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.
Larry, I want to clarify that Asset Selection is a separate issue from what we were discussing. Once assets have been chosen, I recommend analyzing all potential failure modes through the RCM process. In the hands of a skilled analyst, this can be done efficiently. This analysis does not include a FMECA. It is generally more time-consuming to analyze at the component level, whereas focusing on the system/process level can save time. By using a thorough asset selection and classification process, along with defining templates, companies can quickly adapt templates for similar asset systems. This aligns with your points as well.
Quote: Originally shared by Ozgipsy: This aligns well with your thoughts. Hi Daryl, I appreciate the prompt reply - I didn't realize you were currently online. Quote: This aligns well with your thoughts. I believe we are in agreement, but can you clarify what you mean by template definition? We have implemented PM Templates to enhance LTA for a while. Our templates suggest a PM approach based on component type/class, usage, surroundings, and criticality of failure. Does this align with your understanding of a template definition?
In deciding whether to maintain equipment, the level of impact from potential failures plays a crucial role. While non-threatening failures often lead to a run-to-fail approach, it's essential to consider the economic implications, as highlighted by Daryl. In the realm of Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), the evaluation of economic consequences is often overlooked. To truly advance maintenance practices, recognizing the distinction between technical feasibility and financial viability is key. The definition of non-operational consequences is a significant factor in this evaluation. While some argue that every failure has an operational impact, instances of a component's failure with no discernible effect do exist. In such cases, the necessity and relevance of the component must be questioned. Delboy raises important points about evaluating maintenance strategies for optimal efficiency.
Larry, juggling two children and demanding clients leaves me with little time for sleep. While our processes may not be exactly alike, our template classification, application, and usage have unique twists. Let's discuss this further through email: darylm@strategic-advantages.com.
Terrence, Delboy is absolutely right. The main goal of maintenance is to minimize the impact of failures to an acceptable level. This represents a significant shift in thinking from before (pre-N&H) when it was believed that any failure had to be addressed. It is now recognized that minor failures can be allowed to occur without intervention, and running-to-failure can be a valid strategy under certain circumstances. This change in approach is essential for effective maintenance management.
There was a significant oversight in Terry's question that should be addressed. It is crucial to consider that if a component or system fails (either partially or completely) with no safety or environmental impact, and the cost of preventive maintenance exceeds the operational cost of accepting the failure, then Run-to-Failure (RTF) may be a viable strategy. However, this is only applicable if the equipment operators can easily detect the failure under normal operating conditions. If the failure is hidden and requires an additional malfunction or plant event to become apparent, the consequences of the system being in a failed state must be assessed assuming that the triggering event has occurred. Essentially, hidden failure modes should be evaluated in the context of potential multiple failures.
Is "run to failure" considered a form of planned or unplanned breakdown maintenance?
James is completely correct in pointing out that I overlooked the 'evident' aspect. It is important to note that RTF is a structured and organized activity.
RTF: Sometimes, the best course of action is to do nothing until a plan fails. This is a rare situation where choosing to "do nothing" can actually be the most effective decision to make.
If a company chooses to operate an asset in a run-to-failure mode, it suggests that the consequences of potential failure are considered to be minimal. However, the larger issue at hand is that many companies resort to this approach due to a lack of understanding of where they stand on the P-F Curve. But what exactly is the P-F Curve? Ricky Smith, CMRP, sheds light on this critical concept.
What is a Production Possibility Frontier (PPF) curve? Let's delve into the concept of PPF curves and understand its significance in economics.
Hello Mike, I have included a slide that simplifies the explanation of the Production Possibility Frontier (PPF). Please take a look and let me know if you have any questions. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. You can find the attached file named PF_Curve1.PPT.
Ricky, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Run to Failure strategy about fixing equipment after it hits the F point in the curve, ideally before it reaches the "equipment broken" point? With the PM strategy, the goal is to act proactively before the equipment starts to fail, effectively shifting the curve forward and extending the green zone into the future. As for Predictive Maintenance, it involves inspecting equipment to anticipate when the P-F Interval will occur, allowing for scheduled corrective action before reaching the F point.
What is the P-F curve formula and how is it used in asset management? Discover the key equation for predicting asset failure and optimizing maintenance strategies.
Eugene, your observation regarding the PF Curve and PF Interval is spot on. Josh, I recommend looking at my previous post and clicking on the attached document for a better understanding of the PF Curve and PF Interval. For further clarification, feel free to email me at ricky.smith@ivara.com. Understanding the PF Curve and PF Interval is crucial in optimizing performance and efficiency in various processes.
After carefully reviewing the question and responses, Daryl's initial reply resonated with me. I share the view that there will always be repercussions when it comes to repairing or replacing a component. In my opinion, the term "run-to-failure" refers to a component that has been identified as the best cost-effective strategy, with no need for predictive or preventive maintenance measures. This approach is based on assessing the total cost-benefit perspective.
According to Terry O, in Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), if a component fails without any consequences, does it fall under the category of a run-to-failure component? On the severity rating scale, this scenario would receive a rating of 1, indicating that the effects of the failure would go unnoticed by the customer and not impact their process or product. When the severity rating is 1, the risk priority number is low, and the recommended action plan to mitigate this risk is minimal or non-existent. This insight was shared by Miguel Kovac.
Greetings everyone, I am a newcomer to this forum. I have a question regarding the "run-to-failure" approach. What should be done if there are operational repercussions that occur post-equipment failure? Isn't it imperative to take preventative measures to avoid these consequences? For example, conducting regular checks to ensure the equipment is functioning properly. I am curious about how RCM addresses the decision to implement a run-to-failure strategy. -Hendro Priyanto.
An organization may choose to adopt a run-to-failure policy if the operational consequences are deemed acceptable. This decision is often made when Predictive Maintenance (PdM) checks are not cost-effective due to a short P-F interval or when the costs of implementing time-based or condition-based checks outweigh the costs of potential failure events. In cases where no suitable maintenance task is available and the failure consequences are not hidden and do not impact safety or the environment, the organization can opt to accept the repercussions. However, if the consequences are significant, a redesign may be necessary. Reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) processes focus on identifying and managing potential failures based on their impact on the organization. By recognizing hidden failures, safety risks, environmental impacts, and economic consequences, appropriate maintenance tasks can be developed to prevent failures. Scheduled maintenance events can proactively address degrading conditions before the system reaches a functional failure state. Regarding severity rating scales, a rating of 1 indicates that the failure would not be noticeable to the customer and would not impact their processes or products. In such cases, it is important to consider whether the failure is truly hidden and requires additional failures to become evident. If there is no significant impact on safety, the environment, or customer processes/products, it raises questions about the necessity of the equipment in question. The use of failure finding tasks can help mitigate risks associated with multiple failures in protected systems.
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.