Lubrication Practices, Condition vs. Assumption
Lubrication Practices, Condition vs. Assumption
Ultrasound-guided, Condition-Based Greasing
There is an absolute consensus in industry that condition-based tasks (wherever applicable) are far more effective and cost-reducing compared to historically used time-based tasks. We have moved a long way over the past several decades, using Condition Monitoring technologies in all cases in which potential failure exhibits symptoms that can be detected. The result is, as we often call it, the Condition Monitoring mindset. The main driver of this mindset is belief in evidence provided by proper measurement. Not a calculated or estimated time, but evidence.
On the other hand, there is also an absolute consensus that lubrication is a critically important task, normally understood as strategic.
Both mentioned facts are quite obvious and lead us to a conclusion that such a critical task, as lubrication is, should not be done based on assumptions or estimates, but strictly based on measurements/data in three steps:
- As-found condition, determining if grease replenishment is needed or not
- Replenishment process fully guided by real-time measurements
- Confirmation of the condition after replenishment, as proof of a properly executed task
It is painfully obvious that performing such a task without knowing the starting point, or even worse, not knowing the outcome, contradicts the previously mentioned absolute consensus that the Condition Monitoring mindset must be a fundamental part of lubrication practices.
Technology is developing rapidly, and Ultrasound is already guiding even automated greasing systems, through real-time measurements and proven algorithms & procedures