The machine and its creator (1)

As a student of engineering, I was taught in Theory of Machines that “no machine component is designed for infinite life”. This theory, though taken as a gospel, was conveyed to young men whose aspiration was to be marine engineers. At the time of my professor’s avowal on design of machine elements, it was understood that man played a fundamental role in creation of machines and component parts. The origin of machines about two centuries ago was through the intellectual contributions of Gottlieb Daimler, Wilhelm Maybach, Karl Benz and others. These men were involved in the expansion of internal combustion engine as reflected later in the academic work of Nicolaus Otto. The Otto cycle engines are those operating on either petrol or gas. Later in the nineteenth century, the pioneering work of Dr Rudolf Diesel pushed back the frontiers of engine development through research and development efforts. Diesel conceptualised the “rational engines” which are operating at high pressures several times greater than the Otto cycle engines. These are commonly referred to as diesel engines. Thus at the beginning when machine was created, man was there. Since its creation, machine has lived with man up to this very moment.

The theory of evolution which posits that the fittest survive while the weakest becomes extinct presents a constructive background for the predicament of machines in the hands of man, either afloat or ashore. In the beginning, man depended profoundly on physical ability, while the machine was less efficient with much fuel consumption. As time progressed, man increased his chances of survival by developing his non-physical capacity, while employing tools to operate machines. For his survival, man acquired more non-physical capacity while the physical dimension diminished to such an extent that brain supported by sophisticated tools became consequential in the evolution of machines. Man was kind enough to have developed machines and component parts to such a level that they are much more efficient. With sophistication in its controls and associated auxiliaries, the machine now uses about one-third of fuel when compared to that of antiquity. It is the developmental stages that man went through and sophistication in machinery which made modern ships very complex but easy to maintain if maintenance procedures are strictly followed, maintenance culture sustained and positive attitude displayed.

The sea is a significant source of natural resources and thus, maritime nations endowed with oil export it, and import strategic minerals through the sea. The primary instrument used for this kind of trade in peacetime and during hostilities is the ship. Even more significant is the realisation that the sea represents an invaluable resource for drilling, fishing and ocean-mining. Paradoxically, despite natural blessings that flow from the sea with its salty content, it is partly responsible for failure of machine components onboard ships.

Interestingly, both man and machine are inexorably linked to the sea. Unfortunately, neither man nor machine has found it easy to survive at sea in spite of the former’s immense contributions to the sea and sophistication of the latter. It was, however, only a few years ago that man became concerned about rapid failure of machines onboard vessels that were used to preserve marine resources, ensure the safe transit and passage of cargoes and people, protect maritime borders from intrusion, uphold its maritime sovereignty, rescue the distressed that ply the oceans in ships, and prevent misuse of the oceans. These are timeless interests that invoke the question whether man’s relationship with machines has disabled the latter in attaining its performance threshold in an environment that shapes the destiny of maritime nations.

READ ALSO: Access Bank recognized as ‘best digital lender in Africa’

Machinery failures and breakdowns are part of life in the marine environment. Many have argued that this state of affairs could have been avoided if necessary maintenance procedures were followed, while others have equally argued that the sea with its salty content was responsible for severe corrosion of machine components. There are those who believe that machine failures occur because most ships’ engineers have not been properly trained or they do not possess skills and experience essential for maintenance. On many occasions, non-adherence to Planned Maintenance Schedules (PMS) has been said to be responsible for machine failures.

Inability to read and comprehend manufacturer’s instruction manuals coupled with the use of wrong tools have also resulted in machinery failure. On several occasions, incorrect tightening of bolts and nuts in accordance with manufacturer’s torque specifications coupled with irregular hydraulic hygiene have equally disabled machine from performing its job. Where ship engineers and technicians have diligently followed maintenance instructions as stipulated by the ship’s PMS, machine failures have reportedly occurred in some instances immediately after an overhaul. This was affirmed by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) that 60 percent of machine failure takes place after a maintenance activity.

Poor fuel/oil management on board merchant ships is another area of concern. When the fuel supplied is contaminated, it gives rise to engine wear and other combustion problems which ultimately lead to machine failure. This undoubtedly contributes to increasing repair costs which many marine organisations are experiencing. Modern engine manufacturers know that man in this part of the world will likely use contaminated fuel and has designed fuel treatment and purification systems. Quality sampling and analysis with the use of fuel test kits are important ingredients to confirm that fuel delivered complies with manufacturers’ specification. Discussions in a few marine conferences have revealed that machine failure in most cases is often attributed to poor fuel purification system onboard ships rather than “bad” fuel or in some instances failure to take appropriate steps after fuel analysis.

It is noteworthy that machine failure might result from design, manufacturing and assembly errors, inadequate quality assurance and unforeseen operating conditions. Although no machine component is designed for infinite life, its failure in a marine environment gives rise to safety, environmental and financial issues that may be catastrophic. For instance, a study also conducted by IMO revealed that about 60 to 80 percent of machine failures are due to human error and that nearly 25 percent of casualties at sea were as a result of machinery failure. Depending on the capacity and sophistication of a machine, its failure, according to a report, is likely to cost on average between $250,000 and $1.5 million within a period of about 10 years. These are costs in vessel downtime and cost of repairs some marine organisations or ship operators may not be able to afford.

M.A. Johnson