Patent Application
20160314405
The field of the invention is that of the maintenance of equipment likely to go through a degraded state before failing.
The users of such equipment experience failures in operation which generate:
While it is difficult, even impossible, to avoid failures, it is possible to control some of them. Controlling failure conventionally consists in:
Controllable failures are failures of wear and fatigue. They are present on mechanical, hydraulic and other such members. Hereinafter, a tire or a piece of optronics equipment will be taken as equipment examples.
Different solutions illustrated in
Corrective maintenance consists in repairing the equipment after the failure has occurred, which is not truly optimal.
Preventive maintenance consists in determining a fixed schedule regardless of the equipment. It will, for example, be recommended to check, even change, tires every 20 000 km.
Predictive maintenance consists in initiating the maintenance when a predetermined threshold is reached, such as a physical threshold of wear. When, for example, the tire pressure is too low, it is recommended to reinflate it to avoid removing the tire from the rim and having to change it, which may occur well before these 20 000 km for a sportively driven tire and well after for a calmly driven tire.
A maintenance date can be calculated as a function of a probability of degradation. This calculation, described notably in the publication “Optimisation de la maintenance d'un équipement optronique”, Camille Baysse et al., Congrès de Maîtrise des Risques et Sûgeté de Fonctionnement 16-18 Oct. 2012, is performed as a function of the estimated state of the equipment at a given instant, of the history of these states and of a performance level sought. Optronics equipment for example has a logbook which provides the following information on each startup: the number of uses, the aggregate operating time of the equipment, its initial temperature and the cooling time denoted Tmf. This cooling time is the time it takes for the equipment to go from an initial temperature (generally ambient temperature) to a very low temperature necessary to the correct operation of the equipment. Careful observation of the variable Tmf(t) which in fact reflects the state of the equipment at the instant t, makes it possible to detect as early as possible a change of state of the equipment and to propose a maintenance action whose main objective is to avoid failure. The problem is broken down into two steps: detection of the state of the equipment, determination of the maintenance policy.
The 1st step uses a hidden Markov chain.
The 2nd step aims to make it possible to anticipate all the failures, that is to say the failures linked to wear and the random failures (=not linked to wear) and to propose a maintenance action before they occur. The process is modeled by a piecewise deterministic Markov process, or “PDMP”, which takes account of the transition to the failure state from the stable state and from the degraded state. Optimal stop techniques are used and adapted to this process to maximize a performance function which takes account of the time spent in operation, of the maintenance, repair and downtime costs.
The preceding method can be refined as described in the publication “Maintenance optimisation of optronic equipment”, Camille Baysse et al., Chemical Engineering Transactions, Vol. 33, 2013. The determination of the maintenance date rests on the principle whereby the later the date is, the better that will be in terms of performance. According to this method, two steps are also implemented: detection of the state of the equipment as in the preceding case, determination of the maintenance policy.
The step of determination of the maintenance policy consists notably in calculating the maximum mathematical expectation of a performance function, starting from a state detected on a date t and from the date of transition into this state which is itself determined as a function of the usage time.
However, this method presents the following drawbacks:
it has been observed that the duly determined maintenance date may be too late inasmuch as the failure occurs before this date;
furthermore, it does not make it possible to determine the date on which it is most advantageous to perform maintenance from an economic point of view, for example or for safety.
In other words, maintenance performed too early may be unnecessarily costly because it may lead to the replacement of equipment in a good state of operation, and a nuisance for the user, but maintenance deferred too long may lead to the total failure of the equipment which is also not desirable.
The aim of the invention is to mitigate these drawbacks. Consequently, there remains, to this date, a need for a method for maintaining equipment whose main objective is, of course, to avoid the failure of the equipment by providing an optimal maintenance date (neither too early nor too late), as well as running the risk of failure.
More specifically, the subject of the invention is a method for maintaining equipment likely to go through at least a degraded state before failing, this equipment being provided with a data sensor, linked to a recorder of these collected data, which is itself associated with a processing unit, which comprises the following steps of:
detection of states of the equipment from the recorded data, and by means of a hidden Markov model,
determination of an optimal maintenance date as a function of a state of the equipment, of a predetermined aggregate usage time of the equipment, by using an optimal stop on PDMP, which comprises:
It is mainly characterized in that the so-called optimal maintenance date is determined by minimizing the mathematical expectation of an hourly cost function and in that there is also associated with each cell of the discretized quantization grid a probability of going from the state of said cell to each other possible state.
According to a feature of the invention, it also comprises a step for determining, as a function of the discretized quantization grid, a probability of failing between a date t1 and a date t2 that are predetermined, calculated at an instant t with:
t1≦optimal maintenance date≦t2.
This method makes it possible to develop a decision aid tool which calculates the optimal date, the latter being able to be before, during or after the mission and which thus makes it possible to determine the risk that is run in using equipment on a given mission.
Other features and advantages of the invention will become apparent on reading the following detailed description, given as a nonlimiting example and with reference to the attached drawings in which:
The invention will now be described by taking into account the example of equipment that can be in five states shown in
The possible transitions between states are represented by the arrows. Also, for each transition, the probability of going from the original state to the other state is indicated and also designated transition rate or failure rate, some transition rates λ0(t), λ3(t) depending on the aggregate usage time t of the equipment, others λ1, λ2 being independent of this usage time (not therefore dependent on wear).
The probability of the equipment being in one of these five states=1.
The failure states are called absorbing states which means that the equipment cannot leave these states.
This information is hosted in a reliability model.
As illustrated in
These data are linked as input to a processing unit 220 which comprises three subunits.
A first subunit 221 for detecting states of the equipment makes it possible, from the operational data, to determine the probability that the equipment is in a degraded state, by detecting a break in the behavior of a physical variable representative of the state of health of the equipment. It therefore involves:
The mathematical modeling of this detection of degraded states relies on a hidden Markov chains model.
Consider Xt, t≧0 a continuous-time Markov chain, of state space with the vectors e1=(1;0) and e2=(0;1). Xt=e1 when the state of the equipment is stable and Xt=e2 when it is degraded at the instant t. Note that Xt=emt.
The state, which is not in fact observed directly, is observed through a physical variable representative of the equipment evolving in time and denoted Yt, which is a noisy function of this chain. In the example of the tire, it can be, for example, wear or pressure. For optronic equipment, Yt=Tmf(t) for example applies.
The following applies:
with Wt a brownian noise independent of Xt and c(Xt) represents the slope of the degradation such as, for example, the rate of wear of the tire. The object is to calculate the probability that the equipment is in a given state at t knowing how Yt evolves up to the date t.
The next step consists in finding the optimal maintenance policy which makes it possible to achieve a compromise between maintenance that is too early or too late, both being too costly.
A second subunit 222 proposes, according to the invention, an optimal and dynamic maintenance date from the results supplied by the first subunit 221, that is to say from the state of the equipment, therefore from the data collected by the sensor or sensors and also from a reliability model 212. This date is
The hourly cost g(mt,t) depends on the time t spent in operation (=aggregate usage time), on the state mt of the equipment at t, and on the maintenance, repair and downtime costs derived from cost of preventive maintenance and cost of corrective maintenance information. The calculation takes account of the time spent in a state and not only the state at a given instant.
The calculation of this maintenance date is based on a modeling of the state of the equipment by a PDMP process. In effect, these PDMPs make it possible to model physical models with a dynamic that can be disturbed by one-off and random events. In this case, that makes it possible to take account of the possible transition from the stable state (mt=1 in our example) to the failure state directly because of a random cause (mt=4) or indirectly by going through the degraded state (mt=2).
It will be recalled that a PDMP is a hybrid process with two components denoted fit. The hybrid process which describes the state of operation and the age t of the equipment (=aggregate usage time) is expressed ζt=(mt,t).
The dynamic and optimal maintenance date is determined by minimizing the mathematical expectation of an hourly cost function g(mt,t), which amounts to solving an optimal stop problem. That is equivalent to minimizing to the random instant T the equation Eζ0[g(mT, T)], E being the mathematical expectation, knowing that the random instant T which minimizes this expectation is this dynamic and optimal maintenance date. This approach, which is differentiated from that adopted in the prior art recalled in the preamble, does not devolve therefrom in an obvious manner because E(1/F)≠1/E(F) where E represents the expectation and F a random variable.
The calculation of this maintenance date is performed in a number of steps:
Typically it is possible to simulate 100 000 histories (N=100 000), that is to say consider, for each transition from one state to another, different durations S. There can be for example (t13, 3, duration1, P(3, t13)), (t13, 3, duration2, P(3, t13)) and (t13, 3, duration3, P(3, t13)), (t13, 3, duration4, P(3, t13)), etc.
Discretization: with each cell of this quantization grid there is associated a discretized time grid, which necessitates, for each cell, considering the remaining duration of use. If for example the aggregate usage time of the equipment is 25 000 h, then, for a cell for which the date of transition from the state i to the state j is denoted tij, the remaining duration of use is equal to:
25 000 h−tij.
This duration is then itself discretized, the set of these discretized durations forming, for this cell, the discretized usage time grid.
Then, this time-discretized quantization grid is used to calculate the function g(mt,t) and the minimum hourly cost function (min Eζ0[g(mT, T)]) and the associated maintenance date policy are deduced according to the history of the process.
Furthermore, each cell of the discretized quantization grid has associated with it the probability P of going from the state of the cell to each other possible state, by using the transition rates derived from the predictive reliability model. By using the preceding example, the following is obtained:
No probability of changing state is associated with the states 3, 4 and 5 because they are absorbing states.
With this discretized quantization grid having been determined for example by the manufacturer of the equipment, as well as the optimal and dynamic date T, they (grid and date T) are then used by the user of the equipment to help determine, at each instant, the risk of failure of the mission using said equipment. This is done by a subunit 3 by projecting onto this grid the data from the equipment at a predetermined instant, to obtain the associated optimal maintenance date. In effect, if the optimal maintenance date T falls during a mission defined by its start t1 and end t2 dates (→T between t1 and t2), the calculation of the probability of failure of the mission associated with the hourly cost of the equipment during the mission (at the start, at the end of the mission and on the optimal date), may urge the user of the equipment to decide to perform a maintenance procedure before or after the mission.
The procedure is as follows. These equipment histories are once again simulated and they are quantized by projecting them onto the preceding discretized quantization grid. With each cell of the grid, it is possible to associate the probability of the cell and of its transition to another cell as well as a time grid. All these elements will make it possible to calculate, for each cell, the minimum of the mathematical expectation of the hourly cost function as well as the date which minimizes it. This date will then be the maintenance date for the equipment whose history is projected (quantized) on this cell.
On startup, the user defines a maintenance date T common to all the equipment, because all such equipment items are in the stable state at the time t=0 (same history). They are therefore projected onto the same cell. This cell therefore returns a maintenance date T.
If the system changes state at the time T1<T, this maintenance date is revised on the basis of the result supplied by the discretized quantization grid for the state at T1, otherwise the maintenance is carried out on the date T.
The probability of a failure (also called calculation of the risk of failure) between two times t1 and t2 predetermined by the user is then calculated at the time t by carrying out the following steps (often t1<T≦t2):
For example, the probability of transition from mt=1 to mt=2 during a mission is given by the sum of the weights of the cells for which the instant of first transition into the state mt=2 lies between t1 and t2.
The probability of transition from the state mt=1 to the failure state during a mission is given by the sum of the weights of the cells for which the instant of first transition into the failure state lies between t1 and t2.
The probability of transition from the state mt=2 to the failure state during a mission is given by the ratio: (sum of the weights of the cells for which the second transition (into the failure state) lies between t1 and t2) to (the sum of the weights of the cells in the state mt=2 at t1).
This maintenance method can notably be implemented using a computer program product, this computer program comprising code instructions making it possible to perform the steps of the processing subunits 1, 2 and 3. It is stored on a computer-readable medium, such as, for example, the computer 200 linked to the sensors 110 of the equipment 100 and in which are stored the files of the operational information 211, of the reliability model 212, and of the costs of preventive 213 and corrective 214 maintenance. The medium can be electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic or be a broadcast medium of infrared type. Such media are, for example, semiconductor memories (Random Access Memory RAM, Read-Only Memory ROM), tapes, diskettes or magnetic or optical disks (Compact Disc-Read Only Memory (CD-ROM), Compact Disc-Read/Write (CD-R/W) and DVD).
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1303026 | Dec 2013 | FR | national |
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/EP2014/078399 | 12/18/2014 | WO | 00 |
