John,
I don't believe I will be saying anything that others have
not said already, I'll just say it in my bumpkin sort of way. The frequency
that you monitor the condition of anything should be governed by the speed
at which it might fail. Example: We have a situation where bearings are
being used at the very limit of their capability. They are running at a
speed well above the point at which oil mist should have been used, but we
can only grease them. The possibility of rapid failure is present (and has
happened) so we take vibration readings every 2 weeks!!

We also have some bearings that are moving slower than most grass grows. We
have never experienced rapid onset & failure in these bearings & readings
every 90 days are quite sufficient to give us any warning we need. The point
is that all ice cream is not vanilla. Pro-active maintenance dictates that
we consider each asset individually, what is the most cost effective way to
maintain the function of that asset.


Mike L. Fitch
Temple-Inland
Particle Board TEAM Champion
(870) 722-4018
mfitch@...


-----Original Message-----
From: John Isaac [SMTP:John@...]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:57 AM
To: plantmaint@...
Subject: [plantmaint] Condition Monitoring

Dear group,
A question for the experts.
We are embarking on an improved system of CBM. Utilising Vibration
monitoring, Oil analysis and Thermography.
We are a multi product Food factory with 24/7 production. At the
moment we do Vibration Monitoring every 2 months. Up until now it has proved
quite successful at capturing potential problems.
We do Thermography once a year.
The question is.
Is there a "Bench Mark" for the frequency of CBM? It has been
suggested that we should do Vibration Checks every month and Thermography
every 3 months.
Your thoughts and opinions are welcomed.

If you ever need to get in contact with the owner of the list, (if you have
trouble unsubscribing, or have questions about the list itself) send email
to <owner-plantmaint@...> .