Parker Kittiwake Developments acquired by Parker Hannifin

 

 

 

CLEVELAND, July 16, 2012 — Parker Hannifin Corporation (NYSE: PH), the global leader in motion and control technologies, today announced that it has acquired Kittiwake Developments Limited based in Littlehampton, United Kingdom. Kittiwake Developments is a leading manufacturer of condition monitoring technology including wear debris sensors, oil testing and analysis instrumentation and acoustic, vibration and gas emissions monitoring sensors. These products are used alongside filtration technology in the commercial marine, oil and gas, power generation and defence markets.

The acquired business has annual sales of approximately $20 million and employs 95 people. Kittiwake Developments will be integrated into Parker’s Filtration Group and the sales will be reported as part of the International Industrial Segment.

“Kittiwake Developments will allow us to extend our position in diagnostic products and reinforce our ability to offer our customers complete health monitoring solution for their filtration systems,” said Peter Popoff, President of Parker’s Filtration Group. “We welcome the employees of Kittiwake to Parker and are excited about the growth opportunities this combination creates.”

With annual sales exceeding $12 billion in fiscal year 2011, Parker Hannifin is the world’s leading diversified manufacturer of motion and control technologies and systems, providing precision-engineered solutions for a wide variety of mobile, industrial and aerospace markets. The company employs approximately 58,000 people in 47 countries around the world. Parker has increased its annual dividends paid to shareholders for 56 consecutive fiscal years, among the top five longest-running dividend-increase records in the S&P 500 index. For more information, visit the company’s web site at www.parker.com, or its investor information web site at www.phstock.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

Forward-looking statements contained in this and other written and oral reports are made based on known events and circumstances at the time of release, and as such, are subject in the future to unforeseen uncertainties and risks. All statements regarding future performance, earnings projections, events or developments are forward-looking statements. It is possible that the future performance and earnings projections of the company, including its individual segments, may differ materially from current expectations, depending on economic conditions within its mobile, industrial and aerospace markets, and the company’s ability to maintain and achieve anticipated benefits associated with announced realignment activities, strategic initiatives to improve operating margins, actions taken to combat the effects of the current economic environment, and growth, innovation and global diversification initiatives. A change in the economic conditions in individual markets may have a particularly volatile effect on segment performance. Among other factors which may affect future performance are: changes in business relationships with and purchases by or from major customers, suppliers or distributors, including delays or cancellations in shipments, disputes regarding contract terms or significant changes in financial condition, changes in contract cost and revenue estimates for new development programs and changes in product mix; ability to identify acceptable strategic acquisition targets; uncertainties surrounding timing, successful completion or integration of acquisitions; ability to realize anticipated cost savings from business realignment activities; threats associated with and efforts to combat terrorism; uncertainties surrounding the ultimate resolution of outstanding legal proceedings, including the outcome of any appeals; competitive market conditions and resulting effects on sales and pricing; increases in raw material costs that cannot be recovered in product pricing; the company’s ability to manage costs related to insurance and employee retirement and health care benefits; and global economic factors, including manufacturing activity, air travel trends, currency exchange rates, difficulties entering new markets and general economic conditions such as inflation, deflation, interest rates and credit availability. The company makes these statements as of the date of this disclosure, and undertakes no obligation to update them unless otherwise required by law.

Continuous emissions monitoring: A powerful tool in managing environmental transition

Tony Bowers, Marine CEMS Specialist at Kittiwake Procal, explains how the accuracy of in-situ continuous emissions monitoring in ensuring ‘real time’ environmental data for marine applications can be a powerful tool in managing transition within a rapidly changing world

Reducing shipping emissions will be the major driver of change in the maritime industry for decades to come. In the near term, the sulphur limit for fuels burnt in emission control areas (ECAs) will drop from 1.0% to 0.1% in 2015. And since 2010, vessels also need to comply with EC Regulation 2005/33/EC when in EU ports, which, apart from a few exceptions, requires the use of 0.1% sulphur fuel or equivalent emissions. Moreover, legislation pertaining to Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) has already been implemented, whilst beyond the horizon, legislation around Greenhouse Gases, from either the International Marine Organization (IMO) or the European Union, or both, is imminent.

So ship owners and operators have serious decisions to make and data sets to provide; ultimately based on a complex set of circumstances and a fluid regulatory background. However, there are only three choices enabling vessels to comply with SOx emissions regulations; burn marine distillates, switch to liquefied natural gas; or install a scrubber system.

To monitor emissions, continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) have an important role to play, and ‘in situ’ tools are the most accurate yet. The IMO regulation allows for abatement technology to achieve sulphur emission reductions and Wärtsilä’s recent acquisition of Hamworthy Krystallon, coupled with increasing industry uptake, illustrates the ongoing development of the scrubber market. Systems capable of measuring down to the equivalent of 0.1% sulphur fuel are key for confirming compliance with SOx regulations when after treatment is used. Similarly, if fuel switching is the chosen option, monitoring provides assurance that fuels have been changed in a timely manner before entry into an ECA. That compliance is ongoing with more ECAs likely to be implemented soon. With the approval of a US-Caribbean ECA and the proposed Pearl River Delta and Japanese ECAs gathering momentum; the proliferation of regulation seems inescapable.

However, innovative ship owners and operators are not waiting for regulators to tell them what to do. The emergence of emissions benchmarking and vessel efficiency tools – such as shippingefficiency.org from the Carbon War Room, the Environmental Ship Index (ESI) from the World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI) or the Swedish-led Clean Shipping Index – shows that shipping innovators are aware that charterers see a value in vessel efficiency. The likes of Caterpillar, Volvo and Wal-Mart are now asking for emissions data and Maersk Line has become the first shipping line to publish independently verified CO2 emissions data, vessel by vessel. However, this needs to be accurately assessed, and the days of measuring CO2 through a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation based on the amount of bunker fuel purchased will not meet international standards for CO2 data collection in the medium to long term.

Shipping emissions monitoring is already a fact of life for the shipping industry. IMO MARPOL Annex VI’s now well-established regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships have made emissions monitoring an essential data tool to monitor and report emissions in order to demonstrate compliance. This means that both the commercial incentives and regulatory requirement to manage emissions are here today, and the commercial and operational benefits of getting it right are substantial. Moreover, there is no doubt that, in time, emissions monitoring from the stack will become mandatory.

When it comes to meeting emissions limits through lower sulphur bunker fuel, a testing agency simply takes a sample of the fuel as it is pumped onto a vessel. Compliance with ECA regulations is therefore straightforward. However, accurately assessing SOx or NOx levels when a vessel is fitted with a scrubber or a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) unit is not.

The most effective method for measuring emissions is through in-situ monitoring using CEMS. In contrast to extractive sampling where an exhaust gas sample needs to be physically extracted from the system and then analysed, ‘in-situ’ emissions monitoring provides a continuous, real time measurement of the content of your exhaust gases – with data provided instantaneously on a screen that can be installed in the engine and on the bridge.

The unique nature of infra-red in-situ systems are sensitive enough to confirm compliance, even when emission limits are very low. Emissions that are the equivalent of 0.1% sulphur fuel are around 22ppm of SOx in the exhaust gas. Any instrument with a range over 0-100 ppm will not be accurate enough to measure this and an inappropriate choice for operational scrubber monitoring. For example, Kittiwake’s Procal 2000 – an infra-red (IR), duct or stack-mounted system, designed to provide in-stack analysis – has an SO2 monitoring range of 0-100 ppm but can automatically switch ranges to 0-500/1000 ppm for monitoring operations outside of an ECA on high sulphur fuels.

Such systems are also versatile enough to measure several gases and from several onboard locations. Kittiwake’s Procal 2000 can analyse up to six different exhaust gases from multiple engines and boilers, including SO2, CO2 and NOx. It comprises up to six exhaust-mounted analysers, each with automatic verification facilities, which makes it ideal for a crew lacking experience in emissions analysis. The Procal 2000 analyser has an in-situ sample cell that sits inside the exhaust, avoiding the need to manually extract gas using costly, high maintenance sample handling systems, and enabling analysis of an unmodified, representative gas sample. Kittiwake’s Procal 2000 can also measure H2O or water vapour, which means that measurements can be reported in as ‘dry’ or ‘wet’, another key advantage over many extractive alternatives.

As well as meeting regulatory standards, continuous emissions monitoring performs a valuable operational and commercial role. Armed with accurate data about the emissions of its vessels, an owner/operator can optimise operational efficiency within those regulatory limits. Accurate emissions data will also allow an owner/operator to baseline the existing combustion systems on its vessels and then benchmark the performance and value for money of emission reduction tools techniques and technologies.

The better information you have, the better decisions you can take, not just in ensuring regulatory compliance and avoiding the costs of emission breaches, but also in maximising operational efficiency and making the right strategic calls on new technology investments. When it comes to controlling your emissions, knowledge coupled with accuracy and transparency becomes a powerful tool to mange transition within a rapidly changing world.

Nautilus International, February 2012

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

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

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

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

Global sales conference takes place at Kittiwake

On the 31st October Kittiwake sales representatives from across the globe arrived at the Kittiwake head office for a week of presentations, discussions and workshops. The conference was overseen by Dr Steve Dye, Business Development Manger at Kittiwake, and was attended by the sales teams from the UK, America, Malaysia, India, & Germany. Delegates from Kittiwake’s recently acquired group companies, Kittiwake Procal & Kittiwake Holroyd were also present and shared their knowledge into the fields of Gas Emissions monitoring & Acoustic Vibration analysis. The agenda covered the current product range including hands-on training, Kittiwake’s target markets, R&D projects as well as future directions.

The evolution of condition monitoring

The move towards ‘deskilled’ technology

Where critical plant machinery and equipment is concerned, 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 test and analysis. The condition monitoring (CM) arena has been influenced by a number of innovations which today allow engineers to enjoy the benefits of onsite and online testing working in unison with offsite, laboratory analysis.

For both acoustic emission and oil analysis, onsite instruments enable rapid testing and action, and online sensors reduce the risk of human error. Online, of course, refers to sensor technology, which is advancing at a furious pace. Dependable sensors designed to monitor remotely and in real time provide an early warning system, alerting engineers to problems at the earliest possible stage.

Acoustic emission
Traditional vibration analysis has provided a trusted approach to condition monitoring for the past thirty years, but it is a complex science and requires sophisticated knowledge and understanding. Acoustic emission technology, however, places the power of condition monitoring directly into the hands of every engineer. Kittiwake Holroyd’s acoustic emission approach to vibration and stress offers a viable alternative, extending and simplifying the science, making it accessible to anyone.

Providing real time information with early sensitivity to faults and applicability to a wide range of rotational speeds, the acoustic emission technique is based on the detection of the high frequency component of naturally occurring stress waves. Suitable for continuously running machinery as well as machinery operating intermittently or for short durations, acoustic emission allows the user to diagnose problems with machinery at an early stage, carry out maintenance procedures and then monitor the improvement.

As awareness of the unique capabilities of acoustic emission 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 of signals, whether from acoustic emission sensors or accelerometers, requires a sufficiently long period of machine running at constant speed so that a statistically meaningful signal characterisation can be made. This is easily achieved on machinery that is continuously running but is on the impossible side of difficult when it comes to machinery that operates only intermittently and for short durations. For example the algorithm used to derive the widely used acoustic emission parameters of Distress® & dB Level in the MHC range of products from Kittiwake Holroyd requires a 10 second period of running at an approximately constant speed. Similarly it would not be unusual for Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) based vibration analysis to require comparable or even longer measurement periods and tighter tolerances on speed variation.

In those cases where a hand-held instrument is used to carry out periodic 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 requires continuous online monitoring with permanently installed sensors inputting CM data or status into SCADA systems or PLC’s.

Kittiwake Holroyd’s MHC-Sigma is an ultra smart sensor that addresses the two key challenges of coping with short signal durations and the rejection of run-up and slow-down periods. It forms just part of a full product range that includes portable instruments, permanently installed remote sensors for areas of difficult access, as well as stand-alone programmable smart sensors for continuous surveillance.

Oil Analysis
Another weapon in the CM armoury, oil analysis is usually conceded to be the most revealing form of non-destructive testing. On-site test kits and wear debris monitors can provide accurate information in minutes. For example the ANALEX fdMplus accurately measures total ferrous wear in samples of any oil or grease, from gearbox lubricants through to hydraulics. It is widely accepted that in systems containing ferrous based, moving equipment, the ferrous levels are the first to increase as the equipment wears.

However the real value comes from continuous monitoring of critical plant systems. Trending of vital lubricant test parameters including viscosity, water in oil, total base number (TBN), insolubles, wear debris and particle content is extremely important and the more regular the information the better; even with the best sampling practices, occasional laboratory results can be unrepresentative and sometimes cause false alarms. While temperature, pressure and vibration sensors all have their part to play in a CM package, early detection of changes in oil and lubricant condition provide far greater insight.

In conclusion, downtime costs money and impacts profitability, which must be steadfastly avoided, especially in today’s financial climate. Successful troubleshooting using a combination of the state-of-the-art CM technology available provides the first means of diagnosing problems with essential machinery and equipment. By ‘deskilling’ technology, all maintenance professionals are empowered to make informed decisions quickly and with confidence, ultimately enabling them to positively and significantly impact a company’s bottom line.

Martin Lucas, managing director, Kittiwake Developments

Industrial Plant & Equipment, September 2011

Measuring emissions for compliance and efficiency

For anyone in shipping, the escalating demands of emissions reduction continue to permeate all operational areas. Large charterers / shippers such as Caterpillar, Volvo and Wal-Mart are now asking for emissions data as they scrutinise every element of their supply chains to maximise operational and environmental efficiencies. Indeed container giant Maersk Line has become the first shipping line to publish independently verified CO2 emissions data, vessel by vessel. However, this needs to be accurately assessed, and the days of measuring CO2 through a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation based on the amount of bunker fuel purchased will not meet international standards for CO2 data collection in the medium to long-term. It would be considered wholly inadequate, for example, to have a power station’s CO2 measurements based on the amount of fossil energy that was processed in the plant.

Take a newbuild vessel built in 2015; it is probable that this vessel will have a minimum 25-year working life, so an asset that will still be in service in 2040. The likelihood is that this vessel’s owners will, by 2015, have to comply with the recently IMO-mandated Energy Efficiency design Index (EEDI) and will use a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) as a means of maintaining the EEDI. Augmented by the likely subsequent implementation of a bunker levy or emissions trading scheme within Europe, the need for accurate CO2 data will be critical.

Of course, emissions monitoring is already a fact of life for shipping and IMO MARPOL Annex VI’s regulations pertaining to SOx will soon make emissions monitoring an essential function. Sulphur content limits in the North Sea, English Channel, Baltic and US-Canadian Emission Control Areas (ECAs) will be reduced from 1.0% to just 0.1% in 2015, requiring more sophisticated monitoring systems, and most vessels in EU ports already need to comply with EC Regulation 2005/33/EC, which limits sulphur content to 0.1%.

More ECAs are likely to be implemented soon. A US-Caribbean ECA has been approved and Japan is reported to be preparing an ECA application. Ultimately, there are only a few viable options enabling vessels to comply with SOx emissions regulations; use expensive distillates and low sulphur products, fit exhaust gas cleaning systems or pioneer clean fuels such as LNG. Whichever way, vessels in these areas will need to monitor their emissions to demonstrate compliance.

The most effective method for measuring emissions is through in-situ monitoring using a Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) system. This is accepted land-based practice in many critical emissions monitoring applications. The alternative is extractive sampling, where an exhaust gas sample needs to be physically extracted from the system and then analysed, requiring valuable space and often costly maintenance. ‘In-situ’ emissions monitoring mounts directly onto the exhaust and is simply wired to a computer to control it, providing a continuous, real time measurement of the content of the exhaust gases.

Field proven for use in aggressive environments that are hot, dirty and subject to vibration, these systems are accurate to a few ppm (parts per million) with gas species-specific ranges typically from 100->100,000ppm, depending on what requires measuring. In-situ is reliable and cheap to operate, with data available instantly and continuously, in the engine room or on the bridge.

Such systems are also versatile enough to measure several gases. Kittiwake’s Procal 2000 can analyse up to six different exhaust gases from medium and slow speed engines or boilers, including SO2, CO2 and NOx. A new study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) finds that cutting emissions other than carbon dioxide (CO2) – for example NOx – will assist in slowing climate change, producing a much greater benefit per kg than the equivalent CO2 reduction.

In addition to SOx regulation compliance, Kittiwake’s Procal 2000 analyser assists compliance with the NOx Technical Code 2008 and ISO 14001. Such is the accuracy and reliability of this CEMS, that in fact some major ship owners and operators believe that more accurate measurement of NOx emissions enables tuning of the engine for continued compliance, meaning less bunker fuel could being burnt. This results in lower fuel costs and emissions output, such as CO2, and as Tier II and Tier III regulations begin to bite, it is likely that this debate will develop.

Ultimately, you can’t reduce emissions without measuring them first. And the better information you have, the better decisions you can take, not just in ensuring regulatory compliance and avoiding the costs of emission breaches, but also in maximising operational efficiency.

Chris Daw, managing director, Kittiwake Procal

Shipping World & Ship Builder, August 2011