Enteract 2000, Texas, USA – Causal Tree Analysis in Condition Monitoring

THE ROLE OF CASUAL TREE ANALYSIS

IN THE
DIAGNOSIS AND PROGNOSIS PROCESSES
By: L. Hitchcock, Technical Manager – Machine Reliability, The Shell Company of Australia

Failure: The termination of the ability of an item to perform a required function.

Failure analysis is, unfortunately, the most ignored and incorrectly performed element of the
maintenance engineering cycle. The elements of failure analysis must form an integral part of any
condition monitoring diagnosis or prognosis process.

The most difficult parts of any condition monitoring process are the diagnostic and prognostic
components. A generic process map is contained below outlining the overall process for
condition monitoring. This paper intends to outline the generic principles of causal tree analysis
and then describe its application in the condition monitoring diagnosis and prognosis processes.

CONDITION MONITORING – SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION FLOW CHART

SYSTEM
DESIGN

SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT

DATA
COLLECTION

SEVERITY
ASSESSMENT

YES ANALYSIS NO GO TO NEXT

DIAGNOSIS REQUIRED MACHINE

DIAGNOSIS
CONFIDENCE
FACTOR
ITERATIVE VERIFICATION PROCESS

SUFFICIENT DATA NO ADDITIONAL NO

FOR DCF> RESOURCES
PRIMARY TECH.
ACCEPTANCE LIMIT AVAILABLE
DATA REQ’D
YES NO
YES

ADDITIONAL YES SELECT

PROGNOSIS CORRELATION CORRELATION
TECHNIQUE DATA TECHNIQUE
REQ’D

PROGNOSIS NO
CONFIDENCE
FACTOR
YES SELECT ALL
TECHNIQUE
SUFFICIENT DATA RESOURCE PARAMETERS AND
FOR PCF> AVAILABLE MEASUREMENT
ACCEPTANCE LIMITL INTERVALS
NO NO
YES

SOLUTION
NO ACTION INTERIM ACTION RECOMMENDED

NEXT
MACHINE
INITIAL INTERIM SOLUTION
PROGNOSIS PROGNOSIS PROGNOSIS

INITIAL INTERIM SOLUTION MAINTENANCE

CONFIDENCE CONFIDENCE CONFIDENCE SYSTEM
FACTOR FACTOR NO INTEGRATION
FACTOR

ALL MACHINES YES

ANALYSED

Enteract Home
L Hit h k T h M M hi R li bilit Th Sh ll C f A t li 17/4/00
 Enteract 2000, Texas, USA – Causal Tree Analysis in Condition Monitoring

1.0 CAUSAL TREE ANALYSIS

Failure analysis differs from root cause analysis in that failure analysis is unique to equipment
or hardware, and focuses on the mechanisms of failure. Root Cause Analysis tends to involve
a systems approach.

In general it can be said that all failure modes can be placed in one of the five following
categories:
1. Design
2. Manufacture
3. Installation
4. Operation
5. Maintenance

There will always be a difficulty defining the boundaries of each category, however, if the same
rules are applied each time then confusion can be avoided.

2.0 FOUR STEP METHOD

The causal tree methodology involves four essential steps similar to those previously mentioned:

Step 1 Define the Problem

Step 2 Create a Cause & Effect Chart
Step 3 Identify Effective Solutions
Step 4 Implement the Best Solutions

The essential steps in problem definition are also similar to those previously mentioned, being:

• WHAT– an effect of consequence

• WHEN– the relative time of the effect
• WHERE – the relative location of the effect
• SIGNIFICANCE – the relative value the effect has on you

The cause identification process, however, is essentially a different process utilising causal tree
analysis techniques. This methodology has essentially four basic characteristics, being:

1. Causes and effects are the same thing

2. Causes and effects are part of an infinite continuum of causes
3. Each effect has at least two causes in the form of actions and conditions, and
4. An effect exists only if it causes exist at the same point in time and space.

Enteract Home Hitchcock Beginning

L Hit h k T h M M hi R li bilit Th Sh ll C f A t li 17/4/00
 Enteract 2000, Texas, USA – Causal Tree Analysis in Condition Monitoring

The graphical approach revolves around the development of cause and effect charts following
the four basic steps;

• Start with a Primary effect, and ask why

• Identify the causes in actions and conditions
• Connect all causes with “caused by”
• Support all causes with evidence
A further understanding is required that any particular cause is one of a continuum of causes.
The continuum of causes include the following concepts:

DEFINITION: A PRIMARY EFFECT IS ANY EFFECT OF CONSEQUENCE

THAT WE WANT TO PREVENT FROM OCCURRING

• There can be more than one Primary Effect in any given event
• A Primary effect is the point at which we start asking why
• A Primary effect is not universally known by everyone, it depends on each individual
perspective
• As we begin to understand how the puzzle of causes fits together, we often go from many
Primary effects to one
• The Primary Effect becomes the Problem name – the “What” that we want to prevent from
occurring.
• Each effect has at least two causes in the form of actions and conditions:

ACTION
(Happens)

Caused by Evidence
PRIMARY
EFFECT

CONDITION
(Exists)

Evidence

• Everything is a cause set in motion. Each effect is a set of conditions set in motion by an
action.
• Therefore, each time we ask why, we should look for Actions and Conditions to help us
focus on possible causes.
• Each effect must have evidence to support its existence:

Enteract Home Hitchcock Beginning

L Hit h k T h M M hi R li bilit Th Sh ll C f A t li 17/4/00
 Enteract 2000, Texas, USA – Causal Tree Analysis in Condition Monitoring

3.0 INFINITE SET OF CAUSES

Each effect is in actual fact part of a continuum of causes:

CAUSE /
EFFECT
CAUSE / Caused
EFFECT by
CAUSE /
EFFECT
CAUSE / Caused
EFFECT by

CAUSE /
EFFECT
CAUSE / Caused
EFFECT by
CAUSE /
EFFECT

PRIMARY Caused
EFFECT by
CAUSE /
EFFECT
CAUSE / Caused
EFFECT by
CAUSE /
EFFECT

CAUSE / Caused
EFFECT by CAUSE /
EFFECT
CAUSE / Caused
EFFECT by
CAUSE /
EFFECT

4.0 FAULT TREE ANALYSIS

Fault tree analysis is a well known methodology for diagrammatically representing failure
mechanisms and sequences. This method differs from Causal tress analysis in that it uses
logic
diagrams incorporating “and/or” conditions as well as events.

Enteract Home Hitchcock Beginning

L Hit h k T h M M hi R li bilit Th Sh ll C f A t li 17/4/00
 Enteract 2000, Texas, USA – Causal Tree Analysis in Condition Monitoring

TOP Event

Delay Time

AND Gate

Transfer symbol
Fault Event Fault Event
1

Inhibit Gate AND

Inhibit Condition
Gate

Fault Event
Undeveloped Basic
Event Event

OR Gate

Basic Event Fault Event

2 Transfer symbol

Enteract Home Hitchcock Beginning

L Hit h k T h M M hi R li bilit Th Sh ll C f A t li 17/4/00
 Enteract 2000, Texas, USA – Causal Tree Analysis in Condition Monitoring

5.0 MODIFIED CAUSAL TREE ANALYSIS FOR CONDITION MONITORING

The diagram below illustrates how the casual tree process is modified for condition
monitoring processes by replacing the “evidence” with “Influences, Symptoms, Severity’s,
and Trends”.

ACTION
(Happens)

Influences
PRIMARY Symptoms
EFFECT Severity’s
Trends

CONDITION
(Exists)

Influences
Symptoms
Severity’s
Trends

6.0 CAUSAL TREE ANALYSIS IN THE DIAGNOSTIC PROCESS

Essentially diagnostics is the process of determining the root cause based on the symptom set
present. The trend data for this process will be measured. The generic process is outlined
below.

VA DIAGNOSIS FLOW CHART

SEVERITY ASSESSMENT

ALL POINTS SEVERITY ASSESSMENT (NEERE)

IDENTIFY FREQUENCY COMPONENTS IN ALARM

FREQUENCY AMPLITUDE COMPARISON

APPLY DIAGNOSTIC RULES

DIAGNOSIS CONFIRMATION

Enteract Home Hitchcock Beginning

L Hit h k T h M M hi R li bilit Th Sh ll C f A t li 17/4/00
 Enteract 2000, Texas, USA – Causal Tree Analysis in Condition Monitoring

Enteract Home Hitchcock Beginning

L Hit h k T h M M hi R li bilit Th Sh ll C f A t li 17/4/00
 Enteract 2000, Texas, USA – Causal Tree Analysis in Condition Monitoring

Causal Tree analysis flowcharting can be used in the retrospective (diagnostic) sense in that
the method is used to look at the “CAUSED BY” relation ship between modes.

ACTION
(Happens)
CAUSED
By Influences
PRIMARY Symptoms
EFFECT Severity’s
Trends

CONDITION
(Exists)

Influences
Symptoms
Severity’s
Trends

7.0 CAUSAL TREE ANALYSIS IN THE PROGNOSTIC PROCESS

Essentially prognostics is the process of determining the time to failure based on the symptom
set present and possible future symptom sets. The trend data for future deterioration rates in
this case will be estimated. The generic process is outlined below.

VA PROGNOSIS FLOW CHART

DIAGNOSIS

PRIMARY RULE SYMPTOM SEVERITY & TREND

CORRELATING RULE SYMPTOM SEVERITY & TREND

SEVERITY CORRELATION

TREND CORRELATION

DETERMINE FAILURE MODE WITH THE FASTEST

DETERIORATION RATE AND ITS SYMPTOMS

COMPARE SEVERITY TRENDS WITH FAILURE

DEFINITION SET POINT

DEVELOP PROGNOSIS
(NO ACTION)

Enteract Home Hitchcock Beginning

L Hit h k T h M M hi R li bilit Th Sh ll C f A t li 17/4/00
 Enteract 2000, Texas, USA – Causal Tree Analysis in Condition Monitoring

Causal Tree analysis flowcharting can also be used in the predictive sense in that the method
is used to look at the “CAN CAUSE” relation ship between modes.

ACTION
CAN (Happens)
Cause
Influences
PRIMARY Symptoms
EFFECT Severity’s
Trends

CONDITION
(Exists)

Influences
Symptoms
Severity’s
Trends

8.0 MODIFIED EFFECT DIAGRAM ELEMENTS

In order to achieve the above modifications to the charting process the following element
block can be used. The example given can be either diagnostic or prognostic in the sense that
the severity indices are current, however, the trend data can either be current (diagnostics) or
projected (prognostics).

GEARBOX - SECONDARY ‘A’

Mode/Influence Tn S Tr

Rad. Bearing Wear V W

Load O M

Temp T W

Viscosity E

Clearance P

M/I = Mode & Influence

O = Oil P = Performance W = Warning
Tr = Trend Tn = Technique T = Thermal
S = Severity M = Moderate V = Vibration
E = Electrical Al = Alarm Ac = Acceptable

Enteract Home Hitchcock Beginning

L Hit h k T h M M hi R li bilit Th Sh ll C f A t li 17/4/00
 Enteract 2000, Texas, USA – Causal Tree Analysis in Condition Monitoring

The end result may look something like:

GEARBOX - SECONDARY ‘A’

GEARBOX - TERTIARY ‘A’
GEARBOX
Mode/Influence Tn S Tr
Mode/Influence Tn S Tr

Rod. Bearing Wear V W

Gear Wear V M

Load O M
Load O M

Temp T W
Position T M

Viscosity E Temp E

GEARBOX - PRIMARY
Clearance P Viscosity
Mode/Influence Tn S Tr P

Misalignment V Al

Soft Foot O

Foundation T W

Thermal Growth E

Ambient GEARBOX - SECONDARY ‘B’ GEARBOX - TERTIARY ‘B’

P Mode/Influence Tn S Tr Mode/Influence Tn S Tr

Thr. Bearing Wear V M Seal Wear V

Load O Al Vibration O Ac

T Al Position T Ac
Temp

Viscosity E Temp E

Clearance P P Ac

M/I = Mode & Influence

O = Oil P = Performance W = Warning
Tr = Trend Tn = Technique T = Thermal
S = Severity M = Moderate V = Vibration
E = Electrical Al = Alarm Ac = Acceptable

9.0 CONCLUSION

The above approach will not be practical in many routine situations, however, it has proven
useful in solving complex problems that also require an accurate prognosis for maintenance
or production planning processes.

The main intent of introducing this concept at the ISO level is to advise analysts of the
requirement during diagnosis and prognosis to consider the following:
1. Pre-existing failure modes and deterioration rates
2. The influence between failure modes;
3. The role of each failure mode in the initiation of further ones;
4. Future failure modes and deterioration rates;
5. The influence between future and existing failure modes;
6. The sensitivity of detection of the current monitoring techniques to existing modes;
7. The sensitivity of detection of the current monitoring techniques to future modes; and
8. The design and variation of monitoring strategies to suit all of the above.

Enteract Home Hitchcock Beginning

L Hit h k T h M M hi R li bilit Th Sh ll C f A t li 17/4/00