MPS_Day1_World_Class_Reliability_Performance
.pdf
Phone: +61 (0) 402 731 563
Fax: +61 (8) 9457 8642
Email: info@lifetime-reliability.com
Website: www.lifetime-reliability.com
the operational financial consequences to good accuracy and the design can be ‗tuned‘ to get best life cycle operating results.
Equipment Criticality
Equipment Criticality =
Operating Risk =
Failure Frequency (/yr) x DAFT Cost Consequence ($)
Equipment Criticality is a business risk rating indicator.
We need to know where to put our efforts for the greatest payback. The 80/20 rule applies to maintenance as well – which 20% of equipment maintenance gives 80% of the benefits. Once you have order of priority, you know what to focus on.
Equipment Criticality indicates risk to the business. It highlights how bad a situation can become if it is allowed to occur. The true financial impact on a business of a bad risk is only fully appreciated when the Defect and Failure True Costs (DAFT Costs) are completely known.
Remember, if there is no failure there is no costs. Hence, there is good justification to spend money on preventing failure, because, if the failure is not stopped, it eventually will almost certainly occur, and then vast DAFT Costs will be spent.
The concept of Equipment Criticality is used to determine the importance of plant and equipment to the success of an operation. It provides a way to prioritize equipment so that efforts are directed towards the plant and equipment that delivers the most important outcomes for the business. Typically the Equipment Criticality is arrived at by Operations and Maintenance personnel sitting down and working thorough every item of equipment and applying the risk matrix to determine the risk to the enterprise should the equipment fail. The risk rating becomes the ‗Equipment Criticality‘.
A more rigorous method, and one based on financial justification, is to use the ‗Optimised Operating Profit Method‘. By applying DAFT Costs when calculating the risk from equipment failure to the enterprise, it permits each item of plant to be graded in order of true financial impact on the operation should it fail. The ‗Equipment Criticality‘ then reflects the financial risk grading.
- 51 -
Phone: +61 (0) 402 731 563
Fax: +61 (8) 9457 8642
Email: info@lifetime-reliability.com
Website: www.lifetime-reliability.com
Equipment Criticality Matches Operational
Priority to Business Risk
What comes first?
www.lifetime-reliability.com
46
It is important that every item of plant and equipment be categorised, including every sub-system in each equipment assembly. We need to know how critical is the smallest item so we understand what is important to continued operation.
There have been many situations where smaller items of equipment, such as an oil circulating pump or a process sensor, were not identified for criticality and were not maintained. Eventually they failed and the operation was brought down for days while parts were rushed to do a repair. Be sure that you know how important every item of equipment is to your business.
- 52 -
Phone: +61 (0) 402 731 563
Fax: +61 (8) 9457 8642
Email: info@lifetime-reliability.com
Website: www.lifetime-reliability.com
Identify Your Equipment Risks and
Priority Equipment
This table is the basic approach. There is full mathematical modelling, but this basic method is fine to start with. The layout is universal. You calibrate the consequences‟ description to what you are willing to accept, and the costs to what you are willing to pay.
www.lifetime-reliability.com
47
When the risk management process is applied a risk rating scale is developed to assess the size of a risk. Such a scale can be used to measure the impact on a business of an equipment failure. The greater the impact from failure and downtime the more that must be done to prevent it or reduce its consequence.
- 53 -
Phone: +61 (0) 402 731 563
Fax: +61 (8) 9457 8642
Email: info@lifetime-reliability.com
Website: www.lifetime-reliability.com
Develop an Equipment Criticality Matrix
You will need to put this table together with the people that operate the plant in face-to-face meetings. It‟s their money you will be spending, and they need to be happy with how it
impacts their costs and their production plans.
www.lifetime-reliability.com
48
This is the approach used to identify equipment criticality. The criticality justifies adoption of suitable failure prevention practices and necessary maintenance strategies. It produces a priority scale to care for equipment, with equipment of the highest importance getting highest protection and response. By applying an equipment criticality rating to plant and equipment it provides guidance on the importance of installing protective measures and making available emergency recovery strategies after a failure.
The end result of the equipment criticality process is a table showing the Criticality Rating and impacts on the business of failure, the actions necessary to control the risks, along with who is responsible for them to be done.
The method makes it clear to management how the organisation suffers from failure and initiates the introduction of suitable practices to control the risk.
The criticality rating process is applied to plant and equipment in order to determine operating risk and address it with appropriate operating and maintenance strategies. It does not consider how the risks can be prevented in the first place, so that no risk is present to have to control. Such an approach requires a proactive method like the DOCTOR. I encourage organisations to do it. It is one of the most important steps to take on the journey to operating excellence.
- 54 -
Phone: +61 (0) 402 731 563
Fax: +61 (8) 9457 8642
Email: info@lifetime-reliability.com
Website: www.lifetime-reliability.com
Activity 1 – Equipment Criticality
Complete the example and identify the equipment criticality for the items of a mining truck
www.lifetime-reliability.com
49
- 55 -
Phone: +61 (0) 402 731 563
Fax: +61 (8) 9457 8642
Email: info@lifetime-reliability.com
Website: www.lifetime-reliability.com
4. Activity 1 – Equipment Criticality and Risk Management Strategy Table
Using the risk matrix over the page, complete the criticality rate columns (E, H, M, L) for the mining truck and select the maintenance to apply and the operating practices to use to reduce risk.
|
Sub- |
|
|
Likely |
|
|
|
|
Criticality by |
|
|
|
|
Criticality |
Item |
Failure Modes |
|
DAFT Cost Rating |
Likelihood |
|
Required Operating Practice |
|
Required Maintenance |
after |
|||||
Assy |
|
Causes |
Risk Matrix |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mitigation |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Failure Rate - |
|
|
|
|
|
Must be |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Partial |
Time to |
MTBF From |
Likelihood + |
|
|
|
|
substantial |
|
|
|
|
|
Loss Cost |
Loss Cost |
Rebuild |
CMMS |
Consequence = |
|
|
|
|
reduction in level |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
$ |
Days |
Equipment |
Risk Rating |
|
|
|
|
or chance of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
History |
|
|
|
|
|
stress on item |
Engine |
|
|
|
|
500,000 |
|
100 |
|
TOTAL RISK |
|
|
1. |
Too expensive to carry |
? + ? = ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
= ? |
|
|
|
emergency spare |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Dirty Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Get only with clean and water-free |
1. Inspect and test fuel system |
|
||
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fuel from supplier |
|
|||
|
2. Blocked |
|
|
|
25,000 |
23 |
1 in 30,000hr |
2 + 3 = M |
|
|
cleanliness at 5,000 hour service |
2 + 2 = M |
||
|
system |
|
|
|
2. Conduct annual audit of fuel |
|
||||||||
|
injectors |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Replace fuel filters every service |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
supplier |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Dust in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Use best practice oil store |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
management methods |
|
||
|
|
|
|
oil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
Oil microfiltration fortnightly on |
|
|
|
Oil |
1. Contaminated |
2. |
Water |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
40,000 |
15 |
1 in 20,000hr |
2 + 4 = H |
|
|
|
each engine to remove solid |
|
||||
|
system |
2. Water in oil |
|
jacket |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
debris |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
leak |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Pressure test for water channel |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
leaks |
|
|
Crank |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Operator trained to not overload |
|
|
|
|
1. Snapped con |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
truck and over-rev motor |
|
|
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
250,000 |
14 |
1 in 50,000hr |
4 + 4 = H |
|
|
|
|
||
|
rod |
|
|
|
2. |
Install wireless engine monitoring |
|
|
|
|||||
|
pistons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and reporting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engine |
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
28 |
1 in 80,000hr |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
block |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cooling |
|
|
|
|
20,000 |
15 |
1 in 10,000hr |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
system |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ignition |
|
|
|
|
25,000 |
15 |
1 in 30,000hr |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
system |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gearbox |
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
100 |
|
TOTAL RISK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
= ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Input |
|
|
|
|
20,000 |
15 |
1 in 60,000hr |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shaft |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
55,000 |
38 |
1 in 10,000hr |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gears |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Output |
|
|
|
|
15,000 |
15 |
1 in 20,000hr |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shaft |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Casing |
|
|
|
|
50,000 |
60 |
1 in 30,000hr |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 56 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phone: |
+61 (0) 402 731 563 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fax: |
+61 (8) 9457 8642 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email: info@lifetime-reliability.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Website: www.lifetime-reliability.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consequence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E – Extreme risk – detailed action plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
required |
|
|
|
|
People |
|
|
Injuries or ailments not |
|
Minor injury or First Aid |
|
|
Serious injury causing |
|
Life threatening injury or |
|
Death or multiple life |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
requiring medical |
|
|
|
hospitalisation or multiple |
|
multiple serious injuries |
|
|||||||
|
|
H – High risk – needs senior management |
|
|
|
|
|
Treatment Case. |
|
|
|
|
threatening injuries. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
treatment. |
|
|
|
medical treatment cases. |
|
causing hospitalisation. |
|
||||||||||
|
|
attention |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scrutiny required by |
|
|
|
|
|
Intense public, political |
|
Legal action or |
|||
|
|
M – Medium risk – specify management |
|
|
Reputation |
|
|
|
|
|
internal committees or |
|
|
Scrutiny required by |
|
and media scrutiny. E.g. |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Internal Review |
|
|
|
|
|
Commission of inquiry or |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
internal audit to prevent |
|
|
clients or third parties etc. |
|
front page headlines, TV, |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
responsibility |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
escalation. |
|
|
|
|
|
etc. |
|
adverse national media. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
L- Low risk – manage by routine procedures |
|
|
Business |
|
|
Minor errors in systems |
|
|
|
|
One or more key |
|
|
|
|
Critical system failure, |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
or processes requiring |
|
Policy procedural rule |
|
|
|
Strategies not consistent |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
accountability |
|
|
bad policy advice or |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Process & |
|
|
corrective action, or |
|
occasionally not met or |
|
|
|
with business objectives. |
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
requirements not met. |
|
|
ongoing non-compliance. |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
minor delay without |
|
services do not fully meet |
|
|
Trends show service is |
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Extreme or High risk must be reported to |
|
|
Systems |
|
|
impact on overall |
|
needs. |
|
|
Inconvenient but not client |
|
degraded. |
|
Business severely |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
welfare threatening. |
|
|
affected. |
||||||||||||
|
|
Senior Management and require detailed |
|
|
|
|
schedule. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
treatment plans to reduce the risk to Low or |
|
|
Financial |
|
|
$10K |
|
$30K |
|
|
$100K |
|
$300K |
|
$1,000K |
|||||||
|
|
Medium |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insignificant |
|
|
Minor |
|
|
Moderate |
|
|
Major |
|
|
Catastrophic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
Probability |
Historical |
Time |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
|||||
|
|
|
Scale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is expected to |
Once per |
5 |
|
Almost |
|
|
M |
|
|
H |
|
|
H |
|
|
E |
|
|
E |
|
|
|
|
>1 in 10 |
occur in most |
year |
|
Certain |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
circumstances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Likelihood |
1 in 10 - 100 |
Will probably |
Once every |
4 |
|
Likely |
|
|
M |
|
|
M |
|
|
H |
|
|
H |
|
|
E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
occur |
3 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Might occur at |
Once per 10 |
3 |
|
Possible |
|
|
L |
|
|
M |
|
|
M |
|
|
H |
|
|
E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
1 in 100 – 1,000 |
some time in the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
future |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 in 1,000 – |
Could occur but |
Once per 30 |
2 |
|
Unlikely |
|
|
L |
|
|
M |
|
|
M |
|
|
H |
|
|
H |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
10,000 |
doubtful |
years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May occur but |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 in 10,000 – |
only in |
Once per |
1 |
|
Rare |
|
|
L |
|
|
L |
|
|
M |
|
|
M |
|
|
H |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
100,000 |
exceptional |
100 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
circumstances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adapted from AS 4360-2004 Risk Management
- 57 -
Phone: +61 (0) 402 731 563
Fax: +61 (8) 9457 8642
Email: info@lifetime-reliability.com
Website: www.lifetime-reliability.com
Risk Identification and Analysis – Template 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review Date |
|
………………………………… |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Business Unit Name |
……………………………………… |
|
Compiled by |
………………………………… |
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Function Activity |
……………………………………… |
|
Reviewed by |
………………………………… |
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
THE RISK |
SOURCE |
IMPACT |
|
CURRENT CONTROL |
CURRENT RISK LEVEL |
|
|||
RISK REFERENCE |
WHAT CAN HAPPEN? |
HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN? |
FROM EVENT HAPPENING |
|
STRATEGIES |
|
|
|
ACCEPTABILITY (A/U) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS |
|
|
CURRENT RISK LEVEL |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
(A) –Adequate |
|
CONSEQUENCE |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
(M) – Moderate |
LIKELIHOOD |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
(I) – Inadequate |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
- 58 -
Phone: +61 (0) 402 731 563
Fax: +61 (8) 9457 8642
Email: info@lifetime-reliability.com
Website: www.lifetime-reliability.com
Risk Treatment Schedule and Action Plan – Template 2
RISK REFERENCE
POTENTIAL TREATMENT OPTIONS |
COSTS & |
TREATMENT TO |
RISK LEVEL |
||
|
BENEFITS |
BE |
|
AFTER |
|
|
|
IMPLEMENTED |
IMPLEMENTED |
||
|
|
(Y/N) |
LIKELIHOOD |
CONSEQUENCE |
TARGET LEVEL |
|
|
|
|||
RESPONSIBLE |
TIMETABLE |
MONITORING |
PERSON |
For |
strategies to |
|
measure |
|
|
implementation |
|
|
effectiveness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Risk |
|
|
Treatments |
FINAL Cumulative Risk Level after Treatment
- 59 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phone: |
+61 (0) 402 731 563 |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fax: |
+61 (8) 9457 8642 |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email: info@lifetime-reliability.com |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Website: www.lifetime-reliability.com |
||||||
|
|
Choosing of Maintenance Type |
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Simplified RCM Method |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be wary |
|
||||||
|
RCM = |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
choosing to do |
||
|
|
|
|
Is failure mode |
no |
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Reliability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breakdown |
||||||
|
|
|
|
observable during |
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Centred |
|
|
|
normal operation? |
Hidden Failure |
|
|
|
|
Maintenance if |
||||
|
Maintenance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you have not |
||
|
|
|
|
yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consequence |
|
done |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consequence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a full |
|||
|
|
no |
yes |
yes |
|
of failure |
|
||||||||
|
|
of failure |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acceptable ? |
|
DAFT |
||
|
|
|
|
|
acceptable ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cost. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no |
Breakdown |
||
|
Design |
|
no |
Life |
yes |
|
|
|
|
Maintenance is |
|||||
|
out cause of |
|
|
|
reasonably |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 – 15 times |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
predictable ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
failure practical? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
repair cost. A |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
yes |
|
|
|
no |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$10,000 repair |
||
|
|
|
|
Condition |
no |
|
|
|
|
really costs a |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
business |
|||
|
Designing out |
|
|
|
Monitoring |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
between |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
practical ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
cause of failure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
no |
yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$70,000 to |
||||
|
economical ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$150,000. You |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Condition |
no |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can buy a lot of |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
Monitoring |
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maintenance |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
economic ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for that! |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant |
|
|
|
Repair/Replace |
Repair/Replace |
|
Run to Failure |
|
Failure Finding |
|
||||
|
Change |
|
|
|
On-Condition |
on Time based |
|
and Timely |
|
|
and Timely |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
maintenance |
maintenance |
|
Repair/Replace |
|
Repair/Replace |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 |
This chart is an alternate means to decide the maintenance strategy to use on equipment based on reliability centred maintenance principles.
Match Maint Type to Equipment Criticality
Risk Based Method
Once you decide the criticality, you match the type of maintenance to it by using this risk based chart, or the next one, which uses the inherent reliability of the item as the criteria.
|
|
Equipment |
|
|
|
|
Hazardous, Safety, |
|
|
|
|
Environmental dangers |
|
|
|
|
from process |
|
|
|
Breakdown, stops |
|
|
Breakdown, stops |
|
production, affects quality |
production, affects quality |
||
|
Affects downstream plant |
Affects downstream plant |
||
|
Can be fixed on-line |
Can be fixed on-line |
||
S |
A |
B |
|
C |
Time Based |
Condition Based |
Breakdown Based |
||
Maintenance |
Maintenance |
Maintenance |
||
S = Security ; A,B,C = Maintenance Type |
|
www.lifetime-reliability.com |
||
|
|
|
|
51 |
- 60 -