Recording valve maintenance in a CMMS: fields that matter

1. Why generic work orders fail valves

Most computerised maintenance management systems treat a valve like any other asset. A work order opens, a task closes, and the history says nothing about condition. For valves, that silence is costly, because the value lies in the trend, not the event.

A good valve record should answer simple questions over time. Is the valve getting stiffer, is it passing more, and is each treatment buying less time? The answers come from fields chosen in advance.

This article sets out the ones that earn their place. The wider framing sits in our guide to valve integrity management.

Poor fields weaken every later decision, from budget cases to repair timing. Choosing them well costs little and pays back for years.

2. Identification fields worth the effort

Fill an identity block once, then trust it for years. These fields carry the whole record, so errors here spread into every later analysis:

1. Tag and location: the number the field team actually uses, with line and station references.
2. Design data: size, pressure class, body type and maker, so fittings and spares can be traced.
3. Service duty: the fluid and conditions, because a dry gas valve behaves differently from a crude line valve.
4. Injection points: the count, the fitting type, and their condition, checked at every visit.
5. Criticality: the isolation role and the consequence of failure, which sets how much data the valve deserves.

Criticality should come from a reasoned ranking rather than a habit. Our piece on valve criticality ranking shows how consequence and isolation role drive the answer.

3. Condition fields: before and after

The heart of the record is the before-and-after pair. A single reading proves nothing, while the pair shows what the treatment changed:

1. Operating effort: torque or turns to move the valve, before and after every treatment.
2. Seat condition: the leak observation and its method, both before and after the work.
3. Treatment detail: the product, the amount, and the pressure response, within equipment and fitting ratings.
4. Exceptions: stop-work conditions, unusual pressure behaviour, and any fitting that failed inspection.
5. Confirmation: the seat-leak test used, and the agreed conditions it was run under.

These fields assume the treatment was possible and permitted. The fittings must be sound, and the design and service must suit injection. The permit must cover the work, and any OEM documents set limits and warranty terms.

A pressure rise across a closed valve indicates improvement, it does not prove it. Proof comes from a seat-leak test under agreed conditions. Examples include pressure decay and double block and bleed monitoring.

API 598 and ISO 5208 remain factory references, so name the field conditions in the record. The reports our clean, lubricate and seal teams leave behind follow this shape.

4. Trends that should trigger action

A single record informs a visit, but only a trend can decide an intervention. The trends that matter most in valve records include the following:

1. Rising effort: torque or turns creeping upward across visits, which suggests drying seats or ageing sealant.
2. Rising consumption: each top-up buying less time than the one before.
3. Shortening intervals: the valve calling for attention sooner after every treatment.

Each trend needs a trigger written into the system before it appears. Common practice cycles valves at least twice a year to prevent seizing.

Sites often add triggers on torque growth or on leak recurrence. These are reported practices, not rules, and the right trigger depends on service and criticality.

A trend that worsens despite treatment is evidence of something deeper. The honest response is a proper assessment, or planning replacement, rather than another top-up.

Review the triggers once a year as part of the annual valve programme review. Let the trend data feed the case for your maintenance budget.

5. What a CMMS record cannot prove

An honest team states the limits of its own records. A CMMS can show that a valve was treated, when, and with what product. It cannot prove seat tightness, because proof comes only from a confirming test under stated conditions.

Records can also fail quietly through weak entry discipline and unclear ownership. A form with too many fields invites guesses, so keep the field set short and auditable. Tags that change, or units that drift between visits, corrupt trends silently, so lock both down early.

Work done by contractors deserves the same record discipline. Agree the format before mobilisation, as our article on managing contractors on live valve work explains.

Where history is thin, a condition survey can rebuild the baseline in one visit. Either way, the goal is a record the next engineer can trust and act on.