Operating loop
Repairability loop
Illustrative workflow. Read left to right; Verify is the evidence boundary.
- 01
Sense
- 02
Model
- 03
Decide
- 04
Verify
Screening categories
Repairability is not one variable
Framework brief
What the index does and does not decide
Preliminary decision-support only. Final feasibility depends on base material, geometry, service conditions, inspection requirements, and expert review.
Definition
A preliminary screening framework for deciding whether an LMD repair request is worth expert feasibility review.
Problem it solves
Repair requests often arrive before the material, damage, access, tolerance, and inspection facts are clear.
Who it is for
Engineers, buyers, students, developers, and assistants preparing LMD repair RFQs.
Inputs required
Material grade, damage type and depth, access, geometry, service conditions, tolerance, inspection requirement, downtime, and replacement context.
Output
A repairability band, missing-information list, risk flags, and a suggested next step.
Evidence needed
Photos, drawing or CAD, material evidence, damage documentation, machining plan, inspection route, and expert review.
Limitations
It does not approve repair, validate material compatibility, or guarantee final quality.
Example use case
Screening whether a worn shaft, hammer, die, screw, or valve component has enough information for a first LMD review.
Thesis connection
Sense RFQ facts, model repairability, decide review priority, and verify through inspection evidence.
Interactive
LMD Repairability Index calculator
Rate each category from weak or unknown to strong. The output is a preliminary band, not a final feasibility decision.
What changes the decision
Repairability can change quickly when risk facts appear
Use these as red-team checks before calling an LMD repair candidate promising.
Screening bands
Interpretation bands
Missing information
Minimum RFQ checklist
Related workflow