Analysis of Longwall Machinery Maintenance Data

THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND
Bachelor of Engineering Thesis
Analysis of Longwall Machinery Maintenance Data
Student Name: PATRICK COLLINS
Course Code: MECH4501
Supervisor: Prof. Hal Gurgenci
Submission date: 7th June 2002
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Bachelor of Engineering degree
program in the Division of Mechanical Engineering
School of Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Physical Sciences and Architecture

2
Patrick Collins
14/124 Station Road
Indooroopilly Q 4068
7th June 2002
Prof. J. M. Simmons
Head of School
School of Engineering
University of Queensland
Brisbane
Queensland 4072
Dear Sir,
I hereby submit my Thesis titled “Analysis of Longwall Machinery Maintenance

Data” for consideration as partial fulfillment of the Bachelor of Engineering degree.
All the work contained within this Thesis is my original work except where otherwise
acknowledged.
I understand that this thesis may be made publicly available and reproduced by the
University of Queensland unless a limited term embargo on publication has been
negotiated with a sponsor.
Yours sincerely
PATRICK COLLINS
Student No. 33693259
Undergraduate Thesis 2
Patrick Collins
3
ABSTRACT
Downtime of longwall machinery is expensive. There is the potential for large profits
to be made by increasing the availability of longwall equipment.
The maintenance records from two longwall mines were processed using Pareto
analysis and scatter log plots. The data from Mine 1 covered the period between
25/4/01 to 24/7/01. The data from Mine 2 covered the period between 1/1/02 to
28/2/02.
Maintenance priorities were established for each mine and standard probability
distributions were fitted to the data for the most common failures. Minitab was used to
identify the most appropriate distribution for each failure and this was used to provide
recommendations on maintenance practises.
It was recommended that a condition based maintenance policy involving increased

inspection frequency be mostly employed in both mines. Failure based policy was
also suggested for some failures.
All the selected failures followed either a Weibull or lognormal distribution. It was
recommended that these distributions be utilised to predict failure of components and
produce efficient inspection schedules and supply of spares.
The failures that followed a Weibull distribution all displayed decreasing failure rates
and as such it was recommended that repair/replacement procedures be reviewed and
preventative maintenance kept to a minimum.
The results and recommendations were similar for both mines. However, there were a
number of errors and assumptions associated with the data analysis that limited the
validity of the results and recommendations.
Patrick Collins
4
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 10
2.0 SCOPE.................................................................................................................... 11
3.0 RELIABILITY........................................................................................................ 12
3.1 BACKGROUND__________________________________________________ 12
3.2 WHAT IS RELIABILITY __________________________________________ 13
3.3 NON-REPAIRABLE ITEMS ________________________________________ 14
3.4 REPAIRABLE ITEMS _____________________________________________ 15
3.5 AVAILABILITY _________________________________________________ 17
4.0 MAINTENANCE.................................................................................................... 18
5.0 PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS ........................................................................ 21
5.1 BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION _______________________________________ 23

5.2 POISSON DISTRIBUTION_________________________________________ 23
5.3 THE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION ____________________________________ 24
5.4 LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION ____________________________________ 24
5.5 EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION ___________________________________ 25
5.6 THE WEIBULL DISTRIBUTION____________________________________ 26
6.0 DATA REPRESENTATION................................................................................... 27
6.1 FAULT TREE ANALYSIS _________________________________________ 27

6.2 FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS __________________________ 28
6.3 PARETO ANALYSIS _____________________________________________ 29
6.4 LOGARITHMIC SCATTER PLOTS __________________________________ 30
6.5 JACK-KNIFE DIAGRAMS _________________________________________ 32
6.6 ROOT CAUSE FAILURE ANALYSIS ________________________________ 33
7.0 LONGWALL MINING........................................................................................... 34
7.1 COAL MINING __________________________________________________ 34

7.2 LONGWALL MINING METHOD ___________________________________ 34
7.3 LONGWALL MINE DEVELOPMENT _______________________________ 35
Patrick Collins
5
8.0 LONGWALL MACHINERY.................................................................................. 37
8.1 ROOF SUPPORTS ________________________________________________ 37

8.2 SHEARER_______________________________________________________ 39
8.3 ARMOURED FACE CONVEYOR ___________________________________ 41
8.4 BEAM STAGE LOADER __________________________________________ 42
8.5 MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS _____________________ 43
9.0 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ..................................................................................... 44
10.0 MINE 1 ................................................................................................................. 46
10.1 DOWNTIME SUMMARY_________________________________________ 46

10.1.1 Armoured Face Conveyor......................................................................... 47
10.1.2 Roof Supports ........................................................................................... 48
10.1.3 Pump Station ............................................................................................ 49
10.1.4 Shearer..................................................................................................... 50
10.1.5 Beam Stage Loader................................................................................... 51
10.1.6 Main Gate Drive ....................................................................................... 52
10.1.7 Panel Support Services ............................................................................. 53
10.2 FAILURE SUMMARY ___________________________________________ 54
10.3 FAILURE ANALYSIS ____________________________________________ 60
10.3.1 Chains, Flight Bars and Connectors .......................................................... 61
10.3.2 Hose and Fittings ...................................................................................... 64
10.3.3 Cables ....................................................................................................... 67
10.3.4 Cutter Shear Shaft .................................................................................... 69
10.3.5 Shearer Drive Motor................................................................................. 71
10.3.6 Solenoid .................................................................................................... 73
10.3.7 Bretby Towing Attachment....................................................................... 76
10.4 RESULTS ______________________________________________________ 79
10.5 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ____________________________ 81
11.0 MINE 2 ................................................................................................................. 84
11.1 DOWNTIME SUMMARY_________________________________________ 84

11.1.1 Armoured Face Conveyor......................................................................... 85
11.1.2 Roof Supports ........................................................................................... 86
11.1.3 Pump Station ............................................................................................ 87
11.1.4 Shearer..................................................................................................... 88
11.1.5 Beam Stage Loader................................................................................... 89
11.1.6 Tail Gate Drive ......................................................................................... 90
11.1.7 Panel Support Services ............................................................................. 91
11.2 FAILURE SUMMARY ___________________________________________ 92
11.3 FAILURE ANALYSIS ____________________________________________ 98
11.3.1 AFC Chains, Flights and Connectors ........................................................ 99
11.3.2 Hose and Fittings .................................................................................... 101
11.3.3 Emulsion Tank........................................................................................ 104
11.3.4 Hydraulic Pumps .................................................................................... 106
11.3.5 Cutter Shear Shaft .................................................................................. 109
11.3.6 Shield Interface Module .......................................................................... 111
Patrick Collins
6
11.3.7 Bretby Towing Attachment..................................................................... 113

11.4 RESULTS _____________________________________________________ 115
11.5 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ___________________________ 117
12.0 ERROR STATEMENT ....................................................................................... 120
13.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 122
14.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 123
Patrick Collins
7
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Risks associated with product development ___________________________________ 13
Figure 3.2 The ‘bathtub’ curve _____________________________________________________ 15
Figure 5.1 Continuous probability distribution__________________________________________ 21
Figure 6.1 Log dispersion plot of MTTR versus number of failures __________________________ 30
Figure 6.2 Log scatter plot showing limit values ________________________________________ 31
Figure 7.1 Longwall mine layout____________________________________________________ 36
Figure 8.1 Roof Supports _________________________________________________________ 37
Figure 8.2 Shearer_______________________________________________________________ 39
Figure 8.3 Shearer riding on AFC ___________________________________________________ 41
Figure 8.4 Beam Stage Loader______________________________________________________ 42
MINE 1
Figure 10.1 Downtime summary for Mine 1 ___________________________________________ 46
Figure 10.2 Unplanned AFC downtime _______________________________________________ 47
Figure 10.3 Unplanned Roof Support downtime ________________________________________ 48
Figure 10.4 Unplanned pump station downtime _________________________________________ 49
Figure 10.5 Unplanned shearer downtime _____________________________________________ 50
Figure 10.6 Unplanned Beam Stage Loader downtime____________________________________ 51
Figure 10.7 Unplanned Main gate drive downtime _______________________________________ 52
Figure 10.8 Unplanned panel support services downtime __________________________________ 53
Figure 10.9 Pareto histogram of failures ______________________________________________ 57
Figure 10.10 Log scatter plot of failures showing limit values ______________________________ 58
Figure 10.11 Probability plots of Chains, Flights and Connectors failure data __________________ 63
Figure 10.12 Chains, Flights & Connectors failure data fitted to Weibull distribution_____________ 63
Figure 10.13 Probability plots of Hoses & Fittings failure data _____________________________ 66
Figure 10.14 Hose & Fittings failure data fitted to Weibull distribution _______________________ 66
Figure 10.15 Probability plots of Cable failure data ______________________________________ 68
Figure 10.16 Cable Failure data fitted to Weibull distribution ______________________________ 68
Figure 10.17 Probability plots of Cutter Shear Shaft failure data ____________________________ 70
Figure 10.18 Cutter Shear Shaft failure data fitted to Weibull distribution _____________________ 70
Figure 10.19 Probability plots of Shearer Drive Motor failure data___________________________ 72
Figure 10.20 Shearer Drive Motor failure data fitted to lognormal distribution__________________ 72
Figure 10.21 Probability plots of Solenoid failure data____________________________________ 74
Figure 10.22 Solenoid failure data fitted to lognormal distribution___________________________ 74
Figure 10.23 Solenoid failure data fitted to Weibull distribution ____________________________ 75
Figure 10.24 Probability plots of Bretby towing attachment failure data_______________________ 77
Figure 10.25 Bretby towing attachment failure data fitted to lognormal distribution______________ 77
Figure 10.26 Bretby towing attachment failure data fitted to Weibull distribution _______________ 78
MINE 2
Figure 11.1 Mine 2 downtime summary_______________________________________________ 84
Figure 11.2 Unplanned AFC downtime _______________________________________________ 85
Figure 11.3 Unplanned Roof Support downtime ________________________________________ 86
Figure 11.4 Unplanned pump station downtime _________________________________________ 87
Figure 11.5 Unplanned Shearer downtime _____________________________________________ 88
Figure 11.6 Unplanned BSL downtime _______________________________________________ 89
Figure 11.7 Unplanned tail gate drive downtime ________________________________________ 90
Figure 11.8 Unplanned panel support services downtime __________________________________ 91
Figure 11.9 Pareto histogram of failure summary________________________________________ 94
Figure 11.10 Log scatter plot of failures showing limit values ______________________________ 95
Figure 11.11 Probability plots of AFC chains, flights and connectors failure data________________ 99
Figure 11.12 AFC chains, flights and connectors failure data fitted to Weibull distribution _______ 100
Figure 11.13 AFC chains, flights and connectors failure data fitted to lognormal distribution______ 100
Figure 11.14 Probability plots of hose and fittings failure data_____________________________ 103
Figure 11.15 Hose and fittings failure data fitted to Weibull distribution _____________________ 103
Figure 11.16 Probability plots of Emulsion tank failure data ______________________________ 105
Figure 11.17 Emulsion tank failure data fitted to lognormal distribution _____________________ 105
Patrick Collins
8
Figure 11.18 Probability plots of Hydraulic pump failure data _____________________________ 108
Figure 11.19 Hydraulic pump failure data fitted to lognormal distribution ____________________ 108
Figure 11.20 Probability plots of Cutter shear shaft failure data ____________________________ 109
Figure 11.21 Cutter shear shaft failure data fitted to Weibull distribution_____________________ 110
Figure 11.22 Cutter shear shaft failure data fitted to lognormal distribution ___________________ 110
Figure 11.23 Probability plots of S.I.M failure data _____________________________________ 111
Figure 11.24 S.I.M failure data fitted to Weibull distribution ______________________________ 112
Figure 11.25 S.I.M failure data fitted to lognormal distribution ____________________________ 112
Figure 11.26 Probability plots of Bretby towing attachment failure data______________________ 113
Figure 11.27 Bretby towing attachment failure data fitted to lognormal distribution_____________ 114
Figure 11.28 Bretby towing attachment failure data fitted to lognormal distribution_____________ 114
Patrick Collins
9
List of Tables
MINE 1
Table 10.1 Mine 1 downtime summary ___________________________________ 46
Table 10.2 Unplanned AFC downtime ____________________________________ 47
Table 10.3 Unplanned Roof Support downtime _____________________________ 48
Table 10.4 Unplanned pump station downtime _____________________________ 49
Table 10.5 Unplanned shearer downtime __________________________________ 50
Table 10.6 Unplanned Beam Stage Loader downtime ________________________ 51
Table 10.7 Unplanned Main gate drive downtime ___________________________ 52
Table 10.8 Unplanned panel support services downtime ______________________ 53
Table 10.9 Failure summary ____________________________________________ 54
Table 10.10 Maintenance problems prioritised according to Jack-Knife principles. _ 59
Table 10.12 Hose and Fittings failure summary_____________________________ 64
Table 10.12 Hose and Fittings failure summary_____________________________ 65
Table 10.13 Cable Failure summary______________________________________ 67
Table 10.14 Cutter Shear Shaft failure summary ____________________________ 69
Table 10.15 Shearer Drive motor failure summary___________________________ 71
Table 10.16 Solenoid failure summary____________________________________ 73
Table 10.17 Bretby towing attachment failure summary ______________________ 76
MINE 2
Table 11.1 Mine 2 downtime summary ___________________________________ 84
Table 11.2 Unplanned AFC downtime ____________________________________ 85
Table 11.3 Unplanned Roof Support downtime _____________________________ 86
Table 11.4 Unplanned pump station downtime _____________________________ 87
Table 11.5 Unplanned Shearer downtime__________________________________ 88
Table 11.6 Unplanned BSL downtime ____________________________________ 89
Table 11.7 Unplanned tail gate drive downtime _____________________________ 90
Table 11.8 Unplanned panel support services downtime ______________________ 91
Table 11.9 Failure summary ____________________________________________ 92
Table 11.10 Maintenance problems prioritised according to Jack-Knife principles__ 97
Table 11.11 Chains, flights and connectors failure summary___________________ 99
Table 11.12 Hose and Fittings failure summary____________________________ 101
Table 11.12 Hose and Fittings failure summary____________________________ 102
Table 11.13 Emulsion tank failure summary ______________________________ 104
Table 11.14 Hydraulic pump failure summary_____________________________ 106
Table 11.14 Hydraulic pump failure summary_____________________________ 107
Table 11.15 Cutter shear shaft failure summary____________________________ 109
Table 11.16 Shield Interface Module failure summary_______________________ 111
Table 11.17 Bretby towing attachment failure summary _____________________ 113
Patrick Collins
10
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Longwall mining is a method of extracting coal in underground mines. This is a
highly mechanised mining operation. The entire process is based around very
specialised and expensive machinery. This equipment has large fixed costs attached.
As such downtime caused by machinery failures is very expensive. There is the cost
of fixing the machinery, the money lost due to lack of production and the money
which still must be spent on fixed costs such as labour. There is potential for large
profits to be made by simply increasing the availability of equipment.
Maintenance records from two longwall mines, Mine 1 and Mine 2 were provided for
analysis. The data from Mine 1 covers the period between 25/4/01 to 24/7/01. The
data from Mine 2 covers the period between 1/1/02 to 28/2/02.
These records are to be processed and recommendations given to aid in increasing the
availability of longwall equipment.
Patrick Collins
11
2.0 SCOPE
This Thesis starts with an introduction into the basics of reliability and maintenance.
A brief survey of methods generally used to analyse and represent the failure data for
mechanical systems is also conducted.
The longwall mining technique is explained and a description is given of the specific
machinery used.
The maintenance records from the two mines are processed using Pareto analysis and
scatter log plots.
This thesis aims to analyse the maintenance data from the two longwall mines with
the goal of distinguishing the most frequent failures, which result in the most
downtime. Using Minitab, these failures will be plotted and curves fitted to them to
investigate if they follow any standard probability distributions.
The results of this analysis can then be used to recommend and or develop optimal
maintenance programs for specific equipment. The ultimate goal of which is to reduce
downtime and thus increase the availability of the longwall machinery.
Patrick Collins
12
3.0 RELIABILITY
3.1 Background
The field of mechanical reliability is still considered to be relatively new. Many

people believe the reliability discipline to have been started by the Germans in World
War II to improve the reliability of their rockets.
In 1951, Weibull of the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology published a statistical

distribution for the material strength and life length. This distribution (Weibull
distribution) has played an important role in the development of mechanical
reliability.
The United States Armed Forces and NASA also played a pivotal role during the
1960’s to enhance the mechanical reliability field. Their motivation came from a
number of incidents in their space program, believed to be the results of mechanical
failures. For example, the loss of Syncom I in space in 1963 and the failure of Mariner
III in 1964.
The well publicised failures such as Space Shuttle Challenger and the Chernobyl and
Three Mile Island nuclear accidents also forced greater emphasis on mechanical
reliability.
Today reliability has become a vital aspect of engineering practice. With factors such
as competition, warranty costs and legal obligations companies cannot afford to
disregard it.
Patrick Collins
13
3.2 What is Reliability
Reliability: The ability of an item to perform a required function under stated

conditions for a stated period of time.
Reliability involves a great deal of uncertainty. This is often to do with human factors
in production and use. Therefore reliability is usually expressed as a probability. That
is, the probability that an item will perform a required function without failure under
stated conditions for a stated period of time.
The risks involved with product development are increasing all the time due to more
and more pressures in the industry. These include, competition, the cost of failures,
the pressure of schedules and deadlines, the rapid evolution of new materials, methods
and complex systems, the need to reduce production costs and safety considerations.
Reliability engineering is needed to control these risks.
Competition Market pressure
Safety Management emphasis
Perceived Customer requirements

Warranty and risk
service costs Legal, statutory
Public liability Development risks
Figure 3.1 Risks associated with product development
An effective reliability program will reduce warranty and service costs, cover the
company legally and enhance their reputation.
Statistical methods are used as an attempt to quantify the concept of reliability as a

probability. This is a difficult process as quality and reliability data contain many
sources of uncertainty and variability that is hard to quantify. Variation in engineering
is caused to a large extent by people, as designers, makers, operators and maintainers.
This human element cannot be quantified but must always be considered and
allowances made for its effect on reliability.
Patrick Collins
14
Reliability is quantified in many different ways. It can be specified as the;

• Mean number of failures in a given time (failure rate)
• Mean time between failures (MTBF) for items which are repaired
• Mean time to failure (MTTF) for items which are not repaired
When predicting or measuring reliability it is important to distinguish between

repairable and non-repairable items.
3.3 Non-repairable items
Non-repairable items may be individual parts (light bulbs, transistors) or systems

comprised of many parts (missiles, microprocessors). Generally when a part fails in a
non-repairable system, the system fails. Therefore system reliability is the survival
probability over the item’s expected life, or for a period during its life, when only one
failure can occur. The mean time to failure (MTTF) can also be used to characterise
the reliability of non-repairable items.
The instantaneous probability of the first and only failure is called the hazard rate.
The hazard rate can be increasing, decreasing or constant. The causes of failure and
the reliability of the item depend on the nature of the hazard rate.
Increasing hazard rate may imply material fatigue since there is an increasing
probability of this occurrence as the component ages.
Decreasing hazard rate means the item becomes less likely to fail as its survival time
increases. This is often seen in electronic equipment and used in the technique of
‘burn-in’.
Constant hazard rates are observed in items whose failures are caused by overloading
at a constant average rate. These failures typically occur randomly such as a circuit
overload.
Patrick Collins
15
These three hazard rates combine to produce the bathtub curve. This shows an initial
decreasing hazard rate (infant mortality period), a useful life period and a wear out
period.
FAILURE
RATE
Infant mortality Useful life Wearout
TIME
Figure 3.2 The ‘bathtub’ curve
3.4 Repairable items
Reliability of items which are repaired when they fail is the probability that failure
will not occur in the period of interest, when more than one failure can occur. This
can also be expressed as the failure rate or the rate of occurrence of failures
(ROCOF). Repairable system reliability can also be characterised by the mean time
between failures (MTBF), but only when there is a constant failure rate.
It is important to differentiate the first failure from subsequent failures, since the latter
depend on the type of repair action. Consequently we must be able to characterise the
type of repair work carried out at each failure.
The failure rate can be increasing, decreasing or constant. We can tell much about the
causes of failures and about the reliability of the item by appreciating the way the
failure rate behaves in time.
A constant failure rate is typical of externally caused failure such as systems that are
subjected to overhaul and repair. This is due to parts having different ages and failure
patterns.
Patrick Collins
16
When defective parts, which fail early, are replaced by good parts during progressive
repair, the reliability is improved and the repairable system shows a decreasing failure
rate. These early failures may also be the result of a lack of care during repair or
replacement and insufficient pre start testing.
Increasing failure rates occur in repairable systems when fatigue and wear out failure
modes become predominant. These may require a design solution or preventative
maintenance.
The pattern of failures with time for a repairable system can be illustrated by a bathtub
curve, as above, however the failure rate (ROCOF) is plotted against time instead of
the hazard rate.
Patrick Collins
17
3.5 Availability
With the increasing cost and complexity of many modern systems, the importance of
reliability and especially availability are paramount. In any industry, certain
equipment must be available when required and the cost of non-availability can be
very high. For example, in the mining industry the unavailability of a dragline for a
day can cost up to $1 million in lost production.
Availability = MTBF = Uptime

MTTR + MTBF Uptime + Downtime
Where MTTR is the mean time to repair. It is clear that improving either MTBF or
MTTR can increase the availability of a system.
Patrick Collins
18
4.0 MAINTENANCE
Maintenance encompasses all activities necessary to restore equipment to, or
keep it in, a specified operating condition.
The purpose of maintenance is to ensure that equipment continue to fulfil their

intended functions.
Maintenance can be classified into two groups, Preventative and Corrective.
Preventative Maintenance: Maintenance activities performed to reduce

the likelihood of failure or to achieve required
performance efficiently levels.
This is planned maintenance. Work carried out periodically to prevent or identify

possible failures. The scheduled repair/replacement of items, cleaning, greasing,
adjustments and visual inspections are all part of an effective preventative
maintenance program. Also known as Scheduled Maintenance or Routine
Maintenance.
The two main types of preventative maintenance are Time-based maintenance and
Condition-based maintenance.
The time-based maintenance policy is performed at fix intervals (operating hours,

years etc.), which is determined by the time to failure distribution of the item
considered.
The advantages of time-based maintenance are

• Maintenance is planned ahead and performed when it is convenient from an
operational and logistics point of view.
• The cost of lost production and consequential damage can be reduced.
• Downtime is minimised.
• Safety can be improved
Patrick Collins
19
Time-based maintenance disadvantages are,

• It is often performed irrespective of the condition of the system. Consequently,
a number of unnecessary tasks will be carried out on a system that could have
operated safely for a much longer time.
• The tasks may require a higher number of skilled mechanics.
• Too much will result in higher levels of unavailability.
• It cannot guarantee the elimination of all failures and will not reduce non-age-
related failures.
• Increased frequency of maintenance tasks may lead to an increase in the
probability of human errors in the form of maintenance-induced failures.
Condition-based maintenance involves monitoring the condition of a system and only

conducting maintenance when there is a change or deterioration in this condition. The
advantages are,
• Reduce unplanned downtime since optimal maintenance intervals can be
determined. Better maintenance planning and more efficient use of resources.
• Improved safety
• The operating life of items is extended
• Improved availability by being able to keep system running longer and
reducing repair time.
• Reduce maintenance resources due to reduction in unnecessary maintenance
activities.
• Reduction in maintenance costs.
The major disadvantage of this technique is the time and possibly money needed to
maintain adequate monitoring of equipment.
Patrick Collins
20
Corrective Maintenance: Maintenance activities performed to repair failed

equipment to an acceptable condition.
Corrective maintenance work is only carried out when an item has actually failed. The
advantage of this technique is that you gain full utilisation of the operating life of the
system. That is maximum value is obtained from the component. There are however a
number of disadvantages,
• The failure will generally occur at an inconvenient time

• Maintenance activities cannot be planned
• It demands a lot of maintenance resources
• Failure of item can cause large amount of consequential damage to other
items in system.
Analysis has shown that repair after failure will normally be three to four times more
expensive than the same maintenance activity when it is well planned (Mobley 1990).
Patrick Collins
21
5.0 PROBABILITY
DISTRIBUTIONS
If we plot measured values about an average as a histogram, for a given sample, we
generally obtain a rough, hump-like shape. As the size of the samples become very
large and the number of samples increases, the histogram tends to a curve, which
describes the population probability density function (p.d.f.). A general probability
distribution is shown below, where f(x) is the probability density of occurrence related
to the variable x.
f(x)
Figure 5.1 Continuous probability distribution
The area under the curve describes the total probability of all possible values of x and
therefore is equal to one. Hence,
The cumulative distribution function (c.d.f.), F(x), gives the probability that a
measured value will fall between 0 and x. It is the integral of the probability density
function;
Patrick Collins
22
For the purpose of this thesis we will be dealing with failure as our main area of
concern. Therefore, all distributions we use will be failure distributions. For example,
the p.d.f. and c.d.f. above will be referred to as failure density functions and failure
distribution functions respectively.
The reliability function associated with the failure distribution function F(x) is;
R(x) = 1 – F(x)
It is the probability that the failure does not occur at or before x.
The failure rate function or hazard function (depending if item is repairable or not) is
the conditional probability that the item will fail in the interval [x, x+dx) given that
there was no failure by x.
Patrick Collins
23
5.1 Binomial Distribution
The binomial distribution describes a situation where there are only two outcomes, a
success or a fail and the probability remains the same for all trials. The pdf for this
distribution is,
This is the probability of obtaining x good items and (n-x) bad items, in a sample of n
items, when the probability of selecting a good item is p and of selecting a bad item is
q.
5.2 Poisson distribution

Poisson distributed events occur at a constant average rate. There are two possible
outcomes but only one is countable. Examples include the number of failures in a
given time or defects in a length of wire.
The expression for obtaining x failures, given that λ failures are expected, is;
Where
f(x) = the probability of x failures
λ = expected number of failures or mean rate of occurrence
x = number of failures per unit
Patrick Collins
24
5.3 The Normal distribution

A population that conforms to the normal distribution has values, which are arranged
symmetrically about the mean. The pdf is given by
Where
µ = population mean
σ = population standard deviation
x = any value of the continuous random variable
5.4 Lognormal distribution
The lognormal is the normal distribution with ln x as the variate. It is more versatile
than the normal distribution as it has a range of shapes and often fits better to
reliability data. The lognormal distribution does not extend below zero. The
lognormal pdf is;
(for x ≥ 0)
= 0 (for x < 0)
Both the normal and lognormal distributions describe reliability situations in which
the hazard rate increases from zero to a maximum and then decreases.
Patrick Collins
25
5.5 Exponential distribution

The exponential distribution describes the situation where the hazard rate is constant.
This implies that there is no aging effect since the failure rate does not change with
age. The hazard rate is often a function of time so we will use the independent
variable t instead of x.
The constant hazard rate is denoted by λ . The mean life or mean time to failure
λ.
(MTTF) is 1/λ
For items that are repaired λ is called the failure rate and 1/λ
λ is called the mean time
between failures (MTBF).
The reliability function is obtained by integrating the above equation between 0 and t
and subtracting from 1.
Patrick Collins
26
5.6 The Weibull distribution
The Weibull distribution is a very versatile distribution as it can be made to fit many
life distributions by adjusting its parameters. The Weibull pdf (in terms of time) is;
The reliability function is;
The hazard rate is;

α (α −1)
H (t ) = t
β α
β is called the scale parameter and α is called the shape parameter.
The failure rate of the Weibull distribution changes, depending on the shape
parameter.
When α = 1, we get a constant hazard rate (the exponential reliability function results)
When α > 1, we get an increasing hazard rate reliability function.
When α < 1, we get a decreasing hazard rate reliability function.
When α = 3.5 the distribution approximates to the normal distribution.
If failures only start after a finite time γ, not at zero, then the reliability function takes
the form;
H ( y ) = 1 − e − {( y − γ ) / β }
α
This called a three parameter Weibull distribution and γ is known as the failure free
time or the minimum life.
Patrick Collins
27
6.0 DATA REPRESENTATION

6.1 Fault Tree Analysis
A Fault Tree is a graphical method of describing the combination of events leading to
a system failure. It displays the relationship between a potential event affecting
system performance and the causes of this event. The causes may be failures of
components, environmental factors or human errors
The system failure mode is known as the top event. The Fault Tree branches down
and out from the top event forming a number of levels. Each level describes failures,
which are a result of failures on the level below. All levels are joined by gates such
that the inputs below gates represent failures. Outputs above gates represent the result
of the input failures depending on the nature of the gate.
There are a number of types of gates. The main two are:
The OR gate where any input causes the output to occur.

The AND gate where all inputs need to occur for the output to occur.
Patrick Collins
28
6.2 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
FMEA assesses the effect of each component part failing in every possible mode and
how component parts contribute to the overall system failure mode. This is a very
important exercise for maximising the reliability of the system.
FMEA ensures that all possible failure modes and their effects on the operational
success of the system have been considered. This assists in selecting design
alternatives during the early design phase. It aids in the design of test and monitoring
systems. And provides a basis for establishing corrective and preventative
maintenance priorities.
The basic questions answered by FMEA are the following;

Ø How can each part conceivably fail?
Ø What mechanisms might produce these modes of failure?
Ø What could the effects be if the failures did occur?
Ø How is the failure detected?
Ø What characteristics of the design compensate for the failure?
For each component or part level the failure modes and effects are usually
documented on a worksheet. An example is shown below.
FMEA
Description of Unit Description of failure Effect of failure Risk
Ref Function Operational Failure Failure Detection On On the reducing
no. Mode Mode Mechanisms of Failure components system measures
in subsystem function
Patrick Collins
29
6.3 Pareto Analysis
Pareto analysis is used to identify the failures responsible for the majority of
equipment maintenance cost or downtime. The results of this analysis are usually
presented in a histogram.
The unplanned maintenance downtime or cost is monitored for a piece of equipment.

The different types of failures are identified and assigned failure codes. The downtime
or cost associated with each failure code is plotted as a percentage of the total
downtime or cost over the monitored period.
Based on the failure codes identified as priorities, maintenance programs can be

designed and implemented to improve equipment availability or lower maintenance
costs.
Pareto analysis does however have a few limitations. Firstly, maintenance downtime
or costs are determined by two factors, number of failures and costs/downtime per
failure. Pareto graphs display only downtime or cost and therefore cannot identify
which of the two factors is contributing the most to the recorded downtime/cost of
each failure code.
As a result of this Pareto analysis cannot identify individual events having high repair
costs or downtime, or frequently occurring failures that have low associated repair
cost or downtime.
Patrick Collins
30
6.4 Logarithmic Scatter Plots
Logarithmic Scatter Plots go into more detail than Pareto graphs. They aim to give a
clearer picture as to which factor, mean downtime or failure frequency is dominant in
a certain failure code. This results in more effective maintenance actions.
The graph is created by first plotting the mean time to repair against the number of
failures for each failure code. Curves of constant downtime lie along a series of
hyperbolae. From this plot it is easier to see which factors are dominant in the total
downtime.
To simplify the plot the logarithm is taken of both axes. Straight lines with a uniform
negative gradient now represent the curves of constant downtime.
Log dispersion plot of mean repair times vs number of failures
100
MTTR
10
1 10 100
Quantity
Figure 6.1 Log dispersion plot of MTTR versus number of failures
Repairs and failures are classified. Repairs that require lengthy downtime are
considered acute problems. Failures that frequently occur are considered chronic
problems. The log scatter plot is divided into four quadrants by determining threshold
limits. The upper quadrants denote acute failures and the right hand quadrants denote
chronic failures. The upper right hand quadrant is a region of acute and chronic
failures.
Patrick Collins
31
100
MTTR
10
1 10 100
Number of failures
Figure 6.2 Log scatter plot showing limit values
Thresholds can be determined a number of ways. They can be relative values

depending on magnitudes and quantity of data or set by company policy. Average
values are also commonly used.
Patrick Collins
32
6.5 Jack-Knife Diagrams
The Jack-Knife diagram is an extension of the log scatter plot. It is used when dealing
with a large data set. The Jack-Knife diagram prioritises failures by determining
another limit. The purpose is to only consider the failures having the highest direct
cost or downtime.
The Jack-Knife limit divides the right hand lower quadrant (chronic failures) into two
regions using the line of constant downtime or cost. The top and bottom regions are
known as Chronic Failures - Type A and Chronic Failures – Type B respectively. The
failures in quadrant A have higher associated costs or downtime. See above log scatter
plot.
This same procedure is not followed for the acute failures since proportionally greater
benefit can be obtained by preventing one acute failure than one chronic failure. As a
result all the acute failures remain a priority.
Patrick Collins
33
6.6 Root Cause Failure Analysis
The purpose of root cause analysis is to improve equipment availability. This can be
achieved two ways, reduce or eliminate unplanned failures, or reduce the time to
diagnose and repair failures.
Experienced maintenance and operating personnel make a list of possible causes of

each problem for the prioritised list of failure codes. The lists of possible root causes
are classified according to whether they are maintenance, design, operational,
inspection, material quality or maintenance resource problems.
Once the root causes of each failure code are identified actions must be implemented
to prevent or reduce the occurrence of the unplanned downtime. These actions should
eliminate or alleviate the factors causing the downtime.
Patrick Collins
34
7.0 LONGWALL MINING

7.1 Coal Mining
There are two basic methods of mining coal underground, Room-and-pillar mining
and Longwall mining. Both require a relatively flat lying coal seam to be effective and
feasible. Traditionally, room-and-pillar mining is more widely used than longwall.
Room-and-pillar mining involves creating, as the name suggests a number of rooms

and pillars underground. The mine is divided into rectangles. Most of the coal seam is
mined leaving only some blocks to support the overlying strata. The mined out areas
are known as the rooms and the coal left to support the roof are known as the pillars.
This form of coal mining is generally limited to depths of 300m. It is not economical
to mine below this depth since larger pillars are required and therefore less coal
recovery is possible.
7.2 Longwall Mining Method
The longwall mining process is very simple. An underground coal seam is located and
divided into panels. These panels are usually 240m wide, 2100m in length and 2-4m
in height. The panels are mined out and the roof is left to cave in or collapse.
Longwall mining is classified as a caving method due to this intentional collapsing of
the overhead strata.
The extraction of the coal involves the use of very specialised machinery. These
include self-advancing roof supports, a coal shearer and an armoured face conveyor.
The armoured conveyor runs parallel to the face of the coal seam. The shearer travels
on the conveyor across the face of the seam taking a cut and spilling coal onto the
conveyor. The conveyor then transports this out of the mine. This process is done
under the moving roof supports. As the shearer passes each hydraulically controlled
roof support, the support advances closer to the face leaving the roof to collapse
behind.
Patrick Collins
35
The Longwall method has some limitations. It is only suitable for mining coal seams
that are extensive, relatively flat lying, of uniform thickness and continuous. The
surrounding rock must have certain characteristics. The mine floor must be solid and
provide a firm base for the roof supports. The overlying roof should collapse soon
after the supports have moved. If not the increased stress on the supports may
interfere with them moving forward. The other danger is large sections of roof falling
at once can cause air blasts and ground vibrations.
7.3 Longwall Mine Development
The development of a longwall is a lengthy operation. It can take anywhere between 9

months to 1 year to complete, depending on the size of the panel. The initial step to
preparing a panel of coal for longwall mining is to dig entries or passageways around
the area to be mined, producing a panel. This involves the use of continuous mining
machines that dig two entries from the main mine entries to the end of the panel. The
entries are then connected at the back of the panel.
The entries that are used to transport miners, coal and supplies between the face and
the main mine entry are the main gate entries. The tailgate entries are on the opposite
side of the panel. They are mainly used as airways to aid in mine ventilation. Each
entry is about 7m wide and 4m high.
Within the entries unmined blocks of coal are left to support the overlying strata.
These coal pillars measuring 6-50m in width and 12-60m in length are vital to the
safety and economics of the longwall operation. Roof bolting and the coal pillars are
the only roof supporting techniques employed in the entries. Therefore the pillars
must be large enough to ensure a safe working environment. However if the pillars are
too large than they become expensive and wasteful since this coal is usually not
recovered.
Patrick Collins
36
Figure 7.1 Longwall mine layout
In longwall mines, development of a new panel and production of a current panel

occur simultaneously. Ideally, development of a new coal panel concludes just days
before all the coal is recovered from the previous panel. When production of a panel
concludes, all the machinery, equipment and services must be moved to the start of
the next panel. This is known as a longwall move or longwall change out. This move
takes between 2 to 5 weeks to complete. Since there is no production in this period it
is desirable to complete the move in as short a time as possible.
Patrick Collins
37
8.0 LONGWALL MACHINERY

8.1 Roof Supports
The mechanical roof support is vital to the longwall process. Their development has
made the current longwall mining techniques possible. The purpose of the roof
support is to secure and advance all the plant on the coal face, including the roof
support itself.
There are two types of roof supports used, the ‘shield’ support and the ‘chock-shield’
support. Australian longwall operations generally use the ‘shield’ support.
Shields have a number of functions including:

Ø Support the overlying strata
Ø Advance the AFC and itself
Ø Provide protection and walkway for workers.
Figure 8.1 Roof Supports
The shield has two feet, each are connected to the canopy by a hydraulic leg. The
canopy and the caving shield protect the workers and machinery by supporting the
over lying strata and caved area. They transfer these high forces into the base through
the hydraulic legs and lemniscate links. The lemniscate links also protect the leg
cylinders against bending and rotational forces by stabilising the canopy from
horizontal roof movement.
Patrick Collins
38
The shield support is attached to the Armoured Face Conveyor via the relay bar. The
relay bar is inturn connected to the double acting or DA ram. It is the DA ram that
controls the shied advancement.
The shields and AFC advancement is a four step operation.
Firstly, the hydraulic legs and base lifting cylinders are contracted. This lowers
the canopy so the shield is no longer locked between the roof and the floor.
The DA ram then contracts, pulling the shield closer to the AFC.
The hydraulic legs and base lifting cylinders are then extended, locking the
shield in position.
Finally, the DA ram is extended, pushing a section of the AFC against the new
face.
This process is repeated for each shield until the entire longwall face is advanced.
Patrick Collins
39
8.2 Shearer
The shearer travels along the AFC ripping coal from the face of the longwall and
spilling in onto the chain conveyor for transport out of the mine. The shearer is
connected to the top railing of the AFC. Haulage sprockets and rollers enable it to
transverse back and forth along the face.
Figure 8.2 Shearer
The shearer consists of four major components,

Ø Two cutting drums
Ø Two ranging arms
Ø Self-haulage system.
Ø Bretby Cable Handler
Cutting Drums
The cutting drums have hard metal studs arranged in a spiral. This spiral pattern
results in the cut coal being thrown back onto the AFC. The depth of web cut is
determined by the width of the cutting drum. Average web width is 0.8m to 1m. The
diameter of the drum can be in excess of 2m. Double-ended ranging drums are most
common, however single ended ranging drums are used in some longwall operations.
Patrick Collins
40
Ranging arms
The ranging arms are used to adjust the position of the cutting drums. They make it
possible to cut all the coal from a coal seam, which is thicker than the drum diameter.
Generally, the leading drum is raised to the roof level and the trailing drum lowered to
floor level. An operator using hydraulic lifting cylinders controls the position of the
arms.
Haulage system
The shearer pulls itself along the longwall face by using a sprocket to engage with the
haulage system fixed to the length of the AFC. The shearer uses the AFC as its track.
It is mounted on a set of rollers or skids, which run along the front of the AFC
structure.
Bretby Cable Handler

The bretby is a bicycle-chain shaped case which houses the two cables delivering
water and electricity to the shearer. The tray protects the cables from the machinery
by ensuring they are clear of moving parts and cannot become tangled.
Shearers generally require six motors.
Ø Two AC motors inside ranging arms to power cutting drums

Ø Two AC motors to power the ranging arms
Ø Two DC motors for shearer haulage.
Patrick Collins
41
8.3 Armoured Face Conveyor
The AFC runs parallel to the mine face and is responsible for transporting the coal
away from the longwall using a chain conveyor system. This type of conveyor utilises
metal bars known as flight bars, which are dragged along the race by chains (see
figure 8.3) pulling the blocks of coal away, and onto the beam stage loader. Geared
sprockets drive the chains at the main gate.
Figure 8.3 Shearer riding on AFC
Similar to the Shields, the AFC is made up of a number of identical sections coupled
by a flexible joint known as the dog bone. These pans are approximately 2m in length.
These sections allow the AFC to ‘snake’ along the face as the supports progressively
advance. Each roof support is attached to a pan.
The AFC is also used as the track on which the shearer is fixed. The base of the AFC
pans is deliberately heavy and flat. This is for two reasons. Firstly, to avoid
misalignment due to riding over coal fines. And secondly to act as an anchor for the
roof supports.
Patrick Collins
42
8.4 Beam Stage Loader
The beam stage loader is situated at the face end of the main gate entry. It is simply a
chain conveyor used to transport coal from the AFC to the main belt conveyor.
Figure 8.4 Beam Stage Loader
Large blocks of coal spill off the end of the AFC onto the beam stage loader. The BSL
runs perpendicular to the AFC along the main gate entry. Flight bars pulled by chains
drag the coal blocks into a crusher. This crusher breaks down the coal for easier
transportation. The crushed coal is then carried up a slope and dumped on a belt
conveyor.
Patrick Collins
43
8.5 Maintenance Performance Indicators
Maintenance departments use many different performance indicators. These indicators

give information on each piece of machinery. For example how many failures the
shearer had in a month and the amount of downtime it was responsible for. This gives
the maintenance team an idea of how the machinery is performing and the
effectiveness of their maintenance program.
The three main key performance indicators (KPI’s), which this thesis will deal with,
are:
Longwall Availability = Operating Time

x 100%
Operating Time + Maintenance Delays
This is the percentage of time the machinery is actually operating.
Longwall Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) = Operating Time

Number of Maintenance Delays
This KPI measures how long, on average, a machine is in operation before stopping
due to a maintenance problem.
Longwall Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) = Maintenance Delay Time

Number of Maintenance Delays
This KPI measures how long, on average, it takes to diagnose the problem, make the
necessary repairs and return the machine to operation once a failure has occurred.
Increasing the MTBF or decreasing the MTTR can improve the availability of
longwall machinery. The MTTR involves diagnosing and repairing the fault. It is
unlikely the time to repair can be improved easily. The time taken to diagnose the
problem, however, could be greatly improved. If enough failure data were collected it
would be possible to roughly predict when machinery will fail. This improved
understanding of machinery failure rate would also aid in the development of more
effective preventative maintenance practices. Which in turn would increase the
MTBF.
Patrick Collins
44
9.0 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The maintenance records from coal Mine 1 and coal Mine 2 were processed using the
same technique. Firstly a summary was produced of the total downtime during the
period. Pareto analysis was used to show the percentage of downtime caused by the
major equipment such as the AFC and Shearer. This machinery was then examined
more closely to identify the specific failures that cause their downtime.
A list of specific machinery failures was created from the downtime summaries. This
list only contained downtime associated with machinery failures. As such blockages
and overloads caused by roof falls or mining conditions were not included. These
occurrences are often beyond the control of any maintenance program. Common
failures between different machinery were also grouped together for ease of analysis.
A Pareto histogram was created to display the percentage of total downtime that each
failure code was responsible for.
The number of failures and total downtime was used to calculate the Mean Time to
Repair (MTTR) for each failure code. Log scatter plots were constructed to determine
maintenance priorities. The number of failures and MTTR were plotted against each
other to highlight which factor- failure frequency or mean downtime – is dominant.
The limits for acute and chronic failures were determined by average values as
follows.
D
Acute failures: Limit =
N
N
Chronic failures: Limit =
Q
Where D = total downtime, N = total number of failures, and Q = total number

distinct failure codes.
Patrick Collins
45
Jack-Knife diagrams were also used to separate out chronic failures with the highest
downtime. From the graphs failures were categorised. Seven of these failures from
each mine were selected for further analysis.
It was explored if the selected failures follow any of the standard probability
distributions. This was done by fitting curves to the failure data.
Firstly, for each of the selected components a table was created detailing the date and
time of each failure as well as the downtime associated with each stoppage. The time
between each failure (TBF) was calculated. To gain more representative results the
operating time between failures (OPTBF) was also calculated. This was obtained by
the difference between the TBF and the downtime associated with the previous
failure. The graphical approach was used to investigate if the OPTBF of the
machinery followed standard probability distributions.
The graphical approach is suitable for this application since it allows data to be
calculated quickly without a detailed knowledge of statistical mathematics being
necessary. It is based on the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of the distribution
concerned. The axes of the probability plotting paper are transformed such that the
true cdf plots as a straight line. Therefore, if the data can be fitted to a straight line, the
data fits the appropriate distribution.
Minitab was used to plot the OPTBF data against four standard probability
distributions, Weibull, lognormal, exponential and normal. The Anderson-Darling
number and constructing 95% confidence intervals determined the distribution that
best fit the data. The Anderson-Darling number is known as the goodness of fit
parameter, the smaller this number is the better the data fits to the distribution.
The results of the failure analysis are discussed and recommendations on maintenance
practices given.
Patrick Collins
46
10.0 MINE 1
10.1 DOWNTIME SUMMARY
Start Date: 25/4/01 End Date: 24/7/01
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
Downtime (%)
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Shearer Mining Panel Labour BSL Roof AFC Main Gate Panel Pump
Conditions Support Supports Drive Station
Services
Major Delay
Figure 10.1 Downtime summary for Mine 1
Major Delay Downtime (hrs) %Time

Shearer 157.1 18.7
Mining Conditions 115.5 13.7
Panel Support Services 107 12.7
Labour 103.5 12.3
BSL 98.8 11.8
Roof Supports 91.7 10.9
AFC 58.4 6.9
Main Gate Drive 51.7 6.1
Panel 33.6 4.0
Pump Station 23.5 2.8
TOTAL 840.8 100
Table 10.1 Mine 1 downtime summary
Patrick Collins
47
10.1.1 Armoured Face Conveyor
40.0
35.0
30.0
Downtime (%)
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Chains Blockages/ Dogbone Connectors Flight bars Fish plates Inspections
overloads
Failure
Figure 10.2 Unplanned AFC downtime
Description Quantity Downtime (hrs) % Time

Chains 23 22.1 37.9
Blockages/ overloads 45 16.1 27.6
Dogbone 10 13 22.3
Connectors 8 4.4 7.5
Flight bars 1 1.8 3.1
Fish plates 1 0.7 1.2
Inspections 1 0.25 0.4
TOTAL 89 58.4 100.0

Table 10.2 Unplanned AFC downtime
Patrick Collins
48
10.1.2 Roof Supports

25.0
20.0
Downtime (%)
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Hose + Cables Blockages/ Base DA ram Misc PSI Unit Relay bar Sprag ram Solenoid Ram sprag
Fittings overloads assembly transducer inner
Failure
Figure 10.3 Unplanned Roof Support downtime

Hose + Fittings 41 19.7 21.5
Cables 30 18.7 20.4
Blockages/ overloads 12 14 15.3
Base 9 8.25 9.0
DA ram 21 8.1 8.8
Miscellaneous 12 6.4 7.0
PSI Unit 17 5.5 6.0
Relay bar assembly 3 3.8 4.1
Sprag ram transducer 6 2.85 3.1
Solenoid 5 2.3 2.5
Ram sprag inner 4 2.1 2.3
TOTAL 160 91.7 100.0
Table 10.3 Unplanned Roof Support downtime
Patrick Collins
49
10.1.3 Pump Station
45.0
40.0
35.0
Downtime (%)
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Shearer water Hydraulic Emulsion tank Miscellaneous
pump pumps
Failures
Figure 10.4 Unplanned pump station downtime
Description Quantity Downtime (hrs) %time

Shearer water pump 19 9.1 38.7
Hydraulic pumps 35 6.4 27.2
Emulsion tank 11 4.1 17.4
TOTAL 79 23.5 100.0

Table 10.4 Unplanned pump station downtime
Patrick Collins
50
10.1.4 Shearer
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
Downtime (%)
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Cowl Cutter shear Drive motor Hose+ Blockages/ Electrical Picks Electrical Bretby Misc Service Haulage
assembly shaft Fittings overloads cables control towing System
attachment
Failures
Figure 10.5 Unplanned shearer downtime

Cowl assembly 13 22.1 14.1
Cutter shear shaft 45 22 14.0
Drive motor 35 17.1 10.9
Hose+ Fittings 11 14.1 9.0
Electrical cables 5 12.8 8.1
Picks 12 12.2 7.8
Electrical control 29 11.4 7.3
Bretby towing attachment 26 11 7.0
Service 7 5.8 3.7
Haulage System 8 5 3.2
TOTAL 228 157.1 100.0
Table 10.5 Unplanned shearer downtime
Patrick Collins
51
10.1.5 Beam Stage Loader
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
Downtime (%)
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Chains Blockages/ Hose+fittings Drive Belt support Miscellaneous

overloads assembly station
Failures
Figure 10.6 Unplanned Beam Stage Loader downtime

Chains 27 47.5 48.1
Hose+fittings 15 9.8 9.9
Drive assembly 20 9.2 9.3
Belt support station 5 2.2 2.2
TOTAL 112 98.8 100.0
Table 10.6 Unplanned Beam Stage Loader downtime
Patrick Collins
52
10.1.6 Main Gate Drive
25.0
20.0
15.0
Downtime (%)
10.0
5.0
0.0
Solenoid Cooling water Pivot Misc Blockages/ RTD Gearbox Frames+ Gearbox Cables Hose +
supply tensioning overloads overtemp covers Fittings
assembly
Failures
Figure 10.7 Unplanned Main gate drive downtime

Solenoid 19 12.5 24.2
Cooling water supply 35 8.7 16.8
Pivot tensioning assembly 18 7.2 13.9
RTD Gearbox over temperature 5 3.3 6.4
Frames+ covers 2 3.1 6.0
Gearbox 6 3 5.8
Cables 2 2.5 4.8
TOTAL 123 51.7 100.0
Table 10.7 Unplanned Main gate drive downtime
Patrick Collins
53
10.1.7 Panel Support Services
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
Downtime (%)
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Conveyors Power supply Pumps Transformer Miscellaneous

(Various)
Failures
Figure 10.8 Unplanned panel support services downtime

Conveyors 99 50.8 47.5
Power supply 35 29.3 27.4
Pumps (Various) 33 10.8 10.1
Transformer 13 9.4 8.8
TOTAL 186 107 100.0
Table 10.8 Unplanned panel support services downtime
Patrick Collins
54
10.2 FAILURE SUMMARY

Failure Equipment Description Quantity Duration MTTR % Time
Code hours mins
1 BSL,AFC Chain+Flights+Connectors 59 75.8 77.1 14.8
2 Panel SS Conveyors 99 50.8 30.8 9.9
3 RS,SH,BSL,MG Hose + Fittings 71 45.1 38.1 8.8
4 RS,SH,MG Cables 37 34 55.1 6.6
5 Panel SS Power supply 35 29.3 50.2 5.7
6 Shearer Cowl assembly 13 22.1 102.0 4.3
7 Shearer Cutter shear shaft 45 22 29.3 4.3
8 Shearer Drive motor 35 17.1 29.3 3.3
9 MG Drive,RS Solenoid 25 15.28 36.7 3.0
10 AFC Dumbell/dogbone 10 13 78.0 2.5
11 Shearer Picks 12 12.2 61.0 2.4
12 Shearer Electrical control 29 11.4 23.6 2.2
13 Shearer Bretby towing attachment 26 11 25.4 2.1
14 Panel SS Pumps (Various) 33 10.8 19.6 2.1
15 Shearer Miscellaneous 22 10.5 28.6 2.0
16 Panel SS Transformer 13 9.4 43.4 1.8
17 BSL Drive assembly 20 9.2 27.6 1.8
18 Pump Station Shearer water pump 19 9.1 28.7 1.8
19 MG Drive Cooling water supply 35 8.7 14.9 1.7
20 RS Base 9 8.25 55.0 1.6
21 RS DA ram 21 8.1 23.1 1.6
22 MG Drive Pivot tensioning assembly 18 7.2 24.0 1.4
23 Panel SS Miscellaneous 6 6.7 67.0 1.3
24 RS Miscellaneous 12 6.4 32.0 1.2
25 Pump Station Hydraulic pumps 35 6.4 11.0 1.2
26 Shearer Service 7 5.8 49.7 1.1
27 MG Drive Miscellaneous 20 5.6 16.8 1.1
28 RS PS Interlock Unit 17 5.5 19.4 1.1
29 Pump Station Miscellaneous 14 3.9 16.7 0.8
30 Shearer Haulage System 8 5 37.5 1.0
31 Pump Station Emulsion tank 11 4.1 22.4 0.8
32 RS Relay bar assembly 3 3.8 76.0 0.7
33 MG Drive RTD Gearbox overtemp 5 3.3 39.6 0.6
34 MG Drive Frames+covers 2 3.1 93.0 0.6
35 MG Drive Gearbox 6 3 30.0 0.6
36 RS Sprag ram transducer 6 2.85 28.5 0.6
37 BSL Belt support station 5 2.2 26.4 0.4
38 RS Ram srag inner 4 2.1 31.5 0.4
39 BSL Miscellaneous 1 1.2 72.0 0.2
40 AFC Miscellaneous 2 0.95 28.5 0.2
TOTAL 850 512.2 1599.7 100.0
Table 10.9 Failure summary
Patrick Collins
55
Patrick Collins
57
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
Downtime (%)
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Failure
Figure 10.9 Pareto histogram of failures
Patrick Collins
58
Chain+Flights+Connectors
Conveyors
100.0
Hose + Fittings
Cables
Power supply
Cowl assembly
Cutter shear shaft
Shearer Drive motor
Solenoid
Dumbell/dogbone
Picks
Shearer Electrical control
Bretby towing attachment
Pumps (Various)
Shearer Miscellaneous
Transformer
BSL Drive assembly
MG Drive Cooling water supply

36.2 RS Base
DA ram
MTTR
Shearer water pump
MG Drive Pivot tensioning assembly
MG Drive Miscellaneous
Panel SS Miscellaneous
RS Miscellaneous
Hydraulic pumps
Shearer Service
PS Interlock Unit
Pump Station Miscellaneous
Shearer Haulage System
Emulsion tank
Relay bar assembly
RTD Gearbox overtemp
MG Drive Frames+covers
MG Drive Gearbox
Sprag ram transducer
Belt support station
Ram srag inner
BSL Miscellaneous
AFC Miscellaneous
10.0
1 10 100
21.25
Number of Failures
Figure 10.10 Log scatter plot of failures showing limit values
Patrick Collins
59
Equipment Description Quantity Duration MTTR % Time

hours mins
ACUTE & CHRONIC FAILURES
BSL,AFC Chain+Flights+Connectors 59 75.8 77.1 14.8
RS,SH,BSL,MG Hose + Fittings 71 45.1 38.1 8.8
RS,SH,MG Cables 37 34 55.1 6.6
Panel SS Power supply 35 29.3 50.2 5.7
MG Drive,RS Solenoid 25 15.28 36.7 3.0
Sub total 257.2 38.9
ACUTE FAILURES
Shearer Cowl assembly 13 22.1 102.0 4.3
AFC Dumbell/dogbone 10 13 78.0 2.5
Shearer Picks 12 12.2 61.0 2.4
Panel SS Transformer 13 9.4 43.4 1.8
RS Base 9 8.25 55.0 1.6
CHRONIC FAILURES - TYPE A

Panel SS Conveyors 99 50.8 30.8 9.9
Shearer Cutter shear shaft 45 22 29.3 4.3
Shearer Drive motor 35 17.1 29.3 3.3
Sub total 89.4 17.6
CHRONIC FAILURES - TYPE B

Shearer Electrical control 29 11.4 23.6 2.2
Shearer Bretby towing attachment 26 11 25.4 2.1
Panel SS Pumps (Various) 33 10.8 19.6 2.1
Shearer Miscellaneous 22 10.5 28.6 2.0
MG Drive Cooling water supply 35 8.7 14.9 1.7
Pump Station Hydraulic pumps 35 6.4 11.0 1.2
Table 10.10 Maintenance problems prioritised according to Jack-Knife principles.
Patrick Collins
60
10.3 FAILURE ANALYSIS
Seven failures from the prioritised list were analysed further to see if they followed any of
the standard probability distributions. The failures selected were as follows.
1. Chains, flight bars and connectors

2. Hoses and fittings
3. Cables
4. Solenoid
5. Cutter shear shaft
6. Shearer drive motor
7. Bretby towing attachment
These were selected for a number of reasons. All failures classified as acute and chronic
were chosen except for power supply failures in the panel support services. All these
power failures could have been caused by totally different and unrelated machinery. Thus
further analysis without more specific data would be a waste of time. Various conveyor
failures and shearer electrical faults were not selected for the same reason. Purely acute
failures were not chosen, as they did not provide enough data for an accurate analysis.
Patrick Collins
61
10.3.1 Chains, Flight Bars and Connectors

Date Delay Start Time Between Downtime Operating Time Equipment Component
Time Failures Between Failures
(hours) (hours) (hours)
27/04/01 14:35 0 0.17 0 AFC Chain
27/04/01 23:45 9.17 0.25 9.00 BSL Chain
28/04/01 6:45 7 0.25 6.75 AFC Chain
28/04/01 17:00 10.25 0.50 10.00 BSL Chain
29/04/01 6:45 13.75 1.17 13.25 AFC Chain
29/04/01 17:00 10.25 0.50 9.08 BSL Chain
2/05/01 0:15 55.25 1.00 54.75 AFC Chain
2/05/01 20:30 20.25 0.77 19.25 AFC Chain
3/05/01 14:25 17.92 0.08 17.15 BSL Chain
4/05/01 9:50 19.41 0.42 19.33 BSL Chain
4/05/01 23:30 13.66 1.50 13.24 BSL Chain
5/05/01 3:50 4.33 0.67 2.83 BSL Chain
5/05/01 4:35 0.75 0.17 0.08 BSL Chain
7/05/01 16:10 59.58 1.33 59.41 AFC Chain
8/05/01 5:10 13 0.67 11.67 BSL Chain
10/05/01 2:22 45.25 0.17 44.58 AFC Chain
10/05/01 8:30 6.08 0.08 5.91 BSL Chain
11/05/01 10:15 25.75 1.50 25.67 AFC Chain
11/05/01 14:20 4.08 0.17 2.58 AFC Chain
13/05/01 2:05 35.75 0.17 35.58 AFC Chain
19/05/01 22:20 164.25 0.08 164.08 AFC Chain
19/05/01 23:45 1.41 0.13 1.33 AFC Chain
21/05/01 3:30 27.75 0.50 27.62 AFC Chain
21/05/01 5:00 1.5 0.25 1.00 AFC Chain
21/05/01 14:10 9.17 3.33 8.92 AFC Chain
21/05/01 20:20 6.17 7.17 2.84 AFC Chain
22/05/01 15:55 19.58 0.08 12.41 BSL Chain
28/05/01 19:50 147.92 0.50 147.84 AFC Chain
29/05/01 9:40 13.83 1.33 13.33 BSL Chain
29/05/01 15:50 6.17 0.58 4.84 BSL Chain
29/05/01 22:00 6.17 1.00 5.59 AFC Connectors
8/06/01 14:22 232.33 2.63 231.33 BSL Chain
8/06/01 19:35 5.25 2.42 2.62 BSL Chain
14/06/01 1:50 126.25 0.17 123.83 AFC Chain
14/06/01 2:00 0.17 0.58 0.00 AFC Chain
14/06/01 10:20 8.33 0.58 7.75 AFC Connectors
15/06/01 20:40 34.33 0.33 33.75 AFC Connectors
15/06/01 21:45 1.08 0.08 0.75 BSL Chain
15/06/01 22:10 0.41 0.08 0.33 BSL Chain
15/06/01 22:35 0.41 0.08 0.33 BSL Chain
15/06/01 23:05 0.5 0.08 0.42 BSL Chain
15/06/01 23:30 0.41 0.75 0.33 BSL Chain
Table 10.11 Chains, Flights and Connectors failure summary
Patrick Collins
62
Date Delay Start Time Between Downtime Operating Time Equipment Component
16/06/01 0:45 1.25 5.75 0.50 BSL Chain
16/06/01 6:50 6.08 10.67 0.33 BSL Chain
16/06/01 19:30 12.66 11.00 1.99 BSL Chain
17/06/01 6:30 11 5.50 0.00 BSL Chain
18/06/01 7:00 24.5 0.50 19.00 AFC Chain
18/06/01 23:30 16.5 0.50 16.00 AFC Connectors
29/06/01 20:00 260.5 1.25 260.00 AFC Chain
30/06/01 5:15 9.25 0.75 8.00 BSL Chain
30/06/01 9:40 4.41 0.83 3.66 BSL Chain
6/07/01 5:35 139.92 0.42 139.09 AFC Connectors
9/07/01 19:30 85.92 0.75 85.50 AFC Chain
17/07/01 19:40 192.17 1.83 191.42 AFC Flights
18/07/01 14:21 18.66 0.85 16.83 AFC Connectors
18/07/01 23:20 9 0.17 8.15 AFC Chain
20/07/01 9:37 34.25 0.25 34.08 AFC Connectors
22/07/01 14:20 42.75 0.42 42.50 AFC Connectors
Table 10.11 Chains, Flights and Connectors failure summary
Patrick Collins
63
Four-way Probability Plot for OPTBF

ML Estimates - Complete Data
Weibull Lognormal base e
99 99
95 Anderson-Darling (adj)
90
95
80 Weibull
70
60
50 0.51
80
40 70
30 Lognormal base e
Perce nt
Perce nt
60
20 50 1.09
40
10 30
Exponential
20
5
10 11.84
3
5
2 Normal
1 1 8.85
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Exponential Normal
99 99
98 95
97
80
95
70
Percent
Percent
60
90 50
40
30
80 20
70
10
60
50 5
30
10 1
0 100 200 -100 0 100 200 300
Figure 10.11 Probability plots of Chains, Flights and Connectors failure data
Probability Plot for OPTBF

Weibull Distribution - ML Estimates - 95.0% CI
Complete Data
Shape 0.5508
99 Scale 20.528
95 MTTF 34.869
90 StDev 68.387
80
Median 10.552
70
60 IQR 35.006
50 Failure 57
40 Censor 0
Percent
30
AD* 0.5098
20
10
3
2
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

Time to Failure
Figure 10.12 Chains, Flights & Connectors failure data fitted to Weibull distribution
Patrick Collins
64
10.3.2 Hose and Fittings

Date Delay Start Time Between Downtime Operating Time Equipment
28/04/01 0:00 0.417 Roof Support
28/04/01 22:40 22.66 0.333 22.24 Roof Support
1/05/01 23:20 72.66 0.450 72.33 Roof Support
10/05/01 5:50 198.5 0.500 198.05 Roof Support
14/05/01 20:05 110.25 0.167 109.75 Roof Support
15/05/01 10:31 14.41 0.450 14.24 Shearer
15/05/01 11:18 0.92 1.217 0.47 Shearer
17/05/01 23:06 59.75 0.750 58.53 Shearer
18/05/01 1:24 2.33 4.600 1.58 Shearer
23/05/01 9:36 128.17 0.633 123.57 Roof Support
23/05/01 22:25 12.92 0.917 12.29 BSL
24/05/01 0:40 2.25 0.167 1.62 Roof Support
24/05/01 21:10 20.5 0.250 20.33 Roof Support
25/05/01 7:40 10.5 0.750 10.25 Roof Support
25/05/01 21:21 13.66 0.717 12.91 Roof Support
26/05/01 1:30 4.17 0.250 3.45 Roof Support
27/05/01 0:16 22.75 1.850 22.50 Roof Support
27/05/01 8:45 8.5 0.167 6.65 BSL
27/05/01 19:50 11.08 0.167 10.91 Roof Support
1/06/01 7:20 107.5 0.500 107.33 Roof Support
8/06/01 9:15 169.92 0.333 169.42 Roof Support
9/06/01 0:55 15.66 0.333 15.33 Roof Support
9/06/01 15:43 14.92 0.383 14.59 Roof Support
11/06/01 3:05 35.33 0.167 34.95 Roof Support
11/06/01 22:10 19.08 0.333 18.91 Roof Support
12/06/01 9:25 11.25 0.167 10.92 Roof Support
14/06/01 9:35 48.17 0.250 48.00 Maingate Drive
18/06/01 16:00 102.41 1.500 102.16 Shearer
19/06/01 5:45 13.75 0.250 12.25 Roof Support
19/06/01 21:10 15.41 0.333 15.16 Roof Support
22/06/01 1:00 51.92 0.500 51.59 Roof Support
24/06/01 19:45 66.75 0.250 66.25 Roof Support
26/06/01 0:30 28.75 0.500 28.50 Roof Support
26/06/01 1:00 0.5 0.333 0.00 Roof Support
1/07/01 7:10 126.17 0.583 125.84 BSL
1/07/01 8:45 1.58 0.500 1.00 Shearer
1/07/01 10:10 1.41 0.167 0.91 BSL
1/07/01 13:45 3.58 0.250 3.41 Shearer
1/07/01 16:15 2.5 1.250 2.25 BSL
2/07/01 23:50 31.58 0.167 30.33 Shearer
3/07/01 12:20 12.5 0.500 12.33 Maingate Drive
5/07/01 1:40 37.33 0.583 36.83 Maingate Drive
6/07/01 3:25 25.75 0.333 25.17 Roof Support
Table 10.12 Hose and Fittings failure summary
Patrick Collins
65

6/07/01 7:55 4.5 0.25 4.17 Roof Support
6/07/01 11:00 3.08 1.00 2.83 Roof Support
6/07/01 20:40 9.66 0.08 8.66 Roof Support
6/07/01 23:00 2.33 0.92 2.25 Roof Support
7/07/01 1:25 2.41 0.17 1.49 Roof Support
8/07/01 0:15 22.83 0.75 22.66 BSL
8/07/01 1:10 0.92 0.67 0.17 BSL
8/07/01 7:35 6.41 0.25 5.74 Shearer
10/07/01 21:45 62.17 0.50 61.92 BSL
11/07/01 6:40 8.92 4.17 8.42 Shearer
11/07/01 23:45 17.08 0.42 12.91 Roof Support
13/07/01 1:43 26 0.65 25.58 Roof Support
13/07/01 15:00 13.25 0.50 12.60 BSL
14/07/01 4:04 13.08 0.82 12.58 BSL
14/07/01 22:25 18.33 0.08 17.51 Roof Support
15/07/01 2:50 4.41 0.67 4.33 BSL
15/07/01 11:35 8.75 0.83 8.08 BSL
16/07/01 4:20 16.75 1.75 15.92 Roof Support
16/07/01 10:35 6.25 0.58 4.50 BSL
17/07/01 22:30 35.92 0.33 35.34 Roof Support
18/07/01 7:05 8.58 0.65 8.25 Roof Support
18/07/01 13:00 5.92 0.27 5.27 Shearer
20/07/01 9:07 44.08 0.50 43.81 Roof Support
20/07/01 12:07 3 0.75 2.50 Roof Support
20/07/01 20:10 8 0.83 7.25 BSL
22/07/01 3:55 31.75 0.17 30.92 Maingate Drive
22/07/01 20:25 16.5 0.58 16.33 BSL
24/07/01 1:35 29.17 0.75 28.59 Roof Support
Patrick Collins
66

99
95
Anderson-Darling (adj)
90 99
80
70 Weibull
60 95
50
40 0.571
30
80
20 70 Lognormal base e
Percent
Percent
10 60
50
5 40 1.000
30
3 20 Exponential
2
10
1 5 2.755
1 Normal
7.771
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Exponential Normal
99
95
99
80
70
Percent
Percent
98 60
97 50
40
95 30
20
90
10
80 5
70
60 1
50
30
10
0 100 200 -100 0 100 200
Figure 10.13 Probability plots of Hoses & Fittings failure data

Complete Data
99.9 Shape 0.7622

99 Scale 24.686
95
90 MTTF 29.010
80 StDev 38.551
70
60 Median 15.262
50
40 IQR 33.078
30 Failure 70
20 Cens or 0
Percent
AD* 0.5715
10
5
3
2
0.1
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

Time to Failure
Figure 10.14 Hose & Fittings failure data fitted to Weibull distribution
Patrick Collins
67
10.3.3 Cables
Time Failures Between failures
27/04/01 19:30 0.50 Maingate Drive
27/04/01 20:25 0.92 1.33 0.42 Roof Support
15/05/01 14:25 426 0.25 424.67 Roof Support
16/05/01 21:00 30.58 0.17 30.33 Shearer
18/05/01 10:45 37.75 0.67 37.58 Roof Support
18/05/01 11:25 0.667 0.67 0.00 Roof Support
25/05/01 11:55 168.5 0.33 167.83 Roof Support
29/05/01 12:55 97 0.33 96.67 Roof Support
31/05/01 15:07 50.17 0.73 49.84 Roof Support
31/05/01 20:45 5.66 1.00 4.93 Roof Support
1/06/01 11:40 14.92 0.50 13.92 Roof Support
1/06/01 12:32 0.92 0.50 0.42 Roof Support
2/06/01 7:15 18.75 0.25 18.25 Roof Support
2/06/01 11:45 4.5 0.25 4.25 Roof Support
2/06/01 13:10 1.41 0.58 1.16 Roof Support
3/06/01 7:50 18.66 0.92 18.08 Roof Support
4/06/01 3:05 19.25 1.08 18.33 Roof Support
4/06/01 20:00 16.92 1.00 15.84 Roof Support
5/06/01 7:00 11 2.00 10.00 Roof Support
5/06/01 9:00 2 1.00 0.00 Roof Support
11/06/01 5:35 140.58 0.92 139.58 Roof Support
11/06/01 6:40 1.08 0.17 0.16 Roof Support
12/06/01 20:30 37.83 1.58 37.66 Roof Support
20/06/01 10:00 181.5 1.75 179.92 Shearer
21/06/01 19:35 33.58 0.17 31.83 Roof Support
22/06/01 16:00 20.41 0.75 20.24 Shearer
26/06/01 13:25 93.41 0.17 92.66 Shearer
28/06/01 10:30 45.08 0.25 44.91 Roof Support
1/07/01 12:50 74.33 0.25 74.08 Roof Support
2/07/01 13:55 25.08 0.50 24.83 Roof Support
3/07/01 20:30 30.58 10.00 30.08 Shearer
5/07/01 5:50 33.41 0.17 23.41 Roof Support
5/07/01 6:00 0.17 0.50 0.00 Roof Support
9/07/01 15:00 105 0.25 104.50 Roof Support
9/07/01 15:35 0.58 0.17 0.33 Roof Support
13/07/01 6:40 87.08 0.33 86.91 Roof Support
13/07/01 15:30 8.83 2.00 8.50 Maingate Drive
Table 10.13 Cable Failure summary
Patrick Collins
68

99 99
90
95
80 Weibull
70
60
50 1.054
80
40 70
30 Lognormal base e
Perce nt
Perce nt
60
20 50 2.298
40
10 30
Exponential
20
5
10 5.629
3
5
2 Normal
1 1 4.154
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Exponential Normal
99 99
98 95
97
80
95
70
Percent
Percent
60
90 50
40
30
80 20
70
10
60
50 5
30
10 1
0 100 200 300 400 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Figure 10.15 Probability plots of Cable failure data

Complete Data
Shape 0.5290
99 Scale 31.389
95 MTTF 56.866
90 StDev 117.67
80
Median 15.700
70
60 IQR 55.219
50 Failure 36
40 Censor 0
Percent
30
AD* 1.0543
20
10
3
2
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

Time to Failure
Figure 10.16 Cable Failure data fitted to Weibull distribution
Patrick Collins
69
10.3.4 Cutter Shear Shaft

Date Delay Start Time Between Downtime Operating Time
25/04/01 22:45 0.58
30/04/01 2:20 99.58 0.42 99.00
2/05/01 3:12 48.92 0.27 48.50
2/05/01 3:48 0.58 0.40 0.31
2/05/01 4:48 1 0.20 0.60
6/05/01 5:10 96.33 0.33 96.13
7/05/01 8:25 27.25 0.33 26.92
7/05/01 12:40 4.25 0.17 3.92
7/05/01 13:58 1.25 0.75 1.08
9/05/01 0:00 34 0.33 33.25
9/05/01 0:50 0.83 0.25 0.50
25/05/01 3:30 386.66 0.25 386.41
25/05/01 5:25 1.92 0.42 1.67
28/05/01 1:25 68 0.03 67.58
3/06/01 21:50 164.41 0.25 164.38
17/06/01 14:56 329.08 0.43 328.83
17/06/01 21:20 6.41 0.33 5.98
18/06/01 10:05 12.75 0.67 12.42
18/06/01 11:00 0.92 0.75 0.25
19/06/01 2:25 15.41 0.33 14.66
19/06/01 22:00 9.58 1.50 9.25
20/06/01 0:00 2 1.17 0.50
23/06/01 6:35 78.58 0.33 77.41
23/06/01 7:00 0.41 0.25 0.08
24/06/01 10:30 27.5 0.75 27.25
25/06/01 5:30 19 0.33 18.25
25/06/01 11:55 6.41 0.25 6.08
25/06/01 14:35 2.66 0.33 2.41
26/06/01 10:30 19.92 0.25 19.59
28/06/01 12:50 50.41 0.58 50.16
3/07/01 10:45 117.92 0.25 117.34
4/07/01 22:30 35.75 0.33 35.50
4/07/01 23:05 0.58 0.92 0.25
5/07/01 10:00 10.92 0.42 10.00
8/07/01 11:40 73.66 0.33 73.24
9/07/01 2:05 14.41 0.58 14.08
9/07/01 8:55 6.83 0.33 6.25
9/07/01 10:00 1.08 0.25 0.75
10/07/01 4:40 18.66 0.25 18.41
10/07/01 7:41 3 0.63 2.75
15/07/01 16:45 129.08 0.25 128.45
16/07/01 19:50 27.08 0.17 26.83
16/07/01 20:25 0.58 3.08 0.41
18/07/01 21:35 49.17 0.25 46.09
20/07/01 16:47 43.17 0.72 42.92
Table 10.14 Cutter Shear Shaft failure summary
Patrick Collins
70

99 99
90
95
80 Weibull
70
60
50 80 0.524
40 70
Lognormal base e
Percent
Percent
30 60
20 50
40 0.994
10 30
20 Exponential
5
10 8.649
3
5
2 Normal
1 1 5.778
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Exponential Normal
99 99
98 95
97
80
95
70
Percent
Percent
60
90 50
40
30
80
20
70
10
60
50 5
30
10 1
0 100 200 300 400 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Figure 10.17 Probability plots of Cutter Shear Shaft failure data

Complete Data
Shape 0.5596
99 Scale 28.073
95 MTTF 46.558
90 StDev 89.448
80
Median 14.582
70
60 IQR 47.297
50 Failure 44
40 Cens or 0
Percent
30
AD* 0.5242
20
10
3
2
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

Time to Failure
Figure 10.18 Cutter Shear Shaft failure data fitted to Weibull distribution
Patrick Collins
71
10.3.5 Shearer Drive Motor

26/04/01 21:25 0.33
2/05/01 21:34 144.17 0.77 143.84
4/05/01 6:35 34 0.17 33.23
4/05/01 14:00 7.41 0.50 7.24
5/05/01 12:30 22.5 0.25 22.00
8/05/01 10:24 69.92 0.20 69.67
8/05/01 11:13 0.83 0.07 0.63
8/05/01 11:23 0.17 0.07 0.10
8/05/01 12:04 0.66 0.43 0.59
8/05/01 12:37 0.58 0.80 0.15
8/05/01 14:30 1.92 0.17 1.12
8/05/01 20:05 5.58 0.17 5.41
8/05/01 20:25 0.33 1.58 0.16
9/05/01 8:15 11.83 2.75 10.25
9/05/01 14:10 5.92 0.50 3.17
9/05/01 20:25 6.25 0.83 5.75
10/05/01 2:32 6.17 1.00 5.34
10/05/01 7:40 5.08 0.25 4.08
10/05/01 9:30 1.83 0.17 1.58
10/05/01 10:35 1.08 0.17 0.91
11/05/01 7:15 20.66 0.25 20.49
11/05/01 9:10 1.92 1.08 1.67
13/05/01 15:15 54.08 0.75 53.00
7/06/01 19:45 604.5 0.25 603.75
30/06/01 6:50 539.08 0.25 538.83
13/07/01 7:00 312.17 0.58 311.92
18/07/01 20:50 133.83 0.25 133.25
18/07/01 22:05 1.25 0.17 1.00
18/07/01 23:10 1.08 0.17 0.91
19/07/01 1:25 2.25 0.08 2.08
19/07/01 2:20 0.92 0.08 0.84
22/07/01 11:20 81 0.67 80.92
23/07/01 7:20 20 0.83 19.33
24/07/01 6:45 23.41 0.33 22.58
24/07/01 7:40 0.92 0.17 0.59
Table 10.15 Shearer Drive motor failure summary
Patrick Collins
72

99 99
90
95
80 Weibull
70
60
50 80 1.03
40 70
Lognormal base e
Percent
Percent
30 60
20 50
40 0.67
10 30
20 Exponential
5
10 22.44
3
5
2 Normal
1 1 7.27
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Exponential Normal
99 99
98 95
97
80
95
70
Percent
Percent
60
90 50
40
30
80
20
70
10
60
50 5
30
10 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Figure 10.19 Probability plots of Shearer Drive Motor failure data

Lognormal base e Distribution - ML Estimates - 95.0% CI
Complete Data
99 Location 1.8387
Scale 2.3329
MTTF 95.578
95
StDev 1449.6
90 Median 6.2884
IQR 29.029
80
Failure 34
70 Cens or 0
Percent
60 AD* 0.6695
50
40
30
20
10
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0

Time to Failure
Figure 10.20 Shearer Drive Motor failure data fitted to lognormal distribution
Patrick Collins
73
10.3.6 Solenoid
25/04/01 20:20 0.50 Shearer
25/04/01 21:45 1.41 0.08 0.91 Roof Support
25/04/01 23:20 1.58 0.17 1.50 Roof Support
30/04/01 15:30 112.17 0.50 112.00 Maingate Drive
1/05/01 12:45 21.25 0.17 20.75 Maingate Drive
11/05/01 14:55 242.17 0.92 242.00 Maingate Drive
11/05/01 16:40 1.75 0.42 0.83 Maingate Drive
11/05/01 19:30 2.83 1.00 2.41 Roof Support
8/06/01 2:30 655 2.00 654.00 Maingate Drive
8/06/01 10:00 7.5 1.70 5.50 Maingate Drive
8/06/01 22:00 12 0.42 10.30 Maingate Drive
13/06/01 23:10 121.17 0.42 120.75 Maingate Drive
13/06/01 23:40 0.5 2.17 0.08 Maingate Drive
14/06/01 2:45 3.08 0.33 0.91 Maingate Drive
14/06/01 8:05 5.33 0.17 5.00 Maingate Drive
15/06/01 5:55 21.83 0.08 21.66 Maingate Drive
21/06/01 1:20 139.41 0.33 139.33 Maingate Drive
28/06/01 23:45 190.41 0.67 190.08 Maingate Drive
29/06/01 4:05 4.33 0.17 3.66 Maingate Drive
3/07/01 7:15 99.17 0.75 99.00 Maingate Drive
12/07/01 23:15 232 0.58 231.25 Maingate Drive
12/07/01 23:58 0.75 0.22 0.17 Maingate Drive
13/07/01 3:08 2.17 0.45 1.95 Maingate Drive
13/07/01 5:50 2.66 0.67 2.21 Roof Support
16/07/01 13:30 79.66 0.42 78.99 Roof Support
Table 10.16 Solenoid failure summary
Patrick Collins
74

99 99
90
95
80 Weibull
70
60
50 80 1.06
40 70
Lognormal base e
Percent
Percent
30 60
20 50
40 0.97
10 30
20 Exponential
5
10 11.11
3
5
2 Normal
1 1 3.36
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Exponential Normal
99 99
98 95
97
80
95
70
Percent
Percent
60
90 50
40
30
80
20
70
10
60
50 5
30
10 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Figure 10.21 Probability plots of Solenoid failure data

Complete Data
99 Location 2.3847
Scale 2.4614
MTTF 224.48
95
StDev 4636.7
90 Median 10.855
IQR 55.037
80
Failure 24
70 Cens or 0
Percent
60 AD* 0.9746
50
40
30
20
10
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0

Time to Failure
Figure 10.22 Solenoid failure data fitted to lognormal distribution
Patrick Collins
75

Complete Data
Shape 0.4626
99 Scale 36.444
95 MTTF 85.056
90 StDev 212.73
80
Median 16.501
70
60 IQR 71.375
50 Failure 24
40 Cens or 0
Percent
30
AD* 1.0655
20
10
3
2
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

Time to Failure
Figure 10.23 Solenoid failure data fitted to Weibull distribution
Patrick Collins
76
10.3.7 Bretby Towing Attachment

3/06/01 7:20 0.08
3/06/01 8:50 1.50 0.75 1.42
12/06/01 2:00 209.17 1.00 208.42
12/06/01 5:04 3.07 0.43 2.07
14/06/01 8:40 51.67 0.17 51.23
20/06/01 2:30 137.83 0.42 137.67
21/06/01 21:30 43.00 0.17 42.58
22/06/01 3:10 5.67 0.42 5.50
23/06/01 2:50 23.67 0.17 23.25
24/06/01 9:05 30.25 0.50 30.08
24/06/01 13:45 4.67 0.25 4.17
24/06/01 15:50 2.08 0.42 1.83
25/06/01 10:25 18.50 1.33 18.08
26/06/01 3:15 16.83 1.42 15.50
26/06/01 11:05 7.83 0.17 6.42
26/06/01 14:35 3.50 0.33 3.33
27/06/01 5:15 14.67 0.25 14.33
29/06/01 22:00 64.75 0.25 64.50
30/06/01 2:05 4.08 0.17 3.83
30/06/01 14:05 12.00 0.17 11.83
1/07/01 5:30 15.58 0.67 15.42
2/07/01 20:20 38.83 0.08 38.17
2/07/01 21:25 1.42 0.08 1.33
7/07/01 9:40 108.25 0.50 108.17
18/07/01 12:31 266.83 0.48 266.33
21/07/01 23:10 82.67 0.33 82.18
Table 10.17 Bretby towing attachment failure summary
Patrick Collins
77

99 99
90 95
80 Weibull
70
60
50 80
0.721
40
30
70 Lognormal base e
Percent
Percent
60
20 50
40
0.654
10 30
20 Exponential
5
10 2.782
3 5
2 Normal
1 1 3.185
0.1 1.0 10.0 1 00.0 1 10 100 100 0
Exponential Normal
99 99
98 95
97
80
95
70
Percent
Percent
60
90 50
40
30
80 20
70
10
60
50 5
30
10 1
0 100 200 300 -10 0 0 100 200 300
Figure 10.24 Probability plots of Bretby towing attachment failure data

Complete Data
99 Location 2.8000
Scale 1.5535
MTTF 54.963
95
StDev 175.29
90 Median 16.444
IQR 41.123
80
Failure 25
70 Censor 0
Percent
60 AD* 0.6545
50
40
30
20
10
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0

Time to Failure
Figure 10.25 Bretby towing attachment failure data fitted to lognormal distribution
Patrick Collins
78

Complete Data
Shape 0.6972
99 Scale 35.705
95 MTTF 45.371
90 StDev 66.661
80
70 Median 21.106
60 IQR 51.064
50 Failure 25
40 Censor 0
Percent
30
AD* 0.7206
20
10
5
3
2
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

Time to Failure
Figure 10.26 Bretby towing attachment failure data fitted to Weibull distribution
Patrick Collins
79
10.4 RESULTS
Chains, flights and connectors

The failure data most closely follows a Weibull distribution with parameters,
β = 20.528 and α = 0.5508.
Weibull has a far superior Anderson-Darling number and all points lie within the 95%
confidence interval.
Hose and Fittings

β = 24.686 and α = 0.7622.
Weibull has the superior Anderson-Darling number and all but one of the points lie
within the 95% confidence interval.
Cables
β = 31.389 and α = 0.529.
Weibull has the superior Anderson-Darling number and all points lie within the 95%
Shearer Drive Motor

The failure data most closely follows a lognormal distribution.
Lognormal has the superior Anderson-Darling number and all points lie within the
95% confidence interval.
Cutter Shear Shaft

β = 28.073 and α = 0.5596.
Patrick Collins
80
Solenoid
Bretby Towing Attachment

Patrick Collins
81
10.5 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
The chains, flights and connector failures were the result of mechanical and electrical
faults. Many of these were caused by impact and overloads caused by large lumps of
coal ripped from face. A reduction in the rip size may result in less failures of this
nature.
The cutter shear shaft is a sacrificial part. This shaft turns the cutting drum, which rips
the coal. Some of the shaft failures could be caused by the shearer operating too close
to the face and trying to make too large a cut. Or the coal seam may be particularly
hard causing more stress than usual. The life of the cutter shear shaft may be able to
improve if more appropriate rip sizes were taken.
Hose and fittings failures included blown hoses, leaks and pressure loses. Pressure
lines, water hoses, return lines and hydraulic lines were all included under this title.
Most of the cable failures were the result of cables falling from trays or getting caught
in moving parts. This would imply that cables are not being adequately secured after
repair.
Failure data for chains, flights and connectors, hose and fittings, cables and the cutter
shear shaft most closely followed a Weibull distribution. The estimated shape
parameter for each of these distributions was less than one (α < 1). The failure rate of
these distributions is therefore a decreasing function.
The decreasing failure rate means that most of the failures occur in the early stages of
operation, that is recently after a repair or replacement. There could be a number of
reasons for this. Defective parts may be a cause however; repair procedure and human
error is the more likely explanation.
The decreasing failure rate suggests maintenance-induced failures. That is, a lack of
care with repairs and replacements and insufficient pre start testing. Workers are
continually under pressure to complete these repairs as quickly as possible to
Patrick Collins
82
minimise downtime. However this desire for rapid repairs may cost more money in
the long run with increasing breakdowns.
It is recommended that the repair/replacement procedure for these components be

reviewed and more time taken during repair for pre start testing and inspection. It also
recommended that the preventative maintenance policy for these components be
reviewed to minimise unnecessary work that will increase the probability of human
errors.
A condition-based preventative maintenance policy involving increased inspection

frequency would be more desirable than a time- based policy. Chains, flights and
connectors, cables, hoses and fittings should not be replaced until a certain level of
deterioration is detected in the condition of the item.
A failure-based policy is recommended for the cutter shear shaft.
The shearer drive motor, solenoid and bretby towing attachment failures were best
represented by the lognormal distribution. The lognormal distribution is characterised
by a failure rate that initially increases to a maximum and then decreases. This
increasing failure rate means that the scheduled replacement/reconditioning of parts
will most likely improve the reliability of the system.
Account should be taken of the lognormal distribution and the appropriate failure rate
functions to predict times to failure and help develop an effective and economical
preventative maintenance schedule.
Shearer drive motor failures included all mechanical and electrical faults associated
with the motor. The recommended preventative maintenance for the shearer drive
motor is a condition-based approach. This will include regular inspections and general
motor checks such oil levels and belt tensions).
Although they most closely followed a lognormal distribution the solenoid and bretby
towing attachment failure data were also reasonable fits with the Weibull distribution.
The estimated shape parameters of the Weibull distribution demonstrated a decreasing
Patrick Collins
83
failure rate function. Thus the suggested preventative maintenance may actually be
disadvantageous. A greater quantity of results is required before an accurate
conclusion can be made on the best maintenance approach for these two components.
With this limited information on failures and on relative cost it is recommended that a
failure based maintenance policy be employed for the solenoid.
Bretby towing attachment failures included broken bolts, cables falling out of tray,
adjustment problems and blockages. Regular inspections and cleaning are
recommended for the bretby towing attachment. Preventative maintenance can be
undertaken for condition-based problems such as strained/elongated bolts however a
failure-based policy should generally be employed.
These seven failures are considered to be the maintenance priorities from Mine 1. A
condition based preventative maintenance policy is considered the best approach for
the majority of these components. The appropriate time to failure distribution should
be used to determine the optimal inspection schedule for each component.
There are a number of general recommendations to reduce the downtime associated

with these failures.
• The repair procedure and techniques for all failures should be reviewed and
optimised.
• All maintenance staff should be adequately trained and capable of completing
these tasks.
• In addition, adequate spares should always be on hand. The appropriate
distribution for the failure should be used a guide for stock ordering.
As such when these failures occur all resources are available and the problem can be
quickly dealt with, thus increasing availability of equipment.
Patrick Collins
84
11.0 MINE 2
11.1 DOWNTIME SUMMARY
Start Date: 1/1/02 End Date: 28/2/02
20.00
15.00
Downtime (%)
10.00
5.00
0.00
Shearer AFC Roof LW Panel Labour Pump Station Mining Tailgate Panel BSL
Supports Support Conditions Drive
Services
Major Delay
Figure 11.1 Mine 2 downtime summary
Major Delay Downtime (hrs) % Time

Shearer 101.9 18.72
AFC 92 16.90
Roof Supports 87.6 16.09
LW Panel Support Services 79.8 14.66
Labour 45.9 8.43
Pump Station 38.5 7.07
Mining Conditions 34.7 6.38
Tailgate Drive 29 5.33
Panel 25.8 4.74
BSL 9.1 1.67
TOTAL 544.3 100.00
Table 11.1 Mine 2 downtime summary
Patrick Collins
85
11.1.1 Armoured Face Conveyor
90.0
80.0
70.0
Downtime (%)
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Chain repairs Dogbone repair Blockages/ Flight bar Miscellaneous

overloads repair
Failure
Figure 11.2 Unplanned AFC downtime

Chain repairs 18 77.9 84.7
Dogbone repair 1 4.8 5.2
Flight bar repair 1 3.5 3.8
TOTAL 41 92 100.0
Table 11.2 Unplanned AFC downtime
Patrick Collins
86
11.1.2 Roof Supports
40.0
35.0
30.0
Downtime (%)
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Hose + Shield Relay bar DA ram Hydraluic PSI Unit Solenoid Links+ Cables Misc
Fittings Interface assembly transducer Assembly Base
Module
Failure
Figure 11.3 Unplanned Roof Support downtime
Description Quantity Downtime (hrs) % time

Shield Interface Module 17 11.7 13.4
Relay bar assembly 2 9.8 11.2
DA ram transducer 3 9.3 10.6
Hydraluic Assembly 21 7.8 8.9
PSI Unit 18 6 6.8
Solenoid 17 5.3 6.1
Links+ Base 4 2.9 3.3
Cables 4 2.8 3.2
TOTAL 149 87.6 100.0

Table 11.3 Unplanned Roof Support downtime
Patrick Collins
87
11.1.3 Pump Station
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
Downtime (%)
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Emulsion Hydraulic Electrical Miscellaneous Hydraulic
Tank pumps filtration
Failure
Figure 11.4 Unplanned pump station downtime

Emulsion Tank 26 18.3 47.5
Hydraulic pumps 67 13.2 34.3
Electrical 17 3.3 8.6
Hydraulic filtration 2 1.6 4.2
TOTAL 115 38.5 100.0
Table 11.4 Unplanned pump station downtime
Patrick Collins
88
11.1.4 Shearer
18.0
16.0
14.0
Downtime (%)
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Cables Cutter Shear Electrical Ranging arm Hose + Bretby Blockages/ Services Hydraulic Picks on Structure Misc
shaft (Various) gearbox Fittings Towing overloads oil tank cutter
attachment
Failure
Figure 11.5 Unplanned Shearer downtime

Cables 9 17 16.7
Cutter Shear shaft 14 16.1 15.8
Ranging arm gearbox 5 15 14.7
Electrical (Various) 14 10.6 10.4
Bretby Towing attachment 16 10.5 10.3
Circuit-Earth Continuity 6 5.1 5.0
Services 14 4.1 4.0
Hydraulic oil tank 8 3.4 3.3
Picks on cutter 1 1.5 1.5
Structure 4 1.3 1.3
TOTAL 115 101.9 100.0
Table 11.5 Unplanned Shearer downtime
Patrick Collins
89
11.1.5 Beam Stage Loader
90.0
80.0
70.0
Downtime (%)
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Blockages/ overloads Miscellaneous
Delay
Figure 11.6 Unplanned BSL downtime

TOTAL 28 9.1 100.0

Table 11.6 Unplanned BSL downtime
Patrick Collins
90
11.1.6 Tail Gate Drive
50.0
45.0
40.0
Downtime (%)
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Blockages Muff coupling Sprocket Miscellaneous
repair instalment
Failure
Figure 11.7 Unplanned tail gate drive downtime

Blockages 2 12.6 43.4
Muff coupling repair 1 10.5 36.2
Sprocket instalment 1 5 17.2
TOTAL 11 29 100
Table 11.7 Unplanned tail gate drive downtime
Patrick Collins
91
11.1.7 Panel Support Services
70.0
60.0
50.0
Downtime (%)
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Conveyor Electrical Miscellaneous
maintenance maintenance
Failure
Figure 11.8 Unplanned panel support services downtime

Conveyor maintenance 75 52.85 66.2
Electrical maintenance 30 21.2 26.6
TOTAL 113 79.8 100.0

Table 11.8 Unplanned panel support services downtime
Patrick Collins
92
11.2 FAILURE SUMMARY

Failure Equipment Description Quantity Duration MTTR % Time
Code hours mins
1 AFC Chain +flights repairs 19 81.4 257.1 20.0
2 Panel SS Conveyor maintenance 75 52.9 42.3 13.0
3 RS,SH Hose + Fittings 65 42.1 38.9 10.3
4 Panel SS Electrical maintenance 30 21.2 42.4 5.2
5 Pumps Emulsion Tank 26 18.3 42.3 4.5
6 Pumps Hydraulic pumps 86 18.1 12.6 4.4
7 Shearer Cables 9 17.0 113.6 4.2
8 Shearer Cutter Shear shaft 14 16.1 68.9 3.9
9 Shearer Ranging arm gearbox 5 15.0 180.0 3.7
10 RS Shield Interface module 17 11.7 41.1 2.9
11 Shearer Electrical-Various 14 10.6 45.4 2.6
12 TG Muff coupling repair 1 10.5 630.0 2.6
13 Shearer Bretby Towing attachment 16 10.5 39.3 2.6
14 RS Relay bar assembly 2 9.8 292.5 2.4
15 RS DA ram transducer 3 9.3 185.0 2.3
16 RS Hydraluic Assembly 21 7.8 22.1 1.9
17 RS Power supply interlock unit 18 6.0 19.9 1.5
18 Panel SS Miscellaneous 8 5.8 43.1 1.4
19 RS Solenoid 17 5.3 18.8 1.3
20 Shearer Circuit-Earth Continuity 6 5.1 51.0 1.3
21 TG Sprocket instalment 1 5.0 300.0 1.2
22 AFC Dogbone repair 1 4.8 290.0 1.2
23 Shearer Services 14 4.1 17.7 1.0
24 Shearer Hydraulic oil tank 8 3.4 25.8 0.8
25 RS Links+Base 4 2.9 43.8 0.7
26 RS Cables-in+inter chock 4 2.8 41.3 0.7
27 AFC Miscellaneous 4 1.9 28.8 0.5
28 RS Miscellaneous 5 1.9 22.4 0.5
29 Shearer Picks on cutter 1 1.5 90.0 0.4
30 Shearer Structure 4 1.3 20.0 0.3
31 BSL Miscellaneous 7 1.3 11.4 0.3
32 Shearer Miscellaneous 4 1.2 17.5 0.3
33 TG Miscellaneous 7 0.9 7.9 0.2
TOTAL 516 407.3 100.00
Table 11.9 Failure summary
Patrick Collins
93
Patrick Collins
94
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
Downtime (%)
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Failure Code
Figure 11.9 Pareto histogram of failure summary
Patrick Collins
95
1000.0
Chain +flights repairs
Conveyor maintenance
Hose + Fittings
Panel SS Electrical maintenance
Emulsion Tank
Hydraulic pumps
Shearer Cables
Cutter Shear shaft
Ranging arm gearbox
Shield Interface module
Shearer Electrical-Various
Muff coupling repair
Bretby Towing attachment
Relay bar assembly
DA ram transducer
MTTR
RS Hydraluic Assembly
100.0 Power supply interlock unit
Panel SS Miscellaneous
Solenoid
Shearer Circuit-Earth Continuity
TG Sprocket instalment
Dogbone repair
47.4 Shearer Services
Shearer Hydraulic oil tank
RS Links+Base
RS Cables-in+inter chock
AFC Miscellaneous
RS Miscellaneous
Picks on cutter
Shearer Structure
BSL Miscellaneous
Shearer Miscellaneous
TG Miscellaneous
10.0
1 10 15.6 100
Number of failures
Figure 11.10 Log scatter plot of failures showing limit values
Patrick Collins
97
Equipment Description Quantity Duration MTTR % Time

hours mins
ACUTE & CHRONIC FAILURES
AFC Chain +flights repairs 19 81.4 257.1 20.0
Sub total 19 81.4 20.0
ACUTE FAILURES
Shearer Cables 9 17.0 113.6 4.2
Shearer Cutter Shear shaft 14 16.1 68.9 3.9
Shearer Ranging arm gearbox 5 15.0 180.0 3.7
TG Muff coupling reapir 1 10.5 630.0 2.6
RS Relay bar assembly 2 9.8 292.5 2.4
RS DA ram transducer 3 9.3 185.0 2.3
Shearer Circuit-Earth Continuity 6 5.1 51.0 1.3
TG Sprocket instalment 1 5.0 300.0 1.2
AFC Dogbone repair 1 4.8 290.0 1.2
Shearer Picks on cutter 1 1.5 90.0 0.4
Sub total 43 94.0 23.1
CHRONIC FAILURES - TYPE A

Panel SS Conveyor maintenance 75 52.9 42.3 13.0
RS,SH Hose + Fittings 65 42.1 38.9 10.3
Panel SS Electrical maintenance 30 21.2 42.4 5.2
Pumps Emulsion Tank 26 18.3 42.3 4.5
Pumps Hydraulic pumps 86 18.1 12.6 4.4
Sub total 282 152.5 37.5
CHRONIC FAILURES - TYPE B

RS Shield Interface module 17 11.7 41.1 2.9
Shearer Bretby Towing attachment 16 10.5 39.3 2.6
RS Hydraluic Assembly 21 7.8 22.1 1.9
RS Power supply interlock unit 18 6.0 19.9 1.5
RS Solenoid 17 5.3 18.8 1.3
Sub total 89 41.2 10.1
Table 11.10 Maintenance problems prioritised according to Jack-Knife principles
Patrick Collins
98
11.3 FAILURE ANALYSIS

Seven failures from the prioritised list were analysed further to see if they followed
any of the standard probability distributions. The failures selected were as follows.
1. Chains, flight bars and connectors

2. Hoses and fittings
3. Emulsion tank
4. Hydraulic pumps
5. Cutter shear shaft
6. Shield Interface Module
7. Bretby towing attachment
These were selected for a number of reasons. The acute failures don’t contain enough
data to give useful results. However, cutter shear shaft failures were selected because
they were just below the chronic limit and each relates to a very specific component
failure. Panel support services conveyor and electrical maintenance were not selected
as they cover an overly broad range of failures.
Patrick Collins
99
11.3.1 AFC Chains, Flights and Connectors

3/01/02 20:55 0.08 connectors
6/01/02 15:35 66.25 0.25 66.17 chain
8/01/02 7:20 39.75 0.42 39.50 flights
27/01/02 16:05 464.75 0.17 464.33 chain
31/01/02 5:00 85 1.50 84.83 chain
1/02/02 8:30 3.5 9.00 2.00 chain
1/02/02 19:30 11 11.00 2.00 chain
2/02/02 6:30 11 11.00 0.00 chain
4/02/02 8:20 49.75 1.67 38.75 chain
4/02/02 19:30 11.25 11.00 9.58 chain
5/02/02 7:00 11.5 10.00 0.50 chain
5/02/02 20:00 13 8.83 3.00 chain
5/02/02 5:00 9 1.50 0.17 chain
6/02/02 6:35 1.5 7.92 0.00 chain
6/02/02 14:30 8 1.50 0.08 chain
6/02/02 17:05 2.5 0.42 1.00 chain
13/02/02 7:00 158 3.50 157.58 flights
15/02/02 3:20 68.25 0.17 64.75 chain
27/02/02 19:30 270.25 1.50 270.08 chain
Table 11.11 Chains, flights and connectors failure summary
Four-way Probability Plot for OpTBF

99 99
90
95
80 Weibull
70
60
50 1.00
80
40 70
30 Lognormal base e
Perce nt
Perce nt
60
20 50 1.07
40
10 30
Exponential
20
5
10 10.78
3
5
2 Normal
1 1 3.08
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Exponential Normal
99 99
98 95
97
80
95
70
Percent
Percent
60
90 50
40
30
80 20
70
10
60
50 5
30
10 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Figure 11.11 Probability plots of AFC chains, flights and connectors failure data
Patrick Collins
100
Probability Plot for OpTBF

Complete Data
Shape 0.4061
99 Scale 24.150
95 MTTF 76.998
90 StDev 235.83
80
70 Median 9.7948
60 IQR 52.851
50 Failure 18
40 Censor 0
Percent
30
AD* 1.0084
20
10
3
2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Time to Failure
Figure 11.12 AFC chains, flights and connectors failure data fitted to Weibull
distribution
Probability Plot for OpTBF

Complete Data
99 Location 1.7837
Scale 2.8549
MTTF 350.37
95
StDev 20623
90 Median 5.9517
IQR 39.957
80
Failure 18
70 Censor 0
Percent
60 AD* 1.0789
50
40
30
20
10
0 0 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Time to Failure
Figure 11.13 AFC chains, flights and connectors failure data fitted to lognormal
distribution

Patrick Collins
101
11.3.2 Hose and Fittings

2/01/02 6:45 0 1.75 Roof Support
3/01/02 5:45 47 0.33 45.25 Roof Support
5/01/02 10:25 28.5 2.00 28.17 Roof Support
6/01/02 7:30 21 0.83 19.00 Roof Support
6/01/02 1:20 17.75 0.17 16.92 Roof Support
6/01/02 2:10 0.75 0.17 0.58 Roof Support
7/01/02 6:30 4.25 0.50 4.08 Roof Support
7/01/02 12:50 6.25 2.67 5.75 Shearer
7/01/02 19:30 6.75 2.75 4.08 Shearer
7/01/02 22:55 3.5 0.50 0.75 Roof Support
8/01/02 21:50 23 0.67 22.50 Roof Support
11/01/02 9:50 60 0.17 59.33 Roof Support
11/01/02 23:35 13.75 0.33 13.58 Roof Support
11/01/02 0:50 1.25 0.50 0.92 Roof Support
12/01/02 1:50 25 0.17 24.50 Roof Support
13/01/02 13:20 11.5 0.67 11.33 Roof Support
14/01/02 4:25 35 0.58 34.33 Shearer
20/01/02 1:28 141 0.23 140.42 Roof Support
21/01/02 0:00 22.5 0.92 22.27 Roof Support
23/01/02 7:50 32 0.17 31.08 Roof Support
23/01/02 13:15 5.5 0.50 5.33 Roof Support
25/01/02 0:15 55 0.33 54.50 Roof Support
27/01/02 19:35 43.25 2.42 42.92 Shearer
28/01/02 11:30 16 0.58 13.58 Roof Support
29/01/02 21:20 33.75 0.58 33.17 Shearer
29/01/02 1:25 4 1.58 3.42 Roof Support
29/01/02 3:50 2.5 0.17 0.92 Roof Support
31/01/02 9:00 29.25 0.33 29.08 Roof Support
31/01/02 23:50 14.75 0.17 14.42 Roof Support
6/02/02 1:20 121.5 0.67 121.33 Shearer
7/02/02 10:20 9 0.25 8.33 Roof Support
7/02/02 12:05 1.75 1.25 1.50 Roof Support
7/02/02 16:00 4 0.33 2.75 Roof Support
13/02/02 13:35 141.5 1.42 141.17 Roof Support
13/02/02 20:30 7 0.33 5.58 Roof Support
13/02/02 21:00 0.5 0.25 0.17 Roof Support
13/02/02 23:15 2.25 0.17 2.00 Roof Support
13/02/02 0:25 1.25 0.58 1.08 Roof Support
13/02/02 1:10 0.75 1.00 0.17 Roof Support
13/02/02 4:20 3.25 0.50 2.25 Roof Support

Patrick Collins
102

14/02/02 8:45 4.5 0.42 4.00 Roof Support
14/02/02 12:25 3.75 0.33 3.33 Roof Support
14/02/02 22:30 10 0.08 9.67 Roof Support
14/02/02 0:20 1.75 0.08 1.67 Roof Support
18/02/02 14:40 86.25 0.25 86.17 Roof Support
19/02/02 12:33 22 0.45 21.75 Roof Support
19/02/02 2:35 16 0.33 15.55 Roof Support
20/02/02 1:25 22.75 0.08 22.42 Roof Support
20/02/02 3:45 2.25 0.25 2.17 Roof Support
20/02/02 5:25 1.75 1.08 1.50 Roof Support
21/02/02 11:55 6.5 1.33 5.42 Roof Support
21/02/02 15:15 3.25 0.17 1.92 Roof Support
21/02/02 22:41 7.5 0.27 7.33 Roof Support
21/02/02 23:00 0.3 0.52 0.03 Roof Support
22/02/02 22:04 23 0.65 22.48 Roof Support
23/02/02 19:30 21.5 1.83 20.85 Shearer
24/02/02 8:50 13.25 0.42 11.42 Roof Support
25/02/02 21:20 36.5 0.42 36.08 Roof Support
25/02/02 22:20 1 0.42 0.58 Roof Support
26/02/02 8:30 10.25 1.17 9.83 Roof Support
26/02/02 10:25 2 0.17 0.83 Roof Support
26/02/02 20:35 10.25 0.50 10.08 Roof Support
26/02/02 3:35 7 0.42 6.50 Roof Support
26/02/02 4:40 1 0.33 0.58 Roof Support
28/02/02 10:48 30.25 0.17 29.92 Roof Support

Patrick Collins
103

95
90 99
80
70 Weibull
60 95
50
40 0.410
30
20 80
70 Lognormal base e
Perce nt
Perce nt
10 60
50
40 0.761
5 30
3
2 20 Exponential
10
1 5 4.594
1 Normal
6.908
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Exponential Normal
99
95
99 80
70
Percent
Percent
98 60
97 50
40
95 30
20
90
10
80 5
70
60 1
50
30
10
0 50 100 150 -100 0 100
Figure 11.14 Probability plots of hose and fittings failure data

Complete Data
99.9 Shape 0.6965

99 Scale 16.167
95
90 MTTF 20.562
80 StDev 30.241
70
60 Median 9.5523
50
40 IQR 23.137
30 Failure 65
20 Censor 0
Percent
AD* 0.4100
10
5
3
2
0.1
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

Time to Failure
Figure 11.15 Hose and fittings failure data fitted to Weibull distribution

Patrick Collins
104
11.3.3 Emulsion Tank
Date Delay Start Time between Downtime Operating Time

10/01/02 7:30 0.72
10/01/02 8:17 0.75 0.18 0.03
10/01/02 8:32 0.25 0.13 0.07
10/01/02 12:00 3.5 1.07 3.37
10/01/02 16:51 6.75 0.15 5.68
13/01/02 9:45 65 2.00 64.85
19/01/02 7:45 142 0.42 140.00
21/01/02 8:20 48.5 1.42 48.08
21/01/02 10:23 2 0.43 0.58
21/01/02 10:52 0.5 1.97 0.07
21/01/02 13:50 3 2.33 1.03
23/01/02 16:05 50.5 0.25 48.17
23/01/02 20:20 4.25 0.67 4.00
23/01/02 23:20 3 0.67 2.33
23/01/02 2:25 3 0.50 2.33
23/01/02 6:00 3.5 0.17 3.00
26/01/02 21:00 63 0.25 62.83
26/01/02 22:30 1.5 0.33 1.25
26/01/02 0:00 1.5 0.25 1.17
28/01/02 16:10 40.25 0.58 40.00
28/01/02 21:55 5.75 0.42 5.17
28/01/02 0:20 2.5 0.17 2.08
14/02/02 14:20 398 1.83 397.83
14/02/02 20:30 6.25 0.58 4.42
15/02/02 9:15 12.75 0.42 12.17
15/02/02 13:30 4.25 0.42 3.83
Table 11.13 Emulsion tank failure summary

Patrick Collins
105

99 99
90
95
80 Weibull
70
60
50 1.06
80
40 70
30 Lognormal base e
Perce nt
Perce nt
60
20 50 0.90
40
10 30
Exponential
20
5
10 12.70
3
5
2 Normal
1 1 5.23
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Exponential Normal
99 99
98 95
97
80
95
70
Percent
Percent
60
90 50
40
30
80 20
70
10
60
50 5
30
10 1
0 100 200 300 400 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Figure 11.16 Probability plots of Emulsion tank failure data

Complete Data
99 Location 1.4626
Scale 2.3159
MTTF 63.081
95
StDev 919.54
90 Median 4.3173
IQR 19.683
80
Failure 25
70 Censor 0
Percent
60 AD* 0.9013
50
40
30
20
10
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0

Time to Failure
Figure 11.17 Emulsion tank failure data fitted to lognormal distribution

Patrick Collins
106
11.3.4 Hydraulic Pumps
Date Delay Start Time Between Downtime Operating Time Type of

Time Failures Between Failures failure
3/01/02 20:45 0.17 Mechanical
4/01/02 6:50 10.08 0.17 9.91 Mechanical
4/01/02 11:20 4.5 0.17 4.33 Mechanical
4/01/02 16:35 5.25 0.58 5.08 Mechanical
5/01/02 7:55 15.33 0.33 14.75 Mechanical
5/01/02 9:00 1.08 0.17 0.75 Mechanical
10/01/02 21:00 132 0.25 131.83 Mechanical
12/01/02 9:55 36.92 0.17 36.67 Mechanical
12/01/02 14:40 4.75 0.17 4.58 Mechanical
12/01/02 0:15 9.41 0.17 9.24 Mechanical
12/01/02 0:35 0.33 0.17 0.16 Mechanical
13/01/02 0 23.41 0.17 23.24 Mechanical
13/01/02 0:30 0.5 0.08 0.33 Mechanical
13/01/02 1:10 0.66 0.17 0.58 Mechanical
13/01/02 1:30 0.33 0.17 0.16 Mechanical
13/01/02 4:20 2.83 0.25 2.66 Mechanical
14/01/02 7:20 3 0.17 2.75 Mechanical
14/01/02 21:50 14.5 0.05 14.33 Mechanical
14/01/02 22:38 0.66 0.13 0.61 Mechanical
14/01/02 22:56 0.33 0.07 0.20 Mechanical
14/01/02 0:00 1.08 0.07 1.01 Mechanical
14/01/02 2:13 2.25 0.12 2.18 Mechanical
18/01/02 15:30 85.25 0.50 85.13 Mechanical
19/01/02 20:15 28.75 1.33 28.25 Mechanical
20/01/02 21:00 24.75 0.20 23.42 Mechanical
20/01/02 23:05 2.08 0.25 1.88 Electrical
20/01/02 3:13 4.17 0.12 3.92 Electrical
21/01/02 6:30 3.25 0.08 3.13 Mechanical
21/01/02 6:45 0.25 0.50 0.17 Mechanical
22/01/02 6:40 23.92 0.33 23.42 Mechanical
22/01/02 7:20 0.66 0.33 0.33 Mechanical
22/01/02 8:10 0.83 0.17 0.50 Mechanical
22/01/02 8:30 0.33 0.17 0.16 Mechanical
22/01/02 9:15 0.75 0.17 0.58 Mechanical
22/01/02 9:30 0.25 0.17 0.08 Mechanical
22/01/02 9:50 0.33 0.17 0.16 Mechanical
22/01/02 14:30 4.66 0.17 4.49 Mechanical
23/01/02 11:05 20.58 0.08 20.41 Mechanical
24/01/02 23:20 36.25 0.17 36.17 Mechanical
28/01/02 9:00 81.66 0.25 81.49 Mechanical
28/01/02 12:15 3.25 0.17 3.00 Mechanical
29/01/02 21:55 33.66 0.08 33.49 Mechanical
Table 11.14 Hydraulic pump failure summary

Patrick Collins
107
Date Delay Start Time Between Downtime Operating Time Type of

Time Failures Between Failures failure
29/01/02 22:50 0.92 0.17 0.84 Mechanical
29/01/02 3:00 4.17 0.25 4.00 Mechanical
30/01/02 23:25 20.41 0.17 20.16 Mechanical
31/01/02 7:45 8.33 0.25 8.16 Electrical
31/01/02 10:50 3.08 0.17 2.83 Electrical
7/02/02 9:20 166.5 0.92 166.33 Electrical
18/02/02 10:50 265.5 0.17 264.58 Electrical
18/02/02 23:10 12.33 0.25 12.16 Mechanical
18/02/02 0:45 1.58 0.25 1.33 Mechanical
18/02/02 1:50 1.08 0.17 0.83 Mechanical
18/02/02 2:40 0.92 0.33 0.75 Mechanical
18/02/02 4:50 2.17 0.17 1.84 Mechanical
18/02/02 5:40 0.92 0.17 0.75 Mechanical
19/02/02 0:40 19 0.08 18.83 Mechanical
20/02/02 20:00 19.33 0.17 19.25 Mechanical
20/02/02 1:15 5.25 0.08 5.08 Electrical
20/02/02 3:15 2 0.17 1.92 Electrical
21/02/02 7:30 4.25 0.33 4.08 Mechanical
21/02/02 11:25 3.92 0.25 3.59 Electrical
22/02/02 8:00 20.58 0.33 20.33 Mechanical
22/02/02 22:45 14.75 0.07 14.42 Mechanical
22/02/02 23:03 0.33 0.12 0.26 Mechanical
23/02/02 0:30 25.41 0.08 25.29 Electrical
23/02/02 3:00 2.5 0.08 2.42 Mechanical
23/02/02 3:10 0.17 0.12 0.09 Electrical
23/02/02 3:20 0.17 0.33 0.05 Mechanical
23/02/02 3:55 0.58 0.17 0.25 Mechanical
23/02/02 4:20 0.41 0.08 0.24 Mechanical
23/02/02 4:27 0.12 0.05 0.04 Mechanical
23/02/02 4:35 0.17 0.08 0.12 Mechanical
23/02/02 4:45 0.17 0.03 0.09 Mechanical
24/02/02 6:20 1.58 0.17 1.55 Mechanical
24/02/02 7:30 1.17 0.58 1.00 Mechanical
24/02/02 21:30 14 0.08 13.42 Mechanical
24/02/02 23:55 2.41 0.08 2.33 Electrical
24/02/02 1:55 2 0.08 1.92 Mechanical
24/02/02 4:15 2.41 0.08 2.33 Electrical
24/02/02 5:55 1.66 0.08 1.58 Electrical
26/02/02 5:25 47.5 0.17 47.42 Electrical
27/02/02 8:34 3.17 0.20 3.00 Mechanical
27/02/02 9:50 1.25 0.57 1.05 Mechanical
27/02/02 13:40 3.83 0.17 3.26 Mechanical
27/02/02 14:07 0.41 0.05 0.24 Mechanical
27/02/02 16:07 2 0.35 1.95 Mechanical
Table 11.14 Hydraulic pump failure summary

Patrick Collins
108

95
90 99
80
70 Weibull
60 95
50
40 1.13
30
20 80
70 Lognormal base e
Perce nt
Perce nt
10 60
50
40 0.51
5 30
3
2 20 Exponential
10
1 5 31.65
1 Normal
16.79
0.000 0.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Exponential Normal
99
95
99 80
70
Percent
Percent
98 60
97 50
40
95 30
20
90
10
80 5
70
60 1
50
30
10
0 100 200 -100 0 100 200 300
Figure 11.18 Probability plots of Hydraulic pump failure data

Complete Data
99.9 Location 0.9472

Scale 2.0232
99 MTTF 19.964
StDev 153.27
95 Median 2.5786
90 IQR 9.4347
Failure 85
80
Censor 0
70
Percent
60 AD* 0.5130
50
40
30
20
10
5
0.1
0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0

Time to Failure
Figure 11.19 Hydraulic pump failure data fitted to lognormal distribution

Patrick Collins
109
11.3.5 Cutter Shear Shaft

1/01/02 14:25 0.50
2/01/02 2:15 35.83 0.50 35.33
11/01/02 11:15 201 0.37 200.50
13/01/02 3:33 64.33 0.45 63.96
14/01/02 14:45 11.17 0.58 10.72
22/01/02 14:55 192.17 0.33 191.59
22/01/02 23:10 8.25 0.42 7.92
26/01/02 5:05 101.92 0.50 101.50
27/01/02 12:45 7.66 0.58 7.16
12/02/02 7:20 378.58 1.17 378.00
12/02/02 8:50 1.5 8.67 0.33
21/02/02 11:00 218.17 0.42 209.50
22/02/02 16:10 29.17 1.00 28.75
24/02/02 22:40 54.5 0.58 53.50
Table 11.15 Cutter shear shaft failure summary

99 99
90
95
80 Weibull
70
60
50 80 1.027
40 70
30 Lognormal base e
Perce nt
Perce nt
60
20 50
40 1.185
10 30
20 Exponential
5
10 1.414
3
5
2 Normal
1 1 1.661
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 1 10 100 1000
Exponential Normal
99 99
98 95
97
80
95
70
Percent
Percent
60
90 50
40
30
80 20
70
10
60
50 5
30
10 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Figure 11.20 Probability plots of Cutter shear shaft failure data

Patrick Collins
110

Complete Data
Shape 0.7361
99 Scale 83.660
95 MTTF 101.19
90 StDev 139.78
80
70 Median 50.848
60 IQR 114.99
50 Failure 13
40 Censor 0
Percent
30
AD* 1.0274
20
10
3
2
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

Time to Failure
Figure 11.21 Cutter shear shaft failure data fitted to Weibull distribution

Complete Data
99 Location 3.6022
Scale 1.8455
MTTF 201.35
95
StDev 1086.9
90 Median 36.678
IQR 116.79
80
Failure 13
70 Censor 0
Percent
60 AD* 1.1849
50
40
30
20
10
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0

Time to Failure
Figure 11.22 Cutter shear shaft failure data fitted to lognormal distribution

Patrick Collins
111
11.3.6 Shield Interface Module

1/01/02 7:50 0.25
6/01/02 2:20 138.5 1.50 138.25
7/01/02 3:10 24.83 3.33 23.33
12/01/02 15:25 108.25 0.17 104.92
14/01/02 20:38 53.25 0.37 53.08
21/01/02 21:05 168.41 0.33 168.04
22/01/02 21:25 24.33 0.33 24.00
28/01/02 19:30 142.08 0.83 141.75
29/01/02 23:50 28.33 0.17 27.50
30/01/02 3:20 27.5 0.33 27.33
31/01/02 7:30 4.17 0.25 3.84
13/02/02 20:00 324.5 0.25 324.25
14/02/02 9:25 13.41 0.83 13.16
22/02/02 23:16 205.83 0.90 205.00
22/02/02 1:18 2 0.30 1.10
25/02/02 3:40 74.33 0.33 74.03
25/02/02 4:40 1 1.17 0.67
Table 11.16 Shield Interface Module failure summary

99 99
90
95
80 Weibull
70
60
50 0.912
80
40 70
30 Lognormal base e
Perce nt
Perce nt
60
20 50 1.186
40
10 30
Exponential
20
5
10 1.298
3
5
2 Normal
1 1 1.518
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 1 10 100 1000
Exponential Normal
99 99
98 95
97
80
95
70
Percent
Percent
60
90 50
40
30
80 20
70
10
60
50 5
30
10 1
0 100 200 300 400 -100 0 100 200 300
Figure 11.23 Probability plots of S.I.M failure data

Patrick Collins
112

Complete Data
Shape 0.7612
99 Scale 71.999
95 MTTF 84.700
90 StDev 112.72
80
70 Median 44.485
60 IQR 96.569
50 Failure 16
40 Censor 0
Percent
30
AD* 0.9121
20
10
3
2
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

Time to Failure
Figure 11.24 S.I.M failure data fitted to Weibull distribution

Complete Data
99 Location 3.4752
Scale 1.7705
MTTF 154.85
95
StDev 725.94
90 Median 32.303
IQR 96.840
80
Failure 16
70 Censor 0
Percent
60 AD* 1.1857
50
40
30
20
10
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0

Time to Failure
Figure 11.25 S.I.M failure data fitted to lognormal distribution

Patrick Collins
113
11.3.7 Bretby Towing Attachment

6/01/02 10:10 1.17
6/01/02 20:25 10.25 0.25 9.08
7/01/02 11:00 14.75 0.33 14.50
8/01/02 13:00 26 2.25 25.67
8/01/02 23:00 10 0.50 7.75
8/01/02 0:50 1.833 0.67 1.33
8/01/02 3:50 3 0.42 2.33
9/01/02 0:00 21.166 0.83 20.75
9/01/02 1:30 1.5 0.50 0.67
9/01/02 2:50 1.333 0.17 0.83
9/01/02 4:45 1.916 0.25 1.75
10/01/02 8:43 28 1.23 27.75
22/01/02 16:10 295.417 0.58 294.18
23/01/02 17:00 24.833 0.50 24.25
25/01/02 0:35 31.583 0.42 31.08
23/02/02 1:25 696.833 0.42 696.42
Table 11.17 Bretby towing attachment failure summary
Four-way Probability Plot for failure time

99 99
90
95
80 Weibull
70
60
50 1.475
80
40 70 Lognormal base e
30
Perce nt
Perce nt
60
20 50 1.201
40
10 30
Exponential
20
5
10 7.593
3
5
2 Normal
1 1 4.129
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Exponential Normal
99 99
98 95
97
80
95
70
P ercent
P ercent
60
90 50
40
30
80
20
70
10
60
50 5
30
10 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 400 800
Figure 11.26 Probability plots of Bretby towing attachment failure data

Patrick Collins
114
Lognormal base e Probability Plot for failure time

ML Estimates - 95% CI
99 ML Estimates
Location 2.59408
95
Scale 1.78429
90
Goodness of Fit
80
70 AD* 1.201
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Data
Weibull Probability Plot for failure time

ML Estimates - 95% CI
99 ML Estimates
95
90 S hape 0.519053
80 S cale 34.2701
70
60
50 Goodness of Fit
40 AD* 1.475
Percent
30
20
10
3
2
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Data

Patrick Collins
115
11.4 RESULTS
AFC Chains, flights and connectors

Both the Weibull and Lognormal distributions provide reasonable fits to the failure
data, however neither is a close fit.
β = 24.15 and α = 0.4061.
Weibull has the slightly better Anderson-Darling number and all points lie within the
Hose and Fittings

β = 16.167 and α = 0.6965.
Emulsion tank
Hydraulic Pumps

Patrick Collins
116
Cutter Shear Shaft

β = 83.66 and α = 0.7361.
confidence interval. The lognormal, exponential and normal distributions all provided
a reasonable fit for the data as shown by the Anderson-Darling numbers.
Shield Interface Module

β = 71.999 and α = 0.7612.
Bretby Towing Attachment


Patrick Collins
117
11.5 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

The chains, flights and connector failures were the result of mechanical and electrical
faults. Many of these were caused by impact and overloads caused by large lumps of
coal ripped from face. A reduction in the rip size may result in less failures of this
nature.
The cutter shear shaft is a sacrificial part. This shaft turns the cutting drum, which rips
the coal. Some of the shaft failures could be caused by the shearer operating too close
to the face and trying to make too large a cut. Or the coal seam may be particularly
hard causing more stress than usual. The life of the cutter shear shaft may be able to
improve if more appropriate rip sizes were taken.
Hose and fittings failures included blown hoses, leaks and pressure loses. Pressure
lines, water hoses, return lines and hydraulic lines were all included under this title.
Failures relating to the shield interface module were purely electrical faults.
Failure data for chains, flights and connectors, hose and fittings, shield interface
module and the cutter shear shaft most closely followed a Weibull distribution. The
estimated shape parameter for each of these distributions was less than one (α < 1).
The failure rate of these distributions is therefore a decreasing function.
The decreasing failure rate means that most of the failures occur in the early stages of
operation, that is recently after a repair or replacement. There could be a number of
reasons for this. Defective parts may be a cause however; repair procedure and human
error is the more likely explanation.
The decreasing failure rate suggests maintenance-induced failures. That is, a lack of
care with repairs and replacements and insufficient pre start testing. Workers are
continually under pressure to complete these repairs as quickly as possible to
minimise downtime. However this desire for rapid repairs may cost more money in
the long run with increasing breakdowns.

Patrick Collins
118
It is recommended that the repair/replacement procedure for these components be

reviewed and more time taken during repair for pre start testing and inspection. It also
recommended that the preventative maintenance policy for these components be
reviewed to minimise unnecessary work that will increase the probability of human
errors.
A condition-based preventative maintenance policy involving increased inspection

frequency would be more desirable than a time- based policy. Chains, flights and
connectors, hoses and fittings should not be replaced until a certain level of
deterioration is detected in the condition of the item.
A failure-based policy is recommended for the cutter shear shaft and shield interface
module.
The emulsion tank, hydraulic pumps and bretby towing attachment failures were best
represented by the lognormal distribution. The lognormal distribution is characterised
by a failure rate that initially increases to a maximum and then decreases. This
increasing failure rate means that the scheduled replacement/reconditioning of parts
will most likely improve the reliability of the system.
Account should be taken of the lognormal distribution and the appropriate failure rate
function to predict times to failure and help develop an effective and economical
preventative maintenance technique.
The emulsion tank generally refers to the emulsion pumps failures. For example loss
of emulsion pressure caused by either mechanical or electrical reasons. A preventative
maintenance program designed around the lognormal distribution should be
implemented to conduct general pump maintenance (eg clean/replace filters). This
same approach should be used for the hydraulic pumps, which also included
mechanical and electrical failures.
Bretby towing attachment failures included broken bolts, cables falling out of tray,
adjustment problems and blockages. Regular inspections and cleaning are

Patrick Collins
119
recommended for the bretby towing attachment. Preventative maintenance can be

undertaken for condition-based problems such as strained/elongated bolts however a
failure-based policy should generally be employed.
Of the seven failures analysed only the hose and fittings and hydraulic pumps
produced comprehensive results in the way of a distribution fit. The other five could
have been fit to a Weibull or lognormal distribution. The reason for this was the lack
of data. This was most obvious with the shear cutter shaft, which only had fourteen
recorded failures and seemed to produce a reasonable fit with the Weibull, lognormal,
exponential and normal distributions. A greater quantity of results is required before
an accurate conclusion can be made on the best maintenance approach for these five
components.
These seven failures are considered to be the maintenance priorities from Mine 2. A
condition based preventative maintenance policy is considered the best approach for
the majority of these components. The appropriate time to failure distribution should
be used to determine the optimal inspection schedule for each component.
There are also a number of general recommendations to reduce the downtime

associated with these failures.
optimised.
these tasks.

Patrick Collins
120
12.0 ERROR STATEMENT

The result of most error in this thesis is the quality and quantity of the data. The
failure data provided lacked detail and was often ambiguous. There was often very
little or no descriptions or explanation for the failures. The mechanic who conducted
the work determines the recorded cause of the downtime. Different people may
attribute the same occurrence to different equipment and provide different
explanations. This meant that many assumptions were made to interpret the data and
establish failure groups. Also specific failures could rarely be identified.
The quantity of data available also made it difficult to establish specific yet useful
failure groups. With limited data, results are never going to be truly representative.
For these reasons many of the failure groups contained a range of failures not just a
specific occurrence. For example hydraulic pump failures included all failures relating
to the pumps such as filtration problems, electrical and mechanical faults. The
grouping of chains, flight bars and connector is another example.
These broad failure groups include a range of different failures and a range of
corrective methods. Some of the failures may have been corrected by repairing the
failed item while others may have replaced the item with a new component. The type
of corrective action undertaken will affect the failure rates of the machinery. The lack
of detailed data meant this could not be accounted for.
The total downtime, number of failures and number of failure codes also determine
the acute and chronic failure limits. As such the broad and general failure groups will
have affected their values. Failure priorities may therefore be inaccurate.
The operating time between failures for the selected failure priorities at each mine
were also subject to large amounts of error. Using the time between successive
failures and subtracting the downtime associated with the previous failure calculated
the OPTBF. This assumed that the only downtime was caused by these failures and
the components operated continuously between these times. The downtime caused by

Patrick Collins
121
other failures in this period was not taken into consideration and therefore the OPTBF
was overestimated.
Another large source of error to do with the OPTBF was related to the broad nature of
the failure groups. The hose and fittings are a good example of this. The lack of
detailed data meant that it was not known which particular hose had failed and how
long it had been in operation. Therefore to gain OPTBF times it was assumed that
each failured component had only been in operational use since the previous failure.
This assumption introduces a great deal of error into the analysis. Each hose failure
could have been related to different hoses, all of which may have been in operation
for many hours.
The shear lack of data quantity was prevalent when trying to fit distributions to the
failures. The Mine 2 data was noticeably limited and therefore was difficult to make
definite conclusions.
The range of possible failures and errors in interpreting the vague data also made it
difficult to provide definite and justifiable recommendations for the necessary
maintenance policies.
Limited information on the relative costs of failures, repairs and preventative

maintenance meant that extra assumptions had to be made when giving
recommendations.
It should also be noted that this analysis was conducted and maintenance priorities
identified according to downtime only. The cost of failures was not considered as no
information on this was supplied.

Patrick Collins
122
13.0 CONCLUSION
The results and recommendations given for each mine were similar. All data followed
either the Lognormal or Weibull distributions most closely. The common failures
between mines followed the same distributions and thus the same recommendations
were given. All the failures that followed the Weibull distribution most closely
demonstrated a decreasing failure rate. These early failures were attributed to
defective parts and human error in poor repair/replacement practices.
A failure-based policy was recommended for the Mine 1 solenoid, the cutter shear
shaft and Mine 2 shield interface module. However overall a condition based
preventative maintenance policy was considered the best approach for the majority of
these components. The appropriate times to failure distributions were to be used to
determine the optimal inspection schedule for each component.
The general recommendations made to both mines were,
optimised.
these tasks.
Recommendations to both mines were limited by a number of errors and assumptions

associated with the limited data. Mine 2 especially suffered from a lack of failure
data, which limited the value of the analysis.

Patrick Collins
123
14.0 REFERENCES
AB Journal Staff. 2000, Case Histories Show Benefits of Complete Automation, AB
Journal [Online] http://www.ab.com/abjournal/mar2000/features/casehist/index.html
[Accessed 29 August 2001]
Banerjee, G. & Sarkar, S. K. 1988 ‘Condition monitoring and performance testing at

longwall faces’, Journal of Mines Metallurgy and Fuels, vol 36, n 5, pp. 205-210
Basu, A., Singh, R.N. & Yuejin, L.I. 1991, ‘Expert system for fault diagnosis of
longwall mining machinery’, International Conference on Reliability, Production
and Control in Coal Mines, Wollongong, Aust., pp. 175-178.
Dhillon, B. S. 1990, Mechanical Reliability: Theory, Models and Applications,

AIAA Education Series, Ohio.
Ercelebi, G. 1993, ‘Reliability and availability analysis of mining systems’,

Transactions of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 102, pp. A51-A58
Kececioglu, D. 1991, Reliability Engineering Handbook, Vol 1, PTR Prentice-Hall

Inc, Sydney.
Kececioglu, D. 1991, Reliability Engineering Handbook, Vol 2, PTR Prentice-Hall

Inc, Sydney.
Kumar, U. D. 2000, Reliability, Maintenance and Logistic Support – A life cycle

approach, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
Mackie, K. 1995, ‘Role of the shearer in high productivity mining’, Mining

Technology, vol. 77, n 881, pp.5-8
Mobley, R. 1990, An introduction to Predictive Maintenance, Van Nostrand

Reinhold, New York.
O’Connor, Patrick D.T. 1995, Practical Reliability Engineering 3rd Ed, John Wiley
& Sons, Brisbane.
Roa, K.R.M. 1989, ‘Reliability assessment of longwall coal face equipment and
delay analysis of coal clearance system’, Institute of Engineering India, vol. 70, n 1,
pp. 11-20
Smith, David J. 1997, Reliability, Maintainability and Risk 5th Ed, Butterworth-
Heinemann, Melbourne.
Stout, Koehler S. 1989, Mining Methods and Equipment, Maclean Hunter

Publishing Company, Chicago.
Takakuwa, T. 1999, Coal Mining Engineer’s Webpage,

http://www.twics.com/~takakuwa/index4.html [Accessed 10 August 2001]

Patrick Collins
124

Patrick Collins

Analysis of Longwall Machinery Maintenance Data

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Longwall Machinery Maintenance Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND

Bachelor of Engineering Thesis

Analysis of Longwall Machinery Maintenance Data

Student Name: PATRICK COLLINS

Course Code: MECH4501

Supervisor: Prof. Hal Gurgenci

Submission date: 7th June 2002

Faculty of Engineering, Physical Sciences and Architecture

7th June 2002

I hereby submit my Thesis titled “Analysis of Longwall Machinery Maintenance

It was recommended that a condition based maintenance policy involving increased

5.0 PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS ........................................................................ 21

5.1 BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION _______________________________________ 23

6.0 DATA REPRESENTATION................................................................................... 27

6.1 FAULT TREE ANALYSIS _________________________________________ 27

7.0 LONGWALL MINING........................................................................................... 34

7.1 COAL MINING __________________________________________________ 34

8.0 LONGWALL MACHINERY.................................................................................. 37

8.1 ROOF SUPPORTS ________________________________________________ 37

9.0 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ..................................................................................... 44

10.0 MINE 1 ................................................................................................................. 46

10.1 DOWNTIME SUMMARY_________________________________________ 46

11.0 MINE 2 ................................................................................................................. 84

11.1 DOWNTIME SUMMARY_________________________________________ 84

11.3.7 Bretby Towing Attachment..................................................................... 113

12.0 ERROR STATEMENT ....................................................................................... 120

13.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 122

14.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 123

The field of mechanical reliability is still considered to be relatively new. Many

In 1951, Weibull of the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology published a statistical

3.2 What is Reliability

Reliability: The ability of an item to perform a required function under stated

Competition Market pressure

Safety Management emphasis

Perceived Customer requirements

Public liability Development risks

Figure 3.1 Risks associated with product development

Statistical methods are used as an attempt to quantify the concept of reliability as a

Reliability is quantified in many different ways. It can be specified as the;

When predicting or measuring reliability it is important to distinguish between

3.3 Non-repairable items

Non-repairable items may be individual parts (light bulbs, transistors) or systems

Infant mortality Useful life Wearout

Figure 3.2 The ‘bathtub’ curve

3.4 Repairable items

Availability = MTBF = Uptime

The purpose of maintenance is to ensure that equipment continue to fulfil their

Maintenance can be classified into two groups, Preventative and Corrective.

Preventative Maintenance: Maintenance activities performed to reduce

This is planned maintenance. Work carried out periodically to prevent or identify

The time-based maintenance policy is performed at fix intervals (operating hours,

The advantages of time-based maintenance are

Time-based maintenance disadvantages are,

Condition-based maintenance involves monitoring the condition of a system and only

Corrective Maintenance: Maintenance activities performed to repair failed

• The failure will generally occur at an inconvenient time

Figure 5.1 Continuous probability distribution

It is the probability that the failure does not occur at or before x.

5.1 Binomial Distribution

5.2 Poisson distribution

5.3 The Normal distribution

5.4 Lognormal distribution

5.5 Exponential distribution

5.6 The Weibull distribution