Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
www.elsevier.com/locate/ress
Applying RCM in large scale systems: a case study with railway networks
Jesus Carreteroa,*, Jose M. Pereza, Felix Garca-Carballeiraa, Alejandro Calderona,
Javier Fernandeza, Jose D. Garcaa, Antonio Lozanob, Luis Cardonab,
Norberto Cotainac, Pierre Pretec
a
b
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Avda Universidad 30, Leganes, 28911 Madrid, Spain
Infrastructure Maintenance Division, RENFE (Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Espanoles), Edificio 22, Estacion de Chamartn, Madrid, Spain
c
ADEPA, Rue Perier 17, Montrouge, Paris, France
Received 22 November 2002; revised 28 January 2003; accepted 26 June 2003
Abstract
In 2000, the European Union founded a project named RAIL: Reliability centered maintenance approach for the infrastructure and logistics
of railway operation aimed to study the application of Reliability centered maintenance (RCM) techniques to the railway infrastructure. In this
paper, we present the results obtained into the RAIL project, including a RCM methodology adapted to large infrastructure networks and a
RCM toolkit to perform the RCM analysis, including cost aspects and maintenance planning guidance. This paper addresses the problem of
applying RCM to large scale railway infrastructure networks to achieve an efficient and effective maintenance concept. Railways use nowadays
very traditional preventive maintenance (PM) techniques, relying mostly on blind periodic inspection and the know-how of maintenance
staff. RCM was seen as a promising technique from the beginning of the RAIL project because of several factors. First, technical insights
obtained were better than the existing, so that several maintenance processes could be revised and adjusted. Second, the interdisciplinary
approach used to make the analysis was very enriching and very encouraging for maintenance staff consulted. Third, using the RCM structured
approach allowed to achieve well-documented analysis and clear decision diagrams. Our methodology includes some new features to
overcome the problems of RCM observed in other projects. As a whole, our methodology and Computerized Maintenance Management
Systems have produced two short-term benefits: reduction of time and paperwork because databases and tools are accessible through Internet,
and creation of a permanent, accurate, and better collection of information. It will also have some long-term benefits: better PM will increase
equipment life and will help to reduce corrective maintenance costs; Production will increase as unscheduled downtime decreases; purchase
costs of parts and materials will be reduced; more effective and up-to-date record of inventory/stores reports; and better knowledge of the
systems to help the company to chose those systems with the best LCC. The results have been corroborated with the application of our
methodology to signal equipment in several railway network sections, as shown in this paper. Because of the successful conclusion of the
project, the Spanish railway company (RENFE) and the German railway company (DB A.G.), not only decided to adopt RCM to enhance PM,
but they have started a large project to implement Total Preventive Maintenance relying on the implantation of the RCM methodology.
q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Reliability centered maintenance; Railway maintenance; Reliability; Computerized maintenance management systems; Maintenance planning
1. Introduction
In 2000, the European Union founded a project named
RAIL: Reliability centered maintenance approach for the
infrastructure and logistics of railway operation aimed to
study the application of Reliability Centered Maintenance
(RCM) techniques [2,14] to the railway infrastructure,
following the success of RCM in other industrial fields [1,4],
* Corresponding author. Fax: 34-91-62-49-129.
E-mail address: jcarrete@arcos.inf.uc3m.es (J. Carretero).
0951-8320/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00167-4
258
2. What is RCM?
The concepts behind RCM are not new, having their
origin in the airline industry back in the 1960s. After several
years of experience, in 1978, the US Department of Defense
issued the MSG-3 [16], an Airline/Manufacturers
Maintenance Program Planning Document. That year,
Nowlan and Heap wrote a comprehensive document on
the relationships among Maintenance, Reliability and
Safety, entitled Reliability Centered Maintenance [18],
creating the RCM methodology. RCM spread throughout
industries, specially those needing safety and reliability,
259
260
n
[
Li ;
Ji ;
Si ;
Pi ;
i1
m
[
j1
p
[
i1
k
[
i1
l
[
Mi ;
i1
261
Table 2
Low level machines
Machine
Example
System
Subsystem
Maintainable item
Example
Line
Section
Villalba-Cercedilla
Los Molinos-Guadarrama
n
X
Fi
i1
262
Table 3
Criticality estimators for lines and sections
Factor
Description
Value 1
Value 2
Value 3
Value 4
Technology
Traffic density
Revenues
Availability
Exploitation
Maintainability
Costs
Environmental risk
Safety risk
Mechanic
[1,20]
Low
6
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Electro-mechanic
(20,60]
Medium
12
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Electric
(60,200]
High
18
High
High
High
High
High
Electronic
.200
Very high
24
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
n
X
i1
Wi
Fi
n
X
Wj
j1
n
X
W 0i Fi
i1
Weights are the same for the whole company. They cannot
be modified by analysts, because it will lead to a different
analysis for each set of systems and it will reduce the
robustness of criticality with respect to the subjective
variability of the weights. Thus, criticality is mostly affected
by the factors and the company policy criteria followed to
define the weights.
For systems like track circuits and signals, criticality is
computed similarly, but adding some different criteria such
as safety. The criteria used are mainly defined by
engineers, maintenance staff, and safety regulation
authorities, and they are related to MTBF, reliability,
availability, etc. A top down classification was established
for each criteria, following risk category, frequency of
failures, hazard security levels, and decision criteria
defined in RAMS standard [6]. Moreover, we allow
defining a threshold to consider a component critical,
but considering that classification could be different
depending on the operational environment. The RCM
methodology must be applied initially to those significant
items upon the threshold.
Depending on the criticality, lines, sections and systems
are classified in four levels, or classes of criticality, from A
to D, which are visualized in RAIL CMMS using colors
ranging from red to green, respectively. The resulting value
is distributed in the range 1; 4n; where n is the number of
factors involved in the computation of the criticality.
To compute the range of the classes, a statistical study
was made using the test case shown ahead. Initially, all the
intervals were similar, but after computing the criticality of
the test case systems, we asked to the experts what interval
When a line criticality is applied for the first time, the same
criticality is applied to sections and systems of that line.
When a specific section of the line is analyzed, if it belongs
to several lines, its criticality is the maximum criticality of
its parent lines (see Eq. (9)). Once computed, the critically
of the section is applied to its systems. Line criticality can
be assigned at the managerial level, while the criticality of
the sections can be assigned by several distributed
management teams starting with the inherited criticality,
thus reducing the time extension of systems analysis.
Obviously, afterwards, each machine can be analyzed
carefully, if needed, to study their situation. For example,
secondary tracks of a station are less critical than primary
ones, but those decisions can be taken closer to the section
and system evaluated. This way, the identification of
functionally significant items (FSI) can be made quickly
at first glance, while a more detailed evaluation can be made
by every maintenance team, which is in charge of a few
systems only.
Table 4
Factors defining the state of a system
Factor
Description
e
Safety
Technology
Reliability
Maintainability
Environmental
risk
n
Y
10
Fi
263
i1
n
Y
nWi =
Fi
n
X
Wj
J1
11
i1
12
13
Table 5
Failure mode analysis of a system
System
Subsystem
Function
Functional failure
Maintainable items
Condition of failure
FTG track
circuit
Transmitter
Fuse
264
Table 6
Classification of failure consequences. Punctuality criteria are for general lines
Failure consequences
Catastrophic
Critical
Marginal
Insignificant
Safety
Economic
Criteria
Value
Criteria
Value
Criteria
Value
Several dead
One dead or seriously injured people
Temporally injured people
Not injured, but aesthetic.
100
60
20
5
. 0.2M Euro
.0.1M Euro
.6000 Euro
,6000 Euro
25
10
5
1
40
25
8
2
Punctuality
P
MTBF
Values
Probability
Frequent
10
14
Probable
Occasional
6
3
Remote
Improbable
Incredible
2
1
0.5
265
15
Frequent
Probable
Occasional
Remote
Improbable
Incredible
Safety
Insignificant
Marginal
Critical
Catastrophic
Undesirable
Undesirable
Tolerable
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Intolerable
Intolerable
Undesirable
Tolerable
Tolerable
Negligible
Intolerable
Intolerable
Undesirable
Undesirable
Undesirable
Tolerable
Intolerable
Intolerable
Intolerable
Intolerable
Undesirable
Undesirable
266
267
5. Test case
268
Fig. 9. Total number and criticality classes of the test case systems.
fi1 ei
i1
122
X
fi2 ei
i1
35
X
18
fi3 ei # 1700
i1
1. Risk factor
2. Criticality
1f53 e5 # 1700
269
f1j $ 3f2j
f4j f1j
;j criticality class
f3j f2j
;j criticality class
f5j f1j
;j criticality class
16
fi ei # 1700
;j criticality class
2
f
3 12
3
# f21
4
1
# f21
2
1
# f51
2
f13 #
i1
f1 $ 3f2
f22
f4 f1
f23
f3 f2
f5 f1
f53
f22 f32 4;
17
f13 f53 8;
f21 6;
f23 6
f51 16;
f2 f3 4
fi
2A
uR
19
Table 9
Theoretic and RAILRCM preventive maintenance frequency
Component
Criticality c
Theoretic yearly
PM rate fT
Hours/op per
inspection t
Track circuit
Switch
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Medium
High
24
24
24
8
8
8
8
24
24
12
12
6
4
2
8
4
12
24
12
12
6
4
4
4
4
12
12
12
12
8
4
3
6
4
16
8
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
Signals
ASFA
Level crossing
270
R1
2A=uf1
f
12
12 0
R0
2A=uf0
f1
20
i1
i1
271
Table 10
Manpower devoted to the test case
Personal
Number of hours
290
480
320
480
1470
;j criticality class
f3j f2j
;j criticality class
f5j f1j
;j criticality class
2
f
3 12
3
f22 # f21
4
1
f23 # f21
2
1
f53 # f51
2
2A
rij #
uij fij
;j criticality class
24
f13 #
22
23
6. Conclusions
This paper addressed the problem of applying RCM to
large scale railway infrastructure networks to achieve an
efficient and effective maintenance concept. Railways use
nowadays very traditional PM techniques, relying on blind
periodic inspection and the know-how of maintenance
staff. RCM was seen as a promising technique from the
beginning of the RAIL project because of several factors.
First, technical insights obtained were better than the
existing, so that several maintenance processes could be
revisited and adjusted. Second, the interdisciplinary
approach used to make the analysis was very enriching
272
Acknowledgements
This work was partially funded by the European Union
project 2000-RD-10819 and the Spanish Ministry Of
Science under the project TIC2000-1995-CE. We would
like to acknowledge the railway partners of the RAIL
project (RENFE, DB A.G., Iarnrod Eireann and
Netherlanden Spoorwegen) and other research partners
(Bast&Roost and FIR) for their contribution to this work.
References
[1] Abdul-Nour G, et al. A reliability based maintenance policy: a case
study. Comput Ind Engng 1998;33(3/4):5914.
[2] Anderson R, Lewis N. Reliability centered maintenance:
management and engineering methods. The Netherlands: Elsevier;
1990.
[3] Ben-Daya M. You may need RCM to enhance TPM implementation.
J Qlty Maintenance Engng 2002;6(2).
[4] Carretero J, Garcia F, Perez JM, Perez M, Cotaina N, Prete P. Study
of existing reliability centered maintenance (RCM) approaches used
in different industries. Technical report FIM/110.1/DATSI/00, Spain:
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid; 2000.
[5] Carretero J, Garcia F, Perez JM. Planning preventive maintenance in
railway networks using RCM. Working With Display Units (WWDU)
Conference, Germany; May 2002.
[6] EN 50126. Railway applicationsthe specification and demonstration of reliability, availability, maintainability and safety
(RAMS), CENELEC; 2000.
[7] Deshpande VS, Modak JP. Application of RCM to a medium scale
industry. Reliab Engng Syst Safety 2002;77(1):3143.
[8] Hall R. Optimizing preventive maintenance using RCM. Maintenance
1992;7(4).
[9] Hounsell D. Tomorrows CMMS. Plant Maintenance Resource
Center, USA: Trade Press Publishing Corporation; 1996. http://
www.plant-maintenance.com/maintenance_articles_cmms.shtml.
[10] IEC, Dependability management. Part 310. Application guide:
maintainability. IEC; 1982.
273