4.7 Article

Risk-based and predictive maintenance planning of engineering infrastructure: Existing quantitative techniques and future directions

期刊

PROCESS SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
卷 165, 期 -, 页码 776-790

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2022.07.046

关键词

Maintenance operations; Process industry; Risk analysis; System safety; Decision-making

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Maintenance planning plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety and availability of engineering infrastructure. This study aims to identify the gaps, needs, and challenges in maintenance planning and provides theoretical and practical insights for decision makers and operators.
Engineering infrastructure incorporate complex systems, hazardous materials and often operated by human beings, making them prone to catastrophic accidents. Continuously improving system safety of the facilities and their operations requires a well-established asset management practices. The history of hazardous events in some domains such as process facilities suggest that many accidents have occurred due to ineffective maintenance planning strategies. Thus, to ensure an acceptable level of system safety and availability, it is essential to adopt optimal programs and practical procedures in maintenance planning engineering assets. The lessons learnt from previous accidents have helped operators, classification societies and regulators to develop viable standards and guidelines for employing quantitative methods in Operation and Maintenance (O&M) planning. The current work aims to present the existing attempts and identify the gaps, needs, and challenges of maintenance planning in engineering facilities. It then integrates the empirical and theoretical conclusions, highlighting the capabilities and drawbacks of the state-of-the-arts and explaining research opportunities and challenges. The decisionmakers, operators, and managers in engineering infrastructure can exploit the present work from theoretical and practical perspectives.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据