In several parts of the world including North America, Emerson Process Management sells some of its products and services through local business partners. I came across a great Pulp & Paper magazine article, Control Valve Management Can Pay Off Big, written by Jeff Klatt. Jeff is with one of these local business partners, R.E. Mason.
Jeff recounted his experiences as a large paper mill’s asset manager. What struck me about the article were not the technologies they ultimately applied, but rather his systematic approach to process improvement. I’ll highlight some of the steps he recounts in the article to see if they might spur some ideas for improvement in your operations.
Jeff cited a study conducted by Emerson’s Fisher Valve business that found that 80% of the control valves used by process manufacturers were not operating within their optimum parameters. Getting process improvements by addressing these was a large part of last week’s post, Start with the Basics to Reduce Process Variability.
He described his initial step:
It seemed logical to first get acquainted with the valves in the mill and understand their roles in the papermaking process. One-by-one, I visited valves throughout the three main sections of the mill -utilities, fibers and product (papermaking) – documenting every one and building a personal database. Identifying, locating, and visually inspecting nearly 1,600 control valves in the mill turned out to be a monumental task that took months to complete.
Through this tedious process, he also engaged operations, which:
…explained which control loops had the greatest effect on product quality, productivity, and safety/environmental considerations. This knowledge was essential in establishing the most important valves, and in the end about 25% of all the valves were prioritized as critical to the mill’s mission. These became the valves on which the majority of maintenance attention was focused.
As is often the case, this tedious work lays the foundation for future savings. He also had all the storerooms spare parts identified, tagged and catalogued. This effort allowed greater use of existing stock and fewer purchases of new parts, which improved the mill’s working capital. In one year alone, 20 good control valves taken out of service and put into one of the storerooms were returned into service saving $55,000 (USD) in cost.
The prioritization of the critical control valves also provided focus on where to apply the technologies to improve the performance of the process. Jeff and team used the Flowscanner tool to find out more about the condition of the highest priority valves to direct the maintenance efforts. Also, digital valve controllers were added to these critical control valves over time to provide real-time diagnostics with the AMS software to begin a program of predictive maintenance. A valve’s signature can be compared with its baseline performance to identify problems. These can be addressed before actual failures or variability-creating conditions occur. Jeff’s team documented $50,000 a year in maintenance cost savings.
Jeff highlighted other savings such as a valve variability problem on a CIO2 flow valve being identified and addressed resulting in an annual savings of a $140,000. Another was documenting the useful lifecycle extension of 162 tested valves by an average of two years. Calculated cost savings were $86,000.
While the savings are impressive because they reoccur over time, the approach is what I found instructional. It started with a commitment to focus time and energy on these control valves because of their critical role in the process. Next was the discipline to analyze the current state and work with operations to identify the most critical control valves. This process laid the groundwork for the application of some of the technologies described to achieve lower costs and greater efficiency. From Jeff’s quantified results, it appears this focus paid dividends.