Final Thesis NEW YEARS

1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1. INTRODUCTION
Energy is considered as a basic input for any country for keeping the wheels of
its economy moving. Energy in the usable form stands as a backbone to the nation and
coal is main source of such energy. Coal is a natural fuel found in the womb of earth.
India is a country rich in natural fuels including coal available in many areas.
In India, Andhra Pradesh State is the second largest producer of coal. Singareni
Collieries Company Limited (SCCL), the AP Government company is the major source
in producing this coal in the state. On the banks of river Godavari there are about three
districts producing coal in this belt of the state, namely Karimnagar, Adilabad and
Khammam districts.
1.2 THE ORGANIZATION

The present project is conducted at the Ramagundam Open Cast Project III (OCPIII) which is located in southern extremity of the Ramagundam Coal Belt in Karimnagar
District of AP, India. There are about 62 total dumpers out of which 12 are of 100 tons,
19 are of 85 tons and 31 are of 35 tons. The machines are used to excavate the coal in the
2.26sq km area. There is a problem of machine breakdown causing some damages to the
human life as well as machine lives. The production is heavily suffering due to break
down of dumpers. Therefore it is intended to study the nature of breakdown on the
dumpers.
1.3 SCOPE
There is a wide scope for conducting the analysis on the dumpers at OCP-III of
Ramagundam. These machines are about 12 to 15 years old and have approximately run
for about 95,000 machine hours on an average. This enables to take up these machines
for study as they are suspected to have reached the third stage of bathtub curve (Machine
Life Cycle).
There are several testing methods available for testing the behavior of these
machines. The Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis is first performed on the
failure data of the dumpers to identify the critical areas of failures and then Trend
Analysis is performed on the dumpers to check whether the equipment is improving or
deteriorating over time.
1.4 NEED
Prevention is better than cure. Instead of allowing the occurrence of failure and
suffering from huge loss or damage of assets, lives and environment, it is always
worthwhile forestalling the occurrence. For such a fearless environment of successful
operations without any failures, the machines must be maintained to exhibit high
reliability. Thus it is an urgent need to apply the reliability centered maintenance
techniques rather than time based and failure based maintenance techniques. The
maintenance planning of equipment hence requires the orientation of reliability at every
stage of its life.
The present study is on effort in this direction that can provide some guidelines
while planning the maintenance activities with an orientation of reliability.
1.5 MINING
Mining is the process of extracting minerals and other deposits from the parent
ores that are present in the earths crust. Mining involves drilling, blasting, mucking
(material removal), and the various operations on the surface necessary to remove the ore
and to transport the miners. Drilling shot holes and blasting the ore is a standard process.
Mining of coal is done in two ways, open cast mining and underground mining.
In modern mining, access to underground mines is gained by three primary
methods, namely, the Drift-mine method, the Slope-mine method and the Mine-shaft
method.
1.6 OPEN CAST MINES

In the early days, there were only underground coalmines. In underground mines,
workers only but not machines can do work. This was very dangerous particularly, while
workers working underground. In order to overcome these dangers, the Open Cast
Projects have been developed. In addition to the advantage of safety, the manpower
requirement in these projects is also less as compared to that for the underground mines.
Machines only in Open Cast Mines carry out almost total work. Totally, there are 16
underground mines and 6 Open Cast Projects in this belt.
1.7 OBJECTIVE OF PROJECT

The analysis on dumpers operated in Open Cast Project (OCP-III) mine of
Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL), Ramagundam are taken up with the
following objectives.
1. To check whether the machines have come to their third stage of life cycle
(Bath tub curve).
2. To identify the failure distribution and failure patterns of LHD vehicles.
3. To estimate the reliability characteristics of LHD vehicles.
1.8 CONTRIBUTION OF THIS PROJECT

On the whole this project is expected to contribute in the following ways.
1. The trend tests will help the maintenance and production managers to predict
the behavior of machinery. More clearly the trend test indicates in which state
the machine stands in its life cycle (Bath tub curve).
2. Maintenance/production managers can thus come to a decision to adopt
suitable policy of maintenance such as contractual/preventive/OFCM/CBM
etc. hence plan for suitable maintenance policies aimed at utmost reliability.
3. The Trend Analysis plots indicate whether the failures of a machine are
increasing or constant or decreasing.
4. The analysis can help in arriving to a decision on replacement policy of the
equipment.
5. The analysis of failure modes, their effects gives an idea of important failure
areas for each dumper. Then criticality analysis gives the most critical failures
of each dumper.
1.9 LIMITATIONS
1.9.1 Calculation errors In analysis and calculations wherever accuracy is not
significant, figures are rounded off to nearest whole number. It may hence contain or
appear as an error and is to be ignored as it is negligible.
1.9.2 Influencing Factors Various factors can affect the performance of dumpers. The
factors shown under next para that affect the behavior are ignored or assumed
accordingly.
1.9.3 Assumptions It is assumed that the machine stopped due to the following reasons is
not unavailability of the machine.
1. Weather changes such as rain, fog.
2. Unutilized working hrs as persons or materials are unavailable.
3. Attitude of persons operating on dumper.
4. Problems due to the Surface on which dumper moves.
5. Improper handling of dumpers.
6. Excluding lunch/rest pauses and shift changeover period etc., it is
considered a maximum of 20 working hours per day.
1.10 IMPORTANCE OF DUMPERS FAILURE ANALYSIS

The main productivity of the coal mine lies in effective working of the dumper as
dumpers are the main equipment which transfers the coal from the open cast mine to the
required storage area of coal. That means every trip which consists of a full load trip and
an empty trip is involved with high risk of the life of the person operating the dumper. If
a dumper fails in the middle of the trip the cost of the failure is enormous but at the same
time the life of the operator is much more important than money involved. So this
project aims at finding the critical failures and performing trend analysis on dumpers.
1.11 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The present project tries to identify potential failure modes for load haul
dump vehicles, to assess the risk associated with those failure modes to rank the issues in
terms of importance and to identify and address the most serious concerns and carry out
corrective actions to determine whether and how the pattern of failures is significantly
changing with time using Trend Analysis. Thus, the analysis on trend behavior of
equipments can help in arriving to a decision on replacement policy of the equipment.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 REPAIRABLE AND NON-REPAIRABLE SYSTEMS
When trend characteristics are to be designed for a system, one should first
identify the repairable or replaceable features in it. Thus the system is to be first defined
as one of the two alternatives, viz. repairable system or non-reparable system. For a nonrepairable system such as electric bulb, reliability is the survival probability over the
items expected life or for a period during its life, when only one failure can occur, during
the time of life, the instantaneous probability of the first and only failure is called the
hazard rate. Non-repairable system may be individual parts (light bulb, transistor etc) or
subsystems comprised of many parts (Space craft, microprocessor).
For the items, which are repaired when they fail, dependability is the probability
that failure will not occur in the period of interest. When more than one failure occurs, it
can also be expressed as failure rate or rate of occurrence of failure (ROCOF). However,
the failure rate expresses the instantaneous probability of failure per unit time, when
several failures can occur in a time continuum.
Repairable system can also be characterized by cumulative time between failures
(CTBF), but only under the particular condition of constant failure rate. We are also
concerned with the availability of repairable system, since repair takes time. Availability
is affected by the rate of occurrence of failures and by maintenance time. Maintenance
includes corrective (repair) or preventive (to reduce the likely hood of failures).
Sometimes an item may be considered as both repairable and non-repairable for
example a missile is repairable system while it is in store and subjected to tests, but it
becomes a non- repairable system when it is launched. Trend analysis of such systems
must take into account of these separate states. [9, 13]
2.2 IDENTIFYING A BATHTUB HAZARD RATE

The hazard rate is a basic concept in reliability theory. If the life distribution is
absolutely continuous, the hazard rate uniquely determines the life distribution. Magne
Vollan Aarset in his paper [3] has clearly explained the process of identifying the hazard
rate in comparison with bath tub curve. Total time on test method is used for the analysis.
The Total Time on Test (TTT) concept is a useful tool in several reliability contexts. This
paper presents a new test statistic, based on the TTT plot, for testing if a random sample
is generated from a life distribution with constant versus bathtub for shaped hazard rate.
2.3 TREND ANALYSIS

Peng Wang and David W. Coit in their paper [10] explains how repairable
systems trend tests are reviewed, extensively tested and compared to evaluate their
effectiveness over diverse data patterns. A repairable system is often modeled as a
counting failure process. For a counting failure process, successive inter-arrival failure
times will tend to become larger (smaller) for an improving (deteriorating) system.
During testing and development of new systems, reliability trend analysis is needed to
evaluate the progress of the design development and improvement process. Often a
program of testing and modification, followed by more testing and modification, is
required to achieve a desired system goal. Trend tests can be an important part. The
objective of system trend tests is to determine whether and how the pattern of failures is
significantly changing with time.
The process is further discussed by Raju N V S in his book [2] describing the
importance of trend analysis in identifying the pattern of failures changing with time. The
methods used to describe the patterns are graphical methods for trend testing and
analytical trend test. The trend analysis can help in estimating the reliability
characteristics of the machine.
2.4 THE PATTERN OF FAILURES WITH TIME OF REPAIRABLE

SYSTEMS
The failure rates or rate of occurrence of failures (ROCOF) of repairable systems
can also vary with time and an important implication can be derived from these trends.
A constant failure rate (CFR) is indicative of externally induced failures, as in the
constant hazard rate situation for non-repairable systems. A constant failure rate (CFR) is
also typical of complex system if subjected to repair and overhaul where different parts
exhibit different patterns of failures with the time and parts have different ages since
repair or replacement. Repairable system can show a decreasing failure rate (DFR) when
reliability is improved by progressive repair, as defective parts which fails relatively early
are replaced by good parts. An increasing failure rate (IFR) occurs in repairable systems
when wear out failure mode parts begins to predominate. The pattern of failures with
repairable systems can also be illustrated by the use of the bath-tub curve as shown in fig
2.1 but with the failure rate (ROCOF) against age instead of hazard rate.[16]
2.5 METHOD OF TOTAL TIME ON TEST (TTT) PLOTTING

The technique of TTT plotting originally suggested by Barlow and Campo (1975)
is very simple to use for machine failure data analysis. Like other probability methods,
this method is also based on assumption that the Time Between Failures (TBF) are
independently and identically distributed (i.i.d.) so that the actual chronological ordering
of the TBFs can be ignored. This it is not useful in analyzing a data set which have
structures and are positive to serial correlation tests. [14]
3. METHODOLOGY
The methodology followed in this project can be represented in the following flow chart
[2, 12]
Figure 1: Flow chart showing methodology followed

Step 1: Identification and Definition of Problem
Usually, the reliability studies consume more cost and time. Further, it requires
higher level engineering knowledge to understand the complex problems and models.
Therefore, it has to be first decided whether the study is worthwhile. In view of this, it is
often suggested to select the area where the cost of breakdown is very high or any failure
is hazardous or leads to catastrophe that may claim human lives, assets and/or
environmental disorders. Once the decision is taken, problem should be defined clearly
and the bounds of the study are also to be demarcated, otherwise it becomes an endless
project. However, improvements can always be incorporated at the later stages based on
9
the feedback reports. A suitable hypothesis is stated for the equipment upon which the
reliability studies are to be conducted.
Step 2: Collection of Relevant Data
Relevant data is collected often in the form of time between failures, in short called
TBF and time to repair, concisely called TTR (in the case Repairable items) or time to
fail, in short called TTF (in case of non-repairable items).While collecting such field data,
there may be some practical problems. Suitable assumptions as applicable can be made to
overcome such problems. The data so collected is to be tabulated.
Step 3: Removal of Inconsistencies and Errors in Data
To err is human. There is every possibility of occurrence of errors in the collected
data. Such suspicious entries can be eluded. Further, in some situations there can also be
some inconsistencies in the data of TBF values. For instance, a particular machine (say an
automobile) is under breakdown/non-available for the want of some spare parts (say a
valve for a tyre). If there is any delay in supply of such spare part, the machine can be
restored to up condition and the downtime will increase. Suppose, this continues for a
very long period, the machine should be deleted from the list completely. Similar
inconsistencies, if found, should be precluded for the analysis.
Step 4: Trend Analysis
The trend analysis gives us the idea about whether the machine is deteriorating or
improving, by which we can also understand which phase of life cycle (bath tub curve),
the equipment is experiencing (infant/youth/old age). Various graphical (eye ball
analysis, cumulative plot test, etc.) and analytical methods (Laplace test, MIL-HDBK189 test) are available for testing the trend. The correlation and regression analyses also
can aid the study in confirming the time independence of the distribution.
10
Step 5: Conclusions
Based on the graphs and results the conclusions are made. The critical failures are
to be identified by using trend analysis the condition of the dumper can be estimated.
Based on these conclusions suggestions can be proposed.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
According to Murphy, if a failure can occur, it will. No machine is completely
immune to failures. However, the failure intensity or the frequency can be reduced by
employing suitable and timely actions. This is possible if the area that is causing more
loss or disturbance to the production is identified. At the same time one should remember
that it should be cost effective, therefore it must first be decided whether it is worthwhile
to study. After identifying the area of study, it is important to lay down a path and
method of study and analysis. This chapter deals with such aspects.
3.2 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM

After a thorough understanding on failure data of the equipment of SCCL coal
mines, it is found that the Dumpers are giving more troubles than any other machines.
Thus it necessitates focusing the study on Load Hauling Dump (LHD) vehicles. The
possible reason for dumper giving relatively more failures could be attributed to its
movement. The equipment such as Drills, Dozers, Graders, Loaders, Shovels etc. once go
into the quarry, they come out only after the shift is completed or work is completed,
where as the Dumpers are the vehicles shuttle between the excavating location and Dump
yard many times in a shift. Thus this equipment unlike other machines is not stationary.
Moreover, the efficiency of the equipment depends on the roads, environmental
conditions etc.
3.3 DATA COLLECTION

Appropriate data collection is one of the most important steps in trend analysis. A
data collection must be designed, developed and maintained to facilitate correct and
11
effective trend analysis. The uses of the collected data may be one or more of the
following
1. Detection of in-service problems leading to production losses
2. Evaluation of reliability and maintainability characteristics.
3. Studying the economics of system breakdowns.
4. Feed back to manufacturer for design modification if needed.
Data on trend characteristics can be obtained by two methods, either directly from
the field or from the sample testing in laboratories. For an effective trend program, the
collection and analysis of the failure statistics such as failure modes, their frequencies and
possible causes of failures for each component and equipment type from a representative
population operating under identical condition is needed. This is, of course, an ideal
situation and never possible in practice for mining equipment and systems, because the
operating environment in mines changes very frequently with progress in mining
operations.
Data collection in field is an expensive and time consuming work. Nevertheless,
data acquired from field is the best representative of the system reliability and
maintainability characteristics and all efforts should be made to collect data from the
field.
The depth of reporting and data collection should vary according to the
importance of the equipment or its components.
Reporting should not be confined to facts. Opinions in the engineering

judgment category should also be included.
Attempt should be made to collect only those data that are likely to be useful.
During the last few years, many mining companies with high degree of mechanization
have realized the potential benefit of collection of machine performance statistics.
12
3.3.1 Collection of field failure data for the present study

As soon as the project to investigate the reliability of LHD machines was
conceptualized, mining companies were contacted for their support and help in retrieval
of the field failure data for use in this study.
For the present study, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.(SCCL) was contacted for their
support and help in the collection of field data. Good response from the authorities
concerned was received and daily logbooks were made available. Most of the needed
information such as TBFs of machines, the type of repairs done, the amount of time
spent on maintenance hours were available. Time Between Failures and Time To Repair
(TBF & TTR) data of one year period for 19 Nos. of capacity 85T dumpers of OCP-III
(ramagundam) and 12 Nos. of capacity 100T dumpers of OCP-III (ramagundam), were
collected.
The failure data collected earlier in mines were not collected with intention for
use in reliability studies. However, the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. (SCCL),
Ramagundam, Karimnagar, AP, India had a system of failure data collection which could
be used after a little processing for reliability analysis. To start with, the operation and
maintenance cards for a fleet of diesel operated LHD machines were collected for the
calendar year 2009-11. Later on the operation and maintenance records for the calendar
year 2009 -11 were also collected. The purpose was to examine the content of these
records for possible use in for reliability and availability studies. It was not an easy task
to go through the records and sort out the information needed. [At some occasions the
information needed, such as the times between failures of machines, the types of repairs
done and the amount of time spent on repairs were not clearly available]. For the purpose
of preliminary investigations into the statistical nature of breakdowns of these machines
and their major subsystems are classified as per their nature of job. The data were
classified in their chronological order and the reordering was avoided to study the
presence of a trend, if any, in the field failure data.
From the maintenance and operation records of these machines, the times between
successive failures of the machines (and major subsystems like the engine, Steering,
13
transmission and tyres) were collected. Since many times as reported in the maintenance
cards, more than one subsystem was repaired, for the purpose of this study, the machine
failure reason was assigned only to that subsystem for which machine was stopped. For
example, in case of LHD at serial number one the subsystems repaired were the engine,
tyres and others, and the machine was stopped for engine failure, then for the purpose of
the study, the engine was assigned as the reason for the machine failure. However, the
information about the other repair events for Tyres would not be discarded and they
would be treated as censored events. Based on these principles, the TBFs of some of the
subsystems of LHD machines are analyzed. As it was practically not possible to discuss
and present the results of the analysis of all the machines and their subsystems, machines,
the full details of a few machines only are given. However, for other machines partial
details are provided.
14
4. DUMPER SELECTION
4.1 DUMPER SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS
Since the right selection of haulage system in an open cast mining operation forms
the basis of mine planning, it is necessary to consider all possible elements that enter into
the choice. A number of considerations could be looked into for a proper selection
process but a lot depends on the data provided by manufacturers and experience gained in
their use. However, the major considerations that go into selection of dumpers are
1. The basic data consisting of
(a) Capital and operating costs per ton kilometer hauled.
(b) Size match into the whole system (particularly bench and shovel dimensions).
(c) Delivery dates.
(d) Availability of spares and services by manufacturers.
(e) Technical and design considerations.
2. The dimension considerations
Dimensions such as low body side height minimum shovel bucket excavation,
maximum visibility, low unloaded weight, robustness; often form important factors in
final selection of dumpers.
3. The breaking system
Braking system should ensure maximum safety particularly on high gradient haul
roads. As a development, drum brakes have almost being replaced by disk brakes, which
have good access and low cost.
4. The tire considerations
Another important consideration is tire. Tires of smaller sizes without over loading
or wear rates are advantageous.
15
5. The power and transmission system

Power units and transmission systems providing high efficiency are obviously
required to combat increasing fuel cost.
6. Gross vehicle and net weight
Due consideration has to be given to the important ratios, net and gross vehicle
weight compared with engine horse power, and pay load compared with net vehicle
weight.
4.2 CASE STUDY OF OCP-III, RAMAGUNDAM

A study is conducted after collecting Maintenance Service Requests (MSR) that are
made available by the authorities of group of open cast mines of SCCL at Ramagundam
OCP-III. The study relates to performance of different dumper 100T, 85T and 35T.
Statistical Analysis of Available hours and utilized hours was carried out.
The Open Cast Project-III situated at 8 Incline of Ramagundam, is the massive
Rs.199.95 crore project designed to produce 2.75 million tons of coal per annum was
sanctioned by the Government of India on 11-3-1989 to cater mainly to the demands of
NTPC and other needs of various parts of the country. The project was started in
December, 1989
Reserves
Total land required for the project
997.92 Hec.
Area of excavation
455.97 Hec.
Mine able coal reserves
70.53 M.T.
Total overburden
259.72 M.T.
Life of the project
32 years
16
4.3 CASE STUDY OF DUMPERS AT OCP-III, RAMAGUNDAM

The industrial engineering study at Ramagundam OCP-III mine, SCCL for a period
of two years (Apr 2010-Mar 2012) indicated that, for 85T type of dumpers Mean
Available Hours was 3521 which is 49% (Ref table 1 & 2) of SSH., scheduled shift hours
of 7200, (assuming 300 working days) and is 28% short of CMPDI norms (Ref. Table 3
& 4) and were operated with a mean of 1845.7 hours, average per month 153.8 and
percentage utilization of 52.41(Ref Table 4), which is around 23% less than CMPDI
norms (Ref. Table 1). Also it can be seen from the probability distribution of utilized
hours that the probability (possibility) of achieving 3600 working Hours (CMPDI) is nil.
SNO
MACHINE
% ANNUAL WORKING
HOURS
ANNUAL WORKING
HOURS
INTERNATIONAL CMPDI
INTERNATION
CMPDI
AL
SSH
ROPE SHOVEL
7200
58
68
4158
4896
HYD SHOVEL
7200
61
4410
REAR DUMPER 7200
54
68
3888
4896
REAR DUMPER
7200
(MECH.)
50
68
3600
4896
Table 1 International and CMPDI norms for working (available) hours
17
MONTHS
Sep-11
Oct-11
Nov-11
Dec-11
Jan-12
Feb-12
Mar-12
Dumpers
42.13
47.95
50
43.59
44.13
42.81
46.5
Shovels
75.4
67
55.66
66.16
75.8
64.66
65
Drills
77
67
57.66
59
72
69
70.8
Dozers
67.2
68.99
70.6
83.75
78.6
80
57.5
Table 2 Available Hours of various machinery at OCP-III, Ramagundam.
% AVAILIBILITY
% UTILIZATION
SSH
OF SSH
% UTILIZATION
OF
MAH
S.NO
MACHINE
INTER
CMPDI
NATIONAL
INTER
INTER
CMPDI
CMPDI
NATIONAL
NATIONAL
Elec.Rope
Shovel
80
80
68
58
85
72.5
Rear
Dumper
(Elec.)
80
72
68
54
85
79
Rear
Dumper
(Mech.)
80
67
68
50
85
75
Table 3 International and CMPDI norms for utilization hours.
18
Months
Sep-11
Oct-11
Nov-11
Dec-11
Jan-12
Feb-12
Mar-12
Dumpers 29.27
36.10
41.19
42.19
41
45
53.18
Shovels
30
38
45.8
49.6
51.4
54
65
Drills
31.65
54
45.67
45
46.3
49
70
Dozers
52.4
55.2
57
65.2
62.2
78
57.5
Table 4 Percentage Utilization of various machinery at OCP-III, Ramagundam.
Statement showing Indian (CMPDI) and International norms for dumpers

availability and utilization are given in table no 3 and working hours according to norms
are shown in table no.3. The various reasons attributed for idle hours may be due to
Non availability of operating personnel
Waiting for dozing
Non-availability of materials
Rains
Diesel hopping up
Inflation of Tyres
Roads sluggish, Roads being made
CSP sump yard choked
Operator not taking instruction/ machine not allotted
Tea or lunch break
Operator leaving early.
Some of the above reasons for idle hours are non-controllable such as rains etc., but
quite a few are within the control of the management and with proper planning can be
reduced.
19
4.4 DISCUSSION
From table no 1 to 2, it can be concluded that at OCP-III mine (Ramagundam)
SCCL, the percentage availability of scheduled shift hours in case of 85T dumpers is low
(48.91%). Also percentage utilization of machine available hours in case of 85T dumpers
is less (52.41%). It can be observed that both percentage utilization and availability of
Mean Available Hours (MAH), Shift Schedule Hours (SSH) are less when compared to
international/ CMPDI norms.
At OCP-III mine Ramagundam strengthening of dumper and shovel repair
organization (i.e., maintenance department by increasing maintenance facilities like
proper organization of spares) is to be done. Whereas, in case of 85T dumpers utilization
of machine available hours i.e. operation departments is to be improved by reducing the
idle hours with proper planning and control. It was observed that this mine has got very
favorable conditions for operation and maintenance. The haul roads are maintained at a
gradient of 1 in 20. However, the workshops of dumpers are huge and well organized but
are underutilized. An improvement in maintenance management can help in reducing idle
hours; increase the utilization of machine available hours especially in case of 85T
dumpers.
At OCP Mine (Ramagundam) management has to probe into dumper availability of
Shift Schedule Hours (SSH) and utilization of Mean Available Hours (MAH),, which are
on lower side. Reinforcement of repair organization i.e., maintenance department with
additional facilities such as extra manpower, availability of tools, spares and
consumables, is to be done. Also utilization of dumpers available hours is to be improved
with proper planning and control, for targets.
However, it was observed that the
conditions for operation and maintenance of dumpers are relatively poor in the following
aspects.
Type of open cast mining is different (Old) technology wise.
The gradients encountered are quite high 1.8 to 1.10.
20
The project being considerably good capacity (1 million T per year), the
facilities in repair workshop are meager.
Equipment information handling/logging failure information was found to be
erratic or unclear in many occasions in this mine.
To investigate into the reduction in availability of dumpers and to locate the
components/ subsystems, which are responsible for poor reliability and evaluation of
reliability based on different methods, is taken up in following chapters.
21
5. LIFE CYCLE AND FAILURES

5.1 LIFE CYCLE OF A MACHINE
In the life of any machine, there are generally three stages namely, Infant Stage, Youth
Stage and Old age Stage.
5.1.1 INFANT STAGE
It is the stage in which the machine has just started its life. In this stage some factors
like temperature, environment, climate etc, influence the productivity of the machine. Here
problems affecting the machine are high till it adjusts to the working conditions.
5.1.2 YOUTH STAGE
This is the stage in which the machine adjusts to the working conditions. The failures
here are very less and the machine yields maximum productivity.
5.1.3 OLD STAGE
It is a stage in which the machine gets nearer to its demolishing period. The failures will
increasing enormously as the machine falls in the old stage. The productivity of the machine
in this stage is very less.
5.2 BATH TUB CURVE

Bath Tub Curve is the analysis which shows that failure rates in each of the stages of
dumpers life.
In the Infant Stage the failure rates is high in the beginning and decreases gradually as
the age passes. So the rate of failure decreases in this stage. Here the failures can be decreased
by maintenance and frequent checks of repairs.
In the Youth Stage the failure rate is random. Preventive maintenance, time based
failure maintenance techniques are adopted to minimize the failures.
In the Old Age Stage, the rate of failures is low in the starting and increases gradually
as the machine reaches wear out failure period. The measures like replacement,
reconditioning, RCM techniques should be used in this stage.
22
23
5.3 REPAIRABLE AND NON-REPAIRABLE FAILURE SYSTEMS
When reliability characteristics are to be designed for a system, one should first identify
the repairable or replaceable features in it. Thus the system is to be first defined as one of the
two alternatives, viz. repairable system or non-reparable system. For a non-repairable system
such as electric bulb, reliability is the survival probability over the items expected life or for a
period during its life, when only one failure can occur, during the time of life, the
instantaneous probability of the first and only failure is called the hazard rate. Non-repairable
system may be individual parts (light bulb, transistor etc) or subsystems comprised of many
parts (Space craft, microprocessor). Even one component fails in a non-repairable system, the
total system fails (usually) and system reliability is therefore, a function of the time to the first
(part) failure.
For the items, which are repaired when they fail, reliability is the probability that failure
will not occur in the period of interest. When more than one failure occurs, it can also be
expressed as failure rate or rate of occurrence of failure (ROCOF). However, the failure rate
expresses the instantaneous probability of failure per unit time, when several failures can
occur in a time continuum.
Repairable system reliability can also be characterized by mean time between failures
(MTBF), but only under the particular condition of constant failure rate. We are also
concerned with the availability of repairable system, since repair takes time. Availability is
affected by the rate of occurrence of failures and by maintenance time. Maintenance includes
corrective (repair) or preventive (to reduce the likely hood of failures).
Sometimes an item may be considered as both repairable and non-repairable for
example a missile is repairable system while it is in store and subjected to tests, but it
becomes a non- repairable system when it is launched. Reliability analysis of such systems
must take into account of these separate states.
24
5.4 THE PATTERN OF FAILURES WITH TIME OF REPAIRABLE

SYSTEMS
The failure rates or rate of occurrence of failures (ROCOF) of repairable systems can
also vary with time and an important implication can be derived from these trends.
A constant failure rate (CFR) is indicative of externally induced failures, as in the
constant hazard rate situation for non-repairable systems. A constant failure rate (CFR) is also
typical of complex system if subjected to repair and overhaul where different parts exhibit
different patterns of failures with the time and parts have different ages since repair or
replacement. Repairable system can show a decreasing failure rate (DFR) when reliability is
improved by progressive repair, as defective parts which fails relatively early are replaced by
good parts. An increasing failure rate (IFR) occurs in repairable systems when wear out
failure mode parts begins to predominate. The pattern of failures with repairable systems can
also be illustrated by the use of the bath-tub curve as shown in figure 1, but with the failure
rate (ROCOF) against age instead of hazard rate.
5.5 STATISTICAL PRELIMINARIES IN RELIABILITY EVALUATION

The probabilistic nature of system reliability arises from the fact that the performance
parameter (which is a random variable) of the system follows a pattern, which may be
expressed in probabilistic terms. The function, which describes this pattern or distribution of
the performance parameter of a system, is known as the distribution function. If the particular
set of performance (or failure) are well represented by a particular distribution it can be
concluded that the failure characteristic follow that particular distribution.
A brief description of the basic fundamental theory is presented in the sections to
follow.
5.6 PROBABILITY FUNCTIONS

The probability and availability studies involve use of mathematical and statistical
models, which are probabilistic in nature. The probability functions important for
development of reliability and availability theory are
25
1.
Probability Density Function (PDF).
2.
Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF).
3.
Reliability function (R).
4.
Hazard Function (H).
5.6.1 PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION
The Probability Density Function (PDF) is the basis for predicting the behavior of any
probabilistic situation such as reliability or availability. Given the PDF, one can compute
reliability function and the instantaneous density function f(t), usually referred to as failure
density function.
5.6.2 CUMMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION
This function defines the probability that a random variablet lies between some lower
limit (often zero) and upper limitt. For a continuous variable such as time to failure, the
cumulative probability F(t) is given by the integration of the density function between the
limits required.
F (t) = f (x) dx
.. (5.1)
In reliability studies, this function is also known as unreliability function. The

cumulative distribution function increases from zero to unity ast increases from its smallest
to largest value.
5.6.3 RELIABILITY FUNCTION
The reliability function R(t), which is defined as the probability of a system or an item
to perform or operate its required function without failure under given condition for an
intended period of operation and it is mathematically given as
R(t)=1-F(t)=1- f(x) dx = R dx
26
..(5.2)
5.6.4 HAZARD RATE AND HAZARD FUNCTION
The hazard function (t) or instantaneous failure rate function is a conditional expression
that an item in service for time t will be in the next instant of time dt given that it has not
previously failed, survived up to timet
I.e. P[the unit will fail in (t, t+dt)] (t) dt(5.3)
Where (t) is the hazard rate at timet and P is the probability of occurrence. The
mathematical relationship between failure density function f(t) and hazard rate (t) is
(t) = f(t)/[1-F(t)]
.(5.4)
The general equation showing the relationship between the reliability function R(t)
and hazard rate
R (t) = Exp[- (x) dx]
... (5.5)
When is independent of time as in the case of constant failure rate, expression

reduces to [3]
R(t)=e-(t)
................(5.6)
27
6. TREND ANALYSIS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Most of those dealing with maintenance and operation of machines will recognize
more than an element of truth in the Murphys laws pertaining to maintenance stated as
follows
If an equipment can fail, it will; and
Failure will usually occur at the most inconvenient time.
We agree that occurrences of failures cannot be avoided completely but failures during
operation can be reduced through effective maintenance programs provided the plant
engineer can predict the occurrence of failures. The trend analysis is the best tool for the
plant engineer in preliminary estimation in this regard.
6.2 BACK GROUND

The prime goal of this study is to develop and identify reliability tools and
methods, which will be helpful in reducing the occurrences of failures by improving
operational reliability of the mining systems. Experiences from other industries show that
maintenance function can be successfully controlled and optimized by the judicious
applications of reliability engineering techniques. Results obtained from reliability
investigations can be used to arrive at the optimal maintenance intervals to reduce the
incidence of breakdowns during production. This helps in minimizing the indirect cost of
maintenance due to losses in production. From literature we can say that the designed
reliability is the single and the most important factor which has considerable impact on
the life cycle cost of equipment during operations. The impact of designed reliability is
greatly influenced by variations in operating environment which can be controlled
through monitoring the trend. Also, to estimate the reliability it is essential to know the
failure patterns and the behavior of the machine to determine the distribution from which
the sample has come from. Experiences say that the simple way to predict most of the
distributions is the trend analysis.
28
6.3 TREND
The main objective of trend analysis is directed to know whether the equipment is
deteriorating or improving. This can be known by analyzing the past failure data in terms
of TBF (in case of repairable equipment) or TTF (in case of non-repairable equipment).
From the analysis, one of the following three conclusions may be drawn.
6.3.1 POSITIVE TREND
Positive trend implies that the machine is improving with time. This may be due
to the machine is new or in infant stage i.e. First stage of bathtub curve or effective
maintenance. It is observed by gradual decrease in failure times or Decreasing Failure
Rate (DFR)
6.3.2 NEGATIVE TREND
If the machine is showing a negative trend, it implies that machine is deteriorating
with time. In other words, the equipment is subjected to frequent or long failures. It is
indicated by gradual increase of failure times. It can be considered that machine showing
negative trend is in the third stage of machine life cycle (Bathtub curve) or old age. It is
due to worn out parts or inherent failures or inappropriate maintenance system. Whatever
the reason may be, this situation disrupts the production and affects the productivity.
Therefore such equipment is of more concern to maintenance as well as production
engineers. These failure patterns are categorized by Increasing Failure Rate (IFR)
6.3.3 NO TREND
This is one of critical situations, maintenance engineers face. If failure times are
neither increasing nor decreasing, it may lead to conclusion that the equipment is
experiencing Constant Failure Rate (CFR). But this is true in some cases only. However
the no trend situation implies that the failure behavior is independent of time. It may be in
random failure stage or typical increasing failure rate due to independent and identical
distribution of failure times. Therefore this rate is to be further analyzed to know this fact.
29
6.4 CUMULATIVE PLOT TEST

6.4.1 Failure Number vs. CTBF
This is most powerful test and gives easy understanding because of its pictorial
nature. To perform this test, first of all, the Time between failures (TBFs) of the
equipment is collected in chronological order. The cumulative Time between failures
(CTBF) are then calculated and plotted against the cumulative number of failures. By the
presence of trend in TBFs, we mean that whether the equipment or the item is
deteriorating or improving with age.
By simply plotting cumulative TBFs against the cumulative number of failure we
can test whether the machine or item under consideration is improving or deteriorating.
If we get a curve concave upward (note the opposite characteristic in TTT plot), this
mean that the TBFs are becoming shorter and shorter that is to say, the machine is
deteriorating. On the other hand if we obtain a curve concave downwards, this means that
the machine is improving.
The data which exhibits linearity can be considered to have no trend. Such trend
plot is known to exhibit independently and identically distributed (i.i.d) data in statistics
and has to be further analyzed by statistical distributions.
6.4.2 Failure Number vs. CTTR
This is most powerful test and gives easy understanding because of its pictorial
nature. To perform this test, first of all, the Time to repair (TTRs) of the equipment is
collected in chronological order. The cumulative Time to Repair (CTTR) are then
calculated and plotted against the cumulative number of failures. By the presence of trend
in TTRs, we mean that whether the equipment or the item is deteriorating or improving
with age.
By simply plotting cumulative TTRs against the cumulative number of failure we
can test whether the machine or item under consideration is improving or deteriorating. If
we get a curve concave upward this mean that the TTRs are becoming shorter and shorter
30
that is to say, the machine is improving. On the other hand if we obtain a curve concave
downwards, this means that the machine is deteriorating.
The data which exhibits linearity can be considered to have no trend. Such trend
plot is known to exhibit independently and identically distributed (i.i.d) data in statistics
and has to be further analyzed by statistical distributions
6.5 ANALYSIS
The trend analysis is the performance of each dumper with respect to time i.e.
cumulative time to repair (CTTR) is analysed against time to check weather equipment is
improving on repairs or deteriorating over time. Similarly, cumulative time between
failures (CTBF) is also analysed against time to identify the failure rate, if the time
between failures is more, then the equipment is giving its best performance that means
equipment is available for long period of time.
Failure Number vs. CTTR
The graph plotted between number of failures and cumulative time to repairs can
be understood in the following ways
i.
If the time to repair is increasing, then the equipment is under repair for most of
the time this leads to production losses and performing maintenance on such
equipment leads to wastage of time and labour
ii.
If the time to repair is decreasing then the equipment is giving its best
performance on repair after maintenance
Failure Number vs. CTBF

The graph plotted between number of failures and cumulative time between
failures can be understood in the following ways
i.
If the time between failure is increasing, then the equipment is available for
production, this means on further maintenance the equipment yields good results
ii.
If the between failures is decreasing, then the equipment if failing frequently so

the maintenance policy must be changed
31
The graphs plotted can be inferred as described in the table 40

F No vs.
CTTR
No
Trend
Negative
Trend
Positive
trend
F No vs.
CTBF
Observation
Inference
Negative
Trend
Machine is deteriorating on repair
Maintenance policy must

be changed
Positive
trend
Machine is improving on repair
Replace the frequently

failing component
No
Trend
Constant Failure Rate
Perform further analysis
Negative
Trend
Machine has become

unresponsive to repair
Positive
trend
Machine is failing frequently but is

improving after repair

failing component
No
Trend

with CFR
Negative
Trend

but failures are frequent
Positive
trend
Machine is in good condition
No
Trend

failing component
Perform simple
maintenance to avoid
failures

with CFR
Table 5: Inference of Trend Analysis
Based on the table 5 the analysis has been applied to 100 T and 85 T dumpers available at
OCP III, SCCL and the observations are discussed.
32
Trend Analysis of Dumper CD 302

F No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Reason for failure

Auto retarder circuit
Accident: Railings & Rear view
mirror
Radiator leak
Gears failed
Bucket & wear plate welding
Engine lamp
Engine lamp
Bucket hinge pin
Air leak
CMC installation
operator seat damaged
bucket tail end cracked
fire suspension system fail
exhaust leak
brake oil leak
bucket plate welding
tyre burst
air leak from brake
hydraulic oil leak
rear view mirror
preventive repair
oil leak from suspension
accident: platform damage
preventive repair
tyres toe in & toe out
brake weak & air loss
parking brake problem
brake jam & crank fail
hoist cylinder bolt broken
tappet setting
steering tank drain failure
brake cooler & pump hose replaced
steering pump failed
gear shifting problem
air leak from valve
suspension seal leak
33
TTR
32
CTTR
32
TBF
0
CTBF
0
48
80
48
48
8
48
24
8
8
4
8
4
8
8
8
32
12
8
8
56
8
8
8
56
32
8
8
8
8
216
32
14
16
42
72
48
8
24
88
136
160
168
176
180
188
192
200
208
216
248
260
268
276
332
340
348
356
412
444
452
460
468
476
692
724
738
754
796
868
916
924
948
984
720
1056
96
24
2640
120
336
264
696
480
1824
600
576
1296
1032
144
72
48
48
408
384
336
2016
144
600
48
72
552
24
1416
2472
816
624
1032
1752
2808
2904
2928
5568
5688
6024
6288
6984
7464
9288
9888
10464
11760
12792
12936
13008
13056
13104
13512
13896
14232
16248
16392
16992
17040
17112
17664
17688
19104
21576
22392
23016
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
pivot pin failure

240
1188
2808
stud broken
8
1196
96
bolts worn-out
8
1204
120
steering box bolts replaced
8
1212
96
relay valve leak
8
1220
936
hoist cylinder leak
32
1252
72
air leak
8
1260
120
8
1268
336
air leak
8
1276
696
Strike: gear repair
840
2116
360
tyre toe in toe out
6
2122
240
water leak
8
2130
1128
cylinder exhaust bolt broken
72
2202
240
transmission oil leak
8
2210
720
Table 6: Calculations of CTTR and CTBF for Dumper CD 302
Failure no vs CTTR - CD-302

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 3: Failure Number vs. CTTR for Dumper CD 302
Failure no vs CTBF - CD302

40000
30000
20000
10000
0
-10000 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 4: Failure Number vs. CTBF for Dumper CD 302

34
25824
25920
26040
26136
27072
27144
27264
27600
28296
28656
28896
30024
30264
30984
From the table 6 a graph is plotted between failure number and CTTR (figure 3),
it has a positive trend that implies machine is improving on repairs (from table 6) and a
graph is plotted between failure number and CTBF (figure 4) there is no trend for the
graph it means that machine is following a constant failure rate. The maintenance policy
of this dumper must be improved by prioritising the high risk failures first so as to
minimise those failures as much as possible.
F
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Reason for failure
TTR CTTR TBF
gears not shifting

hyd oil leak
metal in torque convertor
bucket plate welding
brake weak & air leak
oil leak from hub
preventive repair
rear camera fixed
47
9
11
7
84
35
6
10
47
56
67
74
158
193
199
209
oil leak from hoist cylinder
213
hoist not working

oil leak from pump hose
air filters chocked
elc liquid change
oil leak from seals
o/p seat prob
oil leak from stg cyl
torque conv failed
suspension seals fail
tappet setting
service check
suspension seal damage
water pump leak
hoist cyl leak
water boil in radiator
water boil in radiator leak
radiator thermostat change
cyl head prob
12
5
7
6
9
5
33
165
163
7
6
22
10
70
35
11
29
43
225
230
237
243
252
257
290
455
618
625
631
653
663
733
768
779
808
851
35
0
456
600
456
1224
1152
240
72
312
432
144
288
72
72
192
480
24
528
1248
672
360
480
2280
288
96
696
24
CTBF
0
456
1056
1512
2736
3888
4128
4200
4512
4944
5088
5376
5448
5520
5712
6192
6216
6744
7992
8664
9024
9504
11784
12072
12168
12864
12888
28
24
12912
engine replaced
172
1023
29
288 13200
9
1032
30
3528 16728
water boil in radiator
34
1066
31
48
16776
preventive maintt
8
1074
32
144 16920
suspension failed
47
1121
33
144 17064
engine head failed
23
1144
34
648 17712
clutch GSP
9
1153
35
72
17784
clutch GSP
10
1163
36
384 18168
susp fail
11
1174
37
1176 19344
oil leak
7
1181
38
336 19680
NTL
13
1194
39
1200 20880
alternator belt fail
10
1204
40
168 21048
exhaust bolt broken
86
1290
41
216 21264
hose replaced
8
1298
42
312 21576
bucket welding
15
1313
43
864 22440
hyd cyl leak
17
1330
Failure no vs CTTR CD-303

1500
1000
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Failure no vs CTBF CD-303

30000
20000
10000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50

36
it has no trend that implies machine is undergoing constant failure rate (from table 7) and
a graph is plotted between failure number and CTBF (figure 6) there is no trend for the
graph it means that machine is following a constant failure rate. The true state of the
dumper can be know by performing further analysis using NHPP models and TTT
plotting.
F
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Reason for failure

susp. preventive repair
oil leak
elc liquid changed
cabin glass broken
engine abnormal sound
v-belts changed
tappet setting
wear plates welded
brake lining done
rear view mirror attached
water mixing with engine oil
turbo charger failed
transmission. oil leak
belt pull down
steering ball bearing broken
turbocharger oil leak
turbo charger oil spillage
trans. hose leak
compressor burst
engine replaced
brake oil leak
susp. bolt broken
hoist cylinder leak
oil leak
trans. top removed
toe in toe out
37
TTR CTTR TBF CTBF

10
12
10
19
35
9
7
15
7
14
31
29
22
7
9
17
34
49
7
23
559
9
21
10
11
19
13
10
22
32
51
86
95
102
117
124
138
169
198
220
227
236
253
287
336
343
366
925
934
955
965
976
995
1008
0
888
552
8976
1032
912
600
312
24
1512
768
408
144
792
312
600
144
168
336
960
1464
288
144
216
192
24
336
0
888
1440
10416
11448
12360
12960
13272
13296
14808
15576
15984
16128
16920
17232
17832
17976
18144
18480
19440
20904
21192
21336
21552
21744
21768
22104
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
rock effectors jammed

7
1015
816 22920
after cooler top replaced
25
1040 1320 24240
elc liquid leak
26
1066 1056 25296
oil leak
5
1071
96
25392
air compressor broken
14
1085
936 26328
rock effectors jammed
26
1111
432 26760
tyres changed
10
1121
48
26808

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
20
30
40
Failure no vs CTBF - CD-305

30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
38
it has a positive trend that implies machine is improving on repair (from table 8) and a
graph is plotted between failure number and CTBF (figure 8) there is a positive trend for
the graph it means that machine is in good condition. The equipment is giving its best
performance despite some failures so performing maintenance for this equipment is
worthy.
F No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Reason for failure

cmc installed
steering cyl oil leak
oil leak
engine plate bend
oil leak
susp. oil leak
elc liquid replaced
steering hard
pump filter fixed
tappit setting
brakes jam
preventive
maintenance
wear plate welding
toe in toe out
air leak
bucket wear plate
welded
brake anchor leak
susp. seal leak
susp. oil leak
load not taking
gsp chord
hoist seal leak
hyd oil leak
oil leak
brake oil leak
stg box failed
TTR
9
7
6
11
12
55
101
9
15
21
9
31
CTTR
9
16
22
33
45
100
201
210
225
246
255
286
TBF
0
24
264
1224
144
1224
264
288
144
816
240
48
CTBF
0
24
288
1512
1656
2880
3144
3432
3576
4392
4632
4680
12
11
23
42
298
309
332
374
1368
24
1392
1392
6048
6072
7464
8856
47
9
12
11
43
8
2
20
10
22
9
421
430
442
453
496
504
506
526
536
558
567
168
960
48
312
2760
96
240
288
1056
192
312
9024
9984
10032
10344
13104
13200
13440
13728
14784
14976
15288
39
28
susp. oil leak
20
587
144
15432
29
oil leak
9
596
336
15768
30
hoist seal leak
21
617
264
16032
31
stg box leak
7
624
1008
17040
32
trans. oil leak
11
635
336
17376
33
toe in toe out
15
650
72
17448
34
exhaust bolts broken
107
757
168
17616
35
water temp raising
11
768
48
17664
36
air leak
13
781
168
17832
37
hoist seal leak
15
796
576
18408
38
hoist problem
9
805
504
18912

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
20
30
40

20000
15000
10000
5000
0
-5000
10
20
30
40
40
it has no trend that implies machine is undergoing constant failure rate (from table 9) and
a graph is plotted between failure number and CTBF (figure 10) there is no trend for the
graph it means that machine is following a constant failure rate. The true state of the
dumper can be know by performing further analysis using NHPP models and TTT
plotting.

F No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Reason for failure

engine steering problem
sensor failure
arc failure
bucket not working
hoist seal leak
throttle sensor failure
tappit setting done
abnormal sound from engine
water leak from water pump
hoist oil leak
elc liquid filled
preventive repairs
oil leak from brakes
accident
abnormal sounds in engine
abnormal exhaust sounds
tappit valve setting
fan pulley bearing damaged
air drier replaced
brake anchor leak
radiator fan damaged
hoist cykibder leak
air leak
oil leak
41
TTR CTTR TBF CTBF

71
71
0
0
25
96
288
288
23
119
72
360
9
128
72
432
7
135
144
576
6
141
600 1176
5
146
264 1440
21
167 2040 3480
85
252
168 3648
9
261
216 3864
11
272
456 4320
10
282
600 4920
13
295
96
5016
34
329 1080 6096
55
384
240 6336
109
493
336 6672
33
526
480 7152
10
536
504 7656
7
543
552 8208
45
588
984 9192
9
597
144 9336
11
608 1656 10992
46
654 1440 12432
23
677 4032 16464
10
687
216 16680
17
704
360 17040
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
accident
511 1215 1488 18528
new ac compressor fixed
9
1224
24 18552
oil tank leak
10
1234
96 18648
transm. oil leak
14
1248 336 18984
hoist seal leak
25
1273 192 19176
susp. oil leak
23
1296 408 19584
transm. oil leak
7
1303 984 20568
air lock
6
1309 816 21384
horn not working
5
1314
72 21456
suspension oil leak
20
1334 240 21696
rearview mirror changed
7
1341
48 21744
tyres replaced
276 1617 480 22224
Failure no vs CTTR - CD307

2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
Failure no vs CTBF - CD307

30000
20000
10000
0
0
10
20
30
40
42
From the table 10 a graph is plotted between failure number and CTTR (figure
11), it has a positive trend that implies machine is improving on repair (from table 10)
and a graph is plotted between failure number and CTBF (figure 12) there is no trend for
the graph it means that machine is following a constant failure rate. The maintenance
policy of this dumper must be improved by prioritising the high risk failures first so as to

F No
Reason for failure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
suspension failure
engine blow by
22
23
24
25
26
ELC liquid change

engine maintenance
suspension seal failure
steering cylinder leak
anchor seal damaged
engine vibration
radiator hose problem
rear view mirror
radiator hose problem
door lock problem
right door problem
suspension oil leak
oil leak
air tank vibration
oil leak
accident: cabin repair
hoist pump
suspension oil leak
suspension box failure
cabin front glass
broken
hoist pump leak
suspension hardened
air leak
TTR CTTR
TBF
CTBF
24
4
7
12
145
4
22
30
9
7
9
6
3
25
26
29
10
338
10
7
28
24
28
35
47
192
196
218
248
257
264
273
279
282
307
333
362
372
710
720
727
755
0
1512
360
72
1488
744
984
312
3984
4032
168
336
72
192
168
144
24
144
48
96
576
0
1512
1872
1944
3432
4176
5160
5472
9456
13488
13656
13992
14064
14256
14424
14568
14592
14736
14784
14880
15456
20
775
48
15504
21
6
12
11
796
802
814
825
216
504
1008
240
15720
16224
17232
17472
43
27
28
CLS pump changed

brake anchor leak
cabin front glass
broken
left door problem
Left suspension weak
suspension oil leak
right suspension weak
suspension weak
29
30
31
32
33
34
13
17
838
855
48
96
17520
17616
19
874
720
18336
15
14
25
9
45
889
903
928
937
982
72
48
720
48
288
18408
18456
19176
19224
19512

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
20
30
40

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
10
20
30
40
44
13), it has no trend that implies machine is undergoing constant failure rate (from table
11) and a graph is plotted between failure number and CTBF (figure 48) there is a
positive trend that means the availability of machine is improving after repair.

F No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Reason for failure

TTR CTTR TBF
oitd setting work
34
34
0
susp. periodic maintenance
9
43
768
rear susp. weak
6
49
96
elc liquid change
10
59
1296
starting problem
345
404
96
gears late engaging
11
415
120
oil leak from hoist cylinder
12
427
312
fine susp. checking
13
440
744
radiators fan bearing damaged
20
460
1176
steering cylinder hose burst
18
478
216
susp. leak
15
493
4944
preventive repairs
7
500
768
accident
9
509
120
air leak
11
520
3048
gsp
15
535
72
tappit setting
16
551
528
cls pump not working
17
568
48
pump leak
11
579
480
pump leak
28
607
192
oil leak trans.
10
617
216
seal leak
13
630
912
rear view mirror
12
642
72
trans. oil leak
11
653
1440
brake anchor leak
10
663
1104
brake anchor leak
14
677
264
hoist oil leak
7
684
888
hoist oil leak
8
692
192
4th cylinder bolts broken
45
737
72
45
CTBF
0
768
864
2160
2256
2376
2688
3432
4608
4824
9768
10536
10656
13704
13776
14304
14352
14832
15024
15240
16152
16224
17664
18768
19032
19920
20112
20184

800
600
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30

15), it has a negative trend that implies machine is deteriorating on repairs (from table12)
F No
Reason for failure
TTR
CTTR
TBF
CTBF
water pump leak
57
57
front susp. periodical

2
maintenance
31
88
216
216
hyd oil leak from hoist cylinder
93
1920
2136
46
2nd cylinder bolts broken
59
152
288
2424
elc liquid changed
159
1440
3864
tappit valve setting done
168
600
4464
radiator cooling failed
11
179
144
4608
susp. seal changed
46
225
2304
6912
exhaust fan bolt broken
90
315
1032
7944
10
hose punctured
13
328
2424
10368
11
wear plate welding
29
357
144
10512
12
susp. seal leak
45
402
96
10608
13
toe in toe out
409
2616
13224
14
air got build up
418
960
14184
15
air got build up
11
429
144
14328
16
susp. leak
23
452
888
15216
17
ntl
10
462
216
15432
18
hoist cylinder leak
18
480
480
15912
19
hoist cylinder leak
11
491
1296
17208
20
brakes jam
12
503
816
18024
21
brake anchor leak
13
516
408
18432
22
air got build up
11
527
312
18744
23
sound from oil tank
13
540
480
19224
47

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
15
20
25

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
-5000
10
15
20
25

13) and a graph is plotted between failure number and CTBF (figure 18) there is no trend
for the graph it means that machine is following a constant failure rate. The true state of
the dumper can be know by performing further analysis using NHPP models and TTT
plotting.
48

F No
1
Reason for failure

TTR
CTTR
TBF
CTBF
air leak from brake valve
7
7
0
0
engine periodical
2
maintenance
9
16
24
24
3
air compressor failed
31
47
672
696
susp. periodical
4
maintenance
9
56
24
720
5
engine blow by
5
61
720
1440
6
air compressor burst
10
71
96
1536
7
air leak from air compressor
11
82
1320
2856
8
load not taking
67
149
10872
13728
9
bucket grip lost
63
212
96
13824
10
susp. oil leak
9
221
24
13848
11
susp. oil leak
18
239
168
14016
12
cabin door problem
30
269
336
14352
13
susp. pin broken
7
276
408
14760
14
left brake anchor leak
9
285
24
14784
15
right brake anchor leak
11
296
192
14976
16
air drier assembly blocked
9
305
1032
16008
17
trans oil loss
8
313
120
16128
18
cls pump not working
6
319
936
17064
19
stg hose lock
10
329
1128
18192
20
hyd cylinder oil loss
8
337
336
18528
21
hoist cylinder leak
12
349
216
18744
22
brake jam
13
362
48
18792
23
air leak
11
373
24
18816
24
brake anchor leak
14
387
336
19152
25
accident : sump
84
471
120
19272
49

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20
25
30

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
-5000

positive trend that means the availability of machine is improving after repair.
50

F No
1
Reason for failure

water leak radiator
TTR CTTR
4
4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
susp. failed
engine breather chocked
engine blow by chocked
periodical maintenance
ac belt failed
elc oil changed
susp. leak
radiator fan abnormal
bucket wear plate welding
hyd oil leak
ntc
accident
seperator seal problem
air leak
air leak
air leak
hoist cylinder leak
susp. leak
right susp. seal broken
water pump leak
brake leak
susp. leak
brake jam
air drier leak
gsp
gsp
front brake
brake oil leak
8
16
8
8
8
4
8
8
12
8
8
24
8
8
8
8
8
22
8
18
36
8
16
8
8
8
8
8
8
12
28
36
44
52
56
64
72
84
92
100
124
132
140
148
156
164
186
194
212
248
256
272
280
288
296
304
312
320
TBF
0
CTBF
0
672
288
600
48
480
1080
1152
96
2016
1272
768
1536
600
3624
72
144
480
288
216
336
216
120
96
96
1296
144
144
720
1272
672
960
1560
1608
2088
3168
4320
4416
6432
7704
8472
10008
10608
14232
14304
14448
14928
15216
15432
15768
15984
16104
16200
16296
17592
17736
17880
18600
19872
51

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35

plotting
52

F No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Reason for failure

TTR CTTR
TBF
periodical maintenance
10
10
0
air leak
4
14
2784
all pressure points checked
22
36
456
fan v-belt damaged
12
48
408
right suspension. seal leak
35
83
2328
brake cooling hose punctured
10
93
3192
air loss from air drier
12
105
240
mirror damaged
2
107
264
preventive repair
6
113
504
oil leak
7
120
192
hose leak
9
129
144
water boiling
26
155
2664
reverse gear
9
164
24
gsp
70
234
216
ntl
25
259
24
ntl
10
269
72
steering stress
9
278
168
temperature raise in engine
7
285
264
turbo failed
390
675
48
hoist cylinder leak
23
698
1032
pump problem
11
709
1752
hyd cylinder leak
9
718
456
engine replaced
324 1042
336
convertor problem
91
1133
240
oil leak
921 2054
48
53
CTBF
0
2784
3240
3648
5976
9168
9408
9672
10176
10368
10512
13176
13200
13416
13440
13512
13680
13944
13992
15024
16776
17232
17568
17808
17856

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
15
20
25
30

20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30

and a graph is plotted between failure number and CTBF (figure 24) there is a positive
trend this implies that availability of equipment is increasing with repair.
54

F No
Reason for failure
TTR
CTTR
TBF
CTBF
periodic maintenance
operator seat problem
14
1056
1056
ac belt snapped
20
768
1824
Elc liquid replaced
27
1656
3480
auto meter system opened
10
37
2568
6048
cylinder head replaced
736
773
1392
7440
trans. oil spillage
45
818
120
7560
hose failure
827
504
8064
ntl
834
4272
12336
10
turbo gas leak
842
192
12528
11
oil leak
849
72
12600
12
engine no pick up
858
288
12888
13
elc consumption
10
868
144
13032
14
stg lock
11
879
504
13536
15
preventive repair
23
902
2760
16296
16
cylinder broken
70
972
456
16752
17
susp. oil leak
46
1018
48
16800
18
susp. oil leak
1027
144
16944
19
10
1037
264
17208
20
right hoist cylinder blocked
40
1077
744
17952
55

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
-200

20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25

25), it has a negative trend that implies machine is deteriorating on repair (from table 17)
trend this implies that availability of equipment is increasing with repair. This is a
situation where repairs are increasing and availability is increasing this means that
component is recurrently failing maintenance policy must be changed.
56
Trend Analysis of Dumper C 354

F No
Reason for failure
TTR CTTR
TBF
CTBF
machine not starting
21
21
gear shifting problem
121
142
48
48
elbow threads worn out
71
213
624
672
engine replaced
551
764
5712
6384
70
834
456
6840
oil leak
843
4944
11784
10
853
384
12168
susp.oil leak
37
890
120
12288
fan belt damaged
22
912
1200
13488
10
clutch slipping
23
935
720
14208
11
ntl+governor failure
483
1418
2976
17184
12
right door lock missing
1427
1680
18864
13
air build up in compressor
22
1449
360
19224
14
tie rod cups missing
23
1472
408
19632
15
clutch problem
70
1542
936
20568
16
bucket broken
45
1587
360
20928
17
trans. oil leak
1594
480
21408
18
brake jam
10
1604
288
21696
19
pump leak
11
1615
1104
22800
20
hyd oil leak
12
1627
120
22920
Table 18: Calculations of CTTR and CTBF for Dumper C 354
57
Failure no vs CTTR - C - 354

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
Figure 27: Failure Number vs. CTTR for Dumper C 354
Failure no vs CTBF - C - 354

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
-5000
10
15
20
25
Figure 28: Failure Number vs. CTBF for Dumper C 354

component is recurrently failing maintenance policy must be changed. In this case the
replacement of the component is suggested as equipment is used beyond its machine
hours.
58

F No
Reason for failure
TTR
CTTR
TBF
CTBF
Output seal problem.
Stg oil leak.
30
39
144
144
Oil mixing in drive.
345
384
2184
2328
Oil leak in turbo.
17
401
96
2424
Oil leak in Stg cylinder.
19
420
3312
5736
UJ cross failed are placed.
10
430
552
6288
1st cylinder exhaust bolt broken.
11
441
456
6744
Oil leak from suspention seal.
15
456
1632
8376
Stg link broken.
138
594
648
9024
10
NTL (governor).
92
686
912
9936
11
Oil leakage from PTO shaft seal.
10
696
2040
11976
12
Oil leak from Hydraulic system.
23
719
408
12384
13
Gear change problem.
230
949
3000
15384
14
Clutch shipping.
26
975
2568
17952
15
Hoist seal leak.
10
985
1992
19944
16
Hoist prob pump replaced.
71
1056
312
20256
17
Brake jam .
11
1067
48
20304
18
Gear & clutch problem.
13
1080
1080
21384
NTL 3rd cylinder injector

19
replaced.
187
1267
384
21768
20
Stg hard.
14
1281
72
21840
21
Hoist hose problem.
12
1293
1920
23760
22
Trans oil leak (hose).
14
1307
528
24288
23
Trans oil leak ('o' ring replaced).
18
1325
120
24408
24
Water leak (turbo replaced).
43
1368
120
24528
25
Hoist problem, Stg cylinder leak.
68
1436
48
24576
59

2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Figure29: Failure Number vs. CTTR for Dumper C 357

30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
-5000 0
10
15
20
25
30

plotting.
60

F No
Reason for failure

TTR
CTTR
TBF
CTBF
rock ejector bracket
1
27
27
0
0
bent
2
not taking load
264
291
1032
1032
3
oil leak from drive
45
336
1512
2544
4
stg hard
23
359
816
3360
5
brake weak, oil leak
450
809
24
3384
6
oil leak from seals
11
820
744
4128
7
engine replaced
632
1452
1368
5496
8
lockup valve broken
10
1462
1056
6552
9
rock ejector jam
9
1471
432
6984
10
gear & clutch prob
15
1486
2856
9840
11
oil leak
41
1527
696
10536
12
hoist cyl leak
14
1541
120
10656
13
pump fail
12
1553
144
10800
14
susp seal leak
11
1564
240
11040
15
air leak
10
1574
672
11712
16
stg oil leak
28
1602
936
12648
17
susp seal leak
31
1633
72
12720
18
tie rod play
43
1676
1008
13728
19
brake jam
10
1686
744
14472
61

2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
15
20

20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
10
15
20

From the table 20 a graph is plotted between failure number and CTTR (figure 31), it has
a negative trend that implies machine is deteriorating on repairs (from table 20) and a
graph is plotted between failure number and CTBF (figure 32) there is no trend for the
graph it means that machine is following a constant failure rate. The maintenance policy
of this dumper must be improved by prioritising the high risk failures first so as to
62

F No
Reason for failure
TTR
CTTR
TBF
CTBF
Bucket exhaust adaptor broken.
Water leak in the exhaust pipe.
15
24
144
144
69
93
144
288
Steering hard, turbo charger

fixed.
Engine oil leak.
45
138
240
528
Exhaust leak.
23
161
1032
1560
Seal broken in engine.
168
168
1728
Clutch and Gears problem
46
214
792
2520
Hoist cylinder leak, replaced.
70
284
312
2832
Suspension seal leak.
44
328
5544
8376
10
Tappet setting metal in strain.
41
369
744
9120
11
Horn not working.
373
2448
11568
12
Wheel alignment
10
383
144
11712
13
Hydrolic oil leak seal fix.
17
400
216
11928
14
Clutch , gears problem.
69
469
264
12192
15
Breaks weak.
478
144
12336
16
Air leak.
10
488
168
12504
17
Stg oil leak.
11
499
1848
14352
18
Brakes weak.
13
512
120
14472
19
Stg link broken.
782
1294
528
15000
20
Stg hard idle
21
1315
648
15648
21
PTO problem, replaced.
10
1325
360
16008
22
Right side pulling.
1331
48
16056
23
Air leak
1339
456
16512
63

1500
1000
500
0
0
10
15
20
25

20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
10
15
20
25

64

F No
Reason for failure
TTR
CTTR
TBF
CTBF
new a/c compressor fixed
15
15
equalizer pin wornout
27
42
696
696
suspension repair
11
53
408
1104
door glass broken
15
68
120
1224
acciden
45
113
24
1248
oil leak
122
648
1896
tie rod broken
10
132
576
2472
hoist pump leak
11
143
144
2616
door lock fail
152
1152
3768
10
oil leak
158
504
4272
11
water temp raising
163
144
4416
12
stg hose leak
12
175
672
5088
13
preventive repair
11
186
96
5184
14
gear & clutch prob
19
205
96
5280
15
gear & clutch prob
27
232
168
5448
65

250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
10
15
20

plotting
66

F No
1
2
3
4
5
6
Reason for failure

TTR
CTTR
TBF
CTBF
spindle & brake repair
48
48
0
0
engine replaced
230
278
744
744
air & oil leak
8
286
528
1272
15
301
696
1968
gear slipped
46
347
552
2520
service check
12
359
192
2712
steering cylinder
7
72
431
768
3480
bearing
8
mid life repair
1426
1857
744
4224
9
brake jam
8
1865
408
4632
10
gear shifting prob
16
1881
792
5424
11
brake jam
8
1889
552
5976
12
brake jam & PTO prob
24
1913
24
6000
13
brake jam & PTO prob
0
1913
72
6072
14
drive line failure
0
1913
264
6336
15
CLS pump fail
13
1926
48
6384
16
diesel leak
15
1941
48
6432
rear suspension seal
17
6
1947
96
6528
leak
18
canopy welding
7
1954
144
6672
19
air leak
14
1968
240
6912
20
brake jam
0
1968
144
7056
21
filter bolts loose
3
1971
192
7248
22
canopy welding
8
1979
1056
8304
steering filter bolt
23
7
1986
96
8400
broken
24
brake jam
8
1994
48
8448
25
hydraulic oil leak
7
2001
360
8808
26
air leak
8
2009
168
8976
27
brakes replaced
144
2153
192
9168
28
oil leak
6
2159
72
9240
29
canopy broken
15
2174
168
9408
30
air leak in radiator
8
2182
192
9600
67

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35

37), it has a negative trend that implies machine is deteriorating on repairs (from table 23)
minimise those failures as much as possible
68

F No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Reason for failure

turbocharger removed
preventive repairs
chassis cracked
not taking load
lube oil filters fail
oil leak from cylinder
hoist not working
float seal failure
hoist prob
hydraulic oil leak
turbo pump failure
suspension oil leak
not taking load
pump fail
not taking load
brake jam
fan belt fail
hoist damaged
engine oil leak
hoist damaged
tappet valve setting
mirror damaged
engine guard broken
hoist problem
preventive repairs
brake jam
suspension oil leak
transmission fail
oil leak
tie rod broken
pin jammed
crank damage
suspension broken
TTR
24
8
8
8
24
10
8
72
408
144
192
144
8
264
24
48
168
8
24
8
24
24
8
8
8
8
8
8
72
8
8
8
8
24
8
69
CTTR
24
32
40
48
72
82
90
162
570
714
906
1050
1058
1322
1346
1394
1562
1570
1594
1602
1626
1650
1658
1666
1674
1682
1690
1698
1770
1778
1786
1794
1802
1826
1834
TBF
0
600
336
480
336
24
840
312
168
120
96
408
768
168
720
96
864
600
144
528
192
48
2952
288
336
648
432
192
1560
48
120
48
528
168
48
CTBF
0
600
936
1416
1752
1776
2616
2928
3096
3216
3312
3720
4488
4656
5376
5472
6336
6936
7080
7608
7800
7848
10800
11088
11424
12072
12504
12696
14256
14304
14424
14472
15000
15168
15216
36
steering link damage
96
1930
336
15552
37
radiator bolts weak
8
1938
120
15672

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
20
30
40

20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
10
20
30
40

70

F No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Reason for failure

Oil leak
Right charis crackedwelding
Fan belts snapped
Engine repalced
Float seals replaced
New hoist pump fixed
Output seat problem
New seats and brakes fixed
Clutch struck
Tappit settings
Hoist cylinder leak
Parking breaks jam
Cylinder housing replaced
Front drive valve changed
Tie rod bend-replaced
Break jam, C-369 <-> C-362
Metal in strainer
Oil leak
Clutch pump not working
Engine replaced
Output seat problem
Pivot pin play
Railing broken
Oil leak
Valve oil leak
Brakes jam
Air leak
operator ladder Broken
Structural repairs
Breaks worn out
TTR
9
CTTR
9
TBF
0
CTBF
0
11
20
696
696
13
1219
92
92
9
782
46
23
22
10
46
23
25
19
11
15
19
253
7
276
10
13
14
10
9
7
529
10
6
33
1252
1344
1436
1445
2227
2273
2296
2318
2328
2374
2397
2422
2441
2452
2467
2486
2739
2746
3022
3032
3045
3059
3069
3078
3085
3614
3624
3630
504
288
384
648
816
456
240
696
144
744
720
168
216
792
1104
768
360
96
144
576
264
96
120
336
1320
216
96
240
648
1200
1488
1872
2520
3336
3792
4032
4728
4872
5616
6336
6504
6720
7512
8616
9384
9744
9840
9984
10560
10824
10920
11040
11376
12696
12912
13008
13248
13896
71

4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
-500
10
15
20
25
30
35

16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35

72

F No
1
2
Reason for failure

TTR CTTR
TBF
CTBF
fire suspension broken
4
4
0
0
cabin glass broken
4
8
1680
1680
oil leak from front
3
30
38
528
2208
suspension
4
stg not working
56
94
240
2448
5
bore damage
504
598
1344
3792
6
cabin damage
7
605
120
3912
7
mid life repair
1152 1757
1728
5640
8
new a/c fixed
19
1776
600
6240
9
hyd oil leak
16
1792
3576
9816
10
10
1802
288
10104
11
air leak
9
1811
24
10128
12
hyd oil leak
7
1818
216
10344
13
stg not working
15
1833
312
10656
14
retardation problem
5
1838
48
10704
15
pin failure
7
1845
576
11280
16
toe in toe out tyre
72
1917
960
12240
17
not taking load
14
1931
1632
13872
18
air built-up in compressor
15
1946
24
13896
19
preventive repairs
71
2017
144
14040
20
valve leak
19
2036
192
14232
21
water boiling
5
2041
360
14592
22
48
2089
288
14880
23
brake fail
11
2100
216
15096
24
not taking load
19
2119
168
15264
25
cabin railing damage
5
2124
24
15288
73

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
15
20
25
30

18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30

component is recurrently failing maintenance policy must be changed. In this case the
replacement of the component is suggested as equipment is used beyond its machine
hours.
74
Trend Analysis of Dumper-C 374

F No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Reason for failure

cmc installed
steering cyl oil leak
oil leak from sealfailure
engine guard plate bend
oil leak from sealfailure
susp. oil leak
elc liquid replaced
steering hard
pump filter fixed
tappit setting
brakes jam
preventive maintenance
wear plate welding
toe in toe out
air leak
bucket wear plate welded
brake anchor leak
susp. seal leak
susp. oil leak
load not taking
gsp chord
hoist seal leak
hyd oil leak
oil leak
brake oil leak
stg box failed
susp. oil leak
oil leak
hoist seal leak
stg box leak
trans. oil leak
toe in toe out
exhaust bolts broken
water temp raising
air leak
TTR
9
7
6
11
12
55
101
9
15
21
9
31
12
11
23
42
47
9
12
11
43
8
2
20
10
22
9
20
9
21
7
11
15
107
11
13
75
CTTR
9
16
22
33
45
100
201
210
225
246
255
286
298
309
332
374
421
430
442
453
496
504
506
526
536
558
567
587
596
617
624
635
650
757
768
781
TBF
0
24
264
1224
144
1224
264
288
144
816
240
48
1368
24
1392
1392
168
960
48
312
2760
96
240
288
1056
192
312
144
336
264
1008
336
72
168
48
168
CTBF
0
24
288
1512
1656
2880
3144
3432
3576
4392
4632
4680
6048
6072
7464
8856
9024
9984
10032
10344
13104
13200
13440
13728
14784
14976
15288
15432
15768
16032
17040
17376
17448
17616
17664
17832
37
38
hoist seal leak

15
796
576
18408
hoist problem
9
805
504
18912

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20

7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
10
15
20

76
F
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Reason for failure
TTR CTTR TBF CTBF
Oil leak in the shaft.

Bucket linning pin broken.
Engined replaced.
brake unit leak.
Brake release fail.
water leak from the radiator.
Oil leak from the turbo charger.
cylinder head damaged.
Pin pivot play.
Oil leak from both drives.
Engine sump leak.
Engine head gasket leak NTL.
Brake slipping.
Cam shaft replaced.
Tie rod both ends failed.
Hoist cylinder leak.
Engine oil leak.
Pump leak.
Hydrolic oil leak.
Radiator leak.
Oil in radiator.
Suspention problem.
Engine oil leak.
Brake play.
heating leak
Front suspention hard.
Engine oil leak.
Water loss.
Cord boiling.
Cord replaced radiator.
77
16
8
644
138
12
92
8
115
161
920
92
44
115
345
60
7
8
9
11
12
46
322
69
15
18
874
13
7
9
14
391
16
24
668
806
818
910
918
1033
1194
2114
2206
2250
2365
2710
2770
2777
2785
2794
2805
2817
2863
3185
3254
3269
3287
4161
4174
4181
4190
4204
4595
0
216
192
576
72
768
24
120
600
1200
216
360
168
360
96
3864
48
216
528
360
216
144
576
312
96
192
24
336
288
144
96
0
216
408
984
1056
1824
1848
1968
2568
3768
3984
4344
4512
4872
4968
8832
8880
9096
9624
9984
10200
10344
10920
11232
11328
11520
11544
11880
12168
12312
12408
32
pin leaked.
13
4608
72 12480
33
Railing damaged.
12
4620 120 12600

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
-1000

14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35

78
plotting
1
Suspenstion leak (seal).
9
9
0
0
2
gear shifting (slip).
61
70
24
24
3
Air filters cleaning.
9
79
792
816
4
CLS pump not working.
11
90
2304
3120
5
Low shaft tension.
10
100
24
3144
6
Oil over heat, oil mixing.
270 370
1392
4536
7
Preventive repairs.
9
379
432
4968
8
Hoist pump replaced.
71
450
2352
7320
9
Air leak from brake.
9
459
24
7344
10
7th cylinder valve broken.
84
543
1704
9048
11
Leak from brake anchor.
10
553
24
9072
12
Both drives oil leak.
126 679
2808
11880
13
Break cooling hose leak.
15
694
1320
13200
14
CLS pump fail.
12
706
168
13368
15
Turbo oil leak.
40
746
888
14256
16
Oil leak.
9
755
72
14328
17
Air leak.
12
767
1560
15888
18
platform welding.
12
779
408
16296
19
Stg hard
21
800
144
16440
20
platform welding.
3
803
240
16680
21
CLS pump fail.
9
812
240
16920
22
Bucket replacement.
63
875
24
16944
23
Steering repair.
42
917
144
17088
79

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25

20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
10
15
20
25
-5000

plotting
80

F No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Reason for failure

TTR CTTR
TBF
suspension leak
14
14
0
pin pivot play
243
257
264
accident: radiator, cabin, ladder
89
346
744
damage
water boiling in radiator
23
369
48
engine replaced
331
700
2232
brake relay valve leak
9
709
1296
suspension leak
21
730
1224
steering oil leak
11
741
144
oil mixing
42
783
2088
mid life overhaul
443 1226
1248
hoist leak
9
1235
1272
stg play
11
1246
144
brake a=seal leak
12
1258
384
14
1272
48
A/c bracket broken
21
1293
312
brake weak
15
1308
144
gear prob
19
1327
120
brake prob
14
1341
384
susp bolt broken
15
1356
48
hoist cyl leak
411 1767
264
rt side pulling
13
1780
216
hoist prob
11
1791
336
susp leak
84
1875
1776
cylinder injection prob
12
1887
144
10
1897
312
right side stg pulling
25
1922
624
brake weak
9
1931
528
81
CTBF
0
264
1008
1056
3288
4584
5808
5952
8040
9288
10560
10704
11088
11136
11448
11592
11712
12096
12144
12408
12624
12960
14736
14880
15192
15816
16344

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
15
20
25
30

18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30

plotting
82

F No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Reason for failure

TTR CTTR
TBF
Air not build up and leak in the
8
8
0
driver.
Susp bottom pin broken.
48
56
144
oil mixing in the final drive.
120
176
144
Hydraulic oil mixing in the final
253
429
48
drive.
Oil mixing is differential.
207
636
72
161
797
144
Hydrolic oil mixing in the final
299 1096
24
drive.
1564 2660
336
Stg fank plate choked.
46
2706
3384
Leak from the drive shaft.
24
2730
336
Bucket damaged.
44
2774
552
New A/C compressor fixed.
12
2786
2400
Rock ejector fail.
11
2797
1584
Pump not working.
12
2809
216
Brake oil seal leak.
10
2819
48
PTO shaft broken.
9
2828
360
Pump got wornout.
8
2836
72
Shaft broken.
23
2859
528
Air leak.
22
2881
2184
Air leak.
7
2888
120
Hoist problem.
9
2897
168
Hoist problem.
6
2903
168
Engine bolt weak.
10
2913
192
Brake jam.
9
2922
1416
83
CTBF
0
144
288
336
408
552
576
912
4296
4632
5184
7584
9168
9384
9432
9792
9864
10392
12576
12696
12864
13032
13224
14640

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
15
20
25
30

16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30

84

F No
Reason for failure
TTR CTTR TBF CTBF
1
Right suspension pin broken.
46
46
0
0
2
Trans pump & gear engage.
23
69
120
120
3
Bearings in drive damage.
12
81
9096
9216
4
Clutch problem.
45
126
960
10176
5
Drive leak.
8
134
2568 12744
6
New A/C compressor fixed.
9
143
720
13464
7
0
143
552
14016
8
Brake fail.
13
156
72
14088
9
Air buildup in the compressor.
6
162
72
14160
10
Fine exhaust cylinder broken l
9
171
312
14472
11
Radiator replaced.
92
263
168
14640
12
Air buildup in the compressor.
0
263
144
14784
13
Stg oil leak.
9
272
264
15048
14
Break drum oil leak.
7
279
240
15288
15
Water leak.
10
289
96
15384
16
Suspension oil leak.
13
302
888
16272
17
Accident:
0
302
48
16320
18
Water leak.
12
314
216
16536
19
Turbo failed.
23
337
96
16632
20
Air leak.
12
349
96
16728
21
Water leak.
12
361
120
16848
22
Water boiling.
72
433
72
16920
23
Output seal problem.
10
443
144
17064
24
Orbital valves leaked.
10
453
120
17184
25
Air compressor replaced.
23
476
72
17256
26
Radiator changed.
46
522
336
17592
27
Turbo oil leak.
10
532
384
17976
28
Engine oil leak.
76
608
24
18000
29
Right door glass broken.
11
619
120
18120
85

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35

20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
-5000

positive trend that means the availability of machine is improving after repair
86

F No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Reason for failure

TTR
CTTR
TBF
oil leak
8
8
0
susp. oil leak
12
20
264
engine oil leak
12
32
1296
seal leak, cam shaft failed
368
400
1008
4th cylinder failed
32
432
264
bucket not hoisting
24
456
120
oil mixing in diff
552
1008
48
oil leak
24
1032
864
rear parking brake failure
8
1040
264
pump drive worn out
48
1088
768
high pressure lock up torque
120
1208
360
alternator sound abnormal
48
1256
624
air loss from valve
36
1292
408
clutch check up
8
1300
816
lube oil leak
170
1470
672
water leak
120
1590
792
brake jam
8
1598
2304
joint problem
8
1606
720
air compressor shaft broken
120
1726
288
engine rpm problem
24
1750
168
oil leak
8
1758
576
air leak
8
1766
960
engine sound , engine replaced
48
1814
480
brake jam
8
1822
264
air leak
8
1830
192
87
CTBF
0
264
1560
2568
2832
2952
3000
3864
4128
4896
5256
5880
6288
7104
7776
8568
10872
11592
11880
12048
12624
13584
14064
14328
14520

2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
15
20
25
30

16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30

88

F No
Reason for failure
TTR
CTTR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
cylinder exhaust bolt broken

oil leak
engine replaced
hoist valve
fuel gauge change
air leak & water leak
hoist cylinder leak
steering hardened
mid-life repair
not taking load
not taking load & bucket
problem
rock ejector problem
doors damaged
Tyres
Tyres
suspension seal damage
exhaust cylinder bolt broken
bucket canopy damage
parking brake jammed
fan belt replaced
water leak
oil leak
hoist cylinder leak
48
24
552
48
8
8
0
8
24
8
48
72
624
672
680
688
688
696
720
728
0
8
13
10
7
36
32
17
46
22
8
8
8
728
736
749
759
766
802
834
851
897
919
927
935
943
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
TBF
0
264
312
240
1656
24
2736
432
168
0
CTBF
0
264
576
816
2472
2496
5232
5664
5832
5832
456
6288
384
6672
24
6696
72
6768
600
7368
528
7896
384
8280
480
8760
1704
10464
0
10464
72
10536
288
10824
144
10968
89

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
15
20
25

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25

90

F No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Reason for failure

bucket welding
fuel gauge problem
oil leak
pump failure
oil & diesel mixing
oil leak in front drive
air loss & brake jam
tie rod bend
trans system failure
air loss from brake
sudden brakes
cylinder bearing damage
torque convertor failed
a/c not working
hoist cylinder leak
front suspension leak
diesel loss
door glass problem
railing broken
hydraulic oil leak
suspension bolt broken
brake jam
hydraulic oil leak
fire system failure
suspension failure
brake jam
bucket hinge problem
suspension seal broken
TTR
43
7
34
17
9
11
81
71
73
6
23
46
9
10
175
22
7
23
45
9
7
11
10
45
8
47
9
10
21
7
11
22
91
CTTR
43
50
84
101
110
121
202
273
346
352
375
421
430
440
615
637
644
667
712
721
728
739
749
794
802
849
858
868
889
896
907
929
TBF
0
456
1440
144
48
408
384
1416
456
912
744
1104
144
24
360
1488
528
1128
72
264
864
48
480
96
72
168
216
72
1728
216
120
120
CTBF
0
456
1896
2040
2088
2496
2880
4296
4752
5664
6408
7512
7656
7680
8040
9528
10056
11184
11256
11520
12384
12432
12912
13008
13080
13248
13464
13536
15264
15480
15600
15720
33
metal pipe replaced
9
938
888
16608
34
bolt broken
19
957
24
16632
35
sump leak
47
1004
120
16752
36
air leak
9
1013
24
16776

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
92
40
plotting

F
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Reason for failure

Engine Probe repaired.
Seals fail complete over haul.
Water pump fail.
Final drive oil leak, float seal fail.
Final drive oil leak, float seal fail.
Differential fail & brakes fail
Accident
Parking brakers, GSP trans fail.
NTL, Engine blow by.
Oil mixing in differential.
Accident
Rear brakes failed.
Suspension weak.
Break waek.
Stg hard.
7th cylinder exhaust bolt broken.
Trans oil leak.
Front suspension seal leak.
Steering hard.
Tie rod bend.
Stg rod fail.
Orbital valve leak.
Air leak.
Orbital valve leak.
93
TTR
70
462
45
162
92
485
68
325
301
49
46
10
12
13
15
18
19
11
10
15
9
12
15
13
14
CTTR
70
532
577
739
831
1316
1384
1709
2010
2059
2105
2115
2127
2140
2155
2173
2192
2203
2213
2228
2237
2249
2264
2277
2291
TBF
0
1008
816
24
432
744
792
1728
600
192
1824
24
24
600
480
24
360
168
24
576
240
240
1608
120
288
CTBF
0
1008
1824
1848
2280
3024
3816
5544
6144
6336
8160
8184
8208
8808
9288
9312
9672
9840
9864
10440
10680
10920
12528
12648
12936
26
27
28
Air leak (Hose)

17
2308
264
13200
Air leak (Hose)
18
2326
312
13512
Brake jam.
13
2339
312
13824

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
15
20
25
30

16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25
94
30
6.6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The trend analysis is performed on all dumpers available using cumulative plot
test. The results are tabulated.
S. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Dumper No.
F No VS CTTR
F No VS CTBF
Result
CD-302
Positive Trend
No trend
Positive Trend
CD-303
No trend
No trend
No trend
CD-305
Positive trend
Positive trend
Positive trend
CD-306
No trend
No trend
No trend
CD-307
Positive trend
No trend
Positive trend
CD-308
No trend
Positive trend
Positive trend
CD-309
Negative trend
No trend
Negative trend
CD-310
No trend
No trend
No trend
CD-311
No trend
Positive trend
Positive trend
CD-312
No trend
No trend
No trend
CD-313
Positive trend
Positive trend
Positive trend
CD-314
Negative trend
Positive trend
Negative trend
Table 37: Results of Trend Analysis for 100 T Dumpers
S.NO.
DUMPER NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
C-354
C-357
C-362
C-364
C-366
C-367
C-368
C-369
C-373
C-374
C-376
C-377
C-378
C-379
F No VS CTTR
Negative trend
No trend
Negative trend
Positive trend
No trend
Negative trend
Negative trend
Negative trend
Negative trend
Positive trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
Negative trend
95
F No VS CTBF
Positive trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
Positive trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
Result
Negative trend
No trend
Negative trend
Positive trend
No trend
Negative trend
Negative trend
Negative trend
Negative trend
Positive trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
Negative trend
15
16
17
18
19
No trend
Positive trend
Positive trend
Negative trend
No trend
Negative trend
Negative trend
No trend
Negative trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
Negative trend
No trend
Negative trend
Table 38: Results of Trend Analysis for 85 T Dumpers
C-380
C-381
C-382
C-383
C-384
It can be concluded that the dumpers exhibiting positive trend are responsive to
maintenance and their availability is good for production. The dumpers exhibiting
negative trend are deteriorating over time and it is better either to stop using the dumper
or replace the critical failing component or change the maintenance policy. The dumpers
exhibiting no trend are to be further analysed using TTT plotting. [2]
96
7. CONCLUSION
In this Trend analysis it is analyzed on various failures in dumpers of type 85T

and 100T at SCCL, RAMAGUNDAM which are effecting the productivity of the
organization and life time of the machinery
This analysis is used to identify the problems affecting the machinery and they
can be minimized by proper maintenance. By using this analysis we can predict the
failure time when a failure occurs in dumpers.
By performing trend analysis the performance of dumper on maintenance is
calculated using cumulative plot test. The dumpers that are deteriorating and improving
on maintenance are identified. This analysis decides whether any maintenance must be
performed on the dumper based on its reliability is known.
Twelve dumpers have shown negative trend. These needs immediate attention
.Close monitoring may control small failures and forecast major failures and further
analysis may be carried out by NHPP models.
Nine are showing positive trend. For these, no maintenance is required as they are
indicating improving. Further, maintenance schedule need not be changed
The characteristic life is gradually increasing and it is found to be highest in
December 2009. In January, February and September of 2010 the dumpers are showing
improving characteristics. In April and December of 2009 the dumpers are showing
improving characteristics
The purpose of this study is to collect data relating to heavy load hauling
equipment operating in a group of coal mines, analyze data and find the trend of failures
in Dumpers. Further the study is aimed at locating areas that need special attention, so
that the availability and utilization of transport equipment can be improved in addition to
enhancing the machine life. In todays economic climate, it is extremely important to
minimize both capital and operating costs in any mining project. In an open cast project
97
loading and hauling are the expensive areas, the latter costing as good as 30% to 50% of
total mining cost. There is a concentrated effort to reduce haulage costs as well as
limiting the haulage fleet size so that overall capital and operating costs are minimized.
98
REFERENCES
1. MIL-STD-1629A - Procedures for performing a failure mode effect and criticality
analysis. Department of Defense (USA). 24 November 1980
2. Raju N V S, Plant Maintenance & Reliability Engineering, CENGAGE Learning
3. Magne Vollan Aarset, How to Identify a Bathtub Hazard Rate, IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON RELIABILITY, VOL. R-36, NO. 1, 1987 APRIL, pp 106
- 108
4. Roy Billington, Ronald N Allan, Reliability Evaluation of Engineering Systems,
Plenum Press, N. Y, 1984
5. B Bergman, B Klefsjo, The total time on test concept and its use in reliability
theory, Oper. Res., vol 32, pp 596-606.
6. B Bergman, B Klefsjo, A graphical method applicable to age replacement
problems, IEEE Trans. Reliability, vol R-31, 1982 0.2 - Dec, pp 478-481.
7. Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA). National Aeronautics
and Space Administration JPL. PDAD1307. Retrieved 2010-03-13
8. Procedure for Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA). National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. 1966. RA0060131A. Retrieved 201003-13
9. Kumar, U., Reliability centered maintenance A tool for higher profitability.
Maintenance. Maintenance, Vol.5, 1990
10. Peng Wang, David W. Coit, Repairable Systems Reliability Trend Tests and
Evaluation, IEEE Trans. Reliability, vol R-31, 1980 Apr, pp 78-88
11. Military Standard (1981), MIL-HDBK-189, Reliability Growth Management
99
12. Jasper L. Coetzee, The role of NHPP models in the practical analysis of
maintenance failure data, Reliability Engineering and System Safety 56 (1997),
Elsevier Science Limited, pp 161-168
13. Ascher H Feingold, Repairable Systems Reliability, Marcel Dekker, 1984
14. Barlow R E, Campo R, Total Time on Test Processes and Applications to Failure
Data Analysis, Reliability and Fault Tree Analysis, SIAM, Philadelphia, U.S.A,
1975
15. Charles E Ebeling, An Introduction to Reliability and Maintainability
Engineering, McGraw-Hill International Editions, Singapore, 1997
16. Lawless J F. Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data, John Wiley &
Sons, 1982
17. TM 5-698-4, Technical Manual, Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis
(FMECA) for Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Facilities, Department of the Army,
Washington, DC.
18. K.R.M.Rao, P.V.N.Prasad, A.Ramesh, Long Wall Mining System Availability as
a Stochastic Process, Platinum Jubilee Symposium on Productivity Improvement
in Indian Mining industry, Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi, India, January 1999
19. Ulf Westberg, Bengt Klefsjo", Applications of the Piecewise Exponential
Estimator for the Maintenance Policy Block Replacement with Minimal Repair,
IAPQR Transactions, 20, 197-210, 1995
20. Uday Kumar, Bengt Klefsjo", Reliability Analysis of Hydraulic Systems of LHD
Machines Using the Power Law Process, Proceedings of Society of Reliability
Engineers, SRE Symposium, Stavanger, Norway, 179-191, October 1989
21. K.R.M.Rao, P.V.N.Prasad, Models for Replacement and Overhaul of Repairable
Equipment Dozers in Open Cast Mines Case Studies, Proceedings of
100
MGMI International Conference on Management of Mining Machinery, Calcutta,

July 1999.
22. K.R.M.Rao, P.V.N.Prasad, Graphical Methods for Analyzing Reliability of
Repairable Equipment and Maintenance Planning, IEEE Reliability Society,
Proceedings, Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, IEEE, U.S.A,
2001
23. R.E.Barlow, B.Davis, Analysis of Time Between Failures for Repairable
Components, Research Report, University of California, California, 1977.
24. P.V.N.Prasad, K.R.M.Rao, Age Replacement Policy of Censored Data Using
TTT Plots, Third International Conference on Mathematical Models in
Reliability, Norway, June 2002
25. P.V.N.Prasad, K.R.M.Rao, Maintenance Planning of Dozer Engines Using TTT
Plots, Sixth International Conference on Engineering Design and Automation,
Hawaii, U.S.A, August 2002
26. K.R.M.Rao, P.V.N.Prasad, Reliability of Repairable Systems - Graphical
Analysis Failure of Distribution Transformers A Case Study, 61st Annual
Meeting, Institution of Engineers (India), A.P. State Centre, Hyderabad,
November 1998
27. D.R.Cox, Regression Models and Life Tables (with discussion), Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society, 1972.
28. J.D.Kalbfleisch & R.L.Prentice, The Statistical Analysis of Failure Data, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980.
101
APPENDIX - I
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
System
A system is the collection of interacting sub systems. The reliability characteristics of a
system depend on the reliabilities of its sub-systems and its configurations.
Repairable System
A system, which is repaired after failures and returned to as good as new state.
Non-Repairable System
A system, which is discarded after failure.
Reliability
It is the probability that the system will perform satisfactorily for at least given period of
time when used under the stated condition or sum total of reliabilities of all components
in prescribed operating conditions.
Availability
The capacity of a system to perform its intended function when called upon to do so is
often referred to as availability of operational readiness.
In the simplest two state case where equipment or system is either working at full
capacity or not working the availability is commonly defined as the probability of the
system operating satisfactory and is represented as
Availability = total up time/(total up time + down time)
Maintainability
Maintainability is defined as the ease with which machine can be put in to operation. It is
a factor of design
102
Reliability Functions
Reliability function R(t) of a component is the probability of successful operation of the
component within time t.
Failure Index
The failure index q(t) of a component is the probability of the failure of the component
within time t.
Hazard Rate
The hazard rate z(t) of a component is the conditional failure of the component which is
usually expressed in failures per unit time(for example failures per hour).
TTR (Time to Repair)

It is the time taken to restore the equipment to effective working condition.
TBF (Time between Failures)

The time difference between one failure to next failure
MTBF (Mean Time Difference between Failures)

The total mean of time difference between failures to next failure.
TTF (Time to Fail)

The total failures of the machine i.e. the time taken after failure to working.
MTTF (Mean Time to Fail)

It is the expected value of mean time to failure, which is expressed as
MTTF = R(t) dt
103
Operating Time
It is the time during which system is operating in a manner acceptable to the operator.
Down time
It is the total time during which the system is not in acceptable operating condition.
Down time can further be subdivided into a number of categories.
Actual repair time: Is that portion of down time during which one or more technicians are
working on the system to effect a repair. This time includes preparation time fault
location time fault correction time and checkout for the system.
Logistic time
It is that portion of down time during which repair is delayed slowly because it is
necessary to wait for manpower and/or for replacement part or subdivision of the system.
Administration time
It is that portion of down time not included under active repair time and logistic time this
includes both necessary administrative activities and unnecessary wasted time.
Idle time/Free time

Free time is the time during which operational use of the system is not required. This
time may or may not be down time, depending whether or not the system is in operable
condition.
Classification of Availability
There are three forms availability based on the classification of down time viz. Working
time, Stand by time and Lost time in routing preventive maintenance.
104
Intrinsic Availability (Ai)

This is the probability that system is operating satisfactorily at any point of time, when
under stated conditions, where the time considered is operating time and active repair
time.
Design accuracy: It is the probability that the system will successfully accomplish its
mission given the system is operating within design specifications.
Ai =
=
Operating time/(Operate time +actual repair time)

MTBF/(MTBF + MTTR)
Achieved availability (Aa):

It is inclusive version of the inherent availability and includes factors influencing the
availability of a system which are directly related with the designed maintainability and
reliability characteristics of the system. This includes corrective and preventive
maintenance and the mean maintenance time. Administrative or supply delay times are
not included as down time for the calculation of availability.
Aa= Mean time between maintenance/Total elapsed time exclusive of administrative and
logistic delays
Operational Availability
It differs from the achieved availability in the sense that in case of operational availability
as the total operational time, the total down time including administrative delays are also
taken into account.
SSH: Scheduled Shift Hours i.e. the actual shift (8hours) time scheduled for production
MAH: Maximum Available Hours (The maximum possible time for production.
105

Final Thesis NEW YEARS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Thesis NEW YEARS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.

1.2 THE ORGANIZATION

1.6 OPEN CAST MINES

1.7 OBJECTIVE OF PROJECT

1.8 CONTRIBUTION OF THIS PROJECT

1.10 IMPORTANCE OF DUMPERS FAILURE ANALYSIS

1.11 PROBLEM STATEMENT

2.2 IDENTIFYING A BATHTUB HAZARD RATE

2.3 TREND ANALYSIS

2.4 THE PATTERN OF FAILURES WITH TIME OF REPAIRABLE

2.5 METHOD OF TOTAL TIME ON TEST (TTT) PLOTTING

Figure 1: Flow chart showing methodology followed

3.2 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM

3.3 DATA COLLECTION

Reporting should not be confined to facts. Opinions in the engineering

3.3.1 Collection of field failure data for the present study

5. The power and transmission system

4.2 CASE STUDY OF OCP-III, RAMAGUNDAM

Mine able coal reserves

Life of the project

4.3 CASE STUDY OF DUMPERS AT OCP-III, RAMAGUNDAM

REAR DUMPER 7200

Table 1 International and CMPDI norms for working (available) hours

Table 2 Available Hours of various machinery at OCP-III, Ramagundam.

Table 3 International and CMPDI norms for utilization hours.

Table 4 Percentage Utilization of various machinery at OCP-III, Ramagundam.

Statement showing Indian (CMPDI) and International norms for dumpers

However, it was observed that the

5. LIFE CYCLE AND FAILURES

5.2 BATH TUB CURVE

5.3 REPAIRABLE AND NON-REPAIRABLE FAILURE SYSTEMS

5.4 THE PATTERN OF FAILURES WITH TIME OF REPAIRABLE

5.5 STATISTICAL PRELIMINARIES IN RELIABILITY EVALUATION

5.6 PROBABILITY FUNCTIONS

Probability Density Function (PDF).

Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF).

Reliability function (R).

Hazard Function (H).

5.6.1 PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION

In reliability studies, this function is also known as unreliability function. The

5.6.4 HAZARD RATE AND HAZARD FUNCTION

When is independent of time as in the case of constant failure rate, expression

If an equipment can fail, it will; and

Failure will usually occur at the most inconvenient time.

6.2 BACK GROUND

6.4 CUMULATIVE PLOT TEST

Failure Number vs. CTBF

If the between failures is decreasing, then the equipment if failing frequently so

The graphs plotted can be inferred as described in the table 40

Machine is deteriorating on repair

Maintenance policy must

Machine is improving on repair

Replace the frequently

Constant Failure Rate

Perform further analysis

Machine is deteriorating on repair

Machine has become

Machine is failing frequently but is

Replace the frequently

Machine is deteriorating on repair

Perform further analysis

Machine is improving on repair

Machine is in good condition

Replace the frequently