ISSN: 2277-4629 (Online) | ISSN: 2250-1827 (Print)

CPMR-IJT Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

Modeling an Oil Drilling Rig Total Productive Maintenance System Using Causal Loop Diagram Simulation
Mohamed Hassan*

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a model for total productive maintenance for an electrical maintenance system in a drilling rig. Literature and technological advances are introduced for applying maintenance strategies including total productive maintenance. This work introduces an overview on one of the modeling techniques called causal loop diagram in conjunction with applying the total productive maintenance system dynamics for improving the availability of the oil drilling equipment. The use of a new maintenance strategy to improve a maintenance system may prove unfeasible and costly after the period of time needed for implementation. Therefore, applying a modeling technique including model verification and validation may reduce the time and cost needed to prove the feasibility of such maintenance systems. In the current work, the model has been developed using the causal loop diagrams (CLD) simulation technique and has showed that applying TPM improves the electrical maintenance system through improved equipment availability and reduced downtime. Therefore appropriate steps were taken to implement such TPM system through a deployment plan knowing in advance that the system is feasible. Managerial and engineering personnel,

as well as maintenance engineers were involved in the system implementation. Keywords: TPM, CLD, Electrical maintenance system, Drilling rig, Modeling

I. INTRODUCTION
Due to the world-wide competition in the oil industry activities, the work quality isnt the only effective factor that affects the performance of the facility. But also fast and safe missions are necessary to be able to compete and lead, especially in drilling rigs. Therefore its not optional to improve the performance of the work systems, but it became a must. The utilization of the resources is the main factor that affects both the performance and profit of a company, this means decreasing the downtime hours and keeping operation running without any failures. The facility in this research was a Drilling Super Rig in the Middle East area focusing on the performance improvement of the electrical maintenance system. The problem was always the existence of the unplanned maintenance activities dealing with shutdowns. This problem faces all facilities especially that work seven days a week and twenty four hours a day like this facility. The production mangers always give priority to operation instead of periodic

*The University of Akron Research Foundation, 411 Wolf Ledges PKWY, Akron, OH, 44311, USA

www.cpmr.org.in

CPMR-IJT: International Journal of Technology

17

ISSN: 2277-4629 (Online) | ISSN: 2250-1827 (Print)

CPMR-IJT Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

maintenance, as they consider the maintenance time is a downtime. Therefore a practical way or a solution is necessary to achieve both continuous operation and effective maintenance simultaneously utilizing the available resources. Achieving zero or minimum shutdowns was a dream long time ago, but now by using new methodologies the facilities could improve the availability of its resources together with improving the performance. Obviously, the maintenance teams are seeking to achieve minimum breakdowns and high equipment efficiency. Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) is considered one of the effective methodologies that can be used for this objective (Ana, R., 2008). TPM integrates the efforts of all parties that can work to improve the facility equipment availability especially within the maintenance department (Kamran, S. and Seyed, A., 2009). The problem that many facilities face is the unplanned maintenance due to the unplanned shutdowns. The problem even has a bigger scale when the facility has to work without stoppage for seven days a week and twenty four hours a day to be profitable like the facility under study. This paper discusses improving the electrical maintenance system performance through modeling a TPM system, then once the model is verified, implementing its scheme and measuring its effectiveness in comparison with the model output (Marcelo, R. and Kazuo, H., 2006). The case study is the electrical maintenance system in a drilling rig.

simulation methods has shown that the most suitable model for a manufacturing process of a low series production is a conceptual model presented by an activity cycle diagram (Jerry, B., 1999). Because the activity cycle diagram can be used to present the desirable level of detail of the observed complex system, it also enables the presentation of interrelations between all the basic elements of the manufacturing process in a comprehensible manner. But in our case, which is not considered too complicated, where the objective is to present the problem in an easy, simple and clear way to be understood by the managers, then the Causal Loop Diagrams simulation technique would be the choice (James, R., 2001).

III. SIMULATION PROGRAM

The simulation program used was Vensim (Vensim, PLE, 1999). Vensim uses an interface that resembles a workbench and a set of tools. The main Vensim window is the Workbench, which always includes the Title Bar, the Menu, the Toolbar, and the Analysis tools, as shown in Figure 1.

II. CHOOSING MODELING TECHNIQUE

There are many techniques for modeling and simulation (Anu, M., 1997), four techniques of modeling, causal loop diagrams, flow charts, activity cycle diagram and Petri nets were compared (Cathal, H. and John, R., 2006). The comparison was done using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method (Saaty, T., 2001). AHP is a powerful and flexible method used for decision making that help determine the priorities, and leads to making optimal decisions (Tihomir, O., et. al, 2008). AHP has proved useful in cases where aspects of quantity and quality and their mutual effects are being taken into consideration (Faiz, R. B. and Eran, A., 2009). The preliminary analysis of the four conceptual
www.cpmr.org.in

Figure 1. Vensim interface

3.1 Model Development

The causal loop diagrams modeling technique (Michael, T., 2005) was used to develop the current model. In this model, there are two types of loops, balancing and reinforcing. To know the difference between the two
CPMR-IJT: International Journal of Technology

18

ISSN: 2277-4629 (Online) | ISSN: 2250-1827 (Print)

CPMR-IJT Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

loops, assume that the main variable in the loop starts to increase, and after tracing the effect of a change around the loop and at the end of the loop, if the variable begins to decrease, then it is called a balancing loop. But, if the variable is still increasing at the end of the loop, then it is called a reinforcing loop. On addition the above loops may be closed or open loops. For comparison, the closed loop is better as it

gives feedback to the system under modeling that can be used as a correction factor for the system output. Figure 2 shows the following types of loops.

3.1.1 Closed Loops

Loop 1: Regular maintenance loop (B1), Loop 2: Postponed maintenance loop (B2), Loops 3, 4 and 5: TPM loops (R1, R2 and R3).

Figure 2. Model of the electrical maintenance system using causal loop diagrams

3.1.2 Open loops

Unplanned Maintenance Loops including: Loop 1: Overtime loop, Loop 2: Outsourcing loop and Loop 3: Breakdown loop.

3.1.3 Other functional loops

The model may have functional loops such as: Loop 4: Overtime cost loop, Loop 5: Outsourcing cost loop and Loop 6: Breakdown cost loop, Shutdown hours and Overtime hours.
CPMR-IJT: International Journal of Technology

www.cpmr.org.in

19

ISSN: 2277-4629 (Online) | ISSN: 2250-1827 (Print)

CPMR-IJT Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

3.2 Model Inputs

The inputs to the model were the following variables: weekly maintenance tasks, operations, overtime rate, outsourcing rate, shutdown rate, shutdown hours, overtime hour and expected TPM effect.

3.3 Model Outputs

The model was designed to give the following outputs: Unplanned maintenance hours and cost, type of maintenance done, overall maintenance cost, shutdown cost, overtime cost, outsourcing cost, equipment availability, breakdowns and repair time.

3.4 Model Runs

The objective of the model was to test the feasibility of implementing a TPM system through simulation to judge the effectiveness of such a system before implementation (Macro, C., et. al, 2004). This way the high cost of implementing such systems may be avoided in case the simulation proved it was unfeasible. On the other side,

if the simulation model proved that, such a system may be feasible, and then this would be considered a justification for the top management when requesting the deployment of the system (Eric, D., 2007). Figures 3, the left two columns show the model simulation runs to calculate the overall unplanned maintenance cost, the outsourcing cost, the overtime cost, and the shutdown cost. The peaks show only when there is an unplanned maintenance activity, while on the normal operation time no peaks are present. This show the high cost of the unplanned maintenance that need to be eliminated. Figure 3, the right two columns show the team skills, which show only during the maintenance times, the equipment utilization which was always under 1.0, the shutdown hours due to the unplanned maintenance, which sometimes exceeded 20 hours or almost a whole day, the overtime hours which was always existing and the working hours was constant as the maintenance team was always on duty.

Figure 3. Model runs

www.cpmr.org.in CPMR-IJT: International Journal of Technology

20

ISSN: 2277-4629 (Online) | ISSN: 2250-1827 (Print)

CPMR-IJT Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

3.5 Model Verification

A very critical part of the model development process is the verification stage (Dean, S., 1997). This was done by comparing the output results of the main variables with the historical data. Model verification is the process of ensuring that the computer programming and implementation of the conceptual model are on agreement (John, S., 2002). This step was carried out by comparing the model output with a detailed measured data from the previous year records. The verification process was held concurrently during the model simulation process to ensure that the model should be working properly before and after applying TPM system (Muhamad, Z. and Pang, C. W., 2001).

3.6 Model Validation

The validation was done to judge the correctness of the model outputs through varying the input variable and measuring the outputs exposed to the model transformation process (Averill, M., 2009). The investigation of the input variables to the model and the randomly generated outputs of the model showed that they represent the actual working environment.

3.7 Model observations compared to the actual work data

The model showed the following outputs: The shutdown cost approximately of the model almost equals the actual shutdown cost, which

Figure 4.TPM model results (first year)

www.cpmr.org.in CPMR-IJT: International Journal of Technology

21

ISSN: 2277-4629 (Online) | ISSN: 2250-1827 (Print)

CPMR-IJT Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

means that the shutdown cost is the most significant cost that needs to be decreased. The model showed weekly overtime jobs, which was the actual practice. This may indicate either high rate of equipment failures or repeating jobs due to lack of experience of the team performing the jobs. The equipment availability was always less that 95% which indicates high repair times. The outsourcing was needed four times which indicates low level of experience of the maintenance staff that resulted in these outsourcing cases.

Step 2: Create TPM teams. Step 3: Study of the current conditions using techniques such as the 5 why to diagnose the problems root causes. Step 4: Specify TPM objectives. Step 5: Prepare a deployment plan to clarify the resources, training and maintenance management systems needed. Step 6: Measure and compare results. Step 7: Continuous review to achieve continuous improvement (Mel, A., et. al, 1999). The study of the shutdowns illustrated the following root causes for the most problems: 1. Lack of operators training 2. Not applying a proactive maintenance system such as the predictive maintenance. But on the contrary, always following a fire-fighting maintenance system as in case of the unplanned maintenance (John, K. and Horst, M., 2004). 3. Unavailability of spare parts. Table 1 Deployment plan for employees training
Mission
Specifying trainees levels

3.8 Effect of TPM implementation as depicted from the model simulation

Figure 4 shows the model run simulation output assuming one year has passed from the start of the implementation of the TPM system. The simulation depicted the effect of the TPM on the overall unplanned maintenance cost, outsourcing cost, overtime cost and shutdown cost. According to the model prediction outputs after one year of TPM implementation the maintenance system should improve as follows: The unplanned maintenance to decrease to one job per week The shutdowns to decrease to five (5) jobs per year The overall cost to decrease by 30% per year The outsourcing to decrease to two (2) jobs per year Accordingly, the equipment availability to increase to a minimum of 95%

Resources
Team meeting for brainstorming and evaluation sheets.

Start
October 2009

Finish

Responsible

November Whole team 2009

IV. TPM IMPLEMENTATION

After the verification and validation steps of the model were carried out, the decision was taken to implement a TPM system. In order to implement a TPM system, the following seven steps should be carried out (Ravikumar, M. and Bhaskar, A., 2008): Step 1: Announcement and orientation of TPM benefits and the role of everyone.
www.cpmr.org.in

Preparing Training training department program and resources material for every level Implementing Projector, training for computer and every level training room Evaluating training program Course evaluation sheet

November November Sr. Elec. 2009 2009 + HR

November March 2009 2010 Course start One month after course end

Sr. Elec.

Supervisor

CPMR-IJT: International Journal of Technology

22

ISSN: 2277-4629 (Online) | ISSN: 2250-1827 (Print)

CPMR-IJT Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

Table 1 shows an example of a deployment plan for an effective employees training system. The training needs are evaluated, training materials to be developed, training to be conducted the training evaluation is to be done after one month from the training course end. Table 2 Deployment plan for predictive maintenance system
Mission Resources Start October 2009 Finish May 2010 Responsible Sr. Elec. Predictive Cash maintenance tools purchase System implementation System evaluation

determining the needs for certain measurements, the necessary tools are purchased. The system then is put in place with periodic evaluations to determine its effectiveness in lowering the breakdown time and cost.

4.1 TPM Implementation Results

The implementation of the TPM system resulted in the following outcomes: Equipment availability increased to about 99% Number of breakdowns decreased by about 56% Unplanned maintenance cost decreased by about 70% Number of overtime was still in the same range with no improvement; therefore, this result needs to be studied more. Figure 5 gives a comparison between the number of equipment breakdown before and after the implementation of the TPM system. The figure shows improvement from 9 major breakdowns per year to 4 breakdowns per year, a 56% improvement.

Maintenance October teams and 2009 tracking tools. Periodic evaluation sheets and team analysis Every month

November Sr. Elec. 2009 & N. Elec. Sr. Elec.

Table 2 shows an example of a deployment plan for implementing a predictive maintenance system. After

Figure 5. Number of breakdowns before and after applying the TPM system Figures 6, shows the model runs after applying the TPM system. The left two columns show the model simulation runs to calculate the overall unplanned maintenance cost, the outsourcing cost, the overtime
www.cpmr.org.in

cost, and the shutdown cost. The peaks show improvement compared with Figure 3. The unplanned maintenance averaged about 2.5 jobs per year, the overall cost dropped to an average of $7,500. The
CPMR-IJT: International Journal of Technology

23

ISSN: 2277-4629 (Online) | ISSN: 2250-1827 (Print)

CPMR-IJT Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

equipment availability was one, which means the equipment was always available as the shutdowns in most cases were planned. The model prediction to the number of shutdowns averaged three times compared to an actual number of four.

V. CONCLUSIONS
The culture of I operate; you fix should change to All of us in the same boat by involving operators in the maintenance and providing managers support, which had been achieved during the study. It was shown that employees training, predicative maintenance implementation and having a shutdown items list should be among the most important tools to

be employed in order to improve the maintenance system. Simulation saves cost and time to predict the actual implementation model outputs. Also it has flexibility in tracking the effect of changing any variable through the model runs. The designed model can be applied in any rig to measure the effect of key variables on the performance of any maintenance system. Time and money was saved which lead to improve the electrical maintenance system through applying a TPM system even in harsh environment that works 24 hours a day 7 days a week that cannot afford shutting down the operation system.

Figure 6. Model runs after applying the TPM system

VI. FUTURE WORK 6.1 Model development

The model can be upgraded from Causal Loop Diagrams (CLD) to Stock and Flow Diagrams (SFD)
www.cpmr.org.in

to be able to study the system in more details and for more outcomes. The effect of the model input variables; training, predictive maintenance and use of shutdown list on the
CPMR-IJT: International Journal of Technology

24

ISSN: 2277-4629 (Online) | ISSN: 2250-1827 (Print)

CPMR-IJT Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

TPM system performance can be studied more to rank the most effective variables on the TPM maintenance system effectiveness.

6.2 Work development

To solidify the outcomes of the TPM system implementation and the validity of the developed model, the system should be run for at least two years then the results are to be compared with the model predictions. According to the system evaluation, more improvements can be achieved by implementing different methodologies or tools for example: The use of more efficient predictive maintenance tools such as vibration analyzers. Update of maintenance training materials to increase the employees awareness toward operation equipment.

[7] Faiz, R. B. and Eran, A. (2009). Decision making for predictive maintenance in asset information management. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge and Management, Volume 4. [8] James, R. (2001). Simplified translation of CLDs into SFDs, 19th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Washington, USA. [9] Jerry, B. (1999). Introduction to simulation. Winter Simulation Conference, Maryland, USA. [10] John, K. and Horst, M. (2004). A novel approach to predictive maintenance. [Online] Available: www.stle.org/assets/document/ Deutsch_award_winner.pdf, (September 30, 2010). [11] John, S. (2002). Model verification and validation. Winter Simulation Conference, Maryland, USA. [12] Kamran, S. and Seyed, A. (2009). Analyzing the effects of implementation of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) in the manufacturing companies: a system dynamics approach. World Journal of Modeling and Simulation, Volume 5 (2), pp. 120-129. [13] Macro, C., Alessandro, P. and Bianca, R. (2004). Accelerated TPM by simulation. Advanced Simulation Technologies Conference. The Society for Modelling and Simulation International, Virginia, USA. [14] Marcelo, R. and Kazuo, H. (2006). Analysis of the fall of TPM in companies. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Volume 179, pp. 276-279. [15] Mel, A., Paul, C., Hank, C. and Bernard, J. (1999). Simulation as a tool for continuous process improvement. Winter Simulation Conference, Maryland, USA.
CPMR-IJT: International Journal of Technology

VII. REFERENCES
[1] Ana, R. (2008). Total productive maintenance overview, Technologies in Machine Building. [Online] Available: www.tcm.ugal.ro/Anale/ 2008/L20_AUDJG_2008_AR.pdf, (September 30, 2010). [2] Anu, M. (1997). Introduction to modeling and simulation. Winter Simulation Conference, Maryland, USA. [3] Averill, M. (2009). How to build valid and credible simulation models. Winter Simulation Conference, Maryland, USA. [4] Cathal, H. and John, R. (2006). Process modeling support for the conceptual modeling phase of a simulation project. Winter Simulation Conference, Maryland, USA. [5] Dean, S. (1997). Verification & validation in military simulations. Winter Simulation Conference, Maryland, USA. [6] Eric, D. (2007). Successfully deploying total productive maintenance. Material Handling and Logistics Conference, HK Systems, Utah, USA.
www.cpmr.org.in

25

ISSN: 2277-4629 (Online) | ISSN: 2250-1827 (Print)

CPMR-IJT Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2012

[16] Michael, T. (2005). A project management causal loop diagram. ARCOM Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, London, UK. [17] Muhamad, Z. and Pang, C. W. (2001). Application of total productive maintenance (TPM) concept in palm oil mill factory. Journal Mekanikal, Volume 12, pp. 59-73. [18] Ravikumar, M. and Bhaskar, A. (2008). Improving equipment effectiveness through TPM. Medwell Journals, International Business Management, volume 2 (3), pp. 91-96.

[19] Saaty, T. (2001). The analytic network process: decision making with dependence and feedback. RWS Publications. [20] Tihomir, O., Vesna, D. and Mario, J. (2008). Choosing the most appropriate simulation method for business process modeling using AHP method. [Online] Available: www.foi.hr/ CMS_home/znan_strucni_rad/konferencije/.../ T06_02.pdf. (September 30, 2010). [21] Vensim, PLE (1999). Personal learning edition users guide. Ventana Systems, Inc., Version 4. [Online] Available: www.vensim.com/ venple.html. (November 2, 2012).

www.cpmr.org.in

CPMR-IJT: International Journal of Technology

26