Information Control

Proceedings,16th Problems
IFAC in Manufacturing
Symposium on
Proceedings,16th IFAC Symposium on
Bergamo, Italy,
Information JuneProblems
Control 11-13, 2018
in Manufacturing
Information Control
Proceedings,16th Problems
IFAC in Manufacturing
Symposium Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
on
Bergamo, Italy, June
Proceedings,16th 11-13,
IFAC 2018
Symposium on
Bergamo, Italy,
Information June
Control 11-13,
Problems2018
in Manufacturing
Information Control Problems in Manufacturing
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 ScienceDirect
The machinery performance analysis51-11
IFAC PapersOnLine with
(2018)smart
441–446 technologies: a case in the food
The machinery performance analysis
The machinery performance analysis with
with smart technologies:
industry smart technologies: aa case
case in
in the
the food
food
The machinery performance analysis
The machinery performance analysis industry
with
with smart technologies: a case in the food
industry smart technologies: a case in the food
S. Saetta*, V. Caldarelli*
industry
S. industry
S. Saetta*,
Saetta*, V.
V. Caldarelli*
Caldarelli*
S.
S. Saetta*,
Saetta*, V.
V. Caldarelli*
Caldarelli*
*Department of Engineering, Università di Perugia, Italy
*Department
*Department ofof Engineering,
Engineering, Università
Università di
di Perugia,
Perugia, Italy
Italy
*Department
*Department of Engineering, Università
of Engineering, Università di
di Perugia, Italy
Perugia, Italy
(e-mail: stefano.saetta@unipg.it, valecaldarelli@hotmail.it).
(e-mail: stefano.saetta@unipg.it, valecaldarelli@hotmail.it).
(e-mail: stefano.saetta@unipg.it, valecaldarelli@hotmail.it).
(e-mail:
(e-mail: stefano.saetta@unipg.it,
stefano.saetta@unipg.it, valecaldarelli@hotmail.it).
valecaldarelli@hotmail.it).
Abstract: The diffusions of new technologies, especially in the Information Technologies (IT) field, are
Abstract:the
changing
Abstract: Theproductive
The diffusionssystem
diffusions of
of new
newandtechnologies,
maintenance
technologies, especially in
in the
management
especially Information
the as Technologies
well. While
Information (IT)
there is the (IT)
Technologies field, are
possibility
field, are
of
changing
exploiting
changing the
new
the productive
features
productive system
in
system and
maintenance
and maintenance
system,
maintenance allmanagement
possible
management as well.
implications
as While
must
well. While there
be is
taken the
intopossibility
there is the (IT) account.
possibility of
In
of
Abstract:
Abstract:
exploiting The
The
new diffusions
diffusions
features inof
of new
new technologies,
technologies,
maintenance system, especially
especially
all in
in
possible the
the Information
Information
implications Technologies
Technologies
must be taken (IT)
into field,
field,
account. are
are
In
the paper, new
exploiting afterfeatures
a brief in
introduction,
maintenance ansystem,
industrial case withimplications
allmanagement
possible 2 manufacturing
must beplants
taken ofinto
a company
account. In is
changing
paper,the
changing the productive
productive system
system and maintenance 2as well. While
While there is
is the apossibility of
the paper,
discussed.
the after
The
after a brief
difference
a in the and
brief introduction,
introduction, maintenance
an industrial
maintenance
an industrialmanagement
case with
management
case with asmanufacturing
system
2
well.
is underlined
manufacturing
there
plants
by the
plants
the
of possibility
company
different
of a amount
company
of
is
is
exploiting
exploiting
discussed. new
new
The features
features
differencein
in maintenance
maintenance
in the system,
system,
maintenance all
all possible
possible
management implications
implications
system is must
must be
underlinedbebytaken
taken
the into
into account.
account.
different amountIn
In
of data that
discussed. is present
The differencein the 2 plants and
in the maintenance the different possibilities
managementwith for evaluating
systemmanufacturing the
is underlined plantsplants
by the of performances
different amount
the
the paper,
of data
data thatafter
paper, after aa brief
brief
is present
present introduction,
introduction,
in the
the 2 plants an
plants and
and industrial
an the differentcase
industrial case with 2 2 manufacturing
possibilities evaluating plants
for evaluating of aaperformances
the plants
plants company
company is is
are
of shown.
that is in 2 the different possibilities for the performances
discussed.
discussed.
are shown. The
The difference
difference in
in the
the maintenance
maintenance management
management system
system isis underlined
underlined by
by the
the different
different amount
amount
© 2018,
are
of shown.
data
Keywords:
of IFAC
data that
that is (International
is present
Maintenance
present in
in the Federation
22 plants
Management,
the of
plants and
and Automatic
the Control)
the different
Information
different Hosting
possibilities
Technologies,
possibilities byevaluating
for Elsevier Ltd.
Performance
for evaluating theAll
the rightsperformances
plants
management
plants reserved.
performances
are
are shown.
Keywords:
shown. Maintenance Management, Information Technologies, Performance management
Keywords: Maintenance Management, Information Technologies, Performance management
Keywords:1.Maintenance
Keywords: Maintenance Management,
Management, Information
Information Technologies,
2010). Indeed
Technologies, Performance
there is a management
Performance stronger liaison between machinery
management
INTRODUCTION 2010). Indeed there is aa machinery
stronger
1. INTRODUCTION user,
2010). the facility
Indeed and
there the
is stronger liaison supplier.
liaison between
between machinery
All this changes
machinery
1. INTRODUCTION
Today manufacturing facilities are facing a sweeping change user, user,
can the facility
affect production and the machinery
performances supplier.
and All this
nevertheless changes
should
2010). the facility
Indeed and
there the
is machinery
aa stronger supplier.
liaison All
between this changes
machinery
Today
in manufacturing
theirmanufacturing
nature due to 1. INTRODUCTION
facilities
the are
massive facing a sweeping change 2010).
can
be Indeed
affect
considered there
production
and is
evaluated stronger
performances
in the liaison
and
maintenancebetween
nevertheless machinery
management. should
Today 1. facilities
INTRODUCTION are integration
facing a sweeping of Information
change can user,
user,
be
affect
the
the
production
facility
facility
considered and and
and
performances
the
the
evaluated machinery
machinery
in the
and nevertheless
supplier.
supplier.
maintenance All
All this
this
should
changes
changes
management.
in their
Technologies nature due
(IT) to
in the
machineriesmassive integration
(Roy et al., of
2016) Information
(Lasi and be
can considered
affect and
production evaluated in
performances the maintenance
and management.
nevertheless
in theirmanufacturing
Today nature due to facilities
the massive are integration
facing of Information
aa sweeping change Newaffect
machinery sensors and measurement systemsshould make
Today
Fettke, manufacturing
Technologies
Technologies 2014).(IT)(IT) in
in
facilities
machineries
Operations
machineries
are(Roy
managementfacing
(Roy et
et al.,sweeping
must
al., 2016)
2016)adapt change
(Lasi
(Lasi the can
to and
and be
New considered
production
and
performances
evaluated in the
and nevertheless
maintenance management.
should
in
in
Fettke,
change,
their nature
their nature
2014).
opening
due
due to the
to the
Operations
then
massive
massive integration
integration
management
a challenging issuemustabout
of Information
ofadapt
Information
how to the
future New machinery sensors and measurement systems make
machinery
available
be many
considered and sensors
operation
evaluated and
data.
in measurement
the It is then
maintenance systems
possible to
management. easily
make
Fettke, 2014). Operations management must adapt to the available many
Technologies
Technologies
change, opening (IT) in
(IT)will machineries
in machineries
then a challenging(Roy
(Roy et al.,
et al.,
issue 2016)
2016)
about (Lasi
(Lasi
how and
and measure
future available
New many operation
performances
machinery operation
sensors
and data.
checkIt
data.
and Ittheis
measurement
then
then possible
is system conditions.
possible
systems
to
to easily
Such
easily
transformations
change,
Fettke, openingOperations
2014).
happen.
then a challenging In
management
particular,
issuemust Maintenance
aboutadapt how to future
the New
measure
data machinery
canperformances
allow sensors
remote and and
check measurement
maintenancethe system(or systems make
conditions.
e-maintenance) make
Such
Fettke,
transformations
Management 2014).is Operations
will
deeply happen.
affectedmanagement
In
by new must adapt
particular,
machineries Maintenance
(Macchi measure performances
to the available many operation and data.
checkItthe is system
then conditions.
possible to Such
easily
transformations
change, opening will
then happen.
aaaffected In
challenging particular,
issue about Maintenance
how future available
data can
management many
allow operation
remote
(Guo remote data. It
maintenance
et al., 2013). is then
But, on the possible
(or to
e-maintenance) easily
change,
Management
eManagement opening
al., 2017). is thenfew
deeply
Only challenging
years byagonew issue
it about
machineries
was how
necessary future
(Macchithat data
measure canperformances
allow and maintenance
check the system(orother hand, it can
e-maintenance)
conditions. Such
is deeply affected by new machineries (Macchi measure moreperformances
management (Guo et andfor check the on systemotherconditions. Such
transformations
transformations
emaintenance
al., 2017). will
will few
Only
skills
happen.
happen.
were years
near
In
In
ago particular,
particular,
the it was
facility.
Maintenance
Maintenance
necessary
Machinery that be
management
data can
cumbersome
allow et al.,
(Guo remote al., 2013).
2013). theBut,
maintenance on the
But,facility the
(or
hand,
hand, it
management
other
e-maintenance) it canto
can
e al., 2017). isOnly
Management deeply few years by
affected agonew it machineries
was necessary (Macchithat implement
data
be can allow
more cumbersome
performance remotemeasurement
maintenance
for the facility(or management
systems e-maintenance)
on plant to
site.
Management
maintenance is deeply
skills affected
were nearby new
the machineries
facility. (Macchi
Machinery be more
management cumbersome
(Guo et for the facility management to
Maintenance
emaintenance
al., 2017).
operations
skills
Only were
few
required
nearoften
years ago theittechnicians
facility.
was
directly on implement
Machinery
necessary that management
First of all (Guo
performance
it is et al.,
could al.,be 2013).
2013).
measurement
more
But,
But, on
difficult
the
thetoother
onsystems otheron hand,
hand,
plant
directly
it can
itsite.
can
access
eMaintenance
al., 2017). Only
operationsfew years
required ago
often it was
technicians necessary
directly that
on
be be implement
more performance measurement systems on plant site.
site. Only elementary
Maintenance operations maintenance
required
nearoften
liketechnicians
“oil change” could on
directly be
First moreallcumbersome
cumbersome for
formorethe difficult
arethe
facility
facility management
management to
to
maintenance
maintenance
site. Only
operated
skills were
skills maintenance
elementary
autonomously. were Thisnear
was alike
the
the
limit
facility.
facility.
“oil
in change”
Machinery
Machinery
could
the effectiveness be First of
performances
implement
it is
is could
it data.
of all performance couldThere be
be more
measurement
Big Data to
difficult
systems
directly
coming
to directly
on
from
plant
access
accessthe
site.
site. Only
Maintenance elementary
operations maintenance
required like
often “oil change”
technicians could
directly be
on implement
performances
machinery, performance
but data.they There measurement
can are
be Big systems
Data
"encapsulated", coming oni.d.plant
from site.
already the
Maintenance
operated operations
autonomously. required
This often technicians directly performances
on First data. There are Big Data to coming from the
of maintenance
operated
site. Only
management,
autonomously. This wassince
was aa limit
it is
limit in
not the
easy
in change”
the effectiveness
to develop
effectiveness First of
of all
machinery, allbyit
itbut is could
is they
couldcan be
be more
more
be difficult
difficult
This to
"encapsulated", directly
directly
i.d. access
access
be a already
site.
of Only elementary
maintenance
competency elementary maintenance
maintenance
management,
nearby the since
facility.
like
like
it
Not is“oil
“oil
not change”
even easy to could
could
develop
Maintenance
be
be processed
machinery,
performances butthe
data.
information
they Therecan arebesystem.
"encapsulated",
Big Data
could
coming i.d. from
barrier
already the
of maintenance management, sincea limit
it is not easy to develop processed performances by data.
the There
information aresystem.
Bigdata Data
This coming
could be from the
operated
operated
competency
outsourcing
autonomously.
autonomously.
nearby
was always the a
This
This was
was solution.
facility.
feasible a limit
Not in
in
eventhe
the effectiveness
Now effectiveness
Maintenance
the situation
to "data" customization.
processed
machinery, bybut the they
information Moreover
can be system. could
This
"encapsulated", be aa already
be shared
could i.d.
barrier
with
barrier
competency
of maintenance nearby the
management, facility. Not
sincesolution.
it even Maintenance machinery,
to "data" but
customization.they can be
Moreover "encapsulated",
data could be i.d.
shared already
with
of maintenance
outsourcing it iswas management,
always thesince
aa feasible it is not easy
isperformance
notNoweasythe to develop
develop to
to situation entities
"data" other than company
customization. Moreover itself
data and be
could thisshared
concerns with
changed:
outsourcing
competency
much
was
nearby
simpler
always the feasibleremote
facility. solution.
Not even situation processed
the analysis,
NowMaintenance processed
entities by
by the
other
confidentiality.
information
thethan
information
Such company
points
system.
system.
must itselfThis
This
be andcould
couldthis
considered
be aa barrier
be concerns
barrier
for the
competency
changed: it nearby the facility. of Not even
and Maintenance entities other than company itself and this concerns
thanks
changed: to
outsourcing it is much
the
iswas
much simpler
combination
simpler
always
the
the remote
aa feasibleremote IT
solution.
performance
performance
Now the
analysis,
Operational
analysis,
situation
to
to "data"
"data" customization.
customization.
confidentiality.
implementation ofSuch
Moreover
Moreover
points
an effective must data
data
maintenancebe could
could be
be shared
considered shared
management. for with
with
the
In
outsourcing
thanks to was
the always
combination feasible solution.
of IT Now
and the situation
Operational confidentiality.
entities other Such
than points
company must itselfbe considered for the
Technologies
thanks to
changed: it is
like Internet
the
much combination
simpler
of things,
the of advance
remote IT andmanufacturing
performance Operational
analysis, entities
the othera case
implementation
following than
of an
of company
effective
a food itself isand
maintenance
company and this
this concerns
concerns
management.
considered and twoIn
changed:
Technologies
etc. it is much
It is possible
Technologies like
like to
simpler
Internet
controlof
Internet
the remote
ofinthings,
real time
things,
performance
advance
advance manufacturing
the machinery
manufacturing and implementation
analysis, confidentiality.
confidentiality.
the following a
ofSuch
case
an effective
Such
of a points
points
food
maintenance
must
must In
company be
beisone
management.
considered
considered for
for two
and
In
the
thea
thanks
thanks
etc. It is to
to the
the
possible tocombination
combination
control in of
of
real IT
IT
time and
and
the Operational
Operational
machinery and manufacturing
the following a facilities
case of a are
foodanalysed.
company is facility
considered there
and is
two
then Itfinally
etc. is possibleeffectively
to control implement
in real time advanced maintenance
the machinery and implementation
implementation
manufacturing of an
an effective
ofwith
machineryfacilities effective
are maintenance
maintenance
analysed. In management.
management. In
In
Technologies
Technologies
then
policyfinally
such as
like
like Internet
onInternet
effectively
condition
of
of things,
things,
implement
maintenance.
advance
advance
advanced manufacturing
It manufacturing
ismaintenance
possible to the
new
manufacturing
following a facilities
case of
sensors,
a are
food company Inisone
IT technologies
analysed. one facility
considered
andthere
facility thereremote
and
is
is aa
two
then
etc. Itfinally
is effectively
possible to control implement
in real advanced
time the maintenance
machinery and the
new following
machinery
control. In thea case
with of
other a food
sensors,
there company
areIT is considered
technologies
older machinery and and two
remote
without
etc.
policyIt issuchpossible
as ontocondition
control inbehaviour
real time and
maintenance. theIt machinery
is possible and
to new machineryfacilities with sensors, IT technologies andthere remote
remotely
policyfinally
such check
as onmachinery
condition maintenance. It then estimate
ismaintenance
possible to manufacturing
manufacturing
control. In facilities are
are analysed.
analysed. In one
twoIn one
facility
facilitymachinery
there is
is aa
then
then
remotelyfinally
maintenance checkeffectively
effectively
machinery
operation
implement
implement
(Touhami behaviour
et
advanced
advanced
al., and
2013). maintenance
then
But estimate
there are
sensors
control.
new In the
and
machinery the other
connections.
with
there
thereThen
other sensors, are
areIT
older
older machinery
different
machinery
technologies and
without
without
remote
remotely check machinery behaviour andIt then estimate new
sensorsmachinery with sensors, IT two technologies
in the and remote
policy
policy
maintenancesuch
such as
as on
on condition
operationcondition
(Touhami maintenance.
maintenance.
et al., It is
isButpossible
possible to sensors and
to performance and connections.
analyses
connections. Then
are implemented
Then two different
different machinery
two plants.
machinery
several
maintenance
remotely
consequences.
checkoperation Machinery
machinery(Touhami behaviour al., 2013).
became
et some
2013).
and
sort
But
then
there
of black
there
estimate
are
are control.
control.
performance
Results
In
In
of the
the
the other
other
analyses
performance
there
there
are are
are
implemented
analysis
older
older
are
machinery
machinery
in
shown theandtwo without
without
plants.
discussed
remotely
several check
for consequences. machinery
Machinery behaviour
became and thethen
some sort estimate
of performance analyses are implemented in the two plants.
box
several
maintenance
plant manager
consequences.
operation
and this
Machinery
(Touhami
can
became
et
affect
al., some
2013). But of black
possibility
sort there to sensors
black
are sensors
Results
for the
and
and
of
two the
cases.
connections.
connections.
performance Then
Then two
analysis two
are different
different
shown and machinery
machinery
discussed
box maintenance operation (Touhami et al., 2013). But there are Results of the performance analysis are shown and discussed
box for
reach fortheplant manager
excellence
plant manager in and
and this
this can
the management
can affect the
the possibility
affectsystems: it is more
possibility to
to performance
performance
for the analyses
analyses are are implemented
implemented in in the
the two
two plants.
plants.
several
several
reach consequences.
consequences.
the excellence inMachinery
Machinery
the became
became
management some sort
sortit of
some(Baiwa,
systems: of
is black
black
more for the two
Results two cases.
cases.
difficult
reachfor
box
to
theplant implement
excellence
manager
techniques
in and the management
this can
like TPM
affect systems:
the
2017)
it is more
possibility to Results of the performance analysis are shown and discussed
In the of
paperthe performance
the issue of analysis
maintenance are shown
managementand change
discussed
box
difficult for etplant
to manager
implement and
2012), techniques this machinery
canlike affect the possibility is toa for
(Sureh
difficult
reach the
al.,
toexcellence
implement in
where
techniques
the management like TPMTPM (Baiwa,
knowledge
(Baiwa,
systems: it is
2017)
2017)
more In
due
for the
In theto two
the
the the cases.
paper
two
paper new the
cases. issue
issue of
the technologies of maintenance
is considered,
maintenance management
considering
management change
change in
reach
(Sureh
cornerstone. theet excellence
al., 2012),
Also2012), in
productive the
wheremanagement
machinery
data concerning systems:
knowledge it is more
is
productionisarea due a to the new technologies is considered, considering
(Sureh
difficult et
to al.,
to implement
where
techniques machinery
like
like TPM
knowledge
TPM (Baiwa, 2017) particular
duethe the
to the new case belonging
technologies to IT the area.
is considered, considering in in
difficult
cornerstone.
shared
cornerstone. with implement
Also
Also
techniques
productive
machinery
productive data
suppliers,
data concerning
exchanging
concerning
(Baiwa,
production
knowledge
production
2017)to In
are
are In the paper
paper
particular the the
the issue
case issue
belonging of
of maintenance
maintenance
to IT the management
management change
area. change
(Sureh
(Sureh
shared et al.,
etinnovation
al., 2012),
2012), where
where machinery
machinery knowledge
knowledge is a particular the case belonging to IT
is toa due to the new technologies is considered, considering in
due to the new technologies is the area.
considered, considering
increasewith
shared with machinery
machinery moresuppliers,
and more
suppliers, exchanging
(Charterina
exchanging knowledge
and Landeta,
knowledge to in
cornerstone.
cornerstone.
increase Also productive
Also productive
innovation more and data
data
more concerning
concerning
(Charterina production
production
and Landeta,are
are particular the case belonging to IT the area.
increase innovation more and moreexchanging (Charterina and Landeta, particular the case belonging to IT the area.
shared
shared with with machinery
machinery suppliers,
suppliers, exchanging knowledge knowledge to to
increase
Copyright innovation
increase innovation© 2018 IFACmore and more (Charterina and
more and more (Charterina and Landeta,
Landeta, 448
2405-8963 ©
Copyright © 2018, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control)
2018 IFAC 448Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright
Peer review©under
2018 responsibility
IFAC 448Control.
of International Federation of Automatic
10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.341
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 448
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 448
IFAC INCOM 2018
442
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 S. Saetta et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 441–446

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section machine would produce, considering all the stops (Nominal
2 contains a depiction on the methodology used. Section 3 is Capacity).
dedicated to the presentation of the case study, while in
Section 4 results are discussed. Finally, conclusions are Time Use (TU) is the efficiency related to the use of the
discussed in Section 4. machine during the available time (3). TU shows the effect of
stops and setup times on the production.
2. RESEARCH APPROACH
Time of production
TU = (3)
The current research approach aims at analysing the Available Time
machinery performance, evaluating some parameters.
Production Time Use (PTU) is the efficiency of machine
A packaging line monitoring system software checks all the usage during the available production time (4), showing the
machines operations and detects a set of data about times and effects of all the stops on production, excluding the setup
parameters useful to define the Key Performance Indicators times.
(KPIs) and the Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE). Time of production
PTU = (4)
Available Time of production
Fig. 1 shows the times:
- Production time: the machine is running Mean Time between Failure (MTBF) is a KPI that concerns
- Machinery Stops time: the machine is not productive the average production time elapsed between a failure and the
due to machine stops next time it occurs and it can be calculated by using a
- Machinery production available time: the machine is formula (5).
available to working
Available Production Time
- Other Stops time: the machine does not work due to MTBF = (5)
factors outside the machine Machine Stops + Other Stops
- Production Available time: the machine could work
- Out of production time: time for setup scheduled Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) is the time it takes to run a
maintenance repair after the occurrence of the failure. That is, it is the time
- Available time: the machine is available spent during the intervention in a given process (6).
- Not worked time: the machine is not used
- Total time: the total time Time of Machine Stops + Time of other stops
MTTR =
Machine Stops + Other Stops
Total (6)
Available Not worked
Production available Out of production
Machinery production available Other Stops Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) is the average time needed to
Production Machinery stops verify a stop of the process during the production time.
Fig. 1 Time Diagram
Time of Production
MTTF = (7)
Machine Stops + Other Stops
Mechanical Efficiency of the Machine (MME) represents the
time during which the machine operates without stops over The Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) represents the
the time during which the machine is running, including the total efficiency of the machine. Equation 8 shows that OEE is
stops of the machine (1). It represents efficiency related to the obtained by multiplying 3 parameters: Availability,
machine during its available production time. Performance and Quality.
Available Time
MME = (1) OEE=Availability x Performance x Quality (8)
Available Production Time
Availability is a parameter that highlights the influence of
long stops and setup times.
Machine Efficiency (ME) is the efficiency of the line during
the available production time of the machine in relation to its Performance shows the influence of short stops and speed
nominal capacity (2). reduction on production.

Correct Output Quality is the percentage of correct items.

ME =
Available Production Time * Nominal Capacity
To calculate the OEE more times and parameters are defined
(2) (Fig. 2):
- Setup: time to prepare the machine
ME represents the number of correct items compared to the - Long Stops: stops last longer than 10 minutes
total number of items (correct and not correct) that the - Reference Output: number of theoretical productive
items during the running time

449
 IFAC INCOM 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 S. Saetta et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 441–446 443

- Short Stops: stops last for less than 10 minutes In this Section some KPIs of Plant 1 are evaluated.
- Effective Output: number of produced items
- Machining Waste: number of incorrect items Figure 4 shows the MME, while Figure 5 shows the ME.
- Correct Output: number of correct items

Total
Available Not worked
Running Long Stops and Setup
Reference Output
Effective Output Short Stops
Correct Output Machining Waste

Fig. 2 OEE model

3. INDUSTRIAL CASE STUDY

The company analysed in the case study operates in the food
sector. Even if the company has more establishments, only
the maintenance systems of 2 plants are analysed. In one of
the two factories, the maintenance system is provided by the Fig. 4 Mechanical Efficiency of the Machine (MME)
machine supplier: maintenance policy is preventive. In the
other plant instead the maintenance is only corrective.

3.1 Plant 1 description

Figure 3 shows the line of plant 1 analysed in the case study.

There are 3 machines: the filling machine, the accumulator
and the cap applicator.

Fig. 5 Efficiency of the Machine (ME)

In Figure 6 and in Figure 7 the TU and the PTU are

Fig. 3 Production Line Diagram
respectively shown.
At the line entrance there are packaging material and milk.
Afterwards the milk is bottled and stored until the package is
closed with caps.
For the monitoring of packaging lines, the company uses the
Packaging Line Monitoring System (PLMS) software,
supplied by the manufacturer of the machine.

PLMS allows complete control of performance, storing

machine events, such as production times, product packages,
waste, shifts, etc...

The data coming from the machine are collected through

photoelectric sensors (for the detection of incoming and
outgoing pieces) and PLC (for time detection). Fig. 6 Time Use (TU)

The data analysed in the paper, cover a period of three years,

exactly from 1 January 2014 to 20 December 2016.

3.1.1 Plant 1 KPIs

450
IFAC INCOM 2018
444
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 S. Saetta et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 441–446

Fig. 10 Mean Time To Failure (MTTF)

Fig. 7 Production Time Use (PTU)

Fig. 11 shows the OEE.

Fig. 8 shows the MTBF.

Fig. 11 Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE)

3.1.2 Plant 1 KPIs analysis

Table 1 shows some of the data recorded by the production

Fig. 8 Mean Time between Failure (MTBF)
and maintenance control system in the plant 1. Moreover in
Table 1 the average values of some KPIs are reported.
Figure 9 represent the MTTR.

Table 1. Data collected for plant 1

Data Collected Values

Total Production Time [hh:mm:ss] 5027:54:12
Total Machinery Stops Times [hh:mm:ss] 300:53:15
Total Other Stops Times [hh:mm:ss] 294:26:52
Total Out of Production Times [hh:mm:ss] 2460:15:00
Total n° of produced items 38.003.629
Monthly average value of produced items 1.055.656
Average value of ME 94,07%
Average value of MME 94,76%
Fig. 9 Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) Average value of PU 89,38%
Average value of PTU 89,64%
Figure 10 show the MTTF.
Average value of MTBF [hh:mm:ss] 2:25:01
Average value of MTTR [hh:mm:ss] 0:17:42

451
 IFAC INCOM 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 S. Saetta et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 441–446 445

Analysing all the data for the 36 months, three months have - Weight: weighing system to get the right amount of
anomalies (see Table 2). product;
- Pack: the machine is used for packaging the product;
- Metal Detector: the machine checks that there are no
Table 2. KPIs and OEE, critical months
metal residues in the packages;
March 2014 September 2014 September 2016 - Check: the machine checks and weighs the product
leaving the line;
N° of items 914.159 354.321 722.522
- Wrap: the machine wraps the product with cellulosic
MME [%] 95,68% 88,27% 68,16% film;
ME [%] 95,20% 87,36% 70,35% - Sealing: the sealer machine allows hermetic
packaging.
TU [%] 60,88% 37,55% 46,57%

PTU [%] 92,06% 85,67% 65,55% As there is no record of past events regarding breakdowns,
failures and maintenance interventions, a one month
MTBF [hh:mm:ss] 01:14:09 00:43:57 03:05:36
observation was carried out on the 3 lines.
MTTR [hh:mm:ss] 00:06:20 00:07:16 01:37:15
During the analysis all the stops and failures, the stops causes
MTTF [hh:mm:ss] 01:07:49 00:36:41 01:28:21
and the times needed for the repair are recording.
Availability 62,81% 38,70% 46,83%
Table 3 shows the data collected from the 3 lines.
On March 2014, production is in line with the average value,
but MTBF and MTTR are low. Therefore there are small Table 3. Data collected for plant 2
stops which have been remedied in a short time. Data collected Line 1 Line 2 Line 3

September 2014 is the worst month. The production is scarce, N° stops 220 11 8
but the stop frequency is high as well as the stop hours. Total machine stops [hh:mm:ss] 47:58:00 12:38:00 04:30:00
September 2016 is the month with the least number of stops, Total production time - theory [hh:mm:ss] 76:48:15 29:59:00 08:47:42
but they took a long time from production (about 43 hours). Total production time - real [hh:mm:ss] 124:46:15 42:37:00 13:17:42
Extra time (%) 62,50% 42,10% 51,20%

3.2 Plant 2 description

The second plant analysed in the study has 3 packaging lines
for different items (Fig. 13).
The total production time, at the theoretical level, is
calculated considering the time required for the production of
the required quantity; the real one, instead, adding up the
time of the machine stops. The extra time required is
considerable.

3.2.1 Plant 2 KPIs

Some KPIs (MTTR, MTTF, and MTBF) and the OEE are
calculated for the 3 lines (see Table 4).

Table 4. KPIs and OEE

KPIs Line 1 Line 2 Line 3
MTBF [hh:mm:ss] 00:53:52 08:51:49 24:41:15
MTTR [hh:mm:ss] 00:13:05 00:34:27 00:33:45
MTTF [hh:mm:ss] 00:40:47 08:17:22 24:07:30
OEE [%] 28,96% 56,81% 63,65%

The weakness of the line 1 is expressed by the extremely low

value of OEE. The criticality of the value is given both by
Availability, just above 70%, and by Performance: over the
years, the line has even halved its production speed.

Fig. 12 Packaging line, plant 2 Similar analysis can be done for line 2.

With regard to line 3, it should be noted that faults occur with

Several machines are present in the three production lines: much lower frequency, and that the low value of OEE is
- Cut: the machine is used for cutting the product; solely attributable to the decrease in machine performance, in
terms of items per minute.

452
IFAC INCOM 2018
446
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 S. Saetta et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 441–446
4. DISCUSSIONS
Comparing the 2 industrial plants above, it is straightforward
to note that in Plant 1 the maintenance system has a deeper
knowledge about operation condition than Plant 2. There are
much more data available for the measurement than Plant 2,
so it is possible to have better performance indicators. On
this point of view there is no competition in between Plant 1
and Plant 2. Actually, the trend is to move from Plant 2
maintenance system towards Plant 1. The great advantage of
a maintenance management system integrated with new
technologies is that it allows better control of production.
With respect to the plant 2, where a time and other data must
be measured manually, the plant 1 presents a control system
connected directly to the machine, recording a large amount
of data. This allows a precise and punctual control, as well as
continuous of all the production. On the contrary, a manual
control is more burdensome for workers as well as being
subjected to greater human error. There are some
consequences that should be taken into account during the
change from the old one to the new one. One of the main
points concerns the fact that there is less interaction
machinery and workers. Machinery remotely monitored can
reduce the skill of workers. This could affect also partially
management systems, like Total Productive Maintenance,
that required skilled workers. In reality elementary
maintenance operations ("oil change"), belong still to
workers, but in general it is difficult to interact with
machinery. In Table 5 main features of new and old
maintenance systems are shown. As said before, new
maintenance systems perform better than the older.
Table 5. Comparison of 2 maintenance systems
New Maintenance System Old Maintenance System
(Plant 1) (Plant 2)
Big data available Data are not shared
Naturally oriented to high
Naturally oriented to TPM
automation
Development of very high Development of local people
skill competencies
Oriented to preventive Reactiveness in Maintenance
maintenance operations
Maximization of Reliability Maximization of Reparability
5. CONCLUSIONS
In the paper systems of maintenance management are
discussed. In particular the 2 industrial plants considered
pointed out the performances evaluation of machinery. In the
Plant 1 case, where machinery IT oriented is used, it is very
easy to evaluate the behaviour in the time domain of several
quantities like Availability, Reliability,... . Such evaluation is
the bases to check performances and to monitor operating
condition. This could then allow an effective on condition
maintenance. Instead, in traditional Maintenance system, like
453
the one of Plant 2, performances measurements is a hard task,
it required a lot of working time and skilled people. The case
study thus highlights the great advantage of implementing a
maintenance system integrated with smart technologies. So,
transition towards the new maintenance systems will be a
good chance of improvement in companies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the University of Perugia which
supported this research through its program for Basic
Research 2017 and its financing through the project
RICBA17LTI. Moreover they thank Matteo Ricci for the
support given in data collection.
REFERENCES
Babiceanu, R. F. and Seker, R. (2016). Big Data and
virtualization for manufacturing cyber-physical systems:
A survey of the current status and future outlook,
Computer in Industry, 81, 2, 128-137.
Bajwa, G. S., (2017). Implementation of Total Productive
Maintenance (TPM) in a Milk Plant, International
Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering, 7, 38-45.
Charterina, J., Landeta, J., (2010). The pool effect of dyad‐
based capabilities on seller firms' innovativeness,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol.
13(2), pp.172-196.
Guo, J., Sun, Z., Li, R., Chen, H., and Xiao, H. (2013). A
knowledge management framework for remote
maintenance, International Journal of Online
Engineering, 9(3), pp. 82-87.
Lasi, H. and Fettke, P. (2014)., Industry 4.0, Business &
Information Systems Engineering, 6, 4, 239-242.
Macchi M., Roda, I., and Fumagalli, L. (2017). On the
Advancement of Maintenance Management Towards
Smart Maintenance in Manufacturing. IFIP WG 5.7
APMS 513, 383-390
Roy, R., Stark, R., Tracht, K., Takata, S., and Mori, M.
(2016). Continuous maintenance and the future –
Foundations and technological challenges. Cirp Annals,
65, 2, 667-688.
Suresh, P.K. and Joseph, M. (2012). TPM Implementation in
a Food Industry – A PDCA Approach, International
Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 2, 1-9.
Touhami, O., Sadoun, R., Belouchrani, A., Hamdani, S.,
Boukoucha, A., and Ouaged, S. (2013). Remote
monitoring system of electrical machines via
INTERNET, Proceedings - 2013 9th IEEE International
Symposium on Diagnostics for Electric Machines, Power
Electronics and Drives, SDEMPED 2013, pp. 23-27.