A life cycle cost based approach of O&M support for mechanical systems | International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A life cycle cost based approach of O&M support for mechanical systems

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Performance of mechanical systems over their life cycle is the main concern of users. Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of such systems are made to deliver customized products with documented support to meet the objective. The product support is of various kinds, one of these is operation and maintenance (O&M) support. Cost incurred for each support action adds to the system life cycle cost (LCC) and therefore, a trade-off between O&M support, operational objectives and design characteristics is required to optimize the LCC. In this paper, important issues are identified for O&M support of mechanical systems and steps are proposed. Mathematical models are developed to assess the support objectives i.e. LCC and operational availability of the system. The LCC takes into accounts the acquisition cost and discounted sum of support activity cost, which consist of operating cost, inspection, corrective, preventive, overhaul and logistic cost. The proposed methodology has been implemented on a real life problem, in which the OEM provides O&M support to their compressors, installed at compressed natural gas workstation in national capital region, India. The results shows that a vital saving can be made in system’s LCC, when the support has been optimized in context to preventive maintenance, viz: age based at system level, while group maintenance based on optimum replacement interval and components’ scale parameter of their failure distribution. The sensitivity analysis validated the robustness of the solution methodology and the obtained results. This work will be helpful to OEMs, customers, academician, researchers, industrialists, and other concerned persons, in understanding the importance, severity and benefits obtained by the application and implementation of the O&M support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

a:

Restoration factor

A:

Operational availability

Caq :

Acquisition cost of a system

\( \,{\text{C}}_{{{\text{C}}_{\text{i}} }} \) :

Cost of ith subassembly within the system

Cfix :

Fixed cost to perform each corrective or preventive action, which includes the cost of material required like lubricating oil, etc.

CfixOH :

Fixed cost to perform the overhaul that includes the cost of material required like lubricating oil, etc.

CfixI :

Fixed cost associated with every inspection action

d:

Discount rate per annum

Di :

Demand of ith subassembly per annum

dij :

Distance from demand location i to a candidate site j

E[CCA]:

Expected cost of corrective action during any investigation period for a system

E[Ch]:

Expected cost of holding the spares during any investigation period for a system

E[CIA]:

Expected cost of inspection during any investigation period for a system

E[CL]:

Expected logistics cost during any investigation period for a system

\( {\text{E}}\left[ {{\text{C}}_{\text{OH}} } \right] \) :

Expected cost of overhauls during any investigation period for a system

\( {\text{E}}\left[ {{\text{C}}_{\text{op}} } \right] \) :

Expected operation cost during any investigation period for a system

E[CPA]:

Expected cost of preventive action during any investigation period for a system

E[CT]:

Expected cost of transportation of spares during any investigation period for a system

E[NCAi]:

Expected number of corrective action of ith subassembly in the system

E[NIi]:

Expected number of inspection of ith subassembly in the system

E[NOHi]:

Expected number of overhauls of ith subassembly in the system

E[NPAi]:

Expected number of preventive action of ith subassembly in the system

E[ST]:

Expected cost of O&M support during any investigation period for a system

E[TDT]:

Expected downtime for which the system is not available

L:

Operating life of the system, in years

Lc :

Labour cost per unit time

LPCA :

Lost of average sales of product per unit time, during the uneven breakdown or failures

LPPA :

Lost of average sales of product per unit time due to preventive actions

m:

Support activities during a planned operating period

MTTCAi :

Mean time to perform the corrective action on ith subassembly of the system

MTTIi :

Mean time to perform inspection on ith subassembly of the system

MTTOHi :

Mean time to perform overhauls on ith subassembly of the system

MTTPAi :

Mean time to perform the preventive action on ith subassembly of the system

N(t/V):

Conditional number of failure

O:

No. of operators required for operating the system

Oc :

Overhead cost per unit demand

P:

Profit generated per unit of product sold

Pt:

Preventive maintenance schedule

PVc:

Present value of LCC

RL :

Revenue lost due to maintenance actions

S:

Salary of one operator per day

Sc :

Storage cost per unit

SSC :

Supervisory staff cost per unit

T:

Total time

Topr :

Actual operating time

ti :

Inspection interval for ith subassembly of the system

tOHi :

Overhaul interval for ith subassembly of the system

tpmi :

Preventive maintenance interval for ith subassembly of the system

V n :

Virtual age of the unit at the time of the nth repair completion

V(n−1)i :

Virtual age of the component before carrying out a particular maintenance action

X n :

Preventive maintenance interval

Y:

Required level of availability

αi :

Cost per unit distance per unit demand

β:

Shape factor, defines the shape of distribution in Weibull

η:

Scale parameter, defines where the bulk of the distribution lies in Weibull

References

  • Asjad M, Kulkarni MS, Gandhi OP (2012) A conceptual framework for analysing, improving and optimising supportability of mechanical systems. Int J Strateg Eng Asset Manag 1(2):135–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabady J, Kumar U (2007) Availability allocation through importance measures. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 24(6):643–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow RE, Hunter LC (1960) Optimum preventive maintenance policies. Oper Res 8:90–100

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Beichelt F (1993) A unifying treatment of replacement policies with minimal repair. Nav Res Logist 40:51–67

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard BS (2006) Logistics engineering and management, 6th edn. Prentice-Hall India Private Limited, New Delhi, pp 465–495

    Google Scholar 

  • Das K, Lashkari RS, Sengupta S (2007) Machine reliability and preventive maintenance planning for cellular manufacturing systems. Eur J Oper Res 183:162–180

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Goffin K (1999) Customer support a cross-industry study of distribution channels and strategies. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 29(6):374–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatch M, Badinelli RD (1999) A concurrent optimization methodology for concurrent engineering. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 46(1):72–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull DL, Cox JF (1994) The field service function in the electronics industry: providing a link between customers and production/marketing. Int J Prod Econ 37(1):115–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones JA, Warrington L (2010) Generic approach for deriving reliability and maintenance requirements through consideration of in-context customer objectives. J Risk Reliab 224:105–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Kijima M (1989) Some results for repairable systems with general repair. J Appl Probab 26:89–102

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Knezevic J (1993) Reliability, maintainability, and supportability: a probabilistic approach. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lad BK, Kulkarni MS (2012) Optimal maintenance schedule decisions for machine tools considering the user’s cost structure. Int J Prod Res 50(20):5859–5871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markeset T, Kumar U (2003) Design and development of product support and maintenance concepts for industrial systems. J Qual Maint Eng 9(4):376–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse PM (1958) Queues, inventories, and maintenance. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa T (2008) Advanced reliability models and maintenance policies. Springer-Verlag Limited, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pham H, Wang H (1996) Imperfect maintenance. Eur J Oper Res 94:425–438

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Scarf PA, Dwight R, Al-Musrati A (2005) On reliability criteria and the implied cost of failure for a maintained component. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 89(2):199–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheu S-H (1998) A generalized age and block replacement of a system subject to shocks. Eur J Oper Res 108(2):345–362

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sheu S-H, Chien Y-H (2004) Optimal age-replacement policy of a system subject to shocks with random lead-time. Eur J Oper Res 159(1):132–144

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H (2002) A survey of maintenance policies of deteriorating systems. Eur J Oper Res 139(3):469–489

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Pham H (2006) Reliability and optimal maintenance. Springer-Verlag London Limited, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to the M/S Burckhardt Compression Limited, Pune, Maharashtra (India), for agreeing to jointly work with us in this research study. We express our heartfelt appreciation of Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. R. K. Sachdeva, of Burckhardt Compression Limited, for sharing their experience with us.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IIT Delhi, New Delhi, India

    Mohammad Asjad, Makarand S. Kulkarni & O. P. Gandhi

Authors
  1. Mohammad Asjad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Makarand S. Kulkarni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. O. P. Gandhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Asjad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Asjad, M., Kulkarni, M.S. & Gandhi, O.P. A life cycle cost based approach of O&M support for mechanical systems. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 4, 159–172 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-013-0156-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-013-0156-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation