4.6 Article

A cost driven predictive maintenance policy for structural airframe maintenance

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF AERONAUTICS
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 1242-1257

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cja.2017.02.005

关键词

Extended Kalman filter; First-order perturbation method; Model-based prognostic; Predictive maintenance; Structural airframe; maintenance

资金

  1. UT-INSA Program
  2. China Scholarship Council (CSC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Airframe maintenance is traditionally performed at scheduled maintenance stops. The decision to repair a fuselage panel is based on a fixed crack size threshold, which allows to ensure the aircraft safety until the next scheduled maintenance stop. With progress in sensor technology and data processing techniques, structural health monitoring (SHM) systems are increasingly being considered in the aviation industry. SHM systems track the aircraft health state continuously, leading to the possibility of planning maintenance based on an actual state of aircraft rather than on a fixed schedule. This paper builds upon a model-based prognostics framework that the authors developed in their previous work, which couples the Extended Kalman filter (EKF) with a firstorder perturbation (FOP) method. By using the information given by this prognostics method, a novel cost driven predictive maintenance (CDPM) policy is proposed, which ensures the aircraft safety while minimizing the maintenance cost. The proposed policy is formally derived based on the trade-off between probabilities of occurrence of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. A numerical case study simulating the maintenance process of an entire fleet of aircrafts is implemented. Under the condition of assuring the same safety level, the CDPM is compared in terms of cost with two other maintenance policies: scheduled maintenance and threshold based SHM maintenance. The comparison results show CDPM could lead to significant cost savings. (C) 2017 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据