Predicting equipment failure is a crucial goal for businesses aiming to avoid unscheduled downtime and financial losses. If your current maintenance schedule is resulting in equipment loss, unexpected downtime, or high repair costs, it might be time to consider an alternative approach. In this article, we will explore four different maintenance schedules, outlining their pros and cons to assist you in selecting the most suitable schedule for your specific application.
- Run to Fail (RTF):
- Cost: $18/hp/year*
- Pros:
- Little planning involved
- Ideal for low priority/inexpensive equipment
- No upfront cost
- Cons:
- Can cause maintenance backlog
- Excessive downtime
- High cost associated with parts and labor when equipment fails
- Possible secondary equipment damage
- Inefficient use of staff resources
- Preventative Maintenance (PM):
- Cost: $13/hp/year*
- Pros:
- Extends life of assets
- Fewer unexpected breakdowns
- Cost-effective corrective repairs
- Audits easily passed
- Centralized recording of asset knowledge and work history with MCCS
- Cons:
- Maintenance creep if not on schedule
- Post-maintenance breakdowns if tasks are not completed correctly
- Labor-intensive
- Performance of possibly unneeded maintenance
- Predictive Maintenance (PdM):
- Cost: $9/hp/year*
- Pros:
- Uptime optimized as maintenance occurs only when necessary
- Data-driven and condition-based decision making
- Increased operational life of equipment
- Decrease in parts and labor cost
- Improved worker and environmental safety
- Cons:
- High implementation cost
- Advanced approach requiring specific skill set
- Savings potential not immediately apparent
- Reliability Based Maintenance (RBM):
- Cost: $6/hp/year*
- Pros:
- Maximizes reliability with individualized maintenance plans
- Maintenance prioritized according to equipment criticality
- Efficient program when implemented correctly
- Lowers cost by eliminating unnecessary maintenance
- Reduced probability of sudden equipment failures
- Focus on critical components and root cause analysis
- Cons:
- Requires significant time and monetary investment
- Not universally feasible due to resource constraints
- Cost-saving potential not immediately recognized by management
Reliability Centered Maintenance Hierarchy: The Department of Energy offers a helpful table to guide decisions on the type of maintenance suitable for various equipment in a reliability-based maintenance schedule.
While reliability-based maintenance often emerges as the most effective schedule, considering factors like manpower, budget, and equipment specifics will guide you in selecting the optimal maintenance schedule for your unique needs.
*Note: Figures are derived from an article titled “Pro-Active Maintenance for Pumps” by Piotrowski, J. (April 2, 2001), available at http://www.pump-zone.com.
