Life Cycle Engineering Success Stories
The Commander, Naval Surface Forces is responsible for manning, training, equipping, and maintaining all U.S. Navy Surface ships. Keeping ships, destroyers and amphibious squadrons in satisfactory operating condition is a massive effort made more challenging by limited funding available for ship maintenance and repair. Life Cycle Engineering supported NSWC Philadelphia in their effort to provide a more effective approach to diesel engine life cycle management.
The Carrier Network, Navigation and Steering Controls Branch of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD), also known as Code 525, provides in-service engineering for ship navigation systems and integrated bridge control systems. They also provide waterfront planning, development, implementation, execution, maintenance and upgrading support.
In the early 1980s, the U.S. Navy began development of a new mine countermeasures (MCM) force, which included two new classes of ships and minesweeping helicopters. The vital importance of the state-of-the-art mine countermeasures force was strongly underscored in the Persian Gulf during the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war, and in Operations Desert shield and Desert Storm in 1990 and 1991 when Avenger and Guardian conducted MCM operations.
Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) is tasked by NSWC Code 425 with providing On-Site Representation (OSR) to ACU-4. LCE currently has two Shipboard Equipment Assessment (SEA) Coaches assigned to this command.
A global metals manufacturer needed to take corrective measures to fix their frequent equipment failures from one of their hot mills. The facility realized the issues were beginning to affect their ability to meet customer demand, so they quickly sprang into action and began searching for outside expertise that could help identify the root cause of their equipment failures, develop processes to prevent future downtime, and provide on-site support to oversee the implementation of a new reliability improvement plan.
A premium aluminum supplier experienced a serious failure that shut down their site for an extended period of time, prompting a much-needed review of their maintenance practices. The shutdown soon began affecting their customers’ ability to meet market demand, so they needed assurances that the manufacturer had a plan in place to prevent significant future outages.
A major international pharmaceutical production line had a sound maintenance strategy in place for their custom-designed manufacturing solutions, or so they thought. However, at the request of their client, the business needed to re-think their risk-based asset management and equipment reliability analysis processes that would include a proven reliability-based preventive maintenance (PM) program.
How would you react if your equipment was hanging 200 feet in the air, extended over water? For most facility leaders this might make you feel uneasy, but for one international export team this is an everyday experience.
Even for a successful food manufacturer, asset maintenance and reliability must be closely monitored to ensure the business is maximizing production capabilities. For one worldwide company, opportunities to improve overall maintenance effectiveness were being missed due in large part to the lack of a planned weekly schedule, a lack of fundamental training, and a breakdown in communication between the operations and maintenance departments.
The President and COO of a nationwide energy company was faced with a question that many other manufacturing leaders have: whether to replace two aging assets or to continue investing in their refurbishment. This was not a simple decision because both outcomes would require significant financial investment, so it was imperative for both options to be fully investigated to determine the best solution. The President enlisted Life Cycle Engineering (LCE), experts in reliability engineering, to assist in making a decision that was best for the business.