You are on page 1of 7

Why the Original Model of the P-F

Curve Is the Correct Model


OCTOBER 13, 2020OCTOBER 12, 2020
ASSET OWNERSHIP
bywmargolin

The P-F Curve is a term pioneered and used for the first time by John Moubray, the
founder of Aladon. A P-F Curve is a graph that illustrates the interval between a
potential failure and the functional failure of a physical asset.

Today, many versions other than the Aladon version are pictured as a D-I-P-F Curve and
include precision engineering (design integrity and precision maintenance), preventive
maintenance, corrective maintenance and even run-to-failure, such as the example
below.
The Aladon P-F Curve does not include the elements of D-I, and there’s good reason for
it. According to Marius Basson, the D-I-P-F Curve is technically incorrect and flawed,
and the P-F Curve is correct as is.

The P-F Curve represents (and illustrates) very specific failure characteristics and
defines the interval between the potential failure “P”, and the functional failure “F”. The
P-F Curve is only valid for assets or components that behave technically in a way where
the onset of failure is a random event and following the event provides the user with
a detectable warning that the functional failure is in the process of happening or about to
happen. The functional failure does not necessarily mean complete failure and is based
on performance standards as defined by the user.

Although many argue that the potential failure and functional failure is a function of
time, this is not true and therefore does not fit the characteristics of age related (use-
based) or time-based failures. “The events that may cause failure also have no direct
relationship to the design integrity or age of the equipment, making it technically
incorrect to try and position condition-based maintenance somewhere between design
and precision maintenance and preventive maintenance and run-to-failure on a combined
flawed D-I-P-F Curve,” says Basson. The P-F Curve is associated with failures that give
a warning or indication (potential failure condition) that the failure is in the process of
happening or about to happen and not associated design integrity, precision maintenance,
age related failure prevention or run-to-failure strategies. These are independent
strategies and should be treated as such.

According to Basson, “One thing I have seen on some curves that may be true is the cost
of predictive maintenance (and subsequent corrective maintenance) could increase as we
move closer to the Failed State (F). The predictive task has to be done more often
(shorter P-F Interval) and the time we have to minimize or eliminate the risk associated
with the failure is reduced. If the P-F interval is too short to prevent the failure then the
predictive maintenance is ineffective and it is in effect a run-to-failure strategy.  It is
generally true that the more time we have to plan and schedule corrective maintenance,
the more cost effective maintenance will be. However, it is also true that the further back
(away from F) we try to predict the failure, the more sophisticated the technology
becomes and therefore increasing the cost of the Predictive Task(s) and Technology.” 
The P-F curve does not represent preventive maintenance or Run-to-Failure
maintenance, and it cannot be used together!

D for design
The potential failure condition or position of “P” on the curve is not a function of the
design integrity, and “D” does not belong on the P-F curve. Reliability-Centered
DesignTM (RCD) or design integrity focuses on two important attributes (among other
things): quality and reliability. Quality is defined as “initial fitness for purpose” and
reliability is defined as the “continued fitness for purpose.” These attributes are
necessary and inherent to well-engineered and designed assets. The majority of failures
in modern plants and installations are event based and the design integrity has no or little
bearing on the events that cause the onset of failure. Therefore the “D” and does not
belong on the “P-F Curve.”

Quality is necessary to ensure that an asset or equipment will do what the user wants it to
do right from the start, and reliability is necessary to ensure the asset or equipment will
continue to function for as long as the user accepts under certain given conditions. Even
the most reliable designs and installations may be subject to the events that cause failure
and therefore would require monitoring or condition-based maintenance right from the
start. Startup failures are not only caused by poor design and improper installation,
making a “delayed P” not a technical correct depiction of the reality. Even with the
utmost care during design and installation, the event causing the failure could happen at
startup or shortly thereafter.

These events could strike at any time, right at startup or after many years of service,
regardless of the design integrity. These events and potential failure conditions are not
time-based or related to the number of cycles completed. The case can be made and it is
possibly true that a well-designed and properly installed asset will be less likely to fail
during startup, but it is simply not true that the events that may cause the failure are not
present or even that the failure will not happen, especially when we consider complex
systems. The D-I-P-F curve suggests that there is an “I-P Period” before the potential
failure condition and that “P” will be pushed out based on design integrity and
installation or precision maintenance (which by implication is a requirement and not a
precondition). In other words, the better the design, the more time before “P.” This is
misleading and incorrect.

I-P Interval (Precision Maintenance)


The “I-P interval” is not a precondition or relevant to the P-F interval as shown on the D-
I-P-F Curve. As mentioned earlier, “P” is not dependent on any precision maintenance or
design integrity, although that does not imply that it is not important. If “P” was
dependent on and following the design integrity and precision maintenance (D-I-P
interval), the airline jet engine manufacturers will not follow a predictive and condition-
based maintenance strategy right from the start but delay the monitoring (checking for
potential failures) until such time where they have reached the end of the D-I-P interval
(whatever that may be). The airline industry was the first to realize that “P” may strike at
any time.

Preventive Maintenance
Preventive maintenance (as defined by the RCM Standard) does not belong anywhere
close to or on the P-F Curve. It is technically incorrect to depict that fixed time
maintenance will follow condition-based or predictive maintenance. The characteristics
associated with a failure that would require a preventive maintenance strategy
(scheduled restoration or scheduled discard) are completely different to the failure
characteristics associated with predictive or condition-based maintenance. “Optimization
of maintenance tasks associated with many age-related failures can be achieved through
condition-based maintenance practices (e.g. tire and V-belt replacement), but it is two
separate strategies and the one does not follow the other,” says Basson. “The D-I-P-F
Curve incorrectly shows that once the P-F condition has been passed (or somewhere in
between there), a condition of Preventive Maintenance is entered. This is completely
wrong and totally misleading.”

Preventive maintenance may actually be considered ahead of condition-based


maintenance and not necessarily due to a missed opportunity to apply predictive or
condition-based maintenance as the D-I-P-F Curve illustrates.

Run-to-Failure
Run-to-failure or no scheduled maintenance is a risk management strategy associated
with tolerable failures or with failures where there is no detectable warning (potential
failure condition) or the P-F interval is too short to be of use and the failure is not age
related. In other words, condition-based maintenance and preventive maintenance is not
technically feasible or where the maintenance is not worth doing (cost of maintenance
exceeds the cost of the failure which it is meant to prevent).

Run-to-failure and the P-F Curve have nothing in common and should not be shown
where run-to-failure follows the P-F condition and the Preventive Maintenance
condition. 
Run-to-failure is a strategy that is not necessarily age related and should not be shown as
the end-of-life causing ancillary damage or catastrophic failure. Run-to-failure or no
scheduled maintenance does not mean “no planned maintenance.” The D-I-P-F curve
incorrectly depicts run-to-failure as a result of failed condition-based and preventive
maintenance strategies, causing equipment damage and catastrophic failure.

A run-to-failure strategy may be the only or most cost-effective strategy, therefore the
D-I-P-F Curve represents it incorrectly.

Corrective Maintenance 
Corrective maintenance is not a strategy, but the remediation associated with all risk
management strategies, whether predictive, condition-based, preventive, run-to-failure or
functional checks (failure finding). It also should not be associated with the P-F Curve or
any curve for that matter.

Design, precision maintenance and preventive maintenance more properly relate to the
different failure patterns instead of the P-F curve. In actuality, the DIPF curve is a
mixture of the P-F curve and the start-up and wear out failure patterns which is
confusing and incorrect. 
What is the P-F Curve?
The P-F Curve defines the period between the potential failure condition “P” (detectable
state) and the functional failure (failed sate) “F.” The P-F Interval is used to determine
the task interval or frequency of predictive or condition-based maintenance
(CBM). Predictive or CBM is mostly applied to statistically random failures although
optimization of scheduled preventive maintenance tasks can be achieved through
applying condition-based maintenance principles. “When a D-I-P-F Curve combines
design, precision installation and maintenance, with predictive, preventive and run-to-
failure strategies (all following one another on a timeline), it signifies that people do not
understand the true meaning of the P-F Curve or characteristics of failure,” says Basson.

You might also like