THE FAILURE OF MAINTENANCE: A PARADOX

By Patrick R. McCormick, Member ASCE

Presented at the 2000 ASCE Second Annual Forensic Congress in Puerto Rico

ABSTRACT

Most infrequent high profile failures occur due to natural disasters, and society is mesmerized by the destruction they leave behind. When events, such as Northridge, Kobe, and Andrew occur, the media coverage is dramatic and irresistible. Not only are we touched by the cost to human lives, but also we are staggered by the costs reported for property losses, generally into the millions and even billions of dollars. Yet, there is little mention of failures that occur regularly, costs for which, over time, can also reach into the millions and billions of dollars.

Failures of building envelopes, such as roofing and wall systems and facades that are intended to protect structures, occur daily in industrial facilities. They are generally less dramatic, gradual failures, yet they can lead to deterioration of steel, concrete, and wood components in a facility and can be very costly to correct.

Too often failures of building envelopes of industrial facilities are not viewed as failures at all, but as inevitable maintenance items to be addressed in time as budgets allow. The term maintenance suggests that a item will be kept in good condition; if an item has failed, the action required to address it is not maintenance, but repair or replacement, either of which likely would be significantly more expensive than true maintenance. If, however, reasonable procedures are used to identify failures before they lead to extensive, unplanned, emergency repairs, significant savings would be realized.

Legitimate maintenance of industrial facilities is achievable. The paper proposed will describe a program that has been used in industry to identify, rate, and recommend action to address failures that have occurred, along with maintenance to be done to minimize future failures. The paper will present case studies of the program in use and the benefits that have been realized.

INTRODUCTION

Building failures occur every year for a variety of reasons- some of them so-called “Acts of God” like Hurricane Andrew or the Northridge, California, earthquake, and some that are related to other factors, like the crane failure at Miller Park in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Generally the high profile sensational failures receive extensive media attention, with pictures of the failures and the accompanying tragedies broadcast to homes around the world. Besides being saddened by the loss of life that frequently accompanies such failures, we are often staggered by the reported costs to repair or replace the damaged or destroyed buildings and other structures- reportedly $20 billion to clean up and make repairs after the Northridge Earthquake, $25 billion to clean up and repair structures damaged by Hurricane Andrew, and $75 million to correct conditions after the Miller Park Crane failure.

Though costs are high, it is generally assumed that the money will be spent and the buildings or other structures that have been damaged or destroyed will be repaired or replaced. There is then a tendency by society to try to find ways to prevent such losses in the future, either by reducing or eliminating the event or reducing or eliminating the effect the event has on the surroundings, particularly buildings. That search usually leads to Building Code revisions or new controls for construction of buildings and other structures, such as the new provisions for moment resisting frames brought about by the poor performance of so many existing steel framed buildings during the Northridge earthquake.

While the public’s stunned response to the sensational failures and the high costs associated with them, as well as the attempts to find ways to prevent similar events in the future, are understandable, in the shadow of those dramatic losses are failures that occur every day in industrial, commercial, and institutional facilities. Those daily failures are less astonishing and receive little to no attention from persons outside the immediate circle of influence, but the results can cause similar financial burdens for owners and operators of those facilities. This paper will describe a program that has been used in industry to identify, rate, and recommend action to address failures of that type that have occurred, along with maintenance to be done to minimize future similar failures.

WHAT IS FAILURE

Every year in this country an enormous amount of money is spent by owners and operators of industrial, commercial, and institutional facilities to

repair or replace failed building components or entire structures. According to Webster’s Dictionary, a failure is “a state of inability to perform a normal function”, which means that catastrophic collapse is not required of a building or structure in order for it to be considered a failure. To be considered a failure it only must be unable to rationally support the loads for which it was designed, and that kind of failure occurs regularly. Buildings of all ages and uses are deteriorating to the point that they are no longer able to reliably support the intended service loads. For example:

o Corrosion completely consumed the bottom chord of a roof truss spanning 100′ over an industrial building, resulting in little or no vertical deflection of the roof or distortion of the truss. The situation developed above a false ceiling below the trusses; the false ceiling concealed the deterioration which eventually led to failure.
o A roofing system over an industrial building developed leaks, but because of a second membrane or vapor retarder, the leaks were not readily apparent and were not attended to. The moisture in the roof system led to widespread condensation in the building, causing corrosion of the structural framing and deterioration of the precast concrete roof deck. The leakage, which is actually failure of the roofing system, was the result of poor construction details and mechanical damage by facility personnel.
o Following years of leakage and condensation, wood roof purlins supporting roof-mounted air handling equipment over a machine room at a Midwestern paper manufacturing facility failed, causing distortion of the roof system and adjacent framing. The failure consisted of a fracture at midspan of the purlin and a complete redistribution of the load of the equipment to the surrounding structure.

IS IT REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE

There are many reasons that situations like the ones discussed above occur, but one that has been surfacing more and more is that the conditions and actions needed to address them are considered maintenance. There are individuals, departments, and even entire companies that believe replacing entire portions of buildings is maintenance, thus they do very little to prevent the development of conditions that lead to failures.

A brief study was done of the maintenance budgets for facility related projects in paper mills in the United States. The budget amounts for such projects of the several facilities contacted varied with the size of the mill (number of paper machines) and with the age of the facility. By averaging these budgets and facility sizes, it was estimated that, in the United States paper industry alone, more than $1 billion is spent yearly on facility related projects. It has been our experience that much of that money is used to replace structural components and even complete structural systems, yet that is considered maintenance.

Webster defines maintenance as “the act of preserving from failure or decline”; by that standard definition, periodic replacement of an item, in this case a building component, is not true maintenance. With buildings, maintenance is action taken to ensure that each load carrying element or member does not deteriorate and continues to perform as the designer intended for the expected life of the element or member. To achieve that goal, protection systems must be employed to prevent deterioration of the structural elements. Unlike the materials of which the structure is made, the protection systems, such as coatings, roofing, wall panels, and wearing surfaces, are sacrificial. They are the materials that need to be replaced periodically so the structural elements won’t have to be.

o Consider this for example- a paper company has a maintenance program that includes sandblasting and repainting of their paper machine every three to five years, a clear acknowledgement that their livelihood depends on continued operation of that machine. There is little or no corrosion on that paper machine after more than 40 years of continuous service. The building around that paper machine, however, is severely deteriorated, yet little thought has been given to the eventual cost of replacement of that building or the effect failure of that building would have on the livelihood of those working at the mill. If mill maintenance personnel regularly attended to the protection systems for the structural components of the building housing the paper machine in the same way as they attend to the machine itself, the service life of the facility could be extended in much the same way as the life of the machine is extended.

It is important that the protection systems be installed on structures and structural components; it also important to recognize that none of the protection systems will last forever. They eventually will need to be replaced or repaired. By keeping the protection systems in good condition, the integrity of the structure will be maintained. That is true maintenance.

The first step toward achieving true maintenance at industrial facilities will be to change the paradigm of allowing buildings and structures to deteriorate to the point of failure and then considering the replacement maintenance. There are a number of issues to contend with in that process, perhaps the primary one being budget. There are also scheduling concerns, particularly if machine shutdown is involved, and a general lack of knowledge about structures and how they deteriorate.

HOW CAN WE KNOW

While budgets and schedules will always be sensitive issues, addressing the third issue mentioned, that of the general lack of knowledge of individuals and staffs of the facilities, may positively affect the way the first two issues are viewed; good sound structural engineering is the most effective way to eliminate that lack of knowledge.

After providing structural engineering services for numerous projects at a Midwestern paper manufacturing facility, many of which were emergencies or failures, the question was raised by mill personnel whether or not the conditions that led to those failures could be discovered before they actually became failures. In discussion with mill personnel, it was learned that the yearly facility maintenance budget was typically consumed by such emergencies, leaving little if any money remaining for the engineering department to complete the real maintenance activities that were planned. If the failures and imminent failures could be identified and addressed before they became catastrophes, the work required could be planned and included in budgets. Then if other conditions that lead to failures could be identified even before the deterioration begins, and true maintenance could be undertaken, the facility eventually could be failure free. Any proactive action such as that is almost certain to reduce the overall costs, not only because the lack of emergency allows room for cost comparisons and/or competitive bids, but also because the effects on the manufacturing process, the “bread and butter” of the mill, can be minimized.

It was determined that, if a program could be developed that could establish the existing condition of facilities and provide an efficient mechanism to compare the existing condition with an acceptable condition and to identify and schedule action to be taken to make the existing condition acceptable, the budget-busting effect of the emergency repairs would be eliminated and development of a real maintenance program could be realized.

Based on a review of a number of published evaluation or survey programs, it was determined that any such evaluation must be based on a visual survey and comparisons with adequately performing components and structures. Some programs employ intensive numerical analyses of components or structures based on field measurements and tests, and while reliable data about the load carrying capacities of components and structures can be developed using those programs, it would be very costly, time consuming, and likely prohibitive to calculate the stress in each of the numerous components during the survey phase of the program in a typical manufacturing facility. A more practical program is required.

THE FIVE POINT PLAN

In response to the question raised at the mill, a program was developed to provide a practical method of eliminating failures and developing a maintenance program for both new and existing facilities. It can help mill maintenance departments get out of the emergency repair project paradigm and move toward a program of true maintenance.

The program employs what has been termed the Five Point Plan. The plan involves a visual survey of the facility, action to correct emergency issues, a maintenance and repair plan, maintenance and repair activities, and a plan review and update.

The heart and soul of the plan is the data generated by the visual survey. The survey must be done by an engineer who has not only knowledge of how structures behave, but also has experience with facility failures and a clear understanding of the conditions that lead to such failures. Data generated during the visual survey includes a list of items observed to be in the need of attention. Items are rated according to the conditions found, with some identified as reactive or emergency situations and others identified as situations that require general preventive or planned maintenance activities.

Any emergency items identified during the survey are addressed immediately, sometimes temporarily to avoid catastrophe. Other items identified are listed with priorities indicated based on the effect failure of each particular item would have on the safety of the personnel of the facility, quality of the products produced at the facility, or production activities. The list provides the information required for the owner to prepare cost estimates and establish budgets for the repairs and maintenance needed, giving the owner confidence that the most critical items

are addressed first. After the emergency and critical repairs are completed and an appropriate maintenance program is in place, more and more of the maintenance budget can be used for true maintenance.

The effectiveness of the Five Point Plan was demonstrated at one large Midwestern paper manufacturing plant, the original buildings of which were constructed in the late 1800’s, with additional buildings constructed periodically over the years. The facility covers approximately 750,000 square feet in plan with numerous multi-story steel and wood framed buildings.

Since original construction, the facility had numerous owners, none of whom was anxious to spend capital on the facility, yet the extremely hot and humid environment inside the paper machine buildings was causing excessive deterioration. An initial survey was completed in 1988; that resulted in a priority list of more than 700 items in need of attention. Items varied from severely corroded steel framing that required emergency shoring to support elevated stock chests, to a builtup roofing membrane that required resaturation to ensure watertightness and integrity.

The facility used the priority list for several years, budgeting repair and maintenance capital for each year based on information in the survey report. Items were systematically addressed and eliminated from the list, and future maintenance activities were added to the list. The usefulness and usability of the program has been put to the test by at least five changes of maintenance management personnel during the time of use. Since the program provides for reasonable documentation of repairs and maintenance activities, orientation of incoming personnel is quick and easy. With each personnel change the program has been reviewed, has been found to be a good usable tool, and has continued in use. The survey database has been updated twice since it was first developed in 1988, and now contains fewer than 50 items, most of which are true maintenance activities.

CONCLUSION — THE BENEFITS OF REAL FACILITY MAINTENANCE

The amount of capital spent on facility repair projects to address failures caused by premature deterioration of the structural elements is staggering. By moving away from reactive response pseudo-maintenance and toward planned and scheduled real maintenance activities, facility maintenance engineers will begin to see that:

1. The overall condition and realized service life of their facilities will improve.

2. Emergencies related to facility problems will be significantly reduced.

3. Overall facility maintenance/repair costs will decrease.

4. Realistic maintenance/repair budgeting will be achievable.

Maintenance is done to prevent failures; the paradox is that maintenance has failed to prevent failures. In fact, failures are occurring regularly in industrial facilities, primarily because what has been called maintenance is not true maintenance at all, but repair or replacement.

While society follows its tendency to try eliminate the major, news-breaking failures, structural engineers must take the lead in trying to help industry establish true maintenance procedures that eliminate the gradual costly failures that are occurring everyday.