Machinery Lubrication magazine published by Noria Corporation
Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/704613
FROM THE FIELD M a i n t e n a n c e a n d R e l i a b i l i t y I Inspection 2.0 nspection, in its most basic form, has been around forever. However, like most things in life, what you get out of an activity depends entirely on what you put in. This column is about radical reinvention of the whole concept of machine inspection. It has little to do with conventional practices of doing daily machine rounds. With Inspection 2.0, you don't just "look" at a bearing, seal, coupling or pump. Instead, you "examine" these components with a keen and probing eye. Inspection 2.0 is intense and purposeful. It seeks to penetrate and extract information from what's been referred to as machine sign language. Inspection 2.0 requires polished linguistic skills to trans - late this sign language into prescribed activities and instruc- tions that stabilize reliability. The technologies of machine condition monitoring have been advancing at a near break-neck pace in recent years. These inno- vations will continue for decades to come. Still, for the vast majority of machines, there is currently no fault-detecting tech- nology more effective than the razor-sharp and relentless focus of a human being. The potential of a human being as a condition moni- toring instrument is enormous. This potential depends on transformation, specif ically from the going-through- the-motions inspections of the past to mission-intensive detective work inspections of the future. That is the essence of Inspection 2.0. Low-hanging Fruit Often the simplest solution is the best solution and the right solution. How do you get the optimum level of reliability at the lowest possible cost? How do you achieve a synergistic blend of condition monitoring activities that unifies Inspection 2.0 with the range of other options being advanced and currently available? Inspection presents some benefits and advantages that are difficult, if not impos- sible, to duplicate with other condition monitoring options. These include: • Inexpensive, simple, lasting deployment • Operator-driven (total productive maintenance emphasis) • More emphasis on examination skills, less on technology • The power of frequency and the one-minute daily inspection • Root-cause-oriented to avoid devel- oping fault bubbles; more proactive, less reactive AS I SEE IT Jim Fi t ch | Nori a Corpor at ioN Is Your BEST Strategy for Early Fault WHY DETECTION 2 | July - August 2016 | www.machinerylubrication.com Driven by Root Causes • Contamination • Alignment • Balance • Fastener Looseness • Poor Lubrication Defined by Failure Symptoms • Wear Debris • Vibration • Noise • Heat The Intervals of Failure-in-Progress R-I Interval = Failure Gestation Time I-F Interval = Failure Development Period I-P Interval = Failure Elapsed Time P-F Interval = Failure Lead Time (to correction) MACHINE PERFORMANCE SATISFACTORY BELOW REQUIRED PERFORMANCE Catastrophic Failure (Death) Proactive Domain Predictive Domain Protective Domain Functional Failure Failure Detection PF Interval Failure Inception TIME Wear Debris Vibration Noise Heat Smoke Root Cause Inception R I P F Figure 1. Condition monitoring and the time domains of machine failure