quote:

Would grouping of valves and instruments using the equipment as the group name for the work order is feasible?

Not necessarily, if the instrument is intrinsically linked to the equipment, like a pressure sensor that was part of the design, suppled with the equipment, and is one of a kind, I would say go-ahead.

On the other hand if the instrument (control valve, thermowell etc..) could be a different brand or type, I would say to record is as an asset. The P&ID could be your guide in this.

Start defining your equipment in groups like:
shell- tube heat exchangers, air-cooled heat exchangers, centrifugal pumps, positive displacement pumps, control valves, in other words, objects that has common specifications

Group name - yes, can e.g. Block Valve PM along System A, B, C, etc.


Don't you have a senior engineer there to seek help?

Josh

Yes, we do have senior engineers here (mostly marine engineers). I think there is a difference between maintaining a ship and process facility, that's why i brought this discussion to all of you who can share onshore facility experience.

ALbert

Once you properly climatised, you won't see any difference in the basic principles of CMMS regardless of the industries.

Dear Albert,

It is a good question and some interesting guidelines have already been given. Some more guidelines based on our experience are:

1. All PM plans need to be prepared & approved by concerned engineer (maintenance/technical
support) before you start configuring them in CMMS. Designated CMMS coordinators for the
site(s) creates the PM jobs in CMMS. We use a facility to link multiple entities (group
valves, instruments, etc in a logical way) in one PM job.

2. Motor Operated Valves (MOV), Relief Valves have been included in PM.

3. Some butterfly/gate/globe/check valves have been included in PM.

4. Instruments such as transmitters, switches, indicators (gauges), analyzers and sensors have
been included in PM.

5. We are not using PDM for valves & instruments, in general. PDM for valves is limited to
checking the valves for passing using IR guns before planned outages

Hope this is of some use to you.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ganesh, v.j,

Hi Ganesh

Thanks for sharing your experience. Having read all the replies in this discussion, I am certain now that we should include valves and instruments in any PM program provided that is should be done in a systematic way of identifying particulars and clearly setting our CMMS to capture all the work needed for these assets.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My next question is with regards to the implementation of the job plans /work orders involving valves and instruments. Will there be any problem encountered in terms of accomplishing the work? Because we mentioned here that we are to group valves and instruments. I think the labor hours will be affected with respect to implementing the job plans, thus, good planning is needed.

ALbert

Dear Albert,

It is a massive task, but I do not see problems in accomplishing the task if you are systematic. To help you accomplish this, attaching a sample PM form we use here in Saudi Arabia. You can capture the fields from this form into an excel spreadsheet (or access database) for getting approval for massive amount of work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What you mean by grouping? If you think you are grouping several entities in one PM job in a logical way (PM Master data), that is ok. That way PM Work Orders or Work Order Tasks triggered by CMMS can be grouped.

But if you want to cluster several entities into one entity, it is a different story. I will explain this with one example.

In one project, P&IDs did not give tag numbers (i.e., equipment ID) for manual isolation valves, 20 years ago. Hence they grouped, for example, all "600# GATE VALVES, 2" AND SMALLER". This was configured in MIMS; then the entity master data was migrated to CMMS 8 years ago. This created problem, as it is difficult to track history and analyze failures (recall what Wally said), though equipment entity count for 'valve' type was only 5K (out of total entity count of 26K).

In the same site, an expansion project was completed about 5 years ago. P&IDs included tag numbers for all manual isolation valves! This triggered a debate whether these shall be entered in CMMS or not. It was decided to enter them in CMMS. The entity count reached 54K for 'valve' type (out of a total of 114 K). Recall what Wally told: "database space is cheap. I see value in having equipment in the database".

The above discussion is only an example (since you started a thread on valves & instrument) but it is applicable to other entity types as well: switchgear, motor control center, control panels, piping & hangers, lighting, etc.

Define what is an ˜equipment' now for your installation. Set ˜equipment' database rules now and standardize upfront, before you start configuring in CMMS.

Data consistency is as important as data accuracy, if not more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ganesh, v.j,

CMMS_PM_FORM.doc (34 KB, 15 downloads)

Hi Ganesh

quote:

Data consistency is as important as data accuracy, if not more.

I definitely agree with you with this statement.

With respect to the grouping of entities, I think the success of implementing such task depends on the planner and the functionality of the CMMS. Just like what you said, it should systematic.

Just to give you an idea about what we did to attain data consistency in our work:

1. We used P&ID, Electrical, and Communication diagrams. Each physical asset is identified by a unique tag number.

2. For valves, we only register those that have sizes 2" and beyond. We did not include spectacle blinds, hose connections, and any items which can be considered as sparepart or stock items.

3. For the electrical equipment and instruments, we register all that has tag numbers i.e. hand switch, alarms, batteries, HMI and other communication items.

ALbert

We have the same valve entry discussions here; to enter them or not? Since my company elected not to enter most valve types in the beginning, it was harder to get them to do it years later.

If you enter everything in the beginning, you can actually run change control tracking through your CMMS database. But now we have a situation where we can track the current build of the some plant in the CMMS and others not. That is to say, if we change valve types and need an accurate count of actuators later on, there's no way to get the count. We had a mix of some change records on paper, others in drawings and yet others in Maximo.

As a work around, we put valve P&ID numbers with their respective replacement diaphragm part on separate lines in the job plan in an attempt to get more specific in our job plans. Here's why this turned out to be a good idea... We had a contamination in our plant and it was decided to replace EVERY gasket and diaphragm, thousands of them. We had no database or spreadsheet of valve sizes, diaphragm materials, etc. How were we to undertake this operation and get the right quantities ordered? Luckily, we were able to query the job plan steps and get a count of inventory part numbers on every PM in the plant. Another benefit is with Mobile Maximo, we are able to check off every step as we do it and can track maintenance much better than before. So there's more than one way to get the data in I guess.

Another time we had a valve actuator pin start failing in surprisingly high numbers- the valve pin would hang the valve open. We needed to replace every ¾" actuator in the plant to reduce risk to our process. Same process, but we had to go out in the field to get data the job plan didn't give us.

We had another time when switchpacks started failing in large numbers, again, another manufacturer problem. They are getting more frequent in these days of cheapening manufacturing. Could one of these scenarios happen to you?

It's situations like these that having the valves in Maximo would make getting data easy. Instead we can make it hard on ourselves to save a little data entry time up front. Not a good trade in my book.

J-

Dear Albert,

Using P&ID (or PFDs), Electrical Schematic/Layout Diagrams, etc. are good references to start with. But these 'references' may not be consistent with regard to level of details!

For instance: Whether electrical diagrams in your site(s) identify tags for individual lighting fixtures? We have grouped all 'normal 120/240 V ac lighting' in one area (or building or structure) into one entity in CMMS. But normal 120/240V ac lighting panels in the same area are treated as separate entities in CMMS (as these panels have unique tag numbers)!

Do you have plans for electronic work permit and clearance management system (WPMS)? Our experience is that it was easy to convert data on manual isolation valves 'description' and 'tag numbers' from CMMS entity database into WPMS database, when CMMS had these details.

I agree with Wally on two counts:
1. If you do not create a detailed database now, it is highly likely that it will never be created!

2. Database space is less costly as compared to the cost of digging history, etc.

But take care that CMMS entity screens do not get clogged with 1000s of equipment (valves, instruments, lighting, MCC feeders, hangers, etc.) under one system/sub-system!

Hi Ganesh

-------------------------------------------------------
Do you have plans for electronic work permit and clearance management system (WPMS)?
-------------------------------------------------------

I am sorry to say but I do not have any experience on this. Maybe you can explain it briefly on its relationship with CMMS?

ALbert

Dear Albert,

Work Permit: The basic document which authorizes a qualified person to perform a maintenance task on a piece of equipment/facility which is located in a 'restricted' area.

Clearance: Is the authorization issued to a qualified person to work on some piece of operating equipment/facility, which is inherently too hazardous to work on while in service, and which has therefore been completely isolated/de-activated in a prescribed manner and replaced by a safe condition to be worked on.

Some use tag-out/lock-out and permit-to-work terms.

We are using electronic WPMS in two sites, which prints the tags, permits & clearances besides managing the entire permits & clearance process.

Unfortunately, there is no good interface between CMMS and WPMS; only data regarding work order number & title are being currently dumped from CMMS to WPMS on daily/weekly basis.

If we find one ERP/CMMS system which integrates both maintenance management & work clearance management, it would be fine.

We are currently thinking of using SAP-PM with Work Clearance Management (WCM).

Regards.

Ganesh, V.J.

Dear Albert,

My reply is in Safety perspective. Assess the criticality of the valves, each single valve if critical to safety or environment and a last line of defense it is vital to PM & PdM.

Regards

The other day I was notified of a steam back pressure regulator valve model going obsolete on 1/1/09. I was able to return several results of valves and spares that had the model number entered correctly. Things work well when they go like this.

We have several valves that were entered, but the model number was entered as NA (or, I don’t care enough to enter the model number). I had to try to connect the dots by searching the manufacturer name and hope it was entered, and then field verify the valve’s model number. I find that we waste many untracked man-hours (Technician, Planner, Reliability, Inventory) searching and verifying information that could have been entered in the CMMS at start-up.

I don’t have a good method for finding valves that weren’t entered in the CMMS. I can’t memorize the P&ID catalog and don’t have ready access to the original turn-over lists any more. I have had to resort to digging up the hard copy lists from the archives, but then many times I find that the hard copy lists were not maintained for change control, so the list isn’t accurate. If the CMMS had been populated, change control for current model number could have been maintained in the CMMS. It’s worse when we have a recall effort for safety reasons.

Obsolete parts are a hidden failure waiting to happen; not entering available data in the CMMS is one of the contributing factors to the eventual failure.

Agree with you, Wally. If we take care of this since beginning, it will be better. FYI, we started an effort of tagging all the manual isolation valves and check valves for an old plant (the original P&IDs did not have an unique tag numbers for these equipment)and updating the CMMS with relevant entity data. The effort is really time consuming; but the management here supported it. It is nearing completion now.