JID: RESS

ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;May 12, 2017;12:34]

Reliability Engineering and System Safety 000 (2017) 1–7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Reliability Engineering and System Safety

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ress

A cost-based integrated importance measure of system components for

preventive maintenance
Hongyan Dui a, Shubin Si b,∗, Richard C.M. Yam c
a
School of Management Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
b
School of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China
c
Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Preventive maintenance may be performed on a few selected components when a component fails. Importance
Preventive maintenance measures can be used to identify the most important component that requires maintenance. However, this process
Maintenance cost involves two problems: (a) the preventive maintenance time of the selected component may be bigger than the
System reliability
maintenance time of the failed component; (b) the most important component may incur the highest maintenance
Importance measure
cost. Traditional importance measures do not consider the possible effect of maintenance time and cost, which
significantly affect the improvement of system reliability. Given the joint effect of component maintenance cost
and time on system reliability, this study proposes a cost-based integrated importance measure (IIM) to identify
the component or group of components that may be selected for preventive maintenance. The characteristics of
cost-based IIM are examined to determine the relationships among failure rates, shape parameters, and the scale
parameters of different components. Finally, an application to a wind turbine system is used to illustrate its usage.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Natvig et al. [13–16] propose an importance measure for non-repairable

1.1. Background
Importance measures in reliability engineering are extensively used
to identify the weakest component of a system and support system im-
provement activities. These measures can also provide valuable informa-
tion to facilitate the safety and efficient operation of systems at different
phases. Importance measures are used at the system maintenance phase
to help engineers minimize maintenance cost and prolong the life of the
system.
Birnbaum [1] is the first to define reliability importance, which
evaluates the effect of component reliability on system reliability. Kuo
and Zhu [2–4] also summarize the concepts of importance measures
and their application in system reliability areas. Following Birnbaum,
many importance measures are proposed to evaluate their effect on
system reliability and performance [5–8]. For example, Wu and Chan
[9] introduce the concept of utility importance to evaluate the effect
of component state on system performance. Ramirez-Marquez and Coit
[10,11] present composite importance measures to identify important
components and analyze their effect on system reliability. Ramirez-
Marquez et al. [12] propose a redundancy importance measure to eval-
uate the potential of a component for system reliability improvement.
and repairable systems and provide a few applications. Gao et al. [17] in-
troduce the concept of joint reliability importance of multi-components,
as well as conditional reliability importance, which are used to select
components in terms of maintenance. Levitin et al. [18] generalize com-
monly used importance measures. Peng et al. [19] analyze system reli-
ability with degrading components and propose component importance
measures to characterize how a specific degrading component affects
system reliability. Wu et al. [20] consider the maintenance costs in-
curred of maintaining a system and its components, and they extend
Birnbaum importance to a cost-based importance measure. Borgonovo
et al. [21–23] propose a few importance measures, such as differential
importance measure and time-independent reliability importance mea-
sure, and provide a few applications of the proposed importance mea-
sures. Zhai et al. [24] present a moment-independent importance mea-
sure in reliability and safety engineering. Tyrväinen [25] presents new
risk importance measures and applies them to a dynamic reliability anal-
ysis. Si et al. [26] and Dui et al. [27] propose an integrated importance
measure (IIM) to evaluate the effects of the transition of components on
system performance and extend the IIM from different aspects. Si et al.
[28] extend the IIM from the component state to the entire component
to describe the important component in the performance improvement
of the system. Dui et al. [29] extend the IIM to the Semi-Markov process

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: duihongyan@zzu.edu.cn (H. Dui), sisb@nwpu.edu.cn (S. Si), mery@cityu.edu.hk (R.C.M. Yam).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.05.025
Available online xxx
0951-8320/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: H. Dui et al., Reliability Engineering and System Safety (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.05.025
JID: RESS
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;May 12, 2017;12:34]

H. Dui et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 000 (2017) 1–7

system reliability. This study proposes a cost-based IIM to identify the

Notations component or group of components that may be selected for preventive
maintenance when a component fails.
n number of components The rest of this study is organized as follows. Section 2 analyzes the
i index of component i, i = 1, 2, …, n change of system reliability during repair. A cost-based IIM is introduced
R i (t) reliability of component i at time t and its characteristics are studied in Section 3. Section 4 uses an appli-
Fi (t) failure probability of component i at time t cation to show the validity of the proposed measure. The conclusions
𝜆i (t) failure rate of component i at time t are provided in Section 5.
R (t) system reliability at time t, which is a
function of reliabilities of all components 2. Change of system reliability during repair
𝑅(𝑡) = 𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡), 𝑅2 (𝑡), … , 𝑅𝑛 (𝑡))
𝐼𝑖𝐵𝑀 (𝑡) Birnbaum importance measure of component i at Based on the assumption that the repair time of the component isΔt,
time t we analyze changes in system reliability changes in Δt when a compo-
𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) integrated importance measure (IIM) of component i nent fails at time t.
at time t
𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼,𝑖𝑀,…,𝑖 (𝑡) IIM of a group of components i1 , i2 , …, im at time t 𝑅(𝑡 + Δ𝑡) − 𝑅(𝑡) = 𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡 + Δ𝑡), 𝑅2 (𝑡 + Δ𝑡), … , 𝑅𝑛 (𝑡 + Δ𝑡)) − 𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡),
𝑚
1 2
C(i, t) total maintenance cost due to the failure of compo- 𝑅2 (𝑡), … , 𝑅𝑛 (𝑡)) = 𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡 + Δ𝑡), 𝑅2 (𝑡 + Δ𝑡), … , 𝑅𝑛 (𝑡 + Δ𝑡)) − 𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡),
nent i at time t 𝑅2 (𝑡 + Δ𝑡), … , 𝑅𝑛 (𝑡 + Δ𝑡)) + 𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡), 𝑅2 (𝑡 + Δ𝑡), … , 𝑅𝑛 (𝑡 + Δ𝑡))
Cs, i (t) cost of maintaining the system attributed to the fail- −𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡), 𝑅2 (𝑡), 𝑅3 (𝑡 + Δ𝑡) … , 𝑅𝑛 (𝑡 + Δ𝑡))
ure of component i at time t ⋯
C i ( t) cost of maintaining component i at time t +𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡), 𝑅2 (𝑡), … , 𝑅𝑛−1 (𝑡), 𝑅𝑛 (𝑡 + Δ𝑡)) − 𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡), 𝑅2 (𝑡), … , 𝑅𝑛 (𝑡)),
𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) cost-based IIM of component i at time t (1)
𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼,𝑖𝑀,…,
,𝐶
𝑖𝑚 (𝑡) cost-based IIM of a group of components i1 , i2 , …, im where 𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡), 𝑅2 (𝑡), … , 𝑅𝑛 (𝑡)) is a function of reliabilities of all compo-
1 2
at time t nents and 𝑅(𝑡) = 𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡), 𝑅2 (𝑡), … , 𝑅𝑛 (𝑡)).
Change in system reliability in unit time is given as
to study how the transition of component states affects system perfor- 𝑅(𝑡+Δ𝑡)−𝑅(𝑡)
Δ𝑡
mance. 𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡+Δ𝑡),𝑅2 (𝑡+Δ𝑡),…,𝑅𝑛 (𝑡+Δ𝑡))−𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡),𝑅2 (𝑡+Δ𝑡),…,𝑅𝑛 (𝑡+Δ𝑡))
= Δ𝑡
𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡),𝑅2 (𝑡+Δ𝑡),…,𝑅𝑛 (𝑡+Δ𝑡))−𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡),𝑅2 (𝑡),𝑅3 (𝑡+Δ𝑡)…,𝑅𝑛 (𝑡+Δ𝑡))
+
1.2. Motivation Δ𝑡
+⋯
𝑓 (𝑅 (𝑡),𝑅2 (𝑡),…,𝑅𝑛−1 (𝑡),𝑅𝑛 (𝑡+Δ𝑡))−𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡),𝑅2 (𝑡),…,𝑅𝑛 (𝑡))
Gao et al. [17] introduce the concept of conditional reliability impor- + 1 Δ𝑡 (2)
𝑅1 (𝑡+Δ𝑡)−𝑅1 (𝑡) 𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡+Δ𝑡),𝑅2 (𝑡+Δ𝑡),…,𝑅𝑛 (𝑡+Δ𝑡))−𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡),𝑅2 (𝑡+Δ𝑡),…,𝑅𝑛 (𝑡+Δ𝑡))
tance to decide the components that should be given importance during = Δ𝑡 𝑅1 (𝑡+Δ𝑡)−𝑅1 (𝑡)
maintenance. Wu et al. [30] overcome the defects of reference [17] and 𝑅 (𝑡+Δ𝑡)−𝑅 (𝑡) 𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡),𝑅2 (𝑡+Δ𝑡),…,𝑅𝑛 (𝑡+Δ𝑡))−𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡),𝑅2 (𝑡),𝑅3 (𝑡+Δ𝑡),…,𝑅𝑛 (𝑡+Δ𝑡))
+ 2 Δ𝑡 2 𝑅2 (𝑡+Δ𝑡)−𝑅2 (𝑡)
propose the importance of component maintenance priority to deter-
+⋯
mine the components that may be selected for preventive maintenance 𝑅 (𝑡+Δ𝑡)−𝑅 (𝑡) 𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡),𝑅2 (𝑡),…,𝑅𝑛−1 (𝑡),𝑅𝑛 (𝑡+Δ𝑡))−𝑓 (𝑅1 (𝑡),𝑅2 (𝑡),…,𝑅𝑛 (𝑡))
+ 𝑛 Δ𝑡 𝑛 𝑅 (𝑡+Δ𝑡)−𝑅 (𝑡)
.
to maximally improve the reliability of the system. However, references 𝑛 𝑛

[17,30] ignore maintenance time and maintenance cost. According to Eqs. (1) and (2), the reliability changes of a component
• Explanation for maintenance time or a few components will change system reliability.
When Δt → 0, we obtain
Preventive maintenance is performed on two selected components 𝑛
𝑅(𝑡 + Δ𝑡) − 𝑅(𝑡) 𝑑𝑅(𝑡) ∑ 𝑑 𝑅𝑖 (𝑡) 𝜕𝑅(𝑡)
when a component fails. We assume that the maintenance time of the lim = = . (3)
failed component is t, and the preventive maintenance time of the two
Δ𝑡→0 Δ𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑖=1
𝑑𝑡 𝜕 𝑅𝑖 (𝑡)
selected components is t1 , t2 , respectively. If t1 > t (t2 > t) and the se- Eq. (3) is the expression of the total derivative of the system relia-
lected components are the critical components, then the selected com- bility function attributed to time t.
ponents for preventive maintenance are unsuitable. This finding is at- The latter part of the right side of Eq. (3) is the Birnbaum importance
tributed to the fact that the selected components affect the boot time of component i, that is, 𝐼𝑖𝐵𝑀 (𝑡) = 𝜕𝜕𝑅 (𝑡)
𝑅 (𝑡)
, which evaluates the effect of
𝑖
of the system after maintaining the failed component. Furthermore, if
component reliability on system reliability.
t1 > 2t2 , then a new component can be performed during preventive
Given the joint effect of probability distributions and transition rates
maintenance to complement spare time t1 –t2 .
of the component states on the system reliability, Si et al. [26] propose
• Explanation for maintenance cost the IIM of component i, as shown in Eq. (4):
𝜕𝑅(𝑡)
How do we determine the components that should be selected if sys- 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) = 𝑅𝑖 (𝑡)𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) , (4)
𝜕 𝑅𝑖 (𝑡)
tem reliability improvements are similar after maintaining two different
components? The same reliability improvement of the system may be where 𝜆i (t) is the failure rate of component i.
𝑑 𝑅 (𝑡)∕𝑑𝑡
related to different maintenance costs of components. For example, the Given that 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) = − 𝑅𝑖 (𝑡) , the expression of IIM can be converted
𝑖
reliability improvement of a water pump in a water supply system will into
lead to significant improvement of system reliability. However, the cost 𝑑 𝑅𝑖 (𝑡) 𝜕𝑅(𝑡)
of maintaining a water pump is bigger than the cost of maintaining a 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) = − . (5)
𝑑𝑡 𝜕 𝑅𝑖 (𝑡)
switchboard.
Which component or group of components should be maintained un- Based on Eqs. (3) and (5),
der these circumstances? In preventive maintenance, the IIM does not 𝑛 𝑛
𝑑𝑅(𝑡) ∑ 𝑑 𝑅𝑖 (𝑡) 𝜕𝑅(𝑡) ∑
consider the possible effect of maintenance time and cost on system re- = =− 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡). (6)
𝑑𝑡 𝑖=1
𝑑𝑡 𝜕 𝑅𝑖 (𝑡) 𝑖=1
liability. However, this approach can identify the component or group
of components that may be selected for maintenance. This study con- According to Eq. (6), the opposite of the IIM value of component
siders the joint effect of component maintenance cost and time on the i is a weight of the total change in R(t) due to component i. 𝑑𝑅𝑑𝑡(𝑡) < 0

2
JID: RESS
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;May 12, 2017;12:34]

H. Dui et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 000 (2017) 1–7

because system reliability R(t) is a decreasing function with time t. The Based on Definition 1, the component with minimum cost-based IIM
IIM of component I represents the change of system reliability in unit ( min {𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡)}) should be first performed on the preventive main-
𝑖=1,2,…,𝑛
time due to component i. tenance.
IIM is additive according to Eq. (6). Suppose we are interested in the When a component fails, the 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) can be used to identify the
effect of a group of components i1 , i2 , …, im on the system reliability in components that may be selected for preventive maintenance. By means
unit time. Then, of 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡), the reliability of the system can be maximally improved in
𝑑 𝑅𝑖1 (𝑡) 𝜕𝑅(𝑡) 𝑑 𝑅𝑖2 (𝑡) 𝜕𝑅(𝑡) 𝑑 𝑅𝑖𝑚 (𝑡) 𝜕𝑅(𝑡) the same repair time. Maintenance cost is at the minimum.
𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼,𝑖𝑀,…,𝑖 (𝑡) = − − −⋯− When a critical component fails, the system also fails. Then, 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡)
1 2 𝑚 𝑑𝑡 𝜕 𝑅𝑖1 (𝑡) 𝑑𝑡 𝜕 𝑅𝑖2 (𝑡) 𝑑𝑡 𝜕 𝑅𝑖𝑚 (𝑡)
can be performed on all other components. When a non-critical compo-
= 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) + 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) + ⋯ + 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡). (7) nent has failed, the system does not fail. 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) can be performed on
1 2 𝑚
all other non-critical components to ensure smooth system operation.
Based on Eqs. (1), (2), (6), and (7), the change of system reliability When a group of components needs to be identified for preventive
is attributed to the change of a component or a group of components. maintenance, the following definition is obtained based on Eq. (7).

3. Cost-based IIM Definition 2. The cost-based IIM of a group of components i1 , i2 , …, im

is defined by
First, we recall an importance measure. In Example 1 of reference 𝐶(𝑖1 , 𝑖2 , … , 𝑖𝑚 , 𝑡)
[30], we understand that if component 1 fails, then component 4 may 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼,𝑖𝑀,…,
,𝐶
𝑖 (𝑡) = . (10)
1 2 𝑚 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼,𝑖𝑀,…,𝑖 (𝑡)
𝑚
be selected for preventive maintenance. Under this scenario, if the pre- 1 2

ventive maintenance time of component 4 is bigger than the repair time 𝐶(𝑖1 , 𝑖2 , … , 𝑖𝑚 , 𝑡) is the cost for maintaining multiple components i1 ,
𝐶(𝑖1 ,𝑖2 ,…,𝑖𝑚 ,𝑡)
of component 1, component 4 is rendered unsuitable because the long i2 , …, im . According to Eq. (7), 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼,𝑖𝑀,…,,𝐶
𝑖 (𝑡) = 𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 𝐼𝐼𝑀 𝐼𝐼𝑀 .
1 2 𝑚 𝐼𝑖 (𝑡)+𝐼𝑖 (𝑡)+⋯+𝐼𝑖 (𝑡)
repair time may result in high system unavailability, thereby increasing 1 2 𝑚
According to Definition 2, multi-components can be identified to per-
cost. Moreover, if the maintenance costs of components 5, 6, 7, and 8
form preventive maintenance, improve system reliability, and further
are different, the order of the selected component for preventive main-
reduce the maintenance cost.
tenance is also different.
The number of components for preventive maintenance [31] is re-
The preceding analysis shows that the importance of component
lated to the constraint of total maintenance cost. Preventive mainte-
maintenance priority of Wu cannot be used in these scenarios. We pro-
nance can be performed on all other components when a critical compo-
vide the extended importance in the following discussion.
nent fails. When a non-critical component fails, preventive maintenance
can be performed on all other non-critical components. We assume that
3.1. Considering change in system reliability change during repair
the total maintenance cost is C, and the order of the identified com-
ponents performed on preventive maintenance is components 1, 2, …,
According to Section 2, system reliability in repair time Δt of a failed
n. The number of components for preventive maintenance is given as
component may be approximately reduced by Δ𝑡𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) because of com- 𝑁 𝑁+1
∑ ∑
ponent i based on the Taylor expansion of R(t). The component that 𝑁 = {𝑁| 𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡) ≤ 𝐶 ≤ 𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡)}.
brings the maximum decrement of system reliability should be first per- 𝑖=1 𝑖=1

formed on the preventive maintenance, that is, the component of which

3.4. Characteristics
IIM is biggest.
In the following discussion, we provide a few characteristics of cost-
3.2. Considering maintenance cost
based IIM and their functions.

The failure of a component may lead to system failure. The cost of Example 1. In a series system comprising n components, system relia-
𝑛
∏ 𝑛
∏ 𝑛
∑
component failure of component i includes the cost of system mainte- 𝑡 𝑡
bility is 𝑅(𝑡) = 𝑅𝑖 (𝑡) = exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢) = exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢).
nance, failure cost of component i, and maintenance cost of component 𝑖=1 𝑖=1 𝑖=1
i [20].
We assume that the maintenance costs of all components are
Total maintenance cost attributed to component i, C(i, t) is given by
the same, 𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡) = 𝐶(𝑡). Then, the cost-based IIM of component i is
𝐶(𝑡) 𝐶(𝑡)
𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) = 𝑡 𝜕𝑅(𝑡) = 𝑛
∑
.
𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡) = 𝐶𝑠,𝑖 (𝑡) + 𝐶𝑖 (𝑡), (8) 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢) 𝜕 𝑅 (𝑡)
𝑖 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) exp(−
𝑡
∫0 𝜆𝑘 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢)
𝑘=1
where Ci (t) is the cost of maintaining component i at time t, and Cs, i (t) A comparison of the cost-based IIM of two different components i
is the cost of maintaining the system caused by the failure of component and j is given as:
i at time t, which means economic loss because of system unavailability. 𝑛
∑ 𝑡
𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑘 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢)
In Eq. (8), component failure does not necessarily lead to system 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) 𝑘=1 𝜆𝑗 (𝑡)
failure. For example, in a parallel system, one component failure cannot = 𝑛
= .
𝐼𝑗𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) ∑ 𝑡 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡)
lead to the system failure. 𝐶𝑠,𝑖 (𝑡) = 0 when component i fails and if the 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑘 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢)
system still works. 𝑘=1

𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) 𝜆𝑗 (𝑡)

Therefore, 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) < 𝐼𝑗𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) ⇔ <1⇔ < 1 ⇔ 𝜆𝑗 ( 𝑡 )
3.3. Definitions 𝐼𝑗𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡)
< 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡).
When a component fails in a system comprising n components, the Thus, in a series system, if 𝜆j (t) < 𝜆i (t), then 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) < 𝐼𝑗𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡).
component that should be first performed on the preventive main- The component with the minimum cost-based IIM should be first per-
tenance is required to satisfy two conditions: min {𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡)} and formed on the preventive maintenance. Hence, in a series system, the
𝑖=1,2,…,𝑛
component which has the biggest failure rate should be first selected.
max {𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡)}.
𝑖=1,2,…,𝑛
(1) In a series system, when the lifetime distribution function
Definition 1. The cost-based IIM of component i is defined by of component i follows Gamma distribution with shape pa-
𝛼 −1
rameter 𝛼 i and scale parameter 𝛽 i , 𝜆 1(𝑡) = ∫0 (1 + 𝑢𝑡 ) 𝑖 𝑒−𝛽𝑖 𝑢 𝑑𝑢.
∞
𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡)
𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) = . (9) 𝑖
𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) Therefore, we can get

3
JID: RESS
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;May 12, 2017;12:34]

H. Dui et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 000 (2017) 1–7

𝛼 −1
(1+ 𝑢 ) 𝑗 𝑒−𝛽𝑗 𝑢 𝑑𝑢
∞
𝜆 (𝑡) ∫ Component 1
𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) > 𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) ⇔ 𝜆 𝑖 (𝑡) > 1 ⇔ 0∞ 𝑡𝑢 𝛼𝑖 −1 −𝛽 𝑢 > 1 ⇔
𝑗 ∫0 (1+ 𝑡 ) 𝑒 𝑖 𝑑𝑢
( ) Bearing A Component 3 Component 4 Component 5
∞ 𝑢 𝛼𝑗 −1 −𝛽𝑗 𝑢 𝑢 𝛼𝑖 −1 −𝛽𝑖 𝑢
∫0 (1 + 𝑡 ) 𝑒 − (1 + 𝑡 ) 𝑒 𝑑𝑢 > 0.
Main Shaft Gearbox Generator
When 𝛼 i < 𝛼 j , 𝛽 i > 𝛽 j , we have 𝜆i (t) > 𝜆j (t). Therefore, we can under-
Bearing B
stand that if 𝛼 i < 𝛼 j , 𝛽 i > 𝛽 j , then 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) < 𝐼𝑗𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡).
Component 2
(2) In a series system, when the lifetime distribution function of
component i follows Weibull distribution with shape parameter Fig. 1. Subsystem of a wind turbine.

𝛼 i and scale parameter 𝛽 i , 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) = 𝛽𝑖 𝛼𝑖 (𝛽𝑖 𝑡)𝛼𝑖 −1 . Therefore, we have

𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) 𝛽𝑖 𝛼𝑖 (𝛽𝑖 𝑡)𝛼𝑖 −1 𝛽𝑖 𝛼𝑖 (𝛽𝑖 )𝛼𝑖 −1 𝛼𝑖 −𝛼𝑗 −2
𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) > 𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) ⇔ >1⇔ >1⇔ 𝑡 >1⇔ 4. Application to a wind turbine system
𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) 𝛽𝑗 𝛼𝑗 (𝛽𝑗 𝑡)𝛼𝑗 −1 𝛽𝑗 𝛼𝑗 (𝛽𝑗 )𝛼𝑗 −1
𝛼𝑖 −𝛼𝑗
𝛼𝑖 𝛽𝑖
𝛼𝑗 (𝛽𝑗 ∕𝛽𝑖 )𝛼𝑗
𝑡𝛼𝑖 −𝛼𝑗 −2 > 1.
In the following section, we use a wind turbine system to show the
𝛼𝑖 −𝛼𝑗 −2 𝛼𝑖 validity of the proposed measure and identify the component or group
When 𝑡 > 1, 𝛼𝑖 > 𝛼𝑗 + 2, we obtain 𝑡 > 1, 𝛼𝑗
> 1. When 𝛽 i > 𝛽 j of components may be selected for preventive maintenance.
𝛽𝑖 𝛼𝑖 −𝛼𝑗
> 1, we have 𝛽𝑖 𝛼𝑖 −𝛼𝑗 > 1, (𝛽𝑗 ∕𝛽𝑖 )𝛼𝑗 < 1; hence, (𝛽𝑗 ∕𝛽𝑖 )𝛼𝑗
> 1. Then, when In reference [32], Andrawus provides a diagram of components and
subsystems of a typical horizontal axis wind turbine, which includes a
𝑡 > 1, 𝛼𝑖 > 𝛼𝑗 + 2, 𝛽 i > 𝛽 j > 1, we have 𝜆i (t) > 𝜆j (t). Therefore, we can un-
spinner, blade, hub, bearing, shaft, gearbox, generator, and ventilator.
derstand that if 𝑡 > 1, 𝛼𝑖 > 𝛼𝑗 + 2, 𝛽 i > 𝛽 j > 1, then 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) < 𝐼𝑗𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡). This wind turbine is complex. Thus, we analyze a subsystem of the wind
From the preceding analysis, we can easily determine the component turbine related to generators. A subsystem of a 600-kilowatt wind tur-
that should be first selected for preventive maintenance based on the re- bine is shown in Fig. 1 [20].
lationships among failure rates, shape parameters, and scale parameters In a wind turbine system, the bearings are usually designed to specif-
of different components. ically ensure that wind turbines withstand high loads. The main shaft
Example 2. In a parallel system composed of n components, system connects and transmits rotational force to the gearbox. The gearbox in-
𝑛
∏ 𝑛
∏ creases the rotational speed of the main shaft to drive the generator of
𝑡
reliability is 𝑅(𝑡) = 1 − (1 − 𝑅𝑖 (𝑡)) = 1 − (1 − exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢)). the wind turbine. The generator converts the mechanical rotational en-
𝑖=1 𝑖=1
ergy from the gearbox into electrical energy. Fig. 1 shows that all com-
Assuming that the maintenance costs of all components are the same, ponents follow Weibull distributions. The reliability of each component
𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡) = 𝐶(𝑡), then the cost-based IIM of component i is is shown in Eq. (11):
𝐶 (𝑡)
𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) = (
𝑡
)
𝜕𝑅(𝑡) ( ) ( ) ( )
𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) exp − ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢 𝜕 𝑅 (𝑡) 𝑡 1.09 𝑡 1.09 𝑡 1.43
𝐶 (𝑡)
𝑖 𝑅1 (𝑡)= exp −( 3835 ) , 𝑅2 (𝑡)= exp −( 3835 ) , 𝑅3 (𝑡)= exp −( 6389 ) ,
= ( ) ∏ 𝑛 ( ( )) . ( ) ( )
𝑡 . 𝑡 .
𝑡
𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) exp − ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢
𝑡
1−exp − ∫0 𝜆𝑘 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢 𝑅4 (𝑡) = exp −( 29051 ) 1 05 , 𝑅5 (𝑡) = exp −( 17541 ) 1 11 .
𝑘=1,𝑘≠𝑖
We then obtain (11)
𝑛
∏
𝑡 𝑡
𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑗 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢) (1−exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑘 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢)) The failure rate of each component is shown in Eq. (12) according to
𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) 𝑘=1,𝑘≠𝑗
= 𝑛 the properties of Weibull distributions, wherein the time unit is hour:
𝐼𝑗𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) 𝑡
𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢)
∏ 𝑡
(1−exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑘 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢))
𝑘=1,𝑘≠𝑖
( )0.09 ( )0.09 ( )0.43
1.09 𝑡 1.09 𝑡 1.43 𝑡
𝑡 𝑡
𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑗 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢)(1−exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢)) 𝜆1 (𝑡) = 3835 , 𝜆 2 ( 𝑡 ) = , 𝜆3 ( 𝑡 ) = ,
= 𝑡 𝑡 . (
3835
)0.05
3835 3835
( )0.11
6389 6389
(12)
𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢)(1−exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑗 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢))
1.05 𝑡 1.11 𝑡
𝜆4 (𝑡) = 29051 29051 , 𝜆5 (𝑡) = 17541 17541 .
Therefore,
The maintenance cost of each component is constant, as shown in
𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) < 𝐼𝑗𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) Eq. (13), wherein the cost unit is GBP. In Fig. 1, the failure of compo-
𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡)
⇔ <1 nents 1 or 2 cannot lead to the system failure; hence, 𝐶𝑠,1 = 𝐶𝑠,2 = 0.
𝐼𝑗𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡)
𝑡 𝑡
𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑗 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢)(1−exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢))
⇔ 𝑡 𝑡 <1 𝐶1 = 42204, 𝐶2 = 42204, 𝐶3 = 27266, 𝐶4 = 65387, 𝐶5 = 49482,
𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢)(1−exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑗 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢)) (13)
𝑡 𝑡 𝐶𝑠,3 = 29114, 𝐶𝑠,4 = 78468, 𝐶𝑠,5 = 35964.
⇔ (𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) − 𝜆𝑗 (𝑡)) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑗 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢)
𝑡 𝑡
< 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢) − 𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑗 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢). According to Eq. (8), we have
𝑡
When 𝜆j (t) > 𝜆i (t), we have (𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) − 𝜆𝑗 (𝑡)) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢) 𝐶 (1) = 42204, 𝐶 (2) = 42204, 𝐶 (3) = 56380, 𝐶 (4) = 143855, 𝐶 (5) = 85446.
𝑡
exp(− ∫0
𝜆𝑗 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢) < 0. (14)
𝑡
When 𝜆j (t) > 𝜆i (t) and ∫0 (𝜆𝑗 (𝑢) − 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢))𝑑𝑢 > ln 𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) − ln 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡), we
Based on Eq. (4), the IIM of each component is
have
𝑡 𝐼1𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) = 𝜆1 (𝑡)𝑅1 (𝑡)𝑅3 (𝑡)𝑅4 (𝑡)𝑅5 (𝑡)(1 − 𝑅2 (𝑡)),
∫0 (𝜆𝑗 (𝑢) − 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢))𝑑𝑢 > ln 𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) − ln 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡)
𝑡 𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) 𝐼2𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) = 𝜆2 (𝑡)𝑅2 (𝑡)𝑅3 (𝑡)𝑅4 (𝑡)𝑅5 (𝑡)(1 − 𝑅1 (𝑡)),
⇔ ∫0 (𝜆𝑗 (𝑢) − 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢))𝑑𝑢 > ln 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) 𝐼3𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) = 𝜆3 (𝑡)𝑅3 (𝑡)𝑅4 (𝑡)𝑅5 (𝑡)(𝑅1 (𝑡) + 𝑅2 (𝑡) − 𝑅1 (𝑡)𝑅2 (𝑡)), (15)
𝑡
𝑡 𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢) 𝐼4𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) = 𝜆4 (𝑡)𝑅3 (𝑡)𝑅4 (𝑡)𝑅5 (𝑡)(𝑅1 (𝑡) + 𝑅2 (𝑡) − 𝑅1 (𝑡)𝑅2 (𝑡)),
⇔ exp(∫0 (𝜆𝑗 (𝑢) − 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢))𝑑𝑢) > 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡)
⇔ 𝑡 >1
𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑗 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢)
𝑡 𝑡 𝐼5𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) = 𝜆5 (𝑡)𝑅3 (𝑡)𝑅4 (𝑡)𝑅5 (𝑡)(𝑅1 (𝑡) + 𝑅2 (𝑡) − 𝑅1 (𝑡)𝑅2 (𝑡)).
⇔ 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢) − 𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) exp(− ∫0 𝜆𝑗 (𝑢)𝑑𝑢) > 0.
Change in system reliability due to a component is shown in Fig. 2,
𝑡
Thus, if 𝜆j (t) > 𝜆i (t) and ∫0 (𝜆𝑗 (𝑢) − 𝜆𝑖 (𝑢))𝑑𝑢 > ln 𝜆𝑗 (𝑡) − ln 𝜆𝑖 (𝑡) in a wherein the time unit is hour.
parallel system, then 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) < 𝐼𝑗𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡). In Fig. 2, the reliabilities of components 1 and 2 are the same. Thus,
In the series and parallel systems, we can obtain the order of the the effects of components 1 and 2 on the system reliability are the same.
cost-based IIM values of all components based on the preceding rela- Components 1 and 2 are in the parallel part. Hence, the effects of com-
tionships among the component failure rates to arrange the preventive ponents 1 and 2 on the system reliability are smallest at the beginning
maintenance of maintainers. of the system lifetime. With the increase of time, the failure rates of

4
JID: RESS
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;May 12, 2017;12:34]

H. Dui et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 000 (2017) 1–7

-5
x 10
9
component1
8 component2
component3
7
component4
6
component5

5
IIM

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
t

Fig. 2. IIM of component i in the subsystem of a wind turbine.

10
x 10
3
component1
component2
2.5 component3
component4
2
component5
cost-based IIM

1.5

0.5

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
t

Fig. 3. Cost-based IIM of component i in the subsystem of a wind turbine.

components 1 and 2 is higher than that of components 4 and 5 based the analysis in reference [20]. In reference [20], cost-based importance
on Eq. (12); hence, the IIM curves of components 1 and 2 intersect with is the cost of component i divided by the reliability of component i, and
that of components 4 and 5. The relationships among the failure rates the reliability of component 3 > the reliability of component 5 > the
of components 3, 4, and 5 are 𝜆3 (t) > 𝜆5 (t) > 𝜆4 (t). Therefore, the or- reliability of component 4. In this study, the importance is the cost of
der of the effects of components 3, 4, and 5 on the system reliability is component i divided by the IIM of component i, and the IIM of com-
component 3, 5, and 4. ponent 3 > the IIM of component 5 > the IIM of component 4. Hence,
Based on Eq. (9), the cost-based IIM of component i is 𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) = they result in the same conclusion of the order of cost-based importance.
𝐶(𝑖) However, the two importance measures are different. According to the
,𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, as shown in Fig 3.
𝐼𝑖𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡)
IIM equation, the value of IIM value changes when the failure rate of
According to Eq. (14), C(4) > C(5) > C(3). From Fig. 2, we obtain
component changes. For example, when 𝜆3 (t) ≪ 𝜆5 (t) ≪ 𝜆4 (t), the IIM
𝐼3𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) > 𝐼5𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) > 𝐼4𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡). The component with the minimum cost-
of component 3 < the IIM of component 5 < the IIM of component 4.
based IIM should be first performed on the maintenance. Therefore, the
This finding will result in conclusions that differ from those in reference
maintenance order of components is component 3, 5, and 4, as shown in
[20].
Fig. 3. 𝐼1𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) and 𝐼2𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) are highest because the effects of compo-
Based on Eq. (10), the cost-based IIM of a group of components i1 ,
nents 1 and 2 on the system reliability are smallest at the beginning of
i2 is
the system lifetime. With the increase of time, the effect of components
𝐶(1) + 𝐶(2) 𝐶(3) + 𝐶(4)
4 and 5 on the system reliability gradually reduces, as shown in Fig 2; 𝐼1𝐼,𝐼2𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) = , 𝐼 𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) = ,
𝐼1𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) + 𝐼2𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) 3,4 𝐼3𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) + 𝐼4𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡)
hence, the cost-based IIM of components 4 and 5 increases as shown in 𝐶(3) + 𝐶(5) 𝐶(4) + 𝐶(5)
(16)
Fig. 3. The cost-based IIM curves of components 1 and 2 intersect with 𝐼3𝐼,𝐼5𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) = , 𝐼 𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) = .
𝐼3𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) + 𝐼5𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) 4,5 𝐼4𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡) + 𝐼5𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 (𝑡)
the ones of components 4 and 5. The maintenance order of components
In Fig. 4, we discuss the effect of a group of two components on the
is 3, 1, 2, 5, and 4 because the component with the minimum cost-based
system reliability and identify the group of components that should be
IIM should be first performed on the maintenance.
first selected for preventive maintenance. Components 1 and 2 are in
Fig. 3 shows that the result is the same conclusion of the order of
the parallel part. Thus, components 1 and 2 are in a group, and the rest
the cost-based importance, that is, component 4 > 5 > 3 compared with
of the components can be in a group.

5
JID: RESS
ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Dui et al.
10
x 10
3
2.5
cost-based IIM i 1,i 2
2
1.5
0.5
0
0 500 1000 1500
Fig. 4. Cost-based IIM of a group of components i1 , i2 in the subsystem of a wind turbine.
The maintenance costs of components 3 and 5 are small. Fig. 2 shows
that the effects of components 3 and 5 on the system reliability are big.
Therefore, based on Eq. (16), the cost-based IIM of the group of compo-
nents 3 and 5 is small as shown in Fig. 4. Components 3 and 5, as well
as components 1 and 2, belong in another group. The effects of com-
ponents 1 and 2 on system reliability are smallest at the beginning of
system lifetime as shown Fig. 2. Hence, 𝐼1𝐼,𝐼2𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) is highest at the initial
stage. With the increase of time, the effects of components 3 and 5 on
the system reliability are gradually reduced as shown in Fig. 2. Thus, the
cost-based IIM of the group of components 3 and 5 increased as shown
in Fig. 4. The cost-based IIM curve of the group of components 1 and 2
intersects with the one of the group of components 3 and 5. As shown
in Figs. 3 and 4, 𝐼4𝐼 𝐼 𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡) > 𝐼3𝐼,𝐼5𝑀 ,𝐶 (𝑡). Therefore, maintenance order is
the group of components 1 and 2, the group of components 3 and 5, and
individual component 4 when the effect of a group of components on
the system reliability is considered.
5. Conclusions
This study considers the joint effect of component reliability and
maintenance cost on system reliability in a maintenance time. This study
proposes a cost-based IIM to identify the component or group of com-
ponents that should be first selected for preventive maintenance. When
a few components fail, importance measures can be used to identify the
essential components that may affect system reliability. System relia-
bility improvements may be the same while two failed components are
being repaired. However, the maintenance costs of the two components
are different. The cost-based IIM can be very useful under this circum-
stance, and the component with minimum cost-based IIM should be first
selected for maintenance.
Future work can consider the economic dependence of multi-
component systems in preventive maintenance policies. Maintenance
cost can consider different types, such as the constraint of other re-
sources (finance and external factors) and opportunity cost.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (nos. 71501173, 71271170, and 71631001) and a grant from
the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region, China (Project no. 11203815) (CityU 9042183).
References
[1] Birnbaum ZW. On the importance of different components in a multi-component
system. New York: Academic Press; 1969.
[m5GeSdc;May 12, 2017;12:34]
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 000 (2017) 1–7
components 1,2
components 3,4
components 3,5
components 4,5
2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
t
[2] Kuo W, Zhu X. Importance measures in reliability, risk, and optimization: principles
and applications. UK: Wiley; 2012.
[3] Kuo W, Zhu X. Some recent advances on importance measures in reliability. IEEE
Trans Reliab 2012;61:344–60.
[4] Kuo W, Zhu X. Relations and generalizations of importance measures in reliability.
IEEE Trans Reliab 2012;61:659–74.
[5] Cai B, Liu Y, Fan Q. Multi-source information fusion based fault diagnosis of ground–
source heat pump using Bayesian network. Appl Energy 2014;114:1–9.
[6] Peng R, Zhai Q, Xing L, Yang J. Reliability of demand-based phased-mission systems
subject to fault level coverage. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2014;121:18–25.
[7] Liu Y, Zuo MJ, Li Y, Huang H. Dynamic reliability assessment for multi-state systems
utilizing system-level inspection data. IEEE Trans Reliab 2015;64:1287–99.
[8] Jiang T, Liu Y. Parameter inference for non-repairable multi-state system reliability
models by multi-level observation sequences. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2016. doi:10.1016/
j.ress.2016.11.019.
[9] Wu S, Chan L. Performance utility-analysis of multi-state systems. IEEE Trans Reliab
2003;52:14–21.
[10] Ramirez-Marquez JE, Coit DW. Composite importance measures for multi-state sys-
tems with multi-state components. IEEE Trans Reliab 2005;54:517–29.
[11] Ramirez-Marquez JE, Coit DW. Multi-state component criticality analysis for relia-
bility improvement in multi-state systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2007;92:1608–19.
[12] Ramirez-Marquez JE, Rocco CM, Gebre BA, Coit DW, Tortorella M. New in-
sights on multi-state component criticality and importance. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
2006;91:894–904.
[13] Natvig B. On the reduction in remaining system lifetime due to the failure of a
specific component. J Appl Probab 1982;19:642–52.
[14] Natvig B. New light on measures of importance of system components. Scand J Stat
1985;12:43–54.
[15] Natvig B, Gåsemyr J. New results on the Barlow–Proschan and Natvig measures of
component importance in nonrepairable and repairable systems. Methodol Comput
Appl Probab 2009;11:603–20.
[16] Natvig B, Eide KA, Gåsemyr J, Huseby AB, Isaksen SL. Simulation based analysis and
an application to an offshore oil and gas production system of the Natvig measures of
component importance in repairable systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2009;94:1629–38.
[17] Gao XL, Cui LR, Li JL. Analysis for joint importance of components in a coherent
system. Eur J Oper Res 2007;182:282–99.
[18] Levitin G, Podofillini L, Zio E. Generalized importance measures for multi-state ele-
ments based on performance level restrictions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2003;82:287–98.
[19] Peng H, Coit DW, Feng Q. Component reliability criticality or importance measures
for systems with degrading components. IEEE Trans Reliab 2012;61:391–408.
[20] Wu S, Coolen FPA. A cost-based importance measure for system components: an
extension of the Birnbaum importance. Eur J Oper Res 2013;225:189–95.
[21] Borgonovo E, Apostolakis GE. A new importance measure for risk-informed deci-
sion-making. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2001;72:193–212.
[22] Borgonovo E, Aliee H, Glaß M, Teich J. A new time-independent reliability impor-
tance measure. Eur J Oper Res 2016;254:427–42.
[23] Borgonovo E. Differential, criticality and Birnbaum importance measures: an appli-
cation to basic event, groups and SSCs in event trees and binary decision diagrams.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2007;92:1458–67.
[24] Zhai Q, Yang J, Xie M, Zhao Y. Generalized moment-independent importance mea-
sures based on Minkowski distance. Eur J Oper Res 2014;239:449–55.
[25] Tyrväinen T. Risk importance measures in the dynamic flowgraph methodology.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2013;118:35–50.
[26] Si S, Dui H, Zhao X, Zhang S, Sun S. Integrated importance measure of component
states based on loss of system performance. IEEE Trans Reliab 2012;61:192–202.
[27] Dui H, Si S, Cui L, Cai Z, Sun S. Component importance for multi-state system life-
times with renewal functions. IEEE Trans Reliab 2014;63:105–17.
6
JID: RESS
ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Dui et al.
[28] Si S, Levitin G, Dui H, Sun S. Component state-based integrated importance measure
for multi-state systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2013;116:75–83.
[29] Dui H, Si S, Zuo M, Sun S. Semi-Markov process-based integrated importance mea-
sure for multi-state systems. IEEE Trans Reliab 2015;64:754–65.
[30] Wu S, Chen Y, Wu Q, Wang Z. Linking component importance to optimisation of
preventive maintenance policy. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2016;146:26–32.
[m5GeSdc;May 12, 2017;12:34]
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 000 (2017) 1–7
[31] Peng R, Xie M, Ng SH, Levitin G. Element maintenance and allocation for linear
consecutively connected systems. IIE Trans 2012;44:964–73.
[32] Andrawus JA. Maintenance optimization for wind turbines Ph.D. thesis. Robert Gor-
don University; 2008.