*E...

Society of Petroleum Engineers

lADC/SPE 39333

Computerized Maintenance Programs: The Drilling Industry Requirements.

Ian Murdoch, Planned Maintenance Superintendent, Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc.
IADC Member

CopW”ght 1998, lADC/SPE Mlling Confwonse

fiendly, would provide us with information w required and
This paper was pfewmd for pres~tion d the 1W8 lAOC/SPE Drilling conf.ar~e held in with the help of a computer specialist, could be developed to
Dallas, Texas M M8rch 1998.
meet our specific needs. At every stage of the development of
This papr WMS selected fw ~eserddlm by ●n lADC/SPE Progmm Committee follMng
retiew of information contdnad In an aktracf wMffled ~ the •ti~s). Contents of fie
the program, simplicity w the key issue.
paper, as ~esented, have not kn
Contractors or the Sosiety of Ptidw
mvlewd ~ tie tifl~l
Sngine=
Mcosiation of Ddlling
●nd ●re subject to correction by tie
As a company our basic goal was to maintain our equipment
atior(s). The mat8dd, 8s ~astid, does w necessarily reflect any @fIon of the LADC w in first class condition, with minimum downtime. Our
SPE, their ofiic~, or me.mb.srs. Pa- ~es~d ●t the lAOC/SPE meetings ●re suqecf to
FuMicatlon review by Edtodd Committees of tie IADC and SPE. Electronic repoducfion, program was to focus on the major drilling equipment, with
dsfdticm, w stiage of any part of this W~ fm commercial purposes *M the Men
consent of the society of Potrdwm Engine.srs Is ~dd~ed. Pmisdon to m-e in pdnt
the safety and comfort of our ofihore personnel a high
is resticfed to an ●bet of not mwe ban 300 words: illustidlons may not be copied. 7he priority. Maintenance instructions and frequencies of
abtiacf mwt ctiin conspire acHedgmOnf & whore and by tiom the wpOr ws
pres~ed. Wti Lihrim, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Ritiardson, 7X 75083383S, U.S.A., f= inspections were based on manufacturers’ recommendations
01-9724524435.
and gocd engineering principals. Where possible, w would
ma the instructions to take into account our own
Abstract knowledge of how best to service the equipment, gained from
With the tremendousincrease of drilling activity over the last years of operating exWrience.
couple of years and the mergers that have cccurre~ it has We chose a ~S-based program that had been developed for
become vital that carefil consideration b given when the US Navy and hired the Company who developed it as
choosing computerized sotie suitable for the Planned consultants to help us tailor the progrmns for our rigs. The
Maintenance Program. fact that we had a computer ~cialist who could modify the
The software needs to be simple enough so that Maintenance program to suit our needs would later prove invaluable. In the
Personnel are comfortable using the program, and rdust long term w would also have the ability of maintaining the
enough to operate without so-e specialist support, program “in-house” which muld allow us to make changes
particularly when operating on the other side of the gl~. to the program, updating the fleet more rapidly. In order to
The software has to be flexible enough to encompass the give us this ability, our contract specfied that the source code
Classification/Certification Societies, Safety Case @.C.R] would be delivered to us once the initial development was
and the ever increasing interest being shown by our complete.
Customers. Our initial plan was to have a more or less standardized
program for the whole fleet so as to get the program on the
Introduction rigs as fast as possible. With the movement of persomel
This paper outlines the work involved in setting up a around the fleet, standardization of the program was very
computerized planned maintenance program on forty-four beneficial for rig personnel as well as the Company. It w
offshore drilling rigs during a three year pericd. The important to have the rig crew working with the program,
problems encountered would generally be the same for any finding shortcomings and advising us accordingly so that we
contractor, regardless of the type of program and sotie could enhance the program. @rating a standardized
chosen. There is a tremendous variety of computerized program worldwide was also a benefit when third party
maintenance programs available, none of which have been audits, regulatory inspections and the operators reviemd the
developed particularly for the offshore market, Most are for contents of the progrmn.
production facilities or marine applications. The programs We had three major goals for the program which wre as
generally offer far more features than are required and do not follow:
cater to the unique mode of operation of the drilling rig. Our 1) The software had to be simple to use as the majority of the
view was to look for a program that was relatively user- offshore personnel had never worked with computers. Their

365
2 @anMurdoch]
input and participation was vital to the success of the
program. Entering information for reports on preventive,
corrective md breakdown maintenance had to be simple and
straightfomd, without having to devote valuable working
hours typing in reports. The extraction of these reports muld
atso have to be easily obtainable and would also convince the
rig personnel of the value of the program as they saw the
build up of equipment maintenance histories.
2) At the Corporate Headquarters in Houston (hereafter
referred to as the Houston Oflice) our interest w very much
on the equipment histories, tracking outstanding
maintenance, parts costs and time spent carrying out the
maintenance, We understood that it would be several years
before we would be able to constructively analyze equipment
performance in relation to oprating costs.
3) The program had also to meet the demands of the
regulatory bodies on a worldwide scale. This meant that the
program would have to b flexible enough to accommodate
changes required by various Government Agencies and the
laws of the country. With the higher day rates our customers
are now encountering they too are taking an increasing
interest in the contents of the program,
Setting Up The Program.
We decided from the start that we had to get the program on
the rigs as quickly as possible and provide basic training to
the rig crews. The oWrating manual for the software was
rather unsuitable for training of the rig crews so m develo~d
our own manual. This consisted of a basic step by step guide
through the program, indicating the keys to press, what
appeared on the screen and how to enter the maintenance
histories. Instructions were also given on how to look after
the program and what to do in the event of program errors.
These instructions ran to three pages and w supplemented
by an eight page document which covered the complete
operation of the program. As with any new database, the
initial input of data was given top priori~. Once this was
achieved the crew woul~ through their own interest,
investigate the program more thoroughly. It is common
knowledge that, when confronted with a large instruction
booklet, people tend to never read it. Each rig was visited
twice to carry out on-site training, generally this was
sufficient, All Department Heads were trained in the
operation of the progrmn and actively participated. The
OIM/Drilling Superintendent was responsible for ensuring
that the maintenance program was carried out. It was not easy
for some of the rig hands as they had never o~rated
computers before, but with perseverance and help from the
Houston ~lce they eventually overcame their initial
reservations about the program.
At the Houston ~ce we also had each rig program installed
on our own database. To maintain this database, m efficient
means of transferring the data from the rig to the Houston
~lce therefore had to be developed. Twice a month the data
[39333]
was downloaded onto a floppy disk and sent in the rig mail to
the Houston ~ce. A data transfer program was developed
which was fast and easy to use. To ensure that a virus was not
intrtiuced into the Houston database, antivirus sowe
would scan any diskettes before the data was imported into
the system. Any drunaged files were also indicated kfore the
start of the import of the data. A further check on the
program was the indication of “Abnormal Ends”. This would
alert us to how the program w oprating on the rig. This
feature showed how ofien the program on the rig had been
exited incorrectly. Initially we believed this muld identfi the
rig crews which were shutting down the program incorrectly,
but m discovered that it muld flag operating problems with
the rig’s computer. Generally the problem was caused by
changes in the computer’s ~stem confi~ration file
(CONFIG.SYS). We could rectifi this problem over the
telephone by directing the user to m- the confi~ration
file. “
A firther feature that was introduced w the use of a “Work
Order Numbr”. Every time a maintenance action m
entered into the program it was assigned a unique number.
This feature allowed us to look at all the maintenance carried
out during a specific period. In other words every time a disk
was sent into the Houston ~ce all the data on the disk
represented the work that had been completed during the
previous two weeks on the rig.
Initially the “Work Order Num&r” w used in the Houston
~ce as a means of reviewing the maintenance history by the
Mechanic@lectrical Supervisors but as the program grew
larger and larger tfis w impractical. On an average month
w would have between four and five thousand reprts which
had to be reviewed by our Mechanical and Electrical
Supervisors.
We therefore develo~d a review facility which would ensure
that all the data could be easily and quickly revieti. This
included parts cost, hours of labor, unscheduled dowtime
and comments. See Fl~re 1.
The reports could be split up and reviewed by cr~ so that the
Electrical SupeMsor could review all the reports entered by
the Electrician or Electronics Technician. The review
program was made up of a split screen as w were interested
not ordy in the comments but also parts costs, toti man hours
to complete the work and any unscheduled downtime. The
Supervisor enterd his initials and the date he revie~ the
report at the top of the comments section. Any reports which
indicated that more itiormation or fiitiher investigation was
required would be treated as “open” and would require a call
to the rig by the su~rvisor to see what it would take to
complete it. Once the report was complete and reviewed it
would not show up in the review fmility again but would
remain in the histo~’
,.., “&ta
,., files.
Program Developments.
Operating a large, 84 Megabyte database requires special
[39333] [Computerized Maintenance Progrm6
safeguards built mto the program to ensure that the data does
not get corrupted. This is always pssible, either from a
corrupt diskette coming in from a rig or from a numbr of
other sources, The program in the Houston Office which held
databases for all the rigs was on a network where it could h
accessed by multiple users, Data corruption would sometimes
occur due to program bugs, server crashes, or users exiting
the program incorrectly. To ensure that the data and the
program was kept in good order it w necessary to run data
integrity checks on a re~lar basis. This is like tidying up a
filing system. The data integrity check would scan and
reindex the huge database, and could take several hours and
could bring the network to a crawl. Also, there - no way to
lock users out of the system while we completed these
processes, We would not@ the users not to access the
program until firther notice, but occasionally someone would
not get the word and would get on the system which would
result in a conflict with the integrity check. We therefore
decided that it was not practical to do this on the network. We
set up a standalone computer 3s our ‘%orking” computer. We
would copy the network version to this computer, lock the
users out of the network system (by renaming the .EXE files
on the network), download data from the rigs and run the
data integrity checks, Once w decided that the transfers and
data checks had been completed satisfactorily, we would
upload the data back to the network
We did experience problems on a few of the rigs, most of
which were caused by a shortage of memory in the rig’s
computer. Users would load additional programs onto the
rig’s maintenance computer. The install routine would
sometimes change the computer’s system configuration
(CONFIG.SYS), which would adversely tiect the
maintenance program. We also discovered that entering the
program from Windows via a Windows icon instead of at the
DOS command prompt could lead to data corruption. On a
few occasions power failures would result in some of the files
being damaged, but this was generally a rare occurrence.
Uninterruptable power supplies soon &came a basic
requirement.
One of the biggest developments that we are incorporating
into the Planned Maintenance Program is the “Inspection
Audit Program” .The Inspection Audit Program is designed
to ensure that, on an annual basis, a thorough equipment
condition inspection of the rig electrical and mechanical
systems is perfomed. Currently, the documentation and
reporting process is highly labor intensive with the final
report developed in a hard-copy onIy format. This includes
manually documenting the results by editing an existing
inspection guide in Microsoft Word, pictures taken on the rig
are developed and manually pasted into the report,
deficiencies and action items are tracked manually (as
opposed to being tracked as corrective actions as part of the
planned maintenance program) and, unless a previous report
is taken along, there is no access to previously identified
367
The Drilling Industry Requirements] 3
problems. Preparing the final report can take between three
and four weeks.
The Inspection Audit Program is designed to simplify both
the inspection process and final report development. The
Planned Maintenance Program is used as the data source
since it already includes the rig equipment information and
has the built in facilities to store the inspection guides,
inspection history, and Work Order module to track
corrective actions [“End of Month Report” which is
discussed later in this paper]. The Inspection Audit Program
is written to automatically extract the inspection information
from the Planned Maintenance Program (including step-by-
step inspection guides, inspection histories, and equipment
corrective maintenance histories) and loaded onto a laptop
computer that the Supervisor takes to the rig. The Inspection
guide can be printed to allow the Supervisor to have a hard-
copy version to both aide the inspection and to record
comments. These comments are then to be recorded into the
Inspection Audh Program Software. The software will also
support the ability to download pictures taken using a digital
camera and stored along with the comments. Corrective
Work Orders can also be generated with a hard copy printed
as a crew action item and an electronic copy generated for
import into the Planned Maintenance Program to allow the
Work Order to be tracked until completion and stored as part
of equipment history. Using a laptop computer, a digital
camera, and a portable color ink-jet printer, the entire
inspection can be performed, documented, and the final
report delivered witiln a few days of performing the
inspection.
Smaller developments have ken the introduction of Subsea
‘Znd of Well” tracking program. The work to be carried out
on the BOP at the end of a w1l is very extensive and there is
usually not enough time to complete the entire program By
being able to generate a report which shows the date the
maintenance actions were last completed the Subsea engineer
can plan his “End of Well” workload in advance, ensuring
that adequate spares are onboard.
Results
It has been almost three years since we sent the first program
offshore and it is only now that we are seeing the benefit of
our labors. It has taken a while for our offshore personnel to
become familiar with the program and I believe that they are
now using the program to its fill potential. We have made
over thirty significant changes to the program, many of which
were suggested by rig prsonnel. Evew upgrade is
accompanied with information but the improvements. As
we have developd reports for tracking outstanding or
deferred maintenance we have advised the rigs of these
features and part of their duties is to produce these reports at
the end of every month. These reports are dscussed among
the Heads of Department and any outstanding maintemmce is
now a priority item which will be scheduled for the coming
4 flan Murdoch] [39333]

month. This same report is prcduced in the Houston tice
for Senior Management, @rations Managers and the
Maintenance Department. This gives each Operations
Manager a clear picture of the status of the maintenance
program on his rig. This report is a line-by-line listing of the
outstanding deferred, outstanding corrective, corrective and
breakdown maintenance actions
With the tremendous amount of information being entered
into the database w started to look for the most effective way
of presenting this information to Senior Management. We
could produce all our reports from our Maintenance Program
but these were all either numbers, technical reports or
detailed listings of maintenance actions ~nd of Month
Report]. Management wanted be able to tell at a glance
exactly how the rigs were performing so we decided
graphically displaying this information using bar charts
generated via Microsoft Powrpoint sotie was the easiest
and most imaginative way of presenting the maintenance
program status
The following is a brief exphmation of what the graphs
represent:
deferred unperformed and missed categories.
The bottom graph “Ocean Baroness Preventive Maintenance
Summary” is the same type report but for one spectic rig.
Conclusion
While we have experienced considerable growing pains
during the instrdlation and &velopment of the program, we
find we are now receiving timely and accurate information
horn the database. With this information we can reduce
downtime and maintenance costs which w part of our initial
goals. The program has given us the ability to analyze and
produce technical reports which we had not considered
possible at the onset. The refinements to the program have
met with the approval of our Customers and Third Party
Audi@.

Figure 1
This figure shows a typical maintenance report, and this is
how it appears in the history review facility. All the im~rtant
information we require is on the screen. Once the Supervisor
has reviewed the report and no firther action is required, by
holding down the “AIt” key and pressing the letter “R” the
word “Reviewed” appears on the report along with the
Supervisors initials and the date,

Figure 2
The top graph ‘Tleetwide - Maintenance Actions” shows the
total maintenance actions for the whole fleet, fourty four rigs
over a ten month period. The relationship between preventive,
corrective and breakdown maintenance can b seen,
The bottom graph “Ocean Voyager - Maintenance Actions” is
the same type report but for one specfic rig.

Figure 3
The top graph “Fleetwide - Maintenance Costs” shows the
total maintenance cost for the whole fleet over a ten month
period. The relationship between preventive, corrective and
breakdown maintenance costs can be seen.
The bottom graph “Ocean Valiant - Maintenance Costs” is
the same type report but for one specific rig.

Figure 4
The top graph ‘~eventive Maintenance Fleet Summary”
shows the total preventive maintenance actions scheduled for
the whole fleet over a ten month period. The relationship
between the scheduled actions and what was wtually
completed can easily be seen. The reason why all the
scheduled actions were not completed is indicated by the

368
 .. .. —..

Typical History Review

From History Review Utility

,.

( Figure 1 )

369
 Fleetwide- Maintenance
From Jan. 1997
,.
4000

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

❑ Breakdown ❑ CorrectiveQ Preventive

Ocean Voyager - Maintenance Actions

From Jan. 1997
I’i-c\c]\li\ c
. ..-.- ..... . ... .. ...

Breakdown
EquipmentFailure
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Q Breakdown = Corrective ~ Preventive

( Figure 2 )

370
 ——

Fleetwide - Maintenance Costs

From Jan. 1997
Cost Based On Information Provided By Rig

$600!OO0
+

.
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

$2,775,970
$3,152,870
$1,489,545

Ocean Valiant - Maintenance Cost

From Jan. 1997
$180,000

$160,000

$140,000

$120,000

$Ioo,ooo

$80,000

$60,000

$m,ooo
t Breakdown
$20,000 EquipmentFailure
$0
JAN F= MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
)
( Figure 3 )
371
 . .... . . . . ..—.

Preventive Maintenance Fleet Summary

January to October 1997

‘:~.:ze P,M.’S Performed

Deferred
— Not Completed During
_ Scheduled Month

1600 — Unperformed
.,_. . . ..-.—.—
— Not Compteted At All
1000
Will Not Be Done Before
600 Next D{~e Dnte
o
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG S EP OCT Missed
Monthly’s Not Performed
m Scheduled m Completed RI Deferred m Unperformed m Missed

Ocean Baroness
Preventive Maintenance Summary
From January 1997

JAN FEE MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AU= Skr v= I

❑ Scheduled m Completed m Deferred ❑ Unperformed m Missed

( Figure 4 )
372