救援機(jī)器人結(jié)構(gòu)設(shè)計(jì)-履帶式移動機(jī)械手【含6張cad圖紙+文檔全套資料】
喜歡就充值下載吧。。資源目錄里展示的文件全都有，，請放心下載，，有疑問咨詢QQ:414951605或者1304139763 ======================== 喜歡就充值下載吧。。資源目錄里展示的文件全都有，，請放心下載，，有疑問咨詢QQ:414951605或者1304139763 ========================
任務(wù)書填寫要求
1．畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)任務(wù)書由指導(dǎo)教師根據(jù)各課題的具體情況填寫，經(jīng)學(xué)生所在系的負(fù)責(zé)人審查、簽字后生效。此任務(wù)書應(yīng)在畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)開始前一周內(nèi)填好并發(fā)給學(xué)生；
2．任務(wù)書內(nèi)容必須用黑筆工整書寫或按教務(wù)處統(tǒng)一設(shè)計(jì)的電子文檔標(biāo)準(zhǔn)格式（可從教務(wù)處網(wǎng)頁上下載）打印，不得隨便涂改或潦草書寫，禁止打印在其它紙上后剪貼；
3．任務(wù)書內(nèi)填寫的內(nèi)容，必須和學(xué)生畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)完成的情況相一致，若有變更，應(yīng)當(dāng)經(jīng)過所在專業(yè)及系主管領(lǐng)導(dǎo)審批后方可重新填寫；
4．任務(wù)書內(nèi)有關(guān)“學(xué)院、系”、“專業(yè)”等名稱的填寫，應(yīng)寫中文全稱，不能寫數(shù)字代碼。學(xué)生的“學(xué)號”要寫全號（如02011401X02），不能只寫最后2位或1位數(shù)字；
5．有關(guān)年月日等日期的填寫，應(yīng)當(dāng)按照國標(biāo)GB/T 7408—94《數(shù)據(jù)元和交換格式、信息交換、日期和時(shí)間表示法》規(guī)定的要求，一律用阿拉伯?dāng)?shù)字書寫。如“2004年3月15日”或“2004-03-15”。
畢 業(yè) 設(shè) 計(jì) 任 務(wù) 書
1．畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)的任務(wù)和要求：
1）熟悉救援機(jī)器人的工作原理。
2）熟悉救援機(jī)器人的應(yīng)用要求。
3) 完成救援機(jī)器人機(jī)構(gòu)的設(shè)計(jì)。
2．畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)的具體工作內(nèi)容：
1）熟悉救援機(jī)器人的工作原理。
2）熟悉救援機(jī)器人的應(yīng)用要求。
3）設(shè)計(jì)完成適用的救援機(jī)器人。
4）外文資料翻譯。
5）撰寫畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)說明書。
畢 業(yè) 設(shè) 計(jì) 任 務(wù) 書
3．對畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)成果的要求：
1）外文翻譯資料一份
2）畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)說明書一份
3）圖紙一套
4．畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)工作進(jìn)度計(jì)劃：
起 迄 日 期
工 作 內(nèi) 容
2016年
2月29日 ~ 3 月 29日
3月30日 ~ 5 月25 日
5月26 日 ~ 6 月5 日
查找相關(guān)資料，完成開題報(bào)告
熟悉與課題相關(guān)的軟硬件環(huán)境
完成有關(guān)項(xiàng)目的設(shè)計(jì)
畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)說明書的撰寫及參加畢業(yè)答辯。
學(xué)生所在系審查意見：
同意下發(fā)任務(wù)書
系主任：
2016年 2 月 29 日
P e r g a m o n Int. J. Math. Tools Manufact. Vol. 37, No. 6. pp. 823.836, 1997 1997 Elsevier Science Lid All fights r-erved. Printed in Great Britain 0890-6955/97517.00 + .00 PII: S0890-6955(96)00026-0 A DELAY TIME MULTI-LEVEL ON-CONDITION PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE INSPECTION MODEL BASED ON CONSTANT BASE INTERVAL RISK-WHEN INSPECTION DETECTS PENDING FAILURE G. B. WILLIAMS and R. S. HIRANIt (Received 17 November 1995) Abstract-The model described in this paper is one of a series, which determines the optimal multi-level inspection-maintenance policy for a stochastically deteriorating multi-state sub-system, using the delay-time concept. The sub-system deterioration is assumed to be a non-decreasing semi-Markov process, where states are self-announced and inspection detects the sign of pending failure. Emphasis is placed on constant availability and reduction of production losses, deterioration rate and subsequent sub-system failure. In this respect, inspection is scheduled in such a way that the risk of failure is a constant for each inspection interval. Two pairs of mathematical models and softwares have been developed, and the policy decisions taken have been based on two criteria for optimisation. These decisions have then been validated by carrying out a simulation exercise using the ProModel simulation package. 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. 1. INTRODUCTION Production systems can be viewed as multi-state stochastically deteriorating complex sys- tems. Their parts, from a maintenance point of view, can be grouped into five characteristi- cally different sub-systems. Thus, separate optimum multi-level pseudo-control limit main- tenance policies have been proposed 1-5. This paper deals with a gradually deteriorating sub-system, whose present state is self-announced and inspection detects the sign of pend- ing failure, the transition state, its status and the time of transition. A delay-time concept, first introduced by Christer 6, regards the failure mechanism as a two-stage process. A fault initiates in a sub-system and becomes prominent at time y. This can be identified if inspection is carded out at the time. If the fault is not attended to, the faulty sub-system subsequently changes its state after some further interval h, which Christer called the failure delay time. Research has been carded out 7-10, 6, 11-18 using this concept in maintenance mod- elling for two-state single- or multi-component 7, 8, 18 systems, where inspection inter- vals for perfect and/or imperfect inspections are taken as constant or variable 11, and repair restores the system, taking into account subjective and objective 7, 8, 18 data. It would seem practically unreasonable to consider repair as a renewal of a system to its original condition 19 and constant inspection intervals may not have a constant risk of failure, which results in inconsistent availability, and hence a variable production rate and high inventory, labour and production costs 5. Thus, the concept of delay time is here extended to multi-level maintenance of a multi-state sub-system, where inspections are scheduled in such a way that the risk of failure is constant for each inspection interval 20, 21. 2. MATHEMATICAL MODEL Let the deterioration process of a sub-system be a semi-Markov process with state space = 1, 2 . ,L, where states are described by the level of deterioration and the nature of the process limits the occurrence of transitions to higher states. The present state of the sub-system is self-announcing, whereas inspection detects the sign of pending failure. The tSchool of Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B 15 2Tl, U.K. 823 824 G.B. Williams and R. S. Hirani maintenance policy selected is a pseudo-control limit policy 6(), where maintenance action is determined by the control state/3. Let N= 1, 2 . /3- 1 be a set of states which asks for no repair action if they are functional, and minimal repair when they are non- functional. Its complementary set R=/3, /3+1 . L is the set of states which calls for repair or replacement of a sub-system to some better state in set pCN. Whenever inspection detects pending failure before the next inspection, on-condition preventive maintenance (OCPM) is performed instantaneously. This OCPM does not change the present and tran- sition states and their transition time, but reduces the probability of transition to a non- functional state. Mathematically, such a pseudo-control limit policy 6(k.) (where k. rep- resents either functional state kf or non-functional state knf) can be expressed as: I i = k for k./3eN and ieN 8(k.) = ik. for k,-/3eN and ie_CN (1) Let the sub-system be entered in state i eC_N, at reference or lead time TL(i), and inherit manufacturing faults with a probability of Pi(i), or faults may arise later on during use with a probability of 1-Pi(i), and subsequently cause its transition to any higher state j e , with a probability of P(ij), where the transition state j may be functional with a probability of P), and non-functional with a probability of 1-Pj). A joint probability density function (pdf) as a result of these faults, which hereafter will be called inherited faults (IF) and deterioration faults (DF), for the transition process is flo). Let n number of inspections be carried out at an inspection time T(i,1), T(i,2) . and T(i,n), independent of the nature of the faults and transition states, given that process has started in state i (Fig. 1), where these inspections are scheduled in such a way that the expected risk of transition A(o) between any two consecutive inspections is constant. The probability of transition of the sub-system ,(i,j,m) and its expected time (i,j,m), during the mth inspection interval T(i,m), T(i,m+l) (Fig. 2), given that the following set of conditions exists, which hereafter will be called set 1 conditions: (i) the sub-system has entered in state i, at time TL(i), which contains inherited defects with a probability of Inspection points (constant base interval risk) To(i) T(i,2) T(i,5) T(i,6) Tim( T(i, 1) T(i,3) T(i,4) L Fig. 1. Joint probability density functions of the transition process for an initial state j = 1 and transition states j=2(-),j=3(-)andj=4( ). T(i,l) T(i,l + 1) T(i,m) (c3,)l(,j,- ). (,m) Tt(i,m- 1)1 T(i,m + 1) Tt(i,rn)l L 6a(i,m) l z,(i,j,;l,).: Ts(i, j, m) T,(i,m) , (i,j,m- 1) (i,j,m- 1) , Tu(i,m- 1) ,1 Fig. 2.The probability density functions for delay time ( ) and inspection error (- - -) and expected transition times for an inherited fault. A delay time multi-level on-condition preventive maintenance inspection model 825 P(i), (ii) it has delay time in a small interval x, +Ax), the probability of this event being i,j,x)dx, and (iii) the sub-system will make the next transition to state j, respectively, are 5: :T(i.m + 1) al(id.m ) = Pi(i)|r,.m (ij.x)dx (2) and T(i.m + 1) fPi(i) / hd2(ij,x)dx) 3T(i,m) i 2l(ij,m) = -i-, - (3) for l-m-n-1, iN and ijeN. The probability of transition of the subsystem, Al(ij,m,l) and its expected time T(ij,m,l) (Fig. 3), during the ruth inspection interval T(i,m), T(i,m+l), provided the following set of conditions exists, which hereafter will be called set 2 conditions: (i) the sub-system has entered in state i, at time TL(i), (ii) the fault will be initiated within the lth inspection interval T(i,l), T(i,l+l) in a small interval y, y+Ay), with a probability of g(id,y)Ay, has delay time in a small interval y+h, y+h+Ah, the probability of this event being id,h)dh, and (iii) the sub-system will make the next transition to state j, respectively, are 5: A(idml):.r(i.l) IJT(i,m,-y dp(idh)dhlg(iy)dy (4) and T(i.m + l)-y . hdp( id,h )dh. r(,+ ,) |Jlr(,m)-yl | (i,)d Tl(idml)=jr(i.t ) Y+ lJ g Y Y (5) for l-m, l-m-n-l, T(i,l)_yT(i,l+l), ieN and ije where n-I m Ml(ij,m) + Al(ij,m,l) = 1. m=l l=l (6) t- i: , , , _ I v .IV hl ,IAh.- I r T(i,l) T(i,l + 1) T(i,m) T(i,m + 1) 1, 2 rlIi,j,I .71(i,j,m - ,l!j rl(i,j,m,O Ta(i,m - 1) ,I T,(i,m) t6aCi,m) I - ( , j , ) n(i,j,m 1,1) -I . ,I T,(i,rn- 1) ,I T,(,m) , Fig. 3. The probability density functions for fault initiating times, (-), delay time ( (- - -) and expected transition times for a deterioration fault. 37-6-D ) and inspection error 826 G.B. Williams and R. S. Hirani Thus, for an initial state i 5, the expected total constant base interval risk of transition A(m), in any ruth interval irrespective of destination state and the nature of the fault, is: A(m) = P(i s(i,m) + A,(ij,m,l . (7) j=i+l 1=1 Let the condition or state of the sub-system be taken as a function of multiple parameters. Some of these parameters can be measured directly, whereas others cannot. Thus a fault already present or initiated is reflected in the parameter, which is the measure of its exist- ence with the probability of 7/. Imperfect inspection may, therefore, detect only the reflected fault with a probability of . Once a fault is detected, inspection detects the status of the transition state with a probability q, and its transition time with an accuracy of _+ in fraction of the width of the forthcoming inspection interval. Thus the upper and lower error limits, T,(i,m) and Tl(i,m) for the estimation of a transition time T(i,m)T-T(i,m+l), at the time of the ruth inspection (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3), are: T,(i,m) = T+ T(i,m + 1)-T(i,m) (8) and Tl(i,m) = T- T(i,m + 1)- T(i,m) (9) for l-m m and/or m n- i, i e Ig and ij n 1 -(m-O.2(ij,m) + 1 -.z(ij,m).4(ij,m)q 1 -Pf(j) + (1 -q)Pf(); for 1 = m = n-l, iel and ije 1 - m- 1).2(ij,m) + 1 -.l(id,rn) s4(id,m) + .5(i,m),(id,m) m 1-Pf() + (1-q)Pf(j);for 1 = mn-1, iEl and ije. K=I 1 -K-l),s(id,m- 1) 1 -s,(ij,rn- 1) + .3(id,rn) + 1 -,(id,m)s4(ij,m) + ss(id,m),(id,m)q 1-Pf(j) + (1-q)Pf(j); for 1ren-1, iel and ije 1 - - I).s(id,m- 1) 1 -,(id,rn- 1) + ,3(id,m) + 1 -s(id,m),4 (ij,m)g 1-Pf(j) + (1-q)Pf(j);for lrn = n- 1, ieN and i-m and/or n-I, i and ije rff l-(-t-)A2(ij,m,l) + 1-Az(id,m,l)A4(id,m,l)q 1 -PdJ) + 1-q Pf(j); for l + 1 = m = n-l,i and ije 1 - (-t- )A2( iJ,m,l) + 1 -A( i,j,m,l) A4( ij,m,l) + As( ij,m,l)A.( ij,m,l) Iq1-Pf(j) + (1-q)Pf(j);for l + 1 = mn-1, iN and ije rl K=I+ 1 1 -(-t-)As(ij,m- 1,/) 1 -A,(ij,m- 1,l) + A3(ij,m,l) + 1 -A(ij,m,l)A4(ij,m,l) + As(ij,m,l)Au(ij,m,l)q 1 -Pf() + (1-q)Pf(j);for l + lmn-1, iER and ij 1 1-(-z-)As(ij,m- 1,/) 1 -A,(ij,m- 1,/) + A3(ij,m,l) + 1 -Al(ij,m,l) K=l+l A4(ij,m,i)q1-Pf(j) + (1-q)Pf(j);for I + lm = n-l, iR and ijE (11) Let a penalty be charged at a uniform rate of Cl(i) per unit production time lost due to unavailability of the sub-system in state i, independent of the transition state j and the cause of unavailability. The inspection cost ci(i) per inspection is paid in agi(i) instalments, where the instalment is equal to pi(v,i), a fraction of q(i). This is paid at time Y(v,i) from the time of the inspection. Thus the net present value (NPV) of the expected single step costs of the inspection plus penalty paid during the time of the inspection Ti, Ci(i), is: Ci(i ) = t. -lIs(ij ) A(ij 1) i + P(iJ)m- 1 ,m + l ,m, j= 1 -1 l=1 = 1 E ci(i)pi(P,i)(VIV2) trL(i) + r(i,K)-I-(K-,;.1 + YI vi) k= l v= l + cl(i)Ti(ViV2)trL(i) + i,)+ (,-0.5)Ti (12) for i e and j e , where V V2 are the annual time value or discount factor and the annual net inflation factor, respectively 7. Let the OCPM cost co(i), be paid in Oo(i) instalments, where the instalment is equal to po(v,i) a fraction of co(i), which is paid at time Yo(v,i) from the time when pending failure is detected. Thus, the NPV of the expected single step costs of OCPM, plus penalty during the time required for OCPM To(i), regardless of transition state Co(i), is: Co(i) = L n-1 P(ij) Po(ij,m) + Po(ij,m,l) j=i+l m=l l=l i_ i c(i)O(Pi)(VI V2)TL(i) + T(im) + mTi + + cl(i)To(i)(Vs V2) trt.( + r(i.m) + mT i + 0.5To(i) (13) 828 G.B. Williams and R. S. Hirani for ilg and je. Minimal repair is performed at cost rate Cm(j) , whenever transition occurs to a non- functional state j, which takes time Tin(j). The cost is paid in agm(j) instalments, where the th instalment is equal to pm(Vd), a fraction of c(j). This is paid in at time Y,(vj) from the expected time of transition to a non-functional state, plus time taken by inspec- tion. Therefore, the NPV of the single-step expected cost of on-failure minimal repair plus the penalty Cm(i) is: Cm(i): 2 P(ij)1-P) m - (l-r/) + rl(1- 0- + r/(1-0 (*-) j=i+l 1 K=I 1 /Ore: (1-q) Sdl(ij,m) Cm(j)pm(PJ)(VIV2) TL(i) + mTi + l(ijm) + Ym(vJ) -1 4 Cl(i)Tm(j)(Vl V2) TL(i) + T(i,m) + mT i + l(i,m)+ 0.5Tinj) + T(1 _)(K-l)ql(ij,m ) (Om(/) s4(ij,m) E Cm(j)prn(Vd) (VlV2) rL(i) + mr, + fff4(ij,m)+ Ym(v,j) + c,(i)T,(j) v= 1 ( Vl V2 ) TL(i ) + T(i,m) +mT i + 2f4(ij.m) + 0.STm(J) .4. ( 1 - 7/) + 77( 1 - )(m-l) ,4. = K=I+ I I : 0(1 -(g-t-l)(1 -q) Al(ij,m,l) Cm(j)pm(lYJ)(V1V2) TL(i) + mTi + Tl(idml) + Ym(v) -1 +c,(i)Tm(j)(ViV2)TL(i)+T(i.m+mTi+Tl(id.m.l)+OSTm (j) -1- O:(l-)(K-l-l)qAl K=I+I o,.(/) (ij,m,l)A4(ij,m,l) l c. (j)pm(lyd)(V1V2) TL(i) + mr; + T4(id, m,l)+ Ym(vj) + cl(i)T.,(j ) .v= i (VlV2)TL(i)+T(i,m)+mTi+T4(ij.m,l)+O.STm(J) (14) for lmn-1, iR and j. ,6-1 n-1 j=i+l = + q(1 -)(-l)(1-q),l(ij,m) =l v=l Cm(j)pm ( vj)(V 1V2) TL(i) + mTi + l (id,m) + Yra (vd) + cl(i)Tm(J)(V 1V2)rL(i) * T(i,m) +mT i + l(id,m) + 0.STmJ) . fo.o #t ffi l = Cm(Jgpm( pd)(Vl V2) TL(1) +mT i + T4(id.m) + Ym(Vj) A delay time multi-level on-condition preventive maintenance inspection model 829 ) + CI( i) Tm(j)( VI V2) tr,:) + l(h,n) + mT i + tff4(id.m) + 0.STm(j) / + (1-) + ,(1-O(-A(ij,m,l) l = I cm 1 = (J)Pm( vj)(V I V2) TL(i) + mTi + TI (id,m.l) + Ym ( vj) + Cl + r(i.m) + ,T i + T, (ij,m,l) + O.STm(J) (i)Tm(j)( VI vy(,) J 05) for l=m-n-1, iR and ij. If the sub-system in state i makes a transition to any non-functional state j, or to any functional state jc, after OCPM, before the warranty period Tw(i), warranty recovery at the agreed rate is charged from the supplier/manufacturer 5. Let the NPV of such a single step expected warranty charge recovered be Cw(i); therefore, the net expected single step inspection cost, plus OCPM cost, plus on-failure minimal repair cost, minus warranty recovery Cs(i), is: Cs(i) = Ci(i) + Co(i) + Cm(i)-Cw(i). (16) Therefore, the total expected single-step time taken by inspection, OCPM, and minimal repair, plus the time utilised for production, irrespective of the transition state and nature of the fault, given that the initial state is state i, is: T(ij) = ,m) + o ,m, 1 I=l (P,.(ij ) P (ij l)Tm(i) + ,l + m ,m, l=1 + l(ij,m) + Al(ij,m,l mTi + Sgl(ij,m)Tl(ij,m) I=l m 0 + A,(ij,m,1)T,(ij,m, . 1=1 (17) The NPV of the cumulative expected cost of inspection, expected cost of OCPM, expected cost of on-failure minimal repair, minus warranty recovery until the sub-system is in set , is: /3-i /3-2 B- C(i) = C(i) + P(ij)C,(j)(VIV2)tL (J) + P(ij)P(j,k)C j=i+l jfil kffij+l (k)(VlV2)T,(id) + r(i,k) + E E E P(ij)P(j,k)P(k,l)C, j=i+lk=j+l l=k+l (I)(V1V2) tL(i) + rs(Jk) + Ts(kl) + . + P(ij)P(j,k).P(3-2,3-1)C(/3-1) (VV2)tr,) + . + r,(/3-2./3-,1 (18) for ioC_jl. n-l, iRandijE f t(1-7) + 7711- + */1-gl(-l(1-,)M,(i,j,m) + /1-1 (-1), K= K=I s,(id,m)sd4(id,m) 1-Pf(j)for mn - 1, il and i m and/or m n- 1, illV and ij (1-71) + 71 1-m-lA(ij,m,l) 1-PRO) for/= m-n-1, i and ij(1-l)+B1-, (m-l) + 1-(-I-l)(1-q)Al(id,m,l) t=l+ l + 1-(-t-1)e.Al(id,m,l)A4(id,m,l)1-Pf(J) K=I+I for lm-n- 1, i E and ij (24) Since OCPM reduces the probability of transition to any non-functional state without changing the time of transition and the transition state, thus the net effective probabilities of transition of the sub-system in state i as a result of OCPM to any non-functional and functional states knf and kerry, are: P(i,k.f) = P.(id)P(i,k)m_ ,k,m) t rn ,k,m, J =l -1 1=1 (25) and ,(i,kf) = .P,(id)P(i,k)m_ 1- ,k,m)+ Pm(j,k,m,l J =l -1 1=1 (26) for i oC_, j E N and k.f and kf So. Where P.(ij) represents the expected number of visits to state j, before it leaves the set R 7, given that the process has started in state i, the NPV of the expected cumulative capital cost of the sub-system at the time of the first transition to any state keb, irrespective of its status CM(i), is: L CM(i) = Cp(i)- Z P(i,kf)cp(kf) ,(k? Z pp(ls, kf)(Vl V2)TL(i) + T(i) + Yp(v, kf) l,=l %(kf) + Pe(i,knf)cp(knf) Z Pp(l,knf) v=l (V V2)trt i + r(o + v,(.k,# (27) for ieoCR, kf and knfe c. The expected availability of the sub-system U(i) and the NPV of the expected cost rate per unit cycle time Cr(i), until it makes transition to any state in the set , given that it is repaired or replaced in state ioC_, at time TL(i), are: ,.,): 1 TAi) + To(i) (28) and 832 G.B. Williams and R. S. Hirani ICe(i) + CM(i) C(i) = di) + T- j (29) for ieoC_N. Since both the criteria for optimisation may be functions of the state in which the sub- system is repaired or replaced, the number of inspection intervals, and the control state /3, the optimum purchase state i*, the optimum control state/3* and the optimum number of inspection intervals (n*-1) are those which result in the maximum expected availability of the sub-system U.(i), or the minimum cost rate/unit cycle time Crr(i): U*(i)=max max maxU(i) (30) iE i/3-2 and C(i) = rain min minCr(i) (31) i i B) Fig. 4. Optimum maintenance cost rate. 834 G.B. Williams and R. S. Hirani o e m E E 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Control states /DExpeet0d data (n =2)IISimulatod data (n =2) 1 (n=3) msimlateu Uata (n =3) Lj The optimum policy selected by main programme and simulation was same within reasonable accuracy, where n = 2, 13 = 4, and policy no. 96 (which recommends purchase state 1, and replacement to state 1 for each transition state _ 13 Fig. 5. Optimum system availability. t._ 0 0 0 .Q cO .O 0 t,.,. Q. E _1 v 3 4 5 6 7 Transition states _ 13 IIExpected data(n = 3) IBSimulated data (n = 3) 11 V Fig. 6. The probability of transition to various states. A delay time multi-level on-condition preventive maintenance inspection model 835 A 1 U) 1 (9 . 1 (9 .Q t (9 E F- - 1 2 3 4 5 Initial states 6 oteclta(n_- 2)msimlated data(n 21 Fig. 7. Time available for a production cycle. and the supporting software, (iii) the main program determined the optimum results within a few minutes whereas simulation runs took longer, and (iv) different policies were selec- ted for different criteria because these decisions were data dependent (Figs 4 and 5). An industrial setup was modelled using the ProModel simulation package. To facilitate decision making, user-defined sub-routines were written in Turbo Pascal. The ProModel simulation was then run and identical results were obtained; this confirms the validity of the model and the supporting software. Capital recovery for a production system is taken to be equal to the drop in value considering inflation or deflation, which enables mature as well as premature replacement by the same or its alternative without additional investment. REFERENCES 1 G. B. Williams and R. S. Hirani, Multi-level maintenance model for parts of a production system with a self-announcing present state. Proceedings of ProModel Corporation Third Annual Users Conference, 19- 21 August 1992, Park City, Utah, U.S.A. 2 G. B. Williams and R. S. Hirani, Multi-level on-condition preventive maintenance inspection model based on constant base interval risk - when inspection detects present state. Proceedings of ICCIM 93 Second International Conference and Exhibition on Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 6-10 September 1993, Sin- gapore. 3 G. B. Williams and R. S. Hirani, Optimal replacement policy for non-reparable parts of a production system that fail suddenly - undectable deterioration. Paper in preparation. 4 G. B. Williams and R. S. Hirani, Selection, purchase, capital recovery, multi-level maintenance and replace- ment model based on maximum long-run discounted benefit rate for stochastically deteriorating production system. Proceedings of ECMI 91 Sixth Annual Conference of the European Consortium for Mathematics in Industry, 27-31 August 1991, University of Limerick, Republic of Ireland. 5 Hirani, R. S., Selection,
收藏