e.g. [24]). The decisions are made based on the information
about the state of a system, maintenance costs and data accessibility. These input
data being defined more precisely and quantified are used to develop decision rules,
which are the simple logical sentences. Moreover, the decision rules can be used
only in the situation, when all the prerequisites connected with input data avail-
ability are defined. Decision rules are of both types, indirect and direct ones.
The expert system is prepared as a computer program which enables easier and
faster conclusion acquirement. The solution is based on EXSYS Professional system
implementation. The general decision support program’s structure is given in
Fig. 6.26. Moreover, the example of the developed expert system is presented in [1].
Finally, delay-time based maintenance is a maintenance type that is not appro-
priate for all kinds of technical objects/systems. Thus, in order to utilize DTM some
selection criteria should be applied.
The most important criteria that can be taken into consideration regard to fea-
sibility, beneficial, and cost-effectiveness. The first criterion—feasibility of DTM
should be clearly define in terms of DTM implementation possibility. The second
criterion will be primarily focused on how DTM will be helpful in order to support
Fig. 6.26 The structure of DSS for means of transport maintenance process performance [22]
maintenance and how it can add value to operational and maintenance processes of
a given object/system. The last criterion defines if DTM is economically justifiable,
so that the benefits of DTM implementation outweigh the costs.
The proper combination of these criteria will depend on a type of an analysed
object/system and a user’s needs/expectations.
5. Model and its assumptions establishment
In order to apply the DT approach there is a necessity to determine which model
may be used and define the main modelling assumptions (Fig. 6.27).
The assumptions are generally based on observations of performed maintenance
processes in the company (1st stage), knowledge of the system involved (2nd stage) and
discussions with maintenance management teams. The typical assumptions include:
• perfect inspection case,
• periodic inspections performance,
• defect found at inspection will be repaired/replaced during the period of
inspection,
• steady-state condition of the system,
• defects arise independently of each other.
Moreover, there should be also determined an optimization criterion depending
on the available operational data (identified during the 3rd stage performance) and
preliminary model assumptions.
Fig. 6.27 Decision algorithm for model and its assumptions establishment
6. Data collection and analysis

The procedure for data collection and analysis is presented in Fig. 6.28.
The process of data collection and analysis starts by making some observations
of an analysed system performance and recording of information. The types of data
to gather results from the research conducted in stages 3–4.
Based on [17] “the question as to whether a DTA is carried out using either
subjective means or objective means is dependent on that data are available”. Data
may be available from objective sources, as maintenance records assessed during
inspections or preventive and corrective actions performance. If however these
types of data are not available, then subjective DTA has to be implemented. The
subjective sources of information may be a maintenance team, operator personnel
and management. First, when using a subjective estimation process, the defined (in
the 3rd stage) groups of data should be supplemented with information about
experts. These information may include name and position of experts and their
work experience.
Moreover, the main method of data gathering based on questionnaires.
According [25] the suggested number of experts to use is in the region of 3–5. The
process of quantification of uncertainty thorough structured expert judgment may
be based on the classical (or Crooke’s) method (see e.g. [7]). This method is a
performance-based linear pooling or weighted averaging model. Experts answer
two types of questions: calibration questions and variables of interest. With cali-
bration variables, any expert can be treated like a statistical hypothesis. Usually,
experts’ assessments are weighted according to performance and combined
(a weighted average method). For more information the author recommends reading
e.g. [8, 9, 33]. A systematic literature review in this area is given e.g. in [32].
Fig. 6.28 Decision algorithm

for data collection and
analysis
The last problem is to check if the obtained data are of high quality and
whether they are completed. Chosen aspects characterizing high quality data are
listed below [3]:
• completeness of data in relation to specification,
• compliance with definitions of reliability parameters, data types and formats,
• accurate input, transfer, handling and storage of data,
• sufficient population and adequate surveillance period to give statistical
confidence,
• relevance to the data user’s needs.
When the data are ready, a maintenance decision-maker may go to the next stage
connected with parameters estimation process.
7. Parameters estimation
According to the obtained in Sect. 6.2 research results, in order to implement the
developed DT models (see Chap. 5) one needs to estimate:
• functions fh(h) and Fh(h) for the time delay parameter h,
• functions gh(h) and Gh(h) for the initial time u.
Based on the results from expert opinions, histograms can be constructed in
order to establish these distributions and hence the types of distribution to use.
Frequently there is used an exponential distribution to model the time interval

between successive random events. Alternatively, when the failure probability or
delay times probability vary over time, the Weibull distribution is appropriate [17].
This task is ended by carry out the analysis of testing the distribution to the data
in question. One of the possible method to use is a chi-square goodness of fit
test [18].
8. Calculations and decision making
Based on the obtained data and estimated parameters, there is possibility to
implement the chosen DT model and assess the optimal time between inspection
actions performance Tin (Fig. 6.29).
According to the research results obtained in Sect. 6.2, when the hazard rates of
parameters u and h are increasing (mostly occurred in practice) there is a possibility
to use the given analytical DT model or find an “nearly” optimal period Tin based
on Eq. (5.66) and simulation processes use.
In case of non-increasing hazard rates of initial times u and delay times h, a
decision-maker should use other DT models (e.g. for complex systems) in order to
obtain reliable calculations or estimate the modelling parameters (their probability
distribution functions) very precisely (if it is possible based on the available data).
To sum up, the given methodology defines the procedure for applying
delay-time analysis to a maintenance and inspection department of any company.
The developed solution may be used for implementing delay-time-based mainte-
nance modelling and optimization for technical systems that:
• are composed from at least two components,
• have defined reliability structure (preferable non-series one),
• have no dependence between their components (not specified),
Fig. 6.29 Decision algorithm for calculations and decision making

• have only one inspectable defect type,

• do not need continuous monitoring of their system state (or the continuous
monitoring is impossible due to e.g. costs).
A simple example here may be the process of tyres operation and replacement.
The inspection process is focused on diagnosing mostly one type of a defect. The
tyres wear is assessed by the height of the tread. Other example may be wiper
blades equipped with a UV-based wear filter. The wear of the wiper blades is
indicated by the filter that changes its colour. The last example regards to the
operation and maintenance of wet brake disks. The wear process is periodically
inspected based on a wear indicator direct measure performance. The wear indicator
bases on the measurement of disks thickness. Depending on an axel design, the
wear indicator may hide in construction or showing up.
All of these examples do not need continuous monitoring of their system state,
all are multi-unit systems, composed at least from two elements in a defined reli-
ability structure. There is not strictly defined dependency between the systems’
elements. However, when replacing the tyres or wet brake disks—one should make
such a maintenance action for at least two components—one operating on the left
and the second operating on the right side of a vehicle/equipment.
6.4 Case Studies
In this chapter, the author proposes two case studies to investigate an optimal
inspection interval for two-unit systems performing in series and parallel structures.
The models used to analyse the given systems are based on the results of Chap. 5
and Sect. 6.1. The first example regards to engine equipment maintenance (v-ribbed
belt with belt tensioner), the second example presents the maintenance of left and
right steering dumpers that are used in wheel loaders. In order to obtain the optimal
inspection interval the author focuses on cost optimisation.
Both case studies were developed based on historical data of maintenance and
operation processes of wheel loaders that are serviced by an international company,
located in Poland.
This construction equipment has defined inspection policy based on service
regulations defined e.g. by a producer. However, a company finds that some
developments in this area may be useful to make further decisions.
The third example regards to the problem of maintenance policy selection based
on available operational and maintenance data from any company that is interested
in the proper decision making process performance in maintenance area.
6.4.1 Case Study for a Two-Component Series System
The first case study is aimed at inspection-maintenance optimisation of an engine

equipment. The chosen elements work in a drive system of wheel loaders. The
analysed system is composed of two elements that operate together. The first ele-
ment is a v-ribbed belt, and the second one is a belt tensioner. This engine unit
function is to turn engine accessories in wheel loaders. The scheme of a belt
transmission unit is given in Fig. 6.30.
Both elements have to operate satisfactorily in order to provide the proper
performance of an engine unit (a series reliability structure). Moreover, the belt
tensioner is treated as a complex unit for the purposes of this maintenance analysis.
The main type of failures that occurs in this engine equipment is connected with
bearing malfunction (an element of the belt tensioner). When a bearing is failed, the
belt tensioner stops working and a v-ribbed belt starts to blur (in order to properly
use the DTM, such a situation is also perceived as a failure of the engine unit). The
main signals of forthcoming failure are connected with some noises occurrence.
When maintenance action is not performed, the element stops working (belt
breaking). The consequences of such failure occurrence may be very harmful. The
main consequences are connected with no charging or no cooling. However, if an
operator ignores this signals—a wheel loader stops working.
Fig. 6.30 Scheme of belt transmission unit (number 13—b-ribbed belt, number 9—belt tensioner
unit)
6.4 Case Studies 289
Table 6.3 Parameters of the analysed engine equipment

Element MTBF E[h] dh MRT Inspection cr cp cin
time
V-ribbed 6000 h 100 h 20 h 2h 1h 1300 750 250
belt zl zl zl
Belt
tensioner
Following this, operators are aimed at preventing the occurrence of such failures.
However, the preventive replacement of these engine unit would be connected with
the cost of 750 zl (cost includes labour and new element purchasing) and remaining
useful life wasting. Thus, inspection actions are performed in every 500 working
hours (cost of 250 zl). The inspections frequency is recommended by a producer
and bases on visual method implementation.
Maintenance data obtained from a company (data from January 2016 till
December 2017) and experts’ opinion gave the possibility to estimate the mainte-
nance models main parameters (Table 6.3).
Based on historical data and many years of experts’ experience, it is estimated
that time to failure and delay time may follow a Normal distribution with param-
eters N(6000, 1000) and N(100, 20) respectively.
For the given parameters the author discusses the optimal inspection interval to
minimize cost, based on the simple DT model that is developed in Sect. 5.2 for
systems with a series reliability structure. In order to implement this model, there is
made an assumption that both elements may be defined by the same economic and
reliability parameters.
Following this, first the author bases on Eq. (5.9), where the initial time and
delay time follow a Normal distribution. Numerical results for applying the ana-
lytical DT model are presented in Figs. 6.31 and 6.32.
As a result, Fig. 6.31 shows the expected costs as a function of the optimal
inspection interval for the first inspection period. For the given assumptions and
parameters values the optimal Tin should be equal to 5600 h (the minimum cost per
unit of time is equal then to 0.04464). The obtained result is close to the value of
MTBF, what is obvious for the first inspection cycle. Inspection action performance
at time moment of 5600 working hours of wheel loaders could maximize opera-
tional time of analysed units and provide the shortest remaining useful life wasting.
What is also visible, for times Tin longer than the value of MTBF + dr the expected
maintenance costs function is determined by consequences cost occurrence (all
units fail till that time).
The process of searching of the best inspection period in an infinite time horizon
bases on the simulation process use. The used simulation model is presented in
Sect. 5.1, and the simulation procedure is given e.g. in Fig. 5.4 (for the case:
nk = n). The obtained results are presented in Figs. 6.33, 6.34 and 6.35.
When analysing an infinite time horizon the optimal time between inspections is
not so obviously visible. This situation may be connected with a small difference
Fig. 6.31 Expected maintenance costs per unit of time (C(Tin)) for the first inspection period
(series structure)
Fig. 6.32 Expected costs per unit of time for the first inspection period for preventive
maintenance performance (red colour), consequences costs (green colour) and inspection action
performance (blue colour) (series structure)
Fig. 6.33 Expected maintenance costs per unit of time (C(Tin)) (simulation results for an infinite
time horizon, series structure)
Fig. 6.34 Expected costs per unit of time for preventive maintenance performance (red colour),
corrective maintenance performance (green colour) (simulation results for an infinite time horizon,
series structure)
consequences costs (green colour) and inspection action performance (blue colour) (simulation
results for an infinite time horizon, series structure)
between the costs of preventive replacement and failure consequences. For the
given assumptions, the optimal time between inspections Tin is equal to 2900 h (at
minimum cost level = 0.72448). Such time period is almost 6 times longer than the
one recommended by a producer. This difference is related to operational conditions
of performed processes by a wheel loader. A producer is obligated to take into
account various conditions of operational and maintenance processes of wheel
loaders, which affects a mean time between failures of this construction equipment.
The conditions that strongly influences and shortens the MTBF are e.g. work in an
environment with ammonia and salt (oxidation of rubber elements) or washing a
wheel loader with a high pressure washer (failure of rubber elements).
For the given example, wheel loaders work in average conditions, so the
maintenance analysis indicates that the Tin may be extended.
6.4.2 Case Study for a Two-Component Parallel System
The second case study regards to maintenance modelling of left and right steering
dumpers. Both elements work in a parallel reliability structure in a steering system
of wheel loaders. Their main function is to limit the turn of a construction machine
in a gentle way in order to ensure smooth running of a loader. The scheme of front
frame and roar frame unit is given in Fig. 6.36.
Fig. 6.36 Front frame and roar frame unit of wheel loaders (number 3—steering dumper)
A failure of steering dumper is connected especially with metal-rubber spacers’

delamination. During wheel loaders turning, a metal-rubber spacers are constantly
compressed. Following this, for example, when a rubber is shrivelled there will be
excessive deflection between a front frame and a rear frame of a construction
equipment. Thus, knocks and overloads in articulation joint bearings occur. If any
maintenance action is not performed, the situation results in problems with fluent
work of a wheel loader (jerking and noises at the turns).
Following this, a failure of one of the steering dumpers results in occurrence of
tugging at a full turn of a loader. The failed dumper does not suppress the impacts
of machine frames. However, a wheel loader can still work. If such failure is
ignored, and the second steering dumper fails, the consequences will result in rapid
wear process of loader’s frame and, as a result, performance of expensive repair in
the forms of frame welding, elements replacing, or bearings wearing off. In some
(extreme) situations there could be a necessity of a whole wheel loader replacing.
The failure of steering dumpers is self-announcing and the first symptoms of
forthcoming failures may be easily detected through visual inspections. Nowadays,
a producer recommends performing inspections in every 500 working hours (cost of
30 zl) as an “occasional” service action. The inspection is performed in order to
check if there are first symptoms of forthcoming failure (rubber aging, any cracks or
abrasions occurrence).
As in the previously case study, based on maintenance data obtained from a
company (data from January 2016 till December 2017) and following experts’
opinions, there was the possibility to estimate the maintenance models main
parameters (Table 6.4).
Table 6.4 Parameters of the analysed engine equipment

Element MTBF E[h] dh MRT Inspection cr cp cin
time
Left/right 9000 h 500 h 100 h 0.5 h 0.125 h 3500 1650 30
steering zl zl zl
dumper
Based on historical data and many years of experts’ experience, it is estimated

that the time to failure and delay time may follow a Normal distribution (N). The
estimated parameters for probability distribution functions are N(9000, 1000) for
the time to failure and N(500, 100) for describing the delay time.
For the given parameters the author discusses the optimal inspection interval to
minimize cost, based on the simple DT model that is developed in Sect. 5.2 for
systems with a parallel reliability structure. In order to implement this model, there
is made an assumption that both the elements may be defined by the same economic
and reliability parameters. It is possible, because both the elements usually have
similar degradation processes that results from the performance of operational
processes and operational conditions. The situation when both the elements show a
different degree of wear may be connected with occurrence of specific operational
requirements for a wheel loader—when a working process forces more frequent
one-way turning. However, such situation is very rare.
Following this, first the author bases on Eq. (5.12), where the initial time and
delay time follow a Normal distribution. The numerical results for applying the
analytical DT model are presented in Figs. 6.37 and 6.38.
Figure 6.37 shows the expected maintenance costs as a function of the optimal
inspection interval. Based on the given results, the optimal Tin for the first
inspection cycle is located near the MTBF value. This dependency between Tin and
MTBF is observed also for the series system case and strongly confirms that the
accuracy of model’s parameters estimation by experts has the meaningful influence
on obtained results (confirmation of the results obtained in Sect. 6.2).
For the given assumptions and parameters values the optimal Tin should be equal
to 9200 h (the minimum cost per unit of time level equal to 0.003269). The
expected maintenance cost function is affected mostly by consequences costs
occurrence (mostly visible after the time period MTBF + dr due to all units failure
till that moment).
As in the first case study, the process of searching of the best inspection period in
an infinite time horizon bases on the simulation process use. The used simulation
model is presented in Sect. 5.1, and the simulation procedure is given e.g. in Fig. 5.4
(for the case: nk = 1). The obtained results are presented in Figs. 6.39 and 6.40.
For the parallel system case and an infinite time horizon, the optimal time
between inspections is obtained at 6100 h (with the costs level equal to 0.27541).
This time period is even 12 times longer than the one recommended by a producer.
The reasons of such situation occurrence are the same as for the series system case.
Fig. 6.37 Expected maintenance costs per unit of time for the first inspection period (parallel
structure)
Fig. 6.38 Expected costs per unit of time for the first inspection period for preventive
maintenance performance (red colour), consequences costs (green colour) and inspection action
performance (blue colour) (parallel structure)
Fig. 6.39 Expected maintenance costs per unit of time (simulation results for an infinite time
horizon, parallel structure)
consequences costs (green colour) and inspection action performance (blue colour) (simulation
results for an infinite time horizon, parallel structure)
Following Fig. 6.40, the consequences costs per unit of time are low till the
Tin 10000 h, what is connected with a low probability of such costs occurrence.
After that time period, this costs function is similar to the obtained preventive
maintenance costs per unit of time, what is connected with similar levels of these
unit costs.
As in the previous case the maintenance analysis indicates that the Tin may be
extended. However, due to the simplicity of visual inspections for these elements,
they still should be performed “occasionally” with other PM actions (e.g. planned
PM actions performed in every 1000 h or 1500 h or 2500 h).
6.4.3 Case Study for a Maintenance Policy Decision Process

Performance
The examples presented above regard to the situation when a decision maker knows
what kind of maintenance policy should be used. When the situation is not so
obvious, one may use decision support systems (DSS) in order to choose the correct
option. One of the solution in this area is an expert system (DSS type) developed
and described e.g. in [2, 21–23]. The authors in their works developed the DSS for
means of transport maintenance processes performance.
The purpose of the developed DSS is connected with possible maintenance
strategy (traditional/DTA based) for technical object definition based on chosen
maintenance and dependability indicators’ values. The solution is based on decision
rules implementation. These decision rules are the base for computer procedure of
decision support definition. The main decision criteria encompass economical
effectiveness, dependability and security. Moreover, in the DSS development
process the authors examine various types of maintenance policies for multiunit or
complex systems, which are the most commonly used.
The decisions are made based on the information about the state of a system,
maintenance costs and data accessibility. These input data being defined more
precisely and quantified are used to develop decision rules, which are the simple
logical sentences. Moreover, the decision rules can be used only in the situation
when all the prerequisites connected with input data availability are defined.
Decision rules are of both types, indirect and direct ones [20].
Table 6.5 shows a list of just a few basic maintenance strategies included in the
DSS. The full list of the chosen maintenance strategies may be found e.g. in [2].
Table 6.6 presents the main information necessary to be gathered to implement the
DSS in the area of real-life transportation systems performance.
Table 6.5 List of maintenance strategies included in the DSS (with index) [20]
Maintenance strategy PM strategy definition
index
MS1 Age Replacement Policy with minimal repair
MS2 Age Replacement Policy with CF
MS3 Age Replacement Policy for multi-unit system with cost constrains
MS4 Age Replacement Policy for multi-unit system with availability
constrains
MS5 Block Replacement Policy with minimal repair
MS6 Block Replacement Policy with CF
…
MS23 Delay Time Model for multi-unit systems
MS24 Delay Time Model for multi-unit systems with imperfect
inspections
MS25 Delay Time Model for complex systems and non-negligible repair
time
MS26 Delay Time Model for complex systems
MS27 Delay Time Model for complex systems with imperfect inspections
Table 6.6 The necessary input data for DSS implementation [20]
Input data definition (general and time Input data definition (cost parameters)
parameters)
Number of means of transport in a system Cost of corrective action performance
Time horizon of observation performance Operational cost per unit of time
Type of components dependency Cost per unit of preventive action performance
Type of system’s reliability structure Penalty cost
Type of system failure Cost of system downtime
Time moments of failure occurrence Cost per unit of minimal repair performance
Type of maintenance processes Cost of inspection performance
performance
Time moments of maintenance actions Maximal acceptable cost of corrective action
finishing performance
Time of preventive maintenance
performance
Time of corrective maintenance
performance
Time of minimal repair performance
Time of inspection action performance
Downtime of a system
Expected value of delay time
The expert system solution is based on EXSYS Professional system imple-

mentation.1 The example of decision rules edition process is given in [19] and the
introduction to the presented problem is given e.g. in [21–23].
There are defined the main three steps of DSS building process, which include [20]:
• variables creation,
• Logic Block creating according to the decision tree of a chosen DSS,
• Procedural commands definition by adding Command Block.
The applicability of proposed DSS is investigated on the existing passenger
transportation system located in Lower Silesia, Poland. The research analysis
covered 8 single car rail buses of particular type X. The analysed rail cars include
these, which were handed over to the rail carrier from previous railway operator, as
well as new ones were being bought by the regional province government and
directly sent to the rail company.
The period of research analysis encompasses 43 months (152,568 working
hours) of rail carriers performance, from December 2008 to June 2012. The data
about rail buses’ operational process performance are taken from their operational
books which are prepared by department of tram maintenance employees. These
operational books are located in every rail buses, and are filled in by engine drivers,
warehousemen, and service engineers [1].
Every engine driver should fill in the date, hour and place of beginning/finishing his
work. Moreover, some additional information should be taken into account, like e.g. all
failures and irregularities detected during operational process performance. More
information about the operational and maintenance processes may be found in work [1].
The performer analysis of rail cars operational and maintenance processes per-
formance gives the authors the possibility to gather main operational and maintenance
data, necessary for maintenance strategy selection process. Based on the defined
scope of necessary input data for DSS implementation (Table 6.4), not all of them
was possible to be defined during research analysis. For example, there were no
possibility to define if, and what kind of components dependency occur. The system
reliability structure wasn’t also defined. Additionally, there were also no possibilities
of delay time parameter estimation or inspection time and costs definition. Such a
situation of some operational information unavailability always occurs because of the
cost consequences connected with data gathering and storage process.
Based on the obtained and available data, there were possible to implement an
expert system and obtain the best (for the sake of the available information) mainte-
nance strategy.
During the decision process, there has to be answered few questions regarding
e.g. types of the performed maintenances, types of occurred failures, or components
dependency occurrences.
The results of performed decision process are presented in Figs. 6.41 and 6.42.
1
Exsys Corvid Knowledge Automation Expert System Development Manual. (2011). Exsys Inc.
www.exsys.com. (accessed on 30th September, 2012).
300
6 Delay Time Models Implementation Issues
Fig. 6.41 Conclusion view of expert system [20]

6.4 Case Studies
301
Fig. 6.42 Conclusion view of expert system—continuation [20]

The expert system indicates, that the best maintenance strategy for the analysed
transportation system is MS8—Block Replacement Policy for multi-unit system with
availability constrains. This result is connected with e.g. lack of economic data,
information about system reliability structure, impossibility of delay time and
elements dependency definition. Thus, when the cost information or other missing
data are known, there will be the possibility to implement the expert system again
and find out if the selected maintenance policy is still the most appropriate.
6.5 Concluding Remarks
The main target of the developed chapter was to provide the synthetic approach to
the results on BI policy research, which gives the possibility to define guidelines for
determining its use and answers the questions:
• What kind of data to estimate?
• How to gather the necessary maintenance information?
• How to assess the optimal period Tin?
Following this, the chapter explores systems with particular distribution func-
tions of their random variables of u and h. For example, there is considered a
system whose delay time parameter follows Weibull/normal and uniform distri-
butions. The research analysis is focused on the estimation process of delay time
parameters and examination of their estimation accuracy influence on system per-
formance. The tests regard to the expected value of h observation in order to the
multi-unit system performance, and the most commonly used types of probability
distributions implementation. There are also checked some rules of principal rela-
tions between the system performance and PM policy parameters, which were
defined in the author’s previous works (e.g. [15, 16]). The carried out research
analysis gives the answer, when the exact estimation of probability distributions of
random variables u and h is necessary in order to obtain the reasonable economical
results in the maintenance decision-making process. It also gives some tips when
such a risk of severe cost consequences may be avoided. As one might expect, in
the situation when hazard rates of times u and h are strictly increasing (mostly
occurred in practice), the cost consequences of imperfect estimation of probability
distribution parameters should not be severe.
Later, there is given a simple methodology of applying delay-time analysis to a
maintenance and inspection department. The main steps of the algorithm for
development of a maintenance model using DT approach and estimation of optimal
time between inspections Tin are defined. The developed methodology aim is to
6.5 Concluding Remarks 303
reduce maintenance and inspection costs or increase object/system availability.

Based on the decision making process it should be a relatively straightforward task
to establish an inspection interval.
The last issue regards to the possibility of DTM implementation. First, two case
studies are presented. In the first case study the author investigates a maintenance
process of wheel loaders’ engine equipment (v-ribbed belt with belt tensioner). The
second case study is aimed at the maintenance of left and right steering dumpers
that are used in wheel loaders. In order to obtain the optimal inspection interval the
author focuses on cost optimisation based on the simple DTMs given in Sect. 5.2.
In general, the current inspection policy for both systems (series and parallel
ones) is acceptable. The construction equipment operator may reschedule inspec-
tions to 2500 h intervals (for both the cases) depending on the working conditions
and cost requirements.
The examples confirm the ease of applying the developed DTMs and the results
for analytical models (first inspection cycle) seems logical in relation to the given
assumptions and reliability and cost parameters’ levels.
The last problem is connected with maintenance strategy selection process. In
this area there is provided a simple case study for DSS implementation in the area
of rail buses operation and maintenance processes performance. The presented
example provide that expert systems gives decision makers a hint which one from
the defined maintenance strategies is the most advisable to implement in a defined
circumstances. However, in the given example the conclusions do not take into
account the uncertainty of decision process, or input data. This issue should be
investigated in more depth in the authors’ future research works.
References
1. Bojda K, Dziaduch I, Nowakowski T, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Decision support

system for means of transport maintenance processes performance: a case study of rail buses.
In: Safety, reliability and risk analysis: beyond the horizon: proceedings of the European
safety and reliability conference, ESREL 2013, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 29 Sep–2 Oct
2013. CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, pp 909–919
2. Bojda K, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2012) Data accessibility problem in transportation
means’ maintenance performance. In: Stachowiak A (ed) Transport—strategical and
operational issues: monograph. Publ. House of Poznan University of Technology, Poznan,
pp 69–87
3. BS EN ISO 14224:2016 (2016) Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries—
collection and exchange of reliability and maintenance data for equipment (ISO 14224:2016).
The Standards Policy and Strategy Committee, UK
4. Chlebus M, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2017) Assessment methods of production
processes reliability: state of the art. J KONBiN 41(1):247–261
5. Christer AH, Redmond DF (1992) Revising models of maintenance and inspection. Int J Prod
Econ 24:227–234
6. CIBSE GUIDE: Maintenance engineering and management (2008) London
7. Colson A, Cooke R (2017) Validating expert judgments and the classical model. Presentation
given at TU Delft COST meeting, 4 July 2017
8. Colson A, Cooke R (2017) Cross validation for the classical model of structured expert
judgment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 163:109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.02.003
9. Cooke RM, Goossens L (2008) TU Delft expert judgment data base. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
10. Cui X (2002) Delay time modeling and software development. PhD thesis, University of
Salford, Salford
delay-time analysis via Monte Carlo simulation. J Mar Eng Technol 10(3):57–72. https://doi.
org/10.1080/20464177.2011.11020252
12. Dabrowski T, Bednarek M (2012) Reliability of threshold-comparative diagnosis processes
(in Polish). In: Proceedings of XL winter school on reliability—dependability of processes
and technical systems, Publishing House of Institute for Sustainable Technologies, Radom,
pp 1–23
13. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2017) Development and sensitivity
analysis of a technical object inspection model based on the delay-time concept use. Eksploat
Niezawodn Maint Reliab 19(3):403–412. https://doi.org/10.17531/ein.2017.3.11
14. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2017) Block inspection policy model
with imperfect maintenance for single-unit systems. Procedia Eng 187:570–581. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.416
DepCoS-RELCOMEX, Brunów, Poland, 27 June–1 July 2016. Springer, pp 239–256
16. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Analysis of maintenance models’
parameters estimation for technical systems with delay time. Eksploat Niezawodn Maint
Reliab 16(2):288–294
17. Jones B, Jenkinson I, Wang J (2009) Methodology of using delay-time analysis for a
manufacturing industry. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94:111–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2007.
12.005
18. Migdalski J (1982) Reliability guide—mathematical foundations (in Polish). WEMA Publ.
House, Warsaw
19. Nowakowski T (1999) Methodology for reliability prediction of mechanical objects (in
Polish). Research work of the Institute of Machine Designing and Operation, Wroclaw
University of Technology, Wroclaw
20. Nowakowski T, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Data gathering problem in decision
support system for means of transport maintenance processes performance development. In:
Safety, reliability and risk analysis: beyond the horizon: proceedings of the European safety
and reliability conference, ESREL 2013, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 29 Sep–2 Oct 2013.
CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, pp 899–907
21. Nowakowski T, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2013) Computer decision support system in
means of transport maintenance processes performance (in Polish). In: Critical infrastructures
dependability. Proceedings of conference XLI winter school of reliability, Szczyrk, 6–12 Jan
2013. Institute of Exploitation Technology Publ. House, Radom
22. Nowakowski T, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2012) Means of transport maintenance
processes performance: decision support system. In: Proceedings of Carpathian logistics
congress CLC’ 2012, Jesenik, Czech Republic, 7–9 Nov 2012. Tanger, Ostrava, pp 1–6
23. Nowakowski T, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2012) Uncertainty problem in decision
support system for means of transport maintenance processes performance development.
J KONBiN 3:173–192
References 305
26. PN-EN 60300-3-1:2005 (2005) Dependability management—part 3-1: application guide—

analysis techniques for dependability—guide on methodology. The Polish Committee for
Standardization, Warsaw
27. Scarf PA (2007) A framework for condition monitoring and condition based maintenance.
Qual Technol Quant Manag 4(2):301–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/16843703.2007.11673152
29. Wang W, Christer AH (2003) Solution algorithms for a nonhomogeneous multi-component
inspection model. Comput Oper Res 30:19–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(01)
00074-0
30. Wen-Yuan Lv, Wang W (2006) Modelling preventive maintenance of production plant given
estimated PM data and actual failure times. In: Proceedings of international conference on
management science and engineering, 2006 ICMSE’06, IEEE, pp 387–390. https://doi.org/10.
1109/icmse.2006.313857
31. Werbinska-Wojciechowska S, Zajac P (2015) Use of delay-time concept in modelling process
of technical and logistics systems maintenance performance. Case study. Eksploat Niezawodn
32. Werner C, Bedford T, Cooke R, Hanea A (2017) Expert judgement for dependence in
probabilistic modelling: a systematic literature review and future research directions. Eur J
Oper Res 258:801–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.10.018
33. Wilson KJ (2017) An investigation of dependence in expert judgment studies with multiple
experts. Int J Forecast 33:325–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.10.018
34. Zhang Y, Andrews J, Reed S, Karlberg M (2017) Maintenance processes modelling and
optimisation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 168:150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.02.011
Chapter 7
Conclusions and Further Research
Abstract The book is completed by the Conclusions and future research chapter
that contains the summary of the presented results, the formulation of open prob-
lems concerned with delay-time based maintenance modelling, and definition of the
main directions for further research. The author also summarizes the main contri-
bution of this book.
Today, technical systems should be designed, operated and maintained in a safe,

reliable, robust, durable, sustainable, and resilient way. Following this, the prob-
lems of proper maintenance performance have been in the area of interest of many
researchers for more than 50 years.
The confirmation of the importance of the analysed issues may be the series of
national and international conferences, which discuss current research problems in
the field of technical systems maintenance, e.g. European Safety and Reliability
Conference ESREL, the International Maintenance Conference, the Conference on
Safety and Reliability KONBiN, Summer Safety and Reliability Seminars SSARS,
or Winter School of Reliability. These conferences, organized in a cyclical manner,
gather a number of participants presenting their achievements in such areas as
maintenance modelling and optimization, degradation processes modelling, main-
tenance data optimisation, or maintenance asset management.
For example, at the main European conference in the field of reliability and
safety—ESREL conference, in 2010 the issues on maintenance of technical systems
(maintenance modelling and optimization) devoted 30 works, while in 2013 at the
international conference ESREL 2013 there were already six panels devoted to the
issues of maintenance of critical infrastructure systems, manufacturing systems, or
power, chemical, and transportation systems. In total, 45 articles were analysed
[59].
In 2014, the ESREL 2014 conference covered 17 methodological tracks and 21
application areas and provided a forum for presentation and discussion of scientific
papers concerning theory, techniques, methods and developments related to the
indicated problems (Fig. 7.1). The maintenance problems were also important
issues being discussed during the plenary sessions. Four panels were strictly

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10788-8_7
308 7 Conclusions and Further Research
Fig. 7.1 Papers distribution by methodology area (total 316)—ESREL 2014 conference
devoted to the issues of maintenance for technical systems, while these problems
were also analysed in 10 other conference panels mostly connected with failure
identification and degradation processes and reliability and safety management
issues. In 2017 interest in these issues was maintained at a similar level (see
Fig. 7.2).
Moreover, recently many international and national societies and associations
are focused on maintenance issues, like the EFNMS, the European Federation of
National Maintenance Societies, established in 1970.1 This society is developed as
European network for knowledge and experience in maintenance and physical asset
management. Another associations are focused on research, application and training
in Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) as well as appli-
cation of safety and reliability technology in all areas of human endeavour—
ESREDA, the European Safety, Reliability and Data Association, established in
19922 and ESRA—European Safety and Reliability Association.3 All of them are
organisations with a membership consisting of: national professional societies,
industrial organisations and higher education institutions in order to improve
maintenance and operation of technical systems.
Another confirmation of recent interest in maintenance issues development may be
research projects carried out in the field of maintenance modelling, optimisation and
1
www.efnms.eu (available 21 July, 2017).
2
www.esreda.org (available 21 July, 2017).
3
http://www.esrahomepage.org/index.aspx (available 21 July, 2017).
7 Conclusions and Further Research 309
S15. Other Special Sessions

S14. Generally Accepted Reliability Principle…
S13. Model-based Reliability and Safety…
S12. Big Data Risk Analysis and Management
S11. RAMS in Railways: Theory & Practice'
S10. Advanced Safety Assessment…
S09. Socio-Technical-Economic Systems
S08. Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power…
S07. Software Reliability and Safety
S06. Organizational Factors and Safety Culture
S05. Reliability Data and Testing
S04. Bayesian and Statistical Methods
S03. Dynamic Reliability and PSA
S02. Risk Approaches in Insurance and…
S01. TRUSS, A Marie Skłodowska-Curie…
Uncertainty Analysis
System Reliability
Structural Reliability
Simulation for Safety and Reliability Analysis
Risk Management
Risk Assessment
Resilience Engineering
Prognostics and System Health Management
Mathematical Methods in Reliability and…
Maintenance Modeling and Applications
Human Factors and Human Reliability
Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and…
Economic Analysis in Risk Management
Accident and Incident modeling
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Fig. 7.2 Papers distribution by methodology area and special session (total 455)—ESREL 2017
conference
data collection/analysis. The example here may be the OREDA4 (The Offshore and
Onshore Reliability Data) project that was established in 1981 in a joint industry
cooperation and is still developing [91].
At the same time, the issues of maintenance of technical objects are subjected to
standardization. A large number of standards, military standards, recommendations
and good practices have been published since 1965. The most important standards
regard to the following sub-areas (see Appendix 4 for details):
4
www.oreda.com (available 21 July, 2017).
• maintenance activities during design phase,

• maintenance planning,
• maintenance support,
• maintenance implementation,
• maintenance techniques,
• maintenance and equipment history,
• equipment reliability and maintainability,
• maintenance assessment,
• asset maintenance management, and
• health and safety in management.
Thus, we may state that today we have a large knowledge in the given study
area. As a result, there is growing awareness of the need to build models adapted to
the maintenance and operation performance of real systems. In this case, the use of
maintenance models for single-unit systems is too simplistic compared to
multi-component systems maintenance models. In addition, the development of
analytical techniques and computer technology allow for analysis of increasingly
complex computational problems, allowing for a better representation of the
dependence in the technical object—the human—the environment systems.
Following this, on the base of the recent developments in maintenance area
provided by different associations, organisations, and researchers, the author may
state that the main objectives of technical systems maintenance processes are still to
provide [31, 88]:
• adequate functional level of the technical facility,
• declared durability/dependability of the system,
• safety of the system and environment,
• effective use of assets that support the main processes performance, and
• maintenance costs reduction.
The acquisition of these goals is possible taking into account opportunities and
constraints that are connected with the main maintenance research areas, like
maintenance strategy selection, maintenance planning, spare parts provisioning, or
risk management. The short summary is given in Table 7.1.
Following the short summary given in Table 7.1, there may be specified eight
main research areas in the field of maintenance theory. For every of these research
areas the author defines the main problems and provide a reader with the list of the
main techniques and methods used to solve them. For more detailed analysis of
these maintenance subdomains, the basic references for further reading and litera-
ture survey references are provided.
This book addresses the problems of maintenance strategy selection and is aimed at
maintenance models development (first maintenance subdomain in Table 7.1). The
author of this book focuses on the issues of delay-time-based maintenance modelling
in order to optimize maintenance planning and improve technical systems operation
and maintenance. The presented book summarizes and reviews the existing literature
by particularly focusing on the main maintenance models based on periodic preventive
Table 7.1 The short summary of maintenance studies

The main The main problems analysed List of the main Basic Basic
maintenance in subdomains problems solving references references
subdomains techniques and methods for further for
work literature
survey
Maintenance • Selection of the maintenance • Mathematical [11, 25, [2, 3, 32,
strategy policy for an element/system modelling 68–70, 85] 71, 83, 93,
selection (CM, PM, PdM, CBM, • Reliability analysis 96, 100]
RCM, …) • Simulation modelling
• Maintenance optimisation • Decision analysis
modelling
• Maintenance integration
(e-maintenance, CMMS)
Failure • Aging management • Mathematical and [26, 37, [12, 34,
prediction/ (analysis of degradation simulation modelling 51, 84, 92, 97,
degradation processes, data analysis, • Reliability analysis 125, 126] 117]
modelling predictive maintenance, • Data analysis
diagnosis processes, human • Expert opinion
factor analysis) • Knowledge
• RUL estimation management systems
• Uncertainty analysis • Consequence models
• Estimation modelling
• Accident analysis
Maintenance • Maintenance tasks • Multi-echelon [1, 21, 29, [17, 82]
planning (inspections, replacements, modelling 33, 57, 73,
repairs, overhauls) • Mathematical 76, 86]
scheduling optimisation
• Determining the right • Markov decision
components to be process
maintained • Simulation modelling
• Resource allocation and • Expert opinion
dimensioning of
maintenance resources (e.g.
service engineers, service
tools)
Spare parts • Spare parts classification • Mathematical [14, 18, [10, 13,
provisioning • Spare parts reliability modelling and 21, 28, 43, 36, 38, 46,
modelling optimisation 56, 86] 77, 89,
• Demand forecasting • Markov decision 101, 108]
• Inventory management process
• Inventory control • Decision analysis
• Spare parts allocation • Simulation modelling
• Queuing theory
• Multi-echelon
modelling
• Game theory
Risk • Risk-based maintenance • Decision analysis [4, 7, 8, [5, 6, 9,
management modelling • Mathematical 21, 25, 44, 47, 61]
in • Risk analysis modelling (including 58, 81]
maintenance • Safety indicators Bayes methods, fuzzy
• Risk informed asset theory, GA modelling)
management • Simulation modelling
• Human factor in • Expert opinion
maintenance
(continued)

The main The main problems analysed List of the main Basic Basic
maintenance in subdomains problems solving references references
subdomains techniques and methods for further for
work literature
survey
Warranty and • Warranty optimisation, • Mathematical [15, 16, [39, 45,
maintenance • Maintenance service modelling 27, 48, 87] 62–65, 67,
contract design • Decision analysis 94, 95,
• Maintenance logistics for • Simulation modelling 119]
warranty servicing • Reliability analysis
• Outsourcing of maintenance
for warranty servicing
• Warranty data collection and
analysis
System • Design for maintenance • LCC analysis [23, 24, [22, 24,
design • LCC approach • Mathematical 35, 49, 55, 54, 60, 74,
• Maintainability/ optimisation 66, 75, 99, 118, 120,
supportability aspects • Reliability analysis 102] 123]
• Redundancy modelling • Simulation modelling
• Components dependence • Markov decision
analysis process
• Dynamic reliability
• Dependability of innovative
products
• Human factor in the design
phase
• Impact on health and
environment
• Logistic support planning
Maintenance • Benchmarking analysis • Data analysis [19, 29, [20, 50,
performance • Performance indicators • Mathematical and 30, 53, 79] 52, 72, 78,
measurement assessment simulation modelling 80, 90, 98]
• Best practices identification • Opinion surveys
• Customer satisfaction • Expert opinions
surveys • BSC
• Maintenance process • KPI’s
diagnosis and audits
• Quality in maintenance
• Maintenance reengineering
maintenance, periodic inspection maintenance and periodic delay-time maintenance

use. The author clusters the existing works into several fields, mostly based on the
classification on single- and multi-unit models. Moreover, she discusses the appli-
cability of reviewed works/maintenance models. Finally, she identifies the potential
future research directions and suggests research agenda.
A review of the available literature that summarizes the author’s seven years of
research work, has given the opportunity to define the objective of this book. The
main goal was to develop the new delay-time based maintenance models for
technical systems performing in various reliability structures, which extend the
approach used so far and allow analysing the long-term operation time period or the
single (first) inspection cycle.
The models presented in this book may be used in the process of analysing
various types of maintenance problems. The developed models allows, among
others, for:
• selection of the best maintenance parameters for a technical system (e.g. interval
between inspections), when reliability requirements and economic constraints of
a maintenance process are known, i.e. maintenance scheduling and planning
tasks,
• studies of technical systems and their reliability structures (e.g. assessment of a
reliability structure influence on inspection policy parameters, the problem of
model’s parameters estimation based on actual data),
• selection of the best parameters of delay time (e.g. an average value of delay
time), when parameters of system operation processes are known,
• evaluation of the performance of a real system, when the parameters of pro-
cesses are known (including e.g. resource requirements problems, maintenance
and replacement timing issues).
Moreover, the developed models may be used to compare different maintenance
concepts/policies and actions for defined technical systems in order to select the
best maintenance strategy.
In conclusion, the development of the new delay-time maintenance models
allows to define the following conclusions:
• based on the research results given in the Chap. 5 and [40, 42] a system’s
reliability structure has a strong influence on the achieved economic results of
BI maintenance strategies performance. Thus, the definition of appropriate
maintenance policy parameters requires providing the system structure consid-
erations. Moreover, the model outputs dependency on parameter estimation
accuracy also may vary from the system reliability structure,
• optimal periods between inspections Tin does not depend on the form of the
probability distribution of the delay time. However, for series-structured systems
the lower predictability of delay time may be observable and need shortening
the optimal period Tin for achieving better cost and availability results,
• when variation coefficient of delay time rises in a series system, inspections
should be executed more often than in the case of lower delay time variation, in
order to minimize system costs and maximize its availability. The obtained
research results show that it may be more profitable to inflate its value than to
underestimate it,
• the most important parameters of initial and delay times probability distribution
are: their expected values of initial and delay time as well as “a shape” of initial
time hazard rate. Those three are usually enough to estimate in order to deter-
mine near-optimum inspection interval for a multi-unit system with nk-out-of-
n reliability structure,
• if the times and hazard rate are evaluated on the base of some objective data one
can apply the proposed in the Chap. 6 method, which allows for effortless
finding of “a good” solution for most of systems built of components with
increasing hazard rates of times u and h. Nonetheless if the hazard rates of the
considered times are close to constant, the estimation of probability character-
istics should be made in details.
To sum up, there can be defined the main future development directions that may
be considered in order to extend the presented delay-time-based maintenance
models. The most important research work should be connected with:
• data estimation procedures and algorithms. There is still the necessity to
develop a simple and robust parameter estimating algorithm that gives
the possibility to obtain reliable input data and optimal maintenance decisions,
the analysed models are based on the assumption that once a system fails, all
resources needed for its renewal process are immediately available for use. This
limits the applicability of the given models to two basic instances: modelling of
systems with standard components that can be delivered virtually instanta-
neously by a vendor, or systems that are cheap enough to be cost effective to
store large quantities of them. In real-life systems operation processes:
– a number of spare parts available at the time of system failure is usually
limited,
– delivery time cannot be omitted,
– there are not enough repair crews to be able to carry out any renewal
operations at any time,
– support facilities are not always available (up-stated)
Taking into account the unavailability of resources supporting maintenance
process performance, there is a necessity to link maintenance modelling with spare
part inventory modelling. Some recent developments in this area are presented e.g.
in [107, 108, 115],
• problem of individually optimised inspection intervals for systems performing
in e.g. a manufacturing enterprise. Recently, each system has to be modelled by
a delay-time-based model to get its own inspection schedule, and then to
manipulate this inspection schedule to fit into a smoothed schedule for all
systems within the enterprise. The future research works may be aimed at joint
optimization of inspection schedules for all the working systems in order to
benefit e.g. some opportunistic maintenance and limit the necessary computa-
tional efforts. Some recent developments in this area may be found e.g. in
[103, 105],
• possibility to support a maintenance decision making process by using
Decision Support Systems. Such software tools are to be aimed at assisting
maintenance managers in making decisions to conduct cost effective mainte-
nance of their technical systems. A computational decision tool dedicated for
simple delay-time-based maintenance modelling for complex systems and per-
fect inspection case is presented in [111]. The prototype software package bases
on the estimation procedure using the moment matching method and subjective
estimation of three parameters (mean number of failure in a given time period,
mean number of defects, and mean delay time). However, there is no application
that would be dedicated for systems performing in different reliability structures,
multiple type of inspection actions performance, or including the systems’
elements dependency,
• multi-component maintenance is the problem of finding 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. However, the known
delay-time-based maintenance models omit the systems’ elements dependency
(stochastic, economic or structural), what may not reflect the real-life systems
processes performance and follow to wrong maintenance decisions making.
Following this, the developed in this book maintenance models for
multi-component systems performing in various reliability structures may be
extended by analysing these three types of interactions or dependencies,
• basic delay-time models base on a two-stage failure process. However, in many
situations (e.g. in industrial applications), the state of a system is described by a
state space of more than two. In view of this situation, the two-stage delay time
concept should be extended to a three-stage failure process, which generates
three possible states of the system in operation, i.e., normal, minor defective and
severe defective before failure, respectively. Some developments in this area are
given e.g. in [116, 121, 122, 124]. However, the considered cases mostly focus
on single-unit or complex systems. The extended model is given only in [113],
where the authors investigate the case for multi-component system. The main
issue bases on the assumption, where each component and failure mode is
modelled individually and then pooled together to form a system inspection
model,
• multiple inspections scheme—some recent papers have studied multiple level
inspections, where each level is associated with a different interval, cost and
depth (e.g. [109, 112, 114, 116]). The solutions are mostly dedicated for a
single-unit case,
• imperfect inspection case—most works assume that the defective and failed
states can be always revealed if they were there (see e.g. [104, 106] for review).
However, some defects may be missed during inspections due to e.g. working
conditions, human factor, or unreliable facility use. Based on the developed
literature review, there is a gap in this research area on joint analysis of
imperfect inspections performance and delay-time modelling for multi-
component systems performing in various reliability structures. A preliminary
research is given by the author in [41],
• dynamic inspection policy—in many systems an inspection interval may not be
constant, and therefore consideration of a dynamic inspection policy is required.
Some developments in this area may be found e.g. in [106, 110], where the
authors propose an algorithm for the optimal dynamic determination of
sequential inspection intervals using dynamic programming. They consider a
complex system case.
Other research areas, worth investigating and extending, are presented e.g. in
[106, 110].
The discussed in this book maintenance models, their implementation possi-
bilities, and research directions show that this research area is still growing and the
opportunities and challenges of today’s and future development (e.g. computer
science, system complexity) will need further investigations.
References
1. Abramek K, Uzdowski M (2009) Fundamentals of maintenance and repairs (in Polish).

Transport and Communication Publisher, Warsaw
2. Ahmad R, Kamaruddin S (2012) An overview of time-based and condition-based
maintenance in industrial application. Comput Ind Eng 63:135–149. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cie.2012.02.002
3. Alrabghi A, Tiwari A (2015) State of the art in simulation-based optimisation for
maintenance systems. Comput Ind Eng 82:167–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.12.
022
4. Aven T (2017) Improving the foundation and practice of reliability engineering. Proc Inst
Mech Eng O J Risk Reliab 231(3):295–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X17699478
5. Aven T (2016) Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their
foundation. Eur J Oper Res 253(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023
6. Aven T (2009) Risk analysis and management. Basic concepts and principles. Reliab Risk
Anal Theory Appl 2:57–73
7. Aven T (2008) Risk analysis in maintenance. In: Kobbacy KAH, Murthy DNP
(eds) Complex system maintenance handbook. Springer series in reliability engineering.
Springer, London
8. Aven T, Vinnem JE (2007) Risk management with applications from the offshore petroleum
industry. Springer series in reliability engineering. Springer, London
9. Aven T, Zio E (2014) Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management. Risk
Anal Int J 34(7):1164–1172. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12132
10. Bacchetti A, Saccani N (2012) Spare parts classification and demand forecasting for stock
control: investigating the gap between research and practice. Omega 40:722–737
11. Bartholomew-Biggs M, Christianson B, Zuo M (2006) Optimizing preventive maintenance
models. Comput Optim Appl 35:261–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-006-6449-x
12. Bhargava CH, Banga VR, Singh Y (2014) Failure prediction and health prognosis of
electronic components: a review. In: Proceedings of 2014 RAECS UIET Panjab University
Chandigardh, 06–08 Mar 2014
13. Bijvank M, Vis IFA (2011) Lost-sales inventory theory: a review. Eur J Oper Res 215:1–13.
14. Blanchard B (2004) Logistics engineering and management. Pearson
15. Blischke WR, Resaul Karim M, Prabhakar Murthy DN (2011) Warranty data collection and
analysis. Springer series in reliability engineering. Springer, London
16. Blischke WR, Prabhakar Murthy DN (1996) Product warranty handbook. CRC Press,
New York
17. Budai G, Dekker R, Nicolai RP (2006) A review of planning models for maintenance and
production. Econometric Institute, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University
18. Bukowski L (2016) Ensuring continuity of supplies in a changing and uncertain environment
(in Polish). Publ. House of the University of Dabrowa Gornicza, Dabrowa Gornicza
References 317
19. Cray J (2014) Key performance indicators. In: Mobley RK (ed) Maintenance engineering
20. Crespo Marquez AC, Moreu De Leon P, Gomez Fernandez JF, Lopez Campos M (2009)
The maintenance management framework: a practical view to maintenance management.
21. De Almeida AT, Cavalcante CAV, Alencar MH, Ferreira RJP, De Almeida-Filho AT,
Garcez TV (2015) Multicriteria and multiobjective models for risk, reliability and
maintenance decision analysis. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland
22. Desai A, Mital A (2006) Design for maintenance: basic concepts and review of literature.
Int J Prod Dev 3(1):77–121. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2006.008876
23. Devooght J (2002) Dynamic reliability. In: Lewins J, Becker M (eds.) Advances in nuclear
science and technology 25. Springer, Boston, MA
24. Dhillon B (2013) Life cycle costing: techniques, models and applications. Routledge
25. Ding S-H, Kamaruddin S (2015) Maintenance policy optimization—literature review and
directions. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 76(5–8):1263–1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-
014-6341-2
26. Ding SX (2008) Model-based fault diagnosis techniques. Design schemes, algorithms, and
tools. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg
27. Djamaludin I, Murthy DNP, Kim CS (2001) Warranty and preventive maintenance. Int J
Reliab Qual Saf Eng 8(2):89–107. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218539301000396
28. Driessen M, Arts J, Van Houtum G-J, Rustenburg JW, Huisman B (2015) Maintenance
spare parts planning and control: a framework for control and agenda for future research.
Prod Plann Control 26(5):407–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2014.907586
29. Duffuaa S, Raouf A (2015) Planning and control of maintenance systems. Modelling and
analysis. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland
30. Franceschini F, Galetto M, Maisano D (2007) Management by measurement. Designing key
indicators and performance measurement systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg
31. Gandhare BS, Akarte M (2012) Maintenance strategy selection. In: Proceedings of ninth
AIMS international conference on management, 1–4 Jan 2012, pp 1330–1336
32. Garg A, Deshmukh SG (2006) Maintenance management: literature review and directions.
33. Gober TA (2014) Computerized planning and scheduling. In: Mobley RK (ed) Maintenance
34. Gorjian N, Ma L, Mittynty M, Yarlagadda P, Sun Y (2009) A review on degradation models
in reliability analysis. In: Proceedings of the 4th world congress on engineering asset
management Athens, Greece, 28–30 Sep, 2009
35. Grabski F (2014) Semi-Markov processes: applications in system reliability and mainte-
nance. Elsevier, Amsterdam
36. Guide VDR Jr, Srivastava R (1997) Repairable inventory theory: models and applications.
37. Handbook on quality of reliability data, Statistical Series no. 4 (1999) An ESReDA working
group report. Det Norske Veritas AS, Hovik
38. Huiskonen J (2001) Maintenance spare parts logistics: special characteristics and strategic
choices. Int J Prod Econ 71:125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(00)00112-2
39. Jagtap MM, Hawaldar A, Jagtap N, Jain S (2015) Review paper on reliability improvement
warranties. Int J Res Aeronaut Mech Eng 3(3):10–18
40. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Nowakowski T, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2013) Block inspec-
tion policy model with imperfect inspections for multi-unit systems. Reliab Theory Appl 8
(3):75–86. http://gnedenko-forum.org/Journal/2013/032013/RTA_3_2013-08.pdf
41. Jodejko-Pietruczuk A, Werbinska-Wojciechowska S (2018) Delay-time based inspection
model with imperfect inspection for technical system. In: Proceedings of the XLVI winter
school on reliability 2018, Szczyrk, Poland, 7–13 Jan 2018, pp 1–26

25–29 June 2012, pp 1–10
43. Kabir ABMZ, Farrash SHA (1996) Simulation of an integrated age replacement and spare
provisioning policy using SLAM. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 52:129–138
44. Kaczmarek T (2008) Risk and risk management (in Polish). Diffin, Warsaw
45. Karim R, Suzuki K (2005) Analysis of warranty claim data: a literature review. Int J Qual
Reliab Manage 22(7):667–686. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710510610820
46. Kennedy WJ, Wayne Patterson J, Fredendall LD (2002) An overview of recent literature on
spare parts inventories. Int J Prod Econ 76:201–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273
(01)00174-8
47. Khan F, Rathnayaka S, Ahmed S (2015) Methods and models in process safety and risk
management: past, present and future. Process Saf Environ Prot 98:116–147. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.psep.2015.07.005
48. Kim CS, Djamaludin I, Murthy DNP (2004) Warranty and discrete preventive maintenance.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 84:301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2003.12.001
49. Kolowrocki K, Soszynska-Budny J (2011) Reliability and safety of complex technical
systems and processes. Springer series in reliability engineering. Springer, London
50. Kumar U, Galar D, Parida A, Stenstrom Ch, Berges L (2013) Maintenance performance
metrics: a state-of-the-art review. J Qual Maint Eng 19(3):233–277. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JQME-05-2013-0029
51. Lannoy A (ed) (2004) Lifetime management of structures. An ESReDA working group
report. Det Norske Veritas AS, Hovik
52. Lavy S, Garcia JA, Dixit MK (2010) Establishment of KPIs for facility performance
measurement: review of literature. Facilities 28(9/10):440–464
53. Legutko S (2004) Fundamentals of machines and equipment exploitation (in Polish). Publ.
House of WSiP, Warsaw
54. Ling D (2005) Railway renewal and maintenance cost estimating. Ph.D. thesis, Cranfield
University
55. Mierau DJ (2014) Criticality analysis. In: Mobley RK (ed) Maintenance engineering
56. Migdalski J (1982) Reliability guide—mathematical foundations (in Polish). WEMA Publ.
House, Warsaw
57. Mlynczak M (2012) Methodology of maintenance tests performance of mechanical systems
(in Polish). Publ. House of Wroclaw University of Technology, Wroclaw
58. Mlynczak M (1997) Risk analysis in transport and industry (in Polish). Publ. House of
Wroclaw University of Technology, Wroclaw
59. Mlynczak M, Nowakowski T, Werbińska-Wojciechowska S (2014) Technical systems
maintenance models classification (in Polish). In: Siergiejczyk M (ed) Maintenance
problems of technical systems (in Polish). Warsaw University of Technology Publish.
House, Warsaw, pp 59–77
60. Mobley RK (2014) Maintenance engineer’s toolbox. In: Mobley RK Maintenance
61. Mobley RK (2014) Simplified failure modes and effects analysis. In: Mobley RK
(ed) Maintenance engineering handbook. McGraw-Hill Professional
62. Murthy DNP (2007) Product reliability and warranty: an overview and future research.
Produção 17(3):426–434
63. Murthy DNP (2006) Product warranty and reliability. Ann Oper Res 143:133–146
64. Murthy DNP, Blischke WR (2000) Strategic warranty management: a life-cycle approach.
IEEE Trans Eng Manage 47(1):40–54
65. Murthy DNP, Djamaludin I (2002) New product warranty: a literature review. Int J Prod
Econ 79:231–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(02)00153-6
References 319
66. Murthy DNP, Rausand M, Osteras T (2008) Product reliability. Specification and
performance. Springer series in reliability engineering. Springer, London
67. Murthy DNP, Solem O, Roren T (2004) Product warranty logistics: issues and challenges.
Eur J Oper Res 156:110–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00912-8
69. Nakagawa T, Zhao X (2015) Maintenance overtime policies in reliability theory. Models
with random working cycles. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland
70. Nowakowski T (2011) Dependability of logistic systems (in Polish). Publ. House of
Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw
72. Nudurupati SS, Bititci US, Kumar V, Chan FTS (2011) State of the art literature review on
performance measurement. Comput Ind Eng 60(2):279–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.
2010.11.010
73. Nyman D (2006) Maintenance planning, scheduling and coordination. Industrial press Inc.,
New York
74. Osaki S (ed) (2002) Stochastic models in reliability and maintenance. Springer, Berlin
75. Ozekici S (1995) Optimal maintenance policies in random environments. Eur J Oper Res 82
(2):283–294
76. Palmer RD (2013) Maintenance planning and scheduling handbook. The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc
77. Paterson C, Kiesmuller G, Teunter R, Glazebrook K (2011) Inventory models with lateral
transshipments: a review. Eur J Oper Res 210:125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.
05.048
78. Parida A (2007) Study and analysis of maintenance performance indicators (MPIs) for
LKAB. A case study. J Qual Maint Eng 13(4):325–337. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13552510710829434
79. Parida A, Kumar U (2009) Maintenance productivity and performance measurement. In:
Ben-Daya M, Duffuaa SO, Rauf A, Knezevic J, Ait-Kaidi D (eds) Handbook of maintenance
management and engineering. Springer, London
80. Parida A, Kumar U, Diego D, Stenstrom CH (2015) Performance measurement and
management for maintenance: a literature review. J Qual Maint Eng 21(1):2–33. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JQME-10-2013-0067
81. Pham H (ed) (2011) Safety and risk modelling and its applications. Springer series in
reliability engineering. Springer, London
82. Phanden RK, Jain A, Verma R (2011) Review on integration of process planning and
scheduling. DAAAM International Scientific Book, chapter 49, pp 593–618
surveillance of deteriorating systems. Nav Res Logist Q 23:353–388
84. Przystupa F (1999) The diagnosis process in an evolving technical system. Publ. House of
Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw
85. Radek N (ed) (2012) Selected problems of mechanical engineering and maintenance. Publ.
House of Kielce University of Technology, Kielce
86. Rahim MA, Ben-Daya M (eds) (2001) Integrated models in production planning, inventory,
quality, and maintenance. Springer, US
87. Rahman A, Chattopadhay G (2006) Review of long-term warranty policies. Asia Pac J Oper
Res 23(4):453–472
88. Rau C-G, Necas P, Boscoianu M (2011) Review of maintainability and maintenance
optimization methods for aviation engineering systems. Sci Mil 2:54–60
89. Roda I, Macchi M, Fumagalli L, Viveros P (2014) A review of multi-criteria classification of
spare parts: from literature analysis to industrial evidences. J Manuf Technol Manag 25
(4):528–549. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-04-2013-0038
90. Samat HA, Kamaruddin S, Azid IA (2011) Maintenance performance measurement: a
review. Pertanika J Sci Technol 19(2):199–211
91. Sandtorv HAR, Ostebo R, Hortner H (2005) Collection of reliability and maintenance data—
development of an international standard. In: Advances in safety and reliability—ESREL
2005: Proceedings of the European safety and reliability conference, ESREL 2005, Tri City
(Gdynia-Sopot-Gdansk), Poland, 27–30 June 2005
92. Sankararaman S (2015) Significance, interpretation, and quantification of uncertainty in
prognostics and remaining useful life prediction. Mech Syst Signal Process 52–53:228–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2014.05.029
93. Sarkar A, Behera DK, Kumar S (2012) Maintenance policies of single and multi-unit
systems in the past and present. Int J Curr Eng Technol 2(1):196–205
94. Selviaridis K, Wynstra F (2015) Performance-based service contracting: a literature review
and future research directions. Int J Prod Res 53(12):3505–3540. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2014.978031
95. Shafiee M, Chukova S (2013) Maintenance models in warranty: a literature review. Eur J
Oper Res 229:561–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.01.017
97. Si X-S, Wang W, Hu Ch-H, Zhou D-H (2011) Remaining useful life estimation—a review
on the statistical data driven approaches. Eur J Oper Res 213:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2010.11.018
98. Simoes JM, Gomes CF, Yasin MM (2011) A literature review of maintenance performance
measurement: a conceptual framework and directions for future research. J Qual Maint Eng
17(2):116–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511111134565
99. Takata S, Kimura F, Van Houten FJAM, Westkamper E (2004) Maintenance: changing role
in life cycle management. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 53(2):643–655
stochastically deteriorating single-unit systems. Nav Res Logist 36:419–446
101. Van Horenbeek A, Bure J, Cattrysse D, Pintelon L, Vansteenwegen P (2013) Joint
maintenance and inventory optimization systems: a review. Int J Prod Econ 143:499–508.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.04.001
102. Verma AK, Ajit S, Karanki DR (2016) Reliability and safety engineering. Springer series in
reliability engineering. Springer, London
103. Wang GJ, Zhang YL (2014) Geometric process model for a system with inspections and
preventive repair. Comput Ind Eng 75:13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.06.007
104. Wang H, Pham H (2003) Optimal imperfect maintenance models. In: Pham H
(ed) Handbook of reliability engineering. Springer, London, pp 397–414
105. Wang H, Wang W, Peng R (2017) A two-phase inspection model for a single component
system with three-stage degradation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 158:31–40. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ress.2016.10.005
106. Wang W (2012) An overview of the recent advances in delay-time-based maintenance
modelling. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 106:165–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.04.004
107. Wang W (2012) A stochastic model for joint spare parts inventory and planned maintenance
optimisation. Eur J Oper Res 216:127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.031
108. Wang W (2011) A joint spare part and maintenance inspection optimisation model using the
delay-time concept. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96:1535–1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.
07.004
109. Wang W (2009) An inspection model for a process with two types of inspections and repairs.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(2):526–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.06.010
110. Wang W (2008) Delay time modelling. In: Kobbacy AH, Prabhakar Murthy DN
(eds) Complex system maintenance handbook. Springer, London
112. Wang W (2000) A model of multiple nested inspections at different intervals. Comput Oper
References 321
113. Wang W, Banjevic D, Pecht M (2010) A multi-component and multi-failure mode

inspection model based on the delay-time concept. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95:912–920. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.04.004
115. Wang W, Syntetos AA (2011) Spare parts demand: linking forecasting to equipment
maintenance. Transp Res Part E 47:1194–1209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2011.04.008
116. Wang W, Zhao F, Peng R (2014) A preventive maintenance model with a two-level
inspection policy based on a three-stage failure process. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 121:207–220.
117. Weber P, Medina-Oliva G, Simon C, Iung B (2012) Overview on Bayesian networks
applications for dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas. Eng Appl Artif Intell
25:671–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2010.06.002
118. Wilson RM (2008) Design for maintenance. Electric Traction Systems, Course on IET
Professional Development, 3–7 Nov 2008, pp 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1049/ic:20080524
119. Wu S (2012) Warranty data analysis: a review. Qual Reliab Eng Int 28:795–805
120. Woud JK, Smit K, Vucinic B (1997) Maintenance programme design for minimal life cycle
costs and acceptable safety risks. Int Shipbuild Prog 44(437):77–100
121. Yang R, Yan Z, Kang J (2015) An inspection maintenance model based on a three-stage
failure process with imperfect maintenance via Monte Carlo simulation. Int J Syst Assurance
Eng Manage 6(3):231–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-014-0292-8
122. Yang R, Zhao F, Kang J, Zhang X (2014) An inspection optimization model based on a
three-stage failure process. Int J Perform Eng 10(7):775–779
123. Zaitseva EN, Levashenko VG (2002) Design of dynamic reliability indices. In: Proceedings
32nd IEEE international symposium on multiple-valued logic ISMVL 2002, 15–18 May
2002, pp 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ismvl.2002.1011082
124. Zhao F, Peng R, Wang W (2012) An inspection and replacement model based on a
three-stage failure process. In: IEEE conference on Prognostics and System Health
Management (PHM), Beijing, China 23–25 May 2012, pp 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/phm.
2012.6228928
125. Zoltowski B (2011) Fundamentals of diagnosing machines (in Polish). Publ. House of UTP
126. Zoltowski B, Cempel C, Aadamczyk J (2004) Engineering of machines diagnostics (in
Polish). Polish Society of Technical Diagnostics, Warsaw
Appendix A
An Exemplary Simulation Program
(Source Code) for a DT Model
for Multi-unit Systems in an nk-Out-of-n
Structure (Perfect Inspection Case)
clear
tic %pliki konieczne do dzialania: "BI", "parametry", "czas_pracy_plik"
“Parametry”
%input('nowe zaczynam')
w=200; %w rzeczywistości oznacza liczbę cykli PM do

końca procesu eksploatacji
alfa_A = 3.5; %A - parametry czasu pracy elementow
beta_A = 100;
alfa_B = 2.3; %B - parametry czasów napraw uszkodzeniowych
beta_B = 100;
alfa_C = 2.3; %C - parametry czasów wymian profilaktycznych
beta_C = 10;
alfa_D = 3.5; %D - parametry czasów "h"
beta_D = 35;
nk = zz
n=3
m = n-k;
PM = z
TP = w*PM;
PM_podst = PM;
ke = 1; %koszt elementu
kc = 10000; %koszt "konsekwencji" wynikajacy z
uszkodzenia systemu
ki = 1; %koszt inspekcji

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10788-8
324 Appendix A: An Exemplary Simulation Program (Source Code) …
srednia_A = beta_A;
odch_A = beta_A/5;
granica_gorna_A = beta_A + 0.3*beta_A;
granica_dolna_A = beta_A - 0.3*beta_A;
srednia_D = beta_D;
odch_D = beta_D/5;
granica_gorna_D = beta_D + 0.3*beta_D;
granica_dolna_D = beta_D - 0.3*beta_D;
if parametr == 1; ke = zzzz endif

if parametr == 2; kc = zzzz endif
if parametr == 3; ki = zzzz endif
if parametr == 4; beta_D = zzzz endif
if parametr == 5; beta_B = zzzz*beta_C endif
if parametr == 6; alfa_D = zzzz endif
if parametr == 7; beta_A = zzzz endif
if parametr == 8; alfa_A = zzzz endif
if parametr == 9; srednia_A = zzzz, 'sprawdz czy rozkl_A = 2', endif
if parametr == 10; odch_A = zzzz, 'sprawdz czy rozkl_A = 2', endif
if parametr == 11; granica_dolna_A=0, granica_gorna_A = zzzz, 'sprawdz czy rozkl_A =
3', endif
if parametr == 12; granica_dolna_A = zzzz, 'sprawdz czy rozkl_A = 3', endif
if parametr == 13; srednia_D = zzzz, 'sprawdz czy rozkl_D = 2', endif
if parametr == 14; odch_D = zzzz, 'sprawdz czy rozkl_D = 2', endif
if parametr == 15; granica_dolna_D = 0, granica_gorna_D = zzzz, 'sprawdz czy rozkl_D =
3', endif
if parametr == 16; granica_dolna_D = zzzz, granica_gorna_D=beta_A,'sprawdz czy
rozkl_D = 3', endif
%if parametr == 15; granica_dolna_D = beta_D-zzzz, granica_gorna_D = beta_D+zzzz,

'sprawdz czy rozkl_D = 3', endif
„czas pracy_plik”
%plik generujacy czas pracy i czas od sygalu do uszkodzenia wg zadanego rozkladu
if rozkl_A == 1
czas_pracy = beta_A .* (-log(1-rand(n,1))).^(1/alfa_A);
endif
if rozkl_A == 2
czas_pracy = (sqrt(-2*log(rand(n,1))) .* cos(2*pi*rand(n,1)))*odch_A+srednia_A;
endif
Appendix A: An Exemplary Simulation Program (Source Code) … 325
if rozkl_A == 3
czas_pracy = rand(n,1)*(granica_gorna_A-granica_dolna_A)+granica_dolna_A;
endif
if rozkl_D == 1
h = beta_D .* (-log(1-rand(n,1))).^(1/alfa_D);
endif
if rozkl_D == 2
h = (sqrt(-2*log(rand(n,1))) .* cos(2*pi*rand(n,1)))*odch_D+srednia_D;
endif
if rozkl_D == 3
h = rand(n,1)*(granica_gorna_D-granica_dolna_D)+granica_dolna_D;
endif
„BI”
KE=[];
KC=[];
KI=[];
K=[];
PM_zb=[];
LU = [];
LW=[];
k_zb = [];
TNW = [];
TNU = [];
A = [];
zzz = 0;
parametr_zb = [];
%if rozkl_A == 1; czas pracy ma rozklad weibull'a

%if rozkl_A == 2; czas pracy ma rozklad normalny
%if rozkl_A == 3; czas pracy ma rozklad rownomierny
%if rozkl_D == 1; h ma roklad weibull'a
%if rozkl_D == 2; h ma roklad normalny
%if rozkl_D == 3; h ma roklad rownomierny
%if parametr == 1; ke = zzzz; endif

%if parametr == 2; kc = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 3; ki = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 4; beta_D = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 5; beta_B = zzzz*beta_C; endif
%if parametr == 6; alfa_D = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 7; beta_A = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 8; alfa_A = zzzz; endif

%if parametr == 9; srednia_A = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 10; odch_A = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 11; granica_gorna_A = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 12; granica_dolna_A = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 13; srednia_D = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 14; odch_D = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 15; granica_gorna_D = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 16; granica_dolna_D = zzzz; endif
parametr =13
rozkl_A = 1
rozkl_D = 2
for zzzz = 0:5:100
for zz = 1:2:3
for z = 5:5:100
zzz = zzz+1;
parametry
PM_zb(zzz) = PM;
liczba_uszk_syst = 0;
liczba_wym_sys = 0;
czas_napraw_blok = 0;
czas_pracy_plik
chwile_uszk = sort(czas_pracy);
h(h>chwile_uszk) = chwile_uszk(h>chwile_uszk);
chwile_symptomu = max(chwile_uszk - h,0);
for i=1:w
PM = i*PM_podst;
liczba_pracujacych = sum(chwile_uszk>=PM);
while liczba_pracujacych<nk
liczba_uszk_syst = liczba_uszk_syst + 1;
czas_pracy_plik
h(h>czas_pracy) = czas_pracy(h>czas_pracy);
chwile_uszk(1:m+1) = chwile_uszk(m+1) + czas_pracy(1:m+1);
chwile_symptomu(1:m+1) = max(chwile_uszk(1:m+1) - h(1:m+1),0);
[chwile_uszk,poz] = sort(chwile_uszk);
chwile_symptomu = chwile_symptomu(poz);
endwhile
Appendix A: An Exemplary Simulation Program (Source Code) … 327
liczba_wym = sum(chwile_symptomu<=PM);
liczba_wym_sys = liczba_wym_sys + liczba_wym;
%sumaryczna liczba elementow wymienionych profilaktycznie
if liczba_wym > 0
czas_napraw = max(beta_C .* (-log(1-rand(liczba_wym,1))).^(1/alfa_C));
else
czas_napraw = 0;
endif
czas_napraw_blok = czas_napraw_blok + czas_napraw;
czas_pracy_plik
chwile_uszk(chwile_symptomu<=PM) = PM + czas_pracy(chwile_symptomu<=PM);
chwile_symptomu(chwile_symptomu<=PM) =
max(chwile_uszk(chwile_symptomu<=PM) - h(chwile_symptomu<=PM),0);
endfor
naprawy = 1;
%jesli tutaj jest "naprawy=1" tzn, ze czas napraw jest
uwzgledniany w symulacji
if naprawy == 1
czas_napraw_uszk = beta_B .* (-log(1-rand(m+1,liczba_uszk_syst))).^(1/alfa_B);
if m>0 & liczba_uszk_syst>0
czas_napraw_uszk = max(czas_napraw_uszk);
endif
if liczba_uszk_syst==0
czas_napraw_uszk = 0;
endif
endif
liczba_elementow_wymienionych = liczba_uszk_syst*(m+1) + liczba_wym_sys;
TNW(zzz) = czas_napraw_blok;
TNU(zzz) = sum(czas_napraw_uszk);
A(zzz) = TP/(TP+TNW(zzz)+TNU(zzz));
KE(zzz) = (liczba_elementow_wymienionych*ke)/TP;
%koszty zakupu zużytych elementów ne jednostkę czasu
KC(zzz) = liczba_uszk_syst * kc/TP;
%koszty "konsekwencji" na jednostke czasu
KI(zzz) = w*ki/TP;
%koszty inspekcji na jednostke czasu
K(zzz) = KE(zzz) + KC(zzz) + KI(zzz);
LU(zzz) = liczba_uszk_syst/TP;
LW(zzz) = liczba_wym_sys/TP;
k_zb(zzz) = k;
parametr_zb(zzz) = zzzz;
endfor
endfor
endfor
czas_symulacji = toc
Appendix B
An Exemplary Simulation Program
(Source Code) for a DT Model
for Multi-unit Systems in an nk-Out-of-n
Structure (Imperfect Inspection Case)
clear
tic %pliki konieczne do dzialania: "BI", "parametry", "czas_pracy_plik"
„parametry”
%input('nowe zaczynam')
w=500; %w rzeczywistości oznacza liczbę cykli PM do

końca procesu eksploatacji
alfa_A = 3.5; %A - parametry czasu pracy elementow
beta_A = 100;
alfa_B = 2.3; %B - parametry czasów napraw
uszkodzeniowych
beta_B = 100;
alfa_C = 2.3; %C - parametry czasów wymian
profilaktycznych
beta_C = 10;
alfa_D = 3.5; %D - parametry czasów "h"
beta_D = 35;
nk = zz
n = 5;
m = n-k;
PM = z;
TP = w*PM;
PM_podst = PM;
ke = 1; %koszt elementu
kc = 1000; %koszt "konsekwencji" wynikajacy z
uszkodzenia systemu
ki = 1; %koszt inspekcji

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10788-8
330 Appendix B: An Exemplary Simulation Program (Source Code) ...
srednia_A = beta_A;
odch_A = beta_A/5;
granica_gorna_A = beta_A + 0.3*beta_A;
granica_dolna_A = beta_A - 0.3*beta_A;
srednia_D = beta_D;
odch_D = beta_D/5;
granica_gorna_D = beta_D + 0.3*beta_D;
granica_dolna_D = beta_D - 0.3*beta_D;
pdb_p = 0; %prawdopodobienstwo NIE

wykrycia/zauwazenia symptomu podczas inspekcji
if parametr == 1; ke = zzzz endif

if parametr == 2; kc = zzzz endif
if parametr == 3; ki = zzzz endif
if parametr == 4; beta_D = zzzz endif
if parametr == 5; beta_B = zzzz*beta_C endif
if parametr == 6; alfa_D = zzzz endif
if parametr == 7; beta_A = zzzz endif
if parametr == 8; alfa_A = zzzz endif
if parametr == 9; srednia_A = zzzz, 'sprawdz czy rozkl_A = 2', endif
if parametr == 10; odch_A = zzzz, 'sprawdz czy rozkl_A = 2', endif
if parametr == 11; granica_dolna_A=0, granica_gorna_A = zzzz, 'sprawdz czy rozkl_A =
3', endif
if parametr == 12; granica_dolna_A = zzzz, 'sprawdz czy rozkl_A = 3', endif
if parametr == 13; srednia_D = zzzz, 'sprawdz czy rozkl_D = 2', endif
if parametr == 14; odch_D = zzzz, 'sprawdz czy rozkl_D = 2', endif
if parametr == 15; granica_dolna_D = 0, granica_gorna_D = zzzz, 'sprawdz czy rozkl_D =
3', endif
if parametr == 16; granica_dolna_D = zzzz, granica_gorna_D=beta_A,'sprawdz czy
rozkl_D = 3', endif
if parametr == 17; pdb_p = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 15; granica_dolna_D = beta_D-zzzz, granica_gorna_D = beta_D+zzzz,

'sprawdz czy rozkl_D = 3', endif
„czas_pracy_plik”
%plik generujacy czas pracy i czas od sygaluy do uszkodzenia wg zadanego rozkladu
if rozkl_A == 1
czas_pracy = beta_A .* (-log(1-rand(n,1))).^(1/alfa_A);
endif
if rozkl_A == 2
czas_pracy = (sqrt(-2*log(rand(n,1))) .* cos(2*pi*rand(n,1)))*odch_A+srednia_A;
endif
Appendix B: An Exemplary Simulation Program (Source Code) ... 331
if rozkl_A == 3
czas_pracy = rand(n,1)*(granica_gorna_A-granica_dolna_A)+granica_dolna_A;
endif
if rozkl_D == 1
h = beta_D .* (-log(1-rand(n,1))).^(1/alfa_D);
endif
if rozkl_D == 2
h = (sqrt(-2*log(rand(n,1))) .* cos(2*pi*rand(n,1)))*odch_D+srednia_D;
endif
if rozkl_D == 3
h = rand(n,1)*(granica_gorna_D-granica_dolna_D)+granica_dolna_D;
endif
„BI”
KE=[];
KC=[];
KI=[];
K=[];
PM_zb=[];
LU = [];
LW=[];
LUW=[];
k_zb = [];
TNW = [];
TNU = [];
A = [];
zzz = 0;
parametr_zb = [];
%if rozkl_A == 1; czas pracy ma rozklad weibull'a

%if rozkl_A == 2; czas pracy ma rozklad normalny
%if rozkl_A == 3; czas pracy ma rozklad rownomierny
%if rozkl_D == 1; h ma roklad weibull'a
%if rozkl_D == 2; h ma roklad normalny
%if rozkl_D == 3; h ma roklad rownomierny
%if parametr == 1; ke = zzzz; endif

%if parametr == 2; kc = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 3; ki = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 4; beta_D = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 5; beta_B = zzzz*beta_C; endif
%if parametr == 6; alfa_D = zzzz; endif

%if parametr == 7; beta_A = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 8; alfa_A = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 9; srednia_A = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 10; odch_A = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 11; granica_gorna_A = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 12; granica_dolna_A = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 13; srednia_D = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 14; odch_D = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 15; granica_gorna_D = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 16; granica_dolna_D = zzzz; endif
%if parametr == 17; pdb_p = zzzz; endif
parametr = 17
rozkl_A = 1
rozkl_D = 1
for zzzz = 0.5:0.1:0.5 %sredni czas opoznienia h

for zz = 1:1:5 %liczba "nk" z "n"
for z = 2:2:50 %PM_podst
zzz = zzz+1;
parametry
PM_zb(zzz) = PM;
liczba_uszk_syst = 0;
liczba_wym_sys = 0;
liczba_wym_uszk_w_PM = 0;
czas_napraw_blok = 0;
czas_pracy_plik
chwile_uszk = sort(czas_pracy);
h(h>chwile_uszk) = chwile_uszk(h>chwile_uszk);
chwile_symptomu = max(chwile_uszk - h,0);
for i=1:w
PM = i*PM_podst;
while liczba_pracujacych< nk
liczba_uszk_syst = liczba_uszk_syst + 1;
czas_pracy_plik
chwile_uszk(1:m+1) = chwile_uszk(m+1) + czas_pracy(1:m+1);
chwile_symptomu(1:m+1) = max(chwile_uszk(1:m+1) - h(1:m+1),0);
Appendix B: An Exemplary Simulation Program (Source Code) ... 333
endwhile
macierz_pdb_p = rand(n,1);
liczba_wym = sum(chwile_symptomu<=PM & macierz_pdb_p>pdb_p);
liczba_uszk_wymienionych_w_PM = sum(chwile_uszk<=PM &
macierz_pdb_p<=pdb_p);
liczba_wym_sys = liczba_wym_sys + liczba_wym;

%sumaryczna liczba elementow wymienionych profilaktycznie
liczba_wym_uszk_w_PM = liczba_wym_uszk_w_PM
+liczba_uszk_wymienionych_w_PM; %sumaryczna liczba elem.
wymienionych po uszk. zauwazonym w czasie PM, ale nie powodujacych uszk i
zatrzymania systemu
if liczba_wym + liczba_uszk_wymienionych_w_PM > 0

czas_napraw = max(beta_C .* (-log(1-rand(liczba_wym +
liczba_uszk_wymienionych_w_PM,1))).^(1/alfa_C));
else
czas_napraw = 0;
endif
czas_napraw_blok = czas_napraw_blok + czas_napraw;
czas_pracy_plik
chwile_uszk(chwile_symptomu<=PM & macierz_pdb_p>pdb_p) = PM +

czas_pracy(chwile_symptomu<=PM & macierz_pdb_p>pdb_p);
chwile_symptomu(chwile_symptomu<=PM & macierz_pdb_p>pdb_p) =
max(chwile_uszk(chwile_symptomu<=PM & macierz_pdb_p>pdb_p) -
h(chwile_symptomu<=PM & macierz_pdb_p>pdb_p),0);
poz = find(chwile_uszk<=PM);
chwile_uszk(chwile_uszk<=PM) = PM + czas_pracy(chwile_uszk<=PM);
chwile_symptomu(poz) = max(chwile_uszk(poz) - h(poz),0);
%input('ZROBILEM PETLE')
endfor
naprawy = 1;
%jesli tutaj jest "naprawy=1" tzn, ze czas napraw jest
uwzgledniany w symulacji
if naprawy == 1
czas_napraw_uszk = beta_B .* (-log(1-rand(m+1,liczba_uszk_syst))).^(1/alfa_B);
if m>0 & liczba_uszk_syst>0
czas_napraw_uszk = max(czas_napraw_uszk);
endif
if liczba_uszk_syst==0
czas_napraw_uszk = 0;
endif
endif
liczba_elementow_wymienionych = liczba_uszk_syst*(m+1) + liczba_wym_sys +

liczba_wym_uszk_w_PM;
TNW(zzz) = czas_napraw_blok;
TNU(zzz) = sum(czas_napraw_uszk);
A(zzz) = TP/(TP+TNW(zzz)+TNU(zzz));
KE(zzz) = (liczba_elementow_wymienionych*ke)/TP;
%koszty zakupu zużytych elementów ne jednostkę czasu
KC(zzz) = liczba_uszk_syst * kc/TP;
%koszty "konsekwencji" na jednostke czasu
KI(zzz) = w*ki/TP;
%koszty inspekcji na jednostke czasu
K(zzz) = KE(zzz) + KC(zzz) + KI(zzz);
LU(zzz) = liczba_uszk_syst/TP;
LW(zzz) = liczba_wym_sys/TP;
LUW(zzz) = liczba_wym_uszk_w_PM/TP;
%liczba elem. uszkodzonych ale wymienionych podczas
inspekcji, nie powodujacych uszkodzenia i zatrzymania systmu
k_zb(zzz) = k;
parametr_zb(zzz) = zzzz;
endfor
endfor
endfor
czas_symulacji = toc
Appendix C
Chosen Results for Optimal Period Tin
from Delay Time Dispersion Tests
There are presented the chosen results obtained during optimal inspection analysis
performance in relation to different values of standard deviation dh and mean values
of delay time E[h].
The availability - op mal period Tin in for various

standard devia ons and different E[h]
40
35
30 E[h]=20
25
E[h]=35
Tin
20
15 E[h]=50
10
E[h]=65
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
sigmah

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10788-8
336 Appendix C: Chosen Results for Optimal Period Tin from Delay Time Dispersion Tests
The cost - op mal period Tin in for various standard

devia ons and different E[h]
25
20
E[h]=20
15
Tin
E[h]=35
10
E[h]=50
5 E[h]=65
0
0 5 10 15 20
sigmah
The availability - op mal period Tin in for varia on

coefficient and different E[h]
40
35
30
25 E[h]=20
Tin
20 E[h]=35
15
E[h]=50
10
5 E[h]=65
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
sigmah/E[h]
Appendix C: Chosen Results for Optimal Period Tin from Delay Time Dispersion Tests 337
The cost - op mal period Tin in for varia on coefficient

and different E[h]
25
20
15 E[h]=20
Tin
E[h]=35
10
E[h]=50
5
E[h]=65
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
sigmah/E[h]
The availability- op mal period Tin

50
y = 0.5744x + 2.3312
40 R² = 0.8486
30
Tin
20
10
0
-10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
-10
MTBF-0,5*δh
338 Appendix C: Chosen Results for Optimal Period Tin from Delay Time Dispersion Tests
The cost- op mal period Tin

25
y = 0.2237x + 4.1237
20 R² = 0.5887
15
Tin
10
0
-10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
MTBF-0,5*δh
The availability- op mal period Tin

50
y = 0.4772x + 9.9717
40 R² = 0.8135
30
Tin
20
10
0
-30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
-10
MTBF-1,5*δh
Appendix C: Chosen Results for Optimal Period Tin from Delay Time Dispersion Tests 339
The cost- op mal period Tin

25 y = 0.1981x + 6.8586
R² = 0.6416
20
15
Tin
10
0
-30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
MTBF-1,5*δh
Appendix D
Chosen Standards Related to Maintenance

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10788-8
Area Sub-area Themes Chosen Title Date of: Level Language
342
standard publication/ (s)

reference revision/
or state
Maintenance process during the design / Maintenance Include among others IEC Integrated logistic support 2011 International En—Fr
development /manufacturing /installation activities during • Reliability, availability, maintainability 60300-3-12
phase design phase and Safety management during design IEC Application guide: maintainability 2001 International En—Fr
• Integrated logistic support 60300-3-10
• Service concept
IEC Maintainability of equipment— 2006 International En—Fr
• Design out maintenance
60706-2 maintainability requirements and
studies during the design phase
IEC Maintainability of equipment— 2006 International En—Fr
60706-3 verification of maintainability and
collection, analysis and presentation
of maintainability data
IEC Guide on maintainability of 2007 International En—Fr
60706-5 equipment—diagnostic testing
CEN/TS Criteria for design, management and 2011 European En—Fr—
15331 control of maintenance services for Ge—Cr
buildings
VDI 2891 Maintenance relevant criteria for 2008 National Ge
purchase of machines.
Maintenance process during Maintenance Include among others IEC Application guide—reliability 2009 International En—Fr
operating phase planning • Criticality analyses (RCM, …) 60300-3-11 centered maintenance
• Maintenance and risk management SAE Evaluation criteria for 2009 International En
(RBI, …) JA1011 reliability-centered maintenance
• Value based maintenance (RCM) processes
• Plant maintenance optimisation
SAE A guide to RCM standard 2002 International En
• Lean maintenance
JA1012
• Decision making in maintenance
• Replacement investments CEN/TS Criteria for design, management and 2011 European En—Fr—
15331 control of maintenance services for Ge—Cr
buildings
UNI Maintenance. criteria for design, 1997 National It
10604:1997 management and control of the
maintenance services of building
(continued)
Appendix D: Chosen Standards Related to Maintenance
(continued)
reference revision/
or state
NEN Condition assessment of building and 2006 National Du
2767-1 installation components—part 1:
methodology
2767-2 installation components—part 2: list
of faults
2767-3 installation components—part 3:
aggregation of condition scores
Maintenance support Include among others: EN 13306 Maintenance terminology 2010 European En—Fr—
• Spare part management Ge—Cr—
• Obsolescence management Sk
• Maintenance tools management IEC 50 International electrotechnical CD3 International En—Fr—
• Maintenance documents (191) vocabulary—dependability and expected? …
• Instrumentation and wireless techniques quality of service
• Maintenance information systems
IEC 61703 Mathematical expressions for 2001 International En—Fr—
(CMMS, ERM, …)
reliability, maintainability and …

• Benchmarking systems
maintenance support items
• Education and training in maintenance
• Certification of maintenance personnel NF ISO Condition monitoring and diagnostics 2005 International En—Fr
• Traceability 13372 of machines—Vocabulary
• Qualification of equipment EN Facility management—part 1: terms 2006 European En—Fr—
• Maintenance standards 15221-1 and definitions Ge—Cr—
Sk
NF X Maintenance—reference conditions 2007 National Fr
50-501 for items : vocabulary of renovation
and reconstruction activities
IEC 62550 Spare parts provisioning CD1 International En—Fr
expected
(continued)
343
(continued)
344

reference revision/
or state
VDI 2892 Management of maintenance spare 2006 National Ge
parts
IEC 62402 Application guide—obsolescence 2007 International En—Fr
management
EN 13460 Maintenance—documents for 2009 European En—Fr—
maintenance Ge—Cr—
Sk
CEN/TR Maintenance—qualification of 2007 European En—Fr—
15628 maintenance personnel Ge—Cr—
Sk
Maintenance Include among others EN 13269 Maintenance—guideline on 2006 European En—Fr—
implementation • Contracting and outsourcing and preparation of maintenance contracts Ge—Cr—
insourcing Sk
• Total productive Maintenance IEC Application guide—guidelines for 2008 International En—Fr
• E-maintenance 60300-3-16 specification of maintenance support
• Operator based maintenance services
• Remote maintenance
EN Facility management—part 2: 2006 European En—Fr—
• Relations operational/maintenance
15221-2 guidance on how to prepare facility Ge—Cr
staff
management agreements
UNI Maintenance—management of a 2007 National It
10148:2007 maintenance contract
UNI Maintenance—criteria to prepare a 2007 National It
10685:2007 maintenance global service
UNI Global service for maintenance of 2004 National It
11136:2004 buildings—guidelines
NF Industrial maintenance— 2004 National Fr
X60-008 maintenance outsourcing draft guide
—pre-contractual approach
(continued)
(continued)
reference revision/
or state
NF Maintenance—preconditions to the 2006 National Fr
X60-100 maintenance contracts—inventories
and evaluation for the states of items
PSK Maintenance in industry. Service National Fi
agreement
Maintenance Include among others ISO Condition monitoring and diagnostics 2004 International En—Fr
techniques • Condition monitoring techniques 13381-1 of machines—prognostics—general
• Non destructive testing guidelines
• Diagnosis and prognosis ISO 13379 Condition monitoring and diagnostics 2004 International En—Fr
• Maintenance and repair technology of machines—general guidelines on
(mechanical and electrical methods for data interpretation and diagnostics
repairs) techniques
VDI 2888 Maintenance condition monitoring 1999 National Ge
VDI 2889 Methods and systems for condition 1998 National Ge
and process monitoring in
maintenance
PSK 5704 Condition monitoring. Vibration 2002 National Fi, En

measurement. Acceptance test and
vibration severity limits
Maintenance and Include among others IEC Application guide—collection of 2004 International En—Fr
equipment history • Maintenance data collection 60300-3-2 dependability data from the field
• Human error analysis ISO 14224 Petroleum, petrochemical and natural 2006 International En—Fr
• Maintenance knowledge and best gas industries—collection and
practices exchange of reliability and
• Tools for expert evaluation maintenance data for equipment
CEI/PAS Guidance on human factors 2007 International En—Fr
62508 engineering for system life cycle—
applications
(continued)
345
(continued)
346

reference revision/
or state
Assessment and improvement of equipment Equipment reliability Include among others IEC 60812 Analysis techniques for system 2006 International En—Fr
and maintenance • Root cause analysis reliability—procedure for failure
• Equipment health analysis mode and effects analysis (FMEA)
• Ageing and degradation mechanism IEC 62308 Reliability assessment methods 2006 International En—Fr
modelling
IEC 61649 Weibull analysis 2008 International En—Fr
• Remaining useful life assessment
IEC 60863 Presentation of reliability, 1986 National Fi
maintainability and availability
predictions
Maintenance Include among others EN 15341 Maintenance—maintenance key 2007 European En—Fr—
assessment • Benchmarking performance indicators Ge—Cr—
• Performance Indicators and Sk
Dashboards VDI 2886 Benchmarking applied to 2003 National Ge
• Maintenance process diagnosis and maintenance
audits
VDI 2893 Selection and formation of indicators 2006 National Ge
• Modelling and simulation of
for maintenance
maintenance strategies
• Customer satisfaction surveys PSK 7501 Key performance indicators of National Fi
• Best practices identification maintenance for use in process
industry
PSK 7502 Key performance indicators of National Fi
logistics. Material function
UNI Maintenance—maintenance ratios for 2003 National It
11069:2003 the vehicles in service on road, with
limited distances to be covered and
frequent stops
(continued)
(continued)
reference revision/
or state
Life cycle management Asset maintenance Include among others IEC Maintenance and maintenance 2004 International En—Fr
management • Maintenance process description— 60300-3-14 support
roles and responsibilities NF Maintenance function 2002 National Fr
• Maintenance excellence X60-000
• Life cycle management
DIN 31051 Fundamentals of maintenance 2003 National Ge
• Life cycle extension
• Rebuilding and reinvestment strategies PAS 55-1 Specification for the optimized 2008 National En
• Relations with auditing and safety management of physical assets
organizations PAS 55-2 Guidelines for the application of 2008 National En
PASS 55-1
IEC Dependability management— 2004 International En—Fr
60300-3-3 application guide—life cycle costing
EN 1325-1 Value management, value analysis, 1996 European En—Fr—
functional analysis vocabulary— Ge
value analysis and functional analysis
EN 1325-2 Value management, value analysis, 2005 European En—Fr—
functional analysis vocabulary— Ge
value management
347

Technical System Maintenance - Delay-Time-Based Modelling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical System Maintenance - Delay-Time-Based Modelling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Springer Series in Reliability Engineering

ISSN 1614-7839 ISSN 2196-999X (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018965885

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Wroclaw, Poland Sylwia Werbińska-Wojciechowska

5 Delay-Time Models for Multi-unit Technical Systems

AAM Aircraft Availability Model

A System availability ratio

cin2 Cost of second (and subsequent) inspection action performance

Gh(t) Probability distribution function of the initial time u, which elapses

n Number of elements in a system

Ns(t) Number of shocks up to time t

symptoms of forthcoming failure will occur, but at the end of this

ðk Þ Left-hand derivative of reliability function at t = kTin

Tp2 Time to perform PM alone in the long-run

ki ðtÞ Failure intensity rate of component i, where i = 1, 2, …

Abstract Chapter includes an introduction to the maintenance theory. The main

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CONTROL

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

In addition, proper maintenance needs technical skills, techniques, methods to

• maintenance optimization models—classiﬁed according to the modelling of a

TECHNICAL SYSTEM CONDITION MONITORING

DETECTION PROCESSES DIAGNOSTIC PROGNOSTIC PROCESSES

TECHNICAL SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PROCESS

OPTIMAL MAINTENANCE STRATEGY FOR

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION MAINTENANCE MODELLING

maintenance policies, modelling techniques, system architectures, maintenance

PROPER PERFORMANCE OF OPERATIONAL TASK (EFFECT)

LIFE CYCLE COSTS OF THE OBJECT

OTHER PARAMETERS RELIABILITY MAINTAINABILITY

OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT LOGISTIC MAINTENANCE

In the situation, when it is necessary to avoid system failures during operation,

A framework for condition monitoring and classiﬁcation of decisions about

CORRECTIVE PERIODIC PM CONDITION-BASED

MAINTENANCE STRETEGIES FOR TECHNICAL OBJECTS/SYSTEMS

FAILURE HAS OCCURRED IN A FAILURE HAS NOT OCCURRED IN

CORRECTIVE TIME-BASED PREDICTIVE CONDITION- RELIABILITY

Table 1.1 Summary of the main maintenance strategies

inspection to prevent failure [87]. Recent reviews on inspection maintenance

damage, environmental pollution, injuries, or even death). Examples of areas par-

As a result, the author focuses on the development of the new delay-time

MAINTENANCE MODELS FOR TECHNICAL SYSTEM

PREVENTIVE INSPECTION DELAY-TIME BASED

Inspection maintenance DTM for single-unit systems

PM models for multi-unit systems Inspection maintenance

Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4

Discussed in the Introduction chapter basic deﬁnitions concerning the mainte-

1. Ahmad R, Kamaruddin S (2011) Maintenance management decision model for preventive

76. Nowakowski T, Werbinska S (2009) On problems of multi-component system maintenance

Among the different types of maintenance policy, preventive maintenance (PM) is

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 21

One of the ﬁrst survey of maintenance policies for stochastically failing

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE (PM) FOR TECHNICAL SYSTEM

PM FOR SINGLE-UNIT SYSTEM PM FOR MULTI-UNIT SYSTEM

Age-dependent PM policy with components dependence

Age replacement policy Group maintenance policy

Opportunistic maintenance policy

Block replacement policy without components dependence

Block replacement policy

Repair limit policies

Repair cost limit policy

Repair time limit policy