Is it more effective to detect a failure during a function test or while the device is in operation? When a failure remains hidden from operators and maintainers, the only practical solution is to conduct regular tests on the device or system. Operating the equipment is crucial for uncovering hidden failures that could impact performance.
It looks like the answer is leaning towards a positive outcome.
Hi Josh, I'm curious about how your failure detection methods compare to condition monitoring and predictive maintenance inspections. Can you explain the differences?
Functional testing is a crucial method to determine the operational status of equipment when needed. In this scenario, neither condition-based monitoring nor regular inspections can guarantee its functionality, making periodic function testing essential. The frequency of these tests can be adjusted based on the number of failures detected, as previously discussed. While I'm not an expert on this topic, I invite others to contribute their insights. Are there any innovative techniques for assessing the functionality of standby equipment that you or others would like to feature in the upcoming issue of UPTIME magazine?
Hello Terry and fellow forum members, Your question raises an interesting point about hidden failures in equipment. Hidden failures occur when an item is in a failed state but doesn't show any consequences until it is needed to perform a specific task. For example, a Safety Valve may fail due to internal fouling, but it won't cause any issues unless there is an overpressure situation. These failures can go unnoticed for extended periods, posing a risk to operations. The infamous BP Texas City incident serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of hidden failures. In this case, a level indicator had failed, leading the operator to overfill a vessel, resulting in a disaster. This is where failure finding tasks, such as FFT, play a crucial role in identifying potential failures before they escalate. Condition monitoring is effective for evident failures, allowing us to track degradation until the item is no longer functional. Tasks like vibration analysis and oil condition monitoring help to identify equipment deterioration. Evident failures are usually progressive, unlike hidden failures which are binary in nature. Preventative maintenance inspections, whether FFT or CBM activities, play a vital role in identifying potential issues. Monitoring internal conditions of critical components, like Gas Turbine blade roots or column trays, falls under FFT, while assessing pipe or vessel thickness using ultrasonics is considered CBM. I hope this explanation offers valuable insights for readers tackling similar challenges.
I absolutely agree with your point about the critical role of operation in uncovering hidden failures. Nothing can truly match real-world operating conditions in testing a device's true resilience. But speaking from a damage control and preventive perspective, I think detecting failure during a function test might be more beneficial. This approach not only minimizes risks associated with sudden breakdowns during operation but also improves overall operational efficiency and longevity of the device by allowing for timely maintenance and resolutions. It's a combination of the two (regular testing and operation) that ultimately helps keep the device in its prime.
I fully agree that regular system tests are instrumental in uncovering latent issues. But, parallely, in-situ performance monitoring while the device is in operation is vital as it provides real-time data that can reveal potential problems not identifiable during function tests. A blend of scheduled testing and live monitoring can ensure that potential failures are detected and rectified well ahead of time, optimizing the overall system performance and longevity.
Indeed, it's vital to balance both preemptive function testing and real-time operational monitoring. However, the most effective time to detect failures largely depends on the potential consequences of a malfunction. If it's a life-critical system like medical equipment or an aircraft, discovering failures during operation could be too late and catastrophic. Regular, rigorous testing is preferred in these cases. On the other hand, for less critical systems, running during operation may help uncover certain issues that are hard to simulate in test environments. Just remember that proactive maintenance is always a key player in preventing major failures.
I think it's a balance between both approaches; functional tests are great for catching systematic issues early on, but real-world operation often uncovers unexpected failures that can’t be replicated in a lab. Regular testing during operation, combined with good monitoring practices, can really help ensure reliability and catch those sneaky failures that might fly under the radar in a controlled test. It's all about being proactive and responsive!
I think both approaches have their merits, but detecting failures during function tests allows for more controlled environments where we can isolate issues without risking operational downtime. However, real-world operation can indeed reveal hidden failures that might not appear in a test setting, so I believe a combination of regular testing and ongoing monitoring is the best way to ensure reliability and maintain performance. Regular assessments and data from actual use can provide a fuller picture of the device's health.
While function tests are essential for catching obvious issues before deployment, uncovering hidden failures during actual operation is equally critical, as real-world usage often exposes vulnerabilities that static tests can't simulate. Regular operational checks can reveal performance dips or systemic errors that might not surface in controlled environments, highlighting the need for a balanced approach that incorporates both testing methods for optimal reliability.
✅ 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: 1. Q: What is the difference between detecting failures during a function test and while the device is in operation? Detecting failures during a function test involves testing the specific functions of a device under controlled conditions, while detecting failures while the device is in operation involves monitoring its performance during real-world usage.
Answer: Hidden failures can lead to unexpected malfunctions or breakdowns, causing disruptions in operations and potentially compromising safety. Detecting these failures early can prevent more serious issues from occurring.
Answer: Regular tests can simulate different operating conditions and stress factors, helping to reveal any hidden failures that may not be apparent during normal operation. This proactive approach allows for timely maintenance and troubleshooting.
Answer: Operating the equipment exposes it to real-world conditions, such as varying loads and environmental factors, which can trigger hidden failures that may not manifest during isolated function tests. This hands-on approach is essential for a comprehensive assessment of performance.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.