Web-based connection to Equipment Reliability (ER)

To ensure reliable and efficient equipment operation there are many tasks that need to be performed effectively. These tasks cover the range from significant to small and each one has equal importance because any break in the chain, however small, reduces or eliminates the beneficial outcome. It is recognized that performing some of these tasks can be extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible, unless there is some automation applied.

By Bob Hammaker, Insert Key Solutions, Inc 

Fifteen years ago condition monitoring was becoming more widely used resulting in less breakdown maintenance and run-to-failure practices on critical equipment. Advanced diagnostic tools, data integration, and newly developed processes were starting to change the way maintenance was being performed. This new maintenance strategy was commonly referred to as Predictive Maintenance (PdM). PdM is an approach that determines the need for equipment being repaired or replaced based on the condition of the equipment. The goal during this time was to not only perform PdM, but to also have the appropriate mix of PdM and Preventative Maintenance (PM) activities to reduce Corrective Maintenance (CM), which results in unscheduled downtime, prevents costly repairs, and increases equipment reliability.

As time went on, new technologies were developed, improved data collection techniques were discovered; and, most importantly, it was realized that data collection was only as good as the end results. There needed to be a better process to convert data to information, and then to take action. No matter how effective technology owners were at diagnosing an equipment’s condition, unless it was being applied to the right equipment, using the right technologies, at the right frequencies, integrating the data with other plant information (i.e., process, historical, etc.), and the findings acted on at the right time, it became very costly with little or no benefits.

One area identified as needing improvement was how to better define the overall health of equipment using all of the plant data. Generally, when a Technology Owner finds equipment in an unacceptable condition, the Technology Owner would write a Work Order for the equipment to be repaired. Additional information that could assist in better defining the condition such as system, process, historical, and even other diagnostic technology data, was not being used effectively, if at all; and, in most cases, it was available. Technology Owner effectiveness of using diagnostic tools varied by the Owner’s background and few were well rounded in diagnostic technologies, maintenance procedures, and operation of the equipment. In order to ensure that all of the available data was being used, it was decided to assign a second person responsible to assess the overall equipment condition that had the equipment and/or system experience. In most cases they were referred to as Equipment or System Owners. An Equipment Owner is a person knowledgeable on certain types of equipment such as motors, pumps, etc.; and, the System Owner, also referred to as a System Engineer, is a person with system knowledge of both Operations and Maintenance. In general, a plant organization would have one or the other. If the plant had both, they would assign only one person to perform the assessment responsibilities.

Determining the overall condition of equipment was now becoming the responsibility of the Equipment or System Owners. For example, an Infrared Technology Owner finds a piece of equipment with an unacceptable temperature. The Infrared Technology Owner analyzes the temperature data to determine the condition of the equipment based on this technology and these findings. The information is then provided to the Equipment or System Owner to apply the knowledge about the equipment or system. Any additional data needed from other technologies or sources is the responsibility of the Equipment or System Owners to initiate.

Initially, equipment conditions were tracked using software products such as Microsoft Excel^TM. The software was located on the plants ‘common’ drive so that it was accessible to all plant personnel. The report generated was referred to as the Condition Status Report. Generally, the equipment’s condition was represented using colors such as: Acceptable (green); Watch List (blue), meaning the equipment does not require repairs but will most likely be monitored more frequently; Marginal (yellow), requires a Work Order for repairs and should be expected within a specified period of time; and, Unacceptable (red), meaning there is an imminent failure possible, and immediate action is required.

 Figure 1 shows graphically how this color-coding can be developed to demonstrate the condition of various pieces of equipment, and how the responsibilities of the Technology Owner, Equipment Owner, or the System Owner, ties in with the equipment selected. Each Technology Owner is responsible for diagnosing the condition of the equipment based on his or her respective technology; therefore, that person fills in the chart vertically for that particular technology. The responsible Equipment or System Owner can then determine the condition status of each particular piece of equipment by scanning the chart horizontally, and then completing the ‘overall equipment condition’ column. 

The process of converting data to information was now being improved with the Technology, Equipment, and Systems Owners; however, it was noted in Figure 1 that the data-to-information activities are being performed on the most ‘critical’ plant equipment. An initial analysis process, therefore, was needed to identify the critical equipment and to define a protection strategy for each of these vital pieces. One of the first analysis programs to accomplish this task, referred to as Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), provided a very thorough review of the design of each system, the system’s equipment, and the failure modes, to formulate a maintenance strategy that provides safe, efficient, and cost-effective operation. The maintenance strategy not only identifies the right mix of PM, PdM, and corrective maintenance (CM), it also includes Proactive Maintenance (PAM). PAM is actually a process within itself that identifies equipment design problems, and this approach is discussed in more detail later.

Additional analysis methods followed RCM providing similar results and they include: Maintenance Basis Optimization (MBO); PM Strategy; and PM Basis Strategy, to name a few. Each of these analysis methods provides the user with an enhanced PM strategy that defines the critical equipment, condition monitoring activities, and the frequency of the equipment monitoring activities required to maintain efficient and effective operation. The specific maintenance tasks being performed in Figure 1 are dictated by the PM Strategy study. An example of the type of information that would be provided as a result of a PM Strategy study is depicted in spreadsheet form in Figure 2. In this chart, the equipment condition status color-coding in Figure 1, for the Periodic Monitoring activities, is replaced by monitoring frequency codes.

Generally, results of the PM Strategy that require physical data collection or routine maintenance activities are entered into the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) for dispatching work in the form of a Work Order. The PM Strategy should be treated as a controlled document such that any changes requested are appropriately reviewed and documented. The approved changes are then made to the PM Strategy document, and to any other supporting documentation such as the CMMS.

Planning and scheduling of work activities have also evolved immensely over the past several years. Businesses have gone from the ‘fix it when it fails’ reactive mode to the well-planned ‘fix it before it fails’ mode. Much of the latter ‘fix it before it fails’ approach can be attributed to the advancements in diagnostic technologies and a more developed work process. Planning and scheduling activities vary greatly. Personnel, from the maintenance craft to established planners and/or schedulers have successfully performed planning and scheduling activities. However, many times these activities are done with little input from other disciplines within the organization; thus, critical information could be lost that could better define what equipment should be worked on now, based on the equipment’s condition and its criticality to the operation. Changes to this process have evolved to include not only how a planner and a scheduler supports the process, but also who needs to be involved to capture the appropriate information to make an effective decision. One enhanced process, referred to as the ‘Work Process’, links Work Control, Work Execution, and Work Closeout, as illustrated in the Figure 3.

Work Control is a formalized planning and scheduling process. Planning involves making the right job ready to be worked, and scheduling ensures that the planned work is performed when needed. These tasks seem basic but there are many activities that, if not performed effectively, can result in someone being assigned to a job that is not ready to be worked; or, a low priority job being worked rather than a job, that if not repaired, could cause additional equipment damage and possible failure. A well-planned job is the assembly of the necessary information, which should include: job scope; applicable procedures; time estimates; parts availability; permit and blocking instructions; and, special tools, just to name a few. The assembly of information is often referred to as a ‘Work Package’. After the Work Package is complete, then the Scheduler can assign the appropriate time for the work to be performed as dictated by the criticality, resources, and availability of the equipment to be worked.

Work Execution is the act of carrying out the Work Order instructions, and providing feedback on all of the activities. This includes the wrench-turning work, as well as other directions such as notifying that a Post Maintenance Test (PMT) should be performed. Feedback also includes any comments as needed on the repair, parts, procedure quality, as-found / as-left information, etc. Generally, the diagnostic Technology Owner provides the PMT to ensure that the repairs were done effectively, and to capture baseline data for future comparative diagnoses.

Work Closeout is a process that involves documenting the notes provided by the maintenance personnel. The information, if properly captured and documented, can be used to enhance any of the other processes. For example, little or no damage found on a component during repair would throw up the red flag that the severity criteria being used by the Technology Owner needs to be adjusted; or, that the same problem that has been occurring every three months would indicate that a design, maintenance or operating change is needed.

As the PM Strategy, Work Identification, and Work Control processes continued to evolve, companies that implemented these processes were still experiencing some undesirable equipment conditions and failures. Defining a facility’s maintenance strategy, making the appropriate equipment condition decisions with new technologies and applications, working on the right equipment at the right time, and communicating appropriately throughout the entire process are a challenge to say the least. Improvement processes were added to the existing list of activities, two of these being Pro-Active Maintenance (PAM) and Continuous Improvement.

PAM is a process that identifies various unexpected equipment conditions that result in repetitive problems, costly repairs, and failures. PAM utilizes ‘as found’ conditions and unexpected failures to identify the need for an adjustment to the existing practice or equipment design. PAM results in an adjustment to the operation, maintenance, and/or the replacement or modification of equipment based on a root cause analysis (RCA). RCA is a process that identifies the most basic cause of the problem and, when corrected, minimizes or eliminates the reoccurrence of the problem.

Continuous Improvement is similar to PAM and in some publications the terms are interchangeable. It is a process that provides the review, analysis, and recommended changes to any of the other processes. Considerations include: technology program review and adjustments; review of Work Orders (good and bad); and, monitoring metrics around PM, PdM, and Work Control, to name a few. Results are used to enhance the process and to reduce functional failures and/or maintenance costs. Metrics are the indicators that are trended to measure the success of the process (i.e., safety, reliability, availability, financial, etc.).

PM Strategy, Work Identification, Work Control, and Continuous Improvement when combined are considered the Equipment Reliability (ER) Process. ER supports the how, what, and when equipment is maintained and operated for optimum performance and reliability. The ER process is not difficult to understand; however, there are a great deal of functions that require support; and, unless the process is automated it is difficult to implement and maintain. Figure 4 provides the many of the activities, but is not limited to, for each of the ‘sub-processes’ that make up the Equipment Reliability Process.

Implementation of the ER process can be approached several ways. Being that each sub-process (i.e., PM Strategy, Work Identification, Work Control, and Continuous Improvement) can provide benefits individually, it may be that the Enterprise’s available resources limit the approach. If an Enterprise does not have enough resources to conduct all of the sub-processes simultaneously, then it should initially select the area that would provide the most payback, implement that process effectively, and then go to the next needed area when time and resources permit.

Since there are many businesses that currently do not provide the tools and training to support the ER process, it is important that they explore the benefits and have a good understanding of the ER process and the resources that are required for proper implementation and continued program support. The ER process is a culture change. It is how we are going to do business now and in the future. Automation standardizes each of the areas that make up the ER Process, provides metrics to monitor the process status, identifies where the process chain is broken, supports accountability, and provides a means to better facilitate communication. Automation; therefore, is the vehicle that connects the sub-processes together so that ER can function as a single process and thereby provide the most beneficial results.