In Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), when a component fails without any prior action taken, is it considered a "run to failure" component? Terry O.
While it is possible, using this method to uncover RTF components is not recommended.
The concept of "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is similar to uncertainties in operation and maintenance planning. When faced with questions like whether the operation failed or simply shut down, or if a specific component caused the operation to cease, it's important to have a clear plan in place. If operations can still be continued and maintenance tasks can be scheduled efficiently, it would not be considered a run-to-failure scenario. In my view, run-to-failure occurs when there is a lack of a structured maintenance program.
Terry clarified that the failure of the component did not result in any operational, safety, or environmental issues. In my opinion, there are three categories of Ready to Fail (RTF) components: 1. RCM analysis identified the component as critical, but LTA suggested RTF as the most efficient preventive maintenance strategy. 2. The equipment scoping process eliminated the need for RCM analysis on the component. 3. This is similar to Terry's example, where no effort was made to create a comprehensive equipment list or conduct RCM. Thank you.
Terry, there is always some level of consequence when deciding whether or not to address a task. While it may not result in safety, environmental, or direct operational issues, there are still non-operational outcomes to consider, such as the cost of labor and repairs needed to rectify the situation. The choice of which task to tackle hinges on two main criteria: feasibility (is it physically doable?) and effectiveness. If a task is technically possible (which we will assume it is), the next factor to evaluate is cost-effectiveness. Is it more financially prudent, in the long run, to perform maintenance or to wait for a failure to occur? The answer to this question determines whether action is taken or not. In some cases, the cost of repairs alone may justify performing routine maintenance rather than waiting for a breakdown. It is my opinion that dismissing maintenance before thoroughly considering all factors could lead to decreased cost-effectiveness, especially if this analysis is meant to serve as a guideline for future situations (where the stakes could be higher). Just my two cents on the matter.
In my opinion, neglecting maintenance before conducting a failure mode analysis could result in reduced cost-effectiveness, especially if the analysis is intended for future use. Daryl, do you believe that all components should undergo FMECA without first filtering out those that are not significant functionally? By establishing clear exclusion criteria, an analyst can avoid evaluating entire categories of components that are not essential, thereby saving valuable time and resources. For instance, deeming manually operated drain valves with a size of 0.5" or smaller as nonessential could eliminate a significant number of components from RCM analysis. Regards, Ozgipsy.
Absolutely, Terry! In the context of RCM, a "run to failure" strategy actually means that a component is intentionally allowed to operate until it fails. There's no preventive or predictive maintenance involved. This approach is typically used for non-critical components where the cost or effort to maintain them isn't justifiable compared to the cost of replacement upon failure. So yes, in an RCM program, if a component fails and no preventive action has been taken, it's considered a "run to failure" component.
Yes, Terry, you're on the right track. In RCM, a "run to failure" component is indeed a component that's allowed to operate until it fails, with no preceding proactive or predictive maintenance. This isn't always a bad thing; for less critical components where failure doesn't significantly impact overall operations or safety, running to failure can actually be a cost-effective strategy.
Absolutely, Terry. A "run to failure" component indeed represents a situation where a part is knowingly run until it fails. In an RCM context, this usually takes place if the failure is not considered to impose a significant risk or consequence. Essentially, it can make economic and operational sense to let less critical components fail, due to the higher cost of maintenance compared to replacement upon failure.
Absolutely, Terry O. In the context of RCM, when a component is allowed to operate until it inevitably fails without any preventive or predictive maintenance, it's indeed referred to as a "run to failure" component. However, it's crucial to balance this strategy with the potential costs and operational disruptions that could arise due to an unexpected failure.
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Answer: Answer: No, in Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), a component that fails without any prior action taken is not considered a "run to failure" component. "Run to failure" refers to a deliberate maintenance strategy where a component is allowed to operate until it fails, which is different from a failure occurring without any prior action.
Answer: Answer: Identifying components as "run to failure" in RCM helps maintenance teams understand which components can be allowed to operate until they fail without causing significant consequences, enabling them to prioritize maintenance tasks effectively.
Answer: Answer: In RCM, components that fail without prior action are analyzed to determine the root cause of the failure and to establish appropriate maintenance strategies to prevent similar incidents in the future. This analysis helps improve the overall reliability and performance of the system.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.