Industrial process units consist of large numbers of assets working as a system to produce an output or a set of outputs. These outputs can consist of material (e.g., one or more products—intermediate or finished—that meet a set of specifications) or energy flows (e.g., heat or power generation).
Over time, the assets in the unit may degrade in performance. While they may not be in danger of experiencing unexpected downtime, their degradation may, and often does, result in reduced system output/throughput or increased system operational cost. They therefore need to undergo periodic maintenance to keep the system throughput at a desired level (or as high as possible). However, it is critical to optimally scheduling maintenance activities. Each maintenance activity incurs fixed costs (material and labour) as well as costs associated with reduced throughput during the maintenance period due to a reduction in available system capacity. Therefore, excessive maintenance can be as detrimental as too little maintenance.
SymphonyAI Industrial offers a generic maintenance optimisation framework — the Optimal Maintenance Scheduler (OMS) — that can be used to determine the optimal maintenance schedule for a wide variety of systems. It does this by minimising a user-specified customised cost objective function relevant to the unit. Since the objective function being optimised encapsulates performance at the unit- or plant-level (rather than asset-level), assets critical to the unit are prioritised for maintenance. In other words, the scheduler is more likely to recommend the maintenance of a partially degraded asset that has a greater effect on unit performance than that of a highly degraded asset that has little effect on unit performance.
The cost objective function may include several revenue/cost elements; some examples include:
In the OMS, it is also possible to specify constraints on maintenance, e.g.:
In what follows, we use the example of a refinery preheat train to demonstrate how the Optimal Maintenance Scheduler works. The preheat train in a refinery consists of several heat exchangers in series (occasionally in parallel) along with a furnace. The preheat train serves to heat the crude oil to a desired temperature before it enters the crude distillation unit. As heat exchangers in the train degrade, more fuel is required in the furnace to compensate for the reduced heating capacity of the heat exchangers. Optimal scheduling of heat exchanger maintenance is therefore important to keep operating costs low.
A schematic of the OMS process is shown in Figure 2. The main steps are:
These are discussed in detail in the following sections.
The first step in the process involves the development of asset models for each asset in the unit that is to be considered for maintenance. An asset model takes measured tags as inputs and produces measures of asset performance as outputs.
There are various ways of creating asset models:
As an example, in the refinery preheat train use case, asset models for heat exchangers are created using physics models with the flow rates and temperatures of the hot and cold streams as inputs and the overall heat transfer coefficient (or the fouling heat transfer coefficient, or the mean temperature difference) as the output.
The next step in the process is the creation of a system model which calculates unit performance measures (e.g., throughput, inputs required, etc.) as functions of unit measurements and asset performance parameters (the latter are calculated from the asset models). Like the asset models, the system model can be physics-based, or data-based, or a hybrid.
In the refinery preheat train use case, the system model is set up to calculate the furnace fuel required to heat the crude oil to the desired crude distillation unit (CDU) inlet temperature. The system model takes as inputs various unit measurements such as flow rates and temperatures.
̇ = ( ̇ , , , ̇ℎ −1, ℎ −1, , … , −1, −2, … )
The asset models developed in Step 1 are used along with historical measurements to develop asset forecast models which forecast the measures of asset performance into the future. These forecast models can be developed in one of several ways using SymphonyAI Industrial’s Deep Prophecy Engine, a suite of forecasting algorithms:
In the refinery preheat train example, the heat exchanger overall heat transfer coefficients are forecast about 6-12 months into the future.
All the models required to run the maintenance optimiser are now in place. All that remains is for the optimisation inputs to be defined. Once these are defined, the optimiser determines which assets should undergo maintenance at what time.
The cost objective function is evaluated over a specified time horizon (3 months, 6 months, etc.) and consists of two components:
The various costs and revenues required to evaluate the cost objective function are specified as optimisation inputs.
It is possible to specify constraints on the maintenance schedule, e.g.:
The optimiser uses a Branch and Bound algorithm to determine which assets should undergo maintenance and at what times, to minimise the cost objective function. The optimisation process is represented in Figure 2. It automatically accounts for reduced throughput during maintenance periods (due to the asset undergoing maintenance being offline) — as well as improved asset performance and therefore system performance following the maintenance. For example, Figure 6 shows the evaluation of a scenario in which heat exchanger HX-03 is scheduled for maintenance after 30 days and HX-04 after 90 days. During the maintenance periods, the respective heat exchangers are offline, resulting in increased fuel requirements. However, after the maintenance events, the fuel requirements drop sharply due to improved asset performance.
The optimiser provides at a minimum, the following outputs:
It can also be set up to provide a list of multiple maintenance schedules, each with its benefit analysis. This allows us the opportunity to choose from one of several maintenance schedules of similar benefit, based on any intangible criteria unaccounted for by the optimiser.
We may also choose to evaluate different sets of optimisation inputs. For example, we can run the optimiser with different cost/revenue scenarios and compare results from these scenarios. This comparison affords us the ability to hedge our bets with respect to maintenance schedules, i.e., we may choose to follow a schedule that is not necessarily optimal for a specific set of optimisation inputs but which provides consistent benefits across various scenarios.
SymphonyAI Industrial’s Optimal Maintenance Scheduler is an easy-to-implement, highly customisable tool to plan maintenance activities for assets in a process unit in a way that maximises revenue or minimises cost at the plant level; it also allows for the comparison of different future scenarios. Its constituent models can either be built upon elements in SymphonyAI Industrial’s Analytics Library such as the Physics Modeling Library, the Deep Prophecy Engine, and the Reduced Order Modeling framework, or can be custom-built according to specific needs; any changes to the constituent models are automatically reflected in all subsequent runs of the optimiser without manual intervention, making model management hassle-free.
All these features ensure that the OMS can be used across a wide variety of industrial applications, while being convenient to set up, customise, update, and manage.