ĮMONĖS TEPIMO MEDŽIAGŲ AUDITAS

Atliekame pilną įmonės tepimo sistemų ir medžiagų auditą.

Pateiktoje ataskaitoje įvertiname kiekvieno įrengimo esamo tepimo būdo tinkamumą bei lubrikantų naudojimo efektyvumą.

Taip pat pateikiame pasiūlymą medžiagų unifikavimui bei spektro optimizavimui. Įvairių įrangos gamintojų rekomenduojamos tepimo medžiagos ir jų gausus spektras yra maksimaliai supaprastinamas.

TECHNINĖS DOKUMENTACIJOS VIEŠIESIEMS PIRKIMAMS RENGIMAS, PASIŪLYMŲ AUDITAS

Ruošiame visas technines sąlygas viešiesiems, supaprastintiems, neskelbiamiems ir įprastine komercine praktika atliekamiems pirkimams. Pateikiame nepriklausomų techninių centrų įvertinimus konkursams pateiktiems pasiūlymams, jų atitikimą iškeltiems techniniams reikalavimams bei produktų specifikacijoms.

TEPIMO EFEKTYVUMO AUDITAS

Vienas iš svarbiausių faktorių palaikantis įrengimo veikimą yra teisingai suprojektuota ir aprūpinta tepimo sistema.  

Kai įrengimo tepimo taškai negauna reikiamo lubrikanto srauto, alyva pradeda perkaisti ir oksiduotis, kanaluose ir drenažo linijose kaupiasi šio proceso nuosėdos. "Lubrication Performance Audit" kontroliuoja visas įrengimo tepimo sistemas.

Lubrication Audit: Develop a consistent maintenance plan

Companies maintain a large inventory of various lubricants, each for an individual application or piece of equipment.

Improper handling causes companies to lose in-stock product and supplies (lubricant, grease guns, oil cans, fittings, etc.).

New machine warranties can be tied to specific lubricants needing to be used.

New machines may have different automatic lubrication systems (ALS) already installed with may work on a completely different operating principle from those you previously use. For example, if you had a single-line parallel system, and you fitted it with a pump designed for a single-line progressive system, it wouldn’t work and you would lose bearings. Also, different systems require training and different spare parts in inventory.

Lubrication schedules may be known by key personnel, but there is no single location where all critical information is documented.

There is no “ownership” of systems, equipment or processes due to a lack of training, which ultimately means it doesn’t get done.

In order to improve equipment reliability, one must understand the reasons why equipment can be unreliable. One reason for unreliable equipment is a poor lubrication program. Auditing a maintenance area’s lubrication practices is a basic step toward understanding the possible causes of lubrication-related failures. The audit should compare current lubrication practices against “best practices” and document the results and recommendations to assist in the creation of an action plan to close the gaps. The purpose of this article is to present a method to develop and implement such an audit.

Lubrication is one of the most, if not the most, important routine maintenance functions that can be performed to ensure equipment reliability. Industrial machinery rides on as little as a one- to five-micron film of oil. This is less than the diameter of a white blood cell. Loss of this film equals failure. Based on the analysis from several bearing manufacturers, between 70 to 80 percent of bearing failures are lubrication-related and less than 10 percent of all bearings reach their intended life. While industry best practices exist for lubrication, they are not always followed. This may be related to the fact that most lubrication information is handed down as tribal knowledge rather than in the form of documented maintenance procedures. Many lubrication programs entail little or no training and are still based on the old adage “if a little grease is good, then more grease is better.” Lubrication assignments are commonly regarded as lower skilled work and not given the priority and concern they deserve. In today’s technological world, large investments are being made in various reliability programs, but improving basic lubrication practices is often overlooked.

Performing the Audit

The audit should begin with an initial meeting of the major players in a maintenance organization, such as the maintenance supervisor, reliability engineer and a maintenance craftsperson. The auditor(s) explains the details of how the audit will progress and what to expect from its outcome. During this meeting, the craftsperson and the maintenance supervisor are asked the documented audit questions. The auditor(s) notes their responses and asks for further information when the answer is vague or does not fit the response he’s looking for. The auditor(s) then makes notes regarding the answer and places the appropriate score for each question in the blank on the audit document. Once all questions have been answered, the auditor(s) and the maintenance craftsperson should take the audit from a conference-room setting to the actual manufacturing area to confirm the answers and inspect the equipment and storage areas for good lubrication practices. As an additional measure of the effectiveness of the ubrication program, the auditor should select a sample(s) of oil in storage to be evaluated by a lab to determine the oil condition. If the sample is deemed contaminated or unacceptable, three points should be deducted from the total audit score. If the sample is acceptable, a single point should be added to the score.

After the meeting, the auditor totals the score for the audit, and from that, a detailed report is developed for the problems found. This report includes the score, performance level, recommendations for improvement, and specific actions to improve the score of the audit. A follow-up meeting is recommended to explain the results of the audit and the necessary actions to improve the score. Once this report is delivered, the auditor(s) should be available for consultation on a regular basis to assist with the recommended actions. If the area has not achieved a satisfactory performance level and intends to implement the recommendations, a re-audit should be performed after the area has completed the actions suggested. Once an area is satisfied that it has achieved the correct level of performance, regardless of the score, a re-audit should be performed every three years to ensure that the program is sustained.