1 / 12

OPTIMISATION OF POINT LIFE CYCLE COSTS THROUGH LOAD-DEPENDENT MAINTENANCE

OPTIMISATION OF POINT LIFE CYCLE COSTS THROUGH LOAD-DEPENDENT MAINTENANCE German Aerospace Center – Institute of Transportation Systems. Katja Beck, Bärbel Jäger, Karsten Lemmer. Motivation. Demand for more economic efficiency in the railway sector.

reganne-coakley
Télécharger la présentation

OPTIMISATION OF POINT LIFE CYCLE COSTS THROUGH LOAD-DEPENDENT MAINTENANCE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. OPTIMISATION OF POINT LIFE CYCLE COSTS THROUGH • LOAD-DEPENDENT MAINTENANCE German Aerospace Center – Institute of Transportation Systems Katja Beck, Bärbel Jäger, Karsten Lemmer

  2. Motivation • Demand for more economic efficiency in the railway sector • More economic efficiency through a decrease in life cycle costs • Maintenance costs of infrastructure elements are cost drivers

  3. Life Cycle Costs – Maintenance Strategy • LCC – sum over all costs generated in the life phases of a product (DIN EN 60300-3-3) • Maintenance cost determined mainly by • Number of CM and PM cases • Duration • Manpower needed Maintenance Strategy CM – corrective maintenance PM – preventive maintenance

  4. Maintenance Strategy - German Railways • Decreasing the probability of failure and the number of corrective maintenance cases (EN 13306) • Preventive maintenance strategies • German Railway infrastructure maintained • Mainly time dependent • Condition-based through monitoring Condition based intervals No preventive maintenance Time dependent intervals

  5. Time dependent maintenance • German Railways • Track components maintained dependent on load figure Load figure = Number of Trains x Total Tons x 10-6 per week Load category: 0-35 low traffic volume Fix preventive maintenance interval 36-600 normal traffic volume >600 high traffic volume + Easy to plan - Not cost efficient

  6. Points • Railway infrastructure element • Ensuring system flexibility • Maintenance based on • Time • Condition (use of point diagnosis systems) • Wearout highly load-dependent

  7. Idea: Load-dependent Maintenance • Why not use operation simulation information when determining the need for preventive maintenance work? • No falling below the wear-out limit - Total costs for PM - Costs per PM case - Number of PM cases CM – corrective maintenance PM – preventive maintenance

  8. Simulative Evaluations • Railway operation simulation (e.g. RailSys) • Number of trains • Weight of trains Load figure = Number of Trains x Total Tons x 10-6 per week • Example • Single way track • Ca. 50 passenger trains per day • Weight of 500 tons LF = (50 x 7) x (50 x 500 x 7) x 10-6 = 61.25 Number of Trains Total Tons

  9. Time-dependent vs. load-dependent maintenance • LF = 61.25 • Load category LF = 36 Number of Trains (500 tons) per day = 39 LF = 600 Number of Trains (500 tons) per day = 158 • Scheduled Maintenance after 2 months (accordant to guide line)  2379 < Number of trains < 9638 0-35 low traffic volume 36-600 normal traffic volume >600 high traffic volume

  10. Maintenance Cost Savings • Preventive maintenance cost savings for chosen example (67 points, 5 years period) • Relating to maintenance work after 2 months • Calculated with cost figures from the German Railways Scenario NPV of PM costs Time-dependent - 2 months 100 % Load dependent - after 6000 vehicle crossings 21 % Load dependent - after 9500 vehicle crossings 13 % NPV – Net Present Value PM – preventive maintenance

  11. Summary • Cost optimisation needed • Infrastructure maintenance costs as cost drivers • Use of train scheduling information instead of additional diagnosis equipment • Maintenance process flexibility needed • Load as a wearout factor • High saving potentials in point maintenance costs • Cost savings particularly high if LF is on the lower bound of the load category

  12. Thank you for your attention

More Related