This post has been created in response to discussions on the topic from other threads.
Hope it helps people understand the differences and then the strengths and weaknesses of both processes. For the sake of the discussion, we should stick to an RCM process that conforms to the SAE Standard JA1011.
In the following post I will present the case study.

Here is reference Material
Below is the URL I have created as an example.

http://www.slideshare.net/OMCS...resentationfor-forum

Here is a paper I wrote to illustrate the PMO2000 process
http://www.slideshare.net/OMCS...ring-rcm-and-pmo2000

Here is the previous attempt at RCM for this system.
http://maintenanceforums.com/e...51/m/9181072733/p/1]

Here is most of the information Vee needs to know. If there is additinal information he needs to know, then I will act as the subject matter expert. He can ask me questions.
Ollie’s Operations is a processing plant located on an island and is very close to the ocean. The company can sell all the products it can make.

The project managers have chosen a cooling fan to commence the analysis. The main reason for this choice is that there are fourteen fin fans on the site (each is used separately at stand-alone cooling systems connected to independent processes) and they consume a lot of maintenance labor. Furthermore, fans have been the cause of many hours of downtime due to breakdown. The preventive maintenance program is a high workload for the maintenance staff and the planning department. The feeling is that the maintenance of these fin fans is highly reactive and therefore consumes an excessive amount of planning and time.
The fan chosen for analysis supplies ambient temperature air to a cooling system. It is not known exactly what airflow is required by the cooling system though it is known that the fan is designed to run at 160 rpm. Ollie the operator told the group “the process runs fine if the fan is operating at 160 rpm, even on the hottest days with the plant in full production, correct levels of product outflow are reached if the fan runs properly”. Ollie continued.
Ollie added that each fan is critical. If one stops, the affected process will shut down within a fifteen minutes. So we can take one fan off line of 15 min and we will ‘Not impact production’.

During the initial discussion of the functions of this system, the group noted the following.
• The vibration sensor is a magnetic latch / spring / contact arrangement that shuts down the fan in the event of a massive instability. It is mounted on the frame.
• The tachometer is a proximity pulse sensor which senses two pickups (targets) mounted on the shaft. The sensor is set to sound an alarm in the control room if the fan belt comes off. All wiring is fail safe.
• The electric motor is fitted with three thermistors that shut down the motor if it gets hot. The thermistors are almost completely fail safe.
• The door microswitches are a lever, plunger, spring, and contact arrangement that extends and opens the circuit when the door is opened.
• The fan has 4 blades fixed by a clamping assembly protected against coming undone by a locking device.
• The locking device is a mechanism which secures the clamping assembly holding the blades.
• The emergency stop button allows anyone to stop the fan in the event of an emergency.
• The breather is to allow the gearbox internal pressure to equalize with the ambient pressure and reduce pressure on the seals.
• There is one belt between the fan and the gearbox. It is a large v belt that is 10cm wide across the top.
• There is a Local Isolator located beside the concrete block that can be used to isolate the fans during maintenance.
• Operators are trained and capable of performing local isolations.
• There are Operators on each shift that is trained as Vibration Analysis Technicians (VA Techs). A VA Tech collects data and delivers it to the engineer for analysis.

I have completed the PMO analysis with failure data and information about PF intervals. When you get to this point, I will provide the numbers to you.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Steve Turner,

Here is Mike66's list of functions - pretty good really.

1.To provide constant airflow at a rotational speed of 160 RPM
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.

Let me tidy them up so you get off to a good start.
Also there have been some minor changes to the original case study.
1.To provide constant airflow at a rotational speed of 160 RPM
2.To allow access to the fan
3.To sound an alarm in the control room if the fan belt comes off or breaks.
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 [my comment - this is covered by Function 1 and can be deleted]
13.To transmit power between the gearbox and fan [my comment - this is covered by Function 1 and can be deleted]
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. [rewrite as "To shut down the fan in the event of a massive instability in the fan"]
17.To locate pulleys on shafts.
18.To protect equipment from corrosion.
Additions
19 To shut down the motor when it overheats
20 To allow the gearbox to breath without contaminating the oil with particles greater than 20 micron
21 To be able to turn the fan off from a local isolation point
22 To prevent injury from rotating components
23 To provide earth protection

Vee,
If you agree with those I will create a spreadsheet and post them on the slide share site.
Perhaps you should develop your own spreadsheet so we can post that

Here are the failure modes that were generated in PMO2000 - Please feel free to add ones RCM would have written and then put them against the functions in the spreadsheet
Belt - Fan belt fails due to normal wear
Blade - Fan blade cracks due to fatigue at the hub or delaminates near the tip
Blade - Cowling bolts come loose due to vibration
Control Cabinet - Electric supply fails due to loose terminals or worn switches
Coupling - Coupling fails due to normal cone ring wear
Coupling - Components are is misaligned due to incorrect assembly
Microswitch - Microswitch sticks closed due to dirt ingress
E Stop - Stop button jams due dirt ingress
Fan General - Fan components fail due to abnormal deterioration of equipment
Gearbox - Gearbox gets dirty due to normal weather conditions
Gearbox - Gearbox seals leak due to normal wear
Gearbox - Gearbox bearing fails due to normal wear
Gearbox - Gearbox oil wears out or deteriorates
Guards - Weld mesh becomes damaged by abnormal circumstances
Guards - Weld mesh fails due to corrosion
Supports - Motors and gearboxes bolts come loose due to vibration
Motor - Electric motor winding insulation fails due to deterioration
Motor - Electric motor fails due to lack of lubrication
Motor - Motor bearing fails due to normal wear
Pulleys - Pulleys fail due to normal wear
Shaft Bearings - Shaft bearings fail due to normal wear
Supports - Cowling bolts come loose due to vibration
Supports - Motor or gearbox bolts come loose due to vibration
Supports - Bearing hub bolts come loose due to vibration
Tacho and Alarm - Tacho drifts low due to pick up magnets moving or transmitters falling off
Vibration Switch - Vibration switch fails drifts due to spring fatigue or setting drifts due to system vibration
Motor - Earth fails due to damage or incorrect assembly
Motor - Cable terminations come loose due to vibration
Locking Pin - Locking device pin falls out due to incorrect installation
Motor Thermistors - Thermister fails due to age or vibration
Gearbox Breathers - Gearbox breather blocks due to normal contamination
Motor gearbox Concrete block - Concrete fails due to reo corrosion
Local Isolator - Isolator switch fails to normal wear
Coupling - Coupling Guard comes loose due to vibration
Fan General - Fan guard comes loose due to vibration

Steve, taking this fan example to compare PMO to RCM, how long does it take to do PMO analysis versus RCM?

And what are the separate respective outcomes in terms of maintenance strategy?

Any difference in the manhours and cost required to do the corresponding resultant maintenance program?

Steve,
Thanks for all the info. i will revert in due course.

Hi Vee,
How are you getting on with your RCM analysis of the fan. Do you have any questions?

Steve,
There are various requirements you have set forth before you agree to discuss the topic. I am not sure we can have a meaningful debate without a level playing field. I think it is reasonable to ask you some questions.

Are all the failure modes - that you consider matter - with regard to the Integrity and Reliability of the fan, captured in your presentation? If not, please do so, so that we can look at a comprehensive picture.

In an earlier thread on this topic, you said “There is no point in arguing with me if the intervals or task types are right or wrong. I can explain how to derive them but I will not enter into discussion on what I have written.” Does that mean we cannot question the decision process itself or just the answers?

You also asked me to create an RCM spreadsheet. I do not see the point in this. I am trying to understand your PMO 2000 process and see how robust it is. Since you use the RCM logic, I gather you acknowledge that it is a robust process. What I will do is to use my understanding of RCM to question your steps and validate their robustness. I am not planning to create RCM studies, as RCM robustness is not in question.

Please provide documentation that allows us to copy text for the purpose of quotation in discussions. Their current format will not permit this, and we will get side tracked into arguments about “misquoting” you.

I have hesitated to put these up so far because I am not sure these will be acceptable. Since you ask, here they are.

Hi Vee,
Thank for your questions. Here are my responses.

quote:

Are all the failure modes - that you consider matter - with regard to the Integrity and Reliability of the fan, captured in your presentation? If not, please do so, so that we can look at a comprehensive picture

In a previous post have listed the failure modes that I would document in a PMO2000 analysis on this fan. There are many others. In the cowling the welds could crack, any or all of the bolts could fatigue, keyways could wear and the motor stator may come loose.
But this is part of my point. PMO2000 does not document all the likely failure modes unless there good reason to do so.
In the list, there are all the failure modes that were currently being managed by the PM and those that were found either by looking at failure history or studying the technical documentation.

quote:

In an earlier thread on this topic, you said “There is no point in arguing with me if the intervals or task types are right or wrong. I can explain how to derive them but I will not enter into discussion on what I have written.” Does that mean we cannot question the decision process itself or just the answers?

Vee, I dont see any value in arguing over whether the concrete should be inspected at 2 years, 4 years or 10 years. To me it all depends on PF interval or RBI methods or a mixture of both. For me, I go with the client decisions about what interval selection methods get applied. And as I said before, there are some task interval algorithms and methods I will not use regardless of client preference.
Please feel free to question the decision process but if you question PMO2000 about the interval selection then I will respond by referring to SAE Standard for determining these. WE apply the standard RCM Decision logic or where it is valid, the customers. PMO2000 does not have its own logic past failure mode analysis.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Steve Turner,

quote:

You also asked me to create an RCM spreadsheet. I do not see the point in this. I am trying to understand your PMO 2000 process and see how robust it is. Since you use the RCM logic, I gather you acknowledge that it is a robust process. What I will do is to use my understanding of RCM to question your steps and validate their robustness. I am not planning to create RCM studies, as RCM robustness is not in question.

I agree RCM according to the SAE standard is a robust process.
The point of someone other than me creating an RCM analysis of the same asset is to validate or dismiss my claims.
The two that seem to come up most of the time are:
1 - PMO2000 misses things and is not suitable for critical assets
2 - PMO2000 is not that much faster on average than RCM

I dont know how we can objectively assess these to issues without a direct comparison. If the RCM process shows it finds failure modes that PMO2000 does not, then the case is proven. If it comes up with the same maintenance program, then the case is defeated. Same goes Claim 2.
And it is not worth me doing the RCM analysis because that will attract a claim of bias.
To preempt any out of context use of my answer to RCM being a robust process, I also say that it is clumsy and long winded for existing assets or assets that have been in use at other places. I also say it starts from scratch which indicates it was developed for a design approach rather than taking something that exists and refurbishing it.

quote:

Please provide documentation that allows us to copy text for the purpose of quotation in discussions. Their current format will not permit this, and we will get side tracked into arguments about “misquoting” you

To avoid arguments about "misquoting", all you need to do is use the inverted commas "text" and transcribe faithfully what has been written. If you want to compare and contrast, you can use your own words to place emphasis.
I have locked the download because this fin fan is part of our training material and IP.

Steve,

quote:

PMO2000 does not document all the likely failure modes unless there good reason to do so.

Steve, did you not see my preamble
Quote, Are all the failure modes - that you consider matter - Unquote

Steve,

quote:

In the list, there are all the failure modes that were currently being managed by the PM and those that were found either by looking at failure history or studying the technical documentation.

I am afraid this does not answer my question. Do you feel satisfied that ALL the failure modes that you consider matter included in this list?

How you arrived at this is a matter for you; what I want to confirm is that you consider it comprehensive enough from your point of view.

Steve,

quote:

To me it all depends on PF interval or RBI methods or a mixture of both. For me, I go with the client decisions about what interval selection methods get applied. A

Let me understand these comments, so please clarify
1. What is your method to obtain the P-F interval? Just the basic steps please.
2. What is this RBI method you mention? Please state a few steps of RBI you apply.
3. If the client decides all or most of the interval selection method, barring the ones you rejected, why would the intervals differ from the existing ones?

Steve,

quote:

The two that seem to come up most of the time are:
1 - PMO2000 misses things and is not suitable for critical assets
2 - PMO2000 is not that much faster on average than RCM

I have not said either of these things, since I do not understand your PMO 2000 process properly. My objective is get a reasonable appreciation of this before I say anything about it.
Once you answer my questions on the completeness of the failure modes, we can proceed to examine the PMO 2000 output. I will not waste time on an incomplete study.
As to your point (2) it may become relevant at some future point, not now.

Steve,

quote:

To preempt any out of context use of my answer to RCM being a robust process, I also say that it is clumsy and long winded

Whether RCM is clunky or slick is not the question. Is it robust? I believe you agree with me that it is robust, as long as it follows the steps in the SAE.
If you want to prove PMO 2000 is faster than RCM (per SAE), then please produce your RCM study, which also I agree to examine and validate.
My comment on RCM only relates to quality; of that I am fairly sure (and so I think, are you). I have absolutely no interest in producing an RCM study; I have better uses for my time.

Steve,

quote:

transcribe faithfully what has been written

I think I understand this quite well, but thank you for explaining how to do it.
The point is that retyping text from an existing document is
1. A waste of time
2. Prone to typos or other errors
If you don't wish to cooperate, so be it. I will consider the best course available to me.