energies

Article
Preventive Maintenance Strategy Optimization in
Manufacturing System Considering Energy Efficiency and
Quality Cost
Liang Yang 1 , Qinming Liu 1, * , Tangbin Xia 2 , Chunming Ye 1 and Jiaxiang Li 1

1 Department of Industrial Engineering, Business School, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology,
516 Jungong Road, Shanghai 200093, China
2 State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration, School of Mechanical Engineering,
Shanghai JiaoTong University, SJTU-Fraunhofer Center, Shanghai 200240, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Climate change is a serious challenge facing the world today. Countries are already
working together to control carbon emissions and mitigate global warming. Improving energy
efficiency is currently one of the main carbon reduction measures proposed by the international
community. Within this context, improving energy efficiency in manufacturing systems is crucial to
achieving green and low-carbon transformation. The aim of this work is to develop a new preventive
maintenance strategy model. The novelty of the model is that it takes into account energy efficiency,
maintenance cost, product quality, and the impact of recycling defective products on energy efficiency.
Based on the relationship between preventive maintenance cost, operating energy consumption, and
failure rate, the correlation coefficient is introduced to obtain the variable preventive maintenance
cost and variable operating energy consumption. Then, the cost and energy efficiency models are
established, respectively, and finally, the Pareto optimal solution is found by the nondominated
Citation: Yang, L.; Liu, Q.; Xia, T.; Ye,
sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGAII). The results show that the preventive maintenance strategy
C.; Li, J. Preventive Maintenance proposed in this paper is better than the general maintenance strategy and more relevant to the actual
Strategy Optimization in situation of manufacturing systems. The scope of the research in this paper can support the decision
Manufacturing System Considering of making energy savings and emission reductions in the manufacturing industry, which makes the
Energy Efficiency and Quality Cost. production, maintenance, quality, and architecture of the manufacturing industry optimized.
Energies 2022, 15, 8237. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en15218237 Keywords: preventive maintenance; energy efficiency; quality cost; multiobjective optimization;
Academic Editors: Brian D. Fath and manufacturing system
Nicu Bizon

Received: 17 August 2022

Accepted: 2 November 2022
1. Introduction
Published: 4 November 2022
Climate change is a serious challenge facing the world today. Since the industrial
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral revolution, energy consumption has increased year by year. With the increase in carbon
with regard to jurisdictional claims in dioxide emissions, the global temperature is gradually rising. Carbon dioxide-based
published maps and institutional affil-
greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of global warming [1,2]. Thus, controlling
iations.
carbon emissions and mitigating global warming has become an important global issue
and is gradually becoming a global consensus. Taking China as an example, to cope with
climate change, carbon peaking and carbon neutrality goals have been proposed to promote
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
the construction of an ecological civilization and achieve high-quality development [3].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
By comparing the carbon emissions of various industries, it can be found that the man-
This article is an open access article
ufacturing industry has long accounted for a large proportion, with relevant data showing
distributed under the terms and that over 70% of the carbon dioxide emissions from China come from industrial production
conditions of the Creative Commons or generative emissions [4,5]. As a result, industry, especially the manufacturing sector,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// has become the main battleground for reducing carbon emissions in China and the key to
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ achieving carbon peak and neutrality targets. As the main body of the national economy,
4.0/). the manufacturing industry needs to carry out green and low-carbon transformation and

Energies 2022, 15, 8237. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15218237 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, 8237 2 of 18

development to achieve carbon peak and neutrality targets and realize green manufacturing
and intelligent manufacturing [6]. Hassan T et al. [7] found that technology to improve
energy efficiency is a crucial method to achieve lower carbon emissions and mitigate global
warming. Thus, it is critical to improve energy efficiency in the manufacturing system.
Energy consumption in manufacturing is mainly from production equipment. Thus,
we need to pay close attention to the energy efficiency of production equipment. Mainte-
nance plays a crucial role in the normal operation of equipment, and maintenance activities
affect the reliability of equipment, indirectly affecting the energy efficiency of the equipment.
For this reason, it is crucial to take into account energy efficiency in the optimization of main-
tenance strategies, gradually achieving a transition from condition-centered maintenance
to energy-centered maintenance [8]. Many maintenance methods have been proposed
in previous studies, such as breakdown maintenance where maintenance is performed
after the equipment has failed to return to its normal function. However, this type of
maintenance can affect the production schedule, so preventive maintenance is proposed,
which predicts the status of equipment and maintains the equipment in advance to keep
it in continuous production [9]. As the detailed literature review below shows, there is a
wide range of literature that focuses on the cost of preventive maintenance and the quality
of the products produced by the equipment. However, only a few focus on the energy
consumption and environmental impact of maintenance, and even fewer articles combine
cost, quality, and energy consumption. This paper proposes a new preventive maintenance
strategy model. The innovation of this paper is that not only the cost is considered in
maintenance activities but also the quality loss cost is introduced to constrain the product
quality of equipment, the energy consumption is modeled and calculated, and the recovery
of defective products is taken into account. The maximization of energy efficiency and
the minimization of maintenance costs are taken as the overall optimization objectives to
develop the maintenance strategy.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a short litera-
ture review and shows the contributions of this paper. Section 3 describes the problems
associated with equipment maintenance and makes some assumptions about the model.
Section 4, a multiobjective decision model is constructed in four steps based on identifying
decision variables and optimization objectives and then solved according to the NSGAII
algorithmic process. Section 5 validates the model using a numerical case. Conclusions,
managerial impacts, and future research scopes are discussed in Section 6.

2. Literature Review
Quality control in equipment maintenance has been studied by scholars for a long time.
The relationship between maintenance and quality is discussed, and a broad framework
is proposed. Two approaches to connecting and modeling this relationship are discussed
in the article. The first approach is based on the idea that maintenance affects the failure
modes of the equipment and that it should be modeled with the concept of imperfect
maintenance. The second approach is based on the quality approach of Taguchi [10].
Subsequent scholars began to link maintenance and quality closely together. On the one
hand, excessive maintenance can lead to unnecessary costs. On the other hand, if the
equipment is not correctly maintained, this will lead to failures and result in defective
products. In an integrated model of maintenance and quality, the literature [11] correlates
the failure rate of equipment with the quality of the product to obtain a function of the
variation of the product quality. The control of quality is also reflected in costs such as
quality loss and maintenance thresholds, and these models can minimize the total cost and
ensure high quality products [12–14].
Scholars have researched energy consumption and environmental impact in equip-
ment maintenance. Jiang et al. [15] considered the ecological impact of equipment degra-
dation, the excessive emissions of equipment, and the energy consumption and obtained
maintenance thresholds and inspection intervals that were optimal considering energy
consumption and CO2 emissions by minimizing the average expected cost. Tlili et al. [16]
Energies 2022, 15, 8237 3 of 18

considered the penalties to be incurred when equipment degradation exceeds a critical level
and developed two inspection strategies (periodic and nonperiodic), with separate preven-
tive maintenance thresholds and inspection sequences obtained to reduce cost. Chouikhi
et al. [17] proposed a condition-based maintenance strategy for production systems to
reduce excess greenhouse gas emissions, translated environmental constraints into mainte-
nance thresholds, and determined optimal maintenance inspection cycles by minimizing
maintenance costs. Huang et al. [18] developed a data-driven model from the date of
distributed sensors to integrate energy conversation and maintenance to determine the
optimal level of maintenance. Liu et al. [19] considered the maintenance of wind turbines
and correlated energy consumption with the operating costs of equipment to obtain a
maintenance strategy by minimizing the expected costs. Horenbeek et al. [20] developed an
economic and ecological analysis tool covering a wide range of maintenance policies. The
model developed was validated using the example of a turning machine tool. Saez et al. [21]
studied the relationship between production environment, quality, reliability, productivity,
and energy consumption and proposed a modeling framework for manufacturing systems
that integrates systems, machines, and parts.
The above studies are based on the maintenance cost, where the energy consumption
and the environmental impact are regarded as the threshold or other influencing factors
in the maintenance cost. The modeling and calculation of the specific energy consump-
tion of equipment are not involved. In terms of modeling the energy consumption of
equipment, Yan et al. [22] proposed a method for modelling the energy consumption of a
machine tool, using the model to obtain the energy consumption of the machine tool during
and after maintenance and converting the energy consumption into carbon emissions,
thus effectively controlling the impact on the environment. Zhou et al. [23] analyzed the
energy consumption of machine tools commonly found in manufacturing, dividing the
machine tool energy consumption model into three parts: a linear cutting energy model,
a process-oriented machining energy model, and cutting energy consumption for vari-
ous specific parameters. After summarizing the power consumption characteristics of
heavy machine tools, Shang et al. [24] developed a generic power consumption model for
heavy machine tools to predict the power consumption and assess the energy consumption
state and developed corresponding energy saving strategies, but they did not take into
account the variation of energy consumption. Zhou and Yi [25] have linked energy con-
sumption to equipment degradation, elaborated on the variability of energy consumption,
and introduced energy quality thresholds to create an energy-oriented decision model.
Mawson and Hughes [26] used new technologies such as digital twins to simulate the
energy consumption of equipment. Using a digital twin strategy, Bermeo-Ayerbe et al. [27]
proposed an online data-driven energy consumption model. Xia et al. [28] modelled the
energy consumption of machine tools and tools and proposed an energy-oriented machine
tool maintenance and tool replacement strategy to save energy. Aramcharoen and Ma-
tivenga [29] carried out a detailed analysis and calculation of the energy consumption of
the entire process of machining a machine, including machine start-up, workpiece set-up,
machine warm-up, tool change and cutting, and machine shutdown.
In terms of the energy efficiency calculation of equipment, Zhou et al. [30] proposed
the concept of effective energy efficiency by considering the energy saving opportunities
arising from machine downtime, obtained the optimal maintenance threshold based on
the energy saving opportunity window to maximize energy efficiency, and verified the
superiority of the model by comparison. Xia et al. [31] modeled the energy attributes
to obtain the multiattribute model (MAM), used the energy savings window (ESW) and
constructed the MAM-ESW maintenance policy model by considering energy consumption,
mass production, and maintenance. Brundage et al. [32] proposed a control scheme where
energy opportunity windows were inserted into various machines to reduce the energy
consumption and increase profits. Xia et al. [33] proposed a selective maintenance model for
energy-oriented series-parallel systems to find a maintenance strategy for each equipment
to maximize the energy efficiency. Hoang et al. [34] defined the concepts of the energy
Energies 2022, 15, 8237 4 of 18

efficiency index (EEI) and remaining energy-efficient lifetime (REEL), calculated the various
energy consumptions of equipment, and constructed a model to maximize the energy
efficiency index. Frigerio and Matta [35] proposed an aggregate control policy framework
that determines the optimal control policy by calculating the energy consumption in each
machine state and minimizing the expected energy required by the equipment.
The above literature analysis shows that fewer studies integrate equipment mainte-
nance costs, energy efficiency, and product quality, which still need more attention and
research. Most of the existing papers examined several of these components. The main
contributions of this article include: (1) a preventive maintenance decision optimization
model that takes into account energy efficiency, product quality, and maintenance cost with
preventive maintenance thresholds and maintenance efficiency as decision variables; (2) a
link between preventive maintenance costs, equipment operation energy consumption,
and equipment failure rates to obtain more realistic variable preventive maintenance costs
and variable operation energy consumption; (3) a recovery model for defective products
produced by equipment to reduce energy consumption, which describes the reduction in
the number of defective products to be recovered as the equipment degrades by introducing
a recovery factor.

3. Problem Description and Hypotheses

3.1. Problem Description
In reality, equipment cannot be restored to a new health state after use; it is in con-
tinuous degradation, and the failure probability of equipment is increasing. The failure
rate function of equipment can be obtained by simulating the historical data of equip-
ment. The degradation of equipment failure rate is influenced by controllable factors such
as maintenance activities and production schedules and uncontrollable factors such as
changes in the production environment. The specific impact of maintenance activities
will be described in the hypothesis section, and the impact of the production schedule on
equipment degradation can be obtained through historical data analysis. As for the impact
of environmental changes in the field, only the degradation of equipment under normal
environmental conditions is considered in this paper because the environment in which
equipment is located varies and is full of randomness.
Generally speaking, the life cycle of production equipment is relatively long. For
the convenience of calculation, the time interval between the brand-new condition of
equipment and the next replacement is selected as a period to be considered in this paper.
During the operational cycle of equipment, only three maintenance actions are adopted,
including breakdown maintenance, preventive maintenance, and replacement, as shown
in Figure 1. The different conditions of equipment will determine the adopted type of
maintenance actions, and the effect of each type of maintenance varies. When equipment
reliability reaches the preventive maintenance threshold, preventive maintenance will be
executed, and equipment cannot be restored to a new health state but a state between the
new state and the state before adopting maintenance. Breakdown maintenance occurs when
equipment fails during preventive maintenance intervals. It is impossible that preventive
maintenance is always carried out when the number of preventive maintenance reaches a
certain amount. The equipment needs to be replaced to reduce the maintenance cost and
improve energy efficiency.
Similarly, in actual production, the product quality decreases as the equipment de-
grades, and as the equipment continues to operate, the number of defective products will
increase, resulting in a large portion of the cost of quality loss. Therefore, the problem
of recycling defective products is considered in this paper by introducing the recovery
coefficient because recycling defective products can save a part of the energy consumption.
Energies 2022,
Energies 15, x8237
2022, 15, FOR PEER REVIEW 5 5ofof19
18

First Second Third The Nth

Replace
PM PM PM PM
T1 T2 T3 TN+1

Failure rate

Stage

Figure 1.
Figure Thevariation
1. The variationin
in equipment
equipment failure
failure rates
rates and
and maintenance
maintenance actions.
actions.

3.2. Assumptions
Similarly, in actual production, the product quality decreases as the equipment de-
grades,When
andequipment fails during
as the equipment the preventive
continues to operate,maintenance
the numberperiod, it is supposed
of defective productsto be
will
shut down for breakdown maintenance. The time and cost of breakdown maintenance
increase, resulting in a large portion of the cost of quality loss. Therefore, the problem of are
fixed, anddefective
recycling the breakdown
products maintenance
is consideredwill
in not
thischange
paper by theintroducing
failure ratethe
of the equipment.
recovery coef-
By adopting maintenance, equipment will return to the state before failure.
ficient because recycling defective products can save a part of the energy consumption.
(1) Preventive maintenance is required when equipment reliability reaches the threshold,
and the equipment is in a standby state during maintenance. The cost continues to
3.2. Assumptions
increase
When with the fails
equipment degradation of equipment,
during the preventive and the healthperiod,
maintenance state ofitequipment
is supposed after
to
maintenance cannot be repaired to a like-new state.
be shut down for breakdown maintenance. The time and cost of breakdown maintenance
(2) When the number of preventive maintenance reaches N, equipment will be shut down
are fixed, and the breakdown maintenance will not change the failure rate of the equip-
for replacement at the time of the next preventive maintenance. The time and cost
ment. By adopting maintenance, equipment will return to the state before failure.
of replacement are fixed, and the health state of the equipment is restored to a brand
(1) Preventive maintenance is required when equipment reliability reaches the thresh-
new condition after replacement.
old, and the equipment is in a standby state during maintenance. The cost continues
(3) Equipment-operating energy consumption is variable and increases with degradation.
to increase with the degradation of equipment, and the health state of equipment
After equipment is shut down and restarted, it needs a warm-up time, expressed as
after maintenance cannot be repaired to a like-new state.
the time required for equipment to run from power to normal operation.
(2) When the number of preventive maintenance reaches N, equipment will be shut
(4) During the production of equipment, the rate of defective products produced increases
down for replacement at the time of the next preventive maintenance. The time and
with degradation.
cost of replacement are fixed, and the health state of the equipment is restored to a
brand new
4. Modeling of condition after replacement.
the Maintenance Strategy Optimization
(3) Equipment-operating energy
The multiobjective maintenance consumption is variable
model considering and increases
equipment with degrada-
energy efficiency under
tion. After equipment is shut down and restarted, it needs a warm-up time,
the variable of cost is described as follows: first, the degradation failure model of equipment expressed
as the time
is developed byrequired
using thefor equipment
Weibull to run from
distribution power to normal
and introducing operation.
the failure increasing rate
(4) During the production of equipment, the rate of defective products
factor and the age reduction factor to simulate the degradation process. Furthermore, produced in-
based
creases with degradation.
on the relationship between the reliability and failure rate, preventive maintenance intervals
are calculated, which lays the foundation for the construction of equipment cost model and
4. Modeling
energy of themodel.
efficiency Maintenance
Then, theStrategy
variableOptimization
cost model is developed by considering the
cost The multiobjective
of different maintenance
maintenance model
activities considering
of equipment equipment
and consideringenergy efficiency
the quality lossun-
of
der the variable
the products of cost by
produced is the
described as follows:
equipment. Third, first, the degradation
by calculating failure
the energy model of
consumption
equipment
of equipmentis developed by using
in each state the Weibull
to obtain the totaldistribution and introducing
energy consumption the failure the
and introducing in-
creasing
recoveryrate factor and
coefficient the age
to obtain thereduction factor to
effective output of simulate
equipment, thethe
degradation process.model
energy efficiency Fur-
of equipment
thermore, based is constructed. Fourth, between
on the relationship the decision
the variables
reliabilityand
andoptimization
failure rate, goals of the
preventive
proposed model
maintenance are determined
intervals to build
are calculated, a multiobjective
which decision-making
lays the foundation model. Finally,
for the construction of
the NSGAIIcost
equipment algorithm
model is selected,
and energyand the model
efficiency is solved
model. Then,based on the algorithm
the variable cost modelprocess.
is de-
The modeling
veloped of the maintenance
by considering the cost of strategy
differentoptimization
maintenanceprocess is of
activities shown in Figure
equipment and2.con-
sidering the quality loss of the products produced by the equipment. Third, by calculating
 the energy consumption of equipment in each state to obtain the total energy consumption
and introducing the recovery coefficient to obtain the effective output of equipment, the
energy efficiency model of equipment is constructed. Fourth, the decision variables and
optimization goals of the proposed model are determined to build a multiobjective deci-
sion-making model. Finally, the NSGAII algorithm is selected, and the model is solved
Energies 2022, 15, 8237 6 of 18
based on the algorithm process. The modeling of the maintenance strategy optimization
process is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Modeling of the maintenance strategy optimization process.

Figure 2. Modeling of the maintenance strategy optimization process.
4.1.Degradation
4.1. DegradationFailure
Failure Model
Model
Theperformance
The performance of of equipment
equipment isis continuously
continuouslydegrading
degradingasasequipment
equipmentoperates.
operates.
TheWeibull
The Weibull distribution
distribution isiswidely
widelyused
usedto to
simulate the the
simulate cumulative failure
cumulative analysis
failure of me-of
analysis
chanical and
mechanical andelectrical equipment.
electrical In this
equipment. paper,
In this the Weibull
paper, distribution
the Weibull is used
distribution to de-to
is used
describe the degradation level of equipment. The failure rate function at running timet is
scribe the degradation level of equipment. The failure rate function at running time t is
expressedas:
expressed as:
β t tβ−1
λ(t) =
 (t ) =α ( α( ) )  −1 (1)
(1)
 
where α, β are the scale parameters and shape parameters of the Weibull distribution,
where  , which
respectively, arescale
are the obtained from the
parameters andhistorical maintenance
shape parameters dataWeibull
of the of equipment. As the
distribution,
health rate of equipment cannot be restored to a new state after preventive
respectively, which are obtained from the historical maintenance data of equipment. As maintenance,
the
thefailure
healthrate
rateincreasing factor
of equipment bi ( bi >
cannot ) and service
be1restored age decreasing
to a new factor ai (0 <
state after preventive a i < 1)
mainte-
are introduced to express the change in theb failure
nance, the failure rate increasing factor (bi  1)rate. The failure rate increasing factor
and service age decreasing factor
indicates that the equipment failure rate ati each operating moment will increase after
ai (0  ai maintenance.
preventive 1) are introduced to express
The service age the change in
decreasing the failure
factor rate.
indicates The
that thefailure
healthrate in-of
state
equipment after indicates
creasing factor preventive maintenance
that the equipment willfailure
return rate
to a atstate
eachbetween the moment
operating new statewilland
the state before
increase adopting maintenance.
after preventive maintenance.The Theservice
failureage
ratedecreasing
expression of equipment
factor afterthe
indicates that the
ith preventive
health state ofmaintenance can preventive
equipment after be obtained: maintenance will return to a state between the
new state and the state before adopting maintenance. The failure rate expression of equip-
ment after the ith preventive maintenanceλi+1 = bcani λi (be
t +obtained:
ai Ti ) (2)

i +1 = bthe
There is a certain relationship between i i (t + aiTi )
reliability of equipment and the failure (2) rate
function. When the equipment reaches the preventive maintenance threshold R∗ , preven-
There is a certain
tive maintenance relationship
will be carried out.between
Assuming the reliability
that N times of equipment andmaintenance
of preventive the failure
*
rate
are function.
carried out,When
each the equipment
preventive reaches theinterval
maintenance preventive
can maintenance
be obtained: threshold R , pre-
ventive maintenance will be carried out. Assuming that N times of preventive mainte-
RT
− 0 i λi (t)dt maintenance
nance are carried out, eachepreventive = R∗ i = {1,interval
2, . . . , Ncan
} be obtained: (3)
Ti

e 0 time
− i ( t ) dt
where Ti represents the operational = Rof equipment
i = {1,
from i −N1th
2,..., (3)
} preventive maintenance
to ith preventive maintenance.

4.2. Variable Cost Model

In this section, the maintenance cost in each condition is calculated, and the quality
loss of the defective products produced is considered. Then, the total cost is divided by the
cycle time to obtain the maintenance cost per unit, which is obtained by dividing the total
cost by the cycle time T. In this paper, the total maintenance cost is mainly composed of
preventive maintenance cost, breakdown maintenance cost, replacement cost, and quality
loss cost.
Energies 2022, 15, 8237 7 of 18

(1) Preventive maintenance cost

According to the assumption of the model, when the reliability of equipment reaches
the threshold of preventive maintenance, preventive maintenance will be carried out. In
previous research, the cost of preventive maintenance was fixed. However, the cost of
preventive maintenance cannot be fixed due to the deteriorating performance of equipment.
When equipment performance significantly deteriorates, it will inevitably cost more to
maintain. It means that the cost of preventive maintenance will continue to increase
with the degradation of equipment, which is fluctuating. Thus, the cost of ith preventive
maintenance of equipment is composed of both fixed costs and variable costs, and it is
expressed as:
pmi pm pm pm
Cm = Cs + Cvi = Cs + γλi ( Ti ) (4)
pm pm
where Cs represents the fixed cost of preventive maintenance, Cvi represents the variable
cost of ith preventive maintenance, which is linearly related to the amount of equipment
degradation indicated by λi ( Ti ), and the correlation coefficient is γ.
pm
Assuming that the maintenance time for each preventive maintenance is tm , the total
cost and total time of preventive maintenance in the cycle is therefore expressed as:

N N
∑ Cm = ∑ Cs + γλi ( Ti )
pm pmi pm
TCm = (5)
i =1 i =1

pm pm
Tm = N × tm (6)
(2) Breakdown maintenance cost
According to assumption 1, the total cost of breakdown maintenance is equal to
the number of failures multiplied by each breakdown maintenance cost. The number of
failures in a preventive maintenance cycle can be calculated from Equation (3), which is
expressed as:
Z T
i
Nci = λi (t)dt = − ln R∗ (7)
0
pm
cm , respectively. The total
The time and cost of each breakdown maintenance are tm , Cm
time and total cost of breakdown maintenance can be obtained according to Equation (7):
cm
TCm cm
= Cm × (( N + 1) × (− ln R∗ )) (8)
cm ∗
Tm = tcm
m × (( N + 1) × (− ln R )) (9)
(3) Quality loss cost
Generally, equipment will produce a certain amount of substandard products during
the production process. Most of these substandard products can be caused by equipment
designed so that it cannot be reduced, and some are caused by equipment degradation. The
cost of quality loss is the loss of inferior products that cannot be sold properly due to quality
problems. With the degradation of equipment, the product quality will continue to degrade.
At this time, the number of defective products will continue to increase, resulting in a
particular cost. According to past sales data, the revenue of each product can be measured,
and the cost of quality loss can be measured by the original sales revenue of defective
products. Thus, it is necessary to calculate the number of defective products closely related
to the defective product rate. According to Assumption 5, the defective rate of equipment
varies, and it can be expressed as:
θ
p(λi (t)) = p0 + µ[1 − e−σλi (t) ] (10)

where p0 represents the defective rate in the new state of equipment,µ represents the
boundary of quality deterioration, and σ and θ are constants [36].
Energies 2022, 15, 8237 8 of 18

Assuming that the loss cost of a single product is Cvd , and the production rate is v, the
quality loss cost of equipment in the period T is:

N +1
TCd = Cdv × ∑ Ti × v × pi (11)
i =1

In Equation (11), pi represents the average defective rate of products produced by

equipment during i − 1th and ith preventive maintenance intervals. The calculation
equation of the average defective rate is as follows:

p(λi (0)) + p(λi ( Ti ))

pi = (12)
2
According to Assumption 3, replacement cost and time are Cr and Tr , respectively.
Currently, the total cost of equipment can be obtained. The next cycle time needs
to be calculated. As is shown in Figure 1, the period T from the new state of equipment
to the next replacement is composed of preventive maintenance time, equipment normal
operation time, breakdown maintenance time, and replacement time. Finally, based on the
above analysis, the variable cost model can be developed expressed by the maintenance
cost per unit obtained by dividing the total cost during the cycle time T. The expression is
as follows:
pm cm +C + TC
TCm + TCm r d
ETC = N +1 pm cm + T
∑ Ti + Tm + Tm r
i =1
N pm N +1 (13)
cm ×(( N +1)×(− ln R∗ ))+C +
∑ Cs +γλi ( Ti )+Cm r ∑ Cdv ×v× pi × Ti
i =1 i =1
= N +1 pm
∑ Ti + N ×tm + Tr +tcm ∗
m ×(( N +1)×(− ln R ))
i =1

4.3. Energy Efficiency Model

The key to achieving carbon neutrality lies in energy conservation and emission
reduction. In order to achieve energy conservation and emission reduction, it is necessary to
explore the problem of excessive energy consumption in the process of product production
and equipment maintenance and to improve energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is an
important indicator to measure the input–output ratio of the manufacturing industry. The
energy efficiency in the manufacturing process is expressed as the ratio between the total
output capacity and the total input energy [37]. Thus, in order to obtain the energy efficiency
of equipment, the total energy consumption and the total effective output of equipment
need to be calculated. The first step is to find out the energy consumed by equipment. It is
common knowledge that the energy consumption of equipment in different states varies.
According to the difference, the state of equipment can be divided into normal operation
state, standby state, warm-up state, power-on state, and power-off state. Since the time of
power-on and power-off is very short, the energy consumption is negligible. The energy
consumption of equipment is shown in Figure 3.
The energy consumption considered in this paper includes two parts, the energy
consumption of equipment and the energy consumption of maintenance. The energy
consumption of equipment includes the energy consumption of the normal operation, the
standby energy consumption, and the warm-up energy consumption. The maintenance
energy consumption is mainly the energy consumption of three maintenance activities. The
various energy consumptions are calculated below.
 sumption of equipment in different states varies. According to the
equipment can be divided into normal operation state, standby
power-on state, and power-off state. Since the time of power-on
Energies 2022, 15, 8237 short, the energy consumption is negligible. The energy 9 of consum
18

shown in Figure 3.

Power-on

Power Normal operation

Power-off
Warm-up
Idle

Stage
Figure 3. Different energy consumption states of equipment.

Figure 3. Different
(1) Operation energy consumption
energy consumption of equipment states of equipment.
The energy consumption of equipment during operation increases with degradation,
which The
is linearly relatedconsumption
energy to the failure rate. considered
The energy consumption
in thisper unit before
paper ith
includes tw
preventive maintenance is expressed as:
sumption of equipment and the energy consumption of mainten
X (t) = X0 + ωλi (t) (14)
sumption of equipment iincludes the energy consumption of the
where X0 represents
standby energytheconsumption,
energy consumption of equipment
and at the initial
the warm-up stage, and
energy consump
ω
represents the linear relationship between the variation of equipment energy consumption
energy consumption
and equipment isthemainly
failure rate. Thus, the energy
total operation energy consumption
consumption of equipmentofin three
The T is expressed
periodvarious as:
energy consumptions are calculated below.
N +1 Z Ti N +1 Z Ti
o = ∑
(1) OperationEenergy Xi (t)dt = ∑
consumption Xof
0 +equipment
ωλi (t)dt (15)
i =1 0 i =1 0

(2)
The energy consumption of equipment during operation incr
Standby energy consumption of equipment
which is linearly
According related
to Assumption to theis failure
2, equipment on standbyrate. The energy
while preventive consump
maintenance
preventive maintenance
is being performed. is ofexpressed
The standby time equipment canas:
be measured by the preventive
maintenance time. Assuming that the standby energy consumption per unit of equipment

X i (t ) = X 0 + i (t )
is Eiv , the total standby energy consumption can be expressed as:
pm pm
Ei = Eiv × Tm = Eiv × N × tm (16)

where represents
X 0 energy
(3) Warm-up theof energy
consumption equipment consumption of equipment at t
According to
represents theAssumption
linear 4,relationship
the equipment needs to go through
between thea warm-up
variation time after
of equip
it is turned on. The equipment needs to be shut down for maintenance and replacement.
tion
Assumingandthat
equipment failure
the energy required rate.upThus,
to warm theonce
equipment total
is Eoperation energy
wv , then the total
warm-up energy consumption of equipment is expressed as:
ment in period T is expressed as:
N +1
Ew = Ewv × ∑ +1(( NT + 1) × (− ln R∗ ))N +1
Nci = EwvN× (17)
Eo =   X i (t )dt =   X 0 + i (t )
i Ti
i =1

0 0
i =1 i =1

(2) Standby energy consumption of equipment

Energies 2022, 15, 8237 10 of 18

(4) Equipment maintenance energy consumption

When equipment performs maintenance activities, it needs to consume other energy
such as electricity. Assuming that the energy consumption of each breakdown maintenance
and preventive maintenance is E pv , and the energy consumption of equipment replacement
is E pr , then the maintenance energy consumption of equipment in the period T is:

E p = E pv × ( N + ( N + 1) × (− ln R)) + E pr (18)

The above equation has calculated the total energy consumption of equipment, and
then the total effective output of equipment needs to be obtained. The total effective output
of equipment includes qualified products and defective products that can be recycled.
With the deterioration of equipment, the defective rate is increasing, and the recovery
factor will change correspondingly. The recovery factor τ i is introduced to describe the
gradual decrease in the amount of recovery. Thus, the final effective output of equipment
is obtained by subtracting the number of defective products that cannot be recovered and
is expressed as:
N +1 N +1
Y= ∑ Ti × v − ∑ v × pi × Ti × (1 − τ i ) (19)
i =1 i =1

The final energy efficiency model can be obtained and expressed as:

Y
EE = Eo + Ei + Ew + E p
N +1 N +1
∑ Ti ×v− ∑ v× pi × Ti ×(1−τ i ) (20)
i =1 i =1
= N +1 R T pm
∑ 0i X0 +ωλi (t)dt+ Eiv × N ×tm + Ewv ×(( N +1)×(− ln R∗ ))+ E pv ×( N +( N +1)×(− ln R))+ E pr
i =1

4.4. Multiobjective Maintenance Model

In order to achieve a balance between the economic benefits and social benefits of the
enterprise, not only maintenance costs but also energy efficiency need to be considered.
Thus, this paper aims to minimize the maintenance cost per unit and maximize energy
efficiency, using the preventive maintenance threshold and preventive maintenance times as
the decision variables. In addition, a multiobjective maintenance model can be constructed.
The expression is as follows:

minETC ( R∗ , N ∗ )

D= (21)
maxEE( R∗ , N ∗ )

4.5. Solution of the Maintenance Strategy Optimization

NSGAII is a multiobjective genetic algorithm widely used to analyze and solve mul-
tiobjective optimization problems due to its advantages of fast solution speed and good
convergence of solutions. In this paper, the relationship between energy efficiency and cost
per unit needs to be reconciled to satisfy each objective as far as possible. For this reason,
the NSGAII algorithm is used to solve the model; the model solution process is shown in
Figure 4. Its processes are as follows.
 4.5. Solution of the Maintenance Strategy Optimization
NSGAII is a multiobjective genetic algorithm widely used to analyze and solve mul-
tiobjective optimization problems due to its advantages of fast solution speed and good
convergence of solutions. In this paper, the relationship between energy efficiency and
cost per unit needs to be reconciled to satisfy each objective as far as possible. For this
Energies 2022, 15, 8237 11 of 18
reason, the NSGAII algorithm is used to solve the model; the model solution process is
shown in Figure 4. Its processes are as follows.

Start

Input parameters to
initialize populations

Calculate the value of the

Merger of parent and objective function
offspring populations

Fast non-dominated sorting

Simulate binary
crossover and
Polynomial mutation Calculate congestion
distance

Gen+1 Maintain the best solution

found over time before
selection

No
Gen Max Gen
Yes
Output the Pareto
solution set

End

Figure 4. NSGAII algorithm processes.

1: Parameter
Step 1:
Step Parameter input.
input. Input
Inputrelevant
relevantparameters
parametersofofthe thealgorithm
algorithm such
suchasas
thethe
number
numberof
populations,
of populations, thethe
maximum
maximum number
numberof iterations, upper
of iterations, andand
upper lower bounds
lower boundson the
on
preventive maintenance threshold, crossover rate, and variation rate. Initialize
the preventive maintenance threshold, crossover rate, and variation rate. Initialize the
population
the populationand and
generate a random
generate population
a random P of PNofindividuals.
population N individuals.
Step 2: Calculate the maintenance cost and energy efficiency per
Step 2: Calculate the maintenance cost and energy efficiency per unit
unit for
for each
each individual
individual
in the population.
in the population.
3: Fast
Step 3:
Step Fast nondominated sorting. The
nondominated sorting. The individuals
individuals in in the
the population
population P P are
are classified
classified by
by
the fast nondominated sorting algorithm. According to the dominance
the fast nondominated sorting algorithm. According to the dominance relation- relationship
between the objective
ship between function
the objective values,
function the current
values, optimal
the current solution
optimal is selected
solution and
is selected
marked as rank 1. Then after excluding the solutions in the dominant rank 1, the
and marked as rank 1. Then after excluding the solutions in the dominant rank 1,
optimal solution is selected from the remaining population and marked as rank 2,
the optimal solution is selected from the remaining population and marked as
and so on, until the whole population is graded. The nondominated solution sets of
different levels are constructed, such as F1 , F2 , . . . Fn . As the optimization objective
of this paper is to minimize the maintenance cost per unit and maximize energy
efficiency, when the target value of energy efficiency is the vertical coordinate, and
the target value of maintenance cost per unit is the horizontal coordinate, the higher
the rank of the points on the axis to the upper left.
Step 4: Crowding distance calculation. In order to select the better individuals of the
population and prevent falling into local maxima and local minima, the crowding
distance of individuals needs to be calculated. It is defined as the sum distance
of the two points on either side of this point along each of the objectives, denoted
by id . As shown in Figure 5, the crowding distance of the ith point is expressed
as the sum of the variable lengths of the rectangular rectangle, that is, the sum of
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
Energies 2022, 15, 8237 12 of 18

rankdistance
the 2, and so on, until
along the wholeofpopulation
the direction is graded.
the first objective and The
thenondominated
distance alongsolu- the
tion sets of different levels are constructed, such
direction of the second objective. The formula is expressed as: as F 1, F2, … Fn. As the optimization

objective of this paper is to minimize the maintenance cost per unit and maximize
energy efficiency, id =when
[ f 1 (ithe
+ 1target
) − f 1 (value
i − 1)]of+energy
[ f 2 (i −efficiency is the
1) − f 2 ( i + 1)] vertical coordi-
(22)
nate, and the target value of maintenance cost per unit is the horizontal coordinate,
Step 5: Elite retention
the higher strategy.
the rank of theInpoints
orderon to the
prevent
axis tothe theloss
upperof outstanding
left. individuals
during the evolution of the population, an elite retention strategy
Step 4: Crowding distance calculation. In order to select the better individuals of the pop- for individuals is
required.
ulation and Theprevent
total crowding
falling into distance for each and
local maxima individual is equalthe
local minima, to the sum of dis-
crowding the
distances for each single
tance of individuals needs target
to bemetric. According
calculated. to the elite
It is defined as theretention strategy,
sum distance in-
of the
dividuals are selected sequentially from the highest ranked nondominated solution i
twotopoints
set on either
the lower rankedsidesolution
of this point
set. Ifalong each of the objectives,
two individuals denoted
are in the same bythed
rank,
. As shown
crowding in Figure
distance 5, the them
between crowding distanceand
is compared, of the
theith point is expressed
individual as the
with the greater
sum of theis variable
crowding selected.lengths of the rectangular
N individuals are eventually rectangle,
selectedthat is, the
to form sumparent
a new of the
distance along
population Q. the direction of the first objective and the distance along the direc-
tion of the if
Step 6: Determine second objective.number
the maximum The formula is expressed
of iterations has been as:reached. If the maximum
number of iterations is reached, the Pareto solution set is output; if not, the new
id =Q[ fis1 (crossed
parent population i + 1) − fand
1 (i − 1)] + [ f 2 (i − 1) − f 2 (i + 1)]
0 is
mutated, the resulting child population Q(22)
merged with the parent population Q, and the operation in Step 2 is repeated.

f2 :Pareto rank 1
:Pareto rank 2
i +1
f1

f 2 i

i −1

f1
Figure 5.
Figure 5. The
The crowding
crowding distance
distance of
of the
the ith
ith point.
point.

5. Case
Step 5: Study
Elite retention strategy. In order to prevent the loss of outstanding individuals
5.1. Dataduring
Preparation
the evolution of the population, an elite retention strategy for individuals
Theisvalidity and
required. Theadaptability
total crowding of the multiobjective
distance decision model
for each individual is equalaretoverified
the sumby of
a case study. In this for
the distances paper,
eachthe production
single equipment
target metric. Accordingof a to
manufacturing company
the elite retention is
strategy,
selectedindividuals
for the study.
areThe production
selected equipment
sequentially fromproduces products
the highest rankedatnondominated
a fixed rate everyso-
day. Thelution
equipment
set to will produce
the lower a small
ranked number
solution ofIfdefective
set. productsare
two individuals that
incan
the be recycled
same rank,
to a certain extent. Meanwhile, the defective product rate will increase
the crowding distance between them is compared, and the individual with the with equipment
degradation, and
greater equipment
crowding operation
is selected. Nand maintenance
individuals consume more
are eventually energy.
selected Referring
to form a new
to the historical data of the equipment,
parent population Q. it can be found that the failure rate of the equipment
obeys
Step 6:the Weibull distribution
Determine if the maximum with number
the shape ofparameter of 3been
iterations has and the size parameter
reached. of 110,
If the maximum
and thennumber
referring to the general calculation of comprehensive energy consumption,
of iterations is reached, the Pareto solution set is output; if not, the new the
followingparent population Q is crossed and mutated, the resulting child population 𝑄 ′As
parameters related to maintenance and energy consumption are obtained. is
the typesmerged
of products produced
with the parentby the equipment
population Q, andwillthechange withincustomer
operation demand, the
Step 2 is repeated.
defective data of each product varies. In this paper, one of the products is selected, and
the initial
5. Case defective rate is obtained by analyzing the defective data. Other parameters of
Study
defective products are determined by referring to the literature [36]. Furthermore, due to
5.1. Data Preparation
the change in customer demand, the production rate of the equipment is not fixed. We
 Energies 2022, 15, 8237 13 of 18

assume that the production rate of the equipment is 100 pieces per day, thus obtaining the
total parameter table, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Value of related parameters.

Maintenance Energy Consumption Production

Parameters Parameters Parameters
pm
Cs 400 x0 180 P0 0.008
cm
Cmv 150 ω 1.2 µ 0.075
Cdv 10 Eiv 25 σ 20
Cr 2000 Ewv 15 θ 1.1
pm
tm 1 E pv 50 τ 0.4
tcm
m 0.5 E pr 300 v 100
Tr 2
γ 1.2

5.2. Results Analysis

In order to narrow the search for multiobjective solution sets and ensure the accuracy
and convenience of the solution, the maintenance cost per unit and energy efficiency
of equipment under different combinations of preventive maintenance thresholds and
maintenance times were obtained by numerical simulation.
The results can be seen in Figure 6. When the preventive maintenance threshold is
in the range (0.6, 0.8), and the number of preventive maintenance is in the range (0, 6),
there is a minimum value of maintenance cost per unit and a maximum value of energy
efficiency. In addition, the graph of simulation results shows that the maintenance cost per
unit tends to decrease and then increase as the number of maintenance increases. When
preventive maintenance is less frequent, the time from the beginning of use to the replace-
ment of equipment is shorter, and the equipment maintenance cost is mainly composed of
replacement cost and breakdown maintenance cost, which makes the maintenance cost per
unit higher. With the increase in maintenance times, the cycle time will gradually become
longer, while the maintenance cost slowly increases, and the maintenance cost per unit
shows a downward trend. When the number of maintenance exceeds a certain threshold
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEWdue to frequent maintenance, the preventive maintenance cost of equipment significantly 14 of
increases, and the cycle time slowly increases at this time, which makes the maintenance
cost per unit show an upward trend.

Figure 6. Maintenance cost per unit and energy efficiency under different threshold combinations.
Figure 6. Maintenance cost per unit and energy efficiency under different threshold combination
Similarly, energy efficiency tends to increase and then decrease as the number of
maintenance increases. When the number of preventive maintenance times is small, the
Similarly, energy efficiency tends to increase and then decrease as the number
energy consumption of equipment maintenance is mainly composed of replacement energy
maintenance increases. When the number of preventive maintenance times is small, t
consumption and operation energy consumption, which makes the increase in equipment
energy
outputconsumption of equipment
exceed the increase maintenanceand
in energy consumption, is mainly composed
the energy efficiency of replacement
shows an e
ergy consumption
upward trend. When and
theoperation
number ofenergy consumption,
maintenance which
times exceeds makesthreshold,
a certain the increase
the in equ
ment output exceed the increase in energy consumption, and the energy efficiency sho
an upward trend. When the number of maintenance times exceeds a certain threshold, t
cycle will gradually become longer as the number of maintenance increases. At this tim
the effective output of the equipment slowly increases, but the energy consumption ra
Energies 2022, 15, 8237 14 of 18

cycle will gradually become longer as the number of maintenance increases. At this time,
the effective output of the equipment slowly increases, but the energy consumption rapidly
increases due to frequent preventive maintenance and breakdown maintenance, which
makes the energy efficiency show a downward trend.
The optimal solution for the single objective can be obtained by conducting a simula-
tion in the interval of the preventive maintenance thresholds of (0.6, 0.8) and the preventive
maintenance times of (0, 6), as shown in Tables 2 and 3. The simulation results show that
when the preventive maintenance threshold is 0.77 and the number of maintenance visits is
4, the lowest maintenance cost per unit is achieved at 25.81566. When the preventive main-
tenance threshold is 0.73 and the number of maintenance visits is 2, the highest equipment
energy efficiency is achieved at 0.542660.
Thus, in this paper, we set the range of preventive maintenance threshold as (0.6, 0.8),
the range of maintenance times as (2, 4), the number of individuals in the population as 100,
the crossover rate as 0.9, the variation rate as 0.1, and the maximum number of iterations as
200. The above parameters were input into the algorithm of NSGAII, and the following
results were obtained by a simulation using python, as shown in Figure 7. By comparing
them, it is found that when N = 2, the energy efficiency of the equipment is the highest, but
the maintenance cost per unit of equipment is also high. When N = 3, the energy efficiency
of the equipment is lower than when N = 2, and the maintenance cost per unit of equipment
is reduced more. When N = 4, the energy efficiency of the equipment is the lowest, but
the maintenance cost per unit of equipment is not significantly reduced. Therefore, the
comprehensive analysis yields that the energy efficiency and maintenance cost per unit of
equipment is generally better for different maintenance thresholds at N = 3, so the Pareto
curve at N = 3 is the final set of Pareto solutions for the model.

Table 2. Simulation results for maintenance costs per unit.

R N=0 N=1 N=2 N=3 N=4 N=5 N=6

0.6 30.733 28.83966 26.97263 26.50926 26.65826 27.13605 27.80899
0.61 30.85359 28.80936 26.91436 26.43532 26.57268 27.04048 27.7043
0.62 30.98098 28.78345 26.85985 26.36491 26.49058 26.9484 27.60315
0.63 31.11558 28.76212 26.80925 26.29816 26.41207 26.85993 27.50566
0.64 31.25781 28.74557 26.76272 26.23523 26.3373 26.7752 27.41196
0.65 31.40815 28.73406 26.72046 26.17628 26.26642 26.69437 27.3222
0.66 31.5671 28.72785 26.68267 26.1215 26.19961 26.6176 27.23655
0.67 31.73525 28.72725 26.6496 26.07111 26.13707 26.5451 27.15522
0.68 31.91322 28.73258 26.62151 26.02533 26.07903 26.47708 27.07842
0.69 32.10173 28.74424 26.59871 25.98445 26.02574 26.41381 27.00641
0.7 32.30155 28.76263 26.58153 25.94877 25.97751 26.35557 26.93948
0.71 32.51357 28.78824 26.57036 25.91863 25.93465 26.30268 26.87794
0.72 32.73875 28.82161 26.56564 25.89444 25.89755 26.25552 26.82218
0.73 32.97822 28.86334 26.56786 25.87662 25.86664 26.2145 26.77261
0.74 33.2332 28.91411 26.57757 25.86571 25.84239 26.1801 26.72972
0.75 33.50512 28.97472 26.59542 25.86226 25.82536 26.15288 26.69407
0.76 33.79558 29.04606 26.62213 25.86696 25.81621 26.13348 26.66628
0.77 34.10643 29.12916 26.65856 25.88057 25.81566 26.12261 26.6471
0.78 34.43977 29.22522 26.70568 25.90398 25.82457 26.12114 26.63738
0.79 34.79807 29.3356 26.76462 25.93823 25.84395 26.13004 26.63811
0.8 35.18419 29.46194 26.83671 25.98453 25.87495 26.15049 26.65046
Energies 2022, 15, 8237 15 of 18

Table 3. Simulation results for energy efficiency.

R N=0 N=1 N=2 N=3 N=4 N=5 N=6

0.6 0.540185 0.542253 0.542420 0.542160 0.541726 0.541198 0.540612
0.61 0.540153 0.542267 0.542452 0.542204 0.541779 0.541258 0.540678
0.62 0.540119 0.542279 0.542483 0.542245 0.541829 0.541315 0.540743
0.63 0.540081 0.542289 0.542511 0.542285 0.541877 0.541371 0.540805
0.64 0.540040 0.542296 0.542538 0.542323 0.541924 0.541425 0.540865
0.65 0.539995 0.542301 0.542562 0.542359 0.541968 0.541476 0.540923
0.66 0.539946 0.542303 0.542584 0.542392 0.542010 0.541525 0.540978
0.67 0.539894 0.542303 0.542603 0.542424 0.542050 0.541572 0.541032
0.68 0.539837 0.542299 0.542620 0.542452 0.542087 0.541617 0.541082
0.69 0.539775 0.542292 0.542634 0.542478 0.542122 0.541658 0.541130
0.7 0.539708 0.542282 0.542646 0.542502 0.542154 0.541697 0.541176
0.71 0.539636 0.542269 0.542654 0.542523 0.542183 0.541734 0.541218
0.72 0.539558 0.542251 0.542659 0.542540 0.542209 0.541767 0.541257
0.73 0.539474 0.542230 0.542660 0.542554 0.542232 0.541797 0.541293
0.74 0.539384 0.542204 0.542658 0.542565 0.542251 0.541823 0.541325
0.75 0.539286 0.542173 0.542652 0.542571 0.542267 0.541845 0.541353
0.76 0.539179 0.542137 0.542640 0.542574 0.542278 0.541863 0.541377
0.77 0.539064 0.542094 0.542624 0.542571 0.542285 0.541877 0.541396
0.78 0.538940 0.542046 0.542603 0.542564 0.542287 0.541885 0.541411
Energies0.79
2022, 15, x FOR0.538804
PEER REVIEW 0.541991 0.542576 0.542551 0.542283 0.541888 16 of 19
0.541419
0.8 0.538657 0.541927 0.542541 0.542532 0.542273 0.541885 0.541421

Figure 7.
Figure Pareto curve
7. Pareto curve at
at different N.
different N.

5.3. Results Comparison

5.3. Results Comparison
Then, in order to verify the superiority of the model, a comparison with a single target
is required.inByorder
Then, to verify
comparing thethe superiority
results of theobjective
of the single model, adecision
comparison with
with the a single tar-
multiobjective
get is required. By comparing the results of the single objective decision with the multi-
objective decision, we can see that when only the cost of maintenance is considered, the
optimal solution is obtained with an objective value of (25.8157, 0.5423). It is clear that
improvements in energy efficiency need to be made. When only energy efficiency is con-
sidered, the optimal solution obtained corresponds to an objective value of (26.5679,
Energies 2022, 15, 8237 16 of 18

decision, we can see that when only the cost of maintenance is considered, the optimal
solution is obtained with an objective value of (25.8157, 0.5423). It is clear that improvements
in energy efficiency need to be made. When only energy efficiency is considered, the optimal
solution obtained corresponds to an objective value of (26.5679, 0.5427), a decision that
is clearly not optimal in terms of maintenance costs. In comparison, the compromise
solution is (25.8622, 0.5426), where the energy efficiency is not much different from the
single objective and the maintenance cost per unit is better, thus showing that the integrated
consideration of maintenance cost and energy efficiency can help enterprises to achieve the
goals of energy conservation and emission reduction.

5.4. Sensitivity Analysis

Finally, in order to analyze the relationship between the objective function and the
parameters, this paper selects the maintenance cost parameters for sensitivity analysis by
changing one maintenance cost parameter, keeping the other parameters constant, and
observing the sensitivity of the objective function to the maintenance cost parameter. In this
paper, the fixed cost of preventive maintenance, breakdown maintenance, and replacement
cost affect the objective function. The range of parameter variation is −50~+50%. The
analysis results obtained are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Sensitivity analysis results.

Range of Variation of Variation of

Parameters ETC EE
Changes ETC EE
\ \ 25.8622 \ 0.5426 \
−50% 22.9814 −11.15% 0.5422 −0.7%
pm −25% 24.6962 −4.6% 0.5425 −0.2%
Cs +25% 26.9908 4.3% 0.5425 −0.2%
+50% 28.0859 9.3% 0.5425 −0.2%
−50% 25.5247 −1.3% 0.5425 −0.2%
cm −25% 25.6952 −0.7% 0.5425 −0.2%
Cm
+25% 26.0260 0.6% 0.5425 −0.2%
+50% 26.1867 1.2% 0.5425 −0.2%
−50% 21.7022 −16.1% 0.5425 −0.2%
−25% 23.8954 −7.6% 0.5425 −0.2%
Cr
+25% 27.4742 6.2% 0.5422 −0.7%
+50% 29.0641 12.4% 0.5421 −0.9%

According to the sensitivity analysis results, the maintenance cost per unit is more
sensitive to the fixed cost of preventive maintenance and the replacement cost, and it
varies positively with both parameters. When the fixed cost of preventive maintenance
and the replacement cost decrease, the change in cost is more obvious than when they
increase, which means that the maintenance costs per unit can be reduced by reducing the
fixed costs of preventive maintenance and replacement costs when making maintenance
decisions. In addition, the maintenance costs per unit and energy efficiency are not sensitive
to breakdown maintenance cost, and changes in the fixed cost of preventive maintenance,
breakdown maintenance cost, and replacement cost do not have a significant impact on
changes in energy efficiency.

6. Conclusions
A methodological framework and a new preventive maintenance model were pro-
posed that make it possible to optimize maintenance strategies in manufacturing production
equipment. More generally, in the context of reducing carbon emissions and mitigating
global warming, this paper focuses on solving the problem of equipment maintenance and
energy efficiency in production systems by modeling and calculating the costs and various
energy consumptions in the process of equipment maintenance to achieve the goal of
Energies 2022, 15, 8237 17 of 18

optimizing maintenance strategies. In addition, the difference between considering energy

efficiency and not is shown in this paper. The main findings of the article are the following:
(1) compared with a maintenance strategy that only considers maintenance costs, the inte-
grated consideration of maintenance costs, energy efficiency, and product quality is more
suitable for manufacturing systems; (2) the modeling of dynamic preventive maintenance
costs as well as dynamic operational energy consumption makes the calculation of costs
and energy consumption more accurate; (3) the recycling of defective products is consistent
with the goal of energy saving and emission reduction, and the amount of recycling is
closely related to the state of the equipment. The framework and methods presented in
this paper can be applied to production, maintenance, quality, and architecture mainte-
nance optimization in manufacturing, which makes it possible to support management
decisions. The decision process regarding production, quality control, and maintenance
will be influenced by the results of the contribution. For example, the energy efficiency
in maintenance will influence the maintenance policy, and the manufacturing system will
specify new solutions for recycling defective products.
However, there are also limitations of the study. In many cases, manufacturing systems
often include much equipment, which may be connected in series, parallel, or groups. The
limitations of this paper, which considers only single-device preventive maintenance, also
indicate potential directions for further research. In further research, the model can be
extended to more complex equipment models and the use of opportunistic maintenance.

Author Contributions: Formal analysis, J.L.; Funding acquisition, T.X. and C.Y.; Investigation, Q.L.;
Methodology, L.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by grants from the National Key R&D Program of China (No.
2021YFF0900400), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71840003), Natural Science
Foundation of Shanghai (No. 19ZR1435600), Humanity and Social Science Planning Foundation of
the Ministry of Education of China (No. 20YJAZH068), Action Plan for Scientific and Technological
Innovation of Shanghai Science and Technology Commission (No. 21SQBS01404), and the Science
and Technology Development Project of University of Shanghai for Technology and Science (No.
2020KJFZ038).
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors are indebted to the reviewers and the editors for their constructive
comments, which greatly improved the contents and exposition of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Arora, N.K.; Fatima, T.; Mishra, I.; Verma, M.; Mishra, J.; Mishra, V. Environmental sustainability: Challenges and viable solutions.
Environ. Sustain. 2018, 1, 309–340.
2. Anderson, T.R.; Hawkins, E.; Jones, P.D. CO2 , the greenhouse effect and global warming: From the pioneering work of Arrhenius
and Callendar to today’s Earth System Models. Endeavour 2016, 40, 178–187. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Liu, Z.; Deng, Z.; He, G.; Wang, H.; Zhang, X.; Lin, J.; Qi, Y.; Liang, X. Challenges and opportunities for carbon neutrality in China.
Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2021, 3, 141–155. [CrossRef]
4. Zhang, S.; Chen, W. China’s Energy Transition Pathway in a Carbon Neutral Vision. Engineering 2021, 14, 64–76. [CrossRef]
5. Beraud, J.-J.D.; Xicang, Z.; Jiying, W. Revitalization of Chinese’s manufacturing industry under the carbon neutral goal. Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 66462–66478. [CrossRef]
6. Jiang, Z.; Zhang, H.; Sutherland, J.W. Development of an environmental performance Assessment method for manufacturing
process plans. Int. J. Adv. Manufacturing. Technol. 2012, 58, 783–790. [CrossRef]
7. Hassan, T.; Song, H.; Khan, Y.; Kirikkaleli, D. Energy efficiency a source of low carbon energy sources? Evidence from 16
high-income OECD economies. Energy 2022, 243, 123063. [CrossRef]
8. Howell, M.; Alshakhshir, F.S. Energy Centered Maintenance—A Green Maintenance System; River Publishers: Aalborg, Den-
mark, 2020.
9. Zhao, J.; Gao, C.; Tang, T. A Review of Sustainable Maintenance Strategies for Single Component and Multicomponent Equipment.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2992. [CrossRef]
10. Ben-Daya, M.; Duffuaa, S.O. Maintenance and quality: The missing link. J. Qual. Maint. Eng. 1995, 1, 20–26. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 8237 18 of 18

11. Hajej, Z.; Rezg, N.; Gharbi, A. Quality issue in forecasting problem of production and maintenance policy for production unit. Int.
J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 6147–6163. [CrossRef]
12. Mehdi, R.; Nidhal, R.; Anis, C. Integrated maintenance and control policy based on quality control. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2010, 58,
443–451. [CrossRef]
13. Lesage, A.; Dehombreux, P. Maintenance & quality control: A first methodological approach for maintenance policy optimization.
IFAC Proc. Vol. 2012, 45, 1041–1046.
14. Jin, K.; Liu, X.; Liu, M.; Qian, K. Modified quality loss for the analysis of product quality characteristics considering maintenance
cost. Qual. Technol. Quant. Manag. 2022, 19, 341–361. [CrossRef]
15. Jiang, A.; Dong, N.; Tam, K.L.; Lyu, C. Development and Optimization of a Condition-Based Maintenance Policy with Sustain-
ability Requirements for Production System. Math. Probl. Eng. 2018, 2018, 4187575. [CrossRef]
16. Tlili, L.; Radhoui, M.; Chelbi, A. Condition-Based Maintenance Strategy for Production Systems Generating Environmental
Damage. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 2015, 494162. [CrossRef]
17. Chouikhi, H.; Dellagi, S.; Rezg, N. Development and optimization of a maintenance policy under environmental constraints. Int.
J. Prod. Res. 2012, 50, 3612–3620. [CrossRef]
18. Huang, J.; Chang, Q.; Arinez, J.; Xiao, G. A Maintenance and Energy Saving Joint Control Scheme for Sustainable Manufacturing
Systems. Procedia CIRP 2019, 80, 263–268. [CrossRef]
19. Liu, Q.; Li, Z.; Xia, T.; Hsieh, M.; Li, J. Integrated Structural Dependence and Stochastic Dependence for Opportunistic Maintenance
of Wind Turbines by Considering Carbon Emissions. Energies 2022, 15, 625. [CrossRef]
20. Van Horenbeek, A.; Kellens, K.; Pintelon, L.; Duflou, J.R. Economic and environmental aware maintenance optimization. Procedia
CIRP 2014, 15, 343–348. [CrossRef]
21. Saez, M.; Barton, K.; Maturana, F.; Tilbury, D.M. Modeling framework to support decision making and control of manufacturing
systems considering the relationship between productivity, reliability, quality, and energy consumption. J. Manuf. Syst. 2021, 62,
925–938. [CrossRef]
22. Yan, J.; Hua, D. Energy consumption modeling for machine tools after preventive maintenance. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Macao, China, 7–10 December 2010; IEEE:
New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 2201–2205.
23. Zhou, L.; Li, J.; Li, F.; Meng, Q.; Li, J.; Xu, X. Energy consumption model and energy efficiency of machine tools: A comprehensive
literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3721–3734. [CrossRef]
24. Shang, Z.; Gao, D.; Jiang, Z.; Lu, Y. Towards less energy intensive heavy-duty machine tools: Power consumption characteristics
and energy-saving strategies. Energy 2019, 178, 263–276. [CrossRef]
25. Zhou, B.; Yi, Q. An energy-oriented maintenance policy under energy and quality constraints for a multielement-dependent
degradation batch production system. J. Manuf. Syst. 2021, 59, 631–645. [CrossRef]
26. Mawson, V.J.; Hughes, B.R. The development of modelling tools to improve energy efficiency in manufacturing processes and
systems. J. Manuf. Syst. 2019, 51, 95–105. [CrossRef]
27. Bermeo-Ayerbe, M.A.; Ocampo-Martinez, C.; Diaz-Rozo, J. Data-driven energy prediction modeling for both energy efficiency
and maintenance in smart manufacturing systems. Energy 2022, 238, 121691. [CrossRef]
28. Xia, T.; Shi, G.; Si, G.; Du, S.; Xi, L. Energy-oriented joint optimization of machine maintenance and tool replacement in sustainable
manufacturing. J. Manuf. Syst. 2021, 59, 261–271. [CrossRef]
29. Aramcharoen, A.; Mativenga, P.T. Critical factors in energy demand modelling for CNC milling and impact of toolpath strategy. J.
Clean. Prod. 2014, 78, 63–74. [CrossRef]
30. Zhou, B.; Qi, Y.; Liu, Y. Proactive preventive maintenance policy for buffered serial production systems based on energy saving
opportunistic windows. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 253, 119791. [CrossRef]
31. Xia, T.; Xi, L.; Du, S.; Xiao, L.; Pan, E. Energy-Oriented Maintenance Decision-Making for Sustainable Manufacturing Based on
Energy Saving Window. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2018, 140, 051001. [CrossRef]
32. Brundage, M.P.; Chang, Q.; Zou, J.; Li, Y.; Arinez, J.; Xiao, G. Energy economics in the manufacturing industry: A return on
investment strategy. Energy 2015, 93, 1426–1435. [CrossRef]
33. Xia, T.; Si, G.; Shi, G.; Zhang, K.; Xi, L. Optimal selective maintenance scheduling for series–parallel systems based on energy
efficiency optimization. Appl. Energy 2022, 314, 118927. [CrossRef]
34. Hoang, A.; Do, P.; Iung, B. Energy efficiency performance-based prognostics for aided maintenance decision-making: Application
to a manufacturing platform. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2838–2857. [CrossRef]
35. Frigerio, N.; Matta, A. Energy-efficient control strategies for machine tools with stochastic arrivals. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.
2014, 12, 50–61. [CrossRef]
36. Bouslah, B.; Gharbi, A.; Pellerin, R. Joint economic design of production, continuous sampling inspection and preventive
maintenance of a deteriorating production system. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 173, 184–198. [CrossRef]
37. Thiede, S. Energy Efficiency in Manufacturing Systems; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.