Asset Management - Question and Answer

Asset Management 1
Managing assets
By (name)
College:
Date:

Asset Management 2
Question 1: Reflective Essay
An overview of RCM methodology
Reliability centered maintenance is a decision procedure or process that is designed to establish
management policies for the identification, selection and prioritization of system component failures
(Anderson & Neri, 2012). These policies are usually in the form of system design modifications,
operational changes, maintenance activities or actions aimed to reduce failure consequences. It is a
systematic method that assesses and optimizes the performance of preventive maintenance tasks.
Through reliability centered maintenance, effective preventive maintenance demands for equipment
are identified with respect to safety economic and operational consequences as well as the
degradation ways responsible for the system failures (Besnard, Fischer, & Bertling, 2010). Developed
in the 1960s for the aviation sector, RCM application has spread and is currently used in many
assorted industries such as the marine and power distribution systems (Almeida et al., 2015). RCM
involves the consideration of system characteristics such as system functions, the ways these
functions can fail, safety and economics based on priorities and the identification of effective and
applicable preventive maintenance actions (Raheja & Gullo, 2012). The principles of reliability
centered maintenance can be summarised as follows:
i) To maintain the functionalities of a system or its components
ii) To identify possible failure modes that can cripple system functions
iii) To assign system functions priorities according to corresponding failure modes
iv) To select effective and reasonable preventive maintenance actions for failure modes
assigned high priorities.
The steps involved in the implementation of reliability centered processes or programs include
(Gehris, 2015):
i) The identification of functions
ii) Determination of the causes of function failures
iii) The identification of system or component failure modes
iv) Establishment of the effects resulting from the identified failure modes
v) Determination of the consequences associated with these failure modes
vi) The development of tasks and actions for the maintenance of the system or its
components
Some important terminologies associated with reliability centered maintenance include (Carnero &
González-Prida, 2016):
Functional failure
This refers to the inability of a component or equipment to satisfactorily perform its intended function.
Failure mode
This specifies the manner in which the equipment fails to meet its performance specifications
Failure effect
This can be defined as the impact the failure has on the overall expectations the component is to
fulfill.
Reliability
This is the possibility that given equipment will perform its specified function satisfactorily under
certain operating conditions and a given time frame.
Advantages of RCM
i) With RCM, it is possible to considerably lower the cost required to maintain and repair an
apparatus as a result of the great focus on the improvement of equipment reliability
ii) RCM eliminates or minimizes the consequences of system failure which may be fatal
leading to the compromise of human safety (Selvik & Aven, 2011)
iii) It eliminates the unnecessary replacement of system components unless it is necessary

Asset Management 3
Disadvantages of RCM
i) It is usually very expensive to initiate an RCM program because it is necessary to
purchase technological equipment
ii) Industries normally have large a number of equipment hence selection of maintenance
procedures for components is time-consuming
iii) The high initial cost of its initiation makes RCM’s ability to save costs somehow blurred to
the management (Clifton A. Ericson, 2015).
An overview of FMEA process
Failure mode and effects analysis is a process for the systematic analysis of a system with the aim to
identify possible system failure modes, their causes as well as the effects they have on the
performance of the system (Sarno Severi, 2014). This process requires a team effort and can be
applied at various levels of system abstraction. FMEA is an iterative process. This means that new
steps are added with the increase in the knowledge and understanding of the system or equipment
(Carlson, 2012). FMEA aims to achieve the following objectives (Carlson, 2012):
i) To enable system reliability improvement and safety through design modifications, quality
assurance, and maintainability
ii) To set the foundation for the establishment of priority corrective actions
iii) To identify possible system failures, their magnitude and effects
iv) Ensure that all probable system failure modes are identified including their effects on the
functionality of the system
v) Help in the evaluation of redundancies related to system requirements, manual and
automatic override and systems for failure detection
vi) To allow for the documentation of system operations for future reference in the analysis of
failures and design alterations
Major terminologies associated with FMEA analysis
Failure severity
This estimates how adversely the effects of failure will impact the system under consideration
Failure probability
This is a number that gives the probability or possibility or the likelihood of the failure happening
Failure detectability
This gives an estimate of the ability to identify and eliminate system failure before it can adversely
affect the system
Risk priority number
The risk priority number (RPN) = failure severity × failure probability × failure detectability (Raheja &
Gullo, 2012)
A universal method of conducting the FMEA procedure does not exist (Singh, 2017). However, the
following steps are generally followed (Dietz, 2015):
i) Identification of system elements and functions
ii) Identification of possible system failure modes which are dependent on the life cycle
profile of the system components
iii) Determination of the causes leading to system failure
iv) Identification of possible failure mechanisms and the development of failure models
v) Prioritization of the failure mechanisms
vi) Documentation of the entire FMEA process
Benefits of FMEA analysis
i) FMEA makes it possible to detect design deficiencies early enough to prevent
catastrophic system failure (Haimes, 2015)

Asset Management 4
ii) It discloses safety issues and product liability problems including non-compliance of
products and procedures with set guidelines
iii) It helps in the determination of the necessity of reliability improvement in terms of
redundancy, fail-safe and device de-rating (Valdes, 2012).
Limitations of FMEA analysis
i) It is impossible to determine the efficiency of the overall system which makes it difficult to
establish the level of design improvement (Selvik & Aven, 2011)
ii) The process is labor intensive and its success is dependent on the quality of its
implementation
iii) FMEA ignores the relationships between failure modes for different components and
assumes that they are independent. However, this is not the case with actual systems
(Gómez et al, 2017)
iv) For systems made up of assorted components and functions, analysis is difficult and
complicated
Question 2: Article review
Reliability-Centered Maintenance Methodology and Application: A Case Study
Introduction
This study was focused on the generation of a maintenance program for the components of a
process-steam plant based on the reliability centered maintenance technique. According to Afefy
(2010), the Reliability centered maintenance methodology should be capable of minimizing the
system downtime and improving the plant components availability. Besides, it should have the added
benefit of reducing the consumption of spare parts by the system components. To name but a few,
the most important factors to consider in a steam-process plant include reliability, maintenance and
overall maintenance reliability cost (Afefy, 2010).
Summary of the article
General system description
The main components of a steam process plant include feed-water pump, heat exchanger, dryers,
condensate tank and a fire tube boiler (Afefy, 2010).
System boundary definition
System definition serves to initially determine the precise boundaries that have to be established if the
RCM analysis methodology is to be applied. Afefy (2010) identified the following physical system
boundaries for the steam process plant under study:
i) The entrance of brine to the concentration ponds
ii) The exit of brine to the concentration ponds
iii) The entrance of brine to the Na2SO4 plant
iv) The entrance of steam to the NaCl plant
v) The supply of alternating current power to the NaCl plant
vi) The entrance of the brine remaining to the Na2SO4 plant
vii) NaCl exit from the Na2SO4 plant as a product
viii) Remaining brine exit from the NaCl plant
Results and analysis
Boiler failure analysis
() identified the following failure modes as well as their root causes, effects, and the cause
mechanisms
i) Low efficiency of the boiler

Asset Management 5
The major causes for this failure mode were identified as too much air supply and dirty firesides
resulting in high temperature of the stack gas. Low water supply, high steam demands and poor
combustion leading to low steam pressure and finally, leakage through the soot blower casing seal
leading to the entrance of combustion gases into the fire room (Afefy, 2010).
Pump failure analysis
ii) Corrosion of the boiler tubes
() identified the root causes for this failure mode as incorrect temperature, viscosity or fuel pressure,
improperly assembled atomizers and the presence of water in the supply fuel. The effect of these
causes was pointed out to be an impingement of fuel on the walls and tubes of the furnace. Other root
causes were identified as a sudden change in the steam demand and too much or too low air with the
effect of high fuel consumption (Afefy, 2010).
iii) Low efficiency of the pump
One of the root causes identified for this failure mode includes excessively hot water due to low-
pressure discharge. Another cause is the damage of the impeller or the loss of the impeller on the
shaft as a result of low flow rate and low delivery of pressure. Other root causes include flooding of
the oil reservoir, failure of the mechanical seal and the improper installation of the bearing leading oil
contamination (Afefy, 2010).
iv) Pump shutdown
Afefy (2010) established the root causes for this failure mode as follows: excessively hot water and
damaged impeller or loose shaft, bent shaft as a result of high bearing temperature, operation at low
flow, misalignment of the pump drive motor and mechanical seal failure
Boiler FMEA analysis
i) Incorrect burner sequence
This failure mode occurs in the combustion room. Afefy (2010) identified the local effect associated
with this failure mode as the tripping of the boiler and steam system trip as the effect on the system.
Production stooping was identified as the overall effect on the plant.
ii) Too much fuel firing
This failure mode occurs in the combustion room too. The local effect associated with this failure
mode is the tripping of the boiler the overall effect on the plant is the stooping of the production. The
effect on the system is the tripping of the steam system.
iii) Corrosion
This failure mode occurs in the piping system. Afefy (2010) identified the local effect associated with
this failure mode as the shutdown of the boiler with an overall plant effect of production stooping. The
effect on the system is the tripping of the steam system.
Pump FMEA analysis
i) Worn impeller
The local effects associated with this failure mode include low efficiency of the pump, pump vibration
and the reduction in the pump’s suction power. This could then lead to the tripping of the boiler and
the entire system (Afefy, 2010).
ii) Faulty thrust bearing
() identified the following local effects associated with this failure mode: motor overload, excessive
vibration of the pump, increase in the radial movement of the shaft and eventual pump shutdown. The
effect on the boiler is shut down as well as an overall system shutdown.
iii) Shaft deformation
The local effects associated with this failure mode include low efficiency of the pump, possible bearing
damage, increased pump vibration, increase in shaft radial movement and the eventual failure of the

Asset Management 6
coupling mechanism. The overall effect of this failure is the reduction of boiler and system efficiencies
(Afefy, 2010).
Conclusions
From the presented RCM results and analysis of the steam process plant, Afefy (2010) was able to
generate preventive maintenance tasks and planning. Preventive maintenance consists of on-
condition and scheduled maintenance. Afefy (2010) observed that the reliability centered maintenance
had a great impact on the preventive maintenance tasks and actions. They were also able to reduce
run-to-failure frequency. In terms of cost savings, the results indicated that with the implementation of
the proposed labor program, labor costs could be reduced from about 295200 US dollars to 220800
US dollars per year which corresponds to about 25.2 % of the total labor cost. Besides, an
investigation into the downtime cost of the plant components shows that implementation of the
proposed maintenance can lead to a saving of approximately 80 % of the total DT cost in comparison
with the prevailing maintenance. As a result, the decrease in labour costs improves system reliability.
Afefy (2010) proposed a spare part program for the plant components which achieved a saving of
about 22.17 % of the yearly cost of spare parts over the prevailing maintenance plan.
Question 3
The simple flashlight provide was analyzed to determine the dominant failure modes their causes and
their effects. Each failure mode was assigned appropriate severity, probability and detectability
numbers and the corresponding risk priority number (RPN). The three top dominant failure modes
identified are discussed below.
i) Flashlight constantly on
This failure mode was assigned the highest risk priority number. It represents a complete failure
of the flashlight to perform as per the requirements of a flashlight. The level of severity is highest
hence this mode was assigned the highest possible severity number of four. It is also very easy to
identify a flashlight in this failure mode hence the detectability was assigned a high detectability
number of two. However, this failure mode is also rare hence the probability was assigned a low
probability of two. My team identified several causes for this failure. One of these causes is as a result
of the failure of the slide switch which could get stuck in the on state due to corrosion of its contact
mechanism. My team identified the best solution to this problem as to replace the switch completely.
ii) Intermittent flashlight operation
This failure mode represents a partial failure of the flashlight. The flashlight is able to perform its
intended function however unsatisfactorily. As a result, we decided to assign a low severity number
(2) for this failure mode. It is easy to detect this failure mode. However, the cause of this failure is not
apparent as it may result from the malfunction of various parts of the flashlight. Therefore the
detectability for this failure mode was assigned a 50 % chance of detection. The possibility or
probability of this failure mode is relatively low as it is mainly associated with aging of the flashlight
and its components. The main causes of this failure mode include loose contact between the flashlight
parts. For example, between the batteries and the housing springs. This problem also arises from
corrosion of the flashlight contacts which reduces the area of contact between electrical parts. The
recommendation is to clean the contacts to remove the corrosion layer.
iii) Flashlight fails to operate
Similar to the first case in which the flashlight fails to turn off, this failure mode was assigned the
highest risk priority number (RPN) of 16. This failure mode also represents a complete failure of the
flashlight to perform as per the requirements of a flashlight. The level of severity was given the highest
available number (4). This failure mode can also be easily identified hence it was given a detectability
value of 2. Like in the case of the constantly-on flashlight, this failure mode is also rare hence it was
given a probability value of 2 which is low. The main cause for this failure mode includes low battery
levels and inappropriate battery configuration in the flashlight. Therefore the recommended action or
task is to carefully check the battery polarities and to replace the batteries if their level falls below the
recommended value.

Asset Management 7
References
Afefy, I. H. (2010). Reliability-Centered Maintenance Methodology and Application: A Case
Study. Engineering, 02(11), 863-873. doi:10.4236/engineering.2010.211109
Almeida, A. T., Cavalcante, C. A., Alencar, M. H., Ferreira, R. J., Almeida-Filho, A. T., & Garcez, T. V.
(2015). Multicriteria and Multiobjective Models for Risk, Reliability and Maintenance Decision
Analysis. Basingstoke, England: Springer.
Anderson, R., & Neri, L. (2012). Reliability-Centered Maintenance: Management and Engineering
Methods. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
Besnard, F., Fischer, K., & Bertling, L. (2010). Reliability-Centred Asset Maintenance — A step
towards enhanced reliability, availability, and profitability of wind power plants. 2010 IEEE PES
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT Europe).
doi:10.1109/isgteurope.2010.5638986
Carlson, C. (2012). Effective FMEAs: Achieving Safe, Reliable, and Economical Products and
Processes Using Failure Mode and Effects Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Carnero, M., & González-Prida, V. (2016). Optimum Decision Making in Asset Management. Hershey,
PA: IGI Global.
Clifton A. Ericson, I. (2015). Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety. John Wiley & Sons.
Dietz, W. (2015). Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Re-Engineering Clinical Trials, 77-88.
doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-420246-7.00008-6
Gehris, J. (2015). Reliability Centered Maintenance: Unraveling the Mysteries. Morrisville, NC: Lulu
Press.
Gómez Fernández, J. F., Ferrero Bermejo, J., Olivencia Polo, F. A., Crespo Márquez, A., & Cerruela
García, G. (2017). Dynamic Reliability Prediction of Asset Failure Modes. Advanced Maintenance
Modelling for Asset Management, 291-309. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58045-6_12
Haimes, Y. Y. (2015). Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
Raheja, D. G., & Gullo, L. J. (2012). Design for Reliability. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Sarno Severi, E. (2014). Reliability improvement programs and asset management optimization for
the asset intensive industries. Asset Management Conference 2014. doi:10.1049/cp.2014.1050
Selvik, J., & Aven, T. (2011). A framework for reliability and risk centered maintenance. Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, 96(2), 324-331. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2010.08.001
Singh, R. (2017). Asset Integrity Management and Other Concepts of Asset Reliability. Pipeline
Integrity Handbook, 271-288. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-813045-2.00018-1
Valdes, M. E. (2012). Adapting failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to select hazard mitigation
measures. 2012 Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference (PCIC).
doi:10.1109/pcicon.2012.6549659