Component Preventive Replacement Decisions

Component Preventive
Replacement Decisions
Andrew K S Jardine
CBM Laboratory
Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
University of Toronto
Canada
jardine@mie.utoronto.ca
August 2006
www.ipamc.org
Making Systems more Reliable through
Component Replacement
www.ipamc.org
Andrew Jardine, CBM Lab 2
“Inspection Decisions including Condition-Based Maintenance”
Weibull Distribution
β -1
β ⎛t−γ ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ t − γ ⎞ β⎞
f (t ) = ⎜ ⎟ exp⎜⎜ − ⎜ ⎟ ⎟⎟
η⎝ η ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ η ⎠ ⎠
⎛ ⎛ t − γ ⎞ β⎞
R(t ) = exp⎜⎜ − ⎜ ⎟ ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ η ⎠ ⎠
β: Shape parameter
η: Scale parameter
γ: Location parameter
www.ipamc.org
Shape Parameter, β
ß = 0.5
ß = 5.0 γ=0
ß = 3.44
ß = 2.5
f(t)
ß = 1.0
0
0 www.ipamc.org
t
Shape Parameter, β
Hazard rate, h (t)
β = 2.5
β = 1.0
β = 0.5
? t
www.ipamc.org
Commercially Available Software
for Weibull Analysis
• OREST (www.banak-inc.com)
• Weibull ++ (weibull.reliasoft.com)
• RelCode (www.albanyint.com.au))
• M-Analyst (www.m-tech.co.za)
Etc.
www.ipamc.org
System Hazard Function
Equipment Life Periods
Infant Useful Life Wearout
Mortality
Failure
Rate,
Overall Life
Risk, or Characteristic Curve
Hazard
function
Stress Related
Failures
Quality Wearout
Failures Failures
Time
www.ipamc.org
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
www.ipamc.org
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
www.ipamc.org
RCM Methodology Logic
www.ipamc.org
Optimize the plan
Time-Based Discard
• Operating hours
• Calendar time
• Cycles
– Operating
– Launch
www.ipamc.org
Preventive Replacement Cost Conflicts
Optimal Replacement Time
Total Cost/Week
C(tp)
$/Week
Failure Replacement
Cost/Week
Preventive Replacement
Cost/Week
tp
Optimal t p
www.ipamc.org
Constant Interval Replacement Policy
Cf Cf
New
Item Cp Cp Cp Cp
tp tp tp tp t
www.ipamc.org
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.
www.ipamc.org
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)

www.ipamc.org
Age-based Replacement Policy
Cp Cf Cf Cp Cp
New
Item
tp tp tp
www.ipamc.org
Optimal Preventive Replacement Age of
Equipment Subject to Breakdown
Failure Failure
replacement replacement
Preventive Preventive
replacement replacement
tp tp
0 Time
www.ipamc.org
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
www.ipamc.org
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)] www.ipamc.org
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.
www.ipamc.org
Sugar Refinery Centrifuge Case
Wet Sugar
Sugar Refinery
Centrifuge
Dry Sugar
36 Problems Top
6 Analyzed 5
Months Data
www.ipamc.org
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
www.ipamc.org
Parameter Estimation for
Cloth Replacement
Estimation point Cloth Replacement 229
1
13 13
0
̭
β =1
η estimator
Perpendicular
̭
η=13
13
www.ipamc.org
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
www.ipamc.org
Median Ranks
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
www.ipamc.org
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.
www.ipamc.org
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
www.ipamc.org
The Best Time
• Risk curve
• Economics
(Cf & Cp)
• Blend to
establish the
optimal tp
www.ipamc.org
PUMP FAILURE DATA
RUNNING SUSPENSION
TIME TO OR
FAILURE CENSORED
(MONTHS) TIME
3
6 6
9
∴ MEAN LIFE = ? MONTHS

www.ipamc.org
PUMP FAILURE DATA (Suspensions)
1 FAILURE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Testing Time (10 weeks)
4 F + 6 Suspensions
Source: AHC Tsang www.ipamc.org
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)
www.ipamc.org
Suspensions (Sometimes termed censored data)
45
f(t) 40
F(t) 1.2 h(t)
1.2
35
1 1
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
∫0
t
− r (t ) dt h(t)
f(t) = h(t)[1-F(t)] F (t ) = 1 − e
When dealing with grouped multiply censored data we proceed as above.
www.ipamc.org
WATER PUMP FAILURE
TIME TO FAILURE NUMBER OF NUMBER OF
NOTE: Suspension (MILES X 103) FAILURES SUSPENSIONS
means that when the 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
35 < 40 1 3
miles means that 4
40 < 45 1 7
pumps had not failed 45 < 50 0 2
and had been in 50 < 55 1 4
operation for 55 < 60 1 7
between 5000 and 60 < 65 0 6
10,000 miles. 65 < 70 0 3
70 < 75 2 1
75 < 80 0 1
80 < 85 0 1
www.ipamc.org
Water Pump 68
Estimation point 1.5
85000 94000
̭
β =1.5
η estimator
Perpendicular
̭
η=94000 miles
www.ipamc.org
13
Life-time distribution of water pumps
MEAN TIME
TO FAILURE
MILES x 103
0 50 100 150 200 250
MEAN = 85,000 MILES www.ipamc.org
Analysis of Censored Data
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
1< 2 16 1 75 66.5 0.241 0.351 0.296
2< 3 9 2 58 52.5 0.171 0.522 0.407 F = Frequency of Failure
3< 4 7 2 47 42.5 0.165 0.687 0.497 C = Censoring Frequency
4< 5 2 5 38 34.5 0.058 0.745 0.525 S = Survivors at
5< 6 2 12 31 24.0 0.083 0.828 0.563 Commencement of Interval
r(t) = f/|(St-δt + St+δt)/2|
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 www.ipamc.org
Sugar Feed 89
Estimation point Censored Data 0.80
7.0 6.60
̭
β =0.8
η estimator
Perpendicular
̭
η=6.60 weeks
www.ipamc.org
13
T-33 Silver Star Aircraft
www.ipamc.org
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 www.ipamc.org
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
www.ipamc.org
Fuel Pump Failures 82
Estimation point Endpoints of Intervals 2.25
1170 1320
̭
0
β =2.25
Perpendicular
η estimator
̭
η=1320 hours
www.ipamc.org
13
Order Number (A 2.7)
Time Failure /
(hours) Suspension
544 F
663 F
802 S
827 S Sample
897 F
size n = 10
914 F
939 S
1084 F Source: Handling Ungrouped Censored
Data,Table11.13 in Reliability in Engineering
1099 F
Design, K.C. Kapur and L. Lamberson, Wiley,
1202 S 1977 www.ipamc.org
Order Number
Order Number = Previous Order Number + INC
(n + 1) – previous order number

INC = I =
1 + (number of items following
suspended set )
www.ipamc.org
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 www.ipamc.org
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.

www.ipamc.org
CATERPILLAR D10N Track-Type Tractor
www.ipamc.org
Steering Clutch, L.H.
Steering Clutch, L.H.
(from a group of 6 CAT D10 Dozers)
(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
www.ipamc.org
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
www.ipamc.org
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.
www.ipamc.org
Checking the fit of a distribution:
Use of the K-S test.( Section A2.6)
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?
www.ipamc.org
Kolmogorov – Smirnov
Goodness-Of-Fit Test
Need to check:
^
|F(ti) – F(ti)|
Max of =d
^
|F(ti) – F(ti -1)|
www.ipamc.org
Kolmogorov – Smirnov
Goodness-Of-Fit Test
^ ^ )|
|F(ti)-F(ti -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
www.ipamc.org
OREST Outputs
Weibull parameter estimates (see table

2.15)
Cost optimization curve for interval
and age replacement (see Figure 2.39)
Spare parts provisioning (Preventive
replacement spares)
www.ipamc.org
CP Rail
www.ipamc.org
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 www.ipamc.org

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

www.ipamc.org
Short–Term Deterministic Replacement
Cold air Hot flue gases
Air heater
Soot deposits
steam
Boiler
Hot air Fuel
www.ipamc.org
200
150
$/Week
$/Week
100
50
c(t) = btm
0
Time (weeks) 1 2 3 4 Weeks
Power Function Trend Discrete Trend in

in Operating Costs Operating Costs
www.ipamc.org
30
$/Week
$/Week
20
10 c(t) = A – Be-kt
c(t) = 1.5 + 3.2t
0 2 4 6 8 10 Time (weeks)
Time (weeks)
Linear Trend in Operating Modified Exponential Trend

Costs in Operating Costs
www.ipamc.org
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) ?
www.ipamc.org
Optimization Problem
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. www.ipamc.org
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
C (tr ) = 0
tr www.ipamc.org
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
www.ipamc.org
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
www.ipamc.org
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
Note: If c(t) = a + bt, then tr * =
b
r
www.ipamc.org
REVIEW
www.ipamc.org
Reliability Improvement Through
Preventive Replacement
• Weibull Analysis: Shape parameter β
• Need β > 1
• Constant Interval Policy
• Age-Based Policy
CASE STUDIES, OREST
www.ipamc.org
Problems using OREST
1) A sugar refinery centrifuge is a complex
machine composed of many parts that are
subject to sudden failure. A particular
component, the plough-setting blade, is
considered to be a candidate for preventative
replacement, and you are required to
determine an optimal replacement policy. The
policy you are to consider is sometimes
termed a block replacement or constant
intervals, say tp, with failure replacements
taking place when necessary. Determine the
optimal policy so that total cost per unit time
is minimized given the following data:
www.ipamc.org
a) The labor and material cost associated with a
preventive or failure replacement is $200.
b) The value of production losses associated
with a preventative replacement is $100,
while that for a failure replacement is $700.
c) The failure distribution of the setting blade
can be described adequately by a Weibull
distribution with mean = 150 hours and
standard deviation = 15 hours.
Also indicate the approximate cost of your
optimal policy as a percentage of a replace-
only-on-failure policy.
www.ipamc.org
2) Heavy-duty bearings in a steel forging plant have failed
after the number of weeks of operation provided in Table
1.
a) Use OREST to estimate the following Weibull
parameters: β, η, and mean life.
b) The cost of preventative replacement is $100 and the
cost of failure replacement is $1000. Determine the
optimal replacement policy.
Table 1: Bearing Failure Times
Age at Failure (weeks)
8
12
14
16
24
One unfailed at 24 weeks
www.ipamc.org
c) The forge is cleaned and serviced once per week.
Preventative replacement of the bearing can be
carried out as part of this maintenance activity. At
what age should the bearing be replaced, given that,
in addition to direct-cost considerations, there is a
safety argument for minimizing failure. Support your
conclusions by giving the cost and the proportions of
failure replacements for some alternative policies.
d) There are two similar forging plants and each works
for 50 weeks per year. Estimate the number of
replacement parts required per year if the policy is
preventative replacement at age 6 weeks. How many
failure replacements will occur per year (steady-state
average) under this policy?
www.ipamc.org

Component Preventive Replacement Decisions

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Component Preventive Replacement Decisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Component Preventive

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 more “difficult”

- need to keep a record of component age.

Shortest Time : 9 weeks

Then: Establish risk of bearing failing as it ages

∴ MEAN LIFE = ? MONTHS

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

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.

(from a group of 6 CAT D10 Dozers)

7979 h 2027 h 9671 h

Assume Clutch re-built to “as new” condition

Similar data obtained for 5 other dozers

Statistical Analysis of Failure Data

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

A run-to-failure policy was a surprising

Weibull parameter estimates (see table

FORMER WASH & WEAR OVERHAUL REBUILD

NEW OVERHAUL RUN TO RUN TO

GRAND BENEFIT: > $ 1,310,000/YR www.ipamc.org

Chronological Order Important

See pages 267 – 270 of textbook for Laplace trend test

Hot air Fuel

Power Function Trend Discrete Trend in

Linear Trend in Operating Modified Exponential Trend

Where on the increasing operating cost curve is it economically

0.6 Operating cost (flue)

This gives optimal tr when:

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

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

CASE STUDIES, OREST

You might also like