The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0401.htm

Maintenance scheduling of Cheddar cheese

manufacturing
a cheddar cheese manufacturing efficiency

plant based on RAM analysis

Panagiotis Tsarouhas
Supply Chain Management - Logistics,
School of Economics Business Administration and Legal Studies, Received 14 March 2021
Revised 21 July 2021
International Hellenic University, Katerini, Greece Accepted 9 August 2021

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to calculate and enhance the cheese cheddar manufacturing plant
efficiency under actual workplace conditions by measuring reliability, availability and maintainability (RAM)
indices. The authors highlight how RAM analysis is important in determining periodic maintenance and in
scheduling and managing the appropriate maintenance policy.
Design/methodology/approach – The current work is conducted using statistical approaches to evaluate
failure and repair statistics. The RAM estimation was calculated on the basis of quantitative data obtained over
a span of 32 months. Descriptive statistics, Pareto analysis, as well as the presumption of independence were
ensured through trend and serial correlation tests. In addition, the reliability and maintainability of the cheddar
cheese processing plant and its machines were calculated at various mission periods.
Findings – The primary goal of the implementation approach is to understand the fault patterns and the
accurate quantitative assessment of the reliability and maintainability of the cheddar production plant. The
findings revealed the essential aspects of the line, which need improvement by an appropriate maintenance
program.
Originality/value – This study is intended to serve to highlight the RAM assessment and its impact on the
performance of the real-time system. The benefit of the technique is the continual control of the manufacturing
process by means of acceptable indexes, whose use corresponds to a continuous improvement process.
Keywords Reliability, Maintainability, Productivity, Periodic maintenance, Historical data
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction
The food industry has undergone unprecedented advances in recent decades with major shifts
in management approaches, product and process technology, consumer preferences, supplier
behaviors, as well as in the competition. Thus, the main concern of the food company is to focus
on reducing costs, increasing productivity, product quality and securing deliveries in order to
satisfy its customers. Equipment reliability is considered to be the key factor for the
productivity and the efficiency of the manufacturing plant. An overview of asset results such as
the reliability indices are required to achieve stable operation conditions alongside high
efficiency and the ability to stay competitive in the global market (Becker et al., 2015). Reliability
analysis is the most frequently used approach for the prediction of systems/subsystems and
components reliability (Kumar Lad and Kulkarni, 2010). Equipment failures, inappropriate
product quality, fires and explosions, timetable delays and emergency shutdowns are some
possible outcomes of failure-based abnormal events in the industry, all of which can result in
severe financial losses for the facilities, as well as the company (Al-Douri et al., 2020). According
to the Aberdeen Group (2017), unexpected downtime costs manufacturing companies over
$50bn per year, with costs ranging from $10,000 to $250,000 per hour. Thus, the systems
analysts must consider the impact of unplanned failures on the system’s functionality when International Journal of
predicting availability and maintainability (Jain and Meena, 2020). Productivity and Performance
Management
Maintenance practices minimize the inconvenience of system efficiency, reduce quality © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
losses by the manufacturing system and in addition have an important impact in minimizing DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-01-2021-0010
IJPPM the amount of defective items produced and loss of operating system time (Choudhary et al.,
2019). Thus, the system performance can be evaluated through the reliability analysis, which
also includes effective maintenance strategies. Reliability, availability and maintainability
(RAM) principles are in most situations, the required technical methods in order to recognize
the inefficiencies and critical conditions of equipment as well as improving maintenance
behavior (Ghosh et al., 2018). The maintenance policies are used to ensure a certain degree of
functionality and availability of a system or part as well as to ensure the quality of the
products at a certain level (Kumar and Singh, 2020). Operational data such as the collection of
failure database from a production system are regarded as the primary tool for quantitative
and simulation approaches for assessment of RAM (Ahmad and Kamaruddin, 2012).
This research work assesses and forecasts the cheese cheddar manufacturing plant losses,
and the main contributions are listed as follows:
(1) To assess the RAM models that describe the failure rate and the repair rate of the
manufacturing plant,
(2) To identify vital machines that need further improvement by way of efficient
management strategies,
(3) To investigate the interventions that can be carried out for improving availability,
performance as well as the quality of the products and
(4) To estimate maintenance practices that help to reduce failures and improve
equipment use.
An adequate data collection and analysis, along with designing reliability models to assist
with decision-making processes, is important for successful reliability programs and
maintenance development (Garmabaki et al., 2016). RAM studies in the military and defense
industry are popular (Dhillon, 2007), but they are unusual in their implementation in a cheese
cheddar manufacturing plant. This helps to use analysis in other industrial plants including
energy, medical equipment (i.e. computed tomography scan, dialysis system, etc), as well as
the food industry, etc. for estimating the maintenance time periods and for the preparation
and coordination of the required maintenance policy.
The research paper is structured as follows: the literature review of RAM analysis is
mentioned in Section 2. The methodology is described in Section 3, in Section 4, the RAM
analysis were computed. The maintenance scheduling is performed in Section 5. Finally, the
conclusive comments of the research were presented in Section 6.

2. Literature review
Reliability means the possibility of a machine running correctly under standard operating
conditions without any malfunction in a given time period (Cui et al., 2018). Reliability
assessment is commonly used in statistical techniques and theories by simplifying dynamic
mathematical models (Soltanali et al., 2021). Statistical approaches are particularly useful,
where the efficiency of a system based on the key methods is complicated to comprehend
(Zhao et al., 2015). Saini and Kumar (2019) studied the use of RAM and dependability in the
detection of the most susceptible evaporation mechanism in sugar plants. Yang et al. (2020)
developed a novel. Robust and efficient technique for structural reliability analysis, as well as
its use in reliability-based design optimization. Soltanali et al. (2020) examined the reliability
in the automotive manufacturing line with failure patterns. RAM (reliability, availability and
maintainability) evaluation is a realistic method that utilizes time between failure (TBF) and
time to repair (TTR) to manage process activity accurately and to schedule repairs, to manage
costs and to make systems more available and efficient (Amini et al., 2015). Tangem (2004)
provided a summary of the most traditional and current methods to performance evaluation.
Manufacturing firms (i.e. automotive) should increase their efficiency at a lower cost, lower Cheddar cheese
unexpected fails and stable operations, and with higher output rates (Soltanali et al., 2018). manufacturing
RAM analysis for grid-connected solar photovoltaic systems was calculated by Sayed et al.
(2019). In another study, Panchal et al. (2019) suggested a new hybridization framework based
efficiency
on RAM analysis for assessing the performance concerns of a chemical process facility.
Dhiman and Kumar (2021) studied a skim milk powder manufacturing facility that had made
a genuine human error in order to analyze its performance in terms of RAM indicators. Zio
et al. (2019) carried out a systematic analysis to incorporate reliability engineering in the air
transport industry. They introduced a methodology that addressed the study of reliability
and quality assurance in production processes.
For scientists, availability analysis is always an intriguing issue since it is a vital means
of assessing the system’s performance because of its practical relevance (Wang et al.,
2019b). Production availability is a measure that the system uses to assess how well it can
meet demand for delivery or effectiveness (Barabady and Aven, 2008). It can be calculated
as the ratio of the actual production to the planned production (or field capacity), over a
given time period. As a result, production availability incorporates RAM indications as
well as production expectations (Meng et al., 2018). Based on availability analysis, Naderi
et al. (2020) determined the correct capacity factor calculation of waste to energy
generating plants. Gupta et al. (2007) used MATLAB to calculate availability, reliability
and mean time to failure for a plastic pipe industrial system. Bahl et al. (2018) proposed a
Petri nets technique for evaluating distillery plant availability. In another study, Kumar
et al. (2009) conducted a performance evaluation and availability study for a fertilizer
plant’s ammonia synthesis unit. Shahrzad et al. (2014) studied a dynamic model for multi-
state weighted k-out-of-n systems availability evaluation. Timed-dependent system
availability with long-term availability was created by Modgil et al. (2013). Castro and
Cavalca (2003) proposed an availability optimization issue for a series-connected
engineering system with redundancy of units and maintenance staff as optimization
factors. Aggarwal et al. (2017) presented a method for analyzing the butter oil
manufacturing system’s time dependent system availability. Recently, Gupta et al.
(2020) examined the availability and economics of generators, both of which are important
components of steam turbine power facilities.
The main inputs to a robust design and effective maintenance program are the historical
reliability data sets (Heredia-Zavoni et al., 2004). The scarcity of quantitative data is one of the
primary problems for scientists to use qualitative research methods i.e. reliability analysis
(Yazdi and Soltanali, 2019). Thus, the primary condition of reliability analysis is the
compilation of field failure database from a wide range of sources such as repair records,
registers and upkeep experts. If adequate failure data for analysis is appropriate, then the
study findings are more reliable (Patil and Bewoor, 2021). On the one hand, the firms
concentrate on the production process instead of gathering failure data. On the other hand,
numerous firms refuse to supply their data on the reasons of competition (Tsarouhas, 2020a).
Thus, the lack of quantitative data is one of the main issues for scientists to introduce
qualitative approaches for the reliability estimation (Yazdi and Soltanali, 2019). By
contributing a real and up to date database concerning the real state of the system, RAM
can play a key role in improved efficiency and safety, which is essential in maintaining the
equipment operation (Tsarouhas, 2019a).
The use of reliability and availability analysis has spread to a wide range of manufactories
and sectors (Talebjedi and Behbahaninia, 2021). The evaluation of reliability and availability
is an essential component in determining the quality of the equipment and production
processes. The reliability and availability estimation is a method for quantifying risk and
determining viable solutions for the design and operation of a system (Wang et al., 2019a).
Many practical systems, such as industrial systems, power plants, communications
IJPPM networks, cloud computing systems and manufacturing systems, rely on system reliability
and availability (Gao and Wang, 2021).
Maintenance management can address issues, including multiple targets which often
compete or conflict with one another, and reflect the characteristics of the system, for the
estimated time of the maintenance plan (Warsokusumo et al., 2021). An industrial system
consists of mechanical and electrical parts; failures such as wears are normally encountered in
mechanical parts and are only revealed by inspection, while electronic components generally
fail without an early notice (Gao et al., 2020). Maintenance decision-making is a dynamic
process that takes place in a variety of contexts including various types of technology,
serviceability, survival and availability criteria (Kumar et al., 2013). Oyebisi (2000) emphasized
that the primary role of maintenance is to manage equipment and system reliability. Endrenyi
et al. (2001, 2004) addressed maintenance efficiency in relation to system reliability, where
maintenance periods and times are measured to illustrate the reliability and capability of the
machines. Yang and Tsao (2019) applied the Laplace transform approach to construct the
reliability function and mean time to failure (MTTF).Ylip€a€a et al. (2017) applied an overall
equipment effectiveness (OEE) evaluation in the industrial system to identify maintenance
enhancement opportunities. Tsarouhas (2020b) suggested strategic methods and tools focused
on OEE estimation to enhance ice cream manufacturing system maintenance management. In
order to improve production in the semiconductor manufacturing plant, Cheah et al. (2020)
implemented a functional integrated OEE structure. In another study, Tsarouhas (2019b)
performed an OEE study on the croissant manufacturing system in order to improve the
performance and the maintenance of the equipment. A multi-state-oriented task reliability is
provided by He et al. (2017) as the premise of intelligent scheduling and predictive maintenance
for the multi-station development system. They recommend mapping a relationship between
the product’s reliability and the manufacturing system’s reliability. For various reasons,
reliability forecasts are essential i.e. including maintenance and production scheduling, failure
prediction and spare parts requirements (Alsina et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2017).
Extensive reliability knowledge plays a critical role in forecasting spare parts and
unscheduled downtime losses and optimum maintenance periods (Darghouth et al., 2017). In
actual operational circumstances, Gopalakrishnan and Skoogh (2018) recognized the
potential for improving productivity in industries through maintenance scheduling
activities. Oliveira and Lopes (2019) introduced a new sophistication model in order to
recognize firms’ existing maintenance conditions and is leading actions to improve
productivity and efficiency. A new lean metric is presented by Braglia et al. (2019) to
support the analysis, which determines the goal period and locates secret losses that are
mostly the time registered for manual assembly operations. Jakkula et al. (2020) also
researched the reliability of the load haul dumper to ensure proper maintenance management.
In another study, a method proposed by Aggarwal et al. (2015) calculated RAM index to track
and improve the efficiency of an actual packaged milk powder factory work environment. In
the meat processing industry, Xiev and Li (2012) developed research to evaluate and improve
the performance of a meat industry. Gopalakrishnan (2019) improved efficiency by
incorporating performance as one of the maintenance organization’s priorities by intelligent
maintenance scheduling. Lundgren et al. (2021) intended to help industry professionals in the
selection of success indicators in evaluating the impacts of intelligent maintenance. To
identify significant issues of manufacture processes that are needed to increase operating
capability and maintenance performance, Tsarouhas (2018a, b) studied RAM analytics in
various sectors of the food industry.

3. Methodology
RAM estimation is an approach of determining a system’s production availability by
evaluating the failure mechanisms, frequencies and the effect while keeping its impact on
production. Thus, in our case, RAM analysis is recommended to be carried out on an Cheddar cheese
automated cheddar cheese manufacturing plant, in order to identify the essential machines manufacturing
and their effects on the efficiency of the plant which operates under actual conditions. The
research will assist management teams focusing on maintenance schedules for preparing an
efficiency
effective maintenance policy.
The key stages of the approach that are carried out in the RAM analysis behavioral
evaluation process are as follows (Barabady and Kumar, 2008; Choudhary et al., 2019; Patil
et al., 2017; Tsarouhas, 2014; Vaurio, 1999; Louit et al., 2009):
(1) The first step is to collect failure and repair data, in order to create a database. For a
cheddar cheese manufacturing system, the breakdown and database is executed over
a long period of time maintenance. In the current case study, maintenance details
were obtained over a span of 32 months from the plant’s maintenance record book
and the production manager.
(2) The second step determines the failures frequency of all the machines, using the
Pareto analysis.
(3) The third step is the confirmation of the hypothesis for the presence into the database
collected, which is independent and identically distributed (IID). The serial correlation
and trend tests are applied to identify the presumption.
(4) The IID data goodness-of-fit test and its parameters were then determined.
(5) RAM analysis is computed for various periods of time for each machine and for the
whole system used in the system configuration relation.
(6) The critical equipment and failures were established and a more reliable maintenance
policy was enforced.
(7) Finally, the reliability-based maintenance scheduling for the production system was
proposed.
The above procedure is proposed to be repeated at predefined intervals so that the results of
the corrective actions performed by the company each time are recorded and evaluated. In
this way, there is continuous monitoring of the process by improving the performance and the
quality of the products, according to the requirements and specifications of the company.

4. RAM analysis: a case study

4.1 Cheddar production process, data collection and the line’s operation management
The manufacturing line of cheddar cheese consists of several sets of fully automated
machinery. The manufacturing method for the production of cheddar is distinguished by the
need for milling and cheddar curd. The cheese can be molded with a wax ring or rindless in
plastic bags (under vacuum). In Table 1, the machines of the production process for the
cheddar cheese manufacturing system were shown.
The cheddar cheese system operates continually for 24 h per day, five days per week. At
the weekends, the line stops for cleaning, maintenance and for the preparation of production
for the following week. The database was collected over a period of 32 months by the
production manager. Thus, the TBF and the TTR of this failure for all the machines and line
level were computed. In total, 1,561 failures into 1916 shift (or 639 working days) were
counted. All the records were registered in minutes.
The maintenance management for the cheddar cheese production line is corrective
maintenance. Corrective maintenance is unscheduled and performed if a malfunction occurs,
i.e. a failure. The process calls for the maintenance personnel to take immediate measures to
IJPPM Machine Name Description

M1 Silo Receiving of raw milk

M2 Homogenization and pasteurization Preheating and pasteurization
M3 Renneting Add rennet or other proteases
M4 Cutting Cut the curd
M5 Stirring/Scalding Cook the curd at low temperature
M6 Cheddaring Cheddar the curd
M7 Milling Mill the curd slabs
Table 1. M8 Mixing Salt the curd
Production process of M9 Pressing Press the curd in vacuum
cheddar cheese M10 Packaging/waxing Paraffin whole cheese
manufacturing system M11 Exogenous Corresponding to a failure in air and electric supply

return the production line to its main operating condition. In a production system in series
such as the cheddar manufacturing system, when the machine has failed, the entire system
stops until the failure has been repaired. Thus, errors and failures can be minimized by the
adequate management approach in order to improve the lifespan of the facilities.
Figure 1 graphically displays the summaries of TTRs and TBFs for the cheddar cheese
manufacturing plant. The following findings have been made: (1) as the database for both
TBF and TTR have the p-value ≤ 0.005; therefore, they do not follow the Gaussian
distribution. (2) The mean TBF and the mean TTR (with a confidence interval of 95%) has
498.45–544.41 min and 66.014–68.854 min, respectively. (3) From the boxplots, it is evident
that the TBFs present have right-skewed (the distribution is concentrated on the left of the
figure: mode < median < mean), whereas the TTRs have left-skewed (i.e. the distribution is
concentrated on the right of the figure: mean < median < mode). (4) The 1st quartile of the
TBF at line level is 120 min, the second quartile stands at of 315 min and the third quartile is
equivalent to 900 min. The respective quartiles of TTRs are 50, 70 and 85 min.
A Pareto chart for the failure database of the cheddar cheese production system was
shown in Figure 2. The following remarks have been received: (1) the most numerous are
failures of the pasteurization/homogenizing machine (M2) with 538 failures, 34.2%. (2) 23.3%
of breakdowns are caused by the packaging/waxing machine (M10) with 367 failures and (3)
in chart the M2, M10 and M7 (milling) show 67.1% of all malfunctions in the manufacturing
system of cheddar cheese.

4.2 Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics for breakdown and repair database (TBF and TTR) in Table 2 are
seen at line and machine level of the cheddar cheese manufacturing plant, to calculate the
central trend and variation of data. It has been noted that: (1) the average TBF for a cheddar
cheese process is 521.4 min or around 8.7 h; therefore, it shows an approximate failure rate
that corresponds to 0.9213 failure per shift and a TTR to a failure is 67.434 min. (2) The
maximum value of TTR at exogeneous machine (M11) is 300 min (air compressor failure). In
the mixing machine (M8, inverter replacement) and in the packaging/waxing machine (M10,
drive chain failure) with 180 min, time consuming repairs are also made. (3) On the pressing
machine (M9, 30 failures) and on the cutting machine (M4, 24 failures) and the silo machine
(M1, 38 failures), the highest values of StDev are observed with 30,384, 27,958 and 22,374 min,
respectively. Thus, the failure data of these machines are scattered in relation to the statistical
average, meaning that the specific causes that result in this phenomenon should be identified
and addressed. Instead the machines that have the lowest values of StDev, i.e. the
pasteurization/homogenization machine (M2, 538 failures) have 1,408.3 min and the
 Summary Report for TBF Line Cheddar cheese
Anderson-Darling Normality Test
manufacturing
A-Squared 71.47 efficiency
P-Value <0.005
Mean 521.43
StDev 462.95
Variance 214321.41
Skewness 0.707250
Kurtosis – 0.759943
N 1562
Minimum 0.00
1st Quartile 120.00
Median 315.00
3rd Quartile 900.00
Maximum 1835.00
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
498.45 544.41
95% Confidence Interval for Median
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 285.00 360.00
95% Confidence Interval for StDev
447.26 479.78

95% Confidence Intervals

Mean

Median

300 350 400 450 500 550

Summary Report for TTR Line

Anderson-Darling Normality Test
A-Squared 19.76
P-Value <0.005
Mean 67.434
StDev 28.603
Variance 818.141
Skewness 1.12024
Kurtosis 7.96575
N 1561
Minimum 5.000
1st Quartile 50.000
Median 70.000
3rd Quartile 85.000
Maximum 300.000
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
66.014 68.854
95% Confidence Interval for Median
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 60.000 70.000
95% Confidence Interval for StDev
27.634 29.643

95% Confidence Intervals

Mean
Figure 1.
Summary report of
TBF and TTR for the
Median
cheddar cheese
60 62 64 66 68 70 production plant
IJPPM
Pareto Chart of Machines
1600 100

1400
80
1200

1000
60
Failures

Percent
800

600 40

400
20
200

Figure 2. 0 0
Pareto chart for the Machines M2 M10 M7 M6 M11 M5 M3 M8 M1 M9 M4
failure database of the Failures 538 367 150 131 96 83 73 42 38 30 24
cheddar cheese Percent 34.2 23.3 9.5 8.3 6.1 5.3 4.6 2.7 2.4 1.9 1.5
production plant Cum % 34.2 57.6 67.1 75.4 81.6 86.8 91.5 94.1 96.6 98.5 100.0

packaging/waxing machine (M10, 367 failures) stand for 2,133 min, are shown with the most
number of failures into the production line. (4) The TBF and TTR CoefVar for the cheddar
cheese production line (88.78 and 42.42, respectively) are less than 100, that is to say low
variance. (5) All TBFs and TTRs at machine (except TTR M3) and line level are positively
skewed.

4.3 Trend test and serial correlation test

The confirmation of the hypothesis of the presence of IID data has been identified both for
individual machines and for the entire manufacturing process, to determine whether the
database of a cheddar cheese manufacturing plant is displaying a significant trend. Two
important techniques for validating the IID hypothesis are trend and serial correlation tests.
In the case that this hypothesis is not confirmed, the classical RAM statistical techniques (i.e.
the homogenous Poisson process-HPP) will not be sufficient. Thus a nonstationary model
must be implemented (i.e. NHPP nonhomogenous Poisson process).
Table 3 lists the validation of TBF/TTR values for a cheddar cheese production system.
Therefore, it is observed that (with a 5 5% C.I.): (1) the majority of the machines (except the
M7 & M10) the H0 is not rejected for TBFs. (2) On the other hand, all the machines for the
TTRs the H0 is not rejected. Moreover, from the serial correlation, it was determined that TBF
and TTR have no trend in the database in the system. The effects of the correlation for TBF
and TTR are shown in Figure 3 at the line level.
Therefore, the trend and serial correlation tests also prove that malfunction database are
free of trends and serial correlations across both the equipment and the whole production
system, with the exception of TBF for the M7 and M10 of the cheddar cheese production.

4.4 Reliability analysis

For machines not defined as IID i.e. the milling machine (M7) and the packaging/waxing
machine (M10) are understood through the NHPP-Power Law Process. The acceptable
statistical distribution (HPP) according to the existence of data was calculated by machines in
Variable N Mean St dev CoefVar Minimum Maximum Range Skewness Kurtosis

TBF M1 38 24,140 22,374 92.68 795 74,325 73,530 0.68 0.72

TBF M2 538 1,640.5 1,408.3 85.84 5.0 7,560.0 7,555.0 1.31 1.91
TBF M3 73 12,527 11,884 94.86 60 50,160 50,100 0.97 0.31
TBF M4 24 38,250 27,958 73.09 2,460 115835 113375 1.12 1.10
TBF M5 83 11,013 11,288 102.50 60 54,980 54,920 1.88 3.51
TBF M6 131 6,951 8,699 125.16 10 49,485 49,475 2.15 5.75
TBF M7 150 6,064 7,261 119.73 10 46,200 46,190 2.30 7.16
TBF M8 42 21,827 22,108 101.29 30 112495 112465 2.16 6.08
TBF M9 30 30,594 30,384 99.31 35 100825 100790 1.35 0.86
TBF M10 367 2,437 2,133 87.54 10 9,885 9,875 1.03 0.58
TBF M11 96 9,544 10,702 112.13 420 77,205 76,785 3.22 16.24
TBF line 1,562 521.4 462.9 88.78 0.0 1835.0 1835.0 0.71 0.76
TTR M1 37 65.00 21.47 33.04 25.00 120.00 95.00 0.66 0.85
TTR M2 537 69.16 25.43 36.77 10.00 150.00 140.00 0.19 0.16
TTR M3 72 72.92 25.59 35.09 15.00 120.00 105.00 0.12 0.25
TTR M4 23 75.87 23.92 31.52 30.00 135.00 105.00 0.53 0.84
TTR M5 82 69.33 26.85 38.73 15.00 135.00 120.00 0.32 0.20
TTR M6 130 70.81 22.38 31.61 25.00 135.00 110.00 0.34 0.24
TTR M7 149 67.62 25.04 37.03 10.00 135.00 125.00 0.02 0.06
TTR M8 41 73.05 28.85 39.49 15.00 180.00 165.00 1.46 4.00
TTR M9 29 66.03 19.84 30.04 35.00 120.00 85.00 0.61 0.86
TTR M10 366 69.58 24.23 34.83 15.00 180.00 165.00 0.58 1.31
TTR M11 95 36.58 54.76 149.70 5.00 300.00 295.00 3.76 15.38
TTR line 1,561 67.434 28.603 42.42 5.000 300.000 295.000 1.12 7.97
manufacturing
efficiency
Cheddar cheese

the entire line level of

for the machines and
Table 2.

manufacturing system
the cheddar cheese
Descriptive statistics
IJPPM T B F
Degree of Calculated χ 2 with Rejection of H0 at 5%
Variable freedom statistic U 2 (n-1) level of significance

M1 74 76.23 55.19 Not rejected (iid)

M2 1,074 1055.94 998.92 Not rejected (iid)
M3 144 147.38 117.27 Not rejected (iid)
M4 46 64.71 31.44 Not rejected (iid)
M5 164 170.49 135.39 Not rejected (iid)
M6 260 224.27 223.66 Not rejected (iid)
M7 298 250.56 259.01 Rejected (not iid)
M8 82 89.18 62.13 Not rejected (iid)
M9 58 44.94 41.49 Not rejected (iid)
M10 732 654.10 670.22 Rejected (not iid)
M11 190 217.52 159.11 Not rejected (iid)
LINE 3,122 3002.12 2993.17 Not rejected (iid)

T T R
Calculated χ 2 with Rejection of H0 at 5%
Variable Degree of freedom statistic U 2 (n-1) level of significance

M1 72 69.38 53.46 Not rejected (iid)

M2 1,072 1,039.92 996.99 Not rejected (iid)
M3 142 142.10 115.46 Not rejected (iid)
M4 44 45.09 29.79 Not rejected (iid)
M5 162 149.85 133.57 Not rejected (iid)
M6 258 253.90 221.81 Not rejected (iid)
M7 296 274.61 257.15 Not rejected (iid)
Table 3. M8 80 69.44 60.39 Not rejected (iid)
U test statistic for M9 56 51.14 39.80 Not rejected (iid)
TBFs and TTRs of the M10 730 705.86 668.31 Not rejected (iid)
cheddar cheese M11 188 189.38 157.28 Not rejected (iid)
manufacturing system LINE 3,120 3,065.07 2,921.09 Not rejected (iid)

which the database review found no trend or serial correlation. The Anderson Darling fitness
test has been applied to verify the fit of different common distributions (i.e. normal,
exponential, loglogistic, Weibull, etc) using the maximum likelihood evaluation approach.
Test statistics based on several theoretical distributions for both TBF and TTR for machines
and line level are summarized in Table 4. Therefore, it is clear that the TBFs are exponentially
distributed at line level, while the TTRs are a logistic distribution.
Figure 4 displays the probability density function, survival function, probability plot and
hazard function of their statistics for the TBFs and TTRs of the cheddar cheese production
system. It is observed that: (1) the TBF has a constant failure rate that corresponds to
0.0019178 failures per minutes and (2) the repair rate of the TTR increases by up to 120 min,
and therefore, the repair rate is stable.
Table 5 demonstrates the reliability of the equipment and line level for various time
periods, and the following findings can be made: (1) the reliability of the line is 89.13% in an
hour of operation, while 39.83% in a whole shift of operation. (2) The greatest reliabilities are
found at the cutting machine (M4), pressing machine (M9) and mixing machine (M8) and (3)
the smallest reliabilities are found at the homogenization and pasteurization machine (M2),
packaging/waxing machine (M10) and cheddaring machine (M6).
Figure 5 displays the process reliability diagrams for the equipment and the whole
cheddar manufacturing plant, and one may make the following comments: (1) the
maintenance should be performed until 1920 min (into 32 h or 4 shifts) to reach a 90%
 Cheddar cheese
2000 manufacturing
efficiency

1500
TBF (i)

1000

500

0 500 1000 1500 2000

TBF (i-1)

300

250

200
TTR (i)

150

100

50

Figure 3.
0 The serial correlation
test results for both
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
TBF and TTR at
TTR (i-1) line level

degree of efficiency for the silo (M1). That is, the maintenance personnel should schedule
preventive maintenance after four shifts of operation for 90% achievement in the reliability
level of the M1. Therefore, the maintenance crew should schedule preventive maintenance
after four operational shifts to achieve 90% performance in the efficiency of the M1 standard.
(2) With Rsyst (150) 5 0.75, the system will not fail with a chance of 75% for 150 min.
 Table 4.
IJPPM

the Weibull
distribution)
lower the statistic

the lowest value is

Anderson–Darling

machine level. The

value, the more the

and TTR at line and

model matches (i.e. in

column for M1 of TBF

1.412 which belongs to

statistics for both TBF
T B F
Distribution M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M8 M9 M11 Line

Weibull 1.412* 5.418* 1.35 0.791 0.714 1.026 0.734 1.009 0.896 25.32
Lognormal 1.83 20.15 3.11 0.871 1.155 3.045 1.391 1.943 0.772 27.83
Exponential 1.89 6.025 2.32 1.568 0.74 8.822 0.772 1.056 0.91 24.129*
Loglogistic 1.59 14.6 2.11 0.737* 0.475 2.483 0.69 1.208 0.784 28.176
3-Parameter Weibull 1.45 5.761 1.3* 0.788 0.755 1.024* 0.769 0.871 0.647* 25.069
3-Parameter lognormal 1.93 5.906 1.78 0.783 0.39 2.963 0.655 0.954 0.795 28.524
2-Parameter exponential 2.05 6.075 1.76 1.438 0.792 7.597 0.886 0.869* 0.71 24.289
3-Parameter loglogistic 1.62 6.74 1.85 0.753 0.378* 2.452 0.647* 0.909 0.832 28.151
Smallest extreme value 2.04 36.31 3.96 1.935 9.233 15.34 4.985 3.336 14.54 81.067
Normal 1.75 14.22 2.68 1.338 5.801 8.844 2.86 2.468 6.487 71.464
Logistic 1.73 9.273 2.52 1.353 4.18 6.608 2.263 2.162 4.497 67.81

T T R
Distribution M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 Line

Weibull 1.149 6.575 1.339 1.208 1.51 2.405 2.45 1.737 1.083 6.55 10.4 27.116
Lognormal 0.988 16.13 2.932 1.176 2.77 2.988 5.46 1.159 1.115 8.55 8.456 63.434
Exponential 8.408 99.98 14.19 5.785 14.7 28.98 27.3 8.634 7.176 75.6 10.58 255.641
Loglogistic 0.808* 9.861 1.96 1.064* 2.04 2.384 3.83 0.842* 1.002 5.65 7.701 39.835
3-Parameter Weibull 1.01 6.534 1.265 1.147 1.56 2.256 2.31 1.583 1.123 6.24 8.664 28.004
3-Parameter lognormal 0.9 5.916 1.244 1.107 1.45 2.112 2.29 1.077 1.026 5.1 6.806 21.143
2-Parameter exponential 4.646 80.11 10.59 3.615 10.2 16.23 21.9 6.834 2.668 55.4 11.25 226.139
3-Parameter loglogistic 0.829 5.364* 1.142* 1.08 1.301* 2.019* 2.33 0.901 0.963* 4.542* 6.3* 16.422
Smallest extreme value 2.192 16.37 1.891 1.751 3.17 5.136 3.93 3.847 1.76 18.3 21.39 152.892
Normal 1.116 6.114 1.243 1.18 1.47 2.289 2.281* 1.751 1.037 6.06 17.23 19.709
Logistic 1.04 5.442 1.142 1.157 1.32 2.131 2.33 1.345 1.005 5 13.96 15.428*
 Distribution Overview Plot for TBF Line Cheddar cheese
ML Estimates-Complete Data manufacturing
Probability Density Function Exponential
Table of Statistics
Mean 521.432
efficiency
0.002 99.99 StDev 521.432
90 Median 361.429
50 IQR 572.852
Failure 1562

Percent
10 Censor 0
PDF

0.001 AD* 24.129

1

0.000
0.01
0 1000 2000 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
TBF Line TBF Line

Survival Function Hazard Function

100

0.00225
Percent

0.00200
Rate

50

0.00175

0.00150
0
0 1000 2000 0 1000 2000
TBF Line TBF Line

Distribution Overview Plot for TTR Line

ML Estimates-Complete Data
Table of Statistics
Probability Density Function Logistic
Loc 67.0694
99.99 Scale 15.2446
0.015 Mean 67.0694
StDev 27.6506
99
Median 67.0694
90
Percent

0.010 IQR 33.4957

PDF

50 Failure 1561
10
Censor 0
0.005 AD* 15.428
1

0.000 0.01
0 50 100 150 0 100 200 300
TTR Line TTR Line

Survival Function Repair Rate

100
0.06 Figure 4.
Probability density
function, survival
Percent

0.04
Rate

50 function, and hazard

0.02
function with their
statistics for both TBF
and TTR at line level of
0 0.00 the cheddar cheese
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
TTR Line TTR Line
production plant

4.5 Maintainability analysis

Maintainability is characterized as a measure of how easily equipment can be repaired or
fixed (Tsarouhas, 2019a). Effective system management will also enhance equipment
operational capacity and repair capability, reduce maintenance costs and ensure that the
 periods
Table 5.
IJPPM

cheddar cheese

for various time

and line level of the
Reliability at machine

manufacturing system
Time Rel M1 Rel M2 Rel M3 Rel M4 Rel M5 Rel M6 Rel M7 Rel M8 Rel M9 Rel M10 Rel M11 Rel line

1 0.999865 0.999613 0.995718 1 0.99442 1 0.999988 0.993464 0.968257 0.99992 1 0.998084

5 0.999438 0.997878 0.994912 1 0.994321 0.996882 0.999917 0.993415 0.968134 0.999515 1 0.990457
10 0.998961 0.995584 0.993938 1 0.994196 0.991006 0.999811 0.993353 0.967981 0.998948 1 0.981005
20 0.998078 0.990825 0.992076 1 0.993942 0.982755 0.99957 0.99323 0.967675 0.997716 1 0.962370
30 0.997247 0.985941 0.990298 0.999999 0.993684 0.976066 0.999304 0.993105 0.967369 0.996407 1 0.944090
60 0.994911 0.970941 0.985304 0.999998 0.992881 0.959761 0.998413 0.992726 0.966452 0.992211 1 0.891306
120 0.990603 0.940427 0.97622 0.999991 0.991158 0.934286 0.996385 0.99194 0.964619 0.983159 1 0.794426
150 0.988555 0.925162 0.971967 0.999985 0.990238 0.923374 0.995288 0.991534 0.963704 0.978434 1 0.750010
180 0.986558 0.909969 0.967854 0.999978 0.989281 0.913243 0.994151 0.99112 0.96279 0.973617 1 0.708077
240 0.98268 0.879915 0.959964 0.99996 0.987257 0.894725 0.991774 0.990265 0.960964 0.963781 1 0.631113
300 0.978925 0.850428 0.952429 0.999937 0.985091 0.877936 0.989287 0.989377 0.959142 0.953748 1 0.562514
360 0.975267 0.821598 0.945178 0.999907 0.982788 0.862447 0.986711 0.988456 0.957323 0.943579 0.997276 0.501372
420 0.971691 0.793475 0.938165 0.999872 0.980353 0.84799 0.984058 0.987503 0.955508 0.933318 0.989458 0.446876
480 0.968185 0.76609 0.931357 0.99983 0.977791 0.834383 0.98134 0.986517 0.953696 0.922994 0.981958 0.398303
720 0.954713 0.664125 0.905744 0.999602 0.966354 0.786282 0.969952 0.982263 0.946484 0.881487 0.953473 0.251374
960 0.941923 0.574083 0.882117 0.999273 0.95321 0.74533 0.957954 0.977533 0.939325 0.840251 0.926544 0.158645
1,440 0.917814 0.426361 0.839104 0.998299 0.922726 0.677073 0.932791 0.966753 0.925171 0.760333 0.876008 0.063189
1,920 0.89519 0.314765 0.800295 0.996894 0.888025 0.62094 0.906686 0.954382 0.911229 0.685186 0.829054 0.025168
2,400 0.873733 0.23133 0.764713 0.995049 0.850546 0.573137 0.880089 0.940612 0.897498 0.615508 0.785143 0.010025
2,880 0.853252 0.169391 0.731767 0.992758 0.811502 0.53155 0.853284 0.925627 0.883973 0.551479 0.743934 0.003993
3,360 0.833619 0.123657 0.701057 0.99002 0.77188 0.494836 0.826473 0.909601 0.870653 0.493019 0.705174 0.00159
3,840 0.814739 0.090031 0.67229 0.986835 0.73246 0.462071 0.799801 0.892697 0.857533 0.439906 0.668659 0.000633
4,320 0.796542 0.065396 0.645241 0.983206 0.693831 0.432587 0.773381 0.875071 0.844611 0.391844 0.634218 0.000252
4,800 0.77897 0.047403 0.619731 0.979137 0.656422 0.405877 0.747299 0.856869 0.831883 0.348494 0.601703 0.00010
5,280 0.761975 0.034295 0.595613 0.974635 0.620528 0.381548 0.721622 0.838222 0.819348 0.309504 0.570984 4E-05
5,760 0.745517 0.024769 0.572763 0.969709 0.586334 0.359284 0.696404 0.819256 0.807001 0.274521 0.541942 1.59E-05
6,240 0.729563 0.017861 0.551077 0.964366 0.553943 0.338832 0.671687 0.800082 0.79484 0.2432 0.514472 6.35E-06
6,720 0.714084 0.01286 0.530463 0.958619 0.523393 0.319979 0.647504 0.7808 0.782863 0.215213 0.488476 2.53E-06
7,200 0.699052 0.009247 0.510843 0.95248 0.494675 0.302548 0.623879 0.761502 0.771066 0.190248 0.463865 1.01E-06
7,680 0.684446 0.00664 0.492146 0.945961 0.467746 0.286389 0.600833 0.742267 0.759447 0.168013 0.440558 4.01E-07
8,160 0.670243 0.004763 0.47431 0.939077 0.44254 0.271375 0.578378 0.723165 0.748003 0.148239 0.418477 1.6E-07
8,640 0.656426 0.003412 0.45728 0.931843 0.418978 0.257395 0.556526 0.704258 0.736731 0.130677 0.397553 6.37E-08

(continued )
Time Rel M1 Rel M2 Rel M3 Rel M4 Rel M5 Rel M6 Rel M7 Rel M8 Rel M9 Rel M10 Rel M11 Rel line

9,120 0.642976 0.002442 0.441004 0.924275 0.396971 0.244352 0.53528 0.685597 0.725629 0.1151 0.37772 2.54E-08
9,600 0.629879 0.001746 0.425438 0.91639 0.376425 0.232162 0.514645 0.667227 0.714695 0.101298 0.358916 1.01E-08
10,080 0.61712 0.001247 0.410539 0.908204 0.357247 0.220751 0.494621 0.649185 0.703925 0.089083 0.341083 4.02E-09
10,560 0.604685 0.00089 0.39627 0.899736 0.339346 0.210053 0.475204 0.631501 0.693318 0.078284 0.324169 1.6E-09
11,040 0.592562 0.000634 0.382596 0.891002 0.322631 0.200011 0.456392 0.6142 0.68287 0.068746 0.308123 6.38E-10
11,520 0.580739 0.000452 0.369483 0.882022 0.307017 0.190572 0.438178 0.597301 0.67258 0.060329 0.292898 2.54E-10
12,000 0.569206 0.000321 0.356904 0.872813 0.292426 0.181689 0.420555 0.580818 0.662445 0.052909 0.278449 1.01E-10
12,480 0.557951 0.000229 0.344829 0.863393 0.27878 0.17332 0.403516 0.564762 0.652462 0.046372 0.264735 4.03E-11
12,960 0.546967 0.000162 0.333233 0.853782 0.26601 0.165428 0.387049 0.549139 0.64263 0.040618 0.251716 1.61E-11
13,440 0.536242 0.000115 0.322093 0.843996 0.25405 0.157978 0.371146 0.533953 0.632947 0.035557 0.239355 6.4E-12
13,920 0.52577 8.18E-05 0.311386 0.834054 0.24284 0.150939 0.355794 0.519205 0.623409 0.031109 0.227618 2.55E-12
manufacturing
efficiency
Cheddar cheese

Table 5.
 1
IJPPM
0.9 Rel Μ1
0.8 Rel Μ2

0.7 Rel Μ3
Rel Μ4
0.6
Reliability Rel Μ5
0.5
Rel Μ6
0.4
Rel Μ7
0.3 Rel Μ8
Figure 5. 0.2 Rel Μ9
Reliabilities diagrams
at machine and line 0.1 Rel Μ10
level of the cheddar Rel Μ11
cheese production 0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Rel Line
plant
Time in minutes

equipment meets its intended uses specifications. The repair time requires access time,
diagnostic time, availability of the spare item, replacement time and calibration time.
The repair of the whole system and at machine level for various time periods is measured
in Table 6, and the following remarks can be made: (1) to achieve a high level of
maintainability of around 90% for the cheddar manufacturing system, the maintenance will
be computed in 100 min. (2) The highest maintainabilities are observed at the exogenous
machines (M11), pressing machine (M9) and silo machine (M1). (3) The lowest
maintainabilities are observed the at cutting machine (M4), renneting machine (M3) and
cheddaring machine (M6). Maintenance needs to be strengthened primarily on those
machines, in order to also optimize the performance of the whole system. (4) In t > 210 min,
there is a 100% likelihood that any malfunction in the cheddar manufacturing system will be
restored.
Figure 6 graphically demonstrates both the maintainability of the machine-level cheddar
manufacturing system and the whole line. For example, in order to reach an acceptable
maintenance level of 80% in the machine (M5), the repair process can take place
within 90 min.

5. Maintenance scheduling
Keeping the whole system and its equipment at a high degree of efficiency and availability in
a cheddar cheese manufacturing system is one of the basic goals of smooth operation. Thus,
the best policy to improve system reliability appears to be reliability-based preventive
maintenance. Based on this method to achieve the optimal efficiency and operating reliability,
the time intervals estimated by the reliability models are used for preventive maintenance
(PM). The scheduled lubrication, inspection, cleansing, adjustment, replacement of the parts,
etc, are regularly carried out for preventive maintenance. PM schedules aim to minimize
equipment losses routine checks and repairs at predefined times.
In order to improve the preventive maintenance time intervals for the cheddar cheese
manufacturing plant, a low level of reliability is proposed for the beginning, so that the first
needs are identified and recorded, in order to create a guide line for the gradual increase of the
reliability of the system at higher levels. Thus, this paper initially allocates a 65% reliability
level to organize preventive maintenance of the cheddar cheese production system. To ensure
a successful and stable operation, all machines should also be controlled and serviced at a
predetermined times interval. Based on previous reliability analysis in Table 7, we present
Time Main M1 Main M2 Main M3 Main M4 Main M5 Main M6 Main M7 Main M8 Main M9 Main M10 Main M11 Main line

1 0.00000 0.00583 0.00654 0.00000 0.00599 0.00116 0.00380 0.00000 0.00015 0.00156 0.00000 0.01295
5 0.00000 0.00809 0.00862 0.00000 0.00841 0.00188 0.00605 0.00000 0.00036 0.00254 0.00059 0.01676
10 0.00005 0.01209 0.01217 0.00001 0.01276 0.00336 0.01047 0.00008 0.00093 0.00456 0.13526 0.02312
15 0.00048 0.01794 0.01716 0.00014 0.01913 0.00586 0.01749 0.00059 0.00223 0.00797 0.34944 0.03181
20 0.00225 0.02643 0.02413 0.00069 0.02838 0.01004 0.02818 0.00242 0.00499 0.01358 0.52781 0.04362
25 0.00740 0.03859 0.03383 0.00241 0.04158 0.01686 0.04383 0.00717 0.01049 0.02257 0.65351 0.05954
30 0.01942 0.05577 0.04723 0.00664 0.06010 0.02772 0.06584 0.01734 0.02086 0.03659 0.73917 0.08079
35 0.04328 0.07963 0.06557 0.01557 0.08557 0.04460 0.09558 0.03620 0.03935 0.05782 0.79819 0.10874
40 0.08470 0.11203 0.09034 0.03226 0.11969 0.07006 0.13420 0.06737 0.07038 0.08882 0.83987 0.14484
45 0.14819 0.15481 0.12321 0.06046 0.16403 0.10710 0.18237 0.11396 0.11906 0.13228 0.87012 0.19036
50 0.23429 0.20934 0.16584 0.10385 0.21955 0.15863 0.24009 0.17729 0.18957 0.19025 0.89265 0.24607
55 0.33772 0.27595 0.21948 0.16480 0.28610 0.22646 0.30656 0.25579 0.28249 0.26315 0.90982 0.31180
60 0.44840 0.35332 0.28452 0.24286 0.36203 0.31004 0.38008 0.34485 0.39253 0.34893 0.92319 0.38610
70 0.64999 0.52592 0.44283 0.43136 0.52785 0.50620 0.53803 0.52830 0.61957 0.53802 0.94232 0.54791
80 0.79160 0.68925 0.61350 0.61522 0.68298 0.69209 0.69013 0.68295 0.79177 0.70793 0.95507 0.70019
90 0.87716 0.81377 0.76005 0.75529 0.80262 0.82622 0.81513 0.79320 0.89271 0.82917 0.96398 0.81820
100 0.92625 0.89461 0.86331 0.84753 0.88274 0.90682 0.90281 0.86534 0.94512 0.90373 0.97045 0.89661
110 0.95440 0.94208 0.92638 0.90444 0.93189 0.95081 0.95529 0.91111 0.97140 0.94622 0.97530 0.94354
120 0.97090 0.96852 0.96162 0.93897 0.96070 0.97392 0.98210 0.94011 0.98467 0.96974 0.97903 0.96988
150 0.99102 0.99486 0.99494 0.98165 0.99218 0.99572 0.99952 0.97909 0.99717 0.99405 0.98621 0.99568
180 0.99660 0.99909 0.99935 0.99329 0.99828 0.99917 1.00000 0.99133 0.99934 0.99862 0.99021 0.99939
210 0.99851 0.99983 0.99992 0.99715 0.99958 0.99981 1.00000 0.99591 0.99982 0.99963 0.99267 0.99992
240 0.99927 0.99996 0.99999 0.99865 0.99989 0.99995 1.00000 0.99787 0.99994 0.99989 0.99429 0.99999
270 0.99961 0.99999 1.00000 0.99930 0.99997 0.99999 1.00000 0.99880 0.99998 0.99996 0.99542 1.00000
300 0.99978 1.00000 1.00000 0.99961 0.99999 1.00000 1.00000 0.99928 0.99999 0.99999 0.99624 1.00000
330 0.99987 1.00000 1.00000 0.99977 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 0.99955 1.00000 0.99999 0.99685 1.00000
360 0.99992 1.00000 1.00000 0.99986 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 0.99971 1.00000 1.00000 0.99732 1.00000
390 0.99995 1.00000 1.00000 0.99991 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 0.99980 1.00000 1.00000 0.99769 1.00000
420 0.99996 1.00000 1.00000 0.99994 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 0.99986 1.00000 1.00000 0.99799 1.00000
450 0.99997 1.00000 1.00000 0.99996 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 0.99990 1.00000 1.00000 0.99823 1.00000
480 0.99998 1.00000 1.00000 0.99997 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 0.99993 1.00000 1.00000 0.99843 1.00000
540 0.99999 1.00000 1.00000 0.99999 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 0.99996 1.00000 1.00000 0.99874 1.00000

(continued )
manufacturing
efficiency
Cheddar cheese

production line
Maintainability for

and the whole cheddar

various time periods
Table 6.

for all the machines

 Table 6.
IJPPM
Time Main M1 Main M2 Main M3 Main M4 Main M5 Main M6 Main M7 Main M8 Main M9 Main M10 Main M11 Main line

600 0.99999 1.00000 1.00000 0.99999 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 0.99998 1.00000 1.00000 0.99897 1.00000
660 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 0.99998 1.00000 1.00000 0.99913 1.00000
720 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 0.99999 1.00000 1.00000 0.99926 1.00000
780 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 0.99999 1.00000 1.00000 0.99936 1.00000
840 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 0.99945 1.00000
 1.00000
Cheddar cheese
0.90000
Main M1
manufacturing
0.80000 Main M2
efficiency
0.70000 Main M3
Maintainabilies

0.60000 Main M4
Main M5
0.50000
Main M6
0.40000 Main M7
0.30000 Main M8
Main M9 Figure 6.
0.20000
Main M10 Maintainabilities
0.10000 diagrams of the
Main M11
cheddar cheese
0.00000 Main Line production plant at
0 50 100 150 machine and line level
Time in minutes

Machine M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 Table 7.

Preventive
Preventive 8,640 760 4,320 22,080 4,800 1,510 6,720 10,080 12,480 2,160 4,030 maintenance time
maintenance intervals for 65%
interval reliability level

the preventive maintenance time intervals for a 65% reliability level. Thus, it is proposed that
the stirring/scalding machine (M5) should be checked and maintained every 80 h (4,800 min or
10 shifts) to provide proper and stable operation, improving the maintenance schedule. Then,
a higher reliability value (i.e. 70%, 80% and 90%) can be increasingly adapted based on
operating performance, safety and cost benefits.

6. Conclusions
RAM analysis of the cheddar cheese manufacturing plant was provided on the basis of
statistical analysis of the failure and repair database. We estimated the descriptive statistics,
and we defined the key points of the manufacturing plant, where the current maintenance
strategy needs to be revised. The theoretical distribution parameters that most match the
failure data were also calculated. The key results of the study can be summed up as follows:
(1) The main machines that show 67.1% of all malfunctions in the manufacturing system
of cheddar cheese are recorded on the pasteurization/homogenizing machine (M2),
packaging/waxing machine (M10) and milling machine (M7).
(2) The mean TBF for the production process is 521.4 min (or 8.7 h), so it shows a failure
rate that corresponds to 0.9213 failures per shift, whereas a failure in the TTR is
67,434 min.
(3) The TBFs follow the exponential distribution, while the TTRs are logistic
distribution for the entire production system.
(4) The lowest reliabilities are found at the homogenization and pasteurization machine
(M2), packaging/waxing machine (M10) and cheddaring machine (M6).
IJPPM (5) The lowest maintainabilities are observed at the cutting machine (M4), renneting
machine (M3) and cheddaring machine (M6). In order to also increase the performance
of the whole production plant, first and foremost maintenance is required to be
improved on these machines.
(6) The reliability-based preventive maintenance for 65% reliability level was initially
proposed. A higher reliability value based on organizational efficiency, protection
and cost benefits can then be increasingly adapted.
RAM study enables plant engineers, operators and workers to anticipate the system’s
actions, which can thus be configured to ensure potential maintenance. This research is
meant to be a reliable source of knowledge for producers of cheese products, who would like
to develop the design and function of their manufacturing plants. Furthermore, the outcomes
of this case study are shared with managers, and these results were highly helpful for the
line’s operation management.
There are some significant managerial implications from this case study: (1) we
demonstrated how the analysis of RAM is very useful in selecting the maintenance intervals,
both in scheduling and managing the right maintenance strategy. (2) RAM characteristics
have been estimated to assess and optimize equipment effectiveness, allowing production
managers to move safely to the next steps and decisions in regards to system operation. (3)
All levels of workers (operators, supervisors, maintenance workers and so on) were required
to participate and cooperate in the RAM procedures, based on TQM principles.
The limitations of this study are described as follows: it only involves one cheddar cheese
production line, and also no comparable research in the literature was identified to compare
the results.
For future research, the application of the RAM analysis in other cheddar cheese
production lines is recommended, in order to map their results in financial terms and to make
the right decisions about the operation of the system.

References
Aberdeen Group (2017), Asset Performance Management, Blazing a Better Path to Operational
Excellence, Aberdeen Group.
Aggarwal, A., Kumar, S. and Singh, V. (2015), “Performance modeling of the skim milk powder
production system of a dairy plant using RAMD analysis”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 167-181.
Aggarwal, A.K., Singh, V. and Kumar, S. (2017), “Availability analysis and performance optimization
of a butter oil production system: a case study”, International Journal of System Assurance
Engineering and Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 538-554.
Ahmad, R. and Kamaruddin, S. (2012), “An overview of time-based and condition-based maintenance
in industrial application”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 63, pp. 135-149.
Al-Douri, A., Kazantzi, V., Eljack, F.T., Mannan, M.S. and El-Halwagi, M.M. (2020), “Mitigation of
operational failures via an economic framework of reliability, availability, and maintainability
(RAM) during conceptual design”, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 67,
104261.
Alsina, E.F., Chica, M., Trawinski, K. and Regattieri, A. (2018), “On the use of machine learning
methods to predict component reliability from data-driven industrial case studies”, The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing, Vol. 94, pp. 2419-2433.
Amini, H., Torabi, S.R., Hoseinie, S.H. and Ghodrati, B. (2015), “RAM analysis of earth pressure
balance tunnel boring machines: a case study”, International Journal of Mining and Geo-
Engineering, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 173-185.
Bahl, A., Sachdeva, A. and Garg, R.K. (2018), “Availability analysis of distillery plant using Petri Cheddar cheese
Nets”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 2373-2387.
manufacturing
Barabady, J. and Aven, T. (2008), “A methodology for the implementation of production assurance
programmes in production plants”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
efficiency
Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, Vol. 222 No. 3, pp. 283-290.
Barabady, J. and Kumar, U. (2008), “Reliability analysis of mining equipment: a case study of a
crushing plant at Jajarm Bauxite Mine in Iran”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety,
Vol. 93, pp. 647-653.
Becker, J.M.J., Borst, J. and van der Veen, A. (2015), “Improving the overall equipment effectiveness in
high-mixlow-volume manufacturing environments”, CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 64, pp. 419-422.
Braglia, M., Gabbrielli, R., Marrazzini, L., Civile, I. and Pisa, U. (2019), “Overall Task Effectiveness: a
new Lean performance indicator in engineer-to-order environment”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 407-422.
Castro, H.F. and Cavalca, K. (2003), “Availability optimization with genetic algorithm”, International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 847-863.
Cheah, C.K., Prakash, J. and Ong, K.S. (2020), “An integrated OEE framework for structured
productivity improvement in a semiconductor manufacturing facility”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1081-1105.
Choudhary, D., Tripathi, M. and Shankar, R. (2019), “Reliability, availability and maintainability
analysis of a cement plant: a case study”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 298-313.
Cui, L., Chen, Z. and Gao, H. (2018), “Reliability for systems with self-healing effect under shock
models”, Quality Technology and Quantitative Management, Vol. 15, pp. 551-567.
Darghouth, M.N., Chelbi, A. and Ait-Kadi, D. (2017), “Investigating reliability improvement of second-
hand production equipment considering warranty and preventive maintenance strategies”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55, pp. 4643-4661.
Dhillon, B.S. (2007), Applied Reliability and Quality-Fundamentals, Methods and Procedures, Springer-
Verlag, London.
Dhiman, P. and Kumar, A. (2021), “RAM assessment of the repairable industrial structure with
genuine human-mistake working conditions with generalized fuzzy numbers”, International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 1614-1627.
Endrenyi, J., Anders, G.J. and Bertling, L. (2004), “Comparison of two methods for evaluating the
effects of maintenance on component and system reliability”, 8th International Conference on
Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems, Ames, Sept 12–16, Iowa State University,
pp. 307-312.
Endrenyi, J., Aboresheid, S., Allan, R.N., Anders, G.J., Asgarpoor, S., Billinton, R., Chowdhury, N.,
Dialynas, E.N., Fipper, M., Fletcher, R.H., Grigg, C., McCalley, J., Meliopoulos, S., Mielnik, T.C.,
Nitu, P., Rau, N., Reppen, N.D., Salvaderi, L., Schneider, A. and Singh, C. (2001), “The present
status of maintenance strategies and the impact of maintenance on reliability”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 638-646.
Gao, S. and Wang, J. (2021), “Reliability and availability analysis of a retrial system with mixed
standbys and an unreliable repair facility”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 205,
107240.
Gao, K., Peng, R., Qu, L. and Wu, S. (2020), “Jointly optimizing lot sizing and maintenance policy for a
production system with two failure modes”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 202
No. 106996, pp. 1-15.
Garmabaki, A.H.S., Ahmadi, A., Block, J., Pham, H. and Kumar, U. (2016), “A reliability decision
framework for multiple repairable units”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 150,
pp. 78-88.
IJPPM Ghosh, C., Maiti, J. and Shafiee, M. (2018), “Reduction of life cycle costs for a contemporary helicopter
through the improvement of reliability and maintainability parameters”, International Journal
of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 545-567.
Gopalakrishnan, M. and Skoogh, A. (2018), “Machine criticality based maintenance prioritization:
identifying productivity improvement potential”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 654-672.
Gopalakrishnan, M., Skoogh, A., Salonen, A. and Asp, M. (2019), “Machine criticality assessment for
productivity improvement: smart maintenance decision support”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 858-878.
Gupta, N., Saini, M. and Kumar, A. (2020), “Operational availability analysis of generators in steam
turbine power plants”, SN Applied Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 779-790.
Gupta, P., Lal, A.K., Sharma, R.K. and Singh, J. (2007), “Analysis of reliability and availability of serial
processes of plastic-pipe manufacturing plant: a case study”, International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 404-419.
He, Y., Gu, C., Han, X., Cui, J. and Chen, Z. (2017), “Mission reliability modeling for multi-station
manufacturing system based on Quality State Task Network”, Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, Vol. 231 No. 6, pp. 701-715.
Heredia-Zavoni, E., Campos, D. and Ramıre, Z.G. (2004), “Reliability based assessment of deck
elevations for offshore jacket platforms”, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
Vol. 126 No. 4, pp. 331-336.
Jain, M. and Meena, R.K. (2020), “Availability analysis and cost optimization of M/G/1 fault-tolerant
machining system with imperfect fault coverage”, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering,
Vol. 45, pp. 2281-2295.
Jakkula, B., Raj, M.G. and Murthy, C.S.N. (2020), “Maintenance management of load haul dumper
using reliability analysis”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 290-310.
Kumar Lad, B. and Kulkarni, M.S. (2010), “A parameter estimation method for machine tool reliability
analysis using expert judgment”, International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and
Strategies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 155-169.
Kumar, S. and Singh, R. (2020), “Rank order clustering and imperialist competitive optimization based
cost and RAM analysis on different industrial sectors”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems,
Vol. 56, pp. 514-524.
Kumar, S., Tewari, P.C. and Kumar, S. (2009), “Performance evaluation and availability analysis of
ammonia synthesis unit in a fertilizer plant”, Journal of Industrial Engineering International,
Vol. 5 No. 9, pp. 17-26.
Kumar, U., Galar, D., Parida, A. and Stenstrom, C. (2013), “Maintenance performance metrics: a state
of- the-art review”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 233-277.
Louit, D.M., Pascual, R. and Jardine, A.K.S. (2009), “A practical procedure for the selection of time-to-
failure models based on the assessment of trends in maintenance data”, Reliability Engineering
and System Safety, Vol. 94 No. 10, pp. 1618-1628.
Lundgren, C., Bokrantz, J. and Skoogh, A. (2021), “Performance indicators for measuring the effects of
Smart Maintenance”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 70 No. 6, pp. 1291-1316.
Meng, H., Kloul, L. and Rauzy, A. (2018), “Production availability analysis of floating production
storage and offloading (FPSO) systems”, Applied Ocean Research, Vol. 74, pp. 117-126.
Modgil, V., Sharma, S.K. and Singh, J. (2013), “Performance modeling and availability analysis of shoe
upper manufacturing unit”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 30
No. 8, pp. 816-831.
Naderi, S., Banifateme, M., Pourali, O., Behbahaninia, A., MacGill, I. and Pignatta, G. (2020), “Accurate
capacity factor calculation of waste-to-energy power plants based on availability analysis and
design/off-design performance”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 275, 123167.
Oliveira, M.A. and Lopes, I. (2019), “Evaluation and improvement of maintenance management Cheddar cheese
performance using a maturity model”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 559-581. manufacturing
Oyebisi, T.O. (2000), “On reliability and maintenance management of electronic equipment in the
efficiency
tropics”, Technovation, Vol. 20, pp. 517-522.
Panchal, D., Singh, A.K., Chatterjeec, P., Zavadskas, E.K. and Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. (2019), “A new
fuzzy methodology-based structured framework for RAM and risk analysis”, Applied Soft
Computing, Vol. 74 January, pp. 242-254.
Patil, S.S. and Bewoor, A.K. (2021), “Reliability analysis of a steam boiler system by expert judgment
method and best-fit failure model method: a new approach”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 389-409, doi: 10.1108/IJQRM-01-2020-0023.
Patil, R.B., Kothavale, B.S., Laxman Yadu Waghmode, L.Y. and Joshi, S.G. (2017), “Reliability analysis
of CNC turning center based on the assessment of trends in maintenance data: a case study”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 1616-1638.
Saini, M. and Kumar, A. (2019), “Performance analysis of evaporation system in sugar industry using
RAMD analysis”, Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering,
Vol. 41 No. 175, pp. 1-10.
Sayed, A., El-Shimy, M., El-Metwally, M. and Elshahed, M. (2019), “Reliability, availability and
maintainability analysis for grid-connected solar photovoltaic systems”, Energies, Vol. 12, p. 1213.
Shahrzad, F.R., Xie, M., Kien, M.N. and Yam, R.C.M. (2014), “Dynamic availability assessment and
optimal component design of multi-state weighted k-out-of-n systems””, Reliability Engineering
and System Safety, Vol. 123 No. 3, pp. 57-62.
Soltanali, H., Rohani, A., Abbaspour-Fard, M.H. and Farinha, J.T. (2021), “A comparative study of
statistical and soft computing techniques for reliability prediction of automotive
manufacturing”, Applied Soft Computing Journal, Vol. 98 No. 106738, pp. 1-16.
Soltanali, H., Rohani, A., Tabasizadeh, M., Abbaspour-Fard, M.H. and Parida, A. (2020), “Operational
reliability evaluation-based maintenance planning for automotive production line”, Quality
Technology and Quantitative Management, Vol. 17, pp. 186-202.
Soltanali, H., Garmabaki, A.H.S., Thaduri, A., Parida, A., Kumar, U. and Rohani, A. (2018),
“Sustainable production process: an application of reliability, availability, and maintainability
methodologies in automotive manufacturing”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, Vol. 233 No. 4, pp. 682-697.
Talebjedi, B. and Behbahaninia, A. (2021), “Availability analysis of an Energy Hub with CCHP system
for economical design in terms of Energy Hub operator”, Journal of Building Engineering,
Vol. 33, 101564.
Tangem, S. (2004), “Performance measurement: from philosophy to practice”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 726-737.
Tsarouhas, P. (2014), “Application of statistical approaches for analyzing the reliability and
maintainability of food production lines: a case study of mozzarella cheese”, in Granato, D. and
Ares, G. (Eds), Chapter in Mathematical and Statistical Methods in Food Science and Technology,
John Wiley & Sons, pp. 491-510.
Tsarouhas, P. (2018a), “Reliability, availability and maintainability (RAM) analysis for wine
packaging production line”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 35
No. 3, pp. 821-842.
Tsarouhas, P. (2018b), “Reliability, availability and maintainability-RAM analysis of cake production
lines: a case study”, International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 381-405.
Tsarouhas, P. (2019a), “Statistical Analysis of failure data for estimating reliability, availability and
maintainability of an automated croissant production line”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 452-475.
IJPPM Tsarouhas, P. (2019b), “Improving operation of the croissant production line through overall
equipment effectiveness (OEE): a case study”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 88-108.
Tsarouhas, P. (2020a), “Reliability, availability and maintainability (RAM) study of an ice cream
industry”, Applied Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 4265, pp. 1-20.
Tsarouhas, P. (2020b), “Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) evaluation for an automated ice cream
production line: a case study”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1009-1032.
Vaurio, J.K. (1999), “Identification of process and distribution c by testing monotonic and non-
monotonic trends in failure intensities and hazard rates”, Reliability Engineering and System
Safety, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 345-357.
Wang, J., Zhang, Q., Yoon, S. and Yu, Y. (2019a), “Reliability and availability analysis of a hybrid
cooling system with water-side economizer in data center”, Building and Environment, Vol. 148,
pp. 405-416.
Wang, N., Li, M., Xiao, B. and Ma, L. (2019b), “Availability analysis of a general time distribution
system with the consideration of maintenance and spares”, Reliability Engineering and
System Safety, Complex Systems RAMS Optimization: Methods and Applications, Vol. 192,
106197.
Warsokusumo, T., Prahasto, T. and Widodo, A. (2021), “Combining RAMS with EEP for performance
based maintenance: a review”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 43-63, doi: 10.1108/JQME-06-2019-0063.
Xie, X. and Li, J. (2012), “Modeling, analysis and continuous improvement of food production systems:
a case study at a meat shaving and packaging line”, Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 113,
pp. 344-350.
Yang, D.Y. and Tsao, C.L. (2019), “Reliability and availability analysis of standby systems with
working vacations and retrial of failed components”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety,
Vol. 182, pp. 46-55.
Yang, M., Zhang, D. and Han, X. (2020), “New efficient and robust method for structural reliability
analysis and its application in reliability-based design optimization”, Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 366, 113018.
Yazdi, M. and Soltanali, H. (2019), “Knowledge acquisition development in failure diagnosis analysis
as an interactive approach”, International Journal for Interactive Design and Manufacturing,
Vol. 13, pp. 193-210.
Ylip€a€a, T., Skoogh, A., Bokrantz, J. and Gopalakrishnan, M. (2017), “Identification of maintenance
improvement potential using OEE assessment”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 126-143.
Zhang, D., Zhang, Y., Yu, M. and Chen, Y. (2017), “Reliability evaluation and component importance
measure for manufacturing systems based on failure losses”, Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, Vol. 28, pp. 1859-1869.
Zhao, W., Tao, T. and Zio, E. (2015), “System reliability prediction by support vector regression with
analytic selection and genetic algorithm parameters selection”, Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 30,
pp. 792-802.
Zio, E., Fan, M., Zeng, Z. and Kang, R. (2019), “Application of reliability technologies in civil aviation:
lessons learnt and perspectives”, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 143-158.

About the author

Dr. Panagiotis Tsarouhas, Dipl. Eng., PhD is Associate Professor at International Hellenic University
(Greece), Department of Supply Chain Management (Logistics) and a tutor in postgraduate course on
Quality Assurance in Hellenic Open University. He received his Diploma in Mechanical Engineering
from Universita degli studi di Napoli Federico II (Italy), and both Ph.D. and M.Sc. from the
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering from the University of Thessaly in Volos,
Greece. For about 10 years he was at the Technical Department as production and maintenance Cheddar cheese
operation head in food industry ‘Chipita International SA’, Greece. He has about 30 years research/
teaching experience, and more than 85 research papers in international journals, book chapters and manufacturing
conference proceedings. He has been involved in many research and practical projects in the field of efficiency
reliability analysis and maintenance engineering. His areas of interest are reliability and maintenance
engineering, quality engineering, and supply chain management. Panagiotis Tsarouhas can be
contacted at: ptsarouhas@ihu.gr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com