How to decide frequencies of Preventive Maintenance (PM)

Inspections
by Torbjrn Idhammar
This is a question I often get so I like to offer some guidelines from the real world. The short
answer to this question is that you have to use your experience and common sense supported by
a logic decision structure.
For you who want to indulge in the details of setting PM inspections, lets begin with defining
what we mean with inspections. Inspections include all objective inspections (we measure
something) by observations or by using an instrument, for example, a vibration analyzer, an
infrared camera, a volt meter, a flow meter, or ultrasonic. Inspections also include all subjective
inspections (look-listen-feel-smell).
In order to set inspection frequencies we need to understand what failure developing period is.
Failure Developing Period (FDP) (Called Pf Curve by some)
The FDP is the time period from when it is possible to detect a failure until we have a
breakdown. A failure is when a system or equipment is operating correctly within given
parameters, but has signs of problems.
For example a centrifugal pump may be cavitating, but is still providing the required flow for the
operation; we have a failure, but not a break down. The cavitations in our example will
eventually develop into a breakdown. The breakdown occurs when the pump is unable to
perform its intended function.
The FDP is the time difference between the failure and the break down. If the pump started to
cavitate at 6 am and it broke down 6 pm 6 days later, the FDP is 156 hours.
Inspection Frequency
The theoretical answer to the question is very simple. The inspection frequency should roughly
be FDP/2. For example, if the estimated failure developing period is 14 days and we need some
time to plan and schedule the corrective maintenance for that failure to avoid a break down. I
think a reasonable inspection frequency is 7 days (FDP/2) in this case. If the inspection
frequency is longer than 14 days, we may miss both the failure and we will have a breakdown.
So, our rule of thumb is Inspection frequency = FDP/2.
The real problem is that we dont know what the FDP is. There is no standard, no documentation
and most plants do not have any history on FDP.
Inspection Tools changes the FDP
We also need to understand that the FDP changes when we have access to better tools. For
example, we may be able to detect a problem with a pillow block bearing by listening to it with a
stethoscope. This method may give us a warning period of a few days (on average depending on

situation). However, if we use a vibration analyzer, we can probably detect the same failure at
least 6 weeks in advance. The failure is the same, but the FDP has changed! For the most part,
the only reason we buy inspection tools is to extend the FDP with more accuracy.
In reality, the ability to detect a failure during the FDP also depends on the persons ability to do
the inspection, environment (lighting, temperature, indoor vs. outdoor, etc), and operational
parameters at the time of inspection, equipment design and accessibility, and much more.
Many Variables
Each component has many failure modes, and each failure mode can have different FDPs. We
also know that each FDP may change depending on the inspection tool, technique, the person
doing the inspection, and more. On top of all this, each component is running at different speeds,
different environment and different load.
At this point of reasoning, many plants do the wrong things. Some plants make the conclusion
that a massive study needs to be done in order to find the answers to all these questions. Why is
this not a good approach? This is not a good approach because in 999 times out of 1000, you
will not have the data you need to do the analysis and even if you did, the best bang for the buck
is usually to get your people trained and then out there doing inspections rather than performing
a big analysis. What you will end up with when you do a complicated analysis without data is a
guess based on a lot of work, so lets not do the complicated analysis and instead do a guess
using our experience and cut out 99.9% of the work.
Example
Lets look at some typical problems with an AC Motor. This example does not include all failure
modes, for example, if you look at bearing manufacturer manual, a bearing has over 50 failure
modes. Therefore we need to look at most common and most likely problems.
Example: AC Motor, 125 HP, 80% load, 24/7 operation, dusty environment.
COMMON PROBLEM

GUESSTIMATED FDP

Temp increase center of motor Weeks

due to overload or damaged
winding
Vibration in bearings
4 -12 weeks
Dirt buildup on motor
Bolts loose
Frame & foundation for
corrosion
Temperature increase inboard
bearing (cant get good
temperature reading on
outboard bearing)

1 Month
1 Month
1 Year
2 Weeks

INSPECTION &
FREQUENCY
Temp gun weekly

Vibration analysis every 2

weeks
Check/clean bi- weekly
Inspect bolts bi - weekly
Visual detailed inspection semiannually
Inspect IB bearing with IR gun
weekly (dont exceed 170 F
77C)

COMMON PROBLEM

GUESSTIMATED FDP

Electrical Junction box and

1 Month
cables
Noise from bearings, winding, 1 Week
overload etc
Immediate damage such as
fork lift run in, something
falling on motor
Increase in load (A)
Etc

Instant

2-4 weeks
Etc

INSPECTION &
FREQUENCY
Bi-weekly
Other tools above will pick up
source of noise earlier,
recommend weekly.
Cant catch problems early
without a FDP.
Weekly Current (A) reading
etc

As mentioned above there are many more failure modes, I have picked some common problems
to illustrate my point.
If we look at the right column there are many different inspection frequencies even when we do a
simplified analysis. Our estimates are just guesswork and will vary depending on who is doing
the inspection, the type of tool and environment, so we should not take the numbers too
seriously, they are estimates. I would therefore look at some of the shorter inspection intervals
and then add some of the longer interval inspections to those since we may as well do the longer
ones when we are there. They dont take too long time to do and we are just guessing the
intervals.
In this example we could group them as follows in a typical process plant environment:

Weekly

Monthly

6 months

Sample Checks on an AC Motor

Temp IB Bearing
Temp center Motor
Vibration pen at painted spot
Check Cleanliness of Motor
Look at condition of junction box and cables
Visually look for water on motor
Check fan with stroboscope
Listen for unusual noise
Measure Amps
Vibration analysis with Analyzer (different than pen
above)
Carefully check the base (steel) and foundation (Concrete)

If you want to see an example of IDCONs training material for an AC motor and a Coupling
click here:

CMS 100R - AC Motor

CMS 106 R - Gear Coupling
Other Inspections
If it is a critical motor perhaps you want to do a full motor analysis or a test of leakage to
ground.
Common Logical Error
Inspection frequencies are based on FDP, not life of component, nor the criticality of the
equipment function.
The life of a component has nothing to do with inspection frequency. For example, a world class
plant have an average motor life of 18 years, some motors last 8 years some 25. However, the
FDP for the most common failure modes for these motors are most likely in the 1-4 week span,
so life statistics has nothing to do with inspection frequency. A common erroneous argument is
we have inspected this component for 3 years and have not found any problems. Therefore, we
extend the inspection frequency from one week to four weeks. The fact that you have not found
a problem has nothing to do with the FDP, it hasnt changed just because the component is
running without any indications of a failure. Once that component fail, it may be after 15 years,
the FDP may still be two weeks and you need to catch it if it is financially viable to do so. If you
change the inspection period to four weeks, it is roughly 50 % + risk that you miss it.
Criticality does not affect the FDP, but it might be a factor when we assign inspection frequency.
The criticality of the motor is a deciding factor when estimating the financial pay off and may
change the selection of the inspection frequency because we are uncertain of the FDP. The FDP
is a guess. So, a very critical component may be checked more frequently because we dont
really know the FDP. It is an insurance policy.
Summary

Inspection frequencies are based on FDP, not criticality or component life.

The FDP for all failure modes is quite unfeasible and impractical to predict. However we
can make a pretty good guess to what it is.

If you dont have very good historical data as to what the FDP is, dont waste your time
making an elaborate study, make a reasonable guess, it is what you will end up with
anyway with a study without reliable data.

If you have the FDP data, ask if it isnt better to spend the effort in training people in how
to do inspections and planning and scheduling of corrective actions instead of making a
an outsized study. It is much more cost effective to spend the time on making the
execution of good inspections a reality.