March 25, 1992

Thanks for your latest article 'How to Align Multiple Shaft Drive Trains and Right Angle Drives' in the March / April issue of the P/PM Technology magazine. I thought it was a well written article. I like the readability (plain language) and the thought provoking comments, like bar sag (huh .. what's that?) etc. I found a lot of useful information in it.

Just a couple of questions. How long does it take to convince seemingly intelligent trades people of the importance of proper alignment and what steps can be taken to help lead them to this belief? We are using a S&M system (i.e. laser alignment) to perform our alignment jobs. Our intent when purchasing this system was to educate the trades people on the use of it, then give them part ownership, in hopes of encouraging more usage. Their acceptance was, and is good to the concept of proper alignment, as long as we (predictive maintenance) will come out and do the work for them. When left on their own, the way it came off is the way it will go on. Any suggestions?

In your article, there were a couple of items I either missed or were not in there. One was the distance from where the dial indicator was taking readings on the compressor shaft to the inboard compressor bolts. And the other, (this is only my perception), in your article, you made mention of bar sag when taking readings on the compressor problem (horizontal situation). Later on, when working on the pulper sample problem, reverse indicator readings were taken between the pulper shaft and the output of the gear (vertical situation). Would it be a good idea to mention that bar sag does not play a part in vertical type readings? Or would you consider this to be assumed by the trades person? Just wondering. Thanks again for your great article! It's articles like this that provide many useful techniques and foresight into future alignment challenges.

Very truly yours

Larry Dykgraaf

Steelcase Inc.

Steelcase Inc.

Grand Rapids MI 49501

April 9, 1992

Dear Larry:

Thank you for your most courteous letter recently about the article published in P/PM Technology magazine. It is consoling to know that people actually spend time reading. The pen may have been mightier than the sword a few centuries ago but it seems that the pen has fallen from its prestigious position with the advent of television and video as firmly as the sword has been replaced by bullets and electronic warfare. Actually, this is the second time the article was published for which I received very little response from its first appearance. You are the first person to mention anything about this recent reprint.

Your question concerning the length of time it takes to convince trades people about the importance of shaft alignment is most difficult to answer. Perhaps the best way to respond would be to relate observations I have made over the years and also to tell you what I hear from the trades people themselves. Their concerns are most valid and in many cases cut to the root of the problem.

There are four ingredients to successful shaft alignment. I call it the T-T-T-I solution (Tools, Training, Time, Inspiration).

1. TOOLS

The people performing the alignment job have to be given the proper tools to do the job correctly. Purchasing an alignment measurement system is a good start but that is not the only tool one needs to perform the job. An alignment measurement system does one task ... measures the amount of misalignment that exists. The alignment measurement system does not correct the problem. Other tools are needed to correct the misalignment condition and many problems that relate to repositioning the machinery and the machines themselves. What tools have been purchased to verify that people aren't aligning bent shafts or improperly bored coupling hubs? What tools have been procured to reposition the machines to correct the misalignment? What tools do the people have to make sure they are aligning good pieces of rotating machinery? Also, the alignment measurement system must inform the operator to make an intelligent move and offer that person other options if a certain move doesn't make sense. For example, if the measurement system tells the operator to move a machine 120 mils sideways and the person gets bolt bound before the move is accomplished, and the alignment measuring system doesn't have an alternative suggestion to get that person out of the jam it proposed, what good is the system? I'm pretty sure that most people wouldn't buy an expensive car that can only go forward in one gear.

2. TRAINING

People won't use a tool that they don't know how to use. I can't count on all of my fingers and toes how many times people have told me that their management bought an alignment measurement system where the sales person gave training to the maintenance foremen for a half of a day and then the foremen turned it over to the trades people to use with no instructions on how to use it. Proper training must also provide information on : runout detection and correction, soft foot correction, measurement instrument basics, rotating machinery design basics, foundation and baseplate repair techniques, bearing information, coupling information, machinery movement tools, alternative machinery movement solutions, off-line to running machinery movement measurement, finding and relieving piping stresses, and record keeping. We also cannot expect training to just be given to trades people only. Rarely will I see management personnel or engineers or foremen attend a hands-on alignment training class. The ones who do attend get an opportunity to see first hand what's involved in the process and they finally get a full understanding why alignment jobs can't be done properly in 45 minutes. Also some of the alignment tasks should probably be done by technicians and engineers. I don't feel that it is the responsibility of trades people to specify a new coupling design, or to use a proximity probe alignment bar system to measure off-line to running machinery movement, or to maintain maintenance record files, or to procure the right kind of tools to do the job right. Management and engineering must get involved to assist in the successful completion of an alignment task. How can they understand what there is to be done if they don't see what's involved in the overall process?

3. TIME

Undoubtedly this has to be the number one complaint I hear. Trades people are rarely given enough time to perform a quality alignment job. If many foremen or supervisors have no idea of how to do an alignment job, how can they tell a trades person that it should only take 45 minutes to do it right? What authority should an operations manager have to tell the maintenance department that a machine should be put back on line even if it means that its not installed properly? That operations manager isn't going to be down there fixing the machine again in two months some early Sunday morning.

4. INSPIRATION

This perhaps being the most important ingredient and the one that seems to be lacking in many industrial sites. The answer to this is as complex as the human personality itself. I guess to begin, I'll ask these questions. What incentives does the trades person have to do the job right? Do they feel that they have some ownership for the equipment they work on? Are they constantly instructed on how to fix a problem and how much time they should take to fix it? Have they ever been told that there is not enough time to do it right, that operations needs the equipment right now and that compromises will have to made? Have they been denied all of the tools to do a job properly? Are they really doing shaft alignment properly and the machinery is being shoved back out of alignment after a brief period of time due to excessive piping strain or unstable foundations? Do the trades people have a clear understanding about how accurate the alignment has to be? Has anyone asked them if they like the alignment measurement system that they were given without choice? Have they ever been congratulated for doing a job correctly? Do they get to make decisions on how to do a job, when to do it, and how long it should take? If someone prefers to do alignment with dial indicators, are they given that option and then given training on how to use other types of measurement tools? Can they go back into the maintenance records on every piece of machinery in their plant and find information on ... how accurate the alignment was done the last time, when it was done the last time, who did the alignment last time, how many shims are under all of the machinery feet, what soft foot corrections were made, was there any piping strain present, if any of the bolts were undercut, how long the machinery has been there, were any special tools needed to do the alignment, was there any runout on the shafts or the coupling hubs, how much 'free-play' existed in the bearings, what is the shaft to shaft distance supposed to be, what type of coupling could be substituted if the one that's there gets damaged and there are no replacements in stores, what type of lubricant should be used in the coupling and how much should be added, etc.? I could go on about this for quite some time and I've only mentioned a few items that seem to go overlooked in many organizations. Indeed, some of the blame for lackluster maintenance correction methods falls on the shoulders of the trades people, but definitely not all of it.

Now for some of the missing items in the article that you noticed. The dimension from where the dial indicator was capturing readings on the compressor shaft to the inboard bolts of the compressor is 8 inches. I guess I forgot to enter that in the written section but you could have got that directly off the graph (the scale is 2" per division from left to right). Since I didn't actually explain what bracket (or bar) sag was at all in the article, I thought it wouldn't add anything if I mentioned that the sag stays consistent in vertical applications. Sometimes I will purposely omit certain things just to see if anyone notices. You did, and so far are the only one. By the way, there are a number of other omissions in the article that no one has caught yet. Once again, thanks for your comments and the concerns you have expressed about the trades effort. I can only state that your dilemma exist in just about every company I have had the opportunity to visit although that's probably no consolation to you and your situation. Would you be interested in publishing your letter and this response in P/PM Technology magazine? Let me know. Hope to see you soon and please stay in touch!

Sincerely ....

John Piotrowski

April 25, 1992

Thanks for your response. I think you expressed the concerns and frustrations of a multitude of people in your T-T-T-I solution. In the Inspiration section, I couldn't help but associate jobs that I personally have done that no history or documentation was done to expedite the process for future alignments or other work. I believe occurrences like this are on a SLOW decline with the advent of the computer age, but not nearly enough. I find this even more evident in the vibration analysis field where documentation is not only necessary, but also vital in proper analysis and even to the extent of program existence and/or propagation. As far as publishing my letter and your response, feel free to use it as you see fit. I'm sure many readers would find the information contained within very beneficial.

Larry Dykgraaf

Steelcase Inc.