Equipment Reliability Track 3 A Major Chemical Companys

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 Pd. M 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 Pd. M in the country • Management felt they could do better • By late 1990’s emphasis moved from effective monitoring to effective communication

Vibration Analysis Oil Analysis Infrared Thermography Motor Analysis Machinery Analysis Individual Condition Status Reports Plant’s early communication structure for condition status information Maintenance Contact Negotiation with Operations over need for repair, change in operations, or scheduling Planner / Weekly Meeting Condition information not consistently driving appropriate maintenance activity Area Maintenance Crew Equipment Repair Action Performance Testing

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

Oil Analysis Vibration Analysis Infrared Thermography Motor Analysis Machinery Analysis Performance Testing Modified communication structure for condition status information Integrated Condition Status Report (Web based) Plant Manager Single Maintenance Contact for an Operating Area WO Backlog from SAP Condition information is now a consistent driver of maintenance activity Monday AM – Weekly Planning Meeting Area Maintenance Crew Equipment Repair Action Maintenance Planner Operations & Maintenance Managers

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’ conditionbased 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!