2-Chapter Two Comp Repl Decisions 2010 (Compatibility Mode)

Chapter 2
Component Replacement
Decisions
© A.K.S. JARDINE
Maintenance Optimization
Optimizing Equipment Maintenance and Replacement Decisions
Component Inspection Capital Equipment Resource

Replacement Procedures Replacement Requirements
Maintenance Management System (CMMS/EAM/ERP)
© A.K.S. JARDINE 2
Making Systems more Reliable
through Component Replacement
© A.K.S. JARDINE
Short–Term Deterministic Replacement
Cold air Hot flue gases
Air heater
Soot deposits
steam
Boiler
Hot air Fuel
© A.K.S. JARDINE 4
Short–Term Deterministic Replacement
$/lb 1.2
Steam
Generated 1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
tr
0
time
Where on the increasing operating cost curve is it economically

justifiable to make a replacement (that is, clean the air heater) ?
© A.K.S. JARDINE 5
Optimization Problem (Section 2.2, page 30)
Cost / unit time

1.2
1
Total cost
0.8
0.6 Operating cost (flue)
0.4
0.2
Replacement cost
(cleaning cost)
0
tr
Optimal tr
tr – interval between replacement.
© A.K.S. JARDINE 6
Model Development
Cr c(t) : operating cost at time t

Cost Cr : total cost of replacement
tr : interval between
c(t) component replacement
t
tr
C(tr) : total cost / unit time
tr
∫ c ( t ) dt + C r
0
C (tr ) =
tr
© A.K.S. JARDINE 7
Model Development
Optimal value of tr at C´(tr) = 0.
This gives optimal tr when:
c(tr) = C(tr)
That is, when current operating cost = average cost to date
© A.K.S. JARDINE 8
Example
Air filter change:

Cr = $20 Km / month driven = 2000 Gas cost = $0.75/litre
Assuming 15 km/litre when new, then month 1 cost = $100.00
t(month) c(t) C(t)

1 100 120
2 105 (20+100+105)/2=112.5
3 110 (20+100+105+110)/3=111.7
4 112 111.75
© A.K.S. JARDINE 9
Example
Therefore replace at end of month three, since:
c(t) >= C(t)
Next period O and M cost, c(t), is greater than average cost to date, C(t).
Cost ($)/month
120 111.75
112.5
111.67
0 1 2 3 4
t (month)
2C r
Note: If c(t) = a + bt, then tr * =
b
© A.K.S. JARDINE 10
For Preventive Replacement
Cost minimization
Check two conditions:
1. Total cost of a failure replacement is
greater than total cost of a preventive
replacement
2. Wear-out effect occurring
For Preventive Replacement
Availability maximization/downtime
minimization
Check two conditions:
1. Total outage (downtime) of a failure
replacement is greater than total
outage (downtime) of a preventive
replacement
2. Wear-out effect occurring
RCM Methodology Logic
Optimize the plan
Time-Based Discard
• Operating hours
• Calendar time
• Cycles
– Operating
– Launch
Preventive Replacement Cost Conflicts
Optimal Replacement Time

Total Cost Per Week, C (tp)
$/Week
Failure Replacement
Cost/Week
Preventive Replacement
Cost/Week
tp
Optimal Value of tp
Constant Interval Replacement Policy
(Section 2.4, page 39)
Cf Cf
New
Item Cp Cp Cp Cp
tp tp tp tp t
Construction of Model
Cp: total cost of a preventive replacement

[labour, parts, outage cost, etc.]
Cf: total cost of a failure replacement.
f(t): p.d.f. of failure times.
C(tp): total cost per unit time for preventive

replacement at intervals of length tp, plus
failure replacements as required.
We have:
Cf Cf Cp
tp
One cycle
Expected cost / cycle Cp + H(tp)Cf

C(tp) = =
Cycle length tp
Where H(tp) = expected number of renewals in interval (0,tp)
Age Age-based Replacement Policy
( Section 2.5, Page 49)
Cf Cf
New
Item Cp Cp Cp
tp tp tp t
Optimal Preventive Replacement Age
of Equipment Subject to Breakdown
Failure Failure
replacement replacement
Preventive Preventive
replacement replacement
tp tp
0 Time
Determination of Optimal Preventive
Replacement Age
Construction of model:
Cp, Cf & f(t) as before.

There are two possible cycles:
Cp Cf
0 tp 0 M(tp)
GOOD FAILED
CYCLE CYCLE
Determination of Optimal Preventive
Replacement Age
Construction of model:
C(tp) = total cost / unit time
when preventive replacement occur at
age tp.
Expected cost / cycle

C(tp) =
Expected cycle length
Cp * R(tp) + Cf * [ 1 – R(tp) ]
C(tp) =
tp * R(tp) + M(tp) * [1 – R(tp)]
Note:
Age-based policy is cheaper than the interval

policy but disadvantage is:
- age-based policy is more “difficult”

to implement.
- need to keep a record of component age.
- need to reschedule.
Use of “Glasser’s Graphs” to Establish Optimal
Preventive Replacement Interval and Age
Assumptions:
1) Failure distribution is Weibull.
2) Know ratio Cf /Cp
3) The graph is designed for cost minimization.
Source: Glasser, Planned Replacement: Some Theory and its Application, Journal of Quality
Technology, Vol.1 No.2, April 1969
Use of “Glasser’s Graphs” to Establish Optimal
Preventive Replacement Interval and Age
Solution Procedure:
1) Obtain cost ratio, K = Cf /Cp
2) Obtain ratio, υ = µ/σ.
3) Obtain ‘Z’ value from graph.
4) tp = µ + Zσ.
Glasser graph
Figure 2.37
Example:
Determine optimal preventive replacement interval to

minimize total cost.
Cp = $5, Cf = $10, f(t) ~ N(5,1)
N.B. Since Weibull can represent a normal distribution

(with β = 3.5) we can use Glasser’s graph.
Sugar Refinery Centrifuge Case
Wet Sugar
Sugar Refinery
Centrifuge
Dry Sugar
36 Problems Top
6 Analyzed 5
Months Data
Failure frequency: cloth interval
CLASS CUMULATIVE CLASS CUMULATIVE
INTERVAL FREQUENCY RELATIVE INTERVAL FREQUENCY RELATIVE
(weeks) FREQUENCY (%) (weeks) FREQUENCY (%)
0 < 2 24 10.5 26 < 28 4 86.9
2 < 4 36 26.2 28 < 30 1 87.3
4 < 6 27 38.0 30 < 32 4 89.1
6 < 8 23 48.0 32 < 34 4 90.8
8 < 10 15 54.6 34 < 36 5 93.1
10 < 12 9 58.5 36 < 38 2 93.9
12 < 14 12 63.8 38 < 40 2 94.8
14 < 16 11 68.6 40 < 42 2 95.6
16 < 18 13 74.2 42 < 44 2 96.5
18 < 20 4 76.0 44 < 46 2 97.4
20 < 22 12 81.2 50 < 52 4 99.1
22 < 24 5 83.4 56 < 58 1 99.6
24 < 26 4 85.2 76 < 78 1 100.0
TOTAL: 229
Parameter Estimation for Cloth Replacement
Cloth Replacement 229
Estimation point 1
13 13
0
β =1
η estimator
Perpendicular
µ=η=13
η=13
13
Bearing Replacement
Historical Data
12 25 9 13 19
Shortest Time : 9 weeks

Longest time: 25 weeks To-day
Then: Establish risk of bearing failing as it ages
Median Ranks (See Table A2.1
& Appendix 8)
When only a few failure observations are available

(say ≤ 20) use is made of median rank tables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 50 29.289 20.630 15.910 12.945 10.910 9.428 8.300 7.412 6.697 6.107 5.613
2 70.711 50.000 38.573 31.381 26.445 22.849 20.113 17.962 16.226 14.796 13.598
3 79.370 61.427 50.000 42.141 36.412 32.052 28.624 25.857 23.578 21.669
4 84.090 68.619 57.859 50.000 44.015 39.308 35.510 32.390 29.758
5 87.055 73.555 63.588 55.984 50.000 45.169 41.189 37.853
6 89.090 77.151 67.948 60.691 54.811 50.000 45.951
7 90.572 79.887 71.376 64.490 58.811 54.049
8 91.700 82.018 74.142 67.620 62.147
9 92.587 83.774 76.421 70.242
10 93.303 85.204 78.331
11 93.893 86.402
12 94.387
Median Ranks
Example: Bearing failures times (in weeks):
12, 25, 9, 13, 19.
From median rank tables:
1st failure time 13.0% 9 weeks
2nd failure time 31.5% 12 weeks
3rd failure time 50.0% 13 weeks
4th failure time 68.6% 19 weeks
5th failure time 87.1% 25 weeks
By using the median rank for the second ordered observation where we are
estimating that 31.5% of the population will have failed. There is a 50%
probability that the true % of failures will be below and above 31.5%. That is
half the time we’ll be underestimating it and half the time we’ll be
overestimating it.
Failure Distribution
Bearing Failure Distribution
0.06
f(t) 0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Time
The Best Time
• Risk curve
• Economics
(Cf & Cp)
• Blend to
establish the
optimal tp
PUMP FAILURE DATA
RUNNING SUSPENSION
TIME TO OR
FAILURE CENSORED
(MONTHS) TIME
3
6 6
9
∴ MEAN LIFE = ? MONTHS

PUMP FAILURE DATA
1 FAILURE
2
3
10
Testing Time (10 weeks)
4 F + 6 Suspensions
Source: AHC Tsang
PUMP FAILURE DATA
NEW
P.R P.R. P.R. F.R. F.R. P.R. P.R. F.R. P.R.
s S S F F S S F S
× × × × × × × × ×
3F + 6S
Failure Suspension (or
censored
observation)
Suspensions (See A2.7, page 255)
(Sometimes termed censored data)
45
1.2
f(t) 40
F(t) 1.2 h(t)
1 1
35
30 0.8
0.8
25
0.6 0.6
20
15 0.4 0.4
10
0.2 0.2
5
0 0 0
p.d..f t c.d.f t H.R t
1 2 3
3 2 1
t
∫− r (t ) dt h(t)
f(t) = h(t)[1-F(t)] F (t ) = 1 − e 0
When dealing with grouped multiply censored data
we proceed as above.
WATER PUMP FAILURE
NOTE: Suspension TIME TO FAILURE NUMBER OF NUMBER OF

means that when the (MILES X 103) FAILURES SUSPENSIONS
0 < 5 0 1
data was collected,
5 < 10 2 4
the water pump was 10 < 15 3 3
still operational. For 15 < 20 2 3
example, the 4 20 < 25 1 1
suspensions in the 25 < 30 3 1
class 5000 - 10,000 30 < 35 3 0
miles means that 4 35 < 40 1 3
pumps had not failed 40 < 45 1 7
and had been in 45 < 50 0 2
operation for 50 < 55 1 4
between 5000 and 55 < 60 1 7
60 < 65 0 6
10,000 miles.
65 < 70 0 3
70 < 75 2 1
75 < 80 0 1
80 < 85 0 1
Parameter Estimation for Water Pump
Water Pump 68
Estimation point 1.5
85000 94000
Pµ=58% 0
β =1.5
η estimator
Perpendicular
µ=85000 miles
η=94000 miles
13
Life-time distribution of water pumps
MEAN TIME
TO FAILURE
MILES x 103
0 50 100 150 200 250
MEAN = 85,000 MILES
Analysis of Censored Data (Table A2.12,
page 260)
When censoring takes place then the value of F(t) which is required for
Weibull plotting of the failure data is obtained via the cumulative failure
rate as illustrated in the following table:
Sugar Feed Failures and Censorings
Class S t +δt + S t −δt Instantaneous Failure rate F (T ) = 1 − e − Σr ( t )
Weeks F C S 2 Observed h(t) Cumulative
0< 1 9 5 89 82.0 0.110 0.110 0.104 F = Frequency of Failure
1< 2 16 1 75 66.5 0.241 0.351 0.296 C = Censoring Frequency
2< 3 9 2 58 52.5 0.171 0.522 0.407 S = Survivors at
3< 4 7 2 47 42.5 0.165 0.687 0.497 Commencement of Interval
4< 5 2 5 38 34.5 0.058 0.745 0.525 r(t) = f/|(St-δt + St+δt)/2|
5< 6 2 12 31 24.0 0.083 0.828 0.563
6< 7 3 0 17 15.5 0.194 1.022 0.640
7< 8 2 1 14 12.5 0.160 1.182 0.693
8< 9 2 0 11 10.0 0.200 1.382 0.749
9 < 10 0 2 9 8.0 0.000 1.382 0.749
10 < 11 0 0 7 7.0 0.000 1.382 0.749
11 < 12 1 1 7 6.0 0.167 1.549 0.788
12 < 13 0 0 5 5.0 0.000 1.549 0.788
13 < 14 1 1 5 4.0 0.250 1.799 0.835
14 < 15 1 2 3 1.5 0.667 2.466 0.915
Σ=55 Σ=34
ΣΣ=89
Parameter Estimation for Sugar Feed
Sugar feed 89
Estimation point Censored data 0.8
7.0 6.6
0
̭
β =0.8
η estimator
Perpendicular
̭
η=6.60 weeks
13
T-33 Silver Star Aircraft
The T33 aircraft engine is supplied with fuel provided by two fuel pumps (upper and lower).
The fuel system design is such that either pump can provide the necessary fuel pressure and
quantity to operate the engine satisfactorily. That is, the system is redundant and the failure of
a pump is not a catastrophic event.
The decision to be arrived at is: Should the pump be removed after “x” hours and overhauled
and relifed, or should we repair/overhaul it after failure only?
Failure Data
Collected over a 2-year period. Censored items represent a “snapshot” of all pumps still
operating successfully on one specific day.
Interval Failures Censored Items
(Hours) Upper Lower Upper Lower
0 – 200 1 2 7 5
200 – 400 5 1 6 5
400 – 600 10 1 5 1
600 – 800 4 1 4 10
800 – 1000 1 1 6 3
1000 – 1200 6 1 9 3
1200 – 1400 2 1 10 6
1400 – 1600 2 1 0 4
1600 – 1800 4 2 0 4
Pump Failure Data
Class Interval Failures Censored
(Hours) Observations
0 200 1 7
200 400 5 6
400 600 10 5
600 800 4 4
800 1000 1 6
1000 1200 6 9
1200 1400 2 10
1400 1600 2 0
1600 1800 4 0 Analysis of Pump Failure Data
Class F C h(t) Σh(t) F(t)
0 200 1 7 .01282 .0128 .0127
200 400 5 6 .07288 .0858 .0822
400 600 10 5 .18018 .2660 .2336
600 800 4 4 .0908 .3569 .3002
800 1000 1 6 .0274 .3843 .3191
1000 1200 6 9 .2353 .6196 .4618
1200 1400 2 10 .0833 .7863 .5445
1400 1600 2 0 .4000 1.1863 .6947
1600 1800 4 0 1.000 2.1863 .8877
Number of Failures in the Interval

h(t) =
Average Number of Items at Risk in the Interval
Fuel Pump Failures 82
Estimation point Endpoints of Intervals 2.25
1170 1320
0
̭
β =2.25
Perpendicular
η estimator
̭
η=1320 hours
13
Order Number (A 2.7, page 255)
Time Failure /
(hours) Suspension
544 F
663 F
802 S
827 S Sample
897 F
size n = 10
914 F
939 S
1084 F
1099 F Source: Handling Ungrouped Censored Data,Table11.13 in
Reliability in Engineering Design, K.C. Kapur and L. Lamberson,
1202 S Wiley, 1977
Order Number
Order Number = Previous Order Number + INC
(n + 1) – previous order number

INC = I =
1 + (number of items following
suspended set )
Order Number
Now create a new table giving order number for each
failure and associated median rank
Time Order Number Median Rank
544 1 0.067
663 2 0.163
897 2+1.29=3.29 0.288
914 3.29+1.29=4.58 0.411
1084 4.58+1.6=6.18 0.565
1099 6.18+1.6=7.78 0.719
I = [(10 + 1) – 2] / (1 + 6 ) = 1.29
Order Number
Note:
We continue with same increment until another
suspended item is encountered.
I (for failure at 1084):

I = [(10 + 1) – 4.58] / (1 + 3) = 1.60
To obtain median rank value we use a sample of size 10.
Can now proceed to a Weibull plot to obtain β etc.
CATERPILLAR D10N Track-Type Tractor
Steering Clutch, L.H.
(from a group of 6 CAT D10 Dozers)
MG707 Failure Replacement
7979 h 2027 h 9671 h
New Today
Failure intervals (F) 7979 h, 2027 h

Suspension interval (S) 9671 h
Assume Clutch re-built to “as new” condition
(assumption can be checked)
Similar data obtained for 5 other

dozers F=7, S=6, ∴Sample Size = 13
Statistical Analysis of Failure Data

From Weibull analysis: MTTF = 6500 h β = 1.79
Cost Data
CP = $5640 Labour: 16 * $40/h = $ 640
Parts 2600
Vehicle off the road (VOR)
(8 h * $300/h) = 2400
$ 5640
Cf = $7160 Labour: 24 * $40/h = $ 960

Parts 2600
VOR (12 h * $300/h) = 3600
$ 7160
Cheapest Policy: Replace only on Failure (R-o-o-F) @ $1.10/hr
Remarks: L.H. Steering Clutch
A run-to-failure policy was a surprising

conclusion since the clutch was exhibiting
wearout characteristics. However, the
economic considerations did not justify
preventive replacement according to a fixed-
time maintenance policy.
Checking the fit of a distribution:
Use of the K-S test.( Section A2.6, page 251)
We have obtained 5 component failure times, in

hours. Ordered they are:
1,5,6,8 and10
The mean and standard deviation of these times
are 6 and 3.4.
Can we accept the hypothesis that the component
fails according to a normal distribution with mean =
6 hours and standard deviation = 3.4 hours?
Kolmogorov – Smirnov
Goodness-Of-Fit Test
Need to check:
^
|F(ti) – F(ti)|
Max of =d
^
|F(ti) – F(t i -1)|
Kolmogorov – Smirnov
Goodness-Of-Fit Test
^ )|
^ )|
|F(ti)-F(t i -1 F(t) |F(ti) -F(t i
1
0.9
F(t) 0.8
0.7
0.6 ^
0.5 F(ti)
0.4
0.3
0.2 ^
0.1 F(ti-1)
0
ti -1 ti t
Example
From data we get:
^
µ^ = 6 σ = 3.4
f(t) 45
40
35
30
N ( 6 , 3.4 )
25
20
0.390
15
0.070 µ σ
10
0
t
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Example
F(ti)
^
F(t ) for n=5
i
^
|F(ti) – F(t i-1)|
ti (hours) From tables d
of Normal Median rank ^
|F(ti) –F(ti)| Using F(t=0)=0
Distribution
1 0.070 0.129 0.059 0.07

5 0.390 0.314 0.076 0.261 0.261
6 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.186
8 0.720 0.686 0.034 0.220
10 0.870 0.871 0.009 0.194
Overall Maximum
Proceed to table of the K-S Statistic
f(t) 1.2
0.8
0.6 α = 20%
0.4
0.2
0
d
0.446
Observed difference = 0.261
Therefore do not reject Ho that items can be assumed to fail

according to a normal distribution with:
MTTF = 6 hours
Standard deviation = 3.4 hours
Source: F. J. Massey, Jr., JASA, March 1951, Vol. 46, No. 53, p. 70
Recall K-S Test – Level of significance
1.2
0.8 α = 10%
Type I error
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
d
Do not Reject Ho Reject Ho
CRITICAL VALUE AT 10%

Recall K-S Test – Level of significance
1.2
0.8
When using K-S test we have Ho as:
α = 10%
0.6
Type I error Weibull with a specified β and η.
0.4
0.2
0
d
Do not Reject Ho Reject Ho
CRITICAL VALUE AT 10%
We calculate dmax and compare to table value.

If dmax < critical value, then we do not reject Ho.
OREST Outputs
Weibull parameter estimates (see table

2.15, page 86)
Cost optimization curve for interval
and age replacement (see Figure 2.39,
page 87)
Spare parts provisioning (Preventive
replacement spares)
CP Rail
A SUCCESS STORY IN THE ANALYSIS OF
FAILURE DATA: CP RAIL
COMPONENT POWER TRACTION TURBO-

ASSEMBLY MOTOR CHARGER
ALTERNATIVES • REPLACE
WITH NEW MAJOR SEND TO GM
• WASH & OVERHAUL FOR REBUILD
WEAR
• OVERHAUL
FORMER WASH & WEAR OVERHAUL REBUILD

POLICY AT 5 YRS AT 5 YRS AT 2 YRS
NEW OVERHAUL RUN TO RUN TO

POLICY AT 4 YRS FAILURE FAILURE
SAVING $ 410,000/YR
$$>>4000,000/YR
400,000/YR $$ >>5000,000/YR
500,000/YR
GRAND BENEFIT: > $ 1,310,000/YR

Repairable System Maintenance
Chronological Order Important
12 25 9 13 19 Non-committal
System
9 12 13 19 25 Happy
System
Sad
25 19 13 12 9 System
See pages 267 – 270 of textbook for Laplace trend test
Repairable System Maintenance
Repairable System: A system which, after failing
to perform at least one of its required functions,
can be restored to perform all of its functions
by any method, other than replacement of the
entire system.
Maintenance Strategy: Possibly look at
parameters other than “age” e.g. vibration,
metal deposits in oil → CBM.
Source: H. Ascher and H. Fiengold, Repairable Systems Reliability, Marcel Dekker,1984
For further reading on the statistical analysis of repairable systems see:

Wayne B. Nelson: Recurrent Events Data Analysis for Product Repairs, Disease Recurrences, and
Applications, ASA-SIAM, 2003
RCM Methodology Logic
Minimal Repair
r(t)
Minimal repair times
time
Minimal and General Repair
Renewal time
r(t)
Minimal repair time
General repair
time
Minimal repair
time
time
Time Based Maintenance
(Minimal & General repair)
Run Time X
Boundary for
X1 Preventive
Replacement
X2 Acceptable
X3 Operating Region
θX1 θX2 θX3

V0 V1 V2 Virtual age V
C2
C0 (Cost Limit
Between C1
Replacement
minimal repair Minimal Repair Region
and general) Region
repair)
General Repair
Cp
Region
Repair Cost
A case study on repair versus maintain
versus replace
Transformers: De-Energised Tapchangers (DTC)
Cost new: $ 150,000.00
Key components experiencing failures:
1. Primary and secondary windings each installed on a laminated iron core
2. Internal insulating mediums
3. Main tank
4. Bushings
Others include cooling system, off circuit tap-changer, under-load tap-changer,
current and potential transformers and mechanism cabinets
For repairable systems one requires the degree of improvement of a component’s
performance subsequent to repair.
For windings it was concluded that degree of repair was 80%. Thus, changing the
core and windings of the transformer reduced the life of the transformer by 0.8.
A case study on repair versus maintain
versus replace (Cont.)
Thus if a 20 year old transformer has its core and

windings replaced the virtual age of the
transformer would be (20 - 0.8 x 20) = 4 years
Similar degrees of repair were investigated for

other transformer components
Spare Parts Provisioning:
Insurance Spares
Section 2.11, page 74
© A.K.S. JARDINE
Critical/emergency/capital
spares
Your
critical spare
© A.K.S. JARDINE
77
Your capital spares
• TURBINE
• Switch GEAR
• PRESS ROLL
• TRANSFORMER
Real world research
Managing Risk: A Spares Optimization Tool
Research Team
Research Students Research Staff
Sharareh Taghipur (Medical Devices) Dr. Dragan Banjevic, Project Director
Kelly Kinahan (Spare Parts Provisioning) Dr. Daming Lin, Research Associate
Robert Svaluto (Spare Parts Provisioning) Neil Montgomery, Research Associate
Lorna Wong (Repairable Systems) Frank Pirrillo. Programmer/analyst
Will Luff (Condition-Based Maintenance) Veena Kumar, Research Assistant
Janet Sung (Condition-Based Maintenance) Research Fellows
Corey Kiassat (Condition-Based
Maintnenance) Dr. Ali Zuashkiani (Maintenance
performance measurement)
Pedram Sahba (Spare Parts Provisioning)
Dr. Nima Safaei (Maintenance Scheduling)
Dr. Behzad Ghodrati (Spares provisioning)
Principal Investigator Collaborating Researcher

Prof. Andrew K.S. Jardine Professor Baris Balcioglu ( Spares
Provisioning)
Spare Parts Provisioning: Slow-
moving Spares
© A.K.S. JARDINE
Repairable Spares
System
Stock
OUT OF STOCK
Repair Shop
Criteria for Decision Making
1.Instant reliability
2.Interval reliability
3.Cost minimization
4.(Process) Availability
Conveyor Systems: Electric Motors (Table 2.12, Page 80)
Number of motors 62
Scenario
Planning Horizon 1825 Days (5 years)
Reliability and MTBRemovals 3000 Days (8 years)
Maintainability MTTRepair 80 Days
Cost of spare motor $15,000
Value of unused spare $10,000
Cost Cost of emergency spare $75,000
Downtime cost $1000/day
Holding cost $4.11/day
QUESTION: HOW MANY SPARE PARTS TO STOCK?
Results: Repairable Motors
• Instant reliability: 95% reliability requires 4 spares

• Interval reliability: 95% reliability requires 7 spares
• Cost minimization: requires 6 spares.
• Availability of 99%: requires 2 spares.
Reference Case
Population 100 transformers
Failure Rate 0.005

failures/transformer/yr
Repair Time 1 yr
Replacement Time 0.001yr
Interval 1 yr
Repairable Instantaneous Reliability
Vary Spares
1
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.94
Reliability
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.9
1 2 3 4 5
Spares
Non-Repairable Spares
discard discard discard discard discard

Failure
time
Out of
Supplier Stock
Stock
Non-Repairable Fume fan shaft: Steel mill
• Spares provisioning optimization project
• Part: Fume fan shaft used in a Blast Furnace

• Decision: Should there be 0 or 1 spares?
• Complication:
• Part has long lifespan (25-40 years).
• Long lead time (22 weeks).
• If part fails, results are catastrophic (loss of almost $6 million
per week).
• Inventories are trying to be minimized.
SMS was used to quantify the risk involved in not having a spare
Decision support
How many spares – Fume fan shaft?
MTBF Vs Reliability with 22 week LT
100.5
100
99.5
99 0 spares
1 spare
98.5 2 spares
R eliability
98
97.5
97
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Mean time between failures
TURBINE
• Repairable component
• 7 in use in a transmission pipe line
• MTBReplacements: 50,000 hours = 500 weeks (approx)
• MTTRepair: 12 weeks
• Cost new: $1,500,000
• Planning horizon: 1 year
Use SMS to determine how many spares to stock.
Atlantic LNG
Compressor Dry Gas Seals for single LNG train
• Repairable component
• 20 in use in LNG plant
• MTBReplacements: 48 months
• MTTRepair: 3.5 months
• Cost new: $110,000
• Planning horizon: 5 years
Use SMS to determine how many spares to stock.
Maintenance Management
Component Replacement Decisions:
Problems (pp 89 -97)
• Using mathematical models: Problems 1

–5
• Using Glasser’s graphs: Problems 6 -11
• Using OREST software: Problems 12 –
16
Answers: Pages 309 - 310

2-Chapter Two Comp Repl Decisions 2010 (Compatibility Mode)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2-Chapter Two Comp Repl Decisions 2010 (Compatibility Mode)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2

Optimizing Equipment Maintenance and Replacement Decisions

Component Inspection Capital Equipment Resource

Maintenance Management System (CMMS/EAM/ERP)

Cold air Hot flue gases

Hot air Fuel

Where on the increasing operating cost curve is it economically

Cost / unit time

0.6 Operating cost (flue)

Cr c(t) : operating cost at time t

Optimal value of tr at C´(tr) = 0.

This gives optimal tr when:

That is, when current operating cost = average cost to date

Air filter change:

t(month) c(t) C(t)

c(t) >= C(t)

Optimal Replacement Time

Cp: total cost of a preventive replacement

Cf: total cost of a failure replacement.

f(t): p.d.f. of failure times.

C(tp): total cost per unit time for preventive

Expected cost / cycle Cp + H(tp)Cf

Where H(tp) = expected number of renewals in interval (0,tp)

Cp, Cf & f(t) as before.

Expected cost / cycle

Age-based policy is cheaper than the interval

- age-based policy is more “difficult”

- need to keep a record of component age.

1) Failure distribution is Weibull.

2) Know ratio Cf /Cp

3) The graph is designed for cost minimization.

1) Obtain cost ratio, K = Cf /Cp

2) Obtain ratio, υ = µ/σ.

3) Obtain ‘Z’ value from graph.

Determine optimal preventive replacement interval to

Cp = $5, Cf = $10, f(t) ~ N(5,1)

N.B. Since Weibull can represent a normal distribution

Shortest Time : 9 weeks

Then: Establish risk of bearing failing as it ages

When only a few failure observations are available

Bearing Failure Distribution

∴ MEAN LIFE = ? MONTHS

p.d..f t c.d.f t H.R t

NOTE: Suspension TIME TO FAILURE NUMBER OF NUMBER OF

Number of Failures in the Interval

Order Number = Previous Order Number + INC

(n + 1) – previous order number

I (for failure at 1084):

To obtain median rank value we use a sample of size 10.

Can now proceed to a Weibull plot to obtain β etc.

MG707 Failure Replacement

7979 h 2027 h 9671 h

Failure intervals (F) 7979 h, 2027 h

Similar data obtained for 5 other

Statistical Analysis of Failure Data

Cf = $7160 Labour: 24 * $40/h = $ 960

A run-to-failure policy was a surprising

We have obtained 5 component failure times, in

1 0.070 0.129 0.059 0.07

Therefore do not reject Ho that items can be assumed to fail

CRITICAL VALUE AT 10%

CRITICAL VALUE AT 10%

We calculate dmax and compare to table value.