Share a story involving improper selection of a lubricant or additive package.
TLT Sounding Board April 2012
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, goes the old saying. In the lubricant world, perhaps there should be a corollary—ignorance is expensive. That is certainly the case when the wrong lubricant or additive package is selected for a job. Massive equipment damage, product contamination, unscheduled downtime and catastrophic failure often are the result. OEMs many times were at the heart of anecdotes contributed by TLT readers this month. Often plant personnel ignore the OEM’s instructions and use the wrong lube, and, incredibly, OEM personnel themselves can be misinformed about their own products. The most common problem cited by readers was mixing incompatible lubes in gearboxes. Another common lament was plant personnel cheaping it out on the lubricant and then paying for it in increased fuel costs, downtime and machine life. In almost all cases, simple knowledge and lubrication best practices could have avoided the problem. Factory personnel—when in doubt, call your local STLE member!
A customer was using the OEM-recommended EP oil for a worm gear application. However, the oil contained a reactive sulfur-phosphorous additive chemistry. The brass gear subsequently corroded rapidly, which the OEM stated was normal. It wasn’t normal, but always using that oil would cause that effect to be typical, making it seem normal.
Situation involved a rotary vane vacuum pump in a pig plant using a barrier fluid for lubrication. Needless to say, that pump ran pretty hot. Had the mistake not been discovered, the pump would have failed.
The biggest problem I run across is OEM manuals not being updated and the OEM tech not having the knowledge on what is the proper lube and why that lube was chosen.
Customer used a selected R&O product without antiwear for critical hydraulic application. Premature wear occurred on a $75,000 pump, resulting in 18 hours of downtime and pump failure. The customer wanted a better performing product, and we ran a microtap on steel, per their request, and our product lost. Then the customer broke many tools machining aluminum, but that coolant product was never tested, whereas our coolant passed with flying colors. A more thorough testing/screening process could have avoided the broken tools and given our company an extra month or two of coolant sales.
Mixing lithium-based and urea-based greases resulted in gearbox bearing failures when the oil drained out of the solution.
The customer used a market general lithium grease instead of the regularly used aluminum complex grease. The result was an incompatibility between the two types. This caused the grease to lose its viscosity and leak out of the bearing, causing catastrophic failure.
Excessive wear and oil degradation from a poor lube selection.
A co-worker mixed a lead naphthenate into an organic-thickened lubricating grease. The batch immediately fluidized. This was in research and development, so no damage was done to a customer.
From our viewpoint, we are a company more concerned about microbial activity in the sump as we are suppliers of product that stop or slow down this activity.
User topped off a gearbox containing PG synthetic gear lubricant with engine oil. Beaded up like water droplets on the flanks of the teeth, leading to tooth damage and bearing issues.
Our improper selection of lubricants may sound minor, but using 10w30 when our brand new Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser station wagon called for 5w30, wasn’t. After about 25,000 miles, the engine began burning oil! I must have been about 13 years old at the time and will never forget my father showing me the blue smoke in the exhaust, and saying, “That blue you see in the exhaust means it is burning oil—that is not good!” So we took it to the dealership and they not only confirmed it was burning oil but said the engine was covered under the warranty and they would replace it with a new one! We lucked out, but for a moment there I think my father thought his mistake was going to cost him dearly!
A plant super thought all pump crankcases should have 140 gear oil in them. Years later the pump cross-heads had so much wear that when the recommended viscosity of ISO 68 was used, the cross-heads rattled like there were rocks in the crankcase.
Standard 80w90 gear oil placed in an axle containing wet brakes and a limited slip differential. The grade was OK, but having no slip additive made the effect of something really wrong in the front differential. Each time you turned, the differential produced vibration caused by the stick/slip of the plates. Our company was called out to repair the axle differential, and all we did was replace the gear oil with the correct additive. The noise went away within one minute of driving.
Heavy-duty fleet operators often choose a lubricant that is cheaper but costs them more in fuel costs, downtime and machine life.
What percentage of the time do you see people selecting the wrong lubricant/additive package for the job?
1%-5%
12%
6%-10%
12%
11%-15%
19%
16%-20%
23%
21%-30%
9%
31%-35%
10%
More than 35%
15%
Based on results from some 13,000 TLT readers.
My customer made a poor selection of grease for lubricating bearings and damaged some of these bearings. The two greases were incompatible.
We did not use the proper grease in a high-temperature application. The customer had high bearing failure. We switched the customer to a HT aluminum complex grease, and the customer saved his bearings and used less grease.
A large industrial gearbox had information on the equipment tag to use an SAE 30 oil. The plant was putting SAE 30 engine oil into the gearbox. Upon seeing this, I had the plant go back to the gearbox OEM drawings, which specified SAE 30 viscosity grade gear oil. I had them switch to an ISO 100 industrial gear oil. The problem was really with the gearbox OEM, which had specified an automotive viscosity grade for an industrial lubricant. Although the engine oil had not damaged the gearbox, the industrial gear oil provided better water separation and antifoam properties than the engine oil.
Results of poor lubricant selection: bad lubricating effect, high rolling force and power consumption, more passes than expected or necessary.
A local power plant was convinced by a salesperson to convert the gear oil in their coal mills to a “non-major brand” synthetic EP gear oil for maximum protection. The coal mills have a large brass worm gear, and in less than a year the EP additives and/ or the incompatibility of the synthetic basestock completely ate through the gear. A total failure.
A vendor selected the wrong product for a customer of theirs. The product caused excess wear and foaming.
We had a customer years ago say he needed a straight gear oil. The inexperienced salesperson gave them a GL-1 non-EP straight gear oil. They put it in a final drive of a truck, and it destroyed the gears in short order. The person ordering was unaware of their needs, and the salesperson didn’t know enough to ask the right questions.
Police cars with much idling had too high a viscosity motor oil.
There are really two issues: changing the fluid or topping off with the wrong fluid. When changing out the fluid and adding the wrong fluid, results are usually observed quickly. When topping off with the wrong fluid, the result may not be seen quickly and might, in fact, take several months to become apparent.
Incompatible grease was used as a pump bearing lubricant at a nuclear plant. The pump failed, and an NRC violation was issued.
The use of a hydraulic oil with no antiwear additives. The pump failed after three months.
A “non-melting” Bentonite/clay-thickened grease was used in a high-temperature steel mill application for oven door hinges. The temperature extremes caused the base oils to volatilize, and the leftover clay base oxidized, creating hard, abrasive residue, which damaged the hinges to failure and led to unscheduled and costly downtime.
Mining fan motor was greased with polyurea grease as called for in normal operations. Then someone serviced the motor with aluminum complex grease. Motor bearings burned out at 28 days. Unknown volume, frequency before failure.
Wrong viscosity grade of HIV hydraulic fluid in Sacmi Presses. Outcome: Totally damaged main piston.
Oil was changed, foaming occurred. Supposedly it was the same oil type, just a different brand.
A maintenance manager selected an ISO VG 220EP gear oil for use in a worm gearbox with a bronze wheel. The bronze wheel corroded badly.
I live in Singapore. The commonest mistake is for people to select a lubricant with a viscosity rating higher than that recommended by the manufacturer. Most manufacturers recommend xW-20 and xW-30. The most commonly sold viscosities sold in retail anywhere in Singapore are xW-40 and xW-50.
The person chose to pump grease into a bearing that was currently filled with oil. The pump was changed the next day due to bearing failure.
Incorrect synthetic grease was selected in a high temperature O/H power and free conveyor in an automotive assembly plant. Result: grease incompatibility caused by excessive grease softening, catastrophic lubricant runout and workpiece contamination. Entire conveyor had to be disassembled and all bearings cleaned with solvent and relubricated.
The oil was changed to an EP gear oil. It caused corrosion damage to copper-containing components.
Editor’s Note: Sounding Board is based on an e-mail survey of 13,000 TLT readers. Views expressed are those of the respondents and do not reflect the opinions of the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers. STLE does not vouch for the technical accuracy of opinions expressed in Sounding Board, nor does inclusion of a comment represent an endorsement of the technology by STLE.