Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LCC Book Chapter 6 P.C-A.C Asset Management
LCC Book Chapter 6 P.C-A.C Asset Management
net/publication/288314638
Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) consideration within the built and in-use
assets maintenance management.
CITATIONS READS
11 1,996
5 authors, including:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Optimización de la Gestión del Mantenimiento y Análisis crítico de Indicadores de Benchmarking bajo el enfoque integral de la Gestión de Activos (ISO 55000). View
project
All content following this page was uploaded by Carlos Parra on 30 November 2020.
ISBN 978-94-007-2723-6
Chapter 6
**Email: parra@ingecon.net.in
Abstract
The chapter presents a generic model for assets maintenance management. This model inte-
grates other models found in the literature for built and in-use assets, and consists of se-
quential management building blocks. More precisely we want to show the reader the im-
portance of selecting an appropriate method when considering the estimation of the non-
reliability cost of an asset. By doing so, we show the impact of maintenance in life cycle
costing and provide arguments to claim about the needs for proper assets maintenance con-
trol.
1. Introduction
In this chapter, in the first part, we illustrate a process (Section 2) for built and in-use assets
maintenance management and to characterize maintenance engineering techniques within that
process. This has become a research topic and a fundamental question to reach the effective-
ness and efficiency of maintenance management and to fulfill enterprise objectives [15]. We
review a model/process proposed in this chapter tries somehow to integrate other models
81
Draft-#-3.
Email: parrac@ingecon.net.in
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4134220
found in the literature (see for instance [6,7]) and presents a total of eight sequential manage-
ment building blocks. Each block, as will be discussed, is a key decision area for asset
maintenance and life cycle management.
In the second part of the chapter (Section 3), among referred decision areas and according
to the editorial team of this project, we have selected to explore methods and models that may
be used to do a suitable asset life cycle cost analysis. More precisely we want to show the
reader the importance of selecting an appropriate method when considering the estimation of
the non reliability cost of an asset. By doing so, we somehow show the impact of maintenance
in life cycle costing and provide arguments to claim about the needs for proper assets mainte-
nance control.
Effectiveness
Phase 1:
Phase 3:
Definition of the Phase 2:
Immediate
maintenance Assets priority
intervention
objectives and and maintenance
on high impact
KPI’s strategy definition
weak points
Assessment Efficiency
Figure 1. Maintenance management model (Adapted from [2])
Our model for maintenance management consists of eight sequential management building
blocks, as presented in Figure 1. At the same time, our idea is that there are maintenance en-
gineering tools that may be used to improve each building block decision making process (see
Figure 2).
82
Effectiveness
Phase 1:
Phase2:2: Phase
Phase3:3:
Definition
Phaseof1:the Phase
Criticality Immediate
Failure Root
maintenance
Balance Assets priority
Analysis intervention
Cause Analysis
objectives and
Score Card and maintenance
on high impact
KPI’s
(BSC) strategy(CA)
definition (FRCA)
weak points
Phase 7: Phase6:6:
Phase Phase 5:
Phase
Asset 7:
life cycle Reliability
Maintenance Phaseplan,
Preventive 5:
Life Cycle
analysis Analysis
execution(RA) Risk―Cost
schedule
Cost
and Analysis
replacement &assessment
Critical Path Optimization
and resources
(LCCA)
optimization andMethod
control (RCO)
optimization
(CPM)
Assessment Efficiency
Figure 2. Sample of techniques within the maintenance management framework (Adapted from [2])
Phase 1 tries to avoid that the maintenance objectives and strategy could be inconsistent
with the declared overall business strategy [8]. This can indeed be done by introducing the
Balanced Scorecard (BSC) [9]. The BSC is specific for the organization for which it is devel-
oped and allows the creation of key performance indicators (KPIs) for measuring maintenance
management performance which are aligned to the organization’s strategic objectives (See
Figure 3).
Maintenance
Cost Effectiveness
Maintenance
planning Quality Learning
and scheduling
PM Accomplishment
Data integrity
Compliance of criticality analysis
(95%)
(98%) (Every 6 months)
Unlike conventional measures which are control oriented, the Balanced Scorecard puts
overall strategy and vision at the centre and emphasizes on achieving performance targets
[10].
Once the Maintenance Objectives and Strategy are defined, there are a large number of
quantitative and qualitative techniques which attempt to provide a systematic basis for
deciding what assets should have priority within a maintenance management process (Phase
2). Most of the quantitative techniques use a variation of a concept known as the
83
Draft-#-3.
Email: parrac@ingecon.net.in
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4134220
“probability/risk number” (PRN) [11]. In professional risk assessments, risk combines the
probability of an event occurring with the impact that event would cause R=PxC, where P is
probability and C is consequence (Figure 4). Risk assessment techniques can be used to
prioritize assets and to align maintenance actions to business targets at any time.
4
F
r
e 3 1 2 1 3 Critical
q
u Semi-
Semi-critical
e 2
n 4 2 Non-
Non-critical
c
y
1 3
10 20 30 40 50
Consequence
As mentioned above, once there is a certain ranking of assets priority, we have to set up
the strategy to follow with each category of assets. Of course, this strategy will be adjusted
over time, and will consist of a course of action to address specific issues for the emerging
critical items under the new business conditions (see Figure 5).
Ensure certain
B equipment availability
levels
C Sustain – improve
current situation
Figure 5. Example of maintenance strategy definition for different category assets [2]
84
Phase 4 is devoted to the design of the preventive maintenance plan for a certain system
and this requires identifying its functions, the way these functions may fail and then establish
a set of applicable and effective preventive maintenance tasks, based on considerations of sys-
tem safety and economy. A formal method to do this is the Reliability Centred Maintenance
(RCM), as in Figure 6.
Initial RCM
Phase Implementation phase
RCM
team Operational
conformation context Functional
Function Failure modes
definition failures
Criticality and asset
Analysis selection FMEA
(level?) Failure Mode and Effect of
Effects Analysis failure modes
Final Maintenance
plan
Phase documentation
Optimization of maintenance planning and scheduling (Phase 5) can be carried out to en-
hance the effectiveness and efficiency of the maintenance policies resulting from an initial
preventive maintenance plan and program design. Models to optimize maintenance plan and
schedules will vary depending on the time horizon of the analysis [13].
Phase 6 deals with the execution of the maintenance activities ― once designed planned
and scheduled using techniques described for previous building blocks —. This execution has
to be evaluated and deviations controlled to continuously pursue business targets and ap-
proach stretch values for key maintenance performance indicators as selected by the organiza-
tion.
A life cycle cost analysis (Phase 7) calculates the cost of an asset for its entire life span
(see Figure 7). The analysis of a typical asset could include costs for planning, research and
development, production, operation, maintenance and disposal. A life cycle cost analysis is
important when making decisions about capital equipment (replacement or new acquisition)
[12], it reinforces the importance of locked in costs, such as R&D, and it offers important
benefits. We concentrate on techniques for LCCA in Section 3 of this Chapter.
85
Draft-#-3.
Email: parrac@ingecon.net.in
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4134220
CAPEX OPEX
Capital Costs Operational Costs
Acquisition
Corrective Maintenance + Security, Environment, Production =
Design Non Reliability Costs = Risk
Construction Remove
Time (years)
Reports
Assets / Assets /
Information Source Information Source
86
tion asset. This section also contains a case of study to illustrate the above mentioned con-
cepts.
= (t )dt
t1
(1)
t2
Where (t ) is the rate of occurrence of failures (ROCOF).
Therefore, according to the Poisson process:
n
t2 (t )dt exp − t2 (t )dt
t t1
Pr[ N (t 2 ) − N (t1 ) = n] = 1 (2)
n!
Where n = 0, 1, 2,… are the total expected number of failures in the time interval [t1,t2].
Let us represent with (t ) the expected number of failures in a time interval [0, t], then
t
(t ) = (t )dt (3)
0
One of the most common forms of ROCOF used in reliability analysis of repairable sys-
tems is the Power Law Model ([24] and [25]), that estimates the failure rate as follows:
−1
t
(t ) = (4)
This form comes from the assumption that the inter-arrival times between successive fail-
ures follow a conditional Weibull probability density function, with parameters α and β. The
Weibull distribution is typically used in maintenance area due to its flexibility and applicabil-
ity to various failure processes (however, solutions to Gamma and Log-normal distributions
are also possible). As we know by reliability theory, λ(t) is a conditional probability for which
87
Draft-#-3.
Email: parrac@ingecon.net.in
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4134220
we can consider the following definition (see Figure 10):
88
n n
L = f (t ) = f (t ) f (t ) R(t t ) (8)
i 1 i n
i =1 i=2
Therefore:
−1 t
t1
L= exp − 1
n−1 n t −1 n t t
1
exp i −1 − i (9)
i =2 i =2
Then the ML estimators for the parameters are calculated. The results are ([24] and [25]):
t
ˆ = n (10)
1
n
n
̂ = (11)
n tn
ln
i = 1 ti
Where ti is the time at which the ith failure occurs, tn is the total time where the last fail-
ure occurred, and n is the total number of failures. The total expected number of failures in
the time interval [tn, tn+s] by the Weibull cumulative intensity function is [27]:
(t , t
n n+s
)= ( 1
) ( )
t +t − t
n
(12)
n s
Where t s is the time after the last failure occurred in the one which needs to be considered
the number of failures and tn is:
n
t = t (13)
n i
i =1
89
Draft-#-3.
Email: parrac@ingecon.net.in
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4134220
C f = (Cp + Cc ) MTTR (14)
4. Define the expected frequency of failures per year (t n , t n+ s ) . This frequency is assumed
as a constant value per year for the expected cycle of useful life. The (t n , t n+s ) is calcu-
lated starting from the expression (12). This process is carried out starting from the times
to failures registered t f by failure type (step 2). The parameters and , are set starting
from the following expressions (10) and (11). In the expression (12), t s it will be a year (1
year) or equivalent units (8760 hours, 365 days, 12 months, etc.). This time t s represents
the value for estimate de frequency of failures per year.
5. Calculate the total costs per failures per year TCPf , generated by the different events of
stops in the production, operations, environment and security, with the following expres-
sion:
f
F
(
TCP = t , t
n n+s
)
C
f
(15)
f
The obtained equivalent annual total cost, represents the probable value of money that
will be needed every year to pay the problems of reliability caused by the event of failure,
during the years of expected useful life.
6. Calculate the total costs per failures in present value PTCP . Given a yearly value
f
TCP , the quantity of money in the present (today) that needs to be saved, to be able to
f
pay this annuity for the expected number of years of useful life (T), for a discount rate (i).
The expression used to estimate the PTCPf is shown next:
PTCP = TCP
(1 + i )T − 1 (16)
i (1 + i )T
f f
Once this cost is estimated, it is added to the rest of the evaluated costs (investment,
planned maintenance, operations, etc.). Finally, the total cost is calculated in present value for
the selected discount rate and the expected years of useful life. Different results can be ob-
tained, for instance for different assets options or/and maintenance strategy options.
• Option A:
Reciprocant Compressor, 2900-3200 hp, caudal: 20 millions of feet cubic per day
• Option B:
Reciprocant Compressor, 2810-3130 hp, caudal: 20 millions of feet cubic per day
90
Data Option A Option B
I: Investment 1.100.000 $ 900.000 $
OPC: opera- 100.000 $/year 120.000 $/year
tionals costs
PRC: preven- 60.000 $/year 40.000 $/year
tive costs
OVC: overhauls 100.000 $ every 5 80.000 $ every 5
costs years years
i: interest 10% 10%
T: expected 15 years 15 years
useful life
Table 1. Economical data
With this information the organization PETRONOX carried out a first economic LCCA and
a comparison made among the two alternatives, in this first evaluation, no failure cost analysis
was considered and results are presented in Table 2:
In Table 2, the oil company doesn't consider the possible costs of failures events. The op-
tion B results to be the best economic alternative (more economic alternative for a lifespan pe-
riod of 15 years). There is a difference of approximately: 224.917,133 $ between the two al-
ternatives (this quantity would be the potential saving to select the option B, without
considering the possible costs for failures).
Later on, a proposal consisting on the evaluation of the same figures taking into considera-
tion now the failure costs was made to the organization. It was suggested using a NHPP mod-
el for this evaluation, the total expected number of failures the interval of time [tn, tn+s] is
estimated by the NHPP stochastic model (Weibull cumulative intensity function) [27]. Next,
are shown the data of costs and times of failures to be used inside the NHPP model (the data
91
Draft-#-3.
Email: parrac@ingecon.net.in
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4134220
of times to failures t f were gathered by PETRONOX of two similar compression systems
that operate under very similar conditions in those that will work the compressor to be select-
ed):
t f (months) 5, 7, 3, 7, 2, 4, 3, 5, 8, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6, 6, 5,
9, 2, 4, 6, 3, 4, 2, 4, 3, 6, 5, 6, 4, 3, 2, 2,
8, 9 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2,
2, 3, 3
t n (total of 98 82
months)
n (total of fail- 20 24
ures)
With the information of the Table 3, the equation (16) was used to calculate the frequency
of failures per year (tn , tn + s ) . The parameters and of the Distribution of Weibull con-
tained in the equation (16) were calculated from the equations (14) and (15). The total costs
for failures per year TCP were calculated from the equations (18) and (19); these costs are
f
converted to present value PTCP with the equation (20). Next, are shown the results of the
f
frequency of failures and the total costs for failures for year obtained starting from the NHPP
model, for the two evaluated options:
92
TCPf = $/year 168.840 224.256
PTCP = $
f
(i=10%, T=15 years) 1.284.210,46 1.705.708,97
Table 4. Results from NHPP model
Later on, a second LCC economic evaluation was carried out including the results of costs
of failures obtained from the NHPP model. The results are presented in Table 5:
In the results of this second evaluation (see Table 5), the total costs for failures are included
in present value PTCPf. Notice that now Option A turns out to be the best economic alterna-
tive, with a difference of approximately: 196.581,368 $ (this quantity would be the potential
saving if selecting the option A instead of B). An important aspect to be considered in this
analysis, is that PTCPf category of cost turns out to be the highest economic factor, with
more weight, inside the process of the two alternatives comparison. Specifically, this category
93
Draft-#-3.
Email: parrac@ingecon.net.in
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4134220
of costs represents the 43,48% (Option B) and the 34,46% (Option A) of the total LCC of
these two assets (with an interest rate of 10% and a prospective cycle of life of 15 years).
Finally, as per previous results discussion, PETRONOX decided to consider failures cost
analysis in their LCCA. Additionally, the organization PETRONOX decided to develop an in-
ternal procedure allowing the evaluation of reliability opportunity cost, this procedure would
be used in a continuous and obligatory basis every time different options are analyzed inside
the processes of: design, selection, substitution and/or purchase of assets.
4. Conclusions
94
The orientation of this chapter is towards maintenance management models, and within
them, to the presentation of techniques to consider LCCA within the process (Phase) of assets
maintenance assessment, control and improvement.
We have shown how the reliability factor and its impact on costs can be critical for LCCA
and may influence in final results produced with this analysis for assets options and/or for
maintenance management strategy alternatives.
Prevision of unexpected failure events and their cost is crucial for correct decision making
and profitability of production process. Improvements of process reliability (quality of the de-
sign, used technology, technical complexity, frequency of failures, costs of preven-
tive/corrective maintenance, maintainability levels and accessibility) may have a great impact
on the total cost of the life cycle of the asset, and on the possible expectations to extend the
useful life of the assets to reasonable costs.
5. Future trends
We believe that, within LCCA techniques, there is a potential area of research related to the
optimization of the reliability impact evaluation techniques on LCC. Some interesting trends
that we have identified are as follows:
• Stochastic methods see ([30], [31] and [32]). Table 6 shows the stochastic processes used
in reliability investigations of repairable systems, with their possibilities and limits [27].
• Advanced maintenance optimization using genetic algorithms see ([33] and [34]).
• Monte Carlo simulation techniques see ([35], [36] and [37]).
• Advanced Reliability distribution analysis see ([38], [39], [40], [41] and [42]).
• Markov simulation methods see ([43], [44], [45] and [46]).
• Reliability methods in phase of design see ([51] and [52]).
95
Draft-#-3.
Email: parrac@ingecon.net.in
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4134220
pair rates
Finally, it is not feasible to develop a unique LCCA model, which suits all the require-
ments. However, it is possible to develop more elaborate models to address specific needs
such as a reliability cost-effective asset development.
6. Acknowledgements
This research is funded by the Spanish Department of Science and Innovation project
DPI2008-01012 (Modelling e-maintenance policies for the improvement of production sys-
tems dependability and eco-efficiency).
7. References
[1] Blanchard BS. 2001. “Maintenance and support: a critical element in the system life
cycle”, Proceedings of the International Conference of Maintenance Societies, paper
003, May, Melbourne.
[2] Crespo Márquez, A. 2007. The maintenance management Framework. Models and
methods for complex systems maintenance, Springer Verlag, London.
[3] Vagliasindi F. 1989. Gestire la manutenzione. Perche e come, Franco Angeli, Milano.
[4] Wireman T. 1998. Developing performance indicators for managing maintenance,
Industrial Press, New York.
[5] Palmer RD. 1999. Maintenance Planning and Scheduling, McGraw-Hill, New York.
96
[6] Gelders L, Mannaerts P, Maes J, (1994) “Manufacturing strategy, performance indi-
cators and improvement programmes”, International Journal of production Research,
32(4):797-805.
[7] Kaplan RS, Norton DP. 1992. “The Balanced Scorecard - measures that drive perfor-
mance”, Harvard Business Review, 70(1): 71-9.
[8] Tsang A, Jardine A, Kolodny H. 1999. “Measuring maintenance performance: a holis-
tic approach”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
19(7):691-715.
[9] Moubray J. 1997. Reliability-Centred Maintenance (2nd ed.), Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford.
[10] Duffuaa SO. 2000. Mathematical models in maintenance planning and scheduling. In
Maintenance, Modelling and Optimization. Ben-Daya M, Duffuaa SO, Raouf A, Edi-
tors. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
[11] Campbell JD, Jardine AKS. 2001. Maintenance excellence, Marcel Dekker, New
York.
[12] Lee J. 2003. “E-manufacturing: fundamental, tools, and transformation”, Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 19(6): 501-507.
[13] Mackenzie, J. 1997. “Turn your company's strategy into reality”, Manufacturing
Management, January, pp. 6-8.
[14] Woodhouse, J. 1993. Managing Industrial Risk, Chapman Hill Inc, London.
[15] Blanchard, B.S. and Fabrycky, W.J. 1998. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 3rd ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
[16] Goffin, K. 2000. “Design for supportability: essential component of new product de-
velopment”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 40-7.
[17] Markeset, T. and Kumar, U. 2001. “R&M and risk analysis tools in product design to
reduce life-cycle cost and improve product attractiveness”, Proceedings of the Annual
Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 22-25 January, Philadelphia, pp. 116-122.
[18] Smith, C. and Knezevic, J. 1996. “Achieving quality through supportability: part 1:
concepts and principles”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 2, No.
2, pp. 21-9.
[19] Woodward, D. G. 1997. “Life Cycle Costing - Theory, Information Acquisition and
Application”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 335-
344.
[20] Barlow, R.E., Clarotti, C.A. and Spizzichino, F. 1993. Reliability and Decision Mak-
ing, Chapman & Hall, London.
[21] Ruff, D. N., and Paasch, R. K. 1993. “Consideration of failure diagnosis in conceptual
design of mechanical systems”, Design Theory and Methodology, ASME, New York,
pp. 175-187.
[22] Woodhouse, J. 1991. “Turning engineers into businessmen”, 14th National Mainte-
nance Conference, London.
[23] Dowlatshahi, S. 1992. “Product design in a concurrent engineering environment: an
optimization approach”, Journal of Production Research, Vol. 30 (8), pp. 1803-1818.
[24] Ascher, H. and Feingold, H. 1984. “Repairable System Reliability: Modeling, Infer-
ence, Misconceptions and their Causes”, New York, Marcel Dekker.
[25] Crow, LH. 1974. “Reliability analysis for complex repairable systems”, Reliability
and biometry, Proschan F, Serfling RJ, eds., SIAM, Philadelphia, pp. 379-410.
[26] Yañez, M., Joglar, F., Mohammad, M. 2002. “Generalized renewal process for analy-
sis of repairable systems with limited failure experience”, Reliability Engineering &
System Safety, Vol. 77, pp. 167-180.
97
Draft-#-3.
Email: parrac@ingecon.net.in
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4134220
[27] Modarres, M., Kaminskiy, M. and Krivtsov V. 1999. Reliability engineering and risk
analysis. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York.
[28] Asiedu, Y. and Gu, P. 1998. “Product lifecycle cost analysis: state of art review”, In-
ternational Journal of Production Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 883-908.
[29] Hurtado, J.L., Joglar, F.and Modarres, M. 2005. “Generalized Renewal Process:
Models, Parameter Estimation and Applications to Maintenance Problems”, Interna-
tional Journal on Performability Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, paper 3, pp. 37-50.
[30] Tijms, H.C. 1986. Stochastic Modelling and Analysis, Wiley and Sons, New York,
NY.
[31] Karyagina, M., Wong, W., Vlacic, L. 1998. “Life cycle cost modeling using marked
point processes”, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 59, pp. 291-298.
[32] Vasiliy, V. 2007. “Recent advances in theory and applications of stochastic point pro-
cess model in reliability engineering”, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol.
92, No. 5, pp.549-551
[33] Martorell, S., Carlos, S., Sánchez, A. and Serradell, V. 2000. “Constrained optimiza-
tion of test intervals using a steady-state genetic algorithm”. Reliability Engineering
& System Safety 67, 215 – 232.
[34] Martorell, S., Villanueva, J.F., Nebot, Y., Carlos, S., Sánchez, A., Pitarch, J.L. and
Serradell, V. 2005. “RAMS+C informed decision-making with application to multi-
objective optimization of technical specifications and maintenance using genetic algo-
rithms”. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 87, 65 – 75.
[35] Barringer, H. Paul and David P. Weber. 1997. “Life Cycle Cost & Reliability for Pro-
cess Equipment”, 8th Annual ENERGY WEEK Conference & Exhibition, George R.
Brown Convention Center, Houston, Texas, Organized by American Petroleum Insti-
tute.
[36] Barringer, H. Paul and David P. Weber. 1996. “Life Cycle Cost Tutorial”, Fifth Inter-
national Conference on Process Plant Reliability, Gulf Publishing Company, Hou-
ston, TX.
[37] Kaminskiy M and Krivtsov V. 1998. “A Monte Carlo approach to repairable system
reliability analysis”, Probabilistic safety assessment and management, Springer, pp.
1063-1068.
[38] Elsayed, E. A. 1996. Reliability Engineering, Addison Wesley Longman INC, New
York.
[39] Ireson, W. Grant, Clyde F. Coombs Jr., Richard Y. Moss. 1996. Handbook of Relia-
bility Engineering and Management, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[40] Scarf, P.A. 1997. “On the application of mathematical models in maintenance”, Euro-
pean Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 99, No. 3, pp. 493-506.
[41] Ebeling, C. 1997. Reliability and Maintainability Engineering, McGraw Hill Compa-
nies, USA.
[42] Dhillon, B.S. 1999. Engineering Maintainability: How to Design for Reliability and
Easy Maintenance, Gulf, Houston, TX.
[43] Roca, J.L. 1987. “An approach in the life cycle costing of an integrated logistic sup-
port”, Microelectronics and Reliability, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 25-27.
[44] Kijima, M., Sumita, N. 1987. “A useful generalization of renewal theory: counting
process governed by non-negative Markovian increments”, Journal Appl. Prob., Vol.
23, pp. 71-88.
[45] Kijima, M. 1997. “Markov processes for stochastic modeling”, Chapman &Hall,
London.
98
[46] Bloch-Mercier, S. 2000. “Stationary availability of a semi-Markov system with ran-
dom maintenance”, Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 16, pp. 219-
234.
[47] Limnios, N. and Nikulin, M. 2000. Recent advances in reliability theory: methodolo-
gy, practice, and inference, Birkhauser, Boston.
[48] Xie, M. and Ho, S.L. 1999. “Analysis of repairable system failure data using time se-
ries models”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 5 Iss: 1, pp.50 –
61.
[49] Pham, H. 1999. Recent advances in reliability and quality engineering, World Scien-
tific Publishing CO, Singapore.
[50] Knafl, G.J. and Morgan, J. 1996. “Solving ML Equations for 2-Parameter Poisson-
Process Models for Ungrouped Software-Failure Data”, IEEE Transactions on Relia-
bility, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 42 - 53.
[51] Goel, H; Grievink, J. & Weijnen, M. 2003. “Integrated optimal reliable design, pro-
duction, and maintenance planning for multipurpose process plants”, Computers &
chemical engineering, 27 (11), pp. 1543-1555.
[52] Ajah, A; Grievink, J; Herder, P. and Weijnen, M. 2007. “Adaptive control approach in
modeling life-cycle maintenance policy selection and optimization during infrastruc-
ture systems conceptual design & operation”, Computer Aided Chemical Engineer-
ing, Volume 24, pp. 1145-1150.
Corresponding authors
A. Crespo Márquez can be contacted at: adolfo@esi.us.es
C. Parra Márquez can be contacted at: parrac@ingecon.net.in**
99
Draft-#-3.
Email: parrac@ingecon.net.in
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4134220