What Is a Fire Pump Run-to-Failure Strategy—and Should You Use It?

In the world of fire safety, reliability is everything. Fire pumps are critical components that ensure water is delivered at the right pressure and volume during an emergency. As a manufacturer of fire pumps, we often get asked about different maintenance strategies, including one that sparks debate—the run-to-failure strategy.

This article explores what a run-to-failure (RTF) strategy means when applied to fire pumps, the potential risks and benefits, and whether it's ever an acceptable option for life safety systems. Understanding this concept is crucial for facility managers, fire protection engineers, and safety officers responsible for maintaining dependable fire suppression systems.

What Is a Run-to-Failure Maintenance Strategy?

A run-to-failure strategy means allowing equipment to operate until it breaks down or fails—without performing preventive maintenance or predictive monitoring. At that point, repairs or replacements are performed to restore function.

In many industries, RTF is used for non-critical, low-cost equipment where the cost of preventive maintenance outweighs the cost of occasional breakdowns. For example, light bulbs, small motors, or desktop printers may be run until they fail because the impact of downtime is minimal.

But when it comes to fire pumps, the stakes are much higher.

Can a Run-to-Failure Strategy Be Applied to Fire Pumps?

Technically, yes—but should it be used? That's where the controversy lies.

Fire pumps are not like typical machinery. They are mission-critical components of fire protection systems, governed by strict standards such as NFPA 20, NFPA 25, and often insurance requirements like FM Global or UL/FM certification.

Allowing a fire pump to fail before acting is inherently risky because:

• Fire pumps are not in regular use; failure might not be discovered until an emergency.

• Any failure can compromise occupant safety and result in significant property loss.

• Fire code violations and insurance disputes may arise if negligence is proven.

So while RTF may sound like a cost-saving approach, it’s rarely justifiable in fire protection.

Why Some Facilities Consider Run-to-Failure for Fire Pumps

Despite the risks, some facilities are tempted to adopt a relaxed maintenance schedule or lean toward RTF for one or more of the following reasons:

1. Budget Constraints

Ongoing preventive maintenance costs money, especially when inspections, testing, and service contracts are involved. Facility managers may be under pressure to cut expenses and delay pump service.

2. Perceived Reliability

If a fire pump has run flawlessly for years, there may be a false sense of security. Decision-makers might assume that the pump will continue to operate as needed, making proactive maintenance seem unnecessary.

3. Lack of Regulatory Oversight

In some private or low-risk facilities, fire code enforcement may be infrequent, and fire pump maintenance may be deprioritized unless insurance mandates otherwise.

But all these reasons overlook the core issue: the cost of failure far outweighs the cost of maintenance—both financially and in terms of human safety.

Risks of a Fire Pump Run-to-Failure Strategy

1. System Failure During Emergency

A fire pump that fails during a real fire event can result in catastrophic loss. Firefighters may be unable to suppress flames due to lack of water pressure, risking lives and assets.

2. Legal Liability

If negligence is proven after a fire event, facility owners may face lawsuits, insurance claim denials, or penalties for non-compliance with NFPA standards.

3. Hidden Wear and Tear

Without regular inspections, issues like seal leaks, coupling misalignment, bearing degradation, or corroded impellers may go undetected.

4. Increased Repair Costs

Letting components fail often leads to more expensive repairs than if issues were caught early through preventive maintenance.

Industry Standards on Fire Pump Maintenance

NFPA 25 – Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems

NFPA 25 sets strict guidelines for fire pump testing and inspection:

• Weekly churn test (no-flow operation)

• Annual flow test (full-flow capacity testing)

• Monthly inspections for physical condition, alignment, battery levels, and more

RTF violates these maintenance expectations. Non-compliance can result in failed audits or insurance issues.

FM Global & Insurance Mandates

FM Global requires full compliance with NFPA 25 and often imposes additional documentation and periodic reporting. Any deviation from these protocols—such as an RTF strategy—can lead to coverage denial in the event of a loss.

Preventive Maintenance vs. Run-to-Failure

When Might Run-to-Failure Be Justified?

In nearly all cases involving life safety equipment, including fire pumps, a run-to-failure strategy is not advisable. However, there may be very limited, hypothetical scenarios where RTF is considered:

• In temporary installations where the fire pump is a secondary backup.

• For redundant pumps in a dual-pump system (and even then, only with heavy documentation and oversight).

• In extremely low-risk or unoccupied areas, where fire safety systems are present more for regulation than real hazard.

Still, even in these cases, code compliance and legal liability make RTF difficult to justify.

Better Alternatives: Condition-Based and Predictive Maintenance

If cost is a concern, consider condition-based or predictive maintenance as a middle ground. These approaches use data—like vibration monitoring, motor current analysis, and thermal imaging—to detect issues before failure.

Benefits include:

• Extended equipment life

• Reduced unplanned downtime

• Better resource planning

• Enhanced compliance documentation

While more sophisticated than traditional preventive maintenance, these systems are gaining traction in mission-critical environments like fire protection.

Conclusion: Don’t Gamble on Failure

A fire pump run-to-failure strategy might work for low-risk, disposable equipment—but not for fire safety systems. The potential consequences—human life, business interruption, legal liability, and massive property loss—are simply too severe.

Preventive maintenance, as outlined by NFPA 25, UL/FM guidelines, and FM Global insurance policies, remains the gold standard for fire pump care. For facilities aiming to reduce costs without compromising safety, predictive or condition-based maintenance can be a viable path forward.

At Better Technology Group, we strongly advise all facility owners, engineers, and fire protection consultants to prioritize safety and reliability over short-term savings. Fire pumps are your last line of defense—don’t wait for failure to act.