There are numerous failure data analysis methods at our disposal today, but their effectiveness is often contingent on the frequency of failures within a particular equipment class or type. In essence, meaningful analyses can only be conducted when there is a pattern of recurring failures that a maintenance plan aims to address. This raises the question: what proactive maintenance and reliability analyses can be implemented to prevent these repeat failures from occurring in the first place?
Josh, you are correct in mentioning Resnikoff's principle. We strive to prevent failures that provide valuable failure data. However, it's essential to consider failures that impact overall system performance, even if they may not be obvious at the failure mode level. Take, for example, a fire detection system equipped with various sensors such as smoke, gas, and fire detectors. Each sensor may fail during routine testing. The data on these failures is crucial as a single sensor failure may not pose a significant risk, but frequent failures can drastically reduce system availability, leading to technical integrity issues. We conduct pre-inspection tests on Pressure Relief Valves to assess leakages and lifting capabilities. Similarly, we perform axial displacement bump tests on large rotating machinery and check calibration drifts on reverse current relays and overcurrent relays. Analyzing the data from these tests is essential for understanding the success rate and making informed decisions on maintenance frequencies. Recording information such as the 'as found' condition of equipment before and after cleaning, or the position of mating faces when opening a flange, is critical for reliability engineering. While many maintainers may overlook or underestimate the importance of such data, it plays a crucial role in optimizing maintenance schedules and improving overall efficiency. Rather than solely focusing on "wrench time," we should prioritize analyzing data to make informed decisions on maintenance frequencies and work volume. Setting the right direction is key before pursuing speed in maintenance tasks.
I appreciate your insights, Vee. It seems that Resniskof's principle may not always hold true in the context of failure detection tasks, making it an exception. I am also in agreement with the importance of utilizing as-found measurements during overhauls.
Josh, I'd like to address something with you regarding the usefulness of failure data. It's not just valuable for hidden failures. When monitoring a pump that starts vibrating excessively, possibly due to a bearing issue, consider the importance of recording the following: 1. Whether the inboard or outboard bearing was worn or seized 2. The likely cause of bearing damage 3. The running hours, dates, or age data for the bearing 4. Details of any unaffected bearings that were replaced, including their age If we maintain such records, we can conduct a Weibull analysis or calculate Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) at the bearing level. However, it's common for records in Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS) to be inadequate. This can lead to difficulties in performing Weibull analysis due to incomplete failure data. It's crucial to realize that the primary goal of data collection is to gather decision-quality information. To achieve this, data must be SMART (specific, measurable, action-oriented, realistic, and time-limited). The individuals inputting data must understand the intended use of the information, as this is fundamental to a high-quality data collection system.
I completely agree with your statement, but I would like some clarification. The analyses such as MTBF and Weibull are typically reactive in nature, relying on failure data that the operational and maintenance plan is designed to detect. These reactive analyses can be highly beneficial if the data collected is of a high quality and plentiful. I am concerned about whether we will have enough quality data for analysis if the maintenance and operational program is effective. In a separate discussion, someone mentioned that it is tempting to determine a failure pattern based on just three data points. In situations where there is a lack of abundant and high-quality data, such as in a new or poorly documented plant, what course of action should be taken?
Josh, you've raised some important questions that I've numbered for easy reference. Let's delve into them. Firstly, the effectiveness of our maintenance and operational program will greatly impact the quality of data for analysis. Data quality hinges on factors like employee motivation, alignment with goals, and understanding of data utilization. It's crucial for the workforce to be invested in achieving top-notch performance, not just the management. In scenarios where we may lack abundant quality data, such as in new plants or plants with inadequate data collection, there are strategies we can employ. For instance, if our maintenance and operations are running smoothly, we may encounter minimal data points for analysis. In such cases, conducting mini-RCAs for each failure can be a more practical approach than statistical analysis. When it comes to deriving failure patterns, it's important to note that this shouldn't be the end goal unless you're in a research setting. Instead, the focus should be on obtaining failure distributions or probability density functions (pdfs) from mathematical expressions that define these patterns. While this process can be complex, it's essential for making informed decisions regarding maintenance frequency. In situations where data is scarce, there are ways to work around this limitation. By approximating values such as Mean Time Between Failures (MTBFs) within an order of magnitude, maintenance frequency decisions can still be made effectively. It's not necessary for these values to be precise to decimal places, as there is a logarithmic relationship at play. Utilizing resources like OREDA, ESREDA, IEEE, and seeking advice from experienced professionals can help in making informed estimations. In conclusion, adaptability and resourcefulness are key in addressing data limitations and making informed decisions in maintenance and operational scenarios.
It's a great point you make about the need for recurring failures to conduct meaningful analyses. In terms of proactive approaches, adopting a Predictive Maintenance (PdM) approach can be quite effective. This strategy involves routinely monitoring equipment conditions to catch anomalies and address them before they result in significant failures. Data-driven techniques, like machine learning and AI, can be employed to predict equipment failure based on patterns and trends, allowing issues to be dealt with even before they surface. It's an advancement from reactive to proactive measures, aiming to substantially minimize repeat failures.
I completely agree that the key to effective maintenance and reliability lies in proactive strategies. Predictive maintenance, for instance, utilizes various data analytics to predict equipment problems before they happen. Techniques like vibration analysis, infrared thermography, and oil analysis can help identify early signs of equipment deterioration. With these methods, we can address potential issues early on, reducing repeat failure frequency drastically. Integration of modern technologies like IoT and AI can further enhance these techniques, making failure prediction more accurate, thereby improving equipment reliability.
In my experience, predictive maintenance is a great way to proactively prevent repeat failures. This method involves using advanced tools and technologies such as IoT sensors, AI, or machine learning to monitor the condition of equipment and predict potential issues before they occur. This allows you to address failures before they become recurrent, increase overall equipment effectiveness, and potentially save substantial costs related to downtime and repair. In essence, we're evolving from a reactive stance to a more anticipated, proactive approach.
✅ 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: - Some examples of proactive maintenance strategies include predictive maintenance through condition monitoring, preventive maintenance based on equipment manufacturer recommendations, reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) analysis, and failure mode effects analysis (FMEA).
Answer: - Reliability analyses such as Root Cause Analysis (RCA) can help identify the underlying reasons for failures and address them proactively to prevent future occurrences. By understanding failure modes and their effects, organizations can implement targeted maintenance strategies to enhance equipment reliability.
Answer: - Establishing a pattern of recurring failures is crucial for conducting effective reliability analyses. Without a clear understanding of the frequency and nature of failures, it becomes challenging to implement tailored maintenance strategies that address the root causes of these failures and prevent them from reoccurring.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.