Kittiwake launches ATEX certified Metallic Wear Debris Sensor

Kittiwake has launched its ATEX and IECEx certified metallic wear debris sensor. Continuously checking the health of an asset and providing alerts to changing wear patterns, the sensor provides the user with instantaneous condition information and can now be used in hazardous zone 1 and 2 applications.

ATEX & IECEx certified metallic wear debris sensor

Traditionally used with critical gearboxes, the addition of ATEX and IECEx certification allows the sensor to be used in environments where explosive gases are likely to be present; such as around top drives, draw works, mud pumps and also in chemical plants, refineries and other oil and gas areas.

The metallic wear debris sensor can be mounted within any lubrication system on any type of asset. The sensor measures ferrous and non-ferrous metals within the lubricant, using a combination of proven inductive coil technology, combined with smart algorithms to provide a particle size distribution count.

Martin Lucas, managing director, Kittiwake Group said: “While temperature, pressure, vibration and acoustic emission sensors all have their part to play in a condition monitoring package, early detection of changes in oil and lubricant condition and regular, consistent monitoring of wear metal debris in rotating plant provide greater insight into the actual condition of vital machinery and equipment.

“With both ATEX and IECEx certification, this new product is now suitable for hazardous environments where potentially explosive gas, vapour or mist is present. This is an industry first as there is no similar device certified for use in Zone 1.”

To learn more about the metallic wear debris sensor click here.

Follow this link to visit the Kittiwake Information Centre, a comprehensive condition monitoring resource.

For more information email: marketing@kittiwake.com

Acoustic Emission Sensor Enables Early Fault Detection

Dr Steve Dye, Business Development Manager at Kittiwake Developments, discusses the latest acoustic emission technology in a recent feature article in Eureka Magazine.

Kittiwake Holroyd, a Kittiwake Group company, has developed a new handheld Machinery Health Checker (MHC) sensor, used to capture the acoustic emissions from bearings and assess their condition.

MHC Memo Pro

A special acoustic emission sensor allows the user to listen to sound signals being generated on headphones where special audio circuitry filters out normal vibrations and audible signals to let engineers clearly hear rubs, scuffing and impacts as they happen.

Vibration measurements often need a lot of sampling, analysis and diagnostics but Kittiwake wanted an almost instantaneous reading that tells engineers what they need to know.

“The beauty of this is that it is bearing independent,” says Dr Dye. “This allows engineers to very quickly determine if you have a problem or not.”

The sensors are available in a handheld, standalone version and also as Smart sensors which can be integrated on to machines to take continuous readings that feed back data to a PLC or SCADA. To facilitate sensor coupling a variety of mounting methods are available including magnetic front face, adhesive bonding, bolt-on and screw-in. The MHC sensor has two modes, Standard and Super-slo mode which together allow measurements to be taken between 0.25 to 2500rpm.

To read the full article click here.

To find out more about the Kittiwake Holroyd product range follow this link to visit their website.

Acoustic Emission Monitoring: An opportunity not a threat

A recent feature article in Power Engineering magazine sees Martin Lucas, managing director of Kittiwake Developments, argue that Acoustic Emission (AE) technology should be welcomed as the next generation in vibration monitoring.

Condition Monitoring (CM) is transforming rapidly and so too must the mindset of CM practitioners and users. The article simplifies the science behind AE as well as looking at the key benefits provided, such as earlier warning of potential damage and shorter measurement periods.

Acoustic Emissions & Vibration Analysis

Acoustic Emissions & Vibration Analysis

Click this link to read the full article.

Comment from Trevor Holroyd, Kittiwake Holroyd

What are the main advantages of adopting acoustic emission’s AE technology over traditional vibration analysis? (VA)

“With well-defined ISO standards, traditional vibration techniques including vibration monitoring and vibration analysis have provided a trusted approach to condition monitoring for the past thirty years.Yet, it remains a complex science and requires sophisticated knowledge and understanding from a seasoned expert. In contrast, AE technology extends and simplifies the science, placing the power of vibration techniques directly into the hands of every engineer. Signals can be processed at the AE sensor into an easily understandable form.

“Let’s be clear, vibration analysis (VA) as a technique will have a place for many years to come for many end users, however there is no escaping from the fact that there is often a requirement for a costly and unsustainable level of knowledge required to affect a good diagnosis. For VA, the defect repetition frequencies are critically dependent upon the machine component design and geometry, as well as the precise running speed. Vibration can occur independently in X, Y or Z axis and so orientation of the sensor is as important as location. For a detailed interpretation it is also necessary to know the internal machine geometries, shaft speeds, meshing frequencies etc and to analyse the data before making a diagnosis. So, in objective summary, VA is valuable, but too often overly complicated.

“In fact the areas in which vibration and AE both apply can be illustrated as overlapping circles. AE provides an earlier warning detecting wear and small defects, whereas with vibration, damage must have occurred to detect a signal. AE will pick up a lack of lubrication, friction, and cracking, which vibration will not. Although it must be acknowledged that the totality of information obtained from AE will be more limited than that derived from vibration”

Is AE more reliable than VA?

“It’s not more reliable per se, but as it doesn’t require a vibration expert to interpret the results, it could be viewed as more reliable when used by maintenance staff in general.

“AE in no way invalidates traditional vibration techniques, it simply extends the impact way beyond what we’ve been able to achieve to date. The signal processing required by AE is, in itself, not something that can be performed by just anyone; it’s a high frequency signal so the user must have the knowledge to interpret the squiggly line on a stethoscope. But recent developments have enabled this processing at the sensor level. The sensor output can now provide pre-characterised numbers that tell you about the condition of the machine. AE technology has been effectively deskilled, enabling much wider application use.

“Suitable for continuously running machinery as well as machinery operating intermittently, slowly or for short durations, AE allows the user to diagnose problems with machinery at an early stage, carry out maintenance procedures and then monitor the improvement. It provides real time information with early sensitivity to faults and applicability to a wide range of rotational speeds.

” As awareness of the unique capabilities of AE increases, so too does the number of applications that it is suited to – many of which have proven difficult for other forms of condition monitoring to address. For example, the analysis signals, whether from AE sensors or VA accelerometers, requires a sufficiently long period of machine running at constant speed so that a statistically meaningful signal characterisation can be made. But that is where the similarity stops. AE can be effective after around 10 seconds of measurements. For example, the algorithm used to derive the widely used acoustic emission parameters of Distress® and dB Level in the MHC range of products from Kittiwake Holroyd requires a 10 second period of running at an approximately constant speed. Comparing this where Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) based vibration analysis typically needs 60-120 seconds measurement time and tight tolerances on machine speed for an effective signal interpretation.

“In those cases where a hand-held instrument is used for periodic Condition Maintenance (CM), it may be possible to interrupt normal machine operation and put it into a special continuously running mode for the duration of CM measurements. However, such disruption is not always possible and never convenient. Furthermore it is not compatible with the current trend towards CM automation, which require continuous online monitoring with permanently installed sensors inputting CM data or status into SCADA systems or PLC’s. Kittiwake Holroyd’s AE product range includes portable instruments, permanently installed remote sensors for areas of difficult access, as well as stand-alone programmable smart sensors for continuous surveillance.”

From a financial viewpoint are there any benefits associated with AE over VA?

“For vibration techniques to be effective you need equipment that’s far from cheap coupled with clever people to get the best from it. Every result must be analysed to understand what’s good and what’s bad. For those that cannot afford the luxury of in-house vibration experts, there are many vibration specialists who offer a contract monitoring service; again, requiring not insignificant investment. While for some, the criticality of certain applications coupled with the scale of some companies might justify this cost, others could still benefit from the efficiencies realised by similar CM techniques.

“Ultimately, maintenance personnel are responsible for keeping machinery running. If they are empowered to monitor condition themselves, identify where action is needed and then check that the action taken has solved the problem, then deskilled AE technology has significant advantages of cost, speed, flexibility and ease of field application in comparison to traditional vibration analysis techniques. It is the efficient and effective approach to CM.”

Is AE suitable for both land and marine based applications?

“Based on frequencies much higher than are monitored in the repetitive synchronous movement of vibration, AE technique is absolutely suitable for both land and marine based applications. These frequencies are the result of shock, impact, friction and cracking for example. By this means it is possible to detect impending failure before damage occurs, as well as monitoring its progress thereafter.

“AE technology spawned from the aviation industry where vibration analysis simply couldn’t be easily applied, short of a suicidal maintenance technician hanging off the wings. It is specifically designed to allow users with little knowledge of the subject to check bearings and major slideways for condition in a way that would be near impossible using traditional vibration techniques.

“In land based applications throughout industry, AE is favoured by maintenance personnel as a front line technique. Whether food and drinks, manufacturing, utilities or building services, the use of AE allows maintenance staff to quickly assess machine condition, without knowing the bearing’s ISO number, speed, size or history. This allows them to focus maintenance activities when and where they are required with minimum disruption to operations and, most importantly, to check there and then that a repair has been effective.

In a marine setting, vibration analysis is typically undertaken on ships using outside, third party consultants, if at all. With AE technology, you give it to a ship’s engineer right out of the box and by the end of their shift they will have an accurate assessment of all the engine room pumps, turbine and generator bearings, crane slewing rings and any ancillary air leaks in the engine room.”

Trevor Holroyd, managing director, Kittiwake Holroyd

Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide, January 2012

Scrubber Technology – Go from ‘A’ to ‘B’

‘Scheme B’ is the only scrubber technology that will work, says Martin Lucas, managing director of Kittiwake.

Come 2015, owners operating in emission control areas (ECAs) will have only three choices to comply with mandatory 0.1% sulphur levels: burn marine distillates, switch to liquefied natural gas or install a scrubber system.

The trouble is, 2015 is only just around the corner so decisions must be made now. This has, understandably, heightened the debate about the efficacy of available technology and emissions measurement techniques.

There are major players in the scrubber supply market such as Wärtsilä, Hamworthy and Aalborg. These are substantial engineering companies with excellent reputations all saying that their scrubbing technology is an effective and viable reality. Ultimately, however, proving these claims depends upon the provision of reliable and accurate measurement.

At present, scrubber guidelines (MEPC 184[59]) allow for two methods of approval in the shape of Scheme A or Scheme B. Scheme A demands and initial certification of performance followed by only a recommendation that a daily spot check on the exhaust gas quality, in terms of SO2 (ppm)/ CO2 (%) ratio, is used to verify compliance. Scheme B recommends performance confirmation by constant monitoring of emissions with daily operating parameter checks.

Kittiwake Procal is firmly of the opinion that Scheme B should be the single allowable method. First, despite scrubbers being used ashore and on tankers for many years, this is a relatively new technology for emissions control on board ships. To mitigate any technical uncertainty that may exist, despite numerous successful trials, Scheme B gives complete and ongoing assurance of emissions at exit from ship, whereas Scheme A does not.

Second, if continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMs) are not fitted, there is a potential risk that the indirect Scheme A method of monitoring system parameters could result in non-compliant emissions being undetected between daily emission spot checks – particularly undesirable in port and ECAs. Constant monitoring of exhaust gas emissions is the only way to provide complete reassurance, no matter the type of scrubber system installed.

Furthermore, while CEMs for Scheme B must be approved according to MEPC 184(59), the daily spot checks required under Scheme A risk use of unapproved portable analysers that are neither ranged appropriately for a very low level of SO2 emissions – less than 20ppm – nor meet the performance specifications appropriate to the application.

As a consequence of the manual method of obtaining an emissions reading using a portable analyser, there is risk of an inconsistent and non-representative result, not to mention the associated safety risks, for example, if an access point to a hot flowing exhaust needs to be opened and a hand-held probe inserted.

There are further persuasive points that can be made but, essentially, the argument centres round the provision of accurate and reliable measurement that provides a simple means of determining compliance and the adoption of the same methodology regardless of vessel location, providing reassurance and clarity.

Ultimately, the clock is ticking and whether shipowners and operators choose to switch between high and low-sulphur fuel or install a scrubber, CEMS has a central role to play.

Article taken from Fairplay | December 2011

Kittiwake Proactive Technologies sponsor National Tribology Conference

The National Tribology Conference 2011 was held at Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee from Dec 08-10, 2011. It was jointly organised by the Tribology Society of India and Dept. of Mech. Engineering, IIT, Roorkee

Kittiwake Proactive Technologies Ltd. was co-sponsor for this event which was attended by eminent tribologists, academics and industry experts, not only from India but also from as far afield as France and the UK. Deepak Sharma, director Kittiwake Proactive Technologies, presented a paper “Acoustic Emission – A new Condition Monitoring Tool” in the condition monitoring section of this event. This included reference to a paper by Dr Holroyd of Kittiwake Holroyd, Acoustic Emission (AE) experts. The conference was well attended with interesting discussions on the merits of AE compared with traditional Vibration techniques in the condition monitoring field.

National Tribology Conference 2011

Comment: Go from ‘A’ to ‘B’

Come 2015, owners operating in emissions control areas (ECAs) will have only three choices to comply with mandatory 0.1% sulphur levels; burn marine distillates, switch to liquefied natural gas; or install a scrubber system. Trouble is, 2013 is only just around the corner so decisions must be made now. And this is – understandably – heightening debate around the efficacy of available technology and emissions measurement techniques.

There are major players in the scrubber supply market such as Wartsila, Hamworthy and Aalborg. These are substantial engineering companies with excellent reputations all saying that their scrubbing technology is an effective and viable reality. Ultimately though, proving this depends upon the provision of reliable and accurate measurement.

At present, scrubber guidelines (MEPC 184(59)) allow for two methods of approval, Scheme A or Scheme B. Scheme A demands initial certification of performance followed by periodic survey with continuous operating parameters and daily emission checks to confirm performance in service. Scheme B requires performance confirmation by continuous monitoring of emissions with daily operating parameter checks.
Kittiwake Procal is firmly of the opinion that Scheme B should be the single allowable method. Firstly, despite scrubbers being used ashore and on tankers for many years, this is a relatively new technology for emissions control on ship. To mitigate any technical uncertainty that may exist, despite numerous successful trials, Scheme B gives complete and ongoing assurance of emissions at exit from ship, whereas Scheme A does not. In addition, if continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) are not fitted there is a potential risk that the indirect Scheme A method of monitoring system parameters could result in non-compliant emissions being undetected between daily emission spot checks – particularly undesirable in port and ECAs. Continuous monitoring of exhaust gas emissions is the only way to provide complete reassurance, no matter the type of scrubber system installed.

Furthermore, whilst CEMS for Scheme B must be approved according to MEPC 184(59), the daily spot checks required under Scheme A risk use of unapproved portable analysers that are neither ranged appropriately for a very low level of SO2 emissions (less than 20ppm) nor meet the performance specifications appropriate for the application. Due to the manual method of obtaining an emissions reading using a portable analyser, there is risk of an inconsistent and non-representative result, not to mention the associated safety risks if an access point to a hot flowing exhaust needs to be opened and a hand held probe inserted. There are further persuasive points that can be made, but essentially the argument centres around the provision of accurate and reliable measurement that provides a simple means of determining compliance, and the adoption of the same methodology regardless of vessel location, providing reassurance and clarity.

Ultimately, the clock is ticking and whether shipowners and operators choose to switch between high and low sulphur fuel or install a scrubber, CEMS has a central role to play.

Martin Lucas, Managing Director, Kittiwake

Fairplay, December 2011

To scrub or not to scrub? That’s not actually the only question

The debate surrounding scrubbers seems to have intensified over recent weeks. There has been heightened tension between trade associations, the ferry fraternity and scrubbing proponents, all with their own ideas and perspectives. What can be agreed upon, however, is that come 2015, owners operating in emissions control areas (ECAs) will have only three choices to comply with mandatory 0.1% sulphur levels; burn marine distillates, switch to liquefied natural gas; or install a scrubber system.

According to a report from class society DNV published last year, burning diesel oil instead of residuals would incur an average additional annual cost of $500,000 per ship. This, for most, would render the option of burning marine distillates prohibitively expensive. As for LNG-fuelled vessels, although there is growing interest and investment, this solution is at such an embryonic stage that there are many questions still unanswered, for example concerns over bunkering infrastructure and long-term price predictions.

Given this context, scrubbers remain positioned in a favourable light. However, the president of the Royal Association of Netherlands’ Shipowners (KVNR), Tineke Netelenbos was, earlier this month, reported as saying: “We are told that there are all sorts of technical means to help shipowners to reduce sulphur, but it is not proven technology. For example, we are at the starting phase of [exhaust gas] scrubber technology, and we think shipowners need more time, because it is impossible to build in scrubbers and other kinds of equipment by 2015. We think there must be proven technology before you go on the deep sea because it may be that your engine does not work.”

Scrubber manufacturers and supporters believe that many have an outdated view on the maturity of the technology. They are adamant that there is plenty of data from systems trialled at sea to prove that a range of different scrubber systems work and are reliable. Moreover, the first commercial deals are starting to filter through, whilst other large companies are anticipated to be jockeying for position, albeit avoiding being the “pioneer” that has to pay over the odds for a large order. The caveat, if there is one, it is absolutely possible to fit scrubbers ready for the 2015 watershed, but only if people start placing orders now. Donald Gregory, Director of the Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association (EGCSA) recently warned: “If everyone waited until closer to 2015, there would not be enough capacity to install scrubbers overnight”.

Many in the maritime industry see the large-scale retrofitting of scrubbers as inevitable. However financing remains a sticking point, despite claims a one-time investment pays itself back over time because the technology allows a shipowner to go on burning high-sulphur fuel, even in emissions control areas.

Of course, ultimately, the efficacy of a scrubber depends upon the ability to provide reliable and accurate measurement. At the end of October, the United States Coast Guard, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), held a public meeting to discuss the International Maritime Organization (IMO) guidelines for exhaust gas cleaning systems for marine engines. The agenda focused on examination of a potential approval process for scrubbing systems, ways to develop “explicit test procedures” and how to ensure continued compliance. All, of course, with the aim of exploring how exhaust gas cleaning technology (scrubbers) could be used in the North American emission control area (ECA).

At present, scrubber guidelines (MEPC 184(59)) allow for two methods of approval, Scheme A or Scheme B. Scheme A demands initial certification of performance followed by periodic survey with continuous operating parameters and daily emission checks to confirm performance in service. And Scheme B requires performance confirmation by continuous monitoring of emissions with daily operating parameter checks.
Kittiwake Procal is firmly of the opinion that Scheme B should be the single allowable method. Firstly, despite ‘scrubbers’ being used ashore and on tankers for many years, this is a relatively new technology for emissions control on ship. To mitigate any technical uncertainty that may exist despite numerous successful trials, Scheme B gives complete and ongoing assurance of emissions at exit from ship, whereas Scheme A does not. In addition, if continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) are not fitted there is a potential risk that the indirect Scheme A method of monitoring system parameters could result in non-compliant emissions being undetected between daily emission spot checks – particularly undesirable in port and ECAs.

Furthermore, whilst CEMS for Scheme B must be approved according to MEPC 184(59), the daily spot checks required under Scheme A risk use of unapproved portable analysers that are neither ranged appropriately nor meet the performance specifications appropriate for the application. Due to the manual method of obtaining an emissions reading using a portable analyser, there is risk of an inconsistent and non-representative result, not to mention the associated safety risks if an access point to a hot flowing exhaust needs to be opened and a hand held probe inserted. There are further persuasive points that can be made, but essentially the argument centres around the provision of accurate and reliable measurement that provides a simple means of determining compliance, and the adoption of the same methodology regardless of vessel location.

Ultimately, whether operating in one of the existing North Sea, English Channel, Baltic or US-Canadian ECAs, or future ECAs such as the approved US-Caribbean ECA or the proposed Japanese and Pearl River Delta ECAs, ship owners and operators will not only have to comply with regulation but also prove compliance. Whether shipowners choose to switch between high and low sulphur fuel or install a scrubber, CEMS has a central role to play.

Martin Lucas, managing director, Kittiwake

Seatrade Asia, November 2011

Article of Interest – Poll supports review of statutory flash point limit

A recent article on Bunkerworld examined the current opinion on flash point limits:

“Flash point refers to the lowest temperature at which a fuel can vaporise to form an ignitable mixture in air

Nearly half of respondents to a poll on Bunkerworld believe it would be safe to reduce the current 60°C minimum flash point limit for marine fuels, either to 55°C, or possibly even lower.

The poll asked if it was time for the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to review the minimum flash point limit for marine distillate fuels.

A 60°C minimum flash point limit is set under the IMO’s SOLAS regulation, making it a statutory requirement.  It is also the minimum limit in the commercially used ISO 8217 global fuel specification.

There has been an increase in supply of ‘off-spec’ low sulphur low sulphur marine gas oil (MGO) where the flash point is near or below the minimum 60°C limit, indicating that fuels from the inland market are finding their way into the marine fuels sector/

This is expected to get worse as demand for low sulphur MGO increases due to regulations requiring ships to use fuels with maximum 0.1% sulphur content, and has led to calls for a review of the limit from some parts of the shipping industry.

The question hinges around what limit represents an acceptable safety risk on board ships, and if limits considered acceptable for land-based fuels can be translated to safe ship operations.

27% of the poll respondents said they think the flash point limit can safely be changed to 55°C, which would bring it into line with the limit for inland distillate fuels inEurope.

A significant share, 19%, replied they think the limit can safely be changed to 55°C or even lower.

The biggest share of votes, 42%, said the IMO and the ISO should research safe limits and change it as appropriate.

Only 13% of the Bunkerworld poll respondents said they think the limit must stay at 60°C minimum for safety reasons.

Discussions about the poll question on Bunkerworld and other on-line fora pointed to several observers welcoming a lower limit as they think the current 60°C minimum limit is over cautious and out of date.

One motivation, which may be important to bunker suppliers, is to reduce the potential for ‘off-spec’ claims.

Because of the statutory nature and safety implications of the flash point limit, which can potentially leave a ship out of class, off-spec cases are more likely to lead to costly debunkerings than other types of off-spec fuels.  Other types of off-spec fuels might be manageable for the vessel as long as they know about the problem and can give it special attention during onboard fuel treatment.

Another motivation, which has been advocated by shipping giant Maersk and the shipping organisation BIMCO, is that reducing the limit for distillates to 55°C could open a wider supply basis for the marine fuels market.  This would be particularly relevant when demand for low sulphur MGO is set to soar with the introduction of a 0.10% sulphur limit in Emission Control Areas.

A warning, however, came from Mike Ball, bunker manager with Gearbulk (UK) Ltd, that opening for the use of automotive gas oil for shipping would also increase the risk of product containing bio-fuels entering the marine fuels market, bringing “another set of issues for the shipowner to manage.”

Several observers have pointed out that even if there was a review, it would be a huge challenge to change the flash point limit for marine fuel because it is embedded in a range of IMO conventions, codes and resolutions that refer to the current limit.

The poll was open for voting by the industry from August 24 to November 9, 2011 and attracted responses from a wide range of industry participants, including bunker providers, buyers, fuel testing agencies, other marine service sectors and industry observers

The new poll on Bunkerworld looks at the issue of whether the transition to the global 3.50% sulphur limit, due from the start of 2012, will be a challenge.  Votes and comments are welcome on the poll which you can access by clicking on this link.”

11th November 2011 11:03 GMT

Which came first, the green chicken or the green egg? And does it really matter?

The environment is no longer the elephant in the room; it’s now inescapable and pervades almost every aspect of our lives. And now that the green spotlight has turned to focus unrelentingly on shipping, pressure is mounting to demonstrate that, as an industry, we are capable of recalibrating to meet environmental obligations.

While everyone is in agreement that we must work collaboratively to identify ways in which to reduce environmental impact, common sense dictates that this must be balanced with satisfying commercial demands; indeed economic viability and demonstrating an increase in profitability will be the key drivers for ensuring environmental success in shipping. Whether operating, owning or managing a ship, the key to achieving this, and successfully navigating today’s turbulent economic seas, is realising efficiencies in every area of your vessel’s operation. Using time, energy and resource without waste and making assets work harder will directly impact the bottom line and therefore must be given priority – let’s be realistic. However, if efficiency were a colour, it would sparkle a vibrant shade of green. Because it stands to reason that if you operate more efficiently, fuel and lube oil consumption is minimised, not only saving money but also improving environmental credentials.

The direct correlation between uptime and revenue is indisputable even when shipping rates are low, and therefore the importance of preventing costly downtime is equally as plain. Increasing operational profitability through preventative maintenance of critical equipment and machinery in order to minimise equipment downtime is hardly a revelation to anyone in the shipping industry. With the spectre of downtime ever present in engineer’s minds, monitoring and alarm systems are the first means of defence in diagnosing problems with the ship. Sending samples off to the laboratory for analysis is an effective means of condition monitoring, if you are graced with the blessing of time – something a modern ship owner / operator does not have.

Thankfully, increasing demand has driven significant advancement in oil analysis over the past few years, both within and outside of the laboratory environment. The condition monitoring market has been influenced by a number of innovations which today allow marine engineers to enjoy the benefits of onboard and lab testing working in unison. More detailed, but potentially delayed sample results from a laboratory supplement the real time information delivered by onsite testing.

There is a clear benefit in knowing what is going on at an exact point in time – not just when the engineer can get to a machine for a routine, scheduled sample and analysis. Onsite kits enable rapid testing and action, and online sensors remove sampling errors, which are often responsible for un-representative samples. Online, of course, refers to sensor technology, which is advancing at a furious pace. Dependable sensors mounted in the oil circuit provide an early warning system designed to monitor remotely and in real time, the bearing and gear wear debris, lubricant moisture content, as well as lubricant health and remaining life.

Effective maintenance translates into obvious cost savings, but this on and offline condition monitoring equipment also helps to optimise lubricant feed rate. Even electronic lubrication systems do not offer an exact science, which often necessitates the application of a safety buffer. As one of the engine’s largest overheads, an average container ship can spend $12 million on cylinder lubrication over the course of its lifetime. Dependent upon trade, load, running hours and other factors, real-time monitoring is a vital tool in optimising cylinder lube oil feed rate and, as a result, improving efficiency, decreasing lubricant costs, avoiding issues related with over and under lubrication, and of course reducing environmental impact. Existing users, including German shipping company, Reederei Hermann Buss GMBH, are reducing cylinder oil consumption by up to 50%, representing annual savings of over $100,000.

The liner is one of the most crucial and costly components of a ship’s engine and monitoring wear not only extends its life but also protects against considerable financial pain, as the average insurance claim for an unexpected liner loss is over $250,000. It also has the potential to provide valuable data that offers insight into related issues.

Today’s challenging economic climate has fuelled the scrutiny of every operational area for potential cost savings – some which involve stripping out costs and others that focus on investment to realise efficiencies and fundamentally improve performance. Focus on the bottom line is unwavering, so return on any investment must be quickly evident and notably pronounced. The impact of successful troubleshooting using condition monitoring tools and technology can equate to millions of dollars in savings, negate the considerable danger posed by engine failure, while also helping to meet environmental responsibilities.

So, happily, we can look at the effects of efficiency through jade-tinted glasses. Those most adept at generating more from less, prolonging the life of assets and eliminating waste are the ones who will not only become leaner, stronger and more profitable, but will also improve their environmental standing within the shipping community.

Ultimately it’s all about perspective. Is being green a by-product of saving money through efficiency? Or is it the other way around? Arguably, it doesn’t really matter where the emphasis is placed, the outcomes are favourable whichever way you look at it.

Martin Lucas, Managing Director, Kittiwake Developments

Seatrade Asia, November 2011