Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
AvailableScienceDirect
onlineCIRP
Procedia
Availableatonline
www.sciencedirect.com
00 (2018) 000–000
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia CIRP 00 (2017)

Procedia 000–000
CIRP 80 (2019) 512–517
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
26th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference
26th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference
Selecting the Optimum Inspection Method for Preventive Maintenance
Selecting the Optimum Inspection
28th CIRP Design Method
Conference, forNantes,
May 2018, Preventive
France Maintenance
N. Kuboki*, S.Takata
A new methodology toof Creative
School analyze theEngineering,
N. Kuboki*,
Science and functional
S.Takata andTokyo,
Waseda University, physical
Japan architecture of
existing products School forfax:ofan
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 03-5286-3299;
assembly
03-3202-2543.
Creative E-mail
Science oriented
and address: product Tokyo,family
nk-1208.w-63@fuji.waseda.jp
Engineering, Waseda University, Japan identification
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 03-5286-3299; fax: 03-3202-2543. E-mail address: nk-1208.w-63@fuji.waseda.jp
Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat
Abstract
École Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 4 Rue Augustin Fresnel, Metz 57078, France
Abstract
With technological advances, our lives have become increasingly dependent on various facilities. It is important to detect deterioration or failure
symptoms
*With using
Corresponding inspection
author. or 3monitoring
Tel.: +33 87lives 30;devices
37 54have E-mail for enabling
address: preventive maintenance to keep them working. For this purpose, it is necessary to
paul.stief@ensam.eu
technological advances, our become increasingly dependent on various facilities. It is important to detect deterioration or failure
select the proper inspection method to detect deterioration and failure symptoms of each equipment item. In this paper, we propose a systematic
symptoms using inspection or monitoring devices for enabling preventive maintenance to keep them working. For this purpose, it is necessary to
method to determine the optimum combination of inspection methods to minimize the sum of inspection costs and the losses due to equipment
select the proper inspection method to detect deterioration and failure symptoms of each equipment item. In this paper, we propose a systematic
failure considering the detection capability of both humans and inspection or monitoring devices. The proposed method was applied to the
method to determine the optimum combination of inspection methods to minimize the sum of inspection costs and the losses due to equipment
equipment in a distribution center to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Abstract
failure considering the detection capability of both humans and inspection or monitoring devices. The proposed method was applied to the
equipment in a distribution center to demonstrate its effectiveness.
In©today’s
2019 The Authors.
business Published by
environment, theElsevier B.V. This
trend towards moreis an open access
product varietyarticle under the CC is
and customization BY-NC-ND license
unbroken. Due to this development, the need of
© 2019
andThe Authors. Published by Elsevier
systems B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
agile reconfigurable production This is
emerged to an open
cope access
with article
various under the
products andCC BY-NC-ND
product license
families. To design and optimize production
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
Peer-review
systems under
as well responsibility
as to choose the of the scientific
optimal productcommittee of the 26th
matches, product CIRPmethods
analysis Life Cycle areEngineering (LCE)most
needed. Indeed, Conference.
of the known methods aim to
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 26th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference.
analyze a product or one product family on the physical level. Different product families, however, may differ largely in terms of the number and
Peer-review under responsibility
inspetion method;
of the scientific committee of the 26th CIRP Lifecausal
Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference.
Keywords:
nature of components. Thispreventive
fact impedesmaintenance; inspection
an efficient and monitoring
comparison devices;
and choice relation;product
of appropriate Genetic Altgorithm
family combinations for the production
system. A new methodology is proposed to analyze existing products in view of their functional and
Keywords: inspetion method; preventive maintenance; inspection and monitoring devices; causal relation; Genetic Altgorithm
physical architecture. The aim is to cluster
these products in new assembly oriented product families for the optimization of existing assembly lines and the creation of future reconfigurable
assembly systems. Based on Datum Flow Chain, the physical structure of the products is analyzed. Functional subassemblies are identified, and
a1.functional
Introduction
analysis is performed. Moreover, a hybrid functional and physical use ofarchitecture
automatedgraph equipment to solve
(HyFPAG) is thelabor shortage
output and to the
which depicts cut
similarity between product families by providing design support to both,use
1. Introduction costs. To
production resolve
of automated this
systemequipmentdilemma,
planners and businesses
to product need
designers.
solve labor to introduce
An illustrative
shortage and to cut
We developed a number
is usedof to automated facilitiesmethodology.
to enhance Anproper inspection devices or on-line monitoring
example of a nail-clipper explain the proposed industrial
costs. To case studythis
resolve on two product
dilemma, families
businesses need todevices
of steering columns to
of
introduce
productivity
thyssenkrupp in
Prestavarious
France industries.
is then carried Nowadays,
out to give introduction
We developed a number of automated facilities to enhance
a first industrialof reduce
evaluation ofinspection
the proposed workload.
approach.
proper inspection devices or on-line monitoring devices to
©automated
2017 The Authors.
equipmentPublished by Elsevier B.V.due to manpower
is indispensable However, the workload.
detection capability of inspection and
productivity
Peer-review
in various industries. Nowadays, introduction of reduce inspection
shortage inunder responsibility
the developed of the scientific
countries.
automated equipment is indispensable due to manpower
committee trend
The automation of the has
28th CIRP Design Conference
monitoring devices is2018.
not necessarily superior to that of human
However, the detection capability of inspection and
increased even in the developing countries because oftrend soaring inspection. Therefore,
shortage in the developed countries. The
Keywords: Assembly; Design method; Family identification automation has monitoring devices is notthe advantages
necessarily of introducing
superior such
to that of human
labor costs.
increased even in the developing countries because of soaring devices should be properly evaluated. In this research, we
inspection. Therefore, the advantages of introducing such
With
labor costs. the rapid expansion of e-commerce in recent years, a propose a method to determine an optimum combination of
devices should be properly evaluated. In this research, we
number of highly automated large-scale
With the rapid expansion of e-commerce in recent years, a distribution facilities, inspection and monitoring devices, as well inspection intervals,
propose a method to determine an optimum combination of
forIntroduction
example,
1.number haveautomated
been built.large-scale
Such facilities are required to of to detect
the deterioration
product range and andcharacteristics
failures occurring in the equipment.
of highly distribution facilities, inspection and monitoring devices, as wellmanufactured
inspection and/or
intervals,
operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to avoid
for example, have been built. Such facilities are required to assembled suspension of In Section 2, we
in this system. describe the key considerations for
to detect deterioration andInfailures
this context, the main
occurring in thechallenge
equipment. in
goods
Due 24 shipment.
to hours
the afast For this purpose,
day, 7development proper
in avoid execution
the suspension
domain of of determining
of modelling the inspection
and analysis method
is now not and how we deal with these
operate days a week, to In Section 2, we describe theonly
keytoconsiderations
cope with single for
preventive
communication
goods shipment. maintenance
andFor isongoing
an this essential to reduce
trend
purpose, malfunctioning
of digitization
proper executionand issues.
of products, InaSection
limited 3, we propose
product range aorandprocedure
existing todeal
determine
product the
families,
determining the inspection method how we with these
and to avoid
digitalization, sudden breakdown
manufacturing of
enterprisesthe facilities
are facing as much
important as optimum
but also In inspection
to Section
be able to method considering the factors discussed
preventive maintenance is essential to reduce malfunctioning issues. 3, analyze
we proposeand toa compare
procedureproducts to define
to determine the
possible.
challenges
and to avoid in sudden
today’sbreakdown
market environments:
of the facilities a ascontinuing
much as new in Section
product 2.families.
In Section 4, we
It can be provide
observed anthat
application
classicalexample,
existing
optimum inspection method considering the factors discussed
However,
tendency towards thereduction
inspection
of productworkload
development for preventive
times and where
product the proposed
families method is in
applied to of
aapplication
distribution facility
possible. in Section 2. In are regrouped
Section 4, we function
provide an clients or example,
features.
maintenance
shortened of
product a large-scale
thelifecycles. distribution
In addition, facility
there for is enormous
is an increasing
preventive However, consisting of multiple equipment. Finally, we conclude the
However, inspection workload where theassembly
proposedoriented
method product
is applied families are hardly to
to a distribution find.
facility
because
demand it encompasses
of customization, a large
being amount
at the same of equipment such
time isinenormous
a global as paper in Section
On the product 5.familyequipment.
level, products differ
maintenance of a large-scale distribution facility consisting of multiple Finally, wemainly in two
conclude the
conveyors
competition and
with sorters. aAs
competitors aallresult,
over the facility
of world. operators
Thissuch face
trend,as main
because it encompasses large amount equipment papercharacteristics:
in Section 5. (i) the number of components and (ii) the
manpower
which
conveyors shortage
is inducing
and sorters. and development
the increasing
As a result, inspection
from
facility costs
macro despite
to micro
operators the type of components (e.g. mechanical, electrical, electronical).
face
markets,
manpower results
shortagein diminished
and increasing lot inspection
sizes due costs to augmenting
despite the Classical methodologies considering mainly single products
2212-8271 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
product varieties (high-volume to low-volume production) [1]. or solitary, already existing product families analyze the
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
To cope with
2212-8271
Peer-review ©under
2019this
Theaugmenting
Authors. of
responsibility thevariety
Published ascommittee
wellB.V.
by Elsevier
scientific asofThis
tothebe able
is26th
an open
CIRPtoaccessproduct structure
articleEngineering
Life Cycle under the CC on aConference.
physical
BY-NC-ND
(LCE) licenselevel (components level) which
identify possible optimization potentials
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.04.009 in the existing causes difficulties regarding an efficient definition and
Peer-review under
production system,responsibility of the scientific
it is important to have committee
a preciseof the 26th CIRP Life Cycle
knowledge Engineering
comparison of(LCE) Conference.
different product families. Addressing this
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.04.009
2212-8271 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
2212-8271 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of scientific
of the the scientific committee
committee of the of theCIRP
28th 26thDesign
CIRP Conference
Life Cycle 2018.
Engineering (LCE) Conference.
10.1016/j.procir.2019.01.090
 N. Kuboki et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 512–517
2 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
2. Key considerations in inspection method selection
2.1. Factors to be considered in inspection method selection
In this research, we consider the selection of an inspection
method for a facility consisting of multiple equipment, such as
conveyors and sorters in the case of a distribution center.
The equipment consists of multiple components such as
belts and pulleys, and deterioration and failures could occur in
each component due to aging and the stress generated by
operations of the facility.
There are three kinds of inspection to detect deterioration
and failure: a walk-around visual inspection by human
operators, on-line monitoring by fixed sensors, and a walk-
around inspection by human operators using sensory devices.
In this paper, deterioration is defined as changes in physical
and chemical attributes of items, such as deformation, breakage,
wear, and corrosion (we use “item” as a collective term for
equipment and components in this paper). On the other hand,
failure is defined as a change in the item’s condition to a state
in which the required function cannot be performed.
To select an appropriate inspection method, we need to
consider the following factors. 1) Because of the causal
relations among deterioration and failures, we cannot select an
inspection method for each deterioration and failure
independently. We need to consider the fact that detection of
certain deterioration and failure occurrences could prevent
other such occurrences. 2) Even when a proper inspection
method is applied, the inspection results are not necessarily
correct. One could miss the deterioration and failure symptoms
or raise a false alarm. Furthermore, the detection capability of
the inspection depends on not only the capability of the devices
but also the relations between inspection interval and the
progress rate of deterioration. 3) In selecting the inspection
methods, we should evaluate the effects of inspection, such as
the cost of inspection, preventive maintenance cost, breakdown
maintenance cost when the inspection fails to detect the
deterioration and failure, and opportunity losses generated by
stoppage of the facility.
There is a chain of causal relations; for example, the bearing
wear of the drive pulley causes a meandering motion in the belt,
which damages the belt edge due to friction with the conveyor
frame. Detection of the bearing wear of the drive pulley could
therefore prevent the belt meandering. This means that it is not
necessary to inspect belt meandering. However, when the belt
meandering is caused not only by the bearing wear in the drive
pulley or when the detection capability for the bearing wear of
the drive pulley is insufficient, the belt meandering needs to be
inspected. We need to consider such relations in selecting the
inspection methods.
The inspection produces four types of results as shown in
Table 1 with certain probabilities depending on the equipment
Table 1. Four types of inspection results
inspection results
success fail
normal no alarm false alarm
condition
symptomatic detection missing
513
conditions and inspection capability. The inspection could
either successfully detect or miss deterioration and failure
symptoms. When the equipment is in a normal condition, the
inspection could provide a correct result or raise a false alarm.
In each case, the inspection result leads to different effects. The
probability of these inspection results depends on not only the
capability of the inspection means but also the relations
between the inspection interval and the rate of deterioration. If
the inspection interval is long in relation to the rate of progress
of the deterioration, no inspection would be carried out during
the appearance of failure symptoms and before the failure
occurs.
These four types of inspection results produce different
effects in terms of costs or opportunity losses. In determining
an overall optimum inspection method for the facilities, we
need to evaluate the total effects taking these factors into
account in an appropriate manner.
A number of studies have been conducted regarding
selection of the inspection method. For example, a method for
selecting the most cost-effective arrangement of sensors based
on graph theory has been proposed considering the causal chain
and using the state transitions of components due to
deterioration and failures [1, 2]. Many studies on inspection
methods have considered the relation between the inspection
interval and the rate of progress of deterioration [3].
Considering the failure detection capability of sensors, Wang et
al. proposed a sensor selection method to select the optimal
sensor arrangement, in terms of cost, with the required failure
detection capability [4]. Tsutsui et al. proposed a maintenance
planning system based on effect evaluation, in which
maintenance cost and expected losses, such as production loss
due to stoppage of the facility, were considered [5].
However, few works have studied a largely optimum method
to select a combination of inspection methods for all equipment
in the facility, considering all factors described above.
2.2. Causal relations of deterioration and failures
To enumerate the deterioration and failure modes, which
should be considered in determining the inspection method, we
need to identify the lowest level of items subject to maintenance
(hereafter, ISM).
Potential deterioration and failures of ISMs as well as their
causal relations are identified by deterioration and failure
analysis. The result is represented in the form of a causal
relation chart, shown in Figure 1. Deterioration occurred in the
j-th equipment item, which could be the origin of the causal
chain, depicted as ‫ܨܦ‬௝ଵ , ‫ܨܦ‬௝ଶ on the left side of Figure 1. The
failures induced by the deterioration are represented in the
middle of the figure as ‫ܨܦ‬௝ଷ , ‫ܨܦ‬௝ସ . After completing the causal
chain analysis, we identify the state quantities, which represent
the degree of deterioration and failures, and enumerate the
inspection method applicable to them, as depicted on the right
side of the figure. In general, multiple state quantities and
multiple inspection methods could be considered for a certain
௝ଵ ௝ଵ
deterioration‫ܨܦ‬௝ଵ ; they are expressed as ܵܳଵ and ܵܳଶ …, and
௝ଵ ௝ଶ
‫ݔ‬ଵ and ‫ݔ‬ଶ ….
Basically, causal relation charts are created for each ISM.
However, the deterioration and failures of one ISM could be
 514 N. Kuboki et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 512–517
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
State Inspection
Deterioration Failure
quantity method
Figure 1. Causal relation chart
related to those of other ISMs. In this case, one causal relation
chart could contain the deterioration and failures of multiple
ISMs. Therefore, we need a certain means to understand the
relations between the deterioration and failures of all ISMs. For
this purpose, we use a relation matrix in which the identified
deterioration and failures of all ISMs are listed in the first row
and column and the causal relation between the deterioration
and failures is indicated by a “1” in the corresponding cell of
the matrix as shown in Table 2.
2.3. Results of Inspections
Inspection results are divided into the following four cases:
1) degradation or failure symptoms exist, and are detected
(detection),
2) degradation or failure symptoms exist, but are not detected;
thus, the failure occurs (missing),
3) the items are in a normal condition, and the inspection
indicates this result (no alarm),
4) the items are in a normal condition, but the inspection
indicates deterioration or failure symptoms (false alarm).
The inspection results depend on the means of inspection
and the inspection interval. There are many means of inspection,
such as visual inspection by human, inspection using portable
devices, and on-line monitoring with fixed sensors. Whether the
inspection reveals the deterioration or failure symptoms
depends on the skill of the inspectors or capability of the
inspection or monitoring devices.
The detection capability of the inspection also depends on
the inspection interval. Figure 2 shows the relation between the
Table 2. Matrix of causal relations
… symptoms should be considered.
1 results. The cost of preventive maintenance action is included
1 maintenance action, which is usually more expensive than
1
… Since preventive maintenance could be carried out at a
3
Detected
amount
Equipment stop
or induce other
deterioration or failures
Symptoms
occurred
t1 t2 Time
Figure 2. Relation between the progress of deterioration
and the inspection interval
progress of deterioration and the inspection interval. In the
figure, the change in the state quantity with respect to time is
represented. Two horizontal broken lines are shown in the
figure. The lower line indicates the minimum state quantity
level where failure symptoms can be detected. The upper line
indicates the limit above which the required function cannot be
performed. When inspection is executed between t1 and t2, the
failure symptom can be recognized by the inspection, and
successful preventive action can be initiated. However, if an
inspection is not executed during this period because of a long
inspection interval, the deterioration or failure symptoms are
missed.
In analyzing the inspection results, it should be noted that
the “missing” of a certain deterioration or failure symptom
could induce deterioration and failures downstream in the
causal chain.
2.4. Effect evaluation of inspections
The effectiveness of the inspection method should be
properly evaluated for determining the inspection method. For
this purpose, we need to consider the following effects as the
results of inspections.
E1: Inspection costs, including the cost of the monitoring
device and labor cost.
E2: Cost of treatment, such as repair and replacements, for
preventive maintenance and breakdown maintenance,
including the cost of items and labor cost for the treatment.
E3: Losses associated with interruption of facility operations
due to inspection, preventive maintenance, and
breakdown maintenance.
E1 is the total cost for the inspection of each deterioration
or failure symptom. It includes the cost of inspection, the costs
of monitoring devices, and labor cost. Regarding the device
cost, whether it can detect multiple deterioration or failure
E2 is the cost of taking action depending on the inspection
in the case of detection, while the cost of breakdown
preventive maintenance, is included in the missing case. The
false alarm case includes the cost of checking whether
deterioration and failures actually occurred.
E3 is also calculated depending on the inspection results.
 N. Kuboki et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 512–517 515
4 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

convenient time, from the operational viewpoint, the loss due When the values of E2 and E3 effects generated by each
to operation interruption is usually lower for detection than for detection, missing, and false alarm occurrence of deterioration
�� �� ��
the missing case, which requires urgent breakdown and failure, ���� , are denoted as ��� , ��� , and ��� (i=2 or 3),
maintenance. In the case of false alarm, the time for precise the cumulative effects of E2 and E3 types, denoted as Eci (i = 2
checking of component deterioration through disassembling, or 3), with one of the possible combinations of inspection
for example, should be considered. methods are calculated by Equation (4).
For evaluating E2 and E3, we need to estimate the
� �� � �� �� �
occurrence probabilities of the three cases of inspection ��� � ∑� ∑����� ��� � ��� ��� � ��� ��� � (4)
results—detection, missing, and false alarm—because “no
alarm” does not lead to costs of E2 and E3. They depend on the 3. Procedure for inspection method selection
occurrence probabilities of deterioration and failures, the
detection capability of inspection, and the causal relations 3.1. Outline of the procedure
among deterioration and failures.
In this research, we assume that the occurrence probabilities The optimum inspection method, which is a combination of
of deterioration and failures can be estimated from various data inspection methods for all deterioration and failure occurrences,
such as maintenance history and reliability tests. We also is selected by the following procedure:
assume that the deterioration and failures downstream of the 1) Analysis of the deterioration and failures and their causal
causal chain are provoked by missing in upstream deterioration relations in the form of a causal relation chart,
or failure symptoms in the inspection. 2) Estimation of the number of inspection results, namely,
Based on the occurrence probability of each deterioration detection, missing, and false alarm,
and failure and the detection capability of each inspection 3) Evaluation of effects,
method, we can calculate the number of times the inspection 4) Selection of the optimal combination of inspection methods
results (detection, missing, and false alarm) would occur． for deterioration and failures enumerated in Step 1 by using
Figure 3 shows how to calculate these numbers. ��� denotes Genetic Algorithm (GA).
the number of occurrences of the q-th deterioration and failure
of the j-th item of equipment, ���� , within a certain period of 3.2. Approximate optimization of the combinations of
time. When the probabilities of the inspection results (detection, inspection methods
missing, and false alarm) for ���� , obtained by the inspection
�
method � �� , are expressed by ����� , ����� , ���� , the number of To select the optimal inspection method for the facility, we
� � �
times of the inspection results, ��� , ��� , ������� , are given by need to evaluate the effects of all combinations of inspection
the following equations. methods for all deterioration and failures identified in the
deterioration and failure analysis (the inspection methods
�
��� � ��� ����� (1) include the case where no inspection is executed). However, all
possible combinations of inspection methods are difficult to
�
��� � ��� ����� (2) evaluate because of the huge number of candidates. We
� �
��� � ��� ���� (3) therefore adopt GA for an approximate optimization of
inspection methods.
When ���� is not the origin of the causal chain, ��� is Table 3 shows the chromosome structure. The locus of the
�����
estimated as the sum of the numbers of the missing of����� gene corresponds to the deterioration or failure occurring in the
�����
of ������ , which leads to ���� , considering the causal equipment, and each gene represents the inspection method
relations among the deterioration and failures. For example, number, which identifies the inspection method applied to the
������� of �������� is calculated as the sum of the number of deterioration or failure. We use the cumulative effects defined
missing, ���� �
and ������� of ���� and �������� as shown in in equation (4) as the fitness value.
Figure 3. To generate the initial population, we first independently
select the best combinations of inspection methods for all
equipment by conducting a full search. They are then combined
Occurrence :known to generate the chromosome, which is included in the initial
Inspection
Detection : Deterioration Failure
method population to accelerate convergence. One chromosome is
Missing : generated by the above method, and the rest of the
False Alarm : chromosomes of the initial population are generated by
Occurrence :known assigning inspection methods randomly to each deterioration
Detection : and failure.
Missing :
False Alarm : Table 3. Chromosome expression
Occurrence : Gene locus
Detection : (Deterioration or … …
failure)
Missing :
False Alarm :
Gene
(Inspection method … …
number)
Figure 3. Calculation of deterioration and failure Equipment number Deterioration or failure number
516 N. Kuboki et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 512–517
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 5

Regarding the genetic operations, 2-points crossover is asked them to evaluate the occurrence probabilities of detection,
applied (crossover points are random) and the same number of missing, and false alarm on a three-point scale (high: 3,
chromosomes as the current population are generated. With medium: 2, and low: 1). Since detection and missing are
regard to mutation, if a randomly selected locus of mutation mutually exclusive events, we set their occurrence probabilities
corresponds to a deterioration or failure, with portable such that they add up to 1. The probability of false alarm was
inspection devices being the applicable inspection method, they determined from the ratio of the evaluated levels of detection
are preferentially selected as the alternative inspection method. and missing. Consequently, the occurrence probabilities of
Such preferential selection is executed with a probability of detection, missing, and false alarm, denoted as ����� , ����� , and
�
50% of the total mutation operations. The rest of the mutation ���� respectively, are calculated according to the following
is executed randomly. equations, where � , �, and � indicate the evaluated
For the next generation, individuals with the top 5% fitness occurrence probabilities when the inspection method � �� is
values among the population generated by the crossover and applied to the q-th deterioration of the j-th equipment item.
mutation operations as well as the current population are
selected by the elite preservation strategy, and the remaining ����� �
�
(5)
���
95% of the individuals are selected by roulette selection. �
����� � (6)
���
4. Application example �
���� �
�
(7)
���

4.1. Target facility to be maintained

Regarding inspection timing, we estimate the probability of
We applied the proposed method to a distribution center inspection execution between �� and �� in Figure 2. We assume
facility. It has 97 equipment, consisting of one sorter and 15 that �� and �� are variable and follow the normal
types of conveyors. We first extracted the ISMs by structural distributions N�μ�� , σ�� � and N�μ�� , σ�� �, respectively. μ�� is
development, and analyzed their deterioration and failures. We set to the replacement time recommended by the manufacturer,
identified 10 to 30 types of deterioration or failure for each and � is set to the value multiplied by � by fixed
equipment item. The total number of deterioration and failure magnification. This time, the magnification was set to 1.5. σ��
states identified was 1075. For each deterioration or failure, 2 and σ�� are assumed to be 5% of μ�� and μ�� . Assuming
to 5 kinds of possible inspection methods were listed. Figure 4 biannual inspections, we estimated the probability of
shows an example of the results of deterioration and failure inspection execution between �� and �� by means of Monte
analysis. Carlo simulation.
Approximate optimization was performed with the
4.2. Optimization operation parameters for GA operations shown in Table 4. If we
generated a chromosome corresponding to each deterioration
We selected the optimum combination of inspection or failure on a one-to-one basis, the size of the chromosome
methods for each deterioration and failure from the candidates would be 1075. To reduce this number in order to increase the
of inspection methods identified by the deterioration and convergence speed in GA operations, we applied the same
failure analysis, using GA as described in Chapter 3. The values inspection methods to similar type of equipment operating with
required for effects evaluation, such as cost of the item, the same load and speed. Consequently, the size of the
personnel expenses, and cost of monitoring device, were set chromosome decreased to 327.
based on interviews with experts of the distribution equipment We considered the following two conditions in performing
manufacturer. approximate optimization:
Regarding detection capability of the inspection methods, 1) limiting the cost of inspection and monitoring devices;
we also rely on experts of the distribution equipment 2) limiting the total manual inspection time considering the
manufacturer, because objective data were not available. We shortage in manpower, even if the cost of monitoring
devices increases.
State Inspection In case 1), we set the cost of the monitoring device to 20
Deterioration Failure million yen or less. In case 2), we set the manual inspection
quantity method
time to 500 hours or less.
Bearing wear Vibration
of pulley
Vibration
sensor These constraints were considered when chromosomes were
generated in GA operations. Those that did not satisfy these
Sound Noise meter
constraints were treated as lethal genes and the generation was
Elongation Amount of Position of
of belt belt elongation take-up pulley Table 4. Parameters of GA

Population number 100

Belt Amount of
Limit switch
meandering misalignment Generation number 3,000
Photoelectric Crossover 2 points crossover (crossover points are random)
Belt end Contact of belt sensor
damage with flame Mutation 5% probability for each generation
Elite method (5%)
Selection method + Roulette method (95%)
Figure 4. An example of the results of deterioration and failure analysis
 N. Kuboki et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 512–517
6 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
repeated until the generated chromosome satisfied the
constraints.
4.3. Results and discussion
Table 5 shows the total manual inspection time, the labor
cost for inspection, the monitoring device costs, the cost of
maintenance treatments, and the losses associated with the
interruption of the operation in each case. As seen in the table,
labor costs and total manual inspection time are large but the
cost of monitoring devices is low when the device cost is
limited. On the other hand, total manual inspection time and
labor costs for inspection are small but the cost of monitoring
devices is high where the total manual inspection time is
limited.
Regarding inspection methods, wear of pulley bearing, belt
elongation, and belt meandering are all visually inspected in the
case of a constraint on the device cost. On the other hand, with
a constraint on inspection time, acoustic sensors and
photoelectric sensors are selected for wear of the pulley bearing
and belt elongation, respectively, and total manual inspection
time and labor cost are reduced. However, if the detectability
of the inspection or monitoring devices is not sufficient, the
number of missing events increases, resulting in higher
breakdown maintenance cost and losses due to interruptions of
operations. Since losses due to interruptions of operations are
very large as shown in Table 5, monitoring devices with high
probability of missing are difficult to select. Therefore, it is
important to secure the detection capability of the inspection
and monitoring devices for lightening the inspector’s workload.
5. Conclusion
In this research, we propose a method to select the optimal
combinations of inspection methods for a facility in terms of
the cumulative effects induced by inspection and maintenance
treatment costs as well as losses caused by interruption of the
517
Table 5. Comparison of results under two conditions
Case 1 Case 2
Total manual inspection time (hour) 1,667 499
Labor cost for inspection (Thousand yen) 57,012 26,310
Monitoring device cost
2,255 28,175
(Thousand yen)
Cost of the maintenance treatment
355,089 381,489
(Thousand yen)
Loss associated with shutdown of equipment
(Thousand yen)
3,594,951 3,709,261
operations. In applying the method, we consider the causal
relations of deterioration and failures and the results of
inspection, namely, detection, missing, and false alarm.
The proposed method was applied to a distribution center
facility. We executed approximate optimization with two kinds
of constraints: a constraint on the device cost and a constraint
on manual inspection time. Results show that inspection and
monitoring devices require a certain level of detection
capability to replace manual inspection.
References
[1] Zhang G, Vachtsevanos G. A methodology for optimum sensor
localization/selection in Fault Diagnosis. 2007 IEEE Aerospace
Conference Proceedings; 2007.
[2] Bhushan M, Rengaswamy R. Design of sensor network based on the signed
directed graph of the process for efficient fault diagnosis. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research; 2000; 39. 4: 999-1019.
[3] Wang WB. An overview of the recent advances in delay-time-based
maintenance modelling. Reliability Engineering & System Safety; 2012;
106: 165-178.
[4] Wang J, Sun WJ, Li T, Cao YY, Wang XM. An Innovative sensor selection
and optimization method considering reliability and detectability. Proc. of
IEEE 11th Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA);
2016: 946-951.
[5] Tsutsui M, Takata S. Life cycle maintenance planning method in
consideration of operation and maintenance integration. Production
Planning & Control; 2012; 23, 2-3: 183-193.