A two-step decision making approach for identification of critical equipment using analytical hierarchy process and preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluations with improved normalization
Keywords:
decision making, analytical hierarchy process (AHP), PROMETHEE, criticality analysis, MTBF, MTTRAbstract
Generally, numbers of shops are present in large-scale industries. Therefore, it is necessary to identify critical equipment’s for ensuring lower failure rate. Multiple researchers’ applied risk based analysis to select critical equipment’s from one particular section of a plant; based on the feedback of industry personnel or of their own observations that increases the error probability. Apart from this, the decision making (DM) techniques usually provide the best alternatives, but in maintenance there is a need to identify critical or the worst performing equipment. Therefore, this research paper covers three parts: (1) a novel approach of two-step decision making for identifying critical section and then critical equipment in that section at an electrode graphite manufacturing plant; (2) an innovative methodology of normalization for the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); (3) Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) method for validation. This work identified "utility" section n this heavy industry as a critical section and "screw compressor number 5" as critical equipment. From maintenance point of view, “critical" refers to the worst performing ones. Therefore, if this research followed a conventional methodology, then some other section could randomly be considered as "critical" and the best performing equipment would get the 1st ranking. Apart from this, PROMETHEE also provided the same result which validates the methodology.Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Engineering review uses the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) 4.0 International License, which governs the use, publishing and distribution of articles by authors, publishers and the wider general public.
The authors are allowed to post a digital file of the published article, or the link to the published article (Enginering Review web page) may be made publicly available on websites or repositories, such as the Author’s personal website, preprint servers, university networks or primary employer’s institutional websites, third party institutional or subject-based repositories, and conference websites that feature presentations by the Author(s) based on the published article, under the condition that the article is posted in its unaltered Engineering Review form, exclusively for non-commercial purposes.
The journal Engineering Review’s publishing procedure is performed in accordance with the publishing ethics statements, defined within the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit. The Ethics statement is available in the document Ethics Policies.