An Approximate Dynamic Programming (ADP) Approach for Aircraft Maintenance Scheduling

Similar documents
THE SHARE OF METHANE AND NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS OF THE TOTAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION INVENTORY UNCERTAINTY

ISE480 Sequencing and Scheduling

Balancing Risk and Economics for Chemical Supply Chain Optimization under Uncertainty

Strategies for Structural Health Monitoring Implementation Potential Assessment in Aircraft Operational Life Extension Considerations

Integrating Maintenance Work Progress Monitoring into Aircraft Maintenance Planning Decision Support

Electric Forward Market Report

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE 2006 GUIDELINES. Chapter 1: Introduction to the 2006 Guidelines

BACKGROUND DATA EFFECTIVITIES & A/C USER S MANUAL

Vehicle Routing Tank Sizing Optimization under Uncertainty: MINLP Model and Branch-and-Refine Algorithm

ERCOT Public LTRA Probabilistic Reliability Assessment. Final Report

National Institute of Technology Calicut Department of Mechanical Engineering PRODUCTION PLANNING (AGGREGATE PLANNING)

Simulation-based multi-craft workforce scheduling

PHM Return on Investment (ROI) (Use of PHM in Maintenance Planning) Prognostics and Health Management

TIME SERIES CONSISTENCY

Optimal maintenance planning process. The Case Study of Metropolitano de Lisboa

Uncertainty Management by Safety Measures in Probabilistic Product Design

SkyMAX is a new-generation flight scheduling optimization system that maximizes an airline s total network profitability by determining the right

Design of Real-time Auto-grouping Algorithm for Maintenance Tasks of Civil Aircraft Peng ZHANG 1, Shu-yun BI 2,* and Shi-wei ZHAO 1

Optimal Multi-scale Capacity Planning under Hourly Varying Electricity Prices

Flexible turnaround planning for integrated chemical sites

Metaheuristics for scheduling production in large-scale open-pit mines accounting for metal uncertainty - Tabu search as an example.

How to load a ferry: a comparison of packing algorithms for the vehicle ferry industry

Optimal Scheduling of Railroad Track Inspection Activities and Production Teams

Optimizing the Preventive-Maintenance Plan of a Public Transport Bus Fleet

Data Mining in MRO process optimisation

LONG-HAUL FREIGHT SELECTION FOR LAST-MILE COST REDUCTION

The Confluence Model. Presentation to Modeling and Forecasting Working Group January 21, 2015

FALCON SERVICE ADVISORY

Workforce Evolution & Optimization Modeling and Optimization for smarter long-term workforce planning

International Business Machines Corporation provides information technology (IT) products and services worldwide. ~380,000 employees

Global Supply Chain Planning under Demand and Freight Rate Uncertainty

The Plus of CBM+ Thomas H. Carroll III. Director of Aircraft Maintenance Technical Services

Process Manufacturing

Helitech Matthieu Louvot Executive Vice President Customer Support & Services Airbus Helicopters. October 4 th 2017

An Agent Based Auction Model for the Analysis of the Introduction of Competition in ATM

Integrated staffing and scheduling for an aircraft line maintenance problem. Jeroen Beliën, Erik Demeulemeester, Brecht Cardoen

ghg inventory and carbon neutral

Modernizing MRO By Tom Hennessey, VP of Marketing and Business Development at ibaset

Scheduling and Rostering of Flexible Labour at Container Port Terminals using Metaheuristic Algorithms

AUSTRALIAN ENERGY MARKET OPERATOR

OVERVIEW. IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Technical Aspects of a Leased Asset 2019

Spatial Information in Offline Approximate Dynamic Programming for Dynamic Vehicle Routing with Stochastic Requests

Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT)

In collaboration with Jean-Yves Lucas (EDF)

IATA MCC An Airline Perspective

Progress Report of the

Capability List Document Document QA-TCL

Gwydir Operations Plan. August 2018

I N S I G H T S I N T O I N D I G O S J O U R N E Y & K E Y S A P F & R C A PA B I L I T I E S J U LY 6,

Using PHM to Meet Availability-Based Contracting Requirements

Flight Data Management : includes tasks of loading, preparing and discarding flight progress strips, etc., and also includes computer updates.

Recommended Modifications to Train Performance Indicators

Introduction to Project Management

Airfreight Forecasting Presentation to Ministry of Transport 23 February 2016 By Murray King and Richard Paling

Industrial Maintenance Scheduling: Challenges, Solutions, Benefits

Efficient aircraft spare parts inventory management under demand uncertainty

MBP1123 Project Scope, Time and Cost Management Prepared by Dr Khairul Anuar

Strategic Planning in Air Traffic Control as a Multi-Objective Stochastic Optimization Problem

Research Article Integrated Production-Distribution Scheduling Problem with Multiple Independent Manufacturers

Paperless Aircraft Operations

Coordinated Arrival Departure Management

MILP Models for Scheduling of the Batch Annealing Process: The Deterministic Case

Galorath Annual Conference April Presented by: David Tyso & Martin Dunkley. Design to Cost Engineers. Airbus UK. Winging-it with Seer DFM

SPECIAL CONTROL CHARTS

An optimization framework for modeling and simulation of dynamic systems based on AIS

Usability Evaluation of the Spot and Runway Departure Advisor (SARDA) Concept in a Dallas/Fort Worth Airport Tower Simulation

Technical note on seasonal adjustment for Non oil exports

The Fulfilment model. Who cares about TAT, does it really matter?

Prediction of Fatigue Crack Growth in Airframe Structures

Chapter 8 Variability and Waiting Time Problems

Flexible turnaround planning for integrated chemical sites

Flexible Resource Adequacy Criteria and Must Offer Obligation Working Group Meeting

Chapter 04. Airworthiness Limitations

Improvement on the Acceptance of a Conflict Resolution System by Air Traffic Controllers. R. Flicker, Technical University Berlin

Uncertainty in LCA from Economic Input Output Models. Chris Hendrickson Francis McMichael Carnegie Mellon

Aggregate Planning (session 1,2)

assessment regarding the effects of accuracy checks for infusion and syringe pumps on other clinical operations.

Project Controls for Optimal Execution

THE VALUE OF DISCRETE-EVENT SIMULATION IN COMPUTER-AIDED PROCESS OPERATIONS

Short-Term. Scheduling

IATA 2nd RFID & Paperless Technical Operations Conference

RAM Model and Simulation of U.S. Army Aviation Fleet

Demand Estimation Sub Committee. EUC Modelling Approach Spring th December 2018

Shop Floor Control in Repair shops. Floor Cornelissen

1.224J/ESD.204J TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS, PLANNING AND CONTROL: CARRIER SYSTEMS

New York University Stern School of Business Langone Program Strategic Marketing & Planning (Summer I, 2010) (TENTATIVE SYLLABUS)

Allstream Centre Energy Performance Report

A Method for Determining Inventory Policy Parameters for a Single Product under Limited Space

Demand Estimation Sub Committee. Seasonal Normal Review 2020: Review of CWV Formula

EARN $100 INTRODUCING DYNAMIC PACKAGING AT YOUR FINGERTIPS!

Commercial Aerostructure Titanium Demand Back to the Future?

The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence

Airline Disruptions: Aircraft Recovery with Maintenance Constraints

Energy System Planning under Uncertainty

Institute for Software-Integrated Systems. Technical Report

Building Trust in Data Assets for Real-Time Aviation Analytics

Introduction to Logistics Systems Management

Optimization under Uncertainty. with Applications

Policy Recommendation on Sub-Cap on Off-Peak Landing and Take off Charges

Transcription:

An Approximate Dynamic Programming (ADP) Approach for Aircraft Maintenance Scheduling Qichen Deng, Bruno F. Santos, Richard Curran q.deng@tudelft.nl

http://www.airmes-project.eu/ This project has received funding from the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking under the European Union s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 681858, AIRMES project

Outline 1. Background and Related Work 2. Problem Formulation 3. Methodology 4. Outcomes and Evaluation 5. Summary and Future Work 3

Background and Related Work

Background Maintenance Costs (51 Airlines) Average (USD/Year) Min (USD/Year) Max (USD/Year) Per Airline 295M 0.95M 2.28B Per Aircraft 3.6M 0.67M 9.3M Per Flight Hour 1,087 287 2,841 Per Flight Cycle 2,681 465 11,937 [1] IATA s Maintenance Cost Task Force. Airline Maintenance Cost Executive Commentary An Exclusive Benchmark Analysis, 2015. 5

Aircraft Maintenance Checks A-Check General inspection of the interior/exterior C-Check Detailed functional and operational systems checks, cleaning and servicing D-Check or IL (sometimes merged with C-Checks) The exterior paint is stripped and large parts of the outer paneling are removed, uncovering the airframe, supporting structure and wings for inspection of most structurally significant items 6

Related Work M. Etschmaier, P. Franke, Long -Term Scheduling of Aircraft Overhauls, 1969 C-Check A-Check H. Bauer-Stampfli,Near Optimal Long-Term Scheduling of Aircraft Overhauls by Dynamic Programming, 1971 N. J. Boere, Air Canada Saves with Aircraft Maintenance Scheduling,1977 T. A. Feo, J. F. Bard, Flight Scheduling and Maintenance Base Planning,1989 W. E. Moudani, F. Mora-Camino, A Dynamic Approach for Aircraft Assignment and Maintenance Scheduling by Airlines, 2000 C. Sriram, A. Haghani, An Optimization Model for Aircraft Maintenance Scheduling and Re-Assignment, 2003 7

Problem Formulation

Problem Definition Aircraft is aged by: Calendar Day (DY) Flight Hour (FH) Flight Cycle [2] (FC) [2] K. Rypdal, 2000Aircraft emissions. In: Penman J, Kruger D, Galbally I, Hiraishi T, Nyenzi B, Emmanul S, Buendia L, Hoppaus R, Martinsen T, Meijer J, Miwa K, Tanabe K, editors. Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Background paper, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. 93102. 9

Problem Definition Cont. When is an aircraft scheduled C-check or A-check? 0 DY 0 FH 0 FC [3] A-Check [3] Airbus A320 Maintenance Planning Document. 10

Problem Definition Cont. When is an aircraft scheduled C-check or A-check? 0 DY 0 FH 0 FC 120 DY 750 FH 750 FC [3] A-Check [3] Airbus A320 Maintenance Planning Document. 11

Problem Definition Cont. When is an aircraft scheduled C-check or A-check? 0 DY 0 FH 0 FC 120 DY 750 FH 750 FC 730 DY 7500 FH 5000 FC A-Check [3] C-Check [3] Airbus A320 Maintenance Planning Document. 12

Maintenance Check and Duration [3] 0 DY 0 FH 0 FC 120 DY 750 FH 750 FC 0 DY 0 FH 0 FC 120 DY 750 FH 750 FC 0 DY 0 FH 0 FC A-Check: A- Check A- Check 1-2 day 1-2 day 0 DY 0 FH 0 FC 730 DY 7500 FH 5000 FC 0 DY 0 FH 0 FC 730 DY 7500 FH 5000 FC 0 DY 0 FH 0 FC C-Check: C-Check C-Check [3] Airbus A320 Maintenance Planning Document. 1 to 4 weeks 1 to 4 weeks 13

Maintenance Constraints C-Check/A-Check Interval Hangar Capacity (Parallel C-/A-Check) Maintenance Tools Aircraft spare parts Maintenance Engineers Commercial Peak Season Weekends Public Holidays Summer 14

Objective and Decision Variable Objective: Minimize the total unused FH of fleet 0 FH 5000 FH 7500 FH C-Check 7500 5000 = 2500 Unused FH Decision Variables: Start dates of C-checks and A-checks 15

Methodology Approximate Dynamic Programming

Integer Decision Variables Challenge: Long computation time Solution: Dynamic programming with forward induction Divide a large problem to several small sub problems Define proper planning stage 1 stage = 1 calendar day Define state of problem for decision making State = {DY/FH/FC since last C-Check/A-check} 17

Multi-Dimensional Action Vector Challenge: Computationally expensive to evaluate all actions Solution: Define Aircraft (A-/C-) Check Priority C-Check A-Check: Sort Utilization C-Check A-Check: A/C 1: 0.5 A/C 2: 0.9 A/C 3: 0.7 A/C 4: 0.8 A/C 1: 0.6 A/C 2: 0.2 A/C 3: 0.9 A/C 4: 0.5 A/C 2: 0.9 A/C 4: 0.8 A/C 3: 0.7 A/C 1: 0.5 A/C 3: 0.9 A/C 1: 0.6 A/C 4: 0.5 A/C 2: 0.2 C-Check Priority: A/C 2, A/C 4, A/C 3, A/C 1 A-Check Priority: A/C 3, A/C 1, A/C 4, A/C 2 18

Multi-Dimensional State Variable Example: No check, 1 C-check, 1 A-check Day 0 1 2 3 n Outcomes 1 3 9 27 3 n Impossible to evaluate all actions and save all outcomes! 19

Multi-Dimensional State Variable Challenge: Difficult for discretization and large outcome space Solution: Define utilization threshold for making decision Example: No check, 1 C-check, 1 A-check Sort utilization: {u c,1, u c,2, u c,3, (u c,i > u c,i+1 ) }, {u a,1, u a,2, u a,3, (u a,i > u a,i+1 ) } Day 0 1 2 3 n Is there C- Outcomes 1 3 check/acheck slot? 9 27 3 n Impossible to evaluate all actions and save all outcomes! Generate Utilization Threshold: [U c,u a ] = g(features) Significantly reduce the search states! If u c,1 U c, allocate C-check If u a,1 U a, allocate A-check 20

Policy Function (PF) Define the rule that determines a decision at a state Introducing policy function reduces the number of search states Policy function generates the C-check/A-check utilization threshold: [U c,u a ] = g(features) Features: Mean utilization of fleet Standard deviation of utilization Current available C-check/A-check block The coming commercial peak when no C-/A-check is allowed 21

Policy Iteration Find the optimal policy to make optimal decision Policy iteration requires many simulation runs to find the optimal coefficient of policy function Each simulation run simulates the decision given by policy function and step forward through time After the coefficients are found, the policy function can be used to make decision and respond to changes of input in seconds. 22

Policy Iteration Cont. Formulation of Policy Function: U c = 1 (k c,1 x c,1 + k c,2 x c,2 + k c,3 x c,3 + k c,4 x c,4 + ) U a = 1 (k a,1 x a,1 + k a,2 x a,2 + k a,3 x a,3 + k a,4 x a,4 + ) x c,1, x c,2, x c,3, are the features related to C-check x a,1, x a,2, x a,3, are the features related to A-check Machine Learning: F objective function; α c / α a learning rates for C-check/A-check 23

Work Flow of Policy Iteration Initial fleet data Generate initial coefficient for policy function Make C-check and A-check decisions from day 1 to day n Are the partial derivative of all coefficients of PF 0? Yes Stop and return the C-check and A-check schedule No Tune the coefficients of policy function 24

Outcomes and Evaluation

Case study (Jan 2011 Dec 2015) Test Fleet: 39 aircraft of A320 family C-Check Interval: 7500 FH / 5000 FC / 730 Days A-Check Interval: 750 FH / 750 FC / 120 Days [4] C-Check Tolerance: 750 FH / 500 FC / 60 DY A-Check Tolerance: 75 FH / 75 FC / 12 DY No C-check is allowed from Dec 18 th - Jan 7 th, the weeks before and after Easter and Jun 1 st Sep 30 th. No A-check on weekend and public holidays 3 slots available for C-checks, 1 slot for A-check [4] https://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/3972/fsx-airbus-industriehouse-a320/ 26

Selected Features C-Check: The coming commercial peak season when no C-check is allowed (x c,1 ) Current available C-check block (x c,2 ) Standard deviation of utilization (x c,3 ) Constant (x c,4 ) A-Check: The coming bank holiday when no A-check is allowed (x a,1 ) Standard deviation of utilization (x a,2 ) Constant (x a,3 ) Note: all the features are normalized between 0 and 1. 27

Coefficients of Policy Function Policy Function: U c = 1 (k c,1 x c,1 + k c,2 x c,2 + k c,3 x c,3 + k c,4 x c,4 ) U a = 1 (k a,1 x a,1 + k a,2 x a,2 + k a,3 x a,3 ) Coefficient k c,1 (Length of commercial peak season) k c,2 (Length of remaining C-check block) k c,3 (Standard deviation of C-check utilization) k c,4 (Constant) k a,1 (Length of public holiday or weekend) k a,2 (Standard deviation of A-check utilization) k a,3 (Constant) 28

Optimized vs. Airline Schedule Jan 1 st 2011 - Dec 31 st 2015 Average FH C-Check Total C- Checks Average FH A-Check Total A- Checks Airline 6644.5 108 689 1054 1-stage ADP 6686.9 102 682.2 1043 n-stage ADP 6900.0 95 728.9 972 Reduce 13 C-checks Reduce 82 A-checks Lower maintenance costs Higher aircraft utilization 29

Utilization Distribution (C-Check) Aircraft Utilization Distribution Under Expected Aircraft Utilization Distribution Under 50 Original C-Check Schedule 50 Optimized C-Check Schedule (ADP) 45 45 Desired Utilization 40 40 35 30 Desired Utilization 35 30 Number of C-Check 25 20 15 Number of C-Check 25 20 15 10 10 5 5 0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 Aircraft Utilization Aircraft Utilization 30

Utilization Distribution (A-Check) Aircraft Utilization Distribution Under Expected Aircraft Utilization Distribution Under 500 Original A-Check Schedule 500 Optimized A-Check Schedule (ADP) 450 400 Desired Utilization 450 400 Desired Utilization 350 350 300 300 Number of A-Check 250 200 150 Number of A-Check 250 200 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 Aircraft Utilization Aircraft Utilization 31

Summary and Future Work

Summary Define C-check/A-check priority to simplify the action vector. Use policy function to reduce search states. Both C-checks and A-checks are optimized in one step. 33

Future Work Calculation of workload associated with the schedule: Workload capacity control Introduction of uncertainty (stochastic modelling): Elapse times Aircraft FH & FC Line maintenance planning: Optimize the sequence of line maintenance Allocate workforce 34

Acknowledgment This project has received funding from the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking under the European Union s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 681858, AIRMES project. http://www.airmes-project.eu/ 35

Thank you! q.deng@tudelft.nl 36