R

ecognising that plant reliability,

availability and maintenance
(RAM) optimisation is one of the
principal opportunities for improving
the financial performance of a hydro-
carbon processing facility, the industrial
community is adopting the same best
practices that have proven effective to
industry leaders. These practices aim at
achieving a sustainable balance between
the cost of an action and the risk associ-
ated with postponing or cancelling such
activity. With proper training and man-
agement support, the necessary cost-risk
benefit analysis can be done quickly and
effectively by using a risk-based decision
matrix (RBDM).
The RBDM is the cornerstone for the
creation of a risk-based decision-making
culture. Specific programmes for opti-
mising turnaround and routine mainte-
nance activities, as well as the
development of effective and proactive
asset care policies (including inspection,
preventative and predictive mainte-
nance plans, and operator surveillance)
are constructed around the RBDM con-
cept. This allows filtering activities
(work requests) leaving only those that
provide a value-added to the organisa-
tion, and performed at the right time
and lowest cost that warrants the safety
and mechanical integrity of the facility.
RAM represents a large opportunity
for both short and long-term improve-
ment in the hydrocarbon processing
industry. In most cases the economic or
safety driving force calling for a change
in current practices is known, and the
main areas of concern have usually been
identified. However, in many sites prob-
lems are known but quantification of
the lost profit opportunity (LPO) and
associated maintenance cost due to
these problems are not fully understood
or taken into account.
A particular area of neglect is slow-
downs due to fouling or other degraded
operations where LPO is incurred with-
out proper accountability as only shut-
downs are given attention. In these
cases, benchmarking through asset
modelling can provide accurate and
realistic results for what could be rea-
sonably expected as plant RAM perfor-
mance. It covers minimising the
uncertainties embedded in industry sur-
veys, helping the identification and
quantification of slowdowns and their
relative importance against shutdowns
(operating 10 days at 90% capacity is
equivalent to one full day of lost pro-
duction) and quickly evaluating what-if
scenarios involving changes in design,
operations, and maintenance (including
warehousing) strategies.
Once the driving force for the RAM
change has been established at a macro
level, it is necessary to develop a
strategy to identify exactly what needs
to be done differently, who will be
responsible and accountable, in addi-
tion to when and how it is going to be
implemented and tracked. At this point,
clichs such as world-class perfor-
mance, best practices, key perfor-
mance indicators (KPI) and strategy
development start to be discussed and
sought-after.
Managers get enthusiastic about
becoming pacesetters and many consul-
tants are brought into the plant. Howev-
er, after a couple of years many of these
improvement programmes lose momen-
tum and despite the large sums of
money spent in both internal and exter-
nal resources, these plants never change.
Blame is spread (especially on cul-
ture), managers are changed and the
organisations financial position and
morale are usually badly hit.
What happened? The most likely
scenario is that one of the following pit-
falls prevented the successful imple-
mentation of the RAM improvement
programme:
Strategy was never implemented about
90% of effectively formulated strategies
are never implemented
Lack of understanding about the firms
strategy and reason for change about
90% of line employees and 60% of man-
agers where strategies are implemented
do not understand or know their firms
strategy (executive teams may be spend-
ing less than one hour per month dis-
cussing it)
Lack of specific measurable goals that
are meaningful for the different levels in
the organisation (measuring top level
KPIs is not enough!)
Lack of understanding of the reason to
change personnel need to fully under-
stand why and what they are being
asked to do differently
Unclear or ambiguous assignment of
responsibilities, accountabilities and lev-
els of authority can prove disastrous in
case of an emergency
Setting unrealistic goals and objectives
these lead to frustration and hurt
morale. The path forward needs to be
corrected as necessary as business
drivers can change in time
Lack of short-term results too much
time is spent studying problems and lit-
tle is done to implement solutions (a
partial solution now is better than the
optimum solution a year down the road)
Change in leadership (back to the
beginning).
So what can be done to succeed at
RAM improvement? The first step of a
successful RAM programme consists of
developing an objective, cross-function-
al strategy that is formulated and carried
out, avoiding the previously mentioned
pitfalls, and addressing the following
elements:
Turnaround maintenance
Routine maintenance
Reliability improvement (referring to
both reliability and availability).
The successful implementation of a
RAM improvement programme that fol-
lows the worldwide trends usually closes
5075% of the performance gap (differ-
ence between present results and those
agreed as realistic expectations for a best
practice operation) within the first
1218 months of the programme.
However, the best practices need to be
carefully assessed since what is best for
one plant may not extrapolate to anoth-
er due to differences in geographical
location, equipment design, feedstocks,
Worldwide trends in
RAM improvement
A review of the improvements in plant reliability, availability and maintenance
that have taken place to ensure better and sustainable results in a competitive
market. Proactive, risk-based strategies are presented, with case studies
J Patrick Williams
KBC Advanced Technologies Inc
PLANT MAI NTENANCE
PTQ SPRING 2004
www. ept q. c om
1
15 KBC subbed.qxd 30/7/04 9:13 AM Page 1
materials of construction, age, operating
conditions and upset history. For exam-
ple, turning around a naphtha cracking
furnace every four to five years may be
considered best practice for one site, but
a shorter interval may prove best for
another furnace in a different location,
with different business drivers, design
constraints or known problem areas that
would require a major capital invest-
ment to correct.
General trends
The general trend in RAM is to move
maintenance and inspection activities
from a traditionally reactive or time-
based approach to risk-based. The proac-
tive methodologies endorsed by the
American Petroleum Institute (API) for
Risk-Based Inspection (API 581) and
mechanical evaluation for Fitness For
Service (API 579) are becoming increas-
ingly popular in the industry.
The goal of these methodologies is to
provide guidelines for identifying and
quantifying degradation mechanisms
and risk in order to help in prioritising
inspection and care actions. Industry
leaders have been using the risk-based,
decision-making concept for well over a
decade and it has been successfully
applied to a wide variety of activities
from flare system design to mainte-
nance work optimisation.
Risk is defined as the product of con-
sequence multiplied by probability,
where the probability of occurrence of
an event increases with the time period T
according to = 1e
T
where is the fre-
quency of occurrence assuming expo-
nential distribution. Consequences to be
considered include those due to safety,
health, environmental, and financial
impact on the organisation or the public.
Risk can be acceptable or unaccept-
able and drawing the line between them
can be difficult as the general tendency
of people is to focus only on the ultimate
consequence (If I do not fix my No. 4
firewater pump right now, if we have a
fire, the refinery will burn down to the
ground). Although this example may
indeed be a very unlikely event, consid-
ering the frequency of a major fire and
the need to use all pumps at once.
To effectively select and prioritise work
based on risk requires the use of a risk
matrix. Risk matrixes as small as 33 to
about 2020 have been used in industry
with varying results. Although these
matrixes may be very effective in their
specific spheres of influence, they are
unsuitable for use as an integrated cross-
functional risk management tool. There-
fore, a single risk-based decision matrix
(RBDM) that integrates safety, health,
environmental, and financial elements is
necessary for consistency among compet-
ing risk-based decisions across the site.
A 55 matrix has proven most useful
for this purpose. This 55 matrix can be
used for optimising turnaround work
scope, selecting and prioritising routine
maintenance work, prioritising analyses
for defect elimination and developing
optimised policies for asset care (preven-
tative and predictive maintenance activ-
ities, inspection plans, operational
checks etc). An example RBDM is illus-
trated in Figure 1.
Turnaround maintenance
Turnaround maintenance optimisation
(TMO) is an area where significant quick
wins can be readily achieved in most
HPI works. These wins are due to opti-
mising the work list and reducing dura-
tion through integration and
challenging the status quo that often
includes idiosyncrasies such as:
Frequency and duration of the
turnaround set in stone the
turnaround for this plant takes 45 days
and we do it every three years
Execution adjusted to the predeter-
mined duration: no incentive to do in
less time
Why do we need detailed plans when
we know what we have to do?
Two to three day delays or startup
leaks considered nor-
mal happenings
C o n s i d e r a b l e
growth of the work list
during the turnaround
execution (in some
cases up to three times
the initial number of
line items) is normal because we never
know what we are going to find in there
It is better to the work in the
turnaround since the plant is shut
down and everything is open not
realising that if it were possible to do
the work as routine maintenance, it
would represent only about one-half of
the cost during turnaround, with better
quality of workmanship.
Figure 2 shows an optimum timeline
for performing independent reviews of
the turnaround planning process. The
process consists of five reviews.
Although each review can be performed
as a standalone, a process that includes
all five reviews has proved to yield the
best results. The five reviews include:
1. Optimising the long-range business
strategy with the strategic review. This
review focuses on optimising the run-
lengths and timing for individual plants
(particularly in complex sites with inter-
mediate tankage that allows turning
around individual blocks or trains with-
in a plant) and identifies any organisa-
tional deficiencies that could negatively
affect turnaround performance. This
review is performed proactively with a
two-turnaround cycle look ahead.
2. The work scope review ensures that
PTQ SPRING 2004
2
PLANT MAI NTENANCE
Almost certain it will occur
>80% chance in timeframe
1
2
3
4
5
E D C B A
Nearly definite
Expected to occur
10% chance in timeframe
Probable
It could occur
Possible
Not expected to occur
0.1% chance in timeframe
Unlikely
Almost certain it will occur
<0.01% chance in timeframe
Nearly impossible
Negligible Moderate Serious Major Catastrophic
Near miss F=Fatality, I=Injury, D=Disabling Non-I
incident
Non LTI LTI F, DI
Toxic (H2S)/LPG gas release Fugitive Small
<5 ton
Large
>5 ton
Maj.
>50 ton
Fire/explosion requiring No
intervention
Operator Plant fire
brig
Ext assist
Drip Spills (U=Uncont'd, C=Contained) Small
C HC
Large
C HC
Small
U HC
Maj.
U HC
Yield/
energy
Lost profit opportunity Min. SLD
>2d
Maj. SLD
>2d
Maj. S/D
>2d
Site S/D
>1 wk
Likelihood of occurrence
of potential consequence
Potential consequence
(health/safety/environment/business impact)
>1% chance in timeframe
Figure 1 Example risk-based decision matrix
2 Run
cycles 12 9 6
Months
3 0 +1
Review 1 2 3 4 5
Oil in
Oil out
Figure 2 Recommended turnaround review timeline
15 KBC subbed.qxd 30/7/04 9:46 AM Page 2
each line item in the turnaround list is
justified in terms of risk (the risk of
doing the work outside the turnaround
or not doing it at all is unacceptable).
Assets with potential for severe damage,
in particular, those affected by process
upsets during the last run (overheating,
caustic entrainment etc), that would
normally not be due for inspection or
were removed prior to the review as a
cost reduction measure, must get the
proper attention as to ensure plant safe-
ty and reliability.
Benefits derived from this review are
typically 2045% reduction of line
items and cost savings between 10%
and 25% relative to the initial budget.
The cost reduction is due to work
removed from the turnaround, either
cancelled, performed as routine mainte-
nance, or reduced scope (inspect 10% of
the heat exchanger tubes instead of the
entire bundle). For best results, this
review should be performed on comple-
tion of the work list, 912 months
before oil-out
3. Execution planning review to opti-
mise the execution of the turnaround by
analysing in detail the mechanical activ-
ities (maintenance and project) critical
path and all paths that are sub-critical
by less than three days to ensure that
these will not become critical. Broad
experience in job execution techniques,
sequencing and knowledge of times
required to complete each activity is a
must to provide value added to the
review. For best results, the mechanical
plan should be integrated into a single
mechanical plan covering all activities
and the review carried out six months
prior to oil-out.
Experience indicates that the end
result of this review is a two- to three-
day reduction in turnaround duration
4. Integrated plan review assesses the
general level of preparedness for the
turnaround, analyses the planned shut-
down and startup operations and
sequences (experience shows that even
where mechanical plans have been
planned with a considerable level of
detail, operations and inspection plans
often are not more than a few bars on a
Gantt chart) and identifies the need for
contingency plans for those areas of
concern. Typically, the turnaround
duration can be shortened by another
one to two days through proper integra-
tion of the mechanical, operations and
inspection plans into a consistent single
master plan.
This review should be performed not
later than three months prior to oil-out.
However, depending on the proximity
of the turnaround and the progress in
planning, all of the above reviews can be
consolidated, in particular the third and
fourth, to provide value added at any
time during the planning process.
5. Closeout review to evaluate the
turnaround performance KPIs (safety,
health and environmental statistics;
actual vs plan cost and manpower fig-
ures; amount of change vs the original
work list; progress gains vs plans
throughout the turnaround etc), prob-
lems encountered, identifying what was
done well and what needs to be
improved in order to ensure the contin-
uous improvement of the turnaround
process.
In order to preserve the details, this
review should be performed a month
after oil-in, and usually allows develop-
ing about 80% of the work list for the
next turnaround.
Other general recommendations to
improve turnaround performance are
the following:
Do only what needs to be done to
keep running for another cycle and
which cannot be done on-stream
Manage contractor buy-in and deliv-
ery of plant objectives (safety, duration,
work quality, cost) through incentives
and bonuses
Safety is always first the safest job
will achieve the highest productivity.
Planning to the last detail eliminates
surprises. Many companies use detailed
computer simulation models to study
time and movements, interferences, and
help contractors visualise the work
before the turnaround.
TMO case study
The benefits that can be obtained from
an integrated review of the work list and
schedule sequencing and integration are
evidenced by the following case study
for a large coking unit in Latin America.
The refiner had heavily optimised the
work list and the mechanical and pro-
ject schedules eight months prior to
oil-out. However, the risk-based cold
eyes review of the work list allowed
reducing the turnaround work scope by
27% of the line items, with further
work being transferred to routine main-
tenance equivalent to US$2.8 million
net reduction in refinery maintenance
expenditure. The integrated plan review,
conducted three months prior to oil-
out, allowed reducing the duration of
the shutdown from 40 days to 34 days,
worth the equivalent of US$3.6 million
in recovered LPO. The methodology was
made standard across the company.
Routine maintenance
Routine maintenance optimisation
(RMO) is another candidate area for sig-
nificant quick wins. In particular, for reac-
tive organisations where maintenance
focuses on repairing as quickly as possi-
ble with little or no planning the
when it breaks, we fix it and no time
to plan, we have a plant to run stereo-
types many times lacking specialised
tools and with poor materials manage-
ment that forces improvisation.
PTQ SPRING 2004
3
PLANT MAI NTENANCE
Time
0 X
Required
handback to
operations date
Repair P&S
Acceptable risk Unacceptable risk
Risk
assess
Equipment
goes out of
service
Figure 3 Establishing work completion date for scheduling purposes
Exposure to unacceptable
risk identified through
risk assessment
Time
0 X Y
Required
handback to
operations date
Expected
repair date
Repair
Acceptable risk Unacceptable risk
Risk
assess
Equipment
goes out of
service
Figure 4 Identifying exposure to unacceptable risk
15 KBC subbed.qxd 29/7/04 2:39 PM Page 3
On the other hand, for
plant operations departments,
almost all work is urgent
because of the belief that
things are not done if there is
no sense of urgency. Usually,
in these types of organisation,
operations and maintenance
mutually blame each other for
the failures and never work
together in solving the root
cause(s) of the problem(s). The
end result is high mainte-
nance cost, low operational
availability, and usually a poor
safety and environmental
track record.
The wins in RMO arise from the
reduction of work through the introduc-
tion of a structured, cross-functional,
risk-based work selection and prioritisa-
tion process (including backlog analysis)
and improved planning and scheduling
practices. This is particularly important
in a large facility where many compet-
ing work orders are received from differ-
ent process plants and utility systems on
a daily basis.
The process starts with risk-assessing
each work request and determining the
required completion date (hand-back to
operations) in order to ensure the risk of
operating the plant in an abnormal con-
dition is acceptable. The process is illus-
trated in Figure 3. However, if the repair
will take longer than the required com-
pletion date, as shown in Figure 4, the
risk analysis will signal the need for a
contingency plan, flag plant vulnera-
bilities (design, materials management),
or require the need for further reliability
improvement.
A typical example of this type of situ-
ation is pump repairs, where the com-
pletion date will be influenced by the
condition of the spare pump.
Improvement of routine maintenance
performance is possible by practising
the following:
Risk assess all work requests with
operations, maintenance planning, and
others as needed (reliability/inspection)
and assign agreed end dates
Avoid breaking the weekly work
schedule
Use job packs for planning and care-
fully review the time norms (spot check
and validate job plans, especially when
these are produced by contract planners)
Package as many small jobs as practi-
cal (instrument and valve repairs, paint-
ing) into one larger work order
Risk assess the backlog on a monthly
basis
Introduce maintenance by operators
(general housekeeping, minor pipefit-
ting, pump oil changes, valve care,
strainer cleaning, instrument zero
checks, minor painting etc).
RMO case study
A sustainable 15% reduction in contrac-
tor manpower requirements and 20%
reduction in routine maintenance cost
were achieved within the first two
months of an RMO programme applied
at a Latin American refinery. The bene-
fits derived from a 23% to 50% reduc-
tion in the number of work orders
generated by the different operating and
utility areas in the facility. Also, the
number of schedule-breaking work
orders (breaking the weekly schedule)
decreased from over 80% to around 10%
of the number of the work orders issued.
The programme also improved the
maintenance planning and scheduling
process through the introduction of
job packs and packaged jobs, establish-
ment of meaningful KPIs, improved
contracting strategies for outsourced
maintenance and cross-functional
communications.
Reliability improvement
Total site reliability is paramount for a
safe and productive performance. This is
evidenced by a trend in increased
availability at the expense of a slightly
higher maintenance cost in refineries
and some petrochemical facilities. Usu-
ally the benefit derived from a safer and
more reliable operation totally offsets
the increased maintenance cost. The
difference in site availability between
pacesetters and laggers can be greater
than four percentage points (two weeks
of uptime per year!).
Therefore, some facilities may benefit
considerably from a reliability (and
availability) improvement programme.
However, without a structured pro-
gramme and adequate tools and support
from senior management, these reliabil-
ity initiatives fail to produce short-term
results, lose momentum and the relia-
bility group is reduced to a vibration
monitoring crew. For quick results, the
reliability programme needs to adopt
the following best practices:
Implement a structured defect elimi-
nation programme that tracks and pri-
oritises activities based on the cost of
unreliability (CoUR) and
addresses root causes includ-
ing systemic problems
It is best to solve one to
two problems a month rather
than tackling 20 at once
Audit the mechanical
integrity condition of assets
and inspection records
Update maintenance and
inspection tools and training
as needed to include proven
hardware (laser alignment,
torque-controlled bolting,
thermography, bundle pullers,
vibration pens, portable air
conditioning units for work inside
equipment in hot climates etc)
Implement an evergreen cross-func-
tional, risk-based asset care programme
to expedite the development of opti-
mised asset policies for reviewing, con-
solidating and complementing existing
programmes that are usually developed
in isolation (API RBI, reliability centred
maintenance (RCM)).
This is in order to produce a consis-
tent output with defined activities
(inspection, preventative and predictive
maintenance activities, operator and
process engineering performance checks
etc), required completion dates and
responsibilities for execution that can be
uploaded into a computerised mainte-
nance management system (CMMS).
Defect elimination case
The defect elimination process at a
European petrochemical manufacturer
increased 5% throughput by effectively
eliminating chronic and systemic
defects while reducing the CoUR by
50% over the first three years, as shown
in Figure 5. In summary, the key to suc-
cess in achieving sustainable RAM
improvement is to establish a proactive
risk-based culture featuring:
Full support by senior management
Coordinated RAM strategy with mean-
ingful KPIs, roles and responsibilities for
each level within the organisation
Use of a single site-specific RBDM
Cross-functional, risk-based decisions
using the RBDM
Updated work execution techniques.
J Patrick Williams is a senior consultant
with KBC Advanced Technologies Inc, Hous-
ton, Texas, USA. He has 25 years experi-
ence in refinery and petrochemical
operations and maintenance optimisation
activities, 14 of which have been devoted to
safety and reliability improvement. He
holds a BS degree in chemical engineering
from the Catholic University of Valparaiso,
Chile, and an MS in chemical engineering
from the University of Maryland.
E-mail: pwilliams@kbcat.com
PTQ SPRING 2004
4
PLANT MAI NTENANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

o
f

d
o
l
l
a
r
s
3 2 1 0 1 2 3
Implementation year
Cost of unreliability with
defect elimination
Figure 5 Savings obtained through defect elimination
15 KBC subbed.qxd 30/7/04 9:46 AM Page 4