Machinery Lubrication magazine published by Noria Corporation
Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/704613
ML PUBLISHER Mike Ramsey - mramsey@noria.com GROUP PUBLISHER Brett O'Kelley - bokelley@noria.com EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Jason Sowards - jsowards@noria.com SENIOR EDITOR Jim Fitch - jfitch@noria.com TECHNICAL WRITERS Jeremy Wright - jwright@noria.com Wes Cash - wcash@noria.com Alejandro Meza - ameza@noria.com Bennett Fitch - bfitch@noria.com Michael Brown - mbrown@noria.com Garrett Bapp - gbapp@noria.com CREATIVE DIRECTOR Ryan Kiker - rkiker@noria.com GRAPHIC ARTISTS Patrick Clark - pclark@noria.com Josh Couch - jcouch@noria.com Greg Rex - grex@noria.com ADVERTISING SALES Tim Davidson - tdavidson@noria.com 800-597-5460, ext. 224 MEDIA PRODUCTION MANAGER Ally Katz - akatz@noria.com CORRESPONDENCE You may address articles, case studies, special requests and other correspondence to: Editor-in-Chief MACHINERY LUBRICATION Noria Corporation 1328 E. 43rd Court • Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105 Phone: 918-749-1400 Fax: 918-746-0925 Email address: jsowards@noria.com MACHINERY LUBRICATION Volume 16 - Issue 4 July-August 2016 ( USPS 021-695) is published bimonthly by Noria Corporation, 1328 E. 43rd Court, Tulsa, OK 74105-4124. Periodicals postage paid at Tulsa, OK and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes and form 3579 to MACHINERY LUBRICATION, P.O. BOX 47702, Plymouth, MN 55447-0401. Canada Post International Publica - tions Mail Product (Canadian Distribution) Publications Mail Agreement #40612608. Send returns (Canada) to BleuChip Interna- tional, P.O. Box 25542, London, Ontario, N6C 6B2. SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: The publisher reserves the right to accept or reject any subscription. Send subscription orders, change of address and all subscription-related correspondence to: Noria Corporation, P.O. Box 47702, Plymouth, MN 55447. 800-869-6882 or Fax: 866-658-6156. Copyright © 2016 Noria Corporation. Noria, Machinery Lubrication and associated logos are trademarks of Noria Corporation. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Noria Corporation is prohibited. Machinery Lubrication is an independently produced publication of Noria Corporation. Noria Corporation reserves the right, with respect to submissions, to revise, republish and authorize its readers to use the tips and articles submitted for personal and commercial use. The opinions of those interviewed and those who write articles for this magazine are not necessarily shared by Noria Corporation. CONTENT NOTICE: The recommendations and information provided in Machinery Lubrication and its related information properties do not purport to address all of the safety concerns that may exist. It is the respon - sibility of the user to follow appropriate safety and health practices. Further, Noria does not make any representations, warranties, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information or recommendations provided herewith. Noria shall not be liable for any inju- ries, loss of profits, business, goodwill, data, interruption of business, nor for incidental or consequential merchantability or fitness of purpose, or damages related to the use of information or recommendations provided. Machinery Lubrication 5 • Early fault detection; more predictive, fewer misses and "just-in-time" saves We all seek more for less, and no one likes the pain and frustration that often come with exceedingly complex solutions to simple prob- lems. KISS (keep it simple stupid!) solutions should always be your first priority. Their appli- cation is at the core of Inspection 2.0. No array of sensors and computer intelligence can outperform a human inspector at a large number of condition monitoring tasks. Inspection Frequency Trumps High Science Why not perform oil analysis everyday on just about every machine? Yes, it sounds expensive, but it doesn't have to be. Oil analysis can be done with your senses, aided by inspection windows. Visual oil analysis is real oil analysis. Who said a labora - tory is a requirement for oil analysis anyway? Many of you are familiar with the P-F interval from the teachings of reliability-centered mainte- nance (RCM). As shown in Figure 1, "P" is the point-of-failure first detection, while "F" is the end-point of functional inoperability. Although the P-F interval is a theoretical concept that has useful application, it is rarely applied in real-world machines. This is because the real world comes with many variable events. These events distort the predictability of the P-F interval. They include: • Multiple components on a single machine or drive train, each with its own P-F tendencies • Multiple failure modes for any single component • Variable duty cycle (speeds, loads, shock, temperature, etc.) • Remaining useful life (RUL) varies with age. For any given fault mode, the P-F interval shrinks as the machine ages. • Failure detection methodology and effec- tiveness vary (ability to detect faults early) The best countermeasure for uncertain P-F intervals is frequency. For certain machines, real-time monitoring using imbedded sensors is justified, especially high-speed, high-risk machines. However, for nearly all other machines, the simple solution for early detec- tion is daily inspection aided by inspection windows and tools. Even the world's best laboratory oil analysis programs can't see faults in the "non-sample." Inspection 2.0 asks you to deploy your senses intensely every time you walk by the machine. The oil sample is examined carefully, but it never leaves the machine. See my "Sight Glass Oil Analysis" article at MachineryLubrication.com. The power of frequency is illustrated in Figure 2. In this example, the failure develop- ment period (from inception to functional failure) is one month. If your condition moni- toring interval is quarterly or bi-monthly, you won't catch the fault prior to functional failure (this is a condition monitoring "miss"). If you use a monthly monitoring interval, you catch the fault with an 18-day P-F interval (lead time to corrective measure). Note, the longer the P-F interval the better. If your condition monitoring interval is weekly, your P-F interval jumps to 25 days (better). However, if you are able to inspect this machine daily using detection-sensitive Inspec- tion 2.0 methods, your P-F interval is 30 days, which is better than weekly testing with the best condition monitoring technology (vibration, oil analysis, thermography, etc.). By comparison, a poor daily inspection technique yields a P-F interval of just seven days. Figure 2. Failure detectability technique and inspection periodicity influence the P-F interval.