Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e in f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 15 January 2010
Received in revised form
3 August 2010
Accepted 8 August 2010
Available online 11 August 2010
Keywords:
Reliability centered maintenance
Risk
Uncertainties
1. Introduction
Planning of preventive maintenance (PM) of technical systems
is a challenging task. A balance has to be made between the
frequency and extension of the maintenance on the one hand and
costs on the other. The preventive maintenance is introduced to
avoid the occurrence of failures of the system and reduce
potential consequences of failures, but maintenance could in
some cases also introduce failures. Both of these counteracting
aspects are of relevance to preventive maintenance planning.
Different tools have been developed to support the planning of
PM and this paper addresses one of these, the Reliability Centered
Maintenance (RCM) methodology. RCM is a widely accepted
methodology that has been available in the industry for over 30
years, and has proved to offer an efcient strategy for preventive
maintenance optimization [1].
The main objective of RCM is to reduce maintenance costs and
at the same time increase reliability and safety. The system
functionalities and reliability are highlighted as the name
Reliability Centered Maintenance concept indicates. A two-step
procedure is adopted:
i. Inductive analysis of the potential failures, where typically a
variant of failure mode, effects and criticality analysis (FMECA)
is used, to determine critical components of the system; see
e.g. Rausand and Hyland [2].
0951-8320/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ress.2010.08.001
J.T. Selvik, T. Aven / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 96 (2011) 324331
Valve B
Wells
Riser
Fig. 1. Case owline system.
325
326
J.T. Selvik, T. Aven / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 96 (2011) 324331
YES
Does a failure
alerting measurable
indicator exist?
YES
Is continuous
monitoring
feasible?
NO
Increasing failure
rate?
YES
NO
Scheduled predictive
maintenance
YES
Scheduled overhaul
NO
Scheduled replacement
Is overhaul
feasible?
NO
Is the function
hidden?
Continuous predictive
maintenance
YES
Scheduled function
testing
NO
Run-To-Failure (RTF)
Fig. 2. Example of RCM logic (Rausand and Vatn [9]).
medium.
J.T. Selvik, T. Aven / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 96 (2011) 324331
1.
Identification
of MSI
2.
PM task
assessments
3.
PM interval
assessments
5. Uncertainty analysis
Preventive
maintenance
programme
7.
Managerial
review and
judgement
327
6.
Uncertainty
evaluation &
presentation
of results
4.
Packing of
PM tasks
328
J.T. Selvik, T. Aven / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 96 (2011) 324331
Table 1
Uncertainty assessment score interpretation.
Aspect
Score
Interpretation
Uncertainty
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Sensitivity
Importance
L
M
H
L, M or H
Unrealistically large changes in base case values needed to bring about altered conclusions.
Relatively large changes in base case values needed to bring about altered conclusions.
Relatively small changes in base case values needed to bring about altered conclusions.
Average of the other two aspect scores.
J.T. Selvik, T. Aven / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 96 (2011) 324331
329
Table 2
Case uncertainty assessment.
No.
Assumption
Degree of uncertainty
Degree of sensitivity
Degree of importance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Data selection criterion based on item size (inner diameter) and uid type
Data are able to describe the items failure characteristics
Mobilisation history found in database is representative
All of the other items are functioning
Only one failure occurs at the time / within a short time interval
Item failures are observed shortly after they occur
Regular pigging will prevent owline blockage
Use of smart pig provides accurate sensor readings inside the owline
Company and industry requirements are followed
Items are properly tested and inspected before and during installation
M
H
H
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
M
H
M
H
M
H
H
M
L
M
M
H
H/M
M
L/M
M/H
M
M
L
M
assessment.
Uncertainty factors for PM interval assessments: List the relevant
uncertainty factors identied related to the PM interval
assessment.
Uncertainty factor score: For the uncertainty factors identied,
give a qualitative score on degree of uncertainty, sensitivity
and importance.
Sensitivity of PM interval recommendation: Check if an
uncertainly factor has the potential to produce a signicant
change in the PM interval compared with the one recommended. List the adjusted intervals and the corresponding
uncertainty factors.
330
J.T. Selvik, T. Aven / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 96 (2011) 324331
5. Conclusions
RCM is a systematic analysis method for planning the
preventive maintenance (PM) of technical systems. Reliability
and consequences of the relevant system items are assessed in
order to identify and determine suitable PM tasks and intervals.
Over the years, RCM has gained a solid reputation for being a
successful method, but also for having some shortcomings. One of
these is traced to the limited assessments of risk and uncertainties.
In this paper we have presented and discussed the RRCM
framework: a framework based on the existing RCM, which
improves the risk and uncertainty assessments by adding some
additional features to the existing RCM methodology. An extended
uncertainty assessment is added, to address uncertainties hidden in assumptions of the standard RCM analyses. The uncertainties are then communicated to management through an
extended uncertainty evaluation, which integrates the results from
the FMECA (and the formal maintenance optimization if optimization models are established) and the separate uncertainty analysis.
An essential feature of the presented framework is the managerial
review and judgement, which places the decision process into a
broader management context. In this step consideration is given to
the boundaries and limitations of the tools used.
A case from the oil and gas industry is presented to
demonstrate the applicability of RRCM. The approach is, however,
general and could also be used for other types of applications. We
believe that by applying the RRCM, an improved basis can be
established for informing decision makers compared with the
RCM method, as the importance of risk and uncertainties is more
adequately taken into account.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to three anonymous referees for their
constructive comments and suggestions to the original version of
this paper.
References
[1] Desphande VS, Modak JP. Application of RCM to a medium scale industry.
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2002;77:3143.
J.T. Selvik, T. Aven / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 96 (2011) 324331
331
[18] Aven T, Renn O. On risk dened as an event where the outcome is uncertain.
Journal of Risk Research 2009;12:111.
[19] Aven T. A semi-quantitative approach to risk analysis, an alterative to QRAs.
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2008;93(6):7907.
[20] Castanier B, Rausand M. Maintenance optimization for subsea pipelines.
International Journal for Pressure Vessels and Piping 2006;83:23643.
[21] Rausand M. Reliability centered maintenance. Reliability Engineering and
System Safety 1998;60:12132.
[22] Rausand M, Vatn J. Reliability centred maintenance. In: Kobbacy KAH, Murthy
DNP, editors. A Complex System Maintenance Handbook (Springer Series in
Reliability Engineering). London: Springer-Verlag Limited; 2008. p. 79108.
[chapter 4].
[23] Rausand M, Vatn J. Reliability Centered Maintenance. In: Guedes Soares C,
editor. Risk and Reliability in Marine Technology. Rotterdam: Balkema;
1998. p. 42140.
[24] Percy DF. Preventive maintenance models for complex systems. In: Kobbacy
KAH, Murthy DNP, editors. Complex System Maintenance Handbook.
London: Springer-Verlag Limited; 2008. p. 179208. [chapter 8].
[25] Cui L. Maintenance models and optimization. In: Misra KB, editor.
Handbook of Performability Engineering. London: Springer-Verlag Limited;
2008. p. 789806. [chapter 48].
[26] Wang H, Pham H. Reliability and Optimal Maintenance. London: SpringerVerlag Limited; 2006.
[27] Dekker R. Applications of maintenance optimization models: a review and
analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 1996;51:22940.
[28] Apeland S, Scarf PA. A fully subjective approach to modelling inspection
maintenance. European Journal of Operational Research 2003;148:41025.
[29] Selvik JT, Flage R and Aven T. The use of maintenance optimization
modelsan empirical study from the Norwegian oil and gas industry. In:
Proceedings of the European safety and reliability conference, ESREL 2010,
2010.
[30] NORSOK. Z-008: Criticality analysis for maintenance purposes. Rev. 2.
Norwegian Technology Centre, 2001.
[31] NORSOK. Z-016: Regularity management & reliability technology. Rev. 1.
Norwegian Technology Centre. [Now replaced by ISO 20815], 1998.
[32] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 20815: Petroleum,
petrochemical and natural gas industriesProduction assurance and reliability management. 1st ed., 2008.
[33] Flage R, Aven T. Expressing and communicating uncertainty in relation to
quantitative risk analysis. Reliability and Risk Analysis: Theory & Application
2009;2(13):918.
[34] Selvik JT, Aven T. An extended Bayesian updating approach to support
product selection based on performance testinga drilling jar case. In:
Bris R, Guedes Soares C, Martorell S, editors. Reliability, Risk and Safety:
Theory and Applications, vol. 2. Leiden: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group;
2009. p. 8139.