Currently many maintenance budgets are developed based on previous maintenance budgets or a percentage of the replacement asset value (RAV) of maintained equipment. Sometimes maintenance budgets and staffing decisions are based on negotiations between management and the maintenance department. Often an exacting method of determining the specific number of maintenance technicians and their required skill set is not in place.

This article presents a method of establishing a defendable zero-based maintenance budget and staffing requirements based on equipment requirements and company goals that are supported by documentation. Decisions regarding budgeting and staffing are based on facts instead of emotions or educated guesses. Key areas for optimizing equipment expenditures and staffing requirements are easily identified.

Step 1. Determine the maturity of your maintenance and reliability program
The ability to establish, control, and predict a maintenance budget is directly related to the maturity of a maintenance and reliability program. Maintenance and reliability professionals often describe the maturity of a program in distinct phases, levels, or steps. It is important to understand the level of maturity of the maintenance program in a plant prior to attempting to develop a budget.

Typical phases in the maturity continuum of a maintenance and reliability program can be seen in the accompanying text “Maturity Continuum of a Maintenance and Reliability Program.”

Maintenance and reliability practitioners often debate the actual number of phases and what programs or systems should be included in each phase. The phases and the programs or activities associated with each phase are listed as an example of a typical progression of a maintenance program.

A maintenance and reliability program must be built in phases. It is important to have the Phase 1 programs and systems in place prior to developing Phase 2 programs and activities. Phase 2 programs and systems must be in place prior to effectively developing Phase 3 programs, etc.

A maintenance budget and staffing needs are best controlled when the maturity of a maintenance and reliability program has progressed to Phase 3. The more the maintenance and reliability program has progressed, the easier it is to control the maintenance budget.

Step 2. Determine how your maintenance budget and staffing levels compare to those of your competitors
It is important to determine how your maintenance budget and staffing requirements compare with those of your competitors. If you are spending too much on maintenance, you cannot be competitive. If you are not spending enough on maintenance you will be under-maintaining your assets and your equipment will start to deteriorate.

A method of determining how your maintenance budget compares with those of your competitors is to compare your maintenance expenditures and staffing levels to the RAV of your plant. The RAV is the amount of current dollars that would be required to replace the assets in a plant. Benchmarks for the maintenance budget as a percent of RAV and the number of maintenance technicians compared to the RAV are available for most industries.

The more advanced a maintenance program becomes; the less money will be spent on maintaining equipment. Fig. 1 shows typical RAV maintenance costs for a few generalized industries.

Step 3. Develop an equipment hierarchy
To properly manage a maintenance and reliability program, and a maintenance budget, an equipment hierarchy must be established. Equipment hierarchies are not “standardized” in the maintenance and reliability community. Typically, the methodology for developing a hierarchy for a specific company is standardized across a company.

See accompanying text “Typical Equipment Hierarchy” for a hypothetical chemical company. This hierarchy has been developed for use in this article.

Step 4. Understand methods used by your corporation and local plant to track and control maintenance expenditures and develop a maintenance budget for each asset

Corporate maintenance metrics are typically developed to reflect the performance of assets identified in Level 1 through Level 3 of the hierarchy. An associated metric might be the total cost to produce a thousand pounds of polymer per maintenance dollars spent. It is difficult to control maintenance expenditures at Levels 1 through 3.

Individual plant maintenance metrics are typically tracked for each department and each production area (Levels 4 and 5). Many plants can easily track production costs for each department and each production area of the plant. At most plants, an attempt is made to control the maintenance budget at these levels. Although the costs can be easily tracked, it is difficult to control maintenance expenditures at these levels.

Costs to maintain individual assets can be effectively developed and maintained only at the asset level (Level 7).

Consider the following:
•Observation made at company level (Level 1): We are not competitive. A key reason is that maintenance costs are too high.
• Observation made at the business unit (Level 2): The maintenance costs at the chemical plant in Mobile, AL, are too high. The costs of maintenance at the chemical plant in Macon, GA, are at an acceptable level.
•Observation made at the production unit level (Level 6): The cost of maintenance for Reactor #3 is too high. (Note: Although the source of the high maintenance costs, Reactor #3, has been identified, the reasons for the high maintenance costs have not been identified and cannot be controlled.)
• Observation made at the individual asset level (Level 7): The cost of maintenance is high primarily due to failures of the reactor vessel. The vessel continues to develop leaks. It is often necessary to shut down the vessel and build scaffolding inside the vessel in order to repair the leak. There have been four serious leaks in the reactor vessel within the past 8 months. The costs are generated at this level. This is where the costs must be controlled.

Typically maintenance budgets are developed and managed at levels above the asset level (Level 7), but maintenance budgets can best be developed and managed at the asset level. Each asset should have a budget that includes material and labor. Once a budget is established for each asset, the budget for the department and plant can be determined. See accompanying text “Budget Example for a Specific Asset.”

Step 5. Control maintenance costs using the maintenance budget
A budget developed at the asset level can be used as a tool to reduce and control costs, determine manpower requirements, identify training needs, and develop business cases.

•Reduce and control costs. Review the Budget Example for a Specific Asset. All the tasks shown are preventive maintenance, time based, tasks. Costs can be reduced by performing predictive maintenance tasks.

For example, vibration monitoring can be performed on the pump and the bearings can be replaced when they start to fail. The mean time between failures can be predicted by determining the B10 life of the bearing. The budget then would be modified as shown in “Modified Budget Example for a Specific Asset.”

The costs for maintaining the equipment based on the initial maintenance plan can be compared to the costs for maintaining the equipment as shown in the “Modified Budget Example for a Specific Asset.” Any cost savings are easily identified.

On a regular basis, the actual cost of maintaining each asset should be compared to the budgeted costs of maintaining the asset. Any over- or underexpenditure should be addressed on an asset-by-asset basis. By controlling the expenditures on each asset the overall maintenance budget is effectively managed.

•Determine manpower requirements. Manpower requirements can easily be determined by using the individual budget for each asset. In the example, the specific manpower requirements are identified by craft. The overall manpower requirements for each craft can be developed by combining the manpower requirements required to maintain each asset.

If more resources are needed to maintain equipment, the information required to justify an increase in staffing is available. If a reduction in manpower is required, the maintenance manager can work with plant supervision on an asset-by-asset basis to determine which maintenance tasks will no longer be performed.

• Develop business cases. Information from the zero-based budget can be used to create business plans for improving the maintenance of the plant. How many times have you attempted to improve maintenance at your plant but could not convince management to support the effort? It is much easier to convince management to support an effort if an effective business plan is developed to support your case.

In the example above, vibration analysis was used to extend the life of the bearings. To start a vibration analysis program at a plant, one could modify the budget for each piece of equipment that has the potential to be monitored. The costs savings then can be identified.

The increase in manpower due to the addition of a vibration analysis program to your existing maintenance program can be developed. The decrease in manpower brought about by replacing bearings based on the bearing’s condition as opposed to the time the bearing had been in service can be calculated. Once the cost of developing the vibration analysis program is determined, the payback for implementing a vibration monitoring program can be calculated.

• Develop a budget, staffing, and training plan for each asset. If a budget is developed for each asset the following items can easily be developed:

1. A maintenance staffing plan that identifies and supports the number of technicians, by craft, required to maintain the plant.

2. A specific training plan because all tasks that will be performed are identified. Technicians can be trained to perform the specific tasks identified in the budget.

3. An overall maintenance budget that can be defended.

4. A justification for increasing or decreasing the maintenance budget when pieces of equipment are installed or removed.

5. A justification for increasing the maintenance budget if an asset is utilized more than it has been in the past. If an asset is utilized more, the specific budget for the asset must be modified to reflect any increases in maintenance expenditures required to ensure that the equipment can be operated reliably.

6. A basis for a business plan that will support maintenance improvements.

•Utilize zero-based budgeting to develop life cycle costing. The process that is used to develop budgets for individual assets can be utilized in a life cycle cost analysis. Life cycle costing is part of a world class, reliability centered maintenance–advanced reliability program.

For the purpose of this article, life cycle costs are listed as a Phase 5 activity in the development of a maintenance and reliability program. The total cost of maintaining an asset along with the manpower needed to maintain the asset should and can be considered during the project delivery phase of the project. Various alternatives with various life cycle costs can be evaluated.

Call to action
It is important to understand the current methods that are used to establish maintenance budgets within your organization. Is there a well-thought-out method of developing a maintenance budget? Or is last year’s budget simply increased or decreased by an arbitrary amount to develop this year’s budget?

Determine the maturity of your maintenance program and benchmark your maintenance costs with those of your competitors. The cost of maintaining equipment vs the RAV for various types of manufacturing plants is available. The information on the cost of maintaining a plant based on the maturity level of the plant’s maintenance program is also available. By gathering this information, you can answer such questions as how much your plant could benefit from maintenance improvements and whether you are spending too much or not enough on maintenance.

Either develop an equipment hierarchy for your facility or validate the existing hierarchy. An equipment hierarchy is a vital element of any maintenance program.

Control your maintenance budget. Do not let your maintenance budget control you. By controlling maintenance expenditures at the asset level, the overall maintenance budget can be managed effectively.

Determine your specific staffing requirements and training needs. An asset-based equipment budget will provide this type of detailed information.

Consider incorporating asset life cycle costing into your capital deliver program. MT

Michael Eisenbise PE, CMRP, CPE, is director of performance technology and site services at Fluor Corp., 100 Flour Daniel, C301J, Greenville, SC 29607-2770; (864) 281-8625

back to article

Maintenance Budget Based on RAV

Fig. 1. This shows typical replacement asset value (RAV) maintenance costs
for a few generalized industries. The more advanced a maintenance program
becomes; the less money will be spent on maintaining equipment.

back to article

typical equipment hierarchy

back to article

Budget Example for a Specific Asset

Modified Budget Example for a Specific Asset

back to article

OK, I will admit that anything related to the Web and maintenance gets my immediate attention—and this looked very interesting indeed. In brief, the Web-based Skills Accelerator allows maintenance managers and supervisors to determine what their employees do not know about their jobs and then identify resources and tools to develop these skills within their work groups.

Although there are off-the-shelf industrial skills assessment programs out there, Universal Technologies Interactive grew out of a maintenance training company and a skills assessment technology company combining resources to create a specialized and detailed offering.

To use the Skills Accelerator the maintenance supervisor logs into the secure Web site, defines specific jobs, and assigns discipline and job tasks. This list can be edited and updated at any point in the future. Once the system is set up, job and tasks analysis (JTA) defined processes are used to identify specific job classifications such as mechanical, electrical, and operations. Common tasks are identified for various skill areas as well as specific skills required.

An employee starts the assessment process by logging into the Web site and answering questions. The assessment can be taken in stages or completed in one sitting. The evaluation is sent to the supervisor immediately; the employee does not have any direct access to the results.

The knowledge and skills assessments are designed to identify “employee readiness” to perform tasks in accordance with identified best practices, and develop strategies to overcome identified gaps. The key to developing an individual development program is to assess each individual’s knowledge and skills for each element of each assigned task.

Gaps between knowledge and skills possessed vs those that are needed are part of the Skills Accelerator. The system also identifies areas of opportunity for future employee development. This allows the supervisor to select from a wide variety of training resources that are aligned with the company’s business priorities and budget. This method not only identifies individual skill gaps but can be used to spot skill deficiencies within certain employee groups as well.

Once the supervisor selects the appropriate curriculum, an employee’s development plan is generated. With the implementation of the development plans, companies can help each employee to become world class.

Eventually the system will even rate the effectiveness of the various training resources, including live instructor led, distance learning, and computer-based products, as the use of the system grows. Training resource companies are invited to send an e-mail to support@utinteractive.com with a brief explanation of the maintenance training offered to be added to the resource index.

To generate a valid result, managers and supervisors must communicate the positive aspects of employee and career development and avoid using the system for the “blame game.”

Individuals can log on for less than $75 and corporate pricing plans are also available for volume users.

There is even a patent pending on the Skills Accelerator. It sure is exciting to see an innovative leading-edge technology applied to improving maintenance skills which we all know make our industries more competitive in world markets. MT

Internet Tip: Update, Update

Be sure and visit the Microsoft Windows Update site to read about possible incompatibility issues of certain programs (like firewalls and automatic updaters) with new Windows XP Service Pack 2. There is a list of known issues and you will do well to address them before you select the update. This update is a good one. It includes a firewall to beef up XP security, although some new flaws have already been identified with SP2.

Blogging, anyone?

Blogs or Web logs are becoming very popular. They are simply daily or weekly writings of everyday people who have something to say. A Blog is really an ongoing conversation between the author and the readers.

There is one maintenance and reliability blog site at www. maintenancetalkcom and a Blog 101 explanation will give you a good overview of blogging and whether it is for you or not. If you want your own blog, you can easily set up one at Blogger.com

Spray nozzles are vital components in many production facilities. Their accuracy, durability, and interchangeability are absolutely essential to maximum uptime.

If a spray system is not working optimally, it can drain staggering amounts of money. The cost of wasted water alone can approach $100,000 annually even in a system with relatively minor performance problems.

Factor in all the related expenses—the cost of excess chemicals, wasted energy, extra scrap caused by quality problems, unscheduled production downtime, and additional labor—and the true total can quickly mount to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

Once the magnitude of the issue is appreciated, it is time to begin the process of optimizing a spray system. Start by learning about the typical sources of spray problems.

Spray nozzle troubles
They may look simple enough, but in reality spray nozzles are highly engineered precision components that can wear over time, or suffer damage during normal operations or cleaning. The most common problems that cause substandard spray performance include:

• Erosion/wear. Gradual removal of metal causes the spray nozzle orifice and internal flow passages to enlarge and/or become distorted. As a result, flow usually increases, pressure may decrease, the spray pattern becomes irregular, and liquid drops become larger.

• Corrosion. Spray nozzle material can break down due to the chemical qualities of the sprayed material or the environment. The effect is similar to that caused by erosion and wear, with possible additional damage to the outside surfaces of the spray nozzle.

• High temperature. Certain liquids must be sprayed at elevated temperatures or in high-temperature environments. The spray nozzle may soften and break down unless special temperature-resistant materials are used.

• Caking/bearding. Buildup of material on the inside, on the outer edges, or near the orifice is caused by liquid evaporation. A layer of dried solids remains and obstructs the orifice or internal flow passages.

• Clogging. Unwanted solid particles can block the inside of the orifice. Flow is restricted and spray pattern uniformity disturbed.

• Improper reassembly. Some spray nozzles require careful reassembly after cleaning so that internal components, such as gaskets, o-rings, and valves, are properly aligned. Improper reassembly causes leaking and inefficient spray performance.

• Accidental damage. Damage can occur if a spray nozzle is dropped or scratched during installation, operation, or cleaning.

Detecting worn nozzles
This is more difficult than it sounds. The human eye is a remarkable instrument, but it simply cannot provide the true story when it comes to actual spray nozzle wear.

In the photos, the spray tip on the left is new, and sprays properly. The spray tip on the right is worn, and sprays 30 percent over capacity. The difference is undetectable with the naked eye—but there are other tip-offs that something is amiss.

Watch for these clues:

• Quality control issues and increased scrap. Worn, clogged, and damaged spray nozzles will not perform to specification, and can result in uneven coating, cooling, cleaning, humidifying, and drying.

• Increased maintenance time. Unscheduled spray system downtime, or an increase in cleaning frequency, is an indicator of spray nozzle wear.

• Flow rate change. The flow rate of a spray nozzle will increase as the surfaces of the orifice and/or the internal core begin to deteriorate. In applications using positive displacement pumps, the spraying pressure will decrease as the spray nozzle orifice enlarges. Even small changes in flow rate can have a negative impact on quality, so routine monitoring can reveal potential problems. But in some instances, the spray pattern will look fine so it will be necessary to actually collect and measure the spray fluid output to reveal wear.

• Deterioration of spray pattern quality. When orifice wear occurs in hollow cone spray nozzles, spray pattern uniformity is destroyed. Streaks develop and the pattern becomes heavy or light in the circular ring of fluid. In full cone spray nozzles, the pattern distribution typically deteriorates as more liquid flows into the center of the pattern. In flat fan sprays, streaks and heavier flows will be visible in the center of the pattern and the effective spray angle coverage will decrease.

• Spray drop size increase. Liquid flow will increase, or spraying pressure will decrease, as nozzles wear. The result is larger drops and less total liquid surface area. This is difficult to detect visually, so if a problem is suspected, arrange for drop size testing.

• Lowered spray impact. Worn spray nozzles operate at lower pressure, generally resulting in lower spray impact. (Ironically, in applications with centrifugal-type pumps, impact may actually increase because of increased flow through the spray nozzle.) Special testing may be required.

Preventing and solving problems
A comprehensive spray nozzle maintenance program will help ensure fewer headaches. By setting a regular schedule, key issues can be addressed before they cripple a production line.

The checklist that follows should become the foundation of a spray nozzle maintenance program. Consistent evaluation of these factors will enable early wear detection and appropriate action. Specific applications will determine how often each factor should be checked. The proper frequency could range from the end of every shift to every few months.

By implementing a nozzle maintenance program and documenting its procedures, the best nozzle maintenance and replacement strategy for achieving optimal performance can be determined.

Flow rate. For centrifugal pumps, monitor flow meter readings to detect increases. Or collect and measure the spray from the spray nozzle for a given period of time at a specific pressure. Compare these readings to the flow rates listed in the manufacturer’s catalog or compare them to flow rate readings from new, unused spray nozzles.

For positive displacement pumps, monitor the liquid line pressure for decreases; the flow rate will remain constant.

Spray pressure (in nozzle manifold). For centrifugal pumps, monitor for increases in liquid volume sprayed. The spraying pressure is likely to remain the same.

For positive displacement pumps, monitor the pressure gauge for decreases in pressure and reduction in impact on sprayed surfaces. The liquid volume sprayed is likely to remain the same. Also, monitor for increases in pressure due to clogged spray nozzles.

Spray pattern. Visually inspect the spray pattern for changes. Check the spray angle with a protractor. Measure the width of the spray pattern on the sprayed surface. If the spray nozzle orifice is wearing gradually, changes may not be detected until there is a significant increase in flow rate. If uniform spray coverage is critical to the application, request special testing from the spray nozzle manufacturer.

Drop size. Drop size increases cannot be visually detected in most applications. An increase in flow rate or decrease in spraying pressure will affect drop size.

Nozzle alignment. Check uniformity of spray coverage of flat spray nozzles on a manifold. Spray patterns should be parallel to each other. Spray tips should be rotated 5-10 deg from the manifold centerline.

Product quality/application results. Check for uneven coating, cooling, drying, cleaning, and changes in temperature, dust content, and humidity.

If, after implementing a spray nozzle maintenance program, it is determined that current nozzles are not performing as well as they should, it is time to replace them.

Extending spray nozzle life
There are some proven techniques to prolong the useful life of your spray nozzles.

Improve cleaning procedures. Nozzles are precision instruments. Cleaning should be done regularly but carefully, with materials that are much softer than the nozzle orifice surface. Use plastic bristle brushes, wooden probes, or plastic probes. Never use wire brushes, pocket knives, or welder’s tip cleaning rasps. It is easy to damage the critical orifice shape or size and end up with distorted spray patterns or excess flow. If faced with a stubborn clogging problem, try soaking the orifice in a noncorrosive cleaning chemical to soften or dissolve the clogging substance.

Add line strainers, or change to spray nozzles with built-in strainers. Orifice deterioration and clogging is typically caused by solid dirt particles in the sprayed liquid and is particularly common in systems using continuous spray water recirculation. Strainers, or spray nozzles with built-in strainers, are recommended—with a screen mesh size chosen to trap larger particles and prevent debris from entering the spray nozzle orifice or vane.

Decrease spraying pressure. Although it is not always possible to implement, decreasing the pressure—which will slow the liquid velocity through the orifice—may help reduce the wear and corrosion rate.

Reduce the quantity of abrasive particles or concentration of corrosive chemicals. In some applications, it is possible to reduce the amount of abrasive particles in the feed liquid, and/or change the size and shape of the particles to reduce wear effects. Also, the corrosive activity of a solution can occasionally be reduced by using different concentrations or temperatures, depending on the specific chemicals involved.

Consider durability and resistance issues. It is important to keep in mind that replacing old spray nozzles with the very same type (for example, replacing an aluminum nozzle with an aluminum nozzle) may not be the best option. Obviously a new spray nozzle is superior to a worn nozzle, but the situation may call for replacing current spray nozzles with nozzles that are much better suited to handle the types of liquids and chemicals that are routinely used.

Spray nozzles made of stronger material generally provide longer wear life. Predictably, stainless steel has a greater abrasion resistance ratio than aluminum, while carbides provide far greater abrasion resistance than stainless steel. To determine whether a different material should be considered for nozzles, spray tips, or orifice inserts, consult the chart “Approximate Abrasion Resistance Ratios.”

In addition to abrasion resistance, corrosion resistance may be necessary. The rate of chemical corrosion on a spray nozzle depends on several factors, including the corrosive properties of the liquid being sprayed, its concentration in the solution, its temperature, and the properties of the nozzle material.

Explore special nozzle types. New types of spray nozzles feature extremely convenient, nonslip extensions that are easy to grip and twist even in wet or sticky conditions involving lubricants, oils, or other viscous materials.

Also, look for single and double pipe clamps that enable a worker to quickly change entire nozzle mounts whenever necessary.

Fortunately, many modern nozzles can be installed and replaced without the use of any tools. This makes the whole process faster, easier, and more reliable than ever.

Get expert assistance. A spray nozzle manufacturer should have the capacity to test and evaluate spray nozzles to help establish baseline performance measures that will guide cleaning, maintenance, and repair schedules. This can minimize downtime significantly, and help avoid quality control issues through timely spray nozzle replacement.

A fast and convenient calculator is available online to help you figure out the actual costs of sub-par spray nozzle performance in your own application. MT

Jon Barber is a specialist at Spraying Systems Co., P. O. Box 7900, Wheaton, IL 60189-7900; (630) 665-5000

Worn nozzles cannot be determined just by a visual examination. Differences can be seen in a new nozzle (left) and a worn one (right) in a magnified view, though.

back to article

Approximate Abrasion Resistance Ratios

back to article

This article concentrates on one technology that has been developed to reliably detect broken rotor bars, abnormal levels of air gap eccentricity, and other problems in squirrel cage induction motors and driven components using motor current signature analysis (MCSA).

Consequences of broken rotor bars
Rotor windings in squirrel cage induction motors are manufactured from aluminum alloy, copper, or copper alloy. Larger motors generally have rotors and end-rings fabricated out of these whereas motors with ratings less than a few hundred horsepower generally have die-cast aluminum alloy rotor cages.

Fig. 1. A 1700 hp motor with broken rotor bar

Replacement of the rotor core in larger motors is costly; therefore, by detecting broken rotor bars early, such secondary deterioration can be avoided. The rotor can be repaired at a fraction of the cost of rotor replacement, not to mention averting production revenue losses due to unplanned downtime.

Some of the more common secondary effects of broken rotor bars are:

• Broken bars can cause sparking, a serious concern in hazardous areas.

• If one or more rotor bars are broken, the healthy bars are forced to carry additional current leading to rotor core damage from persistent elevated temperatures in the vicinity of the broken bars and current passing through the core from broken to healthy bars.

• Broken bars cause torque and speed oscillations in the rotor, provoking premature wear of bearings and other driven components.

• Large air pockets in die-cast aluminum alloy rotor windings can cause nonuniform bar expansion leading to rotor bending and imbalance that causes high vibration levels from premature bearing wear.

• As the rotor rotates at high radial speed, broken rotor bars can lift out of the slot due to centrifugal force and strike against the stator winding causing a catastrophic motor failure.

• Rotor asymmetry (the rotor rotating off-center), both static and dynamic, could cause the rotor to rub against the stator winding leading to rotor core damage and even a catastrophic fault.

MCSA technology
Motor current signature analysis technology has existed for many years to help diagnose problems in induction motors related to broken rotor bars, air gap eccentricity, drive-train wear analysis, and shaft misalignment. The technology relies on the fact that each of these problems produces recognizable frequency patterns in the motor load current that can be predicted by using empirical formulae and measured. These problems give rise to magnetic asymmetry in the rotor air gap that produces current components at specific frequencies in the load current.

A trace of the motor supply current is obtained by using a clamp-on current probe either from one of the main phase leads to the motor or from the secondary side of a motor CT. A Fast Fourier Transform is performed on the time-domain data to obtain a frequency spectrum. Depending on the device used, this can be done either by the datalogger itself or by computer software.

Once the frequency spectrum is obtained and stored, empirical formulae are used to look for frequency signatures in the spectrum within various frequency ranges depending on the problem to be diagnosed. For example, broken rotor bar frequencies (also called sidebands or pole-passing frequencies) usually can be found within ±5 Hz of the motor supply frequency; for air gap eccentricity a wider range is required for the search, from a few hundred Hz up to a few kHz. If the predicted frequency patterns are present in the spectrum, a positive diagnosis is returned.

In all cases, accurate estimate of the operating slip of the motor is a prerequisite to reliable diagnosis as the predictor equations require operating slip as one of the input parameters. In an induction motor, slip is dependent on the load and increases with increased load. In most cases, the only knowledge a tester would have regarding slip is that at full load; the motor nameplate data contains the rated speed at rated horsepower and the slip can therefore be easily derived when the motor is running at full rated load. However, as motors rarely operate at exactly full load, determining the operating slip becomes a challenge.

There are several ways to determine operating slip—a stroboscope or axial flux measurement are two examples. However, between the time the speed is determined using these techniques and the current measurement taken the load can change, leading to an inaccurate slip estimate. Not to mention the fact that these methods are cumbersome and time consuming.

Much work has been done in recent years to make MCSA technology reliable and user-friendly by calculating the slip based on motor nameplate parameters and measured load current. Depending on the MCSA instrument vendor, several algorithms may be employed to calculate slip. Some algorithms rely on deriving slip from the torque and some from operating current. Such algorithms do not need an external speed input.

Advances in pattern-recognition technology have now made it possible that systems rely less on expert knowledge, thereby making these systems useable by nonexperts who may not have in-depth knowledge of current signature analysis.

Detection of broken rotor bars
The location of the frequency components of the current due to broken rotor bars in the frequency spectrum is given by the formula:

f_sb = f₁(1±2s) Hz

where:

f_sb = frequency components of the current due to broken rotor bars, also known as sidebands

f₁ = power supply frequency (Hz)

s = operating slip (per unit)

Figure 2 illustrates the current spectrum from a 13.8 kV primary air fan motor with broken rotor bars operating in a fossil power station. The motor supply frequency is 60 Hz. Frequencies due to broken rotor bars are clearly visible.

Frequency spectrum from motor with broken rotor bars Fig. 2. Frequencies due to broken rotor bars are clearly visible, as is the influence of load changes during data acquisition.

The influence of load
Figure 2 also illustrates the influence of load changes during the data acquisition process. Note the skirting effect at the base of the 60 Hz spike. Keeping in mind that the slip is dependent on load one would, in fact, expect such a skirting effect as the current components are recorded in multiple positions on the x-axis.

The influence of gearboxes
Speed-reducing gearboxes or belt drives connected to the motor also may induce frequency components of the current in the spectrum and also have been a cause of false alarms. The position of such components depends on the rotational frequency of the individual gearbox shafts. Often the frequencies of these components are very close to positions that are expected from broken rotor bars.

Take the case of a coal-mill motor for which the current spectrum is shown in Fig. 3. This motor is rated at 300 hp, 575 V, 295 A, 885 rpm, and is connected to a 3-stage gearbox for which the output shaft rotates at 19.39 rpm (0.32 Hz) at full load (nameplate data). Speeds of the individual shafts internal to the motor are 52.8 rpm (0.88 Hz) and 141.69 rpm (2.36 Hz), respectively. Table 1 depicts the location of the frequency components of the current due to each shaft rotational speed at full load.

In addition to fundamental speeds of shaft rotation, harmonics also can produce frequency components that occur at locations in the spectrum where broken rotor bars are expected (see Table 2). It can be seen from Table 2 that gearbox shaft rotation, especially the rotational harmonics from the 2nd and 3rd stages, induces frequency components of the current at locations very close to where components from broken rotor bars are expected to occur. Keep in mind that Table 2 depicts conditions at full load.

Spectrum from a motor connected to a gearbox Fig. 3. Several current components are present in the spectrum. The question is which ones are due to broken rotor bars.

In this case study, the motor was operating at less than full load with a current of 250 A and therefore at lower slip (higher speed). Even at this load, the harmonics from shaft rotation may lead a user to raise a false alarm of broken rotor bars if not correctly identified as such. Whereas frequency components due to the gearbox are expected to remain at almost the same location for full load (295 A) as well as reduced load (250 A), components due to broken rotor bars move “inwards” at reduced load, i.e., toward the fundamental 60 Hz component. As a corollary, if it is possible to collect data at two different loads, chances of misdiagnosis can almost be eliminated as this would help identify twice-slip-frequency components from mechanical components. In fact, the motor in this case study did not have broken rotor bars.

Problems due to gearbox interference are easily circumvented by embedding intelligence in the instrument that enables it to predict such interfering frequencies. This requires that the reduction stage ratios are known and fed in prior to processing the data for diagnosis.

The importance of high resolution
This case also highlights the necessity of using high resolution in data acquisition and spectrum analysis. A resolution of 10 MHz would generally be sufficient to discriminate between distinct sidebands and therefore enable reliable diagnosis. High resolution is particularly important when testing low-slip and/or low-speed motors where the sidebands do not move as much as high-slip or high-speed applications and therefore could make frequency discrimination difficult.

One of the problems encountered when acquiring high-resolution data is the acquisition and processing time. However, with modern processors and digital technology this problem has largely been overcome due to high-speed sampling and processing capabilities.

Motor current signature analysis technology can reliably be used to detect problems in induction motors. Advancements in technology have made devices intelligent enough to minimize false alarms while at the same time minimizing need for expert interpretation and reducing time for testing and diagnosis. MT

Information supplied by Hasnain Jivajee, product specialist, and Ian Culbert, rotating machines specialist, at Iris Power Engineering Inc., 1 Westside Dr., Unit 2, Toronto M9C 1B2, ON; (416) 620-5600.

Table 1. Expected Frequency Positions from
Broken Rotor Bars and Gearbox at Full Load

back to article

Table 2. Expected Frequency Positions of
Gearbox Harmonics at Full Load

back to article

Many large organizations have highly sophisticated preventive and predictive maintenance departments that are staffed with well-trained technicians. Other companies have their programs embedded in the general maintenance staff with technical and specialized support provided by contract vendors. At other businesses, the PM activities take place just because the maintenance professional believes it is the right thing to do.

Whatever format or structure the PM program takes, it must deliver the desired results to be effective. A six-step program will help research the issues and provide the data required for analysis and discussion.

Review existing program
The first step in the process is analyzing the existing PM program in enough detail to produce data and facts so good business decisions can be made. Allocate enough time and resources to produce the real picture of a PM program, its process, its costs, and most importantly, its results.

For review, the PM program will need to be broken down into a series of steps. Typically, it is necessary to have a predefined process with a logical flow. Some of the actions that will be required may include developing an As-Is or current state process flow, reviewing existing PM work orders for quality and accuracy, and reviewing existing program statistics and compliance.

The development of an As-Is process flow is essential for understanding what and how the PM program is currently functioning.

Plan and analyze new program
The next step includes developing a To-Be or future state process flow. There will most likely be differences or gaps between the existing program and the desired one. This process may take place at the beginning of step 2 and be used as a road map, or it may be completed later in the process after envisioning what the process will be. Either way, it is necessary to support the gap analysis and serves as a visual guide for the discussions concerning process flows.

Other actions in step 2 may include:
· Identifying equipment that would benefit from PM activities
· Defining the criteria for PM activity templates or checklists
· Defining cost models and metrics
· Defining types of PM activity to be performed

Establish system support requirements and configuration
The third step in the process involves defining the configuration of computerized maintenance management/enterprise asset management (CMMS/EAM) software to support the action items defined in step 2. A properly configured system is a key element to managing all aspects of a maintenance organization. The key to this effort is to understand what the system should do and then make sure it is configured to support this effort. Configuration may include:
· System codes to facilitate how data is selected and sorted
· PM triggers that identify what and how the system will generate PM work orders
· System default codes to auto populate data fields
· Work completion codes to support the ability to analyze and trend

Define a re-implementation plan with timeline
This step involves developing an implementation plan and establishing the functional and management teams to execute and oversee the PM enhancement program. Key elements include establishing project execution and oversight teams, defining the project scope, and defining the project approach.

When defining the project scope, include the detail of amounts and duration efforts required to complete the project. Some of the detail includes:
· Amount and type of equipment
· Amount of data acquisition and development required
· Resource availability
· Project constraints

Design performance measurement metrics
This step involves gathering information and equipment data that will be required for managing the PM program during and after implementation. It is important to understand the current state of the program, and have reasonable expectations if improvements are made.

Selecting applicable metrics should be thoroughly reviewed and discussed prior to implementing the PM process. It is also important to communicate the intent of the metrics, ensure understanding of how they are generated, and allow for modifications as required. Some activities in this step include researching industry benchmarks, developing applicable metrics, and defining goals.

Develop benchmark, change management, and audit programs
This final step defines the follow up required to make the PM program an ongoing success. All PM programs need to be monitored to verify they are delivering the anticipated results. All PM programs will require modifications as improvements are experienced or changes are made to equipment or production demands.

It is important to keep the PM program alive and dynamic in order to achieve all potential savings. The two key actions to complete this step are defining PM audit and accountability responsibilities and defining a change management program.

These steps lay out a systematic approach to review and analyze the effectiveness of an existing PM program. The key is to have an organized and logical review of the existing program, design what is expected from a PM program, configure the CMMS, develop benchmarks and measurements, and develop ongoing audits and improvement programs. This review effort will be hard work if properly done, but the results can reap tremendous benefits. MT

Robert C. Baldwin, CMRP, Editor

I can’t do my job without traveling. Fortunately, I enjoy it, but when it’s more than one week a month, I start to feel my age.

No matter how uncomfortable or tiring, or how many misadventures, I don’t believe I have ever had a bad business trip. There are always significant gains in information, knowledge, and ideas from face-to-face meetings with practitioners, suppliers, consultants, and even fellow travelers (more and more travelers have clothing or gear with company logos that can spark conversation).

Some of the people I expected to see at meetings recently have not been there because their travel has been curtailed to reduce costs. That is unfortunate for them and for their companies because they are missing out on opportunities to collect information that can be leveraged into considerable long-term cost reductions—for example, the nuances of using reliability centered maintenance (RCM) to increase maintenance effectiveness such as I picked up on a recent trip to the West Coast.

That trip took me to Sonoma, CA, for the user group conference of Synergen, a supplier of enterprise asset management software, where I was able to renew my acquaintance with Peter Stock of Sentratech, one of the conference speakers and a licensee of the RCM II process explained in John Moubray’s book Reliability-centred Maintenance.

Later, in Burlingame, CA, on the way to the airport for my flight home, I was able to get together with Mac Smith, author of Reliability Centered Maintenance: Gateway to World Class Maintenance, the second edition of which came out this year.

Thanks to Smith and Stock, who shared bits of their experience teaching and practicing rigorous RCM, I came home with a better understanding of this analytical process for determining the true maintenance requirements for plant equipment and systems.

Whether from a workshop, conference session, plant tour, or casual conversation over a cup of coffee, I treasure these encounters with people who have something to say about what they do. What you leverage from these conversations can make the difference between outstanding and ordinary performance.

If you can’t network with practitioners and experts because you are cutting costs by not traveling, I hope it is proactive cost cutting—searching out and installing best practices, including the principles of reliability centered maintenance waiting for you in both of the books mentioned here. MT

Robert M. Williamson, Strategic Work Systems, Inc.

I was speechless. He was in a hurry. So I gave him a 60-second blast that ended with…“the equipment will fail to do what you expect it to do without proper training and maintenance. Unfortunately these are the historical first-to-be-cut budget items—a prescription for failure. Especially now: Maintenance and training should be a top priority as we are in the midst of an ever-worsening shortage of skilled and qualified maintenance people in the U. S.”

The Company’s new equipment was designed and developed at great expense to significantly improve its business efficiency (accuracy and volume) and lower the Company’s operating costs in one of its growth markets. Now this Company is about to shoot itself in its proverbial foot. How can it spend hundreds of millions of dollars on equipment development, procurement, and installation to improve its competitive position and not spend the necessary resources to make it operate reliably as designed for the next 10, 15, or 20 years?

The manufacturers of the new-technology equipment recommended about 4000 hr/yr for routine maintenance. However, the Company is budgeting approximately 2000 hr/yr. What these decision makers often fail to realize is that repairs can cost 10-100 times more than thorough preventive maintenance considering parts, labor, and lost production revenues, not to mention customer dissatisfaction and opening the door to the competition in growth markets.

The bottom line with his “maintenance question” is not whether to cut maintenance costs but rather to ask “what does the equipment truly require to perform reliably—to do what we need it to do first time every time?” Then, how can we make the equipment require less maintenance (maintenance prevention design/ modification)? What can we do to make maintenance and operations easier to perform (maintainability and operability). And, what can we do to improve preventive maintenance efficiency (running PMs, condition monitoring, and predictive maintenance)?

The bottom line with his “training question” is not whether to cut training costs but rather to ask “what does the equipment truly require people to know and to do to keep the equipment running reliably?” If people are not trained and qualified to properly operate and maintain the equipment, their mistakes and trial-and-error methods will result in damaged equipment, delays, and unprocessed products.

My training recommendation: do not cut back on equipment-specific training in any manner; make it more efficient and more effective. Make sure all of the operators and maintainers have the necessary core skills and knowledge or the prerequisite skills to comprehend and apply the equipment specifics. Then, apply visuals to every critical component and indicate every critical operating parameter on the equipment.

Physically locate and identify every lubrication point on the equipment. Attach lubrication pictorials or diagrams to the equipment indicating the frequency, lube type, and methods. Match-mark all critical nuts, bolts, and fittings, making it easier to spot looseness.

Label every major component with its name and identification number so everyone uses the same terminology thus improving communications and equipment repair and maintenance history accuracy. Label replacement part numbers and sizes for belts, filters, and light bulbs. Locate all vibration analysis pickup points with labeled discs on critical motors and drives.

And finally, hold the equipment manufacturers and system integrators responsible for the timely delivery of all documentation for maintenance and training prior to equipment installation.

Too many times in lean manufacturing and other lean environments, 10-40 year old equipment is redeployed, moved, and organized into lean cells without adequate concern or attention to maintenance reliability. In a lean cell, unscheduled equipment downtime usually costs 10-20 times what the same equipment downtime costs in a traditional batch processing or functional department.

For example, before lean, CNC machine tool downtime may have been $250–$750 per hr for a single 3-5 axis machine or robot. Now, automakers who have well-configured lean manufacturing plants cite machine tool or robot downtime costs of $2500-$5000 per hr unless the robot misses painting a car. Then the factory is backed up and downtime cost jumps to $3350 per min.

As a maintenance engineer for John Deere Co. in the 1970s, this writer was highly motivated by downtime figures of $250-$750 per hr—motivated to find ways to avoid, reduce, or eliminate downtime wherever possible. How much more motivating is lean maintenance reliability today?

Six Sigma for increased uptime
The answer to increased reliability and uptime of computers, telecom equipment, machine tools, automation controls, hydraulic systems, electronics, etc., used in lean manufacturing and other lean environments can be derived from Six Sigma’s Y = f(x) and DMAIC. That is as long as the wrong (apparent) path is not followed, as explained below.

Before Six Sigma, analysis began by gathering “cause,” “effect,” and “result” information on each maintenance downtime situation. For example:

Cause—Bad CAU2 circuit board

Effect—X-Y axis cutting egg shapes rather than circles

Result—Scrap parts, downtime

Log books with this format were placed at each machine. Each machine maintenance situation was detailed by the electrician or mechanic as soon as the machine was repaired and the cause was known and corrected.

Soon the analysis database looked something like Table 1.

As this history table of malfunctions and failures is examined, there is little commonality in cause but great commonality in result. Even the effect is often similar from dissimilar causes.

Six Sigma improvement methods would express these malfunctions and failures in terms of Y = f(x) where Y is the malfunction, error, or defect which results from a function of x. Using this approach, three possibilities are apparent:

• Y as the effect and (x) as the cause
• Y as the result and (x) as the effect
• Y as the result and (x) as the cause

It seemed important to focus on the third approach using the result (Y) and the cause (x) to try and reduce Y (downtime, scrap, and rework). More recent years of experience also show that eliminating or reducing Y also results in increased precision, repeatability, and yield for semiconductor and nanotechnology fabrication and other process industries.

The problem is there does not seem to be much commonality in the cause (x) factors as is expected by Six Sigma methodology. This would normally suggest the need for a more elaborate, expensive, and time-consuming predictive maintenance program. With enough tracking, mean time between failure (MTBF) should be able to be calculated and a prediction made as to when these devices and components are about to fail so they can be replaced before they fail.

Identify stresses
At John Deere, this was the apparent path when a single downtime situation, caused by a failed axis drive board, shocked this writer into a huge paradigm shift. It was written into the log book:

Cause—Bad axis drive board

Effect—X axis oscillation

Result—Scrap, downtime

But the simple observation was made, “No wonder the board failed, it’s too hot in that cabinet!”. There was a “cause of the cause.” It was instantly clear that heat stress was causing much of the higher downtime experienced every summer with this vintage of CNC lathe and the stress for each downtime situation in our log books should have been identified:

Heat—Caused—Bad axis drive board

Effect—X axis oscillation

Result—Scrap, downtime

And what are the other stresses that cause electronic, hydraulic, and automation equipment downtime? In this instance the (x) factor was heat. Y (scrap and downtime) was happening as a function of (x), heat.

What are the other basic stresses that cause these seemingly random malfunctions, failures, and downtime? That very day, brainstorming identified these stresses: heat; vibration; dirt buildup; oxidation; corrosion; power surges, lightning storm transients, etc.; and hydraulic contamination.

The first efforts to eliminate heat by adding a cabinet air conditioner proved so effective that the focus moved completely away from predictive maintenance to stress elimination to prolong rather than predict MTBF. Eliminating a stress or hardening equipment against stress resulted in such an increase in MTBF that there was little sense in predicting failure when we were still finding ways to prevent the failure, prolong reliability, and increase uptime.

Now our maintenance history table looked like Table 2.

In Six Sigma terms, (x) had been identified. Of course not all seven (x) factors are present and active on any given computer, machine, or piece of equipment. But, in the 25 years since that discovery, I have not been able to add to that list of basic stresses. Sometimes there are other key issues, such as poor design, operator abuse, or inadequate component ratings, but even these can frequently be endured and downtime avoided by eliminating the related stress.

Eliminate stresses
Now the question is what are the most cost-effective ways to eliminate these stresses. Or, how can equipment be protected against the unavoidable presence of these stresses? Possibly the most effective way to make sure these questions get answered and acted upon is to use Six Sigma and its DMAIC model:

• Define the problem
• Measure the problem
• Analyze how the problem can be eliminated
• Implement the solution, and
• Control the solution to ensure it continues and is improved if practical (kaizen).

At John Deere’s Dubuque Works, 2 years of analyzing and implementing solutions resulted in cutting unscheduled maintenance downtime by 50-60 percent.

Future articles will discuss these seven chronic stresses to keep production moving with lean reliability. MT

Howard C. Cooper is founder of AMEMCO, P.O. Box 211, Kaysville, UT 84037; (801) 859-2073

Table 1. Maintenance history of malfunctions and failures

back to article

Table 2. Maintenance history with stresses identified

back to article