# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

• Previous Article
Transient analysis of N-policy queue with system disaster repair preventive maintenance re-service balking closedown and setup times
• JIMO Home
• This Issue
• Next Article
Shipper collaboration in forward and reverse logistics
doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018188

## An optimal maintenance strategy for multi-state systems based on a system linear integral equation and dynamic programming

 1 School of Software, Liaoning Technique University, Huludao, Liaoning, 125105, China 2 School of information engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518060, China 3 Quanzhou institute of equipment manufacturing haixi institutes, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Quanzhou, Fujian, 362124, China

* Corresponding author: Haibo Jin

Received  May 2018 Revised  August 2018 Published  December 2018

Fund Project: The first author is supported by the Education Foundation of Liaoning Province in China (grant no. 161129). The second author is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 61701314). The third author is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 61401185)

An optimal preventive maintenance strategy for multi-state systems based on an integral equation and dynamic programming is described herein. Unlike traditional preventive maintenance strategies, this maintenance strategy is formulated using an integral equation, which can capture the system dynamics and avoid the curse of dimensionality arising from complex semi-Markov processes. The linear integral equation of the system is constructed based on the system kernel. A numerical technique is applied to solve this integral equation and obtain all of the mean elapsed times from each reliable state to each unreliable state. An analytical approach to the optimal preventive maintenance strategy is proposed that maximizes the expected operational time of the system subject to the total maintenance budget based on dynamic programming in which both backward and forward search techniques are used to search for the local optimal solution. Finally, numerical examples concerning two different scales of systems are presented to demonstrate the performance of the strategy in terms of accuracy and efficiency. Moreover a sensitivity analysis is provided to evaluate the robustness of the proposed strategy.

Citation: Haibo Jin, Long Hai, Xiaoliang Tang. An optimal maintenance strategy for multi-state systems based on a system linear integral equation and dynamic programming. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018188
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
The whole operation process of the system
An operation cycle consisting of the maintenance and deterioration stages
Backward search technique for every state $X_{t_{q+1}} \in \mathbf{U}$
Backward search technique for every state $X_{t_{q+1}} \in \mathbf{U}$
Forward search technique for every remaining state $X_{t_{q}} \in \mathbf{U}$
Time-spans from state 1 to state Xt1U and from XtlastU to failure state n
Discrete values of $\phi_{13}(t_{m})$, $\phi_{26}(t_{m})$, $\phi_{38}(t_{m})$, $\phi_{47}(t_{m})$ under the Weibull distribution with parameters $\lambda = 0.4$ and $\alpha = 2$
The running time of Algorithm 1 for the small-scale system with the Weibull distribution corresponding to Case 1
The running time of Algorithm 1 for the small-scale system with the general distribution corresponding to Case 2
The running time of Algorithm 1 for the large-scale system with the Weibull distribution corresponding to Case 3
The running time of Algorithm 1 for the large-scale system with the general distribution corresponding to Case 4
Error of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ vs Errors of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$
Optimal maintenance strategy based on dynamic programming
 1: Initialization: $q = 1, \mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*} = \left(0\right)_{1\times(n-k-1)},$ $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*} = \left(0\right)_{1\times(n-k-1)}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*} = \left(0\right)_{1\times(n-k-1)}$ and $D = \{\underbrace{\{\}, \cdots, \{\}}_{n-k-1}\}$ 2: while  $\min\{c_{1}, \cdots, c_{n-k-1}\} < C$  do 3:  Construct matrices $\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Theta_{t_q}}}$, ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_q}\right]$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}_{t_q}$: $\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Theta_{t_q}}} = \left[ \theta_{X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q})} \right]_{(n-k-1)\times k} \ {\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_q}\right] = \left[ {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}}} \right] \right]_{k \times (n-k-1)} \\\ \mathbf{C}_{t_q} = \left[ c_{X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q})} \right]_{(n-k-1)\times k}$ 4:    Calculate the optimal vectors $\zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^*$, ${(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^{*}$ and $c^*$: \begin{aligned} \zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^* = \max \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \text{for} X_{t_q} = k+1, \cdots, n-1 \end{aligned} \begin{aligned} {(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^{*} = \arg \max \limits_{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\odot}}} \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \\\ \text{for} X_{t_q} = k+1, \cdots, n-1 \end{aligned} $c^* = \arg \max \limits_{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\oslash}}} \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \text{for} X_{t_q} = k+1, \cdots, n-1$ 5:    Assign $\zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^*$, ${(\theta_{q}+E[\psi_{q}])}_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^{*}$ }and $c^*$ for all $X_{t_{q+1}} \in \mathbf{U}$ to $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*}_{q}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*}_{q}$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*}_{q}$, respectively, i.e., $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*}_{q} = \left(\zeta_{k+1}^*, \zeta_{k+2}^*, \cdots, \zeta_{n-1}^*\right)$ $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*}_{q} = \left({(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{k+1}^{*}, {(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{k+2}^{*}, \cdots, {(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{n-1}^{*} \right)$ $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*}_{q} = \left(c_{k+1}^*, c_{k+2}^*, \cdots, c_{n-1}^*\right)$ 6:    Identify the optimal paths corresponding to $\zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^*$ for all $X_{t_{q+1}}$, i.e., \begin{aligned} (X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}})^* \arg \max \limits_{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\oplus}}} & \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \\\ & \text{for} X_{t_{q+1}} = k+1, \cdots, n-1 \end{aligned} 7:    Store each $(X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}})^*$ in List D. 8:    Judge whether or not there exists the case of not one-to-one correspondence. If yes, the forward search technique is used for all of the remaining states $X_{t_q} \in \overline{\mathbf{R}}$ to identify $\zeta_{X_{t_{q}}}^*$ and the corresponding optimal path, i.e., \begin{aligned} \zeta_{X_{t_{q}}}^* = \max &\Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \\\ & \text{for} X_{t_{q+1}} = k+1, \cdots, n-1; X_{t_q} \in \overline{\mathbf{R}} \end{aligned} ${({X_{{t_q}}}, Z({X_t}, {a_{{t_q}}}), {X_{{t_{q + 1}}}})^*} = {\rm{ }}\arg \mathop {\max }\limits_ \oplus ({\rm{ }}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta }}_{{X_{{t_q}}}, \bullet }} + {\bf{E}}[{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi }}_{ \bullet , {X_{{t_{q + 1}}}}}}]) \cdot {\rm{ }}\mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{{X_{{t_q}}}, \bullet }^{ - 1}{_\infty }\\\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;{\rm{ for}}{X_{{t_{q + 1}}}} = k + 1, \cdots , n - 1;{X_{{t_q}}} \in \overline {\bf{R}}$ and append them into the tail of corresponding sub-lists of $D$. Else, continue. 9:    Update the vectors $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*}$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*}$, i.e., $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^*+\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^*_{q}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^*+\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^*_{q}$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^*+\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^*_{q}$. 10:    Judge whether each element of $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^*$ is greater than or equal to the total maintenance budget $C$. If yes, the optimal search on this optimal path is over. Otherwise, the optimal search is continued. 11:    Update List $D$ by $D \leftarrow \textrm{Append} \left(D_{X_{t_{q}}}, (X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t_q}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}})^*\right)$ 12:    Set $q = q+1$ 13:  end while 14:  Determine all time-spans in cycle $t_0$ and in cycle $t_{\textrm{last}}$, i.e., ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_1}\right] = \left( {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{1, k+1}\right], {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{1, k+2}\right], \cdots {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{1, n-1}\right]\right)$ ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_{\textrm{last}}}\right] = \left( {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{k+1, n}\right], {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{k+2, n}\right], \cdots {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{n-1, n}\right]\right)$ 15:  Update $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^*$ by $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* + {\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_0}\right] + {\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_{\textrm{last}}}\right]$ and store all paths$\left(1, X_{t_1}\right)$ and $\left(X_{t_{\textrm{last}}}, n\right)$ in the header and tail, respectively, of the corresponding sub-list. 16:  Determine $T^{*}\left(t, a_t\right)$ and the corresponding $D^*$, i.e., $T^{*}(t, a_t) = \Vert \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \Vert_{\infty} \ D^{*} = \arg \Vert \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \Vert_{\infty}$
 1: Initialization: $q = 1, \mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*} = \left(0\right)_{1\times(n-k-1)},$ $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*} = \left(0\right)_{1\times(n-k-1)}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*} = \left(0\right)_{1\times(n-k-1)}$ and $D = \{\underbrace{\{\}, \cdots, \{\}}_{n-k-1}\}$ 2: while  $\min\{c_{1}, \cdots, c_{n-k-1}\} < C$  do 3:  Construct matrices $\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Theta_{t_q}}}$, ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_q}\right]$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}_{t_q}$: $\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Theta_{t_q}}} = \left[ \theta_{X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q})} \right]_{(n-k-1)\times k} \ {\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_q}\right] = \left[ {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}}} \right] \right]_{k \times (n-k-1)} \\\ \mathbf{C}_{t_q} = \left[ c_{X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q})} \right]_{(n-k-1)\times k}$ 4:    Calculate the optimal vectors $\zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^*$, ${(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^{*}$ and $c^*$: \begin{aligned} \zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^* = \max \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \text{for} X_{t_q} = k+1, \cdots, n-1 \end{aligned} \begin{aligned} {(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^{*} = \arg \max \limits_{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\odot}}} \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \\\ \text{for} X_{t_q} = k+1, \cdots, n-1 \end{aligned} $c^* = \arg \max \limits_{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\oslash}}} \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \text{for} X_{t_q} = k+1, \cdots, n-1$ 5:    Assign $\zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^*$, ${(\theta_{q}+E[\psi_{q}])}_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^{*}$ }and $c^*$ for all $X_{t_{q+1}} \in \mathbf{U}$ to $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*}_{q}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*}_{q}$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*}_{q}$, respectively, i.e., $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*}_{q} = \left(\zeta_{k+1}^*, \zeta_{k+2}^*, \cdots, \zeta_{n-1}^*\right)$ $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*}_{q} = \left({(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{k+1}^{*}, {(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{k+2}^{*}, \cdots, {(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{n-1}^{*} \right)$ $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*}_{q} = \left(c_{k+1}^*, c_{k+2}^*, \cdots, c_{n-1}^*\right)$ 6:    Identify the optimal paths corresponding to $\zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^*$ for all $X_{t_{q+1}}$, i.e., \begin{aligned} (X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}})^* \arg \max \limits_{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\oplus}}} & \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \\\ & \text{for} X_{t_{q+1}} = k+1, \cdots, n-1 \end{aligned} 7:    Store each $(X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}})^*$ in List D. 8:    Judge whether or not there exists the case of not one-to-one correspondence. If yes, the forward search technique is used for all of the remaining states $X_{t_q} \in \overline{\mathbf{R}}$ to identify $\zeta_{X_{t_{q}}}^*$ and the corresponding optimal path, i.e., \begin{aligned} \zeta_{X_{t_{q}}}^* = \max &\Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \\\ & \text{for} X_{t_{q+1}} = k+1, \cdots, n-1; X_{t_q} \in \overline{\mathbf{R}} \end{aligned} ${({X_{{t_q}}}, Z({X_t}, {a_{{t_q}}}), {X_{{t_{q + 1}}}})^*} = {\rm{ }}\arg \mathop {\max }\limits_ \oplus ({\rm{ }}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta }}_{{X_{{t_q}}}, \bullet }} + {\bf{E}}[{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi }}_{ \bullet , {X_{{t_{q + 1}}}}}}]) \cdot {\rm{ }}\mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{{X_{{t_q}}}, \bullet }^{ - 1}{_\infty }\\\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;{\rm{ for}}{X_{{t_{q + 1}}}} = k + 1, \cdots , n - 1;{X_{{t_q}}} \in \overline {\bf{R}}$ and append them into the tail of corresponding sub-lists of $D$. Else, continue. 9:    Update the vectors $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*}$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*}$, i.e., $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^*+\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^*_{q}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^*+\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^*_{q}$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^*+\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^*_{q}$. 10:    Judge whether each element of $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^*$ is greater than or equal to the total maintenance budget $C$. If yes, the optimal search on this optimal path is over. Otherwise, the optimal search is continued. 11:    Update List $D$ by $D \leftarrow \textrm{Append} \left(D_{X_{t_{q}}}, (X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t_q}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}})^*\right)$ 12:    Set $q = q+1$ 13:  end while 14:  Determine all time-spans in cycle $t_0$ and in cycle $t_{\textrm{last}}$, i.e., ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_1}\right] = \left( {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{1, k+1}\right], {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{1, k+2}\right], \cdots {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{1, n-1}\right]\right)$ ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_{\textrm{last}}}\right] = \left( {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{k+1, n}\right], {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{k+2, n}\right], \cdots {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{n-1, n}\right]\right)$ 15:  Update $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^*$ by $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* + {\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_0}\right] + {\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_{\textrm{last}}}\right]$ and store all paths$\left(1, X_{t_1}\right)$ and $\left(X_{t_{\textrm{last}}}, n\right)$ in the header and tail, respectively, of the corresponding sub-list. 16:  Determine $T^{*}\left(t, a_t\right)$ and the corresponding $D^*$, i.e., $T^{*}(t, a_t) = \Vert \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \Vert_{\infty} \ D^{*} = \arg \Vert \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \Vert_{\infty}$
Comparison of the absolute and relative asymptotic errors
 $L$ 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol\psi}_{1, 3} \right]_{L}$ 9.6186 9.6059 9.5939 9.5827 9.5721 9.5621 9.5527 absolute error 0.0127 0.0119 0.0112 0.0105 0.0099 0.0094 relative error 0.13% 0.12% 0.12% 0.11% 0.10% 0.098% 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 9.5438 9.5354 9.5274 9.5198 9.5126 9.5057 9.4992 9.4929 0.0088 0.0084 0.0079 0.0075 0.0072 0.0068 0.0065 0.0062 0.092% 0.088% 0.082% 0.078% 0.075% 0.071% 0.068% 0.065% 45 46 47 48 49 50 9.4869 9.4812 9.4758 9.4705 9.4655 9.4607 0.0059 0.0057 0.0054 0.0052 0.0050 0.0048 0.062% 0.060% 0.056% 0.054% 0.052% 0.050%
 $L$ 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol\psi}_{1, 3} \right]_{L}$ 9.6186 9.6059 9.5939 9.5827 9.5721 9.5621 9.5527 absolute error 0.0127 0.0119 0.0112 0.0105 0.0099 0.0094 relative error 0.13% 0.12% 0.12% 0.11% 0.10% 0.098% 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 9.5438 9.5354 9.5274 9.5198 9.5126 9.5057 9.4992 9.4929 0.0088 0.0084 0.0079 0.0075 0.0072 0.0068 0.0065 0.0062 0.092% 0.088% 0.082% 0.078% 0.075% 0.071% 0.068% 0.065% 45 46 47 48 49 50 9.4869 9.4812 9.4758 9.4705 9.4655 9.4607 0.0059 0.0057 0.0054 0.0052 0.0050 0.0048 0.062% 0.060% 0.056% 0.054% 0.052% 0.050%
Comparison of running times of Algorithm 1 for cases 1 to 4
 Running time The small-scale system The large-scale system Weibull general Weibull general maximum time 0.0057 0.0051 0.089 0.093 minimum time 0.0043 0.0038 0.058 0.062 mean time 0.0052 0.0048 0.0751 0.0747
 Running time The small-scale system The large-scale system Weibull general Weibull general maximum time 0.0057 0.0051 0.089 0.093 minimum time 0.0043 0.0038 0.058 0.062 mean time 0.0052 0.0048 0.0751 0.0747
Modified parameters of the two distributions for both the small-scale system and the large-scale system
 Errors Weibull (Case 1 & Case 3) General (Case 2 & Case 4) $\lambda$ $\alpha$ $\lambda$ -10% 0.36 1.8 1.08 -5% 0.38 1.9 1.14 0% 0.4 2 1.2 5% 0.42 2.1 1.26 10% 0.44 2.2 1.32
 Errors Weibull (Case 1 & Case 3) General (Case 2 & Case 4) $\lambda$ $\alpha$ $\lambda$ -10% 0.36 1.8 1.08 -5% 0.38 1.9 1.14 0% 0.4 2 1.2 5% 0.42 2.1 1.26 10% 0.44 2.2 1.32
Sensitivity analysis of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$ on $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ and$D^*$ for the small-cale system with the Weibull distribution (Case 1)
 errors of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$ $\lambda$ $\alpha$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 0.36 1.8 400.80 -0.17% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} -5% 0.38 1.9 401.16 -0.08% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} 0%s 0.4 2 401.48 0% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} 5% 0.42 2.1 401.80 0.08% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} 10% 0.44 2.2 402.04 0.14% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9}
 errors of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$ $\lambda$ $\alpha$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 0.36 1.8 400.80 -0.17% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} -5% 0.38 1.9 401.16 -0.08% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} 0%s 0.4 2 401.48 0% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} 5% 0.42 2.1 401.80 0.08% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} 10% 0.44 2.2 402.04 0.14% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9}
Sensitivity analysis of $\lambda$ on $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ and $D^*$ for the small-scale system with the general distribution (Case 2)
 errors of $\lambda$ $\lambda$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 1.08 352.60 -0.13% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} -5% 1.14 352.84 -0.06% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} 0% 1.2 353.05 0% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} 5% 1.26 353.26 0.06% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} 10% 1.32 353.44 0.11% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9}
 errors of $\lambda$ $\lambda$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 1.08 352.60 -0.13% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} -5% 1.14 352.84 -0.06% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} 0% 1.2 353.05 0% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} 5% 1.26 353.26 0.06% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} 10% 1.32 353.44 0.11% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9}
Sensitivity analysis of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$ on $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ and$D^*$ for the large-cale system with the Weibull distribution (Case 3)
 errors of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$ $\lambda$ $\alpha$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 0.36 1.8 710.29 -0.05% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} -5% 0.38 1.9 710.43 -0.03% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} 0% 0.4 2 710.65 0% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} 5% 0.42 2.1 710.80 0.02% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} 10% 0.44 2.2 710.93 0.04% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50}
 errors of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$ $\lambda$ $\alpha$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 0.36 1.8 710.29 -0.05% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} -5% 0.38 1.9 710.43 -0.03% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} 0% 0.4 2 710.65 0% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} 5% 0.42 2.1 710.80 0.02% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} 10% 0.44 2.2 710.93 0.04% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50}
Sensitivity analysis of $\lambda$ on $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ and $D^*$ for the large-scale system with the general distribution (Case 4)
 errors of $\lambda$ $\lambda$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 1.08 652.28 -0.05% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} -5% 1.14 652.48 -0.02% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} 0% 1.2 652.61 0% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} 5% 1.26 652.81 0.03% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} 10% 1.32 652.94 0.05% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50}
 errors of $\lambda$ $\lambda$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 1.08 652.28 -0.05% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} -5% 1.14 652.48 -0.02% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} 0% 1.2 652.61 0% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} 5% 1.26 652.81 0.03% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} 10% 1.32 652.94 0.05% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50}
 [1] Rein Luus. Optimal control of oscillatory systems by iterative dynamic programming. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2008, 4 (1) : 1-15. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2008.4.1 [2] Mahmoud Ameri, Armin Jarrahi. An executive model for network-level pavement maintenance and rehabilitation planning based on linear integer programming. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (5) : 1-17. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018179 [3] Siyu Liu, Xue Yang, Yingjie Bi, Yong Li. Dynamic behavior and optimal scheduling for mixed vaccination strategy with temporary immunity. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2019, 24 (4) : 1469-1483. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018216 [4] Y. Gong, X. Xiang. A class of optimal control problems of systems governed by the first order linear dynamic equations on time scales. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2009, 5 (1) : 1-10. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2009.5.1 [5] Chunlai Liu, Yanpeng Fan, Chuanli Zhao, Jianjun Wang. Multiple common due-dates assignment and optimal maintenance activity scheduling with linear deteriorating jobs. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (2) : 713-720. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016042 [6] Ryan Loxton, Qun Lin. Optimal fleet composition via dynamic programming and golden section search. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2011, 7 (4) : 875-890. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2011.7.875 [7] Behrouz Kheirfam, Kamal mirnia. Multi-parametric sensitivity analysis in piecewise linear fractional programming. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2008, 4 (2) : 343-351. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2008.4.343 [8] Haiying Liu, Wenjie Bi, Kok Lay Teo, Naxing Liu. Dynamic optimal decision making for manufacturers with limited attention based on sparse dynamic programming. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2019, 15 (2) : 445-464. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018050 [9] Roberta Ghezzi, Benedetto Piccoli. Optimal control of a multi-level dynamic model for biofuel production. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2017, 7 (2) : 235-257. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2017008 [10] Andrii Mironchenko, Hiroshi Ito. Characterizations of integral input-to-state stability for bilinear systems in infinite dimensions. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2016, 6 (3) : 447-466. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2016011 [11] Martino Bardi, Shigeaki Koike, Pierpaolo Soravia. Pursuit-evasion games with state constraints: dynamic programming and discrete-time approximations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2000, 6 (2) : 361-380. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2000.6.361 [12] Luke Finlay, Vladimir Gaitsgory, Ivan Lebedev. Linear programming solutions of periodic optimization problems: approximation of the optimal control. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2007, 3 (2) : 399-413. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2007.3.399 [13] Wenchang Luo, Lin Chen. Approximation schemes for scheduling a maintenance and linear deteriorating jobs. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2012, 8 (2) : 271-283. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2012.8.271 [14] Ka Wo Lau, Yue Kuen Kwok. Optimal execution strategy of liquidation. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2006, 2 (2) : 135-144. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2006.2.135 [15] Ana P. Lemos-Paião, Cristiana J. Silva, Delfim F. M. Torres. A sufficient optimality condition for delayed state-linear optimal control problems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2019, 24 (5) : 2293-2313. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2019096 [16] Behrouz Kheirfam. Multi-parametric sensitivity analysis of the constraint matrix in piecewise linear fractional programming. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2010, 6 (2) : 347-361. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2010.6.347 [17] Zixue Guo, Fengxuan Song, Yumeng Zheng, Zefang He. An improved fuzzy linear weighting method of multi-objective programming problems and its application. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2018, 0 (0) : 0-0. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020175 [18] Alexander Arguchintsev, Vasilisa Poplevko. An optimal control problem by parabolic equation with boundary smooth control and an integral constraint. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2018, 8 (2) : 193-202. doi: 10.3934/naco.2018011 [19] Michael Basin, Pablo Rodriguez-Ramirez. An optimal impulsive control regulator for linear systems. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2011, 1 (2) : 275-282. doi: 10.3934/naco.2011.1.275 [20] Peng Cui, Hongguo Zhao, Jun-e Feng. State estimation for discrete linear systems with observation time-delayed noise. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2011, 7 (1) : 79-85. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2011.7.79

2018 Impact Factor: 1.025

## Metrics

• HTML views (685)
• Cited by (0)

• on AIMS