Happy New Year! Now is the time for planning 2011. I have to say that things definitely appear ‘up.’ I remember at the end of 2009 watching book sales a little down around the holidays. Definitely not the case this year! Not to mention consulting work which I do along with my other duties at Dreisilker. Definitely on the rise. Our techs have spent quite a bit of time visiting locations internationally and have been working with a significant increase in electrical forensic analysis. Which means, by the way, we have been expanding and growing.
My main resolution this year is to get back into more writing. I have been doing a lot of hands-on research this year, in addition to everything else, along with co-workers and co-conspiritors (alright, researchers) on a large number of projects. It is about time to start releasing the findings. It has also been more than a year since I put out my last book. So, this year my intention is to get out another book expanding on the topics of the MotorDoc series. I will discuss more as we get closer to a publishing date and it will be another textbook. The project has been very exciting!
The Reliability Gives Voice to Autism program has been our way of giving back to the community. This year we are including a book awards program and some of the entries are outstanding and all are great! We plan on releasing the contenders list about 30 days ahead of the RGVA 2011 and will announce the winners and special categories during the event. The whole program has been given a fair amount of attention within the autism community and by other autism support organizations.
I am happy to say, also, that the Autism Society, Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals, and IEEE Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Society memberships are up a lot and growing, all at historical levels! Another sign that all things are on the rise.
Again, Happy New Year! It is our wish that you have a great new year and that our industry continues to grow!
Friday, December 31, 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
In this editorial: some stuff on business, SMRP, and electric motor industry stuff that will impact you and how you manage your motors!
On the road again! (now, that song will stick in your head) Travel can be interesting, in particular, both air and road travel. I am back to a significant amount of both at the moment. The good news is that the increase in travel and the types of related projects go along with the type of work that was seen prior to the economic downturn. Of course, suring this period, it is almost as if a reset button has been pushed and some new players have entered this scene.
Basically, layoffs and early retirements are noticeable in many of the business environments. New vaces have entered the scene, people are working leaner and companies have transitional out significant knowledge. We are noticing, however, that many of the newer people in the industry are a little more tech savvy using the internet and technology more to obtain and share information through social networking. There is an effort by a growing number of companies to become more involved in organizations such as SMRP (Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals – http://www.SMRP.org) and local chapters, as well as hiring reliability engineers in order to develop optimized maintenance organizations.
The transition appears to be going relatively smoothly, moreso than many expected, even with fewer people. This goes along with similar transitions that occurred in the early 1900s, mid-1900s, and now. Social and business upheaval has not finished as unemployment remains high and inventories, in particular MRO inventory, is either kept very low or is non-existent. There is, or course, the issues that go along with lower production levels returning to normal levels and problems with machines that have either been operating at lower loads or on mothballs with limited maintenance.
A few new issues for the industry are looming on the horizon such as the EISA (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) and the potential Crush for Credit program. Another issue that may impact the repair industry is the US EPA ruling on small incinerators (US Environmental Proection Agency 40 CFR Part 60: Standards for Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources; Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Proposed Rule) which will impact burn off ovens. This means that there is the potential for major changes in the electric motor manufacturing and repair industries.
The impact of the EISA is that the motors covered under the EPAct 92 (Energy Policy Act of 1992), which covered integral, foot mounted, general purpose 1200 to 3600 RPM motors from 1 to 250 horsepower, that were elevated to energy efficient levels by October 24, 1997, are now required to be manufactured (as of December 19, 2010) to premium efficient levels. Motors from over 250 horsepower to 500 horsepower are required to be energy efficient including U-frame and specialty motors that were previously not covered. This also means a cost premium on the motors that will change some of the repair versus replace decisions that many companies make.
If the Crush for Credit program is implemented, a $25 per horsepower incentive would be provided, as presently written, for upgrading existing motors to premium efficient motors. A $5 per horsepower credit would e provided to repair centers and mtoor sellers to scrap the existing machine. With present political issues, the program has been put on hold. However, the impact on the motor industry would be on the repair side where it is projected that motors to 500 or 1,000 horsepower would no longer be cost effective to repair. The impact would be significant to smaller repair facilities as it is expected to be extended across a four year period.
The EPA ruling on the small incinerators will effect motor repair facilities. In the present draft there will be a significant increase in costs to maintain ovens to reduce emissions and controls to ensure the emissions and materials do not exceed specific levels. The EPA explicitly states that the purpose is to make it cost prohibitive to operate burnout ovens due to negative impacts on environment and health (not just impacting workers but companies and homes within 1-2 miles). This would require these companies to explore other means of repair, such as mechanical stripping or water blasting, which have been shown to have near-zero impact on the environment and on changing motor efficiency.
The impact of motor efficiency through high temperature stripping has a long term effect on the motor owner where there is an increase in energy consumption (kW) that increases the greenhouse gas footprint of these companies. While tight quality control of the repair process will significantly reduce the impact, it will not eliminate it. However, processes such as mechanical stripping along with quality control and best repair practices have been proven to have no impact on motor efficiency.
NOTE: I have heard the – “but we were told there was a study in the UK that says burnout ovens have no impact on efficiency.” I would note that the same people involved in that study also pushed for the 20% allowable increase in core losses through the repair process in IEEE Std 1068-2009, “IEEE Standard for the Repair and Rewinding of AC Electric Motors in the Petroleum, Chemical, and Process Industries.” Core losses are an average of 25% of the losses in a motor meaning that, by definition, a 20% increase in cores losses relates to a significant increase in efficiency. See Plant Engineering article “Don’t Allow Motor Repair Practices to Degrade Motor Efficiency:” http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2010/12MotorRepairPractices.html?DCMP=PSE_Article_MotorRepair_101202
Basically, layoffs and early retirements are noticeable in many of the business environments. New vaces have entered the scene, people are working leaner and companies have transitional out significant knowledge. We are noticing, however, that many of the newer people in the industry are a little more tech savvy using the internet and technology more to obtain and share information through social networking. There is an effort by a growing number of companies to become more involved in organizations such as SMRP (Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals – http://www.SMRP.org) and local chapters, as well as hiring reliability engineers in order to develop optimized maintenance organizations.
The transition appears to be going relatively smoothly, moreso than many expected, even with fewer people. This goes along with similar transitions that occurred in the early 1900s, mid-1900s, and now. Social and business upheaval has not finished as unemployment remains high and inventories, in particular MRO inventory, is either kept very low or is non-existent. There is, or course, the issues that go along with lower production levels returning to normal levels and problems with machines that have either been operating at lower loads or on mothballs with limited maintenance.
A few new issues for the industry are looming on the horizon such as the EISA (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) and the potential Crush for Credit program. Another issue that may impact the repair industry is the US EPA ruling on small incinerators (US Environmental Proection Agency 40 CFR Part 60: Standards for Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources; Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Proposed Rule) which will impact burn off ovens. This means that there is the potential for major changes in the electric motor manufacturing and repair industries.
The impact of the EISA is that the motors covered under the EPAct 92 (Energy Policy Act of 1992), which covered integral, foot mounted, general purpose 1200 to 3600 RPM motors from 1 to 250 horsepower, that were elevated to energy efficient levels by October 24, 1997, are now required to be manufactured (as of December 19, 2010) to premium efficient levels. Motors from over 250 horsepower to 500 horsepower are required to be energy efficient including U-frame and specialty motors that were previously not covered. This also means a cost premium on the motors that will change some of the repair versus replace decisions that many companies make.
If the Crush for Credit program is implemented, a $25 per horsepower incentive would be provided, as presently written, for upgrading existing motors to premium efficient motors. A $5 per horsepower credit would e provided to repair centers and mtoor sellers to scrap the existing machine. With present political issues, the program has been put on hold. However, the impact on the motor industry would be on the repair side where it is projected that motors to 500 or 1,000 horsepower would no longer be cost effective to repair. The impact would be significant to smaller repair facilities as it is expected to be extended across a four year period.
The EPA ruling on the small incinerators will effect motor repair facilities. In the present draft there will be a significant increase in costs to maintain ovens to reduce emissions and controls to ensure the emissions and materials do not exceed specific levels. The EPA explicitly states that the purpose is to make it cost prohibitive to operate burnout ovens due to negative impacts on environment and health (not just impacting workers but companies and homes within 1-2 miles). This would require these companies to explore other means of repair, such as mechanical stripping or water blasting, which have been shown to have near-zero impact on the environment and on changing motor efficiency.
The impact of motor efficiency through high temperature stripping has a long term effect on the motor owner where there is an increase in energy consumption (kW) that increases the greenhouse gas footprint of these companies. While tight quality control of the repair process will significantly reduce the impact, it will not eliminate it. However, processes such as mechanical stripping along with quality control and best repair practices have been proven to have no impact on motor efficiency.
NOTE: I have heard the – “but we were told there was a study in the UK that says burnout ovens have no impact on efficiency.” I would note that the same people involved in that study also pushed for the 20% allowable increase in core losses through the repair process in IEEE Std 1068-2009, “IEEE Standard for the Repair and Rewinding of AC Electric Motors in the Petroleum, Chemical, and Process Industries.” Core losses are an average of 25% of the losses in a motor meaning that, by definition, a 20% increase in cores losses relates to a significant increase in efficiency. See Plant Engineering article “Don’t Allow Motor Repair Practices to Degrade Motor Efficiency:” http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2010/12MotorRepairPractices.html?DCMP=PSE_Article_MotorRepair_101202
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Part 2: Reactive and Run to Failure Strategies
The terms run to failure and reactive maintenance are often, incorrectly, used interchangeably. The concept of reactive maintenance is to run equipment until if fails and then figure out how to repair, replace or ignore it. This is the prevalent maintenance practice which has significant impact on business profitability. On the other hand, RTF is a strategy which, when performed correctly, can manage assets with a reduced impact. While not as extensive or cost effective as a PdM or CBM program, the philosophy still requires planning and thought.
With highly critical equipment, the plan may be to apply a combination of planned and condition maintenance to reduce the risk of failure. The remaining equipment is often left to fend for itself. This mistaken concept of twisting RCM and similar maintenance development tools has resulted in significant negative impact within industry. Less and non-critical equipment was not meant to be excluded from maintenance by these strategies, just a different level of application!
In an RTF program, the concept is to perform some methods of inspection, testing, maintaining, or other method that can identify that a problem is occurring such that action can be taken. This may be planning as part of an outage or staging parts and materials for when the failure occurs. The result is improved control of the repair related costs and improved inventory practices. In an environment where maintenance is being cut, or a full program for critical equipment does not exist, such a program can assist in assuring a higher state of readiness than just allowing equipment to fail. Who has not had the experience of going to find parts for equipment during a failure only to find the parts are obsolete?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
With highly critical equipment, the plan may be to apply a combination of planned and condition maintenance to reduce the risk of failure. The remaining equipment is often left to fend for itself. This mistaken concept of twisting RCM and similar maintenance development tools has resulted in significant negative impact within industry. Less and non-critical equipment was not meant to be excluded from maintenance by these strategies, just a different level of application!
In an RTF program, the concept is to perform some methods of inspection, testing, maintaining, or other method that can identify that a problem is occurring such that action can be taken. This may be planning as part of an outage or staging parts and materials for when the failure occurs. The result is improved control of the repair related costs and improved inventory practices. In an environment where maintenance is being cut, or a full program for critical equipment does not exist, such a program can assist in assuring a higher state of readiness than just allowing equipment to fail. Who has not had the experience of going to find parts for equipment during a failure only to find the parts are obsolete?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Saturday, October 23, 2010
The Case for Reliability: Part 1
Starting in the latter part of the 20th Century companies focused in the reduction of inventory as part of their cost reduction strategy. Such product and MRO inventories were the result of internal and external bottlenecks and equipment maintenance. The primary strategy was, and still is, Run to Failure (RTF) and reactive maintenance. The challenge is that both RTF and reactive maintenance require spares inventories that can be significant. The reduction of maintenance and MRO inventory are mutually exclusive.
What started as intelligent modifications to inventory became dramatic change as the principles of industrial and reliability engineering became sloppier. In extreme cases, maintenance or operations personnel would order double of everything and hide the extra in workshops and toolboxes or the opposite where inventory would be stripped bare. Indications of MRO gone amok include spare parts hidden by personnel through the facility or significant amounts of repair work in-progress hidden through repair vendors. For instance: motors for repair at vendors with no decision until they are needed, then processed as urgent or emergency.
The status of the inventory in a reactive type program is also driven by the last significant emergency that drew senior management attention. Even when the fault would be a low future risk, a knee-jerk reaction exists and expensive spares or components are stocked taking up space and resources. In the past decade I have seen a dozen instances of the exact following case in commercial, industrial and government facilities world-wide: a failure some 20-30 years in the past of anelectric motor winding that had a significant impact and long repair time. A full set of windings or field coils is purchased and put into storage (almost always incorrectly stored). The winding fails 20-30 years later and the coils are pulled for use at the repair facility and the coils are found to be too aged or damaged for use.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
What started as intelligent modifications to inventory became dramatic change as the principles of industrial and reliability engineering became sloppier. In extreme cases, maintenance or operations personnel would order double of everything and hide the extra in workshops and toolboxes or the opposite where inventory would be stripped bare. Indications of MRO gone amok include spare parts hidden by personnel through the facility or significant amounts of repair work in-progress hidden through repair vendors. For instance: motors for repair at vendors with no decision until they are needed, then processed as urgent or emergency.
The status of the inventory in a reactive type program is also driven by the last significant emergency that drew senior management attention. Even when the fault would be a low future risk, a knee-jerk reaction exists and expensive spares or components are stocked taking up space and resources. In the past decade I have seen a dozen instances of the exact following case in commercial, industrial and government facilities world-wide: a failure some 20-30 years in the past of anelectric motor winding that had a significant impact and long repair time. A full set of windings or field coils is purchased and put into storage (almost always incorrectly stored). The winding fails 20-30 years later and the coils are pulled for use at the repair facility and the coils are found to be too aged or damaged for use.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Sunday, July 25, 2010
From the MotorDoc: I Told You So!
For well over four decades many of us have been drawing attention to the problems associated with traditional motor repair practices and their impact on operating costs, energy efficiency, reliability and other impacts on you, the user of the machines that can be subjected to some truly awful methods that have not changed in over a Century. Over the past year, it appears that attention is being brought to this issue by the US Department of Energy and US Environmental Protection Agency as well as environmental protection and energy lobbyists (industrial energy driven) and motor manufacturers due to the understanding of this impact. Several of us have been writing about this issue since the 1970s and many supporters, many in the motor repair industry in particular, have been ensuring that I receive information that I may miss. This is an exciting time to have returned after having fought for moving the motor repair industry out of the early 1900s methodologies that are still in practice today! The battles have been fast, furious, and on-going.
Things have been extremely busy this summer. With last summer and winter being mild and this season being much warmer, and that many companies are running to failure, it seems that one unplanned plant outage is being followed by the next. We have been firmly in the middle of such situations at Dreisilker from emergency repairs to field service support to even being contracted to oversee the repairs of machines at other motor repair shops. This started even the past two years resulting in such challenges as having to be extremely flexible (reactive) to customer requirements which has even had me cancel speaking engagements – not something that I enjoy doing. The good news is that observations on conditions and issues both support my past observations and are beginning to identify solutions, many of which I will be discussing in the future.
At this time, however, I get to discuss my ‘I told you so!’ experiences.
In a project I was involved in this year, I had to deal with an 8000 horsepower electric motor (actually, I have had to deal with a great many 8000 hp issues this year. I didn’t know there were so many!). In one case, it was communicated that the burnout (alternately the ‘burn-off’ process, or incinerator process) would have an impact of up to an increase of 50% in core losses by the equipment manufacturer IN HEAVILY CONTROLLED CONDITIONS with a core temperature not to exceed 670F (in new core steel)! As part of the review, we determined this would reduce the efficiency to 96.5% at full load costing an additional $22,000 per year and emitting an additional 123 Tons of CO2, alone, as well as other greenhouse gasses per year.
This condition came to mind after receiving multiple emails from associates in the motor repair industry concerning an Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) announcement and information from the motor repair trade association to oppose, or “in vehement opposition” to the air quality, energy and environmental regulations. The document was released on Friday, June 4, 2010, for review and opposing remarks by the US EPA under 40 CFR Part 60 entitled “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Proposed Rule,” where the US EPA emphasized that there would be less of an impact by the regulation on only 126 such burn-off ovens than land filling all such equipment for reconditioning. It was identified that the purpose for the opposition was that there are over 10,000 such units in the United States, alone, and that the average cost of compliance through modernizing equipment would be $146,777 per oven with an incremental annual cost of $88,861.
Not one mention of methods to reduce emissions, just opposition to altering operations to reduce emissions!
In the proposed letter to the US EPA that was sent to motor repair shop owners to oppose the rules, it even put in a bullet point to argue against alternate processes that have been proven in THIRD PARTY studies to not only maintain equipment condition with no increase in losses, but to also not be able to harm equipment EVEN WHEN OPERATED INCORRECTLY!! The process was also found to have virtually zero measureable emissions! (Cite: Canadian Electrical Association Motor Repair Study).
Yes folks, now for the details.
A few of the key points made by the US EPA proposed changes, which are being made because such equipment was held exempt for a number of reasons including lobbying. The US EPA has determined that such time is over and that these exemptions are having a direct impact on the environment. I will, of course, place a few editorial comments in between.
I suppose we should start with the US EPA’s question: “What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the emissions and current controls.” It is noted that most motors are put into burn-off ovens without contaminants, oils, greases, etc. removed from the windings:
“… and burn-off ovens that combust residual materials off racks, parts, drums or hooks so that those items can be reused in various production processes.”
“Combustion of solid waste causes the release of a wide array of air pollutants, some of which exist in the waste feed materials and are released unchanged during combustion and some of which are generated as a result of the combustion process itself. These pollutants include particulate matter (PM); materials including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg); toxic organics, including chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/dibenxofurans (dioxin furans); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides (Nox); and acid gasses, including hydrogen chloride (HCl) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).”
I would note that in the motor repair shops that I worked in and operated in Virginia in the early 1990s, the work areas had to be ‘clean’ due to the amount of particulate put out by the burn-off oven(s). In one case, the motor repair shop that I worked at in the low income area of Richmond, VA, would get complaints from the neighbors because of the amount of ash on their vehicles, gardens, windows, etc. This is one of the reasons I truly took up the torch for the method that I had and do use at Dreisilker Electric Motors and the forming of the Dreisilker R&D group.
Table: Findings and Average Existing Compared to Proposed Limits for Burn-off
Note: burn-off ovens were found to be some of the worst compared to such equipment as incinerators. Alternate repair processes DO EXIST.
Pollutants (Units) --- Existing --- Proposed
HCl (ppmv) --- 130 --- 18
CO (ppmv) --- 80 --- 74
Pb (mg/dscm) --- 0.041 --- 0.029
Cd (mg/dscm) --- 0.0045 --- 0.0032
Hg (mg/dscm) --- 0.014 --- 0.0033
PM Filterable (mg/dscm) --- 33 --- 28
Dioxin, furans, total (mg/dscm) --- 310 --- 0.011
Dioxin, furans, TEQ (mg/dscm) --- 25 --- 0.00086
NOx (ppmv) --- 120 --- 16
SO2 (ppmv) --- 11 --- 1.5
Opacity --- 2% --- 2%
(Opacity relating to the fact that you cannot see these gasses coming out of the stack. So, if you cannot see it, why the problem? Other than research that such emissions can trigger health problems including mercury and the other heavy metals and toxins being linked to the autism spectrum, cancer and other issues - http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_envirohealth_faq).
The above units are considered on the high side of emissions as compared to the equipment that has been previously regulated and burn-off ovens rate on the high side of the equipment that was under review by the proposal and report (note that you can contact me directly at howard@motordoc.com for a copy of the US EPA proposal).
Because of the findings of the US EPA: “… the proposed revisions to the CISWI rule would remove the exemptions for: agricultural waste incinerators; cyclonic barrel burners; cement kilns; rack, part and drum reclamation units (ie: burn-off ovens).”
“Existing incinerators, burn-off ovens and small, remote incinerators would have annual emissions testing for opacity, HCl and PM.” (Minor compared to other requirements).
“We have determined that most facilities with units in the incinerators, small remote incinerators or burn-off ovens subcategories will choose to cease operations once the proposed MACT floor limits are promulgated and that all units in these three subcategories will cease combusting waste if beyond-the-floor levels are adopted.”
To paraphrase the lengthy discussion that follows, it is the intention that the proposed regulations would cause these groups to utilize alternate means. These do exist, from mechanical stripping to water blasting, and other methods that have been found not to harm equipment through independent studies. I have heard arguments that the alternate methods are ‘more labor intensive’ or ‘potentially harmful,’ I have even heard a reference to a non-third party reviewed UK motor repair study stating that “it proves that the alternate methods harms motors,” when, in fact, the alternate processes were NEVER REVIEWED in that study. Talk about misrepresentation!! The times to perform the mechanical methods are the exact same in labor as burn-off ovens AND they are far shorter in LINEAR HOURS meaning that the length of time to return a repair is reduced often by a whole DAY! In fact, Dreisilker, who uses a mechanical stripping method and is one of the highest volume repair facilities in the USA, could not function effectively with the restrictions of burn-off oven process time! It turns out that the mechanical process is far more LEAN than incinerating piles of motors.
Burn-off ovens and cement kilns had previously been exempt but it was determined that many cement kilns would continue to be exempt but that it made more sense to remove the exemption from burn-off ovens.
“In fact, sources operating incinerators, burn-off ovens and small, remote incinerators where energy recovery is not a goal, may find it most cost effective to discontinue use of their CISWI unit altogether.”
The US EPA found it more beneficial (less environmental impact) to landfill materials rather than use burn-off ovens! That is a highly unique position for the US EPA to hold!
The US EPA felt that just turning off 126 burn-off ovens would have more of an environmental positive impact than if the waste from all of the burn-off ovens were land filled (over 10,000 units). The average cost of compliance, per the trade association proposed letter, would be $146,777 per oven and $88,861 in annual costs. The cost for alternate methods that have low to zero environmental impact, produce a faster turnaround for end-users, do not generate a motor repair half-life, operates a more lean repair process, and maintains end user energy costs following repair, would cost far less than that in an initial investment.
I am disturbed by such activity when warnings were being produced by multiple organizations since the 1960s (and before) related to energy and environment impact through traditional electric motor repair practices. The choice to fight change in an industry while all other industries are requiring to change to maintain competitiveness around them has been amazing. In fact, in an article I wrote many years ago discussing the changes in the industry, we ended up changing the position of the article citing how the industry HAS NOT CHANGED in over a CENTURY! Processes used in the repair of machines have not changed since the days that my Great Grandfather Henry Bulbrook and Grandfather Howard Bulbrook repaired motors during the turn of the 20th Century, in a few cases, the equipment used today being almost that old.
Shouldn’t it be time for the motor repair industry to move forward and improve to the benefit of the end user instead of fighting to maintain 100 years of traditional repair that does not benefit the environment, end user costs, or reliability of machines?
Go to http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the archive section for more articles on motor repair.
email a-and-r-docket@epa.gov with Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119 and tell them that you support the regulation on burn-off ovens!
Things have been extremely busy this summer. With last summer and winter being mild and this season being much warmer, and that many companies are running to failure, it seems that one unplanned plant outage is being followed by the next. We have been firmly in the middle of such situations at Dreisilker from emergency repairs to field service support to even being contracted to oversee the repairs of machines at other motor repair shops. This started even the past two years resulting in such challenges as having to be extremely flexible (reactive) to customer requirements which has even had me cancel speaking engagements – not something that I enjoy doing. The good news is that observations on conditions and issues both support my past observations and are beginning to identify solutions, many of which I will be discussing in the future.
At this time, however, I get to discuss my ‘I told you so!’ experiences.
In a project I was involved in this year, I had to deal with an 8000 horsepower electric motor (actually, I have had to deal with a great many 8000 hp issues this year. I didn’t know there were so many!). In one case, it was communicated that the burnout (alternately the ‘burn-off’ process, or incinerator process) would have an impact of up to an increase of 50% in core losses by the equipment manufacturer IN HEAVILY CONTROLLED CONDITIONS with a core temperature not to exceed 670F (in new core steel)! As part of the review, we determined this would reduce the efficiency to 96.5% at full load costing an additional $22,000 per year and emitting an additional 123 Tons of CO2, alone, as well as other greenhouse gasses per year.
This condition came to mind after receiving multiple emails from associates in the motor repair industry concerning an Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) announcement and information from the motor repair trade association to oppose, or “in vehement opposition” to the air quality, energy and environmental regulations. The document was released on Friday, June 4, 2010, for review and opposing remarks by the US EPA under 40 CFR Part 60 entitled “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Proposed Rule,” where the US EPA emphasized that there would be less of an impact by the regulation on only 126 such burn-off ovens than land filling all such equipment for reconditioning. It was identified that the purpose for the opposition was that there are over 10,000 such units in the United States, alone, and that the average cost of compliance through modernizing equipment would be $146,777 per oven with an incremental annual cost of $88,861.
Not one mention of methods to reduce emissions, just opposition to altering operations to reduce emissions!
In the proposed letter to the US EPA that was sent to motor repair shop owners to oppose the rules, it even put in a bullet point to argue against alternate processes that have been proven in THIRD PARTY studies to not only maintain equipment condition with no increase in losses, but to also not be able to harm equipment EVEN WHEN OPERATED INCORRECTLY!! The process was also found to have virtually zero measureable emissions! (Cite: Canadian Electrical Association Motor Repair Study).
Yes folks, now for the details.
A few of the key points made by the US EPA proposed changes, which are being made because such equipment was held exempt for a number of reasons including lobbying. The US EPA has determined that such time is over and that these exemptions are having a direct impact on the environment. I will, of course, place a few editorial comments in between.
I suppose we should start with the US EPA’s question: “What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the emissions and current controls.” It is noted that most motors are put into burn-off ovens without contaminants, oils, greases, etc. removed from the windings:
“… and burn-off ovens that combust residual materials off racks, parts, drums or hooks so that those items can be reused in various production processes.”
“Combustion of solid waste causes the release of a wide array of air pollutants, some of which exist in the waste feed materials and are released unchanged during combustion and some of which are generated as a result of the combustion process itself. These pollutants include particulate matter (PM); materials including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg); toxic organics, including chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/dibenxofurans (dioxin furans); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides (Nox); and acid gasses, including hydrogen chloride (HCl) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).”
I would note that in the motor repair shops that I worked in and operated in Virginia in the early 1990s, the work areas had to be ‘clean’ due to the amount of particulate put out by the burn-off oven(s). In one case, the motor repair shop that I worked at in the low income area of Richmond, VA, would get complaints from the neighbors because of the amount of ash on their vehicles, gardens, windows, etc. This is one of the reasons I truly took up the torch for the method that I had and do use at Dreisilker Electric Motors and the forming of the Dreisilker R&D group.
Table: Findings and Average Existing Compared to Proposed Limits for Burn-off
Note: burn-off ovens were found to be some of the worst compared to such equipment as incinerators. Alternate repair processes DO EXIST.
Pollutants (Units) --- Existing --- Proposed
HCl (ppmv) --- 130 --- 18
CO (ppmv) --- 80 --- 74
Pb (mg/dscm) --- 0.041 --- 0.029
Cd (mg/dscm) --- 0.0045 --- 0.0032
Hg (mg/dscm) --- 0.014 --- 0.0033
PM Filterable (mg/dscm) --- 33 --- 28
Dioxin, furans, total (mg/dscm) --- 310 --- 0.011
Dioxin, furans, TEQ (mg/dscm) --- 25 --- 0.00086
NOx (ppmv) --- 120 --- 16
SO2 (ppmv) --- 11 --- 1.5
Opacity --- 2% --- 2%
(Opacity relating to the fact that you cannot see these gasses coming out of the stack. So, if you cannot see it, why the problem? Other than research that such emissions can trigger health problems including mercury and the other heavy metals and toxins being linked to the autism spectrum, cancer and other issues - http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_envirohealth_faq).
The above units are considered on the high side of emissions as compared to the equipment that has been previously regulated and burn-off ovens rate on the high side of the equipment that was under review by the proposal and report (note that you can contact me directly at howard@motordoc.com for a copy of the US EPA proposal).
Because of the findings of the US EPA: “… the proposed revisions to the CISWI rule would remove the exemptions for: agricultural waste incinerators; cyclonic barrel burners; cement kilns; rack, part and drum reclamation units (ie: burn-off ovens).”
“Existing incinerators, burn-off ovens and small, remote incinerators would have annual emissions testing for opacity, HCl and PM.” (Minor compared to other requirements).
“We have determined that most facilities with units in the incinerators, small remote incinerators or burn-off ovens subcategories will choose to cease operations once the proposed MACT floor limits are promulgated and that all units in these three subcategories will cease combusting waste if beyond-the-floor levels are adopted.”
To paraphrase the lengthy discussion that follows, it is the intention that the proposed regulations would cause these groups to utilize alternate means. These do exist, from mechanical stripping to water blasting, and other methods that have been found not to harm equipment through independent studies. I have heard arguments that the alternate methods are ‘more labor intensive’ or ‘potentially harmful,’ I have even heard a reference to a non-third party reviewed UK motor repair study stating that “it proves that the alternate methods harms motors,” when, in fact, the alternate processes were NEVER REVIEWED in that study. Talk about misrepresentation!! The times to perform the mechanical methods are the exact same in labor as burn-off ovens AND they are far shorter in LINEAR HOURS meaning that the length of time to return a repair is reduced often by a whole DAY! In fact, Dreisilker, who uses a mechanical stripping method and is one of the highest volume repair facilities in the USA, could not function effectively with the restrictions of burn-off oven process time! It turns out that the mechanical process is far more LEAN than incinerating piles of motors.
Burn-off ovens and cement kilns had previously been exempt but it was determined that many cement kilns would continue to be exempt but that it made more sense to remove the exemption from burn-off ovens.
“In fact, sources operating incinerators, burn-off ovens and small, remote incinerators where energy recovery is not a goal, may find it most cost effective to discontinue use of their CISWI unit altogether.”
The US EPA found it more beneficial (less environmental impact) to landfill materials rather than use burn-off ovens! That is a highly unique position for the US EPA to hold!
The US EPA felt that just turning off 126 burn-off ovens would have more of an environmental positive impact than if the waste from all of the burn-off ovens were land filled (over 10,000 units). The average cost of compliance, per the trade association proposed letter, would be $146,777 per oven and $88,861 in annual costs. The cost for alternate methods that have low to zero environmental impact, produce a faster turnaround for end-users, do not generate a motor repair half-life, operates a more lean repair process, and maintains end user energy costs following repair, would cost far less than that in an initial investment.
I am disturbed by such activity when warnings were being produced by multiple organizations since the 1960s (and before) related to energy and environment impact through traditional electric motor repair practices. The choice to fight change in an industry while all other industries are requiring to change to maintain competitiveness around them has been amazing. In fact, in an article I wrote many years ago discussing the changes in the industry, we ended up changing the position of the article citing how the industry HAS NOT CHANGED in over a CENTURY! Processes used in the repair of machines have not changed since the days that my Great Grandfather Henry Bulbrook and Grandfather Howard Bulbrook repaired motors during the turn of the 20th Century, in a few cases, the equipment used today being almost that old.
Shouldn’t it be time for the motor repair industry to move forward and improve to the benefit of the end user instead of fighting to maintain 100 years of traditional repair that does not benefit the environment, end user costs, or reliability of machines?
Go to http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the archive section for more articles on motor repair.
email a-and-r-docket@epa.gov with Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119 and tell them that you support the regulation on burn-off ovens!
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Impact of Motor Repair Practices Including Modern Standards
Electric motor repair has the potential to impact future motor life, energy efficiency and the environmental impact of the machine (electric motor, to be used interchangeably in this paper) even when meeting modern motor repair standards. In this paper we shall outline the impact of repair following repair standards versus traditional repair and relate both scenarios to Precision Motor Repair (PMR), or Reliability-Centered Motor Repair Practices (RCMRP). The outline of impacts will be based upon the allowable limits by standards, observations following traditional practices, the impacts measured through PMR, based upon three similar machines in which an IEEE 112 Method B (segregated loss) was performed. These evaluations will be based upon expectations of impact to new core steels in premium and energy efficient machines.
For more information, download the complete paper at http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the paper archives.
For more information, download the complete paper at http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the paper archives.
Free Infraspection Institute Electrical and Motor Standard
Jim Seffrin of the Infraspection Institute has provided us the latest version of the “Standard for Infrared Inspection of Electrical Systems and Rotating Equipment,” with permission for SUCCESS by DESIGN to make available through the archive section of http://www.motordiagnostics.com (a $25 value).
For those wishing to purchase a copy of this standard or others published by the Infraspection Institute, the link is – http://store03.prostores.com/servlet/infraspectionstore/the-Infraspection-Standards/Categories
For those wishing to purchase a copy of this standard or others published by the Infraspection Institute, the link is – http://store03.prostores.com/servlet/infraspectionstore/the-Infraspection-Standards/Categories
Comparing IEEE 112 Method B to MotorMaster Plus
Abstract: The present version of the US Department of Energy’s MotorMaster Plus (MMPlus) software was released in 1995 with modifications related to reliability funded by Dreisilker Electric Motors, Inc., ALL-TEST Pro, and Pruftechnic, in 2000. In 1999, a study by the Washington State Energy Extension Center determined that the efficiency results from MMPlus were roughly equivalent to IEEE Std 112 Method B testing, the requirement by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct ’92). In this paper we will compare the findings of three of the same model number and manufacturer motors via IEEE Std 112 Method B to the findings of MMPlus and our independent observations.
For more information, download the complete paper at http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the paper archives.
For more information, download the complete paper at http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the paper archives.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Maintenance and Management Editorial - June 1, 2010
What is the impact of energy efficiency and reliability? Efficiency testing, what can it tell us about our machines? How did that Reliability Gives Voice to Autism event turn out? Where did the newsletter disappear to for the last month? (simple, the MotorDoc having a blast!)
A few questions which will be answered in this edition. And belly dancing!
But now, on to our editorial! Over the years I have discussed such things as ‘you are only as good as your worst vendor,’ and the impact of poor quality in relation to reliability and maintenance issues. Lately, I have seen a growing number of articles with people purporting to show how and why management does not pay as much attention to reliability and maintenance. I find many of the statements interesting from many of these articles as my functions have changed from R&M consultant and practitioner to what amounts to the chief operating officer of an organization. After a year of being in this position, one that I have been in a number of times, I can provide a slightly different perspective.
For one thing, R&M is a function of the business, an important function to meet the mission of the company, but a function none-the-less. The real question is how much focus should senior management or executives give it. The prevailing maintenance organization and consulting wisdom has been that we need to ‘convince’ senior management that a robust maintenance program is a requirement for success and a priority that senior manager must focus on. I say that direction will lose almost every time as with everyone else, the workload of most senior decision makers is much higher than in the past. Combine that with training and experience, and you have a recipe for disaster! What is obvious to those on the floor is viewed differently at the senior management level, and it must be that way.
What it comes to is perspective. The perspective of someone at ‘sea level’ is going to be drastically different than someone who must see things at 30,000 feet. The WIIFM (What’s In It For Me), or drive, is different at every level. In fact, the very type of thought process is different in that senior management must think strategically and the R&M business must think tactically, and there are few who can bounce back and forth between the two.
Even in the military, the captain of a vessel on mission, or combat, needs to have an overall strategic and tactical view of the mission and a feel for the vessel. If the captain needs to be concerned about the status of maintenance of his command then the command is sick. If sick enough, the results can be terminal. The same gives for business, if the CEO, president, or VP of a company must focus on the tactical condition of maintenance, then the maintenance organization is ill, possibly fatally so.
Now, what happens if the organization is ill when the leadership provides the resources and direction to enforce a maintenance program? Or the manager requests records and there are none because it was too inconvenient for maintenance personnel to complete paperwork? Should the manager have the perspective that maintenance is important when the organization that is responsible doesn’t take it seriously? Especially if there are catastrophic failures in meeting the mission and an investigation shows no evidence of maintenance?
What happens when the senior manager of a division provides direction but the responsible junior managers decide to take direction from the financial division without informing the responsible manager? When things go wrong, who is responsible? In virtually every management style book I have been privy to, if you have an area that requires constant attention, it must be repaired or changed, if detailed direction must be given to managers (leaders) and/or personnel in the functions of their position, they are not suited for that position.
By the same token, if senior management is not ‘aware’ of the maintenance program in an organization by knowing the status of equipment availability (what equipment is functioning) and capability from the 30,000 foot level, then the senior manager does not have the required perspective of the organization. However, in the haste of some to ‘prove’ the value of their organization, incorrect or false information may be provided. The challenge usually comes to light when the need for that capability is required and it does not exist. When this happens more than once, how can the manager trust the organization?
So, what do we do? At this point we provide ‘magic numbers’ and ‘maintenance KPIs.’ These may serve the tactical component of the organization, but what about the strategic? The challenge is to understand the difference.
In our next newsletter we are going to discuss the concepts and practices associated with strategic and tactical thinking.
Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
howard@motordoc.com
A few questions which will be answered in this edition. And belly dancing!
But now, on to our editorial! Over the years I have discussed such things as ‘you are only as good as your worst vendor,’ and the impact of poor quality in relation to reliability and maintenance issues. Lately, I have seen a growing number of articles with people purporting to show how and why management does not pay as much attention to reliability and maintenance. I find many of the statements interesting from many of these articles as my functions have changed from R&M consultant and practitioner to what amounts to the chief operating officer of an organization. After a year of being in this position, one that I have been in a number of times, I can provide a slightly different perspective.
For one thing, R&M is a function of the business, an important function to meet the mission of the company, but a function none-the-less. The real question is how much focus should senior management or executives give it. The prevailing maintenance organization and consulting wisdom has been that we need to ‘convince’ senior management that a robust maintenance program is a requirement for success and a priority that senior manager must focus on. I say that direction will lose almost every time as with everyone else, the workload of most senior decision makers is much higher than in the past. Combine that with training and experience, and you have a recipe for disaster! What is obvious to those on the floor is viewed differently at the senior management level, and it must be that way.
What it comes to is perspective. The perspective of someone at ‘sea level’ is going to be drastically different than someone who must see things at 30,000 feet. The WIIFM (What’s In It For Me), or drive, is different at every level. In fact, the very type of thought process is different in that senior management must think strategically and the R&M business must think tactically, and there are few who can bounce back and forth between the two.
Even in the military, the captain of a vessel on mission, or combat, needs to have an overall strategic and tactical view of the mission and a feel for the vessel. If the captain needs to be concerned about the status of maintenance of his command then the command is sick. If sick enough, the results can be terminal. The same gives for business, if the CEO, president, or VP of a company must focus on the tactical condition of maintenance, then the maintenance organization is ill, possibly fatally so.
Now, what happens if the organization is ill when the leadership provides the resources and direction to enforce a maintenance program? Or the manager requests records and there are none because it was too inconvenient for maintenance personnel to complete paperwork? Should the manager have the perspective that maintenance is important when the organization that is responsible doesn’t take it seriously? Especially if there are catastrophic failures in meeting the mission and an investigation shows no evidence of maintenance?
What happens when the senior manager of a division provides direction but the responsible junior managers decide to take direction from the financial division without informing the responsible manager? When things go wrong, who is responsible? In virtually every management style book I have been privy to, if you have an area that requires constant attention, it must be repaired or changed, if detailed direction must be given to managers (leaders) and/or personnel in the functions of their position, they are not suited for that position.
By the same token, if senior management is not ‘aware’ of the maintenance program in an organization by knowing the status of equipment availability (what equipment is functioning) and capability from the 30,000 foot level, then the senior manager does not have the required perspective of the organization. However, in the haste of some to ‘prove’ the value of their organization, incorrect or false information may be provided. The challenge usually comes to light when the need for that capability is required and it does not exist. When this happens more than once, how can the manager trust the organization?
So, what do we do? At this point we provide ‘magic numbers’ and ‘maintenance KPIs.’ These may serve the tactical component of the organization, but what about the strategic? The challenge is to understand the difference.
In our next newsletter we are going to discuss the concepts and practices associated with strategic and tactical thinking.
Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
howard@motordoc.com
Impact of Motor Repair Practices Including Modern Standards
Electric motor repair has the potential to impact future motor life, energy efficiency and the environmental impact of the machine (electric motor, to be used interchangeably in this paper) even when meeting modern motor repair standards. In this paper we shall outline the impact of repair following repair standards versus traditional repair and relate both scenarios to Precision Motor Repair (PMR), or Reliability-Centered Motor Repair Practices (RCMRP). The outline of impacts will be based upon the allowable limits by standards, observations following traditional practices, the impacts measured through PMR, based upon three similar machines in which an IEEE 112 Method B (segregated loss) was performed. These evaluations will be based upon expectations of impact to new core steels in premium and energy efficient machines.
For more information, download the complete paper at http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the paper archives.
For more information, download the complete paper at http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the paper archives.
Report from Reliability Gives Voice to Autism at MARTs
The Reliability Gives Voice to Autism event went off extremely well on the evening of April 27, 2010 with about 100 reliability professionals, Autism Society of Illinois president and officers, and others in attendance. The SUCCESS by DESIGN event to celebrate the 2009 book awards received by Dr. Penrose (Axiom Business Book Award for ‘Physical Asset Management for the Executive,’ and the Foreword Book of the Year Award for ‘Electrical Motor Diagnostics: 2nd Edition’) was sponsored by Allied/GP Allied, Paragon Technologies, Maintenance Technology Magazine (through MARTS), and LuvBunny Confections. The reception and dinner was serenaded by the guitarists from the Guitars of Spain with sponsorship plaques being presented and a ten minute talk about his personal experience with his eight year old daughter’s autism challenge, Ken Arthur of GP Allied stirred the emotions of many in the audience.
The main speaker, Bob Miller, of IVC Technologies spoke for 45 minutes about his experience and what he learned concerning autism first hand. The presentation was illustrated by his autistic daughter. In general, the audience expressed that they learned a lot about autism and the spectrum of the affliction. Following Bob was a brief intermission as the belly dancers Gabriela Galvez, Tami Weeks-Pryor and Joanne Kucenski Wessels had a ‘wardrobe malfunction.’ Once repaired, they put on a seven minute demonstration. The video can be seen on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8XUEsIqjF4). During the break books were available with 100% of the books sales going to the Autism Society of Illinois (over $3400 in book sales was raised!).
Following the dancers came the full flamenco group, The Guitars of Spain, who put on another 45 minutes of music and entertainment. The one hour video can be downloaded (758MB: http://www.motordoc.com/autism/ReliabilityAutism.wmv) .
At the conclusion of the evening door prizes were handed out which included a blueray player donated by SUCCESS by DESIGN, a Sony video camera donated by SUCCESS by DESIGN, an Acer 120GB, 10 hr battery, Netbook by SUCCESS by DESIGN, several large candy baskets by LuvBunny Confections, and belly dance lessons from Tami Weeks Pryor.
Overall a great evening with over $7,000 raised for ASI after direct expenses. Dr. Penrose was invited to serve on the ASI Board of Directors following the success of the event and industry participants and sponsors requested that this event be tagged as a ‘first annual.’ If so, announcements will be made following the lessons learned meetings this summer. Contact Dr. Penrose at howard@motordoc.com if you are interested in participating in 2011.
The main speaker, Bob Miller, of IVC Technologies spoke for 45 minutes about his experience and what he learned concerning autism first hand. The presentation was illustrated by his autistic daughter. In general, the audience expressed that they learned a lot about autism and the spectrum of the affliction. Following Bob was a brief intermission as the belly dancers Gabriela Galvez, Tami Weeks-Pryor and Joanne Kucenski Wessels had a ‘wardrobe malfunction.’ Once repaired, they put on a seven minute demonstration. The video can be seen on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8XUEsIqjF4). During the break books were available with 100% of the books sales going to the Autism Society of Illinois (over $3400 in book sales was raised!).
Following the dancers came the full flamenco group, The Guitars of Spain, who put on another 45 minutes of music and entertainment. The one hour video can be downloaded (758MB: http://www.motordoc.com/autism/ReliabilityAutism.wmv) .
At the conclusion of the evening door prizes were handed out which included a blueray player donated by SUCCESS by DESIGN, a Sony video camera donated by SUCCESS by DESIGN, an Acer 120GB, 10 hr battery, Netbook by SUCCESS by DESIGN, several large candy baskets by LuvBunny Confections, and belly dance lessons from Tami Weeks Pryor.
Overall a great evening with over $7,000 raised for ASI after direct expenses. Dr. Penrose was invited to serve on the ASI Board of Directors following the success of the event and industry participants and sponsors requested that this event be tagged as a ‘first annual.’ If so, announcements will be made following the lessons learned meetings this summer. Contact Dr. Penrose at howard@motordoc.com if you are interested in participating in 2011.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
You are only as good as your worst vendor
I have made this statement many, many times: you are only as good as your worst vendor. But what if the general tendency is for a majority of vendors to fall in quality and delivery? Is there such a thing as business entropy? You know, where organizations tend towards chaos normally held back through organization and strength and a need to produce quality and reliability as well as customer service.
But what happens when everyone starts pulling back because of a perception of problems with ‘the economy.’ Reduce manpower, experience and inventories? Eek out a little more profit at the expense of ontime delivery for the sake of being driven by accounting rules and software. Makes a great excuse, doesn’t it? The impact on customers – well, that is just something that will take care of itself… right?
Recently I have been watching vendor delivery times get longer, their customer service falling behind, ready stock and inventories disappearing, and quality of delivered parts and materials being absurdly poor. Not just from poor or mediocre suppliers, but also from companies with long-term reputations for excellence. The problem seems to have been accelerating over the past couple of years to a point where it is becoming unbearable.
One of the early issues I noticed was things such as materials being well past their shelf life (as in 3-4 years in a few cases) being provided as new. Then it was poor quality magnet wire which had longer and longer waiting periods (for special dimensions), in many cases extremely long – such as four months – for materials that were kept on the shelf in the past. Calling customer care centers has been adventurous as the number of people have been cut or outsourced, sometimes to people with less information than the caller.
I returned to the motor repair industry partly because I had noticed quality levels drop out and some really shady business practices that had existed but were now becoming more prevalent. I returned to the leader in quality and reliability to assist in providing a beacon of quality and reliability back to the repair industry, an industry that goes back four generations in my family and one that I have been in since I was 18 (in the US Navy, it was lubrication and automotive from the time I was 16 at Amoco Labs, Naperville as part of the Vocational Industrial Clubs of America). My efforts were always to work for the best and to promote quality and reliability in every aspect of the industry from the beginning, including research and development into rotating machinery quality and reliability which expanded to complete industrial systems.
While I refuse to make excuses for unbelievably poor workmanship and business practices by many organizations, I do have to say that keeping ahead of the decline in quality and workmanship by large suppliers is a challenge that requires forethought and hard work. This includes the practice of adjusting min-max levels, a dedication to quality and reliable workmanship and ontime deliveries.
Recently discussions with a number of colleagues and equipment manufacturers, as well as other quality service centers, has identified that the problem is not unique and that I have not been imagining the disease. It is also not limited to a few suppliers, but pretty much across the board as cost reductions have hit the point of the ridiculous! Let alone a complete lack of common sense. But then again: “Common sense is not that common.” – [Mark Twain].
The only response has been an increased investment in incoming inspections, a higher rate of poor quality materials being sent back, and other measures required to meet delivery quality and reliability expectations. This means that those companies that are not alert for delivery/vendor defects will incur higher costs (warranties) and produce lower quality in their products and services. It also provides a distinct advantage to those suppliers that do opt to provide ontime delivery and quality products.
Recently I have noticed a few unknown suppliers and vendors attempting to fill these niches and even more recently where at least one where senior management of one large supplier became directly involved in a significant problem with their material. In this case, we are working with directly with their QC department to identify the cause and impact (participating in the RCFA). Mind you, I had to use a little influence to reach the level I approached after a lack of success with normal channels.
The impact that this issue is having on both new equipment manufacturers, as well as some of those manufacturers lacking in ready inventory and longer deliveries, the impact on the quality of service by many others, and availability of skilled workers is now significant. The recent economic issue has pushed forward the problems that I had predicted for 2014 to the present rather quickly.
With many end users having pushed to reduce inventories and MRO inventory, what do these problems do to this effort? Do companies now have to adjust what they called right-sized a few years ago to adjust for vendors and reliability issues? Or, will they maintain the status quo and continue reductions with the ultimate impact of reducing overall capacity of their facilities? What is the long-term impact of that effort? Especially as we have just started seeing many companies move their production back to the USA? Have we ‘leaned’ things beyond a point?
Why are we seeing this problem? Is your business seeing the same issue? How are you addressing it?
Please note: having been a consultant that has had to help companies out after other companies have made complete messes out of businesses – the usual meaningless marketing drivel is not what I am looking for (ie: throwing together a few impressive sounding words that mean nothing at all). I usually find that stuff (I have another word, but discovered that my kids read this, another PC word would be rubbish) amusing, and that is all. To date I have only ever found any such as either exacerbating the problem or completely useless. I am looking for common sense in plain English (does that even exist anymore?). My favorite are the companies that claim to perform RCFA or other solutions that pronounce methods to fix situations without even knowing the causes, or having a clearly defined statement of the problem – and if you know what I mean, then you are a step ahead of the rest. I mean, how can you expect to provide RCFA, or solutions, training or assistance if you don’t even follow the basic tenets of what you are claiming to be an expert at? Hmmm?
Sincerely,
Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
But what happens when everyone starts pulling back because of a perception of problems with ‘the economy.’ Reduce manpower, experience and inventories? Eek out a little more profit at the expense of ontime delivery for the sake of being driven by accounting rules and software. Makes a great excuse, doesn’t it? The impact on customers – well, that is just something that will take care of itself… right?
Recently I have been watching vendor delivery times get longer, their customer service falling behind, ready stock and inventories disappearing, and quality of delivered parts and materials being absurdly poor. Not just from poor or mediocre suppliers, but also from companies with long-term reputations for excellence. The problem seems to have been accelerating over the past couple of years to a point where it is becoming unbearable.
One of the early issues I noticed was things such as materials being well past their shelf life (as in 3-4 years in a few cases) being provided as new. Then it was poor quality magnet wire which had longer and longer waiting periods (for special dimensions), in many cases extremely long – such as four months – for materials that were kept on the shelf in the past. Calling customer care centers has been adventurous as the number of people have been cut or outsourced, sometimes to people with less information than the caller.
I returned to the motor repair industry partly because I had noticed quality levels drop out and some really shady business practices that had existed but were now becoming more prevalent. I returned to the leader in quality and reliability to assist in providing a beacon of quality and reliability back to the repair industry, an industry that goes back four generations in my family and one that I have been in since I was 18 (in the US Navy, it was lubrication and automotive from the time I was 16 at Amoco Labs, Naperville as part of the Vocational Industrial Clubs of America). My efforts were always to work for the best and to promote quality and reliability in every aspect of the industry from the beginning, including research and development into rotating machinery quality and reliability which expanded to complete industrial systems.
While I refuse to make excuses for unbelievably poor workmanship and business practices by many organizations, I do have to say that keeping ahead of the decline in quality and workmanship by large suppliers is a challenge that requires forethought and hard work. This includes the practice of adjusting min-max levels, a dedication to quality and reliable workmanship and ontime deliveries.
Recently discussions with a number of colleagues and equipment manufacturers, as well as other quality service centers, has identified that the problem is not unique and that I have not been imagining the disease. It is also not limited to a few suppliers, but pretty much across the board as cost reductions have hit the point of the ridiculous! Let alone a complete lack of common sense. But then again: “Common sense is not that common.” – [Mark Twain].
The only response has been an increased investment in incoming inspections, a higher rate of poor quality materials being sent back, and other measures required to meet delivery quality and reliability expectations. This means that those companies that are not alert for delivery/vendor defects will incur higher costs (warranties) and produce lower quality in their products and services. It also provides a distinct advantage to those suppliers that do opt to provide ontime delivery and quality products.
Recently I have noticed a few unknown suppliers and vendors attempting to fill these niches and even more recently where at least one where senior management of one large supplier became directly involved in a significant problem with their material. In this case, we are working with directly with their QC department to identify the cause and impact (participating in the RCFA). Mind you, I had to use a little influence to reach the level I approached after a lack of success with normal channels.
The impact that this issue is having on both new equipment manufacturers, as well as some of those manufacturers lacking in ready inventory and longer deliveries, the impact on the quality of service by many others, and availability of skilled workers is now significant. The recent economic issue has pushed forward the problems that I had predicted for 2014 to the present rather quickly.
With many end users having pushed to reduce inventories and MRO inventory, what do these problems do to this effort? Do companies now have to adjust what they called right-sized a few years ago to adjust for vendors and reliability issues? Or, will they maintain the status quo and continue reductions with the ultimate impact of reducing overall capacity of their facilities? What is the long-term impact of that effort? Especially as we have just started seeing many companies move their production back to the USA? Have we ‘leaned’ things beyond a point?
Why are we seeing this problem? Is your business seeing the same issue? How are you addressing it?
Please note: having been a consultant that has had to help companies out after other companies have made complete messes out of businesses – the usual meaningless marketing drivel is not what I am looking for (ie: throwing together a few impressive sounding words that mean nothing at all). I usually find that stuff (I have another word, but discovered that my kids read this, another PC word would be rubbish) amusing, and that is all. To date I have only ever found any such as either exacerbating the problem or completely useless. I am looking for common sense in plain English (does that even exist anymore?). My favorite are the companies that claim to perform RCFA or other solutions that pronounce methods to fix situations without even knowing the causes, or having a clearly defined statement of the problem – and if you know what I mean, then you are a step ahead of the rest. I mean, how can you expect to provide RCFA, or solutions, training or assistance if you don’t even follow the basic tenets of what you are claiming to be an expert at? Hmmm?
Sincerely,
Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
Monday, April 5, 2010
A Short Essay on Greasing Issues
You know, everytime we seem to move forward with improvements to our industry, we seem to work against ourselves in an effort to put us back into the dark ages. For instance, once the tools of RCM and PM Optimization, as well as others, started to make ground and turn things around, ‘specialists’ came out of the woodwork with ‘newer, better’ ways to accomplish these programs. For the most part, these resulted in expensive consulting with few results to show.
For ages, the concept of greasing has bounced back and forth. Over the past decade the manufacturers of ultrasonic equipment suddenly came out with ultrasonic grease guns to assist with lubrication. I am not sure which company did so, but it quickly caught on. The result is that users of the technology, as well as others, have determined that it is correct to add grease to operating electric motors, contrary to scientific studies and literature showing evidence why the machines must be lubricated while they are de-energized. However, as with many other things, sales and marketing often overcome engineering and science in terms of convincing people of right and wrong ways to accomplish things. (Articles on motor greasing can be found in the archives at http://www.motordiagnostics.com).
It should be remembered: of the motor failures due to greasing electric machines, overlubrication is FAR more prevalent than undergreasing. In fact, with some of the new concepts the number of bearing failures appear to be INCREASING not improving.
As of late, we add to this problem with not just vibration analysts making lubrication calls, but REMOTE analysts making lubrication calls. So far, on the service side of the industry, we are seeing this as an increase in equipment failures. Either there are some bad calls in which lubrication is added when it is not necessary (ie: recently ran into greasing recommendations to solve ‘looseness’ that resulted in the following image); or, the concept is not valid.
What has your experience been with lubrication calls using vibration analysis? How about ultrasonic lubrication? Do you have actual measurements of MTBF related to bearings before and after implementation?
For more information on greasing electric motors, go to http://www.motordiagnostics.com and review the archives. Includes articles and presentations related to motor lubrication.
For ages, the concept of greasing has bounced back and forth. Over the past decade the manufacturers of ultrasonic equipment suddenly came out with ultrasonic grease guns to assist with lubrication. I am not sure which company did so, but it quickly caught on. The result is that users of the technology, as well as others, have determined that it is correct to add grease to operating electric motors, contrary to scientific studies and literature showing evidence why the machines must be lubricated while they are de-energized. However, as with many other things, sales and marketing often overcome engineering and science in terms of convincing people of right and wrong ways to accomplish things. (Articles on motor greasing can be found in the archives at http://www.motordiagnostics.com).
It should be remembered: of the motor failures due to greasing electric machines, overlubrication is FAR more prevalent than undergreasing. In fact, with some of the new concepts the number of bearing failures appear to be INCREASING not improving.
As of late, we add to this problem with not just vibration analysts making lubrication calls, but REMOTE analysts making lubrication calls. So far, on the service side of the industry, we are seeing this as an increase in equipment failures. Either there are some bad calls in which lubrication is added when it is not necessary (ie: recently ran into greasing recommendations to solve ‘looseness’ that resulted in the following image); or, the concept is not valid.
What has your experience been with lubrication calls using vibration analysis? How about ultrasonic lubrication? Do you have actual measurements of MTBF related to bearings before and after implementation?
For more information on greasing electric motors, go to http://www.motordiagnostics.com and review the archives. Includes articles and presentations related to motor lubrication.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
SMRP Chicagoland Event Report
On February 23, 2010, Dreisilker Electric Motor’s Glen Ellyn, Illinois repair facility hosted the day long SMRP Chicagoland event and CMRP exam. With over 50 attendees, the event started with a welcome by Chicagoland Chair Peter McLiverty, CMRP (Emerson), Leo Dreisilker (owner), and Dr. Howard Penrose, CMRP (SMRP Membership Director and Dreisilker Vice President), then a shop tour, a workshop on developing your motor repair specifications using the new IEEE 1068-2010 by Dr. Penrose, lunch and then the CMRP exam with additional tours and repair shop discussion.
Pre-Tour
Peter and Howard Discussing SMRP
The Tour Starts
Leo (Owner) discussing winding
What makes Dreisilker different
Enthusiastic Balancing
Tour of Final Paint and Inspection
DC Motor Specialist Discussing His Work
Winding Department Demonstrating World Class Winding
Mechanical Stripping at Work (Non-Burnout)
For more information or a tour of the facility, please contact hpenrose@dreisilker.com.
For information on SMRP and how to join, contact howard@motordoc.com
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Shaft Grounding Brush Adventure
Sometimes coincidence is kinda cool.
On Tuesday, February 9, 2010, we had AGR in at Dreisilker to perform training on the Aegis Grounding Brush line. This is designed to eliminate shaft currents from damaging bearings in variable frequency drive applications (and high harmonic applications) and a solution we have available and one I have used in a variety of applications, including implementing them as best practice within several organizations and some pretty harsh duty environments.
The day before we had received a call concerning a motor that had been rebuilt in December for a customer. The bearing was noisy and a technician checked it out on site. The motor was brought in, disassembled, and the bearings inspected as a result of what was discussed in the class.
The following picture is at 40x power with an inspection microscope of a bearing worn after 60,000 hours of operation (from another RCFA project – yeah, you should see what we can do to investigate motor failures and provide solutions!):
You can see a smooth-ish pattern and some definite wear (there is actually a specification). This bearing was audibly noisy and was considered failed.
Following are the pictures from the motor that had been repaired and was making noise. Microscope power of 40x +:
Inner race - hazing is due to many many pits discharged into the race. Basically numerous craters that have high edges that make noise:
The following two pictures are of the outer race. The wear pattern is known as fluting and is definitively from electrical discharges. These also contribute to the noise. The patterns on both the inner and outer race were visible to the naked eye:
Shaft brushes are becoming more convenient to install with a smaller profile. Following is the motor and shaft ring.
The inspection microscope is also a new technology we have available at Dreisilker. (I have more toys!)
On Tuesday, February 9, 2010, we had AGR in at Dreisilker to perform training on the Aegis Grounding Brush line. This is designed to eliminate shaft currents from damaging bearings in variable frequency drive applications (and high harmonic applications) and a solution we have available and one I have used in a variety of applications, including implementing them as best practice within several organizations and some pretty harsh duty environments.
The day before we had received a call concerning a motor that had been rebuilt in December for a customer. The bearing was noisy and a technician checked it out on site. The motor was brought in, disassembled, and the bearings inspected as a result of what was discussed in the class.
The following picture is at 40x power with an inspection microscope of a bearing worn after 60,000 hours of operation (from another RCFA project – yeah, you should see what we can do to investigate motor failures and provide solutions!):
You can see a smooth-ish pattern and some definite wear (there is actually a specification). This bearing was audibly noisy and was considered failed.
Following are the pictures from the motor that had been repaired and was making noise. Microscope power of 40x +:
Inner race - hazing is due to many many pits discharged into the race. Basically numerous craters that have high edges that make noise:
The following two pictures are of the outer race. The wear pattern is known as fluting and is definitively from electrical discharges. These also contribute to the noise. The patterns on both the inner and outer race were visible to the naked eye:
Shaft brushes are becoming more convenient to install with a smaller profile. Following is the motor and shaft ring.
The inspection microscope is also a new technology we have available at Dreisilker. (I have more toys!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
