What this is
What is a lubrication route record?
What is a lubrication route record?
It is the round-by-round log of a fixed lubrication route: which points were visited, what lubricant and quantity was applied against the specification, and what condition was observed at the fitting. It exists so a route can be audited after the fact, not just trusted at the time.
What does "applied to specification" actually mean on this template?
It means the quantity applied matched the quantity specified for that point, not that grease was applied and the point looks lubricated. The template scores this separately from whether the correct lubricant type was used, because getting the type right and getting the amount right are two different failure modes.
Why is quantity scored separately from lubricant type?
A technician can use the exactly correct grease and still ruin a bearing by overfilling it, or use the right amount of the wrong grease and cause a different failure. Scoring them as one combined answer would hide whichever mistake happened to not matter this round.
Scope
When is a lubrication route record required?
This record is one step in the Reliability and Predictive Maintenance programme. Using it for work that belongs to a neighbouring template produces route history that is hard to trust later.
Use this template when
- A scheduled lubrication round for this route is due, in progress, or being closed out
- A fitting's condition (temperature, noise, leak, contamination) needs recording alongside the quantity applied
- The route itself is being set up, or a lubrication point needs adding or retiring from it
- You are running the Reliability and Predictive Maintenance programme and this round is one of its scheduled steps
- Oil analysis or a PM plan needs this route's history to exist as a linked record
Do not use it for
- Motor Current Signature Analysis, which analyses motor current to find rotor bar, air gap and load faults without stopping the machine.
- Alignment and Balance Record, which records shaft alignment or rotor balancing work, with before and after readings.
- Condition Monitoring Route Plan, which sets which assets are monitored, by which technique, at what interval and against which alarm limits.
- Repair Record, once a fitting or bearing actually needs replacing rather than just re-greasing.
- Anything outside KnowMaintain, which belongs in the workspace that owns that process
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 55001 cl.8.1 requirements does this satisfy?
The template's sections map onto a simple discipline: fix the route and the technician before the round starts, then control lubricant, quantity and condition at every point, independently of the lubricant store itself.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| Route existence and technician assignment | A route reference, assigned technician and expected point count are fixed before grease starts moving, so a partial round is visible against a known total. | Header |
| Correct lubricant per point | The lubricant specified for a point is confirmed against what was actually used, not assumed from memory or habit. | Points |
| Quantity control at each point | Quantity applied is compared against quantity specified, scored on its own rather than folded into a single "lubricated: yes/no" answer. | Points |
| Point and fitting condition | Accessibility, fitting condition, contamination and abnormal bearing temperature or noise are captured at every point, not only where something has already failed. | Points |
| Lubricant identification and storage | Colour coding, labelling, cross-contamination prevention and shelf life at the store are checked independently of whether the round itself went smoothly. | Lubricant control |
| Completion versus skips | Points skipped are counted and given a reason, not folded silently into a completion percentage. | Round completion |
| Scoring, closure and follow-up | A result band and completeness percentage close the round, with any required action tied forward to a CAPA reference. | Result |
What it does not cover
- Applied To Specification marked "Approximate" on more than a handful of points, which means the route is running on guesswork rather than the specified quantity.
- Correct Lubricant Used recorded as "Substitute used" with no note on why, which turns a control point into a shrug.
- Point Accessible marked "Requires guard removal" with no follow-up raised, which leaves the same point unreachable next round too.
- Colour Coding In Use answered "No" or "Partly" while individual points still score a pass, which means cross-contamination is down to luck rather than control.
- Points Skipped greater than zero with Reason For Skips left blank, which leaves a gap in the route that nobody can explain later.
Global
Lubrication Route Record requirements by country
ISO 55001 sets the asset-management discipline this record sits inside, but the machinery being lubricated is also reachable through work-equipment and process-safety regulation, which is what tends to matter when a route failure ends up in front of a regulator.
ISO 55001 cl.8.1, Operational planning and control
Requires the organisation to plan, implement and control the processes needed to meet asset management requirements, including maintenance activities like lubrication.
The route record is the evidence that operational control extends down to individual lubrication points, not just to the asset register.
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, reg.5
Requires work equipment to be maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.
A lubrication route that skips points or under-specifies quantity undermines the maintenance basis reg.5 assumes, particularly where a guard has to come off to reach a fitting.
OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119(j), Mechanical integrity
Applies to covered processes and requires written procedures, training and quality assurance for maintenance activities on process equipment.
Where a lubricated asset sits inside a covered process, the route record is part of the mechanical integrity paper trail an inspector will ask to see.
How to complete it
How to complete a lubrication route record, step by step
Four judgement calls decide whether a completed route record actually defends the round, rather than just documenting that someone walked past every point.
A one-off Approximate on a point with an awkward gun angle is a different situation from Approximate recorded at the same point every round. The first is normal variance; the second means the specified quantity, delivery method, or point design needs revisiting, and the record should be read that way rather than averaged into an overall pass.
If a point needs a guard removed to reach it, that is a route design problem, not something the technician should resolve differently every visit. The template's help text on Point Accessible says as much; the judgement call is whether Follow Up Raised actually gets used, or whether the same point quietly gets marked Awkward indefinitely.
Substitute Used scores lower than Yes for a reason: it means the specified lubricant wasn't available, and whatever went in instead may not carry the same load, temperature or food-grade properties. Treating it as functionally equivalent because the point got greased defeats the purpose of specifying a lubricant at all.
A route with two skipped points and two documented reasons is a complete, defensible record. A route with two skipped points and no reason selected is an open question, regardless of how high the overall score reads.
What auditors find
Most common lubrication route record findings
These are the patterns that show up in lubrication route audits often enough to name, along with the clause they sit against and the fix that actually closes them.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| The same point is recorded "Approximate" on quantity applied for months running. | Quantity Applied vs Quantity Specified | Treat it as a specification problem, not a technician problem: recalibrate the specified quantity or change the delivery method at that point. |
| Guard-removal points never get a follow-up raised, round after round. | Point Accessible | Raise a design change request to relocate the fitting or fit a remote-mount grease line, and track it outside the route itself. |
| A substitute lubricant is used repeatedly at the same point. | Correct Lubricant Used | Check store stock levels for the specified grade and add it to the standing purchase order rather than accepting the substitute as normal. |
| Reason For Skips is left blank while Points Skipped is greater than zero. | Round completion | Make Reason For Skips mandatory whenever the skip count is above zero, at the form-logic level. |
| Bearing Temperature Or Noise Abnormal reads "Slight" at the same point across consecutive rounds with no escalation. | Points | Route a repeated "Slight" reading into a condition-monitoring check rather than letting it reset to normal at the next lubrication round. |
| Result Band shows "Pass" alongside several "Partly" answers in lubricant control. | Result / Lubricant control | Weight lubricant-control answers into the overall score so a passing round record can't sit on top of a failing store. |
Case in point
Case in point: the bearing that failed on a compliant route
A packaging line lost a gearbox bearing eleven months after commissioning. Every lubrication route for that point showed Complete, Correct Lubricant Used: Yes, and Applied To Specification: Approximate. Nobody had flagged the pattern because each individual round looked fine on its own.
The route history, once someone finally pulled six months of it side by side, showed Approximate on that exact point in nine of the last ten rounds. The gun angle required to reach the fitting made hitting the specified quantity almost impossible, and the route had been quietly compensating for a design flaw rather than reporting it. The fix was a remote-mount line, not a reminder to the technician.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
5 sections
- Reference
- MNT-087
- Archetype
- Record
- Record ID
- LUB-2026-000
- Scoring
- Route compliance
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- ISO 55001 cl.8.1
- Links
- Links Oil analysis, PM plans
- Tags
- Predictive, Lubrication
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 46
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 3
Header
10 fieldsRecord ID*
Auto sequence. Format LUB-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Over Greasing Kills As Many Bearings
Too much grease raises temperature, blows out seals and lets water in. More is not better, and the round exists to apply the right amount.
Route Reference*
Technician*
Points On Route*
Points
Repeats14 fieldsAsset
Asset ID
Format AST-0000.
Links to FDN-002 Asset ID
Lubrication Point*
Lubricant Specified*
Correct Lubricant Used*
- Yes3 pts
- Substitute used1 pt
- Wrong0 pts
Quantity Specified
Quantity Applied
Applied To Specification*
- Yes3 pts
- Approximate1 pt
- No0 pts
Point Accessible*
Points that need a guard removed get skipped. That is a design problem, not a discipline problem.
- Yes3 pts
- Awkward1 pt
- Requires guard removal0 pts
Nipple Or Fitting Condition*
- Good3 pts
- Worn1 pt
- Blocked or missing0 pts
Contamination At Point*
- None3 pts
- Some1 pt
- Heavy0 pts
Bearing Temperature Or Noise Abnormal*
- No3 pts
- Slight1 pt
- Marked0 pts
Leak Observed*
- None3 pts
- Weeping1 pt
- Active leak0 pts
Follow Up Raised
Lubricant control
6 fieldsLubricants Correctly Labelled*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Colour Coding In Use*
Colour coded guns and points stop the wrong grease going into a bearing, which is a common and expensive error.
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Cross Contamination Prevented*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Food Grade Lubricant Where Required*
- Yes3 pts
- Uncertain1 pt
- No0 pts
Storage Clean And Sealed*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Stock Within Shelf Life*
- Yes3 pts
- Some expired1 pt
- No0 pts
Round completion
3 fieldsPoints Completed*
Points Skipped*
Reason For Skips
Result
13 fieldsItems Assessed*
Excludes anything marked N/A.
Items Failed*
Score Percent*
Calculated on submission. High is good. N/A items leave the denominator.
Result Band*
- Pass3 pts
- Caution1 pt
- Fail0 pts
Completeness Percent*
How much of the template was actually answered. A high score on a half completed form is not a high score.
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Technician*
Signature*
Reliability*
Second Signature*
MNT-087 · record IDs look like LUB-2026-000 · Links Oil analysis, PM plans
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The form is the easy part. Spotting the point that's quietly running Approximate every round, and getting a guard-removal problem in front of the people who can redesign it, is the work that actually slips.
Holds the route against the asset register, flags points with a recurring Approximate or Substitute answer, and keeps the round history queryable by point rather than just by date.
Picks up Point Accessible answers that require guard removal and routes them into a hazard or design-change review instead of letting them sit as a recurring Awkward.
Tracks the lubricant control section as its own control point, so shelf-life and colour-coding failures at the store are visible even when every individual round looks clean.
Coordinates the crew across the route, rolls skipped points and their reasons into one view, and holds every write for your approval before it touches a record.
This template lives in KnowMaintain — asset maintenance. Work orders, planned maintenance, calibration, reliability and shutdowns.
Meet KnowMaintain→Glossary
Lubrication Route Record definitions and key terms
- Lubrication route
- A fixed sequence of lubrication points, visited on a set interval, that together make up one round.
- Over-greasing
- Applying more lubricant than the fitting or bearing needs, which raises internal temperature, can blow seals, and lets contamination in — a failure mode distinct from, and as damaging as, under-lubrication.
- Colour-coded lubrication
- A control where each lubricant type and its dispensing gun share a colour, so the wrong grease cannot easily be applied to the wrong point.
- Shelf life (lubricant)
- The period after which a stored lubricant's additives or base oil properties can no longer be relied on, tracked so the store isn't dispensing degraded product.
- Fitting (grease nipple)
- The point at which lubricant is physically introduced to a bearing or moving part; its condition (worn, blocked, missing) is a leading indicator independent of the lubricant itself.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about lubrication route record
Does a lubrication route record replace an oil analysis programme?+
No. It records the physical act of greasing or oiling a point on a schedule. Oil analysis samples and tests the lubricant itself for wear metals and contamination, and the two are linked records rather than substitutes for each other.
What happens when Points On Route doesn't match the number of Points entries actually completed?+
It shows up as a gap between the expected total and the completed count, which is exactly what Points Completed and Points Skipped are there to expose. A route that quietly drops points from the header count defeats the purpose of fixing that number up front.
Should a technician mark a point complete if they can't reach it without removing a guard?+
They should mark Point Accessible as Requires Guard Removal and raise a follow-up rather than skip it silently or force the guard off without authorisation. Repeated instances at the same point are a route design problem to escalate, not a judgement call to make fresh each visit.
Why does the template score Contamination At Point separately from lubricant type?+
Contamination at the fitting itself (dirt, water, debris) can ruin a correctly specified, correctly applied lubricant. Scoring it separately means a route can fail on housekeeping even when the lubricant and quantity were both right.
Who signs off a lubrication route record?+
The technician who ran the route signs first, with a second signature from reliability. Where Action Required is Yes, a CAPA reference and action owner are expected before the record is treated as closed.
Can this template be adjusted for a site with very few lubrication points?+
Yes. The Points section repeats per entry, so a short route with five points and a long route with fifty use the same structure. Sites usually trim or extend the point list once, then leave the scoring logic alone.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Reliability and Predictive Maintenance
Root Cause Analysis
Finds out why something happened rather than who was involved
Equipment Failure Report
Records that an asset has failed and stopped or degraded production
Failure Mode Record
Records how an asset failed, using standard failure mode codes rather than free text
Repair Record
Records what was actually done to fix the asset, including parts replaced and settings changed
Temporary Repair Record
Records a repair that is not permanent, with an expiry date and a plan for the proper fix
Repeat Failure Review
Reviews an asset that has failed the same way more than once
More in Predictive Maintenance
Motor Current Signature Analysis
Analyses motor current to find rotor bar, air gap and load faults without stopping the machine
Alignment and Balance Record
Records shaft alignment or rotor balancing work, with before and after readings
Condition Monitoring Route Plan
Sets which assets are monitored, by which technique, at what interval and against which alarm limits
Sensor and IoT Data Review
Reviews continuous sensor data for drift, alarms and anomalies, and whether anybody acted on them
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 55001 cl.8.1 — Operational planning and control
- ISO 55000 — Asset management: Overview, principles and terminology
- Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, reg.5
- OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119(j) — Mechanical integrity
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.