Sie sind auf Seite 1von 23

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254318167

Increasing ship operational reliability through the implementation of a


holistic maintenance management strategy

Article  in  Ships and Offshore Structures · October 2010


DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2010.480899

CITATIONS READS

34 2,351

3 authors, including:

Iraklis Lazakis Osman Turan


University of Strathclyde University of Strathclyde
79 PUBLICATIONS   481 CITATIONS    137 PUBLICATIONS   1,167 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SILENV View project

Integrated energy efficiency of shipping View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Iraklis Lazakis on 24 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


This article was downloaded by: [informa internal users]
On: 1 November 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 755239602]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ships and Offshore Structures


Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t778188387

Increasing ship operational reliability through the implementation of a


holistic maintenance management strategy
Iraklis Lazakisa; Osman Turana; Seref Aksub
a
Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (NA-ME), University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, Scotland, UK b School of Marine Science and Technology, Newcastle University Marine
International (NUMI), Singapore

Online publication date: 15 October 2010

To cite this Article Lazakis, Iraklis , Turan, Osman and Aksu, Seref(2010) 'Increasing ship operational reliability through
the implementation of a holistic maintenance management strategy', Ships and Offshore Structures, 5: 4, 337 — 357
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2010.480899
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2010.480899

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Ships and Offshore Structures
Vol. 5, No. 4, 2010, 337–357

Increasing ship operational reliability through the implementation of a holistic maintenance


management strategy
Iraklis Lazakisa∗ , Osman Turana and Seref Aksub
a
Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (NA-ME), University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, UK; b School of
Marine Science and Technology, Newcastle University Marine International (NUMI), Singapore
(Received 17 December 2009; final version received 16 April 2010)

Ship maintenance was initially considered as more of a financial burden than as a way to preserve safety, environment and
quality transportation. The benefits from applying a sound and systematic maintenance policy are emerging both in the
minimisation of unnecessary downtime as well as in the increase of operational capability. In this paper, a novel predictive
maintenance strategy is demonstrated, combining the existing ship operational and maintenance tasks with the advances
stemming from new applied techniques. The initial step for the application of the above-mentioned strategy is also shown
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

regarding the machinery space of a cruise ship. Well-known tools are applied such as Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality
Analysis (FMECA) and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA). Outcomes of this study are the identification of the critical components
of the system, the estimation of the reliability of the overall system and sub-systems, the prioritisation of the maintenance
tasks and finally the availability of the specific end events/items.
Keywords: ship maintenance; reliability; criticality; diesel generator system; availability; importance measures

1. Introduction They try to go through the complexity of data acquisition,


In various industries including defence, aviation, manufac- improper maintenance data recordings, control of the actual
turing, automobile and nuclear power energy applications, maintenance procedures, monitoring of measuring equip-
maintenance activities have been implemented and tested ment (in the case of automated systems), implementation of
in a structured way for a long time. Ship maintenance was the right maintenance tasks as well as efficient maintenance
considered as more of a task to be undertaken in a random operation. Overall, a maintenance system must address the
day-by-day operation, based on the practical knowledge of following objectives:
the chief engineer or the captain of the ship regarding the r It must be a well-structured approach;
on-board equipment and procedures. The main aim from r It must be flexible;
a technical point of view was not to lose operational time r Obtain feedback from the operational procedure;
and to minimise the failures occurring unexpectedly. In the r Involve experts’ judgement;
last few years and in addition to the above, the shipping r Include periodical reviews and incorporate changes;
industry has adjusted to the international standards and r Take account of a Maintenance Information Technology
recommendations set by the International Maritime Organ-
system.
isation (IMO) and other consulting bodies. IMO promotes
the safe and effective transportation of people and cargo, In this respect, the maintenance strategy presented
environmental protection (reducing ship emissions, avoid- herein addresses the above-mentioned aspects as will be
ing or minimising oil pollution, promoting environmentally shown in the following sections. More specifically, Sec-
friendly dismantling) and in general has increased the qual- tion 2 presents the evolution of maintenance through the
ity of the asset it operates. Moreover, a favourable image years together with the maintenance specifications origi-
of ship operators/managers is crucial in today’s world of nating from regulatory bodies. In Section 3, the suggested
public awareness and competitiveness. methodology is demonstrated and explained. Section 4 dis-
Accordingly, ship maintenance has also evolved in a cusses the application of the above-mentioned methodology
similar way. All the maintenance methodologies have so far on a Diesel Generator system of a passenger ship. The re-
tried to bridge the gap between the theoretical background sults of this analysis are also shown in Section 5. Finally,
of solutions presented and their application in real time. the conclusions and remarks are presented in Section 6.


Corresponding author. Email: iraklis.lazakis@strath.ac.uk

ISSN: 1744-5302 print / 1754-212X online


Copyright 
C 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2010.480899
http://www.informaworld.com
338 I. Lazakis et al.

2. Maintenance background
Asset
n
Maintenance was initially considered as a type of ‘neces- lutio management
e evo
sary rework’ and was not paid too much attention. It was anc
in ten
only after WW II that more attention was attributed to it Ma
in aviation and in addition in other industrial sectors like Predictive
defence, nuclear, chemical and petrochemical. Ship main-
tenance was not well structured or organised in comparison Preventive
to the other industrial entities which observed that huge
savings may be made when carrying out proper mainte-
nance tasks. This is the case in the chemical sector where Corrective
an investigation at the Du Pont Company in 1991 revealed
that a maintenance cost saving of 350 million $/year was Figure 1. Evolution of maintenance practices. This figure is
achieved after a proper maintenance strategy was imple- available in colour online.
mented (Ledet 2002). Similarly, at the BP Lima refinery
in Ohio in 1998, the implemented improved maintenance the UK continental shelf in 2007 (HSE 2007). The aim
system not only prevented the closure of the refinery but of the KP3 project was to ensure that the risks associated
also improved the cash margin by almost 1$ per barrel of with the offshore operations are managed effectively and
oil processed (Repenning and Sterman 2001). without causing accidents and fatalities. It was divided into
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

Regarding processes to standardise maintenance, the four pilot projects: KP3/1 included the gathering and re-
British Standards define maintenance as (BS 1993): viewing of information about setting up the project, KP3/2
included on-site inspections using a standard template with
‘The combination of all technical and administrative ac- a ‘traffic light’ system, denoting the good or bad condition
tions, including supervision actions, intended to retain an of the specific component/element, KP3/3 was a 3-year in-
item in, or restore it to, a state in which it can perform a spection programme implemented on a year-by-year basis
required action’.
and KP3/4 consisted of stakeholders initiatives and the de-
velopment of joint supporting projects with external bodies
The offshore industry has also demonstrated efforts to such as the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Associa-
maintain its assets in an operational, safe and environmen- tion (UKOOA 2003) and others.
tally first-class condition. The Norwegian petroleum in- A further evolution of maintenance is ‘Asset Manage-
dustry developed the Norsok standard Z-008 (NTS 2001) ment’ (Figure 1). According to Woodhouse (2006), Asset
which provides guidelines and requirements for the imple- Management is a process for a ‘better and more business-
mentation of maintenance programs for new and in-service focused maintenance’ putting together risk-controlled op-
facilities both offshore and onshore regarding risks re- timised, life-cycle management of an asset. Moreover, in
lated to personnel, environment, production loss and direct the Publicly Available Specification Part 1 (PAS 55-1) stan-
economical cost. The Offshore Reliability Data (OREDA) dard, the specifications for the optimised management of
handbook (2002) was another effort originating from a few physical assets are provided. In it, Asset Management is
oil companies to enhance the maintenance and operation of described as (BSI 2008a):
offshore structures. In it, data collected from topside and
sub-sea equipment for exploration and production of oil and ‘the systematic and coordinated activities and practices
gas are presented and updated in different phases starting through which an organisation optimally and sustainably
from Phase I in 1983 and reaching Phase IX by the end of manages its assets and asset systems, their associated per-
formance, risks and expenditures over their lifecycles for
2008. the purpose of achieving its organisational strategic plan’.
Based on the OREDA handbook, the ISO 14224 stan-
dard was updated in 2006 (ISO 14224). It deals with the Part 2 of the PAS 55 (BSI 2008b) complements this
reliability and maintenance data collection and standard- procedure as it provides the guidelines for the application
isation activity of the petroleum, petrochemical and nat- of PAS 55-1. It provides:
ural gas industries. It also discusses the requirements for
data exchange as well as the main categories of data pre- ‘guidance on the establishment, implementation, mainte-
nance and improvement of an asset management system
sented. These refer to data related to equipment (taxonomy and its coordination with other management systems’.
and attributes), failures (failure cause and consequence)
and maintenance (maintenance action, resources used and In comparison to the above-mentioned systems, for a
downtime). long time, ship maintenance was thought to be an area of
Additionally, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) needless expenditure and overwhelming cost and not as an
board published the Key Programme 3-Asset Integrity element which, even if it may involve an additional capital
(KP3) handbook related to the offshore infrastructure of expenditure, it can prevent unscheduled repairs, increase
Ships and Offshore Structures 339

cal service, repair and replacement of complicated systems


CMMS based on the availability of the components of the system.
RCM
Preventive maintenance was followed next by predic-
RBI tive advances. With predictive maintenance, it was possible
PMS Predictive to evaluate the condition of the system in question and
CM prevent the occurrence of unexpected failures. It also ad-
dressed optimising the maintenance intervals, extending the
Preventive
replacement period till it was actually needed and reducing
tion the use and cost of spare parts. As can be seen in Figure 2,
volu
ce e predictive maintenance can be split up into three different
Corrective te nan
in
Ma categories: Reliability-Centred Maintenance (RCM), Risk-
Based Inspection (RBI) and Condition Monitoring (CM).
Reliability-Centred Maintenance (RCM) originated in
Figure 2. Evolution of maintenance practices in shipping
industry. This figure is available in colour online.
the USA military sector when the US Air Transport Asso-
ciation (ATA) introduced it in its pursuit of a maintenance
the operational life of a ship and consequently increase programme for the Boeing 747 aircraft (ATA 1968). This re-
operational earning. Especially in the case of high fuel search included the publication of the first handbook of the
oil prices/cost, it is essential for a ship owner/manager to Maintenance Steering Group (MSG-1) with two updated
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

operate a ship safely and continuously at all times without versions following (MSG 2 and MSG 3). In addition, the
unnecessary delays. US Department of Defence produced a military standard
In shipping, corrective maintenance measures were ini- procedure including RCM for the reliability-centred main-
tially applied (Figure 2). According to British Standards tenance requirements for the naval aircraft, weapon systems
(BS 1993), corrective maintenance ‘is the maintenance car- and support equipment (US DoD 1986). Also, Villemeur
ried out after fault recognition and intended to put an item (1992) and Moubray (1997) described the benefits initiat-
into a state in which it can perform a required function’. ing from the RCM application. In shipping, Mokashi et al.
In IACS recommendation 74, it is mentioned that in order (2002) discussed the introduction of RCM on board ships
to perform corrective maintenance tasks, several steps need and how it can influence the ship management and the work
to be followed (IACS 2001). These start with the identifi- of seafarers. Conachey (2005) examined the RCM-specific
cation of the existing failure, establishing the failure cause application on the machinery of the ships and the relevant
and finally suggest and implement a corrective measure. survey requirements in order to achieve enhanced mainte-
Corrective maintenance was the preferred method to use in nance intervals.
the early stages of the maintenance history, as well as in Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) is another method for car-
cases in which specific conditions apply, like the lay-up of rying out predictive maintenance. The UK HSE suggests
ships or when spare parts are not available on-site. the use of RBI in order to provide guidance to the Depart-
Then, it was in 1993 that IMO presented the Interna- ment of Hazardous Installations Directorate about the plant
tional Safety Management (ISM) code, setting the founda- integrity management of refineries, chemical process plants
tions for a preventive maintenance regime (IMO 1993). In off and onshore (HSE 2004) and the inspection of pressure
Chapter 10, the procedures, requirements and obligations equipment and systems (HSE 2001). Khan et al. (2004)
that a shipping company must have in place are mentioned present a risk-based inspection and maintenance system for
so as to ensure the company’s conformity with the inter- the oil and gas industry using a fuzzy logic methodology
national regulations. Accordingly, shipping companies’ to calculate the risk in the operation of onshore plants. In
conformity with the international regulations and classifica- Hamada et al. (2002), the RBI system for ship hull in-
tion society’s Rules have developed the Safety Management spections is demonstrated based on the combination of the
Manual (SMM) which follows this perspective by car- necessary hull structural information from inspection and
rying out inspections at defined intervals, reporting any maintenance techniques, with an integrated shipbuilding
non-conformity, taking appropriate corrective actions and computer application to map the occurrence of probable
keeping records with all necessary steps followed. This deficiencies.
was assisted by the introduction of Planned Maintenance Also, in 2003, Lloyd’s Register prepared a report for
Systems (PMS) with which it was easier to keep track the UKOOA about the FPSO’s in service in the UK con-
of the maintenance tasks and actions taken. Pintelon and tinental shelf (UKOOA 2003). It included database results
Gelders (1992) mention some of the benefits of preventive from a questionnaire distributed among FPSO operators,
maintenance, like the decrease of the probability of failure, information gathered from interviews of the participating
the cost savings occurring from avoiding breakdowns and companies and a further study on the practices adopted in
the increase of equipment availability. Tsai et al. (2004) also this industry. The aim was to establish the best practice in
studied preventive maintenance planning for the mechani- inspection, repair and maintenance in this industrial sector.
340 I. Lazakis et al.

Goyet et al. (2004) also discussed the implementation of precisely, they studied the result of embedding fibre optic
RBI planning in FPSO’s and FSO’s regarding the fatigue strain sensors in the composite hull of a fast patrol vessel
degradation of these structures. They examined the overall in order to carry out sea-keeping tests and provide valuable
system of these structures including hull, the process and feedback on the initial ship design. In a paper by Yamamoto
ship service systems, the turret, the offloading system and et al. (2007), a CM system is described for measuring the
the complementary systems and structures. In Cabos et al. fatigue of the hull of the ships. Their study was tested on
(2008), the RBI process is also used in conjunction with a a 145,000 m3 LNG ship using sensors to detect the accu-
hull condition monitoring system, as well as a robot for the mulated stresses on the welded structural parts for a period
thickness measurements of the outer hull structure. Regard- of time. They suggested the combination of the hull fatigue
ing the influence of corrosion on the structural reliability monitoring system with software designed to make fatigue
of ships, Paik et al. (2003) presented a corrosion wastage calculations for achieving better results.
model examining data from 230 single-hull ocean-going Courtney (2009) discussed about CM implementation
tanker ships and 34 different member groups including for the machinery of ships including pumps, purifiers, com-
plates, stiffened webs and face plates. Melchers (2005) also pressors, turbochargers and thrusters among other equip-
addressed the corrosion effect on the structural reliability of ment. He also suggested a database registration of CM
offshore structures in terms of general and pitting corrosion measurements of the equipment which are then sent to an
patterns. Turan et al. (2009) investigated the effect of apply- onshore server. From there, further analysis and a main-
ing good maintenance practices on the life cycle cost of the tenance report are prepared for the ship operator’s main
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

hull structure of a chemical tanker ship. Paik and Melchers office and the ship as well. Chandroth (2004) discussed
(2008) have discussed the issues relating to the condition CM applications such as the measuring of cylinder pres-
assessment of ships, particularly corrosion management of sures, acoustic emissions and linear vibration analysis of a
ship structures. Risk and Reliability in Marine Technology four-stroke twin-cylinder diesel engine. He also suggested
book (Guedes Soares 1998) offers very useful information the combination of artificial neural networks and multiple
on reliability of ships and offshore structures including sys- engine diagnostics to evaluate the condition of an engine.
tem reliability of repairable and non-repairable items. The above-mentioned methods may be coupled with a
In the case of the Condition Monitoring (CM) tool, it is Computerised Maintenance Management System (CMMS)
defined by British Standards as (BS 1993): which is a further development of the initial planned main-
tenance system. Rodseth et al. (2007) studied the combina-
‘the continuous or periodic measurement and interpreta- tion of a CM tool with technical condition indices (TCI).
tion of data to indicate the condition of an item to determine As its short name suggests, TCI are applied to evaluate
the need for maintenance’ the technical condition of a system under examination us-
ing diagnostic evaluation tools. They developed a system
BSI/ISO 17359 (2003) also provides guidelines for the for online monitoring/measuring spots of different machin-
general procedures to be taken into account when designing ery equipment and applied it on a gas export compression
a condition monitoring programme for machinery systems. plant. TCI differ from key performance indicators (KPI)
It includes an overview of the condition monitoring proce- as the latter are used to measure, evaluate and review the
dure and the auditing of the equipment to be used. Reli- performance and strategy of a company/organisation at a
ability and criticality assessments are also suggested such higher level (Hatzigrigoris et al. 2008).
as Reliability Block Diagrams (RBD) and Failure Modes, Thobem et al. (2008) presented their work also on
Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA). Apart from the CMMS. This platform includes a combination of data
above, the measurement method to be followed is described sources like damage statistics/reports, ship’s operational
together with the data collection and analysis process. Fi- data like Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) details, monitoring
nally, the determination of the maintenance action to be of the main engine components, hull condition monitoring
taken is also discussed. and shaft and propeller monitoring through a central server,
Another standard procedure for describing the gen- which archives the data and sends them in a compressed for-
eral requirements of personnel for condition monitoring mat to the shore-based main maintenance system for further
of machinery parts is the common BSI/ISO 18436 standard analysis. Apart from the obvious advantages of this kind of
(2009). It consists of seven parts covering the requirements system, there are some system bottlenecks identified, such
of certification and training as well as the most frequently as data recording from the various ship items/components
applied processes like vibration and diagnostics, field lubri- is entered manually and not automatically (no real time
cant analysis and the requirements for lubricant laboratory information); all the information is transferred through the
technicians and analysts, acoustic emissions and thermog- main server to the onshore office without informing the cap-
raphy analysis. tain/chief engineer of the ship of the current condition of
Moreover, Wang et al. (2001) used CM procedures the vessel; and there is also the question of the applicability
for the hull structure monitoring of a naval vessel. More of this system to a fleet of ships.
Ships and Offshore Structures 341

In Prioletti and Tobin (2008), a CMMS is presented re- departments such as the technical, operations, chartering,
garding the application of a standardised system in the US crewing, safety and quality and purchasing ones. On the
Navy Regional Maintenance Centres (US RMC). In it, the right-hand side, there is a sequence of steps to be per-
transition from handwritten reports and repair assessment formed in order to achieve the cost-effective inspection and
of ship’s tanks and void spaces to a Personal Digital Assis- repair sequence starting with the condition monitoring and
tant (PDA) usage is described. The general feature of this inspection tools. These include thermography, lube oil anal-
process is the combination of different work orders starting ysis and monitoring of the shaft of the main engine and all
off from a ship, planning and properly scheduling the main- the rotating equipment. The devices which may be used to
tenance action as well as assigning the work to a specific carry out the inspection include electronic means and on-
person or team to carry it out. All this information is trans- line applications (wireless sensors, PDAs and barcodes) or
ferred from a centralised database (by logging in a specified manual retrieval of data.
website) to a touch-screen PDA which is further used by The process mentioned above will also facilitate the
a competent assessor to complete the maintenance report next development which is data collection and processing.
while being in the tank/void space. This report is then sent Data collection may include information coming from al-
back via the same operational channel to the centralised ready applied data collection systems, published databases,
database for further investigation. etc. Processing may be carried out by using various software
tools. Having all this information, a decision support system
is developed and applied in order to give all stakeholders
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

3. Methodology involved (company’s managers, captain and chief engineer)


In this section, the methodology that is followed within a quick and thorough decision-making tool. With this in
the novel holistic predictive maintenance strategy is pre- mind, the optimal maintenance sequence can be planned
sented. Figure 3 shows the details described in the following leading to a cost-effective inspection and repair action.
paragraphs. On the left-hand side of Figure 3, another significant
In the figure, the overall system is demonstrated. In issue of this strategy is the training of the personnel on and
the middle of the graph, the current situation in a typ- offshore. This means that the crew on board the ship needs
ical shipping company is shown comprising of different to be trained well enough to work with the new systems

Figure 3. Risk- and criticality-based maintenance.


342 I. Lazakis et al.
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

Figure 4. Proposed data collection and processing module.

available and that the captain/chief engineer need to get and describes the requirements for FMECA presenting
familiar with the technical aspects (i.e., condition monitor- worksheet tables, functional and reliability block diagrams,
ing tools, software applications, etc.) which will eventually graphs in relation to the criticality classification and exam-
help them in the decision-making process. For the onshore ples of various cases. FMECA is an expanded version of
personnel, training has to do with the familiarisation with the classical Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
the new IT tools and decision-making process as well. tool. FMEA provides a systematic method for organizing
What follows is a criticality-based assessment on a com- the study of a particular system or process. The overall
mon working platform for all the participants involved and aim for conducting FMEA is to review the system in or-
finally to an overall management decision strategy which der to provide details on how to identify failures and their
can be applied on a single ship or a fleet of similar vessels. causes as well as determine the end results of the failures
Concluding, the decisions made will then be communicated occurring. FMEA can be applied in a bottom-up approach
to all various partners like equipment suppliers, shipyards which helps in mapping the overall failure potential of the
and original engine manufacturers so as to have a lean re- system or process. FMECA also makes use of severity and
pair and maintenance sequence either during dry dockings frequency indices thus creating a risk and criticality ma-
or throughout the operation of the ship. trix (Kumamoto and Henley 1996; IMO 2002; Turan et al.
In Figure 4, a more detailed description for the proposed 2003; Zafiropoulos and Dialynas 2005).
data collection and processing module is given. On the other hand, FTA uses failure rates, Mean Time
This module consists of data originating from two broad Between Failures (Dhillon 1999; Bedford and Cooke 2001)
areas which are the hull and machinery equipment of the and minimal cut sets (Tang and Dugan 2004) to evaluate
ship. Further on, several well-established analysis tools used the reliability and availability of the system in question. In
such as the Failure Mode, Effect and Criticality Analysis contrast with FMECA, FTA is a top-down approach which
(FMECA), Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) and Markov analysis provides all the necessary information about the likelihood
or other analytical reliability tools are incorporated in this of a failure occurring as well as how these failures might
module. take place. The focus of FTA is on the specific failures
Regarding FMECA, it was described and developed in developed in the system. This means that thorough knowl-
detail for the US DoD in the military standard 1629A as edge of the system under consideration is needed in or-
early as 1980 (US DoD 1980). This handbook includes def- der to identify the potential failure events and their initial
initions of the maintenance- and reliability-related terms causes.
Ships and Offshore Structures 343

In addition to the FT analysis described above, a fur- and how feasible it is to improve the event. The Criticality
ther assessment using importance measures like Birnbaum, importance measure is defined as
Fussell-Vesely and criticality (Birnbaum 1969; Fussell
1975; Beeson and Andrews 2003; Espiritu et al. 2007) can Iicr (A) = (P {X|A} − P {X| ∼A})∗ P {A}/P {X}, (3)
be conducted. Birnbaum importance measure is the rate
of change in the top gate probability with respect to the where
change in the unavailability of a basic event. Therefore,
Iicr (A) = Criticality importance measure for event A;
the ranking of events obtained using the Birnbaum impor-
A = the event whose importance is being measured;
tance measures is helpful when selecting which end event
∼A = the event did not occur;
needs to be enhanced. The Birnbaum importance measure
X = the top event.
for event A can also be calculated as the difference in the
probability of the top event given that event A did occur Also, overall system reliability can be examined by us-
minus the probability of the top event given that event A ing Markov analysis or other analytical reliability tools (Dai
did not occur, that is, and Wang 1992; Pil et al. 2008). Markov analysis is used
to study dynamic behaviour of systems. It is also known
IiB (A) = P {X|A} − P {X| ∼A}, (1) as the state transition diagram as it represents the different
states of the system and the transition from one state of the
where system to another with their interdependencies. The differ-
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

ent states of the system can be described as good or failed


1. I B (A) = Birnbaum importance measure for event A; depending on the failure of their components at a given
2. A = the event whose importance is being measured; time. These conditions are determined in the initial stage of
3. ∼A = the event did not occur; the analysis. Markov models are also useful for establish-
4. X = the top event. ing the behaviour of a system for a number of failure cases
like common cause failures, complex repair policies, degra-
Regarding the Fussell–Vesely (F-V) importance mea- dation, dependent failures and other sequence-dependent
sure, it is used when an event contributes to the failure of events.
the top event but is not necessarily the most critical one. Expanding the classical theory about Static Fault Trees
F-V importance measures rely on the minimal cut sets, (SFT), the Dynamic Fault Trees (DFT) are introduced.
which determine the shortest way the failure of the top DFTs have been used to describe and solve the prob-
event/system may occur. For this to happen, at least one lems occurring in complex systems. Examples include the
cut set path including the specific event must occur. The electrical power supply system (Rao et al. 2009) and the
F-V importance measure shows the ratio of the probability maintenance activities of the safety equipment of a nu-
of occurrence of any cut set containing event A and the clear power plant (Cepin and Mavko 2002). In the maritime
probability of the top event. That is, area, the application of DFT has been investigated on the
pod propulsion system of a Roll On–Roll Off (Ro-Ro) ves-

mi
1− [1 − P {Mij (t)}] sel (Aksu et al. 2006). The advantage of DFT compared
j =1 with the SFT is that the time-dependent relations as well
IiFV (t) = , (2)
1 − RS (r(t)) as the different sequential combinations among the differ-
ent events can be described in a more explicit way thus
where performing a more detailed analysis of the system under
investigation.
IiFV = Fussell–Vesely importance measure;
When employing static gates for the formulation of FTs,
mi = the number of minimal cut sets containing i;
‘AND’ as well as ‘OR’ gates are used, which are described
Mij (t) = the j th minimal cut set among those containing
below at time t
i, verified at time t.
    
For the Criticality importance measure, it is the prob- PANDgate (t) = P c1 c2 c3 ...... cn
ability that component A is critical for the system and has
occurred given that the top event has occurred. While the = P (c1 )P (c2 )....P (cn ) (5)
Birnbaum importance measure considers only the condi-
tional probability that event A is critical, the Criticality and
importance measure also considers the overall probability     
of the top event occurrence due to event A. Alternatively, P ORgate (t) = P c1 c2 c3 .... cn
the Criticality importance measure modifies the Birnbaum
= 1 − [1 − P (c1 )][1 − P (c2 )].....[1 − p(cn )],
importance measure by adjusting for the relative probabil-
ity of basic event A to reflect how likely the event is to occur (6)
344 I. Lazakis et al.
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

Figure 5. Fault tree structure of the mentioned DG system. This figure is available in colour online.

where the online recording system of the vessel. More specifically


‘Mean Times Between Failures’ (MTBF) of the different
PANDgate (t) = probability for the ‘AND’ gate;
items are collected. The FMECA tool is then used to iden-
PORgate (t) = probability for the ‘OR’ gate;
tify the most severe and frequent causes of the overall DG
ci . . . cn = independent basic events.
system failures. Following this step is the creation of an
Another gate that is used in the DFT is the ‘TWO- FT using static and dynamic gates, which are populated by
OUT-OF-THREE’ gate which describes the probability of the MTBF mentioned above. The FT is divided into port
the redundant components in the system. This is given as and starboard branches representing the actual layout of the
follows: vessel’s engine room. Port side includes DG 1 and DG 2
while starboard side includes DG 3 and DG 4 (Figure 5).
P2 out of 3 (t) In this way, the reliability of the overall DG system as well
         as port and starboard side sub-systems is examined. More-
= P c1 c2 P c1 c3 P c2 c3 over, the least reliable DGs are identified and spare gates are
introduced to study the variation in their reliability. Next,
= P (c1 )P (c2 ) + P (c1 )P (c3 ) + P (c2 )P (c3 )
criticality importance measures are applied for all DGs and
−2P (c1 )P (c2 )P (c3 ). (7) finally the availability of all the end events/items of the DG
system is shown.
In addition to the above, criticality is described as the The main particulars of the vessel under consideration
product of the severity and frequency indices, that is, are presented in Table 1 and the main characteristics of the
DG system are given in Table 2.
Criticality = Severity × Frequency. (8)

Following this, the above-mentioned maintenance strat- Table 1. Main particulars of the subject vessel
egy will be shown more explicitly with the demonstration
of a case study of a Diesel Generator (DG) system of a Built 1990
cruise ship. Ship type Motor sailing yacht
Main propulsion Diesel-electric (four diesel generators)
Masts 5
Capacity 308 passengers
4. Case study Length 187.0 m (including bow sprit)
In the case study presented next, the first steps of the mainte- Breadth 20.0 metres
nance strategy which include the evaluation of the reliability Draft 5.0 metres
Tonnage 14,745 GRT
and availability of the overall system are described. At first, Service speed 10–15 knots
the data collection activity is shown including data from
Ships and Offshore Structures 345

Table 2. DG characteristics example, in the case of DG 1 (Figure 7), the main part
of the DG is the main body/frame. Additional sub-systems
Total no of DG 4 include the fuel, air and lube oil system in addition to the al-
Rated kW 2,280
Total HP 13,216 ternator and the other components system. Accordingly, the
Total kW 9,720 same sub-division breakdown is followed for the rest of the
Engine rpm 750 DGs.
Cylinder bore 320 mm Initially, the FMECA table is created in order to identify
Cylinder stroke 350 mm the primary features of the system under examination. The
FO consumption 3 tonnes/24 hrs (normal
conditions) FMECA table is a combination of (Table 3):
r The failure events and their causes;
r The local and global effects taking place;
Figure 6 describes the DG system in more detail. It r The detection and prevention method applied;
consists of four DGs plus an emergency DG which cov- r The severity, frequency and criticality values;
ers all the needs of the ship in the case of an emergency. r The repair and unavailability times; and
The four DGs are connected through the main switchboard r Any additional remarks provided.
with two transformers, one for the 440 V and one for the
220 V electrical units. The 440 V unit is used to provide the In Table 4, the severity and frequency indices are pre-
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

main propulsion of the ship through two propulsion units, sented, while in Table 5 the explanations for severity, fre-
propulsion unit 1 (port) and propulsion unit 2 (starboard). quency and criticality are mentioned in detail (also see IMO
They also provide for the manoeuvrability of the ship with 2002).
two thruster units, thrusters unit 1 (aft) and thrusters unit 2 In this way, the most critical components are identified
(forward). The 220 V electrical unit provides for the gen- which will provide assistance in the preparation of the FT
eral needs of the ship together with the control panel (CP) structure that follows. More specifically, the most critical
boards for the bridge, engine room, etc. The emergency DG components identified are:
is responsible for the primary needs of the ship in the case
of an emergency/unexpected event.
r Engine preheating unit;
Furthermore, in order to understand the function of
r Turbocharger;
each DG, they are divided in their own sub-systems. For
r Fuel system, valves, piping;

Figure 6. Layout of the diesel generator (DG) system for the diesel–electric passenger ship. This figure is available in colour online.
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

346

Table 3. Part of the FMECA table for the DG system

Effects
Failed Failure Failure Detection Prevention Repair
# item event cause Local Global method method Severity Frequency Criticality time Unavailability Remarks

1 Fuel system, Rupture of pipe, Bad diesel/HFO, Oil spillage, Fire in E/R, Visual, loss of Good 3 4 12 0.5 hrs Depending on In case of
valves, leakage, cat fines, hot spot genset power, high purification, situation (a major
piping sludge/water sludge creation failure, temperature filter few hrs) failure
in the line (MDO) blackout deviation cleaning, (fire), un-
fuel availability
treatment >4 weeks
2 Fuel filter Blocked Mechanism Low fuel oil Blackout and Differential Draining of 3 3 9 2 hrs 2.5 hrs Autoflush
autoclean failure pressure loss of pressure water/ mechanism
power alarm sludge in place
3 Fuel filter Blocked Choked filter Low fuel oil Blackout and Differential Draining of 3 3 9 1 hr 1.5 hrs Manual
duplex pressure loss of pressure water/ changeover
power alarm sludge & cleaning
4 Cooler lube oil Blocked, broken Sea water con- High lube oil Stoppage or Alarm Regular 3 3 9 3 hrs 4 hrs Manual
tube tamination, tempera- failure of cleaning of cleaning of
high ture, low DG coolers cooler
temperature lube oil
of cooling pressure, oil
I. Lazakis et al.

medium contamina-
(fresh or sea tion
water) (water)
5 Glacier oil Blocked Accumulation of Out of use Engine (piston Differential Manual 2 3 6 .5 hrs 1 hr Manual
filter sludge ring and pressure cleaning at cleaning of
deposits, not bearing) regular filter
proper wear intervals
cleaning
6 Filter, lube oil Blocked Choked filter Low lube oil Engine wear Differential Regular 3 3 9 1 hr 1.5 hrs Manual
(duplex) pressure pressure cleaning changeover
alarm & cleaning
7 Motor/starter, Start failure Motor over- Pump Reduced Motor alarm Motor regular 3 2 6 2 hrs 3 hrs Replace motor
pre-lube oil load/control stoppage electrical monitoring
pump failure load
supplied
Ships and Offshore Structures 347
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

Figure 7. Boundary condition of the DG 1 sub-system.

r DG 2: main body/frame, fuel system, filter/glacier oil,


Table 4. Criticality matrix
alternator and start air system (Figure 9);
5 10 15 20 25
r DG 3: main body/frame, fuel system, lube oil system,
4 8 12 16 20 other components and start air system (Figure 10);
r DG 4: main body/frame, lube oil system, alternator and
Severity

3 6 9 12 15
fuel system (Figure 11);
2 4 6 8 10 r Emergency DG (EDG): alternator and panel control
1 2 3 4 5
(Figure 7).
Frequency
The mentioned sub-systems include gates and basic
r Alarms; events which describe the level of details of the DG sys-
r Alternator 1; tem. For example, in the case of DG2, the sub-systems are
r Start air system. the main body/frame of DG2 which is divided into oil mist
detectors, cylinder heads, governor and turbocharger and
Moreover, the purpose of any study which applies the the fuel system of DG2 which is divided into fuel system,
FTA method is to use the appropriate static and/or dynamic valves and piping and fuel filter autoclean. The items of
gates that best fit each specific case. In this case study, static filter, glacier oil, alternator and start air system complete
as well as dynamic gates are used. the components of DG2 used for this analysis. Moreover, in
Next, the Reliability Excellence software (Relex Relia- order to populate the FT, actual failure data were gathered
bility Studio 2009) is used to perform the reliability analy- from the actual operational experience of the mentioned
sis. Moreover, the DGs are divided into: ship for a period between January 2004 and December
2008 and include failure, underperforming and overhaul-
r DG 1: main body/frame, fuel system, other components, ing events (Table 6). The values are described as the MTBF
air system and filter/glacier oil (Figure 8); for the operation of the DGs in hours. It is worthwhile

Table 5. Severity, frequency and criticality explanation table

Severity Explanation Frequency Explanation Criticality Explanation

Level 1: minor No loss of operation Level 1: unlikely > than 10−6 /hr Cat 1: level 1–4 Not critical
Level 2: marginal Signs of reduced operability Level 2: low 10−5 /hr–10−6 /hr Cat 2: level 5–14 Critical
Level 3: major Reduced performance Level 3: moderate 10−4 /hr–10−5 /hr Cat 3: level 15–25 Very critical
Level 4: critical Shutdown Level 4: high 10−3 /hr–10−4 /hr
Level 5: catastrophic Loss of item/equipment/system/ Level 5: very high < than 10−3 /hr
348 I. Lazakis et al.

Figure 8. Fault tree structure of the DG 1 system. This figure is available in colour online.
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

Figure 9. Fault tree structure of the DG 2 system. This figure is available in colour online.

mentioning that not all the MTBFs for all the different DGs terly maintenance intervals period (seamanship practice of
were available through the data gathering process due to 3 months). In this way, one can see the progress of the re-
various reasons like not proper recording sequence of the liability of all the equipment in more practical terms. The
numerical values, etc. calculation method used is the Exact method, which gives
After the population of the events, the time-dependent higher accuracy on numerical results than other methods
reliability calculations (computing time) are set. At this using approximation techniques.
point, the computational pattern presented in Lazakis et al. As can be seen in Figure 6, the top gate is a ‘VOTING’
is followed (2009). Start point of calculations is set to 0, gate with two out of three votes used. This means that
while end time of calculations is set to 43,800 hours, which in order for the ship/system to fail, two of the three sub-
is 5 years. In between, the calculation process is set to time gates need to fail, that is, either the port side system and
steps/intervals of 2,190 hours to coincide with the quar- the emergency DG or the starboard side system and the

Figure 10. Fault tree structure of the DG 3 system. This figure is available in colour online.
Ships and Offshore Structures 349

Figure 11. Fault tree structure of the DG 4 system. This figure is available in colour online.

emergency DG. Next ‘AND’ gates are used to describe the Another dynamic gate that is used is the ‘SPARE’ gate.
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

port and starboard side sub-systems. This occurs because in This is done in order to observe the reliability and availabil-
order for the port or starboard system to fail, both the DGs ity of each main system and sub-system when introducing a
comprising these systems have to fail. In this case, there spare gate and a spare event in the FT structure. In this way,
will be no steering or manoeuvring capability of the ship. “SPARE” gates are used for the emergency DG (Figure 12)
Furthermore, DGs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are broken down to their and DG 4 (Figure 13).
sub-systems by using ‘TRANSFER’ gates in order to obtain Also, the F-V and Birnbaum importance measures are
a more flexible representation of the FT structure. Next, the used to show the influence of the end events on the main
‘Priority AND’ or else ‘PAND’ gate is used to represent system of the ship’s DG and the sub-systems.
the relationship among the basic events comprising each Next, the reliability of all the DGs is calculated as
sub-system. For example, in the case of DG 2, the main well as the reliability of the port, starboard and over-
body/frame of the DG is connected with a ‘PAND’ gate all systems of the ship. The Criticality and Birnbaum
with the basic events of oil mist detectors, cylinder heads, importance measures for all the end events are calcu-
governor and turbocharger. In this way and by using the lated. The availability of the end events is estimated
dynamic gates, a better and more accurate representation of and the results of the FT are also presented in the next
the whole DG system is made. section.

Table 6. Actual field data showing the mean time between failures (MTBF) for the operation of all the DGs

Components/MTBF (hours) DG 1 DG 2 DG 3 DG 4 Emergency DG

Valves, fuel injector cyl 1–6 64,056.0 n.a. 5,592.0 n.a. n.a.
Cylinder heads, complete 1–6 8,808.0 14,340.0 24,112.0 13,698.0 n.a.
Governor 11,995.2 25,704.0 36,780.0 1,896.0 n.a.
Turbocharger n.a. 31,944.0 19,512.0 48,288.0 n.a.
Oil mist detectors 8,296.0 5,736.0 n.a. 14,256.0 n.a.
Fuel system, valves, piping 2,208.0 29,436.0 2,208.0 29,736.0 n.a
Fuel filter autoclean n.a. 744.0 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Fuel filter duplex 16,536.0 n.a. 22,992.0 n.a. n.a.
Thermostatic valve circuit 23,184.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Glacier oil filter 16,896.0 16,848.0 40,032.0 16,698.0 n.a.
Filter lube oil (duplex) n.a. n.a. n.a. 33,084.0 n.a.
L/O system, valves, piping n.a. n.a. 43,368.0 n.a. n.a.
Engine preheating unit n.a. n.a. 6,204.0 n.a. n.a.
Alarms 13,608.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Instruments n.a. n.a. 12,120.0 n.a. n.a.
Special tools 7,512.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Start limiter 32,748.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Start air system n.a. 8,048.0 50,856.0 n.a. n.a.
Air cooler and manifold 7,488.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Alternator 2,745.4 2,622.7 1,618.4 2,188.0 4,867.2
Panel control emergency DG n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 18,494.4
350 I. Lazakis et al.
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

Figure 12. Fault tree structure of the ship DG’s system including the use of ‘SPARE’ gates. This figure is available in colour online.

5. Results port and starboard sub-systems are operating well enough


The results of the analysis regarding the entire DG sys- with the maintenance tasks performed. The reliabilities of
tem of the cruise ship are presented. At first, the results of the sub-systems of DG 1, DG 2, DG 3, DG 4 and EDG are
the FT analysis with the initial gates used are shown to- shown in Figure 15.
gether with the importance measures of the FT. Then, the In this case, DG 1, DG 2 and DG 3 present very good
results including the dynamic “SPARE” gates are demon- results in terms of their reliability indices over the 60-month
strated along with a comparison between the two different period (more than 90%). Regarding DG 4 and EDG, a de-
scenarios. cline in the results is observed starting after the first few
The reliability of the entire DG (DG 1-4) system to- months. This can be attributed to various reasons, such as
gether with the reliability of the sub-systems of port and not enough maintenance tasks carried out or not follow-
starboard sides is presented in Figure 14. ing the correct maintenance intervals for the specific DGs.
As can be observed from the figure, all three systems In order to investigate what happens in the case of intro-
are very reliable. In fact, their reliability index is more than ducing mitigation measures like an extra piece of equip-
98% for the first 36 months, which is reduced to about 94% ment, spare parts or more frequent maintenance, a spare
at the end Month 60 (time frame initially set). This is an gate is introduced for both DG 4 and EDG (Figures 16
indication that the overall system of the DGs as well as the and 17).

Figure 13. Fault tree structure of DG 4 including the use of ‘SPARE’ gates. This figure is available in colour online.
Ships and Offshore Structures 351

1.0

0.9

0.8
Reliability
Gate1-DG 1-4
Gate72-Port side
0.7 Gate73-Stbd side

0.6

0.5
Time 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time (months)

Figure 14. Reliability of the overall DG system (gate 1 – DG 1–4) and the main sub-systems (port and starboard sides). This figure is
available in colour online.
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 Gate2-DG 1
Reliability

0.5 Gate8-DG 2
Gate13-DG 3
0.4
Gate19-DG 4
0.3
Gate23-EDG
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Tim e (m onths)

Figure 15. Reliability of the sub-systems of DG 1, DG 2, DG 3, DG 4 and EDG. This figure is available in colour online.

1.0

0.8

0.6
Reliability

Gate19-DG 4

0.4 with SPARE gate

0.2

0.0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time (months)

Figure 16. Comparison of the reliability of DG 4 before and after the introduction of spare gate. This figure is available in colour online.
352 I. Lazakis et al.

1.0

0.8

Reliability 0.6
Gate23-EDG

0.4 with SPARE gate

0.2

0.0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time (months)

Figure 17. Comparison of the reliability of EDG before and after the introduction of spare gate. This figure is available in colour online.
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

As can be seen, the results for DG 4 and EDG are im- by using the Criticality and Birnbaum importance measures
proved significantly for the initial time period of 6 months for the four DGs. The results are presented in Table 7 and
but still preserve a low value for the overall period. This Figures 18–21.
may be due to problems with the specific DGs which are not Regarding DG 1, the glacier oil filter and the alternator
easily overcome with the introduction of mitigation mea- are the main contributors to the reliability importance of
sures like the ones mentioned above. It is also interesting to DG 1 and these items need special attention when prioritiz-
note that the low reliability results of these two DGs do not ing the maintenance activities. Regarding Birnbaum mea-
affect the overall system (as shown in Figure 14). This can sure, glacier oil filter and start limiter are the most important
be explained as EDG is only rarely used (it is mostly oper- items for this measure.
ated/tested to check its functionality over time) and DG 4 For DG 2, the alternator and start air system are the
was mainly a back-up DG for the overall operation of the most important items according to the Criticality measure,
DG system at the time the maintenance data were gathered. while according to the Birnbaum one, higher importance is
Apart from examining the reliability of the attributed to the fuel system, valves and piping as well as
main systems, the reliability importance of the end the glacier oil filter component.
events/components for DG 1, DG 2, DG 3 and DG 4 is also The alternator keeps appearing as the most important
investigated in depth in order to identify the ones which item according to the Criticality measure for DG 3 too.
need specific maintenance tasks applied. This is carried out Other components of similar importance are the engine

Cricality Birnbaum

0.8 0.02
0.6 0.015
0.4 0.01
0.2 0.005
0 0
Governor DG

Governor DG
Air cooler &
Alternator

Air cooler &


Alarms DG 1

Cylinder

Alternator

Alarms DG 1
Fuel filter

Cylinder
Thermostac
Oil mist

Valves fuel
Valves and
Start limiter

Thermostac
Oil mist
Fuel filter
Special tools

Valves fuel
Valves and
Filter glacier

Start limiter
Special tools
Filter glacier

End events End events

Figure 18. Criticality and Birnbaum importance measures for DG 1. This figure is available in colour online.
Ships and Offshore Structures 353

Table 7. Criticality and Birnbaum importance measures for DG Table 8. Availability of end events for the DG system
1, DG 2, DG 3 and DG 4
End event Availability (%)
Criticality Birnbaum
importance importance Valves/fuel injectors DG1 87.2%
End events measure measure Start air system DG 3 84.2%
Turbocharger overhaul DG 4 83.4%
Glacier oil filter of DG 1 0.636732 0.012602 L/O system, valves, piping DG 3 81.7%
Alternator DG 1 0.604723 0.00505 Glacier oil filter DG 3 80.3%
Special tools DG 1 0.604723 0.007034 Governor DG 3 78.8%
Alarms DG 1 0.604723 0.010201 Filter, lube oil duplex DG 4 76.7%
Air cooler and manifold DG 1 0.481561 0.005592 Start limiter DG 1 76.5%
Start limiter DG 1 0.481561 0.016429 Turbocharger overhaul DG 2 76.0%
Valves and piping DG 1 0.418505 0.003416 Fuel system, valves piping DG 4 74.5%
Fuel filter duplex DG 1 0.418505 0.008148 Fuel system, valves and piping DG 2 74.3%
Thermostatic valve circuit DG 1 0.418505 0.01065 Governor DG 2 71.1%
Oil mist detectors DG 1 0.11922 0.001464 Cylinder heads DG 3 69.5%
Cylinder heads DG 1 0.11922 0.001515 Thermostatic valve circuit DG 1 68.5%
Governor DG 1 0.11922 0.001842 Fuel filter duplex DG 3 68.3%
Valves fuel injector DG 1 0.11922 0.007469 Turbocharger overhaul DG 3 63.8%
Alternator DG 2 0.737713 0.006124 Panel control EDG 62.3%
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

Start air system DG 2 0.730506 0.008819 Glacier oil filter of DG 1 L/O system 59.5%
Glacier oil filter DG 2 0.715832 0.014137 Glacier oil filter DG 2 59.5%
Fuel filter autoclean DG 2 0.69412 0.005558 Glacier oil filter DG 4 59.2%
Fuel system, valves, piping DG 2 0.69412 0.021593 Fuel filter duplex DG 1 58.9%
Oil mist detectors DG 2 0.136151 0.001393 Cylinder heads DG 2 54.3%
Cylinder heads DG 2 0.136151 0.002385 Oil mist detectors DG 4 54.1%
Governor DG 2 0.136151 0.003775 Cylinder heads DG 4 52.8%
Turbocharger DG 2 0.136151 0.004545 Alarms DG 1 52.5%
Alternator DG 3 0.240641 0.001935 Instruments DG 3 48.5%
Engine preheating unit DG 3 0.240641 0.002548 Governor DG 1 48.2%
Instruments DG 3 0.240641 0.003744 Cylinder heads DG 1 37.0%
Fuel system, valves, piping DG 3 0.238967 0.00195 Oil mist detectors DG 1 34.8%
Fuel filter duplex DG 3 0.238967 0.006039 Start air system DG 2 33.7%
Start air system DG 3 0.230806 0.01168 Special tools DG 1 31.2%
Filter, glacier oil DG 3 0.17425 0.007099 Air cooler and manifold DG 1 31.0%
L/O system valves & piping DG 3 0.17425 0.007629 Engine preheating unit DG 3 24.4%
Turbocharger DG 3 0.105057 0.002326 Oil mist detectors DG 2 21.7%
Cylinder heads DG 3 0.105057 0.002761 Valves, fuel injector cyl 1–6 DG 4 20.9%
Governor DG 3 0.105057 0.003969 Alternator EDG 16.5%
Alternator DG 4 0.177634 0.001449 Alternator DG 1 4.1%
Valves, fuel injectors DG 4 0.105057 0.001063 Alternator DG2 3.5%
Fuel system, valves piping DG 4 0.046168 0.001449 Valves and piping DG 1 1.9%
Glacier oil filter DG 4 0.017182 0.000337 Fuel system, valves piping DG 3 1.9%
Filter, lube oil duplex DG 4 0.017182 0.000591 Alternator DG 4 1.8%
Governor DG 4 0.006447 0.000052 Governor DG 4 1.0%
Cylinder heads DG 4 0.006447 0.000109 Alternator DG3 0.4%
Oil mist detectors DG 4 0.006447 0.000112 Fuel filter autoclean DG 2 0.0%
Turbocharger DG 4 0.006447 0.000311

preheating unit and various instruments. For the Birnbaum


measure, the important items include the start air system various end events for Criticality and Birnbaum measures.
and the lube oil valves and piping items. This is due to the different purpose that these two measures
A similar condition applies for DG 4. By using the serve. In the case of the Criticality measure, the aim is
Criticality measure, the alternator is identified as the most to prioritise the maintenance effort, while the Birnbaum
important component of this DG together with the valves measure estimates the difference in the probability of the
and fuel injectors and the fuel system, valves and piping. top event when the specific event measured is operating
Accordingly, for Birnbaum, the important items include the well and when it has failed.
alternator and the valves and fuel injectors as well. Furthermore, the availability of the end events of the
It is also worth mentioning that in some cases, there is system after 12 months of operation is examined (Table 8,
a difference between the ranking of the importance for the Figure 22).
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

354

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

Alternator

0
0.1
0.2
0.3

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Alternator DG 2
Alternator Start air
DG 3
DG 4 Engine system DG 2
Valves, fue preheang
Instruments Filter glacier
l injectors DG
Fuel system, DG 3 oil DG 2
Fuel system, Fuel filter
valves piping valves,
Filter glacier Fuel filter autoclean DG
oil DG 4 duplex DG 3 Fuel system,
Cricality

Filter, lub oil Start air valves ,

Cricality

Cricality
system DG 3
End events
duplex DG 4 Filter, glacier Oil mist

End events
End events
Governor DG
oil DG 3 detectors DG
4 L/O system
Cylinder Cylinder
valves &
heads DG 4 Turbocharger heads DG 2
Oil mist DG 3 Governor DG
Cylinder
detectors DG heads DG 3 2
Turbocharger Governor DG Turbocharger
DG 4 3

system with the least available items (less than 20% avail-

system is DG 3 with the alternator and fuel system, valves


valves/fuel injector components. The next most critical sub-
ability) is DG 4 including the governor, alternator and the
As may be seen from the table and the figure, the sub-
DG 2

0.005
0.015

0
0.01

0.0005

0
0.001
0.0015
I. Lazakis et al.

Alternator
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025

Alternator DG 3
DG 4 Engine Alternator
Valves, fue preheang DG 2
Instruments
l injectors DG Start air
Fuel system, DG 3
Fuel system, system DG 2
valves piping valves, Filter glacier
Filter glacier Fuel filter oil DG 2
oil DG 4 duplex DG 3 Fuel filter
Start air
Birnbaum

Filter, lub oil

Birnbaum
system DG 3 autoclean DG
duplex DG 4
Birnbaum

End events Filter, glacier Fuel system,


Governor DG

End events
oil DG 3 valves ,
4 L/O system
End events

Oil mist
Cylinder valves &
Turbocharger detectors DG

Figure 21. Criticality and Birnbaum importance measures for DG 4. This figure is available in colour online.
Figure 20. Criticality and Birnbaum importance measures for DG 3. This figure is available in colour online.
Figure 19. Criticality and Birnbaum importance measures for DG 2. This figure is available in colour online.

after the mentioned period of time.


heads DG 4
Oil mist DG 3 Cylinder
Cylinder heads DG 2
detectors DG
Turbocharger heads DG 3 Governor DG
Governor DG
DG 4 3 2
Turbocharger
DG 2
cial attention since their availability is reduced significantly
also some of the components of the system that need spe-
and piping in the lowest ranking placement. The fuel filter
autoclean of DG 2 and the valves and piping of DG 1 are
Ships and Offshore Structures 355

Figure 22. Availability of end events for the DG system. This figure is available in colour online.
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

6. Concluding remarks is also performed in order to prioritise the maintenance


In the present paper, a criticality and reliability methodol- tasks and establish an effective maintenance sequence.
ogy is proposed in the context of the overall predictive main- In this way, the maintenance tasks for the specific equip-
tenance strategy regarding shipping industry. It involves the ment and systems can be prioritised, which will lead to a
upgrading of the existing ship maintenance regime to an structured way of coping with the maintenance issues on-
overall strategy including technological advances and a de- board the ship and subsequently to increasing the avail-
cision support system in place. The initial phases of this ability and operability of the vessel. Moreover, in order
application were demonstrated by using operational data to obtain a more complete picture of the maintenance chal-
from a diesel generator system of a cruise ship comprising lenges, the inclusion of cost–benefit analysis for the specific
of four main diesel generators and an emergency one. The mitigation measures (i.e., introduction of spare parts, better
well-established and recognised risk and reliability assess- scheduling of maintenance activities, condition monitoring
ment methods of FMECA and FTA with static and dynamic system in place to retrieve accurate and continuous flow of
gates, as well as the Birnbaum and Criticality importance data and outsourcing major maintenance jobs to external
measures were utilised. providers on-board the ship) can be introduced. Further-
The maintenance data collection activity was carried out more, other reliability tools (i.e., Markov analysis) can be
for the various components of the diesel generator system used to identify the dynamic behaviour of the system under
in a systematic way identifying the values that will be used consideration.
for the analysis of the system at the next stages. The initial
classification of all the components of the DG system of the
cruise vessel was also performed by using criticality indices References
and thus involving experts’ judgement in the analysis of the Aksu Serap, Aksu Seref, Turan O. 2006. Reliability and availabil-
overall system. By employing the FT reliability tool for ity of pod propulsion systems. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 22:41–58.
ATA. 1968. Maintenance evaluation and programme develop-
the main system (DG) and sub-systems (port and starboard
ment: 737 maintenance steering group handbook (MSG 1).
sides, DG 1, DG 2, DG 3 and DG 4), the overall reliability Washington (DC): ATA.
was calculated providing the knowledge of which compo- Bedford T, Cooke R. 2001. Probabilistic risk analysis: Foundations
nents are operating in terms of high and low performance and methods. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
level. By identifying the underperforming items, additional Beeson S, Andrews JD. 2003. Birnbaum’s measure of compo-
nent importance for non-coherent systems. IEEE Trans Re-
corrective steps were taken to improve their condition. This
liab. 52(2):213–219.
was achieved by introducing dynamic spare gates which Birnbaum ZW. 1969. On the importance of different components
reflect the mitigation measures involved regarding the tech- in a multi-component system. In: Krishnaiah P, editor. Mul-
nical part of the maintenance procedures. In this respect, tivariate analysis. New York (NY): Academic Press. p. 581–
the criticality of each component of the DGs is also cal- 592.
BS. 1993. Glossary of terms used in terotechnology. BS 3811,
culated providing in-depth insight on the specific item that
London (UK): BS.
needs to be rectified/improved so as to advance the opera- BSI/ISO. 2003. Condition monitoring and diagnostics of machines
tion of the entire DG. Finally, the calculation of the avail- – General guidelines, BSI/ISO standard 17359. London (UK):
ability of the end events of the system under consideration BSI/ISO.
356 I. Lazakis et al.

BSI. 2008a. PAS 55-1. Asset management Part 1: Specification for ISO 14224. 2006. Petroleum, petrochemical natural gas industries
the optimised management of physical assets, London (UK). – Collection and exchange of reliability and maintenance data
BSI. 2008b. PAS 55-2. Asset management Part 2: Guidelines for for equipment. ISO Standard 14224.
the application of PAS 55-1, London (UK). Khan FI, Sadiq R, Haddara MM. 2004. Risk based inspection
BSI/ISO. 2009. Condition monitoring and diagnostic of machines and maintenance (RBIM) –Multi-attribute decision-making
– Requirements for qualification and assessment of personnel, with aggregative risk analysis. Inst Chem Eng, Trans Inst
BSI/ISO standard 18436, part 3, London (UK). Chem Eng, Part B, Nov, Process Safety and Environ Prot.
Cabos C, Jaramillo D, Stadie-Frohbos G, Renard P, Ventura M, 82(B6):398–411.
Dumas B. 2008. Condition assessment scheme for ship hull Kumamoto H, Henley EJ. 1996. Probabilistic risk assessment
maintenance. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference for engineers and scientists. 2nd ed. New York (NY): IEEE
on Computer Applications and Information Technology in Press.
the Maritime Industries (COMPIT); 2008. Apr 21–23; Liege, Lazakis I, Turan O, Alkaner S, Olcer A. 2009. Effective ship
Belgium, pp. 222–243. maintenance strategy using a risk and criticality based ap-
Cepin M, Mavko B. 2002. A dynamic fault tree. Reliab Eng Syst proach. Proceedings of the 13th Congress of International
Saf. 75:83–91. Association of the Mediterranean (IMAM); 2009, Oct 12–15;
Chandroth G. 2004. Condition monitoring: the case for integrating Istanbul, Turkey, vol 3, pp. 1113–1120.
data from independent sources. J Mar Eng Technol. March Ledet W. 2002. Making the move toward a learning organisation:
(A4):9–16. a classic journey of change. Ledet Enterprises Inc. Available
Conachey RM. 2005. Development of machinery survey require- from: http://www.manufacturinggame.com/ [2009 Sep 22].
ments based on reliability-centered maintenance, SNAME Melchers RE. 2005. The effect of corrosion on the structural
Maritime Technology Conference & Expo. and Ship Produc- reliability of steel offshore structures. Corros Sci. 47:2391–
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

tion Symposium, Houston, Texas. 2410.


Courtney S. 2009. Condition based maintenance in the marine in- Mokashi AJ, Wang J, Vermar AK. 2002. A study of reliability-
dustry. Integrated monitoring solutions, Proceedings of the centred maintenance in maritime operations. Mar Policy
3rd Condition Monitoring Conference; 2009. Apr. 28–29; 26:325–335.
London, UK. Moubray J. 1997. Reliability-centered maintenance. 2nd ed. New
Dai SH, Wang M. 1992. Reliability analysis in engineering appli- York (NY): Industrial Press.
cations. New York (NY): Van Nostrand Reinhold. NTS. 2001. Criticality analysis for maintenance purposes. Norsok
Dhillon BS. 1999. Design reliability: fundamentals and applica- standard Z-008, Norwegian Technology Centre, rev. 2.
tions. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. OREDA. 2002. Offshore reliability database handbook. 4th ed.
Espiritu JF, Coit DW, Prakash U. 2007. Component criticality Oslo (Norway): DNV.
importance measures for the power industry. Electr Power Paik JK, Lee, JM, Hwang JS, Park YI. 2003. A time-dependent
Syst Res. 77:407–420. corrosion wastage model for the structures of single- and
Fussell J. 1975. How to hand calculate system reliability charac- double-hull tankers and FSOs and FPSOs. Mar Technol.
teristics. IEEE Trans Reliab. R-24:169–174. 40(3):201–217.
Goyet J, Rouhan A, Faber MH. 2004. Industrial implementation Paik JK, Melchers R. 2008. Condition assessment of aging struc-
of risk based inspection planning lessons and learnt from tures. Cambridge (UK): Woodhead Publishing Ltd.
experience: (1) the case of FPSO’s. Proceedings of the 23rd Pil CK, Rausand M, Vatn J. 2008. Reliability assessment of reliq-
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic uefaction systems on LNG carriers. Reliab Eng Syst Saf.
Engineering; 2004. Jun 20–25; Vancouver, BC, Canada. 93:1345–1353.
Guedes Soares C. 1998. Risk and reliability in marine technology. Pintelon LM, Gelders LF. 1992. Maintenance management deci-
Rotterdam (The Netherlands): A.A. Balkema. sion making. Eur J Oper Res. 58:301–317.
Hamada K, Fujimoto Y, Shintaku E. 2002. Ship inspection sup- Prioletti M, Tobin EM 2008. Automating the surface force tank
port system using a product model. J Mar Sci Technol. 6: and void assessment process. Nav Eng J. 120(2):53–60.
205–215. Rao KD, Gopika V, Rao VVSS, Kushwaha HS, Verma AK,
Hatzigrigoris S, Moustaka D, Dalmyras F. 2008. Key performance Srividya A. 2009. Dynamic fault tree analysis using Monte
indicators in shipping operations – a drive for continual im- Carlo simulation in probabilistic safety assessment. Reliab
provement. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium Eng Syst Saf. 94:872–883.
on Ship Operations, Management and Economics; 2008, Sep RELEX reliability studio. Available from: http://www.
17–18; Athens, Greece. relexsoftware.co.uk/products/ftaeta.htm [2009 Mar 4].
HSE. 2001. Best practice for risk based inspection as a part of Repenning NP, Sterman JD. 2001. Nobody ever gets credit for
plant integrity management. Contract research report 363, fixing problems that never happened: creating and sustaining
HSE Books, Sudbury, UK. process involvement. Calif Manage Rev. 43(4):64–88.
HSE. 2004. Risk based inspection (RBI) – A risk based approach Rodseth OJ, Steinbach C, Mo B. 2007. The use of technical condi-
to planned plant inspection, HSE Books, Sudbury, UK. tion indices in ship maintenance planning and the monitoring
HSE. 2007. Key programme 3-asset integrity programme hand- of the ship’s safety condition. Proceedings of the International
book. London (UK): Hazardous Installations Directorate, Off- Symposium on Maritime, Safety, Security and Environmental
shore Division. Protection (SSE); 2007, Sep 20–21; Athens, Greece.
IACS. 2001. A guide to managing maintenance. IACS Rec. 74, Tang Z, Dugan JB. 2004. Minimal cut set/sequence generation
London, UK. for dynamic fault trees. Proceedings of the Reliability and
IMO. 1993. International Safety Management (ISM) code. Reso- Maintainability Symposium; 2004, Jan; Washington, DC, pp.
lution A.741, London, UK. 207–213.
IMO. 2002. Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) Thobem K-D, Homburg N, Gerriets A. 2008. MarLife – Devel-
for use in the IMO rule-making process. MSC/Circ 1023, opment of a life cycle management system for the maritime
London, UK. industry. Proceedings of the Ship Repair Technology (SRT)
Ships and Offshore Structures 357

Symposium; 2008, Sep 1–2; Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK, pp. US DoD. 1986. Reliability-centered maintenance. Requirements
98–105. for naval aircraft, weapon systems and support equipment.
Tsai Y-T, Wang K-S, Tsai L-C. 2004. A study of availability- MIL-STD 2173, Washington, DC.
centered preventive maintenance for multi-component sys- Villemeur A. 1992. Reliability, availability, maintainability and
tems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 84:261–270. safety assessment 2. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Turan O, Olcer A, Martin PL. 2003. Risk assessment of loss Wang G, Pran K, Sagvolden G, Havsgard GD, Jensen AE, Johnson
of life for fishing vessels in fuzzy environment. Saf Reliab. GA, Vohra ST. 2001. Ship hull structure monitoring using
23(2):19–39. fibre optic sensors. Smart Mater Struct. 10:472–478.
Turan O, Ölçer A, Lazakis I, Rigo P, Caprace JD. 2009. Mainte- Woodhouse J. 2006. Putting the total jigsaw puzzle together: PAS
nance/repair and production-oriented life cycle cost/earning 55 standard for the integrated, optimized management of as-
model for ship structural optimisation during conceptual sets. Kingsclere, UK: The Woodhouse Partnership Ltd.
design stage. J Ships Offshore Struct. 4(2):107–125. DOI: Yamamoto N, Koiwa T, Dobashi H, Muragishi O, Takaoka Y.
10.1080/17445300802564220. 2007. A study of a fatigue management system for long LNG
UKOOA. 2003. FPSO inspection repair & maintenance. Study into carriers using a new fatigue damage sensor. J Ships Offshore
best practice, Technical Report, United Kingdom Offshore Struct. 2(2):361–370.
Operators Association, May, London, UK. Zafiropoulos EP, Dialynas EN. 2005. Reliability prediction and
US DoD. 1980. Procedures for performing a Failure Mode, Ef- failure mode effects and criticality analysis (FMECA) of elec-
fects and Criticality Analysis. MIL-STD-1629A, Washington, tronic devices using fuzzy logic. Int J Qual Reliab Manage.
DC. 22(2):183–200.
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:57 1 November 2010

View publication stats