Some additional functions at component level to the previous list.
1.bearings-allow free rotation
2.Gearbox- provide a reduction in speed & transfer torque
3.electric motor - provide torque
4.Thermisters- protect drive
5. control system - ensure fan operating within desired range, to activate alarms,
6. Cables - to distribute electrical power
7. 4-20ma cables -to carry signal
8. Alarm - to provide warning

Thanks Trevor,
I will add them to the list.
All others, since this is all about learning about RCM, are there any comments, suggestions, constructive criticisms?
Regards
Steve
www.pmoptimisation.com.au

Interesting what is the next step?

Rogier,
Here is a list of proposed funtions. Do you want to facilitate these suggestions and get them into a list you would be happy with as a facilitator. We can easily get them into a spreadsheet and then take the next steps - which is to determine functional failures. (in answer to Steve van Els).

1.To provide constant airflow at a rotational speed of 200RPM
2.To allow access to the fan
3.To indicate speed of the fan
4.To support the motor and gearbox
5.To locate the fan
6.To stop fan in an emergency
7.To contain oil in the gearbox
8.To direct the airflow
9.To lock the fan in position
10.To prevent foreign objects from entering the duct.
11.To support the main fan shaft
12.To transmit power between the motor and gearbox
13.To transmit power between the gearbox and fan
14.To anchor structure in place
15.To shut down the fan when access door is opened.
16.To sound alarm in control room if vibration level exceeds Xm/s.
17.To locate pulleys on shafts.
18.To protect equipment from corrosion.
1. Bearings-allow free rotation
2.Gearbox- provide a reduction in speed & transfer torque
3.electric motor - provide torque
4.Thermisters- protect drive
5. control system - ensure fan operating within desired range, to activate alarms,
6. Cables - to distribute electrical power
7. 4-20ma cables -to carry signal
8. Alarm - to provide warning

Moderators note: It would be a good idea for those who are interested in this project to use the NOTIFY feature on the toolbar/menu above.

Simply click NOTIFY and choose the option of a daily digest or immediate notice so that you are notified by email when a new post is made to this thread.

That will keep this project flowing.

I will announce it to Reliabilityweb.com email audience next week as well which should draw a few more participants.

Thank you to everyone who has helped get this off the ground. It looks great so far.

Terry O

Here is my list of functional failures (based on no air delivery)

1. No air flow
3. No speed indication
12. No power transmitted between motor and gearbox
13. No power transmitted between gearbox and fan

Regards

Rogier,
Are you still interested in being the facilitator?

All,

I would be willing to participate in the exercise. We all might learn something from the experience of conducting a RCM analysis online.

Mike

As a follow up, we are currently participating in a RCM analysis of our facility it wold be interesting to see how the two analysis paralell.

Mike

Sorry for my late reply, was a week away.
I will put this in a excel sheet tomorrow.

Regards,

Rogier

it is very interesting to see how this is developing i'll stand as an observer to see how the thread comes along, i'll be the learning participant.

Steve - if I were facilitating an RCM analysis I would have probably generated an operating context first within the group (as Doug rightly mentioned)
This would enable boundaries to be set, performance critieria to be defined and information regarding the analysis itself.
I don't know if this is the procedure for the others like PMO and Turbo however this conforms to the methodology used when doing an RCM2 analysis.
This would have consisted of the following:

References: Diagrams/schematics used and textural.

Assumptions: Operating hours/day or week. Downtime recording methods and immediate actions.
Also what services are presumed to be operating correctly eg: power, air, raw material, packaging materials, etc.

System boundaries: eg box the machine so that we are not tracing problems all the way back to the electricity generation plant.

The equipment we are analysing which in this case is motor,fan,transmissions,casing,sensors and alarms.

Performance standards: In this case we are expecting the fan to operate continuously at 200rpm. I can not see any other criteria unless you include not stopping for more than 30 min however I would class any stoppage as a failure.
I guess though thinking on my feet you could also include air quality in the performance standard?

Alarms: A listing of the different alarms and what they mean and do.

Redundancy: Any in built spares that would automatically take over in event of breakdown.

Maintenance and spares: Stock held in store - eg: spare motor,coupling etc and how many.

Current maintenance activities:

Dominant failure modes:
Note: These last 3 items are included in analysis for later stages and not for general distribution to participants for obvious reasons.

Information recorded> eg: Repair time, Downtime, Cost to repair.
All this comes in handy later on too.

Most important- who the analysis team is!

A lot of this info is required for later auditing purposes too.

Mike.

Mike,

Steve - if I were facilitating an RCM analysis I would have probably generated an operating context first within the group (as Doug rightly mentioned)
This would enable boundaries to be set, performance critieria to be defined and information regarding the analysis itself.
I don't know if this is the procedure for the others like PMO and Turbo however this conforms to the methodology used when doing an RCM2 analysis.
Indeed this is necessary. The operating context is written in the pdf document or the case study. But for the sake of clarity, I will insert the answers below.

This would have consisted of the following:

References: Diagrams/schematics used and textural.
Provided in the pdf.


Assumptions: Operating hours/day or week. Downtime recording methods and immediate actions.
24/7/52 if possible - company can make all it sells as per the pdf

Also what services are presumed to be operating correctly eg: power, air, raw material, packaging materials, etc.
Interesting question - they all are. I have never heard of this question being asked for. It would seem a futile analsyis if we do it on the basis that other things outside the system dont work. Perhaps you could expand on why this is important.


System boundaries: eg box the machine so that we are not tracing problems all the way back to the electricity generation plant.
As per the schematic


The equipment we are analysing which in this case is motor,fan,transmissions,casing,sensors and alarms.

Performance standards: In this case we are expecting the fan to operate continuously at 200rpm. I can not see any other criteria unless you include not stopping for more than 30 min however I would class any stoppage as a failure.
I guess though thinking on my feet you could also include air quality in the performance standard?

Alarms: A listing of the different alarms and what they mean and do.
They are listed

Redundancy: Any in built spares that would automatically take over in event of breakdown.
Nothing in this case


Maintenance and spares: Stock held in store - eg: spare motor,coupling etc and how many.
Usually this would be discovered in consequences. It would be a lot of work to gather all the spares info and indeed this is a variable. Many times, RCM is the horse and Spares is the cart. RCM defines what spares to carry. At this point in time, the spares holdings will become evident when repair time is considered


Current maintenance activities:

Dominant failure modes:
Note: These last 3 items are included in analysis for later stages and not for general distribution to participants for obvious reasons.

Information recorded> eg: Repair time, Downtime, Cost to repair.
All this comes in handy later on too.

Most important- who the analysis team is!
The analysis team is Ollie operator, Freddy Fitter and Eddy Electrician (the company has combined elec with Instrument). For the purpose of this case study, I will behave as the group and provide info. I have the minutes of the meeting documented.


A lot of this info is required for later auditing purposes too.

Steve, as part of the documentation I am saying this should all be included under the relevant headings in the first page of the analysis - a type of forward we refer to as the operating context.
I understand that some of the detail is included in your case study however for the benefit of those not familiar with RCM I posted this to highlight the importance of these details.

quote:

Also what services are presumed to be operating correctly eg: power, air, raw material, packaging materials, etc.
Interesting question - they all are. I have never heard of this question being asked for. It would seem a futile analsyis if we do it on the basis that other things outside the system dont work. Perhaps you could expand on why this is important.

Defining what inputs to your machine are presumed to be operating correctly is very important in making sure you keep the boundaries sufficiently limited to allow focus only on the machine and not upstream components that could ultimately increase the size of the analysis and make it laborious.
The concentration of the effort should only be on the machine in question. Other outside influences I believe should be dealt with in their own regard.
Eg. look at the compressor and air supply as a separate machine - probably you would even break this down into compressor and supply lines and recievers etc.
I believe not breaking things down into manageable units is one reason RCM falters - the projects just become too big and labourious for people to handle in a sufficient time frame and with limited resources.

Mike.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mike66,

Also as a group I would recommend working through these aspects on the screen (inputing them with the team) so that everyone in the team is clear on the details.
Remember we are dealing with technical and non technical people (if you do it within a conventional live team environment)present.

Thanks Mike,
These are precisely the comments that will help people understand where things can go wrong.

In this particular example, there are no compressors or air supply. The only input is electrical power to the electric motor.
The alarms are considered part of this system.
Hope that this helps clarify.

Rogier - it may be good for you to include these details in your spreadsheet.
It "sets the stage for the play" so to speak.

Mike.

ok thanks all for the good input

So as playing the facilitator for the RCM 2 method I will take a step back and instead of starting with functions I will first write the Project Plan as suggested, with subjects like:

- What to achieve with this study
- time frame
- particiants
- block diagram,
- boundries
- interfaces
- Key info
- Assumptions etc.

The origional case study will be the assignment to the team.

Preferable is that all the team members have a basic knowledge of the method.
So attached an introduction to RCM2.

Give me some time to translate my templates and set up thing to start with a complete package.

Regards,

Rogier

Reliability-centred_Maintenance_-_An_Introduction.pdf (448 Kb, 197 downloads) RCM2 Introduction

Rogier,

You can use these forms attached for the RCM2 version.

May I comment on the functions : Since functions should be written with a verb, object and a desired performance standard, if the group cannot generate a performance standard then a concensus should be generated as to how it should be written.



My Warm Regards,

RCM_Forms1.xls (304 Kb, 191 downloads)