Equipment Reliability, Track 3

A Major Chemical Company’s

Journey to Reliability
- an update to their 2005 SMRP presentation titled
Communication & Accountability are the Keys to Success
in Condition-Based Maintenance

Forrest Pardue,
President
24/7 Systems, Inc.
Louisville, TN
 This presentation discusses:
• The plant’s predictive maintenance history
• Focus on improving communication & use of equipment
condition status information by both operations &
maintenance personnel
• Creating ownership & accountability for equipment
reliability
• Using integrated historical condition information to target
reliability improvement
 Vision

• What is the difference between a Predictive Maintenance

program and a Condition Based Maintenance program?
• Application of Technology Vs an Application of Culture

• Have you experienced PdM programs that start and stop

frequently?
 Management Vision

• Eliminate in-service failures

• Eliminate preventive work when condition good

• Eliminate Basic root causes of failure

• Extend life of machines
• Measure program results
• >20,000 rotating equipment trains in multiple production units
• Started vibration analysis in mid-1980’s, by existing Inspection & Testing team working
in Utilities
• Successes resulted in a dedicated Condition Monitoring team, expansion to other units
• Added Thermography in 1990, Oil Analysis in 1991, plus other NDT
• By the mid 1990’s the predictive maintenance group was well respected for it’s
technical proficiency
• Credited with preventing a significant number of production interruptions by catching
equipment problems prior to failure
• However, management felt there was room to improve.
 Communication Improvement

• By late 1990’s the company was known as one of the best

applications of PdM in the country
• Management felt they could do better

• By late 1990’s emphasis moved from effective monitoring to

effective communication
 Infrared
Oil Thermography
Motor
Analysis Analysis
Vibration
Machinery
Analysis
Analysis

Individual Condition Status Reports Performance

Testing

Plant’s early
Maintenance Maintenance
communication Contact Contact

structure for
condition status Negotiation with
Operations over need for
information repair, change in
operations, or scheduling

Planner / Weekly Meeting

Condition information not

consistently driving appropriate Area
Maintenance
maintenance activity Crew

Equipment Repair Action

 1998
Distributed Condition Status Reports
• Reports were sent to different maintenance contacts based
on technology source
• Each technology used a different format:
– Route Vibration: custom report via plant mail
– IR Thermography: e-mailed PDF file
– Oil Analysis: e-mailed PDF file
– Motor Analysis: e-mailed custom report
– Machine Analysis: e-mailed document
– Performance Testing: e-mailed excel file
 Individual Technology Communications
Lead to ‘Dropped Balls’
• Not sure who was supposed to ‘carry the ball’ for condition-based maintenance
follow up
• Limited distribution & non-standardized formats meant no single person knew
everything about a developing machine problem
• Management had poor visibility of reliability issues – accountability was ‘after
the fact’ when operations complained
• PDM teams were ‘doing their job’, but not generating the expected benefits of
Condition-Based Maintenance
 Keys to taking PDM to
Condition-Based Maintenance
• Create an effective system (kiss) for communicating machinery health status
• Integrate all equipment condition STATUS information
• Hold both operations & maintenance employees accountable for follow-up
actions & results
• Analyze overall reliability patterns to identify chronic problems & plan
improvement
 Infrared
Oil Thermography
Motor
Analysis Analysis
Vibration Machinery
Analysis Analysis

Performance
Testing

Modified
Integrated Condition Status
communication Plant
Report (Web based) Operations &
Maintenance
structure for Manager Managers

condition status Single Maintenance Contact for

an Operating Area
Maintenance
Planner

information
WO Backlog Monday AM – Weekly
from SAP Planning Meeting

Condition information is now

a consistent driver of Area
Maintenance
maintenance activity Crew

Equipment Repair Action

 Today’s Web-hosted Database Technology
Makes it Practical

• Many PDM analysts can document results from different technologies –

including outside service contractors.
• A single database can ‘force’ consistency in equipment names & fault
descriptions
• Plant personnel (including managers) can retrieve status information
through their web-browser, without having to install special software
• Accessible via web browser;
no special software to
install & maintain
• Dynamically generated for
user’s area of interest
• Problems displayed in
order of severity
• All technologies reporting
on a machine are shown
• Status-at-a-glance for
condition based work
 Details by
Technology Source
• Concise findings &
recommendations
• Linked documents for
technical details
• Work order reference
• Check-off notification to
indicate work has been
completed
 Handling Standardization Issues
• Make results documentation easy for the analysts – don’t make extra
work
• Use drop-down lists to force the use of standardized: location names,
equipment faults, & severity scales
• Force concise description of findings & recommendations
• Let the formatting of results reporting happen dynamically ‘behind
the scenes’
 For Concise Findings & Recommendations,
Present Analysts One Simple Screen of All Technologies
 Distribute the Information to a
Broad Plant Audience
• Only present information for each user’s area of interest –
don’t create data overload
• Make it easy to retrieve via web-browser, without requiring
installation & maintenance of special software
• Update the information dynamically, including the status of
condition-based work requests
Weekly planning meeting is the focal point where area operations
and maintenance work together to prioritize activity - that’s
culture change!

• Integrated Condition Status Report for the area is actively

used to discuss old & new condition issues
• Work status review & prioritization is the output
• Area operations & maintenance are jointly accountable for
equipment reliability
 “What gets measured, gets done”

• Are plant personnel held accountable for condition-based

maintenance results?
• For equipment with health issues being reported, are
timely maintenance responses happening?
• Is condition history being kept & analyzed to spot
repetitive reliability issues?
• Shows how long condition
entries have been open,
awaiting work completion
• Shows how many condition
entries have work orders
opened
• Shows assets where all
condition entries have had
work completed and are
awaiting confirmation by
condition monitoring
Response to
Condition-based
Work Requests
In 2004:
Through August
91% of all reported
vibration problems
were resolved.
 Track & Analyze
Timely Response by
Operating Area

• Circulated monthly to
area managers
• Monitors use of PDM info
by work crews
• Key tool for PDM techs to
gauge response to their
information
 2005
Major Culture Change Achieved

Accountability is consistently based on condition and work

execution status rather than informal complaints from
operations
 Use Historical Condition Information

• Identify chronic failure issues & target reliability

improvement initiatives
• Change work procedures and justify special training &
tools
• Fine-tune condition monitoring activities
 Use Condition History to Spot Reliability Gaps

• Reduction gearboxes quickly stand out with the highest number of faults
• Drilling into the report would uncover filter design and lubrication issues as
common denominators behind the gearbox faults
• Significantly reduced chronic equipment problems such as imbalance,
misalignment, lubrication, and installation issues by using historical failure mode
information to change procedures and justify special training and tools
 Use Condition History to Adjust Monitoring Schedules
Finds as % of total monitored components
Generally accepted:
• 10% at start of program
• 5% 6 to 8 years into program
• 3% after 10 years

This plant’s experience (as of 2005):

• 4% 10 years ago
• Now at 2 ½%

Created opportunity to:

• Adjust routine vibration monitoring on less critical equipment from
monthly to every other month or quarterly
• Reassign manpower from routine vibration analysis to higher value root
cause analysis projects
 Summary of Results at This Plant (2005)
• Follow-up of predictive maintenance calls now consistently
tracked
• Basic maintenance problems related to installation &
imbalance practically eliminated
• Maintenance budget & personnel count reduced while
production capacity slightly increased
• Operating area ‘bosses’ know and care about what’s
happening with equipment reliability
 Reliability Update – 2016: Where is This plant
Now on Their Reliability Journey?
• Around 30 years into condition monitoring
• PDM has matured into Asset Reliability focus
• Maintenance, operations and management culture is focused
on timeliness of response to condition-based problems more
than ever

How have they sustained a Reliability focus when many others start /
stop / wonder why?
 Maintain Support From
Top & Mid-level Management
• They had a great starting point as their current plant
manager came from a maintenance background
• Persistent visibility of condition status was key in making
operations and maintenance joint owners of reliability

“Prompt response to resolve condition-based issues has

become a way of life because everyone knows the bosses can
see what’s happening, and that they care”
 Good Information Facilitates Good Decisions
• ‘Time to close’ condition-
based problems were
driven low by 2005
• The same metric spiked
randomly between 2007
& 2014
• Renewed focus drove it
down to all-time lows by
2016
 Automated E-mails
Helped Drive the
Improvement
• Reliability Information System
started sending automatic emails
as soon as a condition problem was
identified, checked off, or closed

• Condition information was

promptly getting to the right
people at the right time

• Helped catch when employees

moved or changed jobs, get the
new contact identified faster
 Fault Histories
Help Identify & Correct
‘Bad Actors’
• Focus is to drive down the number of
problem ‘Finds’ over time
• Type of vibration ‘Finds’ identified training
needs such as alignment training, bearing
installation, & proper belt alignment &
tensioning
• Lubrication ‘Finds’ help identify improper
lube storage & drive improvements
 Improvements

• Work is prioritized, assigned, and managed more effectively

• Bad actors are identified and corrected more quickly
•  Staff meetings are more productive and efficient

• Condition change notifications are automated

• Equipment repair decisions are more economical
And that’s how…
• Standardizing & integrating PDM results

• Changing focus from technology reports to asset health status

• Efficient distribution of asset health status via web browser

• Easy retrieval & trending of asset fault histories

…have helped this large chemical plant create the

visibility, accountability, & management support to
keep their Reliability program in place and
improving for nearly 30 years – and counting!