Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management 15 (2018), pp 78-95

APPLYING CBM AND PHM CONCEPTS WITH RELIABILITY APPROACH

FOR BLOWOUT PREVENTER (BOP): A LITERATURE REVIEW

Filipe Brandão Martins ABSTRACT

fmartins@qgog.com.br; filipeb.
martins@hotmail.com
The sensibility originated by the Blowout Preventer (BOP) theme, due to all atten-
Queiroz Galvão Oil and Gas, Rio das tion gathered after the Macondo event, established a high level of requirements from reg-
Ostras, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. ulatory agencies, clients and Drilling Contractors themselves. Based on these pillars, the
concept of reliability has been constantly applied in the oil industry, especially in the Well
Rodolfo Cardoso Safety and Control System, where it is extremely important for the equipment to be reli-
rodolfo.cardoso@lei.uff.br able and operational when required. In parallel, the Condition Based Maintenance (CBM)
Fluminense Federal University, Rio
das Ostras, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. and Prognostic Health Management (PHM) concepts, widely used in critical industries,
which require high reliability levels, are being pointed out as the future for the BOP system
Iara Tammela
management. Within this context, the purpose of this paper is to review the literature
iaratammela@gmail.com; on Condition Based Maintenance and Prognostic Health Management, integrated with
iaratammela@id.uff.br reliability concepts, and to enable them to be applied in the BOP health management.
Fluminense Federal University, Rio The paper identifies different concepts needed to support the main theme and, through
das Ostras, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
research and selection criteria, it brings together a set of publications to obtain consistent
theoretical framework. This research outlines important techniques used in high reliabili-
Danilo Colombo
colombo.danilo@petrobras.com.br
ty industries and the way they can be applied on the BOP system and it also provides many
Petrobras, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de useful references and case studies to assist on further development works in terms of well
Janeiro, Brazil. control and operational safety.
Keywords: PHM; CBM; Condition Monitoring; FMMEA; BOP; Failure analysis; Reliability;
Bruno Acioli de Matos
b.acioli@subseaservices.no RCM.
Sub Sea Services AS, Stavanger,
Norway.

ABEPRO
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8
 79
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

1. INTRODUCTION safety barriers during operations. Such round trip to repair

the BOP would result in a cost of approximately US $1 mil-
Safety well drilling condition is the most important as- lion per event, turning into one of the most expensive down-
pect to be considered during exploration and production of time events (Shanks et al., 2003). Currently this cost can be
oil and gas. One of the biggest risks for operational safety more expensive, due to ultra-deep-water operations and the
is an uncontrolled influx of oil and gas from the formation complexity of BOP with more preventers and backups, con-
to the surface, which means a blowout. In order to en- sequently, needing more time to test all the system and to
sure the control and safety of the well, offshore rigs are pull and run the BOP. Alme et Huse (2013, p. 1) showed that
equipped with a Blowout Preventer (BOP) that makes pos- “Some estimates put the cost as high as US $ 1.2 million a
sible the controlling of hydrostatic pressure and allowing day and beyond”.
the well to shut in case of unbalanced situation (difference
between the pressure of the mud column and the well
pressure) (Martins et al., 2015). 1.1 BOP reliability and condition monitoring approach

As Sattler mentioned (2013, p. 1), “BOP equipment and BOP reliability studies have been developed since 1980
systems have been understood as one of the most safety and many reports have been published over the years,
critical of all rig equipment. Although it is not the primary especially by Per Holand et Rausand (1983; 1986; 1987;
resource used by the driller for well control, they are cor- 1989; 1997; 1999; 2001) in order to collect data and im-
rectly understood as one of the last line of defense”. There- prove knowledge regarding reliability concepts. This study
fore, BOP is an important safety barrier during drilling oper- is important to establish a BOP reliability level in order to
ations and, when it is missing, is degraded, or has failed, it improve maintenance and risk analysis on decision making.
allows the initiating event to grow to a major accident with Many challenges were encountered in implementing the
catastrophic consequences (Qing Feng et al., 2011; Nelson, BOP reliability approach, mainly to the lack of high quali-
2016). Rausand et al. (1983), in his blowout study in 1980, ty failure data and standard taxonomic structure to obtain
highlighted that one of 125 exploration wells experienced a the components’ life traceability. Sandtorv (1996, p. 166) in
blowout event and 65% of blowouts occurred through the OREDA project emphasized that data quality and availability
BOP, drill string or annulus and could have been avoid by varies significantly between companies and highlighted that,
using the BOP functions. in order to have a clear definition process and specification,
and data type and format, it is paramount to obtaining high
The primal example of a catastrophic blowout accident quality data.
magnitude was the Macondo event, on April 20th 2010. One
of the largest offshore oil spills ever in the US history was con- The implementation of reliability concepts is also import-
sidered the biggest environmental catastrophe since then. It ant to develop the BOP condition monitoring. For establish-
was approximately 4.9 million barrels of crude oil straight ing a prognostic health management, parameters can be de-
into the ocean. The blowout also killed 11 crew people, termined based on the relationship between failure modes
drillers of the Transocean rig, Deepwater Horizon (Klakegg, and mechanism and effect analysis (FMMEA). In addition,
2012; Saetre, 2015). Many investigations were conducted to it provides guidelines for defining the major operational
understand the root cause of the accident. The US Chemical stresses and environmental and operational parameters
Safety Board (2010, p. 8) described that “the management (Cheng et al., 2010b).
system, intended to ensure the required functionality, avail-
ability, and reliability of these safety critical barriers, were Real-time monitoring technology is becoming more in-
inadequate”. It means that BOP, responsible to prevent and creasingly used on offshore drilling, as more capabilities
control a blowout, failed when it was triggered. Members for transmitting and storing a high volume and range data
of the Center for Catastrophic Risk Management - CCRM in order to enhance both safety and operational efficiency
(2011, p. 5) concluded that the accident was the “result of a through more informed operational decision making. Nev-
cascade of deeply flawed failure regarding decision-making, ertheless, the application of technology to bring intelligence
communication, and organizational-managerial processes”. for exploring this data is less mature, especially in predictive
analytical areas, which could provide guidance for drilling
Besides being a safety problem, BOP failures and mal- teams to help on operation decision making (Harder et al.,
functions are costly. When a failure in the BOP or its control 2015; Israel et al., 2015).
system is detected, drilling operations must usually cease in
order to repair the failure (Rausand et al., 1983), requiring According to Shin (2015, p. 120), “recently lots of manufac-
pulling the risers and the BOP to the surface and for per- turing companies are trying to adopt new technologies and
forming a corrective maintenance. Additionally, a lot of func- get more accurate real-time information regarding product
tional and pressure tests have to be done to guarantee the status during its usage period. As diverse information be-
80
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

comes available, the CBM approach to use them for prevent- 10 years. Finally, to evaluate the theses the University was
ing a critical failure or degradation has been highlighted”. analyzed, in which Norwegian University of Science and
Technology reached 62%, since it has an extensive research
Having a constant knowledge of the equipment’s condi- group in BOP Safety and BOP reliability area.
tion, in complex and aggressive operation environment con-
ditions, allows early proactive maintenance planning, hence
reducing downtime and maximizing intervention efficiency
(Hwang, 2015; Chze et al., 2016). Nonetheless, this is still far
from the reality of BOP maintenance.

The Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) recommen-

dations still have uncertain maintenance frequency criteria
or were based on laboratory parameters. Such parameters
do not present all the necessary operation and environmen-
tal conditions that affect the component’s life. In addition,
there is a lack of studies to provide a detailed BOP’s FM-
MEA to provide an efficient analysis between failures and
real-time monitoring parameters.

Considering the trends in the use of reliability concepts,

the advance of real-time monitoring technology and the im-
portance of BOP for drilling operations, this paper presents
an extensive literature review on Condition Based Mainte- Figure 2. Search methodology overview
nance and Prognostic Health Management integrated with Source: The author(s)’ own (2017)
reliability concepts. The goal is to allow them to be applied
in BOP health management, aiming to increase BOP reliabili- Table 1. Criteria
ty and availability and the operational safety of offshore rigs.
Type of Se-
Criteria %
literature lected
Publications
2. METHODOLOGY papers Impact factor
A 39 60%
This section provides a practical overview of the litera-
B 19 29%
ture review methodology. Firstly, the central theme of this
Others 7 11%
research was systematically subdivided into specific knowl-
Publications Authors or Co-authors cita-
edge items and organized in a theoretical framework to
papers tions*
increase the background for reaching the main goal. The
Books More than 10.000 citations 17 20%
knowledge areas identified in this study were: Failure analy-
Between 1.000 and 10.000
sis; reliability; BOP system and drilling operations; CBM and Thesis
citations
33 39%
PHM concepts and process, as shown in Figure 1.
Between 100 and 1.000 cita-
21 25%
tions
For this research purpose, a detailed literature search on Less than 100 citations or 14 16%
each theme of theoretical framework was carried out. For each unknown
type of publication, a specific electronic data source was used, Publications
such as “Onepetro” for the conference papers. In addition, key papers Year
words, relevant authors, paper’s references and journals were Conference
used as search methods to find all publications of this paper. Last 5 years 55 51%
papers
Figure 2 shows an overview of search methodology. Thesis Between 6 and 10 years 28 26%
Between 10 and 15 years 9 8%
The selection criteria were adopted according to each More than 15 years 16 15%
type of publication, as detailed in table 1. Firstly, an impact Thesis University
factor, in which 60% were classified as “A”, was adopted for Norwegian University of Sci-
journals. For (co)author citation relevance were considered 8 62%
ence and Technology
journals, books and theses, with 60% of over 1000 cita- University of Stavanger 2 15%
tions. The year of publication was also considered for jour- Others 3 23%
nals, conferences and theses, in which 76% had less than Source: The author(s)’ own (2017)
 81
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

Figure 1. Theoretical framework

Source: The author(s)’ own (2017)

All publications were reviewed and the ones not con- The BOP is the second barrier of well control. The primary
sidered relevant, outdated, with poor quality or unknown barrier is the hydrostatic pressure provided for the weight-
source were excluded, through the selection criterion ad- ing of the drilling mud to counterbalance pressure from the
opted. Because of the literature search, papers published reservoir (Alme et Huse, 2013). According to Sattler (2013,
in the following journals, standards, books, reports, man- p. 1) “although not the primary resource used by the driller
uals, conferences papers and thesis were shortly listed for for well control, they are correctly understood as one of the
this review and shown in Table 2. A total of 197 publica- last line of defenses”. Figure 3 present an example of BOP.
tions were selected. Most of these journals and publica-
tions appeared in Reliability Engineering and System Safety When the reservoir pressure exceeds, for many reasons,
and Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, with the drilling-fluid pressure, there is an uncontrolled influx of
5.6 and 4.6 percent, respectively. These publications will formation of fluids into wellbore. The main function of the
be used in section 3. BOP is to close the wellbore and circulate drilling fluid with
higher density in order to regain the hydrostatic control of
the well (ISO 14224, 2016).
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
BOP has long been understood as one of the most safety
critical devices of all rig equipment, because they are de-
3.1 Blowout Preventer System veloped to handle with extreme erratic pressures and un-
controlled flow (kick) coming from a well reservoir during
Regarding Martins (2015, p. 1), Blowout Preventer “con- drilling operations (Alme et Huse, 2013; Sattler, 2013). In ad-
sists of an embedded set of valves that are remotely con- dition, ISO 14224 (2016) subdivided the BOP equipment in:
trolled from the rig, acting as a main block out barrier in the preventers, valves and lines; hydraulic connectors; flexible
well control”. joint; primary control; and backup control.
82
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

Table 2. Literature source distribution 3.1.1 Preventers, Valves and Lines

Number The Blowout Preventer has basically two types of pre-

Publication %
Selected venters: annular preventers and the other is ram preventers
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 11 5,6% (single and double rams, including shear rams) (Alme et
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engi- Huse, 2013; Han, 2015).
9 4,6%
neering
Engineering Failure Analysis 5 2,5%
The International Journal of Advanced
3 1,5%
Manufacturing Technology
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 3 1,5%
Computers in Industry 3 1,5%
IEEE Transactions on Reliability 2 1,0%
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
2 1,0%
Industries
Expert Systems with Applications 2 1,0%
Journal of Petroleum Technology 2 1,0%
European Journal of Operational Research 2 1,0%
IEEE Transaction Systems, Man and Cyber-
2 1,0%
netics
IEEE Sensors Journal 1 0,5%
IEEE Transactions on Components and
1 0,5%
Packaging Technologies
International Journal of Engineering Busi-
1 0,5%
ness Management
International Journal of Production Re-
1 0,5%
search
International Journal of Prognostic and
1 0,5%
Health Management
International Journal of Quality & Reliabili-
1 0,5%
ty Management
Advanced Engineering Informatics 1 0,5%
Annual Reviews in Control 1 0,5%
Journal of Computational Design and
1 0,5%
Engineering
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 1 0,5%
Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical
1 0,5%
Analysis
Microelectronics Reliability 1 0,5%
Renewable Energy 1 0,5%
Sensors 1 0,5%
Figure 3. Blowout Preventer
World Academy of Science, Engineering
1 0,5% Source: API STD 53, 2016
and Technology
Other papers 4 2,0%
API Standard 53 (2016, p. 3) defines annular as “a blowout
International Standards 47 23,9%
preventer that uses a shaped elastomeric sealing element to
Conference papers 31 15,7%
seal the space between the tubular and the wellbore or an
Books 14 7,1%
open hole”. Regarding the Deepwater Horizon Study Group
Thesis 13 6,6%
(2011, p. 26), “annular preventers are rubber donut shaped
Manuals 10 5,1% seals that close around the pipe, sealing the well. They can
Reports 17 8,6% also seal the well with an absence of pipe in the hole”.
Total 197 100,0%
Source: The author(s)’ own (2017) Ram preventers can be further divided into two types: pipe
rams and shear rams (Alme et Huse, 2013). Pipe rams are metal
bars with circular rubber ends such that they can seal the well
by clamping around the drill pipe, sealing the annulus (Deep-
 83
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

water Horizon Study Group, 2011). According Saetre (2015, p. 3.1.3 Primary Control System
10), “there are pipe rams in different sizes, depending on the
diameter of the tubular being run. There are also variable pipe According to API SPEC 16D (2013, p. 25), the “control sys-
rams that can handle multiple tubular diameters”. tem shall afford control of all the subsea BOP stack functions,
including remotely adjustable pressure regulator settings”. It
API SPEC 16C (2016, p. 4) defines choke and kill lines as “a is the brain of the subsea BOP system (Saetre, 2015). The BOP
high-pressure line that allows fluids to be pumped into or re- control system consists of two basic elements: electrical and
moved from the well with the BOPs closed”. The main func- hydraulic components (Shanks et al., 2003, p. 2). A multiplex
tion of the choke and kill lines and valves is to circulate out control system (MUX) is an electro-hydraulic system applied
a kick (Klakegg, 2012). The choke and kill line systems are to control the functions of BOP (Saetre, 2015). The main func-
basically divided in three main parts: flexible jumper hoses tion of the MUX control system is to control and monitor the
in the moon pool; integral riser lines and BOP attached lines hydraulically operated subsea BOP’s stack equipment through
from the connection to the integral riser lines to the outer the subsea line control pod, designated Blue and Yellow (NOV
choke and kill valve outlets (Holand et Rausand, 1999). 10645935-MAN, no date). Regarding API SPEC 16D (2013, p.
31), the MUX control system “employs multi-conductor ar-
mored subsea umbilical cables deployed from storage reels
3.1.2 Hydraulic Connectors aboard the vessel. The cables transmit coded commands that
activate solenoid operated pilot valves in the subsea pods”.
All BOPs are equipped with two hydraulic connectors
(Holand and Rausand, 1999). They are hydraulically actu-
ated drill-through equipment that locks and seals on end 3.1.4 Backup System
connections (API SPEC 16A, 2017). According to Holand and
Rausand (1999), these connectors are, in principle, identical; In the event in which the power fluid supply or pilot signals
however, the wellhead connector is usually rated to a high- is lost, a backup control system may be employed to oper-
er pressure and has the same rate pressure as rams’ pre- ate selected functions. A backup system has an independent
venter. The Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP) connector control system that may be used to operate critical functions
is a hydraulically operated connection connector that joins such as well control, disconnection and/or recovery (API SPEC
the LMRP to the top of the lower BOP’s stack and enables, 16D, 2013). The BOP backup system includes acoustic control
for safety reasons or for repairs/maintenance, LMRP to be systems, ROV (Remotely Operated Vehicle) operated control
separated and removed from the BOP’s stack (API SPEC 16D, systems, dead man and/or auto shear system, and the main
2013; Drægebø, 2014). hydraulic supply of the control system may be powered by a
shared accumulator. (API SPEC 16D, 2013). Other papers’ pub-
lications and standards can be found in Table 3.

Table 3. BOP system publications survey

Subitem key words Standards Publications

Accumulator, annular, backup API STD 53 (2016) Rausand (1983), Holand & Rausand (1999),
system, blind shear ram, blowout, API SPEC 16A (2017) Holand (2001), Shanks (2003), Chapman
BOP reliability, BOP Stack, casing API SPEC 16C (2016) (2009), OGP (2010), West Engineering (2010),
shear ram, choke and kill line, choke DHSG (2011), Israel (2015), Januarilham
API SPEC 16D (2013)
manifold, control pod, control (2012), Klakegg (2012), Holand & Awan (2012),
system, diverter, drill floor, drill pipe, API SPEC 16F (2014) Mckay (2012), Alme (2013), BSEE (2013a,
drilling, drill-through, fail safe valve, API RP 7L (2012) 2013b), Chuanjun Han (2015; 2013) Sattler
flex joint, formation integrity test, API RP 64 (2012)”type” : “ar- (2013), Johnson (2013), Van Asten (2013),
high pressure, kick, leak-off test, ticle-journal” }, “suppress-au- Drægebø (2014), Jacobs (2014), Han (2015),
LMRP, macondo, monitoring, mux, thor” : 1, “uris” : [ “http:// Harder (2015), Lukin (2015), Martins (2015),
preventers, regulator, risers, shuttle www.mendeley.com/docu- Sætre (2015), Tang (2015), Jayanath (2016),
valve, spm, stripping, wellhead ments/?uuid=99006a6e-4991- Nelson (2016), Oliveira (2017)
connectors 417c-9278-d0d49a5e2606” ] }
], “mendeley” : { “formattedCi-
tation” : “(2012
API RP 59 (2012)
API RP 75 (2013)
ISO 13533 (2001)
Source: The authors’ own (2017)
84
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

3.2 Reliability concepts 3.2.3 FMEA / FMMEA / FMECA

In order to understand the approach to reliability con- Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) was one of the
cepts for the implementation of CBM and PHM a brief ex- first techniques for failure analysis. It was developed by
planation of failure data, Reliability Centered Maintenance reliability engineers on the aerospace industry, at Grum-
(RCM) and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) and man Aircraft Corporation in the 1950 and 1960s. It is a
their variations with mechanism and criticality will be ad- formal design methodology to study problems, which
dressed in this section. might arise from the malfunctions of military systems
(Bowles et Perez, 1995; Rausand et Hoyland, 2004; Shar-
ma et Sharma, 2010).
3.2.1 Failure data and analysis
FMEA is a very powerful and efficient analytical tech-
Failure mode is a way failure occurs (ISO 14224, 2016) nique, which is broadly used in engineering projects to
or generally describes the way the failure occurs and its im- identify the failure modes of each of the functional blocks
pact on equipment operation (MIL-STD-1629, 1980). Failure of system and decrease or even eliminate potential failure
mechanism is “the physical, chemical, electrical, thermal during the design process (Rausand et Hoyland, 2004; Xiao
or other process which results in a failure (MIL-STD-721 C, et al., 2011). In addition, FMEA provides quantitative and
1981). Failure cause is the circumstance occurred during de- qualitative necessary measures to guide the product de-
sign, manufacture or use that has led to a failure (ISO 14224, sign implementation and for reliability analyses and main-
2016). Failure effect is “the consequence(s) a failure mode tenance program as well (Rausand et Hoyland, 2004; Chen
has on the operation, function or status of an item (MIL- et LeeJih, 2007).
STD-721 C, 1981), or what happens when a failure mode oc-
curs (ADS-79D-HDBK, 2013). Failure mode, effect and critical analysis (FMECA) an-
alyzes and ranks the risk associated with products and
process, prioritizes them for remedial action, aiming to
3.2.2 Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) reduce their risks and to provide information for mak-
ing risk management decisions (Puente et al., 2002;
The RCM concept was introduced by the aviation indus- Narayanagounder et Gurusami, 2009; Barends et al.,
try and has shaped the basis structure for planning airplane 2012; Liu et al., 2013).
maintenance. Its approach improved the cost-effectiveness
and maintenance control in military branches and industries, According to Vachtsevanos (2006, p. 20) “advanced FME-
thus increasing the systems’ reliability and safety (Rausand, CA studies may recommend algorithms to extract optimal
1998; Rausand et Hoyland, 2004). fault features or condition indicators, detect and isolate
incipient failures, and predict the remaining useful life of
Military Standards 2173 (1981, p. 11) treat it as “a dis- critical components. Such studies generate the template for
ciplined logic or methodology used to identify preventive diagnostic algorithms”.
maintenance tasks to realize the inherent reliability of
equipment, with the least expenditure of resources”. Re- Cheng et al. (2010b, p. 5778) shows that Failure mode,
garding US Department of Defense (2011, p. 25), RCM is “a mechanism effect analysis (FMMEA) “is a methodology used
logical, structured process used to determine the optimal to identify the critical failure mechanisms and models for
failure management strategies for any system, based on all potential failure modes of a product under expected op-
system reliability characteristics and the intended operat- erational and environmental conditions. The output of the
ing context”. Furthermore, it “should be applied to ensure FMMEA process is a list of critical failure modes and mecha-
the system achieves the desired levels of safety, reliability, nisms that enable us to identify the parameters to monitor,
environmental soundness, and operational readiness in the and the relevant physics-of-failure models to predict the re-
most cost-effective manner”. maining life of the component”. Introducing a failure mech-
anism to analysis is important in order to provide guidelines
The inherent equipment’s reliability is a function of the for determining the major operational stresses and environ-
design and the built quality. Reliability Centered Mainte- mental and operational parameters by prioritizing the fail-
nance is a technique that considers the functional conse- ure mechanisms based on their event and severity (Cheng et
quences of failures and also uses operating experience in- al., 2010b). A summary with keywords, standards and others
formation resources, which helps to develop a preventive reference publications can be found in Table 4 for further
maintenance program (Lannoy et Procaccia, 1996; Rausand, studies on failure analysis and reliability.
1998; Rausand et Hoyland, 2004).
 85
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

Table 4. Failure data and analysis survey

Subitem Key words Standards Publications

Data Collec- Boundary, detection method, IEC 60300-3-2 (2004) Coutinho (1964), Rausand (1983; 1996;
tion and Fail- detection of failure, failure ISO 14224 (2016) 1998, 2014; 2004), Cooke (1996), Mou-
ure Analysis cause, failure mechanism, IEC 60319 (1999) bray (1997), Holand & Rausand (1999),
failure mode, failure rate, ISO 6527 (1982) Holand (2001), Lafraia (2001), Lundteigen &
root cause, taxonomy, type of ISO 7385 (1983) Rausand (2007), Lundteigen (2008), Tam &
failure Gordon (2009)
FMEA / FME- Criticality, failure analysis, IEC 60812 (2006) IEEE 352 (1987) Bowels & Perez (1995), Stamatis (1995),
CA failure effect, failure mode, SAE ARP 5580 (2001) Puente (2002), Rausand (2004), Gane-
potential failure SAE J1739 (1995) san (2005), Kuang Chen & Leejih (2007),
MIL-STD 1629A (1980) Narayanagounder (2009), Cheng (2010),
MIL-STD-2173 (1981) Sharma (2010), Xiao (2011), Barends (2012),
BS 5760-5 (1991) BSEE (2013a, 2013d), Liu (2013)
Reliability Availability, maintainability, IEC 60300-3-11 (2009) Tsang (1995), Lannoy & Procaccia (1996),
Centered FMEA, FMECA functional fail- SAE-JA1011 (1999) Moubray (1997), Rausand (1998; 2004), Niu
Maintenance ure, reliability SAE-JA1012 (2011) (2010), US DoD 4151.22-M (2011), Al-ham-
(RCM) NAVAIR-00-25-403 (2005) mad (2016), Awad (2016)
NASA - RCM Guide (2008)
RCM - Guidance ABS (2016)
MIL-STD-721C (1981)
Source: The authors’ own (2017)

3.3 Condition Monitoring, CBM and PHM Jardine (2006, p. 1484) emphasized that “no matter how
good the product design is, products deteriorate over time
since they are operating under certain stress or load in the
3.3.1 Condition Monitoring / Detection real environment, often involving randomness”. He also
highlighted that diagnostics and prognostics are important
ISO 13372 (2004, page 1) defined condition monitoring aspects to determine the influence of this parameter in a
as a “detection and collection of information and data that CBM program. Hence, maintenance has been introduced as
indicate the state of a machine”. Condition monitoring can an efficient way to assure a satisfactory level of reliability
also be called as “Detection” or State Detection (SD), and during the useful life of a physical asset.
allows distinguishing anomalous behaviors, comparing gath-
ered data against baseline parameters, enabling detection The Condition-Based Maintenance can identify stress,
and reporting abnormal events on the machine or system physical changes on equipment conditions, performance
(ISO 13374-1, 2003; ISO 13379, 2012). operation and environment to contribute to asset’s failure
reduction, including root-cause detection in a short time
In fact, Niu (2010, p. 7) states that “condition monitor- and helping to select subsequent actions on decision mak-
ing is the process of monitoring a condition parameter of ing (Bengtsson, 2004; Kothamasu et al., 2006; Guillén et al.,
machinery, such that a significant change is indicative of a 2016). In addition, CBM is useful for the safety system that
developing failure” and it could be related to a specific vari- can increase safety by detecting problems in advance before
able and, when this parameter is outside of defined range, serious problems occur. It means, get a high-quality assur-
the system triggers a warning or alarm (López-Campos et al., ance (Shin et Jun 2015).
2013). A trend on the system’s critical component deterio-
ration can also be identified through a condition monitoring According to Guillén (2016, page 173), CBM Programs
data (Yam et al., 2001). have complexity causes and implementation challenges. “A
crucial aspect of this process is to identify equipment pat-
terns triggering warning or alarm messages. The objective
3.3.2 Condition-based Maintenance (CBM) is to detect or estimate equipment degradation from nor-
mal conditions; consequently, to determine the degradation
ISO 13772 (2004, p. 1) defined CBM as “Maintenance per- nature and behavior could be difficult”. Figure 4 shows the
formed as governed by condition monitoring programs” and process to implement a CBM according ISO 13374.
EN 13306 (2010) as “Preventive maintenance that includes a
combination of condition monitoring and/or inspection and/
or testing, analysis and subsequent maintenance actions”.
86
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

Figure 4. CBM process

Source: Guillén, 2016

3.3.3 Prognostic Health Management (PHM) efits such as predicting failure; reducing unscheduled
corrective maintenance and downtime, improving equip-
Recent approach for CBM evolved to Prognosis and ment performance and reducing the maintenance cost of
Health Management (PHM), which provides powerful ca- equipment due to decreasing inspection and inventory
pabilities through dynamic pattern recognition for physical cost (Kothamasu et al., 2006; Cheng et al., 2010b; Lee et
understanding of the useful life of an equipment and system al., 2011).
(Vachtsevanos et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2011; Guillén et al.,
2016). The U.S. Department of Defense policy document (2004)
described the importance of PHM as “program managers
Regarding Cheng (2010, p. 5774) “Prognostics and health that shall optimize operational readiness through affordable,
management (PHM) is an enabling discipline consisting of integrated, embedded diagnostics and prognostics, embed-
technologies and methods to assess the reliability of a prod- ded training and testing, serialized item management, au-
uct in its actual life cycle conditions to determine the advent tomatic identification technology, and iterative technology
of failure and mitigate system risk”. refreshment”.

Prognostics and health management (PHM) generally

rely highly on the sensor systems to obtain long-term accu- 3.3.4 Parameters
rate information of environmental, operational, and perfor-
mance-related parameters to assess the health of a product, ISO 13772 (2004, p. 7) defined parameters as “measur-
as well as to provide anomaly detection, fault isolation, and able variables”. In fact, Cheng et al. (2010a, p. 856) describes
predict the equipment’s future health conditions as well as that “parameters include operational and environmental
the Remaining Useful Life (RUL) (Cheng et al. 2010a; Tian et loads, as well as the performance conditions of the prod-
al. 2011). uct, as for example, temperature, vibration, shock, pressure,
acoustic levels, strain, stress, voltage, current, humidity lev-
PHM implies the understanding of the RUL concepts. els, contaminant concentration, usage frequency, usage se-
Jardine (2006, p. 1495) highlights that the remaining use- verity, usage time, power, and heat dissipation”. Example of
ful life “refers to the time left before observing a failure parameters and its domain are listed in figure 5.
given the current machine age and condition, and the
past operation profile’. This approach aims to provide us- The CBM / PHM approach requires monitoring many
ers with an integrated and full view of the health state product parameters to evaluate the equipment health.
of some equipment or an overall system. It brings ben- Hence, it is important to determine the items and ulti-
 87
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

mately the parameters that need to be monitored. More- 3.3.6 Diagnostic / Diagnosis
over, the characteristics of these parameters, such as the
possible range and frequency, should be understood. The ISO 13372 (2004, page 7) defined diagnostic as an “ex-
characteristics can be obtained through the history or amination of symptoms and syndromes to determine the
product specification data (Cheng et al., 2010b; Guillén et nature of faults or failures” and diagnosis as a “result of the
al., 2016). ISO 17359 (2002) gives an example of parame- diagnostics process”. For Vichare et Pecht (2006, p. 222) “Di-
ters by machine type, such as temperature, pressure, flu- agnostics pertain to the detection and isolation of faults or
id flow, noise, vibration, oil characteristic and speed for failures”.
pumps.
Diagnostic deals with fault detection, isolation, and iden-
tification when is recognized as a deviation from the expect-
ed level (Jardine, 2006; Yam 2001). It means that it is a task
to indicate whether something is going wrong in the system.
It is required when fault prediction of prognostic fails and a
failure occurs and also can be useful to provide more accu-
rate event data and, hence, better structure the CBM and
PHM model (Jardine et al., 2006).

3.3.7 Prognostic / Prognosis

ISO 13372 (2004, p. 7) defined prognostic as the “analysis

of the symptoms of faults to predict future condition and the
remaining useful life”. On the other hand, ISO 13381 (2004,
p. 1) defined prognosis as “estimation of time to failure and
risk for one or more existing and future failure modes”. Ac-
Figure 5. Parameters for PHM applications. cording to Jardine et al. (2006, p. 1484–1485) “prognostics
Source: Guillén, 2016 deal with fault prediction before it occurs” and (2006, page
1495) it “predicts how much time is left before a failure oc-
It is important to consider all stages of product life cy- curs (or, one or more faults), given the current machine con-
cle, such as manufacturing, shipment, storage, handling and dition and past operation profile”.
operation. The component failure can be related to one of
this stage and parameter monitoring should be necessary According to ISO 13381-1 (2004, p. v) “prognosis of fu-
(Cheng et al., 2010b). ture fault progressions requires foreknowledge of the prob-
able failure modes, future duties to which the machine will/
might be subjected, and a thorough understanding of the
3.3.5 Symptoms relationships between failure modes and operating condi-
tions”. ISO 13381-1 (2004, p. 2–3) described some pre-req-
ISO 13372 (2004, p. 7) defined symptoms as “perception, uisite for providing a prognostic, such as historical operation
made by means of human observations and measurements data, and maintenance and failure data; failure modeling
(descriptors), which may indicate the presence of one or processes that can include statistics, failure mode influence
more faults with a certain probability”. Symptom infers that factors; reliability and safety data; alarm limits; Initiation cri-
something happened (fault) in the system and it can detect, teria, and failure definition set points for all parameters, and
or measure, some evidence of it (perception of fault). It is descriptors and so on. Figure 6 shows an example of symp-
also defined as a qualitative description of specific causes or tom and parameter for each fault.
effect that can be measured. Symptom can be related to one
or more failure modes and one failure mode can have one or Prognosis is associated with failure mode behavior and
more symptoms (Guillén et al., 2016). prediction of the remaining useful life of the equipment or,
in other words, the estimation of the time to failure based
For Vactchesvanos (2006, p. 20) “fault symptoms that are on failure mode risks. Thus, it became possible to plan
suggestive of the system’s behavior under fault conditions; the replacement of the equipment before the end of use-
and the sensors/monitoring apparatus required to monitor ful life (Chen et al., 2012; Tobon-mejia et al., 2012; Shin et
and track the system’s fault-symptomatic behaviors”. Figure Jun, 2015; Guillén et al., 2016) and to save extra unplanned
6 presents some symptoms related to fault. maintenance cost. Furthermore, it is more efficient than di-
agnostics in order to achieve zero-downtime performance.
88
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

Nevertheless, prognostics cannot completely replace diag- 3.4 Reliability approach for CBM and PHM
nostics because there are some faults and failures that are
not predictable (Jardine, Lin and Banjevic, 2006). The relationship between CBM and RCM (Reliability Cen-
tered Maintenance) by using RCM steps (operational con-
Table 5 presents a summary with keywords, standards text definition, FMEA/FMECA, RCM logic, etc.) is essential on
and others reference publications for deeper understanding design process phases in their CBM proposals (López-Cam-
of the CBM and PHM concepts. pos et al., 2013; Guillén et al., 2016).

Table 5. CBM and PHM survey

Sub-
Key words Standards Publications
item
Advisory generation, condition based main- IEEE 1451 (1999) IEEE 1232 Milne (1987), Pecht (1995; 2008), Tsang
tenance, data acquisition, data driven, data (2010) ISO 13372 (2004) ISO (1995) Butler (1996), Yam (2001), J.Lee
manipulation, data processing, descriptor, 13373-1 (2002) (2004), Baruah (2005), Dong (2006), Jardine
detection, diagnosis, diagnostic, fault diag- ISO 13373-2 (2016) (2006), Kothamasu (2006), Vachtsevanos
nosis, health assessment, health condition, ISO 13374-1 (2003) (2006), Vichare (2006), Gu (2007), Schwa-
health indicators, information sources, in- ISO 13374-2 (2007) bacher (2007), Tuchband (2007), Cheng
terpretation rules, machine fault, measure- ISO 13379-1 (2012) (2010; 2010), Niu (2010), Peng (2010), Sax-
ment technique, mechanism, monitoring ISO 13379-2 (2015) ena (2010), Lee (2011), Tian (2011), Chen
variable, monitoring, parameters, pattern ISO 13380 (2002) (2012), Mckay (2012), Prajapati (2012), Price
recognition, physics of failure, prognosis, ISO 13381-1 (2004) (2012), Tobon-Mejia (2012), ADS-79D-HDBK
prognostic health management, prognostic, ISO 17359 (2002) (2013), Campos (2013), Juuso (2013) Han
RUL, sensors, state of detection, statistical ISO 18435-1 (2009) (2015), Kan (2015), Shin (2015), Guillén
methods, symptom, system variable ISO 55000 (2014) (2016), Laayouj (2017)
OSA CBM (2001)
Source: The authors’ own (2017)

Figure 6. Fan faults matched to symptoms and measure parameters.

Source: ISO 17359 (2002)
 89
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

According to ISO 17359 “It is recommended to perform

a failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) or failure mode
effect and criticality analysis (FMECA) in order to identify
expected faults, symptoms, and potential parameters to be
measured that indicate the presence or occurrence of the
faults”.

Niu (2010) proposed CBM architecture integrated with

RCM in order to achieve cost-effective maintenance strategy.
This structure starting with an asset or component identifica-
tion, determines its functional failure and failure mode and
effect (FMEA), and integrating with sensors of condition mon-
itoring and then reaching a diagnostic (Health Assessment)
and prognostic to decision support, as shown in figure 7.

Figure 8. Summary of the blocks in the framework for CBM

management
Source: Guillén, 2016

In order to shows all block development, a representation

using a single table of all possible CBM activities was shown
in figure 9. Failure mode, symptom, monitoring variable, in-
formation sources, descriptor, type of monitoring condition
(detection, diagnostic and prognostic) and the interpreta-
tion rules are the main information of the CBM framework.

Figure 7. Integration between the RCM and CBM structures

Source: Niu (2010) 4. CONCLUSIONS

Vachtsevanos (2006, p. 18) highlighted that “understand- According to Moczydlower (2017), VP Technology De-
ing the physics of failure mechanisms constitutes the corner- velopment at Embraer, prognostics and diagnostics is the
stone of good CBM/PHM system design”. In another view, future on reliability of digital age to offer immediate gains
Cheng et al. (2010b, p. 5780) shows that “FMMEA prioritizes on assets availability through increased failure predictability
the failure mechanisms based on their occurrence and se- and support decision-making in operation and maintenance
verity in order to provide guidelines for determining the ma- management.
jor operational stresses and environmental and operational
parameters”. According to Campos (2013, p. 535) “a RCM Currently, there is a tendency to provide a Real-time
analysis identifies the critical failure modes and monitoring Monitoring technology and to achieve higher levels of BOP
parameters (MPs) relevant to diagnosis/prognosis”. reliability and operational safety. However, a raw real-time
monitoring data is not enough and it must be coupled with
Indeed, the management of CBM program is extremely good analytical tools that are themselves capable of analyz-
complex because it requires handling massive information ing those data stream and providing concise results for op-
and its interfaces with systems, operations, and environ- eration decision making (Oliveira et al., 2017) and increasing
ment. Guillén (2016) proposes a series of steps that should maintenance strategy. Certainly, understanding how opera-
be performed earlier to develop a CBM framework, even tional and environmental parameters influence component
though they are not directly associated with CBM / PHM. failure and their straight relationship with equipment avail-
These steps were divided in blocks and are represented in ability is essential to reach high levels of reliability through
Figure 8 with an overview of elements, objectives, and ref- prognostics and diagnostics; however, it is still far away from
erences and methods to develop each block. reality. This fact is closely related to the industry culture,
such as: the impartiality in legislation on the manufacture’s
90
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

Figure 9. Example of the activities to CBM / PHM solution.

Source: Guillén, 2016

responsibility to provide failure root cause analysis and to in- Al-hammad, A. et al. (2016),” A SWOT analysis of reliability
crease BOP reliability; and the relationship between manu- centered maintenance framework”, Escolha - Journal of Qua-
facturer, operators and drilling contractors to share relevant lity in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 29–39. doi:
information of operation and failure. 10.1108/13552510810877674.
Alme, I.; Huse, J. (2013), “BOP Reliability Monitored Real
In addition, there is lack of knowledge of an entire hierar- Time”, European HSE Conference and Exhibition, pp. 16–18.
chical chain on operators and contractors about the impor- doi: 10.2118/164987-MS.
tance of performing reliability engineering and the absence
American Bureau of Shipping - ABS (2016), Guide for Surveys
of structure that allows collecting high quality failure data,
Based on Machinery Reliability and Maintenance Techniques,
as presented by Colombo et Leibsohn (2017). This reflects
ABS, New York.
straightly the scarcity of publications related to the applica-
tion of condition monitoring, CBM and PHM for BOP. API RP 59 (2012), “Recommended Practice for Well Control
Operations”, American Petroleum Institute.
This paper has called the reader’s attention toward CBM
API RP 64 (2012), “Recommended practices for diverter sys-
and PHM concepts applied on high reliability industries as a
tems equipment and operations”, American Petroleum Institu-
great research source for future works on the BOP system.
te.
Literature review shows how actively researchers are en-
gaged in real-time condition monitoring, CBM capabilities API RP 75 (2013), “Recommended Practice for Development
and provides literature using reliability approach during the of a Safety and Environmental Management Program for Off-
process to obtain them. shore Operations and Facilities”, American Petroleum Institute.
API RP 7L (2012), “Procedures for Inspection, Maintenance,
Finally, the paper carries the importance to develop re-
Repair, and Remanufacture of Drilling Equipment”, American
liability studies and to reach a BOP Prognostic Health Man-
Petroleum Institute, pp. 1–14.
agement in order to increase maintenance strategy and de-
cision making on operations, looking forward to operational API SPEC 16A (2017), “Specification for Drill-through Equip-
safety and avoiding disasters and also downtimes. ment”, American Petroleum Institute.
API SPEC 16C (2016), “Choke and Kill Equipment”, American
Petroleum Institute.
REFERENCES
API SPEC 16D (2013), “Specification for Control Systems for
ADS-79D-HDBK (2013), “Handbook for Condition Based Drilling Well Control Equipment and Control Systems for Diver-
Maintenance Systems for Us Army Aircraft Systems”, Aeronau- ter Equipment”, American Petroleum Institute.
tical Design Standard.
 91
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

API SPEC 16F (2014), “Specification for Marine Drilling Riser Chapman, F. M. et al. (2009), “OTC 20059 Deepwater BOP
Equipment”, American Petroleum Institute. Control Monitoring — Improving BOP Preventive Maintenance
with Control Function Monitoring”, Vol.1, pp. 1–8.
API STD 53 (2016), “Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems
for Drilling Wells”, American Petroleum Institute. Chen, J. K.; LeeJih, Y. C. (2007), “Utility priority number eva-
luation for FMEA”, Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention.
Asten, P. V. (2013), “Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Deci-
doi: 10.1007/s11668-007-9072-y.
sion Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)”, So-
ciety of Petroleum Engineers, available from: https://doi. Chen, Z. S. et al. (2012), “A technical framework and road-
org/10.2118/166581-MS (Access: 20 Feb. 2018). map of embedded diagnostics/prognostics for complex mecha-
nical systems in PHM systems”, IEEE Transactions on Reliability,
Awad, M.; As’ad, R. A. (2016), “Reliability centered main-
Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 314-22. doi: 10.1109/PHM.2011.5939468.
tenance actions prioritization using fuzzy inference systems”,
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 4, Cheng, S. et al. (2010a), “A Wireless Sensor System for Prog-
pp. 433–52. doi: 10.1108/JQME-07-2015-0029. nostics and Health Management”, IEEE Sensors Journal, Vol.10,
pp. 10–2.
Barends, D. M. et al. (2012), “Risk analysis of analytical vali-
dations by probabilistic modification of FMEA”, Journal of Phar- Cheng, S. et al. (2010b), “Sensor systems for prognostics and
maceutical and Biomedical Analysis, Vol. 64–65, pp. 82–86. doi: health management”, Sensors, Vol.10, No. 6, pp. 5774–97. doi:
10.1016/j.jpba.2012.02.009. 10.3390/s100605774.
Baruah, P.; Chinnam, R. B. (2005), “HMMs for diagnostics Chze, L. P. et al. (2016), “Optimising Data Processing for Sub-
and prognostics in machining processes”, International Jour- sea System Surveillance Through Subsea Condition Monito-
nal of Production Research, Vol. 43, No.6, pp. 1275–93. doi: ring”, Offshore Technology Conference, available from: https://
10.1080/00207540412331327727. doi.org/10.4043/26842-MS (Access 20 Feb 2018).
Bengtsson, M. (2004), “Condition Based Maintenance Sys- Colombo, D.; Leibsohn, A. (2017), “Transferindo conheci-
tems an Investigation of Technical Constituents and Organiza- mentos de confiabilidade aeronáutica para a construção de po-
tional Aspects”, PhD Thesis, Department of Innovation, Design, ços de petróleo”, artigo apresentado no 15° Simpósio Interna-
and Product Development, Mälardalen University. cional de Confiabilidade, Belo Horizonte, MG, 07-08 ago. 2017.
Bowles, J. B.; Perez, C. E. (1995), “Fuzzy logic prioritization of Cooke, R. M. (1996), “The design of reliability data ba-
failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analy- ses, part II: competing risk and data compression”, Reliability
sis”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol.50, No. 2, pp. Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 51, No.2, pp. 209–23. doi:
203–13. doi: 10.1016/0951-8320(95)00068-D. 10.1016/0951-8320(95)00118-2.
BS 5760-5 (1991), Reliability of systems, equipment and Coutinho, J. S. (1964), “Failure-effect analysis”, Transactions
components. Guide to failure modes, effects and criticality of the New York Academy of Sciences.
analysis (FMEA and FMECA).
Deepwater Horizon Study Group (2011), “Final Report on
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (2013a), the Investigation of the Macondo Well Blowout”, pp. 1–124.
Blowout Preventer (Bop) Failure Mode Effect Criticality Analysis
Delmar Engineering (2010), Blowout Prevention Equipment
(Fmec) -3 for.
Reliability Joint Industry Project (Phase I – Subsea), Houston,
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (2013b) TX.
Blowout Preventer (Bop) Reliability, Availability, And for The
DoD 5000.2 (2004), Performance Based Logistics. In Defense
Maintainability (Ram) Analysis 1.
Acquisition Guidebook, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (2013c),
Dong, M.; He, D. (2006), “Hidden semi-Markov model-based
Maintenance and Inspection Study Final Report.
methodology for multi-sensor equipment health diagnosis and
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (2013d), prognosis”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.
Summary of Blowout Preventer (BOP) Failure Mode Effect Criti- 178, No. 3, pp. 858–78. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.041.
cality Analyses (FMECAS).
Drægebø, E. (2014), Reliability Analysis of Blowout Preven-
Butler, K. L. (1996), “An expert system based framework ter Systems, Master’s Thesis; NTNU.
for an incipient failure detection and predictive maintenance
EN 13306 (2010), “Maintenance - Maintenance Termino-
system”, in International Conference on Intelligent Systems
logy”.
Applications to Power Systems (Isap’96), January 28 - February
2,1996, Orlando, Florida. Ganesan, S. et. al. (2005), “Identification and Utilization of
Failure Mechanisms to Enhance FMEA and FMECA”.
92
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

Gu, J. et al. (2007), “Prognostics implementation of electro- IEC 60300-3-11 (2009), “Dependability management ‐ Part
nics under vibration loading”, Microelectronics Reliability, Vol. 3-11: Application guide - Reliability centred maintenance”.
47, No. 12, pp. 1849-56. doi: 10.1016/j.microrel.2007.02.015.
IEC 60300-3-2 (2004), “Dependability management - Part 3:
Guillén, A. J. et al. (2016), “A framework for effective mana- Application guide - Section 2: Collection of dependability data
gement of condition-based maintenance programs in the con- from the field”.
text of industrial development of E-Maintenance strategies”,
IEC 60319 (1999), “Presentation and specification of reliabi-
Computers in Industry, Vol. 82, pp. 170–85. doi: 10.1016/j.com-
lity data for electronic components”.
pind.2016.07.003.
IEC 60812 (2006), “Analysis techniques for system reliability -
Hals, T.; Molnes, E. (1984), Reliability of Subsea BOP Systems
Procedure for failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)”.
­‐Phase II Control Systems, SINTEF Industrial Management,
Trondheim. IEEE 1232 (2010), “Artificial Intelligence Exchange and Servi-
ce Tie to All Test Environments”.
Han, C. et al. (2015), “Study of the damage and failure of the
shear ram of the blowout preventer in the shearing process”, IEEE 1451 (1999), “Smart Transducer Interface for Sensors
Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 58, pp. 83–95. doi: 10.1016/j. and Actuators - Common Functions, Communication Protocols,
engfailanal.2015.08.025. and Transducer Electronic Data Sheet (TEDS) Formats”.
Han, C.; Zhang, J. (2013), “Study on well hard shut-in experi- IEEE 352 (1987), “Reliability Analysis of Nuclear Power Ge-
ment based on similarity principle and erosion of ram rubber”, nerating Station Safety Systems, Guide for General Principles”.
Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 32, pp. 202–8. doi: 10.1016/j.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (2010), Risk
engfailanal.2013.03.016.
Assessment Data Directory.
Han, Z. (2015), “Stochastic Modelling for Condition Based
ISO 13372 (2004), “Condition monitoring and diagnostics of
Maintenance”, Master Thesis, Department of Production and
machines—Vocabular”, International Organization, Vol.3.
Quality Engineering. Norwegian University of Science and Tech-
nology. ISO 13373-1 (2002), Condition monitoring and diagnostics
of machines - Vibration condition monitoring - Part 1: General
Harder, C. et al. (2015), “Real Time Data Monitoring Expe-
procedures.
rience Results in Enhanced Safety and Efficiency”, SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference and Exhibition. doi: 10.2118/173090-MS. ISO 13373-2 (2016), Condition monitoring and diagnostics
of machines - Vibration condition monitoring - Part 2: Proces-
Holand, P. (1986), “Reliability of Subsea BOP Systems - Phase
sing, analysis and presentation of vibration data.
III Testing and Maintenance”, SINTEF.
ISO 13374-1 (2003), “Condition monitoring and diagnosis
Holand, P. (1989), “Subsea BOP Systems, Reliability and Tes-
of machines—Data processing, communication and presenta-
ting - Phase V”, SINTEF.
tion—Part 1: General guidelines”, International Organization
Holand, P. (1997), “Reliability of Subsea BOP Systems for for Standardization.
Deepwater Application & Fault Tree Analysis”, SINTEF.
ISO 13374-2 (2007), “Preview Condition monitoring and
Holand, P. (2001), “Reliability of Deepwater Subsea Blowout diagnostics of machines -- Data processing, communication
Preventers”, SPE Drilling & Completion, Vol. 1, pp. 12–18. doi: and presentation -- Part 2: Data processing”, International Or-
10.2118/70129-pa. ganization for Standardization.
Holand, P.; Awan, H. (2012), Reliability of Deepwater Subsea ISO 13379 (2012), “Condition monitoring and diagnosis of
BOP Systems and Well Kicks. machines—Data interpretation and diagnosis techniques—
Part 1: General guidelines”, International Organization for Stan-
Holand, P.; Rausand, M. (1987), Reliability of Subsea BOP
dardization.
Sandtorv Systems, Reliability Engineering and System Safety,
Vol. 19, pp. 263-275. ISO 13379-2 (2015), Condition monitoring and diagnostics
of machines - Data interpretation and diagnostics techniques -
Holand, P.; Rausand, M. (1999), “Reliability of Subsea BOP
Part 2: Data-driven applications.
Systems for Deepwater Application, Phase II DW”, SINTEF. doi:
10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004. ISO 13380 (2002), Condition monitoring and diagnostics of
machines - General guidelines on using performance parame-
Holand, P.; Rausand, M. (2001), Deepwater Kicks and BOP
ters.
Performance, SINTEF, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
ISO 13381-1 (2004) ‘Preview Condition monitoring and diag-
Hwang, H. (2015), “Introduction to a Condition-based Main-
nostics of machines -- Prognostics -- Part 1: General guidelines’,
tenance Solution for Offshore Platforms”, International Society
International Organization for Standardization.
of Offshore and Polar Engineers, The Twenty-Fifth International
Ocean and Polar Engineering, 21-26 June, Kona, Hawaii, USA.
 93
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

ISO 13533 (2001), Petroleum and natural gas industries - BOP systems, Master thesis, Institutt for produksjons- og kva-
Drilling and production equipment - Drill-through equipment. litetsteknikk.
ISO 14224 (2016), Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas Kothamasu, R. et al. (2006), “System health monitoring and
industries — Collection and exchange of reliability and mainte- prognostics -a review of current paradigms and practices 1
nance data for equipment. Maintenance strategies and motivations for health monitoring
l”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-
ISO 17359 (2002), “Condition monitoring and diagnostics of
nology, Vol. 28, pp. 1012–24. doi: 10.1007/978-1-84882-472-
machines - General guidelines”, International Organization for
0_14.
Standardization, Vol. 50.
Laayouj, N.; Jamouli, H. (2017), “Prognosis of degradation
ISO 18435-1 (2009), Industrial automation systems and inte-
based on a new dynamic method for remaining useful life pre-
gration - Diagnostics, capability assessment and maintenance
diction”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol.
applications integration - Part 1: Overview and general requi-
23, No. 2, pp. 239–55. doi: 10.1108/JQME-03-2016-0012.
rements.
Lafraia, J. R. B. (2001), Manual de Confiabilidade, Mantena-
ISO 55000 (2014), Asset management - Overview, principles
bilidade e Disponibilidade, Qualitymark, Rio de Janeiro.
and terminology.
Lannoy, A.; Procaccia, H. (1996), “The EDF failure reporting
ISO 6527 (1982), Nuclear power plants - Reliability data ex-
system process, presentation and prospects”, Reliability En-
change - General guidelines.
gineering and System Safety, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 147–58. doi:
ISO 7385 (1983), Nuclear power plants- Guidelines to ensure 10.1016/0951-8320(95)00112-3.
quality of collected data on reliability.
Lee, J. et al. (2011), “Self-maintenance and engineering im-
Israel, R. et al. (2015), “Well Advisor - Integrating Real-time mune systems: Towards smarter machines and manufacturing
Data with Predictive Tools, Processes and Expertise to Enable systems’, Annual Reviews in Control, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 111–22.
More Informed Operational Decisions”, SPE/IADC Drilling Con- doi: 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2011.03.007.
ference and Exhibition. doi: 10.2118/173061-MS.
Lee, R. J. et al. (2004), An integrated platform for diagnostics,
Jacobs, T.; Writer, J. P. T. T. (2014), “Blowout Preventer Tech- prognostics and maintenance optimization, in: The IMS’2004
nology BOP Monitoring Seeks to Reduce Downtime, Increase International Conference on Advances in Maintenance and in
Insight”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 66. Modeling, Simulation and Intelligent Monitoring of Degrada-
Januarilham, Y. (2012), “Analysis of Component Criticality in tions, Arles, France.
the Blowout Preventer”. Liu, H. C. et al. (2013), “Risk evaluation approaches in failure
Jardine, A. K. S. et al. (2006), “A review on machinery diag- mode and effects analysis: A literature review”, Expert Systems
nostics and prognostics implementing condition-based mainte- with Applications, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 828–38. doi: 10.1016/j.
nance”, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, Vol. 20, No. eswa.2012.08.010.
7, pp. 1483–1510. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2005.09.012. López-Campos, M. A. et al. (2013), “Modelling using UML
Jayanath, S. et al. (2016), “A Sub-Scale Experimental Test and BPMN the integration of open reliability, maintenance and
Method to Investigate the Failure of Variable Ram Blowout condition monitoring management systems: An application in
Prevention Valves”, Offshore Technology Conference. doi: an electric transformer system”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 64,
10.4043/27157-MS. No. 5, pp. 524–42. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2013.02.010.

Johnson, C. et al. (2013), “BOP Testing - Qualification Tests, Lukin, N. et al. (2015), “Risk analysis of annular preventer
Test Facilities and the Efficient Means of Operating Them”, SPE/ performance in multiplexed submarines BOP based on ISO
IADC Drilling Conference. 31.000 and API 581 standards”, International Society of Offsho-
re and Polar Engineers, The Twenty-fifth International Ocean
Juuso, E. K.; Lahdelma, S. (2013), “Intelligent performance and Polar Engineering, Conference, 21-26 June, Kona, Hawaii,
measures for condition‐based maintenance”, Journal of Quality USA.
in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 278–94. doi:
10.1108/JQME-05-2013-0026. Lundteigen, M. A. (2008), Safety instrumented systems in
the oil and gas industry: Concepts and methods for safety and
Kan, M. S. et al. (2015), “A review on prognostic techniques reliability, PhD thesis. doi: 10.13140/2.1.3663.7769.
for non-stationary and non-linear rotating systems”, Mecha-
nical Systems and Signal Processing, Vol. 62, pp. 1–20. doi: Lundteigen, M. A.; Rausand, M. (2007), “Common cause
10.1016/j.ymssp.2015.02.016. failures in safety instrumented systems on oil and gas installa-
tions: Implementing defense measures through function tes-
Klakegg, S. (2012), Improved methods for reliability asses- ting”, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, pp.
sments of safety-critical systems: An application example for 218–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2007.03.007.
94
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

Martins, F. et al. (2015), “Improving BOP Reliability Through Pecht, M. G. (2008), “Prognostics and Health Management
an Integrated Management Approach”, Offshore Technology of Electronics”, Wiley-Inter science.
Conference OTC-26182-MS.
Pecht, M.; Dasgupta, A. (1995), “Physics-of-failure: an ap-
Mckay, J. et al. (2012), “Blowout Preventer (BOP) Health Mo- proach to reliable product development”, IEEE 1995 Internatio-
nitoring”, Iadc/Spe 151182. doi: 10.2118/151182-MS. nal Integrated Reliability Workshop. Final Report, pp. 1–4. doi:
10.1109/IRWS.1995.493566.
Milne, R. (1987), “Strategies for Diagnosis’, IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 333–39. Peng, Y. et al. (2010), “Current status of machine prognostics
doi: 10.1109/TSMC.1987.4309050. in condition-based maintenance: A review”, International Jour-
nal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 50, No. 1–4,
MIL-STD-1629 (1980), “Military Standard: Procedures for
pp. 297–313. doi: 10.1007/s00170-009-2482-0.
performing a failure mode, effects and criticality analysis”, avai-
lable from: http://www.fmea-fmeca.com/milstd1629.pdf (ac- Prajapati, A. et al. (2012), “Condition based maintenance: a
cess 20 Feb 2018). survey”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 18,
No. 4, pp. 384–400. doi: 10.1108/13552511211281552.
MIL-STD-2173 (1981), “Reliability-Centered Maintenance
Requirements for Naval Aircraft, Weapons Systems and Sup- Puente, J. et al. (2002), “A decision support system for
port Equipment”. applying failure mode and effects analysis”, International Jour-
nal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.
MIL-STD-721 C (1981), “Definitions of terms for reliability
137–50. doi: 10.1108/02656710210413480.
and maintainability”.
Qingfeng, W. et al. (2011), “Development and application of
Moczydlower, D. (2017) “Confiabilidade para um novo pa-
equipment maintenance and safety integrity management sys-
tamar de eficiência operacional”, artigo apresentado no 15°
tem”, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol.
Simpósio Internacional de Confiabilidade, Belo Horizonte, MG,
24, No. 4, pp. 321–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2011.01.008.
07-08 ago. 2017.
Rausand, M. (1998), “Reliability centered maintenance”, Re-
Moubray, J. (1997), Reliability-Centered Maintenance: RCM
liability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 60, pp. 1–16. doi:
II, Industrial Press, North Carolina.
10.1201/9781420031843.ch6.
Narayanagounder, S.; Gurusami, K. (2009), “A New Approach
Rausand, M. (2014), Reliability of Safety-Critical Systems, Re-
for Prioritization of Failure Modes in Design FMEA using ANO-
liability of Safety-Critical Systems. doi: 10.1002/9781118776353.
VA’, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology,
Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 524-31. Rausand, M. et al. (1983), “Reliability of Subsea BOP Sys-
tems”, pp. 19–24.
NASA (2008), NASA Reliability Centered Maintenan-
ce Guide for Facilities and Collateral Equipment. doi: Rausand, M.; Hoyland, A. (2004), System Reliability Theory:
10.1201/9781420031843.ch6. Models, Statistical Methods, and Applications, 2nd ed., John Wi-
ley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. doi: 10.1109/WESCON.1996.554026.
Navair 00-25-403 (2005), Guidelines for the Naval Aviation
Reliability-Centered Maintenance Process. Rausand, M.; ØIen, K. (1996), “The basic concepts of failure
analysis”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 53, No.
Nelson, W. R. (2016), “Improving Safety of Deepwater Dril-
1, pp. 73–83. doi: 10.1016/0951-8320(96)00010-5.
ling Through Advanced Instrumentation, Diagnostics, and Au-
tomation for BOP Control Systems”, Offshore Technology Con- SAE ARP 5580 (2001), Recommended Failure Modes and Ef-
ference. doi: 10.4043/27188-MS. fects Analysis (FMEA) Practices for Non-Automobile Applications.
Niu, G. et al. (2010), “Development of an optimized condi- SAE J-1739 (1995), Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analy-
tion-based maintenance system by data fusion and reliability- sis (FMEA) Reference Manual.
-centered maintenance”, Reliability Engineering and System Sa-
SAE JA 1011 (1999), Evaluation Criteria for Reliability-Cente-
fety, Vol. 95, No. 7, pp. 786–96. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2010.02.016.
red Maintenance (RCM) Processes.
NOV 10645935-MAN (no date), “User’s Manual Multiplex
SAE JA 1012 (2011), A Guide to the Reliability-Centered
Control Pod and BOP Stack Control System”, National Oilwell
Maintenance (RCM) Standard.
Varco, pp. 713–937.
Saetre, Ø. (2015), “Reliability assessment of subsea BOP
Oliveira, L. F. et al. (2017), “Real-time Monitoring of BOP Re-
control systems”, Master thesis, NTNU.
liability”, in Offshore Mediterranean Conference, Ravenna, pp.
1–13. Sandtorv, H. A. et al. (1996), “Practical experiences with a
data collection project: The OREDA project”, Reliability En-
OSA CBM (2001), Open System Architecture for Condition-
gineering and System Safety, Vol. 51, No.2, pp. 159–67. doi:
-Based Maintenance.
10.1016/0951-8320(95)00113-1.
 95
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume 15, Número 1, 2018, pp. 78-95
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a8

Sattler, J. P. (2013), “‘SPE 166869 “BOP Performance Post - monitoring”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 1502–09.
Macondo - How Are We Doing?”’, (October), pp. 15–17. doi: doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2010.10.028.
10.2118/166869-MS.
Tobon-mejia, D. et al. (2012), “A data-driven failure prognos-
Saxena, A. et al. (2010), “Metrics for Offline Evaluation of tics method based on mixture of gaussians hidden markov mo-
Prognostic Performance”, International Journal of Prognostics dels To cite this version: A Data-Driven Failure Prognostics Me-
and Health Management, No. 1, pp. 1–20. thod based on Mixture of Gaussians Hidden Markov Models”,
IEEE Transactions On Reliability, Vol. 61, No.2, pp. 491–503.
Schwabacher, M.; Goebel, K. (2007), “A survey of artificial
intelligence for prognostics”, Association for the Advancement Tsang, A. H. C. (1995), “Condition-based maintenance: tools
of Artificial Intelligence AAAI Fall Symposium 2007, pp. 107–14. and decision making”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Enginee-
ring, Vol.1, No. 3, pp. 3–17. doi: 10.1108/13552519510096350.
Shanks, E. et al. (2003), “Deepwater BOP control systems-a
look at reliability issues”, Offshore Technology Conference, pp. Tuchband, B. et al. (2007), “Technology Assessment of Sen-
1–10. doi: 10.4043/15194-MS. sor Systems for Prognostics and Health Monitoring. In Procee-
dings of IMAPS on Military, Aerospace, Space and Homeland
Sharma, R. K.; Sharma, P. (2010), “System failure behavior
Security: Packaging Issues and Applications (MASH)”.
and maintenance decision making using, RCA, FMEA and FM”,
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 1, US Chemical Safety Hazard and Investigation Board (2010),
pp. 64–88. doi: 10.1108/13552511011030336. “US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Investiga-
tion Report Volume 1”, Explosion and Fire at the Macondo Well,
Shin, J. H.; Jun, H.B. (2015), “On condition-based maintenan-
Vol.1, (Investigation Report), pp. 1–37.
ce policy”, Journal of Computational Design and Engineering,
Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 119–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jcde.2014.12.006. US DoD 4151.22-M (2011), “Reliability Centered Maintenan-
ce - RCM”, No. 4630, pp. 1–77.
Snooke, N.; Price, C. (2012), “Automated FMEA based diag-
nostic symptom generation”, Advanced Engineering Informa- Vachtsevanos, G. et al. (2006), Intelligent Fault Diag-
tics, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 870–88. doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2012.07.001. nosis and Prognosis for Engineering Systems. doi:
10.1002/9780470117842.
Stamatis, D. H. (1995), Failure mode and effect analysis:
FMEA from theory to execution, ASQC Press, New York. Vichare, N. M.; Pecht, M. G. (2006), “Prognostics and health
management of electronics”, IEEE Transactions on Components
Tam, A. S. B.; Gordon, I. (2009), “Clarification of failure ter-
and Packaging Technologies, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 222–29. doi:
minology by examining a generic failure development process”,
10.1109/TCAPT.2006.870387.
International Journal of Engineering Business Management,
Vol.1, No. 1, pp. 33–36. doi: 10.5772/6782. Xiao, N. et al. (2011), “Multiple failure modes analysis and
weighted risk priority number evaluation in FMEA”, Enginee-
Tang, Y. et al. (2015), “Study on stress distribution of a sub-
ring Failure Analysis, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 1162–70. doi: 10.1016/j.
sea Ram BOP body based on simulation and experiment”, En-
engfailanal.2011.02.004.
gineering Failure Analysis, No. 50, pp. 39–50. doi: 10.1016/j.
engfailanal.2014.12.018. Yam, R. C. M. et al. (2001), “Intelligent predictive decision
support system for condition-based maintenance”, Internatio-
Tian, Z. et al. (2011), “Condition based maintenance opti-
nal Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 17,
mization for wind power generation ystems under continuous
No. 5, pp. 383–91. doi: 10.1007/s001700170173.

Received: Jul 12, 2017

Approved: Jan 12, 2018
DOI: 10.14488/BJOPM. 2018.v15. n1. a8
How to cite: Martins, F. B.; Colombo, D.; Matos, B. A. (2018), “Applying CBM and PHM concepts with reliability
approach for Blowout Preventer (BOP): A literature review”, Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 78-95, available from: https://bjopm.emnuvens.com.br/bjopm/article/view/417
(access year month day).