Developing a 3D decision-making grid based on failure modes and effects analysis with a case study in the steel industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study is to develop a 3D model of decision- making grid (DMG) considering failure detection rate. Design/methodology/approach In a comparison between DMG and failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), severity has been assumed as time to repair and occurrence as the frequency of failure. Detection rate has been added as the third dimension of DMG. Nine months data of 21 equipment of casting unit of Mobarakeh Steel Company (MSC) has been analyzed. Then, appropriate condition monitoring (CM) techniques and maintenance tactics have been suggested. While in 2D DMG, CM is used when downtime is high and frequency is low; its application has been developed for other maintenance tactics in a 3D DMG. Findings Findings indicate that the results obtained from the developed DMG are different from conventional grid results, and it is more capable in suggesting maintenance tactics according to the operating conditions of equipment. Research limitations/implications In failure detection, the influence of CM techniques is different. In this paper, CM techniques have been suggested based on their maximum influence on failure detection. Originality/value In conventional DMG, failure detection rate is not included. The developed 3D DMG provides this advantage by considering a new axis of detection rate in addition to mean time to repair (MTTR) and failure frequency, and it enhances maintenance decision-making by simultaneous selection of suitable maintenance tactics and condition-monitoring techniques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".