Oil Analysis and corrective action: an investment that pays
Shesby Chabaya, head of operations for WearCheck in Zimbabwe, investigates the reasons behind an organisation’s inability to achieve cost savings from oil analysis and how to optimise their operational cost savings by responding promptly to the outcomes of oil analysis reports.
neer or manager taking a strategic approach. This entails examining the overall context; trending results month by month and year by year; and looking at long-term outcomes and indicators; prioritising critical issues; and focusing on solutions to identify fleet or plant problems, adaptability and sustainability. Some of the key questions are: • Is this problem affecting this component only or the entire fleet or plant? • Is it affecting a specific make & model of plant equipment? • Is it affecting how a plant operates in a specific operating environment? • Is it affected by changes in load or inten- sity of operation? • Is it affecting equipment operated by a specific operator? • Are all operational systems adaptable and responsive to current needs or indicators? WearCheck can assist customers in managing and optimising their oil analysis programmes through comprehensive KPI reports that distil key data such as sever- ity trends, repeat problems, component or fleet-level problem patterns and data-quality issues into clear, actionable insights that assist with reliability improvement and root cause analysis. These tailored reports form part of WearCheck’s management-support offering and are available as an optional service upon request. What cost savings are NOT! In a recent study, we examined a year’s worth of oil analysis data across all components on a mobile plant for a company in the manu- facturing industry. This included engines, transmissions, hydraulic systems and axles. The findings were as follows: • 46% of the annual oil samples extracted triggered alarms (Ratio almost 1:2). • 28% of the total annual problems or alarms were repeat issues. • 1 in every 3 alarms represented a repeat problem. One in every two oil sample results is an alarm, and the total number of alarms was 27% above the target set for the year. The percentage of repeat problems is significant,
indicating that it is the key driver of accumu- lated annual alarms/overall problematic oil samples. These statistics are unacceptable, and the programme can be described as uneconomical. A recurring problem is a pointer to a slow response to alarms, or to the fact that the corrective action implemented did not ad- dress the root cause. Alternatively, it is simply indicative of the absence of corrective action. We decided to test this assertion further by examining the level of feedback, and the find - ings were as follows: • The annual percentage of samples that resulted in feedback was 28%. • The average number of days for feedback to be submitted following an analysis was 186 days, and in some cases, fol- lowing reports requiring feedback, there were over 300 days without a response.
M any organisations conducting oil analysis face the challenge of maximising operational cost savings while under pressure to achieve full production and enhance share- holder value. Oil analysis provides a means to achieve the end goal – a positive payback and overall cost savings. However, this is not a given. An organisation may or may not achieve the intended benefits for several reasons, chief among them the failure to implement a sound corrective action strategy. The oil-analysis cycle To achieve financial savings, organisations must implement an effective oil analysis programme and conduct periodic audits to en- sure processes are followed. This begins with regular, systematic oil sampling to generate data that support informed decision-making. The oil analysis or cost-savings cycle is itera- tive and can be detailed as shown in Figure 1: When oil sampling is done on a regular and systematic basis, problems are identified and reported by the laboratory, equipment is scheduled for troubleshooting and inves- tigation, and corrective action addressing the root cause is implemented, guided by the laboratory's response time. This results in performance improvements and cost savings. A check sample is taken to confirm improve - ment, and the process keeps repeating as machine operating hours increase. Often, corrective action is taken, but the problem persists. The key is in addressing the root cause of the identified problem. The KPIs shown in Figure 2 can be utilised to track the effectiveness of corrective action taken or the lack thereof. The Big Picture Principle It is not enough to focus solely on reacting to individual oil sample results, even though this contributes immensely to overall cost savings. The big-picture principle must be applied on an ongoing basis, with the maintenance engi-
This clearly indicates a poor responsiveness to the alarms highlighted by oil analysis.
Given these findings, it is apparent that a large percentage of alarms went unresolved, result- ing in fault repeats and potential cost savings lost. Identified problems continued to recur, exposing the fleet to the risk of catastrophic failure, a situation which would negatively impact productivity. Sound corrective action at the heart Just as a snowball rolling down a slope will pick up more snow on its way and grow bigger, a regular study of oil analysis data over two decades has revealed that small, identified problems, if not resolved early, will grow into much larger and more complex challenges over time. The identified problem keeps re - curring and worsening, often to the point of component failure. The longer one waits or procrastinates before addressing a problem, the higher the likelihood that it will not be addressed, expos- ing the plant to the risk of component failure, expensive repairs and lost production. In a subsequent study, we examined whether there was a correlation among low feedback levels, fault repeats, component
28 ¦ MechChem Africa • May-June 2026
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker