The STLE Compass, April 12, 2011
Condition Monitoring: The Field and the 2011 Annual Meeting Education Course Featuring Jack Poley, Technical Director for Kittiwake-Americas
KARA: Hello, I’m Kara Lemar. Welcome to the STLE Compass, brought to you by the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers. The STLE Compass is your convenient and reliable resource for the latest developments in the tribology community. This is another episode of The STLE Compass and today we’ll talk about condition monitoring. Our interviewee is the Course Chair for the Condition Monitoring course that will be offered at the 2011 STLE Annual Meeting, and has extensive experience in the field.
Jack Poley, as Technical Director for Kittiwake-Americas, is currently working on oil analysis solutions that bring the process to the machine. Jack has degrees in chemistry and management and has just completed 50 years in Oil Analysis. His former company, Lubricon, was prominent as a commercial lab and eventually was sold to Cummins Engine Company, Fleetguard Division, to be part of their customer support effort. In addition to owning and operating commercial oil testing labs, Jack developed an Intelligent Agent, called Prescient, for managing oil analysis programs, including the rendering of effective commentary based on oil sample test data.
Today, we will get an inside look into his work, the field of condition monitoring, and get a preview of the Condition Monitoring Annual Meeting Education Course.
Jack, welcome to STLE Compass.
JACK: Thank you.
KARA: We’re very glad to have you. So, first what I want to do is talk a little bit about the course. Can you give us an overview?
JACK: The CM Education Course is a broad survey of Condition Monitoring, or “CM”, as we like to call it, covering the principal elements and the processes involved. Its purpose is to establish the virtual necessity of applying some form of CM to maintenance management in order to maximize machine availability and production.
KARA: And I know this course has been offered before, but what’s different about it this year?
JACK: Well, we’ve had the course for nearly 20 years. I don’t remember who coined the term “Condition Monitoring” sometime in the mid-1980s, but it was clear to me that STLE needed to be a part of the CM education process, so I lobbied for the course to be included in the Annual Meeting offerings. We have presented the course in various formats, mostly two-day sessions where the first day was novice-to-intermediate level; the second day, a more advanced level. This year we’re offering a consolidated one-day course that we deem is ‘intermediate’, as noted earlier. There are two different aspects to the course this year. First, we’re presenting a single day, as opposed to two, normally. Second, the format is slightly different from previous one day sessions, and it’s appropriately labeled CM 150, reflecting a median position in terms of subject complexity.
KARA: As far as the changes that you’ve made to the course – who should attend the course? Who was the course created for?
JACK: The course is designed for those who are or may be routinely involved in a maintenance team’s Condition Monitoring program, and is intended for intermediate experience levels. Management level, or decision-makers, should also consider attending if they are considering a CM program, or if they’re not satisfied with their current program.
KARA: So, what are the different topics that the course addresses?
JACK: We have four topics.
The first one is titled: Why Condition Monitoring? That deals with the uptime gain from CM as the overarching theme. We describe the practices applied to CM. The course is grounded in Oil Analysis, of course, which is the most far-reaching CM practice. Other CM practices, such as vibration, thermography and acoustics are also touched upon in that module. The second module is called the Basics of a CBM, or Condition-Based Monitoring Program, and although we have technical considerations, the module’s primary message is how a CM program is set up and initiated. The proper procedures and follow-up are discussed in detail. The third module is entitled “Oil Analysis Tests and Data Evaluation.” The most common tests used today are described as to their purpose. Evaluation of test data and the rendering of commentary is discussed in some detail as well. The fourth module is called “Failure Modes and Data Integration.” This module explores condition indicators and failure modes. Integration of data from various CM practices is discussed, including case studies.
KARA: Okay, that’s a good overview and variation of topics. So, what topic do you address? I understand you’re one of the course instructors.
JACK: Yes. I cover the third module, Oil Analysis Tests and Data Evaluation. It is my particular specialty as I’ve been in the commercial laboratory environment for most of my years in CM. In particular I’m most interested in the evaluation of data, leading to an informed comment for the user to apply onsite. It is an area that has not been attended as well as the rendering of tests, or the collection of data, which is pretty straightforward. Data are essential, but without a qualified and useful evaluation that can be practically applied at the maintenance level, there hasn’t really been any gain from the process. Evaluation is now my primary focus, as it is the key, along with return on investment (ROI) accountability, to a truly effective CM program, regardless of how data are gathered.
KARA: So, what is one fact of information that you include in your presentation that you think listeners will appreciate?
JACK: I would say that CM programs are a necessity in today’s complex machine and lubrication world. It takes a very real commitment from top management down to glean the very best gains that CM offers. One shouldn’t expect high returns without diligence throughout the process. Know what you’re getting into, in other words. Don’t start a CM program without the proper resources and commitment level, some of which may be outside the organization. Once started, insist that the program be audited for overall effectiveness and return on investment (ROI). Make changes, don’t dump the program, when expectations are not met. I repeat, CM programs are a necessity in today’s complex machine and lubrication world.
KARA: Given that necessity, so what would you say would be the ultimate reason to take the course?
JACK: The short answer is, it’s about money, with increased safety as a bonus. CM’s ultimate purpose is to play a role in maximizing return on investment (ROI) for the entity it serves. Minimizing maintenance and machinery replacement costs, while maximizing uptime or production revenue, is what it’s all about. Without CM one will not avail all the return on investment (ROI) one might be eligible for.
KARA: So, with that background on the course, I want to turn and talk a little bit about your specialty, condition monitoring.
JACK: CM is grounded in the concept of non-destructive testing, or what we in industry call “NDT”, for the purpose of preventing failures. NDT is about monitoring machines without removing them from the production process. There are two primary techniques employed: oil analysis and vibration signatures. Ancillary methodology includes, among others, thermographic imaging (thermography) and acoustic signature monitoring (sonics), the latter essentially a subset of vibration analysis.
KARA: What are the commercial implications of condition monitoring?
JACK: CM is the key to maximizing production and uptime, or its corollary, reducing downtime. CM, when most effectively practiced, squeezes out savings with relatively little risk. Currently oil analysis is showing some of the most promising gains in NDT because of relatively new technological developments.
KARA: Okay, new developments. So, what are you working on?
JACK: My present concentration on the testing side has to do with continuous CM, that is, data monitoring of electronic output from onboard, online sensors. That is the advent of what I call “Tier 1”, or first position in the oil analysis timeline, effective and robust sensors, means that oil analysis is now real time, matching and surpassing advantages that only vibration analysis previously had, since oil analysis discloses far more potential problems than vibration. Now, one can integrate both CM staples via software and render a truly comprehensive machine assessment.
Secondly, I’m quite busy utilizing Prescient, my Intelligent Agent, to sift through such data, integrating it with traditional lab testing data and other NDT in order to provide the very best advice to users possible.
KARA: So, now I have some general questions about the field. What do you consider to be the most important issues facing the condition monitoring field today?
JACK: Probably it’s a recognition that CM involves a commitment of time and money without an instant return, so patience is always necessary to realize gains. But the biggest hurdle is for companies to convince themselves the commitment is necessary to begin with. Traditionally, maintenance has been viewed as a ‘necessary evil’ in terms of costs, but maintenance is the key to an effective CM program. Farsighted maintenance managers may still have problems convincing the financial arm of the company that investments in CM have exceptional returns (usually not less than 6:1, and often several multiples of that ratio). Boiling it down, education is the key to getting the right parties to the table to first choose to have CM, then choose to implement it correctly and stay the course. Naturally returns should be verified at, say, annual reviews, with more frequent course-correction and verification sessions. But I’ve never heard of a negative ROI when CM implementation reaches that commitment level.

KARA: Have there been any major developments in the field that you’ve heard about?

JACK: Referring back to my current involvement, the advent, the perfection or efficacy of online sensors that operate dependably in a lube circuit, providing real-time assessments of oil and machine condition parameters, is the most important CM advancement in this decade just ending. As we enter the twenty first century, there is a paradigm shift in terms of CM capabilities. Heretofore vibration signature analysis, other than temperature and pressure readings, was the only game in town with respect to continuous data monitoring of machinery. Oil analysis has caught and actually passed vibration as the primary NDT component of CM for most machinery, and this is because oil analysis provides much earlier warnings of potential trauma. Because there are earlier warnings, corrective action can be taken that will often avert failure altogether. Many times, with vibration analysis, a problem is duly noted, but it is too late to save the machine and it must be replaced. While this type of event is certainly worth knowing about, would it not be even better to prevent the machine from deteriorating to a point where vibration signaled the development of a failure? The amount of time to perform the corrective action will usually be substantially less (meaning that perhaps machine removal is not required, for example) and the component itself can be rebuilt at relatively minor expense. There is less money is left on the table. CM is supposed to prevent failures, not just acknowledge them. Oil circuit sensor monitoring in real time is key to fulfilling this CM goal.

KARA: So, what are typical savings that can be achieved with an oil analysis-based CM program?

JACK: It’s not unreasonable to expect six times to fifty times, depending on the operation, I’ve even heard of one hundred times the investment in the program being saved. If someone spends one hundred thousand dollars, they’ve saved as much as ten million, that’s absolutely true. It’s rare, but it’s happened. It is a broad range. The longer answer is ‘it all depends.” I alluded to corporate responsibilities, in reality, responsibilities at all levels; however, if corporate doesn’t lead this process by example and actions, the upper range will likely never be achieved. This really is the crux of CM: it can produce savings almost automatically simply by its implementation, by catching big problems early enough. What often happens, then, is that these ‘saves’ are spectacular enough to make it evident CM is necessary, and it remains in play, but not necessarily at best effectiveness, such that a lot of money (ROI) is again left on the table. Finding a bearing about to spall and break is certainly important and exciting, but CM’s real purpose is to avert such events when possible, that is, to take minor corrective measures in advance of a trauma that requires parts replacements or worse, as well as resulting in a more extended outage than might have been necessary. To get to that level of minor maintenance precluding major trauma, proactive diligence is required of the maintenance team.

KARA: How many people actually use this information to make changes? Or, why might this not happen?

JACK: The two reasons why this doesn’t happen are first, complacency, which is being satisfied with ‘obvious’ savings and second, would be a genuine lack of knowledge or personnel to manage this endeavor. If you don’t have the knowledge, then you don’t appreciate it; if you don’t have the personnel consistent with what was originally calculated to help manage the program, it’s not going to happen that way either. In some ways the two are intertwined. One cannot avail a benefit without fully understanding how that might be accomplished, especially if you need to be part of the solution to that accomplishment. Education therefore, is the key to allowing customers to gain best effectiveness. Another area that is beginning to achieve some traction is to have an outside agency that is highly experienced in oil analysis management. Some oil analysis labs have web tools to help customers mine their data, but, a lab’s specialty is to test and furnish credible numbers, not necessarily to manage programs. Nevertheless the end game in an oil analysis program for a user-customer is useful maintenance advice, based on the oil analysis data. It is that advice or commentary that is ultimately the true deliverable. Sometimes neither the lab nor the customer has the resources to glean the most from that data. That’s where outside help may make a difference.

KARA: Now, what do you mean by ‘outside help’?

JACK: Well, many users are starting to hire people from the oil analysis industry to help manage their programs, either on the payroll, or as consultants under contract. The intelligent agent I talk about, Prescient, I utilize greatly to help me consult to my customers, which helps me provide better service to them and gives them automated data evaluation and commentary with considerable depth and comprehension. Quite frankly, some sort of software support is near mandatory to manage programs of any size or complexity effectively and with best returns.

When I first got into this business in 1961, I could memorize virtually all the information necessary to render commentary on test data. This was possible because all the samples came from diesel engines, which were the first components placed on oil analysis programs when the U.S. railroad industry began to test for wear metals in the late 1940s. Today, there are many types of machines and components nowadays, some mechanically complex. Lubricants, have also become more exotic, particularly with the greater proliferation of synthetics of various ilks. No one person, no matter his experience, can retain all this information in his head. Realizing that, I built this program as an essential tool to help the customers.
KARA: So, there’s an infinite number of lubricants, there’s an infinite number of applications, and that kind of complicates things.
JACK: Indeed. I don’t know if it’s infinite, but it’s pretty close.
KARA: Given all this information, what do you want listeners to take away from today’s discussion?
JACK: I noted earlier that the hurdle to enjoying effective CM is commitment at the top levels of a company wishing to establish the most effective practices. While CM is very prominent nowadays, given the need to conserve and be efficient, it is often implemented because people like myself say it’s a good thing to do. After the program is implemented, however, many companies fail to insist that it account for itself. It is easy to implement a program, in fact, just start taking samples and receive reports. Oftentimes, however, that’s all that happens. Follow up is weak and feedback to vet and substantiate the comments for usefulness and effectiveness provided is poor to non-existent in such cases. This is where a well-intended program provides only marginal benefits. What happens as often as not is that the program’s savings potential is so strong the company can intuitively ‘see’ that it’s saving money without calculating it, decides that’s ‘good enough’, not on purpose, but just kind of concludes it subconsciously, given other seemingly more urgent matters, I can’t imagine what those must be and doesn’t go the extra mile to squeeze the savings that truly could be had. In my terms, again, that’s money left on the table, that you could just simply pick up.
Once oil analysis-based CM is viewed in its proper light and potential, and once corporate management realizes its personal responsibility to help extract that potential, maximum gains are realizable. That fifty times return or one hundred times return can actually be realized. Every company that receives such gains has made the commitment of time and money necessary, while insisting on accountability reviews as well. Like most beneficial programs, it’s a two-way street: programs have to be well executed by the vendors performing them, and sometimes that just isn’t the case. Secondly, the programs must be responsibly received and utilized by the customers served, also not always the case. Again, it may be useful to employ outside consulting services to bridge the manpower or knowledge gaps. Comparing notes and results then points the way to positive adjustments to get the program to its best potential and its maximum ROI, which is the end purpose of oil analysis: saving money.
KARA: A good note to end on. With that, I’d like to thank you for joining us and for providing some insight into condition monitoring.
JACK: My pleasure, Kara. Thank you.
KARA: I’m Kara Lemar. For more news, information and research on condition monitoring, be sure to check out Tribology & Lubrication Technology, or TLT, which is our monthly member magazine, and has a number of articles authored by our interviewee. You can also attend the 2011 STLE Annual Meeting, which will be held in Atlanta, Georgia, and which will feature a full day Condition Monitoring education course. You can visit our website for more information. Thank you for joining us today. This has been another episode of The STLE Compass, pointing you in the right direction.