The most known concept to define reliability is: “Probability that an asset or system operates without failing during a given period of time under some operation conditions previously established.” Sometimes, this concept is wrongly used due to the particular use given to the word failure. For many, failure only means shutdowns, so they construct complex mathematical formulas to calculate shutdown probability without taking into account that a failure also occurs when being inefficient, insecure and costly, having a high rejection level, or contributing to a bad image.

Want to expand coupling life? Who doesn’t? You may want to look into advanced-design disc couplings. These couplings feature discs with optimized profile and thickness to provide a higher torque-to-outside-diameter ratio, higher service factors and up to 50 percent greater misalignment capability. All this provides for smaller reactionary forces on bearings compared to conventional disc couplings, which helps achieve infinite coupling life in properly specified applications.

The secret to making and keeping reliable electrical connections is contained in two elements: start with clean contact surfaces, and apply high force. Clean contact surfaces are a function of cleaning procedures, including joint compounds, and will be covered in a future article. Application of high force is the subject here. The trouble comes about because the terms “torque” and “force” are incorrectly used interchangeably. Force is NOT torque. Force is a function of torque.

In 1997-98, the facility was considering replacing the aging (1972-73) high, medium, and low voltage equipment because of several operational and maintenance problems with the breakers. We also were concerned about the overall grounding scheme of the facility. To find out the existing status of the grounding system, we procured architect/engineer (A/E) services to check and confirm the overall validity of the facility-grounding scheme.

Using many of its own products and solutions, Schneider Electric was able to realize an energy savings from 2005 through August 2008 that totaled more than $5.1 million. In addition, the company’s goal of reducing energy consumption per employee by ten percent by 2008 was met two years ahead of schedule.