IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v118y2017icp1295-1303.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A framework for identification of maintenance significant items in reliability centered maintenance

Author

Listed:
  • Tang, Yang
  • Liu, Qingyou
  • Jing, Jiajia
  • Yang, Yan
  • Zou, Zhengwei

Abstract

Identification of Maintenance Significant Items (MSI) is one of the key phases of the Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), which is a screening phase where the number of items for analysis is reduced. But at present, there is little systematic and convenient operation method to identify the MSI. In this paper, we presented a framework for identification of the MSI through combination of quantitative analysis with qualitative analysis. Firstly, we screened out part of non-MSI through the first screening which defines a system boundary, set up a system hierarchy tree and do a Risk Analysis (RA) of a 2th order risk matrix. And secondly, we omitted another part non-MSI in the second screening which carried out a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and do a RA based on a 5th order risk matrix. Moreover, we carried on a quantitative analysis by establishing evaluation indexes and scoring standard of the MSI based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Borda Count method (FBC). Finally, we completed a case study about the drilling pump to prove the feasibility and practicality of the method. This study is helpful for the applicable and effective Preventive Maintenance (PM) tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Tang, Yang & Liu, Qingyou & Jing, Jiajia & Yang, Yan & Zou, Zhengwei, 2017. "A framework for identification of maintenance significant items in reliability centered maintenance," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1295-1303.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:118:y:2017:i:c:p:1295-1303
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544216316097
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carazas, F.G. & Souza, G.F.M., 2010. "Risk-based decision making method for maintenance policy selection of thermal power plant equipment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 964-975.
    2. van der Weide, J.A.M. & Pandey, M.D. & van Noortwijk, J.M., 2010. "Discounted cost model for condition-based maintenance optimization," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 236-246.
    3. Min, C.G. & Park, J.K. & Hur, D. & Kim, M.K., 2016. "A risk evaluation method for ramping capability shortage in power systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1316-1324.
    4. Niu, Gang & Yang, Bo-Suk & Pecht, Michael, 2010. "Development of an optimized condition-based maintenance system by data fusion and reliability-centered maintenance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 786-796.
    5. Selvik, J.T. & Aven, T., 2011. "A framework for reliability and risk centered maintenance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 324-331.
    6. Cai, Baoping & Liu, Yonghong & Ma, Yunpeng & Huang, Lei & Liu, Zengkai, 2015. "A framework for the reliability evaluation of grid-connected photovoltaic systems in the presence of intermittent faults," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(P2), pages 1308-1320.
    7. Zidan, Aboelsood & El-Saadany, E.F., 2015. "Incorporating customers' reliability requirements and interruption characteristics in service restoration plans for distribution systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 192-200.
    8. Zhou, Xiaojun & Xi, Lifeng & Lee, Jay, 2007. "Reliability-centered predictive maintenance scheduling for a continuously monitored system subject to degradation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(4), pages 530-534.
    9. Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2011. "Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 64-74.
    10. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, January.
    11. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Kryman, Matthew & Laine, Emily, 2015. "Profiling technological failure and disaster in the energy sector: A comparative analysis of historical energy accidents," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(P2), pages 2016-2027.
    12. Aven, Terje & Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2005. "On the use of risk acceptance criteria in the offshore oil and gas industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 15-24.
    13. Aven, Terje, 2007. "A unified framework for risk and vulnerability analysis covering both safety and security," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(6), pages 745-754.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kowal, Karol & Torabi, Mina, 2021. "Failure mode and reliability study for Electrical Facility of the High Temperature Engineering Test Reactor," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    2. Afzali, Peyman & Keynia, Farshid & Rashidinejad, Masoud, 2019. "A new model for reliability-centered maintenance prioritisation of distribution feeders," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 701-709.
    3. Andrés A. Zúñiga & Alexandre Baleia & João Fernandes & Paulo Jose Da Costa Branco, 2020. "Classical Failure Modes and Effects Analysis in the Context of Smart Grid Cyber-Physical Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-26, March.
    4. Adherbal Caminada Netto & Arthur Henrique de Andrade Melani & Carlos Alberto Murad & Miguel Angelo de Carvalho Michalski & Gilberto Francisco Martha de Souza & Silvio Ikuyo Nabeta, 2020. "A Novel Approach to Defining Maintenance Significant Items: A Hydro Generator Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, November.

    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. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    3. Arthur H.A. Melani & Carlos A. Murad & Adherbal Caminada Netto & Gilberto F.M. Souza & Silvio I. Nabeta, 2019. "Maintenance Strategy Optimization of a Coal-Fired Power Plant Cooling Tower through Generalized Stochastic Petri Nets," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-28, May.
    4. Sujan, Mark A. & Habli, Ibrahim & Kelly, Tim P. & Gühnemann, Astrid & Pozzi, Simone & Johnson, Christopher W., 2017. "How can health care organisations make and justify decisions about risk reduction? Lessons from a cross-industry review and a health care stakeholder consensus development process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-11.
    5. Aven, Terje, 2012. "On the link between risk and exposure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 191-199.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2011. "Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practise," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 509-514.
    7. Aven, Terje, 2012. "The risk concept—historical and recent development trends," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 33-44.
    8. Aven, Terje, 2010. "Some reflections on uncertainty analysis and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 195-201.
    9. Zhao, Xufeng & Qian, Cunhua & Nakagawa, Toshio, 2013. "Optimal policies for cumulative damage models with maintenance last and first," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 50-59.
    10. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    11. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    12. Peng Hou & Xiaojian Yi & Haiping Dong, 2020. "A Spatial Statistic Based Risk Assessment Approach to Prioritize the Pipeline Inspection of the Pipeline Network," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, February.
    13. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    14. Alaswad, Suzan & Xiang, Yisha, 2017. "A review on condition-based maintenance optimization models for stochastically deteriorating system," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 54-63.
    15. Tamilselvan, Prasanna & Wang, Pingfeng, 2013. "Failure diagnosis using deep belief learning based health state classification," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 124-135.
    16. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    17. Cha, Guesik & Park, Junseok & Moon, Ilkyeong, 2023. "Military aircraft flight and maintenance planning model considering heterogeneous maintenance tasks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    18. Veland, H. & Aven, T., 2013. "Risk communication in the light of different risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 34-40.
    19. Hu, Chao & Youn, Byeng D. & Wang, Pingfeng & Taek Yoon, Joung, 2012. "Ensemble of data-driven prognostic algorithms for robust prediction of remaining useful life," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 120-135.
    20. Terje Aven, 2013. "On the Meaning and Use of the Risk Appetite Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 462-468, 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:eee:energy:v:118:y:2017:i:c:p:1295-1303. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    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.