Condition-Based Maintenance Using Wireless Monitoring:
Developments and Examples by
Wayne Stargardt,
Aleier, Inc.
Summary
New developments
in wireless data collection technologies are lowering the costs
of gathering the data necessary to perform predictive
maintenance for a broader range of equipment. Wireless-based
continuous, automatic monitoring by the CMMS can extend
condition-based maintenance strategies to more equipment as well
as improves the performance of corrective maintenance. This
paper will review recent developments in wireless data
acquisition technologies and describe typical costs in
implementing them in practical situations. The paper will also
describe how to integrate this data with a CMMS, and how the
CMMS can take advantage of equipment condition data. Finally,
the paper will profile some examples in which condition-based
maintenance using wireless monitoring is improving operations.
Overview of
Condition-Based Maintenance
Maintenance
organizations employ several different maintenance strategies to
keep their fixed assets and equipment operating reliably and at
peak performance. One of the tenants of the discipline of
Reliability Centered Maintenance is that organizations should
employ an appropriate maintenance strategy for each asset,
depending on its importance to the operation, the costs of
maintaining it, and its failure modes and failure frequencies.
The original
maintenance strategy is corrective or reactive maintenance,
under which equipment is repaired or replaced only after it has
failed or suffered serious performance degradation. This “run to
failure” strategy is still largely appropriate for assets whose
failure will not compromise operations, which can be returned to
service quickly and easily, or whose failure modes and timing do
not show a statistically significant pattern.
Some asset failures have
expensive and far-reaching consequences. These failures can shut
down entire production lines, make buildings unusable, or even
cause injuries or fatalities. A different maintenance strategy
evolved to avoid asset failures – preventive maintenance.
Preventive maintenance is based on the failure history of an
asset or item of equipment, and maintenance organizations
conduct maintenance to “fix” it before there is a meaningful
probability of its failing in the first place.
Because preventive
maintenance is expensive, and because enterprises are
increasingly pressured to reduce their costs, organizations are
developing a new type of maintenance strategy. Under this
strategy, the condition of the asset is monitored regularly
until it begins to give evidence of deteriorating performance or
incipient failure. Maintenance is then performed “just-in-time”
to prevent asset failure.
The more common
version of this new maintenance strategy, predictive
maintenance, is also based on the statistical pattern of failure
exhibited by equipment. Many common failure modes are presaged
by changes in equipment behavior, and monitoring these
parameters can provide early warning of failure or degradation.
Under predictive maintenance, these parameters are monitored
periodically, usually based on manually collected data. For
example, predictive maintenance is often based on analysis of
bearing heat signature, lubricant condition, and rotating
equipment vibration.
Condition-based
maintenance is similar to predictive maintenance in that
analysis of the equipment condition is used to determine the
timing for “just in time” maintenance. With condition-based
maintenance, equipment operating conditions are monitored
continuously and in real time to identify the need for
maintenance. Continuous monitoring is obviously more timely than
the manual, periodic data collection used for preventive
maintenance, but it can also be less expensive, more reliable
and more accurate.

Both predictive maintenance and condition-based maintenance can
be less expensive than preventive maintenance while providing
the same benefit of high asset availability and reliability. By
its very nature, preventive maintenance means that maintenance
is being performed more often than is necessary. Since
maintenance consumes both labor and parts, this strategy has a
measureable cost of “over-maintenance.” Additionally, preventive
maintenance often requires that assets be taken off-line during
servicing, incurring a cost to the organization for this
downtime and lost capacity. Finally, more frequent maintenance
involves more frequent intrusions into the equipment, which
itself increases the chance of asset or system failures.
Predictive and condition-based maintenance avoid these penalties
of over-maintenance.
There are a number
of factors that have limited the adoption of condition-based
maintenance besides the fact that it is a relatively new
strategy. Most of the equipment that could be subject to
condition-based maintenance is not currently instrumented with
sensors. Data on equipment condition cannot be collected without
installing sensors on the equipment along with a means of
collecting the sensor data. In those cases when equipment is
already instrumented, it is done for control and automation and
does not track the operating parameters that could identify
incipient failure.
Even instrumented
equipment is often not connected into a data collection network
that allows real-time monitoring. These unconnected instruments
or sensors usually provide local displays or store readings in
data loggers, and data is collected from them manually.
Implementing a condition-based maintenance program usually
requires retrofitting additional sensors and a data collection
network. This is a primary impediment to the broader adoption of
condition-based maintenance.
Wireless
Technologies for Maintenance Applications
The prospects for
condition-based maintenance are improving rapidly.
Condition-based maintenance is being enabled by several
advances, but especially by advances in wireless networking
technology. Just as people have become interconnected by the
Internet over the past decade, so equipment and devices are
beginning to become connected to the Internet as well. Much of
the equipment that is being connected is already in service, so
its connectivity needs to be retrofitted. A wide range of
wireless technologies are being used to provide that
connectivity.
Wireless
technology has several advantages for retrofitting equipment for
data collection. Increasingly, wireless technologies are less
expensive than either retrofitting wired connections or
collecting data manually. Wireless technologies provide the
automatic and continuous connections provided by wires, and
wireless is approaching wired connections in its reliability.
Previously, a
number of concerns have kept wireless technologies from being
used in the type of data collection needed for condition-based
maintenance. These concerns are rooted in the understanding that
wireless connections are not exactly equivalent to wired
connections. The foremost issue is the perception that wireless
connections are unreliable since they can be interrupted by
excessive distance, signal blockage or interference from nearby
RF emitters. Other concerns have been limited range of the
wireless connections, as well as lower throughput and higher
latency than wired connections. Security is often raised as an
issue since wireless signals can be received across a broad
area. Perhaps more important than these technical concerns,
wireless connections have not been used more frequently because
they have often cost more than simple wired connections.
Continuing
advances in wireless technology over the last decade have
overcome most of the traditional concerns about using
wireless-based connections. Improved radio designs have made
significant advances in improving the range and reliability of
wireless links. In addition, more sophisticated networking
protocols have been incorporated into the designs of these
radios to further improve the reliability and performance of the
wireless networks. Most of these modern wireless networks also
incorporate encryption, authentication processes and other
security features to allay the concerns about eavesdropping and
other security issues. Finally, the high manufacturing volumes
provided by the cellular and Wi-Fi markets have driven costs
down significantly so that wireless connections are often much
less expensive than other alternatives.
Wireless
connectivity is poised for broad adoption in the industrial and
commercial automation market similar to the situation with
Ethernet 25 years ago. At that time, Ethernet was moving from
defense and educational applications into broader commercial and
office use. There was significant resistance to the use of
Ethernet in industrial applications, however, since it was
perceived that the shared nature of Ethernet did not provide
exactly the same, deterministic reliability as direct wired
connections. The increasing familiarity with Ethernet, together
with the development of distributed control system
architectures, has led to widespread adoption of Ethernet in
industrial environments for several aspects of monitoring and
control applications. Wireless connectivity is also starting to
be adopted more broadly as its capabilities are better
understood.
There are a number
of wireless technologies that are available for continuously
monitoring equipment condition. Cellular telephone networks are
being used to monitor equipment, particularly in remote
locations or when the equipment is frequently mobile (i.e.,
vehicles, construction equipment). Equipment is even being
monitored over satellite communication networks for those areas
beyond cellular coverage.
The major advances
in using wireless for equipment monitoring, however, is using
low cost, low-powered, unlicensed wireless technology. Most
wireless communication requires each transmitter to be licensed
by government regulators, including cellular telephones, radio
and TV broadcasting, and microwave links. There are certain
parts of the radio spectrum, however, in which any low power
wireless device is allowed to operate with requiring a
government license. The most familiar example is Wi-Fi, the
wireless local area networking technology also referred to as
802.11. Originally developed for connecting computers, Wi-Fi can
monitor equipment in situations where Wi-Fi networks already
exist and where the radio can be connected to power. Related
wireless technologies have been used to develop wireless
connections specifically for industrial applications. These
industrial wireless networks are usually proprietary and are
available for a variety of frequencies and network
configurations (i.e., point-to-point, point-to-multipoint.) The
variety and specialization of these wireless industrial networks
are similar to the variety of fieldbus wired networks for the
same connectivity applications.
Wireless sensor
networks are yet another connectivity alternative and are a
relatively new development. These networks use some version of a
mesh architecture, in which one radio’s data is relayed on to
the final destination by other radios, and usually by several.
These networks incorporate sophisticated intelligence that allow
them to configure themselves automatically, and to develop the
routing schemes so that the fewest number of radios are involved
in conveying the data while also routing around interference and
obstacles. These wireless sensor networks provide broader
aggregate coverage than simpler point-to-point wireless
technologies, while also achieving more reliable operation.
Wireless sensor networks greatly expand the number of monitoring
and control applications that can be served by wireless
connections.
The challenge of
using wireless connections for monitoring equipment condition is
that no single one of the different wireless technologies is the
most cost effective solution for all applications, so each
application must be analyzed to select the appropriate wireless
technology. In general, the broader the area in which the
monitored equipment is located, the more expensive is the
wireless technology that must be employed. Also, the distance
between the individual pieces of equipment will determine
whether a wireless sensor network can be used cost effectively,
or whether another wireless technology is needed. Different
wireless networks are also optimized for the volume of data to
be transmitted, although moving larger volumes of data generally
requires a more expensive solution. Some wireless technologies
operate on frequencies that provide better coverage in
buildings, but these frequencies are only available in certain
countries. Some wireless networks enable their radios to operate
for extended periods on battery power, while other wireless
networks cannot be used practically without connection to a
power source. Choosing the appropriate wireless technology for
monitoring equipment involves making a number of choices and
tradeoffs.
The cost of
wireless connections is an important consideration in using this
technology, although costs have improved dramatically in recent
years. For industrial wireless networks that only communicate
over relatively short distances, including wireless sensor
networks, the cost of a complete radio has generally dropped to
under $300, and sometimes under $100. Wireless industrial radios
that communicate over somewhat longer distances can cost between
$300 and $800. For communicating over distances measured in
miles, radios can be bought for $500 to $1000. These wireless
costs compete favorably against retrofitting wiring, in which
the total cost can approach $100 per foot of wiring installed.
Wireless
Standards Enable Adoption
Just as wireless
local area networking became more attractive and cost effective
after the development of the IEEE 802.11 standards (also
referred to as Wi-Fi), emerging standards in wireless sensor
networks will make them more acceptable and attractive. There
are three major standards initiatives that are guiding the
maturation of wireless sensor networks: ZigBee™, Wireless HART
and ISA 100.
ZigBee is the more
mature of the standards in that its first version has been
released for several years and there are several manufacturers
that provide ZigBee-based products. ZigBee is a general
worldwide standard for low-power wireless mesh networks that is
defined by an open standards organization called the ZigBee
Alliance. The ZigBee standard has been designed to serve a wide
range of applications from industrial automation to building
automation to advanced metering to home automation. The most
current implemented version of the ZigBee standard is the second
major release, called ZigBee 2006. There are already multiple
manufacturers shipping chip level implementations of ZigBee
2006, and a number of products incorporating these chips are
also currently shipping. The next version of the ZigBee
standard, ZigBee 2007, continues to add more functionality and
has already been ratified. Chip level products that implement
ZigBee 2007 are just starting to be announced. ZigBee is a
well-established standard that has been adopted by a number of
manufacturers and is continuing to evolve.
Wireless HART is
the counterpart to the HART intelligent sensor standard that has
been in existence for wired industrial automation and control
applications for over a decade. Wireless HART is targeted
specifically at monitoring and open loop control applications in
industrial environments. Wireless HART is part of the overall
HART Version 7.0 specification that was released in the fall of
2007. Products using the Wireless HART protocol have been
announced and are expected to begin shipping in 2008. Products
using Wireless HART should be especially useful for retrofitting
condition-based monitoring for maintenance purposes.
The third
important wireless sensor networking standard is ISA 100, which
is being developed by the Instrumentation, Systems and
Automation Society (ISA). The first iteration of this standard,
ISA 100.11a, is still under development, but it should be
ratified in 2008. ISA 100.11a targeted at monitoring and open
loop control applications in process manufacturing industries,
such as oil refineries, power plants and paper mills. Products
employing this first version of the standard should ship in
2009. ISA is continuing to develop future versions of this
standard for discrete manufacturing and for asset identification
and management, and they are also working to enable
interoperation with Wireless HART devices. ISA has developed a
number of important standards for industrial automation, and ISA
100 will probably have a significant impact on the industry.
Wireless
technology, including the development of industry standards, has
evolved over the past few years so that it is a practical and
affordable option for connecting equipment to implement
condition-based maintenance.

Implementing
Condition-Based Maintenance Management
Most larger
organizations use an automated, computer-based system for
managing maintenance operations. The primary function of these
systems is to track and process maintenance work orders.
Maintenance work
orders are generated in two major ways – manually or
automatically. Many work orders are created by manually entering
requests for corrective or reactive maintenance work to fix
immediate problems. On the other hand, most preventive
maintenance work orders are generated automatically, usually
based on a schedule of preventive maintenance for each piece of
equipment. The maintenance management system will often modify
the preventive maintenance schedule based on the age of the
equipment, its recorded condition, and its corrective
maintenance history.
Most predictive
maintenance work orders are also created manually. Under most
predictive maintenance methods, equipment condition or health is
analyzed by an independent system using sampled data to
determine whether preventive maintenance is required. If
preventive maintenance is indicated, the work orders for that
activity are created manually in the maintenance management
system just as with corrective maintenance work. Using this
approach, the computerized maintenance management system (CMMS)
itself does little different when implementing a corrective
maintenance strategy or a predictive maintenance strategy for an
asset.
The maintenance
management system or CMMS is much more involved in implementing
condition-based maintenance strategies for assets because much
more of the operational process is automated. Readings from
sensors and instruments on the monitored equipment are
communicated to the CMMS continuously, or at least frequently
enough to achieve the same result. This data is analyzed
automatically by the CMMS to evaluate the condition of the
asset. This analysis is performed using rules or algorithms
programmed into the CMMS based on the known failure modes and
their early warning indicators for each individual piece of
equipment. When the assessment of asset condition indicates a
need for maintenance, the CMMS automatically generates a work
order for that maintenance. Maintenance professionals do not
need to become involved in the process until the maintenance
work order is created.
Condition-based
maintenance takes advantage of the automated management
capabilities of a CMMS. It uses the equipment list that already
exists in the CMMS, together with detailed information on each
asset and the maintenance strategy selected for that asset.
Incoming data can be automatically associated with the correct
asset, analyzed and stored for future review or display. The
CMMS can analyze the condition data using any number of simple
or complex rules, immediately and consistently, to assess the
underlying health of the asset. The CMMS can perform the tedious
task of monitoring machine health to detect the exception
conditions that indicate the need for maintenance, and it
performs that task more reliably and less expensively than any
other approach.

Example
Applications
Some practical,
operating examples can illustrate the different ways in which
condition-based maintenance can be performed and how wireless
technology can be used to implement it.
One example is the
InVision™ Downtime Reduction System from the Bussmann division
of Cooper Industries. Bussmann is the 90 year old subsidiary of
a Fortune 500 company that is the largest manufacturer of
industrial fuses in the world. Cooper Bussmann fuses protect
machinery and people in a wide range of industrial and
commercial applications. These facilities blow fuses every day.
While the fuse prevents damage from electrical surges and short
circuits, Cooper Bussmann determined that such an open circuit
event results in 41 minutes of downtime on average. The downtime
causes a loss of production, supply chain interruption, and
idling of the workforce, and it can cost a company from $125,000
to $750,000 per event. Cooper Bussmann developed InVision to
help reduce the downtime caused by blown fuses.
The InVision
system reduces downtime by accelerating the maintenance
organization’s response to a blown fuse. The InVision system
involves installing small, low cost, battery-powered wireless
sensors on each fuse and circuit breaker throughout the plant or
facility. The sensor detects when a fuse blows, or a circuit
breaker trips, and it broadcasts that alert. The alert is
communicated through the facility over a wireless sensor network
infrastructure to a gateway connected to the Internet. The alert
is then transmitted to the Cooper InVision Command Center. The
Command Center automatically notifies the maintenance
organization for that plant that a circuit event has occurred,
the specific location of the fuse or circuit breaker, the model
number of the replacement fuse, and any special instructions
required to replace the fuse. Cooper Bussmann estimates that
this automated alert and notification process reduces the mean
time to restore service by an average 65%, which substantially
reduces the cost of downtime.
Cooper’s InVision
system uses a robust wireless mesh network for several reasons.
Wireless systems are ideal for retrofitting existing facilities
since most fuse and circuit panels are not previously
instrumented nor connected, and it is less expensive to add
connectivity through low power wireless links. It is also easier
to reach difficult locations by using wireless communications.
Finally, wireless sensor networks deliver the level of
reliability required for industrial applications using a number
of technological innovations.
Another example of
using wireless technology to enable condition-based maintenance
is a connection that RF Monolithics installed for a Department
of Defense customer. This customer manages its assets and
maintenance operations using an Enterprise Asset Management
(EAM) system from Aleier, Inc., a subsidiary of RF Monolithics.
Enterprise Asset Management systems usually include all of the
standard functionality of a CMMS, and Aleier’s system is no
exception. Some of the important assets in the customer’s
facilities are large, walk-in freezers that store certain
expensive, mission-critical materials that must be kept frozen.
Because of the critical nature of the materials, any temperature
alarms generated by the freezers’ stand-alone control systems
require an immediate response by the maintenance staff without
waiting for a work order. Unfortunately for the maintenance
organization, the built-in temperature monitoring system on the
freezers generated a high number of false alarms that are
triggered during normal defrost cycles and by the weekly
switchover of the redundant refrigeration compressors. This
created significant wasted time by maintenance technicians that
the customer wanted to eliminate.
This problem was
addressed by installing a separate temperature monitoring
system, which was provided by Cirronet, another division of RF
Monolithics, that provides industrial wireless communications
systems. In the Cirronet solution, separate temperature sensors
were installed in the freezers to measure temperature
independently. Because an Internet connection could not be
provided to this building on an active military base, Cirronet
communicated the temperature readings by installing a direct
radio connection between the storage facility and the
maintenance building over 2 miles away. The temperature readings
were then communicated over the Internet to the centralized
Aleier EAM system.

Figure 1
Example Monitored Freezer Temperature
This solution
produced several benefits. First, false alarms were reduced by
relying on the temperature readings analyzed by the EAM system,
in which a more sophisticated rule looks at the relative trend
of the temperature readings and the length of time that the
temperature is above a monitoring threshold before triggering an
alert (Figure 1). Second, for security, the EAM can also track
whether the temperature crosses a critical threshold level and
independently trigger an alarm if it does. Third, maintenance
technicians can view the recent temperature profile and trend
from within the Aleier EAM using any Internet connected PC. And
finally, high temperature alarms are created within the EAM
system, so that maintenance events are handled and managed
consistently, and maintenance personnel are all scheduled and
managed through one system and process.
Energy management
is another example in which wireless communications can be
employed to enable asset monitoring. In one such situation, a
Cirronet customer desired to reduce overall energy consumption
in a large retail and commercial campus. The campus contains a
large number of relatively independent stores and venues. The
customer believes that providing detailed energy consumption
information to the line supervisor of each store, together with
benchmarks and targets, would enable the line supervisors to
change their behavior and waste less energy.
The customer made
a significant investment to provide the line supervisors the
information they would need to manage the energy consumption of
their store. Over 150 power submeters were installed across the
campus at points consistent with the operations controlled by
line supervisors. To reduce the overall project costs, wireless
connections were installed between the submeters and the data
collection gateways in the campus. Power consumption data is
collected from the submeters every fifteen minutes and is stored
in a remotely located Aleier EAM. Line supervisors can view
their power consumption over a day, a week, a month or any other
period they choose. Their data is always presented relative to a
benchmark as well as their assigned target for energy
consumption for their store. While this project has been
implemented too recently to show significant results, the
customer expects their annual energy savings to amount to
several million dollars.
Wireless
Technologies Are Growing Condition-Based Maintenance
Condition-based
maintenance will become more common, and is being increasingly
enabled by wireless technology. Condition-based maintenance can
help reduce overall maintenance costs while maintaining asset
reliability and it is an attractive and feasible strategy for
certain types of equipment. Acquiring equipment condition data
cost-effectively has been a significant barrier to the adoption
of CBM strategies. New wireless technologies are now enabling
broader use of condition-based maintenance by lowering the
overall costs of these solutions. The benefits of
condition-based maintenance are best realized by integrating
real-time, continuous equipment data into the overall
maintenance management system. These integrated solutions use
the native capabilities of the CMMS to identify when maintenance
is appropriate, and to manage that maintenance activity as a
facet of the overall maintenance operation.
Wayne Stargardt is the Director of Marketing and Product
Development at
Aleier, Inc. He joined Aleier in 2006 from RF Monolithics
and is responsible for marketing, product strategy and product
development. Mr. Stargardt has over 25 years of experience in
marketing, sales and engineering management in technology
companies. Mr. Stargardt was in charge of sales and marketing at
SensorLogic, a startup providing M2M (Machine-to-Machine)
software as an application service provider. Most recently, Mr.
Stargardt was Director of Marketing for RF Monolithics’ Wireless
Solutions Group. Mr. Stargardt has a BSME and MSME from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a BS from the Sloan
School, and an MBA from the Harvard Business School.
|