Most “unhappy” condition monitoring (CM) programs can be traced to their origin point, wherein critical steps and practices were not well-thought-out, received minimal recognition as to their importance, or were excluded altogether. On the other hand, existing programs that began reasonably well may have deteriorated, becoming unrecognizable in a negative way, ceasing to produce the money conservation (i.e., ROI) expected or, perhaps, previously demonstrated before performance erosion. The following are recommended steps, as well as the activity path to execution, for fluid analysis (Fa) programs. When problems occur, something in the path has deviated or failed, and pertains to one or more of the following bullets/markers.
Decision to explore a Fa program
- Planning Meeting and Research
- Identify interim/proposed Fa program manager and explorer
- Research on existing programs
- Contract a qualified Fa domain expert to assist and vet the process
- Contact/interviews with personnel from similar entities using Fa programs
- What resources are needed and what is the cost?
- Who is doing the testing?
- What successes were achieved?
- What pitfalls did you discover and cure?
- Contact with testing laboratories or instrument manufacturers
- Independent commercial labs
- Instruments that can be readily installed at entity’s facilities
- Contact with one’s original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and oil companies
- How do they view Fa?
- Do they have programs of their own?
- Are they performed in their own labs?
- Are they contracted through commercial labs?
Foundation and formation – Decision to stand up for Fa
Results of planning meeting and subsequent exploration were persuasive
Corporate support is established
- A full-time manager/champion is named
- Funding is approved and available on a timely basis
- Challenging, doable goals are established. A realistic, one- to three-year ROI is projected
- Accountability considered de rigueur: periodic review versus goals, fixes, changes, etc.
Pre-Implementation: Asset database preparation – A qualified person should be tasked
- Identify assets to be included in the program. Arguably, any asset that, by its unavailability, generates a substantial production or monetary loss, is a candidate.
- Update and cleanse the asset database. Full information as to asset manufacturer/model and lubricant manufacturer/brand is the minimum needed.
- Once the database is cleansed, continue to maintain it as assets come and go.
Implementation
- Decide on the testing protocol for your operation; get professional help if needed.
- In-house testing? OEM program? Oil company program? Independent lab? Each option has nuances that you should assess and evaluate for your program. However you decide, be sure you’re comfortable with the person(s) rendering advisories for your reports. Advisories that lead to effective actions are the ultimate reason for testing. Everything else is a means to that end. Be sure a qualified domain expert (i.e., subject matter expert) is evaluating your data.
- Participate in the decision for individual tests to be applied to various assets. They will vary as to component type sampled, so strive to comfortably know why.
- Set sampling intervals using industry-established practices and adhere to them.
- Sampling is the first physical aspect of Fa. Pay full respect to this critical process.
- If possible, employ purpose-built sampling valves to procure a sample, rather than using a vacuum pump with plastic tubing or, even less desirable, sampling via drain plug. Valve ports allow sampling while the asset is working, minimizing contamination opportunities.
- Corollary: One prefers samples to be taken while the lube is still in circulation, or within a very few minutes after a shutdown, to achieve best homogeneity. No in-service fluid sample is inherently pristine, owing to random water and solids distribution. Strive to get the most representative sample possible.
- Quickly analyze the sample if an on-site lab is employed, or promptly send it out. NOTE: Time can be a friend or enemy – timely information, the advisory, is key.
Reports, advisories and feedback – Where money conservation and accountability reside
- Your reports, especially the advisory comments, are the deliverables of your Fa program.
- Hopefully, one receives bad news only on occasion, but when an important action – sometimes as simple as a drain/flush to remove damaging abrasive contamination is advised – attend to it NOW. You DID make the effort to get the sample tested in a timely fashion, so don’t betray that effort by procrastinating. Here is where money conservation is harvested… or not. Time counts.
- Don’t hesitate to get involved and question a recommended action if you aren’t sure or don’t understand if it’s the right strategy, particularly if you know of something that flies in the face of the advisory that the evaluator would not have necessarily known. On-site maintainers and operators know a great deal about the machines they tend to. Their input could literally be golden at times.
- Maintenance FEEDBACK: Maintenance performed, or not, whether based on the advisory, or not, completes the information loop. It is vital for the ongoing accuracy of maintenance advisories. This is especially true when expert systems are employed.
- With minimal delay, inform your Fa provider as to actions taken and vetted based on the report advisory. Some intelligent agents (IAs) employed for data evaluation have online subroutines to allow easy conveyance of feedback (i.e., action taken). Feedback is vital to vet the accuracy and usefulness of the advisory. Feedback should be housed in your CMMS for ready access.
- Feedback is especially a necessary part of the Fa reporting and use process if an IA is involved – well-detailed feedback “teaches” the IA. There is a huge welcome bonus: Feedback is key to estimating ROI with confidence. There is a movement to involve and connect corrective maintenance (CM) and the CMMS to greatly facilitate quality feedback and its beneficial contribution to improving advisories.
How can anything go wrong if you do all this?
Usually, it’s thinking the program has arrived when, in fact, the aim has gone astray or was never properly defined and established.
- Straying off course; losing enthusiasm, momentum and ownership for zero tolerance
- Failure to attend to abnormal advisories in a timely fashion
- Failure to gather the feedback needed for improving advisory integrity
- Failure to conduct meaningful assessments at established set intervals
- Failure to remedy course correction identified during assessment meetings
- Settling for small gains instead of striving for the bigger ones targeted – eye not on the ball – essentially lapses in aim and accountability
- Not planning for personnel replacements due to retirement or job rotation – whoops, you needed to mine, archive and teach some of “Joe’s” knowledge and techniques before he got away
- Corporate personnel changes are often sea changes. CM programs and other initiatives are always at risk when this occurs. Most incoming corporate managers will immediately begin to forage for spending cuts. Programs can be reduced to restarts, or extinction in exceptional cases. If you’re lucky, most of the good elements of your company’s culture remain positive, with nuances to be added. No amount of planning can circumvent some of the possible consequences of incoming corporate personnel, but you can try to mitigate the situation if you have not strayed off course.
- Have the conservation figures for your data and your money up-to-date. Hopefully, you have a highly positive history to show – an argument that retains your program in good stead, with solid corporate backing, once new blood settles in.
- Reread the previous bullet – CM is always about money, period. If you cannot show that a good ROI in terms of money conservation exists, your program, and maybe your job, is at grave risk. Always know how you’re doing with respect to the stated aim and documented results.
Bottom Line: A truly successful Fa program, really any CM program, demands full commitment to all facets presented herein. There are many devils in the details. Diligence, adherence and perseverance should be the operating mindset. Solid periodic reviews, hopefully part of your program’s mantra, should have resulted in course corrections and/or updates that ensure the program delivers its implied promise while maintaining its integrity. You can, and you must, influence this, no matter your role in the program. Fa and CM, generally, need to be inherently valuable in the company’s culture, with full corporate level buy-in and support for ongoing sustainability.