Method Short Description
STORM Scenario based training modules to operators of process
technology with the objective of increasing operators'
awareness of defects and threats that can lead to reliability
incidents, with a focus on threats that require operator
intervention to mitigate.
FMEA Systematic method of identifying and preventing product and
process problems before they occur. It focuses on preventing
defects and improving safety and reliability.
FMEA’s are cross functional team based exercises.
The method predicts potential problems, identifies possible
causes, assesses effects, and helps plan pre-emptive
corrective action.
When to use
Use STORM in order to address specific operator competency
gaps in knowledge specific to unit equipment or technology,
practice operator response to abnormal situations associated
with shutdown, startup or outage of units.
Its primary application is on critical equipment or systems. It
can be applied during the project design phase or after start-
up and during normal operation. A successful FMEA activity
helps a team to identify potential failure modes based on past
experience, enabling the site to eliminate or design those
failures out of the system with the minimum of effort and
resource expenditure.
Latent Defects Team Approach This multidisciplinary team is chartered to focus on discovery Use at a site when a step change in reliability performance is
of process design, equipment and organizational conditions needed based on the Site reliability data analysis.
that threaten reliability performance. The methods for
discovery include: understanding of historic and current
conditions, identifying defects not yet observed at the site,
evaluating projects and historical process excursions affecting
equipment integrity, historical failures and the subsequent
repair scope, strategy, and challenges.

Process Flow Diagram Review
It is a threat identification workshop for production units
including utilities on site. Team goes through the Process
Flow Diagrams and all insights are captured on post it notes
and placed on the relevant equipment on the Process Flow
Diagrams.
PFD approach can be one of the first steps taken by a
Production Team to proactively identify threats to production.
This method can be undertaken once the Production Team is
effectively capturing and addressing production loss events
(reactive approach).

Unit Level Deep Dive
The method involves a multi-disciplinary team going deep Use on production or utility units where step change in
into the design and current operation of a unit to locate reliability performance is needed based on the Site reliability
unrevealed (latent) flaws so that they could be risk ranked data analysis (GUS, Pareto Analysis, Reliability Growth Plots).
and engineered out before they resulted in lost production or This method is also fit for relatively new operating units
loss of primary containment. where failures are starting to occur and reliability growth plots
show a beta value of greater than 1.0

Desktop Reliability Review
A review of a new unit with comparisons between design and The particular approach has been used post startup of a new
actual operation in an effort to identify latent threats that facilities, roughly 6 - 18 months after unit startup. It can be
may be a result of flaws particulary of the "infant mortality" used throughout the project life cycle.
mode that may be associated with errant design It is also useful to review a unit when there are signficant
assumptions, fabrication method omissions, etc. changes required: new feed slate, higher availability demand
than original design or not meeting design availability.

RMF & Work Process Health
Checks
It is intended to provide the framework of reliability
elements that must be consistent and managed at each of
our Manufacturing sites. It consists of 16 key elements with a
“points of evidence” assessment to highlight a site’s maturity
in each element. Work Process Health Checks are also an
integral part of the Plan-Do-Check-Improve cycle.
Internal health checks conducted by site resources occur each
year as part of the site assurance process. Each site should
have a plan that regularly utilizes external health checks at an
interval agreed with the Global Process Owner and/or RRMM
(3 years is typical).

Weibull Analysis
An analytical method for assessing equipment failure
characteristics and making predictions about equipment life
& probability of failure by fitting a statistical distribution to
observed failure data (single failure mode only).
Use a Weibull Analysis to: Determine the equipment stage of
life at time of failure & proper corrective actions that will
prevent future equipment failures; Forecast the reliability and
life cycle cost (NPV) of options to improve equipment
reliability; Determine the optimum replacement frequency for
parts/equipment that fail by wear out.

Asset Management Review
A multi-discipline team develops an optimized long-term
asset management plan for equipment based on generic
FMEA analysis of different equipment classes utilizing Life
Cycle Cost Analysis and current best practices.
These reviews are typically conducted just after a Turnaround
(T+6 months) or just before Turnaround Scoping begins (T-24
months). The reviews are independent of past performance.
These reviews are applicable for all critical equipment as they
address gaps in long-term planning and technical content
being used within the work processes (RCM, ESP, RBI, etc).
Proactive Threat Identification
Engagement (PTIE)
The intent of the PTIE effort is to bring knowledge of
reliability threats identified within our global system to each
production unit helping to anticipate and mitigate potential
future reliability hits. The real power of the activity is when
this information gets in the hands of multi-discipline
production unit teams during the workshop and it is drilled
down to a level where we identify gaps in our systems and
assets and are mitigating the threats proactively.
The engagement process should be used on an evergreen
scheduled frequency at each unit. The site should set targets
to participate in Proactive Threat Identification Engagement
(PTIE) with a plan to ultimately process the relevant threats
on the Global Top Threat List for each process technology.

Reliability Block Diagram (RBD) Reliability Block Diagrams is a structured process to
& Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) mathematically simulate the stochastic performance of plant
hardware and process systems as well as networks of
systems. This methodology provides a consistent and pro-
active platform for risk-based decision making. The Fault Tree
Analysis (FTA) is a system modelling technique that employs a
top event and a structure similar to that of a cause tree using
AND / OR gates.
Reliability Block Diagrams can be applied to a wide range of
systems: Simple, yet high impact, models to address specific
operational / sparing storage / logistics / upgrading queries.
Detailed equipment / component level individual unit models.
High-level single location network site models (existing and
planned projects).
 Situational Training for Operator Response to Mitigate (STORM)
Description
Situational Training for Operator Response to Mitigate (STORM) is the latent defect method that delivers scenario based trainin
modules to operators of process technology. STORM is sponsored by the RMTA and DS Reliability Steering Team, and has the
objective of increasing operators' awareness of defects and threats that can lead to reliability incidents, with a focus on threats
require operator intervention to mitigate.

When to Use
Use STORM in order to address specific operator competency gaps in knowledge specific to unit equipment or technology, prac
operator response to abnormal situations associated with shutdown, startup or outage of units.

Inputs
P&T Subject Matter Expert knowledge, experience, past Reliability Big Hits, GUS data, Causal Learning investigations, Learning
Incidents related to specific technology or equipment, specific threats or issues related to technology, Site T/A schedule, projec
activity, Site Operator training schedules.

Outputs
One Day Training Class focused on technology of specific unit(s) or fired heaters, including abnormal scenario exercises, facilita
P&T Subject Matter Expert (SME) or Site SME, repeated at the Site every 3 years (or as needed).
 Reference Document

Example Report
BAR FCC STORM training example

Example Report

Return to Menu
 Failure Mode & Effect Analysis (FMEA)
Description
FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis) is a systematic method of identifying and preventing product and process
problems before they occur. FMEA’s focus on preventing defects, improving safety and reliability, and increasing cus
satisfaction — the method does not require complicated statistics only involves simple arithmetic.
FMEA’s are cross functional team based exercises, several people need to be involved in the process.
Effective FMEA’s cannot be done by one person alone sitting in an office filling out the FMEA forms.
Each FMEA should ensure that attention is given to every component within the product or assembly. Critical and sa
related components or processes should be given a higher priority.
It is a bottom-up approach for worst case estimates in a search for effects of an item failure on operation of the syste
FMEA predicts potential problems, identifies possible causes, assesses effects, and helps plan pre-emptive correctiv
action.

When to Use

There are several applications of FMEA: For Shell Manufacturing, the primary application is on critical equipment or
systems. It can be applied during the project design phase, changes are usually more easily implemented at the de
stage. FMEA may also be applied to processes and procedures. For example, it is used to identify potential for failur
maintenance procedures. FMEA can be used to: assist in selecting design alternatives with high dependability, ensu
all failure modes of equipment and systems, and their effects on operational success have been considered, identify
human error modes and effects (HRA - see below), provide a basis for planning testing and maintenance of physica
systems, improve the design of procedures and processes, and provide qualitative or quantitative information for an
techniques such as fault tree analysis.

Inputs

FMEA require information about the elements of the system in sufficient detail for meaningful analysis of the ways in
each element can fail. Information may include: drawings or a flow chart of the system being analysed and its
components, or the steps of a process; an understanding of the function of each step of a process or component of
system; details of environmental and other parameters, which may affect operation; an understanding of the results
particular failures; historical information on failures including failure rate data where available.

Outputs
The primary output of FMEA is a list of potential failure modes, their effects and causes for each component or step
system or process (which may include information on the likelihood of failure). Information is also given on the cause
failure and the consequences to the system as a whole. The output includes a rating of importance based on the like
that the system will fail, the level of risk resulting from the failure mode or a combination of the level of risk and the
‘detectability’ of the failure mode.

Human Reliability Analysis

 Description
Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) deals with the impact of humans on reliability performance and can be used to eva
human error influences on the system. Manufacturing processes contain potential for human error, especially when
time available to the operator to make decisions is short. The probability that problems will develop sufficiently to be
serious can be small. Sometimes human action will be the only defense to prevent an initial failure progressing towa
unplanned downtime event or major equipment failure. The HRA process is as follows: Problem definition, what typ
human involvements are to be investigated/assessed? Task analysis, how will the task be performed and what type
aids will be needed to support performance? Human error analysis, how can task performance fail: what errors can
and how can they be recovered? Representation, how can these errors or task performance failures be integrated
other hardware, software, and environmental events to enable overall system failure probabilities to be calculated?
Screening, are there any errors or tasks that do not require detailed quantification? Quantification, how likely are
individual errors and failures of tasks? Impact assessment, which errors or tasks are most important, i.e. which one
have the highest contribution to reliability or risk? Error reduction, how can higher human reliability be achieved?
Documentation, what details of the HRA need to be documented? In practice, the HRA process proceeds step-wise
although sometimes with parts (e.g. tasks analysis and error identification) proceeding in parallel with one another.

When to Use
Use at a site where Site reliability data analysis indicates "human factors" as a high contributor to production loss ev
This information in some cases can be derived from investigation reports that go beyond mode and mechanism.
HRA can assist in identifying vulnerabilities within a task, and may provide guidance on how to improve reliability for
task.

Inputs
Inputs to HRA include: information to define tasks that people should perform; experience of the types of error that o
practice and potential for error; expertise on human error and its quantification.

Outputs
Outputs include: a list of errors that may occur and methods by which they can be reduced – preferably through rede
of the system; error modes, error types causes and consequences.

Connection with RCM

Attached information on the connect between FMEA and RCM:

Reference Document
FMEA Basics

FMEA Completed
Studies
Completed Studies

FMEA Plan and

Tracking
Plan and Tracking

Return to Menu
Reference Document
HRA Method

Example Report

Example Report

Return to Menu
 Latent Defects Team Approach
Description
This standing team is chartered to focus on discovery of process design, equipment and organizational conditions th
threaten reliability performance. The methods for discovery include: Engage site personnel for understanding of his
and current conditions. This includes Operations, Maintenance, Management, Projects, Process owners and others
Conduct research as needed to obtain common & inherent industry defects not yet observed at the site. Evaluate
projects, historical process excursions affecting equipment integrity, historical failures and the subsequent repair sco
strategy, and challenges (i.e. work conditions under which the repairs were made). A timeline for latent condition in
on reliability performance will be developed and understood. Update and maintain database for Latent Conditions t

When to Use
Use at a site where step change in reliability performance is needed based on the Site reliability data analysis (GUS
Pareto Analysis, Reliability Growth Plots).

Inputs
Team utilizes unit PFD's, Construction records, Design manuals, GUS Data, and Investigation reports.

Outputs
Ongoing generation of threats that are entered into the MTA database with owners assigned to start the mitigation p

Connect with RCM

Attached information in the conenct with RCM:

Reference Document
Convent Team - Flow Chart

Other Examples

Example Report
Convent Team Charter

Example Report
Convent Team Tracking

Return to Menu
 Process Flow Diagram Review
Description
It is a threat identification workshop for production units including utilities on site. Production team picks a production
units / plant section to review. Assemble a team with participants from production unit, engineering, maintenance,
technology. Team goes through the Process Flow Diagrams. Team uses PEFS and operating manual as supporting
documents. All insights are captured on post it notes and placed on the relevant equipment on the Process Flow
Diagrams. Make field walk to confirm of insights / findings.
These reviews can take up to several days to complete depending on the unit complexity and history. Units with high
historical losses should repeat the review every 2-3 years to ensure risk mitigation is progressing on the right issues

When to Use
PFD approach can be one of the first steps taken by a Production Team to proactively identify threats to production.
method can be undertaken once the Production Team is effectively capturing and addressing production loss events
(reactive approach). This method can surface defects that have happened in the past but concerns remain that the
has not been mitigated to a sufficient level.

Inputs
Team utilizes unit PFD's, PEFS, and operating manuals to conduct the review.

Outputs
A list of threats that are entered into the MTA database with owners assigned to start the mitigation process.
Reference Document

Example Report
Rheinland CDU-1 Review

Other Examples

Example Report

Return to Menu
 Unit Level Deep Dive
Description
This method was used 2x successfully at the Scotford Upgrader in 2008. The method involved a multi-disciplinary te
going deep into the RHC & HMU design and current operation to locate other unrevealed (latent) flaws so that they
be risk ranked and engineered out before they resulted in lost production or loss of primary containment. Scope inc
PFD Review, Construction Review, Mechanical Design Review, Reliability Incident Review. This method has also be
used at the Bukom Refinery in a lighter touch.

When to Use
Use on production or utility units where step change in reliability performance is needed based on the Site reliability
analysis (GUS, Pareto Analysis, Reliability Growth Plots). This method is also fit for relatively new operating units w
failures are starting to occur and reliability growth plots show a beta value of greater than 1.0

Inputs
Team utilizes unit PFD's, Construction records, Design manuals, GUS Data, and Investigation reports.

Outputs
A list of threats that are entered into the MTA database with owners assigned to start the mitigation process.
Reference Document

Example Report
Scotford Upgrader RHC

Example Report
Bukom CDU5

Return to Menu
 Desktop Reliability Review

Description
A review of a new unit with comparisons between design (including fabrication, construction) and actual operation in
effort to identify latent threats that may be a result of flaws particulary of the "infant mortality" mode that may be asso
with errant design assumptions, fabrication method omissions, etc. This method has been used on the Port Arthur C
Expansion Project and has pulled together approaches from Process / Technical Safety and Reliability Engineering /
Management. The enhancements from Process / Technical Safety include the use of guideword (e.g. no flow,
overtemperature) and conditions (startup, shutdown, end of run or EOR, etc) and Reliability Engineering include the
of FMEA with tailored likelihood / failure probability table with special emphasis on infant mortality and categorization
solutions to M work processes (MTA, ESP, RCM, etc).

When to Use
The particular approach has been used post startup of a new facilities, roughly 6 - 18 months after unit startup. It ca
used throughout the project life cycle. In the application discussed key is identification of potential threats that may
have been carefully considered (misapplication, unrecognized failure mode, incorrect sizing) during design or design
assumptions differ significantly from actual operating conditions (higher or lower flows than anticipated resulting in a
operating outside the best operating envelope).

It is also useful to review in a unit when there are signficant changes required: new feed slate, higher availability dem
than original design or not meeting design availability.

Inputs

PFDs or Process Safeguarding Flow Schemes (PSFS), P&ID, Heat and Material Balances, Process Design Manual
Equipment files, Process Historian, ESP variable tables. The review teams have included the following full-time mem
Production Specialist (site), Process Engineer (site), Technical Safety Specialist (P&T), Process Specialist (P&T),
Corrosion and Materials Specialist (P&T) and Asset Management Engineer (P&T). Can be led by Technical Safety
Specialist or Asset Management Engineer - methodolgy may differ. Typical ad hoc members from the site include bu
not limited to the following: Corrosion and Materials Engineer, PEI Engineer / Inspector, Rotating Equipment Enginee

Outputs
FMEA workbook and summary statistics / graphs including summary of recommendations by guideword and RAM lik
summaries with number of threats by RAM box.
 Method Reference
Document

Input example (TORs

or other)

Output example
Report
Desktop Reliability Reviews examples

Return to Menu
 RMF & Work Process Health Checks
Description
The establishment of a Reliability Management Framework was the top priority strategy identified at the global Relia
engagement sessions held in Sept/Oct 2007. It is intended to provide the framework of reliability elements that mus
consistent and managed at each of our Manufacturing sites. In 1Q2012, an RMF “refresh” activity was completed wi
input of practitioners and process owners with the objective to adjust the RMF to reflect advancements made over th
couple of years . The updated RMF consists of the 16 most influential elements – many are core work processes, s
are organisational behaviors, and a few are specific activities. Each of these elements is important on its own in driv
site reliability, yet how these elements interface is one of the primary considerations and main improvements reflecte
the RMF. The RMF includes a “points of evidence” assessment to highlight a site’s maturity in each element. This m
allows sites to “self-manage” their RMF maturity without the requirement of an external assessment. Work Proces
Health Checks are also an integral part of the Plan-Do-Check-Improve cycle. The results from RMF and Work Proc
health checks are in input into a site's Reliability strategy and improvement plans.

When to Use
Internal health checks conducted by site resources occur each year as part of the site assurance process. External
checks can be very beneficial in uncovering "blind" spots and bringing additional focus and challenge to the site. Eac
should have a plan that regularly utilizes external health checks at an interval agreed with the Global Process Owne
and/or RRMM (3 years is typical).

Inputs
Normal inputs include GUS data analysis (typically last 3 years) and site self assessments and results from previous
health checks (internal and external). Team composition can be designed to target specific concern areas of the Sit
GPO's, and RRMM's.

Outputs
Outputs include a summary of strengths and weaknesses. These can serve as inputs to the site's Reliability strateg
improvement plans (refreshed annually).
Reference Document
RMF Documents

Example Report
Many reports available from
GPO's and RRMM's

Example Report

Return to Menu
 Weibull Analysis

Description
An analytical method for assessing equipment failure characteristics and making predictions about equipment life &
probability of failure by fitting a statistical distribution to observed failure data (single failure mode only). The Weibul
probability distribution is the most widely used model in component reliability analysis and it provides flexibility – it ca
with increasing, constant, and decreasing hazard/failure rates (e.g., wear-out, random, infant mortality). In “two
parameter” form, Weibull model is described by:

Where:
F = Probability of Failure
R = Reliability
h = scale parameter/factor known as Characteristic Life
b = shape parameter/factor and relates to the behavior or mode of failure (reducing, constant, increasing)

When to Use
Use a Weibull Analysis to:
- Determine the equipment stage of life at time of failure & proper corrective actions that will prevent future equipme
failures
- Forecast the reliability and life cycle cost (NPV) of options to improve equipment reliability
- Determine the optimum replacement frequency for parts/equipment that fail by wear out

Inputs

Weibull analysis is best done graphically with axes transformed in such a way that the plot will be linear (Log of Log
Log plot). Use a software such as SuperSMITH Weibull for PCs. Define what is a failure and gather the data that ar
characterized by that failure mode, i.e., age to failure or time between failure data.

Outputs
Weibull analysis is the process of obtaining estimates for b and h from observed failure data. The Weibull plot resul
straight line and the slope of the straight line is b, the shape parameter. Amongst other things, a Weibull Analysis an
value of b can tell you the machine stage of life at time of failure.
 Method Reference
Document
Weibull Analysis

Input example (TORs

or other)
Weibull Analysis Inputs, Outputs & Examples

Output example
Report
Weibull Database
Weibull Analysis Inputs, Outputs & Examples

Return to Menu
 Asset Management Review

Description

A multi-discipline team develops an optimized long-term asset management plan for equipm
generic FMEA analysis of different equipment classes utilizing Life Cycle Cost Analysis and
practices. Includes all aspects of asset management: Operations, Maintenance, Monitoring
Design/new Technology. The plans would be refreshed 2-3 times over the course of a Turn
incorporate new best practices and modify the plan based on new operating conditions or in

Currently (mid 2013) these reviews are available for Heat Exchangers, Fired Heaters, Rota
Cooling Water Systems and FCCU (R&R, Slide Valves, Slurry Loop, Expansion Joints).

When to Use

These reviews are typically conducted just after a Turnaround (T+6 months) or just before T
Scoping begins (T-24 months). The reviews are independent of past performance. These
applicable for all critical equipment as they address gaps in long-term planning and technic
used within the work processes (RCM, ESP, RBI, etc). These reviews act as a work proces
activity.

Inputs

For analyzing a specific piece of equipment: the input data is gathered as part of the pre-wo
highlights of process engineering data, inspection, operations experience, maitnenance his
prework uses the assessment questions for the relevant equipment class and also uses the
information pertaining to this equipment

Outputs
Several items including:
a) list of threats that are entered into the MTA database with owners assigned to start the m
these threats can be with equipment, processes, people.
b) long-term asset plan of activities including monitoring, operations, inspection, reinvestme
(the timeline covers multiple TA cycles)
c) living program updates to the work processes such as RCM, ESP, RBI, and others.
d) list of gaps in proven technology that is readily available
e) many times there are more complex issues identified that require further study. These sh
summarized and an action plan developed.
 Method Reference
Document

Asset Management Reviews Documentatation - Livelink

Input example (TORs

or other)

Output example
Report

Return to Menu
Return to Menu
 Proactive Threat Identification Engagement (PTIE)
Description
Manufacturing sites have been identifying, documenting, prioritizing, and mitigating threats for their site as part of th
global work process. The intent of the PTIE effort is to bring knowledge of reliability threats identified within our globa
system (MTA/LFI's/SME Expertise) to each production unit – helping to anticipate and mitigate potential future reliab
hits. Global process unit and equipment specific Top Threat Lists have been developed and are maintained/updated
engagements are progressed. In addition, mitigations are documented and shared for these Top threats as each
continues to execute solution prioritization and mitigation as part of the existing MTA process. The real power of the
activity is when this information gets in the hands of multi-discipline production unit teams during a Proactive Threat
Identification Engagement (PTIE), and it is drilled down to a level where we identify gaps in our systems and assets
are mitigating the threats proactively.

When to Use
The engagement process should be used on an evergreen scheduled frequency at each unit. The site should set ta
to participate in Proactive Threat Identification Engagement (PTIE)with a plan to ultimately process the relevant thre
the Global Top Threat List for each process technology. The Top Threat lists can also be incorporated as guidence i
Dive exercises.

Inputs
The Global Process Unit Top Threat List is used. This threat list should be maintained via scheduled frequency of up
Pre-engagement of Site representatives in order to prioritize which threats are part of the multidiscipline discussion.
site experts and P&T experts participate in engagement and solution development. Solution mitigation developed b
sites should be documented sufficiently such that this can be used as input for future similar Proactive Threat Identif
Engagement (PTIE)

Outputs
Output is documentation of Threats processes via meeting notes and updating of site MTA database. In addition, ou
will document specific solution mitigation for each Top Threat.

Connection with RCM

Attached information on the connecty bnetween PTIE and RCM:

 Reference Document

PTIE Documentation in Livelink

Example Report

Example Report

Return to Menu
 Reliability Block Diagram (RBD) & Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)
Description
Reliability Block Diagrams is a structured process to provide a quantitative basis for decision making by creating an
understanding of system performance by analyzing and interpreting system design from an availability point of view.
methodology provides a consistent and pro-active platform for risk-based decision making, which takes into account
reliability, maintenance, operational flexibility, scheduling and production. The RBD represents how items (equipmen
valves, instruments, external factors) are connected such that the system will function as required and does not
necessarily indicate the actual physical connections.

The Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) is a another system modelling technique. Key differentiation from the RBD method is
employs a top event and the structure is similar to that of a cause tree using AND OR gates with added benefit of
determining failure probability.

When to Use
Reliability Block Diagrams come in many forms:
- Simple, yet high impact, models to address specific operational / sparing storage / logistics / upgrading queries.
- Detailed equipment / component level individual unit models. Upstream (E&P) / LNG / Downstream Oil & Chemica
- High-level single location network site models (existing and planned projects).
- Chemical plants & Refineries.
- High-level multi-location global product supply models.
- Models integrating Shell assets with partner / customer assets – both network and detailed levels.
- Proprietary technology reliability validation models

There are various tools available for RBD analysis. Two software packages are approved for use in DS-M. Both are
available through GI-D and have global network licenses available to all Shell DS-M staff.
- AvSim is a basic tool good for analyzing simple series and parallel systems. It has functionality for conducting spa
optimization and can quickly calculate cost implications for lost production. One example is that it can be used calcu
the cumulative risk on production of maintenance philosophies for categories of equipment (i.e., pumps or fin fans).
- TARO is a more complex software tool used primarily by modeling engineers in P&T, but can also be used by site
engineers willing to spend a bit more time on RBDs. You would use TARO when the system availability in question i
impacted by logistics or storage, when the production impacts to multiple products is of interest, or when capacity
utilization is a KPI of interest. It can be used to calculate (among other things) the impact on production of debottlen
unit capacity, constraining (or deconstraining) storage volumes, or changes in product and/or shipping contracts. It i
being used widely in DS-M to analyze risks to Business Plan UPDT targets.

Inputs
For Reliability Block Diagram analysis, an understanding of the system and the causes of failure is required, as well
technical understanding of how the system can fail. Detailed flow diagrams are necessary to aid the analysis. For de
quantitative analysis, data on failure rates or the probability of being in a failed state for all basic events in the fault tr
required.

Outputs
The outputs from RBD / FTA Provide quick visualization of system configuration. Identify system weak spots (critical
equipment). Relatively easy to prepare and interpret. Often used in conjunction with other assessment techniques (F
or computer simulation) as part of a more rigorous assessment

Connect with RCM

Attached information on the connect with RCM:

 Reference Document
http://sww.shell.com/downstream/manufacturing/ManufacturingExcellenceandSupport/RMTA/RelEngToolKit/6-Reliability_Mo

Example Report Example Report

Deer Park Phenol RBD Deer Park CCU RBD

Example Report
Rheinland H2 Compression
RBD

Return to Menu
Return to Menu