Emerson Process Management - CSI

DoctorKnow Application Paper

Title: Failure Defense Planning Source/ Bruce Oyler Author: Product: General Technology: Vibration Classification: Abstract Failure Defense Planning (FDP) is an engineered process to facilitate maintenance planning for achieving maximum reliability. FDP establishes the significance of systems and equipment to the overall process, based on cost, production, safety, environment, quality, and other business concerns. The goals of Failure Defense Planning are conceptually similar to those of Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM), but more efficient and directed. The process combines comprehensive system and equipment ranking methods, equipment failure history reviews, personnel knowledge harvesting and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to rapidly provide a balanced selection and prioritization of maintenance tasks for each piece of equipment. The Failure Defense process is designed to establish the optimum balance of maintenance methods consistent with the equipment operating context. The multilevel process is flexible and adaptable, ensuring that maintenance and operations agree on the approach and the priorities. Failure Defense Planning is readily integrated with a continuing improvement program and provides the foundation for improving reliability and optimizing maintenance efforts. Failure Defense Planning Failure Defense Planning utilizes many of the elements of classical RCM, yet provides an efficient and streamlined approach to systematically establishing the significance of systems and equipment to the production process. FDP identifies and ranks the systems and associated assets, provides a determination of the existing or potential failure modes and assigns the most cost-effective techniques for the maintenance of each piece of equipment. FDP provides the necessary support for work prioritization. The process is divided into four levels: Level I: Ranking and Prioritization (SERP) Level II: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Level III: Failure Defense Task Creation Level IV: Implementation A full Failure Defense Plan includes levels I, II and III, and IV. It should be noted that in a practical application, it is not necessary for the levels to be carried out in numerical sequence, as
http://www.compsys.com/DRKNOW/APLPAPR.NSF/apw...92E7B01BBE7EC31E852565A2005F2162?OpenDocument (1 de 5)05/07/2010 16:39:43

Emerson Process Management - CSI

the actual sequence will be to some extent dictated by the scope, criticality determination and selection criteria. The Results of FDP:
s s s s s s s s

System definition and ranking of systems by element Equipment assignment and ranking Ranked equipment list by critically to the system Maintenance priority for critical equipment Failure Modes and Effects Analysis for critical equipment Maintenance task analysis for critical equipment Maintenance priority for noncritical equipment Maintenance task reviews for noncritical equipment

The Benefits of FDP

s

s s

An optimum balance of maintenance methods is established consistent with the equipment operating context and business environment. Maintenance and operations are in agreement about the maintenance approach and priorities. The process is dynamic and readily integrated with a continuing improvement program. Equipment criticality is established for prioritizing remedial actions. Preventive maintenance activities are refined to ensure that equipment is not over-maintained.

Preliminaries: One of the motivating factors for the Failure Defense Planning Process is the desire to foster communication and cooperation between all departments with an interest in the maintenance of equipment, and in particular between production/operations and maintenance. It is, therefore, vital that the process team be selected from a representative cross-section of all interested parties. The team must include a mix of craft, supervisory and engineering personnel, all of whom have a direct involvement with and "ownership" of the equipment in question. Seniority is not a prerequisite for team membership and for effective teamwork, issues of seniority and rank must be put aside. The time involved in carrying out the process can be extensive, a commitment which must be recognized from the beginning and given absolute priority. Typically, the greatest advantage will be gained by carrying out the initial part of the work, covering the most critical equipment, in a continuous block of effort. Then, the process for less critical equipment can be staged according to other priorities, while still allowing for regular, uninterrupted periods of team activity. Level I - Ranking and Prioritization (SERP)

http://www.compsys.com/DRKNOW/APLPAPR.NSF/apw...92E7B01BBE7EC31E852565A2005F2162?OpenDocument (2 de 5)05/07/2010 16:39:43

Emerson Process Management - CSI

A typical plant facility is divided into distinct operational units. The SERP is applied to each operational unit. The first stage in the Level I SERP process is to determine the basic systems in the unit, where a system is a collection of equipment which work together to provide a specific function in support of the unit=s operation. Once the systems have been determined, each piece of equipment is assigned to a unique system. At the second stage, the system's criticality to the unit is gauged with respect to six different aspects of the unit's operation. The results are combined to provide a system criticality ranking. Thirdly, the equipment assigned to each system is ranked with respect to its criticality to the system=s function, giving an operational criticality ranking for each item. Fourthly, the operational criticality is combined with the system=s own criticality to the unit=s operation to produce a single ranking of the equipment with respect to its criticality to the unit=s operation, the asset criticality ranking. The highest ranked equipment forms the basis for a critical equipment list, usually limited to 25% of the total equipment. The fifth stage takes the critical equipment list as its starting point. In this stage, the reliability of the equipment is assessed in broad terms, based upon equipment history, expertise of personnel and interviews with operations, maintenance and engineering staff, at all levels. Reliability is assessed on a numerical scale covering the range from highly reliable (requires little or no attention) to highly unreliable (requires constant attention). This reliability factor (asset failure probability) is then combined with the equipment asset criticality ranking to determine the maintenance priority index. The MPI expresses the urgency and level of the demand placed by the equipment on the maintenance organization, if the unit is to operate successfully. Once critical equipment is complete, at all levels of FDP, noncritical equipment will be assessed. Level II -Failure Modes and Effects Analysis In MPI order, the plausible functional failures of each critical piece of equipment are analyzed using FMEA. The analysis is carried out using the knowledge of equipment experts, experience of field personnel, maintenance histories, documentation, drawings, and equipment database information. In conjunction, a series of interviews are usually conducted with all persons involved with the equipment. For each plausible functional failure, the possible failure modes, underlying failure causes and the consequences for the equipment and systems are determined. This enables a suitable maintenance task to be identified, or for an existing task to be reviewed critically. Level III - Defense Task Creation The MPI is used to prioritize the further analysis of appropriate maintenance tasks and the FMEA results are used to select the optimum, most cost-effective mix of maintenance tools and methods. The goal of failure defense analysis is to assign tasks which mitigate, warn or defend against
http://www.compsys.com/DRKNOW/APLPAPR.NSF/apw...92E7B01BBE7EC31E852565A2005F2162?OpenDocument (3 de 5)05/07/2010 16:39:43

Emerson Process Management - CSI

equipment failures in an appropriate way. For critical equipment, the preference is always for nonintrusive (operational condition monitoring and inspection), rather than intrusive inspection or refurbishing actions. It is quite possible that more than one maintenance task will be appropriate, perhaps of more than one type, for a specific failure mode, even though one or more predictive tasks will be the first priority. There may also be a question of the extent of a failure to be considered. At early stages of development, failure may not be obvious or may only degrade performance, without a serious impairment of function. It may be possible, therefore, to have a failure-finding task which is intermediate to routine predictive or preventive tasks which may defend against a serious failure. Establishing the correct technique or group of techniques will often require a separate predictive maintenance review. It is important to consider all possibilities for condition monitoring, including the use of established technologies, innovative technologies and other methods, such as operating parameter trending. Preventive maintenance tasks will be sought when a reliable condition monitoring technique is not available or practicable. Preventive tasks should be subject to regular review for refinement based upon operating experience and condition monitoring information. Ultimately, usually outside the FDP process, the task will require clearly defined and detailed procedures, including assembly and disassembly, specifications, tools and parts required, and so forth. If a preventive task is not available, then an equipment modification or redesign task may be considered. If this is not possible or practicable, then a reactive maintenance task will be sought, including use of shutdown systems and failure-finding actions for early detection and mitigation of failure consequences. Finally, if no economic or practical alternatives are possible, the risk of running to failure, without any prior action, must be accepted. Noncritical Equipment When the maintenance task analysis is complete for the Critical Equipment, the process will be continued with the remainder of the equipment list. It may be convenient to break the list down into smaller sections, for example, every 20%, to make each stage more manageable, but eventually all equipment should be processed in this way. Maintenance priority should be established for each part of the list considered, in turn. The preferred approach is to follow the same process as for critical equipment, but from a practical standpoint, owing to the large volume of work involved, the first action should be to review existing predictive and preventive tasks. Each task should be defending an important functional failure of the equipment. If it is not, the task should be eliminated, or replaced with a suitable reactive task. If the task is appropriate, it must be ensured that it is performed at the correct frequency, with continual review. Level 4 - Implementation Failure Defense Planning must be treated as a dynamic, continuous improvement process. Key systems and assets have been ranked as they contribute to the functionality of the systems and processes. In addition, the existing and potential failure modes have been established and

http://www.compsys.com/DRKNOW/APLPAPR.NSF/apw...92E7B01BBE7EC31E852565A2005F2162?OpenDocument (4 de 5)05/07/2010 16:39:43

Emerson Process Management - CSI

associated with applicable and effective defense tasks. Therefore, appropriate mechanisms must be put in place to ensure proper focus. Planning and scheduling activities should be based on the established MPI. The priority of equipment repairs must defer to the asset critically ranking. The maintenance force must be adequately trained and possess the skill set necessary to address the identified failure modes. Most importantly, all personnel must be willing to address the critical, high priority items first. The failure defense tasks may require the acquisition of specialized equipment; and engineering may have to modify or redesign certain systems. Management must be willing to support all the efforts required to ensure equipment reliability. The bottom line -- in the competitive environment in which we live, we must eliminate unnecessary costs and focus on the activities that yield the biggest bang for buck. By applying the right techniques and technologies in a structured approach, the efforts of improved quality, a safer work environment, less downtime, and cost avoidance all translate into higher profits. All contents copyright 1998 - 2006, Computational Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.compsys.com/DRKNOW/APLPAPR.NSF/apw...92E7B01BBE7EC31E852565A2005F2162?OpenDocument (5 de 5)05/07/2010 16:39:43