Guideline SRCM TR 109795 v2

EPRIGEN 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10416, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

Streamlined Reliability-Centered
Maintenance (SRCM)
Implementation Guidelines

TR-109795-V2
Final Report, December 1998
Project Manager
R. Pflasterer
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in
accordance withSection 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with
Section 734.7 of the U.S. ExportAdministration Regulations. As a result
of this publication, this report is subject to only copyrightprotection and does
not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the
export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices
embedded in thedocument prior to publication.
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK
SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY EPRIGEN, INC. NEITHER EPRIGEN, THE ELECTRIC POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI), ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW, NOR
ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS PACKAGE IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRIGEN OR ANY EPRIGEN REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF
THIS REPORT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT
Erin Engineering & Research, Inc.

ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this package should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins Drive, P.O.
Box 23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (925) 934-4212.
EPRI is a registered service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 1998 EPRIGEN, Inc. All rights reserved.
iii
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Erin Engineering & Research, Inc.
2033 N. Main Street, Suite 1000
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Principal Investigator
G. Toomey
This report describes research sponsored by EPRIGEN.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the
following manner:
Streamlined Reliability-Centered Maintenance (SRCM) Implementation Guidelines, EPRIGEN,
Palo Alto, CA: 1998. Report TR-109795-V2.
v
REPORT SUMMARY
Following EPRIs philosophy of using and developing existing technology where it
makes economic sense, EPRIGENs Plant Maintenance Optimization Target has
adopted a reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) process called streamlined RCM or
SRCM that maintains and improves all the basic steps of traditional RCM. SRCM
provides a utility a cost-effective process to determine the optimum maintenance
strategy for plant systems and equipment based on their importance to business
objectives.
Background
Deregulation and increasing competition have prompted a drive to control operation
and maintenance (O&M) programs among electric utilities. For fossil-fired plants,
controlling O&M includes the transition from reactive maintenance to a
preventive/predictive maintenance strategy. To help its member utilities make the
transition and become more competitive, EPRIGEN has initiated development efforts
under the Plant Maintenance Optimization Target (Target in 1998 and Target 75 in
1999). These efforts are intended to help utilities reduce production costs by developing
and demonstrating cost-effective maintenance methods. This project is part of that
program.
Objectives
To develop an integrated program based on RCM methodology that assists a utility in
cost-effectively developing and maintaining an optimized maintenance program.
Approach
Volume One of this report, already published, described the development status of
SRCM for fossil plants at the end of 1997. For Volume Two of this report, the project
team compiled guidelines for the implementation of SRCM. The guidelines include an
outline of the SRCM process, an account of current utility participation, and a
description of SRCM project tools currently available or under development. The team
also analyzed the benefits of SRCM at three utilities.
Results
By using SRCMs logical step-by-step approach to determine the maintenance strategy
for plant/systems, utilities are able to document the basis for the maintenance program,
more effectively manage change to the plant maintenance program, and focus resources
vi
on doing the right task at the right time on the right equipment. This report describes
how all of the SRCM tools and processes work together and provides information on
the status of utility projects and tool development. Several tools have been completed to
enhance the performance and maintenance of SRCM analysis. Both system level and
component level templates have been developed to provide efficiency and consistency
in analysis. A Living Program module in the SRCM Workstation has been developed to
assist and automate the updating of the initial SRCM analysis.
EPRI Perspective
As of the end of 1998, 22 utilities have participated in the EPRI SRCM program. Some
plants that have had essentially no formal plant maintenance program are using SRCM
to create a program for the first time; other plants have used SRCM to optimize their
existing plant maintenance program. All utilities anticipate a reduction in unscheduled
breakdown maintenance. Other intangible benefits include improved communication
between key plant staff concerning system functions, equipment failure causes, and
their significance. Additionally, most utilities that have applied SRCM have estimated a
payback of less than one year.
TR-109795-V2
Interest Categories
Fossil Steam Plant Performance Optimization
Fossil Steam Plant O&M Cost Reduction
Keywords
Maintenance optimization
Performance
Predictive maintenance
EPRIGEN Licensed Material
vii
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1
2 SRCM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Why SRCM? ................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 The SRCM Process ..................................................................................................... 2-2
Data Collection and Plant History Review....................................................................... 2-3
Identify Functional Failures ............................................................................................. 2-4
Critical Analysis............................................................................................................... 2-4
FMEA.............................................................................................................................. 2-5
Non-Critical Analysis ....................................................................................................... 2-5
PM Task Recommendations ........................................................................................... 2-6
Task Comparison............................................................................................................ 2-6
2.3 What Does It Take To Conduct SRCM? ...................................................................... 2-7
2.4 Training and Analysis Support ..................................................................................... 2-9
3 UTILITY PROJECT STATUS.............................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Current Utility Project Participation .............................................................................. 3-1
4 DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT STATUS OF SRCM PROGRAM TOOLS............... 4-1
4.1 Overall SRCM Program............................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 SRCM Process and Software Products ....................................................................... 4-3
4.2.1 SRCM Workstation................................................................................................ 4-3
PMO WORKSTATION DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... 4-3
4.2.2 System Templates ................................................................................................ 4-4
4.2.3 Component Type Templates................................................................................. 4-9
4.2.4 Industry Data....................................................................................................... 4-10
4.3 SRCM Implementation and Living Program............................................................... 4-11
viii
4.3.1 SRCM Implementation ........................................................................................ 4-11
4.4 Living Programs Process and Software..................................................................... 4-14
5 SRCM PROGRAM BENEFITS............................................................................................ 5-1
Case Study 1 ...................................................................................................................... 5-1
Case Study 2 ...................................................................................................................... 5-2
Case Study 3 ...................................................................................................................... 5-2
A SYSTEM TEMPLATE ......................................................................................................... A-1
B COMPONENT TYPE TEMPLATES.................................................................................... B-1
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 EPRIs SRCM Program ........................................................................................ 1-2
Figure 2-1 Classical RCM versus SRCM............................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2 SRCM Process ..................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 4-1 Integrated Maintenance Work Management Flow Chart ...................................... 4-2
Figure 4-2 Screen- selecting system template option............................................................ 4-6
Figure 4-3 Screen- selecting a specific system template....................................................... 4-7
Figure 4-4 Screen - Electronic flowchart and review options for system template
modification..................................................................................................................... 4-8
Figure 4-5 Screen - Maintenance Component Type Template ............................................ 4-10
Figure 4-6 Sample Implementation Template...................................................................... 4-13
Figure 4-7 Screen - Living Program Options........................................................................ 4-15
Figure 4-8 Screen - Living Program PM History Review...................................................... 4-16
Figure 4-9 Screen - Living Program PM Program Change Recommendation Form............ 4-17
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 SRCM Analysis Labor Requirements..................................................................... 2-8
Table 2-2 Typical SRCM Project Schedule............................................................................ 2-9
1-1
1
INTRODUCTION
As the electric power industry evolves into a non-regulated industry, extreme pressures
are being placed on plant organizations to reduce costs for competition while
maintaining or enhancing plant performance. Several utilities have gone through staff
reductions as a first line of action for cost reduction. This has prompted a drive to
control the operation and maintenance (O&M) programs. For the fossil fired plants in
the industry the controlling of the O&M program includes the transition from reactive
maintenance as the main stay to a preventive/predictive maintenance strategy. World
class facilities know having the proper mix of maintenance is key to cost-effective and
enhanced maintenance. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) embarked on a
program to assist member utilities in making the transition and becoming more
competitive.
This project is part of EPRIGENs Plant Maintenance Optimization development efforts
under Target 54 (1998), Plant Maintenance Optimization, and Target 75 for 1999, which
is intended to help utilities reduce the cost of production by developing and
demonstrating cost-effective maintenance methods. Over the past three years, several
utilities have embarked on the implementation of SRCM at their various plants. These
utilities are at various stages of the program. As more utilities participate in the EPRI
program, process and product refinements will evolve to provide enhanced tools to
develop and maintain a RCM-based maintenance program.
A key element of EPRIs maintenance optimization program is the use of reliability-
centered maintenance (RCM) technology to guide a utility in improving and optimizing
their maintenance program. Utilizing EPRIs philosophy to use and grow existing
technology if it makes economic sense the Plant Maintenance Optimization Target has
adopted a RCM process called Streamlined RCM or SRCM. SRCM allows a utility to
analyze down to the level required to make a maintenance strategy decision while
maintaining all of the basic steps of traditional RCM. Accompanying this process is:
software, program management, system and component templates, implementation
support, training and living program development. All of these integrated products
assist a utility in cost-effectively optimizing and maintaining an optimized maintenance
program. Figure 1 shows how these tools and support provide EPRI members with
cost-effective solutions when developing or refining systems and equipment strategies.
Introduction
1-2
Utility Identifies need
for Improved
Maintenance Strategy
Identifies Systems/
Equipment to
Review
Identifies SRCM as
Method of Evaluation
Conducts SRCM
Analysis by System
System Templates
Component Type
Templates
Implementation
Support (what, when
& why)
M & D Center
PDM Assessment
Implement Results
via CMMS, PDM,
etc.
PMO Workstation
Establish Process to
Update Maintenance
Program (Living
Program)
Industry SRCM Data
via EPRI Database
653
Figure 1-1
EPRIs SRCM Program
Each utility and plant needs to decide on objectives and goals when conducting a
SRCM program. Usually utilities use SRCM as one means to achieve competitive
production costs through maintenance optimization. SRCM will optimize maintenance
by utilizing the following principles:
Concentrate maintenance resources where they will do the most good.
Eliminate unnecessary and ineffective maintenance tasks.
Devise the simplest and most cost-effective means of maintaining equipment, or
testing for degradation focusing on predictive or condition monitoring activities
when applicable.
Introduction
1-3
Develop a documented basis for the maintenance program.
Utilize plant maintenance and contractor experience when determining PM tasks
and frequencies.
In order to achieve the goal of an improved maintenance program at a plant, it is
necessary to select systems that will meet the specified goals of the program. The
systems typically selected for review are:
1. Main Steam
2. Fuel Handling
3. Circulating Water
4. Ash Handling
5. Sootblowing
6. Boiler Air and Gas
7. Feedwater Heater Drains/Extraction Steam
8. Coal Handling
9. Feedwater
10. Condensate
The criteria for selecting these systems is: overall importance to plant operation, safety,
reliability and historical maintenance costs. Cost-effective maintenance is the program
objective.
A real, but difficult to document, benefit is that the SRCM process involves and
improves communication between the key plant staff functions (operations,
maintenance and tech support in traditional organizations, and Production and
Support Teams in more recent organizations) concerning system functions, equipment
failure causes and their significance. The need for and benefits of, participation by key
plant staff in the SRCM process can not be over-emphasized.
Volume One of this report, published in early 1998, described the development
program status of SRCM for fossil plants at the end of 1997.
This report provides the latest status of utility program development, current status of
SRCM process tools and software as well as some documented benefits from the
Introduction
1-4
program. Integration of other EPRI programs, such as predictive maintenance activities
and the interfaces and plant processes affected by the SRCM programs, are becoming
clear. Several utilities have embarked on multi-plant projects which have caused the
development of several new tools to provide efficiency and consistency.
2-1
2
SRCM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
2.1 Why SRCM?
EPRIs experience with RCM methodology began in 1983 with trial applications with
nuclear power plant systems. These applications were a direct transfer of existing
methodology from the commercial airline industry. Since then, numerous utilities have
applied RCM principles to their nuclear plants. In 1991, EPRI responded to utility
concern that classical RCM requires too many resources to perform an analysis on an
average system. As a result, EPRI embarked upon a major project to investigate
possible methods of lowering the cost to perform an RCM analysis while maintaining
the technical integrity of the process and results. One approach that resulted from this
project was the SRCM process. The SRCM process was validated against classical RCM
by applying both methods independently on the same plant system. This comparison
found essentially identical PM recommendations with only minor differences driven by
the two analysts different knowledge of the plant and equipment involved. A
thorough knowledge of basic RCM methodology is necessary to ensure accurate results
when performing SRCM. Figure 2-2 shows a comparison of the two methods.
Given the success of SRCM in the nuclear sector of the power industry, EPRIs fossil
group funded several pilot SRCM applications at fossil plant systems. The pilot
projects confirmed the cost effective applicability of SRCM to fossil units. Over the past
three years, the EPRI-sponsored SRCM process has been applied or is in progress
applying SRCM to over 400 systems at 22 utilities. These successful SRCM applications,
together with the high level of utility acceptance, has prompted EPRI to develop several
additional tools and enhancements of a commercial RCM software tool specifically
designed to support the SRCM process. This commercial tool known as the PMO
Workstation, developed by ERIN Engineering and Research, Inc., has been used to
support the EPRI projects and is now available to members. The software
enhancements, funded by EPRI, consist of system and component task selection
templates as well as a living program module.
SRCM Program Description
2-2
Iden ti fy Ke y
Import ant Fun ction s
Pe rf or m Cr i tical
An al ysi s
Pe rf or m No n- Criti cal
An al ysi s
Non -Cr it ica l
Eva l uat ion
Non -Cr it ica l
Task Sele cti on
Task Co mp ar i son
Task Co mp ar i son
Impl ementa tion Impl ementa tion
RCM
SRCM
Syst em/Su bsystem
Pa rt it io ning
Fun cti onal Fai l ure
An al ysi s ( FFA)
Fai l ure Mo des and
Ef fect s An al ysis (FMEA)
Cri ti ca l Task
Se l ecti on
Figure 2-1
Classical RCM versus SRCM
2.2 The SRCM Process
The SRCM produced PM plan must support an individual units mission (base load or
load following, etc.) to assure the unit performance in compliance with its intended use
or mission. Thus, a units mission provides the basis for determining component
critically and subsequent PM task selection.
The following describes the PMO process and Figure 2-3 illustrates the steps of the
process.
2-3
Data
Col l ecti o n
Id en ti fy Ke y
Impo rt ant Fun cti ons
Perf or m No n- Cri ti cal
Anal ysi s
Compa re SRCM Resul ts
Wit h E xist in g
Mai nt ena nce Prog ra m
Perf or m Cr i ti cal
Anal ysi s
Impl e me nt
Cha nge s
Revi ew P la nt Hist or y
an d Co nd uct P l ant
Revi ews a nd In ter vi ews
Est abl i sh Li vi ng
Prog r am
Figure 2-2
SRCM Process
Data Collection and Plant History Review
The same system data is required to perform this streamlined analysis as is needed for
a standard RCM analysis. In order to facilitate this streamlined analysis process and
maximize the associated cost benefit, the analyst should perform a detailed review of
all the pertinent system information including corrective maintenance and existing PM
and surveillance programs prior to starting the main analysis process steps.
Documentation or data required to support this analysis are:
System Description
2-4
System Drawings (P&IDs, electrical schematics, logic diagrams, etc.)
Component Listing (electronic)
Component Corrective Maintenance History (3-5 yrs. if available)
Existing Preventive Maintenance and Surveillance program (PM and PdM tasks,
operator rounds, etc.)
Commitments/Requirements for existing PM/Surveillance tasks
Information not readily available from the above sources is obtained by interview of
knowledgeable plant people.
Identify Functional Failures
The identification of system functional failures is performed in the same manner as in
standard RCM. This process varies from standard RCM by focusing the analysis
resources on the 'important' functional failures. The analyst identifies all applicable
functions for the system and then sorts the functions into two groups with appropriate
justification: (1) Important functions and (2) Non-important functions. The criteria for
determining whether a function is important can be modified by the organization
performing the analysis. Generally, any function that directly affects plant safety,
environmental limits, or power production is considered important. Non-important
functions typically include such items as local indication or secondary system
functions. Components that support important functions will be evaluated in the
Critical Analysis module. The remaining system components that support non-
important functions may still be analyzed in the Non-critical Analysis module.
One way to provide additional benefit in analysis effort is to limit identified functions to
only those that are important for plant operation and safety. This can be done by first
characterizing the functions in fairly general terms and only using resources to identify the
functions that are important. This avoids wasting time identifying functions that are not
going to be analyzed in the Critical Analysis module, while the remaining system
components get analyzed through the Non-Critical Analysis module.
Critical Analysis
Following the standard RCM analysis methodology, the determination that a system
component is 'critical' places heavy emphasis on the overall plant effect caused by a
specific failure mode of the component. However, in this streamlined process, only the
functions that are identified as 'important' are evaluated with a streamlined Failure
Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to determine critical equipment. In this
2-5
streamlined process, the standard FMEA and LTA have been combined into one
record. The following discusses the FMEA portion of the component record and the
LTA process is described in the PM task recommendation section:
FMEA
In standard RCM analysis, the analyst typically has an individual FMEA record for
each dominant failure mode and the resultant local, system, and plant effects. This
documentation provides direct linkage of the Functional Failure Analysis (FFA),
specific component failure mode, and the local, system, and plant effects for each
separate component-failure mode combination to determine component criticality.
However, in the SRCM process, the analyst identifies every component that supports
the functional failure and lists only the most significant failure modes for each
component, along with the most dominant plant effects for the failure modes, all in one
component record. The analyst determines the component criticality based on the
various failure mode/plant effect combinations and the cumulative significance of the
components failure of the specific function.
If a component is determined to be critical, the next step is to identify appropriate
causes for the potential failure modes to allow the analyst to identify applicable and
effective maintenance tasks for the failure modes and causes that are considered
important to identify or eliminate. If a component is determined to be non-critical, it is
evaluated further in the non-critical analysis. Task selection for critical components is
discussed in detail later.
As with standard RCM, it is important and beneficial to receive engineering and
operations review and input into the critical evaluation of the systems components.
Non-Critical Analysis
The non-critical evaluation applies a different set of criteria which places more
emphasis on equipment level economic considerations for the components that were
determined to be non-critical in the critical analysis or components that support non-
important functions. These new criteria will evaluate the benefit of maintaining
existing PM tasks or identifying new PM tasks rather than allowing the component to
run to failure to help provide a basis for a complete PM program. The criteria used for
the non-critical evaluation can be modified to meet plant specific requirements. If the
component does not meet any of the non-critical criteria, then the determination is
made to allow this component to run-to-failure and perform corrective maintenance
when required. If there is a 'yes' response to one of the non-critical evaluation criteria,
an appropriate PM task recommendation is made. The identification of appropriate
PM task for non-critical equipment will be described in more detail below.
2-6
A Maintenance Engineer reviews of the non-critical evaluation are important to ensure
a well documented evaluation. This should be performed in conjunction with the
review of the critical evaluation to maximize the efficiency of the process. Depending
upon the task developed for the non-critical evaluation, it may also be desired to have
the responsible Operations personnel available to provide input on some of the
maintenance related criteria in the non-critical evaluation.
PM Task Recommendations
Once a component has been determined to be critical, or non-critical but not allowed to
run-to-failure, the next step is to recommend applicable and effective preventive
maintenance tasks based on the component's importance. Selecting the type of task to
be performed and the frequency of the task can be accomplished in several manners.
The approach will utilize preventive maintenance templates as much as possible (see
Section 4.2.3). SRCM projects use generic templates that combine EPRIs current in-
house templates with capabilities and maintenance philosophies of the plant. Because
the maintenance templates do not identify specific component failure modes or links to
any specific plant effect, careful consideration must be exercised to ensure that the
analyst selects preventive maintenance tasks that will prevent specific dominant failure
modes and causes to ensure they are adequately addressed by the preventive
maintenance programs. These failure modes and causes can be incorporated from
specific facility experience or generic industry experience on similar equipment.
For critical equipment, the analyst selects failure causes associated with the dominant
failure modes and effects that are desired to address through the preventive
maintenance program. The analyst then identifies the applicable and effective
preventive maintenance tasks that are recommended to address the failure mode and
cause combinations (failure mechanisms) of concern. A similar step is performed for
non-critical equipment that has been identified as requiring a PM task except no failure
causes need to be identified.
Another method available to determine the appropriate preventive maintenance tasks
for each component is the standard RCM Logic Tree Analysis (LTA). This method can
also be used for any component type that does not have a maintenance template.
Task Comparison
After the SRCM PM recommendations have been identified, the final step in the process
is to reconcile these recommendations with the existing PM program. The existing PM
program should consist of every task performed on a component that has the ability to
identify or prevent potential component failures and adverse effects (e.g. Preventive
Maintenance tasks, surveillance tasks, lubrication, condition monitoring, etc.). This
2-7
report becomes the basis for the actions required to implement the final
recommendations after approval from the appropriate station personnel. Appendix A
contains an example of SRCM work products.
2.3 What Does It Take To Conduct SRCM?
Performance of SRCM on any plant system entails a coordinated effort between plant
personnel and the analyst. The plant personnel involved include craft, engineering,
operations personnel, as well as those directly responsible for the project (Core Team).
In order to obtain the most thorough and accurate information about the system under
analysis, the analyst must solicit input from these various organizations. For this to
happen, the project lead/manager must coordinate schedules such that, for the most
favorable impact on the project, the personnel most knowledgeable are available for
analysis reviews (Criticality, Task selection and Task Comparison) and Maintenance
interviews. This can, at times, be a substantial investment of manpower into the SRCM
analysis, therefore, it is vital that the reviews and interviews be conducted efficiently,
without sacrificing quality for speed.
Typically, the Core Team make-up consists of personnel from engineering, operations,
planning and maintenance (including supervisors, foremen and craft personnel). These
personnel are empowered to make decisions and implement changes in the
maintenance program (change existing PM tasks, add new tasks, purchase PdM
technology/equipment, etc.). The Core Team will also know which personnel are
expert on a particular system, and will ensure that these experts are available to
participate in the analysis. Most often, the analyst will perform the analysis with
predetermined steps identified as review points. Usually, these points are the
Criticality Analysis, Task Selection and Task Comparison. The reviews are usually
conducted by the analyst with the Core Team and any other personnel as appropriate.
Quite often, the Criticality Analysis is reviewed by the analyst with only a
representative from Operations. This is acceptable, as Criticality is a functional
determination based on the effects of failure on the operation of the plant. However,
the criticality review and determination should involve all members of the Core Team,
as this will ensure that all members of the group understand the reasoning behind a
components criticality. Task Selection and Task Comparison, however, require full
Core Team participation in the reviews.
As part of the Task Selection process, it is necessary for the analyst to conduct
interviews with the system experts to identify problems, design deficiencies, ineffective
maintenance tasks and practices, as well as suggestions for improvement of the
maintenance performed. These experts are usually senior craft personnel or foremen/
supervisors from the mechanical, electrical and instrumentation disciplines, operations
and engineering. The interviews are conducted individually or collectively, depending
on availability and the goal is to collect information to determine equipment
2-8
performance and make recommendations as to what maintenance should be
performed.
Table 2-1 lists the typical man-hour requirements for performing an SRCM system
analysis.
Table 2-1
SRCM Analysis Labor Requirements
ACTIVITY HOURS
Analyst Resource/Core Team
Data Collection 24 8
Critical Analysis and Task Selection 80 20
Non-Critical Evaluation and Task Selection 16 8
Analysis Reviews 16 16
Task Comparison and Review 24 12
Implementation -- 20-200 (1)
Totals 152 76-256 (1)
(1) The number of hours required for implementation is utility-specific and driven by a variety of factors,
including the scope of changes to the PM program, purchase and installation of new PDM equipment,
training in the use, upkeep and interpretation of PDM data, interface between the SRCM software and the
utilitys maintenance management software, etc. Some systems may require as little as 20 hours.
2-9
Table 2-2
Typical SRCM Project Schedule
Note: 2 systems/per phase
The key to success for multi-system SRCM projects of this nature is to allow a
continuous flow of analysis and recommendations that can be reasonably implemented.
The timeline below depicts the overall project schedule for a typical 10 system project.
The timeline above shows the process used to complete 2 systems per phase. Note that
phase 1 is longer due to OJT training. Also note this is a nominal timeline, the actual
schedule for a specific phase may be shorter or longer depending on the system sizes,
data collection, and availability of plant staff.
During each phase, the EPRI contractor conducts several meetings on-site. Typically,
there are 3 one-week long meetings. The first is at the beginning of the phase to finish
the task comparison of the previous phase of systems and collect the data for the next
phase of systems. The second meeting is to review the FMEA portion of the analysis
along with potential task selection. The final meeting is to complete task selection and
comparison.
2.4 Training and Analysis Support
A Typical 10 system project provides detailed SRCM training at multiple levels. The
Core Team members receive extensive training. Others will have training
2-10
commensurate with their level of participation. Training for Core Team members is
provided at the plant and is performed in a workshop environment in which utility
personnel would obtain actual experience performing SRCM analyses on a simplified
system. The workshop includes:
System function and functional failure determination
Equipment failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and criticality determination
Component task selection
Implementation
Living program development
Effect based analysis (criticality checklist)
This training is conducted over one (1) day and provides employees a firm
understanding of RCM/SRCM concepts.
The primary training method used is on-the-job (OJT) training. Training is held during
site visits for reviews and interviews of the system studies. This OJT will provide Core
Team members required knowledge for implementing results and supporting the
remaining phases of system studies.
To complement the training of core team members, it is important for plant staff to
have an understanding of the SRCM process. While at the plant site, EPRI provides a 1-
2 hour training session to as many plant staff members as desired. The presentation
material are left with the utility to continue training by core team members for future
needs.
The following minimal support options are available and are not intended as
equivalent to full service support. Even though the PMO Workstation is free of charge
to Target 54(98)/(Target 75 in 99) members, EPRI requires a member to at least have
the minimal training.
1. Software provided without enhancements for immediate use (PMO Workstation,
Version 4.0) with one week of training consisting of 1 days on SRCM process, plus
day on workstation, plus 1 day of facilitation, and 1 day of off-site paper review
of final product. Note: if personnel to do system study received SRCM training via
EPRI SRCM workshop, then the option changes to 2 days of facilitation support
instead of 1 day. It is intended that the plant actually perform and SRCM analysis
(as time permits) on a unit system during the week of training.
2-11
2. Facilitation support consisting of 3 one-week hands-on training on-site at one plant.
3. Pilot project where utility personnel conduct 1 to 2 systems analysis in parallel with
an ERIN analyst performing analysis on 1 to 2 different systems.
4. Pilot project where ERIN conducts 3-5 system studies with utility training.
5. Total unit project where ERIN conducts 10 system studies.
6. All plants/units analysis conducted by ERIN - cost subject to number of
units/plants and similarity of units.
3-1
3
UTILITY PROJECT STATUS
3.1 Current Utility Project Participation
Over the past 3 years since the EPRI initiation of the SRCM program, numerous utilities
have participated in the program. The participation ranges from attending an EPRI
sponsored SRCM workshop to full plant analysis and implementation support. The
following table lists the utilities that have started an SRCM program. Note some
utilities are working at multiple plants.
Utility Single or Multiple
Sites
Type of Participation Status
PG&E single analysis work finished
FPC single analysis & implementation finished
OG&E multiple analysis finished
PECO single analysis finished
PSE&G single analysis in progress
Union Electric single analysis finished
DECO multiple facilitation training finished
C&SW single facilitation & analysis finished
HL&P multiple analysis & implementation in progress
Penn Power single facilitation training finished
Georgia Power multiple facilitation training in progress
Mid-American single analysis finished
First Energy multiple analysis & facilitation finished
Associated Electric single facilitation finished
Hoosier Energy single facilitation finished
Salt River Project multiple analysis in progress
Kentucky Utilities single analysis in progress
New Century single facilitation finished
PS of New Mexico single analysis finished
PEPCO single facilitation in progress
Tucson Electric single analysis in progress
BG&E single facilitation in progress
Utility Project Status
3-2
Given the fact that the SRCM methodology was a proven process and the early projects
at FPC and PG&E validated that the process worked at a fossil plant, EPRI has
continued the project for many reasons. The major focus at this time is to improve the
process by developing more cost efficient tools and processes such as templates and the
living program module, gain useful experience data such as task selection information
and implementation practices and to further integrate the process into other focuses
such as predictive maintenance and maintenance management processes.
It should be pointed out that not all of these projects have been fully successful. Project
success limitations, however, are mostly driven by either insufficient upper and mid-
management level support including sustained, long-term support and a lack of
equipment and/or resources to fully utilize the results of the SRCM analysis. Thus, the
more successful utilities are the ones who dedicate the necessary resources for not only
the initial project results but also the living program and sustain management support
until the process and results become the way to do business.
4-1
4
DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT STATUS OF
SRCM PROGRAM TOOLS
4.1 Overall SRCM Program
A SRCM program requires as previously mentioned, commitment by all levels of
mangement as well as dedicated resources. It also requires several infrastructure
processes and programs to fully utilize and effectively achieve the maximum results
from the program. Key maintenance management programs that should be in place
are: planning and scheduling; root cause failure analysis (RCFA); computerized
maintenance management system (CMMS); operator rounds/logs; engineering
performance testing; predictive maintenance (PdM); post maintenance testing (PMT);
and condition monitoring (CM). All of these programs are required to some level of
implementation to truly obtain maximum volume from the SRCM results. Integration
of the SRCM results in how the plant performs the work should happen to effect and
maintain the bases and decisions made during the initial SRCM analyses. Figure 4-1
demonstrates how the various maintenance management processes could be organized
with SRCM program requirements including to the initial analyses and living program.
Description and Development Status of SRCM Program Tools
4-2
INTEGRATED MAINTENANCE WORK MANAGEMENT FLOW CHART
RCM ENG
Condition
Data Analysis
& Proactive
W/O generation
Data Inputs
( s in Ops, PdM, etc.)
RCM ENG
Maintenance
Program
Change Control
Monthly
Operating
Statistics
RCM Monthly Reports
SRCM Analyses
Perform Post
Maintenance Test
RCM Condition Monitoring
& Perf. Test Program
(Predictive Maintenance)
W/O to RCM Engineer
File Reports
PM Program & Oil Samples
(Preventive Maintenance)
CMMS Generates PM Work
Sheets (No W/Os) & As
Found/As Left Close Out With
PM Feedback Rating
RCM Scheduled Overhaul
or NDE Inspection
(Proactive Maintenance)
Planned CMMS Work Order.
Record As Found/As Left
Operating Crew
Supervisor Generates & Close
Out CMMS W/O Document
As Found/As Left
Initiate RCA
RCM Engineer
Coordinate RCA Studies for
immediate issues
Admin. Staff Documents
Results in CMMS
032498
Maintenance Planner
Document Post
Maintenance Test
Maintenance Planner
Close Out W/O
Enter As Found/As Left Info
Schedule Post Maintenance Test
Maintenance
Planned, W/O Defines Work
Document As Found/As Left
Assist RCA Process
Maintenance Planner
Plan and Schedule CMMS
W/O Attach As Found/As Left
Form, Initiate RCA Process for
CM W/O
CMMS Data System
Maintenance History
and Cost Data
Post Maintenance Test Info
As Found/As Left
Documentation & Recommendations
PM Feedback Ratings
RCA Reports & Recommendations
RCM Surveillence Program
Data Logger Initiates
Rounds and Records Data
(No W/Os)
Operators
Log Book
On Line DAS
and PIN Data
Trends & Flags
Operating Crew
Performed Required
Corrective Maintenance or
Generate W/O Request
Condition Monitoring, NDE Reports
and Recommendations
PM Bases File
Is
Work <8
M-Hrs & Within
PC Skill Level to
Perform
?
N
Y
RCM Engineer
Production Crew
Maintenance Department
Figure 4-1 Integrated Maintenance Work Management Flow Chart
4-3
The intent of this discussion is to show an example model of how SRCM is to be
integrated into the daily processing of maintenance activities. Each box on the figure
requires certain data inputs and outputs, roles and responsibilities, procedures and
actions. EPRI is working on several of these boxes and particularly relevant to SRCM,
several tools, processes and databases are developed or in the process of being
developed to assist in achieving maximum effectiveness. There are products that
support the initial SRCM analysis and implementation efforts, products for the
updating and maintenance of the living programs and initial databases for industry
maintenance practices. The following sections describe work to date and the
development status of each product.
4.2 SRCM Process and Software Products
There have been three major areas of focus to date in improving and enhancing the
execution of performing an initial SRCM analysis on a plant system. The three areas
are SRCM workstation, system templates and component type templates. An emerging
fourth area is compiling industry data on maintenance practices. This area is focused
on providing a member with readily available information on industry practice of
applying various maintenance strategies (i.e. task content and frequency) and task
instruction data.
4.2.1 SRCM Workstation
The SRCM program at EPRI includes the use of ERINs PMO Workstation. Through a
cross license, EPRI has obtained a no-cost to member license for the installation and use
of the PMO Workstation at a members plants.
PMO WORKSTATION DESCRIPTION
The Plant Maintenance Optimizer (PMO) Workstation Version 4.0 is an MS-Windows
relational database management software package for the PC that uses ACCESS file
structures. The PMO Workstation provides an on-line data entry, storage, retrieval,
and report generating capability. The principle PMO tools are: Functional Failure
Analysis (FFA), Criticality Analysis, Non-Critical Evaluation, Critical and Non-Critical
Task Selection, PM Task Comparison, and Implementation Tracking. Lookup files are
used to store common information such as component descriptions, failure modes,
failure causes and effects, and the current maintenance program for the system(s) being
analyzed.
The PMO Workstation is designed to be used efficiently with simple manipulations of a
mouse, thus minimizing keystrokes. PMO has extensive built-in reports which may be
modified by the user through a separate report generation software package. Reports
4-4
are printed using standard MS-Windows fonts and may be viewed in their entirety
prior to printing through the PMO View Report window. In addition, reports may be
filtered to isolate any portion of the database.
The PMO Workstation is completely self-contained and requires no additional database
software. To assist with setting up new system analyses, certain data files may be
imported by the user by using flat files in ASCII comma-delimited format. This data
includes System Component Lists, Current Maintenance Program data, and Corrective
Maintenance History data, if desired. Additionally, many of the lookup files are pre-
loaded with standard data based on the EPRI work to date for fossil generation. These
files consist of codes and corresponding descriptions that are used to simplify the data
entry in many PMO modules. The lookup databases including Component Types,
Failure Effects, Failure Causes, Task Bases, Recommended PM Tasks, and PMO
Recommendation Justifications were developed by ERIN Engineering to provide a set
of commonly used choices for these fields and to provide a foundation for developing
plant-specific lookup databases for PMO Workstation users. NOTE: As with PMO
Workstation databases in general, the contents of any lookup files may be customized
by the user at any time.
The EPRI project related enhancements to the PMO Workstation are the system and
component type templates and the living program module. All software will be year
2000 ready.
4.2.2 System Templates
The task for system templates involves the development and automation of SRCM
analysis templates by system (e.g. boiler feedwater, circulating water, etc.) using
previously performed system studies for the bases. These system templates will be
arranged by various types (e.g. circulating water - Type A is no redundant pumps,
Type B - redundant pumps) allowing the user to select the type that most closely
reflects the users system. The generic system templates will be electronically available
through the PMO workstation and once selected, electronic guidance via analysis
checklists/questionnaires, etc. will be used to guide the user in the conversion of the
generic study to plant specific. Currently, there are generic system templates for 3
systems analyzed with automated guidance. Additionally, as more systems are
analyzed via EPRIs SRCM program, the use and expansion of available system
templates can occur.
The three systems are listed below:
1. Electric Distribution
2. Service Water
4-5
3. Feedwater
Each system type consists of variations in system configuration. The types are by
system and allow the user to select a system type closest to his to begin his own
analysis. Once a type has been selected, the Workstation generates the appropriate
copy of the data to allow change for specific aspects of analysis. The workstation
prompts the user to review the template for appropriate changes of minor configuration
differences, operational and maintenance use/strategies, specific history differences,
and equipment identification. Once the analyst has completed his review, a specific
system study is ready for implementation. Appendix A contains an example of a
system template.
The following screens illustrate the system template software features. Figure 4-2
shows the tool bar option of selecting system templates to initiate a system analysis.
Figure 4-3 shows how to select a system to begin the process of converting the closest
template to an actual system study. Figure 4-4 illustrates how the software provides
electronic flowchart guidance for the conversion process. For each step of an SRCM
analysis (i.e. FFA, criticality analysis, non-critical evaluation and task selection), the
analyst can review the template data and modify the data based on his actual system
that is being analyzed.
4-6
Figure 4-2
Screen- selecting system template option
4-7
Figure 4-3
Screen- selecting a specific system template
4-8
Figure 4-4 Screen - Electronic flowchart and review options for system template modification
4-9
4.2.3 Component Type Templates
The second kind of template developed is the component type maintenance templates.
These templates consist of maintenance strategies for various component types. These
templates are based on system studies previously analyzed via the SRCM program.
The templates will be expanded as more information becomes available, particularly by
make and model or new component types. The templates are specific to fossil unit
experience and include component types unique to fossil such as pulverizers, fuel
handling, scrubbers, etc. The templates are automated and provide user customization
of templates based on user criteria such as technology capabilities and level of
conservatism desired in their maintenance program.
The workstation accommodates an unlimited number of component templates allowing
expansion. The templates support the task selection activity for critical and non-critical
equipment. The templates look similar to Figure 4-5 and the following is a list of
currently available component type templates. These templates are provided in
Appendix B.
1. Relief Valves 17. Vertical Pumps
2. Heat Exchangers 18. Switchgear
3. AOVs 19. Compressors
4. Switches (various) 20. Fans
5. Electronic Controllers 21. Oil-Cooled Transformers
6. 480v Circuit Breakers 22. Coal Feeders
7. AC Motor 23. Igniters
8. Pulverizers 24. Car Dumper
9. Boiler 25. Scales
10. Sootblowers 26. Coal Belts
11. Relays (various) 27. Electrical Precipitator
12. SOVs 28. High Voltage Breakers
13. Check Valves 29. 480v Switchgear
14. Turbines 30. Instrument Loops
15. 120v Dist. Panels 31. Horizontal Pumps
16. MOVs 32. Boiler Controls
4-10
Figure 4-5
Screen - Maintenance Component Type Template
4.2.4 Industry Data
The PMO Workstation has built into it fields that will allow the development of
industry data and general task instructions suitable for use in a CMMS. The industry
data will consist of a compilation by component type and task type the frequencies at
which plants are performing these tasks. This data does not reflect the optimum
frequency necessarily between reliability and cost but provides some indication of what
the norm might be. To illustrate, assume that a plant is currently performing clean,
inspect and lubricate tasks of their 480v motors at two years. The database in the PMO
Workstation will show the frequencies of the current data set is performing the same
task on similar equipment. This will be shown as below:
4-11
480v Motor Clean, Inspect and Lubricate
FREQUENCY
All 480v motors (500 motors total) 10% of population @ 1 yr, 60% @ 3 yrs, 30% @ 5 yrs
480v motors (ash system) (100 total) 40% @ 6 months, 20% @ 1 yr, 40% @ 2 yrs
480v motors (lube oil) (70 total) 50% @ 2 yrs, 50% @ 0 yrs
This illustration will show how the data can be used to potentially change the
frequency of 2 years in general application to 3 years. Granted there is no information
as to whether there is equivalent reliability (i.e. no impact between 2 years vs. 3 years)
but at least the basis would be there to say that 60% of the population performs the task
at 3 years.
The level of detail for each component type/task combination will be contingent on the
projects (e.g. system studies) of the SRCM program. A separate initiative to develop
this data further as well as reliability data could expand and enhance this source.
4.3 SRCM Implementation and Living Program
4.3.1 SRCM Implementation
The results from an SRCM analysis include the addition of new PM tasks or the
deletion, modification, or retention of existing tasks. For the tasks to be retained, no
effort is required for implementation other than ensuring the tasks are packaged and
planned appropriately. For new tasks, determining whether it is for a critical
component or not and the type of PM task (e.g., condition monitoring, operator rounds,
PdM, time-directed, or testing task) is necessary to understand the importance and
effort required for implementation. In fact, these recommendations tend to be the most
time consuming, particularly when the recommendation is for a new PdM activity. For
modification or deletion of current tasks, the activity is merely updating the task
frequency or deleting the task from the CMMS. Task information contained in the
CMMS may include specific direction to the maintenance crafts on what maintenance
actions are required as well as what maintenance history information is needed.
Emphasis is placed on what actions are required not on how to perform the actions.
Full implementation is achieved when an executable PM program is contained within
the CMMS or other appropriate programs such as operator rounds, test procedures, etc.
using the SRCM analyses as its bases. This will in-turn require updating the SRCM
4-12
analyses when changes of the maintenance program are required. The living program
is designed to manage the change to the SRCM analyses.
The ongoing work under EPRI and utility funded SRCM projects provides
recommendations for continued maintenance program improvements. One such
improvement opportunity has been identified which allows a utility to ensure adequate
and optimum implementation of the SRCM analysis. As part of the current SRCM
projects, EPRI is gathering the task instructions developed during the projects.
As mentioned earlier, the PMO Workstation will have a structure to hold a generic task
instruction for each component type/task combination. Figure 4-6 below is an example
of a generic implementation task instruction. These instructions will be linked to the
work plan button of the component type templates shown in Figure 4-5.
4-13
PUG M ILL DISCH CNVR
Recommendation: PERFORM CLEAN, INSPECT & LUBRICATE.
Tot al
Sequence Instructions Combo rewCo tManH Materials MaterialsDe Qty. Comments Man Hours
10 Verify lockout/t agout MECH 20. 00 20
20 Visually inspect component s MECH 0.00 0 20
30 Clean all components MECH 0.00 0 20
40 Check belt scrapper for excessive wear MECH 0.00 0 20
41 Check tip of scrapper for excessive wear MECH 0.00 0 20
50 Check belt wear MECH 0.00 81-1947 Belt Conv. #3 0 20
51 Look for grooves, exposed cords, rips, holes, MECH 0.00 0 20
and excessive wear
60 Check Troughing Idler MECH 0.00 80-8513 Troughing Idler 0 20
35 deg.
61 Check for cleanliness, lubrication, and rust y holes MECH 0.00 0 20
70 Check Return Idlers MECH 0.00 80-11053 Ret urn Idlers 0 20
80 Check for cleanliness, lubrication, and rust y holes MECH 0.00 0 20
90 Sound gear box; Listen for grinding, clinking, and MECH 0.00 0 20
vibration sounds
100 Make minor adjust ments and repairs MECH 0.00 0 20
Figure 4-6
Sample Implementation Template
4-14
4.4 Living Programs Process and Software
As shown in Figure 4-1, the SRCM analyses become the basis for the maintenance
program. Because this bases needs to be maintained to be current and reflect actual
practices and activities, a living program is needed that is integral to the work
management process.
EPRI has two products that can be used or customized to assist a utility in starting a
living program. The first is a procedure that provides guidance on updating the SRCM
analyses given various data inputs such as CM and PM history, design and operational
changes, industry experience, etc. The procedure also provides an example
administrative control and roles and responsibilities requirements. This example is
based on a single individual at a unit/plant that is authorized to update the SRCM
analyses and ultimately authorizes changes to the maintenance program. Any plant
personnel can request a change but only this living program or RCM coordinator can
actually make the changes. Forms are provided for requesting and documenting the
process and decisions.
The second product is a living program (LP) module that is part of the PMO
Workstation. The LP module will provide electronic guidance and decision retention
for updating the SRCM analysis. Guidance is provided for PM and CM history, new
PdM technology application, design changes, industry experience, operating procedure
changes, equipment replacement and vendor recommendations. This electronic
guidance steps the reviewer through a series of operations and directs them to the
appropriate part of the analysis for update. Electronic request forms and tracking is
provided. Historical records of all requests and changes will be kept for future
reference.
The LP module is currently ready for beta testing. A test plan has been developed for
use by a participating utility. As part of the beta test, an interface with the specific
testers CMMS will be developed to allow efficient transport of available CMMS data.
The following screens show the software features of the living program module.
Figure 4-7 shows the various data input options under the LP menu. Figure 4-8 is an
example of the electronic guidance provided in the software. Certain fields will be
loaded with CMMS data such as work order number, as-found/as-left data, etc. Each
menu option in Figure 4-7 has this level of guidance specific to the data to be reviewed.
Figure 4-9 is the PM Recommendation form that can be used to track a maintenance
program change from any requester either electronically or hard copy.
4-15
Figure 4-7
Screen - Living Program Options
4-16
Figure 4-8
Screen - Living Program PM History Review
4-17
Figure 4-9
Screen - Living Program PM Program Change Recommendation Form
5-1
5
SRCM PROGRAM BENEFITS
The benefits from applying SRCM at the various plants has included both qualitative
and quantitative benefits. Not all utilities track costs to perform an effective
quantitative analyses, thus there is a small set of information relative to quantifying the
cost benefit, however, in all cases that have calculated cost benefit, a less than one year
payback was seen.
The following provides some examples of where the savings have been calculated:
Florida Power Corp. - Crystal River Units 4 & 5 (11 systems applied to two units)
Total Annual Savings: $343,962
Estimated Payback on Investment: < 1 year
Mid American Energy - Council Bluffs (10 systems)
Centerior - 11 units (135 systems)
Qualitatively several areas are affected by the analysis. The analysis has provided
insights and direction for work management, design changes, operational philosophy,
enhanced condition monitoring and other non-maintenance task activities. The
following are examples from various projects:
Case Study 1
Plant - 2 Unit Coal Fired Power Plant
System - Fuel Handling (Pulverizers)
Component - Coal Pulverizers
Existing PM Program - 6 month overhaul, monthly lube oil analysis, quarterly vibration
monitoring.
SRCM Program Benefits
5-2
RCM Recommendation - take advantage of current lube oil and vibration analysis to
determine component health. During next overhaul make the upgrade to the stronger,
more expensive, wear components that were available from the vendor.
Results - using the existing condition monitoring/predictive maintenance tools, the
good operating history and the improved wear components that will be added, the
overhauls were extended from 6 months to annually.
Cost Savings - the total cost savings including the additional cost of the more expensive
wear components was $50,000/year/unit.
Case Study 2
Union Electric - Rush Island Unit 1
Boiler Draft and Pulverized Fuel Systems
For all of the large motors in both systems (and for all systems to be subsequently
analyzed), the time based intrusive motor overhauls will be phased out in favor of
electrical diagnostic testing using various testing including motor current waveform
signature analysis and oil analysis.
For the Induced Draft Fan Lube Oil Skid, a recommendation was made and
approved to re-evaluate the control scheme. A re-design may be required to ensure
a standby lube oil pump auto start, a low lube oil pressure fan trip and alarms.
Case Study 3
Mid American Energy Co. - Council Bluffs Energy Center Unit 3
Ten Systems
In the Boiler Steam and Water System, more frequent leak monitoring was
recommended for high energy steam valves. Also, a program will be initiated for
high energy traps.
In the Boiler Air and Gas System, a shift to condition monitoring with vibration and
lube oil analyses and NDE to extend frequency of overhauls and intrusive
inspections on the Fans and Motors has been recommended and approved.
A reliability problem with the Circulating Water Recycle Pump was identified and
addressed with performance testing and an evaluation into pump monitoring
design changes.
SRCM Program Benefits
5-3
In the Fuel Handling System, an increased reliance on vibration monitoring and
lube oil analysis has been recommended for the Conveyors, Crushes, and Feeders
(and their motors and gearboxes), as well as simple tasks performed by the Coal
Handlers to monitor equipment operation during daily walkdowns.
Increased condition monitoring will enable the plant to comfortably extend the
Main Turbine overhaul to seven years. (Input was solicited from GE by CBEC on
monitoring techniques and diagnostics.)
A-1
A
SYSTEM TEMPLATE
System Template
A-2
System Template
A-3
System Template
A-4
System Template
A-5
System Template
A-6
System Template
A-7
System Template
A-8
System Template
A-9
System Template
A-10
System Template
A-11
System Template
A-12
System Template
A-13
System Template
A-14
System Template
A-15
System Template
A-16
System Template
A-17
System Template
A-18
System Template
A-19
System Template
A-20
System Template
A-21
System Template
A-22
System Template
A-23
System Template
A-24
System Template
A-25
System Template
A-26
System Template
A-27
System Template
A-28
System Template
A-29
System Template
A-30
System Template
A-31
System Template
A-32
System Template
A-33
B-1
B
COMPONENT TYPE TEMPLATES
Component Type Templates
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-11
B-12
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-16
B-17
B-18
B-19
B-20
B-21
B-22
B-23
B-24
B-25
B-26
B-27
B-28
B-29
B-30
B-31
B-32
B-33
B-34
B-35
B-36
B-37
B-38
B-39
B-40
B-41

Guideline SRCM TR 109795 v2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Guideline SRCM TR 109795 v2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

EPRIGEN 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10416, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA

800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi