3

Asset Management
Establishing a balanced maintenance
strategy for field instrumentation
Michael Herzog, Rinus van Kasteren, John Salusbury, Endress +Hauser
Field instrumentation devices are crucial to reliable process plant operation but often they are not included
in the maintenance plan since their reliability is relatively high, but effects of age and technological obsole-
scence lead to reduced plant performance over time. New legislation demands more control and re-calibra-
tion, manufacturers promise very stable and highly reliable instruments. The challenge is now to newly
balance the maintenance efforts and their payback.
This paper describes a methodology which allows a cost effective approach and improves the important
issues such as safety and plant reliability. The new method for maintenance analysis takes into account the
existing on-site equipment, considers its current maintainability and maintenance needs within the applica-
tion and makes the manufacturers knowledge available. It suggests criteria for the maintenance manager
to classify the criticality of the equipment within the process to focus the efforts, and finally explains how all
plant data can be brought together to form an information base for the development of a new maintenance
plan. A rule based tool allows to focus on the three planning dimensions of breakdown plan, preventive
plan and migration plan. Exporting the maintenance related asset information to the local computerised
maintenance management system simplifies the calibration and maintenance scheduling task that has to
follow.
Experience in mid-size and large process plants suggests that equipment and plant availability is improved
whilst maintenance efforts are redirected from reactive trouble shooting to improved plant productivity. In
some instances the result is an increase in preventive activities, in other cases a reduction and redirection of
the efforts brings more productivity. Instrument replacement is now budgeted one year ahead and well
managed. The spares stock is reduced through standardisation, important training needs of the mainte-
nance staff are identified and maintenance efficiency is increased by focussed training.
Festlegung einer ausgewogenen Instandhaltungsstrategie fr die Feldinstrumentierung
Die Gerte der Feldinstrumentierung sind fr den zuverlssigen Betrieb der Prozessanlage von entscheiden-
der Bedeutung, werden aber hufig nicht in die Instandhaltungsplanung einbezogen, da ihre Zuverlssigkeit
vergleichsweise hoch ist. Durch Alterungseffekte und den Einfluss der technischen Weiterentwicklung geht
die relative Leistungsfhigkeit der Anlage im Laufe der Zeit jedoch zurck. Neue Gesetze verlangen einerseits
eine striktere Kontrolle und Nachkalibrierung, andererseits bieten die Hersteller immer stabilere und zuneh-
mend hochzuverlssige Messgerte an. Nun kommt es darauf an, den Instandhaltungsaufwand und den
dadurch erzielbaren Nutzen gegeneinander abzuwgen.
Dieser Artikel beschreibt eine Methodik, die einerseits einen kostengnstigen Ansatz gestattet und anderer-
seits Verbesserungen in wichtigen Aspekten wie Sicherheit und Anlagenzuverlssigkeit ermglicht. Die neue
Methode fr die Instandhaltungsanalyse bercksichtigt die vorhandenen Betriebsmittel, betrachtet ihre
Instandhaltbarkeit und ihren Instandhaltungsbedarf innerhalb des betreffenden Anwendungsbereichs und
ermglicht den Zugriff auf das Know-how des Herstellers. Die Methodik schlgt Kriterien vor, mit denen der
Instandhaltungsleiter die Kritikalitt der Betriebsmittel innerhalb des Prozesses klassifizieren kann, um den
Aufwand entsprechend bndeln zu knnen. Sie erlutert, wie smtliche Anlagendaten zusammengefhrt
werden knnen, um eine Informationsbasis fr die Erarbeitung eines neuen Instandhaltungsplans aufzu-
bauen. Ein regelbasiertes Datenbank-Tool ermglicht, den Blick auf die drei Hauptabschnitte Ausfallpla-
nung,vorbeugende Planung und Migrationsplanung zu richten. Die nachfolgenden Schritte der Arbeits-
planung fr Instandhaltung und Kalibration werden durch den Export der instandhaltungsrelevanten Infor-
mationen in das lokale Instandhaltungs-Planungssystem vereinfacht.
Die Erfahrungen in mittelgroen und groen Prozessanlagen lassen erkennen, dass sich die Verfgbarkeit
der Betriebsmittel und Anlagen verbessert, whrend sich die Instandhaltung von der reaktiven Strungsbe-
seitigung zur Verbesserung der Anlagenproduktivitt verlagert. In einigen Fllen ergibt sich hieraus eine
Zunahme der vorbeugenden Manahmen, in anderen Fllen lsst sich mehr Produktivitt durch eine Redu-
zierung und Umlenkung der entsprechenden Manahmen erreichen. Der Austausch von Messgerten wird
jetzt bereits ein Jahr zuvor budgetiert und gut verwaltet. Die Lagerbestandsverwaltung wird durch Standar-
disierung vereinfacht. Wichtige Schulungsanforderungen der Mitarbeiter werden ermittelt, und durch zielge-
richtetere Schulungen wird die Effizienz der Instandhaltungsmanahmen verbessert.
4
Asset Management
1. Objective of a maintenance strategy
1.1 Guidelines in standards
According to the new European Standard EN 13306 Mainte-
nance Terminology [1] it is the responsibility of any mainte-
nance manager to define a maintenance strategy according
to these main criteria:
to ensure the availability of the item for the required
function, often at the optimum costs,
to consider the safety requirements associated with
the item for both maintenance and
user personnel, and where necessary, any impact on
the environment,
to uphold the durability of the item and/or the quality
of the product or service provided,
considering where necessary, costs.
The GAMP Good Practice Guide: Calibration
1
Manage-
ment[2] asks the process owner to identify the critical para-
meters, the process variables, and to derive acceptable
limits thus supporting a focussed approach. To obtain this
focus, maintenance planning is preceded by maintenance
analysis. It should include a criticality analysis as described in
[3] as the systematic analysis for identification and evalua-
tion of required maintenance activities, including estimation
of time and resources needed for the maintenance perfor-
mance.
1.2 Strategic priorities
This seems straightforward enough however further evalua-
tion of the needs of the different stakeholders, representing
business processes and functions usually reveals contradic-
ting targets. Some typical examples are listed in Table 1.
When a maintenance plan is produced, its defined priorities
are likely to be challenged from a number of different angles.
Therefore a sound approach should define the priorities first,
get them accepted and then proceed to produce a matching
maintenance strategy and plan. A well designed mainte-
nance plan also needs to take into account the changes that
occur over time its structure must be flexible enough so
that it can be easily adapted to changing requirements.
Field instrumentation devices are crucial to stable and
productive plant operation and yet, often they are not inclu-
ded in the maintenance plan since their reliability is relati-
vely high. Even the basic updating of instrument-lists in the
item register
3
is frequently neglected due to other priorities.
This renders the maintenance plan practically useless and
will lead to instabilities in plant operation sooner or later.
Once the vicious circle is entered, fire-fighting will further
reduce the available time to plan and execute the necessary
preventive tasks. Therefore the most important feature of a
maintenance plan is to be current and to be followed at all
times.
The key issues for a good maintenance plan are listed in
Table 2. The priorities will vary from industry to industry and
will depend on plant or corporate strategies.
2. Contents of maintenance planning
2.1 The activity oriented maintenance plan
According to [1] maintenance types, strategies can be classi-
fied in many different ways including preventive, scheduled,
pre-determined, predictive, condition based, corrective,
remote, deferred, immediate and on-line or off-line. On the
other hand the resulting activities can also be vast: inspec-
tion, monitoring, function check-out, repair, overhaul, routine
maintenance, calibration, etc. A practical approach is to look
at maintenance considering three main operational situati-
ons:
preparation for a failure or breakdown event (contin-
gency plan for corrective maintenance),
Glossary of terms
1
Calibration is an essential element in ensuring regulatory compliance in
the pharmaceutical industry. The ISPE issues Good Practice Guides[2] to
provide guidance in setting up a calibration management system
2
According to [1], maintenance effectiveness is the ratio between the
maintenance performance target and the actual result
3
According to [1], an item register is a record of the individually identified
items together with location. An item is any part, component, device,
subsystem functional unit equipment or system that can be individually
considered.
Table 1: Examples for objectives of maintenance planning.
Reduce the risk to people, environment and equipment
Satisfy regulatory requirements (Legal, Environment, Safety and
Health)
Reduce fluctuations of product quality (e.g. Six Sigma)
Support management systems such as ISO 9001[4], ISO 14001[5]
Satisfy corporate guidelines for maintenance cost (reduction) or
outsourcing strategy
Adapt to evolving plant requirements, e. g. anadditional shift per day
Provide a base for decision making within (new) management
systems (TPM, RCM, RBM)
Increase equipment reliability to reduce losses and improve delivery
performance
Improve maintenance effectiveness
2
or other quantifiable objectives
Optimise inventory and improve supply chain for spares
Identify replacement needs and budget replacement ahead of time
Reduce operating costs, e.g. unplanned shutdowns and product loss
Table 2: Key Features of a good maintenance plan.
Provides good maintenance effectiveness
Reduces complexity and provide focus (do the right things)
Offers traceability
Is up-to-date and flexible
Takes into account the available resources (internally and externally)
Deals with the loss of instrumentation and calibration know-how
Makes suppliers knowledge available to maintenance personnel
Takes into account all devices (completeness)
Fosters continuous improvement
5
Asset Management
the important planned activities (preventive mainte-
nance),
general life cycle issues of the field devices such as
planned replacement or migration.
Process plants are usually designed to operate over more
than 710 years. Frequently, an economic life span of over
1015 years is expected and plants often exceed 20 years of
operation. During this period they are expected to deliver
increasing output at an improving level of quality.
In contrast to this, developers of field instrumentation are
changing and improving the technical design at a much fas-
ter pace in order make use of new technologies to stay com-
petitive. The manufacturers also have to consider new legal
requirements such as ATEX, Functional safety (IEC61508) or
the Pressure Equipment Directive: They have triggered new
designs or product options and made other older designs
obsolete. Last not least, the developments in bus technology
regularly lead to software updates.
Table 3 suggests some change rates for plant instrumen-
tation. Technology check-ups can open up important impro-
vement potentials: Better and tighter process control, higher
process efficiency and longer up time due to longer time to
failure
4
and reduced repair time
5
are observed when techno-
logy upgrades are implemented on critical components of a
plant.
Evolution of technology can be advantageous, but also
has its drawbacks: Whilst spare parts for older generation
equipment may become unavailable, the new devices may
have different dimensions that need adaptation to the
installation. Also, the electrical connection specifications
may have changed. Successor compatibility can be impossi-
ble to achieve for the instrument manufacturer, for example
when new standards for external dimensions arrive as was
the case for electromagnetic flowmeters. The implications
for the spare parts stock and training requirements must be
examined as well.
The three main aspects of the maintenance plan for
instrumentation are therefore:
breakdown plan and associated aspects preparation for
the development of a contingency,
streamlining of spares stock according to the chosen
repair strategy,
planning for the training of personnel, managing the
know-how,
support requirements from (internal or external) service
provider(s),
preventive plan includes triggered (predictive) and all
scheduled activities,
definition of verification and calibration intervals and
methods,
streamlining consumables and wear parts stock (supply
chain),
definition of outsourcing needs,
migration plan Managing technological improvements,
controlling actively the move to new generation devi-
ces,
implementing improvements in process control,
planning ahead to secure the investment.
2.2 Opportunities and considerations with smart
devices
Hart-Protocol, ProfiBus and Foundation Fieldbus have arri-
ved and web technology is now emerging in the field of pro-
cess automation. In combination with so called asset mana-
gement systems (or solutions) they are promising to sim-
plify the maintenance of all connected devices. Every
re-calibration, every exchange of a device can be registered
and becomes traceable for any inspector that has to verify
the action. (A risk of omission exists, though, if not all devices
are connected to the bus). As field devices are becoming
more sophisticated, some will report their maintenance
needs and send an alert via the communication link to the
asset management system to enable predictive mainte-
nance. This ability can be used as a base to consider exten-
ded inspection or calibration intervals in some applications.
But unless two or more redundant sensors are used, a self-
diagnostic function cannot be very reliable in detecting a
calibration drift, resulting in a measurement error induced by
an effect (physical/chemical) to the primary sensing ele-
ment. The big advantage that bus-system based field device
architectures offer is the self-documenting feature that
allows no change (or tampering) to go unnoticed, particu-
larly concerning device parameterisation. For maintenance
planning the advantage is that the instrument lists in the
item register can be electronically updated. Table 4 depicts
the areas of improvement that suppliers typically indicate for
technologically more advanced field instrumentation equip-
ment.
If considering such an electronic recording system it is
worth noting the FDA standard 21CFR Part 11 [6] that speci-
fically deals with this topic. As the food industry is moving
Table 3: Technological life cycles in comparison.
Software design, patches and improvements 618 months
Hardware design (internal modifications) 1 3 years
New generation, complete design overhaul 4 8 years
Basic technology change (e.g. PD-meters Coriolis) 1020 years
4
Repair time[1] is defined as Part of active corrective maintenance time
during which repair is carried out on an item.
5
Time to failure[1] is defined as Total time duration of operating time of
an item, from the instant it is first put in an up state, until failure or, from
the instant of restoration until next failure.
Table 4: Improvements & benefits offered by newtechnology.
Improvement Benefit
Modular design Quicker repair time, flexibility (stock)
Improved accuracy, stability Tighter process control
Higher ratings (e.g. temperature) Better reliability in the application
Lower energy consumption Energy savings
Scalable, upgradeable software Better price/benefit ratio
Digital Communication Many bus related advantages
Better support tools Easier and more efficient
maintenance
towards adoption of Good Automated Manufacturing Prac-
tices (GAMP) the correct maintainability of the existing
installations needs to be examined. Thus the gap between
the current plant status and the required level of maintaina-
bility is documented. Upgrading to smart devices can be an
effective way to close this gap.
3. Review and classification of field devices
The starting point to introducing or upgrading a mainte-
nance strategy is to audit and review all applications. Some-
times an instrument register does already exist but needs
updating. A complete inventory of all field devices needs to
be carried out. The quality of this review process is crucial to
the determination of maintenance priorities later on: Any
shortcomings of the installation, such as inadequate up-
stream or downstream straight runs for a flowmeter or
improper cabling need to be registered.
All special applications should be verified to identify
heavy conditions that demand special attention. If instru-
mentation hasnt been tagged before, this is the time to do
it. For a practical example on what could be registered when
sampling the installed base, see Fig. 1. If the plant has hazar-
dous areas, then it is worthwhile to include the zone rating
for the individual sub-locations.
Some field devices are more important than others and
should be classified as Critical to the process. If they fail, or
even worse, if their output signal slowly drifts away from the
correct value, the correct operation of the production pro-
cess, the plant, personnel or the environment are in danger.
Sometimes this information can be deducted from the origi-
nal plant design or a Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP)
that was conducted. Rather elaborate and very systematic
methods to assess each plant components criticality exist
for example the Norsok Standard Z008 [3].
A simple and practical approach is to first sort all field
devices into three different categories. If no other guidelines
exist, then for common process plants the three-tier distri-
bution can be targeted as a starting point. Table 5 highlights
examples of the important criteria that can be applied. Fur-
ther refinements can then be made by looking at external
(e.g. regulatory) requirements for regular inspection or cali-
bration. The final defining of criticality values should be done
with a team that includes as much experience and know-
ledge of the process as possible.
The next step is to assess the risk from a possible lack of
maintainability. All devices must be evaluated (refer to
Table6) in order to assess the remaining useful lifetime and
the fitness for the purpose within the process. Depending on
the chosen repair strategy you need to know whether a suc-
cessor product is compatible: Can it be installed in lieu of the
old device in case of a breakdown without mechanical or
electrical modifications? Spares availability has to be asses-
sed and obsolete equipment to be identified. The instrument
manufacturers can usually provide a lot of support and infor-
mation providing opportunities for optimising spares and
managing consumables and guidelines about maintenance
needs for the more than thirty different measurement para-
meters that exist. Keep it practical and limit the technical and
commercial questions you ask the suppliers to the really
necessary! A spreadsheet or database should be set up for
this purpose to align information on the level of device-ty-
pes and individual tag numbers. It should list the respective
ratings for criticality to the process as well.
6
Asset Management
Fig. 1: Example of information to register.
Table 5: Parameters defining criticality of devices to the process.
Criticality Description
High High, direct safety impact (GAMP Safety critical, IEC 61508:
SIL 2/3/4, Ex-Zone)
High, direct impact on product quality (GAMP Product
critical, ISO9000)
High, direct environmental impact (GAMP Environmental
critical, ISO14000)
High production cost (GAMP Process/System critical,
e.g. costly secondary failures)
High financial cost (e.g. custody transfer duty, product loss)
Medium Medium safety impact (IEC 61508:SIL 1)
Medium impact on product quality
Possible indirect environmental impact
Medium production cost (manual control for some time
possible)
Medium financial cost
Low Low or no safety/environmental/product quality process
impact (GAMP Non-critical)
Negligible financial impact
Table 6: Check-Points to evaluate the maintainability of field devices.
The product is current, spares, documentation and training are
available and the lead time to reorder product/spares is fitting
the need
The supplier has announced some special product status, such as
phase-out, obsolete, sales-stop or other
The supplier has gone out of business, the product has been
discontinued for some years
An identical replacement product is not readily available any more
The successor may not be fully compatible (e.g. mechanical/
electrical connection, bus connectivity)
Spare parts and repairs availability is difficult, the spare parts are not
manufactured any more (used parts!)
Operating experience of the product highlights the need for regular
intervention
The product has a much higher need for regular maintenance than
state of the art devices
Combinations of the above
7
Asset Management
4. Structure of the maintenance plan
Once a picture of the installed base has been established, the
analysis which will lead to the first view of the maintenance
requirements can begin. Any serious attempt at bringing all
this information together for more than 100 instruments and
organise it along the lines of the main chapters of break-
down, preventive and migration plans should involve the
use of a database tool. In the process of maintenance analy-
sis a rule based tool significantly reduces complexity and
places data within a well structured frame to provide usable
information from the abundant data. Ideally the tool will
enable collaborative work between the team that conducts
the maintenance analysis and the instrument suppliers.
The Installed Base Analyst was conceived as a rule based
software tool to support Endress +Hausers service advisors
in their consulting service Instrument Management Soluti-
ons [7] which utilises the methodology described in this
paper. It has the ability to register the entire installed base of
instruments and group them into over 40 classes of measu-
rement principles and types.
In the following paragraphs the general logic used to
structure the information about the installed base are high-
lighted.
4.1 Breakdown plan
In case of a breakdown, either the complete device or parts
of it need to be replaced.
The focus here is on the devices with the highest critica-
lity ratings. For them, repair training and on-site spare-parts
or spare devices must be considered to keep down time
short. These decisions depend on the processes require-
ments for repair times and current repair time performance.
Fig. 2 shows the areas of attention.
Two basic repair strategies are utilised mainly:
replacement of the complete device in case of a failure or
repair of the device without taking it off the process
physically by use of spare parts (modules).
The first method may be achieved with less trained per-
sonnel. On the other hand, emptying a vessel or pipe to
replace a complete device can be very time consuming and
expensive. Unless the application produces heavy wear on
the sensor, it is statistically speaking the part that will rarely
fail in an instrument without moving parts. Even pressure
peaks are generally handled well by the newer transmitters.
Changing the electronics insert (module) can be an easy
repair if it is prepared properly. This is where standardisation
plays an important role: The preparation work is not econo-
mical for only a few instruments.
4.2 Preventive plan
To prevent unnecessary maintenance and to reduce the risk
of costly downtime, the tool performs queries to highlight
the priorities for periodic maintenance, calibration or inspec-
tion related to the specific requirement of the instrument
types and the process. Time based replacement require-
ments of consumables and wear parts are highlighted in
addition. Fig. 3 shows the guidelines to select the instru-
ments that might need attention.
The schedule of a maintenance plan for critical devices is
influenced by several factors such as the level of self-diag-
nostics and the effect on the process when a failure or an
error condition exists: Would a drift be noticed in time to pre-
vent quality problems or is a periodic inspection [1] or even
calibration necessary and what should the periodicity
6
be?
Some instruments do have a clear demand for inspection,
maintenance or calibration. pH-sensors, for example, need
regular calibration and electrode replacement irrespective
of the criticality to the process and other demands. Their
exchange schedule can be optimised and very cost effective
delivery contracts can be established with the supplier
thus reducing the cost of keeping stock. Standardisation is
very helpful in this domain.
In other cases the need to maintain an instrument on a
regular basis is influenced by particular process- and envi-
ronmental conditions a typical example for this is strong
abrasion in a flow line.
In addition, internal or external quality demands and the
criticality determine the recommended periodic inspection,
maintenance or calibration regime.
The devices that now emerge with a defined maintenance
need must undergo scheduling. Exporting the maintenance
related asset information to the local (CMMS) system simpli-
fies the calibration and maintenance scheduling task that has
to follow. A particular situation exists for flow calibration.
Since this type of calibration is not easily feasible on a plant
and since indirect methods are not standardised, flowmeters
are often excluded from the calibration schedule even
though they can be crucial to plant performance. On the
other hand you can find pressure and temperature calibrati-
ons that many plants carry out on a monthly basis. Often
Breakdown plan
priority area
Risk to the maintainability
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
i
t
y

t
o

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
High Medium Low
H
i
g
h
M
e
d
i
u
m
L
o
w
Fig. 2: Priority area
for the breakdown
plan.
Guidelines to analyse the need
for maintenance
Instrument demands?
Application demands?
Internal demands?
External demands?
Criticality? Fig. 3: Guidelines for
the preventive plan.
6
Calibration periodicity[2] is defined as frequency of scheduled calibra-
tions.
these easy to do check-ups are repeated too frequently as
modern instruments rarely need calibration intervals of less
than several years under normal industrial conditions.
4.3 Migration plan
The field devices need to be examined for updating require-
ments. Managing the migration / modernisation process
over time allows control of the level of variety or degree of
standardisation and tighter budget control. Instruments that
are critical to the process and are close to or beyond its use-
ful life or no longer suitable due to changes in legislation or
requirements from the duty must be identified. Fig. 4 shows
the areas of attention for updating/migration needs. Along
with the migration policy for the instruments, the upgrade
path for spares and must be defined. This is also an opportu-
nity for the reduction in spares variety.
Taking the migration need of an instrument as an oppor-
tunity for process optimisation can yield helpful side effects.
A positive displacement flowmeter that gets replaced by a
Coriolis mass flowmeter can continue to give a volumetric
output but also offers a massflow reading that can be used
to optimise the chemical process through improved accu-
racy of mixture ratios. Sometimes the replacement of an
electromagnetic flowmeter by a newer model can reduce
the energy consumption by over 50%, and other examples
can be given for improvements of control loop response or
dosing and batching applications.
5. Practical experience
5.1 Benefits of the method
Well-defined priorities in the overall maintenance plan can
be successfully defined by following the described process.
The method allows an estimation of the required resources
to carry out the defined tasks as well as defining an effective
migration plan. Since the method combines a bottom-up
approach (application and device audit) with general top-
down strategies for the most important business cases, the
work generates transparency and traceability. The outcome
is a view of the installed base from three perspectives which
allow the design of a plan of maintenance activities in order
to get a good balance between plant availability and all
maintenance efforts. Fig. 5 shows the relationship between
the degree of maintenance done and the corresponding
total cost for the plant. Doing too little maintenance leads to
increased cost because of reduced process availability and
fire-fighting. It may also compromise product quality and
cause problems in the spare parts supply. Exercising too
much maintenance (or not the most effective measures!) will
unnecessarily increase the cost of labour and inventory, and
it usually leads to other problems: The saying if it aint bro-
ken dont fix it has its virtues still.
The described method will greatly assist in deciding on
the individual optimum strategy: Its focus on critical and dif-
ficult to maintain instruments as well as on good preparation
for failure events will decrease down-time while keeping
maintenance efforts focussed. The migration plan will keep
the instrumentation easy to maintain.
5.2 Case examples
The methodology described has evolved from practical
experience working with many maintenance managers and
their teams. It was checked in process by the joint efforts of
the service provider and end user in real situations. The out-
come of this work has always shown that equipment reliabi-
lity can be improved, process plants can be optimised and
total cost can be reduced. The two following representative
case stories highlight the wealth of individual options and
the flexibility: Case A is an example of an under-serviced
situation in a food-production plant, Case B is an over-ser-
viced coating plant serving the automobile industry. The two
cases are constructed from real experience. The results and
comments are typical.
5.3 Case A
The management of one of the biggest and successful cho-
colate factories in Germany took stock of the business risk
from possible problems in the production process: An instru-
ment failure on a critical measurement point with no spares
in stock would lead to in a complete shutdown of the manu-
facturing plant for 24 hours. Such a shutdown could result in
lost production to the value of about one million Euro.
Reason enough to turn attention to integrated mainte-
nance strategies and to look for new solutions to optimise
the life cycle of the field devices. In particular, one plant
which had been modified and expanded over many years
was considered the highest risk despite a most modern pro-
cess control system and routine maintenance. Smaller inci-
dents in the recent past had demonstrated the difficulties
and led to inquiries into the following subjects:
8
Asset Management
Migration
plan
priority
area
Risk to the maintainability
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
i
t
y

t
o

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
High Medium Low
H
i
g
h
M
e
d
i
u
m
L
o
w
Fig. 4: Priority area
for the migration
plan.
T
o
t
a
l

c
o
s
t
Degree of Maintenance
No
maintenance
Too much
maintenance
Optimum point:
Minimum cost
Fig. 5: Total cost as a
function of mainte-
nance activities.
9
Asset Management
Identification of the manufacturer and evaluation of the
reparability of the device
Availability, specification and lead time of a replacement
device
Possibility to replace a device by a similar one located in a
non-critical application
Since the plant had been modified several times to incre-
ase capacity and to allow continuous operation (24/7), what
was needed most was:
clear information of the status of all on-site devices,
assessment of the process-critical devices,
creation of a schedule for maintenance and calibration,
standardisation and type reduction in production and
spares stock.
As a first step all 800 instruments were registered and the
spare parts stock was checked. Several meetings of the main-
tenance team and Endress +Hausers service advisor yielded
a common view on the priorities:
high dependence on quality,
high importance for a smooth process operation,
safety or process critical.
The service advisor discussed every important measure-
ment point with the team. He provided useful hints on how
to improve the level of preventive maintenance without
increasing costs too much and provided alternatives for dis-
cussion, for example about maintenance-intensive devices:
Replace by a modern type or continue to maintain?
Based on the maintenance analysis an action plan was
worked out by the maintenance team with the objective to
improve the existing maintenance, inspection and calibra-
tion intervals to reduce the risk of unplanned shutdowns.
Some obsolete devices were identified and replacements
were ordered and commissioned. The spares stock was clea-
ned of unusable parts. Complete replacement devices and
up-to-date spare parts were added. These devices were con-
figured in a way that they would fit several applications
when needed.
The preventive measures within the system have now
improved instrumentation availability, operating safety of
the plant and product quality. The final Installed Base
Report records the results of the analysis and the common
discussion. It served as a basis for the decisions in the action
plan. The registration tool was obtained from End-
ress +Hauser and an operator was trained. All future additi-
ons or changes to the instruments will now be registered.
Some maintenance and calibration measures were out-
sourced for lack of resource and tools. A training pro-
gramme for the maintenance team was defined and agreed
to. The budget for the following planning period was well
detailed and signed off quickly by management since the
reasons were convincing and traceable to the Installed Base
Report.
For this plant, the main benefits of Instrument Manage-
ment Solutions were given as:
transparency of the installed device basis, with the ability
to register devices from all manufacturers
improved quality control through better control of mea-
surement devices,
cost reduction through higher plant availability and
reduction of fire fighting.
5.4 Case B
Serving the automobile industry, this coating plant was
always maintained in a very complete way. As the business
environment had become increasingly competitive, the new
owner had reduced the staff in several cuts. The mainte-
nance team was organised as a cost centre. The workload for
annual the re-calibration of the more than 2000 sensors was
exceeding the available resources by more than 30%. The
site manager was faced with two challenges:
1. to keep the high standards of quality without increasing
cost or taking unknown risks
2. to check the instrumentation for its ATEX
7
status?
Since the calibration team maintained records for every
instrument, only the instruments that were not being re-ca-
librated had to be registered in to the tool. The site audit was
carried out jointly by a member of the maintenance team
and the E+H service advisor. Eventually, further data were
downloaded from the calibration database. After the down-
load was completed and the data imported to the tool the
team noticed that the exact model numbers of the instru-
ments had never been completely recorded. The available
application information was not detailed enough for the
common discussions. Therefore, all other devices were regis-
tered as well.
In a previous attempt to streamline plant operations all
devices critical to the process had been identified. The main-
tenance team reviewed the criticality. An interesting point
was noted: Most of the process critical flowmeters had never
been wet-calibrated. For some of them there were no spares
available any more since the technology had become obso-
lete.
After several working sessions, it was demonstrated by
the team leader in a management meeting, that the scree-
ning process had resulted in a new calibration schedule that
could be handled by the current organisation without pus-
hing the resources to their limits any more. The increase in
risk through the reduction of calibration frequency on the
less critical devices and by avoiding the re-calibration of
uncritical instruments was seen to be completely acceptable
by management and was thought to be easy enough to
explain to any auditors. In fact, the project team was compli-
mented on their good practice.
A download to Excel allowed the easy collating of an
instrument list that was segmented by manufacturer. This lis-
ting will then be used to check compliance with the ATEX
regulations in order to to determine replacement needs well
in advance of the 2006 deadline. All existing hazardous area
work places in use before June 30, 2003 must comply with
7
The new European Use Directive will soon require (by law) that a com-
plete, documented analysis has been conducted on sites that may have a
potentially explosive atmosphere.
10
Asset Management
the appropriate minimum requirements of ATEX 137 [8] no
later then June 30, 2006. The main benefits noted here were
the following:
establishment of technological status of all devices,
maintain quality control at reduced maintenance levels,
detection of obsolete material in the plant and in the spa-
res stock,
well documented results in the Installed Base Report offer
traceability for inspectors and auditors.
The exercise described was repeated on another plants of
the same site later on.
6. Conclusion
The described collaborative effort between manufacturer
and end-user to carry out maintenance analysis and define a
well balanced maintenance strategy has proven to be an
effective approach. Its focus on process-critical and diffi-
cultto-maintain instruments as well as on good preparation
for failure events reduces down-time while keeping mainte-
nance efforts focussed. The migration plan will keep the
instrumentation easy to maintain.
The traceability simplifies budgeting and cost control.
Plant reliability is enhanced through better control of main-
tenance risks.
References
[1] EN 13306:2001 de/fr/en European Standard on Maintenance Termi-
nology.
[2] ISPE, GAMP Good Manufacturing Practice Guide: Calibration Mana-
gement.
[3] Norsok Standard, Z-008, Rev. 2, Nov 2001, Criticality analysis for main-
tenance purposes.
[4] ISO 9001 covering quality management system.
[5] ISO 14001 covering environmental management system.
[6] FDA 21 CFR Part 11: FDA regulations concerning compliance for elec-
tronic Records and Signatures.
[7] Instrument Management Solutions: Service Overview SD007H/29/
en/08.01 Endress+Hauser.
[8] Use Directive ATEX 137, Directive 99/92/EC of the European Parlia-
ment of 28. January, 2000.
Acronyms
ATEX from the French phrase atmosphres explosives
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMMS Computerised Maintenance Management System
FDA Food and Drug Administration (U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services)
GMP Good Manufacturing Practice
GAMP Good Automated Manufacturing Practice
HAZOP Hazard and Operability
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
ISO International Organization for Standardization
ISPE International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology
PD Positive Displacement
RBM Risk Based Maintenance
RCM Reliability Centered Maintenance
SIL Safety Integrity Level
TPM Total Productive Maintenance
Dipl.-Ing. ETH Michael Herzog has worked in various
management positions in Marketing, R&D and Ser-
vices at European and North American End-
ress +Hauser group companies since 1984 when he
joined the group. He grew up in Japan and holds a
diploma in electrical engineering from the ETH in
Zrich/Switzerland. Today, as Director Customer
Services he is responsible for the development of
the world-wide group activities in after-sales ser-
vices. He is based in the corporate headquarters in
Reinach, Switzerland.
Adresse: Endress +Hauser Consult AG, Kgenstr. 7,
CH-4153 Reinach, Tel. +41-61-715-7756, Fax -7758,
E-mail: michael.herzog@holding.endress.com
Rinus van Kasteren joined the E+H group in 1990
and is based in the Sales and Service organisation
of Endress +Hauser in the Netherlands. As a service
advisor he is responsible for the realisation of main-
tenance projects with a specific focus towards the
implementation of maintenance strategies for field
instrumentation. He has worked closely with main-
tenance managers and/or reliability engineers from
production companies such as Cargill, Unilever,
Heinz, DSM, Huntsman and so on. In his 20 years in
various positions in customer service and mainte-
nance he assimilated valuable knowledge about
the problems and solutions in this field that he
makes available to customers of Endress +Hauser
today.
Adresse: Endress +Hauser NL B.V., Nikkelstraat 612,
NL-1411 AK Naarden, Tel. +31 (0) 356 958-611, Fax
-825, E-mail: Rinusvan.Kasteren@nl.endress.com
John A. Salusburys present position is within corpo-
rate management of Endress +Hauser, based in
Switzerland, responsible for global marketing of
products and services. He started his career with
British Steel serving a four year apprenticeship in
Instrumentation combined with studies at the
North E Wales Institute resulting in a diploma in
Industrial Measurement and Control. As an Instru-
ment Engineer he has worked for various compa-
nies including ICI, Sasol, Shell (both onshore and
offshore) and Kraft foods. He joined the E+H group
in 1985 holding various management positions
including responsibility for the UK Flow measure-
ment division.
Adresse: Endress+Hauser Consult AG, Kgenstr. 7,
CH-4153 Reinach, Tel. +41 61715-7769, Fax 7762,
E-mail: john.salusbury@holding.endress.com
Instrument Management Solutions
Striking the right balance in maintenance
The pressure on maintenance depart-
ments today is greater than ever before.
Companies are constantly looking at
downsizing, a genuine skill shortage exists
and yet the overall company demand is
constantly to produce more. It becomes
seemingly impossible for maintenance
managers to improve planned maintenance
and at the same time reduce their costs.
The maintenance strategy is however
expected to fall in line with that of the
overall requirements of the company
strategy! If this is not difficult enough its
probably not appreciated that the
maintenance engineer is constantly faced
with different types of equipment, from
different generations of technology, some
of which you may no longer be able to
obtain spares for...
So management of the installed base
rapidly turns into a headache!
If you recognise just some of these
points within your organisation, you
could undoubtedly benefit from
Endress + Hausers unique solution.
Austria
Endress+Hauser Ges.m.b.H.
Lehnergasse 4
A-1230 Wien
Tel.: +43 (1) 88 05 6-0
Fax: +43 (1) 88 05 6-335
E-Mail: info@at.endress.com
Belgium
Endress+Hauser S.A./N.V.
Rue Carli Straat 13
B-1140 Bruxelles
Tel.: +32 (2) 2 48 06 00
Fax: +32 (2) 2 48 05 53
E-Mail: info@be.endress.com
Canada
Endress+Hauser (Canada) Ltd
1440 Grahams Lane, #1
CDN-Burlington. Ontario
Canada L7S 1W3
Tel.: +1 (905) 6 81 92 92
Fax: +1 (905) 6 81 94 44
E-Mail: info@ca.endress.com
Denmark
Endress+Hauser A/S
Poppelgrdvej 10-12
DK-2860 Sborg
Tel.: +45 (70) 13 11 32
Fax: +45 (70) 13 21 33
E-Mail: info@dk.endress.com
Finland
Metso Endress+Hauser Oy
Laippatie 4C
P.O. Box 310
FIN-00881 Helsinki
Tel.: +358 (0) 20 48 31 60
Fax: +358 (0) 20 48 31 61
E-Mail: info@fi.endress.com
France
Endress+Hauser
3 rue du Rhin B.P. 150
F-68331 Huningue Cedex
Tel.: +33 (389) 69 67 68
Fax: +33 (389) 69 48 02
E-Mail: info@fr.endress.com
Germany
Endress+Hauser
Messtechnik GmbH+Co. KG
Colmarer Str. 6
D-79576 Weil am Rhein
Germany
Tel.: +49 (76 21) 9 75 01
Fax: +49 (76 21) 9 75 55 5
E-Mail: info@de.endress.com
Italy
Endress+Hauser S.p.A.
Via Donat Cattin 2/A
I-20063 Cernusco s/N -MI-
Tel.: +39 (02) 92 19 21
Fax: +39 (02) 92 19 23 62
E-Mail: info@it.endress.com
Netherlands
Endress+Hauser B.V.
Nikkelstraat 6-12
Postbus 5102
NL-1410 AC Naarden
Tel.: +31 (35) 6 95 86 11
Fax: +31 (35) 6 95 86 25
E-Mail: info@nl.endress.com
Norway
Endress+Hauser A/S
Postboks 62
N-3420 Lierskogan
Tel.: +47 32 85 98 50
Fax: +47 32 85 98 51
E-Mail: info@no.endress.com
Poland
Endress+Hauser
Polska Sp. e o.o.
ul. Pilsudskiego 49-57
PL-50-032 Wroclaw
Tel.: +48 (71) 78 03 700
Fax: +48 (71) 78 03 760
E-Mail: info@pl.endress.com
Rep. South Africa
Endress+Hauser (Pty.) Ltd
5 Commerce Crescent West.
Eastgate Ext. 13
P.O. Box 783996
RSA-2146 Sandton
Tel.: +27 (11) 2 62 80 00
Fax: +27 (11) 2 62 80 62
E-Mail: info@za.endress.com
Singapore
Endress+Hauser
(S.E.A.) Pte. Ltd
01-11/12 The Synergy
1 International Business Park
SGP-609817 Singapore
Tel.: +65 65 66 82 22
Fax: +65 65 66 68 48
E-Mail: info@sg.endress.com
Spain
Endress+Hauser S.A.
Constitucion 3. Bloque A.
E-08960 Sant Just Desvem
Tel.: +34 (93) 4 80 33 66
Fax: +34 (93) 4 73 38 39
E-Mail: info@es.endress.com
Sweden
Endress+Hauser AB
P.O. Box 7006
S-19207 Sollentuna
Tel.: +46 (8) 55 51 16 00
Fax: +46 (8) 55 51 16 55
E-Mail: info@se.endress.com
Switzerland
Endress+Hauser Metso AG
Sternenhofstr. 21
CH-4153 Reinach / BL1
Tel.: +41 (61) 7 15 75 75
Fax: +41 (61) 7 11 16 50
E-Mail: info@ch.endress.com
United Kingdom
Endress+Hauser Ltd.
Floats Road
GB-Manchester M23-9NF
Tel.: +44 (161) 2 86 50 00
Fax: +44 (161) 9 98 18 41
E-Mail:
publicity@uk.endress.com
USA
Endress+Hauser Inc.
2350 Endress Place
P.O. Box 246
USA-46143 Greenwood,
Indiana
Tel.: +1 (317) 5 35 71 38
Fax: +1 (317) 5 35 84 98
E-Mail: info@us.endress.com
All other countries
Endress+Hauser
Instruments International
Colmarer Str. 6
D-79576 Weil am Rhein
Germany
Tel.: +49 (76 21) 9 75-02
Fax: +49 (76 21) 9 75-345
E-Mail: info@ii.endress.com
Endress+Hauser Sales Centers
W@M

Life Cycle Management with Endress+Hauser
At Endress+Hauser we have concentrated
on the support of our instrumentation
within all process industries for over fifty
years. This expertise is now focused on a
range of tools, products and services that
offer a complete life cycle support
package for your process.
Under the umbrella of our revolutionary
W@M concept, an unique set of tools
allow you to plan your installation and
confirm the suitability plus expected
performance of your application whilst still
in the engineering phase. A portfolio of
e-business solutions allows easy, cost
effective procurement of goods. The new
Field Check (and Installed Base Analyst)
allows you to manage test and validate
your installed instrumentation during its
complete operating life.
Couple this with Endress+Hausers
renowned range of products and a
complete suite of on-site services and you
can be confident that your instrumentation
and process are supported properly and
running at their optimum.
The result - maximum process
efficiency and complete peace of mind.