Machinery Lubrication July August 2008

VIEWPOINT
Check Yes or No
Wherever possible, questions should be
stated in a simple yes/no format. For example,
“oil appears clean and clear?” with an appropriate
check box for yes or no. Training should
be provided so that operators can easily determine
what cloudy or discolored oil looks like
along with basic tools such as an infrared
temperature gun to measure bearing temperature
or a laser pointer to check for oil clarity.
The inspection routes should be captured
in a simple check sheet format, either electronically
(preferred) or manually. They
should be easily accessible at the machine, but
should also require sign-off to avoid pencilwhipping.
While a simple sign-off process
doesn’t necessarily guarantee that the task
was performed, human nature is such that we
naturally feel more accountable when physically
signing a document or form.
While paper-based inspection routes do
work, all too often, the extra time required to
capture manual route sheets and input into a
tracking spreadsheet or database means that
good intentions often go astray as more
pressing tasks arise. The most successful
inspection routes involve electronic data
collection in the field, using either a rugged,
industrial personal digital assistant (PDA) or
tablet personal computer (PC).
Not only does this offer the advantage that
the information gathered is already databased,
but the PDA or PC can also be used to
include simple drawings or pictures indicating
where inspection points are located and what
normal vs. abnormal conditions look like.
Once databased, a process needs to be put
in place to periodically review the data, and
where necessary, create appropriate maintenance
work orders to correct the problem.
There is no easier way to kill an inspection
program than to send the message that
nobody is looking at the data. In every case
where I’ve seen this happen, the operators
simply stopped performing the inspections.
None of us likes to feel like we’re wasting our
time, and operators are no different.
Multiple Disciplines
Inspections should be cross-disciplinary.
They should include lubrication, mechanical
maintenance, electrical, safety and operational
inspections. It makes little senses to
conduct one survey for lubrication, followed
by a similar survey for electrical systems on the
same machine. If your plant has different
maintenance planners for different maintenance
functions (mechanical, electrical,
production, etc.), inspections can easily be
divided once the information has been gathered.
The critical path is getting good data:
the rest will fall in place accordingly.
When it comes to lubrication, industry
studies reveal that, on average, 30 to 60
percent of all maintenance problems can be
traced to lubrication. It is likely that 70 to 80
percent of those could have been avoided
simply by looking for the correct oil level or
condition, evidence of a seal or breather
failure, or the observation that an automatic
greasing system is not functioning correctly.
Human Resources
Take advantage of the people who are in
front of machines eight to 12 hours a day and
involve operators as part of the solution,
rather than blaming them as part of the
problem.
As always, this is my opinion. I’m interested
in yours.
About the Author
As a skilled educator and consultant in the areas of
oil analysis and machinery lubrication, Mark Barnes has
helped numerous clients develop effective machinery
lubrication programs and troubleshoot complex lubrication
problems through precision lubrication and oil
analysis. As vice president and chief technical officer of
Noria Reliability Solutions, Mark and his group work on
projects in the areas of: plant audits and gap analysis,
machinery lubrication and oil analysis program design,
lube PM rationalization and redesign, lubricant storage
and handling, contamination control system design and
lubrication, and mechanical failure investigations.
Contact Mark at mbarnes@noria.com.
8 July - August 2008 machinerylubrication.com Machinery Lubrication