SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 6
Descargar para leer sin conexión
Empowering Maintenance & Reliability Decision Makers




Estimating Failure Parameters
Mick Drew – ARMS Reliability Engineers




How important is it to use Failure Parameters in Reliability Analysis and RAMS for
major projects?


Answer: There are different types of Failure Parameters that can be used. There are failure parameters that
are used to assess the reliability of a component or system, and there are failure parameters used to predict
reliability of components or systems.



Assessment: One of the most common parameters used to assess reliability is MTBF. Comparing the MTBF is an
indicator of the time between failures and can also be used to calculate system Availability.

The Mean Time Between Failures is calculated by:- Total Operating hours/No of Failures

The MTBF can be used at equipment level or at System level. The inverse of the MTBF is the Failure rate. For
new projects failure rates can be determined from existing plant, similar plant or there may be published data
availability from various industry bodies. OREDA is often referred to for offshore oil industry, and the GADS
database for more than 6,500 electric generating units. Other published data is available from Reliability Analysis
Centre such as the NPRD handbook for non electronic parts.

Of course the best data is from your own plant or similar plant. In the following I describe the analysis of failure
data for four cases.




                                                                                     © 2009 ARMS Reliability Engineers
Empowering Maintenance & Reliability Decision Makers




 Case 1
  Up




 Down
                       15         30            45        60


In case a system has four failures over the first 70 days of operation. The timeline is shown above. From the
event log the following data is assembled and the MTBF is calculated from 44 operating days divided by 4
failures gives an mtbf of 11 days. Similarly the MTTR the plant is 6.5 days.



                                        Perform
          In service        TTF        Maintenance     Duration

              0             7              7              4

             11             10             21             5

             26             12             38             7

             45             15             60            10

            Total           44                           26

            Mean            11                           6.5




A maintenance analysis finds the first failure was due to severe aging mechanism, whereby it was decided to
perform a PM task every 15 days.

The resulting timeline is shown in (Case 2) and the timeline shows the first failure eliminated.




                                                                                    © 2009 ARMS Reliability Engineers
Empowering Maintenance & Reliability Decision Makers



    Case 2
  Up




 Down
                    15          30                 45            60


In this case the MTBF has increased from 11 days to 18 days. A dramatic improvement. Or is it?

When we include the planned outages in the calculation as shown in Case 3, the Mean Time Between Outages
has reduced to only 6.7 days. So whilst the failures have reduced the downtime has actually increased.



  Case 3


  Up




                                                                                Mtbo=47/7=6.7days


 Down
                   15          30             45           60              75




         In                         Perform
         service    TTF             Maintenance         Duration

             0           15              15                2          PM

             17           4              21                5          Repair

             26           4              30                2          PM

             32           6              38                7          Repair

             45           0              45                2          PM

             47          13              60                10         Repair+PM

             70           5              75                2          PM

           Total         47                                30

         Mean            6.7                               4.3




                                                                                           © 2009 ARMS Reliability Engineers
Empowering Maintenance & Reliability Decision Makers


Investigation work by the Engineering group finds a way to eliminate the Regular PM’S and design out two of the
failures, but the repair time is now greatly increased. But the MTBF increases significantly to 18 days.



 Case 4.
  Up




                                                                    Mtbf=36/2=18days


 Down
                     15         30         45        60        75




             In                       Perform
           service        TTF        Maintenance   Downtime

             0            21             21           24

             45           15             60           26

           Total          36                          50

           Mean           18                          25.0




                                                                                 © 2009 ARMS Reliability Engineers
Empowering Maintenance & Reliability Decision Makers


Discussion of Results
Comparison on the MTBF could indicate that the MTBF of case 4 means that Case 4 is the best case.

                      Case 1         Case 2        Case 3        Case 4

  MTBF (Days)           11             16            6.7           18



This is clearly not the case if one was at all concerned about the amount of downtime.

In order to consider the downtime it is necessary to factor in the MTTR and calculate Availability for each case
which is shown below.




Availability = MTBF/(MTBF+MTTR)

                      Case 1         Case 2        Case 3        Case 4

        MTBF            11             16            6.7           18

  Failure Rate         0.09           0.06          0.15          0.06

        MTTR           6.5             7.3           4.3           25

  Availability        62.9%          68.6%          61.0%        41.9%



From this of course we see that Case 1 is actually better than Case 3 and Case 4 and Case 2 is invalid because the
planned downtime was not taken into account.



Conclusions
    •    If you are concerned about number of unplanned outages- MTBF can be used as a guide.
    •    If you are concerned about number of outages- MTBO can be used as a guide.
    •    If you are concerned about minimising Downtime then Availability can be used as a guide.
    •    It is very important to consider both planned and unplanned outages when assessing and comparing
         systems.
    •    The use of a fixed time maintenance regime without consideration of operating time is far too
         conservative.
    •    Major projects may start off with maintenance outage data from vendors but the actual outage times
         must be determined through maintainability studies that take into account logistics delays, sparing
         levels, diagnostic times.
    •    What about Predicting performance? For the answer to that question we need to go to Reliability
         Parameters.




                                                                                   © 2009 ARMS Reliability Engineers
Empowering Maintenance & Reliability Decision Makers




                           © 2009 ARMS Reliability Engineers

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Estimating Failure Parameters in Reliability Analysis

TPM For lean manufacturing chp3 | kobetsu kaizen for production efficiency...
TPM For lean manufacturing  chp3 |   kobetsu kaizen for production efficiency...TPM For lean manufacturing  chp3 |   kobetsu kaizen for production efficiency...
TPM For lean manufacturing chp3 | kobetsu kaizen for production efficiency...博行 門眞
 
Supply chain design and operation
Supply chain design and operationSupply chain design and operation
Supply chain design and operationAngelainBay
 
Studying the Advance Maintenance Practice & Computerised Maintenance
Studying the Advance Maintenance Practice & Computerised MaintenanceStudying the Advance Maintenance Practice & Computerised Maintenance
Studying the Advance Maintenance Practice & Computerised MaintenanceIJERA Editor
 
A CASE STUDY ON PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
A CASE STUDY ON PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCEA CASE STUDY ON PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
A CASE STUDY ON PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCEZubair Ali ali
 
MTBF vs MTTR.pptx
MTBF vs MTTR.pptxMTBF vs MTTR.pptx
MTBF vs MTTR.pptxBalakumarV6
 
4fc89288c1399 skm draft-report_-_review_of_lrmc_parameters_for_2013-14
4fc89288c1399 skm draft-report_-_review_of_lrmc_parameters_for_2013-144fc89288c1399 skm draft-report_-_review_of_lrmc_parameters_for_2013-14
4fc89288c1399 skm draft-report_-_review_of_lrmc_parameters_for_2013-14Sathish Paul
 
H0432045055
H0432045055H0432045055
H0432045055theijes
 
Revised Reliability Presentation (1).ppt
Revised Reliability Presentation (1).pptRevised Reliability Presentation (1).ppt
Revised Reliability Presentation (1).pptAnandsharma33224
 
Maintenance KPIs April 28.pptx
Maintenance KPIs April 28.pptxMaintenance KPIs April 28.pptx
Maintenance KPIs April 28.pptxMKASHIFIDREES
 
Planned Maintenance.
Planned Maintenance.Planned Maintenance.
Planned Maintenance.Hal Frohreich
 
RCM extension for Maximo - Cohesive Solutions (IMUG 2017)
RCM extension for Maximo - Cohesive Solutions (IMUG 2017)RCM extension for Maximo - Cohesive Solutions (IMUG 2017)
RCM extension for Maximo - Cohesive Solutions (IMUG 2017)Cyrus Sorab
 
Cohesive imug 2017 RCM extension for Maximo
Cohesive imug 2017 RCM extension for MaximoCohesive imug 2017 RCM extension for Maximo
Cohesive imug 2017 RCM extension for MaximoBrandonWilhelm4
 

Similar a Estimating Failure Parameters in Reliability Analysis (20)

TPM For lean manufacturing chp3 | kobetsu kaizen for production efficiency...
TPM For lean manufacturing  chp3 |   kobetsu kaizen for production efficiency...TPM For lean manufacturing  chp3 |   kobetsu kaizen for production efficiency...
TPM For lean manufacturing chp3 | kobetsu kaizen for production efficiency...
 
Supply chain design and operation
Supply chain design and operationSupply chain design and operation
Supply chain design and operation
 
Studying the Advance Maintenance Practice & Computerised Maintenance
Studying the Advance Maintenance Practice & Computerised MaintenanceStudying the Advance Maintenance Practice & Computerised Maintenance
Studying the Advance Maintenance Practice & Computerised Maintenance
 
A CASE STUDY ON PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
A CASE STUDY ON PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCEA CASE STUDY ON PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
A CASE STUDY ON PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
 
MTBF vs MTTR.pptx
MTBF vs MTTR.pptxMTBF vs MTTR.pptx
MTBF vs MTTR.pptx
 
4fc89288c1399 skm draft-report_-_review_of_lrmc_parameters_for_2013-14
4fc89288c1399 skm draft-report_-_review_of_lrmc_parameters_for_2013-144fc89288c1399 skm draft-report_-_review_of_lrmc_parameters_for_2013-14
4fc89288c1399 skm draft-report_-_review_of_lrmc_parameters_for_2013-14
 
H0432045055
H0432045055H0432045055
H0432045055
 
Revised Reliability Presentation (1).ppt
Revised Reliability Presentation (1).pptRevised Reliability Presentation (1).ppt
Revised Reliability Presentation (1).ppt
 
6Sigma
6Sigma6Sigma
6Sigma
 
293749024-Reliability-Growth.ppt
293749024-Reliability-Growth.ppt293749024-Reliability-Growth.ppt
293749024-Reliability-Growth.ppt
 
Team5_-_Final_Report
Team5_-_Final_ReportTeam5_-_Final_Report
Team5_-_Final_Report
 
Maintenance KPIs April 28.pptx
Maintenance KPIs April 28.pptxMaintenance KPIs April 28.pptx
Maintenance KPIs April 28.pptx
 
Planned Maintenance.
Planned Maintenance.Planned Maintenance.
Planned Maintenance.
 
OEE
OEEOEE
OEE
 
OEE
OEEOEE
OEE
 
OEE
OEEOEE
OEE
 
tpm tracking for machine shope--by ganesh kadam
tpm tracking for machine shope--by ganesh kadamtpm tracking for machine shope--by ganesh kadam
tpm tracking for machine shope--by ganesh kadam
 
Bryan allcock trl9 ready
Bryan allcock   trl9 readyBryan allcock   trl9 ready
Bryan allcock trl9 ready
 
RCM extension for Maximo - Cohesive Solutions (IMUG 2017)
RCM extension for Maximo - Cohesive Solutions (IMUG 2017)RCM extension for Maximo - Cohesive Solutions (IMUG 2017)
RCM extension for Maximo - Cohesive Solutions (IMUG 2017)
 
Cohesive imug 2017 RCM extension for Maximo
Cohesive imug 2017 RCM extension for MaximoCohesive imug 2017 RCM extension for Maximo
Cohesive imug 2017 RCM extension for Maximo
 

Más de ARMS Reliability

How to Instill a Culture of Reliability - "The Big Bang"
How to Instill a Culture of Reliability - "The Big Bang"How to Instill a Culture of Reliability - "The Big Bang"
How to Instill a Culture of Reliability - "The Big Bang"ARMS Reliability
 
Jack Jager AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - 6 steps for a successful root cause ana...
Jack Jager AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - 6 steps for a successful root cause ana...Jack Jager AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - 6 steps for a successful root cause ana...
Jack Jager AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - 6 steps for a successful root cause ana...ARMS Reliability
 
Weylon Malek AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - Process Reliability
Weylon Malek AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - Process ReliabilityWeylon Malek AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - Process Reliability
Weylon Malek AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - Process ReliabilityARMS Reliability
 
Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis (VAA) Overview
Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis (VAA) OverviewVulnerability Assessment and Analysis (VAA) Overview
Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis (VAA) OverviewARMS Reliability
 
Root Cause Analysis - When is a problem not a problem?
Root Cause Analysis - When is a problem not a problem?Root Cause Analysis - When is a problem not a problem?
Root Cause Analysis - When is a problem not a problem?ARMS Reliability
 
Using RCM to Justify Maintenance Strategies
Using RCM to Justify Maintenance Strategies Using RCM to Justify Maintenance Strategies
Using RCM to Justify Maintenance Strategies ARMS Reliability
 
ARMS Reliability Capability Statement
ARMS Reliability Capability StatementARMS Reliability Capability Statement
ARMS Reliability Capability StatementARMS Reliability
 
ARMS Reliability Corporate Brochure
ARMS Reliability Corporate BrochureARMS Reliability Corporate Brochure
ARMS Reliability Corporate BrochureARMS Reliability
 

Más de ARMS Reliability (9)

How to Instill a Culture of Reliability - "The Big Bang"
How to Instill a Culture of Reliability - "The Big Bang"How to Instill a Culture of Reliability - "The Big Bang"
How to Instill a Culture of Reliability - "The Big Bang"
 
Jack Jager AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - 6 steps for a successful root cause ana...
Jack Jager AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - 6 steps for a successful root cause ana...Jack Jager AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - 6 steps for a successful root cause ana...
Jack Jager AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - 6 steps for a successful root cause ana...
 
Weylon Malek AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - Process Reliability
Weylon Malek AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - Process ReliabilityWeylon Malek AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - Process Reliability
Weylon Malek AMPEAK 2014 Presentation - Process Reliability
 
Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis (VAA) Overview
Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis (VAA) OverviewVulnerability Assessment and Analysis (VAA) Overview
Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis (VAA) Overview
 
Root Cause Analysis - When is a problem not a problem?
Root Cause Analysis - When is a problem not a problem?Root Cause Analysis - When is a problem not a problem?
Root Cause Analysis - When is a problem not a problem?
 
Using RCM to Justify Maintenance Strategies
Using RCM to Justify Maintenance Strategies Using RCM to Justify Maintenance Strategies
Using RCM to Justify Maintenance Strategies
 
RAMS for new projects
RAMS for new projectsRAMS for new projects
RAMS for new projects
 
ARMS Reliability Capability Statement
ARMS Reliability Capability StatementARMS Reliability Capability Statement
ARMS Reliability Capability Statement
 
ARMS Reliability Corporate Brochure
ARMS Reliability Corporate BrochureARMS Reliability Corporate Brochure
ARMS Reliability Corporate Brochure
 

Estimating Failure Parameters in Reliability Analysis

  • 1. Empowering Maintenance & Reliability Decision Makers Estimating Failure Parameters Mick Drew – ARMS Reliability Engineers How important is it to use Failure Parameters in Reliability Analysis and RAMS for major projects? Answer: There are different types of Failure Parameters that can be used. There are failure parameters that are used to assess the reliability of a component or system, and there are failure parameters used to predict reliability of components or systems. Assessment: One of the most common parameters used to assess reliability is MTBF. Comparing the MTBF is an indicator of the time between failures and can also be used to calculate system Availability. The Mean Time Between Failures is calculated by:- Total Operating hours/No of Failures The MTBF can be used at equipment level or at System level. The inverse of the MTBF is the Failure rate. For new projects failure rates can be determined from existing plant, similar plant or there may be published data availability from various industry bodies. OREDA is often referred to for offshore oil industry, and the GADS database for more than 6,500 electric generating units. Other published data is available from Reliability Analysis Centre such as the NPRD handbook for non electronic parts. Of course the best data is from your own plant or similar plant. In the following I describe the analysis of failure data for four cases. © 2009 ARMS Reliability Engineers
  • 2. Empowering Maintenance & Reliability Decision Makers Case 1 Up Down 15 30 45 60 In case a system has four failures over the first 70 days of operation. The timeline is shown above. From the event log the following data is assembled and the MTBF is calculated from 44 operating days divided by 4 failures gives an mtbf of 11 days. Similarly the MTTR the plant is 6.5 days. Perform In service TTF Maintenance Duration 0 7 7 4 11 10 21 5 26 12 38 7 45 15 60 10 Total 44 26 Mean 11 6.5 A maintenance analysis finds the first failure was due to severe aging mechanism, whereby it was decided to perform a PM task every 15 days. The resulting timeline is shown in (Case 2) and the timeline shows the first failure eliminated. © 2009 ARMS Reliability Engineers
  • 3. Empowering Maintenance & Reliability Decision Makers Case 2 Up Down 15 30 45 60 In this case the MTBF has increased from 11 days to 18 days. A dramatic improvement. Or is it? When we include the planned outages in the calculation as shown in Case 3, the Mean Time Between Outages has reduced to only 6.7 days. So whilst the failures have reduced the downtime has actually increased. Case 3 Up Mtbo=47/7=6.7days Down 15 30 45 60 75 In Perform service TTF Maintenance Duration 0 15 15 2 PM 17 4 21 5 Repair 26 4 30 2 PM 32 6 38 7 Repair 45 0 45 2 PM 47 13 60 10 Repair+PM 70 5 75 2 PM Total 47 30 Mean 6.7 4.3 © 2009 ARMS Reliability Engineers
  • 4. Empowering Maintenance & Reliability Decision Makers Investigation work by the Engineering group finds a way to eliminate the Regular PM’S and design out two of the failures, but the repair time is now greatly increased. But the MTBF increases significantly to 18 days. Case 4. Up Mtbf=36/2=18days Down 15 30 45 60 75 In Perform service TTF Maintenance Downtime 0 21 21 24 45 15 60 26 Total 36 50 Mean 18 25.0 © 2009 ARMS Reliability Engineers
  • 5. Empowering Maintenance & Reliability Decision Makers Discussion of Results Comparison on the MTBF could indicate that the MTBF of case 4 means that Case 4 is the best case. Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 MTBF (Days) 11 16 6.7 18 This is clearly not the case if one was at all concerned about the amount of downtime. In order to consider the downtime it is necessary to factor in the MTTR and calculate Availability for each case which is shown below. Availability = MTBF/(MTBF+MTTR) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 MTBF 11 16 6.7 18 Failure Rate 0.09 0.06 0.15 0.06 MTTR 6.5 7.3 4.3 25 Availability 62.9% 68.6% 61.0% 41.9% From this of course we see that Case 1 is actually better than Case 3 and Case 4 and Case 2 is invalid because the planned downtime was not taken into account. Conclusions • If you are concerned about number of unplanned outages- MTBF can be used as a guide. • If you are concerned about number of outages- MTBO can be used as a guide. • If you are concerned about minimising Downtime then Availability can be used as a guide. • It is very important to consider both planned and unplanned outages when assessing and comparing systems. • The use of a fixed time maintenance regime without consideration of operating time is far too conservative. • Major projects may start off with maintenance outage data from vendors but the actual outage times must be determined through maintainability studies that take into account logistics delays, sparing levels, diagnostic times. • What about Predicting performance? For the answer to that question we need to go to Reliability Parameters. © 2009 ARMS Reliability Engineers
  • 6. Empowering Maintenance & Reliability Decision Makers © 2009 ARMS Reliability Engineers