IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i21p13850-d952846.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Sustainable Maintenance Strategy for Manufacturing Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Desmond Eseoghene Ighravwe

    (Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2092, South Africa)

Abstract

This study creates a framework to aid in the sustainability of maintenance strategies. The framework was created using expertise from the industry and academia. Using this knowledge, three multi-criteria tools were chosen for the maintenance strategies evaluation. The tools include grey relational analysis (GRA) techniques, additive ratio assessment (ARAS), and step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). In a production system, they were used to assess four planned maintenance strategies. The strategies are periodic maintenance (S1), meter-based maintenance (S2), predictive maintenance (S3) and prescriptive maintenance (S4). The ARAS approach was used to obtain the strategy rating for the various requirements. This study used the SWARA method to determine the requirements’ importance using an intuitionistic fuzzy triangular number. The ARAS results were combined using the GRA method. This study observed that the criteria utilised to choose a maintenance strategy for equipment depend on the information collected from six specialists in a manufacturing organisation. For instance, it was discovered that S3 was the maintenance approach that best suited the system’s technical needs. At the same time, S2 was found to be less effective. The economic needs analysis showed that S1 is the maintenance strategy that is most appropriate for the system, while S3 is the least appropriate. S1 is the most appropriate maintenance method for the system, given the social requirements, whereas S2 is the least effective. According to the results of the environmental requirements, S2 is the best maintenance plan for the system, while S4 is the worst. According to the GRA approach, the system’s best and least appropriate maintenance strategies are S2 and S4, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Desmond Eseoghene Ighravwe, 2022. "Assessment of Sustainable Maintenance Strategy for Manufacturing Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:13850-:d:952846
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/13850/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/13850/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Froger, Aurélien & Gendreau, Michel & Mendoza, Jorge E. & Pinson, Éric & Rousseau, Louis-Martin, 2016. "Maintenance scheduling in the electricity industry: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(3), pages 695-706.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Parhizkar, Tarannom & Mosleh, Ali & Roshandel, Ramin, 2017. "Aging based optimal scheduling framework for power plants using equivalent operating hour approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 1345-1363.
    2. Michel Vasquez & Mirsad Buljubasic & Saïd Hanafi, 2023. "An efficient scenario penalization matheuristic for a stochastic scheduling problem," Journal of Heuristics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 383-408, June.
    3. Jules Raymond Kala & Didier Michael Kre & Armelle N’Guessan Gnassou & Jean Robert Kamdjoug Kala & Yves Melaine Akpablin Akpablin & Tiorna Coulibaly, 2022. "Assets management on electrical grid using Faster-RCNN," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 308(1), pages 307-320, January.
    4. Rodríguez, Jesús A. & Anjos, Miguel F. & Côté, Pascal & Desaulniers, Guy, 2021. "Accelerating Benders decomposition for short-term hydropower maintenance scheduling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 240-253.
    5. Aurélien Froger & Michel Gendreau & Jorge E. Mendoza & Eric Pinson & Louis-Martin Rousseau, 2018. "Solving a wind turbine maintenance scheduling problem," Journal of Scheduling, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 53-76, February.
    6. Hanyu Gu & Hue Chi Lam & Thi Thanh Thu Pham & Yakov Zinder, 2023. "Heuristics and meta-heuristic to solve the ROADEF/EURO challenge 2020 maintenance planning problem," Journal of Heuristics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 139-175, February.
    7. Mazidi, Peyman & Tohidi, Yaser & Ramos, Andres & Sanz-Bobi, Miguel A., 2018. "Profit-maximization generation maintenance scheduling through bi-level programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(3), pages 1045-1057.
    8. Evrencan Özcan & Rabia Yumuşak & Tamer Eren, 2019. "Risk Based Maintenance in the Hydroelectric Power Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-22, April.
    9. Gianfranco Chicco & Andrea Mazza, 2020. "Metaheuristic Optimization of Power and Energy Systems: Underlying Principles and Main Issues of the ‘Rush to Heuristics’," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-38, September.
    10. Jann Michael Weinand & Kenneth Sorensen & Pablo San Segundo & Max Kleinebrahm & Russell McKenna, 2020. "Research trends in combinatorial optimisation," Papers 2012.01294, arXiv.org.
    11. Yihai He & Changchao Gu & Zhaoxiang Chen & Xiao Han, 2017. "Integrated predictive maintenance strategy for manufacturing systems by combining quality control and mission reliability analysis," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(19), pages 5841-5862, October.
    12. Tao, Xin & Mårtensson, Jonas & Warnquist, Håkan & Pernestål, Anna, 2022. "Short-term maintenance planning of autonomous trucks for minimizing economic risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    13. Gokturk Poyrazoglu & HyungSeon Oh, 2019. "Co-optimization of Transmission Maintenance Scheduling and Production Cost Minimization," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Thomas Bittar & Pierre Carpentier & Jean-Philippe Chancelier & Jérôme Lonchampt, 2022. "A decomposition method by interaction prediction for the optimization of maintenance scheduling," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 316(1), pages 229-267, September.
    15. Hoseini, Naghi & Sheikholeslami, Abdolreza & Barforoushi, Taghi & Latify, Mohammad Amin, 2020. "Preventive maintenance mid-term scheduling of resources in multi-carrier energy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    16. David Woller & Jakub Rada & Miroslav Kulich, 2023. "The ALNS metaheuristic for the transmission maintenance scheduling," Journal of Heuristics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 349-382, June.
    17. Petchrompo, Sanyapong & Parlikad, Ajith Kumar, 2019. "A review of asset management literature on multi-asset systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 181-201.
    18. Huang, Zhouchun & Zheng, Qipeng Phil, 2020. "A multistage stochastic programming approach for preventive maintenance scheduling of GENCOs with natural gas contract," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(3), pages 1036-1051.
    19. Omid Sadeghian & Arash Moradzadeh & Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo & Mehdi Abapour & Fausto Pedro Garcia Marquez, 2020. "Generation Units Maintenance in Combined Heat and Power Integrated Systems Using the Mixed Integer Quadratic Programming Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-25, June.
    20. Peyman Mazidi & Yaser Tohidi & Miguel A. Sanz-Bobi, 2017. "Strategic Maintenance Scheduling of an Offshore Wind Farm in a Deregulated Power System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:13850-:d:952846. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.