Typical hazardous tasks in electrical work
The following tasks are some examples of possible exposure to energized conductors:
a) Measuring, testing, and probing electrical system components;
b) Working near battery banks;
c) Opening electrical equipment enclosure doors or removing covers;
d) Inserting or pulling fuses;
e) Drilling, or otherwise penetrating, earth, walls, or ßoors;
f) Pulling conductors in raceways, cable trays, or enclosures;
g) Lifting leads or applying jumpers in control circuits;
h) Installing or removing temporary grounds;
i) Operating switches or circuit breakers;
j) Working inside electronic and communications equipment enclosures.
Showing posts with label RCM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RCM. Show all posts
PROJECT RISK CONTROL - HIERARCHY OF RISK CONTROLS BASIC INFORMATION AND TUTORIALS
When assessing the adequacy of existing controls or introducing new controls, a hierarchy of risk controls should be considered. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Schedule 1 specifies the general principles of prevention which are set out in the European Council Directive.
These principles are:
1. avoiding risks
2. evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided
3. combating the risks at source
4. adapting the work to the individual, especially as regards the design of the workplace, the choice
of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reducing their effects on health
5. adapting to technical progress
6. replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous
7. developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers technology, organization of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors relating to the working environment
8. giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures and
9. giving appropriate instruction to employees.
These principles are not exactly a hierarchy but must be considered alongside the usual hierarchy of risk control which is as follows:
S elimination
S substitution
S engineering controls (e.g. isolation, insulation and
ventilation)
S reduced or limited time exposure
S good housekeeping
S safe systems of work
S training and information
S personal protective equipment
S welfare
S monitoring and supervision
S reviews.
These principles are:
1. avoiding risks
2. evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided
3. combating the risks at source
4. adapting the work to the individual, especially as regards the design of the workplace, the choice
of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reducing their effects on health
5. adapting to technical progress
6. replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous
7. developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers technology, organization of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors relating to the working environment
8. giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures and
9. giving appropriate instruction to employees.
These principles are not exactly a hierarchy but must be considered alongside the usual hierarchy of risk control which is as follows:
S elimination
S substitution
S engineering controls (e.g. isolation, insulation and
ventilation)
S reduced or limited time exposure
S good housekeeping
S safe systems of work
S training and information
S personal protective equipment
S welfare
S monitoring and supervision
S reviews.
RELIABILITY CENTERED MAINTENANCE (RCM)
What is Reliability Centered Maintenance?
Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) is the process of determining the most effective maintenance approach. The RCM philosophy employs Preventive Maintenance (PM), Predictive Maintenance (PdM), Real-time Monitoring (RTM), Run-to-Failure (RTF- also called reactive maintenance) and Proactive Maintenance techniques in an integrated manner to increase the probability that a machine or component will function in the required manner over its design life cycle with a minimum of maintenance.
The goal of the philosophy is to provide the stated function of the facility, with the required reliability and availability at the lowest cost. RCM requires that maintenance decisions be based on maintenance requirements supported by sound, technical, and economic justification.
A Brief History of RCM
RCM originated in the Airline industry in the 1960s. By the late 1950s, the cost of maintenance activities in this industry had become high enough to warrant a special investigation into the effectiveness of those activities. Accordingly, in 1960, a task force was formed consisting of representatives of both the airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to investigate the capabilities of preventive maintenance.
The establishment of this task force subsequently led to the development of a series of guidelines for airlines and aircraft manufacturers to use, when establishing maintenance schedules for their aircraft.
This led to the 747 Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) document MSG-1; Handbook: Maintenance Evaluation and Program Development from the Air Transport Association in 1968. MSG-1 was used to develop the maintenance program for the Boeing 747 aircraft, the first maintenance program to apply RCM concepts. MSG-2, the next revision, was used to develop the maintenance programs for the Lockheed L 1011 and the Douglas DC-10.
The success of this program is demonstrated by comparing maintenance requirements of a DC-8 aircraft, maintained using standard maintenance techniques, and the DC-10 aircraft, maintained using MSG-2 guidelines. The DC-8 aircraft has 339 items that require an overhaul, verses only seven items on a DC-10.
Using another example, the original Boeing 747 required 66,000 labor hours on major structural inspections before a major heavy inspection at 20,000 operating hours. In comparison, the DC-8 - a smaller and less sophisticated aircraft using standard maintenance programs of the day required more than 4 million labor hours before reaching 20,000 operating hours.
In 1974 the U.S. Department of Defense commissioned United Airlines to write a report on the processes used in the civil aviation industry for the development of maintenance programs for aircraft. This report, written by Stan Nowlan and Howard Heap and published in 1978, was entitled Reliability Centered Maintenance,5 and has become the report upon which all subsequent Reliability Centered Maintenance approaches have been based.
What Nowlan and Heap found was that many types of failures could not be prevented no matter how intensive the maintenance activities were. Additionally it was discovered that for many items the probability of failure did not increase with age. Consequently, a maintenance program based on age will have little, if any effect on the failure rate.
Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) is the process of determining the most effective maintenance approach. The RCM philosophy employs Preventive Maintenance (PM), Predictive Maintenance (PdM), Real-time Monitoring (RTM), Run-to-Failure (RTF- also called reactive maintenance) and Proactive Maintenance techniques in an integrated manner to increase the probability that a machine or component will function in the required manner over its design life cycle with a minimum of maintenance.
The goal of the philosophy is to provide the stated function of the facility, with the required reliability and availability at the lowest cost. RCM requires that maintenance decisions be based on maintenance requirements supported by sound, technical, and economic justification.
A Brief History of RCM
RCM originated in the Airline industry in the 1960s. By the late 1950s, the cost of maintenance activities in this industry had become high enough to warrant a special investigation into the effectiveness of those activities. Accordingly, in 1960, a task force was formed consisting of representatives of both the airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to investigate the capabilities of preventive maintenance.
The establishment of this task force subsequently led to the development of a series of guidelines for airlines and aircraft manufacturers to use, when establishing maintenance schedules for their aircraft.
This led to the 747 Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) document MSG-1; Handbook: Maintenance Evaluation and Program Development from the Air Transport Association in 1968. MSG-1 was used to develop the maintenance program for the Boeing 747 aircraft, the first maintenance program to apply RCM concepts. MSG-2, the next revision, was used to develop the maintenance programs for the Lockheed L 1011 and the Douglas DC-10.
The success of this program is demonstrated by comparing maintenance requirements of a DC-8 aircraft, maintained using standard maintenance techniques, and the DC-10 aircraft, maintained using MSG-2 guidelines. The DC-8 aircraft has 339 items that require an overhaul, verses only seven items on a DC-10.
Using another example, the original Boeing 747 required 66,000 labor hours on major structural inspections before a major heavy inspection at 20,000 operating hours. In comparison, the DC-8 - a smaller and less sophisticated aircraft using standard maintenance programs of the day required more than 4 million labor hours before reaching 20,000 operating hours.
In 1974 the U.S. Department of Defense commissioned United Airlines to write a report on the processes used in the civil aviation industry for the development of maintenance programs for aircraft. This report, written by Stan Nowlan and Howard Heap and published in 1978, was entitled Reliability Centered Maintenance,5 and has become the report upon which all subsequent Reliability Centered Maintenance approaches have been based.
What Nowlan and Heap found was that many types of failures could not be prevented no matter how intensive the maintenance activities were. Additionally it was discovered that for many items the probability of failure did not increase with age. Consequently, a maintenance program based on age will have little, if any effect on the failure rate.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)