<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection>
<dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:invenio="http://invenio-software.org/elements/1.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd"><dc:identifier>doi:10.1109/TR.2015.2417431</dc:identifier><dc:language>eng</dc:language><dc:creator>Berrade, M. D.</dc:creator><dc:creator>Scarf, P. A.</dc:creator><dc:creator>Cavalcante, C. A. V.</dc:creator><dc:title>Some insights into the effect of maintenance quality for a protection system</dc:title><dc:identifier>ART-2015-90813</dc:identifier><dc:description>This paper considers an inspection and preventive replacement policy for a one-component protection or cold standby system. Inspection is imperfect, and subject to false positives and negatives; preventive replacement may also be of poor quality. We determine conditions relating to the quality of the inspection and preventive replacement under which a maintained system would not benefit from the execution of inspections and preventive maintenance. We present examples with decreasing failure rate component lifetimes in which preventive replacement is cost-optimal, contrary to the classic policy. Such cases arise when inspections do not necessarily detect the failed state.</dc:description><dc:date>2015</dc:date><dc:source>http://zaguan.unizar.es/record/129498</dc:source><dc:doi>10.1109/TR.2015.2417431</dc:doi><dc:identifier>http://zaguan.unizar.es/record/129498</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>oai:zaguan.unizar.es:129498</dc:identifier><dc:identifier.citation>IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON RELIABILITY 64, 2 (2015), 661-672</dc:identifier.citation><dc:rights>by</dc:rights><dc:rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/</dc:rights><dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights></dc:dc>

</collection>