Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Engineering Management

ISSN 2095-7513

ISSN 2096-0255(Online)

CN 10-1205/N

Postal Subscription Code 80-905

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Eng    2024, Vol. 11 Issue (1) : 16-31    https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-023-0282-0
Risk evaluation for the task transfer of an aircraft maintenance program based on a multielement connection number
Tao LIU1, Zhibo SHI1(), Huifen DONG1, Jie BAI2, Yu YAN1
1. College of Electronics Information and Automation, Civil Aviation University of China, Tianjin 300300, China
2. College of Airworthiness, Civil Aviation University of China, Tianjin 300300, China
 Download: PDF(5334 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

This paper proposes a framework for evaluating the efficacy and suitability of maintenance programs with a focus on quantitative risk assessment in the domain of aircraft maintenance task transfer. The analysis is anchored in the principles of Maintenance Steering Group-3 (MSG-3) logic decision paradigms. The paper advances a holistic risk assessment index architecture tailored for the task transfer of maintenance programs. Utilizing the analytic network process (ANP), the study quantifies the weight interrelationships among diverse variables, incorporating expert-elicited subjective weighting. A multielement connection number-based evaluative model is employed to characterize decision-specific data, thereby facilitating the quantification of task transfer-associated risk through the appraisal of set-pair potentials. Moreover, the paper conducts a temporal risk trend analysis founded on partial connection numbers of varying orders. This analytical construct serves to streamline the process of risk assessment pertinent to maintenance program task transfer. The empirical component of this research, exemplified through a case study of the Boeing 737NG aircraft maintenance program, corroborates the methodological robustness and pragmatic applicability of the proposed framework in the quantification and analysis of mission transfer risk.
Keywords risk evaluation      maintenance steering group      analytic network process      task transfer      maintenance program     
Corresponding Author(s): Zhibo SHI   
Just Accepted Date: 22 November 2023   Online First Date: 27 December 2023    Issue Date: 13 March 2024
 Cite this article:   
Tao LIU,Zhibo SHI,Huifen DONG, et al. Risk evaluation for the task transfer of an aircraft maintenance program based on a multielement connection number[J]. Front. Eng, 2024, 11(1): 16-31.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.1007/s42524-023-0282-0
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2024/V11/I1/16
Fig.1  Flow chart of task transfer for aircraft maintenance program.
Fig.2  Research design and key steps.
Parameter Description
N A total number of representational properties
S Number of identical properties
P Number of contrary properties
F The number of properties that are neither contrary nor identical
μ The degree of connection of the set pair
n Multielement connection number
a The degree of identical
b The partial identical component in discrepancy
c The neutrality component in discrepancy
d The partial contrary component in discrepancy
e The degree of contrary
W A supermatrix
Wij A matrix of all network element ranking weights
Bs A judgment matrix
U A five-level reliability assessment semantic set
μ+ The set pair connection degree for task transfer reliability assessment
Pr The probability of task for transfer risk
λ The correction factor for the probability of task transfer risk
Tab.1  Notation list
Target risk 1st level factors 2nd level factors
Aircraft maintenance program task transfer risk status Density Number of parts
Inspection difficulty
Importance Security influence
Economic effect
Exposure degree Temperature
Vibration
Liquid
External object damage
Weather
Ground operation equipment
Manpower/Personnel Inspection interval
Work proficiency
Tab.2  Factor set of risk index for maintenance task transfer target
Fig.3  ANP model structure.
Task number of zonal inspection Task number of system inspection Task number of structure inspection
32-800-00 32-30-1.10, 32-30-1.2B, 32-30-1.4B, 32-30-1.5, 32-30-1.9, 32-30-6.1, 32-30-6.2, 32-30-6.3, 32-30-6.8, 32-30-6.9, 32-50-1.2, 32-50-1.3 32-21-01, 32-21-02, 32-21-03, 32-21-04, 32-21-05, 32-21-06
Tab.3  Boeing 737NG maintenance task transfer data
1st level factor Weight 2nd level factor Weight
Density 0.1009 Number of parts 0.0274
Inspection difficulty 0.0735
Importance 0.5257 Security influence 0.2855
Economic effect 0.2402
Exposure degree 0.1399 Temperature 0.0040
Vibration 0.0024
Liquid 0.0024
External object damage 0.0455
Weather 0.0069
Ground operation equipment 0.0787
Manpower/Personnel 0.2335 Inspection interval 0.1636
Work proficiency 0.0699
Tab.4  Weight of task transfer risk factors calculated according to ANP
2nd level factor Reliability level assessment data
Extremely improbable Extremely remote Remote Reasonably probable Frequent
Number of parts 4 2 3 1 0
Inspection difficulty 6 2 1 1 0
Security influence 1 6 1 2 0
Economic effect 5 2 1 1 1
Temperature 1 1 2 5 1
Vibration 2 2 1 5 0
Liquid 3 2 2 2 1
External object damage 1 1 1 5 2
Weather 8 1 1 0 0
Ground operation equipment 9 1 0 0 0
Inspection interval 6 2 1 1 0
Work proficiency 4 2 2 1 1
Tab.5  Assessment of reliability level for maintenance task transfer
2nd level factor Normalization of the risk level assessment data
Low risk Relatively low risk Moderate risk Relatively high risk High risk
Number of parts 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0
Inspection difficulty 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0
Security influence 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.2 0
Economic effect 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Temperature 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1
Vibration 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0
Liquid 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1
External object damage 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2
Weather 0.8 0.1 0.1 0 0
Ground operation equipment 0.9 0.1 0 0 0
Inspection interval 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0
Work proficiency 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1
Tab.6  Normalization of the risk level assessment data
2nd level factor Multielement connection number Partial connection coefficient
Weight Five-element connection number Situation 1st-order Trend
Number of parts 0.2716 0.40 + 0.20i + 0.30j + 0.10k + 0.00l Same 0.67 + 0.40i + 0.75j + 1.00k Decline
Inspection difficulty 0.7284 0.60 + 0.20i + 0.10j + 0.10k + 0.00l Same 0.75 + 0.67i + 0.50j + 1.00k Decline
Total 1.0000 0.55 + 0.20i + 0.15j + 0.10k + 0.00l Same 0.73 + 0.56i + 0.61j + 1.00k Decline
Security influence 0.5431 0.10 + 0.60i + 0.10j + 0.20k + 0.00l Balance 0.14 + 0.86i + 0.33j + 1.00k Decline
Economic effect 0.4569 0.50 + 0.20i + 0.10j + 0.10k + 0.00l Same 0.71 + 0.67i + 0.50j + 0.50k Increasing
Total 1.0000 0.28 + 0.42i + 0.10j + 0.15k + 0.05l Same 0.40 + 0.81i + 0.39j + 0.77k Decline
Temperature 0.0287 0.10 + 0.10i + 0.20j + 0.50k + 0.10l Reverse 0.50 + 0.33i + 0.29j + 0.83k Decline
Vibration 0.0171 0.20 + 0.20i + 0.10j + 0.50k + 0.10l Same 0.50 + 0.67i + 0.17j + 0.83k Decline
Liquid 0.0171 0.30 + 0.20i + 0.20j + 0.20k + 0.10l Same 0.60 + 0.50i + 0.67j + 0.50k Increasing
External object damage 0.3254 0.10 + 0.10i + 0.10j + 0.50k + 0.20l Balance 0.50 + 0.50i + 0.17j + 0.71k Decline
Weather 0.0492 0.80 + 0.10i + 0.10j + 0.00k + 0.00l Same 0.89 + 0.50i + 1.00j + 1.00k Decline
Ground operation equipment 0.5625 0.90 + 0.10i + 0.00j + 0.00k + 0.00l Same 0.90 + 1.00i + 1.00j + 1.00k Decline
Total 1.0000 0.59 + 0.10i + 0.05j + 0.19k + 0.07l Same 0.85 + 0.68i + 0.21j + 0.72k Increasing
Inspection interval 0.7006 0.60 + 0.20i + 0.10j + 0.10k + 0.00l Same 0.75 + 0.67i + 0.50j + 1.00k Decline
Work proficiency 0.2994 0.40 + 0.20i + 0.20j + 0.10k + 0.10l Same 0.67 + 0.50i + 0.67j + 0.50k Increasing
Total 1.0000 0.54 + 0.20i + 0.13j + 0.10k + 0.03l Same 0.73 + 0.61i + 0.57j + 0.77k Decline
System total 1.0000 0.41 + 0.30i + 0.11j + 0.14k + 0.04l Same 0.58 + 0.74i + 0.43j + 0.77k Decline
Tab.7  Value of connection number and the first-order partial connection coefficient of the maintenance task transfer risk
2nd level factor Partial connection coefficient
2nd-order Trend 3rd-order Trend 4th-order Trend
Number of parts 0.63 + 0.35i + 0.43j Decline 0.64 + 0.45i Increasing 0.59 Increasing
Inspection difficulty 0.53 + 0.57i + 0.33j Decline 0.48 + 0.63i Decline 0.43 Increasing
Total 0.56 + 0.48i + 0.38j Decline 0.54 + 0.56i Decline 0.49 Increasing
Security influence 014 + 0.72i + 0.25j Decline 0.17 + 0.74i Decline 0.18 Increasing
Economic effect 0.51 + 0.57i + 0.50j Decline 0.48 + 0.53i Decline 0.47 Increasing
Total 0.33 + 0.67i + 0.34j Decline 0.33 + 0.67i Decline 0.33 Increasing
Temperature 0.60 + 0.54i + 0.26j Decline 0.53 + 0.69i Decline 0.43 Increasing
Vibration 0.43 + 0.80i + 0.17j Decline 0.35 + 0.83i Decline 0.30 Increasing
Liquid 0.55 + 0.43i + 0.57j Decline 0.56 + 0.43i Increasing 0.57 Increasing
External object damage 0.50 + 0.75i + 0.19j Decline 0.40 + 0.80i Decline 0.33 Increasing
Weather 0.64 + 0.33i + 0.50j Decline 0.66 + 0.40i Increasing 0.62 Increasing
Ground operation equipment 0.47 + 0.50i + 0.50j Decline 0.49 + 0.50i Decline 0.49 Increasing
Total 0.56 + 0.77i + 0.22j Decline 0.42 + 0.78i Decline 0.35 Increasing
Inspection interval 0.53 + 0.57i + 0.33j Decline 0.48 + 0.50i Decline 0.43 Increasing
Work proficiency 0.57 + 0.43i + 0.57j Decline 0.57 + 0.43i Increasing 0.57 Increasing
Total 0.55 + 0.52i + 0.42j Decline 0.51 + 0.55i Decline 0.48 Increasing
System total 0.44 + 0.63i + 0.36j Decline 0.41 + 0.64i Decline 0.39 Increasing
Tab.8  Calculation table of the second-, third-, and fourth-order partial connection coefficients of maintenance task transfer risk
Probability/h 1.0 1.0 × 10−3 1.0 × 10−5 1.0 × 10−7 1.0 × 10−9
Quantifying risk levels EASA Frequent(level 10) Reasonably probable(level 7) Remote(level 5) Extremely remote(level 3) Extremely improbable(level 1)
FAA Likely(level 7) Unlikely(level 4) Extremely unlikely(level 1)
Tab.9  Standard for quantifying risk levels in airworthiness regulations
Fig.4  Quantitative assessment of risk level for maintenance task transfer.
Fig.5  Trend of the coefficient of the five-element connection number with relative weight.
Fig.6  Trend of the 1st-order partial connection coefficient with relative weight.
1 A Azadeh, S M Asadzadeh, M Tanhaeean, (2017). A consensus-based AHP for improved assessment of resilience engineering in maintenance organizations. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 47: 151–160
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2017.02.028
2 W H BaiH F Zuo (2011). Study on making method of civil aircraft’s maintenance review board report based on CBR. In: Proceedings of Prognostics and System Health Management Conference. Shenzhen: IEEE, 1–5
3 Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) (2006). AC–121/135–67 Maintenance Review Committee and Maintenance Program (in Chinese)
4 W Chen, S Huang, (2015). Human reliability analysis for aviation maintenance based on Bayesian network. Journal of Safety and Environment, 15( 1): 48–52
5 Y DuanL Yuan (2015). Risk assessment of aviation maintenance error based on set pair analysis and BP neural network. In: Proceedings of 5th International Asia Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Innovation. Paris: Atlantis Press, 299–303
6 S O DuffuaaA Raouf (2015). Planning and Control of Maintenance Systems: Modeling and Analysis. Cham: Springer
7 J Gao, J Duanmu, B Zhang, J Yang, (2014). Identification and analysis of organizational factors affecting aircraft maintenance safety. China Safety Science Journal, 24( 5): 32–37
8 J Insley, C Turkoglu, (2020). A contemporary analysis of aircraft maintenance-related accidents and serious incidents. Aerospace, 7( 6): 81–107
https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace7060081
9 B H Jia, Y B Liu, X Lu, S Tong, (2018). Model for determining maintenance intervals of aircraft structural with low utilization. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 39( 1): 220–230
10 V S V Junqueira, M S Nagano, H H Miyata, (2020). Procedure structuring for programming aircraft maintenance activities. Revista de Gestão, 27( 1): 2–20
https://doi.org/10.1108/REGE-02-2018-0026
11 A Kucuk Yilmaz, (2019). Strategic approach to managing human factors risk in aircraft maintenance organization: Risk mapping. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 91( 4): 654–668
https://doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-06-2018-0160
12 K Kumar, H Garg, (2018). Connection number of set pair analysis based TOPSIS method on intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their application to decision making. Applied Intelligence, 48( 8): 2112–2119
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-017-1067-0
13 A Liu, S N Fu, Z H Xiao, (2019). Study on risk assessment of overseas merger and acquisition knowledge integration based on character-weighted set pair. Cluster Computing, 22( 2): 2689–2700
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-017-1431-1
14 L T Ostrom, C A Wilhelmsen, (2008). Developing risk models for aviation maintenance and inspection. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 18( 1): 30–42
https://doi.org/10.1080/10508410701749407
15 J A Pontecorvo (1984). MSG-3: A Method for Maintenance Program Planning. SAE Technical Paper 841485
16 A Regattieri, A Giazzi, M Gamberi, R Gamberini, (2015). An innovative method to optimize the maintenance policies in an aircraft: General framework and case stud. Journal of Air Transport Management, 44: 8–20
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2015.02.001
17 H RenX Chen Y Chen (2017). Reliability Based Aircraft Maintenance Optimization and Applications. Salt Lake City, UT: Academic Press
18 P Samaranayake, S Kiridena, (2012). Aircraft maintenance planning and scheduling: An integrated framework. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 18( 4): 432–453
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511211281598
19 Z J Shi, H W Wang, X Wang, (2016). Risk state evaluation of aviation maintenance based on multiple connection number set pair analysis. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 38( 3): 588–594
20 J Sun, D Chen, C Li, H Yan, (2018). Integration of scheduled structural health monitoring with airline maintenance program based on risk analysis. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 232( 1): 92–104
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X17742777
21 A van Horenbeek, L Pintelon, (2014). Development of a maintenance performance measurement framework: Using the analytic network process (ANP) for maintenance performance indicator selection. Omega, 42( 1): 33–46
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2013.02.006
22 H WangX MaoF Dong (2010). Application of five-element connection number on the comprehensive impact evaluation of water-saving renovation in irrigation area. In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery. Yantai: IEEE, 994–997
23 T Wang, J Chen, T Wang, S Wang, (2015). Entropy weight-set pair analysis based on tracer techniques for dam leakage investigation. Natural Hazards, 76( 2): 747–767
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1515-7
24 L Xie, R Wei, S Sun, M Lin, J Xiao, (2017). Individual forecast set pair analysis and combination modeling of ship equipment maintenance cost. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 39( 10): 2264–2269
25 E Yazgan, (2018). Development taxonomy of human risk factors for corporate sustainability in aviation sector. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 90( 6): 1012–1022
https://doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-04-2018-0133
26 Y F Zhao, J Q Wan, (2018). On the operational risk assessment of the air traffic control based on the set pair analysis method. Journal of Safety and Environment, 18( 3): 871–875
27 N Zimmermann, F A C Mendonca, (2021). The impact of human factors and maintenance documentation on aviation safety: An analysis of 15 years of accident data through the PEAR framework. Collegiate Aviation Review International, 39( 2): 1–25
https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.22.100230
28 H F ZuoJ CaiH WuZ X Chen (2011). Aviation Maintenance Engineering. Beijing: Science Press (in Chinese)
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed