Maximizing motor

life through
condition monitoring

NICOLE DYESS
Director of Client Solutions

w w w. m o t o r s a t w o r k . c o m
2017 Motors@Work 1 www.motorsatwork.com
Motors fail its a fact of life thats nearly as certain as death and taxes.

Until now, preventing motor failure required early retirement i.e., repairing or replacing your
rotating equipment on a schedule possibly years before it would fail. Fortunately, the declining
cost of sensors and sub-meters, together with the growing big data industry, have made condition
monitoring increasingly accurate and affordable. The net result: condition monitoring can decrease
your motor operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses by up to 25%.1

This white paper describes how condition monitoring detects motor-damaging situations and uses
that information to maximize the life of your rotating equipment: First we describe how motors
fail; then, we outline how these failure modes help us to detect declining motor health. The third
VHFWLRQVXPPDUL]HVKRZFRQGLWLRQPRQLWRULQJEHQHWV\RXUERWWRPOLQH7RFRQFOXGHZHH[SODLQKRZ
condition monitoring and the Industrial Internet of Things will lead to truly predictive maintenance
within 10 years.

19% 25% 30%

of preventive maintenance of interval-based of interval-based preventive
activities are completely preventive maintenance maintenance activities occur
unnecessary2 activities occur too late3 too frequently4

45% 65% 82%

of preventive maintenance of predictive maintenance of assets would have lower
efforts are ineffective at signals go unnoticed by risk of failure with
reducing downtime 5
maintenance staff6 condition-based monitoring7

FIGURE 1 The high cost of preventive (PM) versus condition-based and predictive maintenance. Condition-based maintenance reduces your
maintenance expenses by eliminating unnecessary maintenance activities and helping your maintenance staff work smarter.

2017 Motors@Work 2 www.motorsatwork.com

WHY MOTORS FAIL

In the 1970s, Nowlan and Heap characterized asset failure patterns into six general models; then, the
researchers categorized these failure curves as either age-related (Types A, E, & F) or random (not
age-related; Types B, C, & D) [Figure 2].8
Random Failures Age-Related Failures
Probability Probability
of failure of failure

B. Infant mortality Time A. Wear out Time

Probability Probability
of failure of failure

C. Initial break-in Time E. Bathtub Time

Probability Probability
of failure of failure

D. Random Time F. Fatigue Time

FIGURE 21RZODQ +HDSVVHPLQDOUHVHDUFKLGHQWLHGVL[DVVHWIDLOXUHSDWWHUQVDQGFODVVLHGWKHVHFXUYHVDVHLWKHUUDQGRPRUDJHUHODWHG

$WWKHWLPH1RZODQ +HDSFODVVLHGRIHTXLSPHQWIDLOXUHVDVDJHUHODWHG9 While better

manufacturing practices have reduced the number of random failures and increased the share
of age-related failures since the 1970s, age-related degradation still causes a minority (18%) of
equipment failures [Figure 3].10

100% 100%

90% 90%
FIGURE 3 Researchers in the 1960s
80% 80%
A
B and 1970s characterized asset failure
70% 70%
patterns and recognized that few
60% 60%
Age- failures occur due to asset age.
Random related
50% 50%
failures failures E Motors follow a similar pattern to
C
40% 82% 40%
18% other asset classes, with only 10%
30% 30% of failures attributable to age-related
20% D F 20% degradation
10% 10%

0% 0%

2017 Motors@Work 3 www.motorsatwork.com