See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/297673218

Failure rate analysis of jaw crusher using Weibull model

Article  in  ARCHIVE Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part E Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering 1989-1996 (vols · March 2016
DOI: 10.1177/0954408916636922

CITATIONS READS

2 359

2 authors, including:

Ravi Sinha
Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad
4 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ravi Sinha on 26 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part E:

J Process Mechanical Engineering
Failure rate analysis of jaw crusher 0(0) 1–13
! IMechE 2016

using Weibull model Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0954408916636922
uk.sagepub.com/jpme

RS Sinha and AK Mukhopadhyay

Abstract
The primary crusher is essential equipment employed for comminuting the mineral in processing plants. Any kind of
failure of its components will accordingly hinder the performance of the plant. Therefore, to minimize sudden failures,
analysis should be undertaken to improve performance and operational reliability of the crushers and its components.
This paper considers the methods for analyzing failure rates of a jaw crusher and its critical components application of a
two-parameter Weibull distribution in a mineral processing plant fitted using statistical tests such as goodness of fit and
maximum likelihood estimation. Monte Carlo simulation, analysis of variance, and artificial neural network are also
applied. Two-parameter Weibull distribution is found to be the best fit distribution using Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.
Maximum likelihood estimation method is used to find out the shape and scale parameter of two-parameter Weibull
distribution. Monte Carlo simulation generates 40 numbers of shape parameters, scale parameters, and time. Further, 40
numbers of Weibull distribution parameters are evaluated to examine the failure rate, significant difference, and regres-
sion coefficient using ANOVA. Artificial neural network with back-propagation algorithm is used to determine R2 and is
compared with analysis of variance.

Keywords
Software reliability, Monte Carlo simulation, analysis of variance, artificial neural networks, failure data analysis

Date received: 7 July 2015; accepted: 8 February 2016

distribution from the pool of TBFs data.3,4 The K-S

Introduction
The reliability of a unit comprising subsystems in
series is evaluated by multiplying the reliabilities of
individual subsystem.1 The major problem of the min-
eral processing plant equipment is how long a unit
may operate without failure. The failure of capital-
intensive machine components cannot be ignored in
the competitive environment. The sudden and fre-
quent failure of equipment/components leads to pro-
duction loss. As the number of components increase,
the reliability of the unit decreases. Operational reli-
ability investigation is desirable for reducing the
maintenance cost and improving the performance of
the plant.2 Crushers are designed in such a way that
they reduce rock in a manner where all pieces are less
than a stated size. But no crusher has been devised
which produces only fragments greater than a speci-
fied size. A crusher always produces various sizes of
particles with substantial amount of fines. The time-
between-failures (TBFs) data of jaw crusher of 2-year
duration from the plant maintenance record book
have been considered for analysis. The
Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) test performs multiple
goodness-of-fit (GOF) tests determining the best
test is often employed for testing the null hypothesis
where a data set has a distribution described by a fully
determined distribution function.5,6 Failure data are
examined by exponential, normal, lognormal, gamma,
logistic, and two-parameter Weibull distributions.
Maximum likelihood (ML) estimation method is
used to determine the shape and scale parameter of
two-parameter Weibull distribution.7–9 The estima-
tion theory is a cornerstone in statistical analyses,
and several techniques are used to assess the param-
eters, of which ML estimation, graphical procedure,
moments method, and weighted least square method
are some of the most used ones.10–14 ML estimation is
asymptotically unbiased with the minimum variance
and maximum likelihood estimation, and is the tool
used for parameter estimation.15 In this two-
Department of Mining Machinery Engineering Indian School of Mines,
Dhanbad, India
Corresponding author:
RS Sinha, Department of Mining Machinery Engineering Indian School of
Mines, Dhanbad 826004, India.
Email: ravi.dr0091@mme.ism.ac.in

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on March 9, 2016

2 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
parameter Weibull distribution, density function is
given in equation (1)16 and failure rate (h) is given
in equation (2)
  
 t   t 
fðtÞ ¼ e ,  4 0,  4 0
 
 
 t 1
hðtÞ ¼
 
where h(t) is the failure rate, b is the shape parameter,
Z is the scale parameter, and t is the time. No sparse
data lead to large error limit for two-parameter
Weibull fitting.17 From equation (2), Weibull failure
model helped to find out failure rate, significant dif-
ferences, and R2 (regression coefficient) by ANOVA
(analysis of variance). In this study, the two-para-
meter Weibull distribution has two parameters as
shape and scale, and time is also used as a third par-
ameter. Shape parameter (b) and scale parameter (Z) is
a function of time (t) of two-parameter Weibull distri-
bution. Taking these three parameters (shape, scale,
and time), we proceed to analyze the failure rate by
ANOVA. Most of the research works carried out so
far uses ANOVA found in the areas of wear and coat-
ing.18–24 By Monte Carlo simulation (MCS), 40 num-
bers of shape parameters, scale parameters, and time
data are generated from two-parameter Weibull distri-
bution. These data are used for 23 factorial design
using ANOVA to minimize the overall number of
examinations. The random variability is explained by
the second factor, so it is more easy to find out the
significant differences. The significant interaction of
one variable changes depending on the level of the
other factor. ANOVA also determined the relation
between observed and predicted value by R2, which
indicated GOF of jaw crusher and its components.
Using ANOVA, 40 numbers of shape parameter,
scale parameter, and time determined the failure
rates and R2 of jaw crusher and its components.
Artificial neural network (ANN) models have the
capability of detecting complex underlying nonlinear
relationships between 40 numbers of input and output
data, and trained using several effective training algo-
rithms.25,26 The input data was considered as shape
parameter, scale parameter, and time, and output as
failure rate of two-parameter Weibull distribution
from equation (2). However, in the last few years,
ANNs with regression analysis have been used to pre-
dict uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) from texture
characteristics of rocks,27–29 air quality forecasting
community,30–35 electricity consumption,36–40 field of
wood science,41–50 etc. This paper applied ANN
method for jaw crusher and its components. ANNs
are designed according to their connection architec-
ture, learning algorithm, number of hidden layers,
number of nodes in a hidden layer, and transfer func-
tion. Also, these design criteria affect the performance
Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on March 9, 2016
of ANNs. The ANN model having the best prediction
performance is detected by trying various networks.
The ANN method has determined R2 values, which
indicates the GOF of jaw crusher and its components.
The R2 values of ANN are compared with ANOVA. It
ð1Þ is shown that the R2 value of ANN model was approxi-
mately same as that compared to ANOVA. The results
also indicated that the designed model is useful, reli-
ð2Þ able, and quite effective for analyzing the effects of
failure rate of jaw crusher.51 The goal of this paper is
to find out failure rates and R2 using ANOVA and
validate the result by ANN through R2 values.
The actual performance of plant machineries is pri-
marily a function of failure rates of its components
and maintenance philosophies applied by the manage-
ment of the specific plant. Prior to taking up the study
and during general survey of the plant, it was assumed
that the reliability of the plant and its equipment
could be improved after identifying the frequency of
failure of critical components and adopting suitable
maintenance scheme, which finally determines the
asset utilization.
Mineral processing plant
The equipment in a mineral processing plant works in
series. The plants include four general types of oper-
ations which are sizing, comminuting, mineral recov-
ery, and dewatering. A jaw crusher is used as the
primary type size reduction equipment. The plant
equipment layout is shown in Figure 1. There are no
standby equipments and all equipments work in
series. If one particular unit in the circuit is down,
the operation of entire plant stops. Efficient mainten-
ance program of different units for improving oper-
ational reliability thus becomes essential.
Jaw crusher
Crushing is the first stage of size reduction of rocks
received from mines. Crushers are heavy-duty
machines, used to reduce the run-of-mine ore down
to a predetermined size. A line diagram of a double
toggle jaw crusher and its main components is shown
in Figure 2. The jaws are set at an angle to each other.
The moving jaw moves forward towards the fixed jaw
causing fragmentation of rocks inside the crushing
chamber and then moves backward in the next half
of its working cycle. The crushed materials get dis-
charged by gravity from the bottom of the crusher
during the return stroke.
Methodology
Data collection and treatment of data
The time-between-failure (TBF) data of jaw crusher
of 2-year duration are collected from a plant mainten-
ance record book. The components of the crusher
Sinha and Mukhopadhyay
Figure 1. Block diagram mineral processing plant operational unit.
Figure 2. A double toggle jaw crusher.
which are critical and having major impact on plant’s
operation have been considered for analysis. TBFs of
these components are presented in Table 1. TBFs’
data are considered for those components only
whose failure caused stoppage of functioning of the
whole equipment. Forty number of such component
failures have been recorded in 2 years.
Goodness of fit
Life data analysis (LDA) is a method to evaluate
GOF and ML estimation of jaw crusher and its com-
ponents. GOF uses Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) test
to identify the best distribution among normal, log-
normal, Weibull, exponential, gamma, generalized
gamma, logistic, and log-logistic distributions from
the TBF data. The K-S test is used as a measure of
GOF of different theoretical distributions. In statis-
tics, the K-S test is a nonparametric test and it is
used for GOF. The empirical distribution function
Fn for n independent and identically distributed obser-
vations Xi is given in the following equation
1X n
Fn ðxÞ ¼ I½1, x ðxi Þ
n i¼1
where I½1, x ðxi Þ the indicator function, equal to 1 if
Xi 4 x and equal to 0 otherwise. The K-S statistic for
a given cumulative distribution function F(x) is
 
Dmax ¼ supx Fn ðxÞ  FðxÞ
Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on March 9, 2016
3
where supx is the supremum of the set of distances.
For this analysis, the TBFs are treated as complete
samples. The GOF describes how well it fits a set of
observations in a particular distribution.52–55 Forty
numbers of failure data of Table 1 are tested in dif-
ferent distributions and it is observed that these data
in two-parameter Weibull distribution fits best. TBFs’
distribution and the parameters are estimated by the
ML method using WEIBULLþþ, a computer pack-
age for statistical analysis. Table 2 presents the K-S
test of components of jaw crusher for the distributions
considered in this study from equation (4). It is
observed that in two-parameter Weibull distribution,
the data fit more closely to the input field data com-
pared to other distributions.
Maximum likelihood estimation
The ML estimation is a method of estimating the par-
ameters of a statistical model. When applied to a fail-
ure data and given a statistical model, the ML
estimation provides estimates for the model’s param-
eters. The shape and scale parameters of the two-
parameter Weibull distribution are found out by the
ML estimation method. The ML estimation requires
minimal distributional assumptions, and is valuable
for obtaining a descriptive measure for the purpose
of summarizing observed data, but it has no basis for
testing hypotheses or constructing confidence inter-
vals. It is a standard approach to parameter estima-
tion and inference in statistics. Let x1, x2. . .xn be a
random sample size n drawn from a probability dens-
ity function fx (x; ) where  is an unknown param-
eter. The likelihood function of this random sample is
the joint density of the n random variables and is a
function of the unknown parameter. Thus
Y
n
L¼ fxi ðxi , Þ ð5Þ
i¼1
is the likelihood function. The ML estimation of  is a
ð3Þ solution of
d log L
¼0 ð6Þ
d
Now, we are going to apply the ML estimation to
estimate Weibull parameter, namely the shape and the
ð4Þ
scale parameters. Consider the Weibull pdf given in
4 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

Table 1. TBFs of the jaw crusher.

System/Subsystem No. of failures Time between failure (TBF)

Jaw crusher unit 40 12, 60, 70, 108, 110, 132, 135, 165, 180, 185, 200, 216, 225, 245, 250, 273, 300, 324, 330,
340, 350, 360, 360, 360, 360, 360, 365, 370, 380, 396, 400, 405, 410, 420,425, 430, 430,
431, 432, 432
Back toggle plate 11 396, 455, 567, 600, 650, 711, 767, 790, 800, 800, 1800
Liner plate 10 492, 500, 560, 600, 610, 620, 636, 670, 730, 888
Jaw plate 9 60, 100, 210, 400, 556, 708, 810, 1100, 1248
Tie rod 10 708, 720, 750, 790, 810, 828, 900, 950, 1100, 1320

Table 2. Goodness-of-fit test of jaw crusher components.

K-S test (Dmax)

System/Subsystem Exponential Normal Lognormal Gamma Weibull Logistic Best fit model

Jaw crusher 43.98 1.08 1.28 3.83 0.33 6.53 Weibull

Back toggle plate 1.2  1010 3.91  108 1.2  1010 2.24  107 1.0  1010 1.15  108 Weibull
chute liner plate 8.52  108 0.010 1.73  105 1.34  109 1.0  1010 0.012 Weibull
Jaw plate 1.0  1010 3.03  107 5.5  109 4.42  108 1.0  1010 2.45  107 Weibull
Tie rod 5.36  108 2.34  107 7.0  107 1.0  1010 1.0  1010 5.79  106 Weibull
K-S: Kolmogorov–Smirnov.

equation (1), then likelihood function will be as given

in equation (7). These parameters are presented in Table 3. ML estimation of jaw crusher.
Table 3.
System/Subsystem b Z
Yn   1 x 
 xi i Jaw crusher 1.17 261
Lðx1 , . . . , xn ; , Þ ¼ e  ð7Þ
  Back toggle plate 1.28 1186
i¼1
Chute liner plate 4.33 714
Jaw plate 0.62 788
Monte Carlo simulation Tie rod 3.18 1060

The MCS is a process to run simulation with small

number of data to obtain a particular distribution
with an aim to generate large number of data for ana-
lysis. The MCS-based observations are better than the
man-made observations for predicting a particular
distribution.56–58 The MCS considered 40 numbers
of randomly selected data using two-parameter
Weibull distribution. The MCS method uses
WEIBULLþþ software. When the simulation is com-
pleted, the results are used to describe the likelihood
distribution. It allows estimation of parameter likes
rank regression on X (RRX) and rank regression on
Y (RRY). Rank regression method for parameter esti-
mation is also known as the least squares method. The
regression is on the X-axis, and then the line is fitted
so that the horizontal deviations from the points to
the line are minimized. If the regression is on the
Y-axis, then this means that the distance of the verti-
cal deviations from the points to the line is minimized.
Analysis of the results of MCS has shown that the
rank regression on X results is closer to the actual
distribution used to generate the data than the results
of regression on Y. In Figure 3, results clearly indicate
that median line and true parameter line of RRX pro-
vides the least deviation from the real failure data of
the jaw crusher and its components. Forty numbers of
shape parameters, scale parameters, and time of two-
parameter Weibull distribution are shown in Table 4.
Time (t) data of two-parameter Weibull distribution
are generated by the MCS. Shape parameter (b) and
scale parameter (Z) is a function of time (t) of two-
parameter Weibull distribution. Where b is the shape
parameter, also known as the Weibull slope, Z is the
scale parameter which indicates the time between fail-
ures, and t is the time of equipment/components during
operation. These 40 numbers of data are used for the
analysis of failure rate, effect (and interactions) of com-
ponent parameters, and R2 through ANOVA.
Analysis of variance
Factorial design is one of the most effective techniques
using ANOVA to minimize the overall number of

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on March 9, 2016

Sinha and Mukhopadhyay 5

Figure 3. Monte Carlo simulation plotting for jaw crusher of (a) RRX and (b) RRY analysis of 40 simulated data.

(interaction between parameter). In the present study,

Table 4. Shape parameter, scale parameter, and time shape parameter, scale parameter, and time have been
(input data) of jaw crusher. considered for their influence on jaw crusher and its
component’s failure rates using 23 full factorial
No. b Z t No. b Z t
design. A total number of eight runs are conducted
1 2.7 564 381.5 21 0.4 190.2 127.6 to complete the design. The ANOVA is used to deter-
2 0.9 128.4 41.2 22 1.7 490.3 265.6 mine the failure rate, effect (and interactions) of com-
3 2.0 398.2 232.8 23 0.8 249.6 62.3 ponent parameters, and R2 value of the jaw crusher
4 0.4 332.9 30.0 24 0.5 120.5 152.9 and its components through DOE þþ tool. The vari-
5 4.4 248.4 195.5 25 0.7 462.7 95.7 ance of a set of n equally likely values can be written
6 1.7 510.7 270.3 26 0.4 224.2 375.8
in equation (8) as
7 0.7 648.9 141.5 27 0.8 143.4 36.7
1X n
8 3.4 670.0 650 28 1.6 194.9 98.7 S2 ¼ ðxi  Þ2 ð8Þ
n 1¼1
9 1.4 127.0 60.8 29 0.7 385.2 79.0
10 0.9 139.5 41.6 30 3.1 228.0 162.1 where xi is the number of sample, and m is the
11 0.7 214.8 47.2 31 2.7 377.5 256.4 expected value as shown in the following equation
12 3.7 405.2 305.1 32 2.1 300.6 179.8
13 2.5 270.5 178.3 33 1.3 195.7 84.6 1X n
¼ xi ð9Þ
14 2.2 289.0 274.9 34 1.7 236.4 126.5 n i¼1
15 1.8 444.8 250.5 35 0.4 128.8 225.9
16 3.1 142.0 100.5 36 1.0 245.6 87.3
17 0.8 242.8 69.1 37 1.3 195.0 86.7 Artificial neural networks
18 0.4 225.5 116.4 38 0.3 290.9 44.5
The ANNs have been trained to overcome the restric-
19 1.3 330.4 143.6 39 0.5 180.1 225.9
tion of the traditional methods in solving multifaceted
20 0.6 206.7 36.5 40 1.3 280.7 126.5
problems.68 The ANN algorithm simulates human
learning processes through establishment and
reinforcement of linkages between the input and
examinations.59–61 ANOVA is used to understand output data. The linkages then connect input and
statistical significance of failure data and to examine output data in the absence of training data.69
the jaw crusher failure rates.62 The MCS 40 numbers Numerous ANN algorithms have been suggested,
of data uses ANOVA to determine the influence of such as radial basis function,70 Elman recurrent,71
failure rates on two-parameter Weibull distribution. and Hopfield neural networks;72 however, back-pro-
The ANOVA gives failure rate equations, which high- pagation algorithm73–75 is the most popular. In this
lights the influence of different factors and their study, the back propagation algorithm has been used,
importance.63–67 Using failure rate equations, failure which is more powerful, accurate, and faster. A neural
rates of crusher and its components are calculated. network has an input layer, an output layer, and a
The ANOVA method is used at confidence level of number of hidden layers connected to each
90%, i.e. with p 4 0.1 indicating significant difference other.76–81 The input layer has three neurons

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on March 9, 2016

6 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

Table 5. Output data of jaw crusher.

Failure Failure Failure Failure

No. rate No. rate No. rate No. rate

1 0.0001 11 0.0013 21 0.0063 31 0.0137

2 0.0017 12 0.0025 22 0.0019 32 0.0018
3 0.0056 13 0.0055 23 0.0015 33 0.0027
4 0.0013 14 0.0157 24 0.0018 34 0.0017
5 0.0029 15 0.0073 25 0.0011 35 0.0017
6 0.0092 16 0.004 26 0.0015 36 0.0018
7 0.0025 17 0.0015 27 0.0021 37 0.0009
8 0.0551 18 0.0012 28 0.0016 38 0.0013
9 0.0027 19 0.0029 29 0.0049 39 0.0033
10 0.0016 20 0.0012 30 0.0293 40 0.0006

Figure 4. Configuration of artificial neural network

Table 6. Parameter and data selected for ANN process.
architecture.
System/components Data Training Testing Validation

corresponding to the shape parameter, scale param-
eter, and time, and an output is the failure rate as seen
in equation (2). The input layer, hidden layer, and an
output layer are shown in Figure 4. The failure rates/
hour as an output of jaw crusher is mentioned in
Table 5. The network having six hidden layers and
the lowest error is selected. MATLAB neural network
tool is used for the configuration, training, and opti-
mization of the ANN model. Forty numbers of data
are randomly divided into three groups for training,
testing, and validation of the model. Among 40 num-
bers of data, 28 (70% of whole data) data were
selected for the ANN training process, 6 (15% of
whole data) data selected for the ANN validation pro-
cess, and the remaining 6 (15% of whole data) data
were used for the ANN testing process and clearly
mentioned in Table 6. The ANN is used to determine
R2, which indicates GOF of the jaw crusher and its
components. Advantages and disadvantages of the
statistical method in this paper are presented in
Table 7.
Results and discussion
The shape parameter, scale parameter, and time data
of different components are estimated by the MCS
method. The factorial design is accomplished from
analysis of variance. Factorial design is used to deter-
mine failure rates using shape parameter, scale par-
ameter, and time data. The failure rate of a system
usually depends on time and its unit is failure rate/
hour. Failure rates of the crusher and its components
are examined using 23 full factorial designs consider-
ing two levels (high level and low level) and three
variables. High level is indicated as þ1 and low level
as 1. The level and ranges of the variables affecting
the failure rate is shown in Table 8.
Jaw crusher 40 28 6 6
Back toggle plate 40 28 6 6
Chute liner plate 40 28 6 6
Jaw plate 40 28 6 6
Tie rod 40 28 6 6
In statistics, the p-value is a function of the observed
data that is used for testing a statistical hypothesis.
Before performing a test, a threshold value is chosen,
called the significance level of the test, traditionally 5%
or 10%. p-Value of jaw crusher and its components are
given in Table 9. The ANOVA shows p-value to be 0.1,
i.e. with a confidence level of 90% or more. p-Values
40.1 are regarded to have a statistically significant
contribution for the jaw crusher and its components.
p-Value is affected by the variables which are explained
later. In Table 9, it can be observed that p-value of jaw
crusher and back toggle plate has one significant vari-
able as a AC (shape parameter and time parameter)
interaction, chute liner plate and tie rod has no signifi-
cant variables, and jaw plate has three significant vari-
ables as a shape parameter (A), time (C), interaction of
shape parameter, and time parameter, i.e. AC.
Failure rate analysis by mathematical modeling
The mathematical model developed consisting main
variables A, B, C and their interaction for a 23 factorial
design using equation (10) to obtain failure rates h(t).
hðtÞ ¼ X0 þ X1 A þ X2 B þ X3 C þ X4 AB
þ X5 AC þ X6 BC ð10Þ
where X0, X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, and X6 are regression
coefficients, A is the shape parameter, B is a scale
parameter, B is a scale parameter, and C is the time.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on March 9, 2016

Sinha and Mukhopadhyay 7

Table 7. Advantages and disadvantages of statistical methods.

Method Advantage Disadvantage

Kolmogorov–Smirnov test
ML Estimation
Analysis of variance
Monte Carlo simulation
Artificial neural network
It only applies to continuous distributions.
Maximum likelihood provides a consistent
approach to parameter estimation problems.
The main advantage of the within subjects design
is that it controls for individual differences
between participants. The variability due to the
participants is assumed not to vary across the
treatment levels.
It generates very accurate distribution parameter.
Neural networks are quite simple to implement.
The critical region of the K-S test is no longer
valid.
The likelihood equations need to be specifically
worked out for a given distribution and esti-
mation problem.
Data not completely independent (assumption of
ANOVA).
It is necessary to make some possibly unwar-
ranted parametric distributional assumptions
at the data simulation stage.
Handling of time series data in neural networks is
a very complicated topic.

Table 8. Ranges of the factors used in factorial design for jaw crusher.

Level of range

Variables Symbol Jaw crusher Back toggle plate Chute liner plate Jaw plate Tie rod

1 þ1 1 þ1 1 þ1 1 þ1 1 þ1
b A 0.4 4.4 0.5 4.8 1.6 16.4 0.2 2.4 1.2 15.4
Z B 170 647 560 2470 579 890 170 2800 750 940
t C 30 650 140 2475 380 770 10 2600 440 950

Table 9. p-Value of jaw crusher and its components. Table 11. Epoch and validation result of jaw crusher and its
components.
p-Value
Best
Jaw Back toggle Chute liner Jaw System Best epoch validation
Term crusher plate plate plate Tie rod
Jaw crusher 23 0.00000012
A 0.1715 0.1718 0.6604 0.069 0.7199
Back toggle plate 237 0.000000017
B 0.6126 0.5458 0.4988 0.3832 0.4889
Chute liner plate 16 0.00000037
C 0.1817 0.2066 0.5323 0.0664 0.5788
Jaw plate 10 0.000000096
AB 0.2297 0.1878 0.4885 0.3605 0.5501
Tie rod 17 0.000000011
AC 0.0936 0.0887 0.4592 0.0656 0.4101
BC 0.1979 0.1879 0.4854 0.2895 0.4174

Table 12. R2, % error and variance of jaw crusher and its
components.
Table 10. Failure rate value of jaw crusher and its
components. System/ S2
Component ANOVA ANN % Error (Variance)
System/Subsystem Failure rate [h(t)]/hours
Jaw crusher 98.98% 98.99% 0.01 1.7e-8
Jaw crusher 1.14  103 Back toggle plate 98.87% 98.95% 0.08 7.56e-5
Back toggle plate 1.19  103 Chute liner plate 92.83% 94.37% 1.65 1.0e-8
Chute liner plate 3.29  103 Jaw plate 99.64%, 99.14%, 0.50 6.4e-9
Jaw plate 5.61  104 Tie rod 93.12% 95.19% 2.22 1.91e-7
Tie rod 2.56  103
ANOVA: analysis of variance; ANN: artificial neural network.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on March 9, 2016

8 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

Figure 5. Fitted vs. actual value of (a) jaw crusher, (b) back toggle plate, (c) chute liner plate, (d) jaw plate, and (e) and tie rod.

The regression equations are developed using p-values For chute liner plate
from Table 6.
For jaw crusher
hðtÞ ¼ 0:0010 þ 0:0004A þ 0:0007B þ 0:0006C
hðtÞ ¼ 0:0013  0:0006A þ 0:0001B  0:0006C þ 0:0007AB þ 0:0008AC þ 0:0008BC ð13Þ
þ 0:0002AB þ 0:0011AC þ 0:0001BC ð11Þ

For back toggle plate For jaw plate

hðtÞ ¼ 0:0012  0:0005A þ 0:0001B  0:0006C hðtÞ ¼ 0:0005  0:0003A  0:0002B  0:0004C
þ 0:0001AB þ 0:0013AC þ 0:0001BC ð12Þ þ 0:0002AB þ 0:0004AC þ 0:0003BC ð14Þ

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on March 9, 2016

Sinha and Mukhopadhyay 9

Figure 6. Observed vs. predicted value of (a) jaw crusher, (b) back toggle plate, (c) chute liner plate, (d) jaw plate, and (e) and tie rod.

For tie rod plate has low failure rate and back toggle plate, chute
liner plate, and tie rod have high failure rate. The
failure was determined through ML estimation and
hðtÞ ¼ 0:0007  0:0002A þ 0:0008B þ 0:0005C
ANOVA.
þ 0:0007AB þ 0:0009AC þ 0:0008BC ð15Þ

ANOVA regression coefficient (R2) analysis

From equations (11) to (15), the calculated failure
rates are shown in Table 10. From the table, jaw
crusher, chute liner plate, tie rod, and back toggle
plate exhibit high failure rate, and jaw plate has low
failure rates. Among of all components, jaw plate has
the minimum failure rate value. As per Table 3, jaw
The R2 indicates GOFs of a mathematical model. The
value of R2 of crusher and its components are pre-
sented in Table 12. According to Figure 5, the R2
values predicted by ANOVA are 98.98% for jaw
crusher, 98.87% for back toggle plate, 92.83% for

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on March 9, 2016

10
chute liner plate, 99.64% for jaw plate, and 93.12% for
tie rod. This result means that the designed model is
capable of explaining at least 98.98%, 98.87%,
92.83%, 99.64%, and 93.12% of R2 value. Failure
rate and R2 value indicate that jaw plate has low failure
rate and are shown in Tables 10 and 12. These values
also support the applicability of using ANOVA.
ANN regression coefficient (R2) analysis
In this study, feed-forward and back-propagation
multilayer ANN is chosen for solution of the prob-
lem. The relationship between observed values and
predicted values by the ANN models for all data is
illustrated in Figure 6. The figure shows the graphic of
error variation depending on iteration of the ANN
model chosen for the bonding strength. About 1000
epochs have been done in this ANN process. The
ANN has 23 epochs for jaw crusher, 237 epochs for
back toggle plate, 16 epochs for chute liner plate, 10
epochs for jaw plate, and 17 epochs for tie rod. It is
decided that the 0.000000096 targeted error values for
jaw plate would be sufficient for training of the ANN.
The training of the ANN was stopped after 10 epochs
because the targeted value 0.000000096 was reached
and is shown in Table 11. Among all the components,
jaw plate has the minimum epoch and also minimum
error. The R2 values are found to be 98.99% for jaw
crusher, 98.95% for back toggle plate, 94.37% for
chute liner plate, 99.14% for jaw plate, and 95.19%
for tie rod using the ANN model. The epoch and R2
values have indicated that jaw plate has minimum
error amongst other components of jaw crusher and
are shown in Tables 11 and 12.
Comparitive analysis of ANOVA and ANN
On the other hand, the ANN model is approximately
same as prediction R2 value when compared to the
ANOVA model and are shown in Table 12. It has
been observed that the percentage error for both
regressions is less than 2%. This is indicative of
close agreement between the observed and predicted
results. The results displayed that ANOVA and ANN
prediction models can be used for accurate prediction
because they have a high degree of explanatory. From
the observation of variance, it is concluded that the
variance is zero for the jaw crusher and its components
are as shown in Table 12. Variance is zero indicating
that the data points tend to be very close to the mean.
Conclusion
Considering the relationship between inputs and
output, the results obtained by the prediction
models are highly encouraging. The K-S test, ML esti-
mation, ANOVA, and ANN are found to be effective
statistical methods for failure rate analysis. The K-S
test confirmed that the two-parameter Weibull
Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on March 9, 2016
Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
distribution has best fit from TBFs data of jaw
crusher. Using of regression equation confirmed that
the failure rate of jaw crusher is 1.14  103, back
toggle plate is 1.19  103, chute liner plate is
3.29  103, jaw plate is 5.61  104, and tie rod is
2.56  103. R2 values were predicted by the
ANOVA and they are found to be 98.98% for jaw
crusher, 98.87% for back toggle plate, 92.83% for
chute liner plate, 99.64% for jaw plate, and 93.12%
for tie rod. Both failure rate value and R2 value indi-
cated that the jaw plate has low failure rate.
The ANN has 23 epochs for jaw crusher, 237
epochs for back toggle plate, 16 epochs for chute
liner plate, 10 epochs for jaw plate, and 17 epochs
for tie rod. Jaw plate has minimum epochs with min-
imum error of about 0.000000096. Using the ANN,
R2 value was found to be 98.99% for jaw crusher,
98.95% for back toggle plate, 94.37% for chute
liner plate, 99.14% for jaw plate, and 95.19 % for
tie rod. The results showed that the ANOVA and
ANN model has a very high R2 value between pre-
dicted and observed values. The R2 value is high
which agrees that the results are strongly correlated.
The results displayed that the R2 value of ANN and
ANOVA is approximately the same. Such analysis is
important for better utilization of the equipment as
well as its components.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
1. Castro D and Cavalca KL. Maintenance resources opti-
mization applied to a manufacturing system. Reliab Eng
Syst Safety 2006; 91: 413–420.
2. Kuo W and Zuo MJ. Optimal reliability modelling -
Principles and applications. Hoboken, NJ: New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
3. Kumar U, Klefsjo B and Granholm S. Reliability inves-
tigation for a fleet of load haul dump machines in a
Swedish mine. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 1989; 26: 341–361.
4. Crutcher HL. A note on the possible misuse of the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. J Appl Meteorol 1975; 14:
1600–1603.
5. Steinskog DJ, Tjøstheim DB and Kvamsto NG. A cau-
tionary note on the use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test for normality. Monthly Weather Rev 2007; 135:
1151–1157.
6. Abbasi B, Jahromi AHE, Arkat J, et al. Estimation the
parameter of Weibull distribution using simulated algo-
rithm. Appl Math Comput 2006; 183: 85–93.
7. Al-Fawzan MA. Methods for estimation the parameters
of the Weibull distribution. King Abdulaziz City for
Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia, October 2000.
Sinha and Mukhopadhyay
8. Pasha GB, Khan MS and Pasha AH. Empirical analysis
of the Weibull distribution for failure data. J Statist
2013; 13: 33–45.
9. Ross R. Graphical method for plotting and evaluating
Weibull distribution data. In: Proceedings of interna-
tional conference on properties and applications of dielec-
tric materials Brisbane Australia, 1994, pp.250–253.
10. Lehman EH. Shapes, moments and estimators of the
Weibull distribution. Trans IEEE Reliab 1962; 11:
32–38.
11. White JS. The moments of log-Weibull order statistics.
Technimetrics 1962; 11: 374–386.
12. Usher JS. Weibull component reliability prediction in
the presence of masked data. IEEE Trans Reliab 1996;
45: 229–232.
13. Brain LJ and Antle CE. Estimation of parameter in the
Weibull distribution. Technimetrics 1967; 9: 621–627.
14. Dubey SD. Asymptotic properties of several estima-
tion of Weibull parameter. Technimetrics 1965; 7:
423–434.
15. Mann and Schafer NR. Method for statistical analysis
of reliability and life data. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1974.
16. Liu C-C. A comparison between the Weibull and lognor-
mal models used to analyse reliability data. PhD Thesis,
University of Nottingham, UK, 1997.
17. Kumar A, Mahapatra MM and Jha PK. Modeling the
abrasive wear characteristics of in-situ synthesized Al–
4.5%Cu/TiC composites. Wear 2013; 306: 170–178.
18. Tjong SC and Ma ZY. Microstructural and mechanical
characteristics of in situ metal matrix composites. Mater
Sci Eng 2000; 29: 49–113.
19. Chu MG and Premkumar MK. Mechanism of TiC for-
mation in Al/TiC in-situ metal matrix composites.
Metall Trans 1993; 24: 2803–2805.
20. Wahab MN, Daud AR and Ghazali MJ. Preparation
and characterization of stir cast-aluminium nitride rein-
forced aluminium metal matrix composites. Int J Mech
Mater Eng 2009; 4: 115–117.
21. Surappa MK and Rohatgi PK. Preparation and proper-
ties of cast aluminium-ceramic particle composites.
J Mater Sci 1981; 16: 883–993.
22. Sahoo P and Koczak M. Analysis of in situ formation
of titanium carbide in aluminium alloys. Mater Sci Eng
1991; 144: 37–44.
23. Miracle DB. Metal matrix composites from science to
technological significance. Compos Sci Technol 2005;
65: 2526–2540.
24. Hornik K. Some new results on neural network
approximation. Neural Networks 1993; 6: 1069–1072.
25. Lippmann R. An introduction to computing with
neural nets. IEEE ASSP Mag 1987; 4: 4–22.
26. Singh VK, Singh D and Singh TN. Prediction of
strength properties of some schistose rocks from petro-
graphic properties using artificial neural networks. Int J
Rock Mech Mining Sci 2001; 38: 269–284.
27. Singh R, Vishal V, Singh TN, et al. A comparative
study of generalized regression neural network
approach and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems
for prediction of unconfined compressive strength of
rocks. Neural Comput Appl 2012; 23: 499–506.
28. Singh R, Vishal V and Singh TN. Soft computing
method for assessment of compressional wave velocity.
J Sci Iran Trans Civil Eng 2012; 19: 1018–1024.
Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on March 9, 2016
11
29. Corani G. Air quality prediction in Milan: Feed-for-
ward neural networks, pruned neural networks and
lazy learning. Ecol Model 2005; 185: 513–529.
30. Robles LAD, Ortega JC and Fu JS. A hybrid ARIMA
and artificial neural networks model to forecast particu-
late matter in urban areas: The case of Temuco. Chile.
Atmos Environ 2008; 42: 8331–8340.
31. Fernando HJ, Mammarella MC and Grandoni G.
Forecasting PM10 in metropolitan areas: Efficacy of
neural networks. Environ Pollut 2012; 163: 62–67.
32. Ordieres J, Vergara E, Capuz R, et al. Neural network
prediction model for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on
the US–Mexico border in El Paso (Texas) and Ciudad
Juarez (Chihuahua). Environ Model Software 2005; 20:
547–559.
33. Bárcenas OP, Olivas ES and Guerrero JDM. Unbiased
sensitivity analysis and pruning techniques in neural
networks for surface ozone modelling. Ecol Model
2005; 182: 149–158.
34. Perez P, Trier A and Reyes J. Prediction of PM2.5 con-
centrations several hours in advance using neural net-
works in Santiago, Chile. Atmos Environ 2000; 34:
1189–1196.
35. Ekonomou L. Greek long-term energy consumption
prediction using artificial neural network. Energy
2010; 35: 512–517.
36. Geem ZW and Roper WE. Energy demand estimation
of South Korea using artificial neural network. Energy
Policy 2009; 37: 4049–4054.
37. Sozen A, Arcaklioglu E and Ozkaymak M. Turkey’s net
energy consumption. Appl Energy 2005; 81: 209–2021.
38. Sozen A, Akcayol MA and Arcaklioglu E. Forecasting
net energy consumption using artificial neural network.
Energy Sources Part B 2006; 1: 147–155.
39. Kankal M, Akpinar A, Komurcu MI, et al. Modeling
and forecasting of Turkey’s energy consumption using
socio-economic and demographic variables. Appl
Energy 2010; 88: 1927–1939.
40. Cook DF and Whittaker AD. Neural network process
modeling of a continuous manufacturing operation.
Eng Appl Artif Intell 1993; 6: 559–564.
41. Wu H and Avramidis S. Prediction of timber kiln
drying rates by neural networks. Drying Technol 2006;
24: 1541–1545.
42. Ceylan I. Determination of drying characteristics of
timber by using artificial neural network sand mathe-
matic almodels. Drying Technol 2008; 26: 1469–1476.
43. Mansfield SD, Iliadis L and Avramidis S. Neural net-
work prediction of bending strength and stiffness in
western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla Raf.). Holz-for-
schung 2007; 61: 707–716.
44. Fernandez FG, Palacios P and Esteban LG. Prediction
of MOR and MOE of structural plywood board using
an artificial neural network and comparison with a
multivariate regression model. Compos Part B: Eng
2012; 43: 3528–3533.
45. Packianather MS and Drake PR. Comparison of neural
and minimum distance classifiers in wood veneer defect
identification. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering
Manufacture 2005; 219: 831–841.
46. Castellani M and Rowlands H. Evolutionary feature
selection applied to artificial neural networks for
wood veneer classification. Int J Prod Res 2008; 46:
3085–3105.
12
47. Avramidis S and Iliadis L. Predicting wood thermal
conductivity using artificial neural networks. Wood
Fiber Sci 2005; 37: 682–690.
48. Avramidis S and Wu H. Artificial neural network and
mathematical modeling comparative analysis of non-
isothermal diffusion of moisture in wood. Holz Roh
Werkst 2007; 65: 89–93.
49. Zhang J, Cao J and Zhang D. ANN based data fusion
for lumber moisture content sensors. Trans Inst Meas
Control 2006; 28: 69–79.
50. Tiryaki S, Ozsahin S and Yıldırım I. Comparison of
artificial neural network and multiple linear regres-
sion models to predict optimum bonding strength of
heat treated woods. Int J Adhes Adhes 2014; 55:
29–36.
51. Olivares AM and Forero CG. Goodness of fit testing.
Int Encyclop Educ 2010; 7: 190–196.
52. Qiao H and Tsokos CP. Estimation of three parameter
Weibull probability distribution. Math Comput Simul
1995; 39: 173–185.
53. Sarhan AM. Reliability estimations of components
from masked system life data. Reliab Eng Syst Safety
2001; 74: 107–113.
54. Zhou JC and Wu DF. Estimation of Weibull param-
eters with linear regression method. Mater Sci Technol
2010; 26: 1008–1011.
55. Aydogdu H, Senoglu B and Kara M. Parameter estima-
tion in geometric process with Weibull distribution.
Appl Math Comput 2010; 217: 2657–2665.
56. Elmahdy EE and Aboutahoun AW. A new approach
for parameter estimation of finite Weibull mixture dis-
tributions for reliability modelling. Appl Math Model
2013; 37: 1800–1810.
57. Reliability synthesis element user guide. Weibull þþ 9
ReliaSoft Corporation, USA, 2014.
58. Negrete CC. Optimization of cutting parameters for
minimizing energy consumption in turning of AISI
6061 T6 using Taguchi methodology and ANOVA.
J Clean Prod 2013; 53: 195–203.
59. Hajjaji N, Renaudina V, Houasb A, et al. Factorial
design of experiment (DOE) for parametric energetic
investigation of a steam methane reforming process
for hydrogen production. Chem Eng Process 2010; 49:
500–507.
60. Baradeswaran A, Vettivel SC, Perumal AE, et al.
Experimental investigation on mechanical behaviour,
modelling and optimization of wear parameters of
B4C and graphite reinforced aluminium hybrid com-
posites. Mater Des 2014; 63: 620–632.
61. Mandal N, Doloi B and Mondal B. Development of
flank wear prediction model of Zirconia Toughened
Alumina (ZTA) cutting tool using response surface
methodology. Int J Refract Metals Hard Mater 2011;
29: 273–280.
62. Sinha RS and Mukhopadhyay AK. Failure analysis of
jaw crusher and its components using ANOVA. J Brazil
Soc Mech Sci Eng 2015; DOI: 10.1007/s40430-015-
0393-6.
63. Chang SH, Teng TT and Ismail N. Screening of factors
influencing Cu(II) extraction by soybean oil-based
organic solvents using fractional factorial design.
J Environ Manage 2011; 92: 2580–2585.
64. Gottipati R and Mishra S. Process optimization of
adsorption of Cr (VI) on activated carbons prepared
Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on March 9, 2016
Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
from plant precursors by a two-level full factorial
design. Chem Eng J 2010; 160: 99–107.
65. Rajesha S, Krishnab AG, Rajuc PRM, et al. Statistical
analysis of dry sliding wear behaviour of graphite rein-
forced aluminium MMCs. Procedia Mater Sci 2014; 6:
1110–1120.
66. Vettivel SC, Selvakumar N, Leema N, et al. Electrical
resistivity, wear map and modelling of extruded tung-
sten reinforced copper composite. Mater Des 2014; 56:
977–996.
67. Kaytez F, Taplamacioglu MC, Cam E, et al.
Forecasting electricity consumption: A comparison of
regression analysis, neural networks and least squares
support vector machines. Electric Power Energy Syst
2015; 67: 431–438.
68. Campbell JB. Introduction to remote sensing. London:
Taylor & Francis, 2002.
69. Vojislav K. Learning and soft computing: Support vector
machines, neural networks, and fuzzy logic models.
Complex Adaptive Systems. Massachusetts: MIT
Press, 2001.
70. Rakkiyappan R and Balasubramaniam P. Delay-depen-
dent asymptotic stability for stochastic delayed recur-
rent neural networks with time varying delays. Appl
Math Comput 2008; 198: 526–533.
71. Nguyen MQ, Atkinson PM and Lewis HG. Super-reso-
lution mapping using Hopfield neural network with
fused images. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 2006;
44: 736–749.
72. Werea K, Buic DT, Dicka B, et al. A comparative
assessment of support vector regression, artificial
neural networks, and random forests for predicting
and mapping soil organic carbon stocks across an
Afromontane landscape. Ecolog Ind 2015; 52: 394–403.
73. Murray AI. Applications of neural networks. Dordrecht:
Kluwer, 1995.
74. Ali E, Guang W and Ibrahim A. Empirical relations
between compressive strength and micro-fabric proper-
ties of amphibolites using multivariate regression, fuzzy
inference and neural networks: A comparative study.
Eng Geol 2014; 183: 230–240.
75. Lee S and Evangelista DG. Earthquake-induced
landslide susceptibility mapping using an artificial
neural network. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 2006;
6: 687–695.
76. Conforti M, Pascal S, Robustelli G, et al. Evaluation of
prediction capability of the artificial neural networks
for mapping landslide susceptibility in the Turbolo
River catchment (northern Calabria, Italy). Catena
2014; 113: 236–250.
77. Wu W, Dandy GC and Maier HR. Protocol for
developing ANN models and its application to the
assessment of the quality of the ANN model develop-
ment process in drinking water quality modelling.
Environ Model Software 2014; 54: 108–127.
78. Parinet J, Julie M and Nunet P. Predicting equilibrium
vapor pressure isotope effects by using artificial neural
networks or multi-linear regression-A quantitative
structure property relationship approach.
Chemosphere 2015.
79. Shadizadeh SR, Karimi F and Zoveidavianpoor M.
Drilling stuck pipe prediction in iranian oil fields: An
artificial neural network approach. Iran J Chem Eng
2010; 7.
 Sinha and Mukhopadhyay 13

80. Zoveidavianpoor M. A comparative study of artificial 81. Zoveidavianpoor M, Samsuri A and Shadizadeh SR.
neural network and adaptive neurofuzzy inference Prediction of compressional wave velocity by artificial
system for prediction of compressional wave velocity. neural network using some conventional well logs in a
Neural Comput Appl 2014; 25: 1169–1176. carbonate reservoir. J Geophys Eng 2013; 10(4): 045014.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on March 9, 2016

View publication stats