Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/jlp
Abstract
The overall objective of the maintenance process is to increase the profitability of the operation and optimize the total life cycle
cost without compromising safety or environmental issues. Risk assessment integrates reliability with safety and environmental
issues and therefore can be used as a decision tool for preventive maintenance planning. Maintenance planning based on risk
analysis minimizes the probability of system failure and its consequences (related to safety, economic, and environment). It helps
management in making correct decisions concerning investment in maintenance or related field. This will, in turn, result in better
asset and capital utilization.
This paper presents a new methodology for risk-based maintenance. The proposed methodology is comprehensive and quantitative.
It comprises three main modules: risk estimation module, risk evaluation module, and maintenance planning module. Details of
the three modules are given. A case study, which exemplifies the use of methodology to a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning
(HVAC) system, is also discussed.
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Maintenance; Risk assessment; Risk-based maintenance; Risk-based inspection; Maintenance planning
1. Introduction
The last two decades witnessed major progress in the
development of new maintenance strategies. Progress in
the maintenance area has been motivated by the increase
in the number, size, complexity, and variety of physical
assets; growing awareness of the impact of maintenance
on the environment, safety of personnel, the profitability
of the business, and quality of the products.
Unexpected failures usually have adverse effects on
the environment and may result in major accidents. Studies by Kletz (1994), Khan and Abbasi (1998), and
Kumar (1998) show the close relationship between
maintenance practices and the occurrence of major accidents. Profitability is closely related to availability and
reliability of the equipment, while product quality is very
much dependent on equipment condition. The major
challenge for a maintenance engineer is to implement a
0950-4230/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2003.08.011
562
F.I. Khan, M.M. Haddara / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 561573
Nomenclature
A
B
C
D
AR
AD
PDI
IM
i
t
h
F(t)
PDF1
F.I. Khan, M.M. Haddara / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 561573
tative risk value is a relative number that has little meaning outside the framework of the matrix. Within the
framework of the matrix, it provides a natural prioritization of items assessed using the matrix. However, as
these risk values are subjective, prioritizations based on
these values are always debatable.
The proposed risk-based maintenance (RBM) strategy
aims at reducing the overall risk of failure of the
operating facilities. In areas of high and medium risk, a
focused maintenance effort is required, whereas in areas
of low risk, the effort is minimized to reduce the total
scope of work and cost of the maintenance program in
a structured and justifiable way. The quantitative value
of the risk is used to prioritize inspection and maintenance activities. RBM suggests a set of recommendations on how many preventive tasks (including the
type, means, and timing) are to be performed. The
implementation of RBM will reduce the likelihood of an
unexpected failure. Detailed description of the methodology is presented in subsequent sections.
Fig. 1.
563
Fig. 2.
564
F.I. Khan, M.M. Haddara / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 561573
(1)
(2)
(3)
Bi
i 1,n
(4)
(5)
(6)
Ci
i 1,n
Fig. 3.
F.I. Khan, M.M. Haddara / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 561573
565
Table 1
Quantification scheme for system performance function used in Eq. (1)
Class
Description
Function (operation)
810
II
III
IV
V
radius), the factor is assigned a value of 1; if the population is localized and away from the point of accident
the lowest value 0.2 is assigned. Values for this parameter have been adapted from the latest work of Hirst
and Carter (2000).
3.2.4. Environment and/or ecological loss
The factor C signifies damage to the ecosystem, which
can be estimated as:
Di (AR)i (IM)i / UDA
(7)
(8)
Di
68
46
24
02
(9)
i 1,n
Fig. 4.
566
F.I. Khan, M.M. Haddara / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 561573
estimated risk exceeds the acceptance criteria are identified. These are the units that should have an improved
maintenance plan.
F.I. Khan, M.M. Haddara / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 561573
Fig. 5.
567
F(t) 1exp
t
h
(10)
568
F.I. Khan, M.M. Haddara / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 561573
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
F.I. Khan, M.M. Haddara / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 561573
569
Table 2
Units in a typical HVAC system
Unit number in Fig. 8
Unit name
Failure scenarios
Outdoor louver
Damper motor
4
5
Cooling unit
Humidification unit
EP relay unit
9
10
570
F.I. Khan, M.M. Haddara / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 561573
Table 3
Results of consequence analysis for different accident scenarios
Unit name
Failure scenarios
Outdoor louver
6
4
6
4
Damper motor
Air filter unit
4
4
8
4
3
4
3
5
4
6
8
6
8
5
Table 4
Results of risk estimation module; units in italicized exceeding the acceptance level
Unit name
Outdoor louvera
Damper motor
Air filter unita
Freeze protection unita
Heating unita
Cooling unita
Humidification unit
EP relay unit
Computer control unita
Air supply fan
Overall HVAC system failure as per Fig. 8
Not available
51,996.6
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
57,608.6
69,366.5
Not available
See Table 5
Not available
3.85
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
2.99
3.04
Not available
See Table 5
1.0E04
1.05E03
1.0E04
1.0E04
1.0E04
1.0E04
3.58E03
1.86E03
1.0E04
0.1965
0.2021
6.0E04
6.3E03
5.0E04
6.0E04
4.0E04
4.0E04
1.8E02
1.5E02
8.0E04
1.57
1.01
Failure data for these units were not available, as they did not ever fail on operation; the failure probability for these units is adopted from
the literature (Lees, 1996).
Table 5
Details of air supply fan failure
Component number used in Fig. 9
Unit name
Risk factor
1
2
3
4
5
Air supply fan failure as per Fig. 9
20,464.3
68,043.1
62,328.5
121,417.4
132,780.2
2.146
1.638
2.466
2.035
1.712
1.49E01
3.42E02
7.88E03
4.74E03
9.47E03
0.1965
1.192
2.73E01
6.3E02
3.8E02
7.6E02
1.572
F.I. Khan, M.M. Haddara / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 561573
571
Fig. 9. Fault tree for air supply fan failure scenario; numbers are
explained in Table 5.
A.2.1. Scenario 1
System performance loss is 100%, A = 10
No financial loss, B = 0
Due to non availability of fresh air serious human health
effects, C = 6
Table 6
Results of optimal maintenance duration computations
Unit name
Damper motor
Humidification unit
EP relay unit
Air supply fan
Fan belt and vortex
Fan bearing, etc.
132
172
81
2.1E05
3.77E04
1.91E05
6.2E03
1.8E02
1.5E02
1.26E04
1.88E03
1.57E04
41
75
3.42E03
1.57
2.73E02
1.01
2.2E02
572
F.I. Khan, M.M. Haddara / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 561573
A.2.2. Scenario 2
Significant loss of system performance, A = 8
No financial loss, B = 0
Moderately serious human health effects, C = 4
No environmental and ecological loss, D = 0
Con = [0.25 82 + 0.25 42]0.5 = 4.47 = 4
Final consequence results = maximum of 4 and 6 =
6
3.85
References
Aller, J. E., Horowitz, N. C., Reynolds, J. T., & Weber, B. J. (1995).
Risk based inspection for petrochemical industry. In Risk and safety
assessment where is the balance? New York: American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
API (1995). Base resource document on risk based inspection for API
committee on refinery equipment. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute.
ASME (1991). Research task force on risk based inspection guidelines,
risk based inspection development of guidelines. In General document CRTD 20-1. Washington, DC: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Capuano, M., & Koritko, S. (1996). Risk oriented maintenance. Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology, January/February, 2537.
Chen, L. N., & Toyoda, J. (1990). Maintenance scheduling based on
F.I. Khan, M.M. Haddara / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 561573
573