When the bid invitations for a major petrochemical facility were sent to several pump manufacturers some 45 years ago (in 1976), not all bothered to reply. The three that did, though, pointed out that they could not accept warranty responsibilities for the several hundred pumps they proposed to furnish for the project. These pumps were to be provided with pure oil mist. No constant-level lubricators or troublesome oil rings were involved.
Undeterred, the end-user/purchaser’s reliability professionals responded by standing up to the three pump manufacturers. Each was informed that it would be released from all responsibilities for bearing performance and bearing life. However, if a vendor would not accept all customary responsibilities for the hydraulic performance of its products, it would be disqualified from supplying pumps for this project and all future jobs requiring oil mist.
The three vendors quickly agreed to warrantee the hydraulic ends of their pumps. Being fully familiar with oil mist and, as so often, 30 years ahead of these pump manufacturers, the end-user added its own oil-mist conversions to these pumps. The process, which took about two hours per pump, involved removing constant-level lubricators, oil rings, and breather-filler caps. It is interesting to note that every one of these pumps was still in service decades later. (But none of those three pump manufacturers exists today.)
Having shared the above story, my question to readers is this: Are the reliability engineers in your operations willing to do what others did almost 50 years ago, i.e., understand the immense value of intelligently applying best-available technology and taking a stand for it? If the answer is “yes,” we commend you. If it’s “no,” you might ask a few questions of your own, and include the most simple and important one: What are you and the organization planning to do about it?
For example (and continuing with the oil-mist theme): Are you putting desiccant breathers on your bearing housings knowing full well that no such breathers would be needed if you lubricated with pure oil mist? Are you putting water and sludge-monitoring visual observation-cum-bleed valve assemblies at the bottom of your bearing housings, or are you an advocate for oil mist, which means that neither water nor sludge would ever get into your bearing housings to begin with? And why or why not?
CASE IN POINT
It’s time to take things up another notch. Consider the details of a true story conveyed in an email that we received from an observant engineer (with involvement in equipment-upgrading work). What LL (not his real initials) shared was rather telling.
In his email, LL described attending a meeting with a large-scale-equipment end-user, an individual from the end-user’s engineering contractor (EPC), and a representative of a major lobe-blower OEM. The end-user and EPC both wanted pure mist on the bearing-end and purge mist (liquid oil) on the timing-gear-end of the lobe blower that was under consideration. The OEM’s representative, however, refused to approve and warrantee pure oil mist. What’s more interesting, though, is that he told everybody in the meeting why: He said that he wouldn’t be able to sell as many bearings and parts for lobe blowers if he approved the installation of pure oil mist.
BOTTOM LINE
When manufacturers of plant equipment have no interest in upgrading the reliability of their products, it will be up to the end-user/purchaser to demand better performance. Surely, solid, well-detailed end-user specifications that include purchasing and upgrade measures adopted by best-practices facilities would do wonders here. But unless a corporation or facility has such specifications, it could find itself dealing with narrow-focus responses from vendors/suppliers similar, say, to that offered by the representative of the lobe-blower-OEM described in LL’s email.
Because the final choice of a product offering is clearly up to the buyer, end-users/purchasers must educate themselves. Unless they insist on quality, they will often receive maintenance- or repair-intensive products. Relying entirely on (EPCs) and equipment manufacturers is simply not enough. In the final analysis, an end-user/purchaser gets what it deserves: either more downtime risk and bloated budgets, or higher equipment reliability and profits. What would you and others at your site choose?TRR
Editor’s Note: Click Here To Download A Newly Updated List Of Heinz Bloch’s 24 Books
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Heinz Bloch’s long professional career included assignments as Exxon Chemical’s Regional Machinery Specialist for the United States. A recognized subject-matter-expert on plant equipment and failure avoidance, he is the author of numerous books and articles, and continues to present at technical conferences around the world. Bloch holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering and is an ASME Life Fellow. These days, he’s based near Houston, TX.
Tags: reliability, availability, maintenance, RAM, pumps, bearings, oil mist, desiccant breathers, constant-level lubricators
