Condition-Based Maintenance


Preventative maintenance only occurs when a set intervals of time or usage passes. This leaves equipment problems unaddressed for long periods, which leads to unexpected failures.

True condition-based maintenance programs perform equipment maintenance only when condition-monitoring technologies provide sufficient evidence that the condition of the fluid and/or the equipment merits action. Then maintenance can be scheduled to minimize any disruption to the equipment’s uptime, but it is necessary for technology to prove there is a problem and establish a clear direction for correcting it.

EXAMPLE 1: Diesel engine re-builds are typically done at around 750,000 miles with oil drain intervals around 10,000 miles. Unexpected issues can reduce that interval, including fuel scheduling issues (bad injectors, excessive soot) or coolant contamination (leaks in the engine or the EGR cooler). This creates wear and leads to premature failure. Normal scheduled maintenance every 25,000 miles will spot these issues, but this leads to unscheduled downtime as the unit waits for parts. In the worst-case scenario, a problem develops and causes a failure before the next scheduled maintenance, causing collateral damage to other components.

EXAMPLE 2: A typical diesel engine can use a condition-based maintenance strategy and rely on oil analysis trends to optimize drain intervals. When wear, contamination and/or fluid degradation approaches levels that could result in engine damage, the data analysis will recommend to change the oil, resample to verify the result or perform additional diagnostics. This allows parts to be staged for the unit so there is no delay when maintenance is performed. All of this increases the unit’s uptime and can even delay a rebuild.

Benefits of Condition-Based Maintenance

  • Operating costs are significantly reduced.
  • Extending maintenance and oil drain intervals reduces wrench time and oil consumption.
  • Performing the appropriate maintenance on the appropriate unit at the appropriate time increases component life and improves overall fleet management.
  • Trending data provides early knowledge of possible failures, allows for scheduled maintenance and drastically reduces unscheduled downtime. This requires changing from a preventive maintenance strategy to a predictive maintenance strategy that identifies and addresses small problems before they develop into catastrophic failures.
  • Regularly reviewing trends of condition monitoring results provides more accurate root-cause analysis of preventable failures.

Condition-Based-Maintenance-TimelineNeed a plan to move your program from interval-based to condition-based maintenance today?
Take a look at our simple 8-week timeline.

Learn more about getting an oil analysis program started with POLARIS Laboratories®.

 

Proven Impact. Proven Uptime. Proven Savings.
Let us prove it to you. 

Published June 9, 2015

Advancing Fluid Analysis with Data


Recently, POLARIS Laboratories® changed how we apply flagging limits to our particle quantifier (PQ) test results. Changes to flagging limits happen fairly regularly as we get new information and reach new data accumulation milestones. The change to the PQ is noteworthy for several reasons, but first let me explain a little more about the test.

PQ is a relatively new test in the oil analysis industry, so there isn’t a lot of historical data to examine. Also, unlike most other oil analysis tests, the results are an “index” with no unit of measurement (like microns or millimeters). Flagging limits are set on the index, and our data analysts compare the test results to the flagging limits to determine severity level and maintenance recommendations.

Until now, the flagging limits were limited to the type of component, like engine or differential. The size, configuration or application was not considered because there wasn’t enough historical data to affect the maintenance recommendations.

After offering PQ testing for several years, we have accumulated enough data to go beyond component type and make maintenance recommendations based on component manufacturer and model, like we do with the majority of our other tests. As you can imagine, contamination does not affect equipment made by different OEMs the same way, so being able to flag PQ by manufacturer and model is expected to improve the accuracy of our maintenance recommendations.

We’re proud of our flagging limits because of the time and effort that goes into this kind of data-driven analysis helps our customers identify wear early, safely extend fluid drains and save money. If you have any questions about PQ or our new flagging limits, please don’t hesitate to call (317.808.3750) or email.

Proven Impact. Proven Uptime. Proven Savings.
Let us prove it to you. 

Published April 23, 2015

Testing Confirms When To Extend Recommended Drain Intervals


As engine oil manufacturers continue to develop new products designed to be stronger and last longer, some also are recommending drain intervals. Original equipment manufacturers also specify drain intervals and qualify oils for use in the equipment they sell. In both instances, it is important to recognize these recommendations may not be all inclusive of every operating condition or every application in which the oil might be used. For more information and clarification, please contact one of our data analysts.

How do you know an oil manufacturer’s recommended intervals will protect your equipment? Will the oil last as long as they say it will in your operating conditions? Could it last longer?
Yes, no or maybe! Only testing in-service fluids can answer that question. Combining the manufacturer’s specifications with laboratory results and recommendations from certified data analysts is the best way to safely optimize drain intervals, minimize wear and preserve equipment health.

What tests are needed to safely extend drain intervals?
An Advanced Mobil test package is required to safely extend drain intervals. This test package examines the three main fluid properties – base number (BN), oxidation/nitration and viscosity – that assess the oil properties responsible for protecting equipment. Tracking the values of these tests will alert you when a fluid is no longer capable of performing as expected until the next oil sample or drain.

Are there maintenance practices that will help me extend drain intervals?
When extending drains, the most important maintenance activities are to replenish depleted fluid properties, continue changing filters and monitor contamination/wear levels. If possible, replenish depleted additives or sweeten with new oil as needed. Filters are vital to capturing contaminants, so continue changing oil filters if it doesn’t require draining the sump. Finally, make sure to continue oil analysis testing at the old drain interval in order to monitor contamination levels to determine if the extended exposure to contaminants harms the equipment.

Safely-Optimize-Drain-Intervals

Learn more about tracking BN, oxidation/nitration and viscosity to ensure you’re safe.

Learn more about starting an oil analysis program with POLARIS Laboratories®.

 

 

Proven Impact. Proven Uptime. Proven Savings.
Let us prove it to you. 

Published April 7, 2015

New EZ Label is Available


We’ve been listening.

“This form is too complicated.”
“Do I really need to provide all this info?”
“There has to be an easier way to submit samples.”

Based on the customer feedback we’ve received over the years, we have improved our sample labels to make it quicker, easier and simpler to submit sample information, which reduces the likelihood of errors. You can request the new label be sent with your next sample jar order.

During the process of redesigning our sample information forms, much research was conducted internally and externally to thoroughly understand:

  • how customers complete the sample forms
  • how samples are packaged and shipped to us
  • how samples and paperwork are cleaned when fluid leaks during transit
  • how sample details are entered into our systems

We also tapped into our customers to serve as beta testers and confirmed the new label really does make it quicker and easier to submit samples.

The new label includes detailed HORIZON® instructions to simplify adding or updating equipment and submitting sample information online. This allowed us to simplify the required information on the form and reduce the paper size. In addition, the sample jar label features a coating to improve its resistance to absorbing oil.

Customers may or may not have access to the Internet all the time, so we left a very simple component and sample information form on the label. If a paper copy needs to be sent in with the sample, the form can be detached from the label and easily wrapped around the sample jar.

The label’s new features could benefit all our customers, so I encourage everyone to make the switch and reap the benefits. You can view the new label and how to fill it out by downloading our instructions. When you’re ready to try the EZ Label at one or more of your locations, contact our Customer Service team at custserv@eoilreports.com or 877.808.3750.

Proven Impact. Proven Uptime. Proven Savings.
Let us prove it to you. 

Setting Limits on Fluid Properties


Earlier this month, I talked about how we set limits for wear metals and contaminants. There is one final group of results Data Analysts examine to determine the health of oil, fuels, and coolants: fluid properties.

Fluid properties are the physical and chemical features that allow the fluid to perform as it was designed. Viscosity, Acid Number, Base Number, Oxidation, Nitration and Additives are the main fluid properties examined by fluid analysis.

These properties don’t have much in common. Different tests are used to determine if the fluid still has the ability to protect equipment. Viscosity needs to be run at different temperatures to match the operating conditions of the equipment, ICP is used to quantify the metals found in common additives, oxidation and nitration are measured using FTIR, and acid number and base number need to be run using different titration methods to get the measurement we desire.

Just like wear metals and contaminants, the actual flagging limits depend on what the fluid is, the equipment the fluid is being used in, and what application the equipment is doing. These factors all can change the maintenance recommendations from the Data Analysts, which is why it is important to provide as much information about the sample as possible.

To learn more about the challenges facing each fluid property and how we set our flagging limits, please download this technical bulletin.

Proven Impact. Proven Uptime. Proven Savings.
Let us prove it to you.

Monitoring Oil to Extend Drains

The livelihood of truck owner-operators hinges on the dependability of their equipment. When they experience a catastrophic equipment failure, it takes a long time to recover.

Expensive repair and replacement costs are just the tip of the iceberg. Towing, equipment rental, fees on the late shipment and a damaged reputation could come packaged with the breakdown.

Read the Full Case Study

Published September 22, 2014

Oil, Coolant and Fuel Contamination


It doesn’t matter if it came from outside the equipment, was generated inside the equipment or if it worked its way into the oil from another system in the machine, contamination is any substance that isn’t supposed to be in the fluid being tested.

Most people think of contamination as something working its way into the equipment from the outside. Water and many types of particles, like dirt, sneak in through cracks, broken seals or unprotected ports, but in equipment with physical and chemical reaction occurring inside of it, foreign substances are only part of what we consider “contamination”.

Some contaminates are created during equipment operations. Soot is a natural byproduct of diesel combustion and commonly works its way into the engine oil, which is why the oil is formulated with additives to deal with soot. Lubricant additives are designed to protect components and prolong oil life; however they can become contaminants when heat, pressure or a chemical reaction causes them to fall out of suspension.

Fluids from other systems can be contaminants, such as coolant and fuel mixing with engine oil. All three systems need to operate in conjunction with the others, and leaks happen. Small holes and cracks between the oil and cooling systems could leak fluid one-way, so testing both fluids is recommended to catch leaks early. Over-fueling or worn cylinder rings can lead to fuel entering crankcase oil. Either way, cross-contamination from other systems is a sign of a mechanical problem that needs to be fixed before it escalates into a breakdown.

The type of equipment and application will determine what contamination could affect it and what tests to perform. The Contamination Flagging Limits technical bulletin has more information on how POLARIS Laboratories® determines the severity of contamination.

Proven Impact. Proven Uptime. Proven Savings.
Let us prove it to you.

Setting Wear Metal Flagging Limits


Our customers have a wide range of knowledge about fluid analysis. Many are new to the process and others have decades of experience. Some have even earned tribology certifications or degrees. Our Data Analysts end up talking to all of them, so we receive a wide variety of questions every day.

Occasionally, our experienced customers compare our test results to the wear metals flagging limits set by the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and we often get calls asking why we don’t follow the OEM’s recommended levels. Fortunately, this is an opportunity for us to explain the value of analysis from POLARIS Laboratories®.

We have analyzed millions of oil samples on most types of equipment, meaning we have a huge pool of data and customer feedback. We use that information to make sure our flagging limits won’t have customers perform maintenance too early or too late. Giving precise recommendations saves customers time, money, and effort, but we want to make sure that equipment is protected, too.

In addition to evaluating individual wear metals, the combinations of wear metals are also significant. Combinations of wear metals are significant because they may indicate a particular alloy, which is vital to understanding if a specific part is wearing – for example, elevated copper and tin would indicate a bronze part is wearing.

Many OEMs publish wear metal guidelines. These general guidelines may be a place to start to understanding fluid analysis reports, however they are not designed to be used as absolute values. To maximize the value of fluid analysis, a customer should expect a credible laboratory to have a comprehensive database, utilize statistical analysis to refine flagging limits, and have qualified Data Analysts to make appropriate maintenance and reliability recommendations.

For more information about how and why POLARIS Laboratories® adjusts flagging limits, download our new technical bulletin.

Proven Impact. Proven Uptime. Proven Savings.
Let us prove it to you.

Published September 11, 2014

How We Set Flagging Limits


In the Data Analysis department, one of our key responsibilities is to answer any questions customers have about fluid analysis. A lot of our calls are about what results mean. Does the fluid need to be changed? What could be causing that strange noise? We also get questions asking for testing recommendations for a specific application or issue being seen. However, the hardest questions to answer are about our flagging limits. The only easy answer for these questions is: “It’s complicated…”

Our process for defining flagging limits is actually something that we are quite proud of. It can be difficult to provide our limits because they are very dynamic and specific to the information provided about the equipment, fluid, and application. For example, one engine in your fleet may have different flagging limits than another because our limits are customized based on the specific equipment manufacturers and models. Limits are also affected by the rate of change from prior samples. Individual severities may change based on other results that are flagged. These are just a few scenarios that affect limits, but I think you can begin to understand some of the complexities surrounding our limits.

We’d like to clear up some of the confusion by publishing a series of articles to address the more common questions surrounding flagging and alarm limits. What aspects of your report flagging have you been curious about? Post your questions in the comments section of this blog so we have an opportunity to reply and use your questions to guide the topics of our articles.

Proven Impact. Proven Uptime. Proven Savings.
Let us prove it to you.

Establishing Goals

Recently I visited a mine that was interested in setting up a new account with POLARIS Laboratories®. One of the first questions I asked was, “What are the goals of your program?” I can’t say I was overly surprised when there was a moment of silence and pondering. While many of us realize there are benefits in performing fluid analysis, and know we want to be involved in a program, we seldom consider all the potential capabilities that a program can offer.

So why is establishing goals important? When many of us first started using fluid analysis, especially in mining, our goal was to simply monitor the health of the components and do what we could to prevent a catastrophic failure from occurring. After all, who wants to lose a core on a $300,000 engine and have an unplanned unscheduled service event happen? No one looks forward to explaining these events to upper management.

Today’s oil analysis capabilities offer a great deal more than just monitoring component health. With today’s technology and performing the proper test, we can monitor the condition of the oil, see if it is suitable for continued use, reduce the amount of used oil disposal, adjust our maintenance intervals and strategies, adjust component replacement schedules, improve forecasting and budgeting and increase component life hours. We have not even begun to touch on other benefits, such as coolant and fuel testing.

However, accomplishing these goals may require additional testing, which costs more. Can you afford not to?

I would like for you to consider a recent case study conducted by POLARIS Laboratories®. Customers who were actively involved in their fluid analysis program realized a 25:1 return on investment – for every dollar spent on fluid analysis their return was 25 dollars! In many of the studies, specific to mining, the return was as high as 40:1!

Have you considered the cost savings if you could double your oil drain intervals? The savings go way beyond the cost of the oil. Think about the savings in maintenance man-hours, the increase in equipment availability and utilization, the reduction in waste disposal. What would be your savings if you could increase component life hours by just 50 percent or prevent that next catastrophic failure from occurring?

Goals, my friends, are so very important to establish. If you do not establish these goals upfront and do not have the appropriate testing set up to match these goals, your program will never reach its full potential. If goals and testing do not match, one of two things are going to happen: You are paying for testing that you do not need, or the very test you are paying for will not help you meet your goals. Goals change, and therefore your testing may need to change with it. Even if you have an established, mature testing program in place, today may be the day to take another look and ensure the testing you are paying for is everything you want it to be.

If you need assistance setting realistic, achievable goals for you oil analysis program, feel free to contact us to get moving in the right direction.

Proven Impact. Proven Uptime. Proven Savings.
Let us prove it to you.

Published August 27, 2014