Executive Summary
Condition monitoring is used widely among readers’ workplaces, with a large majority reporting that they use oil analysis in particular. Condition monitoring training, however, varies widely from company to company, with most offering training only once a year or less. Readers report that a wide range of condition monitoring topics, from sampling techniques to results interpretation, would be useful to their roles at their companies. Both live and virtual training options hold value, as long as they provide opportunities for questions and answers.
Q.1 When it comes to condition monitoring training, which topic would you most prefer to see?
Sample taking (from where do you draw a sample?), trending from specific points, software for analysis and onsite equipment for analysis.
Wear metals analysis.
Baseline parameters.
Understanding the complete analysis form and what it is saying about the condition of the component.
What the results mean.
Oil analysis.
Reading data.
Vibration, oil sample, ultrasound techniques.
My primary focus is oil analysis in heavy-duty equipment. I need information regarding modern metallurgy in use in modern engines, transmissions, gearsets and hydraulic systems.
Standard tests required for the condition monitoring of coolants.
A better breakdown of the test methods and how a sample can be evaluated better for falling out of spec.
Lab testing methods and how they relate to the fluid/lubricant application. Based more on the testing method point of view than the fluid/lubricant application.
An overview of what is important, why and how to do it properly.
Unfortunately, how to interpret the oil analysis is an area of concern for a lot of companies. These companies rely on the lubricant supplier to provide a detailed report on-the-go forward plan for each asset. This could take days to receive, and, during that time, the asset may reach catastrophic failure. If the plant personnel had better training, it would allow for quicker action to prevent that catastrophic failure. Training on oil analysis interpretation and the component make-up of internal components can help predict what is actually happening within the asset.
Oil lab techniques and testing.
Oil-based, advanced digital-based condition monitoring and model-guided condition monitoring.
I am new to ultrasound so, at the moment, it would be my preference, especially to track lubrication with ultrasound.
All! At my company, oil analysis is widely used. Internal training presentations are used along with access to specialists to answer questions and provide explanation and guidance. Yet, there are times when another monitoring approach would have detected something awry sooner or better. And then there is a common expectation that oil analysis will always answer the question with an oil sample taken at the time of a failure. Training that introduces the full range of condition monitoring approaches and when/where/why they are used and most appropriate is needed. Training that then takes the student deeper into each approach, along with case studies, would be helpful to those that need to be users of condition monitoring and not just having awareness.
Condition monitoring of microbial contamination. This is most relevant for turbine oils, high water-based hydraulic fluids and hydraulic fluids used in high humidity environments such as mines and food production systems.
Oil analysis, but I enjoy all the tools in the reliability toolbox.
Which type of condition monitoring do you or your company currently use? (Select all that apply.)
Oil analysis
91%
Infrared thermography
50%
Vibration analysis
41%
Ultrasonic
34%
Based on an informal poll sent to 15,000 TLT readers. Total exceeds 100% because respondents were allowed to choose more than one answer.
Oil analysis because it is the most useful to me.
How to interpret an oil report.
Used oil and vibration analysis. Also, understanding the meaning of the results and what next steps need to be taken to correct the results noted.
Itemize the methods for condition monitoring. That is, what equipment is monitored using computers? What equipment requires sampling a lubricant and laboratory testing? Spoon feed the trainee! Then proceed with the chemistry and analytical methods involved.
Hydraulics and large circulation systems.
I am a big fan of the multiple ancillary legs of condition monitoring to include oil analysis and interpretation, vibration, thermography and ultrasonic as well as unification of all the data so that an end-user has one platform to manage and maintain.
Online sensor for oil condition monitoring—accuracy, advantages and limitations.
How to make oil analysis, thermography and vibration analysis come together and work as one tool to provide an accurate maintenance tool to extract data for all aspects of machine management.
Specification limit.
Root cause analysis. It is all good and well to monitor vibrations, temperatures, etc., but we must understand the root cause of the failure signal. Understanding the root cause and eliminating it will lead to continuous improvement. Wear debris analysis is another important topic. Due to improved cleanliness requirement and subsequent improved filtration, wear debris is no longer detectable in oil samples. The clean oil shows no wear, but that does not mean there is no wear happening; the debris is now in the filter. How can we analyze filters?
Deciphering of oil analysis reports and setting alarm limits.
Contamination control mitigation.
New and emerging methods.
The limitations of the standard that the tester can meet.
Predictive maintenance.
Oil analysis interpretation and lubricants chemistry.
Additive depletion in used lubricants.
Q.2 Which training format, live or virtual, do you prefer and why?
Live is so much more personal.
Live—too many distractions if it is virtual.
Live—I get much more in a room with good conversation and questions.
Live is preferred; I find it’s a more open forum for discussion and learning.
We prefer live, but virtual is more cost effective and accessible.
Does not matter. Online, not more than two hours. In person, full day.
Virtual—I prefer to learn at my own pace and to repeat that which I don’t understand. The live format is an information dump in which I catch less of what I need.
Live—I’m more of a hands-on guy and often retain the information better.
Live! I like having the ability to interact with the instructor and ask questions and listen to others’ questions. There are fewer distractions. During online training, there is always a phone call, visit from a coworker, email or other task that seems more important than the training at the moment. I like networking with other people at the class and learning how other similar companies do things.
Virtual, because people do not have time to dedicate the whole day to attend the training, traveling, etc. It could be done through a webinar but available to review at any time if you are not available to attend live. It has to include a Q&A section. It is always important to listen to questions that other attendants could have.
Overall, I prefer virtual training at the moment. Ideally, I like to receive training live for the greatest degree of retention, but I acknowledge the convenience and public safety of virtual training.
Live. Fewer distractions—thus, I get more from the training.
I am a proponent of live training, as, in my experience, it is easy to lose someone’s attention virtually. With live training sessions, the instructor can read the audience’s face and body movements, which are tell-tale signs as to whether the individuals are actually understandin the subject matter. Everyone learns and retains knowledge in different ways, and when the instructor realizes that the audience may not fully understand the topic, it allows for more teachable moments during the lecture. With virtual training, the instructor is going to move along steadily to cover all the material within a selected time slot.
Live training is preferred for student and instructor interaction during breaks and after class. It’s better for networking.
Virtual is fine if I am not at the conference. But paid registrations also must include asynchronous viewing (i.e., recordings), not just live streaming.
Live training is my preference. I get more out of it than virtual; there are too many distractions.
We need to recognize the world we live in; live in-person training only will never again be acceptable. While I prefer live training, virtual training is what works for most people now. Maybe a best compromise would be virtual training (pre-recorded, available anytime) but with the ability to ask questions and get those answered within 24 hours. Preference for in-person live training is for the ability to ask questions and get answers seamlessly in real time. Also, in-person training allows use of real hardware, instrumentation, equipment, etc., that helps us tactile learners to place more of the information into long-term memory.
How often do you or your company participate in condition monitoring training?
More than two times per year
34%
One time per year
18%
Rarely
30%
Never
18%
Based on an informal poll sent to 15,000 TLT readers.
For training, live. MP3 or MP4 videos are useful as protocol demonstration tools but do not replace hands-on training during which trainees perform the protocols—primarily sample collection and testing. This answer assumes that training is different from education.
I prefer live but realize that is no longer the norm due to all the pandemic restraints.
My opinion is that virtual training can be used to explain the basics of predictive maintenance (i.e., condition monitoring), but developing an expertise requires live training and feedback. In the poll questions, you ask how often I participated in condition monitoring training, and now I’m pretty much retired and only teach a few times per year. But for almost 50 years, I’ve been involved with developing and teaching condition monitoring, and two of the major weaknesses we’ve seen are: (1.) The organization will focus on one or two techniques, such as oil analysis, and be blind to others. (2.) The organization doesn’t support the condition monitoring effort’s need for continual improvement.
Virtual to save time on travel and/or keep safe.
Virtual. It makes it easier to view on any platform while away from the office.
Virtual until contagious curve gets down.
I personally like live but understand the new world we live in as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Virtual at this moment.
All training is beneficial, and proper training needs to be a combination of classroom (theory) and on site (practical) in order to develop an understanding of the principles and practices.
Both have their values, but because of costs, virtual is more useful in an actual situation.
Live is always best because there is a direct and immediate interaction. However, virtual training is currently the standard not only because of the pandemic but also due to a better understanding of the impact (environmental) of traveling.
I prefer live. My mind wanders during virtual.
Virtual—it is easier to attend.
Virtual, as not all areas of the various countries can be readily accessed, and keeping a low environmental footprint should be on everyone’s mind these days.
Virtual—simulation always works.
Virtual since the COVID-19 pandemic has not yet disappeared and will be present, unfortunately, for many years ahead.
Live. Easier to communicate.