BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Association of Asset Management Professionals - ECPv6.17.0//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Association of Asset Management Professionals
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es
X-WR-CALDESC:Eventos para Association of Asset Management Professionals
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Bogota
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:-05
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Amsterdam
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20250330T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20251026T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20260329T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20261025T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20270328T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20271031T010000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Pacific/Easter
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:-06
DTSTART:20240407T030000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:-05
DTSTART:20240908T040000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:-06
DTSTART:20250406T030000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:-05
DTSTART:20250907T040000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:-06
DTSTART:20260405T030000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:-05
DTSTART:20260906T040000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:-06
DTSTART:20270404T030000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:-05
DTSTART:20270905T040000
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Argentina/Buenos_Aires
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0300
TZOFFSETTO:-0300
TZNAME:-03
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Guatemala
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Bogota:20260507T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/Bogota:20260507T233000
DTSTAMP:20260327T165612Z
CREATED:20260303T204824Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260327T165612Z
UID:46602-1778148000-1778196600@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:Certified Reliability Leader® Reconnect 2026
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/certified-reliability-leader-reconnect-2026/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/CRL-RECONNECT-HORIZONTAL-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260415T100000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260415T110000
DTSTAMP:20260410T135219Z
CREATED:20260403T165618Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260410T135219Z
UID:47371-1776247200-1776250800@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:Building on the Past\, Leading the Future: A Leadership Journey at Tata Steel
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/building-on-the-past-leading-the-future-a-leadership-journey-at-tata-steel/
CATEGORIES:WIRAM Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/WIRAM-EUROPE-APRIL-15-HORIZONTAL-2.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Pacific/Easter:20260410T150000
DTEND;TZID=Pacific/Easter:20260410T160000
DTSTAMP:20260406T153607Z
CREATED:20260327T164908Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260406T153607Z
UID:47172-1775833200-1775836800@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:Gestión del Conocimiento con la Inteligencia Artificial (IA)
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/gestion-del-conocimiento-con-la-inteligencia-artificial-ia/
CATEGORIES:WIRAM Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/WIRAM-latam-04-10-HORIZONTAL.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Argentina/Buenos_Aires:20260409T190000
DTEND;TZID=America/Argentina/Buenos_Aires:20260409T200000
DTSTAMP:20260406T153518Z
CREATED:20260326T171700Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260406T153518Z
UID:47151-1775761200-1775764800@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:De la puesta en marcha a la operación confiable: aprendizajes en los primeros años de una planta de producción de litio
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/de-la-puesta-en-marcha-a-la-operacion-confiable-aprendizajes-en-los-primeros-anos-de-una-planta-de-produccion-de-litio/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/AMP-ARGENTINA-HORIZONTAL-04-09.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Bogota:20260316T110000
DTEND;TZID=America/Bogota:20260316T120000
DTSTAMP:20260209T164152Z
CREATED:20260209T164100Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260209T164152Z
UID:46292-1773658800-1773662400@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:Lubrication: Lifeblood of the Facility
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/lubrication-lifeblood-of-the-facility/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/AMP-NEW-ENGLAND-HORIZONTAL-MARCH-16.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Bogota:20260304T143000
DTEND;TZID=America/Bogota:20260304T153000
DTSTAMP:20260220T145215Z
CREATED:20260220T145155Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260220T145215Z
UID:46378-1772634600-1772638200@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:Advancing Safety and Productivity with Virtual Reality and Technology
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/advancing-safety-and-productivity-with-virtual-reality-and-technology/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/AMP-CANADA-HORIZONTAL-MARCH-4.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Bogota:20260211T150000
DTEND;TZID=America/Bogota:20260211T160000
DTSTAMP:20260123T164605Z
CREATED:20260123T164509Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260123T164605Z
UID:45784-1770822000-1770825600@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:Canada AMP Connection Event
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/canada-amp-connection-event/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AMP-CANADA-HORIZONTAL-FEB-11.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Pacific/Easter:20260115T120000
DTEND;TZID=Pacific/Easter:20260115T130000
DTSTAMP:20251224T135837Z
CREATED:20251223T205549Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251224T135837Z
UID:45224-1768478400-1768482000@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:Women in Leadership
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/women-in-leadership/
CATEGORIES:WIRAM Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/WIRAM-CANADA-JAN-15-2026-horizontal-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Bogota:20251215T110000
DTEND;TZID=America/Bogota:20251215T120000
DTSTAMP:20251203T143836Z
CREATED:20251203T143657Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251203T143836Z
UID:44857-1765796400-1765800000@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:Beyond Static Models: A New Era of Spare Parts Optimization
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/beyond-static-models-a-new-era-of-spare-parts-optimization/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/AMP-New-england-DEC-15-2025-HORIZONTAL-2.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Pacific/Easter:20251203T110000
DTEND;TZID=Pacific/Easter:20251203T120000
DTSTAMP:20251113T173423Z
CREATED:20251113T165917Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251113T173423Z
UID:44025-1764759600-1764763200@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:Back To Basics: Asset Lifecycle Management
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/back-to-basics-asset-lifecycle-management/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/AMP-NY-NJ-DEC-3-horizontal.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Pacific/Easter:20251202T140000
DTEND;TZID=Pacific/Easter:20251202T150000
DTSTAMP:20251110T231906Z
CREATED:20251107T211825Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251110T231906Z
UID:43704-1764684000-1764687600@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:The Criticality of Bad Data in Asset Management Decisions
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/the-criticality-of-bad-data-in-asset-management-decisions/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters,WIRAM Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/AMP-CANADA-DEC-2-HORIZONTAL-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Guatemala:20251126T190000
DTEND;TZID=America/Guatemala:20251126T200000
DTSTAMP:20251117T152840Z
CREATED:20251107T211437Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251117T152840Z
UID:43701-1764183600-1764187200@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:[In Spanish] Confiabilidad de activos desde la perspectiva de la gestión de proyectos de mantenimiento
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/confiabilidad-de-activos-desde-la-perspectiva-de-la-gestion-de-proyectos-de-mantenimiento/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/AMP-GUATEMALA-NOV-26-2025-HORIZONTAL.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Argentina/Buenos_Aires:20251125T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Argentina/Buenos_Aires:20251125T130000
DTSTAMP:20251119T151957Z
CREATED:20251117T152815Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251119T151957Z
UID:44231-1764072000-1764075600@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:[In Spanish] Gestión de Mantenimiento en Centrales Termoeléctricas
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/in-spanish-gestion-de-mantenimiento-en-centrales-termoelectricas/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/AMP-ARGENTINA-NOV-25-HORIZONTAL-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Bogota:20251120T160000
DTEND;TZID=America/Bogota:20251120T173000
DTSTAMP:20251107T212702Z
CREATED:20251104T213136Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251107T212702Z
UID:43215-1763654400-1763659800@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:WIRAM LATAM Summit: Liderazgo en Equipos de Alto Rendimiento: Claves para el Éxito
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/wiram-latam-summit-liderazgo-en-equipos-de-alto-rendimiento-claves-para-el-exito/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters,WIRAM Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/WIRAM-LATA-M-HORIZONTAL-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Pacific/Easter:20251118T130000
DTEND;TZID=Pacific/Easter:20251118T140000
DTSTAMP:20251110T212138Z
CREATED:20251104T221155Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251110T212138Z
UID:43260-1763470800-1763474400@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:Round Table Discussion: Leveraging Data to Drive Performance
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/round-table-discussion-leveraging-data-to-drive-performance/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/AMP-N-CALIFORNIA-NOV-18-HORIZONTAL-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Bogota:20251104T110000
DTEND;TZID=America/Bogota:20251104T120000
DTSTAMP:20251104T223843Z
CREATED:20251017T010104Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251104T223843Z
UID:40740-1762254000-1762257600@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:Advancing Reliability with IoT: Unlocking Continuous Insights
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/advancing-reliability-with-iot-unlocking-continuous-insights/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/b51be14c-d5b8-4c24-b313-77a3ef169d32-L.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Bogota:20251029T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Bogota:20251029T130000
DTSTAMP:20251029T210021Z
CREATED:20251017T005737Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251029T210021Z
UID:40736-1761739200-1761742800@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:What is Asset Management?
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/what-is-asset-management/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/827b0822-54ae-4aed-b855-82d11bcb6b7c-L.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Bogota:20251022T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/Bogota:20251022T110000
DTSTAMP:20251029T210108Z
CREATED:20251017T003051Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251029T210108Z
UID:40701-1761127200-1761130800@assetmanagementprofessionals.org
SUMMARY:Sound Transit Brief and AI Opportunities
DESCRIPTION:Introduction				\n				\n									In many industrial organizations\, when repeated failures happen\, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is one of the main methods used to identify the cause of failure and define corrective actions. In many plants\, this approach helps reduce repeated failures and improve equipment reliability. However\, there are cases where failures continue even after all corrective actions have been implemented. This article reviews a real case of repeated failures in a reciprocating compressor at a production facility. In this case\, the RCA was not technically wrong\, but it was not enough to completely eliminate the failures. The experience showed that some reliability problems go beyond maintenance activities and require attention to design limitations and actual operating conditions. 								\n				\n					Equipment Overview and Operating Conditions				\n				\n									The equipment discussed in this case was a two-stage reciprocating compressor installed in the utility section of an oil separation facility. The compressor was used to supply instrument air and operated continuously\, 24 hours a day. This compressor was not only important for operation\, but also for production continuity and process safety. ESD valves and several control systems at the site depended on the instrument air supplied by this compressor for proper operation. Because of this\, any interruption in compressor performance could directly affect production stability and process safety. Although a standby compressor was available\, there was no automatic changeover system. As a result\, every failure placed significant pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams. From an operational point of view\, the reliability of this compressor had a direct impact on production continuity and safe plant operation. The compressor maintenance program was based on the vendor’s recommendations. Air filters and lubrication oil were replaced at defined intervals\, periodic inspections and condition monitoring activities were carried out\, critical spare parts were available in stock\, and the maintenance team had sufficient experience working with the equipment. In addition\, routine maintenance activities such as air filter replacement\, oil change\, intake system inspection\, cooler cleaning\, and auxiliary system checks were regularly planned and executed. Based on the initial review\, there were no clear indications of problems in the maintenance program. 								\n				\n					Beginning of Repeated Failures				\n				\n									The first failure occurred when the compressor seized and was removed from service for overhaul. The equipment was fully dismantled\, machining work was performed on the shaft\, consumable parts were changed\, and after the required testing\, the compressor was returned to service. At that time\, the failure was considered a normal operational event\, and no additional action was taken. However\, after a short period of operation\, the same failure occurred again. Following the second failure\, the PM interval was reduced\, and air filter replacement and several maintenance activities were scheduled more frequently. Despite these actions\, a third failure occurred — this time after an even shorter operating period. At this stage\, it became clear that the issue was not simply a random equipment failure\, but part of a larger underlying problem. As the failures continued\, pressure on both the operations and maintenance teams increased. Repeated failures reduced the operations team’s confidence in the reliability of the equipment\, while the maintenance team had to repeatedly repair the same compressor without finding a lasting solution. Attention then turned to the reliability team. The main question was why the problem continued despite PM activities\, repair work\, and repeated follow-up efforts. As a result\, the earlier approach was reconsidered\, and a cross-functional RCA team was formed. 								\n				\n					RCA Investigation and Technical Review				\n				\n									To investigate the problem\, a cross-functional team from maintenance\, operations\, and engineering was formed. The team focused on understanding why the failures kept happening and what conditions were affecting compressor operation. As part of the RCA review: Failure history records\, especially MTBF and MTTR data\, were reviewedMaintenance history was analyzedActual operating conditions were evaluatedAnd a structured RCA study was carried outThe main focus of the team was to understand why the failures continued even after repair work and PM activities had already been completed. The RCA review showed that contamination in the compressor intake air allowed dust particles to enter the equipment\, increasing wear and sensitivity of internal components. It was also found that the dust level at the site was higher than the design capacity of the existing filtration system. 								\n				\n					Initial Corrective Actions				\n				\n									Based on the RCA findings\, several corrective actions were defined and implemented: Reducing the air filter replacement intervalImproving inspection activitiesRevising maintenance procedures with more focus on dusty operating conditionsAll corrective actions were updated and implemented through the CMMS\, and the expectation was that the failures would stop. However\, in practice\, the failures continued. At this stage\, two important questions were raised: Was the RCA incorrect? Or was the real problem beyond what the RCA had identified? 								\n				\n					Understanding the Design Limitation				\n				\n									As the failures continued\, the RCA team met again and carried out a deeper review of the actual site conditions. Further evaluation showed that the main issue was not only related to maintenance activities\, but also to a limitation in the filtration system design. At this stage\, the team started to look at the problem differently. It also became clear that the actual dust level at the site was significantly higher than the original design assumptions. At the same time\, the site operating conditions themselves had not changed significantly over the years. The increasing failure rate was mainly related to the growing sensitivity and wear of internal compressor components under the same dusty conditions. The maintenance actions that had been implemented only reduced the frequency of failures\, while the more fundamental issue — the insufficient design of the intake air system — still remained. At this stage\, the team’s understanding of the problem started to change. After identifying the design limitation\, the findings were presented to senior management\, and several engineering options were reviewed. In the end\, a pre-filtration system was installed upstream of the main intake air filter to reduce incoming dust and prevent rapid saturation of the existing filter. At this point\, it became clear that the problem could not be solved by maintenance activities alone and required an engineering change. 								\n				\n					Lessons Learned				\n				\n					1. RCA is essential\, but not always sufficient				\n				\n									In many cases\, RCA can identify the direct cause of failure. However\, some problems are connected to deeper system limitations. In such situations\, focusing only on the initial cause of failure may not be enough to completely eliminate the problem. The questioning and analysis should continue until the full picture of the failure is understood. 								\n				\n					2. Some reliability problems require engineering changes				\n				\n									Not all failures can be eliminated only by increasing maintenance activities. In some cases\, the main issue is related to design limitations or actual operating conditions\, and long-term improvement may require engineering changes. One important lesson from this case is that organizations should not expect maintenance teams alone to solve every reliability problem. 								\n				\n					3. Decision quality affects reliability improvement				\n				\n									Data and analysis alone do not improve reliability. The actions and decisions after the analysis are what improve reliability. In this case\, once the team moved from a maintenance-focused approach to a structural engineering solution\, the compressor operating condition became more stable and predictable. 								\n				\n					Conclusion				\n				\n									This case showed that even when corrective actions identified through the RCA are implemented correctly from a technical point of view\, repeated failures may still continue. In such situations\, organizations should not treat these situations only as maintenance problems. Design limitations\, actual operating conditions\, and engineering decisions must also be considered as part of reliability improvement efforts. In some cases\, the main issue is not the quality of PM activities\, but the conditions and design basis on which the system was originally built. This experience also showed that failure analysis can improve reliability only when the findings lead to proper engineering decisions and effective engineering changes. 								\n				\n					About the Author\n				\n					\n				\n		\n					\n		\n				\n																														\n				\n		\n				\n									Farshad Bakhshi is a Maintenance & Reliability consultant and CMMS implementation specialist with over 20 years of experience in asset-intensive industries. He helps organizations improve reliability performance through maintenance strategy\, data governance\, preventive maintenance optimization\, and root cause analysis.
URL:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/es/event/sound-transit-brief-and-ai-opportunities/
CATEGORIES:AMP Chapters
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://assetmanagementprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/37dda309-eb9e-4cfb-9b5e-a8a633866cc1-L.png
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR