Page 62

Knowing the condition of your lubricants is essential to keeping manufacturing plants running smoothly. This can be accomplished through a thorough oil analysis program that tracks multiple critical wear-related characteristics of oil in service by comparing the results with previous reports and noting the trends. Such a program helps identify contamination, lubricant degradation, abnormal machine wear and problems with sampling. It also can transform a lubrication program from time-based to condition-based, eliminating unnecessary changes.

Given that the primary objective of filtration is to extend machine life by removing contaminants from the oil, it is a paradox for the filters in a hydraulic system to be located where they reduce the service life of the components they were installed to protect.

When oil is used as the main fluid and 40-percent water is added (emulsified) into the oil, it is described as a water-in-oil emulsion. These types of fire-resistant hydraulic fluids are often referred to as invert emulsions, which is to say, tiny droplets of water are suspended in the oil. This type of fluid will have better lubricating abilities than a fluid that is 95-percent water and 5-percent mineral oil with additives, but will not be as fire resistant.

When performing an oil flush on your equipment, it is important to have a plan and procedures that take into account the criteria and materials used for deeming the system clean. This includes particles you cannot see with a naked eye. The width of an average human hair is approximately 40 microns, but particles as small as 2 microns can damage your system. How can you judge your system clean if you cannot see the material? There are several options.

Both oil analysis and vibration analysis are powerful tools when employed to identify defects in rotating machine train elements such as bearings and gears. However, if used together, these tools can become even more beneficial. When the oil analyst and vibration analyst compare notes, use one another’s findings to complement their own analysis, and present a cohesive picture of asset health, it creates a more complete analysis of the asset’s condition and instills confidence in the asset owner. However, when the two analysts do not compare notes and present their results independently, the opposite effect is often produced. The asset owner may become confused or frustrated with the apparent lack of coordination or confusion caused by reports with apparent conflicts.