CN112488450A - Product average repair time distribution method based on region model - Google Patents
Product average repair time distribution method based on region model Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN112488450A CN112488450A CN202011231894.7A CN202011231894A CN112488450A CN 112488450 A CN112488450 A CN 112488450A CN 202011231894 A CN202011231894 A CN 202011231894A CN 112488450 A CN112488450 A CN 112488450A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- repair time
- factor
- evaluation
- region
- average repair
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Granted
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0631—Resource planning, allocation, distributing or scheduling for enterprises or organisations
- G06Q10/06315—Needs-based resource requirements planning or analysis
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/20—Administration of product repair or maintenance
Landscapes
- Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Strategic Management (AREA)
- Economics (AREA)
- Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Quality & Reliability (AREA)
- Operations Research (AREA)
- Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
- Marketing (AREA)
- General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Development Economics (AREA)
- Educational Administration (AREA)
- Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
- Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
Abstract
The invention relates to a product average repair time distribution method based on a region model. It comprises four steps: (1) performing region division based on the product 3-D model to construct a region model; (2) constructing an average repair time influence factor set and a factor evaluation set of the region model; (3) distributing the average repair time of the area; (4) and distributing the average repair time of the devices in the area. Based on the invention, the quantitative requirement of the maintainability design of the product, namely the average repair time, can be more reasonably distributed to the component units, thereby providing guidance for the maintainability design.
Description
Technical Field
The invention provides a product average repair time distribution method based on a region model, which is a method for dividing a product into regions, distributing an overall maintainability index of the product to a region firstly and then distributing the regional maintainability index to a device in the region. The invention belongs to the technical field of reliability engineering.
Background
In the course of the development or improvement of products, it is necessary to assign the maintainability quantitative requirements of the products to the constituent units according to given criteria. The existing maintainability distribution method is basically based on a product tree structure, and mainly considers the factors of the reliability, accessibility, detachability and the like of a product, the maintenance after the failure of a product composition unit is closely related to the overall layout of the product and the installation position of a failure piece, and the factors are not considered by the existing maintainability distribution method. In view of this, the invention provides a method for distributing maintainability indexes based on a region model, that is, a method for distributing average repair time of a product based on a region model, which can more reasonably distribute quantitative requirements of maintainability design of the product, namely, the average repair time, to constituent units, and provide guidance for the maintainability design.
Disclosure of Invention
The invention aims to more reasonably distribute quantitative requirements of 'average repair time' of product maintainability design to product composition units based on a product region model to be used as constraint of the product maintainability design.
The invention provides a product average repair time distribution method based on a region model, which mainly comprises the following steps:
the method comprises the following steps: and performing region division based on the product 3-D model to construct a region model.
According to the basic principle that the maintenance cover is not overlapped in a crossing mode and not cut, the rules for dividing the product area model are determined, a rule set is formed and used as the basis for building the area model, the rule set can be marked as { rule 1, rule 2, … and rule n }, wherein rule t represents the t-th rule which is required to be met when the area model is built. The rule set is constructed to satisfy the following conditions:
(1) sorting according to the importance degree of the rule, namely, the importance degree of rule 1 is the highest, and the importance degree of rule n is the lowest;
(2) when the product can not meet all the division rules, the rules with the lowest importance degree can be deleted according to the order of the importance degree of the rules;
(3) different products can be divided into regions according to the rule set;
(4) there must be no conflicting contradictions between the rules.
Step two: and constructing an average repair time influence factor set and a factor evaluation set of the region model.
According to the structural characteristics of the region model, a factor set influencing the maintainability of the region is constructed and used as a basis for measuring the average repair time of the region, and the factor set can be recorded as { e }1,e2,…,emIn which ejIndicating a jth repair influencing factor.
According to different degrees of the influence factors of the average repair time in the region model, a factor evaluation set is constructed and used as a basis for judging the level of the influence factors, and the factor evaluation set can be marked as { ek1,ek2,…,ek10In which eklThe ith grade of the kth influencing factor is represented, each grade corresponds to different evaluation scores, and the factor evaluation set and the evaluation scores meet the following conditions:
(1) the evaluation score should be expected to be small, i.e., the better the maintainability, the smaller the number;
(2) evaluation set { ek1,ek2,…,ek10The corresponding evaluation score is {1,2, …,10 };
(3) when the influence factors are evaluated, a subset can be selected from the evaluation set for evaluation.
The evaluation set and the evaluation score correspondence are shown in table 1:
table 1 evaluation set and evaluation score results schematic
| Rank of | Score of | Description of the invention |
| ek1 | 1 | Corresponds to ek1Description of the factors |
| ek2 | 2 | Corresponds to ek2Description of the factors |
| … | … | … |
| ek10 | 10 | Corresponds to ek10Description of the factors |
Step three: and distributing the area average repair time.
And evaluating the region according to the region model influence factor set and the evaluation set, calculating the region weight, and distributing the average repair time. This step comprises 3 sub-steps:
step 1: and scoring the region based on the influence factor set and the evaluation set in the second step.
Step 2: and calculating a regional comprehensive weighting coefficient based on the scoring result, wherein the calculation formula is as follows:
wherein, [ e ]kl]Class i level e representing the kth influencing factorklCorresponding score, EwA maintenance weighting factor representing the area w, N the total number of areas,
representing the mean value of the maintenance weighting factors, delta, of the respective zoneswRepresenting the sum of all equipment failure rates for region w,
representing the mean value of the failure rates of the respective zones, alphawRepresenting the repair time integrated weighting coefficients for region w.
And step 3: according to the result of the weighting coefficient and the given average repair time requirement, the distribution of the area average repair time is carried out, and the distribution formula is as follows:
wherein the content of the first and second substances,
the average repair time of the whole system is shown,
the average repair time of the region w is indicated.
Step four: and distributing the average repair time of the devices in the area.
And taking the average repair time of the area obtained in the step three as constraint, analyzing and evaluating the condition of the equipment in the area according to the constructed area model, and distributing the average repair time. This step comprises 5 sub-steps:
step 1: and analyzing the equipment in the area, and constructing a factor set influencing the maintainability of the equipment.
Step 2: and according to different degrees of influencing the maintainability of the equipment, constructing a factor evaluation set as a basis for judging the grades of the influencing factors, wherein each evaluation grade corresponds to different scores, and the score is smaller as the maintainability is better.
And step 3: the devices are scored based on the set of influencing factors and the set of evaluations.
And 4, step 4: and calculating a comprehensive weighting coefficient, wherein the value of the coefficient is related to the evaluation score and the average value of the evaluation score.
And 5: based on the results of the weighting coefficients and on given serviceability requirements, an average repair time is assigned to each cell.
Drawings
FIG. 1 is a flow chart of the method
FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of a military aircraft, showing (a) a top view and (b) a side view
FIG. 3 is a schematic illustration of a military aircraft in a zoned plan view (a) and in a side view (b)
Detailed Description
The process flow of the method of the invention is shown in figure 1. For a better understanding of the features and advantages of the present invention, reference is made to the following detailed description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and examples. The present invention was embodied in the form of a military aircraft, as shown in FIG. 2. The specific implementation steps are as follows:
the method comprises the following steps: and performing region division based on the product 3-D model to construct a region model.
According to the basic principle that the maintenance cover is not overlapped in a crossing mode and not cut, the rules for dividing the product area model are determined, a rule set is formed and used as the basis for building the area model, the rule set can be marked as { rule 1, rule 2, … and rule n }, wherein rule t represents the t-th rule which is required to be met when the area model is built. The rule set is constructed to satisfy the following conditions:
(1) sorting according to the importance degree of the rule, namely, the importance degree of rule 1 is the highest, and the importance degree of rule n is the lowest;
(2) when the product can not meet all the division rules, the rules with the lowest importance degree can be deleted according to the order of the importance degree of the rules;
(3) different products can be divided into regions according to the rule set;
(4) there must be no conflicting contradictions between the rules.
An example a rule set for military aircraft zone partitioning may be represented as: { non-overlapping, existing flaps retained, divided by the interface between the main structures of the aircraft, longitudinally from head to tail, with the main structural elements divided separately }
The military aircraft is divided into a head part of the aircraft body, a middle part of the aircraft body, a tail part of the aircraft body, a left wing, a right wing, an undercarriage and an undercarriage door according to the above rules. As shown in fig. 3.
Step two: and constructing an average repair time influence factor set and a factor evaluation set of the region model.
According to the structural characteristics of the region model, a factor set influencing the maintainability of the region is constructed and used as a basis for measuring the average repair time of the region, and the factor set can be recorded as { e }1,e2,…,emIn which ejIndicating a jth repair influencing factor.
According to different degrees of the influence factors of the average repair time in the region model, a factor evaluation set is constructed and used as a basis for judging the level of the influence factors, and the factor evaluation set can be marked as { ek1,ek2,…,ek10In which eklThe ith grade of the kth influencing factor is represented, each grade corresponds to different evaluation scores, and the factor evaluation set and the evaluation scores meet the following conditions:
(1) the evaluation score should be expected to be small, i.e., the better the maintainability, the smaller the number;
(2) evaluation set { ek1,ek2,…,ek10The corresponding evaluation score is {1,2, …,10 };
(3) when the influence factors are evaluated, a subset can be selected from the evaluation set for evaluation.
The evaluation set and the evaluation score correspondence are shown in table 2:
TABLE 2 evaluation set and evaluation score results schematic
| Rank of | Score of | Description of the invention |
| ek1 | 1 | Corresponds to ek1Description of the factors |
| ek2 | 2 | Corresponds to ek2Description of the factors |
| … | … | … |
| ek10 | 10 | Corresponds to ek10Description of the factors |
Factors affecting the average repair time of the nose, mid-fuselage, landing gear and landing gear door zones in military aircraft include the number and layout of flaps, the number of equipment and the overall failure rate, the overall capacity of maintenance personnel, and the fault detection and isolation factors. The reference values of the various influencing factors and factor evaluations are as follows:
TABLE 3 number and layout of flaps (e)1)
| Rank of | e1 | Description of the invention |
| Superior food | 1 | The quantity and the layout of the covering covers are convenient for maintenance personnel to carry out regional equipment maintenance |
| Good wine | 3 | The number of the covering covers is small, and the layout can not completely meet the maintenance requirement |
| Difference (D) | 5 | The number of the covering covers is small, and the arrangement is inconvenient for maintenance personnel to carry out regional maintenance |
TABLE 4 number of devices and Total failure Rate (e)2)
| Rank of | e2 | Description of the invention |
| Light and slight | 1 | Few devices in the area and low comprehensive failure rate |
| Medium and high grade | 3 | The number of devices in the area is large, and the comprehensive failure rate is high |
| Severe severity of disease | 5 | The number of devices in the area is large, and the comprehensive failure rate is high |
TABLE 5 serviceman Complex Capacity (e)3)
TABLE 6 Fault detection and isolation factor (e)4)
| Rank of | e4 | Description of the invention |
| Automatic | 1 | System can automatically detect unit faults in area for feedback |
| Semi-automatic | 3 | The system detects that a fault occurs in the area but cannot proceedLine fault location |
| Artificial operation | 5 | Maintenance personnel regularly carry out regional maintenance inspection |
Step three: and distributing the area average repair time.
And evaluating the region according to the region model influence factor set and the evaluation set, calculating the region weight, and distributing the average repair time. This step comprises 3 sub-steps:
step 1: and scoring the region based on the influence factor set and the evaluation set in the second step.
Step 2: and calculating a regional comprehensive weighting coefficient based on the scoring result, wherein the calculation formula is as follows:
wherein, [ e ]kl]Class i level e representing the kth influencing factorklCorresponding score, EwA maintenance weighting factor representing the area w, N the total number of areas,
representing the mean value of the maintenance weighting factors, delta, of the respective zoneswRepresenting the sum of all equipment failure rates for region w,
representing the mean value of the failure rates of the respective zones, alphawRepresenting the repair time integrated weighting coefficients for region w.
And step 3: according to the result of the weighting coefficient and the given average repair time requirement, the distribution of the area average repair time is carried out, and the distribution formula is as follows:
wherein the content of the first and second substances,
the average repair time of the whole system is shown,
the average repair time of the region w is indicated.
Average repair time requirements for military aircraft systems are
For military aircraft fuselage nose (P)1) Middle part of the fuselage (P)2) Landing gear and landing gear door (P)3) The average repair time distribution is carried out on 3 areas, and if the maintenance factors of the areas are shown in the table 7, the area P is1、P2、P3The average repair time calculation results of (a) are as follows:
TABLE 7 region P1、P2、P3Maintenance factor of
E1＝1+3+5+3＝12
E2＝3+5+1+5＝14
E3＝3+5+3+5＝16
Region P1：
Region P2：
Region P3：
Step four: and distributing the average repair time of the devices in the area.
And taking the average repair time of the area obtained in the step three as constraint, analyzing and evaluating the condition of the equipment in the area according to the constructed area model, and distributing the average repair time. This step comprises 5 sub-steps:
step 1: and analyzing the equipment in the area, and constructing a factor set influencing the maintainability of the equipment.
Step 2: and according to different degrees of influencing the maintainability of the equipment, constructing a factor evaluation set as a basis for judging the grades of the influencing factors, wherein each evaluation grade corresponds to different scores, and the score is smaller as the maintainability is better.
Further, on the basis of the example of step three, the average repair time of military aircraft landing gear and landing gear door areas is assigned to the equipment within the area, and the maintainability influence factors of the equipment include a fault detection factor, an accessibility factor, a fault mode factor and a loading and unloading factor. The reference values of the various influencing factors and factor evaluations are as follows:
TABLE 8 Fault detection factors
| Type (B) | f1 | Description of the invention |
| Automatic | 1 | The equipment can automatically feed back when the equipment is in failure and give out warning |
| Semi-automatic | 3 | When equipment fails, the system displays abnormity, but cannot judge fault points, and needs to manually search |
| Artificial operation | 5 | The equipment is judged whether to have faults or not by means of manual periodical examination |
TABLE 9 reachability factor
| Type (B) | f2 | Description of the invention |
| Superior food | 1 | Can directly and clearly see each part of the fault unit |
| Good wine | 3 | Can directly find out the fault unit, but some parts of the fault unit are shielded |
| Difference (D) | 5 | The faulty unit is completely shielded by other units, and the operation of removing the other units is required |
TABLE 10 failure mode factor
| Type (B) | f3 | Description of the invention |
| Simple and easy | 1 | Single failure mode of equipment |
| Medium and high grade | 2 | The failure modes of the equipment are relatively complex and relate to three to five failure modes |
| Complexity of | 4 | The failure modes of the equipment are complex and more than five failure modes are involved |
TABLE 11 Loading factor
| Type (B) | f4 | Description of the invention |
| Simple and easy | 1 | The fault unit is light and can be assembled and disassembled by one person |
| In general | 4 | Heavy failure unit requiring multiple loading and unloading |
| Difficulty in | 6 | The size of the fault unit is large,must be loaded and unloaded by using equipment |
And step 3: the devices are scored based on the set of influencing factors and the set of evaluations.
And 4, step 4: and calculating a comprehensive weighting coefficient, wherein the value of the coefficient is related to the evaluation score and the average value of the evaluation score.
And 5: based on the results of the weighting coefficients and on given serviceability requirements, an average repair time is assigned to each cell.
The calculation formula of the above three substeps is as follows:
Fc＝∑[fxy] (11)
wherein, [ f ]xy]Y-th level f representing the x-th influencing factorxyCorresponding score, FcRepresents the maintenance weighting factor for unit c, S represents the total number of units,
representing the mean value of the maintenance weighting factors, lambda, of each cellcThe failure rate of the cell c is represented,
indicating the mean failure rate of each cellValue, betacRepresents the repair time integration weighting factor for cell c,
the overall average repair time is expressed in terms of,
the average repair time of cell c is shown.
Average repair time distribution for 10 units such as landing gear retraction handle, buffer strut, nose gear wheel, etc. in the landing gear and landing gear door area of military aircraft, average repair time in landing gear and landing gear door area is required
The known cell maintenance factors are shown in table 12.
TABLE 12 maintenance factors for each Unit
| Unit cell | Fault detection factor | Reachability factor | Failure mode factor | Loading and unloading factor | λc |
| Landing gear retraction handle | Semi-automatic | Good wine | Medium and high grade | Simple and easy | 5×10-4 |
| Buffer support | Artificial operation | Good wine | Simple and easy | Difficulty in | 7×10-4 |
| Front landing gear wheel | Artificial operation | Superior food | Medium and high grade | In general | 4×10-4 |
| Turning control valve | Semi-automatic | Difference (D) | Complexity of | Simple and easy | 2×10-4 |
| Main frame side stay bar that plays | Semi-automatic | Good wine | Simple and easy | Difficulty in | 3×10-4 |
| Pressure sensor | Automatic | Difference (D) | Complexity of | Simple and easy | 4×10-4 |
| Oil return one-way valve | Artificial operation | Good wine | Medium and high grade | Simple and easy | 8×10-4 |
| Emergency brake handle for shutdown | Artificial operation | Good wine | Medium and high grade | Simple and easy | 9×10-4 |
| Airplane wheel speed sensor | Automatic | Difference (D) | Complexity of | Simple and easy | 6×10-4 |
| Pedal brake sensor | Automatic | Difference (D) | Medium and high grade | Simple and easy | 2×10-4 |
The average repair time distribution results for each cell calculated according to the method of step four of the present invention are shown in table 13.
TABLE 13 mean repair time distribution results for each cell
Claims (1)
1. A product average repair time distribution method based on a region model is characterized by comprising the following steps:
the method comprises the following steps: performing region division based on the product 3-D model to construct a region model;
according to the basic principle that the maintenance cover is not overlapped in a crossing mode and not cut, the rules for dividing the product area model are determined, a rule set is formed and used as the basis for building the area model, the rule set can be marked as { rule 1, rule 2, … and rule n }, wherein rule t represents the t-th rule which is required to be met when the area model is built. The rule set is constructed to satisfy the following conditions:
(1) sorting according to the importance degree of the rule, namely, the importance degree of rule 1 is the highest, and the importance degree of rule n is the lowest;
(2) when the product can not meet all the division rules, the rules with the lowest importance degree can be deleted according to the order of the importance degree of the rules;
(3) different products can be divided into regions according to the rule set;
(4) conflict contradiction between all the rules is avoided;
step two: constructing an average repair time influence factor set and a factor evaluation set of the region model;
according to the structural characteristics of the region model, a factor set influencing the maintainability of the region is constructed and used as a basis for measuring the average repair time of the region, and the factor set can be recorded as { e }1,e2,…,emIn which ejRepresenting the jth maintenance influence factor;
according to the influence factor of the average repair time in the region modelThe degrees of the influence factors are different, a factor evaluation set is constructed and used as a basis for judging the levels of the influence factors, and the factor evaluation set can be marked as { ek1,ek2,…,ek10In which eklThe ith grade of the kth influencing factor is represented, each grade corresponds to different evaluation scores, and the factor evaluation set and the evaluation scores meet the following conditions:
(1) the evaluation score should be expected to be small, i.e., the better the maintainability, the smaller the number;
(2) evaluation set { ek1,ek2,…,ek10The corresponding evaluation score is {1,2, …,10 };
(3) when the influence factors are evaluated, a subset can be selected from the evaluation set for evaluation;
the evaluation set and the evaluation score correspondence are shown in table 1:
table 1 evaluation set and evaluation score results schematic
Step three: distributing the average repair time of the area;
and evaluating the region according to the region model influence factor set and the evaluation set, calculating the region weight, and distributing the average repair time. This step comprises 3 sub-steps:
step 1: grading the region based on the influence factor set and the evaluation set in the second step;
step 2: and calculating a regional comprehensive weighting coefficient based on the scoring result, wherein the calculation formula is as follows:
wherein, [ e ]kl]Class i level e representing the kth influencing factorklCorresponding score, EwA maintenance weighting factor representing the area w, N the total number of areas,
representing the mean value of the maintenance weighting factors, delta, of the respective zoneswThe failure rate of the region w is indicated,
representing the mean value of the failure rates of the respective zones, alphawRepresenting a repair time comprehensive weighting coefficient of the area w;
and step 3: according to the result of the weighting coefficient and the given average repair time requirement, the distribution of the area average repair time is carried out, and the distribution formula is as follows:
wherein the content of the first and second substances,
the average repair time of the whole system is shown,
represents the average repair time of the region w;
step four: distributing the average repair time of the devices in the region;
and taking the average repair time of the area obtained in the step three as constraint, analyzing and evaluating the condition of the equipment in the area according to the constructed area model, and distributing the average repair time. This step comprises 5 sub-steps:
step 1: analyzing the equipment in the area, and constructing a factor set influencing the maintainability of the equipment;
step 2: according to different degrees of influencing equipment maintainability, a factor evaluation set is constructed and used as a basis for judging the grades of the influencing factors, each evaluation grade corresponds to different scores, and the score is smaller as the maintainability is better;
and step 3: grading the equipment based on the influencing factor set and the evaluation set;
and 4, step 4: calculating a comprehensive weighting coefficient, wherein the value of the coefficient is related to the evaluation score and the average value of the evaluation score;
and 5: based on the results of the weighting coefficients and on given serviceability requirements, an average repair time is assigned to each cell.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202011231894.7A CN112488450B (en) | 2020-11-06 | 2020-11-06 | Product average repair time distribution method based on region model |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202011231894.7A CN112488450B (en) | 2020-11-06 | 2020-11-06 | Product average repair time distribution method based on region model |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN112488450A true CN112488450A (en) | 2021-03-12 |
| CN112488450B CN112488450B (en) | 2022-06-10 |
Family
ID=74928688
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202011231894.7A Active CN112488450B (en) | 2020-11-06 | 2020-11-06 | Product average repair time distribution method based on region model |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN112488450B (en) |
Citations (6)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JPH06124015A (en) * | 1992-10-12 | 1994-05-06 | Mita Ind Co Ltd | Image forming device provided with self-repairing function |
| CN105160126A (en) * | 2015-09-25 | 2015-12-16 | 西安航空制动科技有限公司 | Modeling method for mean repair time of airplane braking system |
| CN106096737A (en) * | 2016-05-31 | 2016-11-09 | 北京航空航天大学 | The distribution method of a kind of product prosthetic mean manhours to repair and device |
| CN110008570A (en) * | 2019-03-29 | 2019-07-12 | 中国人民解放军战略支援部队航天工程大学 | Equipment Maintainability and analysis of Influential Factors method based on GM Model Group |
| US20190220768A1 (en) * | 2017-05-16 | 2019-07-18 | Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School | Constructing topology for satisfying partition tolerance in consortium blockchain consensus |
| CN110503322A (en) * | 2019-08-13 | 2019-11-26 | 成都飞机工业（集团）有限责任公司 | A kind of Military Maintenance appraisal procedure |
-
2020
- 2020-11-06 CN CN202011231894.7A patent/CN112488450B/en active Active
Patent Citations (6)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JPH06124015A (en) * | 1992-10-12 | 1994-05-06 | Mita Ind Co Ltd | Image forming device provided with self-repairing function |
| CN105160126A (en) * | 2015-09-25 | 2015-12-16 | 西安航空制动科技有限公司 | Modeling method for mean repair time of airplane braking system |
| CN106096737A (en) * | 2016-05-31 | 2016-11-09 | 北京航空航天大学 | The distribution method of a kind of product prosthetic mean manhours to repair and device |
| US20190220768A1 (en) * | 2017-05-16 | 2019-07-18 | Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School | Constructing topology for satisfying partition tolerance in consortium blockchain consensus |
| CN110008570A (en) * | 2019-03-29 | 2019-07-12 | 中国人民解放军战略支援部队航天工程大学 | Equipment Maintainability and analysis of Influential Factors method based on GM Model Group |
| CN110503322A (en) * | 2019-08-13 | 2019-11-26 | 成都飞机工业（集团）有限责任公司 | A kind of Military Maintenance appraisal procedure |
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| CN112488450B (en) | 2022-06-10 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Lee | Risk assessment modeling in aviation safety management | |
| Qiang et al. | Reducing airplane boarding time by accounting for passengers' individual properties: a simulation based on cellular automaton | |
| CN108133083B (en) | Method for screening safety influence factors of space man-machine system | |
| EP2349839B1 (en) | A method of operating an aircraft fuel management system | |
| CN109814537A (en) | A kind of unmanned aerial vehicle station health evaluating method | |
| DE102010021638A1 (en) | Method for configuring and / or equipping a cabin of an aircraft | |
| DE102014101364A1 (en) | Method of predicting a horizontal stabilizer error | |
| DE102014101683A1 (en) | Method for monitoring hydraulic levels in an aircraft | |
| CN112488450B (en) | Product average repair time distribution method based on region model | |
| DE102015117181A1 (en) | An aircraft reconfigurator for reconfiguring an aircraft configuration | |
| CN103412986B (en) | A kind of aircraft regular inspection content optimization method analyzed based on failure-free data | |
| CN107085771A (en) | A kind of aircraft technology situation quantitative model and its construction method | |
| US11518546B2 (en) | Aircraft performance analysis system and method | |
| CN111829425B (en) | Health monitoring method and system for civil aircraft leading edge position sensor | |
| Zhang et al. | Impact analysis and classification of aircraft functional failures by using improved FHA based on gray correlation | |
| CN110889642A (en) | Helicopter cockpit display and alarm information priority ordering method | |
| CN114219220B (en) | Human-machine ergonomics assessment method, system, computer device and storage medium | |
| CN112528510B (en) | Method for predicting repairable aviation material spare parts based on life-extinction process model | |
| CN110991894A (en) | Basic reliability index comprehensive distribution method based on multiple distribution models | |
| CN108717502A (en) | Aircraft Design optimization method based on airworthiness directive multi dimensional analysis | |
| CN111721480B (en) | Civil aircraft unit oxygen system leakage early warning method based on flight data | |
| CN111553058B (en) | Multi-dimensional extensible hierarchical health assessment method for spacecraft | |
| CN110084516B (en) | Method for revising civil aviation segment operation time standard | |
| CN109255205B (en) | Complex mechanical system scheme design method based on function robustness | |
| Tyan et al. | Design-airworthiness integration method for general aviation aircraft during early development stage |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant |