Abstract. 

We consider non-repairable objects subject to random failures. In this case, the failure of the object leads to losses in production, and the restoration of its performance due to (major) repairs is technically impossible or economically unreasonable. An important task here is to assign a service life to an object, upon reaching which it must be decommissioned and replaced with a similar new one, regardless of its condition. We solve this problem for two objects, each of which performs its work in the same technological chain. Methods of reliability theory and valuation are used to form an optimal policy for replacement of machines. Experimental calculations show that the financial effect of the optimal replacement policy can be up to 8% of the total cost of both machines, depending on the amount of losses from stopping the process. We also found that the dependencies of the assigned service life on the age of the machines can be discontinuous and not monotonous.

Keywords: 

machinery, equipment, collaboration, failure, replacement, assigned service life, cost estimation

PP. 90-100.

 

DOI: 10.14357/20790279240111 

EDN: OXPVPK 

 

References

1. Terborgh G. Dynamic Equipment Policy. McGraw Hill. 1948.

2. Van Horenbeek A., Pintelon L., Muchiri P. Maintenance optimization models and criteria. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management. 2010;1(3):189-200.

3. Hartman J.C.; Tan C.H. Equipment Replacement Analysis: A Literature Review and Directions for Future Research. The Engineering Economist. 2014;59(2):136–153. doi:10.1080/001379 1x.2013.862891

4. Smolyak S.A. Economic criteria for optimizing the assigned service life of machinery and equipment. Economics of contemporary Russia. 2022;96(1): 45‑55.

5. Fan W., Machemehl R., Kortum K. Equipment Replacement Optimization. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation ResearchBoard. 2011; 2220:88–98. doi:10.3141/2220-11

6. Smolyak S.A. On the service life assignment for technical systems under inflation. Business Informatics. 2022; 16(2): 74‑88.

7. International Valuation Standards. 2019. London: International Valuation Standards Council.