ELEVLI et al: MAINTAINABILITY ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL SYSTEMS OF ELECTRIC CABLE SHOVELS 267 Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research

Vol. 67, April 2008, pp. 267-271

*Author for correspondence
Tel: +90 274 2652031/4207; Fax: +90 274 2652066
E-mail: selevli@dumlupinar.edu.tr
Maintainability analysis of mechanical systems of electric cable shovels
Sermin Elevli
1
*, Nevin Uzgoren
2
and Mehmet Taksuk
3
1
Industrial Engineering Department,
2
Department of Business Administration,
Dumlupinar University, DPU, Tavsanli Yolu 10. km, Kutahya, Turkey
3
Garp Linyitleri 0_letmesi Mdrl, 43300, Tavsanli-Ktahya, Turkey
Received 14 July 2006; revised 10 January 2008; accepted 15 January 2008
Present study determines maintainability of mechanical systems of electric cable shovels utilized in Garp Linyitleri
Isletmesi (GLI). Independent and identically distributed data are identified using tests for trends and serial correlation in order
to represent the repair time data probabilistically. Three probability distributions are tried as possible candidates to fit Time To
Repair (TTR) data. Finally, maintainability for different time periods and Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) values of shovels
have been estimated on the basis of fitted distribution models.
Keywords: Downtime/ Repair distributions, Maintainability, Mean time to repair (MTTR), Shovel
Introduction
Maintainability analysis is used to find best
possibilities of cost reduction by measuring effectiveness
and weakness of maintenance operation on mining
equipments. Reports
1-8
are available on the maintenance
data analysis of mining equipments. In these studies,
except some reports
1,3,8
, more attention has been given
to Time between Successive Failures (TBFs) data than
Time to Repair (TTR) data. Kumar & Klefsjo
2
and
Barabady
7
used Power Law Process Model, which
assumes TBFs as a function of time. In other studies,
graphical and analytical techniques have been used to
fit data set using probability distributions. Best-fit
probability distribution model then used to predict failure
behavior of equipment and to calculate reliability.
Maintainability Analysis: A Tool for Availability Improvement
Maintainability is the probability that equipment
can be repaired and returned to an operational state in a
given time when each level of maintenance is performed
by skilled personnel using prescribed procedures and
resources. As per the Rule of Thumb, a greater
operational availability is achieved by either decreasing
downtime or increasing uptime. The rule requires
statistical study of failure and repair data in order to
compute reliability and maintainability characteristics
of the system. However, in some cases, the problem of
analyzing data is due to the lack of information
concerning the time between failures. In these
conditions, maintainability calculation is the only way
to draw concrete conclusions about the status of system.
In practice, availability of systems is never perfect due
to occurrence of failures. It always takes finite amount
of time (downtime) to make system operational. It is the
length of time during which equipment is not
operational
9
.
Mean Time to Repair (MTTR), a measure of
maintainability, is the mean time required to perform
repair work assuming that spare parts and skilled
personnel are available
10
. Some important factors for
maintainability are
11
: i) Design and use of equipment
should be such that failure is immediately noticed and
quickly localized; ii) Vulnerable components should be
easily accessible; iii) maintenance personnel should be
competent, well trained and have necessary tools and
test equipment; and iv) Adequate spare parts should be
accessible.
TTR for specific equipment is a random variable
due to the influence of different factors on downtime.
Distributions that describe TTR are called repair
distributions (downtime distributions). Let T be repair
time random variable, then maintainability function M(t)
is as
12,13
268 J SCI IND RES VOL 67 APRIL 2008
( )
t
0
M(t)=P(T t)= f t dt
...(1)
This study presents maintainability analysis to
reduce maintenance and operation cost of electric cable
shovels.
Experimental Details
Data of seven electric cable shovels (S10, S12,
S14, S16, S17, S18 & S19) for a period of 12 months
was obtained from a coal company, Garp Linyitleri
Isletmesi (GLI), Kutahya, Turkiye. Operation and
maintenance cards for cable shovels of GLI were
gathered for one-year period. Statistical assessment of
data (Table 1) indicates that S17 (lowest average repair
time, 3.93; range, 16.10; and standard deviation, 3.75)
is significantly better than others. On contrary, in spite
of having highest average repair time, standard
deviation of S10 is lower than that of S12, S14 and
S16. So, it is not possible to rank shovels according to
their condition by using summary statistics. However,
S10, S14 and S16 with high average repair times were
taken into consideration.
Results and Discussion
Presence of Trends and Serial Correlation
Independent and identically distributed (iid) TTR
data should be firstly verified before the application of
repair/downtime distributions
13
. The iid data are free
from trends and serial correlation. Without considering
this factor before applying standard probabilistic and
statistical methods, the validity of any result is
questionable
14
. If the data are not iid, a nonstationary
model such as the Nonhomogeneous Poisson Process
should be used to describe the data.
Cumulative TTR has been plotted against
cumulative number of repairs/failures for each shovel. A
linear plot of graph of cable shovel S17 indicates that
there is no observable trend in the data (Fig. 1). Therefore,
local trends in Fig. 1 can be considered insignificant. A
test for serial correlation is performed by means of
plotting the (i-1)
th
TTR against i
th
TTR. If TTRs are
independent, then points should be scattered randomly
on the diagram and no regular pattern should be noticed.
As no distinct serial correlation was observed for the data
on serial correlation test for cable shovel S17 (Fig. 2),
the data is free of correlations. The iid assumption has
been examined analytically by using unit root test
(Table 2) and serial correlation test (Table 3). As no trend
and serial correlations were identified for all shovels, the
iid assumption is verified. Thus, the data can be fitted to
downtime distributions in order to find out best estimate
of the maintainability function.
0
10
20
30
+0
50
60
0 20 +0 60 80 100 120 1+0 160 180 200 220
Cum. TTR
C
u
m
.

R
e
p
a
i
r

N
o
Table 1Summary statistics of repair data
Shovel Repair/failure Max. repair Min. repair Range Total repair Average repair Standard
number time, h time, h h time, h time, h deviation, h
S10 39 53.20 0.15 53.05 297 7.62 10.82
S12 80 73.30 0.15 73.15 457.75 5.72 12.85
S14 59 115.45 0.15 115.30 433.20 7.34 17.79
S16 22 51.40 0.30 51.10 152.65 6.94 12.47
S17 54 16.30 0.20 16.10 212.00 3.93 3.75
S18 62 44.20 0.15 44.05 273.95 4.42 8.68
S19 29 26.05 0.30 25.75 119.50 4.12 5.60
Fig. 1 Trend test for TTR data (S17)
ELEVLI et al: MAINTAINABILITY ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL SYSTEMS OF ELECTRIC CABLE SHOVELS 269
Determining Best- Fit Theoretical Probability Distributions
Once the data are identified to be free of
correlations and trends, the time- independent
distribution model gives the best estimate of
maintainability function. In this study, the choice of
distribution has been carried out by means of STAT-
GRAPHICS statistical software package to fit theoretical
probability distributions and to determine their
parameters. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S)
nonparametric test has been applied to find the best fit
distribution models for the data set. Results of each
model (Table 4) under K-S test indicate maximum
deviation between cumulative distribution of the data
and the theoretical probability distribution of the model
for each shovel
5
. Significance level (, 5%) has been
assumed to determine a maximum acceptable limit of
this deviation.
Approximate significance levels have been also
given with DN values (Table 4). DN values marked by
asterisk have not been accepted at 5% significance level.
Lognormal distribution
1
with lowest DN value provides
0
+
8
12
16
20
0 2 + 6 8 10 12 1+ 16 18
TTR (i)
T
T
R

(
i
-
1
)
Table 2 Unit root test results (
0 1 i i t
TTR TTR

= + + )
Shovel
0

(Dickey-Fuller MacKinnon Decision
*
test statistics) critical values
(%1)
S10 6.82 -0.87 -5.30 -3.62 No trend
S12 6.16 -1.08 -8.51 -3.52 No trend
S14 6.76 -1.03 -9.07 -3.52 No trend
S16 8.48 -1.17 -5.21 -3.79 No trend
S17 3.98 -1.01 -7.20 -3.56 No trend
S18 4.49 -1.03 -7.91 -3.54 No trend
S19 3.93 -1.14 -9.08 -3.69 No trend
*
Reject null hypothesis that trend exist, if B MacKinnon Critical Value
Table 3Serial correlation results of TTR data
Shovel* Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed)
(lag-1)
S10 0.130 0.435
S12 -0.068 0.554
S14 -0.033 0.776
S16 -0.173 0.454
S17 -0.10 0.945
S18 -0.029 0.824
S19 -0.220 0.261
*No correlation found
Fig. 2Test for serial correlation for TTR data (S17)
the best fit for TTR data except for S17 (Table 4). K-S
test results of S17 indicate that best fitted distribution is
weibull distribution. DN values of S17 for lognormal
and weibull distributions are very close to each other.
MTTR and M(t) Calculations
Once the data has been fitted to a probability
distribution, MTTR and M(t) of each shovel can be
calculated using the fitted distribution (Table 5). To
evaluate MTTR values, a Pareto Diagram has been
drawn (Fig. 3). S10 has been found with the highest
MTTR value and it is almost 25% of the total of all
MTTR values (Fig. 3). Thus, S10 is significantly worse
than others in terms of maintainability. S10 is followed
by S16 and S14. MTTR values of S17 and S18 are very
close to each other and in best condition in comparison
with others.
M(t) values of S18 with lowest MTTR is higher
than others for each time until t=9 h (Table 6). As
permissible time to repair increases, M(t) values of
shovels get closer. S10 with highest MTTR takes lowest
270 J SCI IND RES VOL 67 APRIL 2008
Table 4Determining of best- fit theoretical distribution for TTR data
Shovel Exponential Lognormal Weibull Best Fit
Est. K-S Test Est. K-S Test Est. K-S Test Distribution
Parameter Parameter Parameter
S10 =0.131 DN=0.3138
*
X
=0.913 DN=0.1365 =5.660 DN=0.1554 Lognormal
(0.001) s=1.656 (0.461) =0.667 (0.303)
S12 =0.175 DN=0.2742
*
X
=0.702 DN=0.0863 =4.030 DN=0.1525
*
Lognormal
(0.000) s=1.331 (0.590) =0.687 (0.048)
S14 =0.142 DN=0.3745
*
X
=0.859 DN=0.1369 =4.552 DN=0.2038
*
Lognormal
(0.000) s=1.356 (0.219) =0.657 (0.015)
S16 =0.138 DN=0.3370
*
X
=0.862 DN=0.1784 =5.352 DN=0.1848 Lognormal
(0.017) s=1.437 (0.516) =0.693 (0.470)
S17 =0.255 DN=0.1138
X
=0.882 DN=0.0982 =4.048 DN=0.0872 Weibull
(0.487) s=1.090 (0.675) =1.079 (0.806)
S18 =0.226 DN=0.3091
*
X
=0.410 DN=0.1020 =3.102 DN=0.1545 Lognormal
(0.000) s=1.380 (0.540) =0.675 (0.103)
S19 =0.243 DN=0.2467
X
=0.682 DN=0.1490 =3.694 DN=0.1756 Lognormal
(0.0587) s=1.248 (0.540) =0.835 (0.333)
*Not suitable distribution (Reject null hypothesis if DN>
0.05
1.36
DN =
n
)
Table 5MTTR results of shovels
Shovel Best fit theoretical MTTR Standard
distribution h deviation, h
S10 Lognormal 9.81 37.38
S12 Lognormal 4.89 10.81
S14 Lognormal 5.44 11.96
S16 Lognormal 6.91 16.93
S17 Weibull 3.94 0.02
S18 Lognormal 3.90 9.33
S19 Lognormal 4.31 8.34
Table 6M(t) values of shovels
Shovel Permissible time (t), h
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
S10 0.29 0.45 0.54 0.61 0.66 0.70 0.73 0.76 0.78 0.80
S12 0.30 0.50 0.62 0.70 0.75 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.87 0.89
S14 0.26 0.45 0.57 0.65 0.71 0.75 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.86
S16 0.27 0.45 0.57 0.64 0.70 0.74 0.77 0.80 0.82 0.84
S17 0.20 0.37 0.52 0.63 0.72 0.78 0.84 0.88 0.91 0.93
S18 0.38 0.58 0.69 0.76 0.81 0.84 0.87 0.89 0.90 0.91
S19 0.29 0.50 0.63 0.71 0.77 0.81 0.84 0.87 0.89 0.90
S18 S17 S19 S12 S14 S16 S10
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
25
20
15
10
5
0

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
,

%
M
T
T
R
,

h
Shovel number
Fig. 3Pareto diagram of MTTR values of shovels
ELEVLI et al: MAINTAINABILITY ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL SYSTEMS OF ELECTRIC CABLE SHOVELS 271
M(t) value for each time length after 4th h.
Maintainability of S17 increases faster than that of others
as permissible time to repair increases (Fig. 4).
Conclusions
Application of statistical based maintainability
analysis provided further insight for maintenance
characteristics of each shovel. Cable shovels S10 and
S16 require special attention. It is suggested that the
implementation of preventive maintenance policy should
be reviewed, adequate stock level of critical spare parts
should be maintained, and the maintenance crew should
be trained regularly in order to increase maintainability
of shovels. Besides, it would be useful a replacement
analysis especially for S10.
References
1 Kumar U, Availability studies of load-haul-dump machines, in
21th Apcom Symp, edited by A Weiss (SME-AIME, New York)
1989, 323-335.
2 Kumar U & Klefsjo B, Reliability analysis of hydraulic systems
of LHD machines using the power law process model,
Reliability Engg & Syst Safety, 35 (1992) 217-224.
3 Kumar D & Vagenas N, Performance evaluation of an load-
haul- dump vehicle, CIM Bull, October (1993) 39-42.
4 Paraszczak J & Perreault J F, Reliability of diesel powered
load- haul- dump machines in an underground quebec mine,
CIM Bull, March (1994) 123-127.
5 Vagenas N, Runciman N & Clement S R, A Methodology for
maintenance analysis of mining equipment, Int J Surface
Mining, Reclamation & Environment, 11 (1997) 33-40.
6 Hall R A & Daneshmend L K, Reliability and maintainability
models for mobile underground haulage equipment, CIM Bull,
June/July (2003) 159-165.
7 Barabady J, Reliability and maintainability analysis of crushing
plants in Jajarm Bauxite Mine of Iran, in Reliability and
Maintainability Symp (IEEE, Virginia) 2005, 109-115.
8 Barabady J & Kumar U, Maintenance schedule by using
reliability analysis: A case study at Jajarm Bauxite Mine of
Iran, in 20
th
World Mining Congress & Expo (IEEE, Tehran)
7-11 November 2005.
9 System Analysis: Reliability, Availability and Optimization
(Reliasoft Publishing, Arizona) 2005, 197-201;
www.weibull.com
10 Juran J M & Gryna F M, Quality Planning and Analysis
(McGraw- Hill Book Company, Singapore) (1993), 253-286.
11 Parr E A, Industrial Control Handbook (Butterworth-
Heinemann Ltd, Oxford) 1995, 679-692.
12 Rao S S, Reliability Based Design (McGraw- Hill Inc., New
York) 1992, 399-425.
13 Rothbart H A, Mechanical Design& Systems Handbook:
Reliability (McGraw-Hill Inc., New York) 1986, 20.1-20.12.
14 Jones R B, Risk Based Management: A Reliability Centered
Approach (Gulf Publishing Company, Texas) 1995, 26-68.
Fig. 4M(t) values of S10, S18 and S17
for different times
M
,

t

!
"
#
$
%
&
'

! " # $ % & '

t
5
5&
5%
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20