Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis: Theory, Methods and Applications – Martorell et al.

(eds)
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48513-5

Availability and reliability assessment of industrial complex systems:

A practical view applied on a bioethanol plant simulation

V. González, C. Parra & J.F. Gómez

Industrial Management PhD Program at the School of Engineering, University of Seville, Spain

A. Crespo & P. Moreu de León

Industrial Management School of Engineering, University of Seville, Spain

ABSTRACT: This paper shows a practical view about the behaviour of an industrial assembly in order to assess
its availability and reliability. For that intention it will be used such a complex system like a Bioethanol Plant.
A computerized model will help to create a realistic scenario of the Bioethanol Plant Life Cycle, obtaining an
estimation of the most important performance measures through real data and statistic inference. By this way, it
will be possible to compare and discuss the profit of different plant configurations using the model and following
the initial technical specifications. Basically, the Bioethanol Plant will be divided for that purposes in functional
blocks, defining their tasks and features, as well as their dependencies according to the plant configuration.
Additionally, maintenance information and data bases will be required for the defined functional blocks. Once
these data have been compiled and using any commercial software, it will be possible to carry out a model of the
plant and to simulate scenarios and experiments for each considered configuration. Parameters about availability
and reliability will be obtained for the most important functions, following different plant configurations. From
their interpretation, it will be interesting to consider actions that improve the availability and reliability of the
system under different plant functional requirements. Among other important aspects, it will be researchable
as well a sensitive analysis, i.e., the exploring on how parameters modifications have influence on the result or
final goal.

1 INTRODUCTION assessment in a plant. Once simulated the operational

Nowadays, investors, engineers etc. have to take
into consideration a lot of requirements and condi-
tions in order to avoid risks and hazards on industrial
systems. Components or subsystems have potential
failure modes which have to be in mind from the sys-
tem initial state and according to its operation modes,
environmental conditions, failure times etc. . .
The failure modelling could be very complicated
because of dependencies or inferences among com-
ponents and, at the same time, the great amount
of required data. The intention here is to generate
a random number of events under a computerized
model which simulates the plant life scenario. There
are simulation methods that allow us taking into
consideration important aspects on the system oper-
ation like redundancies, stand-by nodes, preventive
maintenance, repairing priorities. . .
The use of such methods is rising up when one wants
to predict the general availability or the economical
cycles of each component and through their combi-
nation and dependencies, we will be able to obtain
the whole system operation cycle. The scope of this
research will be the availability assessment of alterna-
tives configurations in a plant according, not only to
predetermined maintenance strategies, but also to new
maintenance policies.
2 PROCEDURE
2.1 Definition of the system configuration
Description: It is needed to define functional blocks
and their dependencies according to the plant config-
uration and each block tasks or purposes.
Result: Functional block list/diagram: function,
inputs, outputs, etc. Functional chart of the sys-
tem containing the relations among blocks and their
reliability features.

687
2.2 Data compiling Grain (Starch)
Milling Hydrolysis Saccharifi-
Description: Maintenance information and data base Water
cation

will be required for each considered block.

Result: Schedule with preventive tasks, times, Evaporation Centrifuge Distillation Fermentation

failure ratios etc.

Drying Dehydration
2.3 Model construction
Description: Using any commercial software, it will Syrup
DDG Ethanol CO2
be possible to make a model of the plant.
Result: Plant computerized model. Figure 1. General diagram of the Bioethanol obtaining
process.
2.4 Simulation
Description: Using the model and with the above men-
tioned data we will simulate scenarios and experiments
for each considered configuration.
Result: Scenarios list, real and unreal events repli-
cation.

2.5 Results and analysis

Description: It will be able to calculate and discuss the
simulation results.
Results: Parameters about availability and reliabil-
ity will be obtained for the most important functions,
following different plant configurations. From their
interpretation, we will consider actions to improve
the availability and reliability of the system under
plant functional requirements. Among other important
aspects, we will have as well the sensitive analysis, i.e.,
the exploring on how parameters modifications have
influence on the result or final goal.
3 SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE
BIOETHANOL PROCESS AND ITS
RELATED BLOCK DIAGRAMS
Ethanol is commonly produced by the fermentation
of sugars. The conversion of starch to sugar, called
saccharification, significantly expands the choice of
feedstock to include cereals as corn, wheat, barley
etc. Other alternative route to bioethanol involves the
enzymatic conversion of cellulose and hemi-cellulose.
Completing the picture, ethanol is also commercially
synthesised from petrochemical sources but this does
not fall into the renewable category, which is the frame
of this paper.
Basically, the chemical reactions involved in
bioethanol production can be simplified as follows:
Figure 2. Diagram of the grain reception, cleaning, milling
and storage system.
Conversion of starch into bioethanol involves sev-
eral more process steps, as. It starts by making a
‘‘beer’’ from the milled grain, then distilling off the
alcohol followed by recovery of the residual solids and
recycle of water.
It is necessary to be care with each step of the pro-
cess to assure an efficient conversion, particularly due
to the fact that it is a biological process where unsuit-
able reactions can happen causing loss in yield, and
also because different grains have different process
requirements. Some of the most important matters to
have into account in the sequence of process steps are
below mentioned.
Together with this description are also included
Block Diagrams of the main systems in a Bioethanol
plant. These diagrams are only an approaching of an
ideal plant. They try to show briefly the main equip-
ments, devices, as well as material flows inside the
whole plant.
3.1 Slurry preparation
The feed grain is milled to a sufficient fineness in order
to allow water access to all the starch inside each grain.
The meal is then mixed with warm water till a specific
concentration without generating excessive viscosities
downstream.

688
Figure 3. Diagram of the mashing, cooking, liquefaction
and fermentation system. Figure 4. Diagram of the distillation and dehydration
system.

3.2 Hydrolysis
The slurry temperature is raised up in order to accel-
erate the hydrolysis of the grain’s starch into solution.
Again there is an optimum depending on the grain
type—if the slurry is too hot, the viscosity is exces-
sive and if too cool, the required residence time for
effective hydrolysis is too long.

Figure 5. Diagram of the centrifugation, evaporation and

3.3 Saccharification
With enzymes, the dissolved starch is converted to sug-
ars by saccharification, but at a reduced temperature
which again is selected to achieve a balance between a
satisfactory reaction rate, and avoiding the promotion
of unsuitable side reactions and a subsequent loss in
yield.
3.4 Fermentation
The slurry is cooled to a fermentation temperature and
held in large batch fermentation tanks for a specific
time. Fresh yeast is prepared in parallel and added
at the beginning of each batch fermentation cycle.
The fermenting slurry is agitated and also circulated
through external exchangers to remove the heat gen-
erated by the fermentation process. On completion of
fermentation the batch is transferred to the Beer Well
and the particular fermentation tank and associated
equipment are cleaned by the plant’s CIP system.
3.5 Distillation
The ‘‘beer’’ contains about 8–12% ethanol. It is contin-
uously pumped to the distillation unit which produces
an overhead stream of about 90% ethanol and water.
Ethanol and water form a 95% azeotrope so it is not
possible to reach 100% by simple distillation.
3.6 Dehydration
The 90% overhead stream is passed through an
absorber containing a molecular sieve which traps the
ethanol while letting the water pass through. Once the
bed in the absorber is full, the feed is switched to a
drying system.
parallel absorber and the almost pure ethanol is sent
to product storage. The cycle is then repeated.
3.7 Centrifugation
The residual slurry left after distillation is called
‘‘Whole Stillage’’ and it contains all the insoluble and
soluble non-starch components from the feed grain,
as well as the yeast which has grown during fermen-
tation. The bulk of the solids, termed ‘‘Wet Distillers
Grains’’ (WDG) are removed by centrifuge leaving a
‘‘Thin Stillage’’.
3.8 Evaporation
To minimise water consumption, a large portion of the
Thin Stillage is recycled to the front of the process.
Basically, by effect of the evaporation a portion of
water is recycled, and the residual ‘‘Syrup’’ that con-
tains around 30–35% solids is either blended with the
WDG or sold separately to animal feed.
3.9 Drying
WDG is commonly dried as a mixture with the syrup to
about 10% moisture by gas fired rotary dryer. This by-
product, called ‘‘Dried Distillers Grains and Solubles’’
(DDGS) is sold to animal feed.
3.10 CO2 Recovery
Fermentation simultaneously generates carbon diox-
ide which is collected and scrubbed to recover any

689

Figure 6. Diagram of the pelletizing system.
ethanol. It can either be processed into a by-product
or released to atmosphere.
4 SUMMARY OF FORMULAS
AND CONCEPTS REGARDING
RELIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY
The intention here is to summarise the formulation
regarding the reliability and availability concepts for
two subsystems (non-identical) in series or in parallel.
Additionally, a system with n identical subsystems in
parallel is also here taken into consideration, where
the system will be declared as failed if m or more
subsystems fail (the m_out_n case).
The system characteristics to be formulated here are
such as ‘‘system failure rate’’, ‘‘system Mean Time
Between Failure’’, ‘‘system availability and unavail-
ability’’, and ‘‘system mean down time’’. We under-
stand as ‘‘Failure (f)’’ the termination of the ability of
a component or system to perform a required function.
Therefore, the ‘‘Failure Rate (λ)’’ will be the arithmetic
average of failures of a component and/or system per
unit exposure time. The most common unit in relia-
bility analyses is hours (h). However, some industries
use failures per year
4.1 Two subsystems in series
4.1.1 System failure rate
Just for one subsystem, the failure rate is λ1 . The
probability of failure in dt is λ1 dt. For two sub-
systems in series, the probability of failure in dt
is (λ1 dt + λ2 dt ). The system failure rate is thus
(λ1 + λ2 ) : λseries = λ1 + λ2
The reliability function is:
R(t) = exp[−(λ1 + λ2 )t].
4.1.2 System MTBF
From the exponential form of the reliability function,
it is obvious that:
MTBF1 · MTBF2
MTBFseries = 1/(λ1 + λ2 ) =
MTBF1 + MTBF2
690
4.1.3 System availability and unavailability
For the system to be available, each subsystem should
be available. Thus:
Aseries = A1 · A2
Conversely, the unavailability is:
UAseries = 1 − Aseries = 1 − (1 − UA1 ) · (1 − UA2 )
= UA1 + UA2 − UA1 · UA2
4.1.4 System mean down time for repairable
subsystems
If two subsystems are both repairable, one with mean
down time MDT1 and the other MDT2 , then, the mean
down time for the two subsystems in series will be as
follows. At any instance in time, the system is in one
of the 4 states:
• Both subsystems functional.
• Only subsystem #1 is non-functional.
• Only subsystem #2 is non-functional.
• Both subsystems are non-functional.
The last 3 cases are responsible for the system
being non-functional. It is assumed that the 4th case
has negligible probability. Given the system is down,
the probability that it is because the subsystem #1 is
non-functional is obviously:
λ1
.
λ1 + λ2
Since subsystem #1 needs MDT1 to repair, the
repair time associated with repairing subsystem #1 is
then:
λ1
∗ MDT1
λ1 + λ2
A similar expression is true for subsystem #2.
Summing them up, one gets:
MTBF1 · MDT2 + MTBF2 · MDT1
MDTseries =
MTBF1 + MTBF2
4.2 Two subsystems in parallel
Here the two subsystems are repairable. The mean
down times are MDT1 and MDT2 .
4.2.1 System failure rate
If the system just consists of subsystem #1, then the
system failure rate is λ1 . The probability of failure
in dt is λ1 dt. Adding subsystem #2 in parallel, the
probability for system failure in dt is λ1 dt reduced by
the probability that the subsystem #2 is in the failure
state. The probability to find the subsystem #2 in the MDT1 MDT2
UA1 · UA2 = ·
failure state is given by: MTBF1 MTBF2

MDT2 Consequently:
MTBF2 + MDT2
MDT1 · MDT2
MDTparallel =
Assuming that: MDT1 + MDT2

MDT2 << MTBF2 4.3 M out of N parallel subsystems

And using: If a system consists of n parallel, identical subsystems

and the system is down if there are m or more subsys-
1 tems down, then, the formulas for system failure rate,
MTBF2 = system MTBF, system availability, and system mean
λ2
down time will be the following ones.
Then, the reduced failure rate for subsystem #1 is
then given by: λ1 · λ2 · MDT2 4.3.1 System failure rate
Likewise, the reduced failure rate for subsystem #2 If the system just consists of subsystem #1, then the
is: λ1 · λ2 · MDT1 system failure rate is λ. The probability of failure in
Consequently: λparallel = λ1 · λ2 · (MDT1 + MDT2 ) dt is λdt. To have a system failure, we need to have
other (m-1) subsystems in the failure state. The chance
4.2.2 System MTBF that any one subsystems is in the failure state is given
Taking the approach that the inverse of the failure rate by MDT/(MTBF+MDT), or (MDT/MTBF), if we
is MTBF (true for exponential distribution), one gets: assume MDT<< MTBF. To find (m−1) subsystems
in the failure state, the probability is:
m−1
MTBF1 · MTBF2

MDT
MTBFparallel = 1/λparallel =
MDT1 + MDT2 MTBF
It is noted that if the two subsystems are not There are n−1 Cm−1 ways to group (m-1) subsystems
repairable, then the MTBF for the parallel case is the out of (n-1) subsystems. Also, it is possible to choose
sum of the individual MTBF’s. any subsystem to be the #1 subsystem in the analysis.
Putting all together, one has:
4.2.3 System availability and unavailability
For the system to be available, either subsystem should MDT m−1
be available. Thus: λm_out_of _n = λ · ( ) n−1 C m−1 · n
MTBF
n!
Aparallel = A1 + A2 − A1 · A2 = λm · MDT m−1 (2)
(n − m)!(m − 1)!
Conversely, the unavailability is:
This is the failure rate for exactly m subsystem
UAparallel = 1 − Aparallel = 1 − (A1 + A2 − A1 · A2 ) failures. The failure rate for more than m subsystem
failures is going to be smaller by a factor of (λ · MDT ).
= (1 − A1 ) · (1 − A2 ) = UA1 · UA2 (1) For a consistency check, we consider n = m = 2.
This is a system consisting of two parallel, identical
4.2.4 System mean down time for repairable subsystems. When m = 2 subsystems fail, the system
subsystems fails. Eq. (2) for this case is λsystem = λ2 · (2 · MDT )
From the definition of: which agrees with the above mentioned formula.
MDT MDT
Unavailability = ≈ 4.3.2 System MTBF
MTBF + MDT MTBF Taking the approach that the inverse of the failure rate
is MTBF (true for exponential distribution), one gets:
It is possible to get the MDT for the parallel case
by using Eq.(1) above. MTBFm_out_of _n = 1/λm_out_of _n
MDTparallel MDTparallel MTBF m
UAparallel = = MTBF1 ·MTBF2 = n!
MTBFparallel MDT +MDT
1 2 (n−m)!·(m−1)! · MDT m−1

691
4.3.3 System availability and unavailability 5.1 System failure rate
For the system to be available, at least (n-m+1)
• 3CO2 = λMilling + λFermentation
subsystems should be available. Thus:
• 3Ethanol = λMilling + λFermentation + λDistillation +
λDehydration
n
X n! • 3DDGS = λMilling + λFermentation + λDistillation +
Am_out_of _n = Ai (1 − A)n−i λCentrifugation + λDrying
i=n−m+1
(n − i)! · i!
• 3Syrup = λMilling + λFermentation + λDistillation +
λCentrifugation + λEvaporation
Using the following equality:

n
Here it has been included the Hydrolysis and Sac-
n
X n! charification in the same process area as Fermentation.
1 = [A + (1 − A)] = Ai (1 − A)n−i
i=0
(n − i)! · i!

It is possible to rewrite the availability as:

5.2 System MTBF system availability (A)
MTBFMilling ·MTBFFermentation
n−m
X n! • MTBFCO2 = MTBFMilling +MTBFFermentation
Am_out_of _n = 1 − Ai (1 − A)n−i MTBFCO2 ·MTBFDis+Deh
(n − i)! · i! • MTBFEthanol =
i=0 MTBFCO2 +MTBFDis+Deh ,
n!
≈1− (1 − A)m
m! · (n − m)! Where:
MTBFDistillation ·MTBFDehydration
MTBFDis+Deh = MTBFDistillation +MTBFDehydration
And the unavailability is given (again, for
MDT << MTBF), by:
MTBFCO2 ·MTBFDis+Cen+Dry
• MTBFDDGS = MTBFCO2 +MTBFDis+Cen+Dry ,
n!
UAm_out_of _n = UAm
m! · (n − m)!
Where:
MTBFDis+Cen ·MTBFDrying
4.3.4 System mean down time for repairable MTBFDis+Cen+Dry = MTBFDis+Cen +MTBFDrying , Where:
subsystems MTBFDistillation ·MTBFCentrifugation
MTBFDis+Cen = MTBFDistillation +MTBFCentrifugation
From the definition of:

MDTm_out_of _n MTBFCO2 ·MTBFDis+Cen+Eva

UAm_out_of _n = • MTBFSyrup =
MTBFm_out_of _n MTBFCO2 +MTBFDis+Cen+Eva ,

It is possible to get the MDT for the m_out_of_n Where:

MTBFDis+Cen ·MTBFEvaporation
case by using the above mentioned formulas for MTBFDis+Cen+Eva = MTBFDis+Cen +MTBFEvaporation , and as
UAm_out_of _n and MTBFm_out_of _n . above mentioned:
Consequently:

MDT MTBFDistillation · MTBFCentrifugation

MDTm_out_of _n = MTBFDis+Cen =
m MTBFDistillation + MTBFCentrifugation

5 FORMULATION APPLIED TO THE BLOCK

DIAGRAMS
Taking into consideration the General diagram of the
Bioethanol obtaining process included at the begin-
ning of Section 3, it is possible to summarize basically
the Reliability characteristics of the Bioethanol plant
in the following formulas for a configuration in series:
5.3 System availability (A)
• ACO2 = AMilling · AFermentation
• AEthanol = ACO2 · ADistillation · ADehydration
• ADDGS = ACO2 · ADistillation · ACentrifugation · ADrying
• ASyrup = ACO2 · ADistillation · ACentrifugation · AEvaporation

692
5.4 System Mean Down Time (MDT) which can be applied to analyze the reliability charac-
teristics of the whole complex system, in this case, a
• MDTCO2
Bioethanol Plant.
MTBFMilling ·MDTFermentation +MTBFFermentation ·MDTMilling
= MTBFMilling +MTBFFermentation

• MDTEthanol 6 CONCLUSION
MTBFCO2 ·MDTDis+Deh +MTBFDis+Deh ·MDTCO2
= , With this research we pretend to improve the esti-
MTBFCO2 +MTBFDis+Deh
mations, demonstrating as well how requirements
Where expressed in initial technical specifications can be
MDTDis+Deh incompatible or even impossible to accomplish for
determined plant configurations. That means, avail-
MTBFDistillation ·MDTDehydration +MTBFDehydration ·MDTDistillation
= MTBFDistillation +MTBFDehydration
ability expectations on proposed configurations of the
whole plant could be lower, having higher reliability
or mantenability on each functional block, following
• MDTDDGS the technical requirements in effect.
MTBFCO2 ·MDTDis+Cen+Dry +MTBFDis+Cen+Dry ·MDTCO2 Additionally, reasonable estimations will be pro-
= MTBFCO2 +MTBFDis+Cen+Dry ,
vided for the production availability, which can be
Where delivered to the final customer in a more realistic
engineering project. These estimations will be based
MDTDis+Cen+Dry on validated calculations of functional blocks consid-
MTBFDis+Cen ·MDTDrying +MTBFDrying ·MDTDis+Cen ered for the model simulation, showing moreover the
= MTBFDis+Cen +MTBFDrying ,
importance and opportunity of a sensitive analysis. It
And can also be decisive for the final selection the plant
technical configuration.
MDTDis+Cen At the same time, this study can also be used to
MTBFDistillation ·MDTCentrifugation +MTBFCentrifugation ·MDTDistillation adjust some initial requirements in the plant technical
= MTBFDistillation +MTBFCentrifugation specification. Once the data have been introduced in
the model, they can be adjusted according to the real
• MDTSyrup =
equipments included in the offer. By the way, it is pos-
MTBFCO2 ·MDTDis+Cen+Eva +MTBFDis+Cen+Eva ·MDTCO2 sible to study logistical aspects like spare parts amount
MTBFCO2 +MTBFDis+Cen+Eva ,
in stock.
Where Finally, not only the availability and reliability are
important, but also the costs estimation is a key factor.
MDTDis+Cen+Eva Therefore, an extension of this study could be to trans-
MTBF
Dis+Cen ·MDT
Evaporation +MTBF
Evaporation ·MDTDis+Cen fer the information provided in this research to a life
= MTBFDis+Cen +MTBFEvaporation , cycle cost model, with the intention to assess globally
and as above mentioned, the plant.
MDTDis+Cen

=
MTBFDistillation ·MDTCentrifugation +MTBFCentrifugation ·MDTDistillation
MTBFDistillation +MTBFCentrifugation
Once developed these formulas for the main parts of
the process, it is possible to continue breaking down
these as deeper as wanted. It is clear that each area
(milling, fermentation, distillation. . . ) in the plant
has actually its own configuration for its different
devices and equipments, with its specific combina-
tion for these subsystems in series or in parallel (see
for instance the different block diagrams also included
in Section 3).
Therefore, and as it has just mentioned, the relia-
bility characteristics can be also broken down till such
a detail level where is possible to apply real values
for such units. There are published many Data Bases
which include real values for process equipments, and
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank the reviewers of the
paper for their contribution to the quality of this work.
REFERENCES
Asociación Española de Mantenimiento. 2005. El Manten-
imiento en España: Encuesta sobre su situación en las
empresas españolas.
Bangemann T., Rebeuf X., Reboul D., Schulze A., Szymanski
J., Thomesse J.P., Thron M., Zerhouni N.. 2006. Proteus-
Creating distribuited maintenance systems through an
integration platform. Computers in Industry, Elselvier.
Benoît Iung 2006. CRAN Laboratory Research Team
PRODEMAS in Innovative Maintenance and Depend-
ability. Nancy University—Nancy Research Centre

693
 for Automatic Control (CRAN). CNRS UMR 7039
(http://www.cran.uhp-nancy.fr).
Bourne, M. & Neely, A. 2003. Performance measurement
system interventions: the impact of parent company ini-
tiatives on success and failure. Journal of Operation and
Management.
Campbell J.D. & Jardine A. 2001. Maintenance excellence.
New York: Marcel Dekker. 2001.
Carter, Russell A. 2001. Shovel maintenance gains from
improved designs, tools and techniques. Elsevier Engi-
neering Information.
Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS)Guidelines for
Process Equipment Reliability Data, with Data Tables.
ISBN: 0-8169-0422-7.
Clark J. 1995. Managing Innovation and Change: People,
Technology and Strategy. Business & Economics.
Crespo M.A., Moreu de L.P., Sanchez H.A. 2004. Ingeniería
de Mantenimiento. Técnicas y Métodos de Aplicación a
la Fase Operativa de los Equipos. Aenor, España.
Crespo M.A. 2007. The Maintenance Management Frame-
work. Models and Methods for Complex Systems Main-
tenance. Londres, Reino Unido. Springer.
Dale & Plunkett 1991. Quality Costing. Chapman Hall.
Dandois, P.A. & Ponte, J. 1999. La administración del
conocimiento organizacional. El management en el siglo
XXI.
Davenport T. 1993. Process innovation: Reengineering
work through Information Technology. Harvard Business
School Press.
David John Smith. 2005. Reliability, Maintainability and
Risk: Practical Methods for Engineers. ISBN 0-750-
66694-3 Butterworth-Heinemann.
Deardeen, J. Lilien, G. and Yoon, E. 1999. Marketing
and Production Capacity Strategy For Non-Differentiated
Products: Winning And Losing At The Capacity Cycle
Game. International Journal of Research In Marketing.
Deming W. Edwards 1989. Calidad, productividad y compet-
itividad: la salida de la crisis. Madrid, Ediciones Díaz de
Santos.
Dixon J.R. 1966. Design engineering: inventiveness, anal-
ysis, and decision making. New York, McGraw-Hill,
Inc.
Dyer R.F. & Forman E.H. 1992. Group decision support
with the Analytic Hierarch Process. Decision Support
Systems.
Earl M.J. 1994. The New and the Old of Business Pro-
cess Redesign. Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
vol. 3.
EN 13306:2001. Maintenance Terminology. European Stan-
dard. CEN (European Committee for Standardization),
Brussels.
European Foundation for Quality Management. 2006. EFQM
Framework for Management of External Resources. By
EIPM—EFQM.
Gelders, L., & Pintelon, L. 1988. Reliability and mainte-
nance" in: Doff, R.C. and Nof, S.J. (ed.), International
Encyclopedia of Robotics, Application and Automation,
Wiley, New York.
Goldratt E. 1997. Cadena Crítica. Ediciones Diaz de Santos.
Hammer & Champy 1993. Reengineering the Corporation.
Harper Business.
Hammer M. 1990. Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate
Obliterate. Harvard Business Review.
694
Hansen, M.T.; Noria, N.; Tierney, T. 1999. What’s your
strategy for managing knowledge?. Harvard Business
Review.
Henley, E.J. and Kumamoto, H. 1992 Probabilistic Risk
Assessment: Reliability Engineering, Design & Analysis.
ISBN 0 87942 290 4. IEEE Press, US.
Høyland A & Rausand M, 1994. System Reliability Theory.
Models and Statistical methods. ISBN 0-471-59397-4.
Wiley-Interscience.
Inc, Renewable Fuels Association. 2001. Ethanol Plant
Development Handbook. BBI International. USA
Intelligent Maintenance Centre 2007. www.imscenter.net.
Iserman R. 1984. Process fault detection based on modelling
and estimation methods. Automatica.
ITSMF, IT Service Management Forum 2007. ITIL v3.
Information Technology Infrastructure Library. ITIL v2.
Information Technology Infrastructure.
Jardine A.K.S., Lin D., Banjevic D. 2006. A review on
machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing
condition based maintenance. Mech, Syst. Signal Process.
Jharkharia S. & Shankarb R. 2005. Selection of logistics
service provider: An analytic network process (ANP)
approach. International Journal of Management Sciente,
Omega 35 (2007) 274–289.
Kaplan, Robert S. & David P. Norton 1996. The Balanced
Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action . Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kent Allen 1990. Encyclopedia of Computer Science and
Technology. CRC Press.
Klein, M.M. 1994. The most fatal reengineering mistakes.
Information strategy: The Executive’s J. lO(4) 21–28.
Lee J. 1995. Machine performance monitoring and proac-
tive maintenance in computer-integrated manufacturing:
review and perspective. International Journal of Computer
Integrating Manufacturing.
Lee J. 2004. Infotronics-based intelligent maintenance sys-
tem and its impacts to close-loop product life cycle
systems. Proceedings of de IMS’2004 International Con-
ference on Itelligent Maintenance Systems, Arles, France.
Levitt Joel. 2003. Complete Guide to Preventive and Predic-
tive Maintenance. Industrial Press.
Davis, M. 1988. Applied Decision Support. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs .
Mitchell Ed., Robson Andrew, Prabhu Vas B. 2002. The
Impact of Maintenance Practices on Operational and
Business Performance. Managerial Auditing Journal.
Mobley Keith 2002. An Introduction to Predictive Mainte-
nance. Elsevier.
Moubray J. 1997. Reliability-centered Maintenance. Indus-
trial Press.
Nakajima Seiichi 1992. Introducción al TPM (Manten-
imiento Productivo Total). Productivity Press.
Neely, A.D., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. 1995. Performance
Measurement System Design—A Literature Review and
Research Agenda. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management.
Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Com-
pany. USA: Oxford University Press.
Patton, J.D. 1980. Maintainability and Maintenance Manage-
ment. Instrument Society of America, Research Triangle
Park, NC.
Peters T. & Waterman H.R. Jr. 1982. ‘‘In Search of Excel-
lence’’.
Pintelon L.M. & Gelders L.F. 1992. Maintenance manage-
ment decision making. European Journal of Operational
Research.
Porter, M. 1985. Competitive Advantage. Free Press.
Prusak Laurence 1996. The Knowledge Advantage. Strategy
& Leadership.
Ren Yua, Benoit Iung, Herv!e Panetto 2003. A multi-agents
based E-maintenance system with case-based reasoning
decision support. Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence 16 321–333.
Saaty, T.L. 1977. A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hier-
archical Structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology,
15: 234–281, 1977.
Saaty, T.L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw
Hill.
Saaty, T.L. 1990. How to make a decision: The ana-
lytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational
Research.
Shu-Hsien Liao 2005. Expert system methodologies and
applications—-a decade review from 1995 to 2004.
Elselvier. Expert Systems with Applications 28 93–103.
695
Turban E. 1988. Decision Support and Expert Systems:
Managerial Perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
UNE 66174 2003. Guide for the assessment of quality man-
agement system according to UNE-EN ISO 9004:2000
standard. Tools and plans for improvement. UNE.
UNE 66175 2003. Systems of Indicators. UNE.
UNE-EN ISO 9001:2000. Quality management
systems—Requirements. International Organization for
Standardization.
Wireman, T. 1991. Total Productive Maintenance. Industrial
Press.
Yan S.K. 2003. A condition-based failure prediction and
processing-scheme for preventive maintenance. IEEE
Transaction on Reliability.
Zhu G., Gelders L. and Pintelon L. 2002. Object/objective-
oriented maintenance management. Journal of quality in
maintenance engineering.