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.
✅ 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.