Are items 2 and 3 available in the OREDA report? Where can we find them?
Josh, when it comes to gaining insights from vendors and consultants, item (2) check with industry experts may provide valuable information. For item (3), consider consulting reputable sources such as IEEE, OREDA, and ESREDA for reliable data. However, it's important to note that generic data may not always be applicable to your specific operational needs. Talking directly with operators and maintainers can often yield more tailored and practical results. - V. Narayan.
Is there a lack of published generic degradation mechanisms and failure modes for item 2, similar to item 3? It is important to consider that these must be customized to the specific operating conditions of each site and taken with caution.
Hello Josh,
When analyzing failure rates in generic databases, it is important to note that they typically provide information on failures per million hours for specific failure modes. However, these databases do not always specify how the item degrades over time. This information can sometimes be inferred from the failure mode description.
Vendors may offer additional details on both degradation information and failure rates, but it is crucial to understand that the operating context plays a significant role in determining the degradation mechanism and failure rate. Generic failure rates can vary over a wide range, spanning potentially two to four decades, with a mean value as a reference point.
Given this wide range, many users tend to select the mean value, which may not accurately reflect their specific situation. In such cases, creating your own estimate can often be more reliable than relying on generic data.
It seems that we have veered off track from the original discussion on Fork Lift Trucks. Perhaps we should conclude our current discussion here and consider starting a new thread to delve into this further.
Regards,
V. Narayan
The early application of Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) is crucially linked to understanding equipment degradation mechanisms and failure modes. Without a solid maintenance program or work management system in place, analysis teams may resort to making educated guesses when creating a maintenance plan. While this is not necessarily detrimental, it may not result in an optimized program. The analysis team typically consists of operators, tradespeople, and repair specialists, rather than design engineers. A successful RCM analysis relies on the team's knowledge base, supplemented by good equipment history when necessary.
Utilizing RCM to establish a basic maintenance program for data collection and future optimization can be beneficial. Starting with the manufacturer's maintenance program for common equipment can provide a solid foundation for customization. If no program exists, this can serve as a starting point. Discussions on how maintenance professionals can accurately interpret database information, particularly regarding mean failure rates and conditional probabilities, are worth exploring in a new thread.
If you initiate a discussion on this topic, Canpeng, I would be highly interested in participating. I have some disagreements with certain repeated notions here, even years after the original report and the RCM Standard were published. One misconception that persists is the belief that RCM requires data to begin. In my view, this approach is not only incorrect but also unethical in modern maintenance practices. Many attempts to develop maintenance strategies based on historical data analysis have failed for various reasons. One major issue is the lack of data integrity in most systems globally. Even though data quality is improving in CMMS implementations, there are still practical challenges such as immediate fixes by technicians without proper documentation. This behavior creates gaps in even the most well-managed CMMS systems. Additionally, some failure modes that need analysis may not have occurred yet, undermining the understanding of degradation triggers. Moreover, serious incidents with operational, safety, or environmental impacts are rare occurrences, making comprehensive data analysis difficult. The Resnikov conundrum is often misinterpreted, emphasizing the need for a large amount of failure data. However, waiting for poor performance to collect data is deemed unethical and outdated. RCM and other reliability initiatives can be initiated without extensive data by leveraging knowledge and engineering judgment. While utilizing reliable data is beneficial, moving forward with initiatives based on professional expertise is crucial. In my opinion, RCM is not just another initiative but a fundamental approach that gives meaning to the broader Asset Management landscape.
In your message, you raised some key points that I'd like to address. It's important to recognize that many of the failure modes we need to analyze may not have happened yet. This is a crucial concept to grasp because assuming we have already encountered all potential issues is a false belief that can result in limited analysis. An Functional FMEA, for example, identifies failure modes regardless of whether they have occurred before or not. Therefore, the notion of deceiving ourselves is irrelevant.
Understanding the degradation mechanisms of items that have not failed within the timeframe of ownership is essential. Just because a component has not failed or even been created does not mean we cannot comprehend how it may deteriorate. This applies to equipment that is not entirely new in design or operation. The argument about degradation mechanisms mostly pertains to past practices rather than progressing forward.
It's worth noting that a significant percentage of failures are random or not related to age. While statistical data can provide insights, it's crucial to understand that randomness in failure events does not negate the presence of degradation mechanisms. Most failures exhibit some form of degradation, with few exceptions like bird strikes. It would be helpful if you could provide examples of failures that do not show degradation mechanisms rather than just making assertions.
Reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) and other initiatives do not necessarily require data to begin. These efforts can be initiated based on the expertise and judgment of the individuals involved. However, it's also important to consider the role of degradation and failure rates in the analysis process to ensure productivity. Engaging in RCM without a comprehensive understanding of degradation mechanisms and failure rates may not yield significant improvements and could result in wasted resources.
It's essential to leverage age-exploration and gather data from maintainers and operators to enhance the analysis process. While conducting RCM on all assets may seem appealing, it could lead to inefficient resource allocation and minimal returns. Prioritizing initiatives based on a thorough understanding of degradation mechanisms and failure rates is key to achieving meaningful results. Let's ensure that our efforts are focused on enhancing reliability and efficiency rather than enriching consultants.
Hello Vee, it's great to reconnect with you. I appreciate our different viewpoints and enjoy engaging in debates with you. I'd like to address some of the points you raised. In my previous comment, I mentioned that criticality regimes can often be perceived as a way to exploit clients for financial gain. While there are exceptions, in most cases, a simpler approach focused on prioritizing tasks would suffice for RCM sequencing. Your comment regarding Functional FMEA and the identification of failure modes, whether historical or anticipated, aligns with my perspective. The discussion aimed to debunk the notion that data is a prerequisite for conducting RCM analyses. Addressing your example of a Heat Exchanger, while it is true that understanding potential failure modes is crucial, it is not necessary to have full clarity before initiating RCM analysis. Failure modes may not always exhibit degradation signs, as some failures are triggered by factors beyond aging processes. Maintenance in RCM encompasses various actions beyond traditional tasks like greasing bearings, including operational procedures, asset planning, and maintenance activities. Failure modes may be influenced by external factors such as waste water composition, human error, or flaws in construction, all of which may not show gradual degradation. Electronics failures, such as SCADA or PLC cards, do not always manifest warning signs before failing. Age exploration is not always feasible due to economic constraints. While I do not advocate for applying RCM universally, I firmly believe it is a critical aspect of efficient asset management. I am willing to delve deeper into this topic based on my extensive experience, regardless of whether we agree.
Canpeng You highlighted the importance of manufacturers providing a maintenance program based on equipment history, often outlined in the user manual. In reality, strictly adhering to all manufacturer recommendations can be costly when dealing with multiple pieces of equipment. For instance, in my motor management class, students struggle to create a feasible maintenance plan using only the manufacturer's guidelines. These guidelines are usually the minimum requirements to maintain motor warranties. To tackle this issue, we shift our focus to Condition-Based Maintenance, incorporating tools like RCM and Backfit RCM. Students are then tasked with developing a maintenance program for an entire pumping system, which typically results in a more practical plan. The key lesson learned is not to solely rely on the manufacturer's program, but to incorporate historical data in its development and implement continuous improvement strategies like Backfit RCM for ongoing effectiveness evaluation and adjustments. Howard
Howard, I previously discussed the shortcomings of data-focused and historical methodologies. How can we address these challenges effectively? Assume we have a CMMS with reliable data integrity, a rare find in this field.
I completely agree with your insights on the importance of following owner's manuals for equipment maintenance. Adhering to the recommendations provided by vendors can result in cost savings and improved efficiency, especially when dealing with a large inventory of equipment.
Regarding the initial query about forklift maintenance, it's crucial to highlight the significance of understanding the specific goals and issues surrounding the equipment in question. Without clear information from MDeleo about the forklift's maintenance status, we can only speculate on the best course of action.
If a company is currently relying mainly on reactive maintenance with minimal preventive measures in place, implementing the vendor-recommended maintenance program can lead to immediate benefits. Starting with the basics outlined in the manual and using tools like Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) to address problematic areas can enhance overall performance. It's better to have some form of maintenance plan in place rather than none at all, especially in the short term.
Neglecting maintenance manuals can have serious repercussions, with potential failures costing companies significant amounts of money. Simple maintenance tasks such as lubrication, fittings, alignments, and inspections can prevent costly breakdowns if followed diligently. While it's important to tailor the maintenance program to suit specific needs, it's also essential to consider the recommendations provided by manufacturers as a starting point.
Some manufacturers offer comprehensive maintenance programs that are well-designed and tailored to specific operating contexts. These programs are often tied to performance assurance contracts and extended warranties, emphasizing the importance of adhering to vendor recommendations. While the ultimate decision lies with the purchaser on whether such programs add value, it's worth considering the benefits they may bring to equipment maintenance and longevity.
- 31-12-2024
- Rebecca Murphy
Canpeng has come to an agreement with Howard.
- 31-12-2024
- Yvonne Mitchell
Dear Daryl, Thank you for your thorough response on the 23rd. I will be addressing your points in a different order for clarity. Let's start by discussing the misconception surrounding the degradation argument. While it's true that many failure modes are linked to degradation triggers and warning signs, age is not always the determining factor. Electronics failures, such as SCADA or PLC cards, often occur without any clear signs of degradation. It's important to understand that degradation can happen for various reasons, not just age-related factors. For example, brittle fracture, strainer fouling, or catalyst decay can all lead to degradation in different ways.
In our discussion, we also touched upon the idea that data is not a prerequisite for implementing Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM). It's crucial to have a good understanding of the RCM process, equipment degradation mechanisms, failure modes, operational context, and consequences of failure before conducting an RCM analysis. These factors can be determined during the analysis itself, rather than gathering all information beforehand. If these essential points are not accessible, it may be best to reconsider initiating an RCM process.
When it comes to maintenance within RCM, it's more than just basic actions like greasing bearings or taking readings. It encompasses all activities necessary to maintain the asset within its operational context, including operational procedures, asset planning, and standard maintenance tasks.
There are failure modes that may not exhibit clear degradation signs, such as human errors in managing processes, poor installation or design, and various contributing factors to infant mortality areas. While criticality regimes may vary, a prioritization approach is often suitable for many RCM tasks. Addressing failures due to these factors can involve training, procedure updates, and other corrective measures.
In waste water treatment, failure modes can be driven by incoming substances on a daily basis. These substances may trigger degradation or instant failure, making it essential to consider them in the operational environment. Understanding the degradation mechanisms of these substances can help find solutions during the RCM process.
Overall, it's crucial to have a comprehensive understanding of all factors influencing asset reliability and failure modes before initiating an RCM analysis. By focusing on identifying degradation mechanisms and addressing failure causes, we can ensure a more effective and efficient maintenance strategy. Thank you for the insightful discussion. Regards, V.Narayan
Hey Vee, it's great to see progress in our discussion. I noticed that you quoted me slightly out of context. My original comment was about dispelling the myth that data is essential for starting RCM. Your response about Functional FMEA identifying failure modes, whether they have occurred in the past or not, seemed to miss the point. I believe that having access to data during an RCM analysis is crucial, rather than obtaining it before. I disagree with the notion that we need all data before starting RCM, as it is often not readily available for analysis. We need to be pragmatic and utilize the information we have to apply the method effectively.
Regarding failure modes, I believe that many failures are caused by poor operations or human error, rather than design flaws. Maintenance activities are essential for sustaining equipment functions, and RCM helps identify and address potential issues. I suggest referring to Diagram 17 of SAE JA1012 for effective decision-making during RCM analysis.
I agree that a Management Process is needed to address degradation issues, which can be identified during an RCM study. The decision chart in SAE JA1012 provides solutions for handling various failure modes. RCM is not solely about degradation-related failures but encompasses a wider range of maintenance activities.
In conclusion, while some failure modes may have clear degradation modes, others may be more challenging to address. RCM can assist in managing these issues effectively. It's important to consider industry-specific examples and potential failure scenarios to develop comprehensive maintenance strategies. Let's continue our debate and work towards finding common ground. Cheers!
When discussing forklifts, a company named Requip Systems, previously located in Alpharetta, Georgia, USA, had a specialized system for monitoring forklift usage, including run time, idle time, impacts, tips, and other important data. This data was transmitted wirelessly for easy monitoring. Despite my efforts to locate them through a Google search, I was unsuccessful. However, if you are able to find them, their product may be worth exploring. Good luck in your search!
I concur with Sam Pickens on the importance of conducting oil analysis and coolant checks according to manufacturer recommendations, especially when managing a fleet of forklifts. However, for battery-powered forklifts, this may not be a concern. During a reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) analysis, it may be necessary to reassess certain manufacturer-recommended tasks based on their value and frequency in your specific situation.
Thank you to everyone for your comments. I have gained a wealth of knowledge on RCM from reading your responses, more so than from any books I have come across. In reference to Canpeng's post on October 24th, we do indeed perform preventive maintenance on our forklifts. However, I suspect that there are certain tasks that may not provide significant value in terms of equipment reliability, and instead, result in excessive use of manhours and spare parts. I appreciate your insightful post. Harvey, I believe the information you provided could be very beneficial to me, and I plan to further explore it.
In a previous discussion initiated by Daryl and Vee, the topic of addressing 'bird strikes' and various issues through the RCM process was brought up. Identifying potential failures early on in the process or during maintenance effectiveness reviews is crucial in taking proactive measures. For instance, during a recent motor management survey I conducted at a facility, multiple variable frequency drives, motors, and electrical/electronic systems were damaged by a lightning strike. The solution involved ensuring equipment cleanliness to enhance resistance to failure and installing lightning arrestors in the distribution system as well as on remote equipment. Since these occurrences were recurring every two years, the return on investment was quick, with payback achieved within a few months.
When it comes to wastewater treatment, solid objects damaging pumping systems can be addressed through system redesign. Utilizing grinder pumps and incorporating strainers can help mitigate these issues. While it may not be possible to prevent all incidents, Condition-Based Maintenance, which revolves around RCM, goes beyond just detecting wear. It also entails identifying unique problems that can be resolved through various strategies, including system redesign, even in cases involving human error. Best regards, Howard.
Hi Howard, this contributes to the point I was trying to make. We decided against a physical asset redesign due to cost constraints, but we were able to resolve the issue. Thank you.
Dear Daryl,
It seems like we might be misaligned in our thinking. You seem to be attributing motives to me without fully understanding my viewpoints. For example, I don't intend to make derogatory comments about incidents like bird strikes; I merely use them as a reference point for a specific type of failure pattern. Let's delve into this further.
As usual, I'll address your statements by quoting them directly to ensure I'm not taking them out of context, as you've suggested. You mentioned that data is often unavailable for the analysis we need to conduct. In such cases, we must be practical and work with the information we have on hand.
I disagree with the notion that you must have all five points you mentioned before conducting an analysis. Firstly, I believe that we need to consider all types of data, not just reliability data. This includes process data, operational details, and reliability data from various sources, including insights from operators and maintainers.
Regarding Resnikoff's conundrum, I am familiar with it and agree with the principle. However, incidents typically have a chain of causes leading up to them. Before a major event like a Gas Compressor failure occurs, several smaller failures usually precede it. This is where the concept of Resnikoff's thesis may not directly apply.
In my experience, the value of an RCM analysis comes not just from FMEA but also from a deep understanding of reliability data. It's crucial to collect data at the failure mode level to conduct a comprehensive RCM study and make informed decisions.
While human errors and operational issues are significant contributors to failures, it's essential to differentiate between failure modes and their underlying causes. Including human errors in an RCM analysis is vital, but it doesn't mean they should be treated as failure modes.
In addressing the management of waste treatment plants, it's important to adhere to basic engineering principles rather than relying solely on RCM studies. These facilities should have mechanisms in place to monitor degradation rates without requiring extensive RCM analysis.
Let's ensure that our discussions remain focused on facts and examples rather than assumptions and judgments. I value your expertise and insights, and I believe our exchanges would be more productive if we maintain a respectful and factual dialogue.
Warm regards,
V. Narayan
- 31-12-2024
- Shawn Thompson
If you are having trouble locating information on Requip, a former CSI representative who joined Requip might be able to provide insights. Requip, a venture from the late 1990s, may have undergone changes since then. I can try to reach out to the ex-CSI rep for more details if you're interested. Let me know if you want me to follow up on this.
Vee, I am growing frustrated with the continuous attempt to diminish the valuable information I provide here. It's worth noting that I have addressed every challenge you've posed in our discussions, even when it seemed like you were running out of logical arguments. However, I don't plan on continuing this cycle as it only leads to more questions and accusations.
I want to address your concerns in no particular order:
1. You appear to have misunderstood my comments about Resnikov and the generation of failure data. This is a crucial aspect highlighted in the book "Mathematical Aspects of RCM," emphasizing that waiting for failure data before taking action is an unethical practice in modern asset management. My posts are all based on factual information derived from the research conducted by the RCM Analysts team under my supervision and the International RCM Analyst community.
2. I have already discussed the importance of data in our previous exchanges. While data like the one you mentioned is a good starting point, expert judgment from asset users and industry professionals is also valuable.
3. Contrary to your interpretation, I never claimed that 89% of failures in the NH report were solely age-related. Only 14% were random failures. The complexities of failure causes, such as race fatigue, highlight the need for a deeper understanding beyond simple age correlations.
4. Your remarks on waste water treatment plants overlook the human errors and unpredictable factors involved in these systems. Standard inlet screens are struggling to cope with increasing challenges, including changes due to climate variations and demand fluctuations. These complexities go beyond traditional asset management theories and require a holistic approach to address effectively.
5. Human errors in maintenance operations, poor installations, and procedural errors are significant factors that can lead to failures. Maintenance encompasses a wide range of activities beyond basic tasks like greasing motors, emphasizing the importance of understanding all aspects of asset operation.
6. Random failures, such as lightning strikes, are an essential consideration in reliability analysis and should not be dismissed. It's crucial to acknowledge the increasing complexity of assets and the impact of human actions on their operation.
In conclusion, asset management goes beyond preventing degradation and individual asset failures. It involves a comprehensive approach that considers operations, design, human factors, software performance, and data integration. Ignoring these aspects can limit the effectiveness of reliability analysis. Let's focus on addressing the core issues constructively and avoid misinterpretations or insults. Thank you for engaging in this discussion.
Hey everyone, can you please continue this conversation elsewhere? Thanks, Howard.
- 31-12-2024
- Victor Thompson
In difficult situations where you are surrounded by obstacles, it can be easy to lose sight of your initial goal. Remembering that your primary objective was to clear the swamp can help you navigate through the challenges of dealing with alligators.