that the cost of the program
is not greater than the costs to
run the machinery to failure,”
explains McGuckin. “Even if
the cost to monitor is greater
than the cost of failure, you
may still be able to justify
some monitoring for the peace
of mind it brings knowing the
condition of your equipment.”
But he adds that, “in most
cases, the numbers will show
that monitoring is warranted.”
In the long run, it is most
cost effective to do as much of
the work as possible in-house,
but contractors can be the eco-
nomical choice when develop-
ing in-house expertise is not an
option.
Also factoring into the
vibration monitoring cost
equation is the cost of failure
for each critical machine or
machines facility manag-
ers wish to monitor, says
McGuckin, which includes
the cost of repairs (parts, man
power, and production losses).
“Facility managers know how
much money per hour their
plant makes, which can be
used as a cost of failure on any
machine that causes the plant
or production line to stop pro-
duction,” he explains. “They
must estimate the time for the
repair, which maintenance
personnel should be able to
provide, and then come to a
per machine cost of failure.”
This number can then be com-
pared to the cost to monitor
the machine. One way to get
the cost to monitor is to have
a qualified contractor provide
an estimate to conduct a vibra-
tion survey on the machinery.
“If they provide a total num-
ber for all the machines, you
can divide the estimate by the
total number of machines to
SERIOUS PLACES
High Quality Industrial Cooling Solutions
get a quick per machine cost,”
McGuckin says. “This calcula-
tion will tell you whether a pro-
gram makes financial sense.”
Assuming a facility can jus-
tify the numbers, a facility man-
ager must then understand what
a vibration analysis program
entails beyond an analyst and
the cost: the tools.
The Right Tools
“The tool must have the cor-
rect analytical capabilities, be
upgradeable, promote standards,
have very good data reporting
capabilities, integrate into plant
systems, provide root cause
analysis capabilities, and be
easy to use,” says LUDECA
Inc.’s Trent Phillips, condition
monitoring manager. “Not all
vibration analysis devices are
created equal.”
An analyzer with poor capa-
bilities that cannot collect data
in all directions, or a program
set up by an unqualified techni-
cian are two easy ways to gather
poor data. And poor data will
make reliable analysis difficult,
at best.
“One aspect of gathering
quality data is ensuring you are
collecting all of the data from
all directions on every bearing,”
McGuckin explains. Tri-axial
(horizontal, vertical, and axial)
vibration readings commonly
show vibration levels increas-
ing in only one direction, which
would have been missed if the
user did not collect data in that
particular direction, resulting in
eventual machine failure. “You
can certainly play this game of
Russian roulette, but know your
risks so you do not experience
a failure and lose the program,”
he adds.
A single channel analyzer,
or a four channel analyzer
equipped with a single axis
probe, can take three times
longer to collect the same data
as a tri-axial instrument, cost-
ing time and money. It can also
create what some technicians
may perceive as an easy short-
cut, and they could skip col-
lecting data in the vertical and
axial directions. A three to four
channel vibration instrument
with a tri-axial accelerometer
automatically captures all three
directions simultaneously.
