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