RELIABILITY-BASED MAINTENANCE AND CONDITION MONITORING
Martin C J Pilling - Asset Management Consulting Limited (AMCL), UK
Les Wilkinson – Network Rail, UK
Network Rail has long recognised that improvements in
asset availability obtained through infrastructure
renewals must be supported by timely and relevant
maintenance interventions if those levels of availability
are to be sustained.
In conjunction with Asset Management Consulting
Limited (AMCL), one of Europe’s leading authorities
on the development and delivery of asset management
solutions, the West Coast Route Modernisation
(WCRM) programme within Network Rail are
implementing reliability-based maintenance regimes for
key signalling and electrification assets on the route.
These regimes are supported by information provided
by asset condition-monitoring systems being introduced
to the route in parallel.
This paper details the basic analysis methodology used
to develop such regimes, and explains how
opportunities for asset condition-monitoring can be
identified.
The analysis methodology is grounded in established
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
techniques in conjunction with a unique task allocation
process developed by AMCL to determine basic
maintenance regime strategy. The strategy is developed
into a comprehensive plan by using probabilistic
techniques to determine maintenance and inspection
intervals for the tasks identified. A specific cost-benefit
process is undertaken to identify those tasks which
could justifiably be undertaken by condition-
monitoring technologies. The methodology described is
flexible enough to fit within most operational contexts
and is equally applicable to both mainline and metro
infrastructure.
The paper covers the following topics:
Identifying the assets that contribute to the greatest
reduction in availability or incur the highest
penalties;
Developing a revised asset management regime to
improve the overall availability of those assets;
Determining where condition monitoring would be
beneficial to the overall availability of these assets;
Delivering the benefits of revised maintenance
regimes, condition monitoring, or any other changes
identified, including consideration of human factors.
BASIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR
RELIABILITY BASED MAINTENANCE
REGIME DEVELOPMENT
Requirements Review
The scope of the analysis project needs first to be
determined. Asset criticality is key to both determining
the business argument for undertaking the analysis, and
for setting the relative priorities between asset types.
This typically involves analysis of asset failure and
performance cost data, and the incorporation of any
known RAMS (Reliability, Availability,
Maintainability, Safety) targets or business criteria.
The Criticality Analysis identifies the high-risk asset
types and locations to be included in the scope of the
project.
A Hazard Identification (HAZID) session is often held
during this phase of the work to ensure that all of the
anticipated hazards that could affect the analysis or the
future implementation of the new maintenance regimes
are identified, and mitigations are developed which can
then be tracked throughout the project. A detailed
process document is usually developed and agreed with
all stakeholders before commencement of the
maintenance analysis phase of work.
Failure Modes and Tasks
The identification of failure modes and mitigating tasks
to be applied is the basis of the methodology. From a
thorough analysis of the equipment failure modes, tasks
can be allocated to help prevent the failure modes or
mitigate their effects. AMCL uses a form of Failure
Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) based on bringing
together a high level Functional Analysis of the system
and a low level Failure Mode Analysis of the system
Components. This produces a comprehensive
description of the system’s potential failure patterns
that can be understood in the context of the required
functionality of the system, which is what maintenance
is ultimately trying to achieve.
From the FMEA a range of tasks is developed that form
the basis of the maintenance regime by applying a
Rule-Based Task Allocation (RBTA). This logical
process allocates the most appropriate maintenance task
to each failure mode. Maintenance tasks are
determined through an analysis of failure mode
characteristics based on the following generic
categories:
 Failure Finding tasks – tasks designed to uncover
“hidden” or “dormant” failure modes, such as crash
testing a standby generator;
Condition-Based Maintenance tasks – tasks that rely
on the sampling of an asset’s condition at a set
inspection frequency, not necessarily leading to
intrusive remedial work. Condition-based
maintenance tasks are analysed as any other
maintenance activities. However, a separate cost-
benefit analysis is undertaken to determine whether
the applicable failure modes could be more cost-
effectively mitigated through the application of
condition-monitoring technologies;
Preventive Maintenance tasks – tasks which are
scheduled on a regular basis and involve some
intrusive maintenance activity to reset an asset’s
condition;
Redesign tasks – tasks that address failure modes
that cannot be controlled or mitigated against
through normal maintenance activities, but could be
affected by introducing a redesign of the physical
asset or a procedure that mitigates the consequences
of a failure.
The RBTA process is supported by a review of any
existing RCM (Reliability Centred Maintenance)
studies, maintenance documentation (including
standards and specifications) and failure histories to
ensure that no failure modes or tasks are missing and
that the tasks identified are comprehensive and
technically feasible.
The final part in this stage is to group the failure modes
and tasks for analysis where the failure modes share a
similar degradation profile and a similar task. The
grouped failure modes contain all potential failures
identified in the FMEA, and this is validated against
failure histories. Historical failures can be attributed
across the analysis groups to identify which groups
(and thus which maintenance tasks) are providing
mitigation for what proportions of experienced failure
modes, particularly for identified high-risk
geographical locations.
Once the analysis groups are created, some simple rules
identify those groups that will require full cost-risk
quantative analysis, and those that require a qualitative
analysis only. For example, qualitative analysis can be
undertaken for groups of failure modes in the following
circumstances:
Where the cost of preventive maintenance is
significantly greater than the cost of a failure and
the rectification of a failure resets the asset to its
reference condition;
Where the maintenance or inspection activity has
minimal marginal cost when undertaken at the same
time as other maintenance activities AND the mean
time to failure is always significantly greater than
the likely maintenance periodicity for the asset
being analysed;
Where the deterioration of a failure mode is not well
understood AND existing maintenance activities are
sufficiently mitigating the risk;
Where the failure mode is seasonal, or subject to
some other periodic influence, and does not
deteriorate faster than the seasonal (or other)
frequency.
Each group of failure modes and preventive tasks that
do not meet any of the above criteria are analysed
quantatively.
Condition-Monitoring Identification
In order to determine whether the application of
condition-monitoring technologies would be
appropriate for the mitigation of some identified failure
modes, a detailed cost-benefit analysis is undertaken.
The condition-monitoring cost-benefit analysis involves
the following key activities:
Compilation of failure mode data based on
maintenance analysis groups;
Workshop of experts to determine the potential
effectiveness of available condition monitoring
technologies at mitigating failure modes across each
individual maintenance analysis group;
Review of condition monitoring costs based on
available technologies and known and implemented
projects, (including installation, training and
ongoing monitoring and review costs);
Net Present Value (NPV) calculations to determine
Condition Monitoring benefits based on workshop
analysis, producing spreadsheets of benefits for
defined failure rates and performance costs.
The output from the condition-monitoring cost-benefit
analysis provides a breakdown of costs and benefits for
a range of asset failure rates. As such, it enables an
assessment of the business case for applying condition-
monitoring technologies both before and after the
application of the revised maintenance regimes.
Condition Monitoring Opportunities
This cost-benefit analysis allows an overall condition-
monitoring strategy to be developed. This frequently
involves a review of existing and new technologies.
The cost of implementing condition-monitoring is
reviewed to assess the impact on the business case of
implementing a common condition-monitoring solution
for different asset types at the same location. This
provides the justification for which assets to monitor,
which attributes of those assets to monitor, and their
geographical locations.
Cost-Risk Optimisation
The principle of cost-risk optimisation is shown in
figure 1 below.
OPTIMUM Total Business Impact
Cost / Risk
risk
impact
Exposure
Maintenance
Costs
Planned maintenance interval
Figure 1 : Principle of Cost-Risk Optimisation
The optimum frequency at which to perform a
maintenance task or inspection is calculated as the
lowest point on the “Total Business Impact” (TBI)
curve. This is calculated as the sum of the
“Maintenance Costs” curve and the “Risk Exposure”
curve. The direct costs decrease with an increasing
maintenance interval (i.e. the job is done less
frequently) whereas the risk of failure, both for
performance and safety consequences, increases. The
optimum simply represents the least cost interval,
which can then be used to inform the decision making
process. Once the optimised frequencies have been
established for individual tasks, a level of packaging
these together is required to take account of scheduling
and resource constraints.
In order to create the TBI curve, AMCL use the Asset
Performance Tools (APT) software suite which enables
the quantification of the direct cost and risk cost curves,
as well as the calculation of the optimum interval for
each failure mode group. This suite of software tools
has been utilised across a range of industries, and
AMCL has most recently applied it with Network Rail
to the main line rail industry.
Estimating the direct cost curve requires information on
labour costs and productivity. The quantification of the
risk curve is a combination of modelling the equipment
degradation profile, and estimating the potential loss
when the equipment fails. Modelling the equipment
degradation profiles is achieved through both the
elicitation of knowledge from experienced maintenance
personnel (qualitative engineering judgement), and the
analysis of failure and maintenance records. Range
estimating techniques are used where there is a lack of
data or understanding of deterioration. Estimating
potential losses is achieved through the detailed
application of loss and consequence analysis. Finally,
each emerging maintenance interval is sensitivity tested
to establish the failure modes that drive the intervention
interval and to quantify the implications of the range
estimates. This occasionally identifies the requirement
to collate better information on rates of deterioration – a
further benefit of condition-monitoring!
Safety & Reliability Justification
The completed maintenance regime, which now
contains a range of tasks and frequencies, is validated
against any pre-existing commercial and safety
requirements. Changes in cost, reliability and safety are
derived from the quantitative analyses completed. At
this stage any third party input required to authorise the
regimes for use, for example the HSE, needs to be
considered.
Detailed maintenance specifications are drafted from
the maintenance tasks and intervals output from the
optimisation work. This is often undertaken in
cooperation with experienced maintenance staff to
ensure suitability for purpose, appropriateness of
language, and level of technical detail.
DEVELOPING AND APPLYING AN OVERALL
MAINTENANCE STRATEGY
A comprehensive maintenance regime can now be
developed by understanding the tolerances of the task
frequencies through sensitivity analysis, and bringing
together the different frequencies of maintenance for
the different asset types into work packages suitable for
scheduling against the assets.
After this packaging has been completed, “high”,
“medium” and “low” criteria for the assets can be
defined against which the packages of work can be
scheduled. These criteria can be derived from the
factors that were identified as the key drivers for the
maintenance activity during sensitivity testing. The
assets in high, medium and low risk categories typically
have different levels of maintenance applied to them.
The safety and reliability benefits in applying the new
regimes are assessed on the basis of separate
application for the individual assets, as well as a
packaging assessment of how the simultaneous
application of the new maintenance regimes affects the
predicted benefits (e.g. it may be more cost-effective to
co-ordinate the new regimes of different assets at the
same geographical location).
Regime Benefits Analysis
To calculate the NPV benefits that could reasonably be
expected from the successful implementation of this
methodology, a benefits analysis is carried out for the
maintenance regime developed for the key geographical
locations. This includes an assessment of the expected
impact of the new regimes on achieving the increase in
asset availability in line with RAMS targets, and the
commercial benefit expected through performance
improvements and improved maintenance focus.
Implementation and Transition Plans
The change management strategy and plans developed
include an assessment of the impact on resources and
details of how the recommendations from that plan are
to be implemented. This often includes a detailed
maintenance schedule for all analysed assets within the
identified high-risk locations, and recommendations for
timescales associated with all the implementation
activities.
The process and criteria for evaluating the performance
of the new maintenance regimes and identifying areas
for improvement is also designed. This involves the
definition of success criteria, monitoring procedures,
guidance on data gathering and analysis. Success
criteria are defined through stakeholder workshops and
are intended to capture priorities, expected benefits and
organisational culture change aspirations.
These last stages are also completed in close
cooperation with the human factors considerations
described below as the implementation plan is
developed.
HUMAN FACTORS CONSIDERATIONS
Approach
Experience has shown that the successful
implementation of any new maintenance regime
requires that consideration be made to the impact on
human factors of any changes being proposed. The
new maintenance regime needs to be designed so that it
is feasible to put into practice and suited to the
workforce. It needs to address the human factors issues
from the point of introduction and through the period of
transition to the point where the new regimes are
embedded in the organisation. This involves
augmenting technical specifications with processes,
procedures and guidance that address human factors
implications critical to successful implementation.
Analysing Organisational Readiness
Analysis is undertaken to identify the implications of
changing maintenance regimes for working methods,
work organisation, and individual and team competence
(including front line, support and managerial staff). It
typically involves:
task analysis of the proposed new maintenance
regimes;
comparison of the new regimes with existing
arrangements;
a review of existing competence management
processes and work practices;
a review of the current competence of the
workforce;
the use of focus groups to engage relevant people in
identifying the likely impact on human factors.
Judgements are made about how well an organisation is
likely to cope with the introduction of the maintenance
regimes. This typically involves:
identifying areas where significant impact is
expected;
defining the type of impact expected and where this
is likely to be greatest;
determining what additional processes, procedures
and guidance are required.
There are a wide range of potential areas where the new
maintenance regimes can impact on the workforce and
work management policies and systems, including
selection, deployment, competence standards,
assessment and accreditation, training and
development, job descriptions, job design, work
organisation and management, employment contracts,
health, safety and welfare.
At this point, it is possible to determine how the new
maintenance regimes need to be adjusted for ‘best fit’
on introduction and what further adjustments will be
required thereafter. This can involve cost / risk analysis
of areas of potential impact, as identified above.
Develop Processes, Procedures And Guidance
Detailed processes, procedures and guidance for the
new maintenance regimes are designed and
documented to address outputs of the organisational
readiness analysis.
Developing Change Management Strategy And
Plans
A change management strategy and plans for the
introduction and development of the new maintenance
regimes are developed. These address the obstacles,
points of resistance and constraints identified through
concept testing. Key influencers and managers are
engaged in the development of the strategy in order to
build their buy-in to, and understanding of, the need for
change. It is particularly important to establish realistic
targets for the value added by the new maintenance
regimes and to establish continuous improvement goals
from day one. The introduction of new maintenance
regimes with briefings and process mentoring for key
user groups and influencers is then supported.
CASE STUDY
The authors of this paper are currently engaged on the
application of the methodology outlined in this paper to
infrastructure assets as part of Network Rail’s West
Coast Route Modernisation programme. It is intended
that Case Study material from this programme be used
to illustrate key concepts during the presentation of this
paper to the ‘Railway Electrical Infrastructure And
Systems’ course in June 2003.