SAE JA 1011-2009 Evaluation Criteria for Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) Processes《可靠性为中心的维修(RCM)过程评价标准》.pdf

《SAE JA 1011-2009 Evaluation Criteria for Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) Processes《可靠性为中心的维修(RCM)过程评价标准》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《SAE JA 1011-2009 Evaluation Criteria for Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) Processes《可靠性为中心的维修(RCM)过程评价标准》.pdf（12页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、_ SAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: “This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this report is entirely voluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular use, including any patent infringement arising there

2、from, is the sole responsibility of the user.” SAE reviews each technical report at least every five years at which time it may be reaffirmed, revised, or cancelled. SAE invites your written comments and suggestions. Copyright 2009 SAE International All rights reserved. No part of this publication m

3、ay be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. TO PLACE A DOCUMENT ORDER: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)

4、 Fax: 724-776-0790 Email: CustomerServicesae.org SAE WEB ADDRESS: http:/www.sae.org SURFACE VEHICLE/ AEROSPACE STANDARD JA1011 AUG2009 Issued 1999-08 Revised 2009-08 Superseding JA1011 AUG1999 (R) Evaluation Criteria for Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) Processes RATIONALE The document was upd

5、ated as a result of the normal 5 year review cycle. Changes were made to clarify the origin of the Reliability Centered Maintenance process and purpose of this document. Additionally, terminology was updated to reflect current usage in the user community and to remove items that might have been cons

6、idered biased to individual commercial processes. The overall technical process remains unchanged. FOREWORD Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) was initially developed by the commercial aviation industry to improve the safety and reliability of their equipment. It was first documented in a report

7、 written by F.S. Nowlan and H.F. Heap and published by the U.S. Department of Defense in 1978. Since then, RCM has been used to help formulate physical asset management strategies in almost every area of organized human endeavor, and in almost every industrialized country in the world. The process d

8、efined by Nowlan and Heap served as the basis of various application documents in which the RCM process has been developed and refined over the ensuing years. Most of these documents retain the key elements of the original process. However the widespread use of the term “RCM” has led to the emergenc

9、e of a number of processes that differ significantly from the original Process. As a result, there has been a growing international demand for a standard that sets out the criteria that any process must comply with in order to be called “RCM.” This document meets that need. The criteria in this SAE

10、Standard are based primarily upon the RCM process and concepts established in Nowlan and Heaps 1978 report, “Reliability-Centered Maintenance.” Additionally, three other documents that closely followed the original tenets of Nowlan and Heap, (1) US naval aviations MIL-STD-2173(AS) (Reliability-Cente

11、red Maintenance Requirements of Naval Aircraft, Weapons Systems and Support Equipment) and its successor, U.S. Naval Air Systems Command Management Manual 00-25-403 (Guidelines for the Naval Aviation Reliability-Centered Maintenance Process), (2) NES 45Naval Engineering Standard 45, “Requirements fo

12、r the Application of Reliability-Centred Maintenance Techniques to HM Ships, Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and other Naval Auxiliary Vessels” (Restricted-Commercial) and (3) “Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM 2),” by John Moubray were used extensively as sources for this document. This document descri

13、bes the minimum criteria that any process must possess to be deemed a compliant RCM process. It does not attempt to define a specific RCM process. This document is intended to provide a means for evaluating whether a given process remains true to the tenets of RCM as it was originally conceived. It

14、is especially useful to people who wish to purchase RCM services (training, analysis, facilitation, consulting, or any combination thereof). Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE JA1011

15、 Revised AUG2009 Page 2 of 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SCOPE 3 1.1 Purpose . 3 2. REFERENCES 3 2.1 Related Publications . 3 2.1.1 SAE Publications . 3 2.1.2 U.S. Department of Commerce Publications 3 2.1.3 U.S. Department of Defense Publications 3 2.1.4 U.K. Ministry of Defence Publication. 4 2.1.5 Othe

16、r Publications . 4 3. DEFINITIONS . 4 4. ACRONYMS . 7 5. RELIABILITY-CENTERED MAINTENANCE (RCM). 7 5.1 Operational Context and Functions 8 5.2 Functional Failures 8 5.3 Failure Modes . 8 5.4 Failure Effects . 8 5.5 Failure Consequence Categories . 9 5.6 Failure Management Strategy Selection . 9 5.7

17、Failure Management PoliciesScheduled Tasks 9 5.8 Failure Management PoliciesOne-Time Changes and Run-to-Failure . 10 5.9 A Living Program . 11 5.10 Mathematical and Statistical Formulae . 11 5.11 Laws, Regulations, and Contractual Obligations 11 6. NOTES 12 6.1 Marginal Indicia . 12 Copyright SAE In

18、ternational Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE JA1011 Revised AUG2009 Page 3 of 12 1. SCOPE This SAE Standard for Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) is intended for use by any organization that has or makes

19、 use of physical assets or systems that it wishes to manage responsibly. 1.1 Purpose RCM is a specific process used to identify the policies which must be implemented to manage the failure modes which could cause the functional failure of any physical asset in a given operational context. This docum

20、ent is intended to be used to evaluate any process that purports to be an RCM process, in order to determine whether it follows the original tenets of RCM as defined by Nowlan and Heap. This document supports such an evaluation by specifying the minimum criteria that a process must have in order to

21、be an RCM process. 2. REFERENCES 2.1 Related Publications The following publications are provided for information purposes only and are not a required part of this document. 2.1.1 SAE Publications Available from SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, Tel: 877-606-7323

22、(inside USA and Canada) or 724-776-4970 (outside USA), www.sae.org. SAE JA1012 A Guide to Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) Standard 2.1.2 U.S. Department of Commerce Publications Available from NTIS, Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, Tel: (703) 605-6000, www.ntis.gov. Nowlan, F. Stanley,

23、 and Howard F. Heap, “Reliability-Centered Maintenance,” Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. 1978. Report Number AD-A066579. 2.1.3 U.S. Department of Defense Publications Available from the Document Automation and Production Service (DAPS), Building 4/D, 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 1911

24、1-5094, Tel: 215-697-6257, http:/assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/. NAVAIR 00-25-403 Guidelines for the Naval Aviation Reliability Centered Maintenance Process (U.S. Naval Air System Command) can be obtained at https:/acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=151918. S9081-AB-GIB-010/MAINT Reliability-Cen

25、tered Maintenance Handbook (U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command) can be obtained at https:/acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=152397. MIL-P-24534 Planned Maintenance System: Development of Maintenance Requirement Cards, Maintenance Index Pages, and Associated Documentation (U.S. Naval Sea Systems Comma

26、nd) MIL-STD-1629 Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis, Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 1984 (NOTE: Cancelled without Replacement, August 1998) MIL-STD-1843 Reliability Centered Maintenance for Aircraft, Engines, and Equipment, United States Air Force (NOT

27、E: Cancelled without Replacement, August 1995) MIL-STD-2173(AS) Reliability-Centered Maintenance Requirements for Naval Aircraft, Weapons Systems, and Support Equipment (NOTE: Cancelled without Replacement, September 1999) Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for Res

28、aleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE JA1011 Revised AUG2009 Page 4 of 12 2.1.4 U.K. Ministry of Defence Publication Available from Reliability-centred Maintenance Implementation Team, Ships Support Agency, Ministry of Defence (Navy), Room 22, Block K, Foxhill,

29、Bath, BA1 5AB United Kingdom, www.mod.uk. NES 45 Naval Engineering Standard 45, “Requirements for the Application of Reliability-Centred Maintenance Techniques to HM Ships, Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and other Naval Auxiliary Vessels” (Restricted-Commercial) 2.1.5 Other Publications Anderson, Ronald T.

30、 and Neri, Lewis, “Reliability-Centered Maintenance: Management and Engineering Methods,” Elsevier Applied Science, London and New York, 1990 Blanchard, B.S., Verma, D., and Peterson, E.L., “Maintainability: A Key to Effective Serviceability and Maintenance Management,” John Wiley and Sons, New York

31、, 1995 “Dependability ManagementPart 3-11: Application GuideReliability Centred Maintenance,” International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Document No. 56/651/FDIS. Jones, Richard B., “Risk-Based Management: A Reliability-Centered Approach,” Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX, 1995 Moubray,

32、John, “Reliability-Centered Maintenance,” Industrial Press, Inc. New York City, 1997 MSG-3, “Maintenance Program Development Document,” Air Transport Association, Washington DC, Revision 2007.1 Smith, Anthony M., “Reliability Centered Maintenance,” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1993 Zwingelstein, G., “Reli

33、ability Centered Maintenance, A Practical Guide for Implementation,” Herms, Paris, 1996 3. DEFINITIONS 3.1 Age A measure of exposure to stress computed from the moment an item enters service or first begins to degrade, either from new or re-entering service after a task designed to restore its initi

34、al capability. Age can be measured in terms of calendar time, running time, distance traveled, duty cycles, or units of output or throughput. 3.2 Applicable Task A task that is capable of preventing or mitigating the consequences of failure based on the technical characteristics of that failure. 3.3

35、 Desired Performance The level of performance desired by the owner or user of a physical asset or system. 3.4 Effective Task A task that reduces the probability or consequences of failure to an acceptable level and is feasible to perform. 3.5 Economic Consequences A classification assigned to failur

36、e modes, or multiple failures in the case of hidden failure modes, that do not adversely affect safety, the environment, or operations, but increase cost either from repair or from lost or degraded operations. Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reprodu

37、ction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE JA1011 Revised AUG2009 Page 5 of 12 3.6 Environmental Consequences A classification assigned to failure modes, or multiple failures in the case of hidden failure modes, that could result in a breach of any industry or government environm

38、ental standard or regulation. 3.7 Evident Failure A failure mode whose effects become apparent to the operator(s) under normal circumstances if the failure mode occurs on its own. 3.8 Evident Function A function whose failure on its own becomes apparent to the operator(s) under normal circumstances.

39、 3.9 Failure Consequences A classification of the failure effects of failure modes into categories based on evidence of failure, impact on safety, the environment, operational capability, and cost. 3.10 Failure Effect What happens when a failure mode occurs. 3.11 Failure-Finding Task A scheduled tas

40、k used to determine whether a specific hidden failure has occurred. 3.12 Failure Management Policy A generic term that encompasses on-condition tasks, scheduled restoration, scheduled discard, failure-finding, run-to-failure, and one-time changes. 3.13 Failure Mode A single event, which causes a fun

41、ctional failure. 3.14 Function What the owner or user of a physical asset or system wants it to do. 3.15 Functional Failure A state in which a physical asset or system is unable to perform a specific function to a desired level of performance. 3.16 Hidden Failure A failure mode whose effects do not

42、become evident to the operator(s) under normal circumstances if the failure mode occurs on its own. 3.17 Hidden Function A function whose failure on its own does not become evident to the operator(s) under normal circumstances. 3.18 Initial Capability The level of performance that a physical asset o

43、r system is capable of achieving at the moment it enters service. Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE JA1011 Revised AUG2009 Page 6 of 12 3.19 Maintainer A person or organization that

44、 may either suffer or be held accountable for the consequences of a functional failure or multiple failure by virtue of performing maintenance functions on behalf of the User and/or owner of the asset or system. 3.20 Multiple Failure An event that occurs if a protected function fails while its prote

45、ctive device or protective system is in a failed state. 3.21 Non-Operational Consequences A classification assigned to failure modes that do not adversely affect safety, the environment, or operations, but only require repair or replacement of any item(s) that may be affected by the failure. 3.22 On

46、-Condition Task A periodic or continuous task used to detect a potential failure. 3.23 One-Time Change Any action taken to change the physical configuration of an asset or system (redesign or modification), to change the method used by an operator or maintainer to perform a specific task, to change

47、the operational context of the system, or to change the capability of an operator or maintainer (training) 3.24 Operational Context The circumstances in which a physical asset or system is expected to operate. 3.25 Operational Consequences A classification assigned to failure modes that adversely af

48、fect the operational capability of a physical asset or system (output, product quality, customer service, military capability, or operating costs in addition to the cost of repair). 3.26 Owner A person or organization that may either suffer or be held accountable for the consequences of a functional failure or multiple failure of an asset or system by virtue of ownership of that asset or system. 3.27 P-F Interval The period between the point at which a potential failure becomes detectable and the point at which it degrades into a functional failure. 3.28 Potential Failure An iden