3.8 Article

SELECTION OF MAINTENANCE STRATEGY FOR AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS USING MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODOLOGIES

Publisher

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S0218539310003779

Keywords

Aircraft maintenance; Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCOM); maintenance strategy; AHP; TOPSIS; VIKOR; benefit-cost ratio; maintenance decision making; maintenance effectiveness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper, proposes the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methodology for selection of a maintenance strategy to assure the consistency and effectiveness of maintenance decisions. The methodology is based on an AHP-enhanced TOPSIS, VIKOR and benefit-cost ratio, in which the importance of the effectiveness appraisal criteria of a maintenance strategy is determined by the use of AHP. Furthermore, in the proposed methodology the different maintenance policies are ranked using the benefit-cost ratio, TOPSIS and VIKOR. The method provides a basis for consideration of different priority factors governing decisions, which may include the rate of return, total profit, or lowest investment. When the preference is the rate of return, the benefit-cost ratio is used, and for the total profit TOPSIS is applied. In cases where the decision maker has specific preferences, such as the lowest investment, VIKOR is adopted. The proposed method has been tested through a case study within the aviation context for an aircraft system. It has been found that using the methodology presented in the paper, the relative advantage and disadvantage of each maintenance strategy can be identified in consideration of different aspects, which contributes to the consistent and rationalized justification of the maintenance task selection. The study shows that application of the combined AHP, TOPSIS, and VIKOR methodologies is an applicable and effective way to implement a rigorous approach for identifying the most effective maintenance alternative.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available