This article will explain how Archimedes' actions could have been connected to classic failure modes. It goes on to describe experiences on current projects and offer suggestions to improve the reliability of modern process units. More specifically, it will explain and disprove the over-simplification of the graph of Reliability (risk of failure) vs. Time - THE BATHTUB CURVE.
How do I move towards Proaction when I work in such a Reactive environment?
Maintenance Strategies
Break Down Maintenance The fix controls you, you do not control the fix. The basic strategy is totally reactive. When things break, we fix them!
Preventive Maintenance This is a time-based maintenance strategy. On a predetermined periodic basis, equipment is taken off-line, opened up, and inspected. Based on the visual inspection, necessary repairs are made (if any) and the equipment is put back on-line. Some preventive maintenance is necessary. For example, various state laws require that annual boiler inspections be conducted. While this is a well-intended strategy, it can be very expensive as typically 95% of the time everything was OK.
Abstract: The key to Reliability is more a mind-set than the hard technologies that exist on the market today. When we travel to conferences and shows for Reliability we are inundated with vendors that supply technologies to execute Reliability strategies. Such technologies are integral to the ultimate success of a Reliability endeavor. However, if the organization does not have the foresight and vision needed at the executive level to set the stage, then the principles of Reliability will likely not take hold enough to change the culture. Does your organization practice the principle of Reliability?
What would you say if someone asked you to give your company a million dollars from your maintenance program? You would probably laugh, look puzzled, or straight out bludgeon the poor guy. If you did have that much money available you would have already given it, right? WRONG! The fact of the matter is that we give away millions of dollars from our maintenance budgets all of the time but to the wrong places. The money is tied up in inefficiency. There are several inefficiencies that plague our maintenance programs today. They range from lack of direction, poor historical data collection, and lack of admittance. The problem is that the longer the inefficiency goes on the harder it is to break.
A weekly collection of recommended articles and videos to boost your reliability journey. Right in your inbox
The Benefits of Implementing Reliability Engineering
by Fernando Vicente
Over the past several years, reliability has become an ever-increasingly important topic and component in the organizational continuous improvement tool box. Higher plant reliability reduces process and equipment failures, and as we all know, failure disruptions decrease production output, which in turn, limits gross margin. Additionally, equipment failures also increase the probability of having a catastrophic environmental accident and the potential for increasing safety related accidents.
Performing failure analysis on machinery can sometimes seem easy as the fault is staring at you in the frequency domain. But remember, this data has been massaged, averaged, windowed, and
A strong Failure Reporting, Analysis, and Corrective Action System (FRACAS) is the backbone of a good asset performance improvement effort. The FRACAS provides the business elements required to close the loop on Root Cause Failure Analysis (RCFA) and Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) efforts. The FRACAS changes RCFA from what are often one shot exercises to a managed program for systematically improving equipment and process performance. This chapter describes the basics of implementing the FRACAS and how to use it to insure implementation of RCFA recommendations.
It might seem trivial, but the best way to improve reliability is to choose equipment that doesn't breakdown! At the very least, choose designs that when they do fail they are easy, inexpensive and quick to fix. With the right choices in the beginning, maintenance departments can guarantee maintainability. The field of guaranteed maintainability was coined by Atlanta based consultant, Ed Feldman.
In an airline environment, there is only one acceptable standard - perfection.
Safety is everything, and since reliability is a large factor in safety, it gets a lot of attention.
An airline looks at reliability at every level of the operation, from performance of an aircraft to performance of the individual piece-parts of that aircraft. Airlines look at the impact of everything that touches an aircraft. Everything is calculated and recalculated to determine the impact to the operation. Small changes can impact the operation in a large way, and those impacts have to be predicted and dealt with.
During my 27 years with DuPont, the safety culture was apparent. It was a part of everyone's job every day. As a result of a benchmarking study in the late 1980's and creation of a System Dynamics model to explain the benchmark results, it became clear that safety and reliability operate on the same principles. Both are significantly affected by defects and both require a commitment from everyone in the organization for improvements to be achieved.
Creating a structured reliability engineering department in a facility that has never had one is challenging enough. If you simultaneously implement a new computerized maintenance management software (CMMS) program, the hurdles get higher. The key to success is to have the right management support, good communication and a clear vision of what the future should be. This paper will discuss some of the triumphs and pitfalls that we have encountered on our unending journey through a complex culture change.
Risk management in military aviation has been a formal discipline in the field since the 1960's. The risk standards issued by the Department of Defense in 1969 was entitled "DoD Standard Practice for System Safety", MIL-STD-882. Air Force wide, the examples set forth in this standard have been used as though they were a required set of probabilities rather than examples. The semi-quantitative approach used today is further devalued by manager's arbitrary use of the Hazard Risk Matrix levels to mandate action. This paper examines the alternatives available today and recommends incorporation of a quantitative approach for more fidelity in risk management at all levels of management.
Editors Note: Although this paper is aimed at military aviation, the information on risk assessment and management is applicable to most industries as well.
Sterling Steel produces 450,000 tons of wire rod for its parent company, Leggett & Platt. The long products mini mill utilizes a 415 ton Electric Arc Furnace; two Ladle Metallurgy Facilities; an eight strand Billet Caster and a single strand Rod Mill to produce the wire rod for Leggett & Platt's Wire Mills.
Highly accelerated stress screen (HASS) uses the same stresses as HALT, but at a lower stress level. Compared to HALT testing, temperature and voltage extremes may be reduced by 10-15%, vibration levels reduced 50%, etc. depending upon the design although all the stresses may be above rated product specifications with the motivation to produce test results quickly for verifying product compliance.
Lognormal distributions are continuous life functions that have long tails to the right (display positive skewness) in time or usage. A lognormal distribution plotted on semi-log papers would appear as a normal curve.
Reliability-Centered maintenance (RCM) is a systematic planning process used to determine the maintenance requirements for a system. RCM expects the system has an inherent reliability and maintenance requirements are imposed upon the baseline of inherent safety and inherent reliability which can be no better than the worst than designed into the system.
Reliability is the probability that a device, system, or process will perform its prescribed duty without failure for a given time when operated correctly in a specified environment.
The International Electrical Congress (IEC) defines dependability as "Dependability describes the availability performance and its influencing factors: reliability performance, maintainability performance and maintenance support performance." MIL-HDBK-338 defines dependability differently as a measure of the degree to which an item is operable and capable of performing its required function at any (random) time during a specified mission profile, given that the item is available at mission start. (Item state during a mission includes the combined effects of the mission-related system R&M parameters but excludes non-mission time; see availability.) Dependability is related to reliability with the intention that dependability would be a more general concept than the measurable issues of reliability, maintainability, and maintenance.