TECHNICAL BULLETIN.

LTARP; 7 steps to results.

The issue
A query that is commonly
encountered in LTARP projects is:
Which subsequent steps are involved
in a project and which results can we
expect?
The query refers to the next issues:
Asset integrity is safeguarded by a
multiplicity of processes within a
plant. In which way does LTARP fit
in these processes?
What are the typical results,
besides a list of replacement
candidates, that is to be expected
from an LTARP project?.

The LTARP approach

In order to understand the variety of
results that can be expected when
executing an lifetime assessment, its
helpful to review the steps which are
taken during the project phase.
Take the asset list, and select
which assets should be reviewed
based on historical repetitive costs or
their potential(*) of being a capital
replacement candidate. The applied
criteria for (*) are (a) inefficiency of
technology (b) obsolescence (c) costs
expenditure/bad actor and (d)
technical EOL deterioration.
> This step is typically done by means
of the asset tree as represented in the
CMMS. This commonly results in
pinpointing items that are not on the
asset list or that even dont have a
specific tag code.
In this step the reference for End Of
Life condition assessment is
determined for the specific asset. This
is clearly related to one of the former
scenarios (a)-(d).
> A common result of this step is that
an actual reference for in service
condition assessment is missing.
Checks are done by comparison to
QA/QC requirements for new
materials. Reasonable acceptance
criteria are defined for use in the next
phase in combination with actions to
have them formalized over time.
In this step the actual assessment
methodology is selected. This can
refer to inspection methods as well as
performance assessments or

availability specifications as per

supplier.
> A common result of this step is that
an EOL assessment is defined that
includes a combination of findings that
are required. A sample is the
multiplicity of deteriorations and the
severeness of deteriorations, with the
resulting effect of inability to repair in
available timespan.
The actual EOL condition is
assessed by means of latest available
findings, using the results of 2) & 3).
> A common result of this step is that
some findings are denoted on
component level, yet an overall view
is only present at personal level.
If this applies, this finding is denoted
in order to ensure traceability.
In this step the available variety in
EOL prediction is assessed by means
of selecting the certainty category.
The variety of influence factors on
deterioration, are here taken into
account. The ISO 15686 provides
guidance in this step.
A reasonable worst case prediction
results from this step.
> A common result of this step is that
the critical parameters are addressed,
which determine the actual trend.
Awareness with these factors can
enhance the remaining lifetime
expectation. A sample is the presence
of debris which leads to local
unfavorable conditions.
This is the crosscheck step. In this
step the actual load and related
deterioration rate is determined in a
joint effort from the consultant and the
local representative which ensures the
incorporation of actual experience.
> A common result of this step is that
expectations are challenged against
the fundamental trend behavior
resulting in modified dates for future
investments, if already foreseen.
This is the reporting step. Reporting
contains: EOL dates, ordering dates,
date for intensive monitoring and date
for the start of EOL condition
monitoring.
> Common results of this step are
additional reports for incorporation in
management reports. Samples are
plots of total investments over time
and Pareto presentation of the 10

LTARP Long Term Asset Replacement Planning

Application note 7 steps to results Q5 2015
Knowledge owner: geerthenk.wijnants@stork.com

major cost drivers over the specified

period of sight (LTARP time zone).

Result
The LTARP proces facilitates as per
default:
Reporting of the EOL candidates
in a report or in XLSX, with the Yr.
of replacement and characteristic
date for monitoring and ordering.
Findings during the various steps
with respect to requirements for
additional EOL condition
assessment, lacking spares as
per incomplete RCM,
modifications of trend findings and
alike are denoted by means of an
action list..
Hi alert findings are also reported
in this list and can be extracted by
means of a separate code if
required
Additional management reporting
are supported by means of the
export in XLSX format, providing
flexibility as required.

Conclusions
LTARP uses the ISO 15686 and the
NEN 2767 as a common framework
for End Of Life condition assessment
and documented, traceable End Of
Life calculations. As shown in this
application note, these findings apply:
The 7 steps incorporated in the
work process, facilitate a review
and upgrade of current
operational condition assessment
procedures and related prediction
methods.
Lacks in spares, acceptance
criteria, asset tree configuration
are encountered and denoted by
means of an action list, that is an
integral part of the LTARP
process.
LTARP therefore fits in the
already operational processes,
since it uses the results and helps
to upgrade the processes as part
of an improvement process.
It therefore completes already
operational processes for RCM,
RBI and compliance.

Some images that give an

impression of the LTARP approach

AS

Figure 1: Heat exchanger: Level III prediction of asset tube condition with time.

End Of Life
criterion

Figure 2: Group size in condition classes over time

with capacity based end of life limit.

Explanation
The End Of Life (EOL) in this
particular case of a tubular
heat exchanger, is assessed
by means of a level II
approach by determining:

Which tube will represent

30% capacity loss when
plugged off?
How does that one
deteriorate amidst the
whole group?
When is this particular one
predicted to have reached
its acceptance limit for
defect depth?

Then renewal is required!

This prediction is modelled
and incorporated in the
LTARP database.

Figure 3: Various End Of Life definitions as discerned by ISO 15686 with

those that are used within LTARP.
LTARP Long Term Asset Replacement Planning
Application note 7 steps to results Q5 2015
Knowledge owner: geerthenk.wijnants@stork.com