Preventive Maintenance
Preventive Maintenance
Preventive Maintenance
4.1 Introduction
Preventive maintenance, as its name implies are specific tasks that are designed to prevent the
need for corrective or breakdown maintenance, as well as prolong the useful life of capital assets
and auxiliary equipment. (Definition)
Statistically, between 33 percent and 42 percent of so-called preventive maintenance tasks add
no value, in terms of reliability or maintenance prevention.
Within a maintenance organization it usually accounts for a major proportion of the total
maintenance effort.
PM may be described as the caring and servicing by individuals involved with maintenance to
keep equipment/facilities in satisfactory operational state by performing systematic inspection,
detection and correction of incipient failures either prior to their occurrence or prior to their
development into major failure.
From time to time, PM programs in maintenance organizations end up in failure (i.e. they lose
upper management support) because their cost is either unjustifiable or they take a significant
time to show results.
The most important principle to keep continuous management support is: “If it is not going to
save money, then don’t do it!”
The preventive maintenance program can be developed using a guided logic approach and is task
oriented rather than maintenance process oriented.
This eliminates the confusion associated with the various interpretations across different
industries.
By using a task-oriented concept, it is possible to see the whole maintenance program reflected
for any given item.
Servicing and lubrication are included as part of the logic diagram since this ensures that an
important task category is considered each time an item is analyzed.
The content of any maintenance programme consists of at least two groups of tasks:
Preventive Maintenance tasks.
The preventive maintenance tasks which include failure-finding tasks, are scheduled to be
accomplished at specified intervals or based on condition.
The objective of these tasks is to identify and prevent deterioration below inherent safety and
reliability levels by one or more of the following means:
This group of tasks is determined by Reliability Centred Analysis, RCM analysis, that is, it
constitutes the RCM-based preventive maintenance program.
Findings from the scheduled tasks accomplished at specified intervals of time or usage.
The objective of the second group of tasks is to maintain or restore the equipment to an
acceptable condition in which it can perform its required function.
An effective program schedules only those tasks necessary to meet the stated objectives.
It does not schedule additional tasks that increase maintenance costs without a corresponding
increase in the inherent level of reliability.
Experience has clearly demonstrated that reliability decreases when inappropriate or unnecessary
maintenance tasks are performed due to an increased incidence of maintainer-induced faults.
The logic diagram are the basis of an evaluation technique applied to each functionally
significant item (FSI) using all available technical data, as well as the “native knowledge” of
plant personnel.
1) Inspection:
Periodically inspecting materials/items to determine their serviceability by comparing
their physical, electrical, mechanical, chemical etc., characteristics (as applicable) to
expected standards.
2) Servicing:
Cleaning, lubricating, charging, preservation, etc., of items/materials periodically to
prevent the occurrence of incipient failures.
3) Calibration:
Periodically determining the value of characteristics of an item by comparison to a
standard.
It is the process of comparing of two instruments, one of which has a certified standard
with known accuracy, to detect and adjust any discrepancy in the accuracy of the
material/parameter being used to measure a process or operating parameter.
4) Testing:
Periodically testing and/or checking out the integrity of critical items of plant to
determine their serviceability and detect any electrical/mechanical-related degradation.
5) Alignment:
Making changes to an item’s specified variable or adjustable elements for the purpose of
achieving optimum performance.
6) Adjustment:
Periodically adjusting specified variable elements of material for the purpose of
achieving the optimum system performance.
7) Installation:
Periodic replacement of limited-life items or the items experiencing time cycle or
wear degradation, to maintain the specified system tolerance.
Some characteristics of a plant in need of a good preventive maintenance program are as follows:
Rise in equipment repair costs due to negligence in areas such as regular lubrication,
inspection and replacement of worn items/components.
Table 4.1 presents 17 questions for determining the adequacy of a preventive maintenance
program within an organization.
A total score of less than 55 points indicates that the preventive maintenance program requires
further improvements.
Table 4.1 Preventive Maintenance Evaluation Questions
4.3 Important Steps for establishing a PM program
Skilled personnel.
Service manuals.
There are a number of steps involved in developing a PM program. Figure 4.3 presents six steps
for establishing a highly effective PM program in a short period.
Fig. 4.3 Six steps for developing a Preventive Maintenance Program
4.4 Reliability-based Preventive Maintenance [Read for general information but can be left
out]
In the development of a reliability-based preventive maintenance program for both new and in-
service equipment, the progressive logic diagram and the task selection criteria are the principal
tools.
This progressive logic is the basis of an evaluation technique applied to each functionally
significant item (FSI) using the technical data available.
Principally, the evaluations are based on the items’ functional failures and failure causes.
The development of a reliability-based preventive maintenance program is based on the
following:
Identification of FSIs
Identification of applicable and effective preventive maintenance tasks using the
decision tree logic.
A functionally significant item is an item whose failure would affect safety or could have
significant operational or economic impact in a particular operating or maintenance context.
The process also use a top-down approach, and is conducted first at the system level, then at the
subsystem level and where appropriate, down to the component level.
An iterative process should be followed in identifying FSIs. Systems and subsystem boundaries
and functions are first identified.
This permits selection of critical systems for further analysis which involves a more
comprehensive and detailed definition of system, system functions, and system’s functional
failures.
The procedures shown in Fig. 4.1 such as information collection, system analysis and so on,
outline a comprehensive set of tasks in the FSI identification process.
All these tasks should be applied in the case of complex or new equipment.
However, in the case of well-established or simple equipment, where functions and functional
degradation/failures are well recognized, tasks listed under the heading of 4.4.2 System Analysis
can be covered very quickly.
The depth and rigor used in the application of these tasks also varies with the complexity and
newness of the equipment.
Equipment information provides the basis for the evaluation and should be assembled prior to the
start of the analysis and supplemented as the need arises.
The following should be included:
Requirements for equipment and its associated systems, including regulatory
requirements.
Design and maintenance documentation.
Performance feedback, including maintenance and failure data.
Also, to guarantee completeness and avoid duplication, the evaluation should be based on an
appropriate and logical breakdown of the equipment.
The tasks just described specify the procedure for the identification of the functionally
significant items and the subsequent maintenance task selection and implementation.
Note that the tasks can be tailored to meet the requirements of particular industries and the
emphasis placed on each task depends on the nature of that industry.
The objective of this task is to partition the equipment into systems, grouping the components
contributing to achievement of well-identified functions and identifying the system boundaries.
Sometimes, it is necessary to perform further partitioning into the subsystems that perform
functions critical to system performance.
The system boundaries may not be limited by the physical boundaries of the systems, which may
overlap.
The results of equipment partitioning should be documented in a master system index, which
identifies systems, components and boundaries.
The objective of this task is to determine the main and auxiliary functions performed by the
systems and subsystems.
The use of functional block diagrams assist in the identification of system functions.
Functions such as testing or preparation for maintenance, if not considered important, may be
omitted.
The reason for omissions must be given. The product of this task is a listing of system functions.
The objective of this task is to select and rank systems to be included in the RCM program
because of their significance to equipment safety, availability, or economics.
The methods used to select and rank the systems can be divided into
The systems, together with the methods, the criteria used and the results should be documented.
The objective of this task is to identify system functional degradations and failures and rank
them on priority.
The functional degradation or failure of a system for each function should be identified, ranked
by criticality and documented.
Since each system functional failure may have a different impact on safety, availability and
maintenance cost, it is necessary to rank and assign priorities to them.
The ranking takes into account probability of occurrence and consequences of failure.
Qualitative methods based on collective engineering judgment and the analysis of operating
experience can be used.
Quantitative methods such as Simplified Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (SFMEA) or
risk analysis also can be used.
The ranking represents one of the most important tasks in RCM analysis.
Too conservative a ranking may lead to an excessive preventive maintenance program, and
conversely, a lower ranking may result in excessive failures and a potential safety impact.
Based on the identification of system functions, functional degradations and failures and their
effects and collective engineering judgment, it is possible to identify and develop a list of FSI’s.
As said before, failure of these items could affect safety, be undetectable during normal
operation and have significant operational or economic impact.
Once an FSI list has been developed, a method such as Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
(FMEA) should be used to identify the following information which is necessary for the logic
tree evaluation of each FSI.
The following examples refer to the failure of a pump providing cooling water flow:
Function. The normal characteristic actions of the item, a cooling water pump (e.g. to provide
cooling water flow at 100 l/s to 240 l/s to a heat exchanger).
Functional failure. How the item fails to perform its function (e.g., pump fails to provide
required flow).
Failure cause. Why the functional failure occurs (e.g., bearing failure).
Failure effect. What is the immediate effect and the wider consequence of each functional
failure (e.g. inadequate cooling, leading to overheating and failure of the system).
The FSI failure analysis is intended to identify functional failures and failure causes.
Failures not considered credible such as those resulting solely from undetected manufacturing
faults, unlikely failure mechanisms or unlikely external occurrences should be recorded as
having been considered and the factors that caused them to be assessed as not credibly stated.
Prior to applying the decision logic tree analysis to each FSI, preliminary worksheets need to be
completed that clearly define the FSI, its functions, functional failures, failure causes, failure
effects and any additional data pertinent to the item (e.g. manufacturer’s part number, a brief
description of the item, predicted or measured failure rate, hidden functions, redundancy).
From this analysis, the critical FSIs can be identified (i.e., those that have both significant
functional effects and a high probability of failure or have a medium probability of failure but are
judged critical or have a significantly poor maintenance record).
Explanations of the terms used in the possible tasks as shown in Table 4.2 are as follows:
This involves any act of lubricating or servicing for maintaining inherent design
capabilities.
Operational/Visual/Automated check (hidden functional failure categories only).
Since this is a safety category question and a task is required, all possible avenues
should be analyzed.
Prior knowledge from other similar equipment shows that a scheduled maintenance task
has offered substantial evidence of being applicable, effective and economically
worthwhile.
Safety and cost considerations need to be addressed in establishing the maintenance intervals.
Scheduled inspections and replacement intervals should coincide whenever possible and tasks
should be grouped to reduce the operational impact.
The safety replacement interval can be established from the cumulative failure distribution for
the item by choosing a replacement interval that results in an extremely low probability of failure
prior to replacement.
Where a failure does not cause a safety hazard but causes loss of availability, the replacement
interval is established in a trade-off process involving the cost of replacement components, the
cost of failure and the availability requirement of the equipment.
Mathematical models exist for determining task frequencies and intervals, but these models
depend on the availability of the appropriate data.
These data are specific to particular industries and those industry standards and data sheets
should be consulted as appropriate.
If there is insufficient reliability data or no prior knowledge from other similar equipment, or if
there is insufficient similarity between the previous and current systems, the task interval
frequency can be established initially only by experienced personnel using good judgment and
operating experience in concert with the best available operating data and relevant cost data.
Questions