Measurement 145 (2019) 756–764

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Reliability, availability and maintainability analysis of the conveyor

system in mechanized tunneling
S. Ahmadi a, S. Moosazadeh a, M. Hajihassani a,⇑, H. Moomivand a, M.M. Rajaei b
a
Department of Mining, Faculty of Engineering, Urmia University, 5756151818 Urmia, Iran
b
Faculty of Mining Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, New Sahand Town, Tabriz, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Evaluation of reliability, maintainability and availability (RAM) plays an important role in performance
Received 24 July 2018 estimation of tunneling systems. Reliability predictions, maintenance planning, reliability assessment,
Received in revised form 15 May 2019 failure detection and risk evaluation are necessary for tunneling machines. The RAM analyses of tunnel-
Accepted 4 June 2019
ing equipments have been widely investigated in recent years. The aim of this study is to RAM analysis of
Available online 10 June 2019
the material hauling system in an earth pressure balance tunnel boring machine (EPB-TBM). For this pur-
pose, failures and repairs data from main conveyor system of Tabriz Metro Line 2 in Iran were collected.
Keywords:
Performing trend and serial correlation tests showed that the data are independent and identically dis-
Reliability
Availability
tributed (iid) and therefore the statistical techniques can be used for modeling. To carry out the analysis,
Maintainability the main conveyor system was divided into three sub-systems including conveyors 1, 2 and 3, which are
Tunnel conveyor system located on the TBM machine, inside the tunnel and station. Analysis results indicated that reliability of
Mechanized Tunneling conveyor subsystems 1, 2 and 3 after 267, 58 and 300 h reaches to zero, respectively. Moreover, availabil-
ity results showed that all subsystems are available for more than 89 percent of the time. To improve sys-
tem reliability, preventive maintenance is required for each subsystem. Based on the obtained results,
reliability-based preventive maintenance time intervals for 80 percent of reliability level for subsystem
1, 2 and 3 are 43, 3 and 6 h, respectively.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction systems. The performance of mechanized tunneling system is

The increasing rate of mechanization and automation in tunnel-
ing equipments and continuous drilling systems over the recent
decades has highlighted the importance of acquiring reliable oper-
ating systems in these industries. These systems are composed of
different and interlinked subsystems, which their performances
are mainly influenced by the reliability, availability and maintain-
ability of the subsystems [1,2].
The cost of investing in tunneling equipments is high, where
these equipments are expanding and complex. Therefore, these
equipments need the highest level of performance and reliability.
In addition, it is expected that the equipment and technologies
used in tunneling be available and ready for use at any time and
have a high level of reliability and availability. Tunnel continuous
boring equipment and machinery includes various systems that
penetration and drilling rates of tunneling depend on these
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: s.moosazadeh@urmia.ac.ir (S. Moosazadeh), mohsen_
hajihassani@yahoo.com, m.hajihassani@urmia.ac.ir (M. Hajihassani), h.moomivand@
urmia.ac.ir (H. Moomivand).
heavily dependent on machine and logistic system maintenance
down times [3,4]. Conveyor belt hauling system is one of the most
important logistic systems in mechanized tunneling which directly
affects by its subsystems. Therefore, analysis of reliability, avail-
ability and maintainability of various tunneling systems is of inter-
est [5].
Several studies have been carried out to reliability, maintain-
ability and availability (RAM) analysis of tunneling and mining
equipments using the statistical analysis method. RAM analysis
of earth pressure balance tunnel boring machine (EPB-TBM) and
its hydraulic system has reported by Amini Khoshalan et al. [6]
and Khoshalan et al. [7]. Besides, the results of RAM analysis of
hydraulic system of rotary drilling machines [8], crushing plant
[9], shovel machines used in an open cast coal mine [10], load-
haul-dump vehicles [11,12], drum shearer at mechanized longwall
mines [13], and overhauled engines of dumpers [14] show that
RAM analysis is very useful for planning and deciding maintenance
intervals in tunneling and mining projects.
The aim of this study is to perform RAM analysis of Tabriz Metro
Line 2 in order to identify the faults and repair patterns in the main
conveyor system. Furthermore, estimation of RAM characteristics,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.06.009
0263-2241/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Ahmadi et al. / Measurement 145 (2019) 756–764
identifying the critical subsystem that needs improvement or
repair, and ultimately providing an optimal maintenance plan for
the conveyor system are the objectives of this paper.
2. Reliability, availability and maintainability (RAM)
As features of long-term system operation, reliability, availabil-
ity, and maintainability analysis are significant approaches to
reduce maintenance costs and improve system function and
operation.
2.1. Reliability
Reliability is the ability of a system to perform a task under the
given conditions and at a specified time interval. When a system
can perform the specified task in more time, it is more reliable
[15]. Therefore, identifying the different predictable conditions
and operating modes, and also the use and non-use of sub-
systems including system, equipment, components and etc., are
essential in the specification phase required for system design
[16]. If the failure probability of an item in the time interval from
zero to t is shown by F(t), given that the function F(t) is the unre-
liability function, reliability is expressed as:
Z 1
Rðt Þ ¼ f ðt Þdt
t after calculating U for data. If U is greater than the critical number
where, R(t) is the reliability at time t and f ðtÞ represents the prob-
ability density function of the failure.
Systems are generally divided into two groups of parallel and
serial (or sequential) systems [17]. The system is series if the sys-
tem fails with the failure of only one of the components of the sys-
tem and its reliability is defined as follows:
Y
n
Rsys ¼ R1 R2    Rn ¼ Ri
i¼1
where, Ri is the reliability of the different subsystems (compo-
nents). In a parallel system, the function of the system requires
the operation of at least one of its units [18]. In other words, the sys-
tem fails when all units fall off. In this case, the reliability of the sys-
tem is defined as follow:
Y
n a line drawn through the data points is shrinking upwards or
Rsys ¼ 1  F sys ¼ 1  ½1  Ri 
i¼1
2.1.1. Statistical analysis method
Generally, this method is used to evaluate the reliability of
repairable systems by the mean time between failures (MTBF)
and for non-repairable systems with average time to failure (MTTF)
[19]. Failure is due to the inability of a piece of system or equip-
ment to operate under certain conditions [16]. The major causes
of mechanical failure include poor or incomplete design, manufac-
turing defects, incorrect use, improper placement and installation,
wear out, failures in other parts of the system, and gradual degra-
dation in operation. The general algorithm of the statistical analy-
sis method is shown in Fig. 1.
 Pareto analysis
Pareto analysis is the first step in reliability statistical analysis
of a system. In this analysis, a system is divided into several
sub-systems. Pareto analysis provides the possibility to identify
troubled areas that should be analyzed as widely as possible using
statistical methods [20,21].
After data collecting and before finding the best fit distribu-
tion, the assumption of failure data independence and identically
757
distribution should be investigated. In order to analyze this
assumption, two common methods of trend test and correlation
test are used [5].
 Trend test
The trend test actually determines whether the disruption of
the failure data is significantly (degraded or improved) changed
over the time interval or not. Cumulative data is used to
describe the existence or absence of trends. Military, Laplace,
and Graphic tests are commonly used to determine the trend
in data [22].
In the Military test [23], the evaluation of the trend existence in
the data is done using the calculation of a statistical index, which
defines as follows:
X
n1  
Tn
U¼2 ln ð4Þ
i¼1
Ti
where, n is the number of failures, Tn is the last failure time and Ti is
the time of failure.
In this method, the null hypothesis is that the data are free from
the trend. Based on this assumption, the U index is Chi-squared
distributed with 2(n-1) degrees of freedom. The Chi-squared distri-
bution table is used to control the accuracy of the null hypothesis,
ð1Þ
from the standard table, the null hypothesis is accepted. If this
assumption is rejected, the data has trend.
In the Laplace test [22], evaluation of the trend in the data is
done using the following statistics index:
Pn1
ð i¼1 t i =n  1Þ  ðt n =2Þ
LA ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð5Þ
tn ð1=12ðn  1ÞÞ
ð2Þ Given the critical value range for the 95% confidence level,
which is between (1.96, +1.96), the critical value of the obtained
LA is determined from the standard table. If this critical number is
within the range, the null hypothesis is rejected, show that the
data follow a trend. But if it is not within this range, the null
hypothesis is accepted, show that the data are trendless.
In the Graphical test, the cumulative TBFs and TTRs data are
plotted against the cumulative number of failures and repairs. If
ð3Þ downwards, the data have trend and the system is an improve-
ment or breakdown system, respectively. If the line drawn through
the data is a straight line, the data are trendless, which means that
the data sets are distributed equally.
 Correlation test
In order to determine the correlation, the ith TBF (or TTR) is
plotted against (i-1)th TBF (or TTR), if the data are independent
and correlated, points are located along one line [20].
 Data analysis
In the statistical analysis method, a system is modeled by ana-
lyzing TBF and TTR data. Determination of the best probability dis-
tribution functions for different sub-systems is accomplished by
two methods of non-homogeneous Poisson process (NHPP) and a
renewal process (RP). If the data have trend, the power law process
model (PLP) is used. Power law process model has same advan-
tages of Weibull distribution and so flexible in describing the time
data [24]. In the absence of trend and serial correlation, the
Renewal Process is used.
The reliability function and failure rate functions are as the rela-
tions (6) and (7), respectively.
758 S. Ahmadi et al. / Measurement 145 (2019) 756–764

Fig. 1. Algorithm of statistical analysis method (after [27]).

 b !
t In the absence of trend and serial correlation, the RP is used.
Rðt Þ ¼ exp  ð6Þ Classic methods are used to find the best fit distribution in the
h
RP. For this purpose, various distribution functions are tested on
 b1 the data to select the best distribution. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov,
b t Anderson-Darling and Chi-square methods are used to select the
kðt Þ ¼ ð7Þ
h h best probability density function. According to the rating of good-
where, h is scale parameter, b is shape parameter and t is the run- ness of fit test (GOF) of these methods, the best distribution func-
time. The scale and shape parameters are defined as follow [25]: tion for each sub-system is selected [13]. The goodness of fit tests
for the above-mentioned methods is tabulated in Table 1.
n
b¼P   ð8Þ
n1 tn
i¼1 ln ti
2.2. Availability
tn
h ¼ 1=b ð9Þ Availability is the probability that a piece of equipment/system
n
is functioning satisfactorily at time t when used according to spec-
 S. Ahmadi et al. / Measurement 145 (2019) 756–764 759

Table 1 4. Data analysis

Goodness of fit tests.

Test The statistics Accepted of H0 The failure and repairable data of the material hauling system
Chi-square test [28] Pk ðni ei Þ2 2
X < X 2c
were recorded for continuous analysis. In this regard, various
X 2 ð/; k  1  dÞ ¼ i¼1 ei
sources such as operational and maintenance information, daily
Kolmogorov-Smirnov max DN  DacðNÞ
DN ¼ jF ðxÞ  SN ðxÞj maintenance reports and data from sensors for reliability modeling
test (K-S) x
Anderson-Darling P ð2i1Þ have been used. To carry out the analysis, the main conveyor sys-
A2 ¼ N  N i¼1 N ½lnF ðBi Þ
A2 < A2c
test (A-D) þlnðð1  F ðBNþ1i ÞÞ tem was divided into three sub-systems including conveyors 1, 2
and 3, which are located on the TBM machine, inside the tunnel
ified conditions and in an ideal environment. Inherent availability and station, respectively. As the basis of RAM analysis, the TBF
is the most common definition used in reliability literature [26]. and TTR data were determined as in Fig. 2. The items of each
The average availability of an item can be determined from the fol- sub-system include belt, propulsion, and traction-support systems.
lowing equation. The duration of excavation was used as a time unit in analysis.
Figs. 3 and 4 show the Pareto diagrams of various conveyor sys-
MTBF tems in terms of failures number and failures times. These figures
A¼ ð10Þ
MTBF þ MTTR illustrate that the conveyor 2 is the most critical sub-system in
terms of the number of failures (244 failures) and the failure time
where, MTBF and MTTR are the mean time between failures and the (9345 min of failure).
mean time to repair, respectively. To determine the main reasons of failures in each sub-system,
the Pareto charts for each item was plotted based on the number
2.3. Maintainability of failures and breakdowns that are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Accord-

Maintainability is the probability that a failed system/part of

equipment/item is restored to its satisfactory operating state over
time t by applying maintenance [17]. The probability of ending sys-
tem repairs at a time less than t can be defined as follows:
Z t
M ðt Þ ¼ mðt Þdt ð11Þ
0

In which, M ðt Þ is a function of maintainability at time t and mðt Þ

is the probability density function of repair. Fig. 2. TBF and TTR introduction.

3. Case study

With a population of about 1.6 million inhabitants, Tabriz is one

of the largest cities in Iran. Due to this large population, there is a
need for an urban railway network for transport. Tabriz Metro
design includes 4 lines with the total length of about 80 km and
80 stations.
Tabriz Metro Line 2 is under construction with 22.4 km length
and 20 stations. This single-tunnel line with a diameter of 9.5 m
is excavated by an EPB-TBM. The working schedule in this tunnel
is 2 shifts per day (12 h per shift). In each shift, 4 ring installation
is carried out and the average time for excavation and ring instal-
lation is 6 h. The tunnels are going through the geological struc-
tures, which are mainly composed of the gravely-sand, sandy-silt,
clay-sand, and silty-sand formations.
Fig. 3. Pareto charts of conveyor sub-systems based on the number of failures.
The hauling system of this tunnel consists of three sub-systems
including conveyor belts inside the TBM, tunnel and station. In
order to investigate the reliability of the material hauling system,
failure data of two years operations were collected. The technical
specifications of the conveyor system used inside the tunnel are
tabulated in Table 2.

Table 2
Specifications of the conveyor system used inside the tunnel.

Belt width 1000 mm

Belt length 7761 m
Carrying capacity 900 t/h
Belt speed 3 m/s
Driving power 3  110 kw
Storage model BS 1000  87
Storage length 87 m
Storage capacity 500 m
Winch driving dower 22 kw
Winch maximum tensile strength 3600 kg
Fig. 4. Pareto charts of the conveyor sub-systems based on the time of failures.
760 S. Ahmadi et al. / Measurement 145 (2019) 756–764
Fig. 5. Pareto chart of the conveyor sub-system items based on the number of
failures.
Fig. 6. Pareto chart of the Conveyor sub-system items based on the time of failures.
ing to these figures, belt item with 59.26% of the failures number
and with 55.89% of the breakdowns in the conveyor sub-system
1 was the most critical item. Similar to conveyor 1, the belt item
in conveyors 2 and 3 was also considered as critical item and the
main reason of failures.
To determine the main reasons of failures that have led to sys-
tem shutdowns, the frequency failures of system components are
shown in Figs. 7–9. According to these charts, the most failure in
all sub-systems was related to the roller. Table 3 shows an example
of fault and repair data of the conveyor sub-system 1.
The trend test in this study was conducted using analytical and
graphical methods on the cumulative TBFs and TTRs data. The ana-
lytical methods of Military and the Laplace were used to perform
the trend test. A graphical method was also used to detect the
trend in the data. After performing all three trend tests on the data,
Fig. 7. Frequency failures of conveyor 1 components.
Fig. 8. Frequency failures of conveyor 2 components.
Fig. 9. Frequency failures of conveyor 3 components.
the decision was made about the existence or absence of trend.
Fig. 10 shows graphical test for TBFs data of conveyor 1.
The results of the TBFs and TTRs trend tests are shown in
Table 4. From this table, the decision on whether or not the trend
is present in the data was made. Table 5 shows existence or
absence of trend in data. As it can be seen in this table, TBFs for
conveyors 1 and 2 follow a trend, whereas TBFs for conveyor 3
and TTRs for all conveyors are trendless.
The distribution chart of TBFs and TTRs for various sub-systems
is shown in Fig. 11. The scatter plot between two variables (TBFi
and TBF(i1)) shows that the data are widely distributed and there-
fore there is no correlation between two consecutive failure data.
5. RAM analysis
5.1. Reliability
Subsequent to data analysis, best distribution functions of the
TBFs and TTRs data were selected by goodness of fit tests. In the
case of existence trend in the data, the non-homogeneous Poisson
process and PLP was used. On the other hand, in the absence of
trend in the data, the renewal process was used to select the best
distribution function. In the case of renewal process, the classic
method was used to fit the data. The goodness of fit tests results
and the selection of the best distribution function for TBFs and
TTRs are shown in Tables 6 And 7.
Based on the obtained results, the reliability functions for con-
veyors 1, 2, and 3 for TBFs data are as follow:
 1:634 !
t
R1 ðt Þ ¼ exp  ð12Þ
6082:104
 1:118 !
t
R2 ðt Þ ¼ exp  ð13Þ
563:411
 S. Ahmadi et al. / Measurement 145 (2019) 756–764 761

Table 3
Failure data for conveyor sub-system 1.

No. TBF TTR CTBF CTTR No. TBF TTR CTBF CTTR
1 1199.22 15 1199.22 15 28 109.02 70 48350.41 1020
2 381.57 30 1580.79 45 29 218.04 195 48568.45 1215
3 2507.46 60 4088.25 105 30 218.04 390 48786.49 1605
4 4905.90 60 8994.16 165 31 54.51 350 48841.00 1955
5 5396.49 30 14390.65 195 32 1580.79 460 50421.79 2415
6 7849.45 130 22240.10 325 33 54.51 460 50476.30 2875
7 3270.60 5 25510.70 330 34 54.51 150 50530.81 3025
8 599.61 30 26110.31 360 35 763.14 60 51293.95 3085
9 490.59 100 26600.90 460 36 163.53 305 51457.48 3390
10 3815.70 30 30416.61 490 37 2616.48 15 54073.97 3405
11 163.53 55 30580.14 545 38 3107.07 35 57181.04 3440
12 545.10 50 31125.24 595 39 163.53 10 57344.57 3450
13 1144.71 60 32269.95 655 40 2616.48 30 59961.05 3480
14 2125.89 15 34395.84 670 41 109.02 40 60070.07 3520
15 654.12 15 35049.96 685 42 109.02 40 60179.09 3560
16 872.16 35 35922.12 720 43 545.10 10 60724.19 3570
17 6432.19 15 42354.31 735 44 1090.20 15 61814.39 3585
18 3488.64 15 45842.95 750 45 1853.34 340 63667.73 3925
19 381.57 30 46224.52 780 46 436.08 25 64103.81 3950
20 708.63 15 46933.15 795 47 545.10 245 64648.91 4195
21 54.51 10 46987.66 805 48 218.04 20 64866.96 4215
22 708.63 10 47696.29 815 49 327.06 15 65194.02 4230
23 109.02 30 47805.31 845 50 54.51 30 65248.53 4260
24 109.02 20 47914.33 865 51 54.51 440 65303.04 4700
25 54.51 30 47968.84 895 52 4088.25 80 69391.29 4780
26 54.51 40 48023.35 935 53 327.06 40 69718.35 4820
27 218.04 15 48241.39 950 54 109.02 65 69827.37 4885

ity charts were plotted. Consequently, as the sub-systems work in

series, the overall reliability of the hauling system was obtained by
multiplying reliability of the sub-systems. The reliability diagrams
for sub-systems 1, 2 and 3, as well as the general system are shown
in Fig. 12. According to this figure, the reliability of the conveyor 1
reaches zero after about 16,000 min of continuous operation. Also,
reliability of conveyors 2 and 3 reach zero after 3500 and
18,000 min continuous operation, respectively. For conveyor 1, it
is found that after 2580 min, the probability of failure of this
sub-system is more than 80%. Besides, for conveyors 2 and 3, the
probability of failure would be more than 80% after 180 and
360 min, respectively. Generally, the reliability of the conveyor
system for TBFs data reaches zero after 2500 min and the probabil-
ity of conveyor system failure for TBFs data is 80% after 120 min.
The important result obtained from Fig. 12 is that the conveyor
2 is the first sub-system that its reliability will be zero and there-
fore, it is the most critical sub-system. In addition, conveyor 1 has
the best condition among other sub-systems, considering that the
reliability of this conveyor will reach zero after other sub-systems.
Fig. 10. Graphical trend test for conveyor 1.

5.2. Availability

 
ln ðt þ 20:842Þ  6:9288 The availability of each sub-system was calculated by using Eq.
R3 ð t Þ ¼ 1  £ ð14Þ (9). The MTBF value for each sub-system was obtained through
1:2106
dividing the cumulative time between failures (CTBFs) by the total
The reliability of each sub-system was determined by the best number of sub-system failures. Similarly, the MTTR value for each
probabilistic distribution function. The reliability of each sub- sub-system was determined through dividing the cumulative time
system for TBFs data was calculated individually and their reliabil- to repair (CTTR) by the total number of failures. The corresponding

Table 4
Trend test results.

Trend tests Conveyor 1 Conveyor 2 Conveyor 3

TBFs TTRs TBFs TTRs TBFs TTRs
Military statistic 66.08 153.07 436.26 571.26 88.74 45.17
p-value 0.002 0.004 0.103 0.009 0.176 0.011
Laplace’s statistic 3.67 2.56 0.51 2.53 0.87 1.99
p-value 0.000 0.011 0.613 0.011 0.384 0.027
762 S. Ahmadi et al. / Measurement 145 (2019) 756–764

Table 5
Existence or absence of trend.

Trend tests Conveyor 1 Conveyor 2 Conveyor 3

TBFs TTRs TBFs TTRs TBFs TTRs
Military yes no yes no no no
Laplace’s yes yes yes yes yes yes
Graphical yes no no no no no
Total yes no yes no no no

Fig. 11. Scatter plot of TBF and TTR data for different sub-systems.

values of MTBF and MTTR for each sub-system with the number of
failures are tabulated in Table 8.
The results show that conveyors 1, 2 and 3 are available more
than 93, 89, and 97 percent of the time, respectively. Also the total
conveyor system will be available at 80% of the time.
5.3. Maintainability
Similar to the process performed in the reliability analysis on
TBFs data, results from the TTRs data were used for maintainability
analysis. Regarding the results of goodness of fit tests, log-normal
 S. Ahmadi et al. / Measurement 145 (2019) 756–764 763

Table 6
Best distribution functions for TBF data.

Sub-system Goodness of fit test Best distribution function Parameters

Non-homogeneous Poisson process (PLP) Renewal process
Conveyor 1 * – – b = 1.634
h = 6082.104
Conveyor 2 * – – b = 1.118
h = 563.411
Conveyor 3 – * Log-normal 3P r = 1.2106
l = 6.9288
c = 20.842

Table 7
Best distribution functions for TTR data.

Sub-system Goodness of fit test Best distribution function Parameters

Non-homogeneous Poisson process (PLP) Renewal process
Conveyor 1 – * Log-normal r = 1.1475
l = 3.7717
Conveyor 2 – * Log-normal r = 0.87222
l = 3.1612
Conveyor 3 – * Log-normal r = 0.79181
l = 3.2638

Fig. 13. Maintainability chart of the conveyor sub-systems and the overall hauling
Fig. 12. Reliability diagram for sub-systems and general conveyor system. system.

distribution function was determined as the best distribution func- ure repair time of the conveyor 1 is about 180 min with 90%
tion for all sub-systems. The Maintainability functions for sub- probability while this repair time for the conveyors 2 and 3 is
systems 1, 2 and 3 for the TTRs data are as follow: 80 min. In addition, the total failure repair time of the whole sys-
  tem is 200 min with a probability of 90%. Furthermore, the con-
ln t  3:7717
M 1 ðt Þ ¼ 1  £ ð15Þ veyor 1 has less maintainability than the other sub-systems, and
1:1475
the maintainability of conveyors 2 and 3 are approximately equal.
  To improve the reliability of the system, preventive mainte-
ln t  3:1612
M 2 ðt Þ ¼ 1  £ ð16Þ nance is required for each sub-system. Since reliability is different
0:87222
for various sub-systems, maintenance intervals also will vary for
  different sub-systems. The maintenance intervals for each sub-
ln t  3:2638
M 3 ðt Þ ¼ 1  £ ð17Þ system of the main hauling system were calculated and deter-
0:79181
mined at the reliability levels of 90, 80, 70, 60 and 50 percent
Using this distribution function, the maintainability of all three through the relevant reliability functions. Table 9 represents relia-
sub-systems was determined by Eqs. (15)–(17) and their associ- bility maintenance intervals for three sub-systems and the total
ated graphs are plotted in Fig. 13. According to this figure, the fail- system.

Table 8
Availability of sub-systems.

Sub-system Number of failures MTBF MTTR Availability

Conveyor 1 54 1293.09 90.46 0.93
Conveyor 2 244 314.55 39.29 0.89
Conveyor 3 37 1901.95 39.32 0.97
System General Availability 0.80
764 S. Ahmadi et al. / Measurement 145 (2019) 756–764
Table 9
Maintenance intervals based on reliability.
Reliability level Conveyor Conveyor Conveyor General
(%) 1 2 3 system
90 26.66 h 1h 4h 1h
80 43 h 3h 6h 2h
70 54 h 4h 9h 3h
60 68 h 5h 13 h 4h
50 82 h 7h 18 h 5h
To design a preventive maintenance program, 80% reliability
level was chosen. Based on the selected reliability level, conveyors
1, 2 and 3 require 2580, 180 and 360 min maintenance intervals,
respectively. This means that the conveyor sub-system 2 needs
to be maintained every 180 min, and the conveyor sub-system 1
needs maintenance every 2580 min.
In this project 4 ring installation is carried out per shift and the
average time for ring installation is 3 h. Therefore, for conveyor 2 it
is essential to perform an inspection after each working shift, espe-
cially rollers and the belt. For the conveyor 3, inspections at the
end of each two shifts would be the best preventive action where
the rollers should be considered as critical components in this sub-
system. In the case of the conveyor 1, within 43 h of maintenance
interval at 80% reliability level, it is recommended that an inspec-
tion be carried out in each 14 shifts and rollers and the belt’s func-
tion should be considered.
6. Conclusion
This paper describes the reliability, availability and maintain-
ability evaluation of materials hauling system in mechanized tun-
neling. In this regard, failure data from Tabriz Metro Line 2 in Iran
were used. The material hauling system was divided into three
sub-systems 1, 2 and 3 and the results of each sub-system were
obtained along with the main system.
The reliability of each sub-system was defined by the best prob-
ability distribution function. According to the results, the sub-
system 1 and 2 showed the highest and lowest level of reliability,
respectively. Moreover, availability results indicated that all sub-
systems are available more than 89 percent of the time. Besides,
the results of the maintainability illustrated that the sub-system
1 has less maintainability than the other sub-systems, and the
sub-systems 2 and 3 have an equivalent maintainability. The main-
tenance time of the conveyor 1 is about 180 and this time for the
conveyors 2 and 3 is 80 min.
In reliability level of 80%, the maintenance interval estimated
for conveyor 1, conveyors 2 and 3 are 43, 6 and 6 h, respectively.
The maintenance includes inspection, repair, servicing, or replace-
ment in different subsystems. Based on the obtained time intervals
and the average excavation time per shift, it can be concluded that
for the conveyor 2, maintenance operations should be performed
after each shift. Furthermore, for conveyor 3, the best time interval
for maintenance inspections is after each two shifts. Similarly, for a
conveyor 1, the best time interval for carrying out maintenance is
every 14 shifts. Failures frequency showed that the major failures
in all sub-systems are related to rollers and belt. In the case of
sub-system 2, most failures happened in the arched sections of
the tunnel, because of a lot of pressure on the system. Therefore,
this extra pressure can be reduced by adding the chassis in these
sections and controlling the propulsion.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to extend their appreciation to the Tab-
riz Urban Railway Organization for providing the required facilities
and data that made this research possible.
References
[1] B.K. Low, H.H. Einstein, Reliability analysis of roof wedges and rockbolt forces
in tunnels, Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 38 (2013) 1–10.
[2] E. Topal, S. Ramazan, A new MIP model for mine equipment scheduling by
minimizing maintenance cost, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207 (2) (2010) 1065–1071.
[3] S. Moosazadeh, H. Aghababaie, S.H. Hoseinie, B. Ghodrati, Simulation of tunnel
boring machine utilization: a case study, J. Min. Environ. 9 (1) (2018) 53–60.
[4] M. Koopialipoor, S.S. Nikouei, A. Marto, A. Fahimifar, D.J. Armaghani, E.T.
Mohamad, Predicting tunnel boring machine performance through a new
model based on the group method of data handling, Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ.
(2018) 1–15.
[5] J. Barabady, U. Kumar, Reliability analysis of mining equipment: a case study of
a crushing plant at Jajarm Bauxite Mine in Iran, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 93 (4)
(2008) 647–653.
[6] H. Amini Khoshalan, S.R. Torabi, S.H. Hoseinie, B. Ghodrati, RAM analysis of
earth pressure balance tunnel boring machines: a case study, Int. J. Min. Geo-
Eng. 49 (2) (2015) 173–185.
[7] H.A. Khoshalan, S. Torabi, D. Maleki, RAM analysis of hydraulic system of earth
pressure balance tunnel boring machine, Indian J. Sci. Technol. 8 (28) (2015).
[8] M.J. Rahimdel, M. Ataei, R. Khalokakaei, S.H. Hoseinie, Reliability-based
maintenance scheduling of hydraulic system of rotary drilling machines, Int.
J. Min. Sci. Technol. 23 (5) (2013) 771–775.
[9] J. Barabady, X. Gao, T. Markeset, Criticality analysis from maintainability point
of view, in: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management, IEEE, 2017, pp. 2140–2143.
[10] B. Samanta, B. Sarkar, S. Mukherjee, Reliability analysis of shovel machines
used in an open cast coal mine, Min. Resour. Eng. 10 (02) (2001) 219–231.
[11] N. Vayenas, X. Wu, Maintenance and reliability analysis of a fleet of load-haul-
dump vehicles in an underground hard rock mine, Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ.
23 (3) (2009) 227–238.
[12] A. Gustafson, H. Schunnesson, U. Kumar, Reliability analysis and comparison
between automatic and manual load haul dump machines, Qual. Reliab. Eng.
Int. 31 (3) (2015) 523–531.
[13] S.H. Hoseinie, M. Ataei, R. Khalokakaie, B. Ghodrati, U. Kumar, Reliability
analysis of drum shearer machine at mechanized longwall mines, J. Qual.
Maint. Eng. 18 (1) (2012) 98–119.
[14] D.B. Kishorilal, A.K. Mukhopadhyay, Reliability analysis of overhauled engines
of dumpers, Appl. Mech. Mater. 592 (2014) 756–1760.
[15] M. Modarres, M. Kaminskiy, V. Krivtsov, Reliability Engineering and Risk
Analysis: A Practical Guide, CRC Press, 1999.
[16] B.S. Dhillon, Mining Equipment Reliability, Maintainability, and Safety,
Springer Science & Business Media, 2008.
[17] B.S. Dhillon, Maintainability, Maintenance, and Reliability for Engineers, CRC
Press, 2006.
[18] M. Catelani, L. Ciani, M. Venzi, Sensitivity analysis with MC simulation for the
failure rate evaluation and reliability assessment, Measurement 07 (2015) 003.
[19] S. Kumar, Performance Analysis and Optimization of Some Operating Systems
of a Fertilizer Plant, National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra, 2010.
[20] R.A. Hall, L.K. Daneshmend, Reliability modelling of surface mining
equipment: data gathering and analysis methodologies, Int. J. Surf. Min.
Reclam. Environ. 17 (3) (2003) 139–155.
[21] M. Mohammadi, P. Rai, S. Gupta, Improving productivity of dragline through
enhancement of reliability, inherent availability and maintainability, Acta
Montanistica Slov. 21 (1) (2016) 1–8.
[22] J.I. Ansell, M.J. Phillips, Practical Methods for Reliability Data Analysis, Oxford
University Press, 1994.
[23] Standard, M., 1981. MIL-HDBK-189. Reliability growth management.
[24] H. Ascher, H. Feingold, Repairable System Reliability, Dekker, New York, 1984.
[25] P. Kumar, Reliability, Availability and Maintainability Analysis of the Main
Conveyor System in Underground Coal Mine: A Case Study of Churcha (RO)
Mine, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, 2016.
[26] F. Simon, B. Javad, B. Abbas, Availability analysis of the main conveyor in the
Svea Coal Mine in Norway, Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 24 (5) (2014) 587–591.
[27] U. Kumar, Reliability Analysis of Load-haul-dump Machines, Luleå tekniska
universitet, 1990.
[28] E. Zio, An Introduction to the Basics of Reliability and Risk Analysis, World
Scientific, 2007.