In the editions of the NAVSEA S6260-BJ-GTP-010 "Electrical Machinery Repair, Electric Motor Repair, Shop Procedures Manual" starting in the 1980s (this is the Navy Rewind bible), the Dreisilker method (by name) is outlined.
As noted by the Navy rewind manual (Section 8-14): “Oven Burnout Procedure: The simplest, but most time consuming, method of preparing a failed winding for removal from a stator is a pre-heated, temperature-controlled burnout oven that has a forced exhaust system [to atmosphere – see the EPA article] until all the insulating materials have turned to ash and the windings can be removed. This will take at least 12 hours. The oven temperature during burnout should not exceed 700F (600F for T-frame and aluminum stators), measured by thermocouple on stator iron. After removing the stator from the oven, allow it to stand and cool to room temperature.”
The motor is not allowed to be rapidly cooled to reduce the amount of core warping and only one stator in the oven at a time. Both of these requirements are ignored by virtually all motor repair facilities. Normally, motors are stacked in an oven, thermocouples unused, and, in many cases, temperature suppression systems turned off to speed the process.
As noted, following discussion of the burnout process:
8-17: "Warming and pulling is the preferred method for stripping the stator. This method is to be used on motors with sealed insulation systems and can also be used with aluminum frame motors. This method uses lower temperatures, so it does not damage the laminations."
This is the Dreisilker/Thumm method of coil removal.
Dreisilker is mentioned twice more in the repair winding removal process: Section 8-18 – “Suitable end turn cutoff devices are manufactured by Lancer of Wisconsin and Dreisilker Electric Motors, Inc. of Glen Ellyn, Illinois;” and, Section 8-20 – “Commercial devices suitable for the operation are made by S and W Enterprises of Savannah, Georgia, and Dreisilker Electric Motors of Glen Ellyn, Illinois.”
The process is outlined as not damaging the condition of electric motors versus the burnoff oven. A copy of this section is available (public information) by contacting the MotorDoc.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Motor Repair Impact on the Environment – US EPA
What is the impact of motor repair on the environment? On your company’s carbon footprint? On your children?
The US EPA identified the act of burning out a motor (referring to it as incinerating) results in significant emissions. This is reported in the 40 CFR Part 60: “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Units: Proposed Rule.”
Motor repair organizations and others have attempted to stop the ruling, which was going to be delayed due to severe lobbying by those organizations by 15 months, in effect killing it. A Federal Judge has stated that the ruling must take place by February 21, 2011, as the ruling was supposed to be addressed in 2000, and there would be no more appeals.
The argument against the ruling is purely related to the costs to install emission reduction equipment and reporting requirements that larger incinerators are already required to use. None of the opponents have argued or supplied data refuting the amounts and types of emissions from the burnout ovens, as noted in the court case.
The US EPA and Federal Courts cited numerous studies which identified unusually high rates of cardiovascular disease, asthma, and childhood mental disorders (including autism) in close proximity to burnoff ovens due to high levels of ash and heavy metals that are emitted. It is noted that a decrease of such conditions occurred in areas near the larger incinerators following the installation of emission-reducing equipment from the original US EPA rulings.
In addition, the reduced efficiency from increased core losses and other effects from poorly repaired electric motors causes and increase in energy consumption which is directly related to increased greenhouse gas emissions by the motor owners. Basically, when selecting a ‘cheap’ repair, you not only get poor reliability, but also have a negative impact on the environment and your carbon footprint.
Recently, an argument was presented that a study by the motor repair industry upon itself (yes, you read that right) identified that there were no negative impacts and, oh by the way, it was OK to crank those burnout ovens up to higher temperatures. The only benefit of this is for the shop owner as it decreases oven time. In my response I noted that the people involved were also the same people who insisted on an allowable 20% INCREASE IN CORE LOSSES THROUGH THE BURNOUT PROCESS BEFORE HAVING TO INFORM THE MOTOR OWNER in the repair standard IEEE Std 1068-2009.
Be cautious when selecting a motor repair vendor. See if they are capable of performing rewind processes that DO NOT include burnout ovens!!
The US EPA identified the act of burning out a motor (referring to it as incinerating) results in significant emissions. This is reported in the 40 CFR Part 60: “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Units: Proposed Rule.”
Motor repair organizations and others have attempted to stop the ruling, which was going to be delayed due to severe lobbying by those organizations by 15 months, in effect killing it. A Federal Judge has stated that the ruling must take place by February 21, 2011, as the ruling was supposed to be addressed in 2000, and there would be no more appeals.
The argument against the ruling is purely related to the costs to install emission reduction equipment and reporting requirements that larger incinerators are already required to use. None of the opponents have argued or supplied data refuting the amounts and types of emissions from the burnout ovens, as noted in the court case.
The US EPA and Federal Courts cited numerous studies which identified unusually high rates of cardiovascular disease, asthma, and childhood mental disorders (including autism) in close proximity to burnoff ovens due to high levels of ash and heavy metals that are emitted. It is noted that a decrease of such conditions occurred in areas near the larger incinerators following the installation of emission-reducing equipment from the original US EPA rulings.
In addition, the reduced efficiency from increased core losses and other effects from poorly repaired electric motors causes and increase in energy consumption which is directly related to increased greenhouse gas emissions by the motor owners. Basically, when selecting a ‘cheap’ repair, you not only get poor reliability, but also have a negative impact on the environment and your carbon footprint.
Recently, an argument was presented that a study by the motor repair industry upon itself (yes, you read that right) identified that there were no negative impacts and, oh by the way, it was OK to crank those burnout ovens up to higher temperatures. The only benefit of this is for the shop owner as it decreases oven time. In my response I noted that the people involved were also the same people who insisted on an allowable 20% INCREASE IN CORE LOSSES THROUGH THE BURNOUT PROCESS BEFORE HAVING TO INFORM THE MOTOR OWNER in the repair standard IEEE Std 1068-2009.
Be cautious when selecting a motor repair vendor. See if they are capable of performing rewind processes that DO NOT include burnout ovens!!
Maintenance Staff Resistance Comments from the MotorDoc
Last week I discussed and posted a scenario which many, as identified in some of the responses, have seen. I asked for potential solutions to the problem. It was considered significant an issue throughout industry that it was rebroadcast on numerous discussion groups. To answer one question I was asked via email – no, it was not my company.
The responses ranged from: 1) you must do more training, so hire my training company; 2) I am a consultant with a secret magic bullet, so call me so I can sell you on hiring me; 3) you don’t need CMMS or measures on maintenance; 4) big brother is watching; 5) lack of leadership; and many more conclusions and anecdotes.
What disturbed me the most was the volume of discussion about ‘what to do’ or ‘hire me,’ but very little substance. I was hoping for someone, anyone, to try to handle this as a problem and apply some of our reliability tools. Only one did; a practitioner who suggested that a solution cannot be given until root causes are determined. He was immediately put upon by the consulting regime. Unfortunately, everyone seems to have already determined the problem in the scenario, management, without a view of the complete picture.
If a marketing, sales, accounting or production person approached a company executive, or a company executive approached one of these departments, because it wasn’t functioning, should the company executive first have to train the department on why they should be performing their function? Or, should the executive feel comfortable that they understand what and why they are doing/performing their functions and that there is some other issue in play?
One set of comments I found particularly disturbing related to the case of a CMMS system. Not the ‘big brother’ statements, those are relatively understandable, but the concept that CMMS is not needed! The idea was that you should not have to track maintenance performance, take it as a given, and provide maintenance with all the resources they request, no questions asked. This truly blew my mind, and not in a positive way. The concepts of needs and gap analysis were good, but, again, suggestions that nothing should happen until then.
Why would management want to have a CMMS in place (there are more reasons, here are a few)?
a) Measurement of resources and to track KPI (you cannot manage what you cannot measure);
b) Ensure maintenance is being performed on the correct equipment (tool for maintenance manager);
c) As a tool to track maintenance issues and repetitive equipment failures: and,
d) Determine asset end of life and as a tool to assist with maintenance program improvement.
Throughout the comments it was suggested that management should reach out and educate/communicate with maintenance. At the same time, maintenance personnel at conferences have been screaming out for help in communicating with senior management.
So, what is the answer? Should the captain of the ship come down to the engine room to show the maintenance man why he is turning the wrench? Or, should that executive be more concerned with the heading and destination secure in the knowledge that the ship is functioning? Personally, if the captain has to come down from the bridge to direct a ship’s function, then something is seriously wrong!
One of the suggestions was that management had to somehow learn change management. The argument I put forth is that management already knows change management. A company does not survive long if an executive will not change and flow with conditions. Instead I submit, as in the sample last week, that the issue will tend to reside in the individuals directly affected by the changes. In this case, the maintenance organization was resisting changes that would be beneficial to them in both the short and long term.
For one thing, maintenance was complaining that they did not have enough resources. However, there was no evidence to that effect. All management knew is that equipment was failing with no evidence of maintenance being performed. Next, it was noted that maintenance personnel were being used for non-maintenance errands, but to what extent was unknown. So, if there is no evidence of maintenance being performed and maintenance personnel are being used for non-maintenance tasks, then perhaps there are enough resources, but they are not being effectively utilized? Tracking time on functions and wrench time would be an effective way of ensuring proper use of an asset, wouldn’t it?
Without evidence of maintenance being performed, equipment failing, and maintenance staff being used for non-maintenance tasks, the ‘not enough resources’ sounds like an excuse. What if accounting was not sending invoices and processing receivables, but instead they were out doing grounds keeping? Would that be an effective use of their time? There are measurements in place to track the effectiveness of accounting, as well as other departments.
So, what makes maintenance different than any other function of the company? I believe it is no more or less than any other function, or else it wouldn’t exist. So, as a valuable asset of the company, it must be managed and must be tied to the company strategy. This was noted in a comment that somehow maintenance was not a ‘value added’ part of the company with the person making the statement suggesting that maintenance has no impact on the bottom line. My opinion is supported, of course, that maintenance is value added as it has a direct impact on the cost to manufacture and quality of product. This is well known to experienced managers.
In times when executives are faced with having to lean their companies, make cutbacks, fine-tune functions, why should, or would, they throw resources at a dysfunctional program? Or, if they cannot see a justification for a program, why shouldn’t they cut it? Things are breaking anyways and there is no evidence that maintenance is being performed.
Is there a good solution to the problem? Perhaps multiple solutions?
Because right now, if an executive were to approach our industry and say, ‘what do I do?’ and they receive the answers I did? They would either kill the program, wipe it out and start over, or throw their hands up and let things continue dysfunctionally.
One of the things I have noted over the years is a very definite lack of a clear message to corporate executives in relation to how to get things going, what the impact is on our industry, etc. Instead, I see a bunch of stuff thrown at them to see what sticks.
I do note that I see the types of organizations that approached me trying to sell me their ‘silver bullet,’ most of which had absolutely nothing to do with the scenario, as a HUGE PART OF THE PROBLEM! When an overworked executive has wave after wave of confusing information thrown at them, most will do the smart thing and walk away. Me, I just make fun of the snake oil salesmen. Unfortunately, enough fall for the crap and see that it does not work and have a bad taste in their mouth for future endeavors and the R&M community. I have heard so many comments from managers to that effect that it makes me sick! But at least the scum made a few dollars while kicking our industry in the teeth.
Yep, if you just got your hair up over that, I am talking about you.
For the rest of us, one of the biggest challenges I have seen is the communication gap between our industry and corporate executives. Our message seems to be more inward with people selling to the choir instead of supporting the community and coming up with a common message on getting things started. Thank goodness for organizations like SMRP (Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals) who have been working hard at educating, communicating and standardizing such items as KPIs (http://www.smrp.org).
How would you communicate with corporate executives about the value of our community to the organization? How would you identify What’s In It For Me (WIIFM) for the executive?
I really suggest that you don’t try to sell me on your latest snake oil, if you were thinking about it. I WILL make fun of you. Honest professionals making suggestions, that is another matter and I strongly welcome your comments.
The responses ranged from: 1) you must do more training, so hire my training company; 2) I am a consultant with a secret magic bullet, so call me so I can sell you on hiring me; 3) you don’t need CMMS or measures on maintenance; 4) big brother is watching; 5) lack of leadership; and many more conclusions and anecdotes.
What disturbed me the most was the volume of discussion about ‘what to do’ or ‘hire me,’ but very little substance. I was hoping for someone, anyone, to try to handle this as a problem and apply some of our reliability tools. Only one did; a practitioner who suggested that a solution cannot be given until root causes are determined. He was immediately put upon by the consulting regime. Unfortunately, everyone seems to have already determined the problem in the scenario, management, without a view of the complete picture.
If a marketing, sales, accounting or production person approached a company executive, or a company executive approached one of these departments, because it wasn’t functioning, should the company executive first have to train the department on why they should be performing their function? Or, should the executive feel comfortable that they understand what and why they are doing/performing their functions and that there is some other issue in play?
One set of comments I found particularly disturbing related to the case of a CMMS system. Not the ‘big brother’ statements, those are relatively understandable, but the concept that CMMS is not needed! The idea was that you should not have to track maintenance performance, take it as a given, and provide maintenance with all the resources they request, no questions asked. This truly blew my mind, and not in a positive way. The concepts of needs and gap analysis were good, but, again, suggestions that nothing should happen until then.
Why would management want to have a CMMS in place (there are more reasons, here are a few)?
a) Measurement of resources and to track KPI (you cannot manage what you cannot measure);
b) Ensure maintenance is being performed on the correct equipment (tool for maintenance manager);
c) As a tool to track maintenance issues and repetitive equipment failures: and,
d) Determine asset end of life and as a tool to assist with maintenance program improvement.
Throughout the comments it was suggested that management should reach out and educate/communicate with maintenance. At the same time, maintenance personnel at conferences have been screaming out for help in communicating with senior management.
So, what is the answer? Should the captain of the ship come down to the engine room to show the maintenance man why he is turning the wrench? Or, should that executive be more concerned with the heading and destination secure in the knowledge that the ship is functioning? Personally, if the captain has to come down from the bridge to direct a ship’s function, then something is seriously wrong!
One of the suggestions was that management had to somehow learn change management. The argument I put forth is that management already knows change management. A company does not survive long if an executive will not change and flow with conditions. Instead I submit, as in the sample last week, that the issue will tend to reside in the individuals directly affected by the changes. In this case, the maintenance organization was resisting changes that would be beneficial to them in both the short and long term.
For one thing, maintenance was complaining that they did not have enough resources. However, there was no evidence to that effect. All management knew is that equipment was failing with no evidence of maintenance being performed. Next, it was noted that maintenance personnel were being used for non-maintenance errands, but to what extent was unknown. So, if there is no evidence of maintenance being performed and maintenance personnel are being used for non-maintenance tasks, then perhaps there are enough resources, but they are not being effectively utilized? Tracking time on functions and wrench time would be an effective way of ensuring proper use of an asset, wouldn’t it?
Without evidence of maintenance being performed, equipment failing, and maintenance staff being used for non-maintenance tasks, the ‘not enough resources’ sounds like an excuse. What if accounting was not sending invoices and processing receivables, but instead they were out doing grounds keeping? Would that be an effective use of their time? There are measurements in place to track the effectiveness of accounting, as well as other departments.
So, what makes maintenance different than any other function of the company? I believe it is no more or less than any other function, or else it wouldn’t exist. So, as a valuable asset of the company, it must be managed and must be tied to the company strategy. This was noted in a comment that somehow maintenance was not a ‘value added’ part of the company with the person making the statement suggesting that maintenance has no impact on the bottom line. My opinion is supported, of course, that maintenance is value added as it has a direct impact on the cost to manufacture and quality of product. This is well known to experienced managers.
In times when executives are faced with having to lean their companies, make cutbacks, fine-tune functions, why should, or would, they throw resources at a dysfunctional program? Or, if they cannot see a justification for a program, why shouldn’t they cut it? Things are breaking anyways and there is no evidence that maintenance is being performed.
Is there a good solution to the problem? Perhaps multiple solutions?
Because right now, if an executive were to approach our industry and say, ‘what do I do?’ and they receive the answers I did? They would either kill the program, wipe it out and start over, or throw their hands up and let things continue dysfunctionally.
One of the things I have noted over the years is a very definite lack of a clear message to corporate executives in relation to how to get things going, what the impact is on our industry, etc. Instead, I see a bunch of stuff thrown at them to see what sticks.
I do note that I see the types of organizations that approached me trying to sell me their ‘silver bullet,’ most of which had absolutely nothing to do with the scenario, as a HUGE PART OF THE PROBLEM! When an overworked executive has wave after wave of confusing information thrown at them, most will do the smart thing and walk away. Me, I just make fun of the snake oil salesmen. Unfortunately, enough fall for the crap and see that it does not work and have a bad taste in their mouth for future endeavors and the R&M community. I have heard so many comments from managers to that effect that it makes me sick! But at least the scum made a few dollars while kicking our industry in the teeth.
Yep, if you just got your hair up over that, I am talking about you.
For the rest of us, one of the biggest challenges I have seen is the communication gap between our industry and corporate executives. Our message seems to be more inward with people selling to the choir instead of supporting the community and coming up with a common message on getting things started. Thank goodness for organizations like SMRP (Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals) who have been working hard at educating, communicating and standardizing such items as KPIs (http://www.smrp.org).
How would you communicate with corporate executives about the value of our community to the organization? How would you identify What’s In It For Me (WIIFM) for the executive?
I really suggest that you don’t try to sell me on your latest snake oil, if you were thinking about it. I WILL make fun of you. Honest professionals making suggestions, that is another matter and I strongly welcome your comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
