Mini-case:
Grease leakage and temperature drift after re-lubrication
Grease leakage and post-lubrication temperature drift persisted until ORS was made executable at the lubrication point: dosing rules, utilisation logic, purge/relief steps and a simple 24–72 h verification check stabilised trends and reduced unplanned interventions.
Situation
A plant had defined lubrication intervals and lubricant selection for critical electric motor bearings and grease-lubricated pumps. Despite planned lubrication, the site still experienced repeat issues: grease leakage, seal damage and intermittent temperature rise after re-lubrication.
What was observed
- grease ejection and leakage shortly after re-lubrication
- inconsistent purge behaviour (sometimes heavy purge, sometimes none)
- higher temperature or noise deviation after lubrication events
- recurring “grease mess” around pump bearing housings and seals
Root cause: ORS gap at the lubrication point
The ORS definition covered what to apply (lubricant and interval), but not how to execute and verify at the lubrication point:
- Re-lubrication was performed without considering run condition and utilisation rate (risk of over-supply during standstill, especially with single-point lubricators and central lubrication systems)
- Purge/relief capability and seal design were not translated into work instructions (relief steps missing or not used)
- Starting condition was not controlled (clean handling and correct pre-fill / baseline condition)
- Asset orientation (horizontal vs vertical) was not reflected in dosing logic and verification timing
Grease condition and separation risk increases with prolonged standstill; starting condition and handling matter for a valid baseline.
Corrective actions: ORS translated into point-level rules
- Converted ORS intent into point-level execution rules: dose, method, interval, and purge/relief step; added a clear rule to avoid “pump until purge” where design does not support it
- Matched grease delivery to utilisation (running vs standstill logic for manual, single-point and central delivery)
- Added simple verification: purge observation plus temperature trend check in the 24–72 h window after lubrication
- Tightened acceptance criteria at the lubrication point: “clean” and “acceptable” condition, tool cleanliness, and post-work condition
Purge capability and seal design drive whether used grease exits predictably; ORS must reflect purge/relief logic and verification.
Verification and outcome
After implementation, grease re-lubrication became repeatable and deviations became visible earlier. Trend behaviour stabilised and the site reduced unplanned interventions related to grease leakage and post-lubrication temperature rise.
ORS takeaway
Defining ORS is not enough. ORS is sustained through repeatable execution and verification at the lubrication point, aligned with utilisation, purge/relief capability, contamination control and basic mechanical condition.
A Technical Advisor can translate ORS into point data, work instructions and verification checks for your critical lubrication point(s).
Author: Janneke van der Pol, MLT1
Photo & case credit: Mika Römpötti, Interflon Finland
Frequently Asked Questions
Grease leakage shortly after re-lubrication is often caused by an execution mismatch: the delivered amount and timing don’t match the asset’s running condition, and the housing/seal design does not support predictable purge.
Typical contributors
- Over-supply during standstill or low utilisation
- No purge/relief step (or wrong assumption that purge will occur)
- Uncontrolled starting condition (old grease, contamination, wrong baseline)
What fixes it (ORS at point level)
Define dosing rules + utilisation logic, add purge/relief steps that fit the seal design, and set “clean/acceptable” criteria at the lubrication point.
Post-lube temperature drift usually happens when lubrication creates variable churning, friction or seal drag, driven by inconsistent grease quantity, timing and exit behaviour.
Typical pattern
- Temperature stabilises on some lube events, but rises on others
- Drift correlates with standstill lubrication, high dosing or poor relief
What fixes it
Standardise delivery (dose + method), align to running vs standstill, and add a 24–72 h temperature trend check so deviations become visible early and are acted on.
An ORS gap exists when ORS defines what (grease type + interval) but not how to execute and verify at the lubrication point.
In this case, the missing elements were
- Dosing rules linked to utilisation (running vs standstill)
- Purge/relief logic tied to seal/housing design
- Controlled baseline condition and clean handling
- Orientation-specific rules (horizontal vs vertical)
- Verification steps after lubrication
Why it matters
Without these, lubrication remains person- and shift-dependent, so repeat issues look intermittent.
Because many designs cannot purge predictably. Pumping until purge can build pressure and force grease past seals, creating leakage and potentially damaging seals — without proving that grease reached the load zone correctly.
Better ORS rule
Only use purge as an acceptance indicator where the design supports it. Otherwise, use dose control + relief steps + verification (cleanliness, post-lube condition, temperature trend).
A practical follow-up window that confirms the lubrication event produced a stable condition.
What to check
- Purge/leakage behaviour (expected vs abnormal)
- Temperature trend (and, where used, noise deviation)
- Visible post-work condition around housings/seals
Why 24–72 h
It captures the period where over-supply effects, purge issues or seal problems typically show up — early enough to correct before it becomes downtime.
