Indian Institute of Technology Indore

2012-13

B-Tech Project
on

Prognosis And Maintenance Planning For Mechanical Components

Submitted by: Janam Shah 0900305 Astha Jain 0900313 Guided by: Dr. Bhupesh K. Lad

Objective
Predicting remaining useful life of a component by using ANN. Developing optimal maintenance strategies in the framework of RCM Developing optimal maintenance strategies for multicomponent system based on RUL Developing optimal maintenance strategies for multicomponent system based on age of the components

Predicting Remaining Useful Life

Data Collection

Identification Of Failure Parameter

Identification Of Failure Signature

Conversion Of Data Into Signature

Neural Network Training And Validation

Data Collection:

Failure Parameter :
Vibration Signals

Failure Signature :
RMS and Kurtosis

Yrms

1 2 2 .... Y 2 ) (Y 1 Y 2 Y N 2 3 n
4 ( y y ) i1 i N

Ykurtosis

( N 1) s 4

Conversion Into Data Signature:

RMS Vs Time(Data Points)
0.8

0.7

0.6

RMS of Bearing A

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Data points

Kurtosis Vs Time(Data Points)

18

16

Kurtosis Of Bearing A

14

12

10

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Data points

Neural Network Training & Validation:

Network Data Manager

Training Window

Result:

So, from the above graph, we can see that our training error is coming in the range of 10-11, whereas our validation error is coming to be equal to 10-4 .

Reliability Centered Maintenance

RCM is defined as an approach to maintenance that combines corrective, preventive, predictive, and design out maintenance practices and strategies so that the equipment functions in the required manner. RCM incurs minimum maintenance cost. It is a philosophy that decides on which component which technique is to be applied.

RUL Based Group Maintenance

Problem Statement: To minimize the cost of group maintenance of a machine having 5 components on basis of RUL with constant MTTR. Assumptions: 1. Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of components follow a normal distribution. 2. Components are in series, even if one fails the machine will be down, hence downtime cost is taken constant. 3. Assembling-dissembling time of the machine is constant, if it is opened once all components can be replaced/repaired as components are assumed to be structurally independent. 4. The components which are not included in preventive group maintenance are correctively maintained.

Given: 1.Mean () and standard deviations () for all the components 2.Cost of the components (C1-C5) (Rs) 3.Mean Time To Replace (MTTR1) of the components (hrs) 4.Mean Time To Assemble-Dissemble for machine (MTTR2) (hrs) 5.Mean Time To Assemble-Dissemble for individual components for corrective maintenance (MTTR3) (hrs) 6.Labour Rate (CL) (Rs/hr) 7.Downtime cost (CDC)(Rs/hr)

Cost calculation:
1. Preventive maintenance
# CPM C # ( MTTR 1 MTTR 2 ) (CL CDC )

2. Corrective Maintenance
CCM i Ci ( MTTR1 MTTR 3 ) (C L C DC )

3. Total Cost CT= CPM + CCM

Model Window:

Result
On simulating, we get minimum cost by preventively maintaining components 1, 3 and 5.

Probability of occurrence

Total Cost

RUL based group maintenance with varying parameters

It is similar to the previous model only the Mean Time To Repairs (MTTR1 , MTTR2 and MTTR3 ) are varying, i.e. they are taken with log-normal distribution.

Model Window

Result:

Min. Cost

No. of trials

Minimum cost= 1,03,351 Mean cost= 1,46,682 Optimum solution occurs by doing preventive maintenance of 1, 3 and 5

Age based group maintenance

Objective: To find optimum grouping of components (having initial age) for preventive maintenance on the basis of: minimum cost maximum availability

Given: Cost of components (C1-C5) (Rs 5000) Current age of components (V1-V5) Shape parameter of all the components (1- 5) Scale parameter of all the components (1- 5 hrs) Corrective task duration (normal distribution- and ) Preventive task duration = 8 hrs Labour Rate (CL) (Rs/hr) Downtime cost (CDC)(Rs/hr) Simulation time = 1yr = 8760 hrs
Component 1 2 3 4 5 (hrs) 2000 3000 2500 3500 1800 2 3 3 2 3 (hrs) 8 12 16 14 20 (hrs) 2 2 4 3 6

Assumptions:
Components are in series, even if one fails the machine will be down, hence downtime cost is taken constant Components follow weibull failure distribution Scheduled time is varying for preventive maintenance, which is from 1,2,3.....,11 months The components which are not included in preventive group maintenance are correctively maintained

Model:
The Cost values, weibull parameters and maintenance parameters are fed in the block properties of all the components in the BlockSim software. The model window is:

Block properties

Scheduled task properties are given for one of the block and for adding other blocks to the group, a maintenance group is created and the other blocks are assigned the same group.

For adding components to the group:

Simulation Window:

General summary result window:

After the simulations, cost of maintenances (both corrective and preventive) and the total cost is calculated in MS-Excel. The cost formulas used are: Cost of preventive group maintenance:

C PM nPM Ci MTTR PM (C L C DC )
Cost of Corrective maintenance of a component:

CCM nCM C [( MTTR CM ) (C L C DC )]

Total Cost of group maintenance:

CT CPM CCM

Excel Cost File:

Now, taking maximum availability and minimum cost of every possible grouping in account, here 0 means we are doing corrective maintenance for that component and 1 represents we are performing scheduled maintenance for that component. The final table will be:

Combination 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0

Maximum Availability 0.971157 0.970634 0.970947 0.971174 0.970884 0.971465 0.97128 0.971921 0.971191 0.973196 0.973067 0.971664 0.974385 0.972471 0.975743 0.973782 0.974647 0.971794 0.976008 0.974141 0.978142 0.975541 0.975298

Minimum Cost 253285.6 259143 256845 255618.5 257779.9 254694.9 253124.3 252201 254273.2 249203.3 248755.9 252057.7 241248.9 250401.7 232523.6 247590 231140.2 245508.5 223069 237251.3 213981.4 229783.8 229607.7

0
0 0 1 1 1 1 0

1
1 0 1 1 1 0 1

1
0 1 1 1 0 1 1

0
1 1 1 0 1 1 1

1
1 1 0 1 1 1 1

0.978911
0.97663 0.9784 0.97694 0.981598 0.979017 0.9811 0.981951

205676.1
221441 212602 210976.2 186883.6 203149.5 194006 185903.8

0.984601

162981.9

Results and discussion:

After simulating, it was observed that number of preventive maintenance decreases with increasing schedule time whereas the number of corrective maintenance increases with it. Similar trend is observed in the downtime costs of preventive and corrective maintenances respectively. Minimum Cost is achieved when all the components are collectively prevented also the system has maximum availability at that time. The scheduled maintenance task should be performed every month to get the optimum result. Min cost incurred= Rs. 1,62,981.9 Max. System availability= 98.46%

Conclusion & Future Scope

ANN is an accurate tool to predict remaining useful life with an error of 10-4. RCM approach is useful for optimizing the cost during the group maintenance of multi-component system. For future work, we can take some more failure parameters like noise to predict RUL accurately. RUL based and age based maintenance models can be combined to make it more realistic, which will help in warranty estimation. We can also take imperfect maintenance or crew effect or availability of repaired equipment.

References
Refngah F. N. Ahmad, Abdullah S, Jalar A, Chua L.B, Life Assessment of a Parabolic Spring Under Cyclic Strain Loading, European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.28 No.3 , pp.351-363, 2009. Kainulainen Perttu, Analysis of Parabolic Leaf Spring Failure, Bachelor dissertation Savonia University of Applied Sciences, 2011. Gebraeel Nagi, Lawley Mark, Liu R, Parmeshwaran Vijay, Residual life predictions from vibration based degradation signals: A Neural Network Approach, IEEE Transaction of Industrial Electronics, Vol. 51, No. 3 2004. Mahamad A K, Saon S, Hiyama T, Predicting remaining useful life of rotating machinery based artificial neural network, Computers and Mathematics with Applications, Vol.60, pp 1078-1087, 2010. https://www.ti.arc.nasa.gov Rommert Dekker, Wildeman Ralphe, A Review of Multi-Component Maintenance Models with Economic Dependence, Mathematical Methods of Operations Research 45:411-435, 1997.

 Moghaddam Kamran S & Usher John S., A new multi-objective optimization model for preventive maintenance and replacement scheduling of multi-component systems, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Louisville, 2010. Zhigang Tian, Youmin Zhang, and Jialin Cheng, Condition Based Maintenance Optimization for Multi-component Systems, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, H3G2W1, Canada https://www.palisade.com https://www.reliasoft.com Yuo-Tern Tsai, Kuo-Shong Wang, Lin-Chang Tsai (2004) A study of availability-centered preventive maintenance for multi-component systems, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 84, 261270. Zhigang Tian, Tongdan Jin, Bairong Wu, Fangfang Ding (2011), Condition based maintenance optimization for wind power generation systems under continuous monitoring, Renewable Energy, 36, 5, 1502-1509. B. Castanier, A. Grall, and C. Berenguer, (2005), A condition-based maintenance policy with non-periodic inspections for a two-unit series system, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 87, (1), 109-12

Thank You!!!