Maintenance and repair: a comparison of three optimization methods for scheduling maintenance of high cost, long-lived capital assets

Authors:
Terry M. Helm;Steve W. Painter;W. Robert Oakes
Affiliations:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM;Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM;Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM
Venue:
Proceedings of the 34th conference on Winter simulation: exploring new frontiers
Year:
2002

Citing 1
Cited 1

Program Does Not Equal Program: Constraint Programming and Its Relationship to Mathematical Programming

Interfaces

An approach for QoS-aware service composition based on genetic algorithms

GECCO '05 Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

A range of minimization methods exist enabling planners to tackle tough scheduling problems. We compare three scheduling techniques representative of "old" or standard technologies, evolving technologies, and advanced technologies. The problem we address includes the complications of scheduling long-term upgrades and refurbishments essential to maintaining expensive capital assets. We concentrate on the costs of being able to do maintenance work. Using a standard technology as the baseline technique, Constraint Programming (CP) produces a 50-yr maintenance approach that is 31% less costly. Genetic Programming produces an approach that is 60% less costly.