This paper introduces a collaborative optimization approach for maintenance and mission abortion policies in a system characterized by two competing degradation processes. A stochastic degradation model considering two thresholds (i.e. abort threshold for repair and abort threshold for replacement) is developed. A second degradation process occurs when the deterioration amount reaches the warning threshold. The two degradation processes are independent and follow the Gamma process with different parameters. If the degradation level surpasses the abort threshold for repair, the system is aborted and undergoes repairs. Similarly, when the degradation level reaches the abort threshold for replacement, the system is terminated and substituted with a new one. The system’s long-run average cost and steady-state availability are analyzed to establish the optimal abort thresholds. Finally, a numerical example is presented and interpreted, demonstrating the effectiveness and advantages of the suggested abort policies. For comparison, the effectiveness of the proposed model with abort policies and that of models without are analytically evaluated.
XingL.Cascading failures in internet of things: review and perspectives on reliability and resilience. IEEE Internet Things J2021; 8(1): 44–64.
2.
XiCNeilBMarioB, et al. A review of risk analysis research for the operations of autonomous underwater vehicles. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021; 216: 108011.
3.
YangLChenYQiuQ, et al. Risk control of mission-critical systems: abort decision-makings integrating health and age conditions. IEEE Trans Ind Inform2022; 18(10): 6887–6894.
4.
LinBWuJLinR, et al. Optimization of high-level preventive maintenance scheduling for high-speed trains. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2019, 183: 261–275.
QiuQCuiLWuB.Dynamic mission abort policy for systems operating in a controllable environment with self-healing mechanism. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2020; 203: 107069.
7.
PengR.Joint routing and aborting optimization of cooperative unmanned aerial vehicles. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2018; 177: 131–137.
8.
LevitinGFinkelsteinMXiangY.Optimal aborting rule in multi-attempt missions performed by multi-component systems. Eur J Oper Res2020; 283(1): 244–252.
9.
OmshiE MShemehsavarSGrallA.An intelligent maintenance policy for a latent degradation system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2024; 242: 109739.
10.
FouladiradMGiorgioMPulciniG.A transformed gamma process for bounded degradation phenomena. Qual Reliabil Eng Int2023; 39(2): 546–564.
11.
Bloch-MercierS.A preventive maintenance policy with sequential checking procedure for a Markov deteriorating system. Eur J Oper Res2002; 142(3): 548–576.
12.
WangHYWangZQ.A condition-based preventive replacement policy with imperfect manual inspection for a two-stage deterioration process. Proc IMechE Part O: J Risk and Reliability2022; 236(2): 225–236.
13.
ShangLQiuQWangX.Random periodic replacement models after the expiry of 2D-warranty. Comput Ind Eng2022; 164: 107885.
14.
YangAQiuQZhuM, et al. Condition-based maintenance strategy for redundant systems with arbitrary structures using improved reinforcement learning. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2022, 225: 108643.
15.
AhmadiRCastroITBautistaL.Reliability modeling and maintenance planning for a parallel system with respect to the state-dependent mean residual time. J Oper Res Soc2024; 75(2): 297–313.
16.
WangJQiuQWangH, et al. Optimal condition-based preventive maintenance policy for balanced systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021, 211: 107606.
17.
WangJQiuQWangH.Joint optimization of condition-based and age-based replacement policy and inventory policy for a two-unit series system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021, 205: 107251.
18.
BrenièreLDoyenLBérenguerC.Optimization of preventive replacements dates and covariate inspections for repairable systems in varying environments. Eur J Oper Res2023; 308(3): 1126–1141.
19.
LevitinGFinkelsteinMHuangH.Optimal mission abort policies for multistate systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2020, 193: 106671.
20.
LevitinGFinkelsteinMDaiY.Mission abort and rescue for multistate systems operating under the Poisson process of shocks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2020; 202: 107027.
21.
GregoryLMaximFYanpingX.Optimal mission abort policies for repairable multistate systems performing multi-attempt mission. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021; 209: 107497.
22.
LevitinGFinkelsteinMDaiY.State-based mission abort policies for multistate systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2020; 204: 107122.
23.
ChenLZhouZHuC, et al. Performance evaluation of complex systems using evidential reasoning approach with uncertain parameters. Chin J Aeronaut2021; 34(1): 194–208.
24.
WenYWuJDasD, et al. Degradation modeling and RUL prediction using Wiener process subject to multiple change points and unit heterogeneity. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2018; 176: 113–124.
25.
QiuQCuiLShenJ.Availability and maintenance modeling for systems subject to dependent hard and soft failures. Appl Stoch Models Bus Ind2018; 34(4): 513–527.
26.
QiFWangYLiF.A condition-based maintenance policy considering batch sizes for warm standby systems with priority to repair. IEEE Trans Reliab2024; 73(4): 1721–1730.
27.
JiangLLiBHuJ.Preventive replacement policy of a system considering multiple maintenance actions upon a failure. Qual Reliab Eng Int2023; 39(8): 3252–3265.
28.
QiuQCuiL.Optimal mission abort policy for systems subject to random shocks based on virtual age process. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2019; 189: 11–20.
29.
LiYSunQYeZ.Designing mission abort strategies based on early-warning information: application to UAV. IEEE Trans Ind Inform2020; 16(1): 277–287.
30.
LinKChenY.Two new multi-phase reliability growth models from the perspective of time between failures and their applications. Chin J Aeronaut2021; 34(5): 341–349.
31.
ElwanyAGebraeelNMaillartL.Structured replacement policies for components with complex degradation processes and dedicated sensors. Oper Res2011; 59(3): 684–695.
32.
LuJMeekerO.Using degradation measures to estimate a time-to-failure distribution. Technometrics2012; 35(2): 161–174.
33.
PengHFengQCoitD.Simultaneous quality and reliability optimization for microengines subject to degradation. IEEE Trans Reliab2009; 58(1): 98–105.
34.
YangLYeZLeeC, et al. A two-phase preventive maintenance policy considering imperfect repair and postponed replacement. Eur J Oper Res2019; 274(3): 966–977.
35.
ZhaoXCaiKWangX, et al. Optimal replacement policies for a shock model with a change point. Comput Ind Eng2018; 118: 383–393.
36.
QiuQCuiL.Reliability evaluation based on a dependent two-stage failure process with competing failures. Appl Math Model2018; 64: 699–712.
37.
CaoY.Modeling the effects of dependence between competing failure processes on the condition-based preventive maintenance policy. Appl Math Model2021; 99: 400–417.
38.
HuQQiF.Maintenance policy optimization for buffered serial systems considering energy-saving based on dual time windows. Appl Math Model2023; 117: 687–704.
39.
LiuYWangYFanZ, et al. Reliability modeling and a statistical inference method of accelerated degradation testing with multiple stresses and dependent competing failure processes. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021; 213: 107648.
40.
MizutaniSZhaoXNakagawaT.Age and periodic replacement policies with two failure modes in general replacement models. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021; 214: 107754.
41.
QiFYangHWeiL, et al. Preventive maintenance policy optimization for a weighted k-out-of-n: G system using the survival signature. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2024; 249: 110247.
42.
DongQCuiL.A study on stochastic degradation process models under different types of failure Thresholds. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2019; 181: 202–212.
