|
Bridging the Gap:
Communicating Motor Reliability to Management
|
|
|

Noah P. Bethel |
Noah P. Bethel,
Project Development Manager
PdMA Corporation
5909C Hampton Oaks Parkway
Tampa, FL 33610
813-621-6463,
ext. 124
www.pdma.com
pdma@pdma.com
|
|
Abstract
Convincing management to spend
money on reliability for a motor that appears to be running
just fine requires a higher degree of communication than
merely pointing fingers. “It’s not the Motor!”
just doesn’t cut it anymore in today’s highly
advanced maintenance reliability world. From reliability
technicians and engineers to reliability supervisors and
management, a common communication protocol can increase
the understanding of a reliability situation.
This paper will focus on the six
fault zone approach and “bridge the gap” by
providing insight into one of the largest problems faced
in analyzing electrical equipment; that is, accurately identifying
where the true problem lies. Once problems are properly
identified, it is imperative that this information is communicated
to management efficiently and effectively, making expensive
decisions easier.
Introduction
“It’s not the motor!” just
doesn’t cut it anymore in today’s highly advanced
maintenance reliability world. From reliability technicians
and engineers to reliability supervisors and management, a
common communication protocol should be in place to optimize
the communication of a troubleshooting effort. This protocol
can deliver common terminology to each of the stakeholders
involved in order to reduce the mean time to repair (MTTR).
Reducing the MTTR will maximize the availability of a system
resulting in a higher overall equipment effectiveness (OEE)
and put more money in the pockets of the employees and stockholders.
Statements like “It’s not
the motor!” are often the result of poor training or
poor resources. I often present the evidence that a facility
is asking their electrical reliability technicians to save
the world with a megohmeter. How often have you heard that
the motor tripped, but has a resistance to ground reading
of >2000 Megohms, so it must be mechanical. By the way,
the phrase “It must be mechanical” is a derivation
of “It’s not the motor!”
Discussion
Ten to fifteen years ago, if I attended a
motor maintenance seminar a large majority of the attendees
were mechanical. Today these same seminars are filled with
a majority of electrically inclined and trained personnel.
Certainly, the focus has shifted from a primarily mechanical
analysis approach to a now balanced approach utilizing a variety
of advanced mechanical and electrical tools. These tools include
power analysis, current demodulation and spectral analysis,
precision digital resistance measurements, start-up/in-rush
current analysis, polarization index and other insulation
tests, inductance/impedance based analysis, thermal imaging,
partial discharge, vibration, ultrasonics, oil analysis, and
the list goes on and on. Today’s top performing facilities
have dedicated personnel applying a host of technologies in
the name of reliability.
A major addition to the troubleshooting scene
today is the presence of variable frequency drives (VFD’s).
A common argument fifteen years ago in a troubleshooting scenario
would be whether the problem was isolated to the pump or the
motor. I would argue that the more common focus of today’s
troubleshooting scenario is whether to focus on the motor
or the drive. VFD technology has increased significantly for
the good of power quality and motors. Silicon Controlled Rectifier
(SCR) drives offered little to the benefit of power quality,
often increasing the distribution system voltage distortion
levels near the limits listed in the IEEE 519 standard. The
earliest pulse width modulation (PWM) drives, when applied
to aged insulation, presented such a high rate of change in
the voltage that it destroyed the insulation systems on the
motor in a short period of time. Today, the drives are better
controlled and the insulation systems are better equipped.
It is still wise to verify that a motor is inverter duty before
converting it from across the line to a VFD application.
When it comes to troubleshooting electric
motors and trying to communicate the best action to take or
direction to go to improve motor reliability, a technician’s
credibility is often a strong variable in the decision making.
For an analyst who has many years at a facility and a lot
of troubleshooting hours under his/her belt, credibility is
often easier to come by. Having a full head of gray hair doesn’t
hurt either. However, for those who have not developed a level
of credibility through experience or natural causes, another
approach may be necessary to ensure an efficient use of personnel
and test resources through a troubleshooting or reliability
effort. Fault Zone Analysis, the successful approach developed
by PdMA Corporation as a communication tool, is one approach.
Fault Zone Analysis breaks down a system into zones related
to common fault mechanisms. This allows a technician/analyst
to more quickly isolate the source of the fault, or in a preemptive
effort, to better perform a failure modes and effects analysis
(FMEA).
The electric motor fault zones consist of power quality, power
circuit, ground insulation, stator windings, rotor, and air
gap. For each fault zone, numerous fault mechanisms exist
as well as standards available for comparison and trending.
Electric motor fault zone analysis is not only designed to
provide a systematic approach to troubleshooting an electric
motor, but also to provide a communication protocol between
the analyst and management to hasten their understanding of
the troubleshooting process, which will assist in a quicker
response and decision making. An electrical analyst in a troubleshooting
scenario limiting his call to “It’s not the motor!”
better have a lot of credibility. Likewise, a mechanical analyst
better have a lot of credibility if, after a single vibration
test on a compressor, he suggests that the motor needs to
be replaced. These types of broadly applied recommendations
with limited information to back them up can quickly erode
any credibility that the analyst has developed over the years.
Additionally, in a newly established or young asset reliability
program, it can set the whole reliability effort back due
to a loss in confidence. The beauty of the Fault Zone Analysis
approach is that the supervision and management don’t
have to rely on credibility. They can rely on a process and
protocol.
Conclusion
Electric motor reliability is a critical
element of any successful operating equipment asset management
program. Although the large majority of maintenance performed
in a world-class program should be of the predictive nature,
it is imperative to have a standard process and communication
protocol in place to support the increasingly rare, but still
expensive, unscheduled outages. Minimizing the time required
to troubleshoot, isolate, and repair or replace a system failure
responsible for an unscheduled outage can play a huge role
in minimizing the MTTR and increasing the unit availability.
Finally, troubleshooting can be exciting and create a feeling
of accomplishment, but at a high cost in an outage situation.
Know your system fault zones, and apply a communication protocol
to reduce the impact of a failure.
|