ISPM Overview

© Reliability Dynamics LLC 2014

Equipment Taxonomy and Failure Reporting

Industry Standard Solution for

Plant Maintenance (ISPM®)

© Reliability Dynamics LLC 2014 Reliability Dynamics

Tony Ciliberti, PE

Principal Engineer, Reliability Dynamics

Twenty-seven years experience as a reliability engineer in petrochemical, oil and gas

Former Principal Consultant/Solution Architect with SAP America’s National

Consulting Practice

SAP Top Talent

SAP Certified Solution Consultant - PLM

Industry standards involvement

United States expert representative on ISO TC 67/SG 4/WG 4 (developing ISO 14224

Version 3)

PERD Project, PERD ERP Subcommittee Chair

BS in Chemical Engineering from Texas A&M University, 1987


Reliability Dynamics LLC

Company Overview

Registered engineering company specializing in equipment reliability and maintenance

solutions for corporate software systems

In business since September 1, 2010

Primary product is the Industry Standard Solution for Plant Maintenance (ISPM®)

US patent pending for equipment taxonomy and failure reporting methodology

Our customers

Pembina Pipeline

Queiroz Galvão Óleo E Gás S.A. (QGOG)

Maersk Drilling

Nexen Inc

Marathon Oil

Fortis Alberta

ExxonMobil


What We Deliver

A toolset for using ERP software that enables high-quality failure data

Engineering methods compliant and consistent with consensus standard engineering

practices

Failure data collection made integral with work management

Standard practices consistent with good engineering practice

Equipment taxonomy

Failure data collection

Failure data aggregation

Failure metrics

Rapid-Deployment Solution (RDS)

No need to reinvent the wheel each time (maintenance is maintenance)

Refinement of the solution through actual practice

Less risk and better results

Enables benchmarking and data exchange


What We Provide

End-to-end methodology for equipment taxonomy and failure reporting

System configuration

Functional location template and categories

Equipment malfunction report and related work processes

Equipment PM condition report

Content

Failure catalogs

Classification structures

Enhancements

Data validations and defaults

Data aggregation

Other supporting functionality


ISPM Solution Overview

Malfunction reports generated for failures found via inspection

Equipment malfunction reports· Standard data collection

processes· Minimum data capture (ISO

14224 Tables 6 and 8)

Classification of individual failure events· Consequence(s) of failure –

qualitative matrix (ISO 14224 Table C.1)

· Lost production amount· Affected equipment/unit(s)· Instrumented safety systems

failure classification (PERD and ISO 14224 Table F.1)

· Other as required by customer (standard class functionality)

Multi-level failure reporting process (MLFRTM)· Work execution at the

component level· Failure reporting at the

equipment level (ISO 14224 Table 6)

Simplified failure metrics (standard SAP reports)

Standard failure coding· (ISO 14224 Annexes A

and B)· Catalog profiles used to

define equipment boundaries and for specificity of codes to equipment classes

Equipment taxonomy· Structurally

synchronized with equipment subdivision (ISO 14224 Annex A)

· Differentiates between functional and physical aspects of equipment (ISO 15926-2, Figs E.9 and E.10)

· Logical and systematic process for representing P&ID tag numbers

· Framework for efficient risk assessment

Use/Location data(ISO 14224 Table 5 and Annex A)· Used to identify how

equipment is used (process conditions)

· Integral parameter in failure metrics

Risk assessment· Similar to and integrated

with malfunction reporting (hypothetical vs. actual failure): same use of codes, operating context, classification, and reporting

Preventive maintenance· Risk data used for strategy

development· Administration at area or

equipment level· Pass/Fail inspection verdict

recorded at equipment or component level

· Inspection verdicts used to optimize interval/scope

LegendEquipment taxonomy

Failure reporting

Future functionality


ISPM Solution Details


SAP Landscape with ISPM Appliance

Data Repositories/Other Systems

Corporate ERP System· System of record for equipment master data· Work management system· Initial data collection point for equipment failure data

ERP DATABASE· Work execution· Results recording· Labor and material

bookings

Standard Failure Data

Processes

Equipment Taxonomy

Planned Maintenance and Inspections

Equipment Malfunction

Reports

PM Condition Reports

Equipment failure events

Other target systems, e.g.

Meridium, Ivara, etc.

Failure Data Repository, e.g. OREDA, PERD

Failure consequence accounting

Failure metrics

ISPM Appliance

Data Extracts

Interface


ISPM Benefits

Optimizes bottom-line decision making

Enables corporate-wide failure metrics and benchmarking

Logical and systematic process for representing facilities

One unique ID for each object throughout all systems and records

Separation of functional and physical aspects of equipment minimizes data maintenance requirements

Systematic and validated failure data collection processes

Industry standard compliant

Configurable for participant-specific data

Built-in appliance ensures integration with all corporate aspects

FICO, Materials Management, HR, etc.

No new application support requirements

Improves personnel efficiency

Fleshes-out bad actor equipment for prioritization and preventive strategy development

Shift to quality data collection versus after-the-fact data mining


Taxonomy

Definition: systematic classification of items into hierarchical generic groups based on

common factors

Relevant information is more likely to be found by logical progression from a general focus to

a more specific focus

Information summaries are defined in the context of their unique “parent-child” relationships,

such that the relationships can be interpreted programmatically

Equipment Taxonomy

Technical: systematic organization of equipment into hierarchical groups based on equipment

category, type, subtype, or other attributes

Functional: systematic organization of operating assets of a company into hierarchical groups

based on process function

Master data: representation of equipment taxonomy in an ERP/CMMS


Technical Taxonomy:

Example from ISO 14224, Annex A

Equipment type classification

Equipment subdivision

Generic representation of equipment

Boundary diagram

– Subunits (Major component groups)

– Maintainable items (components)


Functional Taxonomy

Logical representation of

facilities

Asset register: directory of all

locations, plants, areas, etc.

Process equipment (functional):

Labelled with P&ID tag numbers

P&ID tags serve as an “address” to

directly locate equipment

Operating context: gives service

conditions for process equipment

items

Equipment serial numbers: gives

installed and historical serial

number usage for each P&ID tag


Functional Taxonomy

Logical and systematic process for representing P&ID tag numbers

One unique ID for each object throughout all systems and records

All P&ID tag numbers represented in the ERP/CMMS with exact character strings in a

system-validated key field

Smart structure

Integrated with technical taxonomy

Defines equipment-to-component relationships (equipment boundaries) and equipment-

to-equipment relationships in a manner that can be interpreted programmatically

Structurally synchronized with ISO 14224 equipment subdivision

Differentiates between functional and physical aspects of equipment (consistent with ISO

15926-2)

Captures equipment use/location data (operating context)


Functional Location and Equipment Relationship

Functional equipment location Tag P101 is an intangible object that defines process requirements for a

particular pumping service, e.g. pressure, temperature, flow, fluid type (Tag P101 in the example below)

Equipment items (serial numbers 1234 and 2345) define specific materialized objects that execute

process requirements

Field equipment change-outs are captured in SAP via corresponding equipment dismantle/installation

transactions (on 5/8/2001 S/N 1234 was dismantled and S/N 2345 installed)

ISO 15926-2 (Data Model) Industrial automation systems and integration—Integration of life-cycle data for process plants including oil and gas

production facilities, Figures E.9 and E.10.

The duty represented by TAG P101, and Pump 1234 are coincident for the period of the installation, i.e. the state

S1 of Pump 1234 that is installed as TAG P101 is in fact also a state of TAG P101. TAG P101 consists of those

states of the pumps that are installed in this location.

FEL/FCL Equipment


Malfunction reporting

Malfunction Report

An event record in an ERP/CMMS system

Initiated to address equipment critical failures, degraded performance, or incipient conditions

Initiated for the following reasons:

To notify Maintenance of required repairs

To document failure discovered during preventive maintenance and inspections

(regardless of the need for follow-on work)

Two processing stages

Work initiation, “Problem Report”

Work close-out, “Repair Report”


Work Processing with ISPM Appliance

Pro

du

ctio

n

Op

erat

or

Mai

nte

nan

ce L

ead

Te

chM

ain

ten

ance

En

gin

eer

Ap

rova

ls a

nd

P

roce

ssin

g

External Work Processing Flow with the ISPM Appliance for SAP

Re

spo

nsi

bili

tie

s an

d E

xte

rnal

Pro

cess

es

2. Equipment Failure Event

6. Approve Work Request

7. End

Yes

No

10. Execute Work

8. Planning and

Scheduling

14. Classify Malfunction

Report

12. Complete Malfunction

Repair Report

11. Work close-out

5. System validations of required data

4. Create Malfunction Problem Report

3. Work Initiation

15. Quality check of field input

16. End

17. Equipment Failure Metrics

1. Equipment Taxonomy

(prerequisite)

1. Multi-Level Failure Reporting (MLFR) is used to aggregate failure data at the parent equipment level.2. ISPM and MLFR are registered trademarks of Reliability Dynamics LLC.

13. System validations of required data

9. System creates MLFR1,2 statistical

record (if applicable)

Post-repair assessment· Identify primary component failure· Primary comp. failure mechanism· Root cause of primary comp. failure· Corrective action· Failure end date/time· Other· Failure mode inference (PERD only)

1. MLFR data (if relevant)2. Classification of failure event

· Consequence matrix· Production loss· Areas and/or other equipment affected· Other

Initial findings – reason for work· Text description· Failure mode (ISO 14224 only)· Detection method· Failure effect (incipient, degraded,

critical· Condition before malfunction· Other

ISPM Appliance


ISO 14224: Table 6

Failure Data (Required)

ISO Definitions

Normative = prescriptive = how

to comply

Informative = descriptive = help

with conceptual understanding

Normative Terms

“shall” indicates a requirement

“should” indicates a

recommendation

“may” is used to indicate that

something is permitted

“can” is used to indicate that

something is possible


Resource Optimization:

Maintenance Engineer

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Data collection Data mining Equipmentoptimization

Administration

Perc

en

t o

f A

vail

ab

le T

ime

Typical Solution

ISPM


PM Condition Reporting

PM Condition Report

An event record in an ERP/CMMS system related to a inspection/preventive maintenance

work order

The work order specifies what needs to be inspected

Used to document inspection results for each item inspected

Inspection verdict: discrete pass/fail judgment

Inspection details, measurements, etc.

Used to optimize preventive maintenance/inspection programs

Inspection interval

Inspection scope

Used in conjunction with follow-on work notifications and malfunction reporting


Failure Metrics

Failure metrics are measurements of equipment reliability and operational

performance

Calculated parameters

MTBF, MTTF, MTTR, MTBR, mean time bypassed, etc.

Dataset queries

User-defined criteria, e.g.

Number of pump failures where production loss exceeds US $100,000

Predominant failure mode for said pump failures

Service conditions for said pumps

Primary failure component for said pumps

Failure mechanism and root cause for said pump primary failure component

Aggregated true cost of failure for all pumps (repair costs + consequences)


ERP Failure Analytics:

Multi-Variable Selection Criteria

Reporting Level (Primary Equipment)

Report Criteria Set 1 Criteria Set 2 Criteria Set 3

1 Pumps in

hydrocarbon

service

Failure mode is

process leak

Production loss >

US $1.0MM

2 Manufacturer

part number,

mechanical seal

Root cause is

improper

installation

Operational loss >

US $50K

3 Steam turbines

in hot standby

service

Failure mode is

external leakage,

process medium

Injuries requiring

medical treatment

Hierarchical Reporting

Report Selection Node Criteria Set 1 Criteria Set 2

1 Facility, Plant,

area, service,

equipment

installation,

equipment

class, or subunit

Pump thrust

bearing failures,

> 50 HP, utilities

service

Detected with

predictive

inspections

SELECTION CRITERIA SET 1




REPORT OUTPUTINTERSECTION OF

CRITERIA SPECIFICATIONS

REPORT OUTPUTINTERSECTION OF

CRITERIA SPECIFICATIONS




ERP Failure Analytics Demonstration:

Hierarchical Selection Example


ISPM Appliance for SAP: Solution Delivery

System customization

Enhancements

Consistent with SAP Official ABAP Programming Guidelines

Transferred to Customer system via SAP Transport Management System (STMS)

Configuration transferred via manual settings and STMS

Master data content

Transferred via SAP Legacy System Migration Workbench (LSMW)

Standard ERP quality control processes:

Multi-environment testing and incremental Customer sign-offs

Solution documentation

Solution overview

Business process documents

Configuration and change documentation

Technical specifications


Contact

Tony Ciliberti, PE

Reliability Dynamics LLC

Principal Engineer

Mobile: +1-574-274-3887

Office: +1-713-487-7271

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.rd-eam.com

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.rd-eam.com/



ISPM Overview

Documents

Transcript of ISPM Overview