Government Buildings In Sad State Of Maintenance
By CT Hj Mahmod
Bandar Seri Begawan – Maintenance of over 6,300 government building blocks in the nation is sadly lacking.
These buildings have floor spacing of not less than 4.1 million square meters. But one significant construction process aspect that lacks observation and priority is the maintenance of these existing government buildings.
This was noted by Awg Hj Mohd Jumin Bin Hj Marsal, Permanent Secretary (Technical and Professional) at the Ministry of Development, yesterday at the opening of the seminar on "The Challenges and Awareness on Maintenance of Government Buildings", held at the Civil Service Institute (IPA) in Rimba Gadong.
Following up on the concerns on building maintenance expressed by His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam during His Majesty's numerous surprise visits to various government buildings, the seminar is aimed to promote awareness and understanding on the importance of building maintenance.
It is important that building maintenance is understood as a whole and in an orderly form in the aspect of management and building materials maintenance together with the joint support from the finance aspect, said the Permanent Secretary.
Awg Hj Mohd Jumin said, "Maintenance is needed due to the cause of wear and tear and latent defects which inevitably appears in the long run, for without taking action upon these damages, it will not only be a loss but will also pose a danger," adding that "prevention is better than cure".
Among the main causes of the lack of good maintenance mentioned by Awg Hj Mohd Jumin were the lack of understanding on what should be tackled, and the lack of focus and facilitation among ministries and departments with respect to the management of assets prepared by the government sector.
The Permanent Secretary stressed on the lack of understanding from the technical aspect in asset maintenance management as well as in finance management.
"In this view, asset maintenance should be jointly considered seriously and prioritised by all government departments and relevant agencies."
Awg Hj Mohd Jumin hoped that the seminar would be able to provide information on the aspect of routine maintenance, which is needed by each building and budget management.
Through joint co-operation from both the Ministry and users of departments, he also hoped that a Planned Maintenance would be produced and be more effectively, efficiently and pro-actively realized in order to extend the assets' life period in a well-maintained condition as well as to save money in the long term.
"This is to ensure that the clients' safety is not jeopardized," he added.
However, there are several Ministries and Departments that have taken their own initiatives in setting up their own respective maintenance management systems.
Such Ministries include Defense, Home Affairs, Education, Health as well as Culture, Youth and Sports. Departments include the Royal Brunei Police Department, University of Brunei Darussalam and the Brunei-Muara Department.
Also giving his opening remarks was the Director General of Public Works, Pg Hj Othman Pg Hj Omar, who highlighted that the 3-day seminar involves the discussion and understanding of problems commonly faced by the Departments and users of the buildings.
Meanwhile, in conjunction with the seminar, an exhibition on building maintenance works is also held at IPA, involving 13 companies and government organizations involving products relating to maintenance works in the country.
The exhibition runs till June 5 and is open to the public on working days from 9.30am till 5pm. -- Courtesy of Borneo Bulletin
Originally Published at Ask an Expert
Question: Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) Data
We are looking for MTBF data for mechanical and electrical plant systems equipment, specifically for chilled water and heating hot water equipment.
Answer:
I've received your request for failure data by way of Terry O'Hanlon at Reliabilityweb.Com. Terry's system is excellent for getting your questions answered and for keeping up to date on happenings in the world of reliability. Go to my reading list for reliability at http://www.barringer1.com/read.htm You will find many references with data as shown by the daggers marking references with failure data. Also you will find Weibull failure data at http://www.barringer1.com/wdbase.htm Of course like all engineering data, what you want you can never find! So, that means you'll have to do some same-as but scaling. In particular, I'd suggest a couple of books from my reading list: IEEE Std 500-1984 (you'll have to purchase this from the used book stores and it's becoming rare as hen's teeth) Non-electronic Parts Reliability Data 1995 from the Reliability Analysis Center For electrical data, get the IEEE Gold Book: IEEE Std 493-1997. Once you have your data, you can use the no-cost RAPTOR reliability block diagram model to find your system availability, reliability, and downtime details as mentioned at http://www.barringer1.com/raptor.htm Let me know if you need other information.
Regards,
Paul Barringer, P.E.
Barringer & Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 3985
Humble, TX 77347-3985, USA
Phone: 1-281-852-6810
FAX: 1-281-852-3749
Email: hpaul@barringer1.com
Web: http://www.barringer1.com
Originally Published at Ask an Expert
Question: Reliability Data and Distribution
I wonder when when we design a new item, how can we decide the reliability of this item? Because it is new, we have no any data related this item.
After I collect data, how can I decide which distribution (exponential, Weibull, normal dist etc...) is best? Although most real applications are not applicable to exponential distribution, because failure rate is assumed as constant. Can we use Weibull distribution for all kind of data? If yes, I can solve reliability problems by using MS Excel for exact time data. But left/right censored data is difficult to calculate in excel reliability parameters. Would you suggest how to use left/right censored data in excel.
Answer:
You need some history with similar parts if you are going to estimate reliability on a new design. The standard assumption is the exponential distribution, but you are correct that it does not exactly apply for most failure mechanisms. There are Weibull-based solutions and Lognormal-based solutions, but they require some data. Again, the best solution is to get history on similar equipment (tests or operational data on previous designs). You choose the best distribution for data based upon both the statistical analysis results and the physics of the failure mechanism of interest. You cannot use the Weibull distribution for all failure mechanisms, but it does apply to most of them. We have several good methods for choosing the correct distribution in our SuperSMITH(TM) software package. The reference for the analysis is THE NEW WEIBULL HANDBOOK(c) by Dr. Bob Abernethy. There are methods in that handbook that address the issues of right and left censoring. Please visit our website,www.weibullnews.com, on the internet for more information.
Respectfully,
Wes Fulton
Published at the Clovis News Web Site
By Darrell Todd Maurina
Personnel at Cannon Air Force Base have won many awards over the years, but until this year the trophy cases at Cannon never included the Daedalian Award for aircraft maintenance.
Maintenance isn’t just a routine function for fighter aircraft — even small problems can lead to massive equipment failures at the high speeds and severe stresses experienced during military maneuvers. Due to its importance, the maintenance group is Cannon’s largest unit.
Now the 27th Fighter Wing Maintenance Group has earned not just one but two Daedalian Awards. In November Cannon won recognition for having the best maintainers in Air Combat Command. On Thursday, officials learned Cannon’s maintainers have been named the best in the entire Air Force and will represent that service in competition to be recognized as the best in the entire Department of Defense. More...
Originally Published at Ask an Expert
Question: SPC Control Charts Vs. Weibull
What is the implication of using small sample sizes with control charts and how it will affect its accuracy. also does using Weibull distribution instead of normal one in the control charts will improve its prediction reliability?
Answer:
You have an excellent question. This subject of Weibull for control charts was reviewed at an American Society for Quality (ASQ) conference in Indianapolis about 2 years ago. My opinion on this is that for general feature measurements the normal distribution is expected to model the variability well. This would apply to such measurements for machined thickness, surface finish, hole diameter, feature location and so on. There is no need for another distribution for these cases. However, for measurements where the variability may be skewed (non-symmetrical) such as product life, flaw sizes, bend radii, filter efficiency, wind gust loads, etc., then another distribution may do a much better job for control charts. Other candidate distributions include Weibull, lognormal, and Gumbel (minimum or maximum). Dr. Bob Abernethy and I have developed several methods to increase the accuracy of estimates based upon small samples. There is Dr. Bob's reduced bias adjustment (RBA) for the maximum likelihood data fit, and my justified likelihood function (JLF) for the likelihood values and likelihood contours. There is also my Fulton Factor (FF) for modifying the standard likelihood ratio test for small samples. We are going to focus on small samples at the SAE Weibull User's conference coming up at the beginning of March in Detroit at the SAE World Congress and Exhibition. Please visit our website,http://www.weibullnews.com, on the internet for more information.
Respectfully,
Wes Fulton
Originally Published at Ask an Expert
Question: Cost of TPM
How can I calculate (know) cost to implement TPM in my factory?
Answer:
In response to your question on cost of TPM implementation, I can share the following:
My experiences at implementing TPM since 1987 and in particular as a consultant to hundreds of plants since 1991 has shown that an expected start-up cost can be about 10% increase in training and about 15 % increase in maintenance costs for the first two years if a 10% plant coverage is attained by year one (20% by year two). This investment goes down significantly if only a couple of machine centers or units are piloted. In fact, if the desire is slow integration the first year (1-3 pilots only), maintenance costs and training costs may be slight and can often be covered with only slight budget overruns.
One of the ways to calculate this is the impact of taking critical equipment (could be 25-30% of the process) to 85-90% Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) [The Availability Rate X The Performance Rate X The Quality Rate]).
It is not beneficial to calculate OEE for an entire facility but for key processes or equipment (bottle neck or critical). Closing the gap between a current level of 55% to the desired 85-90% can be calculated as additional capacity. It may not be in the best interest to focus TPM on all plant equipment because the returns may not be there (cost to implement TPM could be greater than the returns from improvement).
You need to convert the OEE to dollars (pesos, yen, marks,etc.). One way is to take your existing OEE and break it into the three category of losses and show the gap between current and target. For example, say you have current OEE-Availability at 60% and you know that the target is 90% (95% if you have a continuous process). You calculate the units you could run if you had the extra 30% available (difference between 90% and 60%). This is, of course, assuming it is capacity constrained, in other words, you could sell that extra 30% capacity. If not, you have to start factoring (gets messy-but doable). We also have calculate the increased volume from reducing the top five minor stoppages on specific equipment (if your equipment is impacted by jams, hang-ups, and short stoppages).
You go through the speed or Performance losses as well as the Quality losses to estimate "How many more units could I produce" if I were at 95% Performance (Designed Speed) and 99% Quality. This is best done by equipment--not by plant. However, you could get real refined and show the estimated cost of quality if you are showing quality-related losses. What does how rework, scrap, returns, lost opportunity cost us.
Look at your constraints or bottlenecks to calculate the value of removing those constraints. If you could run another 10,000 units and each could generate one dollar of revenue, you would net an additional 10,000 pounds for that period. Your per unit cost would be reduced which could allow you to lower your price and sell more units using the extra capacity.
Another way is to forgo capital investment. Let's say you could, with TPM, extend the life cycle by three years for all 14 widget makers. The capital replacement per widget maker is 30,000 pounds. You can calculate the total cost of capital (actual + interest + lost opportunity) for that 30,000 pound maker and show the savings of capital investment avoidance for those three years for those 14 makers.
We also use Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) as a savings point to show reduced costs from increasing the time between failures. This is very equipment and component specific but another way to calculate the benefits.
There are many other cost saving opportunities (life cycle cost reduction, unplanned maintenance loss, reduced staffing cost by eliminating the need for a third shift, etc.).
The major variables are the current condition of your equipment (how well maintained it is), your people (how skilled and knowledgeable they are) and the persistence your leadership will take in making this work. History has shown that about 25% of the companies who start TPM will have major successes. Another 25% will have fairly good successes but because of competition from other programs, lack of constancy of effort and the lack of persistent leadership will only make it a modest success. The other 50% will fail in the first 18 to 24 months.
It is hard to calculate the value from improved morale, better relationships between maintenance and operations, management and hourly as well as the feeling of pride and sense of accomplishment from making the equipment and work areas look better and run better. But this does have value.
Return on Investment can be calculated over a five year period with an expected reduction in maintenance costs of 25-30% and conversion costs (manufacturing costs) 20-25%. Returns the first year are low (investment year), if any, but begin to increase years two-five. We have many documented case studies validating these returns. I hope this helps a little.
Preston Ingalls
President
Marshall Institute
Originally Published at Ask an Expert
Question: Control Valve Reliability
I am trying to set up a control valve condition monitoring system at the refinery and I was wondering if you could place me in the direction of information sources, people doing the same and web sites that may be useful to my needs.
Answer:
We've been in many facilities and set up condition monitoring programs for all types of equipment, control valves have not been included in any of these programs. We see primarily preventive maintenance being done on pressure relief devices. We visualize your control valve inspection program requiring the following: 1) define the control valve components to be monitored-controls (instrumentation), actuator and valve. 2) identify the failure modes for each component (Use your plant specific & industry data and manufacturers history) 3) determine the NDE technique best suited to monitor each failure mode. 4) set up the inspection routes & frequencies. We suggest several websites for reference: www.flowbiz.com/standards.htm - Many links to associations www.ultrapipe.com -Valve inspection software a www.hpcnet.com-Training seminars We have done failure analyses on systems where the actuator position and not the valve position was monitored. For example the key came out of the actuator drive to the valve. The actuator closed, the instrumentation in the control room indicated the valve was closed and in reality the valve remained open.
Good Luck,
Steve Barber
Originally Published at Ask an Expert
Question: MIL-STD for MTBF
I remember there being a military handbook or standard that was used to calculate the MTBF of a component like a capacitor for use in an
aircraft. It might have been MIL-STD-2173. I am interested in calculating the MTBF of a super-capacitor for an aircraft or vehicle
application. Could you suggest where to look? Is MIL-STD-2173 a possibility?
Answer:
Thank you for your question to Reliabilityweb.com. You are probably thinking of MIL-HDBK-217, "Reliability Prediction of Electronic Equipment". The U.S. Department of Defense's web page about this document is: http://131.82.253.19/eAccess/index.cfm?ident_number=53939 This page includes links where you can download PDF files containing the basic document and recent changes. Before beginning your download, you should be aware that the size of the basic document is 15 MB, and the sizes of the two change documents are about 3 MB and 6 MB. You can also purchase software packages advertised to help you perform these calculations from a number of companies. You can find these companies by doing a web search, at sites such as or on the following words: "MIL-HDBK 217 reliability". (I have not used any of the software and cannot recommend any.) The document you remembered, MIL-STD-2173(AS), now the cancelled MIL- HDBK-2173(AS), once governed the Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) program in U.S. Naval Aviation. (It has been replaced by "Naval Aviation RCM Process Guide Manual", NAVAIR 00-25-403.) Despite the presence of the word "Reliability", RCM is not Reliability Engineering and does not routinely compute the MTBFs of components such as capacitors.
Sincerely yours,
Dana Netherton, President
Athos Corporation
tel: (314) 308-7983
fax: (314) 439-1333
e-mail: Netherton@AthosCorp.Com
http://www.athoscorp.com
Originally Published at Ask an Expert
Question: ALT and HALT and HASS
What is the difference between ALT and HALT and HASS?
Answer:
ALT stands for Accelerated Life Testing, while HALT stands for Highly Accelerated Life Testing. HALT is more severe, with the idea that HALT takes less time. Do these during development. Find all the ways that units can fail; strengthen each failure mode, usualy at little cost, and keep on testing. HASS stands for Highly Accelerated Stress Screening, a more severe version of ESS, Environmental Stress Screening, intended to take less time than ESS. Do these after production, to insure that weak units don't reach customers (ultimate user or one's own final assembly). HASS and ESS severities are much lower than ALT and HALT severities.
Wayne Tustin
Please send all e-mail to tustin@equipment-reliability.com
Equipment Reliability Institute
http://www.equipment-reliability.com
http://www.vibrationandshock.com
1520 Santa Rosa Avenue
Santa Barbara, California 93109 USA
phone/FAX 805/564-1260
Ask your own questions here
Originally Published at Ask an Expert
Question: Reliability Analysis
Following reliability analysis, a value of 0.956 was obtained. Does this mean that out of a population of N items 95.6% will survive the expected mission time?
Answer:
the answer is yes, assuming the reliability analysis was conducted at that mission time..and was correctly completed.
Dr. Robert B. Abernethy
536 Oyster Road
North Palm Beach FL 33408 4328
phone/fax 561 842 4082
weibull@worldnet.att.net
http://www.weibullnews.com
http://www.barringer1.com
Ask your own questions here
Take a few moments to discover the benefits of using a RCA software to speed up your RCA investigation and also make it more accurate and fact based. This Powerpoint® presentation is brief and to the point as not to waste your valuable time. It's worth a look!
RCI Article: What is RCA? Separating the Tools from the Methodologies
Robert J. Latino, Reliability Center, Inc.
If we have heard it once, we have heard it a million times – “let’s do a RCA on that failure.” The problem is that phrase will mean something different to everyone that says it. What is a RCA? That is a question that even the notable experts cannot agree on. With all of this “chaos”, how do we make any progress?
originally published at FoodProductionDaily.com
Buhler has developed a comprehensive system to help manufacturers manage the life cycle of their plant. The company argues that in the long term, good planning and predictive maintenance is much less expensive than poorly thought-out acquisitions and unplanned maintenance.
Buhler’s Global programme helps customers decide which production system to invest in, how implement it and how to maintain and enhance its value. Buhler says that once a customer has decided to spend money on a new machine or production system, the programme can help them to develop different plant concepts to show the advantages and disadvantages of the various machines.
by Rene T. Domingo
Inquirer News Service
MANUFACTURING enterprises aiming for competitiveness through excellence would want to build and upgrade their plants and factories to "world class" status. But what is a world-class factory (WCF)? What is world-class manufacturing?
There is no standard way of grading and benchmarking factories globally.
While awards and certification programs rate and categorize company performance, these are focused on one performance indicator, too broad to be useful in rating factories, or very industry-specific. Moreover, many of these rate companies rather than factories.
For instance, ISO 9000, Deming, Juran and Malcolm Baldrige Awards, Six Sigma just focus on quality management systems, ISO 14000 on environment management systems, and TPM (Total Production Maintenance) Award on maintenance, housekeeping and overall equipment efficiency or OEE. These programs are open to all industries, primary processing, manufacturing as well as service, and have practically the same criteria and standards regardless of the industry of the applicant or nominee.