×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

(OP)
Hi everyone!

As a newly graduated control system and automation engineer I got a bit of a shock when I discovered that the automatic fault detection at the company I work at is non existing. Sure, they measure vibrations once in a while manually to detect bearing fault and imbalances but considering how cheap and powerful microchips and PLCs are today I can't see why they don't do it automatically all the time. And since I've not gotten any good answers I'm curious about how it looks at the industry today. Is automated fault detection just something they teach in school but that's to expensive to implement in real life today or is just my company 10 years behind? It's a large truck manufacturer by the way, so there are a lot of turning, milling and drilling going on and it's not a small 10 machine business.

Some of your inputs and thoughts about this subject would be deeply appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Axel

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

(OP)
@IRstuff: Faults that can be detected using vibration analysis. That is bearing wear and faults of different kinds, imbalance in the chuck or another rotating part, problems with the rotor in the engine, worn out cutting tool and so on. Faults that not only lead to more damage in the machine but also imperfections in the workpiece.

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

In 35 years of using lathes and milling machines I've never had one of those faults come up. Perhaps I've been lucky, or perhaps the cost benefit analysis is that it isn't worth retrofitting machines with full time instrumentation.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

(OP)
GregLocock: Thanks for your answer! That's interesting. But I guess that if you do all the maintenance in time just as the manufacturer tells you to do and you don't run your machines close to full speed you can get along just fine without that kind of equipment (apparently). And this is how my business also does the maintenance at the moment. The thing is though, if you monitor the actual health condition and need for service you can save a lot of money not only of spare parts and work but more importantly reduced downtime (try change a bearing while run the machine if you can). But as you say, maybe the investment and cost to run such a system is so high it doesn't really pay of in real life?

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

As was said, cost:benefit.

Further to that, when attended machines, or machines that are near attendants, begin to fail, their sound signature changes. That's basically what you can detect with accelerometers and such, but it happens that people can detect sounds too, and will report a change in funkiness of any given machine. ... if they are allowed to, by local custom and contract.

Remote/unattended monitoring might make sense for unattended machinery, or for attended machinery in a politically hostile environment. Some union shops are like that, with a constant subliminal war being conducted by people who are ill-equipped for head games.

Unattended factories have other means of detecting mechanical failure early, by means of examining the data already being collected for quality assurance purposes.

Which is not to say that you'll never make a dime installing machinery monitoring equipment, just that it's a harder sell than educators might suggest.

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

(OP)
Mike, thanks a lot for your great answer!

You have a good point about the machine operator being able to detect many faults just like you do on your car. But at least according to my experiences so far that is more detect when things already have gone wrong for real. And the whole point is to detect the small changes in vibrations that indicates a later failure before it happen, so that the bearing fault of one bearing doesn't take others with it because of more vibrations and so on. Sure, replacing the bearings with short intervals will decrease the risk of a large failure but my idea is to cut the maintenance costs and more importantly unexpected downtime by as much as possible.

The picture you're giving me is about the same I've gotten from the more experienced coworker at my job so I'm starting to guess that still is valid. I did check with a manufacturer of automatic fault detection equipment today though and the price per unit he gave me right away for a simple system that you connect to the PLC of the machine was a bit short of $1000 (per accelerometer channel) and that seems like no money at all to me. But the question remains, haven't the price of this technology dropped so much in the last few years (to where it is now) so that's a reasonable investment or is it still only something to consider for very few branches like the paper industry that have used it for a couple of years already?

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

You can try, but realistically, it can take you years to accumulate sufficient correlation between any vibration and an actual failure mode. For instance, say your sensor detects a 0.01" wobble in the chuck; is that OK? How do you know without a truckload of data that says, "On average, a 0.01" wobble is indicative of a failure within 2 weeks of operation?"

From what I've read in the prognostics literature, controlled experiments often result in a 50% spread, which is too large to be actionable.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

>>>... price per unit he gave me right away for a simple system that you connect to the PLC of the machine was a bit short of $1000 (per accelerometer channel) and that seems like no money at all to me. <<<

I'm easy to find. Send me $1000.
Thanks.

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

(OP)
IRstuff: I'm not sure if I get what you mean but that's usually not how vibration analysis is made. What you do is analyse the different frequencies with a fourier transform (or maybe wavelet transform, but that's a higher course). Any imbalance in the chuck etc will have a frequency as a multiple of the RPM, bearing fault will have a certain (much higher) frequency and so on. You can calculate what frequencies you expect, and that's how you do a more advanced fault diagnos. However, for a continuous measuring system one usually only detect if any frequency is different than usual. You can read more about this in the FAQ section in this forum.

Or did I get you wrong?

Well played Mike, well played bigsmile

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

No, the issue is at what point do you declare a failure? Say you see 10% of energy in a undesired harmonic; is that automatically a failure? What about 20%? My point is that you need to have a rather extensive database of failures and symptoms to even begin to decide whether to perform a repair. This is further compounded by the fact that many symptoms don't necessarily lead to immediate failure.

For example, our company did a life test on a bunch of pumps and used a 10% increase in power draw as an indicator of a possible fail. One pump did indeed fail soon after that, but another one ran for an additional 10,000 hrs and never actually failed its other performance requirements in the duration of the test.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

(OP)
IRstuff: That's a really good point actually, and the only answer I can think of is that we don't know that. But I'm thinking that the goal is to see trends rather than amplitude of peaks. It's far from failproof though, and I guess that at least in the beginning we'll have to do some manual inspection to validate the results of the analysis.

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

I expect that it will take you a few years to build up a sufficiently large database to even begin to do any predictions. Even after that, you may find that the uncertainty is so large that it's better to run to a hard fail for most failures, because any other approach will be too expensive and will incur too much shutdown time.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

In addition to the cost of disassembling and inspecting the suspect bearings, keeping detailed records of their condition, and correlating that data to, well, anything, you will incur some additional expense associated with removing the bearings in a way that does not damage them, or separating the removal damage from the pre-removal damage.

If you _could_ get the bearings off and disassemble them without damage, which in an industrial environment is not likely, then it would make sense, upon finding no significant damage, to reassemble and reinstall the bearings and run them to some further indication without damaging them during installation, which again in an industrial environment is somewhat less than completely likely.


You need to find a different windmill to tilt at. winky smile

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

(OP)
Hmm, this is a quite unexpected but somehow still interesting difficulty. Since we do vibration analysis occasionally to detect faults in bearings I hadn't thought about the problem of analyse the data at all. But you're probably right, the problem of having many false alarms in a startup period isn't something to overlook when calculating the investment payback. I'm thinking of buying a complete system for this by the way, there's no chance that they already have an implemented algorithm for this?

Could performing a shock pulse test as confirmation of the vibration analysis give more accurate data? I've seen some automatic fault detection systems that perform this test and that seems more reliable to me.

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

Periodic (but not continuous vibration analysis is common on US automotive machining "transfer" lines to schedule spindle overhaul.
Also in many power plants on mills, pumps and fans.

Back in the 1990s GM published a comprehensive VIBRATION STANDARD FOR THE PURCHASE OF NEW and REBUILT MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT.
http://maintenanceforums.com/groupee_files/attachm...

It was adopted almost verbatim by NASA for "Reliability based Maintenance."
Pages 42 and 43 have moderately detailed vibration limits for new or rebuilt machine tool spindles. In some instances new spindles are tested on a dedicated test stand before shipping. I would expect the vibration to be "different" when installed.

They would be a decent starting point for continuous monitoring.

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

(OP)
Many thanks for the pdf Tmoose! I think that maybe the company I'm working for have their own guidelines for vibrations, but they might be more for "overall vibration" of the machine and not for fault detection. Either way it's always nice to have something to compare and lean against when we're make our algorithms to the system, and if they differ much to ours try to find why and where we're differ.

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

(OP)
IRstuff: It's funny you say that, because lowered cost for not having to replace the bearings when it's not necessary is one of the main advantages of the continuous health monitoring according to the manufacturer of the equipment. And that makes sense, since the machine manufacturer probably have quite a safety margin of their intervals. Besides, I'm by no means an expert of maintenance but if you grease the bearings properly and even better than the recommendations you can probably save even more time.

But this might be after a long "startup period" where you have to do many unnecessary replacements before you have found limits that'll work?

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

I guess I might do it the other way around, assuming that a certain amount of lost product is acceptable; again, this is a cost trade vs. the lost product upon a catastrophic failure vs. cost of premature maintenance.

You need two sets of things, the instrumentation for monitoring the equipment condition and process measurements where you can quantitatively identify when the process becomes unacceptable. The latter is a matter of trending data and trying to find when the process goes our of its control range. You correlate that with the instrumentation measurements to determine which of the measurements or combinations thereof result in a tolerably acceptable criteria for stopping the machine to do maintenance. Once you have these two sets of things, how you go about it is dependent on your cost constraints.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

Equipment condition can and often should stand alone.
Some processes, and even power requirements could not care less about a ball/roller bearing that is softly crying itself to sleep due to lubricant degradation. But, if I don't sample vibration often enough, or ignore the signs that are pretty well detected by a little more sophisticated vibration analysis I will miss the golden opportunity to re-lubricate and in a few weeks or minutes (dn related, among other factors) the bearing will un-necessarily be turned into smoking junk requiring extensive rework to the shaft and housing AND replacement bearings with a 12 week delivery.

Temperature measurements made on the outer race can be pretty good for detecting bearing issues too, as can oil analysis looking for both wear debris and dissolved metals, especially for gears and plane/plain/journal bearings.

The equipment sellers and service providers that refer to their wares as "Predictive Maintenance" "Reliability based maintenance" or "condition monitoring" are telling the truth.

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

Hang on, nobody is saying that condition monitoring is a waste of time (I think) we're just saying that the cost of retrofitting permanent instrumentation for each machine may not be justified by a CBA.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

"...plane/plain/journal bearings"

Don't forget sleeve bearing.

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

Hi Greg,

You said - "In 35 years of using lathes and milling machines I've never had one of those faults come up. "
I was thinking you were discounting the "bearing faults" AX3L more than hinted at, of which there are several ( discrete spalling on inner race, discrete spalling on outer race, discrete spalling on balls, general roughness, plus a few more.) Granted they don't happen every day, and if lubrication is reasonably good then catastrophic failure is generally not imminent, so a periodic walk around program would catch many if not most, but lube related problems can develop thermally reduced preload and then progress quickly (just seconds until the smoke gets out at 15,000 rpm).

IRstuff said - ' My point is that you need to have a rather extensive database of failures and symptoms to even begin to decide whether to perform a repair. This is further compounded by the fact that many symptoms don't necessarily lead to immediate failure."
...." For example, our company did a life test on a bunch of pumps and used a 10% increase in power draw as an indicator of a possible fail. One pump did indeed fail soon after that, but another one ran for an additional 10,000 hrs and never actually failed its other performance requirements in the duration of the test."
My 27 June reply was intended to suggest that -
1 - some fairly detailed generic vibration limits exist that could be used right out of the box as a starting point for effective condition monitoring. Yes, calling for overhaul at the first indication of BPFO may be a little premature.
2 - I'd expect looking for increased power as an indicator of a developing problem would likely miss a LOT of problems.

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

(OP)
IRstuff: I'm not sure what you mean by "process measurements", but I guess you mean to measure the product itself and that's of course something we do on a regular basis. The thing is though, since much of the measurements is made manually we usually run say 50 pieces between measurements (sometimes even more, and of course not everything is measured every 50 pieces). And again, since many faults like worn out or damaged cutting tool and small imbalances could be detected by vibration analysis, my hope is that we can detect the faults early on and do something about it instantly. This will save not only time but obviously money because throwing away an almost finished piece could be very expensive indeed.

Tmoose: That's exactly what I'm talking about. Just to give an example a couple of days ago we had to order a ball screw with plane and pay a couple of thousand bucks just to get it here quickly, way more than what the screw itself was. And this is something we have to do on a more or less regular basis. Using automated fault detection, we probably could have detected the problem at least a day or two earlier and sent it by regular express delivery or even standard delivery instead (ball screw faults is something you can, at least in theory, detect using above mentioned analysis).

Greg: Speaking of the investment cost, it should be said that most (if not all) of our machines already have a PLC that have more than enough power to make some vibration analysis as well. So the only investment, besides all the man hour to fit such a system, is the sensors (that even sometimes are fitted to make the manual vibration analysis easier) and some chip that read the sensors and send them to the PLC.

spciesla: Well, the list of possible faults to detect could be made very very long. I'm not sure how many extra sensors would be needed to do this though, and have therefore concentrated on the bearings at first. Of course I'm open to detect all kinds of fault though, so if anyone have any additional information of those I would love to hear them as well.

Tmoose (last post): Thanks for clearing that out! The win in reduced predictive maintenance is just as important (if not more) to me as the decreased risk for immediate failure. Besides, knowing what parts to change in the predictive maintenance would be very useful indeed. The procedure now is usually "check ... for faults", and if any is detected we have to order that part and do a second stop of the machine to actually change it. But I don't know, this theory might fail because of the limits in reliability of this analysis and we therefore still would have to check it manually with given intervals?



Thanks again for all great answers, I've learned a lot and have been given many great aspects I hadn't thought of already!
Axel

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

when attended machines, or machines that are near attendants, begin to fail, their sound signature changes. That's basically what you can detect with accelerometers and such, but it happens that people can detect sounds too, and will report a change in funkiness of any given machine

Let me go back to the comment above, and related it to an experience of mine. As a much younger engineer, I got a call from the factory floor one Friday (always Friday, isn't it?) and they reported a faulty piston. Somehow this one had slipped through all kinds of QC procedures and made it into production. How did they find it? The test cell operator thought the engine sounded funny, so he took it offline and they tore it down to investigate. The piston was out of tolerance - a lot - but I'll be damned if I could hear the difference. This guy heard it from in front of a bank of test cells which all had running engines, and was confident enough to pull it out of production.

...So, now we're worried that there might be more. We stop production. We get the piston supplier on the phone and "persuade" him to come help us figure out how to find engines with bad pistons in them - given that we know that they sound different. Unfortunately, with all manner of instrumentation on the engine we were not able to devise a repeatable method of detecting this defect - even knowing that we had it. "It sounds funny" was a perfect explanation for the guy who runs the test cells every day, but just try to convince a computer of it. In the end we were able to trace the defect back to a process exception at the piston plant and contain the problem within a group of about a hundred engines, which we then had to tear down and inspect (beginning Sunday evening, in another state).

Would automatic fault detection have helped? I doubt it...we certainly gave it a shot after we knew there was a problem. The manual version worked well enough though.

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

(OP)
ivymike: Of course you're absolutely right about the man been the best fault detector there is. And many faults are indeed detected that way even in our company. But there are a few problems, many of them being related to the mentality of the operators of the machines. When the service technician speaks with the operator he often get to hear things like "well it have sounded like that for a week now, but it obviously still runs so i thought...". If we tell them they have to listen to the machines we would probably get a lot of false alarms as well, especially from the more inexperienced staff. It's a good point you make though!

About the computers ability to find such things I don't have the experience to tell (obviously, that's why I started this thread in the first place) but I think it would. With continuous monitoring one can detect even very small changes in the vibration spectra and relate them to the rotation speeds. You're probably right that just doing one analysis wouldn't tell if there was a problem, but if you can see the change over a period of time I think you at least can detect that there's something wrong.

By the way, does anyone know if using a regular 100mV/g accelerometer (measuring up to 20kHz), a inductive sensor to get the RPM and a relatively simple DAQ connected to a regular PC works "in the real world"? To me this seems like a great alternative, where you with cheap components can do advanced analysis using a MATLAB software. At least in theory, you could even communicate with the PLC of the machine with the DAQ and more importantly, since the computer have internet access it can send reports and data to the service engineers.

Thanks everyone who have posted so far and took time to read my long and probably bad written posts, I really really appreciate it!

Sincerely
Axel

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

(OP)
Greg: What an inductive sensor do is measuring the magnetic field (and by that distance) to a metallic object. If you place it where you have say two bolts or any other "defect" to the plane surface on the spindle, you'll get two dramatical changes or pulses per revolution and combined with time you'll get the RPM. It sounds like black magic or voodoo, but using this method you can measure up to 250k rpm with as little as 0.1 accuracy for not much money at all and almost without need of maintenance.
Here's a link to a sensor of this kind I got from Google, just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about: http://www.monarchinstrument.com/product.php?ID=41

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

No, I'm familiar with the device, as that is what we use on ABS tone wheels and crank position sensors. It's just the machine tools I see tend not to have bolts sticking out, some might even assume the designers have tried to minimise the chance of things catching in rotating shafts.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

(OP)
Greg: I see! Well I must admit I haven't checked it out in detail since I know others have similar solutions that work. But the three "claws" holding the piece in the chuck of the turning machine seems possible to sense in some way. Or have you already tried that?

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

That,d work in that case, but milling machines grinders etc wouldn't. There are plenty of alternatives, a blob of paint and an optical tacho being the easiest in many cases.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Manual vs automated fault detection by vibration

(OP)
Optical is what we're using now when we check manually so I guess too that's an alternative. I can't see how it will work over time with all the fluids and/or dust in the machines though. Another alterative is of course to solve this using algorithms instead. We usually run 400-500 parts of each of, and it wouldn't be impossible to let the operator input what part we're doing in the computer. Or using the software to identify it itself by analysis of the spectrum over a period of time and see what predefined "master spectrum" is most similar to what we're doing right now.

In some cases I think even the machine itself measure its rpm, and communicate with the PlC of the machine using either a digital or analogue output can't be too difficult.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources