New Reliability Tool for the Millennium:

Weibull Analysis of Production Data

Woodrow T. Roberts, Jr., Ph.D. and H. Paul Barringer, P.E.
The Dow Chemical Company, Plaquemine, LA 70765-0150
Phone: 225-353-8410, Fax: 225-353-1949, e-mail: [email protected]
Barringer & Associates, Inc., Humble, TX 77347-3985
Phone: 281-852-6810, FAX: 281-852-3749, e-mail: [email protected]
 New Reliability Tool for the Millennium:
Weibull Analysis of Production Data

Abstract

The authors will demonstrate how a major Chemical Process company has successfully
utilized this new technique to answer questions such as:
1. Do I have a reliability problem or a production problem?
2. What is the demonstrated capacity of my plant?
3. What are efficiency/utilization losses costing me?
4. What is the reliability of my process plant?
The Weibull technique described has helped the company define a strategic course of action
based on quantification of process reliability. This tool when added to its reliability improvement
arsenal will help any company optimize availability of its products to its customers and maximize
profits to its stakeholders.

Introduction To Weibull Plots

Most reliability issues have too much information and too little knowledge. Process plants
have vast quantities of data concerning equipment and operating conditions. The problem is
trying to make the data speak about reliability in terms that are understandable to the ordinary
person. One simple method is to use the daily production output from the process and let the
production data “speak”. Every production process has daily output data usually organized and
studied in time sequence. Few organizations view the data as output from a “black box” to study
the results in statistical format to see patterns in the data.
Weibull analysis is one way to organize plant data as described by Abernethy (1998).
Weibull plots, the tool of choice for most reliability issues, will be used in this paper in a non-
traditional manner. The Weibull plots will define reliability of processes and calculate losses
from failure of the process to perform. The production losses in units of output are a precursor
for money. When problems are explained in money and time, everyone understands them.
The cost of process failures often exceeds the cost of individual equipment failures by many
multiples. We anguish over failure of pumps and heat exchangers—these are the low cost pawns,
and what we should worry about are expensive process failures—this is the high priced king. The
Weibull Analysis of Production Data 3

problem is to decide if you have a reliability problem with equipment or a problem with the
production process. Weibull plots help explain and categorize problems in a visual format
understandable by engineers, process owners, and management.

Why Use A Weibull Plot?

Definitions for Weibull process details are given below. Weibull probability plots organize
many different types of data into straight line X-Y plots. Engineers need data plots, with straight
lines, for comprehension at a practical level. For engineers and processes owners the relationship
is simple—no cartoon, no comprehension.
Weibull distributions are chosen pragmatically. When data produces a straight line on a
Weibull probability plot, the data is considered to be from a Weibull distribution. Weibull
distributions are complicated as they are non-linear and usually non-symmetrical distributions.
Traditional Weibull plots utilize age-to-failure data obtained from component failures to
make straight-line plots. For components, the slope of the Weibull line tells the failure mode for
the component. This is an important feature for letting the data “talk” about what portion of the
bathtub curve is best represented, i.e., infant mortality, chance failures, or old age wear out.
Traditional Weibull analysis carefully separates different failure modes to get clean data
with suspensions (i.e., the data is censored) so only single modes of failure are represented in
each straight line Weibull plot. When mixed failure modes are plotted on a Weibull plot, cusps
often appear that give clues to changes and provide evidence for mixed failure modes. Process
reliability techniques will take advantage of the cusps to provide information about process
reliability.
Figure 1 shows Weibull
.1
1 probability graph paper. The X-axis is
Weibull Probability Paper
5
10 a log scale, and it will be used to plot
80 the daily production from a production
30
40
50 unit. The Y-axis is an irregularly
Reliability %

60
30 divided scale resulting from taking the
80
log of another log. The Y-axis is
90
95
plotted in a reliability scale rather than
the traditional cumulative scale
98
reflecting unreliability.
99
Notice Weibull plot scales
99.5
magnify problems in the lower left
99.8 hand corner so they can easily be
99.9 observed as shown by the darkened
.1 1 <Log> 10 100 1000
Production Output (tons/day)
rectangular areas highlighted by the
Figure 1: Weibull Probability Paper
ellipses in Figure 1. Both ellipses are
4%*0.9 units of production.

How Does Scalar Production Data Get Into An X-Y Format?

Production data from a process is usually acquired as daily output. If weekly or monthly
data summaries are used, the smoothing of the data hides reliability of the process. The daily
output reflects conditions upstream and downstream from the pay-point under measurement.
Daily output is a scalar value.
Statisticians have worked out a scheme for handling the conversion of scalar results into a
X-Y coordinate system. Data is ranked from low to high to form N pieces of information. The
rank of each value is identified with its “i” position for use with Bernard’s median rank equation
which gives the reliability Y-position as 1 - (i - 0.3)/(N + 0.4). The details are explained in
Abernethy.
 For a rank column of production data with N = 365 for 365 days of production, suppose the
10th data point (i = 10) was 703. The X-value is 703, and the reliability Y-value is 1- (10 -
0.3)/(365 + 0.4) = 1 - 9.7/365.4 = 100% - 2.65753% = 97.34247% for a Cartesian position
(703,97.34247%) on Weibull probability paper.
Notice this scheme does not maintain the typical time position of the data. Instead, the data
is randomly (but not haphazardly) occurring information generated by a “black box” device. The
“black box” is the process—please note the well-known Weibull modes of failure do not apply to
the “black box” data. Thus the information is viewed from a high altitude perspective with
Weibull statistical details of β and η. When data from the actual process is compared with Monte
Carlo results of the black box details, they have a similar appearance, which adds credibility that
the actual data can be represented by a model formed by the Weibull details! (Barringer 1999a).

Production Data From 365 Days—Two Data Sets With Two Points Of View
Consider the Weibull plot in Figure 2 (a). Neither of the curves have reliability problems.
Trend line A for a best of class process, with small variation in output, is preferred over trend line
B, with its larger variation. Both curves have the same maximum daily output, which is usually
fixed by physical restraints in the system. Also note the data plotted in Figure 2 (a) are in rank
order. Data is not plotted in a time order.
Shapes of the probability density functions are shown in Figure 2 (b)—these are the shapes
you would see if a tally sheet was constructed of daily production quantities—of course, the
Figure 2 (b) curves have been normalized so area under the curve is unity and thus the Y-axis
represents relative frequency of occurrences. Notice that both curves pass through the same high
value for the 365 data point.
Figure 2 (a) Figure 2 (b)
.1 .06
1 Eta B eta r^2 n/s
5 700 100 1 365/0
10
20 494 5 1 365/0 .05
30
Weibull Probability
Reliability %

40
Density Function

50
60 eta 700:beta 100.
70 .04
80

90
.03
95

98 .02
99 eta 494.1:beta 5.
B A
99.5 .01

99.8 W/rr
99.9 0
0.1 1 <Log> 10 100 1000 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Recorded Production (Tons/day) Recorded Production (Tons/day)

Figure 2: Weibull Plots—No Problems

Straight Weibull lines in Figure 2(a) have curves with tails in Figure 2(b). The flat slope
(small beta values), with large variations in output, shows a long tail to the right. The steep slope
(large beta values) shows a long tail to the left which says the real opportunities for exceeding the
maximum output is very small but the opportunities for having downside production quantities is
very large—both conditions are easily recognized by seasoned production personnel.
The interest of six-sigma concepts and Weibull concepts are complementary ideas directed
toward reducing variation in the data (Barringer 1999b). The Weibull concept works with non-
symmetrical shapes to the curves and the idea of reducing variation in output is considered
desirable.
Where Weibull trend lines of production data cut the dashed line in Figure 2 (a), the
resulting X-value represents a single characteristic value for demonstrated production output.
Weibull Analysis of Production Data 5

This value is represented by eta (η) to show 36.8% of the production will exceed the η value and
63.2% (the complement) will be less than the single point estimate of daily-demonstrated
production, η. η is the single point estimates of the demonstrated production value.
The Weibull characteristic value, η, has mathematical properties described by Abernethy.
This characteristic value represents a stretch goal for production. The η value is used to best
describe the single point estimate of production from non-linear distributions.

Problem Production Data From 365 Days—Two Data Sets With Two Points Of View
In Figure 3, the first cusp in the upper right hand corner of the plot on the Weibull trend line
defines a failure point (i.e., the trend line switches to greater variability), which identifies the
reliability of the process. The highest cusp defines reliability of the process.
Reliability Problems Shown By Cusps Reliability problems are shown in
.1 Figure 3. The cusp on line A at 98%
1 Eta B eta r^2 n/s
5 700 100 1 365/0
reliability is more desirable than the
10
20
30
494 5 1 365/0 cusp on line B at 80% reliability.
Reliability %

40
50 Notice the cusps, defining reliability of
60
70 Cusp the process, result in larger scatter in
80
the output, which is undesirable and
90
contrary to the concepts of six-sigma
95
efforts because they show a gap
98 between the expected trend line and the
99
B A actual trend line. The gaps are often
99.5
characterized as hidden factories—a
99.8 W/rr hidden factory has the cost of the real
99.9 factory but the hidden factory generates
0.1 1 <Log> 10 100 1000
waste and thus lower production.
Recorded Production (Tons/day) Reliability losses occur in the gaps
between the demonstrated production
Figure 3: Weibull Plot With Failure Cusps line (devoid of cusps) and the actual
production values which lie to the left
of the demonstrated line. Some minor reliability losses are associated with cutbacks. Other
reliability losses are associated with significant disasters related to “crash and burn” problems.
Production data scatter to the right of the cusps is the result of common cause variations built
into the process and the reasons for the variation are difficult to detect and correct. Scatter in the
data to the left of the cusps is caused by special causes identifiable by events related to cause and
effects—these conditions are easier to identify and correct.
How much variation is desirable in production output? The answer is naively simple—none,
however, in the practical world this naïve simplicity does not exist and some variation in output
will occur even in the best of processes. If output variations were extremely small, each variation
would be detectable for correction. However, when natural output variation is large, small
changes go undetected and thus uncorrected. Furthermore when large natural variations occur,
opinions for reasons causing the changes are widely separated which delays corrective action.

Nameplate Ratings For The Process

One criterion for viewing how well the process performs is to define a nameplate rating.
The nameplate rating is the maximum production capacity of the factory under theoretically ideal
operation and control. The site contractor that designs and constructs the factory usually provides
the nameplate rating. It is rarely measurable as it is impossible to achieve the ideal conditions.
Some organizations measure their best outputs over a contiguous period of time such as the best 5
days, best 10 days, etc. as judged on a single value to characterize the best nameplate rating.
 Comparisons between actual plant results and Weibull analysis have shown the nameplate
figure at the characteristic value is steeper than typically obtained by the demonstrated production
characteristic values. Figure 4 shows the actual plot of the production line from figure 3 cuts the
38.2% line to give a single point
Point Estimates of Process Capacity estimate of the demonstrated
.1
1 Eta B eta r^2 n/s production, and in a similar fashion
5
10 700 100 1 365/0 Demonstrated the trend line for the nameplate value
20 494 5 1 365/0
30 is established using concepts from
Reliability %

40
50
60 statistics relating to the coefficient of
70
80 variation, which is in proportion to
90 the Weibull shape factor beta.
95 World-class processes, have a
Name Plate nameplate line with a beta slopes
98
equal to or greater than 100. Not all
99
processes are capable of steep slopes
99.5
displaying small amounts of common
99.8 W/rr cause variation associated with the
99.9
0.1 100 1000
nameplate line.
1 <Log> 10
Please note the slope and
Recorded Production (Tons/day) location of the nameplate line is fixed
by the way the process is designed
Figure 4: Weibull Plot Single Point Estimates and how it is operated—both issues
are under management control. The
wedge shape zone between the nameplate line and the demonstrated production line refer to gaps
in output best categorized as efficiency and utilization losses.
Figure 5 shows the production
Simple Problem Process data from a simple process with a
.1 problem. The process has
1 Eta Beta r^2 n/s
5 Nameplate demonstrated a reliability of 81.5%
10 700 100
20 669 31
Reliability %

40
30 Reliability losses below the cusp
50 are 13,813 tons per year as shown by
60 Production
70 the cross hatched zone to the left of
80 Reliability = 81.5
90 the demonstrated line.
Reliability Losses
95 Efficiency and utilization losses
= 13,813 Tons/yr
are 14,061 tons per year as shown by
98
the pie shaped zone between the
99
99.5 Efficiency & Utilizations
demonstrated line and the nameplate
line.
99.8 Losses = 14,061 Tons/yr W/rr Figure 5 shows the major
99.9
10 100 1000 problem is a production problem
followed hard on the heels with a
Daily Production (tons/day)
reliability problem.
Figure 5: Weibull Plot Losses Failure to identify the nameplate
line makes all problems look like a
reliability issue. In fact, for the situation in Figure 5, the major problem is due to efficiency and
utilization that is directly controlled by management.
Weibull Analysis of Production Data 7

Nameplate Ratings For The Process

Using Figure 5, here are the answers to the questions posed earlier:
1. Do I have a reliability problem or a production problem? The first problem is due to
production and the second problem, of almost the same magnitude, is a reliability issue.
2. What is the demonstrated capacity of my plant? Demonstrated plant capacity is 669
tons/day and the nameplate rating is 700 tons/day which says the plant is actually operating
(700 – 669)/700 = -4.43% under the nameplate capacity
3. What are efficiency/utilization losses costing me? Efficiency/utilization losses are 14,061
tons/year which is equivalent to 14061/669 = 21 days of lost production in a one year time
interval
4. What is the reliability of my process plant? The reliability of the process is 81.5% and
reliability losses are 13,813 tons/year equivalent to 13813/669 = 21 days of lost production.
The situation in Figure 5 shows a hidden factory that has consumed 42 days of actual production
that could have been produced and sold for the benefit of the stockholders. Often these losses,
when recovered, can more than double returns on assets for investors.
For each problem noted above, a reason for the deficiency must be identified and corrected.
You must make a change to get a change. The authors have collectively looked at hundreds of
processes and the number of processes requiring improvement exceeds 99%.
The interesting feature of attacking process reliability problems is that most are correctable
by teamwork, and the identification/quantification of both production and reliability problems
avoids the typical finger pointing and rock throwing which occurs in most plants between
departments. In short, correctly quantifying and categorizing the problems shows enough
“blame” to go around and neither side is innocent. A clear situation emerges that production,
engineering, and maintenance must work together for their common good to eliminate losses.
Competitive environments existing today will quickly eliminate plants that are non-
competitive because of losses that could be eliminated, so, if the team does not make the
correction, the competition will shut the process and everyone at the plant is the looser. You
cannot eliminate problems that you cannot identify and Weibull process reliability provides a new
method for ferreting out problems for resolution.

Actual Production Data For Weibull Analysis

Each opportunity described below can have reliability and production problems arising from
design, manufacture, equipment/process selection, installation, operation, maintenance,
monitoring, equipment/process repair, and operation of the equipment/process in a specified
environment for a specified interval of time. The issues at stake are not idealistic perfection but
strictly pragmatic commercial—considering complexities of real life operating plants, they must
function to make money. It’s easy to loose money, and it’s difficult to make money—the
difficulties of exterior conditions of the market place and interior conditions of plant culture must
be considered. You’ll never find any plant or any operation devoid of problems—all have
situations where problems must be identified and corrected by attacking the roots of the problem.
Weibull analysis of the production data will be examined to show how to attach typical
problems—please remember that for competitive reasons the actual remedies will not be
disclosed but rather, the details will be generic.

Data From A Real Process

For proprietary reasons, the plant producing this real data is not identified, nor will the
product be identified.
 Plant X, Process Y Figure 6 shows actual data
.1
1 W/rr 1999, R = 30 % during each of three years. The
5
10
1998, R = 19% reliability is highly variable and so
20 1997, R = 24%
30 are the losses. For example,
40
60
50
Process Is Figure 5 shows the process was
Reliability %

70
80
Down idle for ~12% of the time during
90
1998. Losses are described in the
95
following Table 1.
Table 1 shows the process
98
\Production \Nameplate has low reliability (the cusps in
99
Figure 6 cannot be seen because of
99.5 Eta Beta r^2 n/s
1514 100 Nameplate
the breadth in symbol width for
99.8 the graphic even though the cusps
99.9 for the serious deteriorations are
1 <Log> 2000
observable in the upper 80% in
Daily Production (tons/day) Figure 6. Efficiency and
Figure 6: Weibull Plot Of Actual Data
utilization problems are minor in
comparison to reliability problems. Notice how closely the nameplate ratings are from year to
year based on an analysis of the actual output data.
Data from Table 1 should be viewed as yardstick information--not as micrometers. The
turnaround in 1998 was successful and reduced losses in 1999—although the extra losses of
~50,000 tons/year has about a 2 year payback.

Table 1: Summary Of Results From Plant X And Process Y

1997 1998 1999 3 Yr Average
Actual Results
Reliability 30% 19% 24% 24%
Production Losses (tons/year)
Reliability Losses (tons/year) 37,070 76,158 20,370 44,533
Efficiency & Utilization Losses (tons/year) 2,091 15,545 4,376 7,337
Total Losses (tons/year) 39,161 91,703 24,746 51,870
Equivalent Days Lost/yr At Demo. Output 26 62 16 35
Production Losses ($/year) @ 0.10$/lb
$ Reliability Losses/year @ 0.10$/lb $ 7,414,000 $ 15,231,600 $ 4,074,000 $ 8,906,533
$ Efficiency/Utilization Losses/year @ 0.10$/lb $ 418,200 $ 3,109,000 $ 875,200 $ 1,467,467
$ Total Losses $ 7,832,200 $ 18,340,600 $ 4,949,200 $ 10,374,000
Demonstrated Production Results
η, demonstrated output (tons/day) 1,511 1,491 1,503 1,502
β , slope of demonstrated line 76.8 53.2 88.3 72.8
Nameplate Results
η, nameplate output (tons/day) 1,515 1,527 1514 1,519
β , slope of nameplate line 100 100 100 100.0

Using Table 1, here are the answers to the questions posed earlier:
1. Do I have a reliability problem or a production problem? The first problem is due to
reliability by a factor of ~6:1 over efficiency/utilization problems.
2. What is the demonstrated capacity of my plant? Demonstrated plant capacity is 1502
tons/day. Nameplate rating is 1519 tons/day. The plant is operating (1519 – 1502)/1519 = -
1.1% under the nameplate capacity.
3. What are efficiency/utilization losses costing me? Efficiency/utilization losses average 7,337
tons/year which is equivalent to 7337/1502 = 4.9 days/yr. of lost production.
Weibull Analysis of Production Data 9

Efficiency/utilization losses are small compared to reliability losses. Average

efficiency/utilization losses are $1,467,467/year.
4. What is the reliability of my process plant? The reliability of the process has varied from
19% to 30% over a three year period and the average is 24%. Average reliability losses are
44,533 tons/year which is equivalent to 44533/1502 = 29.6 days/yr lost. Average reliability
losses are $8,906,533/year.
Table 1, based on Figure 5, shows a hidden factory that, on the average, consumed 35 days/year
of actual production that could have been produced and sold for the benefit of the stockholders.

What Causes Reliability Losses?

Steep beta trend lines for demonstrated production trend lines can deteriorate into less steep
beta trend lines as equipment is removed/added to service with accompanying changes in output.
When portions of a process (i.e., a train is lost) are added/removed, a cusp forms on the trend line.
Turnarounds result in substantial outages (i.e., a reliability issues of high magnitude) as
observed in the 1998 time period for Table 1. Process fouling causes output deterioration and
results in a cusp on the demonstrated production line.
Logistic problems causing process starts-stops-cutbacks cause unusual cusps to appear on
the trend lines for demonstrated production.
Lack of raw materials and lack of orders (both issues are failures of the business team to
provide for successes) are reliability problems with roots for the failure, which are different than
traditionally observed for output restrictions. Lack of feedstock to one plant may be due to
reliability problems at a supplier plant. Also cutbacks may be required due to utilities such as
steam or power being temporarily put on allocation at a site. These “load shedding” requirements
will show up as decreased reliability if severe enough.
Short-term process inattention to optimization can result in output cutbacks, which will
appear as cusps on the demonstrated production curve—these operation conditions can have a
similar appearance on plant output as equipment failures.
Catalyst fouling will show up as reduced reliability also. Downtime to recharge the catalyst
will be viewed the same as downtime due to planned turnarounds for equipment maintenance.
These scheduled downtimes can be coordinated between operations and maintenance to ensure
optimum use of the “window”.

What Causes Flat Slopes In The Demonstrated Production Line?

Changes in set points from shift to shift result in increasing output variation when operators
think their shift concepts are superior to prior shifts operational concepts—if they are responding
to common cause variation rather than special causes (this concept was repeatedly demonstrated
by Dr. Deming’s dropping beads into a funnel to observe their resulting location in an egg crate
experiment which showed responding to each common cause change results in more scatter in the
results than only responding to special cause).
Speed bursts for records, which are subsequently paid for by many days of substandard
performance, result in large variations in process output.
Another cause can be the lack of explaining to operations personnel about location of the
process “bulls eye” so that output consistency is obtained rather than use of colorful descriptions
such as “give me more”.
Slow deterioration in production output because of equipment fouling does not cause a cusp
on the output curve but rather only adds to variability in output. Examples of this are observed in
towers, columns, heat exchangers, and high temperature reaction systems where the operations
group does not renew the system on frequent or consistent basis. Catalyst fouling will show up
like this until it gets severe enough to become a reliability problem.
What Causes Efficiency and Utilization Losses?
Major stresses on the system have large effects such as temperatures, pressures, flow rates,
and chemical concentrations. These conditions manifest themselves in displacement of the
demonstrated production rates to smaller values from the installed capacities of the system.
Other items have large effects such as mixing efficiencies, late starts and early quits, running
plans at continuously reduced outputs, which are failures to use the installed capacity paid for by
the investors, inattention to long-term process optimization with inherent inefficient operations,
lack of maintaining steady state conditions, use of analog controls rather than rapid response
digital controls, use of sub-optimum raw materials, and continuously inefficient scheduling of
production facilities. These are the deviations that determine the upper and lower control limits
of the process and determine how tight that control is. These are the things that can be worked
on to reduce the variation in the statistical control of the process.

How Do You Solve These Practical Problems For Reliability and Efficiency/Utilization?
Look down on the problems from a strategic position rather than treating all details as
tactical problems. Keep the big picture in mind and let new ideas lead change. “Organizations
need change for three reasons: 1) they are out in front and want to stay there, 2) they are about to
be overcome by the competition and have to change in order to stay competitive, and 3) they have
already been overcome, and they must change in order to compete and survive.” (Clancy 1997) If
you can get a clear strategy, the tactics for solving the problem (i.e., making things change) will
be clear and this requires: “1) a sense of the objective to focus efforts on achieving the objective
and the discipline to stay within the parameters, 2) unity of effort so the organization works
toward the same goal, 3) a sense of legitimacy for acceptance [of changes] by the organization, 4)
perseverance to reach the objectives.” (Clancy)
Don’t get tangled-up in the details when working on the high level viewpoint. Understand how and
why your operation is performing in the manner it functions. Defer the details for tactical solutions.
From your assessment findings, build a Pareto chart to prioritize the efforts for corrective actions.
The big picture concept is described in Table 2 which is an extension of Birchfield’s
contributions (Birchfield 2000).
Assess where you are and define what your plant is capable of performing. If you don’t
know where you are and where you’re going, how will you know when you’ve arrived? The
assessment must be in terms useful for operations, engineering, maintenance, and management.
Use of daily plant output during the assessment, as a precursor for money, is a concept everyone
understands without the need for justifying logic for the assessment.
Each operating plant needs an objective assessment based on numbers. The assessment needs to
fit on one side of one sheet of paper as can be obtained with the Weibull process reliability technique.
The assessment must also show the nameplate rating for the facility. The Weibull slope for well
designed and operated processes can have very tight ranges with Weibull beta values greater than 200,
and the nice thing about steep betas is you can clearly see a change in the process because changes in
output are real and have a special cause demanding immediate corrections.
Problems must be sliced/diced into logical subgroups for understanding roots of the
difficulties. Frequently day-to-day problems hide a general trend, which can be observed as
results from the “black box” analysis by use of Weibull techniques.
Solve each individual problem by working on roots of the difficulty rather than working on
symptoms of problems. Start top down on the root cause, beginning with the effect (the problem)
and why it was caused (the conditions which may have caused the event) and recognize the
causes are catalyzed by an action (the momentary cause that brings conditions together to cause
an effect) (Gano 1999). You don’t need to be the best problem solver in the world, but you do
need to be better than your most fierce competitor.
Weibull Analysis of Production Data 11

Table 2: Reliability--The Same Issue Viewed From Different Organizational Perspectives

Process Maintenance Reliability Engineering Management
Reliability Issues:
Definition Fix When Broken Fix When Broken Prevent Failures Mission times/failure rates
Concept Tactical Tactical Strategic/Tactical Acceptable cost of unreliability
Mode Continuous Discrete Discrete Continuous
Involvement Automated Manual Situational Provide leadership
Provential Interest Loss of production Cost of repair Long term cost of ownership Short term costs
Methodology Predictive Preventive Avoidance of failure Strategy first/tactics second
Mental Involvement Models Practices Models Hold the long term course
Key Issues Knowledge Skill Knowledge & skill Harmonizing long/short term objectives
Scope of Interest Contents Container System Business system and accountability
Measurement Scale Optimization Effectivemess Long term cost of ownership Annual cost of unreliability
Implementation Tools Control Inspect Prevention Reliability driven engr./mgt./cost tools
Discipline Chemical Mechanical System Money management
Equipment Family:
Safety & Environmental issues
Product yield & cost issues
Pressure limits Corrosion rates Manning level issues
Temperature limits Leaks Embrittlement Energy consumption
Fouling prevention Insulation Risk-based inspection Waste disposal
Fixed On-stream cleaning Painting Infared/ultrasonic testing Human errors, good work practices,
Start-up/shut-down trips Strainers & filters Failure rates/models & avoidance of failure conditons
Corrosion rates/controls TPM, PdM, & PM issues Redundancy/trade-off models Equipment compatability with feedstock
TPM issues to reduce failues Root cause failure analysis & product changes
Process stability & rates of process
change on cost & schedules

Safety & Environmental issues

Product yield & cost issues
Surge & caviation Manning level issues
Fitness for service
Over speed Energy consumption
Vibration Redundancy issues
BEP control & alternatives Waste disposal
alignment Predictive failure analysis
Rotating Lubrication Human errors, good work practices,
bearings/seals/gaskets Failure rates/models
Start-up/shut-down trips & avoidance of failure conditons
TPM, PdM, & PM issues Redundancy/trade-off models
Errosion rates/controls Equipment compatability with feedstock
Root cause failure analysis
TPM issues to reduce failures & product changes
Process stability & rates of process
change on cost & schedules

Safety & Environmental issues

Product yield & cost issues
Manning level issues
Overloads & overload tolerance Uniterrruptible supplies
Cleaning Energy consumption
Trips & shorts Supply swithcing capability
Transformer Oil Analysis Waste disposal
Load shedding/switching Mover overheating
Electrical Insulation Human errors, good work practices,
Energy costs as % of Failure rates/models
Hot spots & avoidance of failure conditons
product cost issues Redundancy/trade-off models
TPM, Pdm, & PM issues Equipment compatability with feedstock
TPM issues to reduce failures Root cause failure analysis
& product changes
Process stability & rates of process
change on cost & schedules

Accuracy & repeatability

Control loop diagnostics
Safety & Environmental issues
Sample loop conditions
Product yield & cost issues
Inference vs lab/analyzers Redundancy
Manning level issues
Alarms management Calibration Fail-safe modes
Energy consumption
Control system failures Critical checks Housing environment
Waste disposal
Feed/process interruptions Sensor fouling/cleaning Sensor location
Instruments & Controls Human errors, good work practices,
Trip reduction/hazard models Standard samples Statistical tools
& avoidance of failure conditons
& smart/dumb instrumentation Troubleshooting Failure rates/models
Equipment compatability with feedstock
Transient vs steady state TPM, PdM, & PM issues Redundancy/trade-off models
& product changes
controls Root cause failure analysis
Process stability & rates of process
Push vs pull control for
change on cost & schedules
productivity issues
TPM issues to reduce failures

Use asset utilization categories for each day where a problem has been identified. Relate the
type of problem (i.e., reliability problem or efficiency/utilization problem) to the specific cause
listed for problems with asset utilization. Convert the problems into money based on lost
production to help justify economic solutions to practical problems.
On reliability issues, separate the losses into production related reasons versus equipment
related reasons so the real problem can be solved as a money issue.
On efficiency/utilization issues, separate the issues between efficiency and utilization, as the
medicine for solving the problem will be considerably different. Convert the details into money issues
to provide motivation for solving economic problems rather than treating the problems emotionally.
 Understand that many reliability problems can have people, processes, and procedures as the
root of the difficulty. People issues usually cause most equipment problems. People issues
involve such items as inferior operating techniques, inferior installation techniques, and inferior
maintenance grades for alignment and restoration. The true, inherent equipment problems are
less frequently the cause of load-strength issues than people-procedure interferences that choke
the equipment into failure. For equipment abnormalities, also consider FRETT (Forces, Reactive
agents, Environments, Temperatures, and Time) as a checklist for what/where to look for
improvement opportunities (Bloch 1994). The important concept to grasp is the implementation
of resolutions to people, processes and procedures generally require no/little capital and changes
can begin in short intervals of time.
Ashbrook (2000) offers good advice for thinking as an entrepreneur to solve problems:
1. Find good models,
2. Learn the right lessons,
3. Make good observations,
4. Prepare for life-long learning and modification
This is the concept of Weibull analysis for process reliability issues to find ways to make
improvements.

Definitions
Crash and burn output: A euphemism for seriously deficient production quantities during periods of
substantial process upsets or deteriorations.

Cutbacks: A production quantity recorded during a period when output is restricted by partial failures
resulting in a slowdown from the intended/scheduled production rate. The zone is often characterized by a
cusp at either end of the zone on a Weibull plot.

Demonstrated Weibull production line: A straight-line trend in upper reaches of the Weibull probability plot
defining “normal” production when all is well—as quantities deviate from this segment, failures occur (by
definition) because the process loses it’s predictability.

Demonstrated capacity: A single “talk about” number at 63.2% CDF or 36.2% reliability which best
represents a “stretch goal” for production output.

Efficiency/utilization losses: The difference between the nameplate capacity and the demonstrated Weibull line;
generally a result of efficiency losses or under-utilization of the facility.

Nameplate capacity: a) For a single piece of equipment, it is the maximum production capacity of the
equipment under ideal operation and control as described by process planners or supplier of the equipment. b)
For a process comprised of many different components of equipment it is the maximum production capacity of
the factory under ideal operation and control as provided by the site contractor that designs and constructs the
factory.

Pareto principle: A few contributors are responsible for the bulk of the effects—the 80/20 rule whereby
10% to 20% of the things are responsible for 60% to 80% of the impact. Named for the Italian economist
Vilafredo Pareto (1848-1923) who studied the unequal distribution of wealth in the world and by Dr. Juran
who described the Pareto concept as separating the vital few issues from the trivial many issues.

Processes: Processes are collections of systems and actions following prescribed procedures for bringing about
a result. Using a set of inter-related activities and resources to transform inputs into outputs often uses processes
for manufacturing saleable items.

Production losses: The difference between the demonstrated Weibull line and the actual production data
point associated with the same % CDF.
Weibull Analysis of Production Data 13

Process reliability: The point on a Weibull probability plot where the demonstration production line shows a
distinct cusp because of cutbacks and/or crash and burn problems.

Summary
Weibull techniques provide a method, using daily production data, for assessing data to find
process reliability, reliability losses, and efficiency/utilization losses. The losses provide enough
details to define a Pareto distribution to rank the problem solving priority.
The Weibull process reliability techniques define single point estimates of: process
reliability, estimates of the daily demonstrated production, estimates of nameplate capacity, and
estimates of losses by category including the size of hidden factories.

References
1. Abernethy, Robert B., The New Weibull Handbook, third edition, Dr. Robert B. Abernethy
author and published, 536 Oyster Road, North Palm Beach, FL 33408-4328, Phone/FAX:
561-842-4082, e-mail: [email protected], ISBN 0-9653062-0-8, 1998.
2. Ashbrook, Tom, The Leap, Houghton Mifflin, NY, ISBN 0-395-83934-3, 2000
3. Barringer, H. Paul, “Process Reliability Concepts”, SAE 2000 Weibull Users Conference,
Detroit, MI, 1999, Free downloads of this paper in PDF format are available at
http://www.barringer1.com/papers.htm .
4. Barringer, H. Paul, “Process Reliability and Six-Sigma”, National Manufacturing Week
Conference 2000, 1999, Free downloads of this paper in PDF format are available at
http://www.barringer1.com/papers.htm .
5. Birchfield, George S., Olefin Plant Reliability, Presented at AspenWorld 2000 Conference
sponsored by Aspen Technology, Inc., Cabridge, MA, 2000
6. Bloch, Heinz P. and Fred K. Geitner, Improving Machinery Reliability, Second Ed. Gulf
Publishing Co., phone 1-409-588-4611, http://www.machineryreliability.com, ISBN 0-
88415-172-01-7, 1994, p. 419.Gano, Dean L., Apollo Root Cause Analysis, Apollonian
Publications, Yakima, WA, phone 1-281-281-6400, http://www.Apollo-as.com, ISBN 1-
883677-01-7, 1999
7. Clancy, Tom with General Fred Franks, Into the Storm, Berkley Book, NY. 1997 pages 495,
500.
8. Gano, Dean L., Apollo Root Cause Analysis, Apollonian Publications, Yakima, WA,
ISBN 1-883677-01-7, phone 281-281-6400, 1999.

Biographies
Woodrow T. Roberts, Jr., Ph.D. is the Global Reliability Engineering Discipline Team Leader for the
Dow Chemical Company. He received a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Auburn
University in 1966 and an MBA from LSU in 1974. He received a Ph.D. in Engineering Science from LSU
in 1992 and the title of his dissertation was Failure Predictions In Repairable Multi-Component
Systems.
He has been with Dow Chemical since 1966 and has worked in several areas of plant operations including
being Superintendent of the LDPE plant and the Superintendent of the Cellulose Ethers plant. From 1986 to
1995 he was the Superintendent of the Plastics Central Maintenance Department at Dow’s Louisiana
Operations Site. Prior to his present position he was a Senior Maintenance Associate in the Maintenance
and Construction Department of the Louisiana Site.
Roberts has served as President of the Baton Rouge Chapter of the Society of Reliability Engineers (SRE)
and as the Chapter's representative to the International SRE Executive Board of Directors.
Address: Dow Chemical, Louisiana Division, B-4109, Plaquemine, LA 70764-0150, (504)-353-8410,
FAX: (504)-353-1949, E-Mail:[email protected].
Paul Barringer is a manufacturing, engineering, and reliability consultant with more than thirty-five years of
engineering and manufacturing experience in design, production, quality, maintenance, and reliability of technical
products. Experienced in both the technical and bottom-line aspects of operating a business with management
experience in manufacturing and engineering for an ISO 9001 facility. Industrial experience includes the oil and
gas services business for high pressure and deep holes, super alloy manufacturing, and isotope separation using
ultra high speed rotating devices.

He is author of training courses: Reliability Engineering Principles for calculating the life of equipment
and predicting the failure free interval, Process Reliability for finding the reliability of processes and
quantifying production losses, and Life Cycle Cost for finding the most cost effective alternative from
many equipment scenarios using reliability concepts.

Barringer is a Registered Professional Engineer, Texas. Inventor named in six U.S.A. Patents and numerous
foreign patents. He is a contributor to The New Weibull Handbook, a reliability text, published by Dr. Robert
B. Abernethy.

His education includes a MS and BS in Mechanical Engineering from North Carolina State University.
Participated in Harvard University's three-week Manufacturing Strategy conference.

For other issues on process reliability refer to Problems Of The Month at http://www.barringer1.com.