Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability in Life Cycle Maintenance Management DoD Maintenance Symposium 16 November 2010 A Re-Focus on Maintenance Engineering and Planning
Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability in Life Cycle Maintenance Management
DoD Maintenance Symposium
16 November 2010
A Re-Focus on Maintenance Engineering and Planning
The PEO (The “A” in A-L-T) is the single focal point for issues affecting product lines.
The ILSC
(The “L” in A-L-T)
assists by providing
supporting logistics
manpower,
expertise, and
advice. The ILSC
executes
sustainment
strategies.
The RDECs (The “T” in A-L-T)
assist by providing full life cycle
engineering support.
TACOM LCMC
PEO Soldier
PEO GCS
PEO CS&CSS NSRDEC TARDEC ARDEC
INDUSTRIAL BASE
PEO Ammo
JPEO CBD
PEO Aviation ILSC
* These are not members of the TACOM LCMC but the partnerships are the same
ECBC
*
PEO Integration
This is Why Maintenance Engineering and Planning is Essential to Combat Superiority of our Warfighters
Definition of Maintenance Engineering
and Maintenance Planning
• Maintenance Planning: Maintenance
planning is the translation of
engineering data and analysis into
executable maintenance actions and
the identification of the required
logistics support elements required to
conduct maintenance.
• Maintenance Engineering: The activity of analyzing and influencing the
design of an end-item or component to ensure it can be successfully
repaired within a given time.
Maintenance Engineering
and Maintenance Planning
Maintenance Engineering
What’s Going to Break
Why is it Going to Break
When is it Going to Break
How Does it get “Unbroken”
Can the Break be Prevented and How
Maintenance Planning
How is it Fixed
How Long will it Take to Fix
What is Needed to Fix
Who Should Fix it
Where Should it be Fixed
When Should it be Fixed
Operating Environment
Operating Tempo
User Skills
Enemy
Effects
of
On
Maintenance
Plans
THIS IS WHY
New Challenges
“Off the shelf” and putting in war
Integration efforts
Overhead gunner protection
Gunner restraint systems
Rapidly evolving changing threat
Drives rapid counter measure “updates”
to equipment
Legacy – Where We Went
Building Reliability into the Design of Equipment is Often Very Costly
Why: Expensive to buy No access beyond contract if allowed to
use
So What: Don’t Know What we Don’t Know Lack of maintenance metrics Discovery learning Greater risk in avoiding obsolescence Longer downtime Inadequate training materials
Acquisition Reform Drove diminishing tech data Reduced Logistics analysis
• FMECA • Supportability
Highly Stressed Equipment
Multiple rotations
Operation Outside Design Envelope
Different Missions
Increased Weight from Armor Add-on’s
Today’s World Materiel
Solution
Analysis
Material
Development
Decision
Production &
Deployment
Technology
Development
Engineering &
Manufacturing
Development
Operations &
Support
Maintenance Engineering & Planning
Affect on Maintenance Requirements
This is Going to be Constant
Data Collection and Failure Mode Data Summary Number of Steering Gears Replaced 65 (100%) Number of Steering Gears Replaced on Unarmored Vehicles 12 (18%) Number of Steering Gears Replaced on Armored (P1) Vehicles 53 (82%) Number of Steering Gears Replaced in SWA 55 (85%) Number of Steering Gears Replaced in NTC 0 (0%) Number of Steering Gears Replaced in Non-SWA 10 (15%) Maximum Man-hours to Replace Component 36.80 Hours Minimum Man-hours to Replace Component 00.50 Hours Mean Man-hours to Replace Component 04.05 Hours
Failure Codes by Code Number, Type, and Number of Instances Occurring Code 381 – Leaking 32 Instances (49%) Code 307 – Oil Leak 6 Instances (9%) Code 374 – Internal Failure 5 Instances (8%) Code 020 – Deteriorated 4 Instances (6%) Code 233 – End Play Excessive 4 Instances (6%) Code 731 – Battle Damage 3 Instances (5%) Code 070 – Broken 2 Instances (3%) Code 190 – Cracked 2 Instances (3%) Code 281 – Faulty Reading 1 Instance (2%) Code 135 – Binding 1 Instance (2%) Code 040 – Mechanical Binding 1 Instance (2%) Code 115 – Damaged 1 Instance (2%) Code 385 – Light Bulb Failure 1 Instance (2%) Code 640 – Slippage 1 Instance (2%) Code 660 – Stripped 1 Instance (2%)
STEERING GEAR FMEA 2-042 ARTICLE 2-27
Application: Army-wide Relevant Finding
AMSAA Example: Based on failure codes, 40 (62%) of the 65 were replaced due to leaking and 22 (34%) reported internal mechanical failures.
4D Data Example / Tactical Vehicle PSID
AMSAA SDC Sample Fleet Vehicles, 2002-2009 Data
Replacements No. Replaced Gear Cost Total Spent
A Steering Gear 65 $905.00 $58,825.00 B Steering Gear Front 82 $1,810.13 $148,430.66 C Steering Gear Rear 97 $1,642.77 $159,348.69 D Steering Gear Rear 109 $2,555.07 $278,502.63 E Steering Gear Front 313 $1,112.00 $348,056.00 F Steering Gear Rear 62 $703.00 $43,586.00
Actual Totals: 728 $1,036,748.98
Filters v. Steering Gear Comparison: $4.25 each x 1/mo x 7 yr x (728 vehicles x 62%) = $ 64,246
Potential savings: $972,503
Nature of the Fight Will Change
Equipment Will Change
Leverage Technology
Condition Based Maintenance
Strives to optimize key
performance measures of
materiel readiness
o Materiel Availability
o Materiel Reliability
o Mean Downtime
o Ownership Costs
On-Board
Diagnosis
Reduce
Ownership
Costs
Challenge
During
Operation Phase
Maintenance
Engineering
Analysis Performed
and Quantified
Apply Lessons Learned to our
Acquisition Methods
Baseline Maintenance
Requirements
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
M109 M109A2 M109A5 M109A6 M109A6+
w/Armor
Paladin
Next
Track Width Req.
Actual Track Width
215250
380
274
380
329
0
100
200
300
400
500
FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
3235
4550
62
75
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10
• Data Material Accessible and
Delivered
Quality of the Data
Comprehensive Analysis
Implementing Solutions
• Measuring Our Plan
Influence
Design
What Should We Be Doing About It