American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

• Previous Article
A symmetric Gauss-Seidel based method for a class of multi-period mean-variance portfolio selection problems
• JIMO Home
• This Issue
• Next Article
Convergence analysis of a new iterative algorithm for solving split variational inclusion problems
March  2020, 16(2): 965-990. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018188

An optimal maintenance strategy for multi-state systems based on a system linear integral equation and dynamic programming

 1 School of Software, Liaoning Technique University, Huludao, Liaoning, 125105, China 2 School of information engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518060, China 3 Quanzhou institute of equipment manufacturing haixi institutes, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Quanzhou, Fujian, 362124, China

* Corresponding author: Haibo Jin

Received  May 2018 Revised  August 2018 Published  December 2018

Fund Project: The first author is supported by the Education Foundation of Liaoning Province in China (grant no. 161129). The second author is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 61701314). The third author is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 61401185)

An optimal preventive maintenance strategy for multi-state systems based on an integral equation and dynamic programming is described herein. Unlike traditional preventive maintenance strategies, this maintenance strategy is formulated using an integral equation, which can capture the system dynamics and avoid the curse of dimensionality arising from complex semi-Markov processes. The linear integral equation of the system is constructed based on the system kernel. A numerical technique is applied to solve this integral equation and obtain all of the mean elapsed times from each reliable state to each unreliable state. An analytical approach to the optimal preventive maintenance strategy is proposed that maximizes the expected operational time of the system subject to the total maintenance budget based on dynamic programming in which both backward and forward search techniques are used to search for the local optimal solution. Finally, numerical examples concerning two different scales of systems are presented to demonstrate the performance of the strategy in terms of accuracy and efficiency. Moreover a sensitivity analysis is provided to evaluate the robustness of the proposed strategy.

Citation: Haibo Jin, Long Hai, Xiaoliang Tang. An optimal maintenance strategy for multi-state systems based on a system linear integral equation and dynamic programming. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (2) : 965-990. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018188
References:

show all references

References:
The whole operation process of the system
An operation cycle consisting of the maintenance and deterioration stages
Backward search technique for every state $X_{t_{q+1}} \in \mathbf{U}$
Backward search technique for every state $X_{t_{q+1}} \in \mathbf{U}$
Forward search technique for every remaining state $X_{t_{q}} \in \mathbf{U}$
Time-spans from state 1 to state Xt1U and from XtlastU to failure state n
Discrete values of $\phi_{13}(t_{m})$, $\phi_{26}(t_{m})$, $\phi_{38}(t_{m})$, $\phi_{47}(t_{m})$ under the Weibull distribution with parameters $\lambda = 0.4$ and $\alpha = 2$
The running time of Algorithm 1 for the small-scale system with the Weibull distribution corresponding to Case 1
The running time of Algorithm 1 for the small-scale system with the general distribution corresponding to Case 2
The running time of Algorithm 1 for the large-scale system with the Weibull distribution corresponding to Case 3
The running time of Algorithm 1 for the large-scale system with the general distribution corresponding to Case 4
Error of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ vs Errors of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$
Optimal maintenance strategy based on dynamic programming
 1: Initialization: $q = 1, \mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*} = \left(0\right)_{1\times(n-k-1)},$ $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*} = \left(0\right)_{1\times(n-k-1)}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*} = \left(0\right)_{1\times(n-k-1)}$ and $D = \{\underbrace{\{\}, \cdots, \{\}}_{n-k-1}\}$ 2: while  $\min\{c_{1}, \cdots, c_{n-k-1}\} < C$  do 3:  Construct matrices $\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Theta_{t_q}}}$, ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_q}\right]$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}_{t_q}$: $\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Theta_{t_q}}} = \left[ \theta_{X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q})} \right]_{(n-k-1)\times k} \ {\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_q}\right] = \left[ {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}}} \right] \right]_{k \times (n-k-1)} \\\ \mathbf{C}_{t_q} = \left[ c_{X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q})} \right]_{(n-k-1)\times k}$ 4:    Calculate the optimal vectors $\zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^*$, ${(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^{*}$ and $c^*$: \begin{aligned} \zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^* = \max \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \text{for} X_{t_q} = k+1, \cdots, n-1 \end{aligned} \begin{aligned} {(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^{*} = \arg \max \limits_{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\odot}}} \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \\\ \text{for} X_{t_q} = k+1, \cdots, n-1 \end{aligned} $c^* = \arg \max \limits_{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\oslash}}} \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \text{for} X_{t_q} = k+1, \cdots, n-1$ 5:    Assign $\zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^*$, ${(\theta_{q}+E[\psi_{q}])}_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^{*}$ }and $c^*$ for all $X_{t_{q+1}} \in \mathbf{U}$ to $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*}_{q}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*}_{q}$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*}_{q}$, respectively, i.e., $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*}_{q} = \left(\zeta_{k+1}^*, \zeta_{k+2}^*, \cdots, \zeta_{n-1}^*\right)$ $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*}_{q} = \left({(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{k+1}^{*}, {(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{k+2}^{*}, \cdots, {(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{n-1}^{*} \right)$ $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*}_{q} = \left(c_{k+1}^*, c_{k+2}^*, \cdots, c_{n-1}^*\right)$ 6:    Identify the optimal paths corresponding to $\zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^*$ for all $X_{t_{q+1}}$, i.e., \begin{aligned} (X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}})^* \arg \max \limits_{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\oplus}}} & \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \\\ & \text{for} X_{t_{q+1}} = k+1, \cdots, n-1 \end{aligned} 7:    Store each $(X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}})^*$ in List D. 8:    Judge whether or not there exists the case of not one-to-one correspondence. If yes, the forward search technique is used for all of the remaining states $X_{t_q} \in \overline{\mathbf{R}}$ to identify $\zeta_{X_{t_{q}}}^*$ and the corresponding optimal path, i.e., \begin{aligned} \zeta_{X_{t_{q}}}^* = \max &\Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \\\ & \text{for} X_{t_{q+1}} = k+1, \cdots, n-1; X_{t_q} \in \overline{\mathbf{R}} \end{aligned} ${({X_{{t_q}}}, Z({X_t}, {a_{{t_q}}}), {X_{{t_{q + 1}}}})^*} = {\rm{ }}\arg \mathop {\max }\limits_ \oplus ({\rm{ }}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta }}_{{X_{{t_q}}}, \bullet }} + {\bf{E}}[{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi }}_{ \bullet , {X_{{t_{q + 1}}}}}}]) \cdot {\rm{ }}\mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{{X_{{t_q}}}, \bullet }^{ - 1}{_\infty }\\\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;{\rm{ for}}{X_{{t_{q + 1}}}} = k + 1, \cdots , n - 1;{X_{{t_q}}} \in \overline {\bf{R}}$ and append them into the tail of corresponding sub-lists of $D$. Else, continue. 9:    Update the vectors $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*}$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*}$, i.e., $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^*+\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^*_{q}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^*+\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^*_{q}$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^*+\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^*_{q}$. 10:    Judge whether each element of $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^*$ is greater than or equal to the total maintenance budget $C$. If yes, the optimal search on this optimal path is over. Otherwise, the optimal search is continued. 11:    Update List $D$ by $D \leftarrow \textrm{Append} \left(D_{X_{t_{q}}}, (X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t_q}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}})^*\right)$ 12:    Set $q = q+1$ 13:  end while 14:  Determine all time-spans in cycle $t_0$ and in cycle $t_{\textrm{last}}$, i.e., ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_1}\right] = \left( {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{1, k+1}\right], {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{1, k+2}\right], \cdots {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{1, n-1}\right]\right)$ ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_{\textrm{last}}}\right] = \left( {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{k+1, n}\right], {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{k+2, n}\right], \cdots {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{n-1, n}\right]\right)$ 15:  Update $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^*$ by $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* + {\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_0}\right] + {\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_{\textrm{last}}}\right]$ and store all paths$\left(1, X_{t_1}\right)$ and $\left(X_{t_{\textrm{last}}}, n\right)$ in the header and tail, respectively, of the corresponding sub-list. 16:  Determine $T^{*}\left(t, a_t\right)$ and the corresponding $D^*$, i.e., $T^{*}(t, a_t) = \Vert \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \Vert_{\infty} \ D^{*} = \arg \Vert \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \Vert_{\infty}$
 1: Initialization: $q = 1, \mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*} = \left(0\right)_{1\times(n-k-1)},$ $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*} = \left(0\right)_{1\times(n-k-1)}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*} = \left(0\right)_{1\times(n-k-1)}$ and $D = \{\underbrace{\{\}, \cdots, \{\}}_{n-k-1}\}$ 2: while  $\min\{c_{1}, \cdots, c_{n-k-1}\} < C$  do 3:  Construct matrices $\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Theta_{t_q}}}$, ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_q}\right]$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}_{t_q}$: $\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Theta_{t_q}}} = \left[ \theta_{X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q})} \right]_{(n-k-1)\times k} \ {\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_q}\right] = \left[ {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}}} \right] \right]_{k \times (n-k-1)} \\\ \mathbf{C}_{t_q} = \left[ c_{X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q})} \right]_{(n-k-1)\times k}$ 4:    Calculate the optimal vectors $\zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^*$, ${(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^{*}$ and $c^*$: \begin{aligned} \zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^* = \max \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \text{for} X_{t_q} = k+1, \cdots, n-1 \end{aligned} \begin{aligned} {(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^{*} = \arg \max \limits_{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\odot}}} \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \\\ \text{for} X_{t_q} = k+1, \cdots, n-1 \end{aligned} $c^* = \arg \max \limits_{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\oslash}}} \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \text{for} X_{t_q} = k+1, \cdots, n-1$ 5:    Assign $\zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^*$, ${(\theta_{q}+E[\psi_{q}])}_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^{*}$ }and $c^*$ for all $X_{t_{q+1}} \in \mathbf{U}$ to $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*}_{q}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*}_{q}$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*}_{q}$, respectively, i.e., $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*}_{q} = \left(\zeta_{k+1}^*, \zeta_{k+2}^*, \cdots, \zeta_{n-1}^*\right)$ $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*}_{q} = \left({(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{k+1}^{*}, {(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{k+2}^{*}, \cdots, {(\theta_{q}+{\bf{E}}[\psi_{q}])}_{n-1}^{*} \right)$ $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*}_{q} = \left(c_{k+1}^*, c_{k+2}^*, \cdots, c_{n-1}^*\right)$ 6:    Identify the optimal paths corresponding to $\zeta_{X_{t_{q+1}}}^*$ for all $X_{t_{q+1}}$, i.e., \begin{aligned} (X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}})^* \arg \max \limits_{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\oplus}}} & \Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \\\ & \text{for} X_{t_{q+1}} = k+1, \cdots, n-1 \end{aligned} 7:    Store each $(X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}})^*$ in List D. 8:    Judge whether or not there exists the case of not one-to-one correspondence. If yes, the forward search technique is used for all of the remaining states $X_{t_q} \in \overline{\mathbf{R}}$ to identify $\zeta_{X_{t_{q}}}^*$ and the corresponding optimal path, i.e., \begin{aligned} \zeta_{X_{t_{q}}}^* = \max &\Vert ( \mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet} +{\bf{E}}[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{\bullet, X_{t_{q+1}}}] )\cdot \mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{X_{t_q}, \bullet}^{-1} \Vert_{\infty} \\\ & \text{for} X_{t_{q+1}} = k+1, \cdots, n-1; X_{t_q} \in \overline{\mathbf{R}} \end{aligned} ${({X_{{t_q}}}, Z({X_t}, {a_{{t_q}}}), {X_{{t_{q + 1}}}})^*} = {\rm{ }}\arg \mathop {\max }\limits_ \oplus ({\rm{ }}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\theta }}_{{X_{{t_q}}}, \bullet }} + {\bf{E}}[{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\psi }}_{ \bullet , {X_{{t_{q + 1}}}}}}]) \cdot {\rm{ }}\mathit{\boldsymbol{c}}_{{X_{{t_q}}}, \bullet }^{ - 1}{_\infty }\\\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;{\rm{ for}}{X_{{t_{q + 1}}}} = k + 1, \cdots , n - 1;{X_{{t_q}}} \in \overline {\bf{R}}$ and append them into the tail of corresponding sub-lists of $D$. Else, continue. 9:    Update the vectors $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{*}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{*}$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{*}$, i.e., $\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^*+\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^*_{q}$, $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^*+\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^*_{q}$ and $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^*+\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^*_{q}$. 10:    Judge whether each element of $\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^*$ is greater than or equal to the total maintenance budget $C$. If yes, the optimal search on this optimal path is over. Otherwise, the optimal search is continued. 11:    Update List $D$ by $D \leftarrow \textrm{Append} \left(D_{X_{t_{q}}}, (X_{t_q}, Z(X_{t_q}, a_{t_q}), X_{t_{q+1}})^*\right)$ 12:    Set $q = q+1$ 13:  end while 14:  Determine all time-spans in cycle $t_0$ and in cycle $t_{\textrm{last}}$, i.e., ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_1}\right] = \left( {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{1, k+1}\right], {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{1, k+2}\right], \cdots {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{1, n-1}\right]\right)$ ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_{\textrm{last}}}\right] = \left( {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{k+1, n}\right], {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{k+2, n}\right], \cdots {\bf{E}}\left[\psi_{n-1, n}\right]\right)$ 15:  Update $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^*$ by $\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \leftarrow \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* + {\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_0}\right] + {\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol{\Psi}}_{t_{\textrm{last}}}\right]$ and store all paths$\left(1, X_{t_1}\right)$ and $\left(X_{t_{\textrm{last}}}, n\right)$ in the header and tail, respectively, of the corresponding sub-list. 16:  Determine $T^{*}\left(t, a_t\right)$ and the corresponding $D^*$, i.e., $T^{*}(t, a_t) = \Vert \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \Vert_{\infty} \ D^{*} = \arg \Vert \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^* \Vert_{\infty}$
Comparison of the absolute and relative asymptotic errors
 $L$ 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol\psi}_{1, 3} \right]_{L}$ 9.6186 9.6059 9.5939 9.5827 9.5721 9.5621 9.5527 absolute error 0.0127 0.0119 0.0112 0.0105 0.0099 0.0094 relative error 0.13% 0.12% 0.12% 0.11% 0.10% 0.098% 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 9.5438 9.5354 9.5274 9.5198 9.5126 9.5057 9.4992 9.4929 0.0088 0.0084 0.0079 0.0075 0.0072 0.0068 0.0065 0.0062 0.092% 0.088% 0.082% 0.078% 0.075% 0.071% 0.068% 0.065% 45 46 47 48 49 50 9.4869 9.4812 9.4758 9.4705 9.4655 9.4607 0.0059 0.0057 0.0054 0.0052 0.0050 0.0048 0.062% 0.060% 0.056% 0.054% 0.052% 0.050%
 $L$ 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ${\bf{E}}\left[\mathit{\boldsymbol\psi}_{1, 3} \right]_{L}$ 9.6186 9.6059 9.5939 9.5827 9.5721 9.5621 9.5527 absolute error 0.0127 0.0119 0.0112 0.0105 0.0099 0.0094 relative error 0.13% 0.12% 0.12% 0.11% 0.10% 0.098% 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 9.5438 9.5354 9.5274 9.5198 9.5126 9.5057 9.4992 9.4929 0.0088 0.0084 0.0079 0.0075 0.0072 0.0068 0.0065 0.0062 0.092% 0.088% 0.082% 0.078% 0.075% 0.071% 0.068% 0.065% 45 46 47 48 49 50 9.4869 9.4812 9.4758 9.4705 9.4655 9.4607 0.0059 0.0057 0.0054 0.0052 0.0050 0.0048 0.062% 0.060% 0.056% 0.054% 0.052% 0.050%
Comparison of running times of Algorithm 1 for cases 1 to 4
 Running time The small-scale system The large-scale system Weibull general Weibull general maximum time 0.0057 0.0051 0.089 0.093 minimum time 0.0043 0.0038 0.058 0.062 mean time 0.0052 0.0048 0.0751 0.0747
 Running time The small-scale system The large-scale system Weibull general Weibull general maximum time 0.0057 0.0051 0.089 0.093 minimum time 0.0043 0.0038 0.058 0.062 mean time 0.0052 0.0048 0.0751 0.0747
Modified parameters of the two distributions for both the small-scale system and the large-scale system
 Errors Weibull (Case 1 & Case 3) General (Case 2 & Case 4) $\lambda$ $\alpha$ $\lambda$ -10% 0.36 1.8 1.08 -5% 0.38 1.9 1.14 0% 0.4 2 1.2 5% 0.42 2.1 1.26 10% 0.44 2.2 1.32
 Errors Weibull (Case 1 & Case 3) General (Case 2 & Case 4) $\lambda$ $\alpha$ $\lambda$ -10% 0.36 1.8 1.08 -5% 0.38 1.9 1.14 0% 0.4 2 1.2 5% 0.42 2.1 1.26 10% 0.44 2.2 1.32
Sensitivity analysis of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$ on $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ and$D^*$ for the small-cale system with the Weibull distribution (Case 1)
 errors of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$ $\lambda$ $\alpha$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 0.36 1.8 400.80 -0.17% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} -5% 0.38 1.9 401.16 -0.08% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} 0%s 0.4 2 401.48 0% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} 5% 0.42 2.1 401.80 0.08% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} 10% 0.44 2.2 402.04 0.14% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9}
 errors of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$ $\lambda$ $\alpha$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 0.36 1.8 400.80 -0.17% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} -5% 0.38 1.9 401.16 -0.08% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} 0%s 0.4 2 401.48 0% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} 5% 0.42 2.1 401.80 0.08% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9} 10% 0.44 2.2 402.04 0.14% {1 7 3 8 2 8 3 5 4 8 2 6 3 6 3 9}
Sensitivity analysis of $\lambda$ on $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ and $D^*$ for the small-scale system with the general distribution (Case 2)
 errors of $\lambda$ $\lambda$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 1.08 352.60 -0.13% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} -5% 1.14 352.84 -0.06% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} 0% 1.2 353.05 0% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} 5% 1.26 353.26 0.06% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} 10% 1.32 353.44 0.11% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9}
 errors of $\lambda$ $\lambda$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 1.08 352.60 -0.13% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} -5% 1.14 352.84 -0.06% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} 0% 1.2 353.05 0% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} 5% 1.26 353.26 0.06% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9} 10% 1.32 353.44 0.11% {1 8 4 7 3 6 3 7 2 5 4 6 4 9}
Sensitivity analysis of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$ on $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ and$D^*$ for the large-cale system with the Weibull distribution (Case 3)
 errors of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$ $\lambda$ $\alpha$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 0.36 1.8 710.29 -0.05% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} -5% 0.38 1.9 710.43 -0.03% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} 0% 0.4 2 710.65 0% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} 5% 0.42 2.1 710.80 0.02% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} 10% 0.44 2.2 710.93 0.04% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50}
 errors of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$ $\lambda$ $\alpha$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 0.36 1.8 710.29 -0.05% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} -5% 0.38 1.9 710.43 -0.03% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} 0% 0.4 2 710.65 0% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} 5% 0.42 2.1 710.80 0.02% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50} 10% 0.44 2.2 710.93 0.04% {1 42 10 34 26 32 14 40 27 45 2 35 14 46 11 40 26 48 19 46 2 44 29 45 5 50}
Sensitivity analysis of $\lambda$ on $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ and $D^*$ for the large-scale system with the general distribution (Case 4)
 errors of $\lambda$ $\lambda$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 1.08 652.28 -0.05% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} -5% 1.14 652.48 -0.02% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} 0% 1.2 652.61 0% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} 5% 1.26 652.81 0.03% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} 10% 1.32 652.94 0.05% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50}
 errors of $\lambda$ $\lambda$ $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ errors of $T^{*}(t, a_{t_q})$ $D^*$ -10% 1.08 652.28 -0.05% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} -5% 1.14 652.48 -0.02% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} 0% 1.2 652.61 0% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} 5% 1.26 652.81 0.03% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50} 10% 1.32 652.94 0.05% {1 41 5 34 20 35 2 31 7 33 15 32 26 34 16 46 26 34 29 44 14 49 8 50}
 [1] Luke Finlay, Vladimir Gaitsgory, Ivan Lebedev. Linear programming solutions of periodic optimization problems: approximation of the optimal control. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2007, 3 (2) : 399-413. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2007.3.399 [2] Diana Keller. Optimal control of a linear stochastic Schrödinger equation. Conference Publications, 2013, 2013 (special) : 437-446. doi: 10.3934/proc.2013.2013.437 [3] Simone Cacace, Maurizio Falcone. A dynamic domain decomposition for the eikonal-diffusion equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2016, 9 (1) : 109-123. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2016.9.109 [4] Chih-Chiang Fang. Bayesian decision making in determining optimal leased term and preventive maintenance scheme for leased facilities. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020127 [5] Dmitry Treschev. A locally integrable multi-dimensional billiard system. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2017, 37 (10) : 5271-5284. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2017228 [6] Alexandr Mikhaylov, Victor Mikhaylov. Dynamic inverse problem for Jacobi matrices. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2019, 13 (3) : 431-447. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2019021 [7] Ardeshir Ahmadi, Hamed Davari-Ardakani. A multistage stochastic programming framework for cardinality constrained portfolio optimization. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2017, 7 (3) : 359-377. doi: 10.3934/naco.2017023 [8] Carlos Fresneda-Portillo, Sergey E. Mikhailov. Analysis of Boundary-Domain Integral Equations to the mixed BVP for a compressible stokes system with variable viscosity. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2019, 18 (6) : 3059-3088. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2019137 [9] Guirong Jiang, Qishao Lu. The dynamics of a Prey-Predator model with impulsive state feedback control. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2006, 6 (6) : 1301-1320. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2006.6.1301 [10] Yunfei Lv, Rong Yuan, Yuan He. Wavefronts of a stage structured model with state--dependent delay. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2015, 35 (10) : 4931-4954. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2015.35.4931 [11] Daoyuan Fang, Ting Zhang. Compressible Navier-Stokes equations with vacuum state in one dimension. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2004, 3 (4) : 675-694. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2004.3.675 [12] Y. Latushkin, B. Layton. The optimal gap condition for invariant manifolds. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 1999, 5 (2) : 233-268. doi: 10.3934/dcds.1999.5.233 [13] Xianchao Xiu, Ying Yang, Wanquan Liu, Lingchen Kong, Meijuan Shang. An improved total variation regularized RPCA for moving object detection with dynamic background. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (4) : 1685-1698. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019024 [14] Yuncherl Choi, Taeyoung Ha, Jongmin Han, Sewoong Kim, Doo Seok Lee. Turing instability and dynamic phase transition for the Brusselator model with multiple critical eigenvalues. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2021035 [15] Hong Seng Sim, Wah June Leong, Chuei Yee Chen, Siti Nur Iqmal Ibrahim. Multi-step spectral gradient methods with modified weak secant relation for large scale unconstrained optimization. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2018, 8 (3) : 377-387. doi: 10.3934/naco.2018024 [16] Vladimir Georgiev, Sandra Lucente. Focusing nlkg equation with singular potential. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2018, 17 (4) : 1387-1406. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2018068 [17] Daoyin He, Ingo Witt, Huicheng Yin. On the strauss index of semilinear tricomi equation. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (10) : 4817-4838. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020213 [18] Guillaume Bal, Wenjia Jing. Homogenization and corrector theory for linear transport in random media. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2010, 28 (4) : 1311-1343. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2010.28.1311 [19] Wenmin Gong, Guangcun Lu. On coupled Dirac systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2017, 37 (8) : 4329-4346. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2017185 [20] Martin Bohner, Sabrina Streipert. Optimal harvesting policy for the Beverton--Holt model. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2016, 13 (4) : 673-695. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2016014

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366