How was condition monitoring data being interpreted?
I found that two approaches were being used. One method arrived at decisions by recalling solid experience and engineering knowledge that, for example, a known level of a monitored variable indicates the initiation of a particular failure mode. The second, relied on “trend analysis” as the basis for making the “maintain-now-or-continue-operating” decision. Looking closely at the data from both cases, I found that, while the former achieved, generally, the expected benefits, the latter failed to provide measurable return on the investment and running cost of the CBM program. Q: Why was that? A: In the first case, CBM detection of, for example, diesel fuel in lubricating oil, reflects the “ground truth” of a failed condition – that is, a leaking of fuel past the sealing surfaces of some interface, perhaps the piston, ring, and cylinder wall. Similarly, coolant in the lube oil, reflects the breakdown of some interface, possibly a gasket, separating the cooling and lubricating fluids. Howe
Related Questions
- Are industrial users (IUs) required to submit monitoring data to the POTW/control authority if samples are collected in addition to samples required by the PFPR regulation?
- How do I display the SQL Monitoring data for a monitored execution?
- Is the longitudinal panel data available for Monitoring the Future?
