T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

NITED STAT S OFA ERICA

M

An Office of Industrial Technologies 

Bimonthly Publication Focusing on

Energy Efficiency Opportunities for Today

www.oit.doe.gov

www.motor.doe.gov

January/February 2000

Issue Focus: 

Reliability-Centered 

Maintenance

IN THIS ISSUE

M.J. Soffe Company Improves 

Manufacturing Efficiency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Guest Column. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Predictive Maintenance in the 

New Millennium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The Role of Preventive/Predictive 

Maintenance in the RCM Process. . . . . . . . . . 5

Letters to the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Roadmap Underway to Optimize 

Industrial Process Heating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Going International—A Motor Systems 

Management Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Coming Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

M. J. Soffe Company—a Fayetteville, North

Carolina, based clothing manufacturer—

uses a constant supply of hot water to dye,

set, and wash its product. But as Soffe’s

business grew, production increased the

need for hot water faster than the 25,000-

gallon tank could provide. Dye workers

often depleted hot water reserves and were

forced to halt production while fresh water

was heated in the dye with steam. Not

only did the lack of hot water lead to

decreased productivity, it also caused

problematic issues with material dyes in

the fabric.

In 1997, Soffe’s Manager of Maintenance Adrian

O’Quinn attended

energy efficiency

workshops hosted by

North Carolina (NC)

State University’s

Industrial Extension

Service–an OIT

Allied Partner. Eager

to enhance both

manufacturing efficiency and energy

utililzation at Soffe,

O’Quinn met with

NC State University’s

Energy Programs

Director James

Parker. Together, they

developed solutions

that not only are saving Soffe Company money but have led to

a significant increase in productivity.

Specialist engineers from NC State examined the Soffe Fayetteville plant’s heating,

ventilation, and air conditioning systems,

chiller and cooling towers, steam traps,

and boilers. They noted several areas for

improvement, including increasing the efficiency of the air conditioning system,

modifying lighting in the company warehouse, and improving air compressor efficiency. The two most obvious energy 

drains in Soffe’s manufacturing process

were water heating and steam leaks. 

NC State helped O’Quinn and Soffe

develop a wastewater heat recovery system

using heat from used dye water that the

company returned to the sewer system.

Wastewater is held in one 25,000-gallon

storage tank. As another storage tank is

filled with water from the city water system, it passes through a system that runs

both cool water and wastewater through a

heat exchanger. The heat from the wastewater warmed the fresh water to roughly

120°F—just 20°F below the ideal temperature for dyeing cotton. 

Steam leaks also remained a problem.

The leakages caused steam to escape to

the workplace air, heating the buildings

and taxing both the workers and the company’s air conditioning system, and caused

Soffe to run steam inefficiently at high

pressure. NC State engineers helped identify the leaks, and O’Quinn’s team repaired

them and installed a steam trap and condensate return system that keeps leaking

steam and moisture in the system. 

(continued on page 7)

Wastewater storage tank (left in photo), warm water storage tank (center),

original hot water storage tank (right), with equipment and wastewater

sump in foreground.

M.J. Soffe Company Improves Manufacturing Efficiency with Help

from North Carolina State University
2 Energy Matters, January 2000

ENERGY MATTERS

(formerly Turning Point) is 

published bimonthly by the U.S.

Department of Energy’s (DOE)

Office of Industrial Technologies. 

Information contained in the

newsletter can be reproduced

without permission provided due

acknowledgement is given (the

U.S. Department of Energy’s

Energy Matters newsletter) and a

copy of the publication is 

supplied to the editor.

■

EDITORIAL BOARD

Floyd Barwig, Iowa Energy 

Center, representing Compressed

Air Challenge

Rob Boteler, representing

National Electrical Manufacturers

Association

Lynda Butek, representing 

Electrical Apparatus Service 

Association

Don Casada, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory

Keith Davidson, Onsite Sycom

Energy

Glenn Hahn, Spirax Sarco

Fred Hart, U.S. DOE, Steam 

Challenge

Chris Hunter, Johnson & Johnson

Roy Jones, representing

Compressed Air and Gas Institute

John Machelor, Macro 

International

Rick Payton, Rockwell 

Automation/Reliance Electric

Bill Stafford, Technical 

Association of the Pulp and Paper

Industry

Howard Snyder, Weirton Steel

Chuck Whelan, DuPont

■

COMMENTS? 

Contact: 

Julia Oliver, DOE, at 

(510) 637-1952, or e-mail

julia.oliver@oak.doe.gov

Erika Ericksen, 

Energy Matters Editor, at 

(303) 275-3914, or e-mail 

erika_ericksen@nrel.gov

1617 Cole Blvd., MS 1713

Golden, CO 80401

Guest Column

RCM—Gateway to a World

Class Maintenance Program

By Anthony M. (Mac) Smith

Over the past 20

years, I have spoken

with hundreds of

maintenance managers, supervisors,

and technicians from

Fortune 500 companies, government

facilities, international organizations, and

others, about their maintenance strategies,

costs, and problems. Recurring themes

always include one of the following: 

1. My preventive maintenance (PM) program just grew over the years; I have no

credible reason for it except that “we

have done it for 15-20 years, so it must

be OK.” I know it isn’t, but don’t know

what to do for improvement.

2. Our maintenance program is almost

100% reactive, but I have neither the

time nor the smarts to do anything about

it. (Incidentally, reactive maintenance is

the most expensive option to use.)

3. Downtime and loss of output is eating

my lunch, and I don’t know what to do.

(As you might guess, #1 or #2 causes #3.)

Another recurring theme is the focus on

keeping all plant equipment 100% serviceable—i.e., up and running or always ready

if needed. I call this philosophy “Preserving

Equipment,” and it is often the principal

strategy behind most non-RCM PM programs. At first blush, preserve equipment

seems logical. But upon closer scrutiny, it

fosters unnecessary problems, such as promoting a tendency to treat all equipment as

being equally important and creating conservative or premature maintenance

actions. Many times, current PM tasks are

intrusive actions and can lead to errors and

rework as often as 50% of the time!

If you can relate—read on.

What is RCM?

Historically, the preserve equipment

strategy was practiced religiously by commercial aviation until the dawn of the first

jumbo jet—the B747-100. In the early

1960s, the FAA stipulated a 747 PM program that was to have three times as much

preventive maintenance than required for

the 707 (because it would carry three times

as many passengers). Recognizing the economic difficulties of such a rule, United led 

a team under Tom Matteson, the VP-Maintenance Planning for United, to reevaluate

the concept of PM and determine the correct strategy to achieve both safety and

economics of operation with commercial

aircraft. The result, successfully employed

on the 747 and all subsequent modern day

jet aircraft, was what we today know as

Reliability-Centered Maintenance or RCM.

The key was to abandon the preserve

equipment philosophy for a preserve function philosophy. The premise is that a 

system and plant have certain roles or

functions to perform, and the job for maintenance is to keep those functions available on demand—or preserve function.

Under this philosophy, equipment is the

means to the end (not the end in itself), and

we can view equipment in a very different

light. For example, is all equipment equally

important, is it less costly to deliberately

run some equipment to failure before we

act, is it necessary to maintain an item just

because we have access to it, etc.? In other

words, RCM is a decision process that

determines what is important and why, and

only then to define what PM is appropriate.

There are four basic features that define

and characterize the RCM process:

1. Preserve system function.

2. Define functional failures and component failure modes that can defeat

required functions.

3. Prioritize the importance of failure

modes.

4. Select Applicable and Effective PM tasks

for the high priority failure modes.

Applicable PM tasks will prevent, mitigate, detect onset of (e.g., predictive

maintenance or PdM) or discover (when

hidden) equipment failure modes. Effective PM tasks are the least costly among

competing Applicable PM tasks.

Notice that equipment maintenance,

per se, doesn’t occur until feature #4. The

first three features focus on where our

maintenance actions will do the most good

and produce the best possible ROI. Also

notice that Applicable PM tasks try to

emphasize the use of nonintrusive (PdM)

actions, and also recognize the need to

identify failure modes that are hidden from

the operators so that some form of failurefinding PM task can be considered. 

Implementing RCM

A 7-Step System Analysis process is

used to implement the four RCM features:

continued on page 3)
Energy Matters, January 2000 3

continued from page 2

Step 1. System Selection & Information

Collection

Large plants and facilities typically have

“bad actor” systems that follow an 80-20

rule (80% of the maintenance costs and

production losses derive from 20% of the

systems). We identify these 80-20 systems

for application of the RCM process because

they have the highest potential for improvement and a large ROI.

Step 2. System Boundary Definition 

Here we specifically define the physical

boundary of a selected system so that we

can later precisely identify what moves

back and forth across the boundary.

Step 3. System Description and Functional

Block Diagram

Complex systems are usually divided

into two or three functional subsystems.

Descriptions and component equipment

lists are developed for each subsystem, and

a functional block diagram is constructed

to show all interfaces (in and out) that

occur between subsystems. Out interfaces

are the key data because they pinpoint the

subsystem functions of interest.

Step 4. System Functions and Functional

Failures

Step 2 and 3 data are used to precisely

define subsystem functions (what it does)

and functional failures (how that can be

lost).

Step 5. Failure Mode & Effects Analysis

Functional failures and components for

each subsystem are arrayed in a matrix to

reveal intersections where a potential component failure could produce the functional failure. This matrix becomes a

roadmap to perform a Failure Mode and

Effects Analysis at each critical intersection.

Step 6. Logic (Decision) Tree Analysis (LTA)

Each failure mode from Step 5 that might

produce a system or plant-level problem is

put through the LTA. Using three simple

yes/no gates, each failure mode is categorized as safety (CAT A), outage (CAT B) or

minor (CAT C); each is also designated as

hidden (CAT D) if the operator would be

initially unaware of its occurrence. This

segregation allows us to focus on CAT A

and CAT B failure modes for PM actions,

and to consider CAT C for a run-to-failure

(RTF) decision.

Step 7. Task Selection 

We now focus on defining an applicable and effective PM task for the CAT A

and CAT B failure modes. We also perform

a further sanity check on the CAT C failure

modes before a final RTF decision. Finally,

we compare our RCM-based PM tasks with

the current PM program in place.

This 7-Step Systems Analysis process,

known as the Classical RCM process (see

Reference 1 for more detail), should be

used with an 80-20 system where the

potential ROI is huge. In the less important

systems (20-80 systems), an Abbreviated

Classical RCM

process may be used,

if in fact anything

more than a common

sense review of problem history is warranted. The Classical

RCM process is best

done by a team composed of craft personnel from operations

and the maintenance

electrical/mechanical

technicians. A facilitator skilled in the RCM

process is necessary to ensure that each

step is properly performed. A software 

program is available to support an RCM

team in efficiently and easily documenting

the results of the Systems Analysis (see 

Reference 2).

Typical Results and Benefits

During the past 20 years, many organizations have conducted RCM programs,

most with the assistance of consultants

such as myself. I have participated in over

50 RCM projects with clients, such as Electric Power Research Institute, GPU

Nuclear, Florida Power & Light, TVA,

MidAmerican Energy, Niagara Mohawk,

Armstrong World Industries, NASA-Ames

Research Center and Stennis Space Center,

USAF-Arnold Engineering Center and Cape

Canaveral Air Station, General Electric,

Westinghouse, Mobil Oil, Shell, and Boeing Commercial Airplane. Let me briefly

share some results from these projects:

■ Current PM tasks are mostly either TD

(see sidebar) or nonexistent. There is

virtually no content of CD, FF and

deliberate RTF actions.

■ In comparison, RCM-based PM tasks

result in a significant introduction of CD

and FF tasks. For example, in the

NASA-Ames project, 27 such tasks were

introduced where only 5 existed in the

current program.

■ RCM focuses on PM for critical failure

modes, and eliminates PM where there

is no added value. For example, in the

TVA project, 11 critical failure modes

were “discovered,” and 20 conventional

PM tasks were eliminated when no critical failure mode could be identified.

■ RCM usually results in a 40% to 80%

change in the existing PM program. For

example, Boeing has seen changes on

the order of 70% over ten different

RCM projects. 

When implemented, these dramatic changes in PM

task content produce

these results:

■ reduction in trouble calls (unexpected failures) of 

30% to 50%. 

■ reduction in system downtime of 

30% to 70%. 

In addition, the

accumulation of non-maintenance recommendations (design, operations, safety,

logistics) have led to annual savings of $1

to $10 million per system. In other words,

the benefits can be BIG when RCM is

properly employed.

The RCM process, as a decision tool, is

universally applicable to virtually any plant,

system or equipment. This has been clearly

demonstrated over the past 2 decades.

I hope this brief discussion has sparked

your interest in RCM and clarified just

what is meant by the RCM process. 

References

1. A. M. Smith, Reliability-Centered Maintenance, McGraw Hill Publishing Co.,

Inc. 1993, ISBN 0-07-059046-X.

2. “Software Cuts RCM Costs”. Maintenance Technology Magazine, Dec.

1999, pgs. 42-44.

Mac Smith has 46 years of engineering

experience in design, test, reliability, operations and maintenance. His career

includes 24 years with GE in aerospace, jet

engines and nuclear power. He has specialized in RCM consulting for the past 20

years. For questions or comments on this

article, contact Mac at (408) 532-7126 or

email to amsassoc@aol.com.

PM TASK TYPES: 

Time Directed (TD)—done at specified intervals, usually intrusive actions.

Condition Directed (CD)—measures

health non-intrusively and acts only

when deterioration is critical.

Failure Finding (FF)—non-intrusive

test/inspection to verify equipment operability, triggers action only if failed state

is discovered.

Run To Failure (RTF)—deliberate decision to do nothing until failure occurs.
4 Energy Matters, January 2000

Predictive Maintenance in the New Millennium

To achieve and sustain world-class 

performance, plants need to make major

changes–cultural, structural and 

operational. 

By Keith Mobley

This article is excerpted from an article that

originally appeared in Plant Services Magazine, July 1999 issue. Reprinted with permission from Plant Services. 

Last July (1998), Plant Services conducted

a survey to determine the status of predictive maintenance. The results clearly indicated that less than 3% of the respondents

achieved a measurable return on investment. Almost all of the 500 companies

interviewed expressed concern about this

failure, but few had concrete reasons for

the program’s failure to achieve expected

results.

This year, we attempted to confirm the

results of last year’s survey and to determine how these critical technologies will

be used as we enter the new millennium.

We convened a focus group comprising a

cross-section of industries to gain insight

into these issues. The results—few companies are fully utilizing the capabilities that

predictive maintenance technologies offer. 

Predictive maintenance was defined as

the three or four technologies (i.e., vibration monitoring, thermography, tribology,

and ultrasonics) that provide the means to

improve plant reliability. Furthermore, it is

assumed that these technologies, without

the inclusion of any other tools, provide

this ability. 

There are a growing number of your

peers that have begun to question this

belief, that these traditional technologies—

by themselves—are the panacea or the

answer to equipment reliability problems.

In my opinion, predictive technologies are

powerful tools, but they are not enough by

themselves. Traditional technologies must

be combined with other measurable variables that completely define a critical system’s operating condition. 

Over the past 3 or 4 years, a few vendors have developed microprocessor technology that can be incorporated into their

products. These so-called “smart devices” 

provide the ability to add direct process

input to traditional predictive tools. While

these advances are not all-inclusive, their

addition to the arena of predictive maintenance is viewed as a positive step. One

objective of the focus group was to determine if these new devices are or will be

used by industry.

Reality Check

While the participants in the focus

group agreed that predictive maintenance

is a critical part of a total plant, continuous

improvement program, the majority

responded that their current program did

not meet these criteria. With few exceptions, predictive maintenance continues to

be a maintenance-only program in these

plants. 

The universal reason for program failure

was plant or corporate culture. The participants repeatedly expressed their frustration

with a culture that precluded proper use of

predictive technology and effective performance of the maintenance function. 

All agreed that equipment reliability is a

prerequisite for acceptable plant performance, but they disagreed on who or

which functional groups in the plant control reliability. 

The majority of the participants continue to apply predictive maintenance in

the traditional, simplistic manner of those

surveyed in our 1998 study. The primary

diagnostic method continues to be longterm trends of vibration, infrared or lube

oil data without any attempt to normalize

data for process-driven changes. 

Where are We Going?

The greatest surprise from the focus

group is that none of the participants plan

to change their current methodology in the

new millennium. The majority clearly

stated that improvement is not possible

within the restrictions imposed by the

management culture in their plants.

Part of this focus group’s mission was to

determine if or how predictive maintenance will change as we enter the new

millennium. Specifically, we were interested in the impact of the addition of

microprocessor technology into control

devices, such as valves, actuators, and

electric motors. 

As the primary proponent of predictive

maintenance as a plant optimization tool, I

view these new technologies as major technology advances. One restriction of our

operating dynamics analysis methodology

has been the inability to cost-effectively

acquire process variables and other measurable parameters that define the operating condition of critical plant production

systems. These new microprocessor technologies are at least a partial answer. 

Recommendations

If you use or plan to use predictive

maintenance, do it right. The outcome of

the focus group clearly indicates that we

must change the way predictive maintenance is used in our plants. 

Culture Change

The first change that must take place is

in the perception that predictive technologies are exclusively a maintenance management or breakdown prevention tool.

This change must take place at the corporate level and permeate throughout the

plant organization. 

The use of predictive technologies

should be shifted from the maintenance

department to a reliability group that is

charged with the responsibility, and is

accountable, for plant optimization. This

group must have the authority to cross

functional boundaries and to implement

changes that correct problems uncovered

by their evaluations. 

Proper Use of Predictive Technologies

System components, such as pumps,

gearboxes, etc., are an integral part of the

system and must operate within their

design envelope before the system can

meet its designed performance levels. Why

then, do most predictive programs treat

these components as isolated machinetrains and not as part of an integrated system? The system must be the primary focus

of analysis.

When one thinks of predictive maintenance, vibration monitoring, thermography,

or tribology are the normal tools that come

to mind. Used individually or in combination, these three technologies cannot 

(continued on page 5)
Energy Matters, January 2000 5

continued from page 4

provide the diagnostics required to achieve

and sustain world-class performance levels.

To gain maximum benefit from predictive

technologies, other changes are needed.

For example, process parameters, such

as flow rates, retention time, temperatures,

and others, are absolute requirements in

predictive maintenance and process optimization programs. In many cases, these

data are readily available. 

On systems that use computer-based or

programmable logic controls, the parameters or variables that define the operating

envelope are automatically acquired and

then used by the control logic to operate the

system. In most cases, these data combined

with traditional predictive technologies will

provide the data an analyst needs to fully

understand the system’s performance.

Manually operated systems should not

be ignored. While the process data is more

difficult to obtain, the reliability or predictive analyst can, in most cases, acquire

enough data to permit full diagnostics of

the system’s performance or operating condition. Analog gauges, thermocouples, strip

chart recorders, and other traditional plant

instrumentation can be used. If plant

instrumentation includes an analog or digital output, most microprocessor-based

vibration meters can be used for direct

data acquisition. These instruments can

directly acquire most proportional signal

outputs and automate the data acquisition

and management that is required for this

expanded scope of predictive technology.

The vendors’ role

The new smart devices that are being

offered can enhance a predictive maintenance program by providing:

■ The means to normalized vibration,

infrared and lube oil data.

■ Process variables that fully define

process operation.

■ The means to detect minor deviations in

operating condition.

Unfortunately, vendors providing these

benefits do not configure these new

devices and systems. Instead, they offer

them as freestanding asset management

systems that do little to improve process

system reliability or performance. These

systems are usable in their current format,

but are limited. Hopefully, vendors will

recognize these needs and modify the systems to meet them.

For the full text of the article, access

www.plantservices.com.

The Role of Preventive/Predictive Maintenance in the RCM Process

By John M. 

Machelor, Motor/

Drives Systems 

Specialist in support

of DOE’s Industries

of the Future,

MACRO International Inc.

RCM identifies all of an asset’s major functions and possible failure of those functions; the RCM process then identifies the

possible results of the most likely failure

modes and whether or not those results

really matter. (See Guest Column on page

2 for a detailed explanation of RCM.) 

The RCM process examines options for

managing/maintaining a piece of equipment (asset) by establishing and then

implementing procedures for on-line condition monitoring, repair/replace decision

making, and failure prevention/prediction.

RCM also examines aspects of equipment

not directly tied to maintenance, such as

hardware/software design, operating procedures, and personnel training.

I have spent the last 10 years of my

career “managing” rotating equipment, 

mainly electric motors and the driven

loads. These items are extremely important

“assets” of a company’s production and

related operations. The main tools of RCM

used to manage/maintain motors and driven equipment are found in the maintenance department under the umbrella of

Preventive/Predictive Maintenance

(PM/PdM). For motors and other rotating

equipment, a quality PM/PdM program in

support of RCM will include:

1. Scheduled routine (preventive) maintenance.

2. Scheduled use of advanced predictive

maintenance tools to “trend” equipment

condition. Trending identifies whether a

piece of equipment is maintaining its

original good condition or deteriorating

at some rate. Three useful predictive

maintenance tools for rotating equipment are Vibration Analysis, Infrared

Thermography, and Oil Analysis (Tribology).

3. Performing “Root Cause Failure Analysis” on all equipment failures.

4. Use of Repair/Replace Decision Making

on all equipment.

What are the benefits of a quality

PM/PdM program to the end user?

1. Reduced equipment downtime resulting

in less disruption of production.

2. Reduced equipment repairs by both

internal maintenance as well as external

service shops.

3. Longer equipment life meaning less frequent need for the purchase of new

equipment. 

4. Increased product quality due to better

maintained equipment meeting specifications more often.

All of these benefits plus intangibles,

such as stress reduction in the workforce,

result in the greatest rewards of all—major

cost reductions and cost avoidance, which

directly translate to an improved Bottom

Line!

Though the emphasis here has been on

rotating equipment, the use of PM/PdM to

support RCM can apply to all of a company’s equipment (assets).

Readers are welcome to send questions,

comments, or suggestions to John Machelor by phone (540) 639-4271; fax (540)

639-4272; or e-mail:

jmachelo@macroint.com or

macrojmm@aol.com.
6 Energy Matters, January 2000

Roadmap Underway to Optimize Industrial Process Heating

Process heating is one of the largest and

most important uses of energy in industry.

It increases the value of materials and

products by improving physical properties,

enabling separations and reactions, and

promoting drying and curing. Optimizing

process heating performance can be crucial in controlling costs and maintaining a

competitive edge in existing and emerging

markets.

Recognizing the importance of process

heating in numerous industrial applications, the Industrial Heating Equipment

Association (IHEA), with assistance from

DOE’s Office of Industrial Technologies,

sponsored a workshop on November 

18-19, 1999, in Orlando, Florida, for key 

representatives of the process heating community. The purpose was to develop a

technology roadmap to provide a logical

and comprehensive plan designed to meet

customer needs now and in the future. 

The 35 participating experts, representing manufacturers, end users, and

researchers, worked in small groups to

identify the specific needs and challenges

for process heating in three temperature

ranges: lower than 1250°F, between 1250°F

and 1800°F, and higher than 1800°F. Each

group explored R&D requirements for generation, transfer, containment, recovery,

and systems integration and operation. Participants also identified immediate opportunities to improve performance and apply

best management practices in order to

increase the use of efficient process heating technology. The roadmap is expected

to be published in early 2000. 

The process heating roadmap will help

identify R&D projects with both industryspecific and industry-wide benefits, ways

to improve process heating performance

with existing technology and management

practices, and opportunities for employing

industry collaborations to solve process

heating challenges. 

Contact Bob Gemmer, U.S. DOE, by

phone at (202) 586-5885, or e-mail at

bob.gemmer@ee.doe.gov for more information on the process heating roadmap.

Letters to the Editor

Energy Matters welcomes

your typewritten letters and

e-mails. Please include your

full name, address, association, and phone

number, and limit comments to 200 words.

Address correspondence to:

Michelle Mallory, Letters to the Editor

NREL, MS 1713

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401 

e-mail: michelle_sosa-mallory@nrel.gov

We publish letters of interest to our

readers on related technical topics, comments, or criticisms/corrections of a technical nature. Preference is given to letters

relating to articles that appeared in the previous two issues. Letters may be edited for

clarity, length, and style.

To the Editor: in reference to the November/December 1999 article on Root Cause

Failure Analysis on AC Induction Motors

by John Machelor.

The article states that sealed bearings are

the best bearing enclosure choice. Sealed

bearings add losses. A number of scientific

studies have shown that losses associated

with a change in bearing type can measurably degrade efficiency.

Another overlooked consideration is

that sealed bearings have speed limitations. Operation above the limiting speed

will result in premature bearing failure,

and additional bearing friction losses.

As a motor rebuilder, we do not allow

conversions to sealed bearings unless an

engineering analysis indicates that it is

viable. And we don’t do it without the

approval of the customer.

Thomas H. Bishop, Longo ElectricalMechanical, Inc.

Wharton, NJ 

While it is true that sealed bearings work

well in some applications, we do not use

them on any motor over 10 HP because

the bearing has a limited life. That life is

limited by the lubricant. In addition, sealed

bearings have a lower speed rating than

shielded or open bearings, thus limiting

their application. We have demonstrated

motor life improvements by getting rid of

sealed bearings and lubricating on a routine basis. General statements that indicate

that sealed bearings are the answer can be

misleading, especially when you have

motors in the 50-500 HP range, operating

in mill and chemical-duty service.

Stan Moore, Solutia, Inc.

Decatur, AL

John Machelor wrote the Root Cause 

Failure Analysis on AC Induction Motors

column and provided this response:

Thank you for your recent “Letters to the

Editor.” You are correct in that I overgeneralized the case for sealed bearings. I

was directing my comments (but did not

state clearly) to those maintenance departments that do not have (or plan to have) a

preventive maintenance program. In these

situations, motors are installed, energized,

and then ignored. In my preventive/predictive maintenance career, I have seen literally hundreds of open or shielded bearings

fail rapidly due to the results of neglect

(lack of lubricant, contamination, etc.). The

sealed bearing, even given its limitations, is

a far better choice than the totally ignored

open bearing. I have been involved in a

number of “wholesale changeout” projects

in which open bearings were replaced with

sealed bearings with a resulting huge

increase in bearing life!

Of course, one must carefully choose

the sealed bearing that meets the application specifications.

John M. Machelor

Motor/Drives Systems Specialist in support

of DOE’s Industries of the Future, MACRO

International Inc. 
Energy Matters, January 2000 7

M.J. Soffe Improves Efficiency

continued from page 1

O’Quinn also installed an occupancybased lighting power control system in the

company’s new 127,000-square-foot warehouse, a system that also uses daylighting

as much as possible.

Results

Fuel costs for the water boiler through

the first seven months of 1999 were down

42%, saving the company over $100,000,

on target to meet the $140,000 projected

annual savings. In addition, Soffe did not

need to purchase a direct contact water

heater (originally considered an option),

saving equipment cost and energy costs.

Reduced steam pressure along with 

improved efficiency provided modest fuel

savings—$2,600 over 1998—but the

redesigned and modified condensate return

system provided annual savings of $14,000.

Water conservation upgrades saved

$10,000 on the napping machines, despite

rate increases in water and sewer service

(9% and 3% respectively). Improved air

compressor efficiency reduced energy and

maintenance costs by almost $11,000.

The new warehouse lighting system is

estimated to reduce annual power usage

by 158,750 kWh, saving $12,700 annually.

With sufficient hot water available without interruption, dye process workers work

more efficiently. “We’ve shut down quite a

bit on Sundays, now,” said O’Quinn.

“We’ve increased productivity and saved

on overtime.” Days worked were down by

23 through the first seven months of 1999,

while production per day had increased.

Measured another way, the company now

produces 1.8 more pounds of product per

therm of gas, and a similar improvement

per gallon of water used.

Another bonus came in the form of

product quality. The constantly hot water

produces more precise dyeing—garments

washed in 140°F water do not suffer dye

bleeds the way they do in 95°F water. “Our

dyehouse manager has said that capacity is

up 15% and quality, especially on white

garments, is up by 15% as well,” adds

O’Quinn.

Going International—A Motor Systems Management Tool

As international market boundaries continue to fade, the need arises to produce

products that are easily adaptable in the

global community. This need is evident in

the motor systems industry, where motors

are rated in different test standards depending on the country. But, there is a move to

harmonize these standards and one collaborative project underway—an international

motor systems management tool—will

help further that movement.

In the 1990s, the United States created

a motor systems management tool called

MotorMaster+, and the European Union

has a similar tool called Eurodeem, both

developed to help capture the tremendous

energy savings and emissions reductions

from following better motor systems management practices. These tools work well

in their respective areas, but are difficult to

adapt for the global community due to the

inherent differences in standards, units, frequency, motor models, and utility structures among the different countries. But

that may soon change with development of

an international version that would address

these differences and be flexible enough to

serve the needs of developing and developed countries.

Help is Needed

To maximize the benefits of an international motor systems management tool for

the global community, the collaboration of

several countries is essential. A collaborative effort will provide a cost-sharing

opportunity that will not over-burden a single country, while creating a broad enough

market demand to encourage substantial

participation by equipment manufacturers

in supplying and updating motor data. Collaborating to accomplish the common

objectives will also build and strengthen

relationships, enhance trade opportunities,

and improve communication and information transfer.

The deliverables of this project will

include: 

■ A common software shell that interfaces

with each country’s database of motors.

■ A detailed interface instruction manual.

■ Technical support for 4-6 months.

A proposed Steering Committee comprised of sponsors would oversee the

development work and decide on the

launch, look, and feel of the software tool.

Sponsors would designate representatives

to a Technical Committee. The Technical

Committee would create project specifications, oversee the work of the software

developer, and report progress to the Steering Committee.

Interested in Participating?

Participation is open to agencies, trade

associations, and manufacturers in all

countries. Sponsorship contributions for

participation are:

■ Organizations in developed countries

U.S. $50,000.

■ Organizations in developing countries

U.S. $20,000.

■ Manufacturers U.S. $10,000.

To date, commitments worth U.S.

$150,000 have been received from the

U.S. Department of Energy, the International Copper Association, and the United

Kingdom Energy Technology Support Unit

with sponsorship of the U.K. government.

The goal is to collect U.S. $300,000 for

this effort.

The U.S. DOE hopes this new international tool prompts the motor industry and

others to develop a worldwide strategy to

tap into the tremendous energy efficiency,

environmental, and business opportunities

that exist from upgrading outdated, inefficient systems throughout the world.

Nationally, this effort will help OIT industrial partners and the U.S economy by promoting U.S. business and trade interests in

the energy efficiency product and service

markets. 

This international software tool is just

one example of how countries can work

together so all may benefit from the cost

savings and emissions reductions achieved

through energy-efficient motor systems.

If you would like to participate, contact:

Aimee McKane or Riyaz Papar, U.S. DOE’s

Industries of the Future, Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory, by phone: (202) 

484-0892 (Aimee) / (202) 484-0880

(Riyaz), or e-mail: atmckane@lbl.gov /

rapapar@lbl.gov.
Coming Events 

INFORMATION

CLEARINGHOUSE

Do you have questions about 

using energy-efficient process

and utility systems in your industrial

facility? Call the OIT Information Clearinghouse for answers, Monday through

Friday 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (EST).

Fax: (360) 586-8303, or access our

homepage at www.motor.doe.gov

HOTLINE: (800) 862-2086

DOE Regional Support Office 

Representatives

■ Tim Eastling, Atlanta, GA, 

(404) 347-7141

■ Scott Hutchins, Boston, MA, 

(617) 565-9765

■ Julie Pollitt, Chicago, IL, 

(312) 886-8571

■ Gibson Asuquo, Denver, CO, 

(303) 275-4841

■ Julia Oliver, Seattle, WA, 

(510) 637-1952

■ Maryanne Daniel, Philadelphia, PA, 

(215) 656-6964

This document was produced for the Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by the

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE

national laboratory.

DOE/GO-102000-0970 • January/February 2000

T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

NITED STAT S OFA ERICA

M

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper

containing at least 50% wastepaper, including

20% postconsumer waste

INTERNATIONAL COMBINED HEAT AND POWER SYMPOSIUM

■ February 1-2 in Washington, D.C. 

Call (920) 338-0950 or e-mail debbie@aeecenter.org for more information.

HOW TO GET THE PERFORMANCE OUT OF YOUR STEAM SYSTEM

■ February 15 in Milwaukee, WI, Wisconsin Electric

■ February 16 in Milwaukee, WI, Wisconsin Electric

■ March 7 and 8 in Wausau, WI, WPS

■ March 9 in Madison, WI, Madison Gas & Electric

■ March 21 in La Crosse, Northern States Power

Call Renee Abeo-Collinge at (608) 238-4601 x143 for more information.

FUNDAMENTALS OF COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEMS

■ April 6 in Minneapolis, MN, Northern States Power

Call Sue Streveler at (608) 238-8276 x44 for more information.

INDUSTRIAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE (IETC) AND

ENERGY MANAGERS WORKSHOP

■ April 4 Energy Managers Workshop in Houston, TX, J.W. Marriott

■ April 5-6 IETC in Houston, TX, J.W. Marriott

Call Jim Eggebrecht, IETC, at (409) 845-1508 or Lana Tolleson at (409) 847-8950 for more

information. Or, access the Web at www.esl.tamu.edu/ietc/.

U.S. Department of Energy

EE-20, 5G-067

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Bulk Rate

U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit No. 258

Golden, Colorado

PUMPING SYSTEM ASSESSMENT TOOL (PSAT)—DOWNLOAD YOUR COPY

For many industrial facilities, energy consumed in pumping fluids comprises a large

fraction of the facility’s total energy consumption, but operators are often not aware of

how efficient pumping systems are. Now, help is available in assessing system efficiency and potential cost and energy savings using the PSAT software. Download your

free copy at www.motor.doe.gov/mcsnew.shtml. If you are interested in attending or

hosting a PSAT training workshop, contact Anna Maksimova at (360) 754-1097 x100.