Maintaining for profit

Cost of maintenance

Maintenance is big business. In 1979, it was estimated that over 200 billion U.S. dollars were spent on maintenance in North America. Even more astounding, approximately one third of this expenditure was determined to be unnecessary.

Since 1979. maintenance costs have escalated between 10% and 15% per annum. In 1990’s terms, that places maintenance costs at over a half-trillion U.S. dollars – with unnecessary expenditures at close to $200 billion!

Maintenance is one of the few remaining areas of a company’s expenditure that can be drastically improved upon. The Dupont Company recently stated that “maintenance is the single largest controllable cost within a plant.” Maintenance costs are paid for directly out of the company profits and, when left unharnessed, can be truly “variable” in nature. In order to turn these volatile “variables” costs into “fixed” costs, we need to use structured controls and practices. This equates to the formation and utilisation of a structured PM programme.

PM is a common acronym for Preventive Maintenance, Predictive Maintenance, Proactive Maintenance, Planned Maintenance or Productive Maintenance – whichever you choose, they all include lubrication as an important part of the maintenance procedure.

Recently, the use of internationalised initiatives to boost profits has given the term PM a new meaning.

New meaning: PM = Profit Maintenance

It is generally accepted within the lubrication community that over 60% of all mechanical failures relate directly to poor or improper lubrication practices. It is therefore easy to understand why a good PM programme relies heavily on good lubrication practices. In 1989, an automotive industry study (see Fig. 1.1) concluded that in comparison to demand (fire-fighting) maintenance, PM was one-third of the cost.

Special note: It is interesting to note that the lubrication industry has long claimed that the use of proper lubrication can effectively triple the life of a mechanical component.

Reasons for Equipment Failure

There are many reasons for equipment failure. These failures can be split into the following two specific categories:

Failures that pertain to maintenance practices
Failures that pertain to outside or other influences.

Fig. 1.2a points to the number one reason for equipment failure as being improper lubrication, when viewed from a maintenance standpoint.

The STLE (Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers) recognises and states that approximately 50% of bearing failures are due to abrasion or, simply put, “lack of lubrication.”

Maintenance

Poor lubrication practices
Faulty repairs
Slow response time
Lack of training
Ineffective PM
Inadequate Routine Maintenance

Fig. 1.2a. Reasons for equipment failure due to maintenance practices

Fig.1.2b shows the type of failures that occur which the maintenance department usually has little or no control over.

History has shown that with new equipment purchases, a good lubrication system has typically always been thought of as an expendable option. The importance of good lubrication was not usually realised until a failure occurred (if it was realised at all). There have been countless recorded instances where million-dollar capital investments have been lost prematurely because oil and grease nipples were thought to be adequate replacements for centralised automatic lubrication systems. A centralised lubrication system

Fig. 1.2b shows the type of failures that occur which the maintenance department usually has little or no control over.

History has shown that with new equipment purchases, a good lubrication system has typically always been thought of as an expendable option. The importance of good lubrication was not usually realised until a failure occurred (if it was ever realised at all). There have been countless recorded instances where million-dollar capital investments have been lost prematurely because oil and grease nipples were thought to be adequate replacements for centralised automatic lubrication systems. A centralised lubrication system should be viewed as the “heart” that pumps lifeblood (oil or grease) into each component of the machine. Unfortunately, this is not always the attitude that holds true today.

OTHER

Operator error
Improper setup
Poor material specification
Sabotage
Machine design
Poor environment
Poor training
Improper application
Poor housekeeping

Fig. 1.2b. Reasons for equipment failure due to outside influences

Because of today’s complex equipment and types of available lubricants, the task of lubricating correctly calls for skill, initiative, and (above all) responsibility. This applies to equipment design engineers, purchasing, management, and maintenance staff.

Equipment should be engineered to be “maintenance ready” – with centralised lubrication delivery systems “embedded” into the machine, complete with specific lubricant-type recommendations.
Lubricant purchasing patterns should be consolidated and controlled – lubricants should be purchased on specification, not on price. (Too many lubricants are purchased without the benefit of input from the maintenance and engineering departments.)
Management and maintenance staff have to adopt, and commit to, policies that will ensure proper lubrication techniques and training are utilised. This is especially important as more companies practice Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) methods, where the lubrication function and responsibility is passed along to the machine operator.

Benefits of Good Lubrication

In 1966, a landmark study was tabled to the British Government by H. Peter Jost (the Jost Report). This study was funded by the British Ministry of State for Education and Science. The committee, headed by Peter Jost, was asked to consider the position of lubrication education and research in the U.K., and to give an opinion on the needs of industry in this field. This was to be the world’s first comprehensive study of how friction, lubrication, and wear directly and indirectly affected the country’s Gross National Product in the areas of industry, natural resources, and agriculture.

A remarkable set of figures (see Fig. 1.3) relating directly to the savings accrued through improved lubricating practices were published. Because varying factors and conditions made accurate assessment impossible, a

Reduction in energy consumption through lower friction costs	7.5%
Savings in lubricants	20%
Savings in maintenance repair and replacement costs	20%
Savings in consequential losses due to downtime – depended on type of failure and type of industry (see note below)	Variable %
Savings in investment due to higher utilisation ratios and greater machine efficiency	1%
Savings in investment through increased life	5% of new expenditure
Savings in manpower:	0.13%

Fig. 1.3. Jost Report estimates of the effect of improved tribology

conservative rating scheme was used. It was generally recognised that these potential savings figures were undervalued. When equated to an individual company’s spreadsheet, these percentages suddenly turn into a substantial potential profit picture.

Since 1966, there have been numerous other studies performed in the Western World that include the U.S., Canada and Germany. All of these studies have mirrored the findings of the original “Jost Report”.

Note: This type of savings is indirect and is dependent on the “cost of downtime” figure associated with each specific equipment piece or train. These figures will equate substantially higher than the repair itself.

site by activethought.net