Optimize Preventive and Predictive Maintenance programs using FIORDA data

Good industry practice recommends verifying that the results from the reliability and maintenance program are analysed, to improve and optimize the program, including:

  • Analysing and optimizing the reliability and maintenance program.
  • Reviewing the reliability and maintenance program if the basis on which the program was developed has changed significantly.
  • Utilizing a change management process for each change to the reliability and maintenance program.

The benefits of an optimized reliability and maintenance program include:

  • Proper execution of predictive and preventive maintenance, minimizing risks to integrity and production.
  • Analysis of the results of these programs allow:
    • Optimization of the frequency and
    • Continuous improvement of the reliability and maintenance program, including additional PdM or PM where it was inadequate.
    • Maximizing maintenance cost effectiveness.

 Guidance and Methodology

Optimize reliability and maintenance programs

To maximize the availability of equipment and maximize the effectiveness of the maintenance, the reliability and maintenance programs applied to equipment shall be reviewed at least every 3 years. This may take the form of an individual equipment review, which can be conducted at any time, or a more structured (periodic) review of the Site Equipment Reliability Strategies (SERS) or Equipment Reliability Strategies (ERS).

It is recommended that a central library of Site Equipment Reliability Strategies (SERS) is maintained by the Reliability and Maintenance Department within the organization.

Individual equipment review

Individual equipment reviews can be conducted at any time, and can be triggered by various personnel and events, including:

  • Equipment performance below expectation e.g. poor reliability, high maintenance cost.
  • Changes proposed by Operations and Maintenance personnel.
  • Asset specific difference considered applicable to other Assets.
  • Lessons learned e.g. from FIORDA reports and bulletins, Major Incident Announcement (MIA), Production Upset Reports, Technical Networks, etc. – either within or external to the Site.

An ‘equipment performance review’ should be conducted on the equipment, and a report should be prepared for the Individual Equipment Review, supported by clear technical justification e.g. the ‘equipment performance review’. The changes shall be applied via:

  • An update to the Record of Asset Specific Differences – where the change is applicable to one Asset only
  • An update to the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy where the change is applicable to all

Site Equipment Reliability Strategy review process

Reviews of the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy shall be carried out on a periodic basis. The scope of the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy periodic review is described below.

Site Equipment Reliability Strategy periodic review

The elements of a Site Equipment Reliability Strategy periodic review are shown in Figure 1 and are described below:

  • Feedback on Site Equipment Reliability Strategies and equipment performance (PEI report) from Operations and Maintenance personnel
  • Review updates to the Site Equipment Reliability Strategies
  • Record of Asset Specific Differences Equipment
  • Performance Review
  • Basis of Program Development

Figure 1  Site Equipment Reliability Strategy

 

Operations and maintenance feedback

Prior to commencing the Site Equipment Reliability Strategies review, seek feedback from Operations and Maintenance personnel on the effectiveness of the Site Equipment Reliability Strategies. A simple template for a feedback survey on the effectiveness of the Site Equipment Reliability Strategies is provided in this article, though this can be tailored to be more specific to the content of a Site Equipment Reliability Strategies where required. The survey should be distributed to key Operations & Maintenance personnel across the Site’s Assets.

The survey results should be reviewed, and an assessment made of any improvement suggestions. The intent of this survey is to assess if the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy is effective in maintaining the required level of equipment integrity and reliability, and to capture suggestions for improvement.

The improvement suggestions should focus on significant technical changes to the maintenance tasks and their frequencies, rather than minor task improvements, which should be raised via the Site’s maintenance procedure update/feedback process. Any proposed changes to a Site Equipment Reliability Strategies shall be supported by clear technical justification, e.g., the Equipment Performance Review.

The improvement suggestions should be grouped and categorized – identifying the improvements which should be implemented, and the suggestions which are deemed not valid, with reasons.

The approved changes shall be applied to all Assets via a Site Equipment Reliability Strategy update as defined in further in this article – Site Equipment Reliability Strategies update process.

The Operation and Maintenance feedback shall be part of Value Improving Practices VIP-09 Predictive Maintenance (Reliability Centered Maintenance).

This VIP involves the development of a Predictive Maintenance philosophy and determines the extent of the equipment monitoring and equipment sparing utilized.  Predictive maintenance makes use of advances in sensor and instrumentation technology to monitor characteristics such as heat, lubrication, vibration, cracking, noise and presence of corrosion products and consistently incorporates them into the project design.

The result is determination of the optimum level of equipment monitoring such that remedies / repairs are affected prior to failure.

For more information see Value improving practices for revamp and greenfield projects in fertilizer industry.

Record of asset specific differences updates

Individual Assets may have made changes to their maintenance regime since the last Site Equipment Reliability Strategies update. The changes shall have been recorded in the Record of Asset Specific Differences, with approval from the appropriate Site Technical Authority.

The Asset changes should be reviewed to identify changes made by one or more Assets which are considered applicable across all Assets.

Equipment performance review

This is a review of equipment performance data to determine if any changes are required, to improve equipment performance or optimize maintenance.

Gather Performance Data:

  • Obtain equipment performance reports from CMMS System for the equipment classes contained within the Site Equipment Reliability Strategies. The equipment performance report should include CMMS System Problem, Cause and Remedy codes, with access to work order history (text history), for all preventive and corrective work orders for each Asset.
  • Obtain Production Efficiency Improvement (PEI) reports – production loss data.
  • Obtain FIORDA reports related with the equipment in question and similar case studies and issues recorded in the database. FIORDA report shall include:
    • Detail description of the problem,
    • Equipment type (Figure 2)
    • Warning Signs (Figure 3, 4),
    • Failure Cause (Figure 5),
    • Failure Modes (Figure 6),
    • Deviation type leading to equipment failure (Figure 7),
    • Plant section and units where failure occur (Figure 8),
    • Consequence,
    • Prevention and Mitigation Safeguards as well as
    • Corrective Recommendations.
  • Collate KPI performance data.

Figure 2 . Equipment type (FIORDA capture)

 

Figure 3. Equipment failure warning signs (FIORDA capture)

 

Figure 4. Equipment failure warning signs

 

Figure 5. Equipment failure causes (FIORDA capture)

 

Figure 6. Equipment failure modes (FIORDA capture)

 

Figure 7. Deviation type leading to equipment failure (FIORDA capture)

 

Figure 8. Plant section and units where failure occur (FIORDA capture)

 

Review Production Efficiency Improvement Data:

Review the Production Efficiency Improvement reports to identify any trends in production loss, or major single loss events, which are related to the equipment classes. Identify losses which are related to equipment failure, and collate information relating to mode of failure etc. Corresponding CMMS System data shall be reviewed to match/confirm mode of failure.

Review CMMS System Data:

  • CMMS System reports & assess failure rates shall be reviewed for the equipment types – using CMMS System remedy codes (remedy – failed) per number of work orders (per Asset and overall Site). Review also CMMS System problem and cause codes and assess if any useful data can be obtained on failure types/modes.
  • Where the failure modes may not be clear from CMMS System data, work order text history and historic incidents from FIORDA database shall be reviewed to determine mode of failure.

Review R&M KPIs:

  • KPI data related to equipment in the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy shall be reviewed to identify any trends in equipment performance – improving or deteriorating. This should include more in-depth statistical analysis such as Weibull where sufficient quantity and quality of data is available.
  • Whether the changes in KPI performance are reflected in CMMS System and Production Efficiency Improvement data and whether there is a genuine change in performance or just a refinement of the data collection shall be assessed.

Review Site Equipment Reliability Strategy:

  • Site Equipment Reliability Strategy shall be assessed to confirm if:
    • Modes of failure are captured in the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA)
    • Failure rates are greater/less than predicted
    • Site Equipment Reliability Strategy maintenance should have prevented or detected the failures
  • Where the failures relate to an equipment manufacturer/model, OEM shall be contacted to find out if they are aware of the issues and if they have a remedy.
  • Possible required changes to the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy shall be considered, e.g.:
    • Where the equipment performance is good, if changes should be made to the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy to optimize maintenance e.g. can the frequency be extended and are the maintenance tasks still required?

Note: Where the maintenance activity is a failure finding task and the frequency of that task has been set based on P-F intervals or similar, the frequency shall not be extended. The Failure Mode and Effect Analysis in the Equipment Reliability Strategies / Site Equipment Reliability Strategy shall be referred to in order to identify the failure characteristics of the failure modes being mitigated by that maintenance task, to identify whether extending the frequency is appropriate.

Figure 9. FIORDA data used in Predictive Maintenance process

 

Figure 10. FIORDA data used in Predictive Maintenance process

 

Where the equipment performance is poor, is this specific to any Asset or manufacturer/model? Potential changes to the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy shall be considered to possibly improve the equipment performance e.g. increased frequencies or additional/amended maintenance tasks, or are changes required only for specific equipment manufacturer/model.

Basis of program development

The Site Equipment Reliability Strategy periodic review should include a check that the basis of development of the reliability program has not changed e.g. that no changes have occurred to:

  • Assumed production profiles and depletion plans Business objectives (e.g. end of life)
  • Changes in operating regimes Modifications to plant and facilities Life extension
  • Legislative or regulatory changes

The changes may have occurred at either a Site or Asset level. If the changes have occurred at a Site level, the extent of change may warrant a revision to the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy. If the changes are to an individual Asset on a Site, the changes are Asset specific and should be justified in the Record of Asset Specific Differences, with no Site Equipment Reliability Strategy update.

Reporting

A report of the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy Periodic Review shall be prepared to include:

  • Proposed Site Equipment Reliability Strategy Improvements
  • Summary of Operations & Maintenance feedback (include completed survey forms – if electronic)
  • Record of Asset Specific updates
  • Equipment performance review
  • Basis of Program Development

Site Equipment Reliability Strategy update process

This section provides guidance on how to update the ERS and Site Equipment Reliability Strategy documents.

Frequency change

Where a Site Equipment Reliability Strategy recommended frequency is changed, the frequency change should be made in the ‘Task and Frequency Justification’ tables in the document. The relevant table should be updated with the technical justification for the new frequency, preferably supported by equipment reliability data. The frequency should also be updated in the summary section of the document.

Where a Site Equipment Reliability Strategy recommended frequency has changed, the frequency value within CMMS System shall also change.

Maintenance task change

Maintenance task changes shall be updated in the ‘Task and Frequency

Justification’ tables in the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy, with the technical justification updated where appropriate. Where the maintenance task changes have resulted in additional maintenance procedures, the tables shall be updated to reflect the revised structure of the procedures. Related changes that are made to the summary section of the document shall be verified.

The need for required changes to the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEA) shall be considered. Any updates to the Failure Modes and Effects analysis should be made in the FMEA Excel spreadsheets. This shall be required when:

  • The maintenance task or mitigating maintenance routine against certain failure modes has changed e.g. adoption of a revised maintenance regime
  • The maintenance task is required because of new understanding of the equipment failure modes, which should also be added to the FMEA

Standards, equipment boundary and maintenance selection

Other sections of the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy should be revised where appropriate, e.g., changes in Standards, Equipment Boundary or the Maintenance Selection Process.

Reliability and maintenance program change management process

Where updates to the Reliability Program have resulted in changes to the maintenance tasks or frequencies, the changes shall be managed via the Site Maintenance Change Management Process.

The Site Maintenance Change Management Process shall include changes to:

  • Maintenance Procedures
  • CMMS System Data
  • Record of Asset Specific Differences

Maintenance procedures

Each maintenance procedure shall be owned by an appropriate ‘approval authority’. The approval authority may be at a Plant or Asset level.

All changes to maintenance procedures shall be approved by the appropriate approval authority.

CMMS System data

Changes to CMMS System Data includes:

  • Location data
  • Maintenance data (including Job plan and PM)
  • Spares and Inventory management data

The Site Maintenance Change Management process shall assign appropriate ‘approval authorities’ to each data field within CMMS System and clarify boundaries of responsibility e.g. between disciplines/functions. Note, for some data fields the Site may decide that no approval authority is required. This is acceptable, providing this aligns with the Site business requirements and could present no risk to Integrity or the Environment.

Record of asset specific differences

Where changes have been made to the maintenance procedures or frequency which are applicable to only one (or few) Asset(s) e.g. as a result of an Individual Equipment Review, the changes shall be documented in the Record of Asset Specific Differences. Where changes are applicable to all Assets, this shall trigger an update to the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy SERS document, rather than updating the Record of Asset Specific Differences.

Survey Objective:

The objective of this survey is to gather feedback from Operations & Maintenance personnel to input to a periodic review of the effectiveness of the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy. This information shall be used, together with an assessment of equipment performance, to continuously improve the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy.

The intent of this survey is to assess if the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy is effective in maintaining the required level of equipment integrity and reliability, and to capture suggestions for improvement.

Improvement suggestions should focus on significant technical changes to the maintenance tasks and their frequencies, rather than minor maintenance task improvements, which should be raised via the Site maintenance procedure review process.

Survey:

  1. Is the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy effective in maintaining the required level of equipment integrity and reliability, if not, please provide details?
  2. Are there any tasks in the maintenance procedures which should be changed or added / removed, can you provide technical reasons for the change?
  3. Are there any Site Equipment Reliability Strategy frequencies which should be extended (made longer) or increased (shorter), can you provide technical reasons for the change?
  4. Any other comments about the effectiveness or suitability of the Site Equipment Reliability Strategy?
Ammonia Know How