In this case study, presented at MainTrain 2017, highlights of an RCM analysis are reviewed including the unexpected outcome. The paper presents a powerful equation derived to calculate the number of inspections required to be performed within the interval between potential and functional failure. Sensitivity analyses are also performed to demonstrate how changes in certain data points affect the results of the analysis. The case study also demonstrates how the recommendation of the analysis was counter-intuitive to conventional thinking given a unique situation and highlights the importance of operational context.
Developing an optimal maintenance strategy often requires a systematic approach that includes a Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) analysis. To be successful, these analyses require involvement from many stakeholders and performing a number of pro-active actions to detect or prevent functional failure. Such actions can be unpopular at times and require a solid partnership between the reliability engineering function and Operations and Maintenance.
In this case study, highlights of an RCM analysis are reviewed including the unexpected outcome. When there are no safety or environmental consequences, the decision of whether to do an inspection is based on a cost-benefit analysis. This presentation discusses a case study recently performed during a reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) analysis at Cameco’s Port Hope Conversion Facility. The RCM analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of partially removing a calciner shell to perform a non-destructive examination (NDE) of the bottom of the shell. The RCM uses a specific equation derived to calculate the number of inspections required to be performed within the interval between potential and functional failure. The equation is generic and can be used for any situation.
One purpose of this presentation is to demonstrate the identification of the interval between potential and functional failure and how the equation is used so the audience can replicate the analysis in their own situation. Sensitivity analyses are also performed to demonstrate how changes in certain data points affect the results of the analysis. The second purpose of this presentation is to demonstrate how the recommendation of the analysis was counter-intuitive to conventional thinking given a unique situation and highlights the importance of operational context.
Jean-Pierre (J.P.) Pascoli, P.Eng, CMRP, CAMA
J.-P. is the director, physical asset management & reliability for Cameco Corporation, an uranium mining and nuclear fuel manufacturer based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Prior to this he was manager, engineering & maintenance at Cameco’s conversion facility in Port Hope, Ontario.
Before joining Cameco, J.-P. held a number of management positions, including manager, maintenance & reliability for an OSB producer in northern Ontario, and superintendent, maintenance services for a pulp and paper manufacturer based in eastern Quebec. Leading to these positions were a number of technical appointments with a nickel mining company at various sites in northern Ontario and Quebec, including senior projects engineer, and senior maintenance engineer.
J.-P. holds a degree in mechanical engineering from the Faculty of Applied Science at Queen’s University and is a graduate of the University of Toronto’s Physical Asset Management Program. He is a licensed engineer with Professional Engineers Ontario and Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, as well as a certified maintenance and reliability professional with SMRP and a certified asset management assessor (CAMA). He is an active board member of PEMAC currently serving as vice-president.
