MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY SPECIALREPORT

When good pumps turn bad

A straightforward methodology deals with troublesome pumps
R. X. PEREZ, Pumpcalcs, San Antonio, Texas

W
e all have them. They cause us to worry incessantly,
lose sleep and frequently miss precious time with our
families. They are often the bane of processes that
require liquids to be transferred from one location to another.
These mechanical monsters are pumps that fail repeatedly and are
widely and unflatteringly known as “bad actors.”
By definition, bad actors are pumps that fail so frequently that
they stand apart from the rest of the pump population. There
are bad actors that have failed as many as 16 times in one year,
some even more often. These troublesome machines sap precious
resources from our maintenance departments and prevent us from
achieving world-class reliability performance.
Chances are these troublemakers were all carefully selected
by well-intentioned vendors and project engineers, and installed
dutifully by construction companies. But the devil is in the details.
Fatal flaws—ranging from slender shafts (poor L/D ratios) to poor
operating practices—crept into these pumping systems. They
crippled performance and forced pumps to lead notorious lives.
The inordinate number of failures experienced by bad actors
tends to dramatically skew downward the mean time between
repairs (MTBR) for a plant average. For this reason, a key strategy
for improving plant MTBR starts by identifying and improving
the reliability of one’s most troublesome pumps. This article
presents a straightforward methodology for addressing the most
problematic pumps at an operating plant.
thetical data set for a bad actor. To construct a data format similar
to Table 2, one needs to know the date of each failure and the
repair cost for every past failure in the time frame of interest. A
starting point must be defined, as well.
In the following example, the first failure occurred 15 months
after the defined starting time and the repair cost was $5,000.
The next failure occurred 12 months after the first failure and
resulted in a repair cost of $5,500. This means that the cumula-
tive time (third column) for the second failure was 27 months and
the cumulative repair cost (fourth column) for the second was
$10,500. For each subsequent failure, you keep accumulating the
failure numbers, time and repair costs, as seen in the cumulative
failure, time and cost columns in Table 2.
Plotting the cumulative failure number and cumulative repair
cost value vs. the cumulative time will yield a plot similar to the
one shown in Fig. 2. One might call these reliability growth plots
because they clearly illustrate if the failure rate is constant or

Addressing bad actors. To address bad actors, one must

first define what constitutes such pumps. Usually, definitions FIG. 1 A troublesome centrifugal pump.
contain a combination of failure rate and repair cost criteria. For
example, one may define a bad actor as any pump that fails two
or more times and has caused more than $10,000 in repair costs
over the previous 12-month period. Of course, these criteria can Reliability growth plots
Note: Left axis is for cumulative failure,
be modified to satisfy management preferences. and the right axis is for cumulative repair costs
Some plants also include lost opportunity costs during the same 25 200,000
reporting period. It is possible to simplify reporting by combining Failure growth 180,000
Cumulative repair, $ costs

repair cost and production losses into a single figure called “losses.” 20 Repair cost growth 160,000
Cumulative failures

These multiple criteria tend to cull nuisance pumps that fail many 140,000
15 120,000
times each year but do not have a large annual repair total. By using
Change in slope 100,000
the multiple criteria of failure rate and repair costs, one can quickly 10 80,000
identify the pumps having the greatest impact on reliability.
60,000
Go after the top. After creating a list similar to Table 1, one 5 40,000
simply sorts in descending order of the most to the least costly 20,000
pump. The top 10 on this list represents bad actors. This list 0 0
should probably be compiled quarterly, semi-annually or annually. 0 50 100 150 200 250
It is customary to start by attacking the worst of the bad actors. Time, months
Examine the equipment history. The next steps describe FIG. 2 Reliability growth plot for a hypothetical pump.
more closely how to attack each bad actor. Let’s examine a hypo-

HYDROCARBON PROCESSING MAY 2012

I 57
SPECIALREPORT MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY

TABLE 1. List of bad actors TABLE 2. Hypothetical bad actor data

Number of Repair cost Production losses Total losses Time since Cumulative
Pump failures in last over last over last in last Cumulative last failure, time, Repair Cumulative
number 12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months failures months months cost costs
12 2 $5,000 $250,000 $255,000 1 15 15 $5,000 $5,000
4 3 $25,000 $120,000 $145,000 2 12 27 $5,500 $10,500
18 5 $8,000 $50,000 $58,000 3 18 45 $6,000 $16,500
16 3 $50,000 NA $50,000 4 16 61 $4,500 $21,000
19 3 $40,000 NA $40,000 5 19 80 $5,000 $26,000
20 2 $15,000 $14,000 $29,000 6 12 92 $3,500 $29,500
14 6 $24,000 NA $24,000 7 20 112 $6,500 $36,000
11 3 $20,000 NA $20,000 8 16 128 $5,000 $41,000
10 5 $13,000 NA $13,000 9 19 147 $5,200 $46,200
3 3 $12,000 NA $12,000 10 12 159 $4,000 $50,200
8 4 $11,000 NA $11,000 11 9 168 $3,500 $53,700
1 3 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 12 6 174 $6,000 $59,700
9 2 $7,500 NA $7,500 13 5 179 $6,500 $66,200
13 2 $7,500 NA $7,500 14 4 183 $8,000 $74,200
7 6 $6,000 NA $6,000 15 6 189 $8,500 $82,700
6 2 $5,200 NA $5,200 16 5 194 $7,500 $90,200
2 2 $3,000 NA $3,000 17 4 198 $9,000 $99,200
15 1 $2,500 NA $2,500 18 8 206 $10,000 $109,200
5 4 $2,000 NA $2,000 19 7 213 $9,000 $118,200
17 4 $1,500 NA $1,500 20 6 219 $8,500 $126,700

THE DEFINITIVE SOURCE FOR TRACKING

GLOBAL HPI CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
For more than 50 years, Hydrocarbon Processing magazine remains the only
source that collects and maintains data specifically for the HPI community,
publishing up-to-the-minute construction projects from around the globe with
our online product, Boxscore Database.
Updated daily, our database helps engineers, contractors and marketing
personnel identify active HPI construction projects around the world to:
• Generate leads • Track trend analysis
• Market research • Decide future budget planning
NOW, WE’VE MADE OUR BEST PRODUCT EVEN BETTER!
ENHANCEMENTS INCLUDE:
• Exporting your search results to Excel so you can
compile your research
FOR A FREE 2-WEEK TRIAL, • Delivering the latest updated projects directly to
contact Lee Nichols at +1 (713) 525-4626 your inbox each week
or Lee.Nichols@GulfPub.com. • Designing customized construction reports for your
company using our 50 years of archived projects
• Detailed information for key contacts at planned and
www.ConstructionBoxscore.com ongoing construction projects

58
I MAY 2012 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY SPECIALREPORT

changing over time and if the rate of cost to perform maintenance • Reviewing the pump selection, driver selection, seal design,
is changing over time. A constant slope means the failure rate is piping design and control system design
constant, while a curving plot means the failure rate is changing. • Conducting a detailed vibration analysis of the pump, motor
The reliability growth plot in Fig. 2 shows a constant failure rate and piping system
up until months 160 to 170. After that time, the failure rate and • Reviewing the base plate and foundation design
expenditure rate begin to increase and eventually settle into a new • Assessing current hydraulic performance vs. what was
higher failure rate for some undefined reason. expected or ascertained on earlier occasions.
These reliability growth plots offer a wealth of information. It can be said that this phase of an audit includes ascertaining
First, the cumulative failure plot shows if the failure rate is con- that the correct pump and system design are used for the service in
stant or changing with time. If the failure rate did change, it tells question. The “cold eye review” will often be appropriate. It refers
the analyst when the change occurred. One can discover if the to the fresh assessment of a system or process by an experienced,
failure rate was always bad or if it changed at some time in that unbiased third party. This party could be another pump engineer
past. Similarly, examining cumulative repair cost data allows the or technician accompanying the audit engineer on his or her field
analyst to determine if something changed in the past or if failure visit and inspecting the pump in question.
costs have been constant from the beginning. The intent of the cold eye review is to look for anything that
If there is a defining moment when reliability decreased, the might be considered unacceptable. Excessive vibration, lack of pip-
analyst might ask what changed. Interviews with operators and ing supports, inattention to thermal growth and absence of pressure
mechanics allow us to find reasons for the observed change in gauges are among the many things noted and requiring remedial
reliability. Field personnel very often provide key insights that action. After living with a problem pump for a long period, we can
assist in complex root cause failure analyses (RCFAs). Among the become oblivious to issues right in front of us. The cold eye review
clues, we may find mechanical and procedural changes, such as: can help uncover potentially important issues that were overlooked
• The nature of the process has changed by those living and working close to chronic bad actors.
• The control scheme was modified in the past Once the analyst has reviewed the failure history and conducted
• The seal flush source was modified due to process contami- a design audit, some seemingly elusive contributing factors begin to
nation concerns. stand out. The next analysis step requires us to determine the root
Interviewing personnel close to the equipment is a great way to causes of failures. It is important not to stop at a physical root cause,
uncover subtle issues that may be affecting reliability performance. such as the pump failed due to a bearing failure or shaft failure. A
Here, then, is a telling example involving pumps that were failing good investigative team will uncover any latent root causes, ones
every few months. It was discovered that a production engineer
decided to eliminate the use of an external seal flush because he
felt it was contaminating the process. After convincing him to
reinstate the flush at a lower, friendlier rate, seal life returned to
the anticipated norm. Pumps specialized
Suppose the general trends observed on reliability growth
plots are fairly constant over the operational lives of the pumps
in the handling of
in question. It would then be fair to assume there is something solids and aerated ACHEMA
18 th –22 nd June 2012:
wrong with the basic design of the pumping system. Possible
causes may include: liquids Hall 8.0, Stand B64
• Poor installation
• Poor L/D ratio
• Poor pump selection
• Excessive piping strain.
The reliability growth plots also tell reviewers how much the
pumps are costing. In this particular example one can quickly
conclude that $126,700 was spent over a period of 219 months.
This equates to an annual rate of $6,942. The annual rate of
expenditure conveys the value of solving the problem. If one were
to assume that annual repair costs can be reduced to 25% of the
starting value, one might expect to save about $5,200 per year. For
a two-year payback needed to justify capital expenditures, spend- Within
ithin their ra
range
ange
ge of Pr
Process
ing about $10,000 on a solution would be justified. Pumps Egger
E can propose high
hi h
To ensure an acceptable return on investment, the author tries pressure – high temperature
to avoid working on pumps that have annual repair and process designs suitable for applications
losses below $10,000. Although it is often assumed that find- involving multiphase mixtures,
ing economic justification of reliability projects for pumps with high system pressures (up to
Emile Egger & Cie SA
annual losses less than $10,000 is next to impossible, this rule will 120 bar) and high temperatures
2088 Cressier NE
not hold whenever simple seal improvements, bearing upgrades (up to 450 °C). Switzerland
or procedural changes are involved. Phone +41 (0)32 758 71 11
Conducting detailed design audits and RCFAs. The next www.eggerpumps.com Fax +41 (0)32 757 22 90
info@eggerpumps.com
step in dealing with troublesome pumps requires conducting a
design, installation and performance audit. Such an audit involves:
Select 165 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
SPECIALREPORT MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY
that often lurk beneath the figurative surface. The key point here
is that an investigative team must be open-minded during the data
collection and evaluation. Parts fail for a reason and the decisions
of people led to whatever issues we now experience. Your goal is to
seek the truth and back it up by science.
Determine a path, then track progress. Once the root cause
and contributing factors are established by the team, it is time to
formulate a plan of attack. It has been said that less is more. In
other words, it is easier to sell two recommendations to manage-
ment than 20 recommendations. It is also easier to implement two
recommendations than 20. This doesn’t mean that no more than
two recommendations can be made. It simply means that, by only
presenting the highest priority recommendations to management,
one’s chances of securing approval dramatically improve.
Don’t be afraid to fail; we all fail occasionally. The best
approach involves gathering lots of data, analyzing the data in
exhaustive detail, and using a repeatable and structured RCFA
approach. The RCFA process is a process of continuous improve-
ment. Some problems are so complex that they may take several
tries to solve.
After obtaining management approvals, it is time to imple-
ment remedial recommendations in a timely fashion and to track
the benefits of the improvements. Proof of success will be seen in
an updated reliability growth plot, where, hopefully, reliability
improvements are manifested and sustained.
Whenever clear improvement is seen, the news deserves to be
published. Management, operating personnel, and contributors
will be motivated to continue working toward reducing, and even
eliminating, bad actors until plant-wide MTBR targets are reached.
NeedC H E M I C A L C L E A N I N G ?
Example of de-rusting
Find Us On:
Select 166 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
60
I MAY 2012 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
Critically important steps. There are seemingly insignifi-
cant buying decisions and other events that can occur during the
early life of a pump that eventually lead to below-average reliabil-
ity performance. However, reliability improvements and system-
atic upgrading of weak links can turn things around. Successful
reliability improvement programs require that latent root causes
be identified and corrected. Starting with one’s most troublesome
pumps, failure lists must be systematically reduced until world
class reliability is achieved. Remember these critical steps in bad
actor reviews:
• Define, list and compare
• Go after the top bad actors
• Examine the equipment history
• Conduct a detailed audit
• Perform an RCFA
• Determine a path forward
• Track your progress.
There will always be another pump failure from which to
analyze and learn. Every failure should be considered an oppor-
tunity to learn more about equipment, processes and systems,
and improve them. HP
Robert Perez is the author of Operator’s Guide to Centrifugal
Pumps and co-creator and editor of the PumpCalcs.com website.
He has more than 30 years of rotating equipment experience in
the petrochemical industry and has numerous machinery reliability
articles to his credit. Mr. Perez holds a BS degree in mechanical engi-
neering from Texas A&M University at College Station and an MS degree in mechani-
cal engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. He holds a Texas PE license.
www.fourquest.com
www.
FourQuest Energy
E is an ISO 9001:2008 certified, dynamic,
innovative company,
compa providing pre-commissioning, commissioning as well
as regular shutdown
shutdo and maintenance services to the energy industry,
including: steam blowing,
b air blowing, oil flushing, chemical cleaning, fluid
pumping, nitrogen services, engineering & procedure writing, pipeline
pigging and testin
testing, chemical degassing and decontamination, static load
tank testing, hydro-testing,
hydro filtration and fluid heating services. It is focused
on fulfilling the needs
ne of its clients in the oil and gas and power industry
across Canada, th the Middle East and Caspian.
SCAN WITH YOUR SMARTPHONE
TO VIEW OUR WEBSITE