In a separate discussion on PMO 2000, Steve Turner expressed his belief that the choice between PF interval and RBI methods, or a combination of both, is crucial. He emphasized the importance of aligning the interval selection methods with the client's preferences. In response to a request for clarification, a new thread on task intervals was initiated. Questions were posed to Steve regarding his approach to determining the P-F interval and the RBI method he mentioned. The discrepancy between client-selected interval methods and existing ones was also addressed. This discussion aims to shed light on these topics and welcomes input from members, particularly Steve Turner, to share their insights and expertise.
Here are some insights into your inquiries: 1. The availability of published P-F curve data is limited. The application of a P-F curve is more of a theoretical concept rather than a definitive rule due to the numerous factors and variables involved in equipment reliability. However, the P-F curve for bearings is relatively well-understood, particularly in relation to vibration analysis technology. In cases of imminent component failures, mechanics may resort to strategies such as greasing bearing cavities to extend their lifespan until a replacement can be made. This process often involves making educated guesses or rough estimates on the remaining lifespan of the component. 2. Upon conducting a search for "Reliability RBI method," results primarily indicated references to Risk Based Inspection methodologies. 3. Many maintenance programs tend to remain stagnant over time. While some equipment owners view their preventive maintenance (PM) programs as infallible, the reality is that these programs are often the result of trial and error during the initial setup phase. It is not uncommon for PM frequencies to evolve as equipment usage patterns and maintenance needs change. By challenging existing techniques and frequencies, organizations can stimulate discussions and improvements in their maintenance practices. Ultimately, PM calendar frequencies are mere estimates, and equipment reliability is primarily influenced by usage rather than adherence to preset maintenance schedules.
When it comes to determining the P-F interval, my approach focuses on consulting industry experts rather than relying solely on hard data. In the aviation sector, there is a wealth of information available on critical crack lengths and crack growth rates, thanks to various structural methods, models, tests, and field data. However, outside of aviation, such detailed data is scarce. To estimate the P-F interval, I ask knowledgeable individuals questions like how frequently inspections should be conducted to prevent component failure without prior knowledge. Another important query pertains to the acceptable timeframe for addressing leaks or deteriorating conditions. By gathering insights from experienced professionals who understand equipment deterioration, I aim to establish a rough timeframe for maintenance actions, whether it be in hours, shifts, days, weeks, or months. It's important to note that the threshold for intervention (F) may differ based on the equipment in question. For instance, in the case of a gearbox, the trigger for maintenance could be when it begins making unusual noises and requires a costly overhaul, rather than waiting until it seizes up. This holistic approach allows me to determine lead times for planning repairs and setting task intervals effectively.
When implementing the RBI method, the first step is to involve experts who are knowledgeable about the equipment and common failure mechanisms. They assess the likelihood of failure and its potential consequences within a specific timeframe. Inspection methods are determined based on the risks associated with experts' errors and the resulting consequences. Intervals for high consequence failures are set more cautiously compared to low consequence failures.
Steve, I completely understand your perspective on P-F interval determination, but I differ on RBI methods. According to your statement, "High consequence means the intervals are set more conservatively than low consequence failures." In line with API 580/581 guidelines, the risk level is determined by Probability x Consequence AND a Confidence Rating, rather than Consequence alone. This approach is reminiscent of FMECA methodology. Contrastingly, RCM takes a different approach, considering both Consequence and the visibility of failure. Some argue that survival probability is crucial and strive to gather supporting data, whether quantitatively or qualitatively. While a separate 'Confidence Rating' is not explicitly specified or utilized, all analytical methods involve specialists who understand the equipment and failure mechanisms. I am particularly interested in the specific RBI methods you suggested for PMO 2000. Could you provide a few steps to exemplify your point?
In the realm of risk assessment, the combination of Probability and Consequence, along with a Confidence Rating, play a crucial role in determining the overall risk level according to API 580/581 guidelines. This approach closely mirrors that of FMECA methodology. The importance of considering all three factors, rather than just Consequence alone, cannot be overstated. I concur with your perspective on this, Vee.
While I completely agree with Steve that aligning PMO strategies with the client's preferences is crucial, it's also important to remember that these preferences may not always take into account the technical nuances of the task. In these situations, it's up to us, the PMO professionals, to patiently explain why a particular method might be more appropriate than the one they had in mind. For example, RBI tends to be beneficial in terms of cost-effectiveness and risk management, while P-F interval method might provide better system reliability. A detailed cost-benefit analysis and open communication with the client can ensure that we select the most efficient method that also meets the client's expectations.
I agree with Steve's perspective that the decision between PF interval and RBI methods is of utmost importance. In many ways, this choice is instrumental in shaping the direction of a project. However, I'd also like to add that this decision should not only rely on client preferences. It's essential to consider the specific requirements and constraints of the project, as different methods may be better suited for different scenarios. While addressing the discrepancy between client-selected methods and existing ones is important, we need to ensure that the selected method is the best fit for the project at hand. Looking forward to hearing more about Steve's approach to this issue.
I'm glad we're diving deeper into this topic as the choice of interval methods can greatly impact maintenance strategies. From my experience, the key to implementing either P-F interval or RBI (Risk-Based Inspection) lies in understanding the client’s operational readiness and risk tolerance. If the client is leaning towards preventive actions and can afford frequent maintenance checks, a P-F interval might be more suitable. However, for those who prefer to prioritize tasks based on the potential risks and consequences, RBI would be a better fit. I'm interested to hear Steve's perspective on how he navigates these client preferences.
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Answer: - The choice between PF intervals and RBI methods, or a combination of both, is crucial in asset management as it impacts maintenance strategies and overall equipment reliability.
Answer: - Steve Turner emphasized aligning interval selection methods with client preferences to ensure that maintenance strategies meet the client's specific needs and objectives.
Answer: - Steve Turner's approach to determining the P-F interval and the RBI method involves considering factors such as equipment criticality, failure modes, and operational context to establish effective maintenance intervals.
Answer: - Discrepancies between client-selected interval methods and existing ones can be addressed through open communication, data analysis, and collaboration to find common ground and optimize maintenance strategies for improved asset reliability.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.