This article is a follow-up to various material published by The RAM Review on the topic of data collection in today’s plants. That includes, most recently, my Nov. 1, 2020, newsletter column, and Drew Troyer’s Nov. 7, and June 5, 2020, articles (see links below). While technological advancements are dramatically changing the way our plants’ equipment and process data is collected and analyzed, they shouldn’t be thought of as one-size-fits-all solutions.
DATA COLLECTION, THEN AND NOW
Let’s start with a bit of history. General industry began using condition monitoring in the late 1960s and early1970s with main frame-based systems. In the late 1980s these systems became PC-based and dedicated physical data collectors were widely used. The data-collector approach moved across to Microsoft Windows in the mid-1990s. As of 2020, most systems still use this model, with a small number of providers favoring fully web-based systems.
The hand-held data collectors used with main frame and PC-based systems were traditionally custom designed hardware, with dedicated electronics for data acquisition. The displays were often small, and the data collectors were operated by a limited number of hardware buttons located on either side of the screen.
WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD
It should be noted that data collection and acquisition are terms used for an activity that precedes data analysis. Data analysis dissects the monitoring task and allows an analyst to determine which component part is defective and whether the defect is linked to a machine speed or range of speeds.
Data analysis broadens our knowledge of failure-cause contributors. In turn, understanding the possible contributors opens the way to specifying remedial action. And, importantly, modern sensors can replace labor-intensive collection routines. Sensor technology represents automated approaches at their best: significant on-board memory and processing power that, along with the mass adoption of smart phones and tablets, greatly simplifies their installation and use. However, the current cost of wireless-sensor hardware suggests that they are often not suitable for every asset in a plant. Consider, for example, the case of a critical system, where a hardwired solution is often desirable for its ability to shut an asset down if a fault is detected.
So why are some top-user companies (generally called “Best-in-Class Performers,” or “BiCs”) still viewing data collection as the activity that gets the person close to the machine? They want operators to leave the comfort of the control room and act as the eyes, ears, and nose of the plant.
Click The Followings Links To The Previously Referenced Column By Heinz And Articles By Drew Troyer
“Operators and Machine-Condition Data Collection” (Bloch, Nov. 1, 2020)
“Don’t ‘Set It and Forget It’ when Managing Asset Reliability” (Troyer, Nov. 7, 2020)
“Industry 4:: Get A ‘Shiny-Object-itis’ Vaccination (Troyer, June 5, 2020)
In addition, BiC plants know that it will take time to devise sensors and true artificial intelligence to run a complex process plant without operators. Although they might officially task their operators with vibration monitoring, BiCs are reasonably certain that for every single vibration excursion found, an operator has seen a seal leak, heard a hissing sound from a defective steam-line gasket, smelled a process gas escaping from a compressor’s piston rod, or whatever. For now, though, let’s defer this conversation and steer it back to wireless sensors themselves.
ASSESSING THE TECHNOLOGY
Where wireless sensors excel is in widening the range of installed assets that can be monitored. This is due to the technology’s ability to log readings when no one is present, such as in batch processing, or when machinery is inaccessible due to its location or guarding. They’re also great troubleshooting tools that can be quickly and cheaply deployed when an issue arises. Likewise, they can be recalled once a problem has been identified and solved, without having gone to the expense of providing power and network cabling.
When choosing a wireless-sensor technology, the whole system should be assessed, not just capabilities of the sensor itself. The accessibility of the data over the Internet and various features and management tools that may be included in the software system should also be used as selection criteria, as new abilities to collect large numbers of readings requires improved capabilities to get the largest benefit from the installation.
At a pump conference held in 2018, questions for exhibitors of wireless technologies occasionally generated responses best characterized as mild annoyance with someone who dared to “pour rain on the parade.” It got us thinking that questions raised by a potential purchaser’s reliability professionals would best be answered by respondents on the providers’ management level. It’s hoped that asking such questions will result in factual, sensible answers for the inquiring prospect.
Sensible answers must take into account the entire system and the qualifications of employees or contract personnel that use wireless systems. Moreover, sensible answers would (mercifully) steer clear of the often highly unrealistic projections that reach far into the future.
WORDS TO THE WISE
In conclusion, it’s plain to see that wireless-sensor technologies have progressed well. And we hope that great successes will be reported as time goes on. Meanwhile, however, it would be prudent for reliability pros to work with technology providers that can explain how the issues that caused disappointments in earlier decades have now been circumvented or even solved.
It’s best to do our own digging and find out where a competent provider has installed a full-fledged system. There also is merit in determining if the reliability managers at such client locations have sought and obtained that very important buy-in from their operators and field-maintenance personnel.
Once fact-seeking reliability professionals are fully satisfied, they might ask highly experienced sensor-technology providers to assist in compiling reasonably accurate cost-justification calculations and case histories. Then it would be time for both satisfied user and competent turn-key provider to spread the word.TRR
Editor’s Note: Click Here To Download A Complete List Of Heinz Bloch’s 22 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. Email him at heinzpbloch@gmail.com.
Tags: reliability, availability, maintenance, RAM, asset management, condition monitoring, wireless sensors, data collection, digital transformation, workforce issues
