-

Reliability Centered . -----· - : _,_

• - - - -:• i­
' I II' --- ; ; . . . , -. . . .

Maintenance=~~-~-
& -·---   • •• •• •-___
• . - - (-
_ -i-_
• - ~~--- ---
- - -

Maintenance Planning   • • - --- - ~- ,

 • .• •.• ~-
,.. -,----- -.,,/,

-
     .
Jordan Holt I I     --t. _
Director Performance Improvement __
:.---.--:___---_ -1 - I
II I    
Francesco Palmeri | CRE. PMP, PE ~-- - I --   - .
~-_j ....... ~I- I
Director Reliability Centered Maintenance .I I 
Planning -~·---·- - -· I I I    . '.
~~·-=-=---
--~-~¢~~1·: -_ I
I -I    
   .
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
. .-:- I  I   -
1 ~.-~~-~- "I 
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
~- - - I 
    -• -~--
    • - ~
-=
-
 Key References

a. Nowlan & Heap (Dec 1978), Reliability Centered Maintenance, United Airlines, San
Francisco, CA, USA.

b. John Moubray (1990), RCM2, Industrial Press Inc, NY, USA

c. SAE International Standard JA1011 (Aug 2009), Evaluation Criteria for RCM Processes

d. SAE International Recommended Practice JA1012 (Aug 2011), A Guide to the RCM
Standard

e. Marius Basson (2018), RCM3, Industrial Press Inc, NY, USA

Another very useful reference

a. Doc Palmer (1999), Maintenance Planning & Scheduling 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill, NY,
USA
2 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
 Historical Timeline of the Notable Developments in RCM
1960 MSG 1&2 developed
1980 MSG3
by aviation industry
1988 MSG3
MSG in Rev 1
aviation 1993 MSG3
2001 MSG3.2 001
Rev 2

2002 MSG3.2 002

• 1978 Nowlan & Heap report “RCM” published

The development • 1981 RCM applied outside aviation for the first time
of RCM
• 1986 MIL STD 2173 Navair 404 NES 45
• 1999 SAE JA1011 & SAE JA1012
Aladon 1990 John Moubray “RCM2”
RCM2/3
2004 “RCM3” Risk-based RCM

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

3 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Formal Definitions

What is Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)?

 Nowlan & Heap: A logical discipline for the development of scheduled maintenance
programs to realize the inherent reliability capabilities of equipment.

 RCM2: A process used to determine what must be done to ensure that any physical
asset continues to do what its users want it to do in its current operating context.

 RCM3: A process used to define the minimum required safe amount of maintenance,
engineering and other risk management strategies to ensure a tolerable level of safety
and environmental integrity and cost effective operational capability as specified in the
organization’s asset management standards.

4 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Steps of the RCM3 Process - - - - - -

The eight (8) steps of RCM3:

Step 1: What are the operating conditions? (Define the operating context)
Step 2: What are the functions & performance stds? (What do users want it to do)
Step 3: In what ways can it fail? (Define the failed states)
Step 4: What causes it to fail? (Determine failure causes & mechanisms)
Step 5: What happens when it fails? (Determine failure effects & consequences)
Step 6: What are the risks associated with each failure? (Inherent risks)
Step 7: What must be done to reduce intolerable risks to a tolerable level? (Proactive risk
management)
Step 8: Can anything be done to reduce tolerable risks in a cost effective way? (Default risk
management)

5 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Proactive Risk Management

Risk = Probability x Consequences

 In order to reduce an Intolerable risk to a Tolerable level, we have three (3)
choices. We could:

a. Reduce the Probability of occurrence through proactive maintenance,

b. Reduce the Severity of consequences through a one-time change

(modification, training, change in process or procedures),

c. If possible; do both (depending on the severity of the consequences).

6 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Proactive Task Options - - - - - -

 Predictive or condition-based maintenance

 Preventive maintenance – scheduled restorations

 Preventive maintenance – scheduled discards

 Failure finding tasks (only for protective devices)

 Functional checks

 One-time changes (Modification, Training, Procedures).

7 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Fundamentals of Maintenance & Reliability

Generation I – Maintenance / Design Philosophy

 Run everything to failure - repair or replace as required (Run to failure)

Generation II – Maintenance / Design Philosophy

 Assume all components have a useful life limit. Replace components before
they reach that useful life limit (Safe life)
 Add redundancy (Fail safe)

8 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Fundamentals of Maintenance & Reliability

Generation III – Maintenance / Design Philosophy

 Design for Reliability - only do maintenance when required (Damage tolerant)
 Introduce Condition Monitoring
 Adopt a Condition Based Maintenance approach

Generation IV – Maintenance / Design Philosophy

 Industrial Internet (IIoT)
 Making use of the real time data capture and wireless technology
 Integration with the Computerized Maintenance Management System

9 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Fundamentals of Maintenance & Reliability

Idealized bathtub curve model for the time to failure of a component

I I
I I
Hazard Rate

I I
Infant I I
Mortality I Useful Life I Wear Out
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I

Time

10 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

~
Fundamentals of Maintenance & Reliability

Idealized effect of Maintenance on the bathtub curve

Preventative
Maintenance

Infant Extension of
Hazard Rate

Useful Life Useful Life Wear

Mortality
Out

--------
11 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Time
Fundamentals of Maintenance & Reliability

Realistic effect of Maintenance on the bathtub curve

• Maintenance Reemergence of
• Overhauls the Infant
• Modifications Mortality
Region
Hazard Rate

~~-----------------------------------------

Time
12 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Fundamentals of Maintenance & Reliability

Idealized view of maintenance optimization

Best window
to perform
I I maintenance
Hazard Rate

I I

Infant I
I
I
I

Mortality I
I
Useful Life I
I
Wear Out
I I
I

I
I
I
I

~
I

Time
13 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Historical Failure Patterns
Research shows the following six failure patterns across many industries.
Originally performed by United Airlines and Boeing as part of the 747 program (MSG 1 & 2)

4% A )
Gene nera
rallllyy appliliees to r-------
1 11% - Might I
sim
impple items or comple lexx I benefit from II
2% B -
I - - -_ __ _ , _ /

iteems with domina

it inant
nt
I
limit on I
I
______age_II
I operating
._

faililure
fa ure modes.
5% C I
7% D ~- - Associa
Ass iatted with complex 1r-------
89% - I
equip
uipm
ment such as I No benefit

I from limit on
I
14 % E electro
roni
niccs, hyd
ydra
raul
ulic
ic ______age_
Ioperating
._

and pneum umaatic sys

ysttems.
14
68 % F b WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Explaining Useful Life

Average
Useful Life Lost Life

Mean Life

Time

15 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

What does all this mean for WMATA
Historically, WMATA relies on OEM maintenance program for the entire
lifecycle of our Assets’

 Time Based Maintenance is prevalent

 Little to No consideration of Operational Performance and/or Changes to our

Operating Context

 Little to No consideration of adopting a Condition Based Maintenance approach

 PM Compliance is consistently above 90% and yet over 40% of our maintenance
is corrective action
16 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Benefits of Adopting a Condition Based Maintenance Approach

Point where Failure Point where Failure Condition Monitoring allows you to
begins can start to be maximize the P-F Interval and move to a
Measured Proactive maintenance culture

\ /
P . - .- . - .- . ... ----
- ·- - ',
. - . - ·-·-· '!Ii, , .;::-,_ · -._ ·-·­ - .- .- . - .- .- .- . - .- .- .-
I
I
I
I ''
Oil Analysis
''
Condition

I
I
(Months)
I
I
I
Vibration
(Weeks - Months)
Acoustics (Weeks)
''
I
I
I
Thermography
(Weeks)
Heat
(Days)
Smoke
'•
\

F
I
I
(Secs)
I
I Point where
I Failure occurs
I
I
I
17 I P- F Interval
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Time
RCM3 Decision Diagram

15 H CIIHCIIMllOII TISITKHIW.I.Y
ET1 FEASIILUH IIOlml lOll'1

'Mii lhelaslc be,iillletn

lmHlethe ristand Dmlf
CllslleS>1h lm'lllf
'fl!llil. · 1het.iliue (E:(us
51,11:ml.crmmql!

____I
ET2 15 I SOIIDIUI IHTCIUllOII TISI
llOIIIWU FUSIIUINIWOffl DCIIIKP

ls111Ete,a fimbleage111t11R U­
isa,~d iool!ase · the o i1iaml W.11 lhelaslc be.ibletn
raiHlethelistand Dmlf
,1r1&11Ililjaf'3illft!Do mm'! C1151 les,1h rmlllf
bi IICIXD·aftm is;,age? lhe fl!llil. . 1het.ilull! (E:(us y·
t3!I esmll! ,item tom orig· I
DO 11ll SCIUOOlll) RlSTDltlTIOII TJ5I Y£5 NIO 51!a:mliCJdamql!
O'.llllffi:o!

Ep3 ISJUOUIIIJrul lllSUltDll51

THUIIICll.l.'J ~Wlll:LIEU:O WOfiU llOIIOOJ
Is lb!r1! adt!limtle ~w'hen!
l r!I r#fiii lrnjli=lljj§ i·PiiM: ii Ef&<d
lberl! is a1rajid i;cra.se •
lhemmlmlrlill pnihah 1tJ d
~ ffll!it failull!5o:GJ I
ET3 15 I SOIIDIUI DISOII WI
llOIIIWU FUSIIU • • wom DCIIIKP
iifb!rlhis;,;,gJ!!'
'Mii lhelaslc be,ii1Jle1D
lslhEte a d!fimbleage111tia:e U­

iri&llililj af'3il1n ! Do mm'!

re5 IIIDII afta isage?
! _..,. .,.,,
is,a,~ d inmme • 'the o i1iaml OOHlethelishnd Dmlf
<m1 leS>1h
lfl!llil0
1h1!
• 11!
!mil DI

I i

--
FORJ1JM11' lllllfillllE T.WSK, ruo
CUECI I.FA I.Oll'ER ORDIEil 1llSK J§
lTECUIIIUU!.f FWIII-U !II UWOlinl
---
001116.!f m , m.HlT Till M.llfl
(OST-IFFEClTIYE ROIJlTIIII lTMl. --
r9J

1 ---
- •-
18 •
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY ,Ull NE-TIIIME CUN GE,MAYBE Ol'Sl,RABU A ONE,-1i1IME (H1lN:GE MArt' Bf llfSIRl.flU
RCM & Maintenance Planning

**Analyze performance** of programs in place and loop back if further

refinement required

P.lannin.g
-~ rov_ ed M$lnt
.. Poll .
. & . ~8 Documeot
. cy_ · Worl( Work_
~ullrig_

*
19 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
RCM & Maintenance Planning
- - - - - -

RCM at WMATA
 Around 100 people trained via six 3-day sessions
 Six deep dives conducted with 7th planned
• Chosen based on reliability reporting
• Switches, track circuits, DC breakers, Track/third rail, Railcar pneumatic
system, Railcar doors
• Two weeks (about a week on proces and a second week on the system)
• Cross-section of maintenance, operations and engineering staff
 Working through implementing deep dive recommendations

20 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

 Common Myths about RCM

 “It’s too hard…”

 “It takes too long…”

 “It’s too expensive….”

 “That’s just an Aviation thing; it won’t work in our industry….”

 “That’s just another name for condition monitoring….”

21 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

 Summary

 RCM is a process (structured, scientific, repeatable, defendable)

 It is not new…….RCM has been around for over 40 years

 When applied correctly, RCM will provide the best maintenance

program for your Asset given the Operating Context & Risk
profile.

 Step 7 provides the pathway for addressing Risk proactively

22 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY