I'd like to get a bit more specific on this topic and propose a real world example. Suppose you had a paper machine that makes tissue and that in the plant there were multiple paper machines of nearly the same type and size.

Let's assume you're doing RCM primarily to increase reliability and therefore decrease unscheduled downtime.

Let me start the discussion by saying, that I think setting the boundary as the entire machine is a recipe for failure.

How would you divide and conquer the paper machine or would you attempt to eat the entire elephant?

I am a little bit confused with the extent of this discussion.

Boundaries wise:
I always start keeping in mind that flows feeding the system (labour, energy, water, gas, materials, compressed air and the like) are qualitatively and quantitatively assured. Physical boundaries are then quite easy to establish.

Detail wise:
Isn't it true that we must stop at the Lower Replaceable Unit (LRU) level? Of course it depends on the particular case. For instance, if electric motors are not fixed in your company when they are found failed (because expertise is not available or because it is not cost-effective), you should stop at the motor level. Otherwise you would have to jump in and go further into detail.

That's what I generally do. Am I wrong?

Thanks.

Rui

Are you familiar with ISO14224 they describe functional boundaries for major equipment types in oil and gas use, and same principle can be applied on other equipment types, however e.g they have separate boundaries for say a compressor and its driver but for RCM and CMMS systems you would probable consider the overall functional boundary ie compressor + driver

Thank you David. No, I am not familiar with the norm ISO 14224. I already saw the description of its contents and provided its acquisition. I am sure it will be of great help. Thanks again.

Regards.

Rui

Rui, fyi, I think API has expanded the ISO version of the standard which only includes offshore oil and gas equipment. API includes downstream oil and gas equipment such as for refineries and gas plants. So, I suggest it is better to get the API version which you can search in internet.

Here is the API 689 link:
http://committees.api.org/standards/CRE/mtginfo/docs/14224original2004.pdf

Here is the previous thread on it:
http://maintenanceforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/226103861/m/431108604/p/2

I would like to see what a a good mathematician can do with it. Pls share some examples with us, if any.

Thank you so much Josh for your extremely useful information. I hope to pay you back one of these days .

Regards

Rui

Josh,

I have just found out that there is a 2006 version of the ISO14224. Do you know it? If affirmative, do you find the differences being worth the cost?

Here is the description: http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ISO+1422...zg2pQCFQyvQwodKlKTlw

Regards,

Rui

It just ocurred to me that I had, some where some how, already come across this norm before. I started searching my old documentation and...voilá...ISO14224 1999 version in paper. Less contents than the 2004 version, as expected, but still usefull. From now on, I will keep a record on every norm related with reliability in general and RCM in particular.

It also came to my mind a doubt on whether there is a 2004 version or not. I suspect the 2004 text is just a draft that became official only in 2006. Am I right?

Thanks again.

Rui

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rui Assis,

Josh,

API has not published an expanded version of ISO14224-2006. It has just published the current ISO standard under its own banner, ANSI/API 689. The documents are identical.

The API draft is expanded to include downstream equipment. That's the difference.

Rui, in case you are interested in other standards, here is the list previously discussed:

http://maintenanceforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2091034...381056482#6381056482

Josh,

I have access to copies of both API 689 and ISO 14224 and they are identical and yes they do include downstream equipment. The title of the API document highlights that it is identical.

quote:

Collection and Exchange of Reliability and
Maintenance Data for Equipment
ANSI/API STANDARD 689
FIRST EDITION, JULY 2007
ISO 14224:2006 (Identical), Petroleum, Petrochemical and Natural
Gas Industries"”Collection and Exchange of Reliability and
Maintenance Data for Equipment

Josh: Thank you for the link to the previous discussion on this same matter.

Gentlemen, one more question: Do you know whether the draft ISO/DIS 14224:2004, whose link was posted by Josh on the 28th, became the norm ISO 14224:2006 later on?

Thanks,

Regards,

Rui

It may. You can contact the technical committee the API or ISO I guess. I just gave the draft to expand our horizon a bit. If I am in the committee, I would think proper to expand the ISO standard and publish under the same standard no. provided agreable for easy single-point of reference.

To be not bogged down by this draft, the old part of the ISO standard is published so can be used right away.

Following Josh´s sugestion:

Here´s the answer that I just got from ISO:

Dear Mr. Assis,

ISO/DIS 14224:2004 would have been the draft version in 2004 and ISO 14224:2006 would be the current published standard. The document would have undergone some modifications between the draft and published version.

Kind regards,
Michael Savage
Information and Related Support Services
ISO Central Secretariat
Geneva, Switzerland
www.iso.org