You are on page 1of 4

How to decide frequencies of Preventive Maintenance (PM) Inspections

by Torbjörn Idhammar
This is a question I often get so I like to offer some guidelines from the real world. The short answer
to this question is that you have to use your experience and common sense supported by a logic
decision structure.
For you who want to indulge in the details of setting PM inspections, let’s begin with defining what
we mean with inspections. Inspections include all objective inspections (we measure something) by
observations or by using an instrument, for example, a vibration analyzer, an infrared camera, a volt
meter, a flow meter, or ultrasonic. Inspections also include all subjective inspections (look-listen-
feel-smell).
In order to set inspection frequencies we need to understand what failure developing period is.
Failure Developing Period (FDP) (Called Pf Curve by some)
The FDP is the time period from when it is possible to detect a failure until we have a breakdown. A
failure is when a system or equipment is operating correctly within given parameters, but has signs
of problems.
For example a centrifugal pump may be cavitating, but is still providing the required flow for the
operation; we have a failure, but not a break down. The cavitations in our example will eventually
develop into a breakdown. The breakdown occurs when the pump is unable to perform its intended
function.
The FDP is the time difference between the failure and the break down. If the pump started to
cavitate at 6 am and it broke down 6 pm 6 days later, the FDP is 156 hours.
Inspection Frequency
The theoretical answer to the question is very simple. The inspection frequency should roughly be
FDP/2. For example, if the estimated failure developing period is 14 days and we need some time to
plan and schedule the corrective maintenance for that failure to avoid a break down. I think a
reasonable inspection frequency is 7 days (FDP/2) in this case. If the inspection frequency is longer
than 14 days, we may miss both the failure and we will have a breakdown. So, our rule of thumb is
Inspection frequency = FDP/2.
The real problem is that we don’t know what the FDP is. There is no standard, no documentation
and most plants do not have any history on FDP.
Inspection Tools changes the FDP
We also need to understand that the FDP changes when we have access to better tools. For
example, we may be able to detect a problem with a pillow block bearing by listening to it with a
stethoscope. This method may give us a warning period of a few days (on average depending on
situation). However, if we use a vibration analyzer, we can probably detect the same failure at least
6 weeks in advance. The failure is the same, but the FDP has changed! For the most part, the only
reason we buy inspection tools is to extend the FDP with more accuracy.
In reality, the ability to detect a failure during the FDP also depends on the person’s ability to do the
inspection, environment (lighting, temperature, indoor vs. outdoor, etc), and operational parameters
at the time of inspection, equipment design and accessibility, and much more.
Many Variables
Each component has many failure modes, and each failure mode can have different FDPs. We also
know that each FDP may change depending on the inspection tool, technique, the person doing the
inspection, and more. On top of all this, each component is running at different speeds, different
environment and different load.
At this point of reasoning, many plants do the wrong things. Some plants make the conclusion that a
massive study needs to be done in order to find the answers to all these questions. Why is this not a
good approach? This is not a good approach because in 999 times out of 1000, you will not have
the data you need to do the analysis and even if you did, the best bang for the buck is usually to get
your people trained and then out there doing inspections rather than performing a big analysis.
What you will end up with when you do a complicated analysis without data is a guess based on a
lot of work, so let’s not do the complicated analysis and instead do a guess using our experience
and cut out 99.9% of the work.
Example
Let’s look at some typical problems with an AC Motor. This example does not include all failure
modes, for example, if you look at bearing manufacturer manual, a bearing has over 50 failure
modes. Therefore we need to look at most common and most likely problems.
Example: AC Motor, 125 HP, 80% load, 24/7 operation, dusty environment.

COMMON PROBLEM GUESSTIMATED FDP INSPECTION & FREQUENCY


Temp increase center of motor due
Weeks Temp gun weekly
to overload or damaged winding
Vibration in bearings 4 -12 weeks Vibration analysis every 2 weeks
Dirt buildup on motor 1 Month Check/clean bi- weekly
Bolts loose 1 Month Inspect bolts bi - weekly
Visual detailed inspection semi-
Frame & foundation for corrosion 1 Year
annually
Temperature increase inboard
Inspect IB bearing with IR gun
bearing (can’t get good temperature 2 Weeks
weekly (don’t exceed 170 F 77C)
reading on outboard bearing)
Electrical Junction box and cables 1 Month Bi-weekly
Other tools above will pick up
Noise from bearings, winding,
1 Week source of noise earlier, recommend
overload etc
weekly.
Immediate damage such as fork lift Can’t catch problems early without a
Instant
run in, something falling on motor FDP.
Increase in load (A) 2-4 weeks Weekly Current (A) reading
Etc Etc etc
As mentioned above there are many more failure modes, I have picked some common problems to
illustrate my point.
If we look at the right column there are many different inspection frequencies even when we do a
simplified analysis. Our estimates are just guesswork and will vary depending on who is doing the
inspection, the type of tool and environment, so we should not take the numbers too seriously, they
are estimates. I would therefore look at some of the shorter inspection intervals and then add some
of the longer interval inspections to those since we may as well do the longer ones when we are
there. They don’t take too long time to do and we are just guessing the intervals.
In this example we could group them as follows in a typical process plant environment:

Sample Checks on an AC Motor


Temp IB Bearing
Temp center Motor
Vibration pen at painted spot
Weekly Check Cleanliness of Motor
Look at condition of junction box and cables
Visually look for water on motor
Check fan with stroboscope
Listen for unusual noise
Monthly Measure Amps
Vibration analysis with Analyzer (different than pen above)
6 months Carefully check the base (steel) and foundation (Concrete)
If you want to see an example of IDCON’s training material for an AC motor and a Coupling click
here:
CMS 100R - AC Motor
CMS 106 R - Gear Coupling
Other Inspections
If it is a critical motor perhaps you want to do a full motor analysis or a test of leakage to ground.

Common Logical Error


Inspection frequencies are based on FDP, not life of component, nor the criticality of the equipment
function.
The life of a component has nothing to do with inspection frequency. For example, a world class
plant have an average motor life of 18 years, some motors last 8 years some 25. However, the FDP
for the most common failure modes for these motors are most likely in the 1-4 week span, so life
statistics has nothing to do with inspection frequency. A common erroneous argument is “we have
inspected this component for 3 years and have not found any problems. Therefore, we extend the
inspection frequency from one week to four weeks”. The fact that you have not found a problem has
nothing to do with the FDP, it hasn’t changed just because the component is running without any
indications of a failure. Once that component fail, it may be after 15 years, the FDP may still be two
weeks and you need to catch it if it is financially viable to do so. If you change the inspection period
to four weeks, it is roughly 50 % + risk that you miss it.
Criticality does not affect the FDP, but it might be a factor when we assign inspection frequency.
The criticality of the motor is a deciding factor when estimating the financial pay off and may change
the selection of the inspection frequency because we are uncertain of the FDP. The FDP is a
guess. So, a very critical component may be checked more frequently because we don’t really know
the FDP. It is an insurance policy.
Summary

 Inspection frequencies are based on FDP, not criticality or component life.


 The FDP for all failure modes is quite unfeasible and impractical to predict. However we can
make a pretty good guess to what it is.
 If you don’t have very good historical data as to what the FDP is, don’t waste your time making
an elaborate study, make a reasonable guess, it is what you will end up with anyway with a
study without reliable data.
 If you have the FDP data, ask if it isn’t better to spend the effort in training people in how to do
inspections and planning and scheduling of corrective actions instead of making a an outsized
study. It is much more cost effective to spend the time on making the execution of good
inspections a reality.

BACK TO ARTICLES
More articles on Preventive Maintenance:

 A Cost Effective Preventive Maintenance Program - Part 1


 At Fletcher Challenge Canada's Crofton, B.C., Pulp Mill, A Preventive Maintenance Program
Stressing Teamwork Helps Avoid Breakdowns
 Carbon Brushes for DC Motors and Generators
 Checking Best Practices for Preventive Maintenance
 Choosing the Most Cost Effective Maintenance Procedure — Part 2
 CMMS and Preventive Maintenance (part 1)
 CMMS and Preventive Maintenance (part 2)
 CMMS and Preventive Maintenance (part 3)
 Contamination and Dirt Cause Equipment Failures
 Developing Your Preventive Maintenance Program
 Integrating a Smart RCM Approach in Developing/Optimizing your PM Program
 Maintaining a Strong Performance in the Mill
 Maintenance - To Maintain, Keep, Preserve, Protect
 Maintenance Training and Maintenance Seminars
 Optimize your Preventive Maintenance
 Practical Condition Monitoring
 Preventing Failures and Extending life – part 2
 Preventing Failures and Extending life — Part 1
 Preventive Maintenance Optimization
 Revitalizing a Preventive Maintenance Program
 See you in September
 Smurfit-Stone Pursues Profitable Path with Fernandina Maintenance Program
 TPM / Preventive Maintenance at Swedish Steel, the First Three Years

You might also like