| Literature DB >> 35062400 |
Agnieszka Tubis1, Sylwia Werbińska-Wojciechowska1, Pawel Sliwinski2, Radoslaw Zimroz3.
Abstract
Enterprises today are increasingly seeking maintenance management strategies to ensure that their machines run faultlessly. This problem is particularly relevant in the mining sector, due to the demanding working conditions of underground mines and machines and equipment-operating regimes. Therefore, in this article, the authors proposed a new approach to mining machinery maintenance management, based on the concept of risk-based maintenance (RBM) and taking into account safety issues. The proposed method includes five levels of analysis, of which the first level focuses on hazard analysis, while the next three are connected with a risk evaluation. The final level relates to determining the RBM recommendations. The recommendations are defined in relation to the three main improvement areas: maintenance, safety, and resource availability/allocation. The proposed approach is based on the use of fuzzy logic. To present the possibilities of implementing our method, a case study covering the operation of selected mining machinery in a selected Polish underground mine is presented. In the case of mining machinery, fourteen adverse-event scenarios were identified and investigated; general recommendations were also given. The authors have also indicated further directions of research work to optimize system maintenance strategies, based on the concept of risk-based maintenance. Additionally, the discussion about the implementation possibilities of the approach developed herein is provided.Entities:
Keywords: RBM concept; fuzzy logic; mining industry; risk; safety; system maintenance
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35062400 PMCID: PMC8777644 DOI: 10.3390/s22020441
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1A framework of the developed decision-making solution.
Figure 2The architecture of RBM strategy. Source: own contribution based on [17].
Summary of reviewed literature on fuzzy RBMI.
| Ref. No. | Problem Investigated | The Main Goal of the Implemented Approach | Type of Paper | Risk Analysis Methodology Implemented | Modeling Method Used | Case Study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | The fuzzy logic decision process for planning the maintenance activities | Maintenance interval planning | Research paper | n/a | Fuzzy logic, statistical testing, signal processing | Cold plastic deformation tools |
| [ | Comparison of fuzzy FMEA and conventional FMEA results | Potential failure mode ranking (risk prioritization) | Case study | Fuzzy FMEA | Fuzzy logic | LHD machine |
| [ | Assessment of maintenance failure risk | Risk matrix method | LPG supply chain | |||
| [ | Comparison of conventional risk matrix method and fuzzy risk assessment | Research paper | Underground coal mine | |||
| [ | Comparison of conventional FMEA method and fuzzy risk assessment | FMEA | Fuzzy sets theory, fuzzy logic, and min–max composition | |||
| [ | Maintenance policy selection and comparison with results obtained using conventional AHP with goal Programming | Selection of the best suitable maintenance policy | Research paper | n/a | Fuzzy ANP | Chemical plant |
| [ | Multi-criteria decision-making problem | Supplier selection for forklift filters | Research paper | n/a | Fuzzy AHP, fuzzy DEMATEL and TOPSIS | Mining company |
| [ | New model for evaluation of risk levels associated with identified hazard factors in mining industry | Mine lever risk estimation | Fuzzy reasoning approach and fuzzy AHP | Metalliferous mine | ||
| [ | Crushing circuit optimization | Determining the major crusher failures | Case study | Root Cause Analysis | Fuzzy logic, stresses analysis | Platinum mining company |
| [ | Risk assessment model development for mining machinery | Failure severity assessment | Research paper | FMEA | Fuzzy sets theory, fuzzy logic, and min–max composition | Mobile crushing machine |
| [ | Fuzzy RBM model development | Fuzzy risk-index evaluation | Risk decision matrix | Delphi method, fuzzy logic | Oil and gas refineries | |
| [ | RBM optimization | Functional failure risk of equipment prioritization | Fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic | Offshore oil and gas production and process industry | ||
| [ | Risk rank calculation | Case study | Fuzzy logic | Manufacturing company | ||
| [ | Basic fuzzy RBM model application | Fuzzy risk-index evaluation | Underground coal mine | |||
| [ | Risk-based maintenance plan definition | Risk-index optimization | Research paper | FTA, ETA | HAZOP, fuzzy AHP, bi-objective fuzzy structure optimization modeling | Offshore processing facility |
| [ | Reliability allocation method development; comparison of traditional RPN-based and fuzzy allocation methods | Reliability and cost coefficients estimation | Research paper | n/a | Fuzzy logic | Spindle system of numerical control machine |
| [ | Multi-state performance reliability model development | System reliability estimation | Research paper | n/a | Fuzzy set theory, probability theory, simulation modeling | Harmonic gear reducer |
| [ | Prediction of equipment failure onboard tankers | Failure modes prioritization | Fuzzy FMEA | Fuzzy set theory, grey theory | Tanker equipment |
Figure 3Fuzzy RBM methodology, as proposed in this study.
Figure 4Algorithm for unwanted events occurrence probability estimation.
Assigning probability levels to linguistic notations.
| Probability Level | Linguistic Notation | Description |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | RARE | Could happen but practically impossible that it occurs in the near future |
| P2 | UNLIKELY | Not likely to occur in normal circumstances; conceivable but possible |
| P3 | POSSIBLE | May occur in normal circumstances; unusual but possible |
| P4 | LIKELY | Expected to occur at some time; quite possible |
| P5 | ALMOST CERTAIN | Expected to occur regularly under normal circumstances; may be expected |
Class of attention with consequences description.
| Class | Human | Machinery | Costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Injuries and fatalities; permanent total disability | Long-term machine shutdown (more than one month) or permanent withdrawal from an operation | Catastrophic financial losses; very high costs connected with machine shutdown influencing production disruptions, lack of resources, the need to buy a new machine, damage to property, and a significant loss of reputation for the company |
| B | Major injury, requiring long-term treatment and therapy | Long-term machine shutdown (exceeding three working days) | High costs associated with the shutdown and restoration of a system; high costs of production delays, asset allocation, expenses related to damage to the company’s property and its reputation |
| C | Minor injury; requiring inpatient treatment | A short-term shutdown lasting not longer than three days | Significant costs associated with shutdown; noticeable costs of production delays, consumption of assets, and damage to the company’s reputation |
| D | No casualties; requiring outpatient treatment without a lasting impact and requiring first aid | Minor shutdown; no longer than 24 working hours loss | Low costs, mostly connected with the production delay |
| E | No casualties; no requirement for first aid | Insignificant shutdown; no longer than the eighth loss of working hours | No or insignificant costs |
Figure 5The structure of a typical fuzzy logic system (FLS) [39,48,57].
Figure 6The scenario occurrence probability fuzzy sets.
Figure 7The class of attention fuzzy sets.
Figure 8The risk categories’ fuzzy sets.
The numerical value of the linguistic P, CA, and R variables.
| Linguistic Variable: Probability P | ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| P1 | RARE | [0, 1, 2] |
| P2 | UNLIKELY | [1.5, 2.5, 4] |
| P3 | POSSIBLE | [3.5, 4.5, 6] |
| P4 | LIKELY | [5.5, 6.5, 8] |
| P5 | ALMOST CERTAIN | [7, 8.5, 10, 10] |
| Linguistic variable: class of attention CA | ||
|
|
|
|
| A | VERY HIGH | [7.5, 9, 10, 10] |
| B | HIGH | [6, 7.5, 9] |
| C | MEDIUM | [4, 5.5, 7] |
| D | LOW | [2, 3.5, 5] |
| E | VERY LOW | [0, 0, 1, 3] |
| Linguistic variable: risk R | ||
|
|
|
|
| L | LOW | [0, 5, 15, 25] |
| S | SIGNIFICANT | [10, 20, 35, 45] |
| H | HIGH | [35, 45, 60, 70] |
| CR | CRITICAL | [60, 100, 100] |
Risk decision matrix for “IF-THEN-ELSE” rules definition.
|
|
| SIGNIFICANT | HIGH | HIGH | CRITICAL | CRITICAL |
|
| SIGNIFICANT | SIGNIFICANT | HIGH | CRITICAL | CRITICAL | |
|
| LOW | SIGNIFICANT | SIGNIFICANT | HIGH | HIGH | |
|
| LOW | SIGNIFICANT | SIGNIFICANT | SIGNIFICANT | HIGH | |
|
| LOW | LOW | LOW | SIGNIFICANT | SIGNIFICANT | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| ||||||
Risk levels and scores.
| Ranking Category | Description | Risk Sacore |
|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | The probability of an adverse event occurring is almost certain, with severe consequences in terms of long-term machine downtime and possible personnel casualties, such as injuries or fatalities. | 81–100 |
| HIGH | The adverse event has a high probability of occurrence, but its effects affect the operation of the machine in the medium term; the possible shutdown does not exceed three days. Alternatively, the event generates high losses in the form of long-term machine shutdown and even injuries, but the probability of its occurrence is low. | 46–80 |
| SIGNIFICANT | Adverse events are characterized by an average probability of occurrence and a potential consequence. If an extreme value of one of the evaluated parameters occurs, the value of the other parameter takes the opposite extreme value (e.g., very high probability—very low effect). | 26–45 |
| LOW | The adverse event risk is very low and, at the same time, the consequences of its occurrence do not significantly affect current mining processes. | 0–25 |
Main areas for recommendations based on the obtained risk level.
| Main Area for Recommendations | Risk Level | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOW | SIGNIFICANT | HIGH | CRITICAL | |
| Regulatory | x | x | x | x |
| Economic | x | x | x | |
| Organizational/managerial | x | x | x | |
| Operational/maintenance | x | x | x | |
| Technical/design | x | |||
| Research/education | x | x | x | x |
x—should be applied.
Figure 9Proposed recommendations, based on obtained risk level—possible directions of company’s related tasks in the three main improvement areas.
Parameters linguistic scores for all identified adverse event scenarios, based on experts’ opinions.
| No. | Adverse Event Scenario | Scenario Occurrence Probability P | Class of Attention CA |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Faulty fire suppression system | P3 | B |
| 2 | Leakage in the hydraulic piping system | P5 | B |
| 3 | Faulty power train | P4 | B |
| 4 | Faulty combustion engine in the drive train | P3 | B |
| 5 | Faulty break brake system | P4 | A |
| 6 | Faulty electric drive of the working hydraulics | P3 | B |
| 7 | Hydraulic pump failure in the hydraulic system | P3 | C |
| 8 | Failure of the air intake system in the drive train | P3 | C |
| 9 | Failure of the boom in the working system | P4 | D |
| 10 | Failure of the air conditioning system | P3 | D |
| 11 | Electrical failure in the electrical system DC 24 V | P3 | C |
| 12 | Electrical failure in the electrical system AC 500/1000 V | P3 | A |
| 13 | Failure of the machine frame, which is a structural element | P2 | B |
| 14 | Failure of the drilling machine, which is part of the working system | P5 | D |
Figure 10Structure of the proposed fuzzy model.
The risk score and risk level of identified adverse event scenarios.
| No. | Adverse Event Scenario | Risk Score | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Faulty fire suppression system | 52.5 | HIGH |
| 2 | Leakage in the hydraulic piping system | 87 | CRITICAL |
| 3 | Faulty power train | 87 | CRITICAL |
| 4 | Faulty combustion engine in the drive train | 52.5 | HIGH |
| 5 | Faulty break brake system | 87 | CRITICAL |
| 6 | Faulty electric drive of the working hydraulics | 52.5 | HIGH |
| 7 | Hydraulic pump failure in the hydraulic system | 27.5 | SIGNIFICANT |
| 8 | Failure of the air intake system in the drive train | 27.5 | SIGNIFICANT |
| 9 | Failure of the boom in the working system | 27.5 | SIGNIFICANT |
| 10 | Failure of the air conditioning system | 27.5 | SIGNIFICANT |
| 11 | Electrical failure in the electrical system DC 24 V | 27.5 | SIGNIFICANT |
| 12 | Electrical failure in the electrical system AC 500/1000 V | 52.5 | HIGH |
| 13 | Failure of the machine frame, which is a structural element | 27.5 | SIGNIFICANT |
| 14 | Failure of the drilling machine, which is part of the working system | 52.5 | HIGH |
Figure 11Sample rule base for the proposed fuzzy decision-making approach.
Figure 12Surface view of the proposed fuzzy inference system for mining machinery (rules with weights equal to 1).