Case Study: Level of Service Criteria for Critical Rotating Assets

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

This case study describes how the process of developing an asset management plan, adapted from the infrastructure industry, is used to translate organizational objectives to tangible operational, reliability, contractual, and regulatory objectives at the asset level. In this case, the assets are gas-turbine or reciprocating compressors critical to the organizational performance of a gas transmission company. The key to this process is the establishment of ‘level of service’ (LOS) criteria against which asset performance and the performance of the processes that support their operation are assessed. These LOS criteria, their measures and targets, are explicitly linked to the organization’s business plan and aligned with key policies. There are specific challenges to selecting performance measures associated with compressors in gas transmission lines and these are discussed. The process allows for performance comparison of the 68 compressors, supporting risk identification, operational improvements, and knowledge sharing. This view of a single asset class across the business units ‘horizontal asset management’ also identifies common risks and opportunities for technical improvement. The business case for investment in technical projects such as prognostics is enhanced as success can be leveraged across a number of critical units in the business and performance improvement assessed against common measures.

Keywords

SCADA 

References

  1. 1.
    Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2005) The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus Rev 83:172–180Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2006) Alignment—using the balanced scorecard to create corporate synergies. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    BSI (2008) Asset Management Part 1: Specification for the optimised management of physical infrastructure assets. British Standards Institute, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scott J (2006) BSI-PAS 55 certification and the stakeholder working group. The Office of Gas and Electricity Market, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jones A (2009) Asset management and regulation at energy safe victoria. In: Proceedings of ICOMS asset management conference. Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1006) The balanced scorecard. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halfawy MR (2008) Integration of municipal infrastructure asset management processes: challenges and solutions. J Comput Eng 22(3):216Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maunsell (2002) International Infrastructure Management Manual, 2nd edn. Association of Local Government Engineering, New Zealand, Incorporated and National Asset Management Steering GroupGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Orion (2007) Orion asset management plan. Orion, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Transportation Research Board (1985) Special report 209: highway capacity manual. Transportation Research Board, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chasey AD, de la Garza JM, Drew DR (1997) Comprehensive level of service: needed approach for civil infrastructure systems. J Infrastruct Syst 3(4):143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moselhi O, Zayed T, Khan Z, Salman A (2010) Community-driven and reliability-based budget allocation for water networks. In: Proceedings of the 2010 construction research congress: innovation for reshaping construction practice, pp 578–587Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Correia AR, Wirasinghe SC, de Barros AG (2008) Overall level of service measures for airport passengers terminals. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract 42(2):330–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Franques JT, Townsend RL (1998) Storm water level of service. In: Proceedings of the ASCE wetlands engineering river restoration conference. Denver, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flannery A, McLeod D, Pederson NJ (2006) Customer-based measures of level of service. Inst Transp Eng J 76(5):17–21Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kononov J, Allery B (2003) Level of service of safety: conceptual blueprint and analytical framework. Transp Res Rec 1840:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ASME (1997) Performance test code on compressors and exhausters. In: ASME PTC 10-19971998. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO 13631:2002 (2002) Petroleum and natural gas industries—Packages reciprocating gas compressors. International Organisation for StandardisationGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO 14224:2006 (2006) Petroleum and natural gas industries—Collection and exchanges of reliability and maintenance data for equipment. International Organisation for StandardisationGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    OREDA (2002) Offshore reliability data handbook. SINTEF Industrial Management, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walsh P, Fletcher P (2004) Gas turbine performance, 2nd edn. Blackwell Science and ASME PressGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brun K, MG (2006) Nored, Guideline for field testing of gas turbines and centrifugal compressor performance. Southwest Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McKee R (1998) Continuous compressor performance monitoring: leveraging current technology for optimum benefits. In: Proceedings of the gas machinery research council gas machinery conference. Denver, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neely A (2002) Strategy and performance: getting the measure of your business. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Katukoori VK (2007) Standardizing availability definition. University of New Orleans, New Orleans, pp 1–21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations