Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

This paper also outlines developments in the fields of Training and

Accreditation including new and upcoming standards as well as AINDT

Several of the new standards released and under development discussed
in this paper are:
ISO 17359, Condition monitoring and diagnostics of machines General
ISO 13373, Mechanical vibration and shock - Vibration condition
monitoring of machines
ISO 13379, Data interpretation and diagnostic techniques which use
information and data related to the condition of a machine.
ISO 13381, Condition monitoring and diagnostics of machines
ISO 18436 Part II, Accreditation of organizations and training and
certification of personnel - Part II: General requirements for training and
certification Vibration Analysis
ISO 18436 Sub Parts under development for Oil Analysis and Thermal
Standards are an important part of conducting business and can even
establish the legal framework for establishing the validity of goods and
services. Standards themselves are a codified form of information that
enable the diffusion of technology in a readily assimilated form and can
also serve to spread knowledge of requirements for market acceptability and
validity. Given that they often contain explicit and detailed technical
information they can reduce market uncertainty and business risk.
The use of standards form a vital part of the six critical success factors
for generating innovative business performance being:
Access to knowledge
Capacity to absorb and apply new knowledge
A sound science and engineering base
An intelligent, educated and demanding customer base
A competitive business environment, and
Access to and willingness to use financial resources
Standardisation in Australia has been an ongoing process for many years
with varying success in uptake by industry. In the condition monitoring
arena there are a new series of standards, both published and under
development, focussing on the varying technologies employed, program
design and management, diagnostics and prognostics and finally to
training and accreditation. These standards are written for the average user
and are designed to give the user, both asset owner and service provider, a
common platform of understanding and knowledge coupled with training
and accreditation guidelines designed to ensure consistent information
transfer and knowledge application. All of these standards are designed
with business risk minimisation in mind to ensure that both the
technologies employed and personnel employing them are utilised and
managed in a way that results in a service or product deliverable that is
optimised from a cost, efficiency, and risk perspective.
1. General Process Map
A general conceptual approach to the overall condition monitoring
process is given below in Figure 1 (ISO/CD 13379).
An overview of the guideline process from ISO 17359 is shown below in
Figure 2.
This keynote address is intended to brief attendees on the new and upcoming ISO Standards for Condition Monitoring. The paper describes the processes for
system design and implementation as well as new concepts in the fields of diagnostics and prognostics. The processes outlined also have direct FMEA links to
RCM programs and can be used to implement CM programs directly linked to RCM analyses.
An Introduction to ISO Standard Methodology for Condition Monitoring
Figure 1. Conceptual Approach.
Figure 2. ISO 17359 General Approach Diagram Extract.
Selecting the Right Condition Monitoring Technique (Failure Mode
Symptoms Analysis (FMSA)) ISO 13379
FMSA Process
The aim of this process is to select monitoring technologies and
strategies that maximise the confidence level in the diagnosis and
prognosis of any given failure mode. This methodology is designed to assist
with the selection of monitoring techniques that will provide the greatest
sensitivity to detection and rate of change of a given symptom. Where the
confidence in a techniques sensitivity and resulting diagnosis/prognosis
accuracy is questionable then the use of additional techniques for further
correlation should be recommended.
This process is essentially a modification of a FMECA process with a
focus on the symptoms produced by each identified failure mode and the
subsequent selection of the most appropriate detection and monitoring
techniques and strategies. This tool should be used in conjunction with an
existing FMECA/RCM analysis that has already identified and ranked
possible failure modes.
The essential elements of the FMSA process are:
listing the components involved
listing the possible failure modes for each component
listing the effects of each failure mode
listing the causes of each failure mode
listing the symptoms produced by each failure mode
ranking each symptom/monitoring technique combination by a detection
rating, severity rating, diagnosis confidence rating and prognosis
confidence rating resulting in an overall Monitoring Priority Number
(MPN) rating.
listing the most appropriate monitoring technique
listing the estimated frequency of monitoring
listing the most appropriate correlation techniques
listing the frequency of monitoring for the correlation techniques
When considering monitoring strategies, the following form can also be
A Failure Mode produces Symptoms, which are best detectable by a
Primary Monitoring Technique resulting in a high diagnosis and
prognosis confidence when monitored at a given Monitoring Frequency.
Increased diagnosis and prognosis confidence can be gained by using
Correlation Techniques when monitored at a given Monitoring
Probability of Detection rating
The probability of detection is rated from one to five and is designed to
reflect the overall detectability of a failure mode irrespective of the following
accuracy of diagnosis or prognosis. This rating is designed to highlight
failure modes that:
produce symptoms that are detectable but unrepeatable;
or, produce symptoms that are undetectable;
or, produce symptoms that are not measurable in practice;
or, produce symptoms that may be masked by other failure mode
This is estimated on a scale of 1 - 5, where:
1 means "There is a REMOTE PROBABILITY that this failure
mode will be detected"
5 means "It is CERTAIN that this failure mode will be detected"
Severity of Failure rating
This ranking should reflect any previous FMECA analysis and is designed
to rank individual failure modes by risk. This is estimated on a scale of
1 - 4, where:
1 means "Any event which could cause degradation of system
performance function(s) resulting in negligible damage to either system
or its environment; and no damage to life or limb"
4 means "Any event which could potentially cause the loss of primary
system function(s) resulting in significant damage to the system or its
environment, and or cause the loss of life or limb "
Diagnosis Confidence rating
The predicted accuracy of the diagnosis is also rated from one to five.
This rating is designed to identify failure modes with:
detectable but unrepeatable symptoms;
or, unknown symptoms;
or, symptoms that are not distinguishable from other failure mode
This is estimated on a scale of 1 - 5, where:
1 means "There is a REMOTE PROBABILITY of this failure modes
diagnosis being accurate"
5 means "It is CERTAIN that this failure modes diagnosis will be
Prognosis Confidence rating
The predicted accuracy of the prognosis is also rated from one to five.
This rating is designed to identify failure modes with:
detectable but unrepeatable symptoms;
or, symptoms that are not sensitive to changes in degradation;
or, unknown failure rates;
or, symptoms that are not distinguishable from other failure mode
This is estimated on a scale of 1 - 5, where:
1 means "There is a REMOTE PROBABILITY of this failure modes
prognosis being accurate
5 means "It is CERTAIN that this failure modes prognosis will be
The frequency of monitoring also contributes to the determination of the
accuracy of expected prognosis i.e. the greater the frequency of monitoring
used the higher the confidence in the expected failure rate and prognosis.
Monitoring Priority Number (MPN)
The ranking is the multiplication of the four preceding rankings and
results in an overall rating of each failure mode. A high MPN value indicates
that the nominated technique is the most suitable for the detection,
diagnosis, and prognosis of the associated failure mode.
It should be noted that a low MPN value does not imply that monitoring is
not necessary but rather that a low confidence level for detection, analysis,
and prognosis can be expected with the nominated monitoring technique
and frequency.
The least favourable case is a failure mode with high severity, low
detectability, low diagnosis confidence, and low prognosis confidence. The
most favourable case is a failure mode with low severity, easily detectable,
with known failure modes and associated patterns and therefore high
diagnosis and prognosis confidence levels.
Continuous re-assessment should be carried out when experience with
a new installation has been gained or when a modification has been carried
Diagnosis and Prognosis Principles - ISO 13379 and ISO/CD 13381
Diagnosis process is generally triggered by anomaly detection. This
detection is carried out by making comparison between the present
descriptors of a machine, and reference values (generally called baseline
values or data) chosen from experience, from the specifications of the
manufacturer, from commissioning tests or computed from statistical data
(e.g. long term average).
If confidence in the diagnosis and/or prognosis is low, then further
verification may be required. If the confidence is high it may be possible to
initiate maintenance or corrective action immediately.
Diagnosis and prognosis influence factors
Influence factors are parameters that effect the deterioration rate of a
failure mode such as temperature, viscosity, clearance, load, speed, etc.
Each influence factor can be considered a symptom of an existing failure
mode and in Figure 3 is represented by the solid lines that connect existing
failure mode trends. Influence factors also have effects on the progression
and initiation of other either existing or future faults (Figure 3).
Improving Diagnosis and/or Prognosis Confidence
In order to increase the confidence in the diagnosis/prognosis it may be
necessary to carry out an iterative verification process as outlined in Figure
4. This process requires additional analysis of data using either the same
technology or a different one or both in order to gain further diagnostic or
prognostic information.
Setting Alert, Alarm and Trip (Shutdown) Limits
The failure definition set point for a parameter/descriptor is the final
value that it reaches at the point in time when the item fails. This value is
normally determined historically from failure history.
The trip set point, however, is the parameter/descriptor value at which
the machine is shut down and is normally less than its failure set point.
This value is normally determined from standards, manufacturers
guidelines and experience. This is the value normally used to define the
failed condition, however, this value is not normally reflective of the fully
failed condition due to its lower set point required to prevent consequential
damage or catastrophic failure. Alert and alarm limits are normally set at a
value less than the trip set point.
For vibration condition monitoring, information on alarm criteria is
contained in ISO/DIS 13373, ISO 10816 and ISO 7919.
Usually this value is determined based on the maintenance lead time
required, however, such alert values should be cognisant of confidence level
of prognosis, future production requirements, spare parts delivery lead
times, maintenance planning lead time required, scope of work required to
rectify faults, and trend extrapolation and projection.
Trending, Extrapolation and Projection
The basic difference between trend extrapolation and trend projection is
that projection requires the estimation of future data followed by curve
fitting whereas extrapolation curve fits only to existing data (Figure 5). Most
current curve fitting is extrapolative in nature in that a curve is extrapolated
using existing data points
This process requires that the behaviour of a set of parameters is
understood for a given failure mode set and given conditions. Trend
projection requires mathematical equations expressing the rate of change of
a variable that describes the deterioration of a given failure mode under
given conditions.
Simultaneous Data Display
Simultaneous Data Display is the simultaneous display of all data within
the one system. This concept is paramount to prognostics in that the
relationship between parameters can be observed not just the parameters
themselves. This is particularly important for different yet possibly
interdependent parameters such as bearing temperature and oil viscosity
(Figure 6).
Figure 4. Expanded Flow Chart for Diagnosis and Prognosis Confidence Level.
Figure 3. Causal Tree Relationships for Diagnosis and Prognosis.
One principle of Simultaneous Data Display is that the technique must
trend both parameters (unfiltered/unprocessed variables) and descriptors
(filtered/processed data) simultaneously. The use of narrow band filters
allows spectrums to be divided into discrete elements of which the band
amplitude can then be used for simultaneous data display trending. The
failure definition set point for each narrow band is the assigned maximum
allowable amplitude for each band. This allows, for example, each narrow
band amplitude to be plotted against other vibration descriptors, oil
analysis results, process parameters and performance values in order to
identify and establish relationships between each of them.
The difficulty with Simultaneous Data Display presentation is that each
variable will have a different unit of measure. This is compounded if the
variable can attain the same value more than once in the life of the
component (Figure 6). Simultaneous Data Display trending and alarming is
also made difficult when the value of the variable in the failed condition is
zero e.g. flow or pressure. One key difference between standard
simultaneous data display for monitoring and simultaneous data display for
prognosis is that for prognosis a common severity axis must be used. For
simplicity this can be set to percentage of life usage where 0% life used
occurs when the machine has not been operated and 100% life used occurs
when the machine is in the failed condition. At this stage data that may
approach zero when the machine is in the failed condition, such as flow or
pressure, must be inverted to reflect the % Life Usage relationship.
It is important when doing simultaneous data display prognosis that for
each parameter and/or descriptor being used the following is understood:
the start value representing 100% asset life or new condition;
the end value representing 0% asset life or failed condition; and
how the parameter and/or descriptor behaviour reflects the failure mode
development and associated reduction in asset life.
Failure Mode Initiation Criteria
For future failure modes these influence factors must first be described
as initiation criteria in that the same parameter can be both an influence
factor for an existing mode and an initiation criteria for a future mode. This
introduces the concept of initiation criteria data sets where the root cause
of a failure mode can be described in terms of a set of different parameter
values that either directly of indirectly measures its occurrence (Figure 7).
Direct measurement can take such forms as valve position whereas indirect
measures a symptom of a change such as temperature.
Prognosis of Failure Mode Initiation
Using simultaneous data display techniques the evidence of actions,
conditions, and their inter-dependence can be readily observed. Failure
mode initiation criteria, expressed as a set of values for all monitored
parameters, can therefore be used to trigger alarms indicating that a failure
mode has been initiated once this set of values have been achieved or
exceeded (Figure 8).
Prognosis of failure mode initiation can, therefore, be achieved given a
known initiation criteria set and trend projection techniques. The accuracy
of the prognosis will depend greatly on whether or not trend extrapolation or
projection is used (Figure 8).
This method requires a thorough understanding of failure mode initiation
criteria, which can be historically and/or statistically generated over time,
Figure 7. Failure Mode Initiation Criteria.
Figure 8 - Initiation Prognosis - Projection vs. Extrapolation
Figure 5. Extrapolation vs. Projection.
Figure 6. Simultaneous data display.
sufficient simultaneous data display analysis of a wide set of monitored
parameters, thorough understanding of the relationships between and inter-
dependence of failure modes, known operating conditions at the time of
failure mode initiation, and the behaviour of parameters under varying
conditions and influences.
Condition Monitoring Program Review
The CM process is an on-going process, and techniques which may not
have been available, or at the time considered too costly, or too complicated,
or unfeasible in some other way, may on review become feasible. Similarly
the effectiveness of techniques currently being undertaken in the program
should be assessed, and any techniques considered no longer necessary
Similarly, warning and alarm values may need revision, due to changes
in the machine such as progressive wear, ageing, modification, operation or
duty cycle changes. Measured values and baselines may also change due to
maintenance work, including component change, adjustment or duty
change. In certain cases the baseline may need to re-established following
such changes. When maintenance actions have been carried out it is useful
to inspect components to confirm that the initial diagnosis or prognosis was
Whatever the intent of a Condition Monitoring program its design,
implementation, management and review should be carried out in
accordance with the latest ISO standards in order to maximise the programs
effectiveness and efficiency as well as reduce the programs risk and cost.
It is highly recommended that asset owners, service providers, and asset
insurers become fully conversant with the knowledge and requirements
outlined in the above standards in order to minimise the business risk
associated with their activities.
Asset owners who outsource their condition monitoring should use such
standards as the basis for evaluating, selecting and managing service
providers and contracts. Asset owners with internal programs should use
such standards to audit, validate and manage internal programs to ensure
they are efficient, effective and are minimum risk.
Service providers should use such standards to design, refine and
manage their programs and minimise their business risk.
Insurers should use such standards to audit and validate internal and
external programs at customer facilities to ensure premium discounts or
rebates and claim payouts are warranted.
It is foreseen that in the future these standards will form the basis for
contracts, litigation and prosecution. It is not unrealistic to expect a future
contract for condition monitoring services to read: The condition monitoring
program with be designed in accordance with the requirements of ISO
17359, and where applicable ISO 13373 with the program designed by a
person certified to a minimum of the second highest level for each
technology category applied. The selection of appropriate techniques shall
be in accordance with ISO 13379. The vibration analysis component of the
program shall be compliant with ISO 13373, ISO 10816, ISO 10817, ISO
7919, ISO 5348, and any other ISO standards relevant to the technique and
application. The thermal imaging component of the program shall be
compliant with ISO 18434. The lubricant analysis component of the program
shall be compliant with ISO 14830. The performance monitoring based
component shall be compliant with ISO 13380. Diagnostic processes shall
be compliant with ISO 13379 and ISO 13373. Prognostics and all reporting
requirements shall be in accordance with ISO 13381. Personnel shall be
trained and certified to ISO 18436 with the program managed by a person
certified to a minimum of the second highest level for each technology
category applied.
The program and its compliance to standards will be audited and
validated using the above stated standards. The stated standards, and their
normative references, shall form the basis of any compliance-based
litigation and/or prosecution.
This will become the norm particularly when such certification programs
become fully mature and if the consequences of a missed failure include
injury or death.
It is not also unrealistic to see a future where one of the key business
drivers for standards implementation and compliance is the insurance
As a minimum it should be recognised that standards represent the
condensed and refined knowledge of a large group of international experts
and as such contain the distilled knowledge of global experts. If for no other
reason than education and learning, and a desire to improve, then such
standards are a wealth of knowledge for practitioners.
By their very nature the use of such standards can result in the
standardised implementation of a highly effective, highly efficient, low risk,
optimised condition monitoring program that consistently produces
repeatable results in a cost effective manner. Surely this alone is sufficient
incentive to use them!
1. Framework for the Future, Business Standards,
October/November 2003.