When a steam turbine in a Midwest power plant went down without warning, half of the plant's production was instantly lost for months (along with substantial revenue from the power that should have been generated).

Could the outage have been prevented? Apparently so. Plant management immediately went shopping for a new online system that would not only monitor the turbine's operation continuously, but gather diagnostic data capable of revealing unrecognized internal problems in time for corrective action to prevent a similar failure in the future.

In this day of advanced technology, it is both possible and essential to access decision-making information about the operating condition of critical equipment—not just a "trip" signal that comes only after significant internal damage has actually occurred. Some companies are putting productivity at risk by continuing to rely only on "protection" systems for their critically important turbomachinery. Protection is vital, but it is only part of the complete solution for turbomachinery.

A complete strategy for protecting critical machinery covers three real-world scenarios using four monitoring components. These real-world scenarios are:

• Unpredictable events
• Predictable events
• Controllable events

Unpredictable scenarios are events that happen suddenly and without warning. For example, a metallurgical imperfection or slug of water from the boiler may cause a blade to snap suddenly. If such an event occurs, a decision to trip must come instantly and be integrated with process control to orchestrate the machine, area, or plant shutdown. In addition, machine health information gathered before and during the trip will aid the assessment of what happened.

Predictable events are machine malfunctions that are detected and tracked months in advance of a planned outage. Maintenance planners use this information to identify the area of the fault and fault type, to gauge its severity, order parts and plan the outage. When machine malfunctions in this category are monitored, business decisions can be made to continue running the machine and possibly damage the machine versus determining the optimal time for scheduling the outage, manpower and parts. In parallel, the protection system is monitoring for a sudden turn for the worse to protect from catastrophic failure.

Controllable events represent a class of scenarios that provide the largest return on investment for monitoring capital outlay. In addition, controllable scenarios provide the best opportunity to optimize processes and performance. For example, on an unusually cold day, the operator ramps up the turbine and receives an oil whirl vibration alert from the predictive vibration monitoring system and simultaneously sees a low temperature alarm from the process control system on that same bearing. This is a controllable scenario, and the operator knows exactly what to do. Reducing the RPM of the turbine will immediately stop oil whirl from damaging the bearing. Solving the low oil temperature problem will keep the turbine out of the damaging oil whirl condition when the turbine is brought back online. In controllable scenarios, an operator simultaneously has both machine health and process status/health and is able to avoid problems that would otherwise lead to degraded machine health.

The four monitoring components required for a complete solution are:

• Protection monitoring
• Prediction monitoring
• Performance monitoring
• Integration of the above to process control

Predictive maintenance of rotating assets is best practiced using information gathered through vibration monitoring. Sometimes, this data signals big trouble down the road, allowing analysts to make a judgment as to when a failure might be expected. Based on their prediction, immediate repairs may be necessary in time to avoid the failure. It may be possible to delay repairs until a scheduled plant shutdown— or let them go altogether. Ultimately, this technology helps the plant and maintenance managers make business decisions about what to do—and when and how to do it. The result is generally a far less expensive proposition than reacting after something breaks.

Yet, according to a Deloite & Touche study, more than 50% of industry maintenance man-hours are spent fixing equipment after a failure has occurred, whereas less than 18% of those hours are spent determining when equipment might fail and acting accordingly. Those numbers will improve as more maintenance departments implement solid predictive maintenance programs based on online vibration monitoring of key machines.

The "most critical" category usually involves only about 5% of rotating assets, but this small number of machines represents an easy target for a complete online monitoring solution. In layman's terms, it's like picking the proverbial "low hanging fruit"—with enormous financial returns on a single "find" with a controllable outcome.

Online monitoring
Continuous online monitoring of rotating machinery represents technology well beyond systems that provide only periodic snapshots of an operation. Yet, some critical situations can be averted only if a stream of data regarding the current condition of the equipment is available. Fortunately, it is now possible to continuously obtain information about the health of a whole range of gas or steam turbines, generators, compressors, fans, motors, pumps and the like (see Sidebar). Equipment essential to the success of the operation can be watched automatically for changing vibration patterns and rising temperatures—sure signs of impending trouble.

Some of the earliest automated monitoring systems were dedicated to expensive steam-driven power generating turbines. Data received directly from a machine are stored on a hard drive, buffered and presented in a variety of plots that depict exactly what is occurring within that machine. Maintenance engineers and machine specialists suddenly had never-before-available information to use in analyzing changes in the machine's operation.

When properly interpreted, these signals will pinpoint the location, nature and the severity of developing problems. Data from automated monitoring systems enable plant personnel to predict with greater accuracy when a machine will need maintenance to prevent damage and avoid lost production. Machinery health management recognizes the significance of each machine in a production environment, focusing greater attention on those machines that, if stopped, would likely shut down all or a major section of the plant. Online monitoring assures that the condition of these machines is being assessed continuously.

Performance monitoring
Another technology that can be applied to protect critical machinery compares machine performance with a thermodynamic efficiency performance model. Compressors, boilers and steam or gas turbines are the most commonly modeled types of equipment, but a thermodynamic model can be computed on literally any machine in a plant. Equipment performance deteriorates primarily due to fouling or build-up on blades and other surfaces, thus leading to less efficiency. The consequence is more energy usage and potential lost throughput.

Equipment performance monitoring systems use existing process measurements, pass them through the thermodynamic model and provide a true picture of how well that machine is actually performing. In other terms, actual efficiency loss versus design for the given operating conditions is determined. While plant personnel may be aware that the performance of a piece of equipment is below normal, they may not know the significant cost of lost heat rate and excess energy usage. This information also can help lead to the root cause of degradation.

The most important element of performance monitoring is the expertise required to build the thermodynamic model and then distill and validate the large amount of input data. By utilizing the performance model to analyze this information and formulate actionable recommendations, performance specialists are able to identify lagging performance that has not been recognized by either production or maintenance personnel.

Because the model input data comes from the existing process measurements commonly found already in the site's historian, the data can be analyzed by either onsite systems or remotely with off-site specialists. Analysis based on thermodynamic modeling also enables a specialist to predict with reasonable accuracy when a piece of equipment needs to be taken out of service for either recovery of lost efficiency or a comprehensive overhaul. A machine's future performance is evaluated based on its history in order to predict when the efficiency of that unit will drop below a certain financial or performance threshold, signaling when it should be taken out of service. In this way, performance monitoring complements predictive maintenance.

Pulling it all together Let's look at how a complete solution like the one described in this article would work in a typical turbomachinery application. In Fig. 1, the sensors mounted to bearings on a critically important machine provide a continuous flow of vibration measurements. A large turbo generator may have more than 10 bearings with two sensors at each bearing plus other unique instrumentation—like speed sensors, differential expansion sensors and case expansion sensors. There could be as many as nine different types of measurements at various locations down a machine train.

The cables leading from these sensors are connected to new online monitoring hardware that is the foundation for the complete online solution. By measuring for detailed vibration, in addition to peak vibration, the new turbomachinery protection system, which is intended as a retrofit on shutdown systems, has the ability to recognize developing machinery conditions as well as detect a severe condition requiring a shutdown to protect the machine.

Ideally, the signs of potential failure have been observed, predicted and attended to so that vibration never gets to the level where "protection," i.e. shutdown, is necessary. In the rare unpredictable scenario of a rapid catastrophic failure, the machine is protected.

Machinery health parameters are integrated with the plant's control system. For the first time, vibration monitoring becomes an extension of the central control system, which often monitors temperature, pressure, load, etc., any one of which could be symptomatic of a problem. Vibration monitoring actually monitors the position and the motion of the shaft inside the bearings. That information is now integrated with the control room, making operators aware of what is happening deep inside a critical machine—such information is of much greater value than just the symptoms of degrading performance.

Up to 50% of machinery problems are process induced. If they are not caused by operators directly, they are the result of standard procedures used by control room personnel. When adjustments are made under these conditions without machine health feedback, tradeoffs occur. Improvements are made to production, but operations personnel are blind to the stress placed on machinery health.

When the operators have real-time supervisory and vibration parameters at their disposal, they can observe the impact of process adjustments on a machine's health and learn what steps can be taken to actually improve performance. For example, during the start-up of a turbine, if case expansion or rotor eccentricity levels are not within acceptable limits, operators can make realtime adjustments to ramp rates and also make business decisions to optimize the ramp rate versus the impact on machinery health. Informed real-time decisions are best made when vibration data is integrated with the process automation system.

Conclusions
For the most critical rotating equipment in the plant environment, three scenarios must be accounted for: the unpredictable, the predictable and the controllable. The complete solution covers all three scenarios by providing protection monitoring, prediction monitoring and performance monitoring all integrated with the process control system.

Monitoring systems utilizing advanced predictive technologies are giving end users newer, faster and more complete methods for analysis and automated analysis—information that can be acted upon. MT

Deane Horn is a systems engineer for Emerson’s Machinery Health Management group. He’s been with the corporation since 1997, when he joined Emerson Process Management’s Asset Optimization Division as an online systems consultant supporting domestic and international. Prior to that, Horn spent eight years with Westinghouse Electric Corp. working with systems test and integration. He received his BSEE from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

When economics inspire belt-tightening, corporate leadership often cuts programs that don't scream savings and profit. After all, those programs cost money to implement and maintain, and their effectiveness and return on investment often is unproven.

For a program to survive this scrutiny, it must stand on its own value. Root cause analysis (RCA) is one such program. Executives who are not close to the RCA process might notice only the expenses for employee training (or perhaps they only notice the high profile RCAs that occasionally occur). People closer to the RCA program have an intuitive sense of the program's value—enough to know that it should serve as the cost-cutting tool rather than becoming a victim.

When management is evaluating the maintenance function, it may be fairly easy to see how RCA is helping to cut costs, but not so obvious that it is generating revenue. Historically, many managers have not shared information about business revenue and profit margins with the maintenance team. In some cases, the managers themselves do not know the profitability metrics. When this occurs, maintenance teams might not be aware of their own bigger-picture revenue impact. Thankfully, this situation is changing.

So, how can RCA program champions in maintenance develop a tangible understanding of the associated benefits, cost savings and profit generation within the context of revenue goals? Further, how can the RCA champions effectively inspire senior leaders to recognize the returnon- investment? What exactly are the results, why are they worth calculating and sharing, and how is this best accomplished? Can the case be presented powerfully enough for executives to recognize that investing more in the RCA program will pay off in the short and long term?

Sample RCA results
Client savings data indicates that many companies see the immediate return on money invested in RCA training. In our company's experience, a fair estimate of initial training costs per person—including software and training courses—is about $1500. In most cases, if one trained person completes just one RCA and implements solutions, the savings alone pay for an entire group training class twice over. So there's an immediate 100% return on investment (ROI). This return grows exponentially when additional people from the same class perform RCAs on a regular basis.

Once the RCA program is up and running, the paybacks start to roll in, as the following companies reported.

• A global chemical company evaluated more than 100 RCAs performed by its reliability engineers and found the average value returned on each to be $75,000 USD per year. The average cost per RCA, including solutions, was $1500, yielding an ROI of 4900% after one year. RCA also is a key part of this company's safety program, where it has realized more than a 75% improvement in its injury and illness incident rate—from 2.4 to 0.59—in an eight-year period.
• A second global chemical company found that each RCA resulted in $17,000 USD per year savings by eliminating maintenance problems. This organization's average ROI on each RCA was 1100% after the first year.
• A manufacturing company saved $1,300,000,000 USD through RCA, by discovering an innovative solution to one of its product problems. In that same RCA, this company also discovered $19,000,000 USD per year in previously unknown waste that could be eliminated.
• A global telecommunications company has saved millions of dollars by using RCA to analyze and correct problems in its global mobile phone and networking business through reduced service interruptions and outages.

Calculating results
It's surprising so that many companies fail to calculate and communicate payback or ROI on RCA, considering the impressive results these types of analyses often deliver. Plain and simple, there's a perception that it's too difficult—or even impossible—to obtain the data needed. For most of us who don't design rockets for a living, having exact data is rare. (For those who do design rockets, having exact data also is a rarity.) Still, by using conservative data, an organization should be able to develop defendable metrics that demonstrate the value of its RCA. Remember, data is used to draw conclusions for the end-goal of making a decision. With a little digging, sufficient data normally is available to make very solid decisions—resulting in admirable payback.

Herein lies an opportunity to understand that you can be conservative—and, accordingly, relatively accurate—without having exact data. When calculating payback, you need close estimates. If an organization spends a great deal of time seeking the ultimate precision in this data, it likely is spending more time than the situation warrants. The result is diminishing utility from the additional precision, as well as from problems that are allowed to linger on a little longer and cost a little bit more. Penciling in conservative estimates is the safest. Even if other people reviewing the data are inclined to poke holes in your approach, you can objectively respond that the savings or income is probably much higher.

Since arriving at these figures may seem easier said than done, why and how did the previously mentioned companies do it? Calculating the results of qualitative programs enables their champions to evaluate program effectiveness individually and collectively. Calculating ROI illuminates needs for program improvement and—when done thoroughly and reasonably—earns credibility within the organization.

Return on investment Return on Investment (ROI) = Net Savings/Cost x 100 Where:

Net Savings = Annual Cost of a problem before RCA minus annual cost of problem after RCA solutions are implemented minus cost to implement RCA and solutions

Cost = Annualized Cost of: (RCA + Solution + RCA training)

• 

  What are your initial costs, including training, software and hardware? For RCA training costs, if you don't know for sure, a one-time cost of $1500 per person is common.
• What does it cost to conduct an RCA?
  • When in doubt, guess high to generate a conservative estimate that will be considered credible. It would not be out of line to see the following:
    • Four people might each spend 2.5 hours involved in a single RCA, totaling 10 hours. In addition, the facilitator might spend approximately 10 hours researching the problem, securing the RCA team, preparing for the RCA and writing the follow-up report. Estimating that each of those combined 20 hours is worth about $100, the cost of this RCA would be approximately $2000.
• What are your assumptions regarding your capacity and value?
  • For instance, if you implement a project that streamlines a process and increases capacity, did the additional product sell? When there are incremental increases in throughput, uptime, equipment reliability and maintenance savings, there may be revenue improvement. The key is whether enough demand exists so that all of the product you are able to make is sold. Every additional unit sold contributes to the bottom line. The value of the additional profit resulting from the additional sales should be included in the RCA "value." In the eyes of executives, that's where the real value is.
  • Use product profitability values that are recognized by the business' accounting department, when possible. These are the numbers common to the leaders—and what are typically used in other business decisions. If your leaders are unaware of the profitability numbers, kindly seek out the business accountant who does know the numbers and then share that data broadly. Once people understand the business profitability numbers, better "spend" decisions will be made across the board.
• Will you use revenue or Net Profit in your calculations?
  • Net Profit is recommended. In its simplest form, Net Profit is the price you charge your customer for your product minus the cost to produce it. It's important to factor in a "cost of goods sold" that includes overhead, utilities, labor, raw materials, etc. If you simply use "revenue" (product sales price multiplied by the sales volume), your numbers will be very high (probably four to five times too high).
  • When calculating your costs, include expenses related to analysis, problem-solving and solutions. In a typical equipment failure situation, an average maintenance shop might add up the costs of equipment, parts and labor. That's a good start, but it's not the whole picture. There are many other ancillary costs that are important to tally, such as safety inspections, insurance premium increases, fines and litigation. What is the total cost to the organization beyond the maintenance department?
• What are your safety assumptions?
  • What value do you place on a near miss, OSHA reportable or lost time injury? A commonly used figure is $35,000.
• Will you include manpower—you would pay the individual regardless?
  • Be careful! You should only take credit for maintenance labor savings if your organization, as standard procedure, reduces headcount as reliability improves and work is eliminated. For example, if the solutions from your RCA on a chronic compressor failure completely eliminate future failures, unless you reduce the paid hours of your full-time or contract maintenance personnel, you are not saving maintenance money and should not take credit for this in your payback calculations.

Example ROI calculation
The following problem description and calculations illustrate the return on investment from a successful RCA. A product dryer was experiencing 30 failures per year. Lost profit from lost product sales due to dryer downtime was approximately $750,000 per year. Out-of-pocket repair costs were running approximately $150,000 per year. The RCA resulted in a solution with a capital cost of $180,000 and an annual operating cost of $10,000. The RCA costs (team meeting and lab testing time) totaled $25,000. The failure rate after solution implementation went to less than one per year. (Note: a conservative assumption of one failure per year will be used.) Assume five-year life for capital, RCA and training costs. (Note: a conservative assumption will be made to charge all training costs against this RCA. In reality, this cost would be spread over many other RCAs.)

So, if we annualize one-time costs over a five-year period we come up with the results in the worksheet shown in Table I.

Beyond the numbers
The ROI reflected in the sample worksheet in Table I actually is low compared to the average return on investment for RCA. That ranges between 2000% and 3000%. Thus, if your maintenance organization is seeking to stretch a shrinking budget, Root Cause Analysis can be one of the best tools you have. RCA will not only reduce costs, it will improve net profitability when applied to capacity-limiting problems. If you are not performing RCA—or if you're under-utilizing it—and you are feeling the pressure to cut costs and show value, RCA should be high on your list of priorities. MT

Chris Eckert is president of Apollo Associated Services, an innovator in root cause analysis training, consulting and investigations. Formerly a reliability engineer with Dow Chemical and Rohm Haas, Eckert is a registered Professional Engineer and a Certified Maintenance and Reliability Professional. Telephone: (281) 218- 6400; e-mail: ceckert@apollorca.com

In the multi-step process of moving lubricants from THEIR tanks to YOUR equipment, where does contamination start? At what point do dirt and/or moisture enter the supply chain? Is it a problem with storage, handling, dispensing or a combination? This three-part series aims to answer these questions once and for all. Based on studies of actual field data of the cleanliness of new oil put into equipment, it will provide recommendations on how to more effectively guarantee cleanliness in the future. A continuing themme in this series will be the fact that it takes a strong, cooperative effort among lubricant supplier, distributor/marketer and end user for any oil cleanliness program to be successful (see Fig. 1).

Most lubricants purchased today come from a distributor and are delivered in the following ways:

• Bulk shipments from the lube blending plant delivered directly to the customer
• Bulk shipments from stored lubricants at the distributor
• Drums and pails filled at the blend plant and delivered by distributor
• Drums and pails filled at distributor from oil in tankage How the lubricant is delivered by the distributor will have a major impact on oil cleanliness.

The lubricant blender also plays a key role in oil cleanliness.

Typically, turbine and hydraulic oils are sent out of the blend plant at a cleanliness of 19/17/14. Once it is put in trucks or drums, the delivered oil will not be as clean. (One major manufacturer that is filtering hydraulic oil and putting it in new sealed steel drums, however, is achieving a cleanliness rating of 14/11/9. There is a cost for this procedure, but customers know they will receive very clean hydraulic oil as a result of it.)

Some companies may require special handling of their oils. A case in point is General Electric, which has a minimum cleanliness rating for turbine oils of 16/13. This is achieved by delivering filtered turbine oil to GE in a dedicated bulk truck. Lubricant suppliers are providing this service either directly from the blend plant or through filtration at the distributor.

The end user also has a responsibility to maintain oil cleanliness. Oil can become dirty very quickly if it is not handled or dispensed properly. The customer needs to cooperate closely with the lube blender and distributor to develop a program achieving targeted oil cleanliness levels economically.

Scope of this study
In our study, new lubricants are being evaluated for two major contaminants: particles and water. All laboratory test work is being conducted by MRT Laboratories, an ISO 17025-2005 certified laboratory in Houston, TX. The following tests are being performed:

• Viscosity @ 40 C
• Karl Fischer Water Determination
• ISO 4406 Particle Count
• Emission Spectroscopy

The following samples were purchased from four major lubricant manufacturers for evaluation:

• ISO 32 turbine oil
• ISO 46 AW hydraulic oil
• ISO 220 EP gear oil
• ISO 100 R&O oil

As shown in Fig. 2, the lubricant flow through a distributor operation is being examined for both water and particle contamination. The major focus will be on turbine and hydraulic oils. Fluid cleanliness will be examined at each stage to determine the effect of storage and handling on contamination

The final phase of the study will be focusing on end user handling of lubricants. Very clean fluid can be delivered to the plant, but without proper handling all efforts for clean oil are wasted.

Lubricants at several end-use facilities will be examined to determine the introduction of contaminants at the various stages of lubricant dispensing (as indicated by Fig. 3). The use of filters and filter carts in the achieving of fluid cleanliness targets also will be examined.

After all study data is collected, recommendations will be made on the optimum way to achieve fluid cleanliness in the most economical way. Subsequent installments in this series will address best practices for lubricant blenders, distributors and end users.

ISO 4406: 1999 Cleanliness Code
Cleanliness will be measured by the use of an optical laser counter that measures the number and size of various particles. Although this procedure was discussed thoroughly in a previous article on oil cleanliness (see pgs. 34-35, Lubrication Management & Technology, September/October 2007), it will be reviewed here.

The data in Table I are used to assign a cleanliness code number for a fluid:

The = 14 micron. The number of particles is measured with a particle counter and recorded by size per milliliter of fluid. Take, for example, a fluid with the following particle count:

= 4 micron = 8500/ml
= 6 micron = 1650/ml
= 14 micron = 300/ml

The shorthand notation according to ISO 4406:1999 would be 20/18/15 for this fluid. A lower number represents a cleaner fluid. Note, too, that a one-number increase in the cleanliness code represents a doubling in the number of particles. The other articles in this three-part series will utilize this code to represent fluid cleanliness.

Conclusion
Oil cleanliness is a very timely topic. Many end users today are demanding cleaner oil without understanding the costs involved. The next articles in this series will address the issue of the cleanliness of oil currently supplied and best practices to assure that the oil will be clean when put into the equipment. The relationship between the lubricant supplier, distributor and end user needs to be cooperative and not adversarial. They all need to work with one another to assure clean oil at an economical cost.

Realistic cleanliness goals need to be established by equipment type before any program is implemented. A total program needs to be established, including the use of proper filtration when the fluid is in the equipment. This filtration also has been discussed in a previous article (pgs. 8-12, Lubrication Management & Technology, November/December 2007). Like everything else, effective filtration requires a strong cooperative effort between the end user and the filter manufacturer.

The second installment in this series will appear in the October issue of Maintenance Technology. MT

Ray Thibault is based in Cypress (Houston), TX. An STLECertified Lubrication Specialist and Oil Monitoring Analyst, he conducts extensive training in a number of industries. Telephone: (281) 257-1526; e-mail rlthibault@msn.com

Mark Graham is technical services manager for O'Rourke Petroleum in Houston, TX. Telephone: (713) 672-4500; e-mail: mgraham@orpp.com

A new handheld test tool makes high-end electrical troubleshooting easier than you thought.

If anyone can wring every last ounce of functionality out of a piece of electronic test equipment, it's Chris Vogel. At Siemens Building Technologies, Vogel has his work cut out for him keeping HVAC systems running at their peak for the company's large commercial customers during peak Florida weather marked by seemingly nonstop 90 F temperatures and 95% humidity. And that's just one of the challenges faced by technicians at Siemens Building Technologies, which plays a more sweeping role in its customers' success: ensuring energy efficiency, comfort, protection against unauthorized access, and fire safety year-round for every building or office

Vogel, an HVAC technician, becomes energized when discussing the return on investment in his handheld ScopeMeter® Test Tool. "Out at one large site, where we monitor and troubleshoot variable frequency drives (VFDs), component-level repair can often mean the difference between a $20 repair part and a $100,000 repair bill. I know firsthand, because we recently documented that very scenario."

On large VFDs, Vogel uses his ScopeMeter to uncover capacitance problems, transistor firing mishaps and even bleed-throughs on a gate. "Of course, a transistor is basically a lightning-fast switch," he says. "It switches back and forth between open and closed, and it can sometimes start to break down. When that happens, motors will start doing weird things. For example, at load stage. We'll actually see the motor banging back and forth as if it is not sure which way to turn."

Multitasking problem solver
Vogel thinks it's important that a technician be able to characterize VFD problems by capturing a waveform from the offending drive. His premise: A signal is much more telling when presented in a waveform view than in a single static voltage reading. The signal has a shape and value that may look right at a glance, but could just as easily have a distortion or rough "edge," or a commentary spike almost too short to be seen. Either problem, or a host of other signal anomalies, would be indistinguishable with just a numeric reading of the signal.

"The scope allows me to record information from a number of sources—sine waves on the VFD inputs and outputs, current and voltage—and compare it, so that I can derive a power factor for the circuit," Vogel illustrates. Vogel is able to store up to 25 permanent records for recall at any time. "Sometimes I will see a suspect waveform and say, here's what it looks like during this slice of time, but here's what it should look like." With that, he recalls a stored image of the same waveform, recorded when the drive was operating properly. "Storage scopes create a graphical representation of the problem, versus a merely empirical value that a multimeter would show. Of course, with ScopeMeter, we get both."

With the weather patterns and lightning in Florida, Vogel explains, it's not uncommon for line voltages to rise and fall precipitously. "We were working on a current source drive that I wanted to retrofit, because it had taken a hit from a lightning bolt." At the time, technicians suspected that the drive had been damaged beyond economical repair, and they decided to replace the drive itself, but not the main feeds.

Shortly after the drive began to ground-fault and failures in the building's electrical distribution network began to show up, the customer asked Vogel to come out. After doing some low-level diagnostics—throwing amp clamps on the wires and comparing phases and phase draws—he placed a ScopeMeter on the system and discovered there was a lot of line notching (Fig. 1) going on.

Vogel explains that nonlinear ac loads—loads in which voltage and current are out of phase—create harmonic distortion (see Fig. 2 on the following page). Examples of nonlinear loads include welders, VFDs and battery chargers. Distortion is a result of the non-sinusoidal waveform the drive generates, Vogel notes. He goes on: "Any time you have long conduit runs, the wires create magnetic fields around themselves. With harmonic distortion, current is actually reflected back into the wiring. It becomes a self-sustaining loop. (As shown in Fig. 1), that's what we call line notching. As you switch the ac current on and off, it's the equivalent of opening and
closing a valve on a water pipe very fast, causing pulsations
in the flow. Line notching is the electrical equivalent
of that phenomenon."

Circling back to the original problem, Vogel notes that the high current for each of the three phases had led the original installers to use four parallel conduits for each phase. In such a configuration, a smaller conductor for each phase would typically have been run down a single conduit, with multiple conduits going to the equipment and each smaller conductor terminated on a terminal block for its appropriate phase. But instead, the installers had run feeds A and B in one conduit, B and C in another and C and A in the third. "The drives were passing almost 42 A to ground, causing them to trip on ground faults and over-voltages," Vogel says. "Of course, with the phase conductors running through conduits and the sheer number of conductors (sixteen 500 MCM runs), they were concealed, and nobody had thought to look further."

A better look at power factor
Vogel recently was called on to solve a power factor problem in a large commercial building where a number of aging 250 hp chiller motors were in service. In high ambient weather conditions, these old chillers would load up, and Vogel could use ScopeMeter to see the phases moving farther and farther apart (Fig. 3).

As the chill water temperature came down, the power factor would drop nominally from about 0.7, which was acceptable, to about 0.32—the lowest Vogel had ever seen it. Then, as he ‘staged' the equipment down—namely, drives on the cooling towers, drives on the primary loop pumps and drives on the primary chill water system—the phases would come back in sync and the power factor would rise again.

"You can view readings on the meter," Vogel notes, "but you don't understand what's causing the powerfactor drop until you look at the waveform itself." As he tells it, you can see the field collapsing as the motor winds down, and you can see the current and voltage phases come closer to being in sync (Fig. 4). As the power factor comes back and approaches 1.0, it's fascinating to watch, and the customer is more likely to understand the problem. More importantly, it helps one understand how to correct the problem.

Capturing the benefits
One of Vogel's new projects is to install power-factor correction capacitors on an MCC (Motor Control Center) panel at a utility customer's site. The capacitors will be installed in parallel with the connected circuits. This is not just about improving power factor, but about keeping costs in line.

Many electric utilities charge building owners a penalty for low power factor. (One utility, for example, charges building owners $0.14 per kVAR hour when power factor drops below 0.97.)

According to Vogel's calculations, with an added 65 kVARs of capacitance, it's about a $200,000 proposition to add these caps. The customer is running two 800-ton machines fully loaded during the peak of summer in 95 F Florida heat and 90% humidity.

Essentially, the customer's air conditioning plant is running at 100% electrically, but not mechanically, Vogel points out, noting that the customer's electric bill varies from $50,000 to $60,000 a month. "We determined that, if we can increase the power factor on this panel to 0.85, the customer's electrical consumption will drop by almost one-third. That correction, considering the utility's high power consumption, will give them a payback period of less than one year. And, they could get additional capacity without any work on the mechanical system!"

ScopeMeter, Vogel says, is what identified the problem. "We took it to the customer and said ‘Hey, as we stage these motors down, as we shut things off, your power factor starts to rise again.' First, we measured the signal on the MCC panel, and then we measured the signal on their main power panel. We set the same function up on the chiller plant, and we could see the power factor clean up."

Vogel confirms that everyone now understands the nature of the problem, explaining that he had directed the customer to an Internet site where he could calculate his own energy savings from improving power factor. "Next, we stood by as the customer observed the current dropping with modifications to the panel, not to mention that they started to see immediate reductions in total kilowatts used. Down here you can't beat the heat, but you can make it a little bit more palatable."

"You'll laugh, but I'm a union pipe fitter by trade," Vogel says, "and here I am doing high-end electrical troubleshooting. The ScopeMeter has taken my trade in a whole new direction." MT

Hilton Hammond is product manager for Fluke Precision Measurement. A technical expert on ScopeMeter test tool products, LCR meters and video test equipment, he has worked for Fluke Corporation for nine years. Originally from South Africa, Hammond began his career in calibration. Telephone: (425) 446-5381; e-mail: hilton. hammond@fluke.com

SERVOMEX APPOINTS HURLEY AS GM AMERICAS

Servomex, a supplier of reliable, high-performance gas analysis solutions to a wide range of industries, has named Charles "Chuck" Hurley as general manager of Servomex Americas, effective immediately. Hurley comes to his new position from gas detection manufacturer Honeywell Analytics, where his previous responsibilities included the design, manufacture, sales and service of industrial gas detection in a variety of roles, including director of global services and European service manager. His appointment is one of several moves by Servomex to emphasize ongoing improvements in manufacturing, supply and customer service. Among these moves has been the recent establishment of three region-specific business centers dedicated to providing an enhanced pre-sales and post-sales support to customers in the EMEA, Americas and Asia Pacific regions respectively. (Editor's Note: The Servomex Americas Business Center is located in Sugar Land, TX.)

NEW HEADMASTER FOR LITTLE RED SCHOOLHOUSE®

Larry Konopacz has been appointed manager of Training and Education at Bell & Gossett's Little Red Schoolhouse® in Morton Grove, IL. He succeeds Roy Ahlgren who retired in March of this year. Konopacz began his ITT career in 1983 as a junior CNC programmer in Bell & Gossett's Manufacturing Engineering Department, and progressed through a series of managementlevel engineering positions. During that time, he programmed many of the major components used in a variety of the company's products. In 1992, he transitioned from engineering to manufacturing before being named factory manager in 1995. Konopacz is an ITT certified VBSS Black Belt and Lean Master. He holds BS and MS degrees in Industrial Technology from Western Illinois University, and an MBA in Managerial Accounting from DePaul.

SKF SET TO ACQUIRE PEER BEARING COMPANY

SKF has signed an agreement with the owners of U.S.-based PEER Bearing Company (PEER) to acquire PEER and its manufacturing operations in China and Thailand. Headquartered in Waukegan, IL, PEER primarily manufactures deep groove ball bearings and tapered roller bearings, most of which are sold to North American customers. In 2007 the company had approximately 1400 employees and sales of almost $100M. According to SKF, the acquisition is expected to strengthen the corporation's presence in certain North American market segments that it doesn't currently serve, including Mechanical Power Transmission. PEER will continue to operate as a stand-alone business, acting independently on the market under its existing PEER brand. The proposed transaction is subject to certain conditions to closing and requires approvals by relevant authorities.

MOTOROLA MAKES INVESTMENT IN APPRION

Motorola, Inc. through Motorola Ventures, its strategic venture capital arm, has joined a number of other groups to invest in Apprion, Inc., a supplier of advanced wireless products, applications and services for industrial plants. (Apprion notes that its IONizer product was the process industry's first industrial-grade, multi-RF, wireless network appliance.) With the Motorola investment, Apprion has raised over $23.5M. Other participants in the Apprion funding include Anvil Investment Associates LP, CTTV Investments LLC, the venture capital arm of Chevron Technology Ventures, Advanced Circle 65 or visit www.MT-freeinfo.com Technology Ventures and Allegis Capital.

ASSOCiation News: TYCO FLOW CONTROL OPENS NEW SERVICE & REPAIR CENTER

Tyco Flow Control (TFC), a business of Tyco International Ltd., is opening a new 42,000-square-ft. service and repair center at 9560 New Decade, in Pasadena, TX this month. The facility will provide all service and repair operations previously performed at the company's Pasadena distribution center. This expansion not only allows TFC to continue providing ongoing service for pressure relief valves and tank vents, but also integrates its field service, quarter-turn, automation and control valve repair capabilities. Some of the site's square footage will be used for two new testing stands capable of testing valves up to 30" and for additional machining capabilities. MT

Well, we've done it, again. This time, though, it was a veritable squeaker. The 520-page "Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008" (the Report, by the World Economic Forum in Geneva, Switzerland, states that of 131 national economies, the U.S. "is endowed with a winning combination of highly sophisticated companies… buttressed by an excellent university system, and a strong collaboration between the educational and business sectors in research and development… The United States (is) arguably the country with the most productive and innovative potential in the world."

Impressive? Yes! But, we can't afford to get comfortable or complacent with our past and current competitiveness position. Given faltering economic conditions, escalating global competitiveness and growing shortages of skilled maintenance and manufacturing people, we are a nation at risk. Couple this with the decline of the dollar and the price of crude oil and it's easy to see that we are in the midst of an ever intensifying perfect storm. Let's take a look at what the Report tells us about our competitive advantages and disadvantages, where we stand in relationship to other industrialized and developing nations and why we're really hanging on the edge.

Pillars of Competitiveness:
The Report uses an assessment process built around 12 "Pillars of Competitiveness." Here are just a few of the overall rankings based on the 12 Pillars and their 110 competitiveness criteria for 2007-2008:

1. United States (score 5.67 out of 7.00)
2. Switzerland (score 5.62)
3. Denmark (score 5.55)
4. Sweden (score 5.54)
5. Germany (score 5.51)
6. Finland (score 5.49)
7. Singapore (score 5.45)
8. Japan (score 5.43)
9. United Kingdom (score 5.41)
10. Netherlands (score 5.40)
13. Canada (score 5.34)
18. France (score 5.18)
34. China (score 4.57)
48. India (score 4.33)
52. Mexico (score 4.26)
98. Venezuela (score 3.63)

To fully understand these rankings, we should dig deeper into some of the trends and criteria for competitiveness.

Business Competitiveness:
Yet another interesting comparison is that of "Business Competitiveness" among 127 countries studied. The Business Competitiveness Index (BCI) looks at the "sustainable underpinnings of the national economy…" This is very important since it addresses productivity and generation of wealth as the fundamental underpinning of prosperity. The Report goes on to state that "True competitiveness is measured by productivity. Productivity supports high wages, strong currency, and attractive returns on capital—and with them a high standard of living." (Underlining is my emphasis.) U.S. businesses rank as the most productive in the world. Since 2001, we have ranked at the top of the list for four out of seven years, with Finland replacing the U.S. as number one 2001, 2003 and 2004.

When we look at a number of other countries from this BCI perspective there are some very interesting comparisons from 2001 through 2007.

• Japan has risen from 16th to 10th
• Germany has risen from 5th to 2nd
• India has risen from 38th to 31st
• Canada has slipped from 11th to 14th in the BCI Index
• France has slipped from 7th to 17th
• China has slipped from 50th to 57th
• Mexico has slipped from 52nd to 64th
• Venezuela has slipped from 67th to 101st

Despite the claims of low wages that have attracted manufacturers to places like China and Mexico, these countries' overall levels of business productivity and competitiveness have slipped considerably. China's advantage simply is the size of its domestic and foreign markets. Its disadvantages, though, are rather serious: unsophisticated financial markets, unsound banks, weak higher education and training. As for Venezuela, while it's a major oil producer and may have the lowest gasoline prices in the world, it still is in a downward spiral from a competitiveness and productivity perspective, slipping from 67th to 101st!

Not so surprising is the rising competitiveness and productivity of Japan, Germany and India. Among developing nations, India has another real advantage—it ranks 4th in the availability of scientists and engineers and 22nd in the quality of scientific research institutions. This clearly separates India from other developing economies.

Manufacturing comes home
Competitiveness (of countries and businesses) has an impact on productivity of local companies. Interestingly, we now are hearing numerous reports of U.S. manufacturers closing their plants or curtailing production in China and Mexico and returning production back to the U.S. Many foreign-owned manufacturers also are beginning to expand their U.S. operations.

Productivity and a national competitiveness environment are closely related. The Report makes the following point about company sophistication and productivity: "The productivity of a country is ultimately set by the productivity of its companies. Productivity rises as companies improve their operational effectiveness and get closer to global best practices."

Senior management in many U.S. operations has been acquainted with "global best practices" whether related to general business practices, Lean Manufacturing, Lean Enterprise or maintenance and reliability improvement methodologies. There is, however, a huge difference among those companies that are aware of the best practices, those that take a "program of the month" approach and those that embrace and deploy global best practices in ways that make sustainable gains in their productivity—and, therefore, their competitiveness. This is where business and work culture changes can hamper or accelerate competitiveness.

Nation at risk
So, what's holding us back from the brink of un-competitiveness? By all reports we are a nation at risk from a number of perspectives. The Global Competitiveness Report sheds some light on several competitive disadvantages. The 12 "Pillars of Competitiveness" are divided into three main groups: Basic Requirements, Efficiency Enhancers and Innovation and Sophistication Factors. A review of the U.S. rankings shows areas where we are at a sizeable competitive disadvantage. Here is where we are most at risk of losing our competitive edge against other countries:

• Basic Requirements: U.S. ranks 23rd out of 131
• Efficiency Enhancers: U.S. ranks 1st out of 131
• Innovation and Sophistication: U.S. ranks 4th out of 131

The Basic Requirements criteria, where the U.S. records the most sizeable competitive disadvantages, include the first four of the 12 "Pillars of Competitiveness." Here is where we stand compared to 130 other nations in the following areas:

Institutions: U.S. ranks 33rd

• Favoritism of government officials (45th)
• Wastefulness of government spending (53rd)
• Business costs of terrorism (124th)
• Business cost of crime and violence (74th)
• Organized crime (75th)

Infrastructure: U.S. ranks 6th

• Quality of railroad infrastructure (14th)
• Quality of port infrastructure (11th)
• Quality of electricity supply (18th)

Macroeconomic Stability: U.S. ranks 75th

• Government surplus/deficit (91st) (repeated fiscal deficits & public indebtedness)
• National savings rate (107th)
• Government debt (89th)

Health and Primary Education: U.S. ranks 34th

• HIV/AIDS business impact (86th)
• Quality of primary education (28th)
• Primary education enrollment (69th)
• Education expenditure (43rd)

Beyond the Basics, among the Efficiency Enhancer Pillars, we also see some weakness in our Higher Education and Training (the 5th Pillar) with a rank of 5th. This Pillar notes "the importance of vocational education, continuous on-the-job training for assuring the constant upgrading of workers' skills to the changing needs of the production system." The most penalizing disadvantage is in the areas of "Secondary School Enrollments" (where the U.S. ranks 42nd) and "Quality of Math and Science Education" (U.S. ranks 45th). In the "Quality of Educational System," we rank 17th and in "Extent of Staff Training," we rank 11th.

As one studies the remaining Education and Training criteria, it is frightening how low our country ranks. Businesses and public education have missed the mark when it comes to providing the fundamental skills and knowledge for companies to be competitive and the workers to be productive.

What frustrates me about this 520-page Report are the competitiveness and productivity gaps that exist—many of which are PREVENTABLE—right here in the U.S. Remember: 1) the productivity of a country is ultimately set by the productivity of its companies; and 2) productivity rises as companies improve their operational effectiveness and get closer to global best practices. If that doesn't get the attention of business and government leaders, nothing will!

What we know
We know what it takes to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our manufacturing plants and facilities, our utilities, our transportation systems and our infrastructure. But, for the sake of saving money here and there, spending on nonessentials and cutting budgets to make quarterly financial reports look better, we undermine the productivity of our workforce and hurt the competitiveness of our businesses and our country.

What we learn and how we learn it, how we work and earn a living, who we vote for and how we hold them accountable for doing what's right are all crucial to maintaining our life styles and our standards of living. I encourage all of you who are reading this to spend time trying to understand what makes your job productive and your company competitive. Do everything you can do to help improve both. That's how we'll bring our nation back from the edge. MT

The customs, practices and behaviors exhibited within a workplace are termed "corporate culture," with each corporation, company, even individual departments revealing and immersing themselves in their own unique cultures.

Living and working within a corporate culture rarely allows an individual the opportunity to perform a cultural self-assessment without bias. That old "I can't see the forest for the trees" adage clearly sums up our self-assessment inadequacy. The ability to candidly rate ourselves is hindered for a number of specific reasons:

• Lack of knowledge pertaining to a structured audit process
• Clouding of personal judgment due to internal politics and misunderstandings
• Lack of business process knowledge
• Inability to successfully communicate with personnel at all corporate hierarchical levels

Thus, to obtain accurate, unbiased "present state" assessments, an organization will seek out and retain, or in the case of mandatory audits and some voluntary ones, "receive" the services of professional auditors.

How and why assess?
There are various reasons for assessing the current state of a corporate, company and/or departmental culture, including, for example: regulatory compliance, accreditation compliance, licensing compliance, continuous improvement, change management, etc. Most of these reasons will eventually lead to the services of an auditor.

Because auditors are trained in the audit process and are able to view the corporation or department from the "outside in"—without bias—they are better able to deliver a fast, accurate audit assessment. Audits can be divided into mandated and voluntary categories.

• Mandated audits… are compulsory, with the scope of the audit being determined and directed by the regulatory agency performing the audit. Typical mandated audits include: tax audits by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); validation audits of pharmaceutical or food companies by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); licensing audits of nuclear power plants by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
• Voluntary audits… are most likely to be selffunded with a self-determined scope. Typical voluntary audits include: ISO certification audits; present "state of maintenance" audits for companies by outside consultants; assessment audits of companies competing for awards by judging/jurying committees (the Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award and North American Maintenance Excellence [NAME] Award are two that come to mind).

Audits—regardless of type—clearly are an important issue for a business. Since maintenance is an integral part of the business, its methods, processes and results can be subject to scrutiny or audit just like those of other departments—at any time. That said, any audit of a maintenance department will tax the organization's resources. Understanding everyone's role in the process, therefore, will optimize effort.

Whether working with an internal auditor (many external audits are prepared for by utilizing internal corporate staff to stage a practice or "dry run" audit prior to the real event) or with an external auditor, the maintenance department must communicate with the auditor prior to the event. This is done to determine two very critical elements:

1. the audit scope and
2. the auditor's requirements.

What, where, how long and by whom?
Audit scope states exactly what is to be audited. In a mandated audit, the auditor will determine and provide the audit scope. For example, a nuclear power plant applying for an operational license can expect the NRC to determine the entire operation within the audit scope. On the other hand, the scope of an environmental spill audit initially will be confined to the immediate spill area.

In a voluntary audit, the corporation, company or department has the right to choose its auditor. Interviewing auditor(s) for suitability in terms of past experience, industry knowledge and their understanding of YOUR business needs is imperative. If two or more auditor candidates meet your technical needs, choose the one you feel the most comfortable partnering with, securing assurances that "who you see, is who you get" during audit time.

The next step is specifically determining and spelling out the audit scope to the auditor.

In a voluntary audit, the corporation determines exactly what is to be audited. For example, if you are undergoing ISO registration, you may choose to just register a single department, production line or process—not the entire plant. This being the case, the auditor will focus only on the methods, processes and records specific to the running and maintaining of that department, line or process.

In both mandatory and voluntary audits, once the audit scope is determined and understood, the auditor must be interviewed to determine the time and duration of the actual audit and the auditor's requirements. What does he/she want to see? During actual audits, auditors typically have limited time on site. Thus, they often will detail lists of places or items they wish to review during their visits.

Places to see might include the MRO inventory crib or the maintenance tool crib. Items to see might include a Work Order Flow process map or a PM completion report. An auditor might even ask to interview a maintainer on how the maintenance department functions.

The bright side?
Fortunately for most maintenance departments, working with an auditor is an infrequent event. When it does occur, effective communication with the auditor will facilitate the audit process and help place maintenance in a position to grow as a result of the audit findings. MT

Ken Bannister is lead partner and principal consultant for Engtech Industries, Inc. Telephone: (519) 469- 9173; e-mail: kbannister@engtechindustries.com

Many companies are taking a top-down approach to energy management through corporate commitment programs. For instance, approximately 500 industrial companies have made commitments through EPA ENERGY STAR®. Under this partnership program, corporate executives have committed staff and funding to measure, track and benchmark energy performance in their plants and buildings, to develop and implement a plan to improve facility energy performance on a continuous basis and to educate staff and the public on the results. After obtaining a commitment, key next steps are appointing an energy director to lead a dedicated energy team, draft an energy policy and establish an energy management program. (See www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=guidelines. guidelines_index for details.)

Whether your organization opts for a topdown or bottom-up path, energy management is best approached at the facility level as a team. Although the exact composition and size of the team is up to you, it is important to include representatives from key areas, such as management, engineering, purchasing and operations and maintenance. These diverse perspectives will help ensure that the team's recommendations are appropriate, achievable and—most importantly—are improvements your organization can sustain and continue to improve upon.

There's no shortage of credible resources to help your energy team to get started. In addition to the EPA ENERGY STAR program, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) offers a variety of helpful resources, including case studies, tip sheets, and diagnostic tools. For instance DOE supports a variety of software tools to help identify and assess energy savings related to pumps, fans, compressed air, process heating and steam systems. (www1.eere.energy.gov) Motor Decisions Matter^sm (MDM) has tools and resources to help manage your motor fleet, estimate costs for upgrades, and plan ahead for eventual motor failure (www.motorsmatter.org). In addition, many utilities, states and other public entities throughout the U.S. and Canada offer efficiency programs to support energy management goals, particularly at the plant level. Many of these programs are members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) and can be identified through CEE's Website.

When it comes to blunting the impact of high energy costs, securing management support is critical. Establishing an energy management team, educating your workforce about energy efficiency and taking advantage of the credible resources are great ways to get started. MT

The Motor Decisions Matter campaign is managed by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, a North American nonprofit organization that promotes energy-saving products, equipment and technologies. For further information about MDM, contact Ted Jones at tjones@cee1.org or (617) 589-3949, ext. 230.

This forward-thinking supplier is taking the type of solutions that improve efficiency and help reduce operating costs directly to end users in one of the fastest-growing industries on the planet.

SEPCO® (Sealing Equipment Products Co., Inc.), a manufacturer of fluid sealing products headquartered in Alabaster, AL, has taken an innovative approach to providing sealing solutions to the ethanol industry. World demand for alternative fuel sources has produced rapid growth and expansion of ethanol facilities, all of which has presented new demands and challenges for support companies that serve this burgeoning industry.

To meet these new challenges head-on, SEPCO has dedicated full attention to the developing bio-fuels industry by using its Mobile Ethanol Support Unit—otherwise known as "MoE"—as a tool to share its products and programs through instruction, demonstration, plant support and training.

On-site with MoE
The Mobile Ethanol Support Unit takes SEPCO support programs directly to ethanol plants. The unit serves as a classroom for hands-on training of fluid sealing products which are used in operations. Ethanol plant employees are trained on SEPCO mechanical seals that include, but are not limited to, the hot oil Seal (HOS), double tandem pumper (DTP), cartridge grease seal (CGS) and many other fluid sealing products. Another primary function of the MoE unit is to serve as a central point of support during plant outages and start-ups by providing inventory and technical assistance at the site. The MoE also can be used as a base of operations in performing plant equipment inventories/ surveys and developing fluid sealing applications to maximize equipment operational performance.

Totally self-contained, the MoE has its own computer system, audiovisual equipment and graphics and product literature. Working models of pumps for training are onboard, as is an inventory of SEPCO fluid sealing products.

According to a SEPCO spokesman, this mobile support unit has been very well received by end users. Scheduling information may be obtained by calling the company. MT

Sealing Equipment Products Co.
(SEPCO®)
Alabaster, AL

Armstrong Smart Services Group offers the SteamEye® Starter Kit for trial of wireless steam trap monitoring or expansion of operations to include additional traps. The SteamEye system provides updates every three minutes and can detect both "failed open" or "failed closed" traps. The starter kit contains all components required to begin wirelessly monitoring critical applications, including four SteamEye URFC4700 transmitters, one SteamEye 4000 Series Gateway and one SteamEye 4000 Series repeater.

Armstrong International, Inc.
Three Rivers, MI

Energy-Efficient Gearmotors

Baldor has introduced the Dodge QUANTIS GOLD, an energy-efficient C-face gearmotor that combines Dodge QUANTIS ILH (In-Line Helical) and RHB (Right Angle Helical Bevel) C-face gearmotors with Baldor•Reliance Super-E Premium Efficient Motors. QUANTIS ILH and RHB reducers are engineered for flexibility and greater torque density in a compact housing. Both feature NEMA clamp-collar design, foot mounted housing configurations, standard inch output shafts, nitrile input and output lip seals, A1 mounting and Mobilegear 600 XP 220 oil. Super-E Premium Efficient Motors offer 1800 rpm, 60 Hz, with voltages ranging from 230V to 460. Inverter-capable, they're suitable for use on inverter drives in variable torque and 20:1 constant torque applications. Motor and gearbox combinations up to 10 hp are pre-selected.

Baldor Electric Company
Fort Smith, AR

Valve Interlocks Reduce Errors

Smith Flow Conontrol's (SFC) valve interlocks systems control the sequence that process equipment is accessed and operated. The SFC QL interlock fits all types of lever-operated quarter-turn valves, including ball, butterfly and plug. The GL interlock is made for handwheel-operated valves including gate, globe and gear-operated units. The DL3 interlock, made specifically for pigtrap/pressure applications, is adaptable to all types of vessel or access closures. Constructed of stainless steel, all of these products are lubricated for life.

Smith Flow Control USA
Erlanger, KY

Bolting Made Easy

Wright Tool's line of torque multipliers includes three styles: universal tube, plate reaction and foot reaction. These tools range in output capacity from 750 to 8000 foot-pounds. Their compact, rugged, one-piece design is easy to handle and, according to the company, operators rarely need to apply more than 200 footpounds of input torque to achieve their output goal. A torque conversion chart is attached to each of these multipliers to show the input torque required for any given torque output.

Wright Tool Company
Barberton, OH

Bearing Protection

Electro Static offers two AEGIS SGR Split-Ring Bearing Protection Kits™ (one for NEMA motors and one for IEC motors). They're designed to provide clearance for shaft shoulders, slingers and other endbell protrusions while k e e p i n g b e a r i n g s safe from e l e c t r i c a l damage caused by circulating or shaft currents. Split-Ring Kits are ordered by motor frame size. Standard-size kits fit NEMA-frame motors with shaft diameters from 0.625" to 3.375" and IEC-frame motors with shaft diameters from 19mm to 95mm.

Electro Static Technology
Mechanic Falls, ME

Universally Interchangeable Worm Gearboxes

AutomationDirect
has expanded its mechanical power transmission product line to include worm gearboxes in four frame sizes and six gear ratios from 5:1 to 60:1. Constructed of cast iron one-piece housings, the IronHorse™ worm gearboxes feature a C-flange input and carbon steel shaft with either right-hand or dual shaft output and double-lipped embedded oil seals to prevent leakage. Designed to change drive direction by 90 degrees, these products are mountable in any direction, except motor pointing up. The universally interchangeable compact design ensures easy OEM replacement.

AutomationDirect
Cumming, GA

Lubricant Identification Tags

Trico's Spectrum tags and labels help users avoid lubricant cross-contamination and misapplication by identifying lubricants from storage to point of use. Available in 10 colors, the tags are easily marked with up to four lines of information using a felt tip marker, crayon or Spectrum customized label and then sealed beneath a laminate sheet to maintain readability. Optional barcoding also can be added. The tags are made of 1/16" UV inhibited plastic and designed to withstand harsh environments.

Trico Corporation
Pewaukee, WI

It has been said that PdM is like calculating and predicting when two trains moving in opposite directions on the same track will crash into each other. Knowing their respective speeds and the distance separating them will let you do that. A much more intelligent choice would be to know the distance to the nearest side spur equipped with a switch, and to then initiate appropriate changes in the speed of one train. The crash would be avoided and all involved parties would be better served.

In my opinion, as matters stand today, there is too much congratulating oneself for having accurately predicted the time and location of a disastrous crash. Only a relatively few companies realize that reliable process plant machinery is either available or feasible and can (usually) be cost-justified by due diligence.

Companies that do due diligence (i.e. engaging their brains to the fullest) are the ones that understand and reward the best choice in terms of equipment life cycle cost. They try never to automatically reward the lowest bidder with their purchase order. Instead, these smart purchasers get superior machines by expending additional design, engineering, fabrication, installation, maintenance and—above all—educational effort. Those that really get results use a combination of planning, sound specifications, well-formulated procedures and intelligent work processes. There are many reasons why these intermeshing activities are rarely in place and to list them would fill countless pages.

Suffice it to say that another key ingredient, accountability, is lacking in many instances. Many project executives are allowed to concentrate merely on cost and schedule. In essence, they are being rewarded for picking the cheapest equipment and getting it delivered in record time. From that day on, someone else is being rewarded for cobbling together the failed machine in record time. The overwhelming majority of plants then experience repeat failures—no wonder, since the reward system encourages a never-ending cycle of such failures.

Ready for a radical proposal? Start insisting on people reading books and articles that describe how the best of the best do the literally hundreds of tasks that ultimately lead to equipment uptime extension. Let them report to a designated and accountable individual on how the designs, engineering features, fabrication and installation procedures, work processes and whatever else is done at your facility differ from what can be gleaned from this incalculably important reading. Then have individuals explain the ramifications of doing it one way vs. another way.

Set realistic goals for your workers and for yourself. Aspire to a higher standard and hold people accountable for understanding how often your pumps fail—and how often they fail elsewhere, at a best-of-class facility. Then ask them what it would take to move a bit closer to the failure avoidance achievements of those "other" facilities. Follow this roadmap for everything and accept the premise that there is no other way to get there. Trust me. MT

Reference:
Bloch, H.P., Improving Machinery Reliability,
(1998) 3rd Edition, Gulf Publishing Co. (1988),
Houston, TX, ISBN 0-88415-661-3