PSI - Issue 48
Samira Belhour et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 48 (2023) 288–295 Belhour/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000
292
5
Thus, in order to identify which trams to focus on first in the process improvement and which actions to prioritise, we used the Pareto diagram. The results are presented in Figure 4.
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
cumulative failure rate '2021'
10 cumulative failure rate '2020'
10
0
0
trams
trams
113
132
114
120
115
106
127
121
117
134
122
111
116
101
108
109
104
118
130
124
119
123
110
107
112
125
135
139
140
126
105
102
116
111
117
120
127
123
121
132
140
122
108
104
110
115
124
114
106
113
118
119
112
134
109
135
126
101
130
107
125
Fig. 4. Presentation of the cumulative failure rate during the analysis period
0,000 0,005 0,010 0,015 0,020 0,025 0,030 0,035 0,040 0,045 0,050 failure rate [failures/hour]
R120 R113 R114 R116 R117 R111 R127 R121
2018
2019
2020
2021
year
Fig. 5.Evolution of the failure rate as a function of time From the results presented in figure 4, we can see that almost the same pattern is repeated and that the trams most affected by breakdowns are: R120, R113, R114, R116, R117, R111, R127, R121, R132, R115, R122, and R125 . In order to identify the most critical trams in terms of reliability (failure rate), we considered the evolution of the latter over time. This enabled us to make a second classification in terms of evolution, which brought out the R116, R111 and R117 trams (Figure 5). As a result, special attention must be paid to these trams, without neglecting the other trains for day-to-day management, or even enabling failures to be anticipated and effective preventive actions to be taken.
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker