Emerson Process Management

DoctorKnow® Application Paper

Title:	The Birth of the El Paso Electric Co. Oil Analysis Program
Source/Author:	Jaime Viramontes
Product:	OilView
Technology:	Tribology
Classification:

The Birth of the El Paso Electric Co. Oil Analysis Program

Abstract

This paper illustrates the startup and management of a 4-year old in-house oil analysis program at El Paso Electric Co. (EPEC) Power Generation Facilities, complete with startup costs, cost analyses, cost avoidance figures, and a case history. The paper also supplies details of EPEC's PdM program and how it is managed. The author also discusses EPEC's problems while trying to smooth out their oil analysis program, and how they solved those problems.

Biography

Jaime Viramontes is the predictive maintenance supervisor for El Paso Electric Co. and is directly responsible for six technicians who perform routine PdM activities at three power generation stations. He has 20 years of experience in heavy industry and power generation. In his current position, Mr. Viramontes has been responsible for the implementation of several predictive technologies at El Paso Electric, including vibration analysis, oil analysis, motor current analysis, infrared thermography, and ultrasonics. Under the leadership of Mr. Viramontes, El Paso Electric Co. has been recognized as an industry leader in PdM technologies.

Historical Perspective

El Paso Electric Co. (EPEC) has been providing electric power to communities in the Southwest since 1901. With more than 281,000 customers in West Texas and Southern New Mexico, EPEC also sells electricity to wholesale customers in New Mexico, California, and contractually sells power to the Commission Federal de Electricidad de Mexico, the national electric utility of Mexico.

EPEC has 1500 MW of owned generating capacity. Employees number at 1,076.

Program Startup

Initial startup costs: $30,000
1st year cost avoidance using PdM program: $3.2 million

In 1993 Power Generation Management realized the need to get equipment failures under control and assess the condition of equipment to better plan outages. Prior to the implementation of the PdM program, most repairs were done on time based during unit outages or when equipment failed. The initial startup cost was approximately $30,000 for software, vibration analyzers, an oil analyzer, and motor current testing equipment. The first year the program documented a 3.2 million cost avoidance with mostly the vibration part of the program.

In 1995 and 1996 the lubrication program basically consisted of taking oil samples on an "as needed" basis due to the lack of personnel. The program's cost avoidance for 1996 came in at 2.5 million. This helped justify the need to make a separate department with permanent employees and a supervisor. Prior to this personnel were being rotated through program.

Oil Testing Is Underway

With the addition of personnel, one person was assigned to start testing oil. This person was assigned the task of setting up sample points on all equipment that could have a production (MW) impact if it were to come out of service. Since most of the equipment was already set up in the database due to the vibration program, it was just a matter of adding points to the existing machines. It was also decided that it was necessary to add items like bulk oil storage and drum storage to the database.

PdM Program Management

Oil Testing: There are 121 machines with 393 points between the three plants that use the PdM program. The majority of tests are performed on a monthly basis with a CSI Model 5100 Oil Analyzer and a 100X microscope. We also verify our work from time to time using our lube supplier and an independent test lab. We make sure that the same person who takes the samples also runs the tests. All of the test results are automatically entered in the MasterTrend database, along with the usual vibration, motor current, alignment, and balancing data. All personnel in the maintenance and operations departments have access to the database. Any samples that fail are retested, and a report with a recommendation for the problem correction is sent to the maintenance supervisor, maintenance engineers, and planners.

Before the start of the program, oil on most equipment was not tested. Plant managers were used to addressing the lubrication on most equipment. But now, with the onset of a good oil program, we have gone from time-based oil changes to "as needed". With time based oil changes, we found that several pieces of equipment would run extended periods of time with oil contamination and several would have perfectly good oil disposed of, which with environmental issues these days can be extremely costly. Oil is now only changed when test results indicate a need. The testing also gives us a good idea of the condition of the machinery.

In the first year the program documented 92 oil contamination cases. These cases were compiled in our database, and a cost analysis was performed on a case per case basis. Fig. 1 shows a Fault Summery Graph from our database. (See 1998 Reliability Week Technical Presentations, page 1071)

Fig. 2 & 3 shows the data from eight months in 1997 versus the same eight months in 1998. Anyone can see there has been a dramatic reduction in cases in a short time. (See 1998 Reliability Week Technical Presentations, page 1072)

During our unit outages, we're able to use the information from the oil analysis program along with motor current analysis, vibration, and thermography to determine what equipment should be repaired. This has allowed us to redirect our labor resources and shorten outage duration.

Contamination and Oil Condition

In 1997 as part of the program, we looked at the cleanliness levels on our large reservoirs (turbines/generators and bulk oil storage tanks) to see how our oil compared with ISO standards. It was discovered that we were near the ISO 14/12 for 5-15 micron levels. We looked at the filtration system and found that it wasn't adequately meeting cleanliness levels that were now required. EPEC decided to upgrade our filtration systems from a Bowser type to a Kidney loop filtration system.

In our effort to obtain the cleanest oil samples possible, we sent oil samples to our oil supplier for extensive testing. Unfortunately, our oil had failed many of the tests. Two of our units were running with oil very near not suitable for use. There were no records to indicate how long this oil had been in use. We felt our best option was to go with an on-site reclamation and refortification offered by our lubrication supplier. Blend studies were performed to determine what it would take to bring oil back to ISO requirements. The blend studies results required that 30% new oil be added along with proper additives. Test results after oil reclamation came were good. Our oil was now suitable for continued use with a guarantee from the vendor.

Training

One of the most important parts of the program is training in basic lubrication and contamination control. Our training taught us that not all oils and greases are the same and do not always mix well. We also gained a good understanding of what size particles in the lubricant can cause damage. Training also addressed issues such as contaminated fill containers and oil handling practices.

Lubrication Consolidation

Several lubrication manufacturers were brought in to bid on our lubrication needs. Lubrication quality, vendor support and price were some of the main items looked at. After the selection of a vendor we proceeded with a lubrication survey of all EPEC plants.

Actions taken due to survey results:

Consolidated several types of oil and reduced number of greases from 8 to 4.
Upgraded oil from Group I to a Group II base stock.
Corrected misapplication of lubricants.

Case Histories/Cost Analysis

1994- 1997 total cost avoidance with oil analysis program alone: $900,000

In 1997 EPEC documented 92+ case histories related to oil contamination. The total cost avoidance from the lubrication program alone was $900,000.00 plantwide. Our database is comprised of several units, just as our plants are.

When a sample tests in alarm it is required that it be resampled before a compile report is written. A compile report will contain all the relevant data on the problem such as:

Fault
Description of problem
Recommendation for correction
Priority
Job status
Extended explanation
Cost analysis

Fig. 4 shows actual data from Unit 1. In this unit alone there were 22 oil contamination cases on several different machines. (See 1998 Reliability Week Technical Presentations, page 1075)

1000 H.P. Boiler Feed Pump 1B: Fault found. Problem description: water droplets in oil. Recommendation: filter oil to remove water.

This system holds 25 gallons of oil. After the work is performed, the work order goes back to its originator for sign off, and then another sample is drawn to verify unit is now out of alarm. For the cost analysis on this case we charged a bearing change out. Total cost avoidance for this problem was $12,880.

Action Taken No Action Taken

Production Loss: 00 $9984.00

Parts Required: $20.00 $1950.00

Labor Required: $138.00 $ 1104.00

When we looked at ways to determine failure costs related to oil contamination issues in rotating equipment, we decided to charge one bearing changeout per machine only once per year. For example if a piece of equipment failed an oil test three times in a year we would still only charge a simple bearing changeout one time in that year. All labor is charged at straight time. We determine the MW impact for the time the unit would have been out of service if the bearing would have been damaged from running with water in oil and had to be replaced. Since most units don't run at full load 24 hours a day, we use a capacity factor (.52). The Cumulative Fault Summary Report (Fig. 5) shows the impact the lubrication program had in the year on this particular unit. (See 1998 Reliability Week Technical Presentations, page 1076)

Conclusions

The oil analysis program has been a successful part of EPEC's PdM/RBM program. Since implementation three years ago, $8.8 million in cost avoidance has been documented, using a combination of technologies and a dedicated effort from personnel at EPEC. Most important are all the other indicators that point to an extremely effective program. EPEC's Equivalent Forced Outage Rate (EFOR) is down. The Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF) is up. Planned Outages are up. Overtime man hours are down. The safety record has improved. Employees are getting better insurance at lower rates. EPEC has experienced a record amount of production output. And operating expenses have been significantly reduced.