You ask a great question and the short answer is that, "It depends". I would always recommend utilizing Condition Monitoring on all components where one or more of those technologies can be utilized. And that includes any components that are set up for PCR. PCR is usually based on experience and that is to certainly minimize rebuild costs and to avoid a failure/breakdown where there is a risk of sudden and catastrophic results. When these sudden and catastrophic events occur your LCC goes exponential. We utilized this exact strategy with mining trucks that used wheel motors.
So if we knew we had a unit that had indications of an early failure we would increase the frequency for monitoring that component to determine the slope on the P-F Curve and be proactive in making plans to get that component replaced. At the same time we would also be making plans to change the component on PCR. They both have a high priority and the decision of which one to do first would depend on the slope of the P-F Curve for the bad unit, the availability of spare components and the upcoming date for the PCR to reach its end-of-life ..... like it said, "It depends".
------------------------------
Terry Taylor
Taylor Reliability Consulting
St. Johns, Florida
ttaylor@taylorreliability.org919-537-2812
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 08-04-2023 11:09 AM
From: Ramiro Cahuata
Subject: Better decision to change component (condition or hours)
Hi everybody. You have 2 equal components, one is in condition (not critical but in monitoring) and the other in hours of change (PCR/TBO) but does not present any condition according to all the predictive techniques.
To which do you prioritize the change?
Also take into account the LCC (lifecycle cost).
Thank
Ramiro
------------------------------
Ramiro Cahuata
Ingeniero Mecanico
Komatsu Mitsui Maquinarias Peru S.A.
Lima
------------------------------