Assessment of Sustainable Maintenance Strategy for Manufacturing Industry

This study creates a framework to aid in the sustainability of maintenance strategies. The framework was created using expertise from the industry and academia. Using this knowledge, three multi-criteria tools were chosen for the maintenance strategies evaluation. The tools include grey relational analysis (GRA) techniques, additive ratio assessment (ARAS), and step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). In a production system, they were used to assess four planned maintenance strategies. The strategies are periodic maintenance (S1), meter-based maintenance (S2), predictive maintenance (S3) and prescriptive maintenance (S4). The ARAS approach was used to obtain the strategy rating for the various requirements. This study used the SWARA method to determine the requirements' importance using an intuitionistic fuzzy triangular number. The ARAS results were combined using the GRA method. This study observed that the criteria utilised to choose a maintenance strategy for equipment depend on the information collected from six specialists in a manufacturing organisation. For instance, it was discovered that S3 was the maintenance approach that best suited the system's technical needs. At the same time, S2 was found to be less effective. The economic needs analysis showed that S1 is the maintenance strategy that is most appropriate for the system, while S3 is the least appropriate. S1 is the most appropriate maintenance method for the system, given the social requirements, whereas S2 is the least effective. According to the results of the environmental requirements, S2 is the best maintenance plan for the system, while S4 is the worst. According to the GRA approach, the system's best and least appropriate maintenance strategies are S2 and S4, respectively.

Automated summary

This study creates a framework for sustainable maintenance strategies and evaluates four different strategies using multi-criteria tools. The results show that different strategies are suitable for different requirements, with S3 being the best for technical needs and S2 being the least effective. The analysis of economic, social, and environmental needs identifies S1, S1, and S2 as the most appropriate and least appropriate strategies, respectively.