Talk:Condition monitoring

Untitled
The criticality section does not take into account the liklihood of failure of the machines. Criticality measurement or classification may broadly be aequated to risk quantification in the risk management process. You measure both the impact or consequences, against the liklihood or frequency. This is also true in another engineering process, called Failure Mode Effects and CRITICALITY analysis (FMECA) where the failure criticality is also calculeted in a 2 dimensional matrix that considers liklihood and impact.

If a failure had a high impact but a very low liklihood - you might choose not to invest in any mitigation (such as applying condition monitoring). The cost might not be justified by the risk.

I also think the whole article is very biased toward Vibration Analysis, the whole section needs broadening out to include a much wider range of condition monitoring techniques that exist.

A link to Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) might also be useful. By virtue of the way the RCM decision logic is written, condition monitoring is the maintenance technique of choice if it is practical and cost effective to apply, compared with other Preventative Maintenance techniques.

I would like to propose the simpler definition of Condition Monitoring by IDCON, which is "All work performed in order to find failures early." This does not rely on having a "parameter" such as with simple visual inspection or Go-NoGo checks. The other option is ISO 13372 definition "Detection and collection of information and data that indicates the state of a machine". This is relatively simple but lacks purpose. Peter Todd SIRF (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Propose change from Lubricant testing to Fluid Testing - this covers both Lubricants including greases, and other Fluids e.g. Hydraulic Fluids and Transformer oils. Andy Mellor, (ISO Cat IV Vibration Analyst etc). Andy mellor (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thermography approach for bearing incipient fault detection
A passive thermography approach has been proposed for bearing condition monitoring. The main bearing condition indicator is the transient behavior of the temperature rise difference at the early stage. The experimental results of five different bearing conditions have demonstrated the potential of the proposed method in the detection of both bearing physical damages and lubrication shortage. Consequently, the proposed method can be used for early bearing fault detection because of its capability in monitoring the lubrication problem before it causes physical damages, if the heat generation mechanisms are well understood. It is also observed: a) for most bearing faults in its early stages, the bearing equilibrium temperature approaches its value for healthy bearings; and b) most incipient faults have opposite effects on bearing temperature and can lead to a temperature rise rate that is lower than that of a healthy bearing. These observations explain why most of the temperature monitoring methods have a short detection horizon.


 * What I think should be changed:
 * Why it should be changed:
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Wael2021 (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)