The Vision

In the year 2015, on some future naval platformÐperhaps USS BLUE SKYÐa machine will begin to falter in one of its pre-defined failure modes. This automatically will trigger a series of events to correct the failure and update the mission-readiness status of the platform in real-time. The "trigger" for some failure modes will, in fact, precede the actual functional failure, thus allowing for mitigating action to prevent an unplanned failure. This includes the pre-ordering of parts to complete necessary (and timely) maintenance without the inccurring of unnecessary logistics delays.

The type of early warning outlined for the futuristic USS BLUE SKY also will allow a commander to assess the potential risk of the impending failure against the mission profile. That's because a pre-validated, engineered work-order candidate, residing in a current or future database, will contain the required configuration data to identify the parts and tools necessary to accomplish the repair. In turn, the ship that work-order candidate is on will no longer be required to carry a large load of contingency spare parts, since the trigger mechanism will provide ample lead time for those parts to be put into the supply chain.

Building blocks for the adjacent sidebar's "BLUE SKY" vision of the future are in-place now—yet, much still remains to be done. Why should we do it?

The answer lies in existing Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) policy and validated requirements for future naval platforms. Navy and and Department of Defense (DoD) initiatives, such as SHIPMAIN, CBM Plus, Engineering for Reduced Maintenance, Sense and Respond Logistics, Focused Logistics, and various Future Naval Capabilities provide vehicles and, in some cases, resources to achieve this future vision.

The Navy's Integrated Condition Assessment System (ICAS), as the program of record for shipboard machinery condition monitoring, provides the technology insertion opportunity to advance CBM and Sense and Respond capability. There is no silver bullet in any of the aforementioned efforts. Acquisition managers and technical warrant holders need to skillfully steer the work of these diverse, but related efforts, and harvest the offerings that support the requirements. There have been and will be successes to build upon, and there will be disappointments along the way. With no ready-made solutions available, there needs to be continued investment, engineering and trials, demonstrations and incremental fielding of advances via spiral development. The advances that are fielded will come largely from operating within the current framework of programs, organizations and policies.

Background
The case for condition-based maintenance (CBM) has been made. CNO effectively ended any debate in 1998 by issuing OPNAVINST 4790.16 (Condition Based Maintenance Policy). This instruction extended the more limited 1992 CBM directive (OPNAVINST 4700.7J) by mandating CBM application to all naval platforms.

The intelligent application of sensing, processing and decision support technologies has a significant role in supporting Navy CBM policy. In the intervening years, there has been significant R&D investment in enabling technology, resulting in incremental improvement of fielded technologies and the associated maintenance and logistics applications, including, but not limited to, the previously referenced ICAS, the shipboard Preventive Maintenance System (PMS) Scheduler (SKED) and the Organizational Maintenance Management System—Next Generation (OMMS-NG). What has been missing is a tight integration between systems and linkage to supporting logistics and supply chain applications.

Navy enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation is on the horizon. However, as of this writing, (October 2005), there is no afloat ERP template.

Application integration, to include available commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products through development of software adapters, provides the vehicle to improve effectiveness and efficiency of today's legacy applications onboard fielded platforms. Integration also will provide a stepping stone to the future of seamless information exchange among maintenance, logistics and operational readiness applications, both afloat and ashore.

Development and acquisition of CBM-enabling technologies must follow the same reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) engineering principles of applicability and effectiveness as those used for development of maintenance requirements and tasks. A key concept is illustrated in Fig. 1, which plots resistance to failure versus operating age. In summary, a CBM enabling technology needs to be able to sufficiently detect the onset of a dominant failure mode (Potential Failure) in advance to prevent Functional Failure. In cases where this may not be possibleÐeither due to the nature of the failure and/or limitations of the technologyÐthere may still be value in automating the detection of a failure for automated generation of a pre-defined work-order candidate.

Assuming, first, that RCM principles are employed for the identification of dominant failure modes to which enabling CBM technology can be applied, and second, that the technology being inserted is both applicable and effective, other issues need to be considered. Most significantly among these are information technology (IT) interface requirements and bandwidth limitations.

The NAVSUP MHM – S&RL initiative
As sponsored by the Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP), the Machinery Health Monitoring, Sense and Respond Logistics (MHM – S&RL) system was de-signed to enable and demonstrate auto-nomous initiation of a technically validated, pre-formatted work-order candidate, populated with associated parts and related material. The work order trigger is based on the automated recognition and validation of a predefined failure mode on a machine of interest, resulting in actionable information being passed up-line to legacy maintenance and logistics systems.

MHM-S&RL is focused on demonstrating this capability on the GSS 200 STAR Low Pressure Air Compressor (LPAC), a Navy design manufactured by both Dresser-Rand and Rix Industries. Failure modes are detected and processed using RLW Inc.'s S2NAP technology interfaced with legacy shipboard applications (ICAS, PMS SKED, and NTCSS suite). MIMOSA-based software adapter interfaces were developed under this project between S2NAP and ICAS, as well as between ICAS and PMS SKED.

The team
MHM – S&RL interfaces with multiple applications and networks. No single entity has all of the required expertise to develop the technology and interfaces. Under sponsorship of NAVSUP's Command Science Advisor, the engineering group RLW assembled a multi-disciplinary team as shown in Table 1.

Additionally, by way of acknowledgement, the Navy organizations listed in Table 2 also are involved in this initiative, either by lending support, defining requirements or providing data, technical reviews and comments in support of project objectives. Table 2 illustrates the imperative to involve the entire spectrum of fleet, maintenance and logistics organizations in development and demonstration projects such as MHM – S&RL.

The system
The MHM – S&RL System is a technology development and applications integration effort in support of Navy CBM. It is designed to automatically generate work-order candidates based on objective evidence of need for maintenance, as determined by intelligent machine monitoring.

For a planned shipboard implementation, machine data for two individual LPACs in the same machinery space will be monitored by the S2NAP- embedded software device via both sensors and the LPACs' control system. A health assessment is made based on this data, and if a predefined failure mode is recognized, an appropriate fault message is sent upstream, either using wireless 802.11b or wired Ethernet to ICAS. Raw sensor data also is passed to ICAS for display and trending. ICAS in turn, via an API, triggers a pre-formatted work-order candidate in OMMS NG, complete with required parts and the material (e.g., tools and consumables) necessary to effect the repair and cue the applicable work center via the SKED application utilizing the MIMOSA software adapter.

The dominant, most-likely-to-occur, failure modes of the STAR LPAC identified by the MHM – S&RL System were determined through detailed analysis of 3-M History, a recent Type Commander Air Compressor Reliability Study and existing integrated class maintenance plan (ICMP) "Qualified" repair tasks (Q tasks). These failure modes were then validated through interviews with auxiliary-machinery work-center sailors aboard the USS BATAAN (LHD-5). The failure modes of interest are listed in Table 3.

Each failure mode of interest (as listed in Table 3) is associated with current ICMP tasks and/or maintenance requirement cards (MRCs). Among the factors in their selection was consideration of the capability to realistically simulate occurrence of the failure in a demonstration environment. If a failure mode cannot be simulated, then there is little point in designing that failure into the demonstration system. This is a fact of life for development and demonstration of machinery health monitoring capabilities.

System operation
The MHM – S&RL System will communicate failure data from the S2NAP, integrated with the LPACs, to the ship's Fiber Optic Data Multiplexing System (FODMS) Local Area Network (LAN), either via wired (Ethernet) or wireless (802.11b). Any wireless solution will incorporate the FIPS-140-2 security standard.

The MHM – S&RL System also is applying the Machinery Information Management Open Systems Alliance (MIMOSA) standard as a software interface adapter to legacy applications onboard the ship for this demonstration. Specifically, the MIMOSA-based software adapter will enable interfacing between the S2NAP device and ICAS, as well as between the ICAS and SKED applications.

The demonstration system is currently operational at the Land Based Engineering Site (LBES) in Philadelphia, PA. The initiative will conclude with a shipboard test in Spring of 2006, potentially associated with an ongoing Distance Support remote monitoring experimentation initiative. In order to demonstrate the system, additional hardware will be installed onboard ship, along with required software interfaces.

In the Main Engine Room #2 (MER2), additional sensors (pressure sensors and accelerometers) and S2NAP devices will be installed on two LPACs (LPAC #2 and LPAC #3). The S2NAP will receive data directly from these added sensors, as well as from the LPACs' Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). A network access device will be located in MER2 connected to the ship's FODMS network to enable communications with ICAS. This network device will either be a wireless access point or an Ethernet switch, depending on the configuration allowed by the ship.

A translator is used to pass data between the Linux-based S2NAP device and Windows-based shipboard applications. This device is being added to avoid software installations on other shipboard computers for this demonstration which would otherwise be required to facilitate communications; the translator allows for all of the software to reside on a single computer. This device can be located anywhere on the FODMS network. Its eventual location will be determined in consultation with the cognizant installation authority.

The flow of data from the machine through legacy shipboard applications is shown in Fig. 2, which reflects the network architecture that will be implemented at the LBES in preparation for the shipboard demonstration.

The SKED application currently resides on the IT21 network and is accessible via ICAS. This is the only bridge between the FODMS and the IT21 LANs.

Antech Systems developed a demonstration release of SKED 3.1 to support this project. A pre-defined set of 'U-Cards' (standardized "Unscheduled Maintenance" cards emulating current MRCs) corresponding with the principal failure modes was developed by NAVSEALOGCEN (Norfolk Detachment). The U-Cards are integrated into the demonstration version of the SKED application. They will be triggered upon receipt of appropriate information from ICAS through the MIMOSA interface.

The U-Cards also will identify parts and material (e.g., consumables and tools) required to complete each specific maintenance task. In addition to U-Cards, the system will trigger a pre-defined standardized work-order candidate (Form 4790-2K) for the applicable failure mode. This work-order candidate will then be routed to the Current Ships Maintenance Project (CSMP) through the OMMS-NG application.

A MIMOSA interface to ICAS has been implemented in order to have failure modes that are already recognized by ICAS (i.e., clogged water injection filter – FM1, and fouled heat exchanger – FM10) passed by ICAS to SKED. Remaining failure modes (FM2-FM9) recognized by S2NAP then will be passed to ICAS for real-time display and for work -ordercandidate triggering in OMMS NG.

Projected benefits
There are many potential benefits to be obtained from the MHM – S&RL project. On the maintenance side, the time required for watch standers to take equipment readings will either be eliminated or substantially reduced by the application of sensors and remote monitoring. Additionally, some level of reduction is anticipated in the amount of scheduled (planned) maintenance required for the target equipment. There also will be some time savings from the automatic generation and management of 3-M documentation.

On the supply side, the obvious benefit is that costly investment in large quantities of onboard spare parts can potentially be reduced. With planned maintenance reduced, the amount of parts and tools required to accomplish scheduled maintenance actions should also decrease.

Finally, the amount of time required by shipboard maintenance and supply personnel to conduct technical research to identify required repair parts will diminish as this information is automatically provided on the U-Card associated with the pre-defined failure mode.

To summarize
At time of publication, this project is in the land-based demo phase. The associated Ship Change Documentation (SCD #558) is in the SHIPMAIN process for technical evaluation and the System Security Authorization Agreement (SSAA) process has been initiated. Additionally, the S2NAP platform has been evaluated for suitability to support the Distance Support initiative and is in the FIPS 140-2 validation process for wireless implementation.

Future enhancements to this system planned for FY06 include: incorporating the evolving Ships' Material Condition Model or "Corona Model"Ð Functional Index Numbers (FINs) and Equipment Operational Capability (EOC) values for equipments and failure modes; and follow-up fleet demonstration onboard an acquisition platform, most likely in the LPD-17 class. Furthermore, integration with ICAS's Integrated Performance Analysis Reports (IPARs) will be explored.

Ship configuration data matters. The capability described here is dependent on accurate configuration data from hull to hull. We know that the required level of accuracy does not exist, today. Perhaps this level of accuracy will become available through efforts such as Navy ERP and development of the Corona model.

Network security is a big deal – and getting bigger. The Distance Support Innovation Lab at Naval Surface Warfare Center,, Crane Division, provided invaluable assistance in running a security vulnerability assessment on the S2NAP platform. The platform was subsequently tweaked, and it is now deemed suitable for shipboard network implementation. In general, advances made and lessons learned under projects like this will be made available to progressive programs such as the DDG Modernization Program, the ICAS Technology Refresh initiative, and acquisition (transformation) programs such as LPD-17, LCS, DD(X) and Navy ERP.

Tightly coupling maintenance requirements and readiness imperatives with the supporting supply chain is a future state that is achievable through continued investment, experimentation, demonstration and fielding of enabling technologies. By employing and leveraging emerging technology, visions such as BLUE SKY can evolve into reality.

References

1. "Condition Based Maintenance for Shipboard Machinery," G. William Nickerson. Proceedings of the 44th Meeting of the Machinery Failures Prevention Group, 1990.
2. Condition Based Maintenance Policy, OPNAVINST 4790.16 (Washington DC: Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, 1998).
3. "Applying RCM Principles in the Selection of CBM-Enabling Technologies," Kenneth S. Jacobs. Proceedings of the Annual DoD Maintenance Symposium, 1999.
4. "Planned Maintenance System: Development of Maintenance Requirements Cards," Maintnance Index Pages and Associated Documentation, Mil-P-24534(Navy), 1985.
5. "Taking the Integrated Condition Assessment System to the Year 2010, " Michael DiUlio, Chris Savage, Brian Finley, Eric Schneider. Proceedings from Thirteenth International Ship Control Systems Symposium (SCSS) in Orlando, FL, April 2003.
6. "Enterprise Remote Monitoring (ICAS & Distance Support), Tomorrow's Vision Being Executed Every Day." Christopher Savage, Michael DiUlio, Brian Finley, Ken Krooner, Pete Martinez, Pat Horton. Proceedings from 2005 ASNE Fleet Maintenance Symposium.

Joe Gaines is currently the Office of Naval Research (ONR) Science Advisor to the Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP). In this capacity, he is the senior representative of the Commander, RADM Daniel H. Stone, for all Science and Technology (S&T) issues. He also ia responsible for the Navy Logistics Productivity Program (a logistics R&D program) and the NAVSUP Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. Gaines is the command's representative to the Virtual SYSCOM Systems Engineering Steering Group and Technical Authority Board. He established the Logistics R&D Executive Steering Group at NAVSUP with senior leadership representation from across the NAVSUP enterprise. E-mail: joe.gaines@navy.mil

Peter J. Sisa joined RLW, Inc., a small business specializing in embedded software solutions, in May 2004. Today, he manages the NAVSUP sponsored S2NAP Machinery Health Monitoring Sense & Respond Logistics initiative for RLW, in addition to the related "Smart Spaces" Small Business Innovative Research project. He recently has served as a representative on the Office of the Secretary of Defense's CBM Plus working group – representing DD(X) as a Navy's Ôselect' platform for CBM capabilities. Prior to joining RLW, Sisa, held a number of positions with American Management System, in Fairfax VA, He retired from naval service in 1997, with extensive operational and staff experience, including duty on Chief of Naval Operations staff and with the Office of Naval Research. He holds a B.S. from the U.S. Naval Academy and an MPA from Troy State University. E-mail: PSisa@rlwinc.com

AUTHORINFO-NONSTAFF

Many process plants assume that better maintenance strategies will lead to higher equipment reliability. Very often, the primary focus of these strategies is to avoid unnecessary oil changes or to optimize compressor overhauls and the pursuit of other preventive measures. Similarly, many of these strategies hope to help companies avoid equipment damage and costly production interruptions by doing appropriate maintenance "just-in-time."

While these are commendable goals, they do not address the constraints that are built into vast quantities of equipment that incorporate less-than-optimized components. Nor do such strategies remedy the numerous random failures that strain the maintenance budgets throughout industry today.

Staffed by harried employees, shops frequently become adept only at replacing parts in kind. Likewise, relatively few companies position themselves to systematically implement maintenance avoidance measures. We know that, in existing plants and with few exceptions, failure avoidance would be far more profitable than implementing optimized maintenance timing on non-optimized equipment. In new equipment procurement situations, utilizing specifications that eliminate the very components that risk causing frequent maintenance and downtime would provide far greater returns on the incremental investment than fine-tuning an asset management or related program.

Take, for example, the many operating plants today with literally hundreds of thousands of pumps that were purchased from the lowest bidders. It is wistful thinking to expect that all components in these lowest-cost machines represent best-available technology. In the age of downsizing, rightsizing and outsourcing, how realistic is it to assume that all of the various equipment manufacturers and vendors employ seasoned, well-versed, well-read subject matter experts?

Suppose a manufacturer recently sold less-than-optimum equipment. Knowing that we live in a litigious environment, would we really expect this manufacturer to concede that he/she continues to make, sell or market non-optimized equipment or components? If the answer is no, then it is clear that the user/purchaser has to be the driver for identifying and implementing equipment upgrades.

Trends that lead nowhere vs. trends for best-of-class performers
At the risk of inviting irate responses from benchmarking companies, we contend that the trend towards increased benchmarking will, ultimately, add little value to many enterprises. A recently published article mentioned four so-called perspectives, labeling them Operations, Reliability, Work Management and Safety & Environmental. Goals were specified for each and 60 different key performance indicators (KPIs) were listed as useful for managing risk and improving profitability.

At best, each one of those 60 benchmarks may give plants an indication of where they are in the game. Yet, not any of these listings specified even one of the many precise steps that really represent lasting improvement. What good is it to tell a facility it is re-working too many pumps, if nobody is able to explain the root cause reasons for this "excessive re-working" at that plant? While it's nice to point out the fact that "there must be a problem somewhere," far more value would be derived by adequately describing the root causes and solutions.

Today, truly best-of-class performers use asset management and streamlined maintenance strategies as "icing on the cake." They realize that these approaches add value only if the basics are in place and being practiced with consistency and forethought. As an example, best-of-class owner/purchasers are not likely to buy from the lowest bidder. They generally look at several competing offers and carefully examine which of them have "designed out" maintenance and failure risk. Best-of-class companies rarely, if ever, enter into lopsided alliances with suppliers. They will always use well-thought-out specifications that clearly describe and explain specific "upgraded" component materials, configurations, lubricant application methods, etc. Thus, the most important attribute of true best-in-class performers is their ability to provide authoritative answers to two questions:

1. Can a component be upgraded to resist failure?
2. If upgrading is feasible, is it also economically justified?

These are primary. . . these are the basics. Everything else is of lesser importance. Best-of-class performers know this to be a fact and are organized accordingly. Moreover, they are staffed so as to have a person—a designated and responsible individual—who can answer these two questions quickly and with great accuracy.

Why upgrading is often best
Unfortunately, even now, buying from the lowest bidder remains the predominant procurement mode. Equally disappointing is the fact that those responsible for shortsighted decisions are often the ones that block access to systematic failure-avoidance measures. Consequently, even the otherwise desirable life cycle costing (LCC) methodology is an academic exercise unless the person doing the comparison is in a position to answer the two previously-asked questions.

A facility which assumes that improvement initiatives spring forth from the original equipment manufacturer, or OEM, often will be disappointed. When, in 1986, a representative of a prominent pump manufacturer was asked why its designers didn't engineer better pumps, the answer was that most customers selected pumps primarily based on cost and schedule. Accordingly, sales success was linked to cost and schedule, not long-term quality.

More recently, at a symposium in Houston, another pump manufacturer claimed that general-purpose pumps were designed to be overhauled or repaired every 18 months. To keep costs low, two pump manufacturers said they couldn't afford to upgrade their pumps.

And, just last spring, at the 2005 NPRA Maintenance and Reliability Conference in New Orleans, several panel members touted key performance indicators that were largely based on not having production interruptions. To this day, a large number of managers and reliability engineers seem to be unconcerned if their pumps fail far more frequently than those at a competitor's facility. The thought was even expressed that keeping pump failures at (relatively) high levels was one of the "safeguards" preventing upper-level managers from cutting the maintenance budget.

At the same NPRA conference we met with a presenter of asset management strategies. We attempted to argue the monetary merit of failure reductions by selective upgrading. When the speaker suggested that his organization was very effective in identifying and recommending the various upgrade options, we challenged his claims. We have yet to find asset management consulting companies that identify the needed upgrade measures to the degree of detail urgently needed by industry.

In support of our beliefs, we cited lube application in pumps as one of the many examples of industry not even being made aware of tangible reliability risks. This example deals with the use of oil rings in literally millions of equipment bearing housings, most of them in centrifugal pumps. Recall that the entire issue centers on our contention that industry is losing knowledge and application of the basics. Changing or fine-tuning management approaches will not bear the promised fruits unless the approaches are interwoven with systematic upgrade efforts. The following cases illustrate the type of dilemma with which industry is wrestling.

Case #1: Lifting oil with bicycle chains
While working with a client to determine the root causes of sludge in an oil sump and bearing failure in a pump, an experienced consultant (who was formerly employed as director of new pumping machinery development for two noted manufacturers) found a bicycle chain in the bearing housing. Its purpose, of course, was to feed lube oil to the bearings. Chances are that the bearing housing was simply too narrow to accommodate oil rings or similar means of lube application—a serious reliability risk.

When the consultant questioned the appropriateness of using a bicycle chain in this manner, the pump manufacturer objected to the criticism and claimed "that's the way we generally do it. . .we hear no complaints." Basic science, or the most elementary application of engineering formulas, though, would show that the chain would have no chance of moving at the peripheral speed of the shaft at anything other than—for process pumps—unusually slow speeds.

In most instances, the bicycle chain would slip relative to the shaft surface and, by virtue of the total downward-acting weight of the heavy chain, the side plates of the links would rub on the shaft. Wear-related oil contamination would almost certainly result, as was found and documented by the consultant. All of this begs the question: Would your asset management consultants have the basic knowledge to alert you to this? Or would your consultants limit their contribution to the rather obvious, i.e. telling you that you're spending too much money on maintenance, and that you have "X% more" or "Y% less" shop backlog than the industry-recommended average? That would be nice to know, but where's the real solution?

Case #2: The limitations of oil rings
Pump bearings in best-of-class U.S. oil refineries fail—on average—every 10 years. In certain other U.S. oil refineries, the failure rate is three times higher, with the average pump mean-time-between failures (MTBF) closer to three years. Let's re-state our earlier point: To really add value, asset management consulting firms will have to authoritatively advise and advocate specific component upgrades. These firms must know, and must tell, the user-client, that oil rings (Fig. 1) impose a key limitation on the MTBF of many pumps.

While perhaps representing one of the least expensive means of applying lube oil to bearings, oil rings are rarely a wise choice for the reliability-focused. From about 1840 until 1990, they were furnished in brass or bronze. More recently, and for reasons we wish to subsequently spell out, some manufacturers have experimented with plastic and aluminum rings. The results are mixed, at best. In any event, oil rings suffer from a number of limitations that are rarely recognized by equipment suppliers and users. Reliability-focused users avoid oil rings because these components represent an undue reliability risk. Here's why:

• Even some of the most advanced laser-optic shaft alignment systems will not have provisions ensuring that the shaft centerlines are absolutely horizontal. Visualize, therefore, how oil rings installed on shaft systems that are not totally parallel with the true horizon will run downhill. Doing so, an oil ring will make frictional contact with either a groove machined in the shaft, or some stationary surfaces associated with the bearing housing. The oil ring now tends to slow down, feeding less oil into the bearing. Many observers have also seen oil rings that showed clear evidence of edge wear and metal loss. Needless to say, the lost metal shavings end up contaminating the lubricant—not a desirable condition by any measure.
• Oil-ring movement and circumferential speed are affected by the degree of immersion in the lubricant and by lubricant viscosity. Typical immersions are shown in Fig. 1, but recommendations may vary for different types of equipment. Clearly, a more deeply immersed oil ring or oil rings contacting an excessively viscous lubricant will not perform as intended. Also, for good tracking and to revolve with reasonable consistency, oil rings must be concentric within 0.002 inches (0.05 mm).
• Oil-ring operation is affected by shaft surface velocity. As an experience-based rule, authoritative texts (Refs. 3 and 4) caution that shaft velocities as low as 2,000 fpm (~10.16 m/s) might represent the safe, or practical, field-installed (non-laboratory) limit for many oil rings. At 3,600 rpm, this limit infers a maximum shaft diameter of approximately 2.125 inches (~55 mm). It represents a "DN" value of 7,650, where DN is the product of shaft diameter (inches) and speed (rpm).
• Reliability-focused users recommend flinger discs. Since flinger discs are secured to the shaft, they are not subject to the compounded influences of shaft horizontality, oil viscosity, depth of immersion and ring concentricity. They are a vast improvement over oil rings and are, in fact, available in many pump models presently marketed by U.S. and European suppliers. Ref. 1 contains an illustration from a 1960s-vintage catalog issued by a then prominent, major U.S. pump maker. The page shows the flinger discs furnished with this manufacturer's pumps and states, rather pointedly, "anti-friction oil thrower (meaning flinger disc) ensures positive lubrication and eliminates the problems associated with oil rings."

Indeed, oil rings were problematic in the 1960s, and, more than 40 years later, they are still causing problems in many field installations. Retrofit flinger discs are available as cost-effective upgrade and retrofit options. Made to oversized dimensions, they can be easily trimmed to the required diameter. Their elastomer will fold into an umbrella shape during insertion through a narrow bearing-housing bore and will then snap back into its regular disc shape.

In 2003 and 2004, thorough testing was done on a Viton¨ disc'sconfiguration at different speeds and with oils of different viscosities. Two results of this testing are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 for ISO Grade 32 and 68 lubricants at 3,600 rpm shaft speed.

In each case, with flinger discs installed, the oil and bearing temperatures were compared against operation with the flinger disc removed and lube oil reaching the center of the lowermost bearing ball. From the graphs, it can be seen that, at higher pump speeds, lowering the oil level and using the trimmable flinger disc will reduce oil temperatures. Reduced oil temperatures will slow the rate of oil oxidation and tend to more closely maintain lubricant viscosity. Incidentally, with premium synthetic lubricants and operation at typical process pump speeds, the rate of oxidation is extremely slow. In that case, concern over oxidation issues on hermetically closed pump bearing housings are of very academic interest.

Economic value explored
Upon close examination, and with competent failure analysis, many observers have reached the conclusion that a large percentage of oil rings show signs of severe abrasion. It is undisputed and well known that the resulting lube oil contamination is reflected in premature bearing failures. Based on these observations, it has been estimated that at least 5% of the centrifugal pumps installed in the average petrochemical plant suffer from oil-ring deficiencies of sufficient magnitude to reduce bearing life from an assumed achievable six years to typically only three years. Other pumps may experience oil-ring degradation that reduces bearing life from five years to four years, and so forth. The issue is so intuitively evident that, to date, no one appears to have seen fit to spend research funds on scientific studies. Accordingly, empirical observations will have to suffice.

In any event, expanding on this conservative estimate, we might be dealing with a plant comprising 600 pumps. Suppose that of these, 18 "suspect" pumps were being repaired every three years to the tune of $6,000 per incident. This would require an expenditure of $36,000 per year. If, using trimmable flinger discs, the MTBR (mean-time-between-repairs) could be extended to six years, this expenditure would drop to $18,000 per year for the affected 5% of the plant's pump population. Needless to say, if one paid $50 per flinger disc, the 18 discs would have cost $900 and the investment would have had a payback of $18,000/$900 = 20:1. It is certainly no stretch to foresee greater savings and even more significant payback than demonstrated in this example after one or two years of operation.

Belaboring the point
The issue at hand is important enough to be highlighted again. Management often doesn't seem to get it. Our view is simply that asset management and maintenance strategies are rather pointless if oil rings and flinger discs, the pitfalls of millions of inadequate old-style constant level lubricators and a veritable host of other basic issues are either not known or not addressed.

Much money is lost when the basics are not understood. If each of 10 important or failure-prone components, practices, commissions or omissions in a pump were to reduce its reliability by 10%, raise 0.9 to the tenth power and convince yourself that you get less than 35% overall reliability. Staying with vulnerable components and not upgrading is a very poor choice indeed. Before looking for "high tech" and whatever else might be "icing on the cake," a reliability-focused organization will learn to view every repair event as an opportunity to upgrade!

Furthermore, if a manager is really serious about upgrading the knowledge base of a reliability workforce, he or she will cheerfully spend a few hundred dollars on solid textbooks that explain hundreds of these upgrade opportunities. He or she will know, or at least accept as fact, that implementing one or more of a number of highly cost-justified upgrade examples will definitely avoid failures. Since the average API pump failure event costs U.S. refineries in excess of $10,000 (Ref. 2), a single avoided failure represents a three-week payback for, say, a modest $600 spent on books.

A good manager will probably insist that his/her reliability staffers read 200 textbook pages per yearÐthis adds up to a single page per work day. A good manager will not tolerate any excuses.

Surely, a professional who has neither the time nor motivation to read a page a day will never help his employer move ahead.

In the words of Mark Twain: "A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read." To which we might add that managers who choose not to make their people learn would serve their stakeholders better by going on permanent vacation.

Before encouraging or allowing subordinates to simply "decorate the cake," a good manager will see to it that the underlying foundation, that is, the cake itself, is edible. That implies that the basics are in place.

References:

1. Bloch, Heinz P.; "Slinger Rings Revisited," Hydrocarbon Processing, August 2002
2. Bloch, Heinz P. and Alan Budris; (2004) Pump User's Handbook: Life Extension, The Fairmont Press, Inc., Lilburn, GA 30047, ISBN 0-88173-452-7
3. Wilcock, Donald F., and Richard E. Booser, Bearing Design and Application, (1957), McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
4. Bloch, Heinz P.; "Centrifugal Pump Cooling and Lubricant Application—A Technology Update," International Pump User's Symposium, Texas A&M University, Houston, TX, 2005
5. Bloch, Heinz P., (1998) Improving Machinery Reliability, Third Edition, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX, ISBN 0-88415-661-3

Heinz P. Bloch is a professional engineer with over 43 years of experience in reliability engineering and maintenance cost reduction. He has written 14 comprehensive books on these subjects and continues to advise process plants worldwide on reliability im-provement and maintenance cost-reduction opportunities.

As manufacturing and production equipment often represent a company's single largest capital investment, maintenance of these assets can significantly impact the bottom line. Many organizations face problems when they have not established a consistent method to measure the value of maintenance activities, which results in their underestimating the impact maintenance has on financial performance.

Developing a methodology for measuring your processes provides guidance for needed maintenance activities and shows a continual impact on ROI. After you establish metrics for maintenance activities, you also can justify the value of current activities and support the case for new initiatives. This is especially true when initiating major changes in strategy, such as moving from a reactive operation to a proactive one. Without tangible evidence in the form of objective performance data, obtaining full buy-in support from management is more difficult to achieve.

Determining what to measure
The cornerstone for any successful Strategic Maintenance plan begins with clearly defining goals. Without adequately defining the desired performance—along with the reasons for it—companies often may generate a long list of metrics, yet overlook many that are vital to making critical performance-enhancing decisions.

While most companies collect performance data, the challenge is to select information that has meaning to the bottom line. These types of powerful metrics directly measure the impact of maintenance efforts on the company 's Key Performance Indicators (KPI's).

Today, companies are turning to a variety of financial metrics, such as Return On Net Assets (RONA), which is commonly used by plant management. RONA calculates how well a company converts assets to sales, and, therefore, profits. Maintenance specifically impacts three main variables of the equation: Plant Revenue minus Costs divided by Net Assets.

Other metrics used today are associated with plant productivity, such as Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE). Many times OEE is used in conjunction with RONA, as it is an extension of Plant Revenue. OEE is a statistical metric to determine how efficiently a machine is running. It is calculated by multiplying a machine 's Production Rate, Quality and Availability. The combination is the value a machine contributes to the production process.

All companies have data and information, but many do not collect and analyze it to make informed decisions. Results from metrics can help companies lower inventory costs, reduce spares and boost availability and uptime. Maintenance impacts all of these features, but it is commonly used with downtime.

Case in point
A leading semiconductor manufacturer 's decision to migrate toward a more predictive maintenance strategy was directly tied to its business goals. In an industry where a few hours of downtime can result in millions of dollars in losses, success is measured by uptime.

In semiconductor manufacturing, every part of the facility plays a critical role in the process. If any part of the facility fails, such as the power supply, HVAC or water-treatment system, production could come to a rapid—and costly—standstill. Using advanced condition-monitoring technology, the company designed and implemented a comprehensive predictive maintenance program that allows it to effectively monitor, analyze and track equipment performanceÐobserving operating conditions locally, as well as remotely, across multiple production sites.

The reality is that replacing a fan or pump motor is a fraction of the cost of having a fabrication line down for any amount of time. If production is down for even one or two hours, the lost revenue would far exceed the cost of a replacement motor, or any other ancillary component.

Since implementing its predictive maintenance program, the company has found countless minor vibration issues and identified several hundred major vibration problems, helping it avoid prolonged production shutdowns. More specifically, it has realized a five-to-one return on investment, and the program helped the company avoid estimated lost-production costs of more than $1.4 million in a single year.

The big picture
A complete review of maintenance operations and the physical asset management process can help identify equipment and operator performance issues and outline recommended corrective actions that can be implemented through maintenance initiatives. For example, in critical applications, companies may want to have a redundant or back-up piece of equipment in place to avoid production interruptions in the event the primary equipment needs to be shut down or replaced.

This type of in-depth evaluation is important because it gives you a baseline as to your starting point for making improvements and for validating results. It also can help determine which activities will have the most impact on the company's core business objectives and assist in identifying key areas of improvement, including what types of predictive strategies might be most effective.

Once you've identified the most critical elements impacting your performance, you can begin to make a physical linkage between the maintenance activity and the improvement in results.

Tapping the value of data
In some cases, depending on the size of the plant, the type and volume of data needed to formulate the necessary metrics is not always available. In these instances, implementing the data collection or measurement technology can be an investment in itself.

For example, you may need a software package to collect information to measure production rates, equipment availability or the amount of scrap coming off the line. You then can begin building your metrics off that data.

In an industry where margins are low and parts are needed on a 24/7 basis, the correlation between equipment uptime and profitability is abundantly clear for the previously referenced semiconductor supplier. To maximize equipment reliability, the company established a comprehensive parts management program that has helped it improve parts availability, increase manufacturing efficiency, reduce downtime and minimize its inventory investment.

In turn, the parts program has been instrumental in helping the company meet its aggressive production goals while minimizing costly downtime. Since putting the program in place, the company has reduced inventory by 25%, helping save approximately $250,000 in inventory expenses. Moreover, it credits the parts program for helping the facility boost its capacity by 250%—which helps the company significantly increase its return on net assets.

Defining performance levels
Any established metrics should focus on the level of improvement required to move from the current level of performance to the desired level. Defining this difference lets companies more effectively determine the specific actions, strategies and initiatives they need to undertake. To establish a successful measurement system, managers need to know:

• The desired level of performance in quantifiable terms;
• How the current performance levels are to be determined;
• Specific actions that can be taken to close the gap between the current level and desired level.

Performance measures should reflect how the maintenance department is providing value. For instance, in the power generation industry, downtime expense is calculated in cost-avoidance terms based on the profit from generating a megawatt-hour of electricity. Depending on the plant, the profit for a megawatt-hour varies drasticallyÐ ranging from $5 to $25 per hour. At one 560-MWpower plant in California, the cost-avoidance is calculated at $21 per megawatt hour. Therefore, downtime at this plant could cost upwards of $11,000 per hour (or $265,000 per day).

By measuring the production value of the downtime for a department or unit, you can quickly grasp, with clear evidence, where to place your maintenance efforts. This allows you to more accurately focus the planning process by seeing what is costing the most money and knowing where to target your efforts. You then can record the cost of failures while directing efforts directly to those causes.

Leveraging technology, improving techniques
The emergence of advanced automation and control technology has made the effective use of maintenance metrics considerably easier. It can assist in nearly every area of maintenance. For example, maintenance software systems can track spare parts, compile time and costs, track metrics, schedule work and analyze equipment conditions.

Wherever possible, build your collection of measures into the design of the automation system itself, so the metrics become an automatically generated product of normal usage. This can help reduce the burden of implementing and managing metrics.

However, not all metrics are amendable to automated collection. So, in practice, you will need a mix of both "hard" and "soft" measures.

Also, remember that automation systems and software can 't guarantee good maintenance performance or compensate for a lack of fundamental knowledge of what to measure and why.

In some cases, companies can boost manufacturing efficiencies through improvements in operational processes, such as inventory tracking and equipment repair management. An effective inventory tracking system can help companies track overall repair rates and identify ways to build efficiencies into the process. For instance, if a pattern of repairs occurs on a particular machine over a period of time, storeroom managers can work with maintenance engineers to find and repair the root source of the equipment failure.

Communicating results
As previously mentioned, developing a methodology for measuring your processes provides guidance for needed maintenance activities and can justify the value of current activities and support the case for new initiatives. Justifying maintenance iniatives requires a significant investment in time and energy to not only establish accurate measurement parameters, but also to effectively communicate the value of maintenance and its relationship to the company 's underlying business goals. It involves shifting management 's attitude from one that sees maintenance as a necessary expense, to one that views it as a profit center.

When using metrics to guide your project plans, it is important to stay objective, stick to the facts and understand the business trends that drive the need for improvements. For example, how does your parts management program help improve equipment uptime and reduce expenses related to lost production and scrap? More specifically, how does this impact on-time delivery—a key management goal?

Bottom line
If management does not fully understand the impact that maintenance activities can have on the organization, it is less likely they will support new initiatives or additional expenses.

As for a management discipline, companies are still striving to realize the full potential and benefits of using performance metrics as a proactive tool to implement strategy throughout their organizations. When approached with a clear understanding of issues and goals, metrics can be a powerful way of setting targets, measuring success and identifying problems as they surface.

Mike Laszkiewicz is the vice president, Customer Support and Maintenance business at Rockwell Automation. In his current role—and previously as vice president, Asset Management—he has been instrumental in developing Rockwell 's strategy for addressing the maintenance repair and operations (MRO) needs of manufacturers around the world. Laszkiewicz holds a Bachelor's degree in Industrial Operations Management from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Telephone: (414) 382-3736; e-mail: mlaszkiewicz@ra.rockwell.com

Data. . . information. . . facts. . . Whatever the term, "knowledge" is required to for good decision-making. The goal of a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) or enterprise asset management system (EAM) is to produce quality data that helps a company make accurate decisions.

Even as a company starts to implement CMMS/EAM, data collectio is beginning. Consider the various modules used in a comprehensive CMMS/EAM system:

• Equipment
• Inventory
• Purchasing
• Personnel
• Preventive maintenance
• Work-order (planning & scheduling)
• Reporting

Equipment module
To use this module properly, each piece of equipment—or facility location—that requires tracking of costs and repairs must be identified. For example, the financial information will need to be stored in the equipment history when making repair/replacement and other life cycle cost decisions.

Data provided by the other modules will be accumulated in the equipement module to provide accurate financial information.

Inventory module
Proper utilization of this module will require identifying the spare parts carried in each storeroom at the plant or facility. The necessary data includes, but is not limited to:

• Part number
• Part description (short & extended)
• On-hand, reserved, on-order, etc.
• Locations
• Part-costing information
• Historical use

Information from the inventory module ensures the CMMS/EAMwill contain accurate material-costing information for each piece of equipment or facility location.

Purchasing module
This module is associated with the inventory module. It gives maintenance personnel a window into the ordering information.

The purchasing module must include the following information:

• Part number
• Part description
• Part-costing information
• Delivery information, including date
• Related vendor information
• Ability to order non-stock materials

The importance of the purchasing module becomes clear when planning a job and the delivery date for the required part is not available. It also is crucial for estimating job cost without knowledge of the new part cost.

Personnel module
This module allows a company to track specific information about each employee. Some of the required data includes:

• Employee number
• Name and personal information
• Pay rate
• Job skills
• Training history
• Safety history

Information from the personnel module ensures that a facility will post accurate labor costs to work orders and equipment history.

Preventive maintenance module
The preventive maintenance (PM) module allows the tracking of all PM-specific costs. The costing information comes from the personnel and inventory databases. Some important data stored in this module includes:

• PM type (lubrication, testing, etc)
• Frequency required
• Est. labor cost (via personnel module)
• Est. parts cost (via inventory module)
• Detailed task description

The collection of this data ensures accurate service information and costing each time a technician performs a PM task. A CMMS/EAM also can project labor at material resource requirements for calendar-based PM tasks.

Work-order module
With this module, a user can initiate different types of work orders and track the work through completion. This module also requires the tracking of the costing and repair information to the correct piece of equipment or facility location. Using the work-order module requires information from all other modules of the system. Some the information required includes:

• Identifying the equipment or facility location where the work is being performed
• Identifying the labor requirements (personnel)
• Identifying the parts requirements (inventory)
• The priority of the work
• The date the work must be finished
• Contractor information
• Detailed instructions

To be effective, the work-order module requires information from all other modules. Without accurate information, this module cannot collect the required data. Furthermore, without accurate and complete data, it cannot post accurate information to the equipment history. Finally, without accurate data in the equipment history, maintenance/reliability personnel can't make timely and cost effective decisions.

Importance of data collection
Just how important is data collection and analysis to a company? You can break it down into these management principles:

• To manage, you must have controls.
• To have control, you must have measurement.
• To have measurement, you must have reporting.
• To have reporting, you must collect data. The success of a CMMS/EAM system depends on the timeline and accuracy of collected data and the use of that data by the managers. If information is inaccurate and used incorrectly, the CMMS/EAM is considered to be a failure.

   

  The reporting relationship
  How effective is the overall utilization of any currently implemented CMMS/EAM systems? A recent survey showed that most companies scored just above 50% of the total possible score in that category. The figure reflects the comparison between a database of 200 companies (labeled University) and 800 companies (labeled RW).

  If Fig. 1 were reexamined, what modules in the diagram could be used and what ones could be eliminated? If only half of the information required by the CMMS/EAM system were utilized, what types of analysis could be performed? For example, if only work orders over a certain cost or duration were recorded in the CMMS/EAM, could accurate decisions be based on the equipment history information?

  Even before a facility implements a CMMS/EAM, the information it collects still will have some value. But, until the system is fully utilized, the data will not be accurate.

  For example, if only certain departments are on a CMMS/ EAM system (a typical pilot implementation problem), the data from these departments mayactually be quite accurate. However, in areas where a crossover or combination with another area or craft exists, the data may be incomplete or distorted.

  As highlighted earlier, a CMMS/EAM system should provide a completely integrated data collection system. Yet, even many mature users are not obtaining complete—and, thus, accurate—data from their CMMS/EAM systems. The previously mentioned benchmarking study pointed to the fact that just over 50% of the functionality was being utilized. Again, how can accurate and timely decisions be made with such incomplete data?

  When companies use corporate systems, the data might not be posted accurately in the equipment history. In fact, in most cases, the data is inaccurate or not posted at all. Consequently, the equipment history is incomplete or inaccurate.

  To put this into perspective, consider the following example:

  When you take your car in for repairs, the service manager gives you an estimate of the time and cost of the job (work-order planning). You accept the estimate, and the service shop begins the work. When the job is complete, you receive a shop order with a complete breakdown of each part used and its related cost. The bill (work order) also shows the number of hours the mechanic worked and his hourly rate. The total equals labor and parts.

  You expect this bill each time you go to the garage for any work. If your bill showed only the final price with no breakdown, you would not accept it.

  Now, apply this type of itemization to a CMMS/EAM system and consider whether this degree of reporting is detailed enough to provide accurate cost breakdowns for your plant's equipment.

  Consider another example:

  When using CMMS/ EAM, if you do not supply the planner with closely integrated inventory information, that person cannot be sure the stores' information is accurate. This is especially true if the information is updated only once a day or once a week.

  The situation repeats itself many times when other corporate systems are "interfaced" to a CMMS/EAM system.

  Technicians can waste time looking for a part that is supposed to be in the stores, when, in fact, another technician used that part the previous day or shift. This delay may seem inconsequential. However, when downtime can cost $1,000 or even $100,000 per hour, these types of delays may mean the difference between profit and loss for the entire company.

  When it comes time to consider replacing your car, do you look only at the labor charges you have made against it for its life? Do you look only at the parts used? No, you take the whole picture into account— labor, materials, present condition, etc. These same principles should carry over in the CMMS/EAM systems in companies. Unfortunately, though, companies have set CMMS/EAM information flow so the material or labor costs aren't shown on the work order or equipment history. Therefore, decisions are really being based on inaccurate or incomplete dataÐand such decisions will be flawed.

  The financial implications of these flawed decisions can spell disaster foran organization. They can force a company into a condition where it cannot compete against other companies that make full use of their CMMS/EAM systems, thereby obtaining the subsequent cost benefits.

  If any part of the information detailed is not included during routine CMMS/EAM system usage, the system will eventually fail.

  The ultimate CMMS/EAM solution
  If a company is collecting data incorrectly, it is time to re-evaluate the CMMS/EAM system. A determination must be made as to whether data the company is collecting is accurate or if it is incomplete or missing. Moreover, a company should determine what parts of the system it is not utilizing correctlyÐor not using at all.

  By evaluating the answers and working to provide accurate data collection, the CMMS/EAM system will benefit the company's bottom line. In today's competitive marketplace, it is unacceptable to make guesses when data is available.

  The cost benefits gained by making correct decisions will help make a company more competitive. Wrong decisions actually can put a company out of business by placing it in a non-competitive position.

  What CMMS/EAM reports to use?
  Some systems are available with no reports, while others have hundreds of "canned" reports. The deciding factor is to use the reports required to manage the specific maintenance function.

  port does not support or verify a performance indicator utilized to manage maintenance, it is not beneficial. Reports that produce hundreds of pages of data that is never utilized will overload the maintenance and reliability departments.

  If a maintenance organization is managed by its estimated vs. actual budget and the CMMS/EAM system cannot produce a budget report, the system is not supporting the organization. With CMMS/EAM reports, too many are just as bad as too few.

  Give Fig. 2 another look. If the CMMS/EAM system score could be considered low, how about the reporting indicator? The two surveys were both under the 50% level, with one (marked "University") in the 25% range. Realistically, how could one manage an organization where the reports are not properly utilized? Would this not, in truth, be managing by instinct or feelings? Since management requires measurement and measurement requires data, each company must use its CMMS/EAM system fully to obtain this data. Without such data, any decision that is made is just someone's opinion.

  Discussions require factual data and when it is not available, arguments occur, which often is the case when emotions and opinions are involved. Consider whether employees at your company have discussions or arguments. The answer may mean the difference between being a world-class competitor and being a second-rate company.

  For additional information e-mail twireman@atpnetwork.com

Alarmingly. . .

In certain skill-level assessments throughout the U.S. and Canada, 80% of those assessed scored less than 50% in the basic technical skills needed to perform their jobs. Additionally, assessments of maintenance department training programs indicated that the majority were not effective in resolving these skill problems. The primary causes of ineffective training included lack of targeting  within training programs and failure to use training-effectiveness metrics.

Training can be a substantial investment, but it is an investment in your company, your people and the future. Effective training programs can improve equipment reliability and increase production levels. It also can support incorporation of new technologies, implementation of new procedures or the transfer of knowledge. Effective training programs can transform "on-paper" benefits into a real return on investment (ROI).

To generate real skill-level improvements, employing a systematic approach to the development and implemention of the training program is essential. A proven effective approach is one based on the ADDIE Instructional Design Model. The success of this approach in improving skills and meeting industrial training requirements has been demonstrated in commercial manufacturing operations, as well as in nuclear power, aerospace, health and defense industries. It has gained acceptance in each of these fields by improveing training effectiveness.

Through enhancement of the ADDIE model, greater successes in a shorter period of time, as well as increased responsiveness to changes, can be realized. The traditional model is a closed loop system with the evaluation results (the effectiveness metrics) used to update/upgrade the analysis, and so on. By creating a continuing analysis process, that is a process that continually considers and incorporates employee, equipment, facility, technology and similar changes, the entire ADDIE loop is renewed through both fresh perspectives and effectiveness improvents based on evaluation results. The results: better adaptiveness to change and quicker realization of skill requirements, which can very quickly impact equipment reliability and production capacity.

Some characteristics of this internally looped, five-phase training program development process include:

• It identifies the skills and skill levels that are required for your specific plant/operation.
• It identifies the skills and skill levels that are available at your specific plant/operation.
• It identifies what training should be provided for each position (based on analysis of the gap between required and available skills).
• It provides continuous analysis of skill requirements, skill availability and gap- targeted training objectives.
• It facilitates the design and development of training programs with explicit learning objectives and appropriate content.
• It implements training presentation formats that are the most effective for achieving training objectives.
• It ensures that employees master the learning objectives before they begin working in their assigned positions.
• It measures training effectiveness and uses the results to maintain and improve training.

The modified ADDIE training design/development process
Analysis is the process of determining, and responding to changes in, personnel requirements, job performance problems and learning from industry experiences. It begins with fact-finding needed to make informed training development decisions. This ensures that apparent concerns are verified and can be resolved through training.

Where the facts confirm/identify a specific training need, job task analysis uses existing job data and employee skills/experience to identify and rate job tasks/job skills gaps.

Tasks rated difficult and important and lacking appropriate skills are selected for training. Their exact methods of correct performance and underlying competencies are determined through task analysis. When compete, this process reveals reliable information on effective and safe work practices. The knowledge, skills and attitudes identified provide a task-specific content reference for both new and existing programs.

The Design process uses the task requirements and performance information collected during analysis to specify the knowledge, skills and attitudes that will be provided in the training. Skill requirements (knowledge and practical) are defined for each task. By defining how individual tasks are performed, they focus training development efforts and support task training and qualification.

Learning objectives are developed for groups of task-related knowledge and skills. These types of written statements define exactly when, what and how well the employee must perform during training.

Based on prior experience, lessons learned and instructional training, the most effective presentation methods are defined for the various sets of learning objectives (internal instructors, consultant and/or vendor instructors, community/technical colleges, employee self-paced, classroom, OJT, computer network, etc.). Tests are produced to ensure that these competencies are reliably evaluated. Together, these measures serve as the program design basis.

Decisions on the training setting, employee entry qualifications and organization or learning objectives also are made. The design process concludes when all the tools for development of a training program are defined.

Development organizes the instructional materials needed for employees to achieve the learning objectives. During the development phase, a review process by subject-matter experts that can include a table-top review, a written comment and revision cycle, and, if desired, a training pilot, is an important step. During the review process, critical input is essential to ensure that the training materials are clear, accurate and effective in addressing the desired objectives.

Instructor and employee activities are defined based on presentation methods. These activities describe how the instructor and employees will perform during training to achieve the learning objectives. Existing, suitable training materials and lesson plans are selected and new ones produced as required. The resulting training materials are reviewed for technical accuracy, tried out with a group of employees and revised as necessary. Performance-based training materials are the products of this phase.

Implementation is the process of putting training programs into operation. It begins by defining scheduling criteria and activating the training plan. Based on training delivery methods, instructors are selected and trained, and the availability of employees, facilities and resources is confirmed and used to create the training program schedule.

Training is delivered as planned, and employee and instructor performance is evaluated. These evaluations serve two purposes:(1) to verify that employees have achieved the learning objectives; and (2) to identify and resolve any instructor performance and presentation method problems. Key records are maintained to support management information needs and to document the performance both of employees and instructors.

Evaluation encompasses two distinct areas: (1) ensuring training's continuing ability to produce qualified employees; and (2) measuring plant-related aspects, such as equipment reliability, production outages and production capacity. The latter area of evaluation is essential to monitor the effectiveness and the ROI in the training program.

By monitoring such indicators as employee job performance, plant and procedure changes and production/operating experience, evaluation metrics help maintain and improve the training program. It is the dynamic process of assessing performance, identifying concerns and initiating corrective actions. The program feedback it yields enables training to respond adaptively to unforeseen problems or changing conditions. Completing the evaluation phase and incorporating its results produces the performance data and feedback vital to any training systemÕs continued effectiveness.

Conclusion
Training must on target. In other words, it must meet the expectation of both management and employees. The ADDIE process outlined here is not new. ItÕs been used successfully for many years. In light of its proven track record, even now, it continues to be taught in colleges and universities.

Bob Call is a senior consultant with Life Cycle Engineering, in Charleston, SC. He has over 20 years experience in the maintenance and reliability field, specializing in project management, process improvement and supervisory skills training. Telephone: (843) 744-7110; e-mail: bcall@LCE.com; Internet: www.LCE.com

• Cost reductions
• Asset availability improvement
• Asset efficiency improvement

This month, we're going to look at the cost-reduction aspect. Cost reductions that can be achieved through maintenance improvements also basically fall into three major categories:

What I'm about to say is going to sound like heresy to many of today's RCM-focused maintenance professionals: maximizing the availability of industrial assets—even critical assets—is not always the best business strategy.

Please hear me out and note the intentional underlining of the word "always," because the time factor is critical here.

Sure, chances are, as a maintenance professional, your performance is measured (and rewarded) based on how well you keep the plant running while containing costs. But, to succeed in today's global industrial environment, companies must manage their manufacturing plants to meet ever-changing business objectives.

For example, in a production-constrained environment, where high demand and limited capacity mean that you can sell as much of a commodity product as you can make and charge pretty much whatever the market will bear, then sometimes a "run to failure" approach that utilizes assets to the max (even if only temporarily) can actually be the best overall business strategy to follow (if not the best maintenance strategy).

Clearly, what's needed is an approach that enables you to balance industrial asset availability and utilization in a manner that allows you to maximize overall business value. Our organization calls this approach, "asset performance management."

The problem is that while the maintenance staff in an industrial plant is typically measured on asset availability, the operations staff is typically measured on asset utilization. Beyond the obvious Maintenance/Operations organizational issues, the respective measures are inverse functions. That is, they tend to fight each other, especially as a plant approaches the maximum points for each.

For example, a well-maintained valve, pump, motor, heat exchanger or entire process unit that is hardly ever used—or used at a small percentage of its rated capacity—will almost always be available. Conversely, when operated non-stop for extended periods at or above their rated capacities, the availability of these plant assets will likely be seriously compromised (due both to wear and tear and lack of maintenance...).

To solve this problem, manufacturers need to identify the optimum balance between asset availability and utilization for any asset set at any given time, based on the current business strategy. Then, they need to use an integrated asset performance management approach to get Maintenance and Operations working together to achieve and maintain this balance.

New asset performance management models and algorithms are available to help manufacturers measure both asset utilization and availability in real time and identify the optimum balance that will best enable them to achieve current business objectives. With this understanding, a combination of advanced technologies, services and approaches (including RCM) can then be effectively applied by both Maintenance and Operations to drive utilization and availability to the desired states and thus maximize overall business performance.

Mike Caliel is president of Invensys Process Systems, a business unit of Invensys plc that includes the Avantis, Foxboro, SimSci-Esscor, and Triconex brands. Prior to joining Invensys in 1993, Caliel worked for both Honeywell and ABB.

Progress Energy's Harris Plant is a 950 MW(e) pressurized water nuclear reactor. In November 2003, operators conducting a surveillance test on a piece of the plant's emergency service water equipment noticed that the differential pressure (dP) was below the minimum required value. During the ensuing investigation, a review of past data showed that the dP had begun decreasing in August 2003—three months earlier—yet had gone undetected. As a result, the site management was interested in improving timeliness in identifying degrading equipment performance. The solution was to use statistical control charts.

Control charts are a statistical trending method used to determine when data variance, or a change in data, is abnormal. They have been used for many years in the manufacturing industry for product or process quality control, but personnel at Harris are now using the method to trend equipment performance and identify degradation in performance at an early stage.

Following the rules
Data varies for many reasons including the repeatability and reproducibility of instruments, differences in test conditions and dependence on other parameters (e.g. temperature). Equipment performance trending requires an understanding of data variance and when it is due to an abnormal cause. An abnormal cause is a degrading condition in the equipment. For example, a worn bearing in a pump motor or a hardening diaphragm in an air-operated valve are degrading conditions. When these degrading conditions are detected early, they can be scheduled without a need for emergent corrective maintenance. A stable work schedule helps the maintenance organization effectively maintain plant equipment and ultimately results in a more reliable facility.

Control charts help you understand when an abnormal cause is present. When data is measured, it typically has a normal distribution, as shown in Fig. 1. A typical control chart is shown in Fig. 2. It consists of the normally distributed data plotted with time. The centerline (green line) is the mean of the data points and the upper and/or lower control limits (red lines) are typically three standard deviations from the mean. The control chart rules (see Sidebar ) are applied to the data trended on the control chart to determine when an abnormal cause may be present and require further investigation.

Proving effectiveness
The effectiveness of the control chart method was first realized through trending of reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage. The Plant Technical Specifications require periodic monitoring of the system leakage every 72 hours to ensure it does not exceed 1 gpm. To comply with this requirement, the leakage is calculated every 24 hours and trended. In the past, the leakage data was subjectively evaluated against past data. This frequently required re-performance of the surveillance to validate apparent increases in leakage when the data only changed due to normal statistical variance.

Fig. 3 illustrates the application of the control chart to the calculated leakage data. On February 7, 2005, the leakage began to increase. By February 12, the data violated control rules 1 and 3 (refer to Sidebar 1). When the data exceeded the upper control limit of 0.090 gpm, Harris personnel began the process of evaluat-ing several potential leakage paths. The systematic elimination of potential sources culminated in a plant walk-down. During the plant walk-down, a two-inch isolation valve was found with a packing leak. The RCS system uses borated water. The leaking valve shown in Fig. 4 shows the boron deposits on the valve and nearby equipment. The valve packing was tightened to eliminate the leak on March 18. The data then returned to normal. The leak was 0.08 gpm. This is equivalent to approximately one cup of water each minute, illustrating the sensitivity of this trend method.

Numerous other examples have also occurred that demonstrate the effectiveness of using control charts for trending of equipment performance. In the ASME Inservice Test Program (IST), the condition of air-operated valves is monitored by trending the valve stroke time. The application of control charts has identified erratic performance of solenoid valves, hardening diaphragms and drifting air regulators. These issues were identified well in advance of exceeding an operational limit and permitted scheduling the maintenance rather than the organization responding to an emergent equipment failure.

The payoff
Implementing control charts for data trending not only improves timely identification of equipment degradation, it also standardizes the approach to data trending. Personnel typically will use everything from pencil and paper to computer software to trend data based on their years of experience and comfort with computers.

Control charts are a tool that can help them be proactive in monitoring equipment performance and avoid being reactive to equipment issues. They provide a sound basis for making decisions related to the taking of further action to understand the cause of adverse trend and avoid organizational vulnerability to the common data trending errors (refer to the Sidebar).

The initial reaction by personnel to using statistics can be negative. Many people believe they can subjectively identify abnormal trends in data based on their experience. In some cases this is true. However, experienced personnel are not always available due to vacation, sickness or organizational attrition. Their threshold for identifying and communicating degrading conditions can also vary. Controls charts provide the standard tool without a need for specific component experience to interpret them.

To be successful in implementing this change to your data trending standard, it is important to secure organizational buy-in from the top down. There are key elements to the implementation that are essential. They include:

1. Management Training – Ensure your management team understands the basic statistics involved with control charts. If they are interested in seeing the data trends, it helps them understand what changes in data are significant. It will also help in clarifying their expectations associated with the organization's response to the data when it violates the control rules.
2. Expected Response to Data – Establish with the management team what the organization's standard response should be to data that violates the control chart rules. This should be a graded approach based on the criticality of the equipment and establish the expected timeliness of reporting the issue and scheduling the maintenance.
3. Personnel Training – Ensure that the personnel developing the control charts understand the basic statistics involved and the standard approach when data violates the control chart rules. This should include a basic understanding of what can cause data variance and how the data is expected to change from the potential equipment failure modes/mechanisms.
4. Purchase a Software Tool – To minimize the work involved in the development of control charts, software should be provided to personnel. There are many software tools on the market, each with its pros and cons. Harris utilized a Microsoft EXCEL add-in that proved to be very effective since personnel were familiar with EXCEL.
5. Start Small – The organization can be overwhelmed if control charts are placed on every possible parameter. Understand what the critical equipment is in the plant and what the critical performance parameters are before getting started. Pilot the method on a limited set of equipment to work through the logistics involved with the implementation. Logistics include: how and to whom potential equipment issues are to be reported: how the identified issue should be prioritized in the work scheduling process, etc.
6. Understand the Data Pedigree – To get started, it is important to understand the pedigree of historical data used to create control charts. The data must be under statistical control to start. That means, if there were high or low values due to some equipment problem in the past, that data should be excluded or eliminated from the control chart. The data must also be independent or not subject to other influences (i.e. bearing temperatures that fluctuate with ambient temperature conditions). Additionally, if the equipment is subject to varying loads during operation, it may be necessary to establish consistent test conditions for collecting data.

Statistical control charts are a very effective method for monitoring equipment condition. It provides personnel a trending tool that is sensitive to changes in equipment performance, as well as a method that provides the earliest indication of a degrading equipment condition. Early indications of degrading performance can be investigated to determine the scope of required maintenance and the maintenance scheduled without a need for emergent work.

A stable work schedule has many benefits, including helping the maintenance organization effectively maintain plant equipment, resulting in a more reliable facility. It also improves the plant personnel's quality of life, with less call outs from emergent equipment failures.

Daryl R. Gruver is supervisor of Component Engineering at Progress Energy's Shearon Harris facility. He received his B.S. in Nuclear Engineering from Pennsylvania State and his M.S. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Cincinnati. Gruver holds a Level II ASNT certification in Vibration Analysis and Thermography: telephone: (919) 362-2820; e-mail: Daryl.Gruver@pgnmail.com

Companies typically will embrace a business trend in an effort to move ahead of the competition, achieve long-term savings and, in some cases, improve service levels. Among today's more noteworthy trends is outsourcing of maintenance. What is often overlooked, however, is the impact that this type of outsourcing has on the quality of asset information management.

While a majority of businesses traditionally have not kept all plant maintenance operations in-house, in some sectors today, over half of equipment maintenance is outsourced. The public sectoralso is moving in this direction—even in areas such as defense operations where highly sensitive information is the norm.

Companies that outsource maintenance operations face challenging questions regarding asset information management, including:

• How do you monitor third-party maintenance providers to ensure accuracy, safety and quality compliance?
• How can service providers be efficiently integrated into in-house maintenance and repair operations?
• What is the best way to manage service levels without direct control of contracted resources?
• Does the spread of outsourcing mean that in-house maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) is gradually losing critical technical skills?

At the same time, the move toward outsourcing places a new burden on service providers by requiring them to now know more about their customers' assets — in real-time — than in the past. But, without broad access to asset information, such as engineering documentation and service histories, service contractors are unlikely to be able to deliver the sophisticated maintenance strategies and cost savings that their customers demand. How will service providers achieve new levels of "asset intimacy" without a radical re-thinking of asset information management?

Can contractors effectively add value to maintenance and repair operations over the long haul, or will asset service levels decline as a result of outsourcing?

Effective management of expanding service networks and the complexities that directly result from outsourcing require a sophisticated collaborative asset management solution. Simply stated, companies need to build tight coordination between the activities of in-house maintenance workforces and outsourced service providers.

3 levels of "maturity"
The relationship between service and maintenance information systems is often poorly aligned. Both types of systems facilitate maintenance and repair services for equipment owners and operators, but they operate under different business conditions. These differences ought to have no impact on the quality of asset management, but, because of built-in limitations, they do.

While today's service systems support many customer relationships and complex contractual arrangements, such as service-level agreements and entitlements, maintenance management systems normally support only a single customer (i.e., the enterprise) and relatively simple financial arrangements, if any. Depending on the degree of a company's maintenance outsourcing and the complexity of its assets, enterprises fall into one of three asset management maturity categories.

• Companies in the first category—Activity-Based Asset Management—utilize the simplest maintenance and service operations that require little more than the ability to schedule and track activities and costs.
• At the next level—Siloed Asset Management— information management becomes more robust, but information remains siloed within organizations, addressing either the needs of service providers or in-house maintenance, but rarely both.
• The final asset management maturity category is Collaborative Asset Life Cycle Management. At this stage, maintenance and service operations are required to increase their collaboration and information needs to converge. Increasing the size of the service network or the complexity of the assets requires an enterprise to effectively "climb" the maturity ladder or risk asset reliability and maintenance cost problems.

Collaboration is essential
There is a great difference between managing an in-house workforce and relying on a service network. For example, engineering managers will run into problems when they increase the amount of maintenance they outsource, yet they continue to manage maintenance operations as if nothing had changed. Only those companies that understand the significant differences between maintaining an internal workforce and outsourcing will be able to successfully lower overhead costs without jeopardizing safe and effective plant operations.

With outsourcing, plant engineers are forced to control service supply costs and manage a network of providers with limited visibility and control. Meanwhile, they must be equipped to guarantee acceptable asset service levels, plant safety and regulatory compliance. The result is often an increase in maintenance errors and diminished responsiveness that may endanger customer service levels.

Existing maintenance management systems, never designed to manage across extensive outsourcing, simply don't provide a complete view of service status for the enterprise or the service provider. While outsourcing may lead to savings in the short term, it is likely that asset information gaps will gradually erode assets, causing capitalized asset costs to rise. To overcome this challenge, it is important for companies to implement a collaborative asset management solution.

The key to maintenance-service collaboration is access by all stakeholders to critical, accurate asset information , such as recent and historical service records, engineering documentation, manufacturer service bulletins, certifications and regulatory notices. To achieve new levels of collaboration between stakeholders without weakening business operations, companies are beginning to consider a new approach, the previously-referenced collaborative asset life cycle management. An effective strategy of this nature includes two core components: asset data hubs and unified applications to provide real-time information.

Uniting disparate systems
Collaborative asset life cycle management calls for service and maintenance partners to eliminate duplicate data, accommodate both structured and unstructured information and facilitate communication among disparate business systems to process the constant flow of new information from outside sources, including equipment manufacturers and regulators. To accomplish those goals, powerful asset information management data hubs are necessary.

A data hub is a real-time processing engine that automatically verifies, cleanses, de-duplicates and merges information—and then synchronizes all systems. Service and maintenance rely on their own business systems; data hubs that are online and easily interoperate across different systems help to consolidate information from all disparate sources to provide business insight about best maintenance practices and service histories.

It's also important to note that technology must support ubiquitous computing, including spatial information for geographically dispersed assets, embedded sensor data, RFID and equipment telemetry. Much more than today's mobile computing, ubiquitous computing can locate assets whose whereabouts are not easily known, update service supply chain status, optimize global multi-echelon spare parts inventories, and cut down the significant travel, research and waiting time associated with maintenance and service execution.

Consolidated enterprise view
Information systems designed for collaborative asset life cycle management must incorporate unified data models and computing standards even more than in the past as simple semantic transaction interfaces aren't robust enough for the information-sharing that is required. Extensible Markup Language (XML) provides an alphabet and perhaps grammar, but it's not yet a full-blown language that all computers share. To date, SQL and XML have provided valuable windows that we can see and walk through, but not the data highways we can drive across. Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Web services will pave the way for the much needed unification of applications.

In their early years, enterprise resource planning (ERP) suites were perceived as only a partial solution because, instead of eliminating information, they actually made the wealth of information bigger. Mature ERP suites enable enterprise information to be consolidated in one place and dramatically reduce or completely eliminate silos of asset information. Years ago, when banks did this with consumer credit information, they tapped into a huge opportunity to better serve their customers.

Collaborative asset life cycle management requires the same approach with manufactured product information, especially for complex equipment that has long lifecycles. Only by unifying asset information can an entire service network gain the real-time information quality, compliance and control needed for sophisticated maintenance strategies and high asset service levels.

Conclusion
As the move to outsourcing maintenance and service continues, so do the challenges of managing asset information effectively. IT systems that successfully enable collaborative asset lif cycle management between an organization and its service partners must accurately consolidate asset information from disparate systems and also embrace unified data models and computing standards.

Innovation —particularly in the area of collaborative asset life cycle management—has enabled information technology to be less costly and more scalable. When coupled with a defined business strategy, software solutions can facilitate the collaborative asset lifec cycle management vision at a reasonable cost.

Technology plays a critical role in maintenance and repair operations. In particular, utilizing asset data hubs and unified applications will facilitate advanced collaboration between a company and its outsourced service provider. Following this path, a company will be able to achieve the very critical stage of Asset Information Management maturity.

'Sunny' Hemant Gosain is senior director, applications development, at Oracle, and currently the head of development of the company's enterprise asset management, asset tracking and supply chain cost management products. Before joining Oracle, he was a senior consultant with MCI Systemhouse, where he led and managed several IT projects and ERP implementations. Telephone: (650) 506-9284; e-mail: hemant.gosain@oracle.com

Electric motors, whether AC or DC, will vary considerably in construction, operation, and performance. All share a distinction, though, in usually rating high on reliability incident reports.

The "bad news" is that this was the case at an SKF plant in Hanover, PA. The "good news" is that solutions were found, valuable lessons were learned and a new program was launched by SKF to provide others in the industry with the tools and expertise to help keep electric motors performing with minimal problems and downtime.

Regardless of type, electric motors experiencing failure will usually be subject to one of three common failure modes (although the root causes for each mode may differ):

• Failure to start when required;
• Gradual performance degradation in service; or
• Catastrophic in-service failure.

Any and all of these modes will drive unwanted downtime and unanticipated costs, which was the situation in the SKF plant in Hanover. Here, it was liquid-cooled motors to power grinding machines that were under-performing. Many were failing regularly and most were vibrating above normal levels, based on periodic vibration analysis conducted at the facility. In an effort to avert catastrophic failure and attempt to preserve uptime, motors were replaced (and rebuilt) immediately when changes in their vibration spectrum were charted. Unfortunately, this chain of events had become routine, expensive and time-consuming, especially since many of the motors were being replaced every few months. A short-term approach, it further failed to identify root causes of the problems that could have pointed the way to remedial actions.

Expediting a solution
A catalyst to expedite a solution came with an internal SKF program (the "PRE-FORM Project") launched with the goal to establish ever-higher quality and precision standards for all SKF facilities worldwide. In Hanover, the program, in part, required that overall vibration levels of the grinding machines would have to be reduced and that the performance of the electric motors would have to be enhanced to help contribute to improved plant output and quality.

Striving to meet these goals, Hanover turned for outsourced expertise and ultimately commissioned one of its own for the task: SKF Reliability Systems of San Diego, CA. The SKF factory, in fact, became an SKF customer. In the process, new standards and specifications were implemented with strong results. Moreover, an even stronger partnership was forged among all parties, including motor repair shop and plant maintenance personnel.

Unearthing the root cause
Experience tells us that most in-service electric motor failures result from mechanical problems. Possible non-bearing causes abound. These can include windings, wiring, grease or seal failures that, in turn, may result in bearing failures (although bearings are not the root cause).

There often can be additional bearing-related issues involving lubrication (too much, too little, or contamination), misalignment, unbalance, looseness or vibration, among other known influences. Improper motor use and inadequate maintenance can add to potential problems and premature bearing failure.

The initial quest to find answers for the prevailing motor failures in Hanover proved especially vexing as documented in a maintenance-log timeline for one of the motors:

• 2/20: Motor identified as "going bad."
• 2/28: The motor failed (locked up) within days. Shaft end bearing showed excessive heat from locking up, making it difficult to determine exact cause of failure. Independent motor repair shop rebuilt motor and repaired shaft. Motor was re-installed.
• 4/17: Motor began showing early signs of same conditions encountered in previous failure. This time the motor was pulled earlier for inspection. It was determined that the bearing clearance (internal) appeared to have been reduced, causing 360° ball tracking and increasing internal temperature (which would lead to premature failure). The shaft end bearing was replaced and the motor was re-installed.
• 6/08: The motor showed trend toward failure for a third time and was sent to the repair shop for complete rebuild and precision G.4 balance. Motor was re-installed.

The search for solutions can be difficult without the proper "tools." Thus, in tackling the many symptoms and causes of in-service failures of the motors at Hanover, the team adopted a comprehensive Root Cause Failure Analysis (RCFA) approach.

RCFA serves as a structured investigation seeking to identify the true cause of a problem, the cause-and-effect relationships and the actions necessary to prevent repetition. Improvement activities resulting from RCFA studies may suggest machine design improvements, targeted training for operations or maintenance staff and/or provision of specialist equipment for monitoring and maintenance of machinery. In short, RCFA actions can help remove the "guesswork" factor.

Partners in progress
Specialists from SKF Reliability were engaged to conduct a wide range of RCFA services. These included vibration analysis when mechanical problems were encountered; balancing of electric motor pulleys for machine tools and auxiliary equipment, shafts and couplings; and alignment of machine-tool components with digital laser equipment.

As a result, several factors were found to contribute to the repeated motor failures. They included inappropriate bearings (these were replaced with types more suited for the motor application); contamination (remedied by upgrading the sealing function in the motor); misaligned shaft and housing fits (corrected by rewriting specifications for fits and follow-through documentation); and rotor unbalance, on both new and old motors (prompting new requirements to promote balanced systems).

Among the improvement activities recommended in the RCFA, SKF also took an unusual step in training, equipping and certifying the independent electric motor repair shop. This helped strengthen the relationship between customer and service provider and forge a true partnership. The shop was trained to trace root causes of motor failures; mount and install bearings correctly using state-of-the-art tools and techniques; and perform precision maintenance. Both parties jointly developed a specification/process as an established guide to service the motors.

Certification program for shops
The outcome in Hanover (in concert with the global SKF Trouble-Free Operation Program) led to the creation and industry-wide rollout of a unique training and certification program. The "SKF Certified Electric Motor Service" program is available for leading electric motor service shops seeking to gain value-added competence and a competitive edge in the crowded marketplace.

This certification focuses on the four key factors that influence bearing life: product quality, environment, installation, and maintenance. Providers completing this extensive training program earn recognition as "SKF Certified" and are equipped to help improve plant productivity by virtually eliminating premature failure of electric motor bearings.

For end-users, certified shops offer unprecedented access to advanced technologies and expertise, improved quality and increased uptime. The shops are fully supported with specialized bearing tools and lubricants specifically designed for SKF bearings; sophisticated bearing dismounting and mounting equipment; SKF engineering support and technical services (including failure analysis); and high-quality bearings and components.

In Hanover, electric motor reliability at the grinding machines is no longer an issue and measurable savings have been realized. The plant has reduced the total cost of motor maintenance by almost 40 percent and technicians now can spend more time implementing focused procedures instead of puzzling over problems.

Fredrik Franding is Project Manager, Industrial Electrical Market Segment, SKF USA Inc., Kulpsville, PA; telephone: (215) 513-4759; e-mail fredrik.franding@skf.com

When it comes to the operation of industrial processes, life cycle cost (LCC) analysis is an often-ignored methodology that can lead to significantly reduced facility operating costs. This is not a new concept—it has been standard practice in the development and procurement of complex military systems for many years. Federal government guidelines require life cycle analysis for federal agencies considering energy and water conservation projects and renewable energy projects in all federal buildings. Even the Hydraulic Institute (a manufacturers' trade association) has published a handbook on the subject, to help lead facilities personnel through the analysis for pumping systems.

LCC analysis need not always be a time-consuming and expensive en-deavor, however. Such analysis is essentially a methodology for calculating and comparing the installation and operating costs of alternative proposed projects over the life of the equipment, process or facility. Experience has shown that for motor-driven systems in general, energy and maintenance costs tend to dominate operating costs. Thus, quantifying these costs over the life of the system goes a long way in identifying opportunities for savings.

While many organizations do not regularly conduct LCC analyses, most do have some form of an asset management program. Understanding and maximizing the life of electric motors should be a part of asset management for any organization with significant quantities of electric motors.

The Industrial Technologies Program within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has a variety of materials addressing potential opportunities to reduce energy and maintenance costs in industrial process systems. This includes software tools, a series of guidebooks, case studies, tip sheets and other materials. Many of these materials relate to motors and motor systems, including a specific series of tip sheets on energy and maintenance opportunities. The following information comes from the tip sheet on how to extend motor operating life.

Why care about motors?
Over 1.2 million integral horsepower motors are sold each year in the United States, and about 3 million motors are repaired annually.

On average, motors account for almost 70 percent of the total electricity consumption for manufacturing facilities, and 23 percent of total U.S. electricity consumption—equal to about 680 billion kWh/year.

Even small improvements in motor operating life or efficiencies can result in significant cost savings at energy-intensive facilities.

Why do motors fail?
Certain components of motors degrade with time and operating stress.

• Electrical insulation weakens over time with exposure to voltage unbalance, over and under-voltage, voltage disturbances and temperature.
• Contact between moving surfaces causes wear. Wear is affected by dirt, moisture and corrosive fumes, and is greatly accelerated when lubricant is misapplied, becomes overheated or contaminated, or is not replaced at regular intervals.
• When any components are degraded beyond the point of economical repair, the motor's economic life is ended.

For the smallest and least expensive motors, the motor is put out of service when a component such as a bearing fails. Depending upon type and replacement cost, larger motors—up to 20 or 50 horsepower (hp)—may be refurbished and get new bearings, but are usually scrapped after a winding burnout. Still larger and more expensive motors may be refurbished and rewound to extend life indefinitely.

An economic analysis should always be completed prior to a motor's failure so as to ensure that the appropriate repair/replace decision is made.

How long do motors last?
Answers vary, with some manufacturers stating 30,000 hours, others 40,000 hours, and still others saying "It depends." The useful answer is "probably a lot longer with a conscientious motor systems maintenance plan than without one."

Motor life can range from less than two years to several decades under varying circumstances. In the best circumstances, degradation still proceeds, and a failure can occur if it is not detected. Much of this progressive deterioration can be detected by modern predictive maintenance techniques in time for life-extending intervention.

Even with excellent selection and care, motors still can suffer short lifetimes in unavoidably severe environments. In some industries, motors are exposed to contaminants that are severely corrosive, abrasive and/or electrically conductive. In such cases, motor life can be extended by purchasing special motors, such as those conforming to the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) 841 specifications, or other severe-duty or corrosion-resistant models.

The operating environment, conditions of use (or misuse) and quality of preventive maintenance determine how quickly motor parts degrade. Higher temperatures shorten motor life. For every 10 ¡ C rise in operating temperature, the insulation life is cut in half. This can mislead one into thinking that purchasing new motors with higher insulation temperature ratings will significantly increase motor life. This is not always true, because new motors designed with higher insulation thermal ratings may actually operate at higher internal temperatures (as permitted by the higher thermal rating). Increasing the thermal rating during rewinding, for example, from Class B (130¡ C) to Class H (180¡ C), does increase the winding life.

Maximizing motor life
The best safeguard against thermal damage is avoiding conditions that contribute to overheating. These include dirt, under and over-voltage, voltage unbalance, harmonics, high ambient temperature, poor ventilation and overload operation (even within the service factor).

Bearing failures account for nearly one-half of all motor failures. If not detected in time, the failing bearing can cause overheating and damage insulation, or can fail drastically and do irreparable mechanical damage to the motor. Vibration trending is a good way to detect bearing problems in time to intervene.

With bearings often implicated in motor failures, the L10 rating of a bearing may be cause for concern. The L10 rating is the number of shaft revolutions until 10 percent of a large batch of bearings fails under a very specific test regimen. It does not follow that simply having a large L10 rating will significantly extend motor bearing life. Wrong replacement bearings, incorrect lubricant, excessive lubricant, incorrect lubrication interval, contaminated lubricant, excessive vibration, misaligned couplings, excessive belt tension and even power-quality problems can all destroy a bearing. Always follow the manufacturer's lubrication instructions and intervals.

Make sure that motors are not exposed to loading or operating conditions in excess of limitations defined in manufacturer specifications and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standard MG-1-2003. This NEMA standard defines limits for ambient temperature, voltage variation, voltage unbalance and frequency of starts.

Motor couplings should not be ignored, either. For direct drive applications, correct shaft alignment ensures the smooth, efficient transmission of power from the motor to the driven equipment and to protect the operating life of the equipment. Incorrect alignment occurs when the centerlines of the motor and the driven equipment shafts are not in line with each other.

Misalignment produces excessive vibration, noise, coupling and bearing temperatures, leading to premature bearing or coupling failure.

Motor management
When an electric motor does fail, you must decide whether to repair or replace. DOE's resources include tips on developing a repair vs. replace policy, a "Guidelines to a Good Motor Repair" document and other related materials.

When the decision is made to repair, use a respected service center and be prepared to ask questions to ensure quality repair. A good motor service center can often pinpoint failure modes and indicate optional features or rebuild methods to strengthen new and rewound motors against critical stresses. DOE's "Service Center Evaluation Guide" offers guidance in selecting a quality service center. The Electrical Apparatus Service Association (www.easa.org) is another good source of guidance on motor repair.

Developing a repair vs. replace policy for various sizes and applications is the first step in establishing a Motor Management Program. Other motor management strategies can include purchasing policies (considering premium efficiency motors), establishing a motor inventory, tracking motor life, creating a spares inventory, and scheduled maintenance. The U.S. Department of Energy's MotorMaster+ software program is a free, straightforward tool used by many organizations to implement motor management programs. Putting such a program in place can be part of a larger plant operations asset management program.

References:
1. "Extend the Operating Life of Your Motor," U.S. Department of Energy, September 2005.
2. NEMA Standard MG-1-2003, "Motors and Generators."

Vestal Tutterow is a senior program manager for the Alliance to Save Energy, promoting improved energy efficiency within the industrial sector and providing support to the Department of Energy's Industrial Technologies Program; telephone: (202) 530-2241; e-mail: vtutterow@ase.org; Internet: www.ase.org

There is a persistent misconception that a "magic bullet," in the form of a condition-based monitoring (CBM) instrument, will provide all of the information one needs to evaluate the health of an electric motor system. Often, this misconception is reinforced through commercial presentations made by the manufacturers of such instruments or their sales representatives. In reality, though, there is no "Holy Grail" of CBM and reliability when it comes to electric motors. No single instrument will provide you with every piece of information that you need.

But, through a better understanding of your electric motor system(s) and the capabilities of CBM technologies, you can have a complete view of your system and its health, and gain confidence in estimating time to failure in order to make good recommendations to management.

Electric motor systems
An electric motor system involves far more than just the motor. In fact, it is made up of six distinct sections, all with their different failure modes. The sections are:

• The facility power distribution system, which includes wiring and transformers.
• The motor control, which may include starters, soft starts, variable frequency drives and other starting systems.
• The electric motor - a three phase induction motor for the purpose of this article.
• The mechanical coupling, which may be direct, gearbox, belts or some other coupling method. For the purpose of this paper, we will focus on direct coupling and belts.
• The load refers to the driven equipment such as a fan, pump, compressor or other driven equipment.
• The process, such as wastewater pumping, mixing, aeration, etc.

Most will view individual components of the system when troubleshooting, trending, commissioning or performing some other reliability-based function related to the system. What components are focused on depends upon several factors, which include:

• What is the experience and background of the personnel and managers involved. For instance, you will most often see a strong vibration program when the maintenance staff is primarily mechanical, or an infrared program when the staff is primarily electrical.
• Perceived areas of failure. This can be a serious issue depending upon how the motor system is perceived and will deserve more attention to follow.
• Understanding of the various CBM technologies.
• Training (but when is training ever NOT an issue?).

The perceived areas of failure present an especially serious problem when viewing the history of your motor system. Often, when records are produced, the only summary might state something like, "fan failure, repaired," or "pump failure, repaired." The end result is that the perceived failure has to do with the pump or fan component of the motor system. This especially becomes more of an issue when relying upon memory to provide the answers to the most serious problems to be addressed in a plant, based upon history. For instance, when looking to determine what part of a plant has been causing the most problems, the answer might be, "Waste water pump 1." The immediate perception is that the pump has a consistent problem and, as a pump is a mechanical system, a mechanical monitoring solution might be selected for trending the pump's health. If a root-cause had been recorded on each failure, it might have been determined to be the motor winding, bearings, cable, controls, process or a combination of issues.

In a recent meeting, while discussing the selection of CBM equipment, the attendees were asked for modes of failure from their locations. The answers were fans, compressors and pumps. When discussed further, the fans were found to have bearing and motor winding faults being most common, pump seals and motor bearings for pumps, and, seals and motor windings for compressors. When viewed even closer, the winding faults were found to be asso-ciated with control and cable problems, improper re-pairs and power quality. The bearing issues had to do with improper lubrication practices.

In effect, when trying to determine the best way to implement CBM on your electric motor system, you need to take a system view, not a component view. The result is simple: improved reliability, fewer headaches and an improved bottom line.

Condition-based monitoring test instruments
Following are some of the more common CBM technologies in use. More detail on the technologies can be found in "Motor Circuit Analysis"[1]. Details as to the components of the system tested and capabilities can be found in Tables 1-4.

De-energized testing:

• By applying a voltage of twice the motor rated voltage plus 1,000 volts for AC and an additional 1.7 times that value for DC high potential (usually with a multiplier to reduce the stress on the insulation system), the insulation system between the motor windings and ground (ground- wall insulation) is evaluated. The test is widely considered potentially destructive[2]. Surge comparison testing: Using pulses of voltage at values calculated the same as high potential testing, the impedance of each phase of a motor are compared graphically. The purpose of the test is to detect shorted turns within the first few turns of each phase. The test is normally performed in manufacturing and rewinding applications as it is best performed without a rotor in the stator. This test is widely considered potentially destructive, and is primarily used as a go/no-go test.
• Insulation tester: This test places a DC voltage between the windings and ground. Low current leakage is measured and converted to a measurement of meg, gig or tera-Ohms.
• Polarization Index testing: Using an insulation tester, the 10 minute to 1 minute values are viewed and a ratio produced. According to the IEEE 43-2000, insulation values over 5,000 MegOhms need not be evaluated using PI. The test is used to detect severe winding contamination or overheated insulation systems.
• Ohm, Milli-Ohm testing: Using an Ohm or Milli-Ohm meter, values are measured and compared between windings of an electric motor. These measurements are normally taken to detect loose connections, broken connections and very late stage winding faults.
• Motor Circuit Analysis (MCA) testing: Instruments using combinations of values for resistance, impedance, inductance, phase angle, current frequency response, capacitance and insulation testing can be used to troubleshoot, commission and evaluate control, connection, cable, stator, rotor, air gap and insulation to ground health. Using a low voltage output, readings are read through a series of bridges and evaluated. Non-destructive and trendable readings collected, often months in advance of electrical failure. Note: Different manufacturers of this technology use different combinations of test values.

Energized testing:

• Vibration Analysis: Mechanical vibration is measured through a transducer providing overall vibration values and FFT analysis. These values provide indicators of mechanical faults and degree of faults, can be trended and will provide information on some electrical and rotor problems that vary based upon the loading of the motor. Minimum load requirements for electric motors to detect faults in the rotor. Requires a working knowledge of the system being tested.
• Infrared analysis provides information on the temperature difference between objects. Faults are detected and trended based upon degree of fault. Excellent for detecting loose connections and other electrical faults with some ability to detect mechanical faults. Readings will vary with load. Requires a working knowledge of the system being tested.
• Ultrasonic instruments measure low and high frequency noise. Will detect a variety of electrical and mechanical issues towards the late stages of fault. Readings will vary with load. Requires a working knowledge of the system being tested.
• Voltage and current measurements will provide limited information on the condition of the motor system. Readings will vary with load.
• Electrical Signature Analysis (ESA) uses the electric motor as a transducer to detect electrical and mechanical faults through a significant portion of the motor system. Usually used as a go/no go test, ESA does have some trending capabilities, but will normally only detect winding faults and mechanical problems in their late stages. Some manufacturers are sensitive to load variations and readings will vary based upon the load. Requires nameplate information and many systems require the number of rotor bars, stator slots and manual input of operating speed.

Major components and failure modes

Incoming power. Starting from the incoming power to the load, the first area that would have to be addressed is the incoming power and distribution system. The first area of issue is power quality, then transformers.

Power quality issues associated with electric motor systems include:

• Voltage and current harmonics: With voltage limited to 5% THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) and current limited to 3% THD. Current harmonics carry the greatest potential for harm to the electric motor system.
• Over and under voltage conditions: Electric motors are designed to operate no more than +/- 10% of the nameplate voltage.
• Voltage unbalance: Is the difference between phases. The relationship between voltage and current unbalance varies from a few time to many times current unbalance as related to voltage unbalance based upon motor design (Can be as high as 20 times).
• Power factor: The lower the power factor from unity, the more current the system must use to perform work. Signs of poor power factor also include dimming of lights when heavy equipment starts.
• Overloaded system. Based upon the capabilities of the transformer, cabling and motor. Detected with current measurements, normally, as well as heat.

The primary tools used to detect problems with incoming power are power quality meters, ESA and voltage and current meters. Knowing the condition of your power quality can help to identify a great many "phantom" problems.

Transformers are one of the first critical components of the motor system. In general, transformers have fewer issues than other components in the system. However, each transformer usually takes care of multiple systems-in the electric motor, as well as other systems.

Common transformer problems (oil-filled or dry-type models) include:

• Insulation to ground faults
• Shorted windings
• Loose connections, and,
• Electrical vibration/mechanical looseness

Test equipment used for monitoring the health of transformers (within the selection of instruments in this article) include:

• MCA for grounds, loose/broken connections and shorts
• ESA for power quality and late stage faults
• Infrared analysis for loose connections
• Ultrasonics for looseness and severe faults
• Insulation testers for insulation to ground faults

MCCs, controls and disconnects. The motor control or disconnect is responsible for some of the primary issues with electric motor systems. The most common for both low- and medium-voltage systems are:

• Loose connections
• Bad contacts including pitted, damaged, burned or worn
• Bad starter coils on the contactor
• Bad power factor correction capacitors which normally results in a significant current unbalance.

The test methods for evaluating controls include infrared, ultrasonics, volt/amp meters, ohm meters and visual inspections. MCA, ESA and infrared provide the most accurate systems for fault detection and trending.

Cables – Before and after the controls. Cabling problems are rarely considered and, as a result, they provide some of the biggest headaches. Common cable problems include:

• Thermal breakdown due to overloads or age
• Contamination that can be even more serious in cables that pass underground through conduit
• Phase shorts, as well as grounds These can be caused by 'treeing' or physical damage.
• Opens due to physical damage or other causes.
• Physical damage. often in combination with other cable problems. Test and trending is performed with MCA, infrared, insulation testing and ESA.

Motor supply side summary. On the supply side to the motor, the problems can be broken down as follows:

• Poor power factor - 39%
• Poor connections - 36%
• Undersized conductors - 10%
• Voltage unbalance - 7%
• Under or over voltage conditions - 8%

The most common equipment that covers these areas includes MCA, infrared and ESA.

Electric motors. Electric motors include mechanical and electrical components. In fact, an electric motor is a converter of electrical energy to mechanical torque. Primary mechanical problems include:

• Bearings – general wear, misapplication, loading or contamination.
• Bad or worn shaft or bearing housings
• General mechanical unbalance and resonance

Vibration analysis is the primary method for detection of mechanical problems in electric motors. ESA will detect late-stage mechanical problems as will infrared and ultrasonics. Primary electrical problems include:

• Winding shorts between conductors or coils
• Winding contamination
• Insulation to ground faults
• Air gap faults, including eccentric rotors
• Rotor faults, including casting voids and broken rotor bars

MCA will detect all of the faults early in development. ESA will detect late-stage stator faults and early rotor faults. Vibration will detect late-stage faults, insulation to ground will only detect ground faults, which make up less than 1% of motor system faults. Surge testing will only detect shallow winding shorts and all other testiing will only detect late stage faults.

Coupling (direct and belted). The coupling between the motor and load provides opportunities for problems due to wear and the application.

• Belt or direct drive misalignment
• Belt or insert wear
• Belt tension issues (that are more common than most think and which usually result in bearing failure)
• Sheave wear

The most accurate system for coupling fault detection is vibration analysis. ESA and infrared analysis will normally detect severe or late-stage faults. Load (fans, pumps, compressors, gearboxes, etc.) The load can have numerous types of faults depending on the type of load. The most common are worn parts, broken components and bearings.

Test instruments capable of detecting load problems include ESA, vibration, infrared analysis and ultrasonics.

Common approaches
There already are several common approaches to multi-technology within industry, as well as several new ones (See Table 3). The best use a combination of energized and de-energized testing. It is important to note that energized testing is usually best under constant load conditions and trended in the same operating conditions each time.

One of the most common approaches has been the use of insulation resistance and/or polarization index. These will only identify insulation to ground faults in both the motor and cable, which represents less than 1% of the overall motor system faults (÷5% of motor faults).

Infrared and vibration are normally used in conjunction with each other with great success. However, they miss a few common problems or will only detect them in the late stages of failure.

Surge testing and high potential testing will only detect some winding faults and insulation to ground faults, with the potential to take the motor out of action should any insulation contamination or weakness exist.

MCA and ESA support each other and detect virtually all of the problems in the motor system. This accuracy requires MCA systems that use resistance, impedance, phase angle, I/F and insulation to ground and ESA systems that include voltage and current demodulation.

The newest and most effective approach has been vibration, infrared and MCA and/or ESA. The strength of this approach is that there is a combination of electrical and mechanical disciplines involved in evaluation and troubleshooting.

As found in a recent "Motor Diagnostic and Motor Health Study,"[3], 38% of motor system testing involving only vibration and/or infrared saw a significant return on investment (ROI). This number jumped to 100% in systems that used a combination of MCA/ESA along with vibration and/or infrared. In one case, a combined application of infrared and vibration saw an ROI of $30k. When the company added MCA to its toolbox, the ROI increased to $307,000-ten times the original-by using a combination of instruments.

Application opportunities
There are three common opportunities for electric motor system testing. These include:

• Commissioning components or the complete system as it is newly installed or repaired. This can provide a very immediate payback for the technologies involved and will help you avoid infant mortality disasters.
• Troubleshooting the system through the application of multiple technologies will assist you in identifying problems much more rapidly and with greater confidence.
• Trending of test results for system reliability, again using the proper application of multiple technologies. Using tests such as MCA, vibration and infrared, potential faults can be trended over the long term, detecting many faults months in advance.

Conclusion
This article provides a brief overview of how multiple technologies can work together to provide you with a good view of your electric motor systems.

Through a good understanding of this approach, and proper application of it, you can realize significant returns in your maintenance program.

Consider the following reasons to outsource maintenance.

The first reason has been a given since maintenance organizations have been in existence. Outsourcing maintenance is typically done in organizations that perform many projects or schedule outages or shutdowns. In these situations, there is a fixed amount of work that needs to be performed in a given time period.

If the work exceeds in-house resources, outside resources are brought into the equation. Also, if specialty tasks need to be performed, outside resources that specialize in performing these tasks can be brought in and perform the tasks at a higher level of efficiency and effectiveness.

The second reason for outsourcing maintenance is to provide specialty skills. In some organizations, certain types of maintenance on control, automation or HVAC systems is outsourced. This is a cost-benefit decision. In many cases, the work generated by these systems is insufficient to justify staffing a full-time employee. Thus, it becomes more cost-effective to outsource the maintenance function, provided certain performance guarantees are negotiated.

The third reason for outsourcing is beginning to grow among financial officers in companies. As CFOs continue to look for ways to increase shareholder value, they are examining every possible cost-saving avenue. Outsourcing companies now are directly approaching CFOs with the business proposition to replace the in-house maintenance function with an outsourced organization. The advantage? Reduced maintenance expendituresÐand any reduction in expenses is an increase in profit. No matter how you slice it, this can be an immensely compelling proposition for a CFO.

In-house maintenance/asset managers may try to refute these claims, but consider some statistics. What if 1/3rd of all maintenance resources really are wasted due to ineffective and inefficient management techniques and it does take three to five years (internally) to transform a reactive maintenance culture into a ÒBest PracticeÓ organization? Can a professionally-managed outsourced maintenance more rapidly reduce maintenance expenses while increasing equipment availability and efficiency?

What can maintenance/realiability managers do if they want to keep their maintenance/asset management as an internal business function? The key is to become professional maintenance managers. To do so, they must learn to translate their technical language into the language other company managers speak—financial... dollars and cents. If not, an increasing number of maintenance organizations will fail to show value. And, they will be outsourced.

Today's maintenance/ reliability managers must accelerate (their improvement programs lowering maintenance expenses), innovate (find better practices that improve asset reliability and efficiency) or evaporate (be prepared to be outsourced).

The responsibility of any CFO (or COO and CEO, for that matter) is to improve profitability. Unless their internal maintenance function is optimized, outsourcing will always be an attractive option.

A common challenge across many industries, when it comes to corporate growth, is how to successfully communicate a specific message in another language. While English is the accepted language of world finance and corporate operations, when your business takes you to another country, you must be willing and able to adapt. This is especially true in the case of manufacturing and maintenance, where a majority of employees are local men and women just trying to make a living.

There is no question that everyone prefers to be trained, lectured, facilitated, coached and otherwise communicated with in his or her native tongue. We Americans are probably more demanding of this than any group of people.

It is not unusual to see, for example, an American on business or vacation abroad who becomes indignant because a local shop owner doesn't do business in English. Could it be that we simply don't make the connection that over there WE are the foreigners!? The truth of the matter is that regardless of which country we may visit, it should be incumbent upon us to at least attempt the local language. This simple—sometimes embarrassing—act will allow you to garner an immense amount of respect with the local population. And, it will provide a great measure of credibility with your client in a foreign country.

Remember that if your work takes you out of the United States, you generally can't make the transition without some local help from within the country you are visiting. Presentations and training materials must be translated—and should be done by someone who "speaks the lingo" of your profession.

Take a look at any English-to-"X" dictionary and see just how many engineering, maintenance or manufacturing-unique words it contains. Unfortunately, there are very few. Yet, it is utterly impossible to communicate any principles or theories to a plant, maintenance, materials, reliability or other professional without using these technical words.

If you can't find a dictionary of technical or engineering terms for your language requirements, you have no option but to find a local resource—or give up the client. It's your choice.

Most maintenance professionals in the U.S. understand the theory, process and application of the Responsibility, Accountability, Support and Information (RASI) model. In every process, each step requires someone who is "Responsible" for getting it done (the Doer) and someone who is ultimately "Accountable" for this step in the process (the Buck Stops Here). I was embarking on a coaching session at a client site in Quebec, in the beginning stages of RASI development, when several members of our client focus team noted (in French), "But there is no difference between Responsibility and Accountability." As it turned out, they were correct. If you look up the word "accountable" in your French Quebec-American dictionary, you will find that the primary definition is, indeed, "responsible."

We were able to overcome this dilemma in Quebec by re-defining the "R"and the "A" in the classic RASI model. We decided that the "R" would represent the "Accountable" person and the "A" would represent the "Actor" (the Doer), or "Responsible" person in the model. In this way, we were able to retain the RASI title for the model while still accurately representing each of the letters in the acronym. This same approach should work well with many other languages as a company may continue expanding its business into the global market.

Many language scholars would agree that, while most Americans struggle with any foreign language, English—and American English, in particular—is, in fact the hardest language to master. We have many words that are spelled the same, but which have several different meanings, as well as many different words with the same root meaning.

The message here is that if you have designs on expanding your business or service outside of the U.S., don't get caught with your Funk & Wagnalls down!

Bob Call is a Senior Consultant with Life Cycle Engineering. He has over 20 years experience in maintenance and reliability, specializing in project management, process improvement and supervisory skills training. E-mail bcall@LCE.com4360

For the last seven years, I have been working in the electric utility construction industry as a Regional Safety Manager. During this period, I have had the misfortune of investigating many serious accidents, ranging from amputations to fatalities. A common thread running through all of these cases has been the fact that a shortcut was taken by one or more employees and a critical procedure was not followed.

Workplace culture as a driver
A line worker was in an aerial lift, working on a new overhead power line that was being installed along a rural gravel road. He was approaching an existing single-phase, 7200-volt overhead power line with a grounded AWG #2 triplex service drop cable in the boom's jib. He was going to connect a service drop to a transformer.

This young employee had moved the transformer earlier from an old 12.2-meter-tall pole to a new pole that was 13.7 meters tall. He was not wearing his rubber insulating gloves (which were still in the glove bag, hanging from the tool board in the bucket). Furthermore, he also had not placed the rubber insulating line hose (which was also in the bucket with him) on the energized phase conductor. No one was observing him while he was working.

He maneuvered the aerial lift bucket between the phase and neutral conductors on the existing power line, with the bucket at a 45-degree angle to the boom. The end of the triplex cable was inside the bucket with him. The existing line was located parallel to and closer to the gravel road than the new line being installed. The employee apparently contacted the phase conductor and was electrocuted. His supervisor found him slumped down in his bucket.

The OSHA data base is full of accident descriptions very similar to this one. They all have a couple of things in common:

• failure to follow proper procedure is a part of every accident listed; and
• experience and/
• or training, in most cases, do not appear to be an issue.

There is a widespread misconception that many accidents occur simply because an employee is not following the rules, and that most injuries are the fault of the individual. That is not the case, however, as it's the cultures of our workplaces that drive everything we do.

Just recently, a senior lineman was killed when he was flung from an aerial lift after the bucket from which he was working had been caught under a tree branch. Sadly, he had not been wearing his fall-protection harness, which was required by company policy. In fact, he had been warned on several occasions about violating that policy.

While it's true that this tragedy resulted because a worker chose to violate a company policy, it was the company's safety culture that created the environment for him to make that decision. Had the proper safety culture existed, and the correct disciplinary action been taken when the initial violations were observed, this accident most likely would not have occurred.

Creating the proper culture
I believe that any company can achieve the goal of zero accidents. One of the first steps in the process is that you must treat safety as a core business value. If you approach safety as a process, or just another program, you will fail to motivate employees to incorporate it into their daily activities. If you make safety a core business value, it will become woven into everything you do, and every decision you make.

Sometimes, companies are lured into a false sense of security because they haven't had an injury in a year. They may think that they are doing everything right. The reality, though, is that they have just been lucky. Only when an employee's behaviors are constantly safe can you consider that you have successfully integrated safe work practices into your corporate culture.

Executive decisions
Many company presidents and CEOs across the country think that they are taking the correct steps toward improving their safety integration process by hiring a qualified safety professional, providing them with adequate financial resources and then telling everyone in a company memo that ÒSafety is Number One.Ó Yet, these same executives find themselves frustrated year after year when the company continues to experience accidents and they are unable to reduce their injury rates. And why not? As popular author Stephen Covey tells us: "If we always do what we've always done, we'll always get what we've always got."

Company executives who are frustrated over the inability to reduce injury rates within their organizations must someday come to the realization that they bear the ultimate responsibility for promoting a safety culture. They and their line management team must take 100-percent responsibility for integrating the safety process into their workforce. To accomplish this they must:

• Make it very clear that safety truly is the company's number one core value.
• Believe that a zero accident/injury workplace is possible.
• Set expectations for those who report to them and hold them accountable to those expectations with consequences for non-compliance.
• Accept no excuses if things go wrong and non-compliance is a factor.
• Address the issue immediately.
  And, most importantly:
• Model the safe behavior they expect of their employees.

There is no question that organizations with the greatest success rates at preventing accidents depend on line organization involvement in the safety process. But those in the line organization need support from the corporate leadership, as well as access to resources with the technical expertise to advise them and provide informed guidance for the overall safety program.

Companies that have achieved the greatest success at maintaining safety in the workplace do so by reviewing all of the elements of the safety process. You cannot just focus your efforts in one area, such as tightening discipline in a system that is out of control. It is only when all parts of the safety process are recognized and worked on that a successfully functioning safety culture can be realized.

Proper training
The importance of health and safety training in the workplace should never be underestimated. It is the key to success in managing safety in the work environment.

Proper safety performance in the workplace rests in the education and training of a company's greatest resource, their employees. The employees' acceptance and participation in a safety culture requires sufficient knowledge and understanding of the hazards that they may encounter in the performance of their duties as an employee.

Companies that excel at promoting a safety culture have developed a comprehensive safety education system that includes budgeting regular, on-going employee, supervisor and project manager education and toolbox or task training. The positive returns on the training investment come in the form of improved safety performance, with the added benefit of a greater degree of competency and efficiency in task performance.

In order to have a successful health and safety education program, it must be considered as a regular part of the budget. The impact of the inclusion of safety training as a line item within the budget clearly demonstrates management commitment and promotes employee involvement.

Mike Bahr is Electrical Safety Program Manager with National Technology Transfer, Inc. (NTT). A 20-year veteran of the industry, he is a certified and published subject matter expert in the fields of electrical safety and regulatory compliance. Telephone: (800) 363-7758 x 348; e-mail: mbahr@nttinc.com; Internet: www.nttinc.com

Each year, thousands of positive displacement compressors suffer serious damage because upstream filters or separators are really not doing their jobs as anticipated by the owner-purchaser. The reputations of machinery engineers are also at risk because they often neglect to understand the full impact of liquid and particulate entrainment in the gas. That said, engineers would do well to study the merits of reverse-filter technology.

Reverse-flow filter-separator technology is a profit generator for best-of-class refineries and petrochemical plants. First applied in the mid 1970s, these flow-optimized, self-cleaning coalescers (SCCs) represent mature, low life-cycle-cost, best-technology solutions for reliability-focused users. A reliability-focused user is far more interested in low life-cycle costs than lowest possible purchase price.

However, since aggressive marketers are known to have clouded the issue with advertising claims, a thorough examination and explanation of facts and underlying principles is in order.

Conventional filter-separators vs. SCCs
To understand how SCCs work, we first must recall how most conventional filter-separators (CFSs) function. In the CFS shown in Fig. 1, the gas enters the first-stage filter elements where its velocity is reduced as it passes through a large filter element area. Initially, the various and sundry contaminants (iron sulfides, etc.) are caught by the filter, but the gas forces gradually sluff it to a particle size that will pass through the filter elements.

The gas and solid particles, as well as the liquids coalesced on the inside of the filter element undergo re-acceleration and are being re-entrained in the collector tube before being led to the next separator section. With wire mesh or vanes in this section typically allowing passage of fine mist droplets and particles—let's call them "globules" of liquid—in the below 3-8 micron size range, a good percentage of liquid and small solids (particulates) remain entrained in the gas stream leaving the CFS.

In contrast, self-cleaning coalescers or SCCs (Fig. 2) vastly reduce this entrainment and send much cleaner gas to the downstream equipment.

However, SCCs do not accomplish this task by merely making the inlet into an outlet, changing the outlet to the inlet, and calling the "new" device a reverse flow unit. Instead, consideration had to be given to internal configuration, flow pattern and—most importantly—the characteristics of both the liquids and solids to be removed. The designers of this equipment had to adjust their thinking from only pressure-drop concerns to considerations dealing with liquid specific gravities, liquid surface tensions, viscosities and re-entrainment velocities.

In properly designed SCCs, gas first passes through the plenum, then through collection tubes and to the filter elements. The front-end of an SCC represents a slug-free liquid knockout. The de-entrainment section is sized to reduce the gas velocity so as to allow any particulates that might have made it through the filter to either drop out or attach themselves to the coalesced liquid droplets that fall out at this stage. Over three decades of solid experience have proven the effectiveness of this design. Essentially all entrained particulates and mist globules are removed, as are free liquids and large agglomerated materials.

Removal efficiencies examined
Some CFS configurations and models are claiming removal efficiencies with their so-called coalescers that are much better than those actually achieved. These claims are often made for vessels that are much smaller than the well-proven SCCs, and they are virtually impossible to achieve by single-stage CFS models. In addition, these CFS designs are vertically-oriented and their manufacturers or vendors sometimes state—incorrectly—that effective coalescing cannot be achieved in a horizontal vessel.

Upon closer examination, one may find certain CFS configurations to have high pressure drops with "moist" gases, or high velocities, shorter filter elements, virtually never any slug-handling capacity. Moreover, unless a vendor or manufacturer uses the High Efficiency Particular Air (HEPA) filters mandated for use in nuclear facilities and required in hospital operating rooms, filtration effectiveness down to 0.3 micron—considerably less than one hundredth of the width of a human hai—is simply not achievable.

Filter quality examined
Keep in mind that a conventional forward-flow filter separator is considered to be a "coalescer." It incorporates filter elements that operate on the coalescing principle. The filter elements coalesce liquid droplets into 10-and-larger micron size globules to be removed by the downstream impingement vane mist extractor (vanes are guaranteed to remove 8 to 10 micron particles). It is not reasonable to use simple piping insulation as a filter medium and guarantee the removal of droplets in the 0.3 micron size range. Multi-stage configurations are needed and the ultimate filter has to be "HEPA-like," i.e. it has to far exceed the quality of piping insulation.

A good design typically embodies long fiberglass filter elements using certain micro-fiber enhancements that are known to modern textile manufacturers. Low-velocity technology is very helpful and surface area is not as important as the depth of the media through which the gas has to pass.

The thicker the filter element, the longer the gas takes to pass through it, resulting in more and better coalescing of the liquids.

Some SCCs are offered with thin, high-pressure-drop, pleated-paper elements, representing very low contact times and high-exit (re-entrainment) velocities. As dirt builds up, exit velocities rise even higher, resulting in more and more re-entrainment of liquid mists and any associated, shearable solids exiting the cartridges. And the game goes on, as the re-entrained particles get smaller and smaller, thus meeting an artificial guarantee as velocities become higher and higher.

Others offer high-density and -depth media fibers that result in high pressure dropand high exit velocity, and which also re-entrain immediately after passing through the cartridges. Both of these approaches, as well as the downsizing of vessels and internals, contribute to marketing strategies geared to high consumption of elements and, thus, high sales volume and profitability for the vendor.

A competent SCC manufacturer's approach should be just the opposite—to give the user/purchaser maximized reliability, maximized cartridge life and lowest possible maintenance expenses. Years ago, the concept of "self-cleaning" vessels was successfully transferred from oil-bath separator scrubbers. They are still offered for specific applications and incorporate rotating cleanable bundles. This technology evolved to filter vessels with a rotating cleaning mechanism and to the present state-of-art, i.e. the back-flushing of individual elements while remaining on-stream.

Further, competent manufacturers still offer maximized performance from even conventional vessels by utilizing tried and true designs with maximized internals. They will not advocate the use of downsized versions that violate certain velocity and pressure-drop criteria, thereby incurring high maintenance and non-sustainable, or non-optimized performance.

This takes us back to HEPA filters. Designed and developed for air filtration, HEPA filters recycle the air many times within a closed system and periodically add fresh makeup air to achieve the desired air quality. In the hydrocarbon processing industry, there is usually only a single-pass opportunity to achieve clean gas. It is rarely feasible to recycle process gases several times to obtain the desired gas purity. Since absolute, beta-rated filter elements are simply not able to achieve these results, many inferior designs call for one or more "conditioning" filters, or vessels, to be placed upstream of their "coalescer."

Also, be on the lookout for offers that allude to the advisability (or just the merits) of installing downstream vessels to clean up certain liquid streams to which the gas has been exposed. A relevant question to ask is "Why does the liquid have to be cleaned up if the upstream vessel(s) has done its job of, say, protecting the treating tower?" Without fail, the answer will point to liquids, or mists or corrosion products in the form of small solids particles that were not adequately removed upstream of the tower. Hence, foaming and treating agent contamination were not eliminated. This means tower upsets, additional filtration for liquids and even the possible need for carbon beds or filters to remove trace liquid aerosol contaminants.

SCCs have been successfully implemented to protect such process streams and to eliminate or prevent contamination-related upsets. Time and again, bottom-line results show that self-cleaning coalescers protect equipment and safeguard reliability.

How to specify and select the best equipment
Superior self-cleaning coalescers can remove iron sulfides, viscous fluids and slugs because of their inherent low pressure drops (4" to 6", or 100 to 150 mm H2O). Moreover, low velocities and other important considerations conducive to good separation and low life cycle costs must be taken into account here.

With input from the user or destination plant, a competent vendor can assist in drawing up a good inquiry specification. Within the specification there are many options to consider. The choice, quite clearly, depends on process conditions and related parameters, some of which are as follows:

• Dry filter: for gas with associated solids
• Dry filter, self-cleaning: for gas associated with solids
• Line separator: for gas containing entrained liquid mist
• Vertical or horizontal separator: for gas with entrained liquid globules (mist, aerosol)
• Vertical or horizontal separator: gas with entrained liquid particles (mist) and free liquid (slug) removal
• Vertical or horizontal filter-separator: gas with entrained liquid globules (mist, aerosol) and stable solids\
• Reverse-flow mist coalescer: gas with entrained liquid globules (mist, aerosol). Removal to sub-micron particle size and extremely high efficiency
• Reverse-flow mist coalescer with slug chamber: gas with entrained liquid globules (mist, aerosol), slugs and (stable or unstable) solids. Removal to sub-micron or better, at high efficiency (can be furnished in self-cleaning configuration while in full service)
• Oil-bath separator-scrubber: gas with liquid globules (mist) and solids (stable or unstable). Removal to 3 microns at 97% efficiency by weight
• Tricon 3-stage separator: gas with entrained liquid globules (mist), slugs and solids (stable or unstable). Removal to 3 microns at 97% efficiency Evaluating the proposed configurations

Once the various bidders submit their offers, they must be evaluated using life-cycle costing and suitability criteria. An objective evaluation must keep in mind the following:

1. Velocity: Once the gas stream enters the vessel, there should be no internal configuration that would accelerate the gas back to pipeline velocity. Causing the motion of gas to increase in velocity will only cause the liquid to shear into smaller and smaller globules.

2. Pressure Drop: In no instance should a piece of separation equipment be designed with more than a 2 psi pressure drop from flange to flange when the vessel operating pressure exceeds 500 psig. At less than 500 psig, the flange-to-flange pressure drop should be limited to one psi or lower. Pressure drop consumes energy, and energy costs money.

In no design of separation equipment should the pressure drop across an element arrangement be allowed to exceed 0.5 psi. As filter elements become wetted and 50 percent plugged, the pressure drop increases four-fold.

If, for example, the initial pressure drop is 0.5 psi, and the elements become half- plugged, the pressure will increase to 2 psi. Once the elements become three-quarters plugged, the pressure will increase to 8 psi. This is 16 times the initial pressure drop and a change of elements is now unavoidable. Keep the initial filter element pressure as far below 0.5 psi as possible to avoid frequent element change-out. Remember, the filter elements have to be disposed of and this disposal can become expensive.

3. Filter Element Cost: Always ascertain the cost of replacement elements. Some vendors will practically give away vessels in order to generate spare parts sales. Find out the inside diameter, the outside diameter and the length of the proposed elements and how many of these make up the vessel internals. Using this information, calculate the surface area on the inside of the elements and the velocity of the gas entering the elements.

Additionally, from this information, determine the exit velocity leaving the elements. Note that this velocity should not exceed the re-entrainment velocity of the liquid. Some of the reverse-flow coalescer offers you might receive will turn out to be "egg beaters" that take whatever liquid enters the vessel and shear it into orders-of-magnitude amounts of smaller globules that are then re-entrained in the gas stream. Liquid globules can be sheared so small that they cannot fall out again until they re-coalesce downstream. But, all the same, the liquid is there to do its damage to downstream equipment.

4. Vessel Life: Under ordinary circumstances, separation equipment should have a useful life of 20-25 years. Needless to say, corrosion problems, internal explosions, vibration or pulsation, overloads, hydrate formation, lack of routine maintenance, incorrect or faulty maintenance practices, misapplication or use of equipment under unsuitable operating conditions, re-placing elements with unsuitable or poor-quality substitutes and various other forms of mistreatment can adversely affect vessel life.

5. Reliability of Vendor: If a piece of separation equipment is bought and put into service under conditions that deviate from the design intent, it may not live up to expectations. Such underperformance will usually manifest itself rather quickly. These unpleasant surprises can be avoided by selecting a reliable vendor as the source of supply. The individual or team engaged in the selection and evaluation task should ask:

• if the vendor has the facilities to manufacture the equipment, or "farms it out" to sub-vendors
• who builds the essential parts such as the filter elements, the mist extractors, other internals, and the vessel itself
• who does the x-raying, hardness testing, ultrasonic examination, magnaflux examination (both wet and dry, if required), stress relieving, hydrostatic testing, grit-blasting and painting, and final preparation for shipping

6. Value: How important is proper performance of the separation equipment to the protection of downstream equipment? Certainly, monetary value has to be placed on repair and maintenance of the downstream installation.

To what extent would rotating equipment such as turbines, turbo-expanders, centrifugal or reciprocating compressors, internal combustion engines, dehydration, amine or molecular sieve units, refinery or petrochemical processes, meter runs, power plants, fired heaters, plant fuel, municipal fuel and/or, perhaps, gas coming in from producing wells be affected by potential performance deficiencies of the separation equipment?

What are prudent downtime risks and what would be the cost of rectifying problems with downstream equipment caused by defective filtration equipment?

A reliability-focused organization demands answers to these questions!

7. Follow-up: Who will ultimately make the determination if the goods specified and purchased are, in fact, the goods received? Will the responsibility change hands from selection to purchasing to operation with a relaxed regard for what was intended to happen and what is actually happening? In that case, only the very best and most conservatively-designed piece of separation equipment should be purchased.

Contrary to "conventional wisdom," there have been no "super breakthroughs" in the design of separation equipment in the past 30 years. On the other hand, considerable changes have been made in presentation and marketing methods over the past two or three decades. Some marketing claims as to how far the state-of-the-art has advanced during the past several years (or even in recent months) are truly stretching the imagination. Beware, since they may simply be designed to sell spare parts and/or just stay alive in a highly competitive environment.

Life cycle cost calculations
Life cycle cost (LCC) calculations also must be used to determine the wisest equipment choice. Life-cycle-based filter equipment cost is the total lifetime cost to purchase, install, operate and maintain (including associated downtime), plus the downstream cost due to contamination from inadequately-processed fluids or even the risk of damaging downstream equipment,and (finally) the cost of ultimately disposing of a piece of equipment.

A simplified mathematical expression could be:

LCC = Cic + Cin + Ce + Co + Cm + Cdt + Cde + Cenv + Cd
Where:

Energy, maintenance and downtime costs depend on the selection and design of the filtration equipment, the system design and integration with the downstream equipment, the design of the installation and the way the system is operated. Carefully matching the equipment with the process unit's or production facility's requirements can ensure the lowest energy and maintenance costs and yield maximum equipment life.

When used as a comparison tool between possible design or overhaul alternatives, the life-cycle-cost process will show the most cost-effective solution, within limits of the available data.

Concluding thoughts
Initial investment costs go well beyond the initial purchase price for your equipment. Investment costs also include engineering, bid process ("bid conditioning"), purchase order administration, testing, inspection, spare parts inventory, training and auxiliary equipment. The purchase price of filtration equipment is typically less than 15 percent of the total ownership cost. Installation and commissioning costs include the foundations, grouting, connecting of process piping, connecting of electrical or instrument wiring and (if provided) connecting of auxiliary systems.

But, suppose now that a team of engineers goes through the planning, the bidding, the procurement, the installation and evaluation stages of the separation equipment and finds that it matches the requirements exactly. Then comes the spare-parts purchasing stage and, at that point, cheap, incompatible sets of fiberglass pipe insulation elements are bought. Suppose further that these are to be installed, when dictated, by the best operating practice assigned to the installation.

Chances are the element manufacturer will have made all kinds of promises and a few dollars will have been saved. However, what happens when these substitutes are installed? There is noquestion about it—the separation equipment can no longer live up to the job specifications and bad things start to happen at that point.

So then, to the reliability-focused and risk-averse user, life cycle costs are of immense importance. In contrast, repair-focused users are primarily interested in the initial purchase price. There is consensus among best-in-class industrial and process plants that only the truly reliability-focused facilities will be profitable a few years from now, and only they will survive.

A frequent contributor to Maintenance Technology, Heinz Bloch is the author of 14 comprehensive textbooks and more than 300 other publications on machinery reliability and lubrication. He can be contacted at hpbloch@mchsi.com; Internet www.machineryreliability.com

Over the last 30 years, bearing protection has emerged as prime territory for increasing overall rotating equipment reliability. With metallurgy, tribology and bearing design having progressed to the point where further enhancements to bearings and lubrication will be incremental at best, the deceptively simple task of retaining lubricant in and contamination from the bearing housing remains the last zone for achieving significant gains in reliability.

Reliability defined
Though often used carelessly and inaccurately, the term "reliability" is really the mathematical probability that a device will "live" and perform for some time period. Quite simply, it's the odds that a device will work for a given interval. The practice of reliability is all about identifying and implementing the products, practices and procedures that put those odds more in your favor.

To understand how reliability is calculated, we first must look at the product life cycle.

Product life is customarily described by the classic saddle or "bathtub" curve, which is broken into three distinct areas.

The first area describes the product's infant mortality or "bad actor" phase. That is, whenever a population of devices is applied, there will initially be a greater rate of failure. Improper installation, defective products or other non-normal errors will manifest themselves as premature failures. These are the failures that manufacturers traditionally hope will be discovered during shakedowns, burn-ins and test runs.

The second area of the product life-cycle curve, after all the bad actors have been eliminated, is an area where the failure rate as a function of time will be more or less constant. This may be described as the useful product life phase.

The third and last area is the wear-out phase. Here again we will see an increase in the failure rate as devices reach their maximum life expectancy.

Reliability is calculated only on the middle or constant-failure-rate area of the product life cycle. To obtain an accurate and comparable measure of reliability, we need to study products or devices before they wear out naturallyÐand after the bad actors and damaged and defective devices have been shaken out of the population.

The formula for reliability as a function of time, Re(t), is:
Where:
The failure rate ƒ is the total number of device failures divided by the cumulative amount of run time for all devices.

ƒ = 670/(3000)(365) = 0.0006119

The value (t) is time for which we wish to know the probability of device survival.

Re (t) = e -00061119(250) = 0.858

The inverse of the failure rate, 1/ƒ, is the mean time between failures, or, the more commonly used MTBF.

Example:
A total of 670 failures were observed in a population of 3000 pumps over a period of 365 days. What is the probability of a pump lasting for 250 days?

The Failure rate ƒ is:
(Note: MTBF = 1/ƒ = 1/0.0006119 = 1634 pump-days.)

Reliability then is:
Re (system) = Re(Thrust Seal) x Re(Thrust Bearing)

This means there is an 86 percent chance that the pump in this population will survive 250 days. Keep in mind this also means there is a 14 percent chance that the pump will fail before that time. In other words, given a population of 3000 pumps, 420 pumps would be expected to fail prematurely.

System reliability
When the failure of any single device will result in failure of the total system, also called a series system, overall system reliability is calculated by multiplying the respective reliability of each individual component together. The failure of any individual component fails the entire system. This is analogous to a chain only being as strong as its weakest link. It's a simple and important concept, but one that all-to-often remains overlooked.

For example, in the pump bearing housing shown in Fig. 2, the failure of either the radial or thrust bearing or radial or thrust seal will fail the system. (There are other components to consider as well, but to simplify this example we will use only four.)

The total reliability then is defined as:
Re (system) = 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.95

If each individual component had a reliability of 0.95, the total system reliability then is reduced to:
Re (system) = 0.95 x 0.95 x 1.0 x 1.0 = 0.90

No matter what is done to increase the reliability of individual components, in a system all the respective reliabilities are multiplied together. The key to system reliability then is not just to increase component reliability, but also to reduce the total number of multipliers in the reliability calculation.

The fewer reliability numbers we have to multiply together, the greater our overall system reliability. This is where selecting the right type of bearing protection will pay huge dividends. Non-contact, non-wearing bearing isolators have an infinite design life, or a reliability value Re = 1.0. If we eliminate finite-life contact-type seals from the foregoing example, the system reliability becomes:

Contact seals cannot have an Re value of 1.0 since they have a 100 percent failure rate over time.

Increasing system reliability
Experience in a wide range of industrial settings over several decades has demonstrated that installing bearing isolators (Fig. 3) on a population of rotating equipment will greatly increase system reliability.

The ability of the bearing isolator to retain lubricant and expel contaminants is certainly important, but the mere fact that components with a life expectancy have been replaced by components with no life- expectancy limitation cannot be discounted.

There are fewer failures when bearing isolators are used, not only because they are doing a better job of protecting the bearings, but also because the probability of a seal failure has been eliminated. (Since a seal failure necessarily causes bearing failure, many system failures are misdiagnosed as bearing failures when a seal failure is causal.) A bearing isolator's value becomes more obvious when you recall from the life-cycle curve that we are only considering the useful life phase when calculating reliability. Non-contact, non-wearing bearing isolators also eliminate the wear-out and infant mortality phases of all finite-life products.

Finite-life lip or face contact seals easily can be damaged upon installation and, consequently, be dealt a shortened life expectancy. Unfortunately, damage or manufacturing defects also may not be readily apparent from visual observation during system assembly. A finite -life contact seal may have little life left after installation, which will place that device in the precarious infant mortality phase of the life-cycle curve.

Cold hard facts
Anything with a life expectancy can easily have that life shortened. There is much you can do to shorten the life of any device or component. Conversely, there is little you can do to make any device or component last beyond its life expectancy.

The best you can hope for is to try and keep the product out of the infant mortality life-cycle phase. All contact seals will fail. When is simply a matter of time and probability.

Failure analysis seminars are usually quite popular. (Interestingly, failure analysis manuals are often larger than application guides.) Yet, while failure analysis is important, the lessons learned will only help increase the reliability multipliers, not eliminate them, and perhaps reduce the number of devices falling into the infant mortality phase. To eliminate the probability of a seal failure, and thus a system failure, you would need to eliminate finite-life contact seals from the equation.

Granted, given a system's design, non-contact, non-wearing bearing isolators may not be a viable option. There are instances where finite-life contact seals are the only option. In those cases, living with an increased number of reliability multipliers, and hence a lowered system reliability, becomes a necessity. In most cases, however, contact seals and their associated reliability multipliers should be eliminated wherever possible.

The bottom line is really quite simple: Want fewer failures? Install fewer things that fail.

Neil Hoehle is Chief Engineer for Inpro/Seal Company in Rock Island, IL. A graduate of Western Illinois University, he has spent the last 24 years working in the design and development of bearings, housings and seals. Telephone: (309) 787-4971; e-mail: neil@inpro-seal.com.

We recently had an opportunity to discuss benchmarking and asset management improvement techniques with an acknowledged expert in the field, John Yolton of SKF.

MT: Everywhere we go, maintenance professionals are talking about "benchmarking." Why is it that so many companies seem to be obsessed with these numbers today?

Yolton: As anyone who has responsibility for asset management can tell you, comparisons abound within and across industries. A human trait for most people is to compare ourselves with others, therefore we are always going to want to be placed somewhere on a scale. In many cases that means a "world-class" scale.

Achieving world-class or best-in-class performance is the real goal. The gap or rather, closure of the gap, between a client site and world-class performance is the key to successful use of the benchmarking tool.

World-class indicators will always be moving targets, as they should, but they should also be a goal for which to strive, and around which to build a vision and a justification for a client site's improvement effort.

MT: How do you address these issues at SKF?

Yolton: SKF Reliability Systems has developed a model of the Asset Efficiency Optimization (AEO) philosophy. The AEO process starts with development of maintenance strategies for equipment and processes at a client's site based upon the business goals of the site. SRCM is one tool used for this development. Once these strategies have been created, whether it's a PM task, or run-to-failure, the next part of the improvement process is to identify which work makes sense to perform, in order to meet the site's business goals. Condition monitoring is a tool used for identification of necessary work.

Controlling the identified work is the next logical step in this improvement process. Generally, this is enabled by the deployment of a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) and includes alignment with the client's spare parts inventory.

Execution of the identified work is last. Contributing elements to this part of the model include skill levels of your personnel or outside contractors, expectations for the degree of quality of tasks performed by the client's personnel or contractors and measurements of work quality, among others.

As with any process, occasional unexpected issues will arise following the completion of the tasks at hand, which then warrants adjustments to the overall program. This feedback, whe-ther in the form of an adjustment to PM frequencies or actual inspection tasks, for example, is referred to as the "living program."

MT: It seems as though there is quite a lot to this improvement effort. In fact, to many companies, it may feel rather overwhelming. How would a company get started?

Yolton: Any improvement process begins with identification of the client site's current state or present situation to help determine the gap between the existing situation and the future state or goal, which is depicted in the maintenance maturity diagram in Fig. 2.

In this diagram, the four stages of maintenance maturity are shown as Firefighting, Maintaining, Promoting and Innovating, each with its own individual characteristics of drivers, behaviors and reward systems.

As an example, it is not at all unusual to come across an organization that has developed excellent responsiveness to breakdowns, thereby minimizing the downtime associated with a failure. This type of organization typically flourishes with "heros" who are recognized by "attaboy" pats on the back and rewarded with extensive overtime opportunities.

At the other extreme is the innovative organization that has grown far beyond the mentality of merely fixing failures quickly. It has become proactive in eliminating root causes of potential failures, sometimes as early as the design phase, and it certainly uses redesign as an option for failure elimination. This type of continuous improvement includes a very active, structured and ongoing learning process.

MT: I can see how that might help a company understand where they are at in a relative sense. However, does the process get more specific? It doesn't seem that this provides enough detail to start the improvement process.

Yolton: You are correct. When a client is ready for its specific improvement process, there is a tool for determining the site's particular needs for improvement. It's the Client Needs Analysis (CNA) and it's based on the SKF Asset Efficiency Optimization (AEO) model explained earlier.

For each of the concept's four facets, e.g., Strategy, Identification, Control and Execution, 10 carefully crafted questions are posed. The client's responses to these questions are then compared to world-class best practices benchmarks that have been publicly presented and/or published by a variety of recognized organizations.

The answers to the 40 questions are quantified, based upon a scale derived specifically for each question from the world-class benchmarks noted above.

This "scoring" is provided in order to properly position the site's current state within the four stages of maintenance maturity shown in Fig. 2.

The tool then provides a maturity matrix of the responses provided (Fig. 3). This matrix is invaluable in positioning the site's focus for improvement efforts in that it helps personnel understand where their maintenance effort is in relationship to world-class asset optimization.

The maturity matrix aligns the scores with the four facets of the AEO concept and the maintenance maturity of the client's organization, thus allowing analysis for developing an action plan for improvement. Further analysis is possible by comparing the organization's response to those of its peers within their own industry or across others.

MT: This seems to get into what you mentioned earlier about it being human nature to compare ourselves with others. Most consulting groups have problems here since the databases they keep are not comprehensive enough to give a true industry representation. How do you overcome this problem?

Yolton: I admit we had that problem at first, too. By now, though, SKF has conducted over 500 individual site analyses covering five broad industry categories:

• Pulp & Paper & Forest Products
• Industrial – Discrete
• Industrial – Continuous
• Hydrocarbon Processing
• Electric Power

Each analysis remains confidential within the SKF database, which is accessible only by authorized SKF personnel. Moreover, for reporting purposes, only the analysis number is used for identification.

MT: Could you give us an example of how the data is used?

Yolton: Here is a typical scenario. from the database of responses from pulp, paper and forest products (P&P&FP) surveys performed thus far (over 70 global responses). The question we asked was: "Considering all Preventive Maintenance (PM) tasks, how many are conducted by the operators?" (This is Question #16 of 40 and it is grouped in the Identification facet of the AEO concept.)

What we found was that the practice of using operators to perform PM tasks is not widespread within the paper industry. Only 10 percent of the re-sponses indicate a world-class best practice of having more than 25 percent of their PM tasks performed by operators, while more than 40 percent indicate they have no operators performing PM tasks.

The CNA also provides other graphic depictions of the site's current state, For example, among the helpful graphic comparisons the CNA produces is a spider chart that shows the composite average response for each question for the P&P&FP industry. This allows us to compare the client's response values to the industry. Other industries can be similarly displayed for cross-industry comparisons.

MT: What analysis could you draw from this type of data and diagrams for this client or market segment?

Yolton: In very general terms, in the P&P&FP industry, there appears to be ample opportunity for improvement in the Execution phase of the asset efficiency optimization process. This involves the training and skill levels of your technicians, as well as the level of testing and acceptance of the work performed. As an industry, Questions 31-40 reveal, on average, that few of our global responders are actively engaged in upgrading the execution of reliability improvement tasks.

The CNA supplies a spider chart of each site's responses as well, so that it becomes more obvious where the strengths and weaknesses lie in an improvement effort.

Using data from our P&P&FP example, we can see that value of the scores for each facet from one specific site is quite high compared to world-class best practices in 21 of 40 questions. We also note that this site has particular strength in the Identification facet. Thus, we know that this site's improvement action plan will focus on the obvious improvement areas, e.g., Strategy and Execution.

That, quite simply, is the value of the CNA program. It allows development of an action plan that focuses on the needs of a site. It also allows clients to determine their position relative to the average of the industry for each response. This leads to the refinement of the client's improvement program based upon comparisons to the industry's average.

Each regional SKF office (over 80 worldwide) has personnel trained to assist the client in performing this analysis. In many cases, industry specialists can be used to review the responses and suggest recommendations for improvement. Generally, a benefits value can be included.

To become better, each organization must know where it is starting. This Client Needs Analysis (CNA) process not only defines the starting point, it also helps guide the improvement plan.

MT: John, thanks for helping us understand the details of how one company is helping move its clients to maintenance and asset management best practice maturity.

(Editor's Note: John Yolton is Maintenance Strategy Consultant for SKF's Global Pulp & Paper Segment. He has over 23 years operating experience within pulp & paper and over 17 years of management and consulting experience with companies specializing in engineering, lubrication, sealing and CMMS/EAM solutions. He can be contacted directly at john.yolton@skf.com.)

Exacerbating the situation were several significant failures of our systems and processes. The failure of the levees around New Orleans allowed flooding that led to tremendous loss of life and property. Apparent lack of planning and implementation by just about everyone led to great sufferingÐand further loss of life and property. Grave miscalculations by risk management leaders led to confusion and chaos, fueling the various worst-case scenarios that we viewed on our television screens.

So what does all this have to do with Professional Development?
I think it is an easy leap to use these recent natural disaster situations as an analogy to our own industrial enterprises and what can occur if we are not adequately prepared. We have a chance to step back and consider the "what if's" and determine how prepared we are for things facing us, whether they be natural disasters, old equipment, new processes or whatever. The problems that leaped from our national headlines concerning the aftermaths of Katrina and Rita should be considered a clarion call for us to consider the problems we all face in our industrial working lives. I believe we should be asking our organizations and ourselves some very probing questions.

Are our facilities and equipment systems designed and built for reliable operations? Were they designed to operate reliably in the type of situations they are being exposed to? Are they being maintained to a level that allows them to operate reliably? Have we conducted a risk analysis on our critical processes and equipment? Do we have plans in place to eliminate or mitigate failures? Are our people resources trained and ready to deal with situations? Do we have resources who understand reliability and maintenance concepts and can apply them to our particular situation?

In my last Professional Development Quarterly article, I wrote about how professional development drives our economic engines. Continuing in that framework, I think it is clear that our country's economic engine took a significant hit as a result of the recent hurricanes.

Obviously, we can't prevent natural occurrences like the devastating storms of a few weeks ago, but we can mitigate resulting damage somewhat through the use of a large number of tools available to us, including reliability design, risk management planning, etc. With these tools, we can prevent the more common "disasters" caused by poor planning, preparation or implementation.

We also should take this thought down to our own situations within the enterprises where we work. Have we utilized reliability design concepts? Have we developed and insisted on reliability specs for our equipment and processes? Have we developed a risk management scenario (at least for our critical processes)? Have we developed a maintenance system that utilizes modern concepts? Do we plan and schedule appropriately?

Perhaps the biggest question is do we have the human resources with the appropriate knowledge and skills to lead, develop, implement and sustain the type of systems and equipment to help ensure the smooth, reliable operation of our enterprise? If we have, then it is likely that our enterprise has a strong, well-defined professional development process for our people. If not, it is likely that our enterprise needs a much-improved professional development process.

There are numerous ways for each of us to continually work on our professional development, both individually and corporately. Conferences, short courses, university degree programs, specialized training programs and other resources abound. This magazine routinely identifies and catalogs many of these educational opportunities. Several of them even advertise in this publication.

I hope we all will take heed of what we have learned from the recent hurricane situations. Going forward, let's make sure that each one of us is involved in some type of professional development program—honing our skills or learning new techniques to protect our enterprises, our communities, our families and ourselves—and aiding our economic engine.

Tom Byerley is Director of the Maintenance and Reliability Center at The University of Tennessee, an industry-sponsored center that promotes utilization of advanced maintenance and reliability technologies and management principles in industry. He also is currently Treasurer of The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals (SMRP).

Once an organization has basic maintenance strategies in place, such as preventive maintenance, inventory and purchasing practices, work processes and computerization of the maintenance business, it begins to consider how to further improve maintenance processes. One commonly-used strategy is to increase equipment reliability. Such organizations will begin to focus on equipment or assets that, if they fail, will have significant negative impact on:

• Asset and employee safety
• Environmental safety & compliance
• Regulatory compliance (FDA, EPA, OSHA, etc.)
• Plant throughput
• Plant efficiency

Reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) is a systematic approach to developing a focused, effective and cost-efficient preventive and predictive maintenance program. The RCM technique is best initiated early in the equipment design process and should evolve as the equipment design, development, construction, commissioning and operating activities progress.

This technique, however, also can be used to evaluate preventive and predictive maintenance programs for existing equipment systems with the objective of continuously improving these processes. The goals for an RCM program are: