Reliability and maintenanceRM-001

Fan-bearing redesign plus predictive maintenance

Holcim Slovensko · Rohoznik cement plant, Slovakia · 2003-2005

Use this record when

The decision this case can inform

Use this record when repeat fan-bearing failures persist despite monitoring and the plant needs to connect diagnosis, bearing arrangement, alignment, lubrication, and spares.

Evidence scope

Single-site SKF supplier case. The intervention and result are named but not independently validated, and the source does not publish load history or lifecycle cost.

Source-supported facts

What the public record actually establishes

4 sourced points
  1. F1

    The Rohoznik kiln produced about 3,500 tonnes per day, and a major main-kiln ID-fan failure caused roughly four days of downtime.

  2. F2

    Uneven dust buildup drove raw-mill exhaust-fan vibration and bearing damage.

  3. F3

    The response combined a toroidal non-locating bearing, new housings, automatic lubricators, laser alignment, vibration analysis, and strategic bearing support.

  4. F4

    SKF reports that the main-kiln fan bearing replacement interval increased from less than one year to at least 30 months.

Structured interpretation

Facts and reported results are kept separate from the lesson a plant may choose to test.

01

Operating context

Dust buildup and fan imbalance damaged raw-mill and kiln exhaust-fan bearings; major failures caused multi-day downtime.

02

Intervention or finding

Vibration analysis, bearing-system upgrades, alignment, automatic lubrication, and strategic spare support were combined.

03

Documented result

Supplier reports bearing replacement interval on main-kiln fans increased to at least 30 months from less than one year.

04

Plant interpretation

Close the detect-diagnose-repair-verify loop; monitoring alone is not root-cause elimination.

05

Transfer boundary

Supplier-reported; no independent validation, load profile, or cost calculation.

Before applying the lesson

Questions to verify at your plant

These are decision checks, not operating instructions. Resolve them through local risk assessment, technical review, and authorization.

  1. 01

    Is the bearing damage mechanism linked to imbalance, thermal growth, misalignment, lubrication, fit, contamination, or structural response with evidence?

  2. 02

    Does the bearing arrangement accommodate real shaft movement and housing behavior across the duty cycle?

  3. 03

    Are condition alarms connected to planned work, verification measurements, and the right strategic spares?

  4. 04

    What failure and cost history will be preserved to test whether life actually improves?