VOL. 13, NO.

7, APRIL 2018 ISSN 1819-6608

ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

MAINTENANCE STRATEGY SELECTION FOR STEAM POWER PLANT

IN RANGE OF CAPACITY 300 - 625 MW IN INDONESIA
M. Dachyar, Rahmat Nurcahyo and Yunus Tohir
Department of Industrial Engineering, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
E-Mail: mdachyar@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
The government of Indonesia has rolled out the acceleration program for the construction of power plants to
increase the rate of electrification in Indonesia. Coal fired steam power plant is the most widely constructed to support this
program and it’s became the largest of total installed capacity in Indonesia. This research aims to obtain alternative of
maintenance strategy in accordance with existing conditions in Indonesia. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) used by obtaining criteria, sub criteria and
alternative options acquired from the judgement and opinion from 10 experts in power plant. Experts are asked to do a pair
wise comparison process to determine which criteria according to experts is more important than the other. The result of
the pair wise comparison process is then used as input of the AHP process to determining the weight of each criterion
which is used to determine the normalized matrix to be used in the process of the TOPSIS method. This research obtains an
approach maintenance strategy to be applied for the steam power plant in range of capacity 300 -625 MW in Indonesia.

Keywords: maintenance strategy selection, power plant, steam generating power plant, AHP, TOPSIS.

1. INTRODUCTION The occurrence of breakdowns can lead to

Regarding data from the Ministry of Energy and significant impacts on cost components of the firm as in
Mineral Resources in 2015, the Indonesian government is power generation industries where production losses will
only able to meet the electrification ratio of 88.30%, with have significant cost impacts resulting from cessation of
the average increase from 2011 to 2015 is 3.84% (ESDM, production processes (Tam & Price, 2008). Substantial
2016). productivity improvements can be achieved by developing
As an effort to ensure the availability of maintenance strategies to reduce downtime due to
electricity for the community and efforts to meet the corrective maintenance activities (Salonen, 2011).
electrification ratio, since 2006 the Indonesian government The study of maintenance strategy has been done
rolled out a nationwide power plant development program in many countries with various industrial fields such as in
known as "Fast Track Program" to accelerate energy the process plant (Vishnu & Regikumar, 2016), power
diversification for fuel oil power plants into non-fuel oil plants (Ignat, 2013, Carazas and Souza, 2010), paper mills
power plants, and its program widely constructed coal (Braglia et al., 2013) newspaper companies (Zaim,
fired steam power plant in all over Indonesia. Regarding Turkyılmaz, Acar, Al-Turki, & Demirel, 2012),
data published by Ministry of Energy and Mineral manufacturing companies (Lazim & Ramayah, 2010),
Resources in 2015 the steam power plant became the buildings (Lind & Muyingo, 2012), ship maintenance
largest power capacity in Indonesia with 27.230 MW or (Goossens & Basten, 2015), and food production
49% from 55.528 MW of total power capacity in (Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, 2016). The objective of this
Indonesia (ESDM, 2015). research is to get a model that can be used to select
As the largest installed capacity in Indonesia, the maintenance strategy that suitable with economic
performance of steam power plants until 2015 is still condition, technical consideration, social and
below the expectation. Data published by PT PLN environmental policy for steam power plant in Indonesia.
(persero) in 2015 shows that the average Equivalent
Availability Factor (EAF) of steam power plant ex-FTP1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
is only 64% and EAF of the entire steam power plant in
2014 is only 77.4%. As an addition information, there are 2.1 Previous Research
20% or 7,540 MW of existing plants age are already > 25 In previous research, maintenance strategies have
years old. been discussed on various industries in several countries.
Poor of availability can be caused by poor Maintenance strategy selection has been done to be
maintenance, and proper maintenance requires technical implemented in several industrial sectors.
skills, techniques, and methods to be able to maximize Velmurugan & Dhingra (2015) determines the
availability of assets as well as in power plants main category of maintenance management in the form of
(Velmurugan and Dhingra, 2015). maintenance strategy by explaining in detail about how to
Many studies indicated that most of the facilities formulate, make appropriate selection, and how to
whether owned by the private sector or the government, implement maintenance strategy.
did not prepare the resources needed to perform equipment Khazraei, Khashayar, & Deuse (2011) conducted
maintenance to keep availability of production (Sullivan et a study related to the taxonomy of maintenance, which
al., 2010) stated that there are two major taxonomy strategies in the

2571
 VOL. 13, NO. 7, APRIL 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

maintenance of machinery activities, namely reactive ishikawa diagram and 5-why analysis. His research found
maintenance and preventive maintenance. that the combination between failure based maintenance
The maintenance function acts as a support for and design out maintenance is considered the most usable
the production department, and in order to achieve the strategy to optimize the resources of maintenance to be
success of the maintenance objective, the maintenance more effectively.
team should involve the operator in daily maintenance SWOT analysis was conducted to determine what
(Lazim and Ramayah, 2010). is the follow-up needed to implement a planned
Maintenance strategies on leased equipment more maintenance strategy in food processing company
likely to reduce losses due machines in not operating (Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, 2016).
condition by reducing amount of preventive maintenance, Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) of
this action can only perform on most reliable equipment. maintenance performance performed on 98 plants in
Preventive maintenance takes a longer time to machine to Sweden produces an explanation that the handling of
be not operate, so it is advisable to do optimization in production interruptions in the manufacturing industry has
doing preventive maintenance activities (Mabrouk et al., not been effective, and maintenance work is still largely a
2016). job to handle corrective action and not for prevention
Maintenance organization should be able to assist activities, his research suggesting to pay special attention
the management in achieving its operational performance to improve system performance on maintenance by
objectives. Lack of skills and knowledge of technicians, enlarging scope and responsibility, and integration
will result in high costs in maintenance management and between other functions (Ylipää, Skoogh, & Bokrantz
will affect the performance of the organization. In order to ,2017).
support this organization to work properly, technicians Some of companies optimize their maintenance
with the necessary skills and knowledge are required to by using the ratio between preventive maintenance and
meet the maintenance organizations needs (Au-yong et al., corrective maintenance as key performance indicators.
2014). Some of them increased the number of PMs without
AHP is used to select validated RCM strategies considering of their activity have a desired effect or not
from maintenance historical data and resulted that higher (Salonen and Deleryd, 2011).
asset criticality required more preventive maintenance
strategies than scheduled maintenance and maintenance 2.2 Maintenance
breakdowns. The cost of implementing preventive Maintenance is defined as an activity consisting
maintenance could be better when compared to breakdown of technical, administrative and managerial activities
maintenance strategy because it includes losses caused by carried out over the equipment life time and to maintain
unproductive machine while breakdown (Velmurugan & the asset value. The activities include planning,
Dhingra, 2015). coordination, finance, and operations to obtained values of
Carazas & Souza (2010) conducted research on reliability, availability, productivity and market value. (Al-
power plants in Brazil by conducting risk assessments Turki, Umar for Ayar et al., 2014).
combined with the concept of reliability centered Maintenance is an attempt to keep an equipment
maintenance (RCM) and stated that risk-based or component from damage and performance degradation
methodologies can be used to address uncertainties caused caused by the operation. And to keep the equipment
by failure. However, this method required a structured working properly in accordance with its function (Sullivan
database to store "time to failure" information of the et al., 2010).
equipment and costs associated with the repair of the Maintenance can be categorized into two main
equipment. types, there are corrective maintenance (CM) for a work
A concept of the RCM method combined with performed after the damage or failure is clearly found, and
integers linear programming performed by Braglia et al. preventive maintenance (PM) which aimed to reducing the
(2013) resulted a combination of several maintenance likelihood of failure and degradation of the function
strategies that provide a choice of decision that leads to (Al‐Turki, Umar for Ayar et al., 2014).
more quantitative assessment, and this model is suited to Maintenance initially has an intuitive purpose,
companies with limited maintenance budgets. but the latest concepts introduce the proactive maintenance
Zaim et al. (2012) used AHP and ANP methods and corporate organizations that focus on the reliability.
to get the suitable maintenance strategy for the newspaper Nowadays many companies are focusing on reliability and
company in Turkey by using the consideration of criterion maintenance organizations that proactively presents the
from added value, maintenance cost, safety, and list of goals for maintenance achievement. Reliability and
implementation. The result of his research found that the maintenance are no longer just "fix it when it breaks", but
most appropriate strategy for newspaper companies from further to the reliability of the equipment before the
the both of methods is predictive maintenance. equipment is damaged (Wireman, 2010).
Chemweno et al., (2016) explored data for root
cause analysis by performing the following steps: (1) Data 2.3 Corrective Maintenance
selection and standardization. (2) Combining multivariate Corrective maintenance or known as reactive
framework and clustering. (3) Clause mapping. (4) maintenance is carried out based on the maintenance
Selection of maintenance strategy. (5) Comparing with concept with the principle of "run it till it breaks". No

2572
 VOL. 13, NO. 7, APRIL 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

action or effort are taken to ensure that the equipment life safety or operation and (3) what is the purpose of current
design is achievable (Sullivan et al., 2010) prevention effort. RCM is also a process to ensure assets
Corrective maintenance is also known as are continuously capable of doing what their owners
breakdown, failure based, run-to-failure or unplanned expect in an operational context (Al‐Turki, Umar for Ayar
maintenance which is a classic maintenance type where et al., 2014).
the equipment is used until it breaks / fails by simply RCM is a systematic approach to evaluate the
performing a job repair and service the component of availability of equipment and resources to be integrated
equipment. Corrective maintenance can be justified when and produce a good level of equipment reliability and
the impact of the failure is tending to small. In corrective expected to improve cost-effectiveness. RCM identifies
maintenance mode, failure can be occur at any time in that the entire equipment at a facility have different
many ways and sometimes when it happens at an improper interests in terms of both the process and of its security
time can result in greater costs than expected (Lind & facilities. The RCM approach is to manage the
Muyingo, 2012). maintenance program, where limited financial resources
and personnel availability are considered, the use of both
2.4 Preventive maintenance must be optimized and determined by priority (Sullivan et
Preventive maintenance (PM) is a type of al., 2010).
maintenance that is adapted to the design of the asset, PM RCM helps to classify hidden or apparent failures
used to increase the asset's life time and avoid any related to their impact on safety, the environment,
unscheduled maintenance activities. The activities of production or leads to maintenance measures. This
preventive maintenance such as cleaning, adjusting, and classification leads practitioners to determine what action
lubrication, as well as minor component replacements are that must be taken if predictive maintenance or preventive
conducted to extend the life time of the assets and the age maintenance is not practicable (Campbell et al, 2011).
of facility (Al-Turki, 2014). Ramesh Gulati (2013) states four principles that
The approach of preventive maintenance differentiate RCM from other preventive maintenance
mechanism would be more beneficial to the long-term planning (1) to maintain the function of the system (2) to
strategy for the economic life of the equipment, it is identify the failure mode that threatens the function of the
because the cost of preventive maintenance activity is system (3) to prioritize the functional requirements of a
smaller than corrective maintenance activity in the same system (4) provide applicative and effective maintenance
period during the life cycle asset, or the whole lifecycle of task.
the equipment. Therefore, many papers have confirmed
that the preventive maintenance approach as better 2.7 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
maintenance strategies (Velmurugan & Dhingra, 2015). The AHP method consists of data collection
Preventive maintenance can be defined as a process for pairwise comparisons, determination of global
maintenance action based on timeliness or based on engine and local values, and consistency calculations of
operating schedule. Preventive maintenance is used to comparative matrices. The AHP method allows the analyst
detect, prevent or to mitigate degradation of the to evaluate the correctness and consistency of pairwise
components or systems in order to extend the life time of comparison provided by calculating the consistency
equipment by controlling degradation in acceptable levels ratio(Shafiee, 2015).
(Sullivan et al., 2010). four steps of action in decision making on AHP
are: (1) determine the problem and alternative solution, (2)
2.5 Predictive maintenance create hierarchical structure, (3) determine the criteria and
Predictive maintenance is a measurement action alternative decisions by doing a comparison of each
to detect the occurrence of system degradation (low element at the same level and at the level below, (4)
functional state) in order to provide an opportunity to determine the final priority of alternative by comparing
reduce the impact caused of the failure, so that it can be each element on one level to determine the weight
reduced or controlled before significant physical (Goossens and Basten, 2015).
deterioration occurs on the components (U.S Department Consistency assessment checks are performed
of Energy, 2010). using Consistency Ratio (CR). A 10% or less consistency
Predictive maintenance provides an opportunity ratio value is accepted as a good consistency measure. If
to forecast a failure by analyzing the condition of the the value exceeds 10%, it means that justification may be
equipment. Analysis performed generally performed based random and should be revised (Goossens & Basten, 2015;
on the condition of the pattern of parameters such as Shafiee, 2015; Hanine et al, 2016).
vibration, temperature and flow (Wireman, 2003).
2.8 Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to
2.6 Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)
The RCM evolved in the aviation industry during The TOPSIS method selects the closest
the 1960s and 1970s from the original work of F. Stanley alternative to a positive ideal solution and has the furthest
Nowlan and Howard F. Heap as its initiator. RCM's is appraisal of a negative ideal solution. This method is
underlying on the three logic questions that are (1) how considered as the most realistic form of modeling
the failure occurred, (2) what are the consequences for

2573
 VOL. 13, NO. 7, APRIL 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

compared to methods without compensators (Hanine et al., determine criteria that are considered to be the most part
2016). of consideration in selection of maintenance strategy.
TOPSIS is used to select the alternative that The criteria, sub-criteria and alternative
simultaneously has the shortest distance from the positive maintenance strategies that have been selected and used in
ideal solution and has the furthest distance from the this study as described in the hierarchical structure
negative ideal solution. Positive ideal solutions will according to Figure-1.
maximize the value of the criteria that provide benefits and
minimize cost-related criteria, whereas the ideal negative
solution provides on the criteria that will maximize costs
and reduce profits (Behzadian, Otaghsara, Yazdani, &
Ignatius, 2012).
The steps in performing the process in TOPSIS
method are as follows (Behzadian et al., 2012; Hanine et
al., 2016; Kumar, pravin; singh, 2012):

a) Determine the decision matrix to be used

b) Normalize the decision matrix
c) Determine the rating of each matrix normalized by
assigning weights.
d) Identify positive ideal solutions and ideal negative
solutions.
e) Calculate the distance from the ideal solution
alternative positive and negative ideal solution.
f) Calculate the proximity index relative to the ideal
solution, then made in the order of the largest to the
smallest where the largest value as the optimum Figure-1. AHP hierarchy structure for the selection of
solution. maintenance strategies in Indonesian power plants.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.2 Determination of weights on the AHP method

To get a value on the comparison between
3.1 Determination of criteria, sub criteria & criteria, sub-criteria and comparison between alternatives
alternatives to all sub-criteria. The data retrieval process is done by
The selection of related criteria and sub-criteria is involving 8 experts in the field of steam power plants to
done by involving 10 experts and practitioners of power conduct a pair wise comparison process so we get the
plants in Indonesia with working experience in the field of weight value on each criterion as table 1 below.
steam power plants at least 11 years to determine the most
appropriate and influential criteria to determining the Table-1. The weight of comparison between criteria.
maintenance strategy for the steam power plant in
Indonesia. Criterion Weight
The selection process is carried out against the Economic 0.349
criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives that will be used in
Technical 0.365
this study to reduce the number of criteria and sub-criteria
so that the pair wise comparison process is not too much Social 0.131
and difficult. Environment 0.156
Company policy related to economic, technical
considerations, social conditions and environmental
policies will be different in each country as well as the The result of pair wise comparison between sub-
type of ownership of the company that manages the steam criteria and alternative will get the weight value of each
power plant so that the selection process is carried out to alternative based on sub-criteria value as shown in Table-2
below:

2574
 VOL. 13, NO. 7, APRIL 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

Table-2. Weighting results on each sub-criteria and alternatives to criteria.

PM PdM RCM
L G
L G L G L G
ECONOMIC
Personnel training cost 0.035 0.012 0.129 0.005 0.212 0.007 0.659 0.023
Spare part cost 0.064 0.022 0.207 0.013 0.165 0.011 0.628 0.040
Return on Investment 0.172 0.060 0.115 0.020 0.237 0.041 0.648 0.111
Loss of production 0.184 0.064 0.158 0.029 0.214 0.039 0.628 0.115
Customer satisfaction 0.104 0.036 0.180 0.019 0.267 0.028 0.553 0.058
Competitive
0.133 0.046 0.134 0.018 0.196 0.026 0.670 0.089
enhancement
Severity of failure 0.235 0.082 0.146 0.034 0.269 0.063 0.585 0.137
Cost of maintenance
0.074 0.026 0.104 0.008 0.267 0.020 0.629 0.046
material
TECHNICAL
Spare parts availability 0.075 0.027 0.156 0.012 0.303 0.023 0.541 0.040
Risk level of system 0.148 0.054 0.173 0.026 0.251 0.037 0.576 0.085
Reliability level 0.197 0.072 0.209 0.041 0.248 0.049 0.543 0.107
Time effectiveness 0.069 0.025 0.090 0.006 0.196 0.014 0.714 0.050
Delivery time of
0.064 0.023 0.129 0.008 0.246 0.016 0.625 0.040
material
Technical acceptance 0.114 0.041 0.129 0.015 0.268 0.030 0.603 0.069
Convenience to fix
0.094 0.034 0.207 0.020 0.241 0.023 0.552 0.052
failure
Prioritization 0.139 0.051 0.131 0.018 0.233 0.032 0.637 0.089
Availability of
0.099 0.036 0.113 0.011 0.178 0.018 0.709 0.070
resources
SOCIAL
Human safety and
0.485 0.063 0.260 0.126 0.328 0.159 0.412 0.200
health
Training requirement 0.072 0.009 0.139 0.010 0.248 0.018 0.612 0.044
Development of
management and 0.077 0.010 0.144 0.011 0.205 0.016 0.650 0.050
engineering expertise
Right person in a right
0.122 0.016 0.121 0.015 0.294 0.036 0.586 0.072
place
Regulation compliance 0.244 0.032 0.259 0.063 0.237 0.058 0.504 0.123
ENVIRONMENT
Toxic emission to air,
0.281 0.044 0.349 0.098 0.210 0.059 0.280 0.079
land and water
Environment standard
0.335 0.052 0.415 0.139 0.503 0.168 0.418 0.140
regulation compliance
Environmental
0.384 0.060 0.236 0.091 0.287 0.110 0.302 0.116
management system

3.3 TOPSIS modeling method can be used to determine the rank order of several
The results of the assessment of the modeling alternatives, wherein the global weight of each sub-criteria
process with AHP then further processed by TOPSIS generated from the AHP calculation can be used as input
method to obtain the most appropriate alternative to the the TOPSIS method (Hanine et al., 2016; Perçin, 2009).
ideal solution of the ideal and ideal solution. TOPSIS

2575
 VOL. 13, NO. 7, APRIL 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

From the results, we have obtained at the time of calculation, multiplied by the value of local weight
data processing using AHP in Table-1, then to obtain a generated on an alternative to sub these criteria.
normalized matrix used the value of the global weight of Normalized matrix produced in accordance with Table-3
each sub-criterion generated from the previous AHP below.

Table-3. Normalized matrix and ideal solution number.

PM PdM RCM Ideal Solusion
Sub Criteria
Normalized Matrix A+ A-
Personnel training cost 0.0016 0.0026 0.0081 0.0016 0.0081
Spare part cost 0.0046 0.0037 0.0141 0.0037 0.0141
Return on Investment 0.0069 0.0142 0.0389 0.0389 0.0069
Loss of production 0.0101 0.0138 0.0403 0.0101 0.0403
Customer satisfaction 0.0065 0.0097 0.0201 0.0201 0.0065
Competitive enhancement 0.0062 0.0091 0.0311 0.0311 0.0062
Severity of failure 0.0120 0.0221 0.0480 0.0120 0.0480
Cost of maintenance material 0.0027 0.0069 0.0162 0.0027 0.0162
Spare parts availability 0.0042 0.0018 0.0035 0.0042 0.0018
Risk level of system 0.0093 0.0044 0.0064 0.0044 0.0093
Reliability level 0.0150 0.0086 0.0102 0.0150 0.0086
Time effectiveness 0.0023 0.0006 0.0012 0.0023 0.0006
Delivery time of material 0.0030 0.0011 0.0020 0.0030 0.0011
Technical acceptance 0.0053 0.0019 0.0039 0.0053 0.0019
Convenience to fix failure 0.0071 0.0040 0.0047 0.0071 0.0040
Prioritization 0.0066 0.0024 0.0042 0.0066 0.0024
Availability of resources 0.0041 0.0013 0.0020 0.0041 0.0013
Human safety and health 0.0165 0.0327 0.0413 0.0413 0.0165
Training requirement 0.0013 0.0014 0.0025 0.0013 0.0025
Development of management
0.0014 0.0016 0.0023 0.0023 0.0014
and engineering expertise
Right person in a right place 0.0019 0.0018 0.0043 0.0043 0.0018
Regulation compliance 0.0083 0.0164 0.0150 0.0164 0.0083
Toxic emission to air, land and
0.0153 0.0342 0.0206 0.0153 0.0342
water
Environment standard regulation
0.0217 0.0576 0.0698 0.0698 0.0217
compliance
Environmental management
0.0142 0.0214 0.0260 0.0260 0.0142
system

To determine the value of the positive ideal against each alternative of maintenance strategy. The
solution can be determined based on the elements used in result from its calculation are shown in Table-4.
each sub-criterion, where to determine the value of the
positive ideal solution (A+) can be done by classifying the Table-4. Euclidean range for each alternative.
attributes used, are the criteria give a profit, or a criterion
associated with the cost or resulted in a loss. In sub-criteria Si+ Si-
related to the gain, A+ is the largest value in the weights of PM PdM RCM PM PdM RCM
alternative, and A- is the opposite value. Whereas in sub-
criteria related cost and loss values A+ use smallest value 0.0707 0.0452 0.0512 0.0546 0.0581 0.0719
on alternative weight and A- use the largest value on
alternative weight Relative closeness index is calculated by
Relative Euclidean range can be calculated combining the range of positive and negative ideal
between positive (A+) and negative (A-) ideal solution solution on each alternative and its result obtained number

2576
 VOL. 13, NO. 7, APRIL 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

of relative closeness index to ideal solution on each of the modeling to see the effect of each criterion and used
alternative as shown in Table-5. to determine the final conclusions of this model.
The sensitivity analyses in this research are
Table-5. Result of relative closeness index to conduct in two conditions, first condition is sensitivity
ideal solution. analysis on sub-criteria level and second condition is
sensitivity analysis on criteria level. For the result of
Ci* sensitivity analysis on sub criteria level as shown in
PM PdM RCM Figure-2.
0.436 0.563 0.584
Ranking Sequences
3 2 1

As the end result of the AHP - TOPSIS modeling,

Reliability Centered Maintenance is the first priority to be
selected as the maintenance strategy for steam power plant
in range of capacity of 300-625 MW in Indonesia.

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS Figure-2. Sensitivity analysis on sub-criteria.

4.1 Sensitivity analysis The result of sensitivity analysis on sub criteria
Sensitivity analysis is performed to measure the level as shown in Figure-1 explained that RCM obtained
effect of the criteria weight on the results of each highest rank in 14 conditions from total 26 conditions
alternative by swapping the global weight between two tested and its result ensured that RCM became the
criteria while the other criterion values are constant (Chiu majority of optimum solution for maintenance strategy for
& Hsieh, 2016; Hanine et al., 2016; Perçin, 2009; Singh & steam power plant.
Kumar, 2013). Sensitivity analysis will change the results Sensitivity analysis on criteria level is conduct by
change the weight value of criteria as shown in Table-6.

Table-6. Sensitivity analysis on criteria level.

No E T S E PM PdM RCM PM PdM RCM

1 0.349 0.365 0.131 0.156 0.436 0.5625 0.5840 3 2 1
2 0.365 0.349 0.131 0.156 0.441 0.5616 0.5778 3 2 1
3 0.131 0.365 0.349 0.156 0.377 0.5601 0.7114 3 2 1
4 0.156 0.365 0.131 0.349 0.391 0.4826 0.6306 3 2 1
5 0.625 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.486 0.5497 0.5212 3 1 2
6 0.125 0.625 0.125 0.125 0.369 0.5608 0.6918 3 2 1
7 0.125 0.125 0.625 0.125 0.513 0.4265 0.5451 2 3 1
8 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.625 0.488 0.4194 0.5728 2 3 1
9 000 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.387 0.3327 0.7586 2 3 1
10 0.333 0.000 0.333 0.333 0.500 0.4992 0.5132 2 3 1
11 0.333 0.333 0.000 0.333 0.193 0.6188 0.8765 3 2 1
12 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.000 0.416 0.5820 0.6203 3 2 1
13 0.500 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.433 0.5819 0.5837 3 2 1
14 0.000 0.500 0.500 0.000 0.410 0.5382 0.6727 3 2 1
15 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.500 0.585 0.2867 0.5067 3 2 1
16 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.484 0.5386 0.5244 3 1 2
17 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.500 0.373 0.5295 0.6940 3 2 1
18 0.500 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.473 0.5405 0.5515 3 2 1

2577
 VOL. 13, NO. 7, APRIL 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

The result of sensitivity analysis on criteria level Braglia M., Castellano D., Frosolini M., Braglia M.,
as shown in Figure-3, where the result shown that RCM Castellano D. & Frosolini M. 2013. An integer linear
became the majority of optimum solution for maintenance programming approach to maintenance strategies
strategy for steam power plant by obtaining highest rank in selection. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-05-2012-0059.
16 conditions of 18 conditions tested.
Campbell John D; Jardine Andrew K.S; McGlynn J. 2011.
Asset management. (A. K. S. M. J. Campbell, John D;
Sensitivity Analysis on Criteria Jardine, Ed.) (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
0 Carazas F. G. & Souza G. F. M. 2010. Risk-based decision
1 making method for maintenance policy selection of
2 thermal power plant equipment. 35, 964-975.
3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.06.054.

PM PdM RCM Chemweno P., Morag I., Sheikhalishahi M., Pintelon L.,
Muchiri P., & Wakiru J. 2016. Development of a novel
Figure-3. Sensitivity analysis on criteria. methodology for root cause analysis and selection of
maintenance strategy for a thermal power plant : A data
5. CONCLUSIONS exploration approach. EFA, 66, 19-34.
This research has formulated criteria and sub- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2016.04.001.
criteria that accommodate the importance of economic
aspect, technical aspect, social aspect and environmental Chiu M. C. & Hsieh M. C. 2016. Latent human error
aspect in Indonesia. Criteria selection method and pair analysis and efficient improvement strategies by fuzzy
wise comparison between each criterion is done by TOPSIS in aviation maintenance tasks. Applied
involving experts who have long been engaged as Ergonomics. 54, 136-147.
practitioners in the field of power plants in Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.11.017.
Based on the result of this research, for the
selection of maintenance strategy in steam power plant Direktorat Jenderal Ketenagalistrikan Kementrian Energi
with range of capacity 300-625 MW in Indonesia where Dan Sumber Daya Mineral. 2017. Buku Statistik
the process of determining criteria and determining the Ketenagalistrikan No. 29 - 2016. Indonesia: Kementerian
weight in this modeling process is done by the power plant Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral. Retrieved from
experts in Indonesia using AHP and TOPSIS method, Kementrian Energi Dan Sumber Daya Mineral:
maintenance closest to the relative ideal solution of http://esdm.go.id/index.php/publikasi/list_publikasi/42.
reliability centered maintenance (RCM) to be
implemented in PLTU with range of capacity 300-625 Garg A. D. 2006. Maintenance management : literature
MW in Indonesia. review and directions. Jurnal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering. 12(3): 205-238.
REFERENCES https://doi.org/10.1108/13552510610685075.

Al‐Turki Umar for Ayar T., Yilbas B. S. & Sahin A. Z. Goossens A. J. M. & Basten R. J. I. 2015. Exploring
2014. Integrated Maintenance Planning in Manufacturing maintenance policy selection using the Analytic Hierarchy
Systems. Springer. Retrieved from Process ; An application for naval ships. 142, 31-41.
http://www.springer.com/series/10623.
Group T. W., Management L. & Plants N. P. 2003. IAEA-
Au-yong C. P., Ali A. S. & Ahmad F. 2014. Optimizing TECDOC-1383.
maintenance cost performance with skilled technicians.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SS-01-2014-0005 Gulati Ramesh. 2013. Maintenance and Reliability Best
Practices (2nd Ed). Industrial Press Inc. New York.
Baidya R. & Ghosh S. K. 2015. ScienceDirect Model for a
Predictive Maintenance System Effectiveness Using the Hanine M., Boutkhoum O., Tikniouine A. & Agouti T.
Analytical for a Predictive Analytical Model for for a a 2016. Application of an integrated multi-criteria decision
Predictive Predictive Using the the Analytical Analytical making AHP-TOPSIS methodology for ETL software
Tool Using Analytical Analytical. IFAC-PapersOnLine. selection. Springer Plus. 5(1): 263.
48(3): 1463-1468. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1888-z.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.293.
Horenbeek A. Van & Pintelon L. 2014. Development of a
Behzadian M., Otaghsara S. K., Yazdani M. & Ignatius J. maintenance performance measurement framework - using
2012. Expert Systems with Applications A state-of the-art the analytic network process (ANP) for maintenance
survey of TOPSIS applications. 39: 13051-13069. performance indicator selection. 42, 33-46.

2578
 VOL. 13, NO. 7, APRIL 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

Ignat S. 2013. Power plants maintenance optimization Sen D. & Bhattacharya B. 2015. On the Pareto optimality
based on CBM techniques. IFAC Proceedings Volumes of variance reduction simulation techniques in structural
(IFAC-PapersOnline) (Vol. 2). IFAC. reliability. Structural Safety. 53, 57-74.
https://doi.org/10.3182/20130522-3-RO-4035.00031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2015.01.001.

Ishizaka A. & Nemery P. 2014. Assigning machines to Shafiee M. 2015. Maintenance strategy selection problem:
incomparable maintenance strategies with ELECTRE- an MCDM overview. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
SORT. Omega. 47, 45-59. Engineering. 21(4): 378-402.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.03.006. https://doi.org/10.1108/JQME-09-2013-0063.

Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, M. (2016). SWOT analysis for Singh H. & Kumar R. 2013. Hybrid methodology for
Planned Maintenance strategy-a case study. IFAC- measuring the utilization of advanced manufacturing
PapersOnLine, 49(12), 674–679. technologies using AHP and TOPSIS. Benchmarking: An
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.788. International Journal, 20(2): 169-185.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14635771311307669.
Khazraei Khashayar; Deuse J. 2011. A strategic standpoint
on maintenance taxonomy. Jurnal of Facilities Sullivan G. P., Pugh R., Melendez A. P. & Hunt W. D.
Management. 9(2): 96-133. 2010. Operations & Maintenance Best Practices. U. S.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14725961111128452. Departament of Energy, Federal energy management
program. Retrieved from
Kumar pravin; singh R. K. 2012. A fuzzy AHP and http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/10/f3/omguide_co
TOPSIS methodology to evaluate 3PL in a supply chain. mplete.pdf.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17465661211283287.
Tam A. S. B. & Price J. W. H. 2008. A maintenance
Lazim H. M. & Ramayah T. 2010. Maintenance strategy prioritisation approach to maximise return on investment
in Malaysian manufacturing companies: a total productive subject to time and budget constraints. Journal of Quality
maintenance (TPM) approach. Business Strategy Series. in Maintenance Engineering. 14(3): 272-289.
11(6): 387-396. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552510810899472.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17515631011093098.
Tang Y., Liu Q., Jing J., Yang Y. & Zou Z. 2017. A
Lind H. & Muyingo H. 2012. Building maintenance framework for identi fi cation of maintenance signi fi cant
strategies: planning under uncertainty. Property items in reliability centered maintenance. 118.
Management. 30(1): 14-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.011.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02637471211198152.
Maintenance Work Management Processes - Maintenance Wireman Terry. 2010. Maintenance Work Management.
Strategy Series - Wireman, Terry. (n.d.). Reliability Web. USA.

Perçin S. 2009. Evaluation of third-party logistics (3PL) Wireman, Teryy. 2003. Benchmarking Best Practice in
providers by using a two-phase AHP and TOPSIS Maintenance Management. Industrial Press Inc. New
methodology. Benchmarking: An International Journal. York.
16(5): 588-604.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770910987823. Velmurugan R. S. & Dhingra T. 2015. Maintenance
strategy selection and its impact in maintenance function:
PT PLN (persero). 2016. Laporan Tahunan 2015/Annual A conceptual framework. International Journal of
report 2015. Indonesia: PT PLN (persero). Operations & Production Management, 35(12): 1622-
1661. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2014-0028.
PT PLN (persero). 2012. Protap Deklarasi Kondisi
Pembangkit Dan Indeks Kinerja Pembangkit. PT PLN Vishnu C. R. & Regikumar V. 2016. Reliability Based
(persero) Pusat Pengendali dan Pengaturan Beban. Maintenance Strategy Selection in Process Plants : A Case
Study. Procedia Technology, 25(Raerest), 1080-1087.
RAM Rating Services Berhad. 2016. Regional https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2016.08.211.
Commentary ASEAN-5 Power Sector. RAM Ratings.
Retrieved from Ylipää T., Skoogh A. & Bokrantz J. 2017. Identification of
http://www.ippjournal.com/documents/reports/2016-10- maintenance improvement potential using OEE
25_file_28.pdf. assessment. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2016-0028.

Salonen A. & Deleryd M. 2011. Cost of poor maintenance. Yssaad B., Khiat M. & Chaker A. 2014. Electrical Power
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering. 17(1): 63- and Energy Systems Reliability centered maintenance
73. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511111116259. optimization for power distribution systems. International

2579
 VOL. 13, NO. 7, APRIL 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems. 55, 108-

115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2013.08.025.

Zaim S., Turkyılmaz A., Acar M. F., Al‐Turki U. &

Demirel O. F. 2012. Maintenance strategy selection using
AHP and ANP algorithms: a case study. Journal of Quality
in Maintenance Engineering. 18(1): 16-29.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511211226166.

2580