Computers & Industrial Engineering 55 (2008) 817–829

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie

Planning and optimizing the maintenance of paper production systems in a

paper plant
Anish Sachdeva *, Dinesh Kumar, Pradeep Kumar
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee 247667, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Manufacturing and production plants operate physical assets that deteriorate with usage
Received 10 February 2008 and time, thus, maintenance actions are required to restore the assets back to their original
Received in revised form 10 March 2008 predetermined operational conditions. But since, organizational resources are limited and
Accepted 10 March 2008
scarce. The objective of an effective maintenance program is to minimize total cost of
Available online 17 March 2008
inspection and repair, and equipment downtime. In this paper, we describe a new multi-
criteria optimization framework for deriving optimal maintenance schedules for preven-
tive maintenance which considers availability, maintenance cost and life cycle costs as
Keywords:
Preventive maintenance
the criteria for optimization. The Simulink toolbox of the Matlab has been interfaced with
Availability Genetic algorithm for optimization. After getting solution, Stochastic Petri nets has been
Life cycle cost used to model the system and find out the effect of optimized maintenance schedules
Maintenance planning on system performance. The application of the proposed framework has been discussed
Simulink on a practical case of a paper plant.
Petri nets Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the present era of rapid technology evolution, modern technology and integrated automation of manufacturing has
developed a tendency to design and manufacture equipments of greater capital cost, sophistication, complexity and capac-
ity. The very survival of such systems is dependent upon high productivity and high payback ratios. All production sys-
tems are expected to be operational and available for the maximum time possible so as to maximize production
volumes and profits. But, failure is an unavoidable phenomenon. All systems eventually fail. It therefore becomes imper-
ative that any system downtime resulting from these failures be kept to an absolute minimum. The widely recognized
index used to assess the performance of such systems is measure of ‘availability’. To underline the consequences of loss
of availability, the lost production in a chemical plant can range from $500 to $100,000 per hour (Tan & Kramer, 1997).
Process availability is a function of both reliability and maintainability. Reliability characteristics (e.g., equipment charac-
teristics, system configurations, etc.) and certain maintainability characteristics are inherent attributes of the process
established during design stage and cannot be changed without a design change (Kapur & Lamberson, 1977). As a result,
the possible way to achieve the high availability and economy of operations is through the execution of effective main-
tenance strategies. It is now becoming increasingly clear to business leaders that the maintenance function is very criti-
cally important. Since, the investments in physical assets are enormously high and there are provisions in operating
budgets for maintenance, managements have now started dwelling on issues concerning the maintenance of plant and
machinery more seriously than ever. Overall, the goal for an organization is to increase profitability. The maintenance
management can increase profits in two main ways, i.e., by decreasing running costs and increasing capability. Mainte-

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: anishsachdeva@gmail.com (A. Sachdeva), dinesfme@iitr.ernet.in (D. Kumar), kumarfme@iitr.ernet.in (P. Kumar).

0360-8352/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cie.2008.03.004
818 A. Sachdeva et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 55 (2008) 817–829

nance planning is the most common and significant problems faced by the manufacturing industry. Production schedules
are often interrupted by equipment failures, which could be prevented by proper preventive maintenance (Sortrakul,
Nachtmann, & Cassady, 2005). An effective equipment maintenance management program must primarily provide oper-
ational or short-term (daily) planning and long-term planning. Maintenance managers are supposed to make a series of
decisions concerning the following: (1) why to perform maintenance; (2) the average interval between component fail-
ures, or when to perform preventative maintenance; (3) which actions are required, or what to do on the equipment;
(4) how to do it; (5) where to do it; (6) how long it takes (Khanlari, Mohammadi, & Sohrabi, 2008).
Despite its big benefits, maintenance in general is expensive. According to one estimate the cost of maintenance is
assumed to be 20–30% of the plant’s total operating cost. Therefore proper planning of maintenance activities increases
the profitability of the process. This result in maintenance optimization problem which attempts to identify the mainte-
nance strategies which yield process availability levels that maintain a balance between process revenue and mainte-
nance cost to maximize process profitability. For this purpose, maintenance optimization models are derived to
establish a trade off between costs and benefits of maintenance, taking into consideration all specifications and con-
straints (Dekker, 1996; Vassiliadis & Pistikopoulos, 2001). The objective of any PM program is the minimization of the
total cost of inspection and repair, and equipment downtime (measured in terms of lost production capacity or reduced
product quality) (Gento, 2004).
In this paper, a new framework for determining the optimum preventive maintenance (PM) schedules through inter-
facing of the Genetic algorithm with Simulink toolbox of the Matlab is presented. The ensuing section describes the types
and importance of maintenance activities. The problem of maintenance optimization is formulated in the following sec-
tion. The details of SPN (Stochastic Petri nets) based method for evaluation of system performance parameters are dis-
cussed in the subsequent section. In the final section, applicability of the approach is examined on the practical case of a
paper plant.

2. Maintenance management

Maintenance activities fall into two broad categories, namely corrective maintenance and preventive maintenance. Cor-
rective maintenance is performed when action is taken to restore the functional capabilities of failed or malfunctioned sys-
tems. This is also known as reactive maintenance because the action is initiated when the unscheduled event of
an equipment failure occurs. Nowadays, maintenance activities are moving from the reactive and expensive mode to
proactive based, cost effective and high service maintenance techniques and approaches, which are adopted by
enterprises in one form or another (Khanlari et al., 2008). Some of the most important maintenance techniques and
approaches are

– Reactive or corrective maintenance (CM): Reactive maintenance is also known as frequency based or breakdown mainte-
nance, repairs are done to bring the equipment back from failure stage to operational stage.
– Preventive maintenance (PM): The main objective of carrying out preventive maintenance is to reduce the frequent and
sudden sporadic failures by performing repairs, replacement, overhauling, lubrication, cleaning and inspection at a spe-
cific predetermined interval of time.
– Predictive maintenance and condition-based maintenance (CBM): Predictive or condition-based maintenance strategy
reduces the probability of sudden sporadic failures with the aid of diagnostics and timely intervention. Advanced moni-
toring sensors and diagnostic equipments are used to keep track of the physical conditions such as temperature, vibration,
noise, corrosion, etc. of the equipments which further helps to get information about the root cause(s) and failure
mechanisms.
– Total productive maintenance (TPM): Total productive maintenance defined by Nakajima (1988) includes a company wide
approach to plant, equipment or asset care that involves the active participation of all from top management to workers
on the floor to enhance equipment effectiveness by eliminating the six big losses such asDowntime losses, Set-up and
adjustments losses, Speed losses, Reduced speed, Defect losses and Reduced yield. In TPM the practice of preventive mainte-
nance is combined with the concept of total quality through employee involvement (TQEI). It insists on the reduction of
the need for maintenance and the re-engineering of maintenance practices, thereby eliminating non-value-adding activ-
ities and reducing maintenance costs, and
– Reliability-centered maintenance (RCM): Moubary (2000) defined reliability centered maintenance as a systematic
approach used to optimize preventive and predictive maintenance programs to increase equipment efficiency (uptime,
performance and quality) while targeting on minimizing the maintenance cost. In RCM methodology the focus is on main-
taining system function rather than restoring equipment to an ideal condition. Focus is on determining what preventive
maintenance is required to maximize the reliability of equipment and systems.

In RCM, the problem of arriving at maintenance schedule plays a significant role. The focus of this paper is on determining
the optimum preventive maintenance (PM) activities for effective RCM program implementation. The objective of any PM
program is the minimization of the total cost of inspection and repair, and equipment downtime (Gento, 2004). PM policy
has been the subject of many studies in recent years. A number of papers (Dekker & Scarf, 1998; Hipkin & Lockett, 1995;
 A. Sachdeva et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 55 (2008) 817–829 819

Pierskalla & Voelker, 1976; Valdez-Flores & Feldman, 1989; Wang, 2002) present overviews of the research work in the field
of maintenance optimization models, assessing their impact and applications. The optimization of maintenance decision
making can be defined as an attempt to resolve the conflicts of a decision situation in such a way that the variables under
the control of the decision maker take their best possible value (Jardine, 1973). One of the controllable variables in the case of
machinery maintenance is the interval between maintenance. The optimum value is achieved when the working area of the
problem is satisfied. For details one can see Richard and Larry (1960), Woodman (1964), Toshio and Shnji (1976), Nagakava
(1977), Ntuen (1991), Henry and Abdelaziz (1991), Jayabalan and Chaudhuri (1992), Schabe (1995), Chareonsuk, Nagarur,
and Tabucanon (1997), Dijkhuizen and Heijden (1999), Gopalakrishnan, Mohan, and He (2001), Frank (2001), Vassiliadis
and Pistikopoulos (2001), Nakamura (2001), Mariappan (2004) and Tsai et al. (2004). The preventive maintenance schedule
is determined with mathematical formulation by setting one or more parameters like cost, reliability, availability, life cycle
cost as the constraints. The use of evolutionary techniques like Genetic algorithm (Bris, Chatelet, & Yalaoui, 2003; Lapa, Pere-
ira, & Barrosa, 2006) and ant colony optimization (Samrout, Yalaoui, Chatelet, & Chebbo, 2005) have also been made to opti-
mize maintenance schedules. Leou (2006) too proposed a formulation considering reliability and cost reduction as the
constraints for maintenance scheduling. He used Genetic algorithm along with the simulated annealing for the solution of
the problem.
The present work also deals with the determination of the optimum maintenance schedule using Simulink as a modeling
device and Genetic algorithm as the optimization tool. Cost of maintenance and availability have been taken as the con-
straints. Simulink is a simulation software working under MATLAB that enables representation of non-linear equations
through block diagrams. It can be effectively used to solve the set of equations of the mathematical model through the nu-
merical integrations. The corresponding numerical integration is performed using the explicit four-order Runge–Kutta meth-
od Using Simulink (1999). An interface has been established between Simulink and Genetic algorithm under Matlab
environment to find the optimal solution. The Stochastic Petri nets have been used to study the effect of determined main-
tenance schedules on system availability. A Petri net model consists of setting up of several interrelated nets which can be
animated to identify state space evolution of the system. The performance parameters can be evaluated by using a Monte-
Carlo simulation technique. The applicability of the approach has been discussed with the practical case of a paper produc-
tion system of a paper plant.

3. Maintenance optimization problem formulation

As a piece of equipment ages, it reaches a wear-out phase characterized by an increasing failure rate period. The wear-out
life period represents age related failures, which indicates decreasing resistance to failure and increasing failure rate with
time. In a time-based preventive maintenance program, the replacement of equipment becomes an important issue for
maintenance decision making. This task needs to be carried out to keep the system in a condition consistent with built-in
levels of performance of the equipment. The earliest approach to the planned replacement problem was demonstrated by
Campbell (1941). Jardine (1973) and Kay (1976) concluded that preventive replacement is the most appropriate mainte-
nance strategy for equipment which operates in the increasing failure rate region. However, if preventive replacement is ap-
plied too frequently, down-time due to maintenance interruptions will increase while down-time due to sudden breakdown
will decrease. On the other hand, if preventive replacement is applied only rarely, down-time due to maintenance interrup-
tions will decrease while down-time due to sudden breakdown will increase. A compromise between these two extreme
cases is required for optimizing the number of maintenance interruptions, which minimizes the total equipment down-time
due to maintenance interruptions plus that due to sudden breakdown.
In the paper, maintenance model proposed by Kay (1976) is used to find the optimum preventive maintenance schedule.
Kay used one parameter Weibull distribution. The model was further developed by Mariappan (2004) by considering two
parameter Weibull distribution. The application of Genetic algorithm is applied to obtain the optimum preventive mainte-
nance interval.

Notations used in the model:

f(t) failure time distribution
F(t) failure density
h(t) hazard function
R(t) reliability function
T: scheduled period
mc mean repair time for corrective maintenance
mp mean repair time for preventive maintenance
RT
T ¼ 0 RðsÞ ds, mean time between replacements (MTBR)
Ac Availability in case of corrective maintenance
Ap Availability in case of preventive maintenance
cc maintenance cost per unit time for corrective maintenance
cp maintenance cost per unit time for preventive maintenance
Cc average maintenance cost rate in case of corrective maintenance
Cp average maintenance cost in case of preventive maintenance
820 A. Sachdeva et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 55 (2008) 817–829

3.1. Decision model for PM optimization

The availability in case of corrective maintenance is given by

M
Ac ¼ ð1Þ
M þ mc
The availability in case of corrective maintenance is given by

T
Ap ¼ ð2Þ
T þ mc RðTÞ þ mp ½1  RðTÞ
T mc mp
If M
¼ a, M
¼ l and mc
¼ c, then Eqs. (1) and (2) becomes
1
Ac ¼ ð3Þ
1þl
a
Ap ¼ ð4Þ
a þ l½1  k1 RðTÞ
The average maintenance cost in case of corrective maintenance is
cc :mc
Cc ¼ ð5Þ
M þ mc
cp
Let, cc
¼d

Then,
cc :l
Cc ¼ ð6Þ
1þl
The average maintenance cost in case of corrective maintenance is

½1  RðTÞ:mc :cc þ RðTÞ:mp :cp

Cp ¼
T þ RðTÞ:mp þ ½1  RðTÞ:mc
l:cc ð1  RðTÞð1  dcÞÞ
¼ ð7Þ
a þ l½1  RðTÞð1  cÞ

However for the above criteria, preventive maintenance is preferred if the following relations hold:
Ap  Ac > 0 ð8Þ
Cp  Cc < 0 ð9Þ

Putting the values in Eq. (8)

a 1
> ð10Þ
a þ c:l:RðTÞ þ l:½1  RðTÞ 1 þ l
) aT1  RðTÞð1  cÞ ¼ 1  K 1 RðTÞ ð11Þ

where K1 = 1  c
Eq. (9) becomes,
1  RðTÞð1  dcÞ 1
< ð12Þ
a þ l½1  RðTÞð1  cÞ 1 þ l
) aT1  RðTÞ½ð1  dcÞ þ lcð1  dÞ ¼ 1  K 2 RðTÞ ð13Þ

where K2 = (1  dc) + lc(1  d)

The factor lc(1  d) is very less as compared to (1  dc)

) K 2 ’ ð1  dcÞ ð14Þ

Also it can be easily shown that K2 P K1.

Therefore,
a > 1  K 2 :RðTÞ ð15Þ
Whereas the a is a function of R(T)
Z T
1
a¼ RðsÞ ds ð16Þ
M 0
Using (14), Eq. (7) can also be written like
 A. Sachdeva et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 55 (2008) 817–829 821

" #
CP 1  K 2 RðTÞ
¼ a
ð17Þ
cm l
þ ð1  K 1 :RðTÞÞ

Now the Eq. (17) is a ratio and is unit less like that of Ap. Both the equations can be easily used as objective functions.
Kay (1976) and Mariappan (2004) considered three criteria viz., availability, maintenance cost and revenue earning. But at
the same time it was shown that the third criteria revenue earning is dependent upon other two criteria, i.e., availability and
maintenance cost. So we considered only these two criteria for obtaining optimum preventive maintenance schedule.
Another constraint included in the model by Mariappan (2004) is of minimizing the life cycle cost (also discussed by Chi-
tra, 2003). In this policy, the part is replaced after it has been in operation for time t. If a part fails at some time tf, it is re-
placed and the next replacement does not take place until tf + t or at the next failure, whichever comes first.
Life cycle cost; C ¼ cp np þ cc nc ð18Þ
N ¼ np þ n c ð19Þ

where N is total number of replacements in period T

T
N¼ ð20Þ
MTBR
The fraction of components that survive until the next preventive maintenance is given by R(T) and the number of surviving
components np that are replaced through preventive maintenance are given by,
np ¼ RðTÞ:N ð21Þ

and
nc ¼ ð1  RðTÞÞ:N ð22Þ
Eq. (18) becomes

RðTÞ:T ð1  RðTÞÞ:T
C ¼ cp R T þ cc R T ð23Þ
0
RðsÞ ds 0
RðsÞ ds

The value of T corresponding to the minimum cost is given by,

dC
¼0
dT hR i
T 0 2
dC T 0 RðsÞ ds:R ðTÞ:ðcpm  ccm Þ  R ðTÞ:ðcpm  ccm Þ  RðTÞ:ccm
¼ hR i2 ¼0
dT T
0
RðsÞ ds

RðTÞ
As R0 ðTÞ
¼ hðTÞ, so the equation simplifies to
Z T
cc
RðTÞ þ hðTÞ RðsÞ ds ¼ ð24Þ
0 c c  cp
Z T
1
) RðTÞ þ hðTÞ RðsÞ ds ¼ ð25Þ
0 1d
Since the value of T should be such that the maintenance cost should not exceed the life cycle cost, so the Eq. (25) can be also
written like
Z T
1
RðTÞ þ hðTÞ RðsÞ ds 6 ð26Þ
0 1  d
The probability density of two parameter Weibull distribution is given by the equation
 b1
b t b
f ðtÞ ¼ eðt=hÞ
h h
 b1
b t
hðtÞ ¼
h h
b
RðtÞ ¼ eðt=hÞ

where

b is shape parameter and

h is scale parameter.
822 A. Sachdeva et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 55 (2008) 817–829

4. Optimization model

The optimization model becomes as follows:

a
MAX Ap ¼
a þ l½1  k1 RðTÞ
" #
CP 1  K 2 RðTÞ
MIN ¼ a
cm l
þ ð1  K 1 :RðTÞÞ
Subject to the constraints
a > 1  K 1 RðTÞ
a > 1  K 2 RðTÞ
T>0
06a61
Ap P min :Ap
Z T
cc
RðTÞ þ hðTÞ RðsÞ ds 6
0 cc  c p

The equation are formulated in Simulink toolbox of Matlab (shown in Appendix A) and interfaced with Genetic algorithm
tool to obtain the optimal value of preventive maintenance schedule (T*). Equal weightage factor is assigned to both the
objective functions.

5. Stochastic Petri net (SPN)

There exists an ample literature devoted to the use of SPN (Murata, 1989; Nourelfath & Dutuit, 2004), so a brief introduc-
tion to some basic definitions and general rules, concerning their structure (static aspect) and their functioning (dynamic
aspect), are given below and illustrated on the basis of a simple example.

5.1. SPN constituent elements

A Petri net is a directed graph with two disjoint types of nodes: places, denoted as circles, and transitions, denoted as bars.
A directed arc (arrow) which connects a place to a transition is called an input arc. The directed arc connects which connects
a transition to a place is called an output arc. A weight (an integer) can be assigned to any arc. It indicates the multiplicity of
that input (or output) arc to which it is assigned. This weight equals to one if it is not explicitly mentioned. When the mul-
tiplicity of arc is more than one, a small bar with a number (equal to multiplicity) is placed next to the arc. A transition can be
disabled if one of its input arcs is an inhibitor arc, denoted as an arrow terminated with a small hollow circle. A place is
marked when it contains at least a token, denoted as a small filled circle or a dot. A weighted inhibitor arc is active only
if its input place contains tokens at least equal to the weight. Messages can be associated to input arcs (interrogation mes-
sages: ?M) and output arcs (emitted messages: !M).

5.2. Functioning rules

Marking graph of the Petri net is used to model the evolution of the system under study. This graph defines the current
state of the system which indicates the number of tokens in each place in that marking or state. The animation of the model
with firing of enabled transitions helps to identify state space evolution of the system. The rules for firing of transitions are
given here below (Nourelfath & Dutuit, 2004):

 A token can be removed from a place only if its output transition has been ‘fired’.
 A transition can be fired only if its time delay (deterministic or Stochastic) is elapsed.
 The delay assigned to a transition is started as soon as this transition is ‘enabled’.
 A transition is enabled only if the following conditions are satisfied:
– Each of its input places is marked by at least as many tokens as required by the weight of each corresponding input arc.
– None of its inhibitor arcs (if any) is active.
– The interrogative messages (if any) associated to its input arcs are ‘true’.

In the case of Petri nets animated by Monte-Carlo simulation, the delays di associated to Stochastic transitions are gen-
erally computed by using the so-called inversion formula: di ¼  1k ln X; di ¼ 1, where k is, for instance, the failure rate (expo-
nential law) related to a given component and X is a random variable uniformly distributed over [0, 1]. Any value of X is
obtained by random number generation.
The behavior of the studied system throughout its mission time TM is simulated a great number of times N with, every
time, the same initial conditions. Each simulation over TM is called a history. The parameters of interest (reliability, avail-
 A. Sachdeva et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 55 (2008) 817–829 823

ability, mean time to failure, etc.) are estimated by means of a simple statistical analysis of the results coming from the N
trials.
All the above elements and rules are illustrated on the basis of the following example.

5.3. Illustrative example

Let us consider a two component system made up component Comp1 and Comp2, arranged in series. The failure rate and
the repair rate of Comp1 are denoted, respectively, by k1 and l1.The parameters k2 and l2 refer, respectively, to the failure
rate and the repair rate of Comp2. It is assumed that k2 < k1 and that only one repairman is available. The behavior of this
system can be modeled by the Petri Nets given in Fig. 1. In order to make the working of PN model understand, a possible
evolution of the system is described here below.
In Fig. 1, transitions T1, T2, T3 and T4 have Stochastic delays defined by d1 = f(k1), d2 = g(l1), d3 = u(k2) and d4 = h(l2)
respectively. For example, T1 is fired as soon as its delay d1 is elapsed. t1, t2, t3 and t4 are instantaneous transitions. At time
t = 0 only places PA_work, PB_work and Psys_up are marked by a token and the messages are ‘false’. This induces only transitions
T1 and T3 are enabled, because t3 is inhibited by message C1 (C1 is ‘false’), Let us assume T1 is first fired. The token is re-
moved from PA_work and a token appears in PA_wait_repair and then C1 becomes ‘true’. The token disappears from Psys_up and a

PA_Work PB_Work Psys_up

δ1 = f ( λ1 ) δ 3 = ϕ ( λ2 )
T1 T3
!C1 !C1 ? C1
t3 t4
!C1 !C1
PA_Wait_repair T2
PB_Wait_repair ? C1
δ2 = g(μ1 ) T4 δ 4 = h( μ 2 )

t1 t2 Psys_dn

PA_undert_repair Prepairman PB_undert_repair

Fig. 1. An illustrative Petri net model.

PA_Work

δ 1 = f ( λ1 ) δ2 = T
T1 T3
!C1 !C1
!C1 !C1
PA_Wait_repair
δ 3 = g ( μ1 ) T4

T2 δ4 = m

t1

PA_undert_repair PA_undert_maint

Prepairman

Fig. 2. Petri net model with preventive maintenance.

824 A. Sachdeva et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 55 (2008) 817–829

token is put in Psys_dn. Now both PA_wait_repair and Prepairman being marked, t2 is fired immediately. The tokens are removed
from PA_wait_repair and Prepairman and a token is put in PA_under_repair. Only T2 is now enabled. It is fired when its Stochastic delay
is reached. The token disappears from PA_under_repair and a token appears both in PA_work and Prepairman. The message C1(C1 is
‘false’) is also emitted and it enables the t4, which is immediately fired. The token disappear from Psys_dn and another one
appears in Psys_up.
The Fig. 2 shows the Petri net model for component 1 when it is subjected to preventive maintenance schedules. The
deterministic timed transition T3 and T4 are added in the model. the transition T2 has deterministic delay = T, which is
the preventive maintenance schedule are component 1 and the transition T4 has deterministic delay = m, being the time
to perform the preventive maintenance.

6. Paper production system

The use of the proposed methodology is illustrated with the help of a case of a paper production system (Kumar, Singh, &
Pandey, 1991), which is one of the main and most important functional units of the paper mill. Fig. 3 shows the schematic
diagram of the system. the various critical subsystems of the paper production system are discussed hereunder:
Forming unit: The function of the forming unit is to carry metered quantity of the pulp for further processing. It consists of
head box, wire mat, suction box and a number of rollers. Cooked pulp after processing through number of stages is fed to
head box of paper machine from where (in controlled proportion) it is made to run on the wire mat which runs over the
rollers. Head box delivers stock (pulp + water) in controlled quantity to moving wire mat, supported by series of table
and wire rolls. The suction box (having six pumps) dewaters the pulp through vacuum action. Four pumps out of six should
keep on working to keep the system working. The chances of failure of head box are assumed be negligible.
Press unit: The main function of this unit is to reduce the moisture content of the paper by pressing the pulp under the
rolls received from forming unit of machine. The system consists of synthetic belt, upper and bottom rollers as main com-
ponents. The unit receives wet paper sheet from forming unit on to the synthetic belt, which is further, carried through press
rolls thereby reducing the moisture content to almost 50–60%.
Dryer unit: In the dryer unit, the pulp is further dried by heating and thus vaporizing the moisture content to zero level.
The system consists of steam-heated rolls (dryers), in stages, and the steam is supplied from steam handling systems. The
rolls are heated with superheated steam and remove the moisture content of the paper rolled over them completely.

7. Analysis of results

Failure and maintenance data of the plant was collected from the maintenance log book. The related data were used to
obtain failure and repair rates of the major components associated with the paper production unit of the plant. In this study,
Weibull distribution has been used to represent equipment failure time and exponential distribution for repair time (Moss,
2005). The shape parameter (b) and scale parameter (h) of the Weibull distribution have been computed using least square
curve fitting technique. The mean time to repair has been computed from the repair data assuming the same to follow expo-
nential distribution. The details of the failure and repair data are given in Table 1 for all the major components of the system.
The availability of the system was computed without adopting PM scheduling using the SPN modeling approach dis-
cussed earlier in the Section 4. The simulation was run for 10,000 min using MOCA RP software to obtain the results with
10,000 replications. The following assumptions were made during simulation:

1. All maintenance is of AGAN (as good as new) type, i.e., the components are restored to their initial condition after
maintenance.

Fig. 3. Flow diagram of a paper production system.

 A. Sachdeva et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 55 (2008) 817–829 825

Table 1
The failure and repair data of paper production system

Component Failure data (Weibull distribution) Repair data (exponential distribution)

Scale parameter (h) Shape parameter (b) MTBF MTTR
Wire mat 342 1.8 303 12
Rollers 226 1.1 218 6
Suction pumps 960 1.22 899.4 2.5
Synthetic belt 1045 2.4 926 16
Press rolls 184 1.12 176.34 5.5
Drier rolls 228 1.18 215.6 6
Steam handling unit 270 1.3 250.38 3.5

2. All failures are independent.

3. There is only one repairman available in the system and maintenance is performed on only one of the unit at any instant
in the following way:
(a) Corrective, if the unit is down.
(b) Preventive, if it is operable till the time specified for PM interval.

The steady state availability of the system has been evaluated, shown in Fig. 4. It is an established fact that the preventive
maintenance (PM) is not useful when the failure rate is constant, i.e., it follows an exponential distribution (Chitra, 2003). So
the components having shape factor sufficiently larger than 1 have been taken for further analysis, i.e., which have more
deterministic deteriorating characteristics. In the present case, these were found to be the wire mat and the synthetic belt.
The time spent for maintenance on wire mat and synthetic belt (Fig. 6) has been found with simulation (for 10,000 min) to be

Fig. 4. System availability without PM.

Table 2
Decision parameters for the two components with obtained optimal PM schedule

Component Decision parameters Optimal PM period (T*)

Wire mat h = 342 h MTTF = 303 306 h
b = 1.8
c = 0.5
d = 0.5
l = 0.039
Synthetic belt h = 1045 h MTTF = 926 615 h
b = 2.4
c = 0.375
d = 0.45
l = 0.017
826 A. Sachdeva et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 55 (2008) 817–829

339.4 and 143 min, respectively. The decision parameters required to determine the PM schedules for these two compo-
nents, given in Table 2, have been obtained from the available maintenance data and on the basis the subjective opinion
of the maintenance experts. The preventive maintenance schedule for both of the components is determined using the fol-
lowing data as per the method discussed in Section 3.

Fig. 5. System availability with PM.

339.4
400
300 143
Time

200
100
0
Wire Mat Synthetic Belt

Fig. 6. Maintenance time without PM.

350

250 160.1
82 80.4
Time

150
3.7
50

-50
Wire Mat Synthetic Belt
CM 90.2 3.7
PM 160.1 80.4

Fig. 7. Maintenance time with PM.

 A. Sachdeva et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 55 (2008) 817–829 827

339.4
400

300 170.25
143

Cost
200
43.9
100

0
Wire Mat Synthetic Belt

Without PM 339.4 143

With PM 170.25 43.9

Fig. 8. Comparison of maintenance cost.

The system availability and other parameters are again computed through simulation of the Stochastic Petri model after
incorporating the preventive maintenance schedule for wire mat and synthetic belt. the results have been again obtained for
10,000 min with 10,000 replication of the simulation. Slight improvement in steady state system availability is observed as
shown in Fig. 5. The amount of time, which these two components spent, under both kinds of repair (corrective as well as
preventive), is shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 8 depicts the comparison of maintenance cost incurred for the two cases, i.e., without
preventive maintenance and with preventive maintenance. One can clearly observe the significant cost reduction in case
of PM schedules being followed.

8. Conclusion

In this work, a framework for the optimization of preventive maintenance schedule for components is presented. The
model takes into consideration the multiple goals of the organization viz. maximum availability, minimum maintenance
cost and minimum age replacement cost. Genetic algorithm (GA) in integration with the Simulink tool of the MatlabÒ has
been used for finding the optimum values of PM intervals. The representation of the formulated equations with Simulink
helped in getting the direct solutions through its inbuilt numerical integration, thus evading the need of solving a plethora
of mathematical equations. The effectiveness of the approach is studied by evaluating the system performance parameters
using Stochastic Petri nets-based simulation. Petri nets allow, incorporating many behavioral details of the system into the
model and has been recognized as a powerful modeling tool to represent interacting, concurrent and synchronous com-
ponents within the system. The applicability of the approach is presented on a practical case of a paper production system
in a paper plant. The improvement in availability and maintenance cost indicates the explicit benefit of the approach.
While adopting RCM program in an organization, one of the significant tasks is to determine the optimum maintenance
schedules. Thus, this approach shall come in handy for the maintenance managers/engineers and allow them to adopt
RCM in an effective manner.

Appendix A

A.1. Simulink model for Ap

828 A. Sachdeva et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 55 (2008) 817–829

Cp
A.2. Simulink model for cm

References

Bris, R., Chatelet, E., & Yalaoui, F. (2003). New method to minimize the preventive maintenance cost of series–parallel systems. Reliability Engineering and
System Safety, 82, 247–255.
Campbell, N. R. (1941). The replacement of perishable members of a continually operating system. Journal of Royal Statistics Society, 7, 110–130.
Chareonsuk, C., Nagarur, N., & Tabucanon, M. (1997). A multicriteria approach to the selection of preventive maintenance Intervals. International Journal of
Production Economics, 49, 55–64.
Chitra, T. (2003). Life based maintenance policy for minimum cost. In Proceedings of the annual reliability and maintainability symposium, pp. 470–474.
Dekker, R., & Scarf, P. A. (1998). On the impact of optimization models in maintenance decision making: The state of the art. Reliability Engineering and
System Safety, 60(2), 111–119.
Dekker, R. (1996). Applications of maintenance optimization models: a review and analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 51(3), 229–240.
Dijkhuizen, G., & Heijden, M. (1999). Preventive maintenance and the interval availability distribution of an unreliable production system. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety, 66, 13–27.
Frank, B. (2001). A replacement policy based on limiting the cumulative maintenance cost. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(1),
76–83.
Gento, A. M. (2004). Decision rules for a maintenance database. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 10(3), 210–220.
Gopalakrishnan, M., Mohan, S., & He, Z. (2001). A tabu search heuristic for preventive maintenance scheduling. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 40,
149–160.
Henry, C., & Abdelaziz, A. (1991). Age maintenance of an M/G/1 production system. International Journal of Production Research, 29, 2135–2149.
Hipkin, I., & Lockett, A. (1995). A study of maintenance technology implementation. Omega – International Journal of Management Science, 23(1), 79–88.
Jardine, A. K. S. (1973). Maintenance replacement and reliability. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing.
Jayabalan, V., & Chaudhuri, D. (1992). Cost optimization of maintenance scheduling for a system with assured reliability. IEEE Transactions on Reliability,
41(1), 21–26.
Kapur, K. C., & Lamberson, L. R. (1977). Reliability in engineering design. New York: Wiley.
Kay, E. (1976). The effectiveness of preventive maintenance. International Journal of Production Research, 14, 329–344.
Khanlari, A., Mohammadi, K., & Sohrabi, B. (2008). Prioritizing equipments for preventive maintenance (PM) activities using fuzzy rules. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 54, 169–184.
Kumar, D., Singh, J., & Pandey, P. C. (1991). Behavioral analysis of a paper production system with different repair policies. Microelectronic Reliability, 31(1),
47–51.
Lapa, C., Pereira, C., & Barrosa, M. (2006). A model for preventive maintenance planning by genetic algorithms based in cost and reliability. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety, 91, 233–240.
Leou, R. (2006). A new method for unit maintenance scheduling considering reliability and operation expense. Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 28,
471–481.
Mariappan, V. (2004). Some studies on reliability centered maintenance, Ph.D. thesis, IIT, Bombay.
Moss, T. R. (2005). The reliability data book. London: Professional Engineering Publishing Limited.
Moubary, J. (2000). Reliability centered maintenance. Oxford: ButterWorth–Heinmann Ltd..
Murata, T. (1989). Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. In Proceedings of IEEE, Vol. 77, No. 4, pp. 541–580.
Nagakava, T. (1977). Optimum preventive maintenance policies for repairable system. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 26(3), 168–173.
Nakajima, S. (1988). TPM: Introduction to total productive maintenance. Cambridge: Productivity Press Inc..
Nakamura, M. (2001). Decisions for maintenance-intervals of equipment in thermal power stations based on few data. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 50(4),
360–364.
Nourelfath, M., & Dutuit, Y. (2004). A combined approach to solve the redundancy optimization problem for multi-state systems under repair policies.
Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 86, 205–213.
Ntuen, C. (1991). An economic maintenance scheduling model with truncated gamma function. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 31, 31–38.
Pierskalla, W. P., & Voelker, J. A. (1976). A survey of maintenance models: The control and surveillance of deteriorating systems. Naval Research Logistics
Quarterly, 23(2), 353–389.
Richard, B., & Larry, H. (1960). Optimal preventive maintenance policies. Operation Research, 8, 90–100.
Samrout, M., Yalaoui, F., Chatelet, E., & Chebbo, N. (2005). New methods to minimize the preventive maintenance cost of series–parallel systems using ant
colony optimization. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 89, 346–354.
Schabe, H. (1995). A new approach to optimal replacement times for complex systems. Microelectronic Reliability, 35(8), 1125–1130.
Sortrakul, N., Nachtmann, H. L., & Cassady, C. R. (2005). Genetic algorithms for integrated preventive maintenance planning and production scheduling for a
single machine. Computers in Industry, 56, 161–168.
 A. Sachdeva et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 55 (2008) 817–829 829

Tan, J. S., & Kramer, M. A. (1997). A general framework for preventive maintenance optimization in chemical process operations. Computers and Chemical
Engineering, 21(12), 1451–1469.
Toshio, N., & Shnji, O. (1976). Reliability analysis of a one unit system with unrepairable spare units and its optimization applications. Operation Research, 27,
101–110.
Tsai, Y., Wang, K., & Tsai, L. (2004). A study of availability-centered preventive maintenance for multi-component systems. Reliability Engineering and System
Safety, 84, 261–270.
Using Simulink, MA: MathWorks, Inc., 1999.
Valdez-Flores, C., & Feldman, R. M. (1989). A survey of preventive maintenance models for stochastically deteriorating dingle unit systems. Naval Research
Logistics, 36(4), 419–446.
Vassiliadis, C., & Pistikopoulos, E. (2001). Maintenance scheduling and process optimization under Uncertainty. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 25,
217–236.
Wang, H. (2002). A survey of maintenance policies of deteriorating systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 139, 469–489.
Woodman, R. C. (1964). Replacement policies for components that deteriorate. Operation Research, 18, 267–280.