This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Improvement of Aircraft Availability and Optimization of Component Costs by Pre-Emptive Removal of Targeted Components
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published March 19, 2019 by SAE International in United States
This content contains downloadable datasetsAnnotation ability available
Event: AeroTech Americas
Availability of large repairable systems, like aircraft, are critical for commercial operators to generate revenue, and for military organizations to achieve their mission readiness objectives. Of the relatively few studies that deal with improving availability, most have focused on increasing reliability, and not on the biggest driver of low availability - Unscheduled Maintenance Events (UMEs). The cost of maintenance has long been a target of cost-cutting measures, and one common strategy focuses on extracting as much service life as possible out of various non-critical system components by letting those components “run to failure” (as defined in SAE JA1012). However, one of the biggest drawbacks of the “run to failure” approach is that it comes at the cost of lower asset availability because the failure of one of those components will nearly always lead to a UME, typically just when the operator wants to use, or is currently using, that asset. To combat the impact of UMEs, many OEMs, operators, and component manufacturers are looking to prognostics to get advanced notice of impending failures, so monitored components can be replaced before they completely fail. But, for technological and/or economic reasons, prognostics are not a viable option for the vast majority of components. Furthermore, the idea that running components to failure will reduce costs is fundamentally flawed because it fails to account for the extra operational costs incurred from those UMEs. As an alternative to running components to failure or relying only on prognostics, asset operators and maintainers need other strategies to minimize the operational impact of UMEs for components without prognostics that also balances component utilization and the operational costs associated with UMEs against overall asset availability. This paper presents a methodology for evaluating the trade-offs between these factors and shows how this approach can potentially reduce overall asset life-cycle costs.
CitationLesmerises, A., "Improvement of Aircraft Availability and Optimization of Component Costs by Pre-Emptive Removal of Targeted Components," SAE Technical Paper 2019-01-1341, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4271/2019-01-1341.
Data Sets - Support Documents
|[Unnamed Dataset 1]|
- Abernethy, R.B., The New Weibull Handbook Fifth Edition (North Palm Beach: Robert B. Abernethy, 2007). ISBN:0-9653062-3-2.
- Alaswad, S. and Yisha, X., “A Review on Condition-Based Maintenance Optimization Models for Stochastically Deteriorating System,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety 157:54-63, 2017.
- Barabady, J. and Kumar, U., “Availability Allocation through Importance Measures,” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 24(6):643-657, 2007, www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm, ISSN:0265-671X.
- Castanier, B., Grall, A., and Bérenguer, C., “A Condition-Based Maintenance Policy with Non-Periodic Inspections for a Two-Unit Series System,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety 87(1):109-120, 2005, doi:10.1016/j.ress.2004.04.013.
- Dekker, R., “Applications of Maintenance Optimization Models: A Review and Analysis,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety 51:229-240, 1996.
- Hongzhou, W., “A Survey of Maintenance Policies of Deteriorating Systems,” European Journal of Operational Research 139:469-489, 2002.
- Kapur, K.C. and Lamberson, L.R., Reliability in Engineering Design (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977). ISBN:0-471-51191-9.
- Nowlan, F.S., and Heap, H.F., Reliability-Centered Maintenance, OASD Report #AD-A066-579, U.S. Department of Commerce, Dec. 29, 1978.
- Olde Keizer, M.C.A., Teunter, R.H., and Veldman, J., “Clustering Condition-Based Maintenance for Systems with Redundancy and Economic Dependencies,” European Journal of Operational Research 251:531-540, 2016.
- Wildeman, R.E., Dekker, R., and Smit, A.C.J.M., “A Dynamic Policy for Grouping Maintenance Activities,” European Journal of Operational Research 99:530-551, 1997.
- SAE International Surface Vehicle/Aerospace Standard, “Evaluation Criteria for Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) Processes,” SAE Standard JA1011, Rev. Aug. 2009.
- SAE International Surface Vehicle/Aerospace Recommended Practice, “A Guide to the Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) Standard,” SAE ARP JA1012, Rev. Aug. 2011.
- SAE International Surface Vehicle/Aerospace Recommended Practice, “Using a System Reliability Model to Optimize Maintenance Costs, a Best Practices Guide,” SAE ARP JA6097, Rev. May 2013.