Making Evidence-Based Maintenance Decisions

Making Evidence-Based
Maintenance Decisions
Andrew K S Jardine
CBM Laboratory
Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
University of Toronto
Canada
jardine@mie.utoronto.ca
August 2006
www.ipamc.org
Excellence in Physical Asset Management
Optimizing Equipment Maintenance and Replacement Decisions
Component Capital Equipment Inspection Resource

Replacement Replacement Procedures Requirements
Maintenance Management System (CMMS/EAM/ERP)
www.ipamc.org
Andrew Jardine, CBM Lab 2
“Making Evidence-Based Maintenance Decisions”
Asset Management
We want
Fact–based arguments
(data driven decisions)
not
Intuition–based pronouncements
(strength of personalities, # of mechanics’ complaints)
www.ipamc.org
RCM Methodology Logic
SELECT
EQUIPMENT
Is condition monitoring technically and

economically feasible to detect warning of a
gradual loss of the FUNCTION?
Condition-Based
Maintenance YES
Is a repair technically and economically feasible
to restore the performance of the item, and will
this reduce the risk of FAILURE ?
Time-Based
Maintenance YES
Is it technically and economically feasible to
replace the item, and will this reduce the risk of
FAILURE ?
Time-Based
Discard YES
Default Actions
www.ipamc.org
Back to Basics
“Once the equipment enters service a whole
new set of information will come to light, and from
this point on the maintenance program will evolve
on the basis of data from actual operating
experience. This process will continue throughout
the service life of the equipment, so that at every
stage maintenance decisions are based, not on an
estimate of what reliability is likely to be, but on
the specific reliability characteristics that can be
determined at the time.”
F.S. Nowlan and H. Heap
www.ipamc.org
SELECT
EQUIPMENT

Condition-Based
Maintenance YES
Time-Based
Maintenance YES
FAILURE ?
Time-Based
Discard YES
Default Actions
www.ipamc.org
Toronto Transit
Commission:
“At the TTC, I Subway
have been able system
to analyze several
components (which we were overhauling periodically) to justify if
it is worthwhile doing the overhaul. It was possible to use
Weibull analysis since when these components failed, they
failed due to a dominant failure mode, and the defective
component was replaced with a new one or one that is just like
new. I found that most times the hazard rates obtained were
decreasing. This I later found was due to poor quality
components and questionable maintenance practices. Overhaul
on these components has been suspended and we are only
changing them on failure. Quality issues are also being
addressed.”
www.ipamc.org
Using MTBF to Determine Maintenance Interval Frequency is Wrong
“Random failures make up the vast majority of failures on

complex equipment as research has shown. For example, consider
the failure of a component. Assume that each time the component
failed we tracked the length of time it was in service. The first time the
component is put into service it fails after 4 years, the second time
after 6 years, and the third time after only 2 years (4 + 6 + 2 = 12/3 =
4). We know that the average lifespan of the component is 4 years (its
MTBF is 4 years).
However, we do not know when the next component will fail.
Therefore we cannot successfully manage this failure by
traditional time-based maintenance (scheduled overhaul or
replacement).”
Source: Viewpoint: Maintenance Technology, October 2003

www.ipamc.org
Fact 1. Preventive replacement at the MTBF could be the best answer,
but it does depend on additional evidence.
Fact 2. If a reliability engineer trained in the statistical analysis of

failures analyzed the 3 failure times they would obtain a "best-
estimate" that there is significant wear-out occurring, and that time-base
replacement could be appropriate.
This conclusion is obtained by examining the evidence (3 failure times)

and doing a simple Weibull analysis. Using regression analysis the
shape parameter, beta, is estimated as 1.74. Thus the “best estimate”
indicates an increasing hazard function, and so the risk of bearing
failure occurring could be reduced through bearing preventive
replacement based on time.
www.ipamc.org
© CBM Lab
MORAL
Make evidence based decisions!!
- Using appropriate tools
www.ipamc.org
Maintenance Excellence

www.ipamc.org
Dear Professor Jardine,
Î We are one of the largest marine cargo handling firms in the U.S. We have
approx 2400 pieces of rolling stock, mostly powered lift equipment
(stationary cranes, mobile cranes, side & top handlers, forklifts, etc). We
have no corporate strategy on equipment repair/replacement, lease vs. buy,
economic service life, etc. These decisions are based often on strength of
personalities and # of mechanics complaints, not objective analysis. I'm
looking to change that.
Î On the plus side, we do have a CMMS (Maximo) and 4 years of "pretty
good" equipment information and cost history. So we have some data to
analyze.
Î I'll be back in my office Sept 18-19, perhaps we could connect then. I'm on
U.S. west coast time (based in Los Angeles). Look forward to learning
more.
www.ipamc.org
Î The outcome of the previous message was that the company was
visited for one day.
Î In the morning a procedure to establish the economic life of their
mobile equipment was discussed.
Î In the afternoon the IT person joined the discussion, and discussed
how to access their company data base.
Î The data from the data base was then inputted into a standard
economic life model to establish the economic life for a sample asset -
it was a Hustler truck - costing about USD 60,000 new.
Î Company present policy was to replace their Hustlers at about 18
years of age.
Î The economic life established by using the economic life model was
about 10 years. Cost saving per year was USD 3340.
Î There were 449 similar vehicles in their fleet.
Î Therefore total annual saving was estimated at:
USD 3340.00 x 449 = USD 1.5 millions PER YEAR

www.ipamc.org
Maintenance Excellence

www.ipamc.org
SELECT
EQUIPMENT

Condition-Based
Maintenance YES
Time-Based
Maintenance YES
FAILURE ?
Time-Based
Discard YES
Default Actions
www.ipamc.org
100%
Detectable Potential
deterioration failure
Y:
Measurable
O R
property
HE
e T
Th
Functional
failure
Time
PF Gap
www.ipamc.org
Y:
L IT
R EA
h e
T
www.ipamc.org
Classical Approach: Warning
• Simple to
Limits
understand
• Limitations: Alarm > 300ppm
– Which Warning > 200ppm

measurements?
– Optimal limits? Normal < 200ppm
– Effect of Age?
– Predictions?
• EXAKT extends and
enhances the WorkingAge
Control Chart
technique www.ipamc.org
Data Plot
Data
Age
Hazard Plot
Hazard PHM
Age
www.ipamc.org
OPTIMAL POLICY - OPTIMAL HAZARD LEVEL
Hazard Plot Ignore
Hazard
Hazard
Optimal
Hazard level
Age
Cost Plot Replace at
failure only
Cost/unit time
minimal cost
Hazard
Optimal hazard www.ipamc.org
EXAKT Optimal Decision –
A New “Control Chart”
www.ipamc.org
Campbell Soup Company:
Executive Summary
ÎAnalysis of Shear Pump
Bearings Vibration Data
Î21 vibration measurements

provided by accelerometer
ÎUsing PHM & Costs
Î3 measurements significant
ÎSavings obtained = 35 %
www.ipamc.org
Had we replaced at 175 days…..!!!
Failed at WorkingAge = 182 days
Inspection at
Working Age = 175 days
www.ipamc.org
Maintenance Optimization

www.ipamc.org
Optimal Contracting-out Decision
Optimal
level of Total cost/unit time
maintenance
resource
Fixed cost/unit time
Cost
Internal
processing
cost/unit time
Alternative service
deliverer’s
processing
Cost/unit time
Level of Maintenance Resource

www.ipamc.org
We want
Fact–based arguments
(data driven decisions)
not
Intuition–based pronouncements
(strength of personalities, # of mechanics’ complaints)
www.ipamc.org
We have
9Tools to deliver
9Fact – based arguments
www.ipamc.org
A Suggestion
Let us develop our evidence based maintenance
tool box.
A collection of tools for identifying, assessing and

applying relevant evidence for better asset
management decision-making.
It is important to have evidence to support asset

management programs and not simply accept
“expert opinion.” www.ipamc.org
THANK YOU
University of Toronto Research Lab:
www.mie.utoronto.ca/cbm
www.ipamc.org

Making Evidence-Based Maintenance Decisions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making Evidence-Based Maintenance Decisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making Evidence-Based

Optimizing Equipment Maintenance and Replacement Decisions

Component Capital Equipment Inspection Resource

Maintenance Management System (CMMS/EAM/ERP)

Is condition monitoring technically and

Is condition monitoring technically and

“Random failures make up the vast majority of failures on

Source: Viewpoint: Maintenance Technology, October 2003

Fact 2. If a reliability engineer trained in the statistical analysis of

This conclusion is obtained by examining the evidence (3 failure times)

Component Capital Equipment Inspection Resource

Maintenance Management System (CMMS/EAM/ERP)

USD 3340.00 x 449 = USD 1.5 millions PER YEAR

Component Capital Equipment Inspection Resource

Maintenance Management System (CMMS/EAM/ERP)

Is condition monitoring technically and

– Which Warning > 200ppm

Î21 vibration measurements

ÎUsing PHM & Costs

Component Capital Equipment Inspection Resource

Maintenance Management System (CMMS/EAM/ERP)

Level of Maintenance Resource

A collection of tools for identifying, assessing and

It is important to have evidence to support asset

You might also like