On the coefficients of variation of uptime and downtime in manufacturing equipment

Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Jul 2018

It was reported in the literature that the coefficients of variation of uptime and downtime of manufacturing equipment are often less than 1. This technical paper is intended to provide an analytical explanation of this phenomenon. Specifically, it shows that the distributions of uptime and downtime have the coefficients of variation less than 1 if the breakdown and repair rates are increasing functions of time.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2005/761282.pdf

On the coefficients of variation of uptime and downtime in manufacturing equipment

International Journal of It was reported in the literature that the coefficients of variation of uptime and downtime of manufacturing equipment are often less than 1. This technical paper is intended to provide an analytical explanation of this phenomenon. Specifically, it shows that the distributions of uptime and downtime have the coefficients of variation less than 1 if the breakdown and repair rates are increasing functions of time. 1. Introduction The coefficients of variation of uptime and downtime (CVup and CVdown) of the equipment on the factory floor have a significant effect on the design of lean production systems. Indeed, as has been shown in [ 2 ], lean buffering (i.e., the buffering necessary and sufficient to achieve a desired production rate of a manufacturing system) is an increasing function of CVup and CVdown, and therefore smaller CVs lead to leaner systems. In designing lean systems, it is often assumed that the uptime and downtime (tup and tdown) are distributed exponentially and, thus, CVup = CVdown = 1. Since in reality tup and tdown may not be exponential, it is important to determine if lean buffering, based on the exponential assumption, overestimates or underestimates the real lean buffering. If CVup and CVdown are less than 1, the lean buffers, designed using the exponential assumption, are too large; otherwise, they are too small. The empirical evidence [ 3 ] indicates that CVup is very often less than 1; this is also true for CVdown although to a lesser extent. As follows from the above, this is an important fact since it ensures that lean buffering, designed using the exponential assumption, will ensure the desired throughput (however, without the maximum leanness). A question arises: what are ?natural? causes which lead to CVup and CVdown being less than 1? The purpose of this technical paper is to discuss this question and, thereby, characterize practical situations that lead to small CVup and CVdown. To accomplish this, Section 2 describes the model of machines under consideration, Section 3 discusses a special case, in Section 4 a general scenario is considered, and in Section 5 conclusions are formulated. 2. Model We consider machines, which could be in two states, up and down. When up, parts are produced; when down, no production takes place and the machine is under repair. Transition rates from up to down and from down to up are p(t) and r(t), respectively, where t is the time the machine spent in the respective state. In other words, if the machine went up at t = 0, it goes down during the infinitesimal interval (t, t + ?t) with probability p(t)?t. Similarly, transition from down to up occurs during (t, t + ?t) with probability r(t)?t. Obviously, the uptime and downtime defined by this model are random variables with probability density functions (pdf ?s) induced by p(t) and r(t). If both p(t) and r(t) are constant, that is, p(t) = p0 and r(t) = r0, t ? 0, the resulting random variables are exponential, and CVup = CVdown = 1. What happens when p(t) and r(t) are not constant is discussed next. 3. Special case We analyze below the pdf and the coefficient or variation of the uptime; the downtime is treated similarly. Assume that p(t) is given by p(t) = p0ta, p0 = const, a > ?1, t ? 0. (3.1) This implies that the breakdown rate is strictly monotonically increasing in time when a > 0, constant when a = 0 (the exponential case), and strictly monotonically decreasing when ?1 < a < 0. The values of a < ?1 are not included since they do not lead to valid pdf ?s (in the sense that the integrals of these functions are not finite). The pdf and the CV of the uptime, induced by assumption (3.1), can be calculated as follows. By the total probability formula, the probability that the machine is up at time t + ?t is given by P ?(t + ?t) = 1 = P ?(t + ?t) = 1 | ?(t) = 1 P ?(t) = 1 , (3.2) (3.3) (3.4) where ?(t) represents the state of the machine, that is, ?1 if the machine is up at time t, ?(t) = ? ?0 if the machine is down at time t. As follows from the machine model of Section 2 and (3.1), the conditional probability that the machine is up at t + ?t, given that it is up at t, is P ?(t + ?t) = 1 | ?(t) = 1 = 1 ? p0ta?t. Substituting this into (3.2) and rearranging terms, we obtain = ?p0taP ?(t) = 1 . When ?t ? 0, this becomes a first-order linear differential equation with initial condition dP ?(t) = 1 dt = ?p0taP ?(t) = 1 , Solving this initial value problem, we obtain the probability that the machine is up at time t assuming that it was up at time 0 P ?(t) = 1 = e? 0t p0tadt = e?p0ta+1/(a+1). To determine the pdf of tup, we calculate the joint probability that the machine is up at time t and down at time t + ?t. Using the formula for the probability of the intersection of two events and (3.8), we obtain P ?(t) = 1 ? ?(t + ?t) = 0 = P ?(t + ?t) = 0 | ?(t) = 1 P ?(t) = 1 = p0ta?t e?p0ta+1/(a+1) = p0tae?p0ta+1/(a+1)?t. ftup (t) = p0tae?(p0/(a+1))ta (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2005/761282.pdf

Jingshan Li, Semyon M. Meerkov. On the coefficients of variation of uptime and downtime in manufacturing equipment, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2005, DOI: 10.1155/MPE.2005.1