Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
hy is it that (almost) everyone carries out PM (Preventive Maintenance), but that only few are satisfied with how their PMs are being carried out? If you ask most maintenance people how they feel about their Preventive Maintenance (PM) practices, they will frequently (very frequently) express some form of disappointment with them. Mechanics often feel that their PMs are poorly designed at best, generally not executed well (when done at all), and often totally unnecessary (adding no value, whatever) at worst. Production operators have their own problems with current PM practices, too; they often consider them to have no value at all, and will often complain that PM causes them more problems than it solves (in the form of startup delays, yield loss, quality deviations, etc.).
Breakdowns are frequent and the majority of maintenance activity is reactive. In the pressure of time, maintenance may be subjected to a quick fix mentality, a bandaiding approach that actually exacerbates the situation. In addition, other problems may be present: There is not a consistency of policy, or philosophy for the programme There is no consistency of analysis; symptoms are addressed (over and over), rather than causes being resolved or eliminated PMs are often redundant, unnecessary, or inadequate, having little or no meritorious effect on the asset The desire to be risk-averse results in some procedures which actually over-service equipment, and/or use overhaul or intrusive maintenance
processes, often to the detriment of equipment reliability There is a lack of systematic process in execution; PM procedures are not well defined, lack detail, or are not followed with consistency in method of execution, standards of judgment, or frequency of execution There is no audit trail; it is impossible to objectively review the programme for benefits or effectiveness Etc. It has been our experience that in many PM programmes: Many PM tasks duplicate other tasks Some PMs are done too often Some PMs are done too late Some PMs serve no purpose whatsoever
AVAILABLE OPTIONS
Facilitator Acts as PM Optimization facilitator & participates in PM Optimization process. Craft(s) Provides feedback on execution of current PM tasks and experience with failure modes & history. Operator(s) Provides feedback on execution of current PM tasks and experience with failure modes & history. Others to provide insight into failure history, failure modes, and potential maintenance activities.
What is PM Optimization?
PM Optimization is a structured process, which uses the principles of Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) to review and optimize existing preventive, predictive, and autonomous maintenance activities procedures on existing equipment, using existing failure history. Thus it is not a zero-based analysis, such as in pure RCM, but a practicable and economical alternative to it (Figure 2 ). The heart of the PMO process is a workshop that provides for input from the following typical participants, as required:
process: get the current data, identify the known and probable failure modes, and ask the same series of questions for each, over and over. Then implement your recommendations. (Figure 3 ) The basic questions being asked in a PM Optimization Workshop are: 1. What maintenance tasks are currently being undertaken by the operations and maintenance personnel? What OEM equipment information exists (has it been used appropriately)? What is the experience of the incumbent maintenance and operations personnel? What actual failure data is available? 2. What are the failure modes associated with the equipment PMs being examined (failure modes analysis)? a) What is (are) the failure mode(s) that each existing task is meant to prevent or detect? b) What other failure modes have occurred in the past that have not been listed or have not occurred and could give rise to a hazardous situation? 3. What happens when each failure occurs? (Failure effects) 4. In what way does each failure matter? Establish consequences of each failure mode: hidden or evident; hazard, operational, or repair only. (Failure consequences) 5. What should be done to predict or prevent each failure (proactive tasks and task intervals)? Revise/add/delete maintenance tasks based on failure data, Craft/ Operator input, and ReliabilityCentred Maintenance logic (see Figure 4 ). Remove low- or non-value-added maintenance tasks. Determine if there is a task that will predict or prevent each failure mode from occurring - this may be an existing task or possibly a new task. Predictive (condition monitoring) tasks are typically preferred. Each maintenance task must be feasible and worthwhile. 8
Maintworld1 2013
Overall (before the workshop): A Data Collection (PMs and Failure History) B List the Current Maintenance Tasks (PMs and Failure Events); Identify the Failure Modes C Define the failure mode(s) For Each Failure Mode (during the workshop): D Determine the Consequence of the failure mode (including hidden or evident) E Discuss history and data-note key observations; Determine failure characteristic(s); select strategy based on RCM Logic F Determine description, procedures, frequency, durations, craft assignments Select next Failure Mode; Return to D Implementation (after the workshop): G Group and Review tasks resulting from workshop H Approve, Publish, Train & Implement new PM procedures into CMMS
WORKSHOP
Rate of Deterioration If the Failure Mode is: Random Age-Related Age-Related Sudden Gradual Gradual Sudden Random Sudden Gradual Gradual Condition-Based Only! Fixed-Time Only! RCM/PMO LOGIC Maintenance Options for Evident Failure Modes Sudden Failure will occur! Run To Failure
Rate of Deterioration
Do It Now!
Take a good hard look at your current PM practices and procedures right now. If your