A few years back I attended the Turbo machinery Symposium in Dallas and was amazed at the equipment reliability expected by that industry.

I am now in a different industry and find myself specifying a new, one of a kind packaging machine. Does anyone have any methods they are willing to share about specifying reliability when purchasing new equipment (especially packaging equipment)?

Hi,
You may find the following useful.
API 682 Standard - shaft sealing for centrifugal and rotary pumps states a design requirement of three years of uninterrupted service, while complying with emission requirements.

Can you tell us a name by which we can address you? 3msa is not very helpful and you have not signed your name.

I haven't really heard of specifying reliability. Proper selection of design requirements, inspection and testing may enhance reliability. Also if you negotiate the contract to include long-duration warranty provisions which make failures expensive for the manfuacturer, it adds incentive for the manufacturer to deliver a reliable product.

I notice API 682 calls for 3 years continuous running for pumps and shaft seals but to achieve this is challenging. Is it really achievable at most sites?

About specifying reliability into design reqts, recently I read about dependability standards in www.iec.com or simply called reliability standards in www.barringer1.com.

I attach some of them in case interesting:
Dependability management:

IEC 60300-1 (2003-06) Dependability management-Part 1: Dependability management systems. Deals with dependability performance issues including availability performance, reliability performance, maintainability performance, and maintenance support performance. (17 pages, ~US$52)

IEC 60300-2 (2004-03) Dependability management-Part 2: Provides guidelines for dependability management of product design, development, evaluation and process enhancements. Life cycle models are used to describe product development or project phases. Applicable for detailed planning and implementation of a dependability program to meet specific product needs. (103 pages, ~US$92)

IEC 60300-3-1 (2003-01) Dependability management-Part 3-1: Application guide-Analysis techniques for dependability-Guide on methodology. Describes a general overview of common dependability analysis techniques along with advantages/disadvantages for choosing the appropriate method. (59 pages, ~US$117)

IEC 60300-3-2 (2004-11-10) Dependability management-Part 3: Application guide-Section 2: Collection of dependability data from the field. Describes guidelines for the collection of data relating to reliability, maintainability, availability, and maintenance support performance in the field. (79 pages, US$114)

IEC 60300-3-3 (2005-08-29) Dependability management-Part3: Application guide-Section 3: Life cycle costing. This part of IEC 60300 provides a general introduction to the concept of life cycle costing and covers all applications. This standard is intended for general application by both customers (users) and suppliers of products. It explains the purpose and value of life cycle costing and outlines the general approaches involved. It also identifies typical life cycle cost elements to facilitate project and programme planning. (127 pages, ~US$147)

IEC 60300-3-4 (1996-08) Dependability management-Part 3: Application guide-Section 4: guide to the specification of dependability requirements. (35 pages, ~US$52).

IEC 60300-3-5 (2001-03) Dependability management-Part 3-5: Application guide-Reliability test conditions and statistical test principles. Describes guidelines for planning and performing reliability tests and the use of statistical methods to discover weaknesses in the design that could be corrected to improve performance, quality, safety, robustness, reliability, availability, and reduce costs. (139 pages, ~US$137)

IEC 60300-3-7 (1999-05) Dependability management-Part 3-7: Application guide-Reliability stress screening of electronic hardware. Describes and application guide to reliability stress screening for electronic hardware. (69 pages, ~US$82)

IEC 60300-3-9 (1995-12) Dependability management-Part 3: Application guide-Section 9: Risk analysis of technological systems. Describes guidelines for selecting and implementing risk analysis techniques for quality and consistency in planning and execution for risk analysis. (67 pages, ~US$82)

IEC 60300-3-10 (2001-01) Dependability management-Part 3-10: Application guide-Maintainability. Describes implementation of a maintainability program. (67 pages, ~US$82)

IEC 60300-3-11 (1999-03) Dependability management-Part 3-11: Application guide-Reliability centered maintenance. Describes development of a preventive maintenance program using RCM techniques. (107 pages, ~US$117)

IEC 6003-3-12 (2001-12) Dependability management-Part 3-12: Application guide-Integrated logistic support. Describes an application guide for the purchaser/supplier to complete product life cycle. (93 pages, ~US$101)

IEC 60300-3-14 Dependability management - Part 3-14: Application guide - Maintenance and maintenance support

IEC 60300-3-15 Ed. 1.0 Dependability management - Part 3-15: Guidance to engineering of system dependability

IEC 60300-3-16 Ed. 1.0 E ACDV
Dependability management - Part 3-16: Application guide - Guideline for the specification of maintenance support services

IEC 61160 (1992-09) Formal Design Review. Describes means of stimulating product or process improvement for dependability, life, safety, endurance, environment, electromagnetic compatibility, and performance requirements. (63 pages, ~US$82)

IEC 61014 (1989-11) Programs for reliability growth. Describes guidelines for exposure and removal of weaknesses in hardware and software items to make reliability grow and mathematical modeling is outlined briefly. (61 pages, ~US$82)

IEC 61164 (1995-06) Reliability growth – Statistical test and estimation methods. Describes standard models and numerical methods for reliability growth assessments based on failure data from a single system. (61 pages, ~US$82)

IEC 62198 (2001-04) Project risk management – Application guidelines. Describes a general introduction to project risk management, its sub-processes and influencing factors, and provides guidelines for implementing risk management at various phases of a project. (37 pages, ~US$57)


IEC 61703 (2001-09) Mathematical expressions for reliability, availability, maintainability and maintenance support terms (103 pages, ~US$117)

IEC/TR 61508-0:2005, Functional safety of E/E/PE safety-related systems –
Part 0: Functional safety and IEC 61508

IEC 61508-1:1998, Functional safety of E/E/PE safety-related systems –
Part 1: General requirements

IEC 61508-2:2000, Functional safety of E/E/PE safety-related systems –
Part 2: Requirements for E/E/PE safety-related systems

IEC 61508-3:1998, Functional safety of E/E/PE safety-related systems –
Part 3: Software requirements

IEC 61508-4:1998, Functional safety of E/E/PE safety-related systems –
Part 4: Definitions and abbreviations

IEC 61508-5:1998, Functional safety of E/E/PE safety-related systems –
Part 5: Examples of methods for the determination of safety integrity levels

IEC 61508-6:2000, Functional safety of E/E/PE safety-related systems –
Part 6: Guidelines on the application of IEC 61508-2 and IEC 61508-3

IEC 61508-7:2000, Functional safety of E/E/PE safety-related systems –
Part 7: Overview of techniques and measures

IEC 61511-1, Functional safety – Safety instrumented systems for the process industry sector – Part 1: Framework, definitions, system, hardware and software requirements

IEC 61511-2, Functional safety – Safety instrumented systems for the process industry sector – Part 2: Guidelines for the application of IEC 61511-1

IEC 61511-3, Functional safety – Safety instrumented systems for the process industry sector – Part 3: Guidance for the determination of the required safety integrity levels

IEC 62061, Safety of machinery - Functional safety of safety-related electrical, electronic and programmable electronic control systems

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Josh,

Josh, Pete,
Yes, it is possible to apply API 682, that is why it is a standard. The trouble is that most designers and maintainers don't know it exists. The sooner this happens, the more we can make maintenance a science.
Toyota warranties paint work for 6 yaers (or is it for life?, not sure), so why cant a pump manufacture do likewise; yes I know, it depends a lot on how we operate and maintain it. Maybe it will impose the required discipline on the user, and it is time we treated equipment with care. Volkswagen do some pretty impressive tests (to destruction) of a sample of their automobiles to provide their warranties.
We should demand reliability from Vendors, Design and Construction contractors, even if we cant always enforce them. This makes them think deeply. It does not automatically increase costs, if all the bidders have to competitively bid to the same specifications. After all we ask them to follow various design codes, but we cant verify all the steps have actually been taken; for that we depend on their 'signing it off', their reputation and integrity, not the law courts.

Josh, thank you for putting together alist of useful standards. I am sure many members of the forum will benefit from it.

John,

Here is a practice we perform when doing TPM activities when I was still employed, and is one of the pillars of TPM, it is called Initial Flow Control Activities.

Let me try to provide a brief overview on what this pillar is all about. If you have an equipment in your plant, there are a number of situations where we perform improvements and modifications on this piece of equipment in order for it to perform better and to address its design weaknesses by maintenance function, operations and some cross functional teams. These improvements are being summarized and documented and being discussed with the vendor of the equipment if you have reasons to purchase the same equipments in the future, your simply want these modifications to be attached in your equipment when they are delivered to you.

Rolly -
I agree that is a great method to ensure that all of the improvements made get incorporated into the new installation.

In my current situation I need to have a one-of-a-kind custom piece of equipment designed. With no real prior experience with the equipment how do I not get bit?

For special kind of eqpt, maybe use functional specs rather than prescriptive ones. What equipment is it anyway?

Packaging equipment.

That sounds pretty harmless. We will be using commercialy available products in this equipment. But the whole thing has never been assembled like this before.

My experience on other equipment would tell me that I will experience failures in the following forms:
1. A good part mis-applied. Something was specified for a job it was not meant to do. For example: the wrong pump shaft seal for the application.
2. A part not applied. Something was left out of the design that was needed. For example: failure to specify and install a shaft coupling on an RVDT (the glass bearings shattered every time until we installed a coupling).
3. A stupid design. For example a 5 hp gear pump on a sheet metal base. It was a little hard to do a laser shaft alignment.

Have you done RCM audits and caught these kind of issues on new equipment?

For me there are 4 areas which will effect the reliability of new equipment. 1) Design; 2) Installation 3) operation & Environment 4) Maintenance.

Normally the suplier has the biggest say on the first 2 and we on the last 2. Although I know people haev tried in my compnay generally it is not easy to get suppliers to commit reliabiity KPIs. This is beacuse they quite often do not have good information about the performance of their equipment (we have that) and they don't know enough about maintaining it. (we know that). So if I was a suplier and was asked to sign up to 'this machine will not fail more than 3 times in first 5 years' I am liklely to respond with something along the lines of 'yes, provided its not used more than x hours per year, load does not exceed this and x, y, z maintenance activities are done every month'. These requirements are likely to be on the over zealous side.

I believe insisting on good warranty deals is the way.

Hullo John,
All the points you make are valid.

quote:

1. A good part mis-applied. Something was specified for a job it was not meant to do. For example: the wrong pump shaft seal for the application.
2. A part not applied. Something was left out of the design that was needed. For example: failure to specify and install a shaft coupling on an RVDT (the glass bearings shattered every time until we installed a coupling).
3. A stupid design. For example a 5 hp gear pump on a sheet metal base. It was a little hard to do a laser shaft alignment.

Please help us understand why you cannot demand a failure free run of ,say 18, 24 0r 36 months for your machine from the vendor. He may agree but put in some 'escape' clauses, like raw material quality, speed of operation, maintenance etc. Some of these may well be justified; if that is what it takes to get the warranty, it may be the most economic option. This is what I mean by imposing discipline on the user.
I would suggest that working from the contractual side is better than e.g. trying to do an RCM yourself, when you dont really know the machine yourself. Instead, the contract will make the vendor do the RCM, and then tell you what he is willing to tolerate about your operation and maintenance practices.