S M A R T S O L U T I O N S F O R M A I N T E N A N C E & R E L I A B I L I T Y

www.plantservices.com

PdMIN ACTION

SPONSORED BY

305.591.8935 | info@ludeca.com | www.ludeca.com

Downtime is costly. Equipment reliability is critical to your business. LUDECA is your reliability partner. With over 30 years of experience and commitment to quality, we will never let you down. Keep it running.

ALIGNMENT VIBRATION BALANCING

ROTALIGN® Ultra iSLaser Alignment, Geometric Measurement and More!

VibXpert® IIVibration Analysis, Field Balancing and More!

PdM Assessment P.2 [CLICK HERE]

Is Your PdM Program as Good as it Could Be?

P.9 [CLICK HERE]

Foward FocusP.14 [CLICK HERE]

Get Smart: Smart Instruments & Device Diagnostics

P.20 [CLICK HERE]

www.avotraining.com/online or call 214-331-7319

AVO’s Online Training, which includes the latest NFPA 70E® 2015 updates is available for purchase.

The nine modules include: • Module 1: “Intro to Arc Flash Hazards”• Module 2: “NFPA 70E Introduction” • Module3:“NFPA70E&OSHAQualifiedPersonRequirements”• Module4:“NFPA70E&OSHAUn-QualifiedPersonRequirements”• Module 5: “Arc Flash Hazard Analysis” • Module6:“ElectricalSafetyProgram”• Module 7: “Establishing an Electrically Safe Work Condition” • Module8:“PersonalProtectiveEquipment(PPE)”• Module9:“EnergizedElectricalWorkPermits”Althoughthesecourseswillneverreplaceour“hands-on”instructorledtraining,theyareanotherwaywecanhelpkeeppeoplesafefromelectricalhazards.

Purchase the entire bundlefor $379 and save $62

IntroducingAVOTraining’selectricalsafetyawarenessOnlineseries,“ArcFlashElectricalSafety”.ThisNine-ModuleOnlineCourseSeriestitled“ArcFlashElectricalSafety”,whichincludesthelatestNFPA2015updates,isavailableforpurchaseperindividualmoduleat$49orthecompleteseriesbundlepriceof$379,offeringabundledsavingsofover$60.

How is PdM being implemented in the average plant today? In a joint survey conducted by Plant Services and ARC Advisory Group (www.arc-web.com), maintenance and reliability professionals shared their experiences and insights into the day-to-day use of PdM on the plant floor.

Many plants are ahead of the curve and already have some form of predic-tive maintenance implemented in their facilities. Quite a few are using vibra-tion analysis and infrared imaging, as well as oil analysis and electric motor testing. However, predictive modeling software and acoustic technology were not even on the radar for the 90 survey participants (Figure 1).

“We are seeing a slight pickup in how PdM is viewed,” says Andy Page, MS/I-O, SSBB, CMRP, prin-cipal consultant, Technical Services

Group, at Allied Reliability Group (www.alliedreliability.com). “Once, it was this electronic trickery and considered less important than the

PM program. We are seeing a few more people begin to treat it as im-portant, and sometimes even more so than the PM program.”

JOINT SURVEY REVEALS HOW TECHNOLOGIES ARE BEING USED

By Alexis Gajewski,

Digital Editor

Figure 1. Quite a few plants are using vibration analysis and infrared imaging, as well as oil analysis and electric motor testing. However, predictive modeling software and acoustic technology were barely on the radar.

ELE

CTR

IC M

OTO

R T

ES

TIN

G

PR

ED

ICTI

VE M

OD

ELI

NG

S

OFTW

AR

E

OIL

AN

ALY

SIS

INFR

AR

ED

CO

RR

OSIO

N

AC

OU

STI

C

ULT

RA

SO

NIC

VIB

RAT

ION

n No plans n Within 3 Years n In 2014 budget n Have now

WHAT’S ON TAP

2

Figure 3. When asked which factors were driving their decisions to deploy predictive maintenance solutions, survey participants cited the desire to reduce operational costs and maintenance costs, but the factor at the forefront of their minds was the need to improve uptime.

n Not a factor n Low n Medium n High

IMPROVED UPTIME

REDUCE OPERATIONAL COSTS

IMPROVE UPTIME

KNOWLEDGE CAPTURE

INCREASE VISIBILITY INTO TROUBLED ASSETS

ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH & SAFETY ISSUES

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

ENERGY MANAGEMENT

REDUCE RISK

OTHER

REDUCE MAINTENANCE COSTS

PDM EFFORTSWith any plant program, it’s important to take a baseline reading to see how effective it is and where improvements can be made. When asked to rate the performance of their PdM program over the past 12 months, more than half admitted their programs need some improvement (Figure 2).

Andy Page was not surprised by the results. “I see a sizable group of PdM programs that are just getting the ba-sics down and have not yet begun to see the optimization possibilities,” he says. “For some, PdM is a part-time job, and thus they aren’t interested in refine-ment and optimization. For others, PdM is a job and not a profession, so refinement and improvement really are not in their best interests. By and large, there are fewer PdM professionals out there than we would like to see.”

One possible explanation for this performance rating could be the retiring of the Baby Boomers. “The skills crisis is affecting PdM deci-sions due to the lack of qualified technicians to set up programs and analyze the data effectively,” says Shon Isenhour, partner at Eruditio (www.eruditiollc.com). “I believe this can be addressed with more remote monitoring within the facilities. By using wireless and route-based collection of the data with general maintenance technicians and remote analysis, we can reduce the need for high-skill PdM technicians at each site and pull together multiple sites’ data remotely for analysis by a single well-qualified individual. This also provides a position that meets more of the needs of the Generation Y employee, making it a win-win.”

Figure 2. When asked to rate the performance of their PdM program over the past 12 months, more than half admitted their programs need some improvement.

PERFORMANCE-CHALLENGED

n Not effective

n Needs some improvement

n Satisfactory

n Effective

n Very effective

3

OTH

ER

CO

NSU

MER

-GR

AD

E P

C

IND

USTR

IAL-

GR

AD

E P

C

CO

NSU

MER

-GR

AD

E T

AB

LET

IND

USTR

IAL-

GR

AD

E T

AB

LET

IND

USTR

IAL-

GR

AD

ESM

AR

TPH

ON

E

PAPER

-BA

SED

SYS

TEM

OTHER

LACK OF EAM INTEGRATION

UNDEFINED OPERATIONAL BENEFIT

LIMITED ENGINEERINGRESOURCES

LACK OF EXECUTIVE SUPPORT

LIMITED IT RESOURCES

UNDEFINED FINANCIAL BENEFITS

BUDGET CONSTRAINTS

THE PREDICTIVE FUTUREChanging strategies can be difficult to accomplish, especially in a plant where the culture is dominated by a “this is the way we have always done it” men-tality. The forces driving the change must be strong enough to overcome the inevitable backlash. When asked which factors were driving their deci-sions to deploy predictive maintenance solutions, survey participants cited the desire to reduce operational costs and maintenance costs. The factor at the forefront of plant managers’ minds, however, was the need to improve uptime (Figure 3).

“Too many current PdM practitio-ners aren’t taking the time to continu-ally justify what they are accomplish-ing in terms of return on investment (ROI) and other PdM-related key performance indicators (KPIs),” says Jack R. Nicholas, Jr., P.E., CMRP, CRL, a Navy veteran and an individual with more than 50 years of experience in maintenance and reliability. “Nor are they educating their superiors on

what they are achieving in terms they understand.”

As with any improvement, there are always obstacles to overcome when implementing or improving predictive maintenance. While the survey re-spondents acknowledged that most of their programs needed improvements, they cited budgetary constraints and lack of executive support as two of the greatest hurdles that need to be overcome (Figure 4).

“I see very competent PdM techni-cians doing impressive work with the technologies with which they have been equipped, but who are hobbled by lack of proper communications, poor links with ERP/CMMS, and ignored by the information technology and operator organizations when they ask for help to improve things,” says Nicholas. “Most PdM programs have no plans, no KPIs, and little apprecia-tion by superiors in the organization for their achievements. They experi-ence scorn by co-workers who believe PdM personnel have easy jobs because

Figure 4. Respondents cited budgetary constraints and lack of executive support as two of the greatest hurdles that need to be overcome when deploying PdM solutions.

LACK OF SUPPORT

n Not a factor n Low n Medium n High

Figure 5. When asked which data collection methods they were using with their PdM systems, a surprising number of respondents admitted to using a paper-based system, with industrial- and consumer-grade PCs rounding out the top three.

n No plans n Within 3 Years n In 2014 budget n Have now

PAPER-BASED DATA

NO IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED

POOR PROGRAM EXECUTION

CO

NSU

MER

-GR

AD

ESM

AR

TPH

ON

E

4

some of their work is done in air-con-ditioned spaces in front of computers. Also, some of the conditions they report are not verifiable with the five senses of repair personnel and they distrust the finds reported because the asset appears to be working perfectly well when the recommendation is made to fix something that doesn’t appear to be broken.”

In this age of smartphones and bring-your-own-device (BYOD), it’s easy to imagine an interconnected plant where machines talk to one another and diagnose problems on their own. But is this type of techno-logical communication happening in most plants, or is it still just a dream? When asked which data collection methods they were using with their PdM systems, a surprising number of respondents admitted to using a pa-per-based system, with industrial- and consumer-grade PCs rounding out the top three (Figure 5). Most survey participants had no plans to imple-ment smartphone or tablet technology in the near future.

Although most respondents seem to be taking a more traditional, less technological approach to PdM, we

asked which emerging technologies they were considering for inclusion in their PdM initiatives. Within the next three years, many respondents plan to have analytics software, tablets, wireless connectivity to workers in the field, and embedded PdM intelligence from equipment suppliers (Figure 6). However, it looks like GIS for asset location, RFID for asset identification, and cloud-based PdM are still out of reach for many plant workers.

“I think we are on the edge of a sub-stantial change in the PdM technolo-gies,” says Isenhour. “Based on im-provements in technology and current trends in the industry, I believe that we are about to see a consolidation of the PdM technologies. Picture an iPad that could operate as an infrared cam-era, a vibration analyzer, ultrasonic analyzer and CMMS reporting device. One box covering three or more tech-nologies and combining them to allow for asset health instead of faults by technology. We are very close. We can already access our CMMS from many handheld devices.” Vendors have cre-ated infrared modules that work with the iPhone, and vibration is available for the iPad, he explains.

OTHER

GIS FOR ASSET LOCATION

RFID FOR ASSET IDENTIFICATION

TABLETS

SMARTPHONES

CLOUD WEB-BASED PdM DEPLOYMENT

WIRELESS CONNECTIVITY TO FIELD WORKFORCE

(WORK HISTORY, MANUALS, ETC.)

Figure 6. Within the next three years, many respondents plan to have analytics software, tablets, wireless connectivity to workers in the field, and embedded PdM intelligence from equipment suppliers.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

n Have now n In 2014 budget n Within three years n No plans

EMBEDDED PdM INTELLIGENCE FROM EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS

ANALYTICS SOFTWARE

OTH

ER

OEM

SU

PPLI

ER

THIR

D P

AR

TY

RE

MO

TEM

ON

ITO

RIN

G

CO

MPL

ETE

LY O

UTS

OU

RCE

D T

O

THIR

D P

ARTI

ES (M

AIN

TEN

AN

CE &

REP

AIR

)

IN-H

OU

SE

OPER

ATIO

NS

IN-H

OU

SE

MAIN

TEN

AN

CE

Figure 7. In-house maintenance, operations, and reliability engineers are reading and interpreting the information on a nearly weekly basis. PdM statistics are rarely used by outsourced third parties, OEM suppliers, and third-party remote monitors.

n Quarterly n Monthly n Weekly n Never

DATA USERS

IN-H

OU

SE

RELI

AB

ILIT

YEN

GIN

EER

S

5

“More companies want simpler equipment, especially vibration, so they can have their own people col-lect the data with an outside service providing the analysis and report-ing,” adds Page. “As for the infrared thermography technologies, the less expensive IR cameras are a big hit. It gets more people scanning, which is a good thing.”

Technologies are getting less ex-pensive in terms of capital investment needed, and getting more capable and user-friendly in terms of both hardware and software, says Nicholas. “Coupled with communications tools, such as wireless, tablets, smartphones, cloud technology, Internet connectivity, capacity, and speed, it is also becoming easier to get reports in any desired level of detail to those who can make the best use of the data on finds.”

WHAT’S IN YOUR DATA?Implementing a predictive mainte-nance strategy is great, but you’ll never achieve success if you aren’t using the information to take the right steps. According to respondents, in-house maintenance, operations, and reliabili-ty engineers are reading and interpret-

ing the information on a nearly weekly basis. PdM statistics are rarely used by outsourced third parties, OEM suppli-ers, and third-party remote monitors (Figure 7).

Isenhour was a bit surprised by some of these statistics. “If 19% of the reli-ability engineers never use the informa-tion provided by the PdM systems, then one-fifth of the reliability engineers are missing a substantial portion of data that should be used to develop and refine maintenance and reliability plans and strategies,” he says. “The PdM pro-gram is a core function of an in-house reliability engineer in a manufacturing environment.”

When asked which types of assets were managed by their PdM solutions, survey participants offered varied answers. Most respondents admit-ted to having production assets, such as rotating equipment and pumps, electric utility grid, and industrial fa-cilities monitored by PdM equipment, but many didn’t see the need to use PdM on their laboratory instruments or complex fleets. Other assets, such as automation assets, control systems, distribution pipelines, and fleet ve-hicles split the crowd (Figure 8).

OTHER

FLEET VEHICLES (CARS, TRUCKS)

ELECTRIC UTILITY GRID

DISTRIBUTION PIPELINES

CONTROL SYSTEM ASSETS (DCS, I/O, CONTROLLERS, NETWORKS, ETC.)

Figure 8. Most respondents admitted to having production assets, such as rotating equipment and pumps, electric utility grid, and industrial facilities monitored by PdM equipment, but many didn’t see the need to use PdM on their laboratory instruments or complex fleets.

ASSET ID

n Using now n In 2014 budget n Within three years n No PdM plans

n Asset type not installed

AUTOMATION ASSETS(FIELD DEVICES, CONTROL VALVES)

PRODUCTION ASSETS (ROTATING EQUIPMENT, MECHANICAL,

PUMPS, ETC.)

COMPLEX FLEET (RAIL, EARTH MOVERS, PLANES)

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES (HVAC, LIGHTING, FIRE PROTECTION,

ACCESS & SECURITY SYSTEMS)

LABORATORY INSTRUMENTS

OTH

ER

ER

P S

YSTE

M

HIS

TOR

IAN

RELI

AB

ILIT

Y S

OLU

TIO

NS

Figure 9. PdM systems can be integrated into higher-level systems. Historians and CMMS/EAM software were the preferred systems for many survey participants.

n Not applicable n No plans to integrate n Within three years n In 2014 Budget n Have now

SYSTEM INTEGRATION

EA

M/C

MM

S S

YSTE

M

EH

&S

SO

LUTI

ON

6

“Most people tend to associate PdM only with motors, pumps, and fans,” explains Page. “As we discuss valves, controllers, and mobile equipment, the look of confusion comes across their faces. You can tell they never thought about applying the PdM concepts to anything but rotating and electrical equipment.”

LET’S GET INTEGRATEDPdM solutions do not need to stand on their own. In order to create a greater understanding of the plant and its overall maintenance, PdM systems can be integrated into higher-level systems. Historians and CMMS/EAM software were the preferred systems for many survey participants. However, few had plans to implement environmental health and safety solutions or ERP sys-tems in the next three years (Figure 9).

“One common problem I see is the purchase of PdM equipment without the supporting processes required,” says Isenhour. “For example if you are using the PdM tools to identify defects but you do not have work control and planning and scheduling processes in place, then the defect identified with still be ad-dressed as a high-cost unplanned repair. The biggest value the PdM tools can bring is the element of time. This time allows for planned, scheduled, and safe execution of the repair at the lowest total cost and the lowest total downtime.”

ROIAllocating time and resources can be difficult in a bustling plant. We asked the survey participants to rate the importance of predictive main-tenance in relation to other invest-ments. No surprise, safety systems were deemed most important by respondents. Reliability solutions and PdM technologies rounded out the top three (Figure 10).

Nicholas offered one explanation as to why PdM programs sometimes get lost in the shuffle. “Often what happens is that some of the best and brightest maintenance personnel are

assigned responsibility for PdM,” he says. “They perform brilliantly but in obscurity because they don’t advertise their achievements. Then they move on, by promotion or recruitment from elsewhere, and are not replaced quickly. Their technology goes on the shelf and sometimes doesn’t get used for many months, if ever again. Asset deteriora-tion sets in slowly and decision makers don’t notice the absence of attention by PdM specialists until things really get bad. By then it’s an uphill battle to recover. Many organizations have neither succession plans nor retention initiatives and are surprised when they lose PdM specialists.”

Page is hopeful. “I think I see people starting to use PdM more for commissioning repairs and instal-lations,” he says. “Prevention is the answer to a large percentage of machinery problems. Catching those conditions that might cause the prob-lems early and getting them fixed early is the secret to reliability. The further up that P-F curve you can get, the easier this all becomes.”

Nicholas sees an increased use of wireless internal data collection linked by Internet and cloud comput-ing for technologies such as vibration analysis, motor circuit analysis, and ultrasonic analysis. “Communications links to smartphones, tablet com-puters, and desktops will be com-monplace within two to three years,” says Nicholas. These technologies are being used by less than 20% of survey respondents. “Under-appreciated and barely employed at present are wearable sensors that can detect and transmit data on nearby machines as an operator makes tours or a PdM tech goes into the field with more detailed technology tools in hand for data collection,” explains Nicholas. “There is now a closer relationship between supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) and PdM tech-nology. This will accelerate as cloud computing and advanced analytics gain acceptance.”

OTHER

FIELD DEVICES

SAFETY SYSTEMS

DCS

RELIABILITY SOLUTIONS

Figure 10. Safety systems were deemed most important by respondents. Reliability solutions and PdM technologies rounded out the top three.

INVESTMENTS

n Least important n Not very important n Somewhat important n Important

n Most important

PdM TECHNOLOGIES

EAM/CMMS

PLANT PROCESS NETWORKS

EH&S SOLUTIONS

SUSTAINABILITY & ENERGY MANAGEMENT

7

COMPRESSED AIR WITH A VAST PORTFOLIOPowering You With Extraordinary Solutions

Does your compressed air system give you the reliability, energy efficiency, and quality you require - with predictive maintenance options that fit your needs? We will. That’s a promise.

www.atlascopco.us – 866-688-9611

Atlas Ad 7.875 x 10.5 - PS.indd 1 4/27/15 10:14 AM

8

Predictive maintenance is an ever-evolving maintenance strategy, with new technologies and integration tools con-tinually finding their way into the PdM mix. Plant Services recently conducted a new survey on this topic, asking read-ers how they expect their current PdM practices to change, especially given the increasing acceptance and integration of control systems into the average plant. (See our November 2014 issue for results from the first PdM survey.)

Among the most notable new find-ings: Seven in 10 respondents said their plant has some form of PdM program in place, although their ap-plication of PdM tools varies con-siderably. In addition, 40% of those who said their plant uses predictive maintenance said their PdM program “needs some improvement.” Perhaps most surprising, 17% of respondents said their plant doesn’t currently have plans to incorporate PdM tools.

“PdM programs work with the right leadership, and there are well-estab-lished precedents for success, including compelling ROI, safety, financial, and operating benefits,” says Burt Hurlock, CEO of Azima DLI (www.azimadli.com). “These precedents are well-established and explain long-standing commitments by many Fortune 500 companies as well as branches of the armed services to PdM.”

GETTING TO KNOW YOUTo get a better understanding of our readers and their PdM needs, we asked

our survey responders some baseline questions. A plurality, 24 percent, identified their primary role as main-tenance manager; plant engineer and plant manager, respectively, were the roles with the next-strongest respons-es. Less than 1 percent of readers iden-tified themselves as IT professionals.

Most respondents said their main-tenance staff numbers 50 or fewer workers. Around one-quarter (26%) said their maintenance staff consists of 11–50 people; similar shares reported a maintenance staff of 5–10 people (25%) or 2–4 people (24.5%). These rather small maintenance departments could be linked to the total number of plants that our readers’ organizations manage. Nearly 36% of readers are only manag-ing one plant, with 29% spreading their resources across two to five plants.

ASSET MANAGEMENT AND YOUWho’s calling the PdM shots at plants? More than half of readers (57%) said maintenance managers are involved in PdM decisions; 48% said plant managers are involved. Only 21% said corporate executives are PdM decision-makers, possibly suggesting disengage-ment from what is happening on a daily basis on the plant floor or from the data generated through a PdM program.

When we asked readers which spe-cific predictive maintenance technolo-gies they have deployed at their plants, infrared, oil analysis, and vibration analysis topped the list. This isn’t surprising, given the attention these technologies have received in recent years and the high ROIs they offer.

Predictive modeling software is on readers’ radar; one-fourth of readers

IS YOUR PdM PROGRAM AS GOOD AS IT COULD BE?

SURVEYED READERS TALK FRANKLY ABOUT PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE IN THEIR PLANTS

by Alexis Gajewski, Digital Editor

HOW BIG IS THE MAINTENANCE/RELIABILITY STAFF AT YOUR PLANT?

n 2-4 (24.5%)

n 5-10 (25%)

n 11-50 (26.4%)

n 51-100 (9.4%)

n More than 100 (7.6%)

n Just me (7.1%) (the MRO is outsourced)

9

plan to implement it at their plants within the next three years. Acoustic technologies for predictive maintenance have a long way to go toward widespread adoption: 55% of respondents don’t plan to implement them anytime soon.

Advanced PdM features such as troubleshooting decision trees and human-machine interface (HMI) with color-coded alerts (readers’ two most widely deployed advanced features) can help plants optimize use of the data they collect, aiding them in prioritizing maintenance and repair tasks and tactics. And looking at emerging technologies, remote monitoring and analysis and analytics software generated the highest interest among readers.

In considering the motivations for implementing PdM technologies, top factors for readers included improving up-time, reducing operational costs, and reducing maintenance costs. Less-popular as drivers of PdM investments were knowledge transfer and energy management.

The current implementation of PdM programs in 70% of plants might seem like a high rate of adoption, but not everyone agrees with that assessment. “When I began in the field of condition monitoring 30 years ago, it was sometimes difficult to convince people about the need for condition monitoring,” says Jason Tranter, managing director of Mo-bius Institute. “But the concept of condition monitoring was not new even way back then. Therefore, I still find it a little surprising that only 70% of those surveyed are using predic-tive maintenance tools today. It is even more surprising that 17% have no plans to use predictive maintenance tools.”

GETTING THE RIGHT DATAThe success of a PdM program depends in large part on gathering the right data. Plant Services readers report us-ing a variety of data-collection methods with their PdM systems. Despite the rise of automated information-gath-ering programs, paper-based data-collection systems so far remain the most prevalent.

This does not mean that plant professionals are unin-terested in an interconnected plant. As plants strive for a more-connected environment, integration of higher-level PdM systems is becoming a growing priority. Historian systems and EAM/CMMS systems topped the list of higher-level PdM solutions that plants are implementing, with many respondents planning to integrate reliability solutions within the next three years.

Also, many respondents plan within the next three years to implement industrial-grade tablets and industrial-grade smartphones at their plant. But for others, adoption of ad-vanced data tools looks to continue to lag well behind their arrival and proliferation in the marketplace.

Who’s reviewing the data, and how often are they doing so? In-house maintenance professionals, for the most part, according to readers, and they’re checking the data on a weekly basis. Our survey didn’t find widespread outsourcing of PdM-related tasks to third-party maintenance and repair organizations or third-party remote monitoring services.

While the applications for PdM tools are vast, most plants don’t have the ability or the financial luxury to manage all of their assets with predictive technologies. Our survey found that, broadly, production assets (such as rotating equip-ment and mechanical pumps) were most likely to be covered through a PdM program. Control system assets, including DCS, I/O, controllers and networks, and electrical systems rounded out the top three. Very few maintenance profes-

WHO MAKES DECISIONS ON ASSET MONITORING TOOLS & CONFIGURATIONS?

50

25

0Plant

managerMaintenance

managerMaintenance

engineerMaintenancetechnician

Reliabilityengineer

Reliabilitytechnician

Controlsengineer

Allothers

40% of those whose facilities have deployed PdM tools said that their PdM programs need improvement. Only 25% rated their plant’s PdM program as satisfactory.

10

sionals said they’re even considering implementing fleet vehicle or distribu-tion pipeline predictive maintenance.

CONTROL SYSTEMS AND ASSETSSo, where are PdM investments going? Controls-related equipment such as controllers, networks and software is most prevalent among PdM tools, with predictive maintenance technologies for condition monitoring (including thermography, oil analysis, vibration, ultrasound and motor testing) ranking as the next-most-popular investments.

Smart (i.e., self-diagnostic) instru-menation and specialized control sys-tems are catching on with readers, as slightly more than haf of respondents indicated that they are already using these technologies to monitor assets.

Interestingly, the adoption rate for these technologies is projected to slow, with readers expecting to make deeper investments over the next three years in embedded remote monitoring devices and automated work-order generation, including repair history, diagnostics, and procedures and parts information. For all of these technologies, about 30% of readers indicated that they have no plans at all to implement them.

When it comes to how readers are using control systems and connected sensors to monitor plant assets, the top four applications were no surprise: production assets, control system as-

sets, electrical systems, and automation assets. These are the mission-critical systems and assets against which down-time and OpEx costs are measured, and readers clearly are open to using the latest in smart/control technologies to maximize asset productivity.

LOOKING TO THE FUTUREA plurality of survey respondents said their plants plan to increase spend-ing on control systems, production assets and instrumentation by up to 5%. Few readers anticipate seeing an increase in PdM investments greater than 5%, but of more importance, very few anticipate trimming invest-ments in their PdM programs.

Wringing the most value from a PdM program is not a short-term challenge. “PdM does require investment and ever scarcer expertise,” says Azima DLI’s Hurlock. “It also requires performance tracking: knowing unplanned main-tenance and CapEx spending and the incidence of unplanned downtime. If companies don’t track spending and performance, they can’t measure or real-ize the effects of PdM.”

When asked to reveal the obstacles limiting the success of their PdM ini-tiatives, budget constraints and unde-fined financial benefits ranked highest. “It is clear that the financial benefit of condition-based maintenance is still not widely understood,” says Jason

RATE THE PERFORMANCE OF YOUR PdM PROGRAM OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS.

n Needs some improvement (40.3%)

n Satisfactory (24.8%)

n Effective (15.5%)

n Very effective (3.9%)

n Not effective (15.5%)

WHICH ARE YOU USING CONTROL SYSTEMS AND CONNECTED SENSORS TO MONITOR?

50

25

0Automation

assetsControl system assets

Production assets

Distributionpipelines

Electricalsystems

Fleetvehicles

HVAC/Rsystem

Safetysystems/devices

Manufacturingproductivity

Other

11

PdMIN ACTION

Tranter. “Lack of executive support and budget constraints often flow from a lack of understanding or belief in the financial benefits of condition-based maintenance. That situation often exists because there is a lack of agreement on how to quantify the benefits of detecting a failure before it occurs. This is one reason why benchmarking and tracking KPIs is so important, along with active communication.”

Timothy Dunton, a director and instructor and developer of Reliable Manufacturing at Reliability Solutions Training (www.reliabilitysolutions.net), says that old-school thinking at smaller plants may be stalling more-widespread adoption of PdM tools and practices. “You can get into the game quite inexpensively with the right approach,” Dunton says. “It would seem that we have done a poor job of demonstrating the value of lower-cost tools.”

But without adequate resources (whether internal or external) to help implement PdM tools, those advocating at smaller plants for adoption of PdM strategies may find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. Azima DLI’s Hurlock comments, “What right-minded organization invests in anything without defining financial and operat-ing benefits, and without executive support and the IT and engineering resources required to sustain the program? ... If benefits and objectives can’t be defined and resources and support aren’t available, PdM is a waste of time and money.”

Survey respondents clearly see room for improvement in their plants’ own PdM programs. Forty percent of those whose facilities have deployed PdM tools said that their PdM pro-grams need improvement. Only 25% rated their plant’s PdM program as satisfactory.

“It is unfortunate to see that only 4% of people feel that their PdM program is ‘very effective,’ ” says Mobius Institute’s Tranter, reviewing the survey results. Tranter

added that he believes the low share of “satisfactory” rat-ings “relates to the fact that most PdM technicians are not adequately trained on the technologies, and when they do provide recommendations, they are often too technical and vague.” Most users of PdM tools need “clear, unambiguous, actionable information,” he says.

In addition, Tranter says, if there’s not widespread buy-in within an organization into the philosophy of condition-based maintenance, then reactive or preventative mainte-nance strategies will dominate.

Reliability Solutions Training’s Dunton sees reason for predictive maintenance champions to take heart. Among plants that have begun to incorporate PdM tools, “there is an awakening that (PdM programs) have more to offer,” he says. That’s one way to look at the large share of survey respondents saying that their plant’s PdM program could use improvement, he offers: They recognize that PdM has potential that’s not yet being realized.

“For that to happen,” he says, “analysts will need more time, and for that to happen either the (user) groups will have to grow, or we leverage technology to eliminate the more mundane aspects of the process. Lower-cost tech-nology, simpler technology, might enable more people to be involved.”

Using now

In 2015 budget

Within 3 years

No plans

Controls equipment (controllers, networks, software) 75.3% 6.7% 6.7% 11.2%

Self-diagnostic (smart) instrumentation and final control elements (drives, valves) 51.4% 5.1% 13.0% 30.5%

Specialized system control systems (combustion controls, steam trap monitors, water/wastewater, cooling systems, compressed air)

52.5% 5.1% 10.7% 31.6%

Predictive maintenance (PdM) technologies for condition-monitoring (thermography, oil analysis, vibration, ultrasound, motor testing)

70.1% 4.5% 8.5% 16.9%

Instrumentation (valve analysis, signal processing and alarm management software), automation, data archiving, and reporting software

52.5% 4.5% 15.8% 27.1%

Automation of work order generation (including repair history, diagnostics, procedure and parts information)

48.6% 15.3% 18.1% 18.1%

Embedded remote monitoring devices 31.1% 7.9% 21.5% 39.5%

Energy monitoring and control devices (drives, valve actuators) 41.2% 9.6% 16.9% 32.2%

WHICH OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES ARE YOU USING TO MONITOR ASSETS?

Few readers anticipate seeing an increase in PdM investments greater than 5%, but of more importance, very few anticipate trimming investments in their PdM programs.

12

305.591.8935 | info@ludeca.com | www.ludeca.com

Downtime is costly. Equipment reliability is critical to your business. LUDECA is your reliability partner. With over 30 years of experience and commitment to quality, we will never let you down. Keep it running.

ALIGNMENT VIBRATION BALANCING

ROTALIGN® Ultra iSLaser Alignment, Geometric Measurement and More!

VibXpert® IIVibration Analysis, Field Balancing and More!

13

Transitioning from reactive or run-to-failure main-tenance modes to a more-efficient predictive maintenance (PdM) strategy necessitates often hard-fought battles for strategic investments. Fortunately, lower condition monitor-ing technology costs and affordable implementation alterna-tives are taking the edge off of this debate and encouraging more rapid and widespread adoption.

PdM is a proven, proactive approach to preventing machine failures and improving equipment reliability while minimizing productivity losses and costs that stem from unnecessary or unplanned maintenance. Successfully implementing a PdM program requires balancing budgets, goals, and existing resources against business priorities and technical requirements.

When 11 industry professionals were asked for their ad-vice on navigating this course, one recurring theme came up: “It depends.” The counsel offered by these reliability consultants, educators, service providers, and technology vendors provides a starting point for identifying where to focus PdM dollars, who should perform PdM tasks, how to best use data, and which trends are boosting PdM success.

WHICH ASSETS BENEFIT THE MOST?On the question of asset prioritization, there was no dis-agreement: The consensus is to focus PdM efforts on vital assets that pose the greatest risk of failure.

J J

Defect initiated

Risk

J F M A M A S O N D J F A

Potential failureUltrasound emitted

Vibration detectable

Particles detectable

Bearing becomes loose

Bearing becomes hot

Bearing makes sound CO

ND

ITIO

N

MONTH

Cost Planning Time Functional failure

Sou

rce:

Mob

ius

Inst

itut

e

Build the right PdM program for your plant

SET YOUR PdM PRIORITIESConsider the following when determining PdM priorities:1. What are the most costly shutdowns that could happen? 2. What equipment would most likely cause this type of

shutdown? 3. What are the most likely points of failure for these types

of equipment?

Figure 1. Some technologies

provide earlier warnings than

others.

14

“Criticality of the assets to the production output and safety of the facility should play a big part in the initial PdM application,” suggests Shon Isenhour, a partner at Eruditio (www.EruditioLLC.com).

“A criticality analysis ranks the assets based on the risk they present to your company in the areas of safety, health, environment, business impact, quality, and other factors,” explains Bill Barto, director of the reliability solutions group at Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) (www.lce.com). “For example, I would target a pump whose failure causes an immediate process disruption (high business impact) over a pump that has a backup on standby (low business impact).”

Jason Tranter, founder of Mobius Institute (www.mobi-usinstitute.com), takes that concept further. “Without an understanding of the failures modes, including an appre-ciation of the P-F interval (the time from first symptom to functional failure), it is not possible to determine which PdM technology can detect the fault or how frequently tests must be performed,” says Tranter.

“We look for low-hanging fruit as well as the top 40 list of

worst actors – the most expensive to maintain and least reli-able – because if you don’t get early successes, the program will lose favor when the novelty wears off,” advises Timo-thy Dunton, director, instructor, and developer of Reliable Manufacturing at Reliability Solutions Training (www.reliabilitysolutions.net).

“Apply PdM to the top 20 percent of the critical equip-ment list first, and after the health of those assets improves, tackle the next 20 percent, and so on until more than 85 percent of your assets are covered,” suggests Andy Page, principal consultant for the technical services group at Al-lied Reliability Group (www.alliedreliabilitygroup.com).

MAKING THE MOST OF YOUR BUDGET PdM funding commitments may initially be difficult to win, so choose an approach that delivers substantive wins in order to justify continuing investments.

“Businesses tend to make emotional decisions regarding how to manage PdM,” says Reliability Solutions’ Dunton. “If they have a failure that they blame on a lack of vibra-

Figure 2. Regular, periodic vibration testing and analysis has been shown to be the most broadly applicable PdM technology.

Figure 3. Thermography provides great detail in reasonably short time periods without necessitating physical contact with equipment.

Sou

rce:

Azi

ma

DLI

Sou

rce:

Flu

ke

15

tion analysis, they might start doing vibration analysis on everything. But if there is a limited budget, it is more important to do PdM correctly, which requires good decisions.”

“Let asset criticality and your predominant failure modes be your guide,” recommends Eruditio’s Isenhour. “Map the technologies to your failure modes, and then deter-mine which technologies will identify the largest number of critical failure modes and provide the greatest value as compared to their acquisition and training costs.”

He encourages leveraging existing investments. “If you already have vi-bration analysis technologies available at your site, you would target critical rotating assets. If you already have ultrasonic equipment, you might focus on compressed air leaks and ultrasonic lubrication,” explains Isenhour.

“I would start with the PdM tech-nology that everyone already pos-sesses: their human senses,” says LCE’s Barto. “Begin with simple visual and audible indicators of how well your equipment is running, and resist the temptation to run out and buy other equipment before getting used to the idea of basic condition monitoring.

“A good example is a client that had many air conditioning filters that were replaced after a certain number of days. I recommended a device that used the differential pressure across the filter to ‘whistle’ when it became dirty. Now, they listen for the whistle and replace the filter only when it is sufficiently dirty,” explains Barto.

HOW SHOULD TECHNOLOGY CHOICES BE MADE?New technology investments should be based on three criteria, according to Allied Reliability Group’s Page:1. Effectiveness of the PdM technology

across all asset types2. Ease of implementation (e.g., for

learning the hardware, software, and technique)

3. Degree of reception from those in

the organization“Infrared thermography covers

all asset types, is relatively easy to learn, is much cheaper than vibration analysis, and it’s very easy for people to accept the information coming from the camera as the truth,” says Page. “The same can be said for pas-sive ultrasound, but it is not the case for vibration analysis.”

“No single technology is better than the other,” remarks Tyler Evans, business unit manager of vibration and alignment products at Fluke Corp. (www.fluke.com). “A plant with lots of motors may want to focus on vibration and thermography. One with many gearboxes and drive shafts might benefit more from oil analysis and thermography. A plant with a lot of automation and electrical control systems may lean toward thermogra-phy and power quality tools.”

“Thermography offers great amounts of detail in reasonably short periods of time without physical contact with the equipment,” explains Michael Stuart, Fluke’s senior manager of thermog-

raphy services. “Vibration analysis enables earlier detection and diagnoses problems, although it requires direct contact with equipment. Motor testing is one of the most common forms of reactive testing, but it can be incorpo-rated into a more proactive program.”

“Regular, periodic vibration test-ing and analysis has been shown to be the most broadly applicable PdM technology,” suggests Joe Van Dyke, VP of operations at Azima DLI (www.azimadli.com).

“Ultrasound can offer one of the fastest ROIs of any of the PdM tech-nologies,” says Doug Waetjen, VP of global operations at UE Systems (www.uesystems.com). “It can be used on such a diverse number of assets and failure modes for compressed air leaks, electrical inspection of energized assets, bearing testing and trending, and condition-based lubrica-tion. Ultrasound also has one of the shortest learning curves.”

One successful approach noted by Waetjen is to use ultrasound to conduct an audit of your compressed air system,

Figure 4. Ultrasound can offer one of the fastest ROIs of any PdM technology.

Sou

rce:

UE

Sys

tem

s

16

document the hard-dollar savings from the audit, and use the savings to fund more in-depth analysis of your assets, such as RCM Blitz and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA).

“Each condition monitoring technology is able to detect certain types of faults, whether it’s bearing failure, electrical hot spots, or lubricant contamination, and some technolo-gies provide earlier warnings than others,” explains Mobius Institute’s Tranter. “For example, vibration analysis and oil analysis should be performed on gearboxes, but don’t rely on thermography for an early warning.”

Personnel training is an important consideration, too. “Some condition monitoring technologies can be deployed relatively quickly with minimal expense and training. Other technolo-gies require a significant investment, not only in equipment hardware, but in training before people can start becoming proficient,” remarks Dave Leach, condition monitoring and vibration specialist at LUDECA Inc. (www.ludeca.com).

INTERNAL OR OUTSOURCED RESOURCES?The personnel and partners involved in PdM can make or break the program, so be sure to weigh all your options when delegating the tasks.

“If the plant culture is one of ‘we take care of things ourselves,’ then internal resources are the best. If the culture is one of ‘we find the experts and trust them to do it for us,’ then outsourcing is the best,” says Allied Reliability Group’s Page. “There is no technological advantage that outweighs the cultural advantage of matching your solution to your environment.”

The decision often comes down to finances. “A careful comparison of the costs involved with in-house resources (procurement, calibration, storage, training, certification, etc.) and outsourced resources is necessary for each of the different technologies,” says LCE’s Barto. “In my experience, ultrasound and thermography are fairly intuitive; training can usually be done with the equipment supplier, and results can be gathered almost immediately. Vibration, tribology, and motor testing ... typically demand much more training.”

Reliability Solutions’ Dunton suggests looking internally first. “My personal opinion is to always leverage inside help. For a few thousand dollars you can start a vibration pro-gram with no bells and whistles, which means even a small plant can do it themselves,” explains Dunton. “If you choose outside help, use it to get started but have an exit plan to take over the program internally.”

“A hybrid model with both internal and external resources has proven to be very effective,” suggests Eruditio’s Isenhour. “The key is to aggregate all the PdM data on all assets from the external and internal sources into one place, so that the site can truly understand its asset health and risks of failure.”

Whether the work is performed internally or outsourced, maintaining the right knowledge set is essential. “The avail-ability of expertise is the single factor that determines the success and sustainability of a PdM program,” adds Ken Piety, VP of technology at Azima DLI.

ANALYZE, COMMUNICATE, AND ACTCollecting and analyzing the data is only the first step. PdM is at its best when it drives meaningful action.

“The most important use of PdM data is the creation of

Figure 5. The internet and cloud-based PdM solutions are becoming valuable tools to deliver not only asset health information, but process information as well.

Sou

rce:

LU

DEC

A,

Inc.

Figure 6. If everyone within an organization focuses on condition improvement or defect elimination, the PdM program will be a success.

Sou

rce:

Mob

ius

Inst

itut

e

17

follow-up work,” says LCE’s Barto. “Guess how many failures will be avoided if you utilize all known forms of PdM technology and check for failures constantly, but never take any actions based on the findings: zero.”

“We are becoming a nation of data collectors; we are no longer think-ing like analysts,” remarks Reliability Solutions’ Dunton. “PdM tools need to be used in a proactive way to trouble-shoot the root of the problem in order to actually improve the machine – not just fix it when it’s failing.”

Proactive use of data also ensures early diagnoses. “Detecting faults with very little time to failure is almost the same as doing nothing – it is still reactive maintenance, which is danger-ous and expensive,” cautions Mobius Institute’s Tranter.

“If the tools are used properly and the data is interpreted correctly, your PdM program will provide time to plan and schedule the repairs at the lowest total cost, including downtime costs,” says Eruditio’s Isenhour. “Train your PdM technicians effectively and keep their skills fresh or you will be left with a program that provides a false sense of security due to poor interpretation of the data.”

“Consistent readings must be com-pared to appropriate standards or base-lines and trended,” adds Azima DLI’s Van Dyke. “Failure to do so can lead to false alarms or false negatives that undermine a program’s credibility.”

“Biweekly, weekly, or at least monthly intervals are needed to

distinguish normal conditions from special variations,” says Fluke’s Evans. “Make the data accessible and view-able, not hidden on a spreadsheet or someone’s hard drive. Put it on a network or cloud and make it available to many. Visual dashboards are great for helping all stakeholders quickly understand a condition.”

LUDECA’s Leach agrees with the importance of intuitive communica-tions. “The real trick is to deliver the asset health information to the right people at the right time, in a manner that can be easily understood by everyone concerned,” says Leach. “Adopting a failure severity ranking system goes a long way because it’s easier for everyone to understand.”

Effective data reporting ensures lasting executive support. “Report-ing and documenting the results of any PdM inspection is paramount to getting and maintaining support of a program,” says UE Systems’ Waetjen.

Azima DLI’s Piety agrees. “To-day’s PdM program must involve and inform stakeholders in different departments and at different locations so they can be aware of what is known and what actions are being taken or not,” says Piety.

YOUR RETURN ON PDM INVESTMENTNew options in technology, processes, and analytics are accelerating returns on PdM investments.

“Above all else, lower cost instru-mentation has really changed the industry,” says Reliability Solutions’ Dunton. “You can get an IR camera now for $1,000 that five years ago cost $50,000. PdM used to involve an elite few, but with the lower costs, the floodgates are open.”

The tools are smarter and are simple enough for anyone to use, and the technology is being applied more often. “In a recent class of mechanics, we sent 15 guys to go look for air leaks, and within 15 minutes they found $7,500 worth with an easy-to-use ultrasound gun,” explains Dunton.

“Everyone is carrying a smartphone or tablet, and wireless networks are now more stable and pervasive. You can easily communicate what you’re seeing, ask what others think, and send data or dashboards for input,” adds Fluke’s Stuart.

“ If you don’t get early successes, the program will lose favor when the novelty wears off.”

– Timothy Dunton, Reliability Solutions

Eruditio’s Isenhour believes the most exciting emerging trend involves combining data from all PdM technolo-gies and existing process instrumenta-tion into one master database. “Once captured together, using algorithms that look at interrelationships, we can see and better understand the causes of defects much earlier,” he says.

LCE’s Barto offers: “Imagine what could happen if a piece of equipment in either a remote or hard-to-reach location alerts someone that its motor is running slower than expected and the fluid being pumped is not enough to meet production targets?”

“The Internet and cloud-based PdM solutions are becoming valuable tools to deliver not only asset health information but process information as well,” remarks LUDECA’s Leach. “The data can be accessed from almost anywhere and configured so that only those with the proper access can see or manipulate the information.”

While the new opportunities and trends are hard to ignore, commu-nicating the value of PdM plantwide is an enduring theme. As Mobius Institute’s Tranter explains, “If every-one within an organization focuses on condition improvement or defect elimination, then without a doubt, maintenance and operational costs will be reduced and plant availability will be improved.”

PdM programs are dynamic. Reevaluate your approach if:• Your analyst leaves or retires• You need to expand your program• Your program funding is cut• You need new measurement/

analysis tools• Your corporation wants consistency

at all sites

18

www.avotraining.com/online or call 214-331-7319

AVO’s Online Training, which includes the latest NFPA 70E® 2015 updates is available for purchase.

The nine modules include: • Module 1: “Intro to Arc Flash Hazards”• Module 2: “NFPA 70E Introduction” • Module3:“NFPA70E&OSHAQualifiedPersonRequirements”• Module4:“NFPA70E&OSHAUn-QualifiedPersonRequirements”• Module 5: “Arc Flash Hazard Analysis” • Module6:“ElectricalSafetyProgram”• Module 7: “Establishing an Electrically Safe Work Condition” • Module8:“PersonalProtectiveEquipment(PPE)”• Module9:“EnergizedElectricalWorkPermits”Althoughthesecourseswillneverreplaceour“hands-on”instructorledtraining,theyareanotherwaywecanhelpkeeppeoplesafefromelectricalhazards.

Purchase the entire bundlefor $379 and save $62

IntroducingAVOTraining’selectricalsafetyawarenessOnlineseries,“ArcFlashElectricalSafety”.ThisNine-ModuleOnlineCourseSeriestitled“ArcFlashElectricalSafety”,whichincludesthelatestNFPA2015updates,isavailableforpurchaseperindividualmoduleat$49orthecompleteseriesbundlepriceof$379,offeringabundledsavingsofover$60.

19

20

One of the factors separating process plants that operate reasonably well from those that achieve excellence is how they use information. Best-performing plants achieve their status by reducing production outages through proactive maintenance. This in-creases revenue generation and lowers maintenance costs to drive profitability higher.

Some companies enjoy this state of affairs as a way of life, while others ask, “How do they do it?” A key difference is the ability to use instrument diagnostic information effectively, but how is such a concept put into practice?

Plant personnel have dashboards showing how various units within a plant are performing; they can see how a reactor, a heat exchanger, a boiler or some other major piece of equipment is performing at any time. For each of those units to perform optimally, control loops supporting them must perform as designed, and that depends on instruments operating reliably to provide accurate data.

Smart instruments – including transmitters, sensors, and actuators – are capa-ble of monitoring their own performance, and they can tell you a great deal about what’s going on with a process well beyond the specific variable they measure or the function they control. Just as the control system depends on these smart in-struments, so, too, can your production and maintenance teams depend on them.

Some smart instruments are able to detect deterioration in a key component or rec-ognize sensor drift. Others look at the process and might spot changes. For example, a differential pressure sensor can measure process noise and determine the normal level (Figure 1). If the noise level begins to fall or if differences emerge between high and low readings, there may be a problem with impulse line plugging. Such plugging can mask the true pressure differential and result in an unreliable reading. Today’s smart instrument can send a warning when it begins to notice such changes.

WORKING UP THE PERFORMANCE CHAINOperational excellence depends on many things, but one critical element is hardware performance (Figure 2). This begins at Level 1, the lowest level with individual field devices. No matter how sophisticated the control system, a flow loop will never work properly if the flowmeter is not reliable or if the control valve is not acting properly. Conversely, the right kinds of process instrumentation and final control elements working together ensure tight control.

Optimize your predictive maintenance program to improve operations, reduce maintenance, and cut costs

BY AMIT AJMERI YOKOGAWA CORP. OF AMERICA

SMART INSTRUMENTS & DEVICE DIAGNOSTICS

get smart:

21

Level 2 comprises all the small groups of individual loops working together to provide basic functions. Those functions work properly when all the individual loops are performing per design. With enough information from smart instruments, plants can establish performance levels for those groups of loops and subunits.

Level 3 is the operational level. These are the asset diagnostics that operators and plant managers watch on the main dashboards; among them are heat exchangers, reactors, mixers, and the like. These assets are dumb in and of themselves, so the only way to determine how they’re performing is to go back down the chain and see what’s hap-pening at Level 1. Smart instruments are the eyes and legs of this process, and information they provide is the basis for everything higher up the chain.

You can’t do unit diagnostics without loop diagnostics, and you can’t do loop diagnostics without device diagnos-tics. Operational effectiveness always finds its way back to individual field instruments, sensors, and actuators.

SOLVING PAIN POINTSMost plants have trouble areas that continually cause prob-lems. These bad actors cause an inordinately large number of outages and soak up more than their share of maintenance dollars. Those two factors taken together rob the plant of out-put and profitability. Going through maintenance orders and reports typically makes them easy to spot and categorize.

Once these trouble spots are identified, the next step is de-termining the root cause of the problem. Does the same pump drive motor burnout again and again? Does the same valve stick open? Is the energy efficiency of one heat exchanger far worse than that of others like it? The information available

from smart instruments can help you identify root causes so they can be fixed. Level 1 device diagnostics provide visibility into assets so you can see the problem clearly.

Once the bottleneck in an asset has been removed, the asset can perform with a higher level of reliability and ef-ficiency, which will improve the whole plant. Once one bad-actor problem is solved, the next step is to attack the next asset that comes to the top of the list. One by one, problems can be identified and eliminated by using a well-thought-out strategy of analysis based on diagnostic information.

Having accurate performance information and eliminat-ing bad actors is certainly valuable, but it provides only part of the picture. Most companies find even greater payoff from using diagnostics as the basis for a comprehensive predictive maintenance program.

Most maintenance programs begin as reactive: Run equipment until it fails and then fix it. This simple approach isn’t optimal, but countless companies use it, as many assets can be run to failure without serious consequences. A big drawback of this approach when applied across an entire fa-cility is that it causes outages and production interruptions.

At a slightly higher level of sophistication is scheduled maintenance. This is generally an improvement over a purely reactive strategy, but it is still an expensive method because a device scheduled to be replaced may be functioning just fine and does not need replacement. Some studies suggest that 12 percent of maintenance costs are wasted because maintenance is unneeded, with a given function performed simply because it’s scheduled.

If reactive and scheduled approaches are the basis for your maintenance program, you will have a difficult time reaching operational excellence. But there is another way:

Blockage atHigh Side

Blockage atLow Side No Blockage

DP (DifferentialPressure)

PH (Static Pressure H Side)

PL (Static Pressure L Side)

Liquid or gas flow

Pipeline

3-valve manifold

DP Transmitter

Orifice

CHANGES IN PROCESS NOISE CAN INDICATE PLUGGED IMPULSE LINESFigure 1. By monitoring process noise, a pressure sensor can determine whether impulse lines are plugging. Differences between the high side and low side suggest one of the lines is becoming obstructed.

22

predictive maintenance based on con-dition monitoring. When you know in advance that something is going to happen, you can take action before failure.

What has to happen to make such a capability an everyday experience? An effective maintenance program based on condition monitoring has to have three elements:• Field devices must be “smart,” mean-

ing they have diagnostic functional-ities and a way to communicate the information, typically via HART or a fieldbus network

• The main process control platform must be able to convey the informa-tion from the devices to a central point via the field wiring

• Integrated device and asset manage-ment software must be installed and used to gather and interpret diagnos-tic data automaticallyIn all likelihood, you already have

the first two conditions in place, at least in terms of most of the field devices and the control platform. Unless you’re still running your plant with pneu-matic devices or first-generation analog instruments, the bulk of your field instruments and actuators are smart devices, using HART 5 or better, as this has been standard equipment since the early 1990s. Similarly, control platforms for process plants have been provided with the ability to interface to smart instruments for decades.

So what’s needed to implement true predictive maintenance is inte-grated device and asset management software, the final piece of the puzzle. Many plants have such systems in place but aren’t utilizing them to their fullest extent, and even plants without such systems can generally install one and interface it to the main control platform without undue difficulty.

When all three elements of a device diagnostic program are in place, frequent routine device checks in the field are no longer necessary. Any-thing a technician can get using a handheld communicator at the smart

instrument can now be called up any-time from the control room or main-tenance shop. Plus, the asset manage-ment system is able to perform checks automatically as often as required by simply programming the check inter-val. The second scenario of checking a device that appears to be malfunc-tioning can also be done without a visit to the plant. Moreover, if there is a malfunction, the asset management program probably already knows and has reported the failure; it may even have done so in advance.

The result: You can eliminate more than half the trips your technicians make into the field, and you can pre-dict failures before they occur.

WORKING WITH AN ASSET MANAGEMENT PLATFORMThe amount of diagnostic information available from a smart instrument can be overwhelming, so an asset man-agement platform is needed to sort through this data and create action-able information. Given that a typical differential pressure sensor can easily monitor more than 100 internal func-tions, it’s easy to drown in data.

A plant asset management system

(PAMS) needs to be set up with a data-base of every smart instrument in the plant, or at least the most critical ones at the outset. It should have all the information about each smart instru-ment related to model, manufacturer’s data, range, alarms, etc. Fortunately, much of this data resides in the smart instrument and thus can be automati-cally gathered by the PAMS.

Using all this data, the PAMS integrates predictive asset intelligence across the entire plant including device diagnostics, process interface diagnostics, loop and equipment diag-nostics, and performance diagnostics. The PAMS gathers all this information and sends it to the correct depart-ments and individuals.

One key function performed by the PAMS is to present a consistent graphi-cal interface for all the different kinds of smart instruments. The nature of diagnostic information available from a given smart instrument and the way it is displayed varies from supplier to supplier, and even within a single com-pany’s product line. The PAMS takes all this raw information and puts it into a user-friendly format, making it easier to access, compare and analyze.

12

34

DEVICE

LOOP

OPERATIONS

Field digital device diagnostics (failure & fault)

for precise measurement & control

Control loop & valve diagnostics

for stable operation

Asset performance diagnostics

for equipment efficiency

Optimum maintenance

& operation

WHY DEVICE DIAGNOSTICS ARE IMPORTANTFigure 2. Each operational layer of a plant depends on information from the one below it. Supporting the pyramid is the diagnostic data available from smart instruments.

For example, when the PAMS warns the main-tenance department that a flowmeter is beginning to clog, technicians will realize something is wrong with the process responsible for releasing solid matter into the flow. They can then intuit that the flowmeter should be backflushed at the earliest opportunity, allowing the problem to be addressed in a way that minimizes disruption.

When maintenance operations are performed only where they are needed, unnecessary work is reduced or even eliminated. In day-to-day operation using a predictive maintenance program, the PAMS provides the central evaluation and scheduling functions. It takes diagnostic data from smart instruments and combines it with heuristic diagnostics from plant personnel. The PAMS includes a mechanism to evaluate human-provided information as well as electronic data, as smart operators can often detect problems better than any software platform.

The PAMS takes all the information and processes it, perhaps drawing conclusions from multiple events that might not be problems individually, but when taken together could signal trouble. It then sends information to the right people and departments, with each type of information getting to the people responsible for acting on it, which drives the following improvements:• Operators can change some element of the process

if a smart instrument is exhibiting a problem and it can’t be fixed until the next shutdown

• Maintenance scheduling can identify high priority tasks

• A purchase order can be issued for a valve seat because a valve is beginning to lose its seal and will need to be rebuilt within the next two weeksAll of these elements combine to create an op-

timized predictive maintenance program where a process can run with maximum availability and stability. Interruptions are minimized, as are overall maintenance costs. Stores of replacement parts can be reduced as the number of repairs goes down and as they can be done with greater predictability. Such an optimized predictive maintenance program is a critical step to operational excellence, and it all begins with smart instruments and device diagnostics.

Amit Ajmeri is an asset management solutions consultant at Yokogawa Corp. of America. Prior to joining Yokogawa, he

spent 12 years with Emerson Process Management promoting Foundation Fieldbus technology and interoper-ability. Contact him at amit.ajmeri@us.yokogawa.com.

The electronics built into smart instruments have be-come more sophisticated over the past few decades. Suppliers added self-monitoring capabilities to warn

if something was happening with a smart instrument that could impair its ability to deliver a reliable reading. While highly valuable, those functions were purely reactive and could respond only after something had already happened.

the evolution of smart diagnostics

Over time, those capabili-ties became more sophis-ticated and were able to predict when a problem such as impending component failure or sensor drift was developing. Other diagnostic

functions allowed a smart instrument to moni-

tor and record the amount of force necessary to close a valve or the amount of time spent in any given posi-tion. Soon it became clear that these functions also could offer in-sights into the

process itself beyond the basic

process variable.The develop-

ment of communication protocols such as HART, EtherNet/IP, Foundation Fieldbus and Profibus PA provided a mechanism for smart instruments to send information to the con-trol or asset management system, avoiding the need to visit a device in the field to read and gather data.

With the development of smart instruments, suppli-ers added electronic signal

processing to take raw data from the transducer (strain gage, capacitive, magnetic, etc.) and convert it to a linearized signal within a suitable range. Many smart instruments required a secondary measurement to correct the first, such as a temperature read-ing to compensate output from a strain gage.

As these smart instru-ments became more so-phisticated, suppliers added internal monitoring functions to alert operators of voltage problems, failed compo-nents, excessive temperature excursions, and so forth. Maintenance technicians trying to solve a problem could use this information to verify that an instrument or actuator was function-ing properly or to trace the source of a problem.

At first, these monitor-ing functions were strictly reactive, but with growing sophistication made pos-sible through less-expensive electronics, it became a simple matter to add new capabilities, including some predictive in nature. Now, these advanced functions have become standard across virtually all smart instrument suppliers.

23

24