Joint economic design of production, continuous sampling inspection and preventive maintenance of a deteriorating production system

Abstract

Standard continuous sampling procedures and tables are conventionally applicable only to continuous production processes that are statistically 'in-control'. Consequently, these standards cannot be used to control quality in deteriorating production processes. Moreover, existing continuous sampling models do not consider interactions with production, inventory and maintenance aspects. In this paper, we attempt to fill these gaps in the literature. We investigate the joint design and optimization of a type-1 continuous sampling plan (CSP-1), make-to-stock production and preventive maintenance of a stochastic production system subject to both quality and reliability deteriorations. Two models of CSP-1 are considered and compared: the classical CSP-1 as in the standard procedures, and a CSP-1 plan with a stopping rule that is combined with condition-based maintenance. For both models, the optimization problem is to minimize the total incurred cost under a constraint on the outgoing quality. A combination of mathematical formulation, simulation and optimization techniques is used to solve such stochastic and constrained problems. Numerical examples are given to illustrate the resolution approach and to highlight some interesting aspects in the interactions between production, inventory, quality, maintenance and reliability. The results obtained demonstrate that sampling inspection plans realize significant cost savings compared to the 100% inspection which is commonly used in the literature of integrated models, and that using the CSP-1 with an inspection stopping rule for deteriorating processes is more costeffective than the classical CSP-1.

A Lean Six Sigma framework for the reduction of ship loading commercial time in the iron ore pelletising industry

“…Hence, preventive maintenance compliance was checked. Preventive maintenance leads to the prevention and hence reduction of equipment failures or any related issues (Bouslah et al, 2016). In this case, it was found that preventive maintenance compliance for port equipment had an average of 96 percent, which was considered high.…”

Optimal Scheme for Process Quality and Cost Control by Integrating a Continuous Sampling Plan and the Process Yield Index

“…The two parameters, the critical value 0 and the sample size , must simultaneously satisfy the two nonlinear inequalities (15) and (16). There are infinite values of the combination ( , 0 )which can meet inequalities (15) and (16). The specified value of ( , 0 ) which can simultaneously satisfy (17) and 18is the boundary of all the feasible combinations ( , 0 ).…”

“…The specified value of ( , 0 ) which can simultaneously satisfy (17) and 18is the boundary of all the feasible combinations ( , 0 ). It means that the combination of ( , 0 ) meeting (17) and (18) can satisfy inequalities (15) and (16).…”

“…However, there is no agreed conclusion about how to identify the inspection scheme in CSPs whose inspection cost is the minimum. The third kind of literature has proposed the integrated control scheme between CSP and other process control tools, such as preventive maintenance and specification limit [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. The integrated schemes were designed with the objective of minimizing the cost function.…”

A Multi-Objective Modeling Approach for Integrated Manufacturing and Preventive Maintenance Planning

“…However, it is frequently tackled at the operational level (e.g., the production and maintenance scheduling) (Assid et al, 2015). Because the complexity of the problem highly depends on number of machines or components, majority of the studies have based their modeling approach on singlemachine production maintenance scheduling (Sortrakul et al, 2005;Aggoune and Portmann, 2006;Sortrakul and Cassady, 2007;Yildirim and Nezami, 2014;Zhao et al, 2014;Bouslah et al, 2016a;Bouslah et al, 2016b, Emami-Mehrgani et al, 2016Kang and Subramaniam, 2018;Alimian et al, 2019;Bahria et al, 2019;Liu et al, 2019;Duffuaa et al, 2020;Ghaleb et al, 2020;.…”