Maintenance on live systems: concurrent maintainability in practice

Most buildings are maintained by switching things off. A data centre cannot be switched off: the load runs every hour of every day, and tenants pay for it not to stop. So the plant is designed to be maintained while it runs. Every component that needs maintenance has a way to be isolated while another path carries the load. Engineers call this property concurrent maintainability, and it is the defining feature of a facility built to Uptime Institute's Tier III, or to a similar level in other rating systems. This lesson is about what concurrent maintainability means for the people who do the work: how a piece of equipment is taken out of service while the load keeps running, what risk that creates and how the risk is kept small.

What concurrent maintainability promises

A concurrently maintainable facility has at least two distribution paths for power and cooling to the critical load, and enough redundant capacity that any single component can be removed from service for planned maintenance without affecting the load. Hall A at Stonebridge is a good example. Each cabinet is fed from an A side and a B side, through separate UPS systems, switchboards and floor distribution units, as DCT-220 described. Cooling comes from twelve CRAH units where nine can carry the load. Chilled water reaches the hall from a looped header with valves that let any section be isolated. Any one UPS, switchboard, distribution unit, CRAH or pipe section can be taken out while the rest carries on.

The promise has limits that every technician must understand. Concurrent maintainability covers planned maintenance of one thing at a time. It does not promise that the load survives a failure during maintenance; that is what the higher level of fault tolerance, Tier IV, adds. While UPS-A2 is out for maintenance, the cabinets in Hall A are running on the B side alone. If something on the B side fails during the window, every dual-corded cabinet in the hall loses both feeds. The facility is concurrently maintainable, but during the work it is at N, with no redundancy left.

The exposure window

The time a system spends at reduced redundancy is its exposure window. During it, the facility depends on equipment that would normally be backed up. Two things make the exposure smaller: making the window shorter and making failure of the remaining path less likely during it. Both are the work of planning.

A useful way to think about the risk is to estimate the chance that the remaining path fails during the window. For a path whose failures are random, with a known mean time between failures, the chance of at least one failure in a window of a few hours is small, but it grows with the length of the window. It also grows sharply if the remaining path is not in good condition, which is why the pre-checks below matter.

# Chance that the remaining path fails during a maintenance window (random failures)
import math
mtbf_path = 250_000          # hours, for the whole remaining path, illustrative
for window in (4, 8, 16, 48):
    p = 1 - math.exp(-window / mtbf_path)
    print(f"window {window:2} h: chance of a failure on the remaining path ~ 1 in {1 / p:,.0f}")
print()
# A remaining path with a known weakness (say an alarm left unresolved) is far worse
for mtbf in (250_000, 25_000):
    p = 1 - math.exp(-8 / mtbf)
    print(f"8 h window, path MTBF {mtbf:>7,} h: ~ 1 in {1 / p:,.0f}")

window  4 h: chance of a failure on the remaining path ~ 1 in 62,501
window  8 h: chance of a failure on the remaining path ~ 1 in 31,251
window 16 h: chance of a failure on the remaining path ~ 1 in 15,626
window 48 h: chance of a failure on the remaining path ~ 1 in 5,209

8 h window, path MTBF 250,000 h: ~ 1 in 31,251
8 h window, path MTBF  25,000 h: ~ 1 in 3,126

The numbers are illustrative, but the pattern is real. Halving the window halves the risk, and a remaining path with an unresolved problem can make the same window ten times riskier. Planning therefore aims at two things: short windows, and confirmation before the window opens that the path left carrying the load is healthy.

Before the window: confirm the other path

Before any equipment is isolated, the shift lead and the technician confirm the state of everything that will carry the load. Stonebridge's pre-checks for work that removes redundancy follow the same pattern for power, cooling and fire systems.

• The partner equipment is in service, in its normal mode and showing no alarms. For UPS work, the partner UPS is on inverter, not in bypass, with its batteries healthy and fully charged.
• Everything downstream on the remaining side is normal: switchboards, distribution units, busways and their breakers, all checked on the monitoring system and, for critical work, by a walk.
• Load on the remaining side is within what it can carry alone, with margin. In Hall A, the 2N planning limit of 40 percent per side in DCT-220 exists precisely so that one side can carry the whole hall.
• Single-corded equipment fed from the side being isolated has been identified, and its owners have agreed how it will be protected, usually through a rack transfer switch or a temporary move.
• No other work is planned on the remaining side, the generators serving it are available in automatic, and the weather forecast is acceptable.
• The tenants who must be notified have been notified, with the notice their contracts require.

These checks are written into the method of procedure as a hold point that must be signed before isolation begins. Dmitri's rule is that a pre-check found to be wrong stops the work until it is understood. Twice in his time at the campus a pre-check has found the partner UPS in bypass from a fault nobody had noticed, and both times the planned maintenance was postponed and the fault on the partner became the urgent job instead.

Single points of failure that remain

Even a well-designed concurrently maintainable facility has components that cannot be taken out without affecting someone. Technicians need to know where they are, because maintenance near them carries special risk.

• Single-corded equipment: a device with one power supply, fed from one side, depends entirely on that side. In Hall A, a customer's older network switch and a few appliances are single-corded and fed through small rack transfer switches, as DCT-220 Lesson 10 described. The transfer switch itself is a single point of failure for those devices.
• The last metre of each path: a cabinet's own power strips, a server's power supplies, a busway tap-off feeding one rack. These are part of one path only, and maintenance on them affects that path's load directly.
• Shared elements: a common chilled-water header between two loops, a single fuel tank shared by two generators, a fire suppression system covering a whole room. These are designed to be maintained in pieces or without interrupting protection, but the procedure must be followed exactly.
• Human single points: a valve that can be closed by mistake, a breaker that looks like its neighbour, a controller screen showing the wrong unit. Lesson 3's vendor example was one of these.

During the window

Once the pre-checks are signed, the work follows the method of procedure step by step, with the technician reading each step aloud, the vendor doing it and both confirming the result before the next. The method of procedure, as DCT-330 describes, has hold points at each change of state: before isolation, after isolation, before re-energizing, after return to service. At each hold point the shift lead confirms the plant is where the procedure says it should be.

Three habits keep the window short and safe. Do not start what cannot be finished: if the vendor's parts have not arrived or the forecast has changed, the window is postponed, not started in hope. Watch the remaining path, not only the work: during the window one technician watches the monitoring for the side carrying the load, because a problem there is the one that matters. And have the way back ready: each step of the procedure has a rollback, and the parts and people to carry it out are present before the step is taken.

Cooling and mechanical work

The same principles apply to cooling, with some differences. Cooling usually has more redundant units than power, so taking one CRAH or one pump out of service reduces capacity rather than removing a whole path. But cooling systems have shared elements, such as headers, valves and control networks, and mistakes with valves can affect many units at once. Water does not stop flowing because a technician is surprised. Isolating a section of chilled-water pipe means closing valves in the right order, confirming the section is isolated, draining it safely and having absorbent materials and a leak response ready, as DCT-120 Lesson 10 described.

Cooling also has a time limit that power does not. A hall that loses some cooling capacity does not fail instantly; its temperature rises over minutes. That gives time to respond, but it also means that an unnoticed reduction in cooling during a window can turn into a hot hall an hour later. During mechanical work, a technician watches the hall's inlet temperatures and the remaining units' load, not only the unit being worked on.

After the window

Returning equipment to service is the riskiest part of many windows, because it is where maintenance-induced faults show up. The return steps are done as carefully as the isolation: checks that every tool and temporary connection has been removed, that covers and guards are back, that valves are in their normal positions, that controls are back in automatic and that alarms have cleared. Then the system is watched for a period, typically an hour for power equipment and a few hours for cooling, before the window is closed. The redundancy whiteboard is updated, the tenants are told the work is complete, and the vendor's report and the readings go into the CMMS.

# Return-to-service check: every item must be confirmed before the window closes
checks = {
    "all tools, meters and temporary leads removed": True,
    "covers, panels and guards refitted": True,
    "breakers and switches in normal positions (checked against single-line)": True,
    "controls back in automatic, no units left in maintenance mode": False,
    "alarms cleared at the panel and in monitoring": True,
    "partner and remaining path still normal": True,
    "observation period completed without new alarms": True,
}
open_items = [c for c, ok in checks.items() if not ok]
for c, ok in checks.items():
    print(("[x] " if ok else "[ ] ") + c)
print()
print("window can close" if not open_items else f"hold: {len(open_items)} item(s) open -> {open_items[0]}")

[x] all tools, meters and temporary leads removed
[x] covers, panels and guards refitted
[x] breakers and switches in normal positions (checked against single-line)
[ ] controls back in automatic, no units left in maintenance mode
[x] alarms cleared at the panel and in monitoring
[x] partner and remaining path still normal
[x] observation period completed without new alarms

hold: 1 item(s) open -> controls back in automatic, no units left in maintenance mode

The open item in this example is a classic: a unit left in maintenance mode at its controller after the work. It runs, but it will not restart automatically after a power interruption and will not answer the control system's call for more cooling. Many incidents in critical facilities begin with exactly this kind of leftover state, which is why the return checks are a list to tick, not a memory to trust.