Prioritization of maintenance by determining the priority number of risk, and analysis of modes and effects of failures of a high pressure polyurethane injection machine
Main Article Content
Abstract
Prioritization of activities is very important, to know the importance of performing a maintenance activity. The Modes Analysis Methodology and Failure Effects (AMEF), is a tool that allows us to prioritize the maintenance care for equipment; currently this tool is applied to determine the risk level of the equipment, according on the study of equipment failures, their severity, occurrence probability and failure detectability. The methodology was applied to a high-pressure polyurethane injection machine; for this the work was divided into two parts. The first part was based on the Analysis and Performance Determination and its operational context within the production line, and the second part the equipment failure modes is determined, and based on them the risk of failures and failure modes was determined in a Number of Risk Priority. Giving us as result, 7 failure modes of the 16 analyzed, have a potential risk of happening, and can directly affect the performance of the equipment's operational context. Therefore maintenance activities with their respective priority are established. It was found that 7 of the 16 failure modes are potential main causes for equipment functional failure, therefore those must be prevented. The main problems of the equipment are: Partially clogged pipes, Inadequate temperature, based on the Priority Risk Number analysis, there is no electricity supply. It was determined that the tasks of Inspection and cleaning of pipe, Calibration of pressure and temperature controls, Checking the power supply and its parameters are tasks to avoid functional failures and decrease the equipment failure by 42.8%.
Downloads
Metrics
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
AENOR. (Julio de 2018). Terminología del Mantenimiento. España.
Aprendizaje, C. d. (2020). Tipos de tareas de mantenimiento. Obtenido de UpKeep: https://www.onupkeep.com/learning/maintenance-terms/maintenance-tasks#:~:text=Maintenance%20tasks%20indicate%20which%20action,of%20equipment%20that%20needs%20maintained.
Carrasco, U. (s.f.). Modos de Falla & Análisis de Efectos. Obtenido de Academia: https://www.academia.edu/37821847/FMEA_AMEF_Modos_de_Falla_and_An%C3%A1lisis_de_Efectos
Cartín-Rojas, A., Villarreal, A., & Morera, A. (2014). Implementación del análisis de riesgo en la industria alimentaria mediante la metodología AMEF: enfoque práctico y conceptual. SCielo, 16.
ESPAÑA, M. D. (2004). NTP 679: Análisis modal de fallos y efectos. AMFE. Obtenido de https://www.insst.es/documents/94886/326775/ntp_679.pdf/3f2a81e3-531c-4daa-bfc2-2abd3aaba4ba
Garrido, S. G. (2003). Organización y gestión integral de mantenimiento. Madrid: Díaz de Santos, S. A.
Haddara, F. I. (2003). Risk-based maintenance (RBM): a quantitative approach for maintenance/inspection scheduling and planning. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 13.
Ltd, A. (13 de Julio de 2013). AlterEvo Ltd. Obtenido de http://alterevoingenieros.blogspot.com/2013/07/mantenimiento-basado-en-riesgo-la-mas.html#:~:text=La%20norma%20Norsok%20Standard%20Z,repuestos%20y%20su%20localizaci%C3%B3n.
MOLINA, G. I. (2018). ANÁLISIS DE MODOS Y EFECTOS DE FALLAS EN LOS EQUIPOS DELAVANDERÍA DEL HOSPITAL REGIONAL DE CONCEPCIÓN. Chile: UNIVERSIDAD TECNICA FEDERICO SANTA MARIA.
Moubray, J. (2004). MANTENIMIENTO CENTRADO EN LA CONFIABILIDAD. United Kingdom: Aladon Ltd.
Peldez, J. B. (1995). Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality. ELSEVIER, 11.
Prabhu, N. R. (2000). Modified approach for prioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 12.
Wang, Y.-M. (2007). Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy weighted geometric mean. ScienceDirect, 13.