Inspection, in its most basic form, has been around forever. However, like most things in life, what you get out of an activity depends entirely on what you put in. This column is about radical reinvention of the whole concept of machine inspection. It has little to do with conventional practices of doing daily machine rounds.

With Inspection 2.0, you don’t just “look” at a bearing, seal, coupling or pump. Instead, you “examine” these components with a keen and probing eye. Inspection 2.0 is intense and purposeful. It seeks to penetrate and extract information from what’s been referred to as machine sign language. Inspection 2.0 requires polished linguistic skills to translate this sign language into prescribed activities and instructions that stabilize reliability.

The technologies of machine condition monitoring have been advancing at a near break-neck pace in recent years. These innovations will continue for decades to come. Still, for the vast majority of machines, there is currently no fault-detecting technology more effective than the razor-sharp and relentless focus of a human being.

The potential of a human being as a condition monitoring instrument is enormous. This potential depends on transformation, specifically from the going-through-​the-motions inspections of the past to mission-intensive detective work inspections of the future. That is the essence of Inspection 2.0.

The post Why Inspection 2.0 Is Your Best Strategy for Early Fault Detection appeared first on Tesibis.

I have written several articles on inspection recently, as I strongly believe it is foundational to condition monitoring, machine reliability and asset management. My last Machinery Lubrication column introduced the term “Inspection 2.0” to differentiate conventional inspection practices from the intense, probing and purposeful methods needed to optimize benefits. As common as inspection activities may be in any plant, Inspection 2.0 is largely untapped in my opinion. In fact, it is delusional to imagine world-class reliability without the coexistence of world-class inspection.

Inspection 2.0 borrows from many battle-tested philosophies, including the practice of autonomous maintenance advanced by total productive maintenance (TPM) doctrine. However, not detailed in these philosophies is the “how-to” to move an organization past the inspection status quo to the real game-changing opportunity that eludes their view. I plan to address these differences and the “how-to” tactics in several upcoming Machinery Lubrication articles.

This article introduces the concept of machine readiness as a critical enabler to Inspection 2.0. An inspector who is eager to determine the state of machine health – good or bad – needs help from the machine. What hurts, where does it hurt and what are the symptoms of being hurt? Information exchange, like basic communication, is a two-way street. There is a need to enhance the quality of machine-transmitted conditions so the inspector gets a clear and complete picture of the state of the machine’s health.

The post Getting Machines to the Proper State of Inspection Readiness appeared first on Tesibis.

The well-known KISS principle (keep it simple stupid) was first coined in the 1960s and began widespread use in the U.S. Navy shortly thereafter. While it started as a design principle for engineers, it has since been applied to any activity or creative endeavor that has had the propensity to become unnecessarily complicated.

What becomes overly complicated also becomes, by default, poorly understood and sparsely used. Conversely, the greater genius in design and engineering lies in achieving the design objective through simplicity and pureness of form.

This can be applied to the world of oil analysis in many ways. Increasingly, oil analysis has become engulfed by complex analytical chemistry and mathematical algorithms. This science is successful when it takes the complicated, such as an array of particles of varying shapes, sizes, textures, colors and compositions, and puts their formation into plain English (e.g., cutting wear on cylinder walls).

The post How to Visually Inspect the Health and State of Oil appeared first on Tesibis.

There are 8,760 hours in a year. Few plants manage to produce at full capacity for all of those hours. Instead, there are periodic production stoppages due to tooling changes, product changes, scheduled PMs/inspections and unscheduled downtime (reliability issues). Every hour the plant’s assets aren’t utilized is an hour of lost revenue and profits.

Sadly, many plant managers play games with the numbers by ignoring the potential controllability of “scheduled” downtime. Yes, tooling and product changes are unavoidable, but in most other circumstances, there are often practical ways to minimize lost production from scheduled shutdowns.

This can be seen in the difference between typical and top performers in the same industry. For instance, a standard 900-megawatt coal-fired power plant may produce at 86-percent capacity (44 weeks per year), while top performers can exceed 94 percent (48 weeks per year). This is a difference of four weeks of productivity.

Still, no classification of work stoppage causes more agony than unscheduled downtime. The reasons are quite obvious, as a recent online survey of Machinery Lubrication readers discovered. Following is a list of the top reasons unscheduled downtime is so unwelcome:

• Production losses and schedule delays (business interruption)
• Lost revenue and profit (unhappy management/ownership)
• Promised delivery dates are missed (unhappy customers)
• The blame game and damaged relationships between operations and maintenance (morale issues)
• Hurried (botched) repairs cause future problems (cycle of despair)
• Lack of available replacement parts and skilled trades prolongs the downtime interval
• Repairs are at a “cost premium” due to rushed parts purchases, use of overtime labor and collateral damage
• Scheduled “proactive” tasks are replaced by chaotic reactive tasks (leads to future problems)
• Increased work pressure and job stress (job satisfaction issues)
• Safety risks due to rushed work, unskilled work, inferior parts, cutting corners, job stress, etc.

The post The Wrath of Unscheduled Downtime: Why Oil Analysis is a Wise and Effective Defense appeared first on Tesibis.

These days, reliability professionals are faced with diverse options related to technologies and methods to detect, troubleshoot and remediate problems. Figure 1 is a simple example of the available options to collect data and arrive at decisions regarding the health of machinery and machine components.

The logical starting point is always to carefully rank failure modes by both criticality and probability of occurrence. For more information on this topic, see my previous column titled “A New Look at Criticality Analysis for Machinery Lubrication.” This method is known as failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), and has been extensively documented.

The failure mode ranking sets into motion the critical-path process in reaching optimized decisions related to condition monitoring followed by the prescribed response or remedy. This response should not simply be corrective but also incorporate proactive measures to prevent or restrict recurrence. The emphasis is on optimized decisions and actions.

It’s easy to go cheap (penny wise, pound foolish), but there also can be temptation at the other extreme (a state of reliability excess), often driven by fear of the unknown. The optimum reference state is an activity of seeking balanced decisions. After all, you are not trying to maximize reliability. There is no greater source to find this balance than knowledge and education.

The post Detection Zone Coding for More Efficient Condition Monitoring appeared first on Tesibis.

Inspection 2.0 is rooted in some of the most fundamental and time-honored maintenance principles. One of them is total productive maintenance (TPM). Today, it’s hard to play an active role in the field of maintenance and reliability without encountering and embracing TPM. Honestly, it is delusional to think otherwise.

World-class maintenance organizations understand the intrinsic value of a well-tuned and culture-driven TPM program. World-class TPM programs are fundamentally powered by keen observation. You can’t fix what you can’t see. Therefore, all progress hinges on the power of observation. Allowing you to see is the bedrock. Improve the quality of inspection and, by default, you improve the quality of TPM and all the benefits that TPM seeks to achieve. It’s that simple!

The origin of TPM can be traced back to the Japanese automobile industry in the 1960s. It has many similar elements to the quality movement that was advanced in Japan during the same period. However, it wasn’t until 1988 that the western world learned of TPM when two seminal English texts were published on the subject by Seiichi Nakajima. From that point, TPM spread across the vast global maintenance and reliability landscape.

TPM has similarities and overlapping features with other branded maintenance philosophies, including reliability-centered maintenance (RCM), condition-based maintenance (CBM) and asset management (see Figure 1). However, its strongest difference is the active and responsible role of machine operators and small groups toward maintenance prevention and improved asset utilization.

The post Inspection 2.0: The Cornerstone of World-Class TPM appeared first on Tesibis.

When most of us refer to inspection, we are thinking of running machines inspected routinely, say on daily rounds. Unarguably, this type of on-the-run inspection is critical to machine condition monitoring, but other types of inspections are important as well.

At its best, inspection seeks and finds the “precursors” to failure, also known as root causes. This is job one, for sure. Next, inspection must hunt down those elusive incipient failure conditions (the earliest detectable state) that can be as difficult as the sound of a “pin drop” for our senses to detect.

The time horizon when inspection should incur spans from cradle to grave. I’ve emphasized in past columns that Inspection 2.0 is a continuous state of vigilance.

The moment you let your guard down is exactly the time when the enduring Mr. Murphy makes his entrance. To fend off risk and vulnerability, the wise and reliability-intensive organization performs inspection across multiple states.

The post The 5 States of Machine Inspection 2.0 appeared first on Tesibis.