Product and service reliability has always been an important criterion for oil and gas operations, but, historically it has been difficult to measure consistent levels of reliability.

Transferring know-how
Other business sectors have a greater maturity in the use of reliability and quality principles. Aerospace and defense, for example, have a mature reliability culture after 60 years of sustained focus on the topic. Flight safety led to mandates on use of processes and procedures in the Military Handbook and Military Standards to execute development programs that meet high reliability/safety requirements. Today, learning from these industries is yielding more cost-effective and efficient programs and processes for industrial and consumer products.

In classic terms, Reliability (R), is the probability of failure-free performance over an item’s useful life, for a specified timeframe or mission time (t), under specified environmental and duty-cycle conditions where probability of failure-free performance is greater than 0.9995. For most commercial aviation applications, reliability requirements are very stringent: for a mission time of t = 10 hours, R(10) can be greater than 0.999999, which necessitates use of tools capable of supporting probabilistic engineering and data analysis. Challenges unique to the oil industry necessitate a disciplined approach to reliability:

-Stochastic time-varying mission profiles: The drilling, completions, and production environments can change greatly across different jobs in different fields. Stochastic mission profiles and a true Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) Product Development Management (PDM) are key to enabling future designs to meet predictable durability requirements.

-The rig environment: The oilfield service sector is highly dependent on the skills of field engineers to deliver service quality. Rapid advances in technology, cyclic market-driven attrition, system complexity, and varied applications increase the probability of human transactional failures.

-Downhole conditions in deeper wells with higher temperatures and pressures push the physics of failure limits.

A solid reliability program has relevant reliability requirements and takes a systems approach. Designing for reliability (DFR) requires a disciplined approach toward concurrent engineering. There are many reliability tools that span the realm of individual part failure models to modeling system reliability. Probabilistic inputs to traditional engineering tools like finite element analysis and computational fluid dynamics often increase computational times by an order of magnitude.

Adoption of tools and techniques like DFSS and process improvements such as Define, Measure, Analyze, Implement, and Control are gaining traction. DFSS and 6Sigma will continue to evolve as important tools for developing highly reliable products. Investment is needed to develop proper understanding of when and how to use these sophisticated tools to achieve a reliable design or service.

The ultimate goal of DFR is to minimize the number, likelihood, and impact of failure modes.The product development life cycle can be divided into four phases: 1) specification, 2) design, 3) test, and 4) implementation. Each phase requires collaboration across multiple disciplines. Several years ago, Baker Hughes Inc. launched a product reliability program for new products and has made significant upgrades to its quality program:

-Embedding DFR tasks in an updated rigorous PDM stage-gate process already in use for 10 years;

-Formal supplier qualification and risk management program;

-One operating and quality management system across all product lines;

-6Sigma and Lean training and certification; and

-Reliability centered maintenance program.

For strengthening service quality, key initiatives in the pipelines include: embedded diagnostics, fault tolerant designs, remote monitoring and optimization, and training and certification requirements for personnel involved in the DFR process. Increasing project operating costs are resulting in customers demanding higher returns on their assets. More formal requirements specifications from customers and more frequent and rigorous customer audits will continue to distinguish quality service providers.

Comments