[17639542]
The speed reducer which suffered a broken shaft was evaluated by engineering upon receipt. Analysis of mfr specs indicated the application was well within specified operational parameters. Results of examination of the failed assembly were inconclusive. The reducer was forwarded to the mfr for analysis. Their response indicated a low lubricant level, input seal leak, and overload as contributing to failure. As mentioned above, overload was not due to design buy may have resulted from operational abuse (e. G. Driving the c-arm into an obstruction). Review of maintenance recommendations in the svc manual indicates that co's recommended lubrication svc interval of 1 yr exceeds the mfr's recommendation of 2500 hrs, based on an estimated 1 hr/day of actual movement of the c-arm axis in question, by a factor of 6. 8. There is no seal maintenance specified by the mfr. Review of the return history for the reducer (which is used in multiple products) for a period of 2 yrs preceding the incident reveals no other returns. Co concludes that this incident is an isolated failure, due to a faulty reducer assembly rec'd from the mfr, failure to perform periodic maintenance as specified in the svc manual, or operator abuse. No remedial or other corrective action is indicated.
Patient Sequence No: 1, Text Type: N, H10