capital equipment replacement decisions
DESCRIPTION
مقالات دومین همایش بینالمللی بازآموزی مدیران فنی و نگهداری و تعمیراتTRANSCRIPT
1
www.ipamc.org
Capital Equipment Replacement Decisions
Ali Zuashkiani
Condition Based Maintenance Laboratory
University of Toronto
2
www.ipamc.org
Capital Equipment Replacement• Constant Annual Utilization
• Varying Annual Utilization
• Technological Improvement
• Tracking Individual Units
• Repair versus Replace
3
www.ipamc.orgReplacement Age ( years)
Optimum replacement age
Total cost
Fixed cost
Ownership cost
Operations and maintenance costA
nnua
l Cos
t
Economic Life Problem
4
www.ipamc.org
Economic Life Model: [constant utilization]
Construction of model:
C1 C2 C3 A – Sn
1 2 3 n years
Note:Above assumes costs in year are paid at the end of year.
0Replacement Cycle
5
www.ipamc.org
Time Value of Money:Discounted Cash Flow
Analysis
6
www.ipamc.org
Concept of Economic LifeN = 1 year
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Years
A – S1c1
A – S1c1
A – S1c1
A – S1c1
A – S1c1
A – S1c1
A – S1c1
……..
……..
N = 2 years
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Years
A – S2c1
A – S2c1 c1
A – S2 A – S2c1c2 c2 c2
……..
……..
N = 3 years……..
……..
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Years
A – S3c1
A – S3c1
A – S3c1c2 c3 c2 c3
7
www.ipamc.org
Time Value of Money
$100$100 + 10 = $110
$110 + 11= $121
i = 10% i = 10%0 1 2
The above concept is familiar to many, i.e. investments grow in value
8
www.ipamc.org
Example
2
Problem: Assume we have a payment to make, 2 years from now, of $121. What is its value today? (i.e. its present value)
$121?
0 1 2
Solution: P = 121 1 (Assume i=10%)1 + 0.1
= $100
9
www.ipamc.org
Equivalent Annual Cost (EAC): Use of the Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)
EAC = Present Value x CRF
( ) 11)1(−+
+= n
n
iiiCRF
10
www.ipamc.org
Selecting an Alternative
In the following example, we will consider two (equivalent) criteria:
(i) Present value (ii) Equivalent annual cost
11
www.ipamc.org
Example: Statement of Problem
A contractor requires specialized equipment for a period of 3 years. Given the costs and salvage values in the following table, which is the best alternative?
321
100
400
100
80
300
100
3500501006000C
15002001003000B
30001001005000A
SalvageValue
Operating CostInstallationCost
PurchasePrice
Equipment
NOTE: Costs in $ x 100
12
www.ipamc.org
For Equipment A
• Present Value (PV) = ?• Assume that discount factor r = 0.9
Recall: r = 1 / 1+i where i = interest rate appropriate for discounting(in this case, assume i = 11%)
• PV = 5000 + 100 + 100 (0.9)1 + 100 (0.9)2 + 100 (0.9)3 –3000 (0.9)3
= $3157
$5000$100
$100 $100 $100 $3000
0 1 2 3
13
www.ipamc.org
For Equipment B
PV = 3000 + 100 + 200 (0.9)1 + 300 (0.9)2
+ 400 (0.9)3 – 1500 (0.9)3
= $2721
14
www.ipamc.org
For Equipment C
Therefore, the best alternative using the present value concept is B (since it has the minimum PV).
PV = $3731
15
www.ipamc.org
An Alternate Approach …• Dealing with the same example, rather than the
present result in terms of the Present Value of a stream of cash flows, we frequent convert this PV to an Equivalent Annual Cost (EAC) - sometimes referred to as Annual Equivalent Evaluation.
• To convert PV to EAC, multiply PV by the Capital Recovery Factor (CRF):
EAC = PV x CRFwhere CRF = i (1+i)n
(1+i)n - 1
16
www.ipamc.org
EAC = 3157 i (1+i)n
(1+i)n - 1 = 3157 0.11 (1 + 0.11)3
(1 + 0.11)3 - 1= 3157 x 0.4092= $1291.89
Recall: PV = $3157
Note: The PV of this is the same as the PV of the original stream of cash flows for Equipment A.
0 1 2 3
$1291.89 $1291.89$1291.89
Graphically, we have:
Example: Equipment A
17
www.ipamc.org
Economic Life Model: [constant utilization]
Construction of model:
C1(n) = C1r1 + C2r2 + C3r3 + -------- + Cnrn + ( A – Sn ) rn
PV of above cycle:
In general:
)(C(n)Cn
1i1 n
nii SArr −+= ∑
=
18
www.ipamc.org
Economic Life Model: [constant utilization]
C1 C2 C3 A – Sn
n years0
First Cycle
Construction of model:Consider the second cycle:
2n years
n years
PV of 2nd cycle discounted to start of 2nd cycle:
C1r1 + C2r2 + C3r3 + -------- + Cnrn + ( A – Sn ) rn
In general: )( nni
i SArr −+= ∑=
n
1iC(n)C2
19
www.ipamc.org
Optimal Replacement Interval for Capital Equipment: Minimization of Total Cost
0 1 2 … n-1 n 1 2 … n-1 n
Replace Replace ReplaceC1 C2 Cn C1 C2 Cn C1 C2 Cn C1
1 2 … n-1 n 1 …
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3
20
www.ipamc.org
Economic Life Model: [constant utilization]
Construction of model:Similarly, we can obtain: C3(n) , C4(n) , etc
Thus PV of this chain of replacement is:
C(n) = C1(n) + C2(n)rn + C3(n)r2n + C4(n)r3n + ……….
Summing to infinity then for the geometric progression we get:
C1(n)C(n) = -----------
1 - rn
Since C1(n) = C2(n) = C3(n) ……
n
nni
i
r
SArr
−
−+=∑=
1
)(CC(n)
n
1i
21
www.ipamc.org
ExampleHave A Ci, Si, r :
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Thus the economic life of the asset is 2 years with an associated total discounted cost of $19,421
EAC = 19,421 * i Recall r = 1 / (1 + i) r = 0.9
Therefore i = 0.11 and EAC = $2,136
22500
19421 20790
21735
23701
Economic life2 3 4 51 years
C(n)
22
www.ipamc.org
Note :
C1 C2 C3Cn
Sn
0 1 2 3 n - 1 n
A
Replacement Cycle
USED IN AGE/CON
ANDPERDEC
SOFTWARE
NOTE : NEED TO BE CLEAR WHERE CASH FLOW OCCURS
A better assumption for cash flows may be:
23
www.ipamc.org
Fleet StatisticsS Fleet
Utilization: 60,000 km/year per tractor
Fleet size: 19
Tractor weight: 18,000 kg
Current policy: 5 years replacement cycle
K Fleet
Utilization: 110,000 km/year per tractor
Fleet size: 17
Tractor weight: 23,000
Current policy: 5 year replacement cycle
24
www.ipamc.org
Title: BEST ESTIMATE RESALE VALUES
Number of Years: 5
Acquisition Cost: 85000
65,78770,54172,45971,10168,234
6000040000250002000015000
10%10%10%10%10%
2935245246526265332442363
1 Year Old2 Year Old3 Year Old4 Year Old5 Year Old
EACBest Year
Highlighted
Trade-in Value
Rate for Cash Flow
Discounting
O&M Cost(In Today’s
Dollars)
Age of Vehicle
25
www.ipamc.org
60
65
70
75
80
1 2 3 4 5
Age of Trucks (years)
EAC - $$ (Thousands)
DATA ANALYSIS:Equivalent Annual Cost vs Age of Trucks
26
www.ipamc.org
Haul Truck
27
www.ipamc.org
Haul Truck ReplacementMD452
July 11997
$165,000 $165,000 $105,000 $246,000 $115,000
July 11998
July 11999
July 12000
Today
$187,500 $187,500 $28,500
Jan 1, 1998 Jan 1, 1999 Jan 1, 2000 Jan 1, 2001
$330,000 $369,000 $302,000 $216,000
Historical Costs
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
2002 Dollars (inflation = 5% P.A.)
$401,117 $427,164 $332,955 $226,800
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
28
www.ipamc.org
Haul Truck Replacement
TruckYear MD450 MD451 MD452 MD453 Average
1 $401,117 $396,2702 $427,164 $411,2463 $332,955 $329,9634 $226,800 $279,279
Continued…
29
www.ipamc.org
Why are O&M costs declining in years 3 and 4?
Or
Why are O&M costs so high in years 1 and 2?
Due to developing maintenance expertise?
? ?
Haul Truck Replacement
30
www.ipamc.org
Average yr 1 O&M cost: $171,300
Average yr 2 O&M cost: $207,400
In today’s prices we have:
Yr 1: $188,858
Yr 2: $217,770
Examining newest group of 5 trucks [MD464-468] that came into service 2 years ago we get:
Haul Truck Replacement
31
www.ipamc.org
Input Data: 100T Haul Truck
Acquisition Cost: $700,000
Interest Rate Appropriate for Discounting: 11%Year O&M Cost
($/year)Resale (or Trade-In) value at End of Year
Equivalent Annual Cost ($)
1 188,858 450,000 523,244
2 217,770 300,000 491,415
3 329,963 275,000 471,321
4 279,279 250,000 448,800
5 300,000 (est) 150,000 450,678
6 350,000 (est) 100,000 451,2246
Haul Truck Replacement
32
www.ipamc.org
Remarks: Haul Truck Economic Life
When dealing with capital equipment replacement problems, there are frequently significant uncertainties associated with future costs, interest rates and possibly the demands that will be placed on the equipment. However, the availability of specially-designed pc software enables valuable sensitivity analyses to be undertaken.
33
www.ipamc.org
These “what if” analyses allow the engineer to examine the effect that various estimates of trade-in values, interest rates and so on, will have on replacement cycles. Since a high degree of confidence can be associated with final recommendations to senior management on equipment economic life, the chances of obtaining approval for major capital expenditures is generally increased significantly.
Remarks: Haul Truck Economic Life
34
www.ipamc.org
0 12 18 24 30 360.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Replacement Age (Months)
Seam
erD
isco
unte
d To
tal C
ost
Dol
lars
* 1
06Seamer Replacement
35
www.ipamc.org
Feller Buncher
36
www.ipamc.org
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
220000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
EA
CEAC (Before tax)
EAC (After tax)
Economic Life: before and after tax calculation (Feller Buncher data)
37
www.ipamc.org
Replacement Age Study: Alcao Vehicles
Determining the optimal replacement age for two floor sweepers, a fork-lift truck, and a GM Suburban
38
www.ipamc.org
Example of the Use of AGE/CON:
In this case, optimal replacement age is after 7 years of operation
Determining Optimal Replacement Age for Municipal Dump Trucks
39
www.ipamc.org
A Further Example:
In this case, optimal replacement age is after 5 years of operation
Determining Optimal Replacement Age for 4x4 Pick-up Trucks
40
www.ipamc.org
Analysis of Alcao Vehicle #1:
Conclusion: Continue using this vehicle (i.e. do not replace yet)
Floor Sweeper
41
www.ipamc.org
Results
• For each of the four vehicles analyzed, the Equivalent Annual Cost continually decreased as the replacement age increased
• As a result, the optimal replacement policy is to continue using the vehicles
42
www.ipamc.org
Recommendations• Although the EAC is still decreasing as the
vehicles get older, the marginal decrease from year to year is getting smaller
• This suggests that the EAC may increase in the near future
• Therefore, this very same cost analysis should be performed on a yearly basis to determine the year where the EAC begins to increase
• It is at this point that the vehicles should be replaced
43
www.ipamc.org
$$
Time
total cost
operations
depreciation
inventory
downtime
Economic Life Model
Source: H. Greene & R.E. Knorr, Managing Public Equipment, American Public Works Association, Kansas City, 1989.
maintenance
Economic Life
44
www.ipamc.org
Establishing The Economic Life of a Fleet of Mobile Equipment
45
www.ipamc.org
Kiruna trucks - INCO
46
www.ipamc.org
Objectives
• Determine the optimal replacement policy for the fleet of Kiruna Haulage Trucks
• Introduce capital equipment replacement in an overall maintenance strategy
• Present a framework to be applied to other capital equipment fleets at Inco
47
www.ipamc.org
An Optimal Replacement Policy
• Ensures the efficient use of capital equipment by minimizing the total costs/age of a mobile fleet
• Allows for better planning in vehicle replacement
• Employs a structured decision making technique for replacement cycles
• Allows for flexibility and practicality in replacement decisions
48
www.ipamc.org
Model Variables• Two Major Components:
1. Ownership Costs
• A Acquisition Cost of the Kiruna Truck
• CCA Capital Cost Allowance, the depreciation rate of the truck
• Un Undepreciated Capital Cost in year n
• Sn Salvage Value in year n
49
www.ipamc.org
Model Variables2. Operating and Maintenance Cost
• Cj Maintenance Cost in year j, comprised of labour, material and other costs
– Labour costs work hours associated with a work order, multiplied by a standard rate
– Material costs total of all part costs used in performing maintenance, as recorded on a work order
– Other Costs Warranty, Subcontracting, and miscellaneous charges
50
www.ipamc.org
Values for the Model Variables• Recall from the model development, the key
variables in the model:
Variable Value A $1.8 M i 12% r 0.89286 Sn 0 CT 33.7% CCA 30%
51
www.ipamc.org
Forecasted O&M Costs• Forecasts presented below (in red):
Age of Truck O&M Costs % Increase 1 134,258 - 2 341,271 154 3 444,073 30 4 669,650 51 5 803,682 20 6 767,651 -4 7 806,034 5 8 846,335 5 9 888,652 5
52
www.ipamc.org
Bus Economic LifeTerms of reference:
To determine the economic life for the range of GMCbuses operated by the Société de Transport de la CommunautéUrbaine de Montréal (STCUM)
53
www.ipamc.org
Optimum Replacement
Age Total Cost
Maintenance and Operation
Cost
Fixed Cost
Ownership Cost
Bus Replacement Age
Ann
ual C
ost
Economic Life Calculations: Transit Fleet Replacement
54
www.ipamc.org
Table A:“High” Trend in Resale Values
Table B:“Low” Trend in Resale Values
Economic Life Calculations: Transit Fleet Replacement
55
www.ipamc.org
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.2
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000km
$/km
c(t)
c(t) = 0.302 + 0.723 (cum.km/106)2
Economic Life Calculations: Transit Fleet Replacement
56
www.ipamc.org
0
12000
24000
36000
48000
60000
72000
84000
96000
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000Bus Number
km/y
rBus Utilization Trend
y = [9.11574031 x 104] - [9.722352231 x 101]x- [1.475740136 x 10-2]x2 + [7.403868263 x 10-4]x3
- [1.575402140 x 10-6]x4 + [9.488071440 x 10-10]x5
+ [4.192383586 x 10-13]x6 - [7.567287679 x 10-16]x7
+ [3.266561486 x 10-19]x8 - [4.786922264 x 10-23]x9
xHighestUtilized
LeastUtilized
57
www.ipamc.org
1) Newest 100 buses will travel 8,636,059 km each bus travels 86,361 kmcost/bus = 86,361 (0.303) = $26,197 in 1st year
2) Similarly next 100 buses each travel on average 78,093 km/yr in 2nd year cost/bus = 78,093 (0.313) = $24,472 in 2nd year
Economic Life Calculations: Transit Fleet Replacement
58
www.ipamc.org
1 2 3 4 19 20
A = $96,300
$26,197 $24,472 S = $1000BusAge
EAC = $30,031
Economic Life Calculations: Transit Fleet Replacement
59
www.ipamc.org
Low Resale Value Trend Acquisition cost at start of replacement cycle
Economic Life Calculation
60
www.ipamc.org
* Using high resale value trend+ Using low resale value trend
Overall Fleet Savings Summary
61
www.ipamc.orgBy: Cheung- Ki Derek Siu Monique Ka Yee Ho
Optimizing Economic Life Decisions for Bus Fleets of the Town of Markham
62
www.ipamc.org
Background
• The analysis will cover the whole bus fleet, which consists of conventional and specialized buses.
• The conventional bus fleet is composed of 54 coaches, which provide 11 service routes.
• The specialized bus fleet is composed of 6 vehicles.
63
www.ipamc.org
Existing Problems
• Increase in costs due to frequent repair– Mechanical problems due to engine wear-out
• Purchasing problem– Shortage of new buses from the bus manufacturer
64
www.ipamc.org
Primary Analysis
• The two bus fleets had different number of buses and different utilization patterns. Therefore, the analysis was divided into two main parts:– Conventional Bus Fleet– Specialized Bus Fleet
65
www.ipamc.org
Conventional Bus Fleet Analysis
• AGE/CON was employed and the results were deduced from its outputs.
• EAC for 18 years, for interest rates from 0% to 20%, was obtained. The interest rate selected was equal to the prime rate of 6.75% at the time; i = 6% and 8% were considered, thus the optimal economic life determined was 13 years.
66
www.ipamc.org
Assumptions
• O&M Cost was obtained by adding up the cost of repair, fuel, tires, and cleaning.
• Parameters used in AGE/CON:– “Low” trend of resale value.– Utilization trend of year 2000: fitted to the
9th degree polynomial function.– Linear Operations and Maintenance Cost
function.
67
www.ipamc.org
AGE/CON Example
i = 6%
68
www.ipamc.org
Utilization Trend CurveU
sage
(km
)
Bus Number
69
www.ipamc.org
Equivalent Annual Cost (EAC)Eq
uiva
lent
Ann
ual C
ost (
$/ye
ar)
Year of Service
Minimum EAC in year 13
70
www.ipamc.org
Interpretation of Results
• The optimal solution’s (13 years) corresponding EAC is between $116,000 and $125,000.
• The current replacement policy (18 years) has a corresponding EAC between $120,000 and $129,000.
• Therefore, the potential cost savings are about $216,000/year (= $4,000 × 54 vehicles)
71
www.ipamc.org
Fixed future operating time, n periods
Replace with technologically improved equipment
Ct,n-TCt,1 Ct,2Cp,1 Cp,2 Cp,3
0 1 2 3 . . . T T+1 T+2 . . . n-1 n
Optimal Replacement Policy for Capital Equipment Taking Into Account Technological Improvement
A-Sp,T
Finite Planning Horizon (Section 4.5)
72
www.ipamc.org
Noranda Equipment Replacement System
B. Buttimore, A. Lim
Source: B. Buttimore, A. Lim, Applied Systems and Cybernetics, Edited by G.E. Lasker, Vol. II: Systems Concepts, Models and Methodology, Pergamon Press Inc., 1981, pp. 1069-1073
73
www.ipamc.org
Introduction
The Noranda Equipment Replacement System is designed to analyze an existing fleet of equipment over a specified period to determine, using a total discounted cost method, if or when individual units in the fleet should be replaced by a proposed new unit.
74
www.ipamc.org
1 2 4 63 5 7 8
existing shovel new shovel
Years
Time diagram for example
75
www.ipamc.org
System Input Includes
• Expected rate of return.
• Depreciation rate.
• Investment tax credit, capital cost allowance, CCA depreciation type, federal, provincial and mining tax rates.
• Inflation rates.
• Unit purchase year, and price.
• Unit yearly total operating and maintenance cost.
• Unit yearly total production.
• Unit yearly salvage values.
• Proposed replacement unit data.
76
www.ipamc.org
Conclusion
The Noranda Equipment Replacement System can be used to do the following analyses:
• Compare the productivity of individual units with a fleet.
• Find the “lemon” in a fleet of equipment.
• Calculate the optimum year to replace a unit.
• Sensitivity testing to see what effect rate of return, taxes or production, for example, have on replacement timing.
77
www.ipamc.org
Cp,1 Cp,2 Cp,T Ct,1 Ct,2 Ct,n Ct, Ct, Ct,n
Total discounted costs C(T,n)
Replacement with technologically improved
Optimal Replacement Policy for Capital Equipment Taking Into Account Technological Improvement:
Infinite Planning Horizon
78
www.ipamc.org
Caterpillar 992D Wheel Loader
79
www.ipamc.org
(Years)
R A-Sp,T A-Sn A-Sn
0 1 2 … T-1 T 1 2 … n-1 n n+1 n+2 …n-1 2n
Cp,1 Cp,2 Cp,3 … Cp,T Ct,1 Ct,2 Ct,3 … Ct,n Ct,1 Ct,2 Ct,3 … Ct,n
Today
Cash Flows Associated with Acquiring New Equipment at Time ‘T’
Repair vs. Replace
80
www.ipamc.org
A = $ 1,083,233 (Unit operational)
(Years)
R A-Sp,T A-Sn A-Sn
0 1 2 … T-1 T 1 2 … n-1 n 1 2 . . . n-1 2n
Cp,1 Cp,2 Cp,3 …Cp,T Ct,1 Ct,2 Ct,3 … Ct,n Ct,1 Ct,2 Ct,3 … Ct,n
Today Cash Flows Associated with Acquiring New Equipment at Time T
R = $390,000 (includes arms + Z•bars) Excludes Front Frame, Rear Frame and Bucket components
Cp,1 = $ 138,592 Cp,2 = $ 238,033 Cp,3 = $ 282,033
Sp,0 = $ 300,000 Sp,1 = $ 400,000 Sp,2 = $ 350,000 Sp,3 = $ 325,000
Variable Maintenance Costs(excludes operator, fuel, wear parts)
Ct,1 = $ 38,188 Ct,2 = $ 218,583 Ct,3 = $ 443,593 Ct,4 = $ 238,830
S1 = $ 742,500 S2 = $ 624,000 S3 = $ 588,000 S4 = $ 450,000
••••
••••
Repair vs. Replace
81
www.ipamc.org
The Solution
(Years)
R A-Sp,T A-Sn A-Sn
0 1 2 … T-1 T 1 2 … n-1 n 1 2 . . . n-1 2n
Cp,1 Cp,2 Cp,3 …Cp,T Ct,1 Ct,2 Ct,3 … Ct,n Ct,1 Ct,2 Ct,3 … Ct,n
Today Cash Flows Associated with Acquiring New Equipment at Time T
Change-over time to new loader, TT = 0 T = 1 T = 2 T = 3
OverallEAC ($)
449,074 456,744 444,334 435,237
Note: n = 11 yrs
82
www.ipamc.org
The Bad News
Most likely additional component to be replaced at re-build: Front frame ($99,870)
∴R = $ 489,970 (was $ 390,000)
Change-over time to new loader, T
T = 0 T = 1 T = 2 T = 3
Overall
EAC ($)
449,074 471,725 459,319 450,217
Minimum
83
www.ipamc.org
The Life Cycle Cost Iceberg
Source: B.S. Blanchard and W.J. Fabrycky, Systems Engineering and Analysis, Prentice Hall, 1990
84
www.ipamc.org
Example: Nimrod Aircraft• BAE Systems signed a contract with the Ministry of
Defence to supply an upgraded fleet of Nimrod aircrafts for the year 2001
• Initial estimated cost of project was £2 billion• However, cost of project definition (initial stage of
system planning) was only £24 million• Consequence: Initial estimated cost of the project was
too optimistic, resulting in a lack of funding to complete the programme
• BAE Systems now uses a life-cycle management approach
Reference: Professional Engineering, May 2001
85
www.ipamc.org
Whole Life Costing: B- 52
From: Professional Engineer, p 59, May 2002
86
www.ipamc.org
Annual Maintenance Cost Limit
87
www.ipamc.org
‘As New’ Condition
Equi
pmen
t Co
nditi
on
Overhaul and Repair Consequences
Trend in Equipment Condition
O/H
Repair
O/H
O/H
Replace
88
www.ipamc.org
I
Age of vehicle
n years to end of planning horizon
JEstimated cost, (X) greater than AMCL, (LI) for a vehicle of age I
= 1Age of vehicle
JEstimated cost, (X) less than or equal to AMCL, (LI) for a vehicle of age I
= I + 1
Estimate, (X), of maintenance cost
in next year.Distribution of
this cost of fI(X)
Age of vehicle
n-1 years to end of planning horizon
89
www.ipamc.org
Consider a vehicle of age 5 years…
If buy new vehicle and sell 5 year old vehicle:
Cost = $2800 – 15% of $2000
= $2500 (± Bal. Adj.)
0
MEAN MAINTENANCE COST = $700
AMCL = L5 = $1055300 1500
17%
$
90
www.ipamc.org
I
5 YR OLD
Estimate
10 YRS TO GO
L5= $1055J
Cost = $2500
= 1 YR OLD
PROB. = 17%
L5= $1055J
Cost = $700
= 6 YR OLD
PROB. = 83%
EXP. COST = $2500 (0.17) + $700 (0.83) = $1006
0
MEAN MAINTENANCE COST = $700
AMCL = L5 = $1055300 1500
17%
$
If buy new vehicle and sell 5 year old vehicle:
Cost = $2800 – 15% of $2000
= $2500 (± Bal. Adj.)
Recall
91
www.ipamc.org
10 YR TO GO 9 YR 8 YR
76543210
AGE
… 2 YR 1 YR 0 YR
76543210
KEEP
REPLACE
K
R
K
R
K
R
K
R
R
For each vehicle age, there are two alternatives – keep or replaceTherefore, over 10 year period, there are:
210 = 1024 “Paths” – for each vehicle ageDecision on whether to keep or replace depends on AMCL – which can an almost infinite number of values.
92
www.ipamc.org
Asset Replacement(Optimizing Life Cycle Decisions)
Software:•AGE/CON (Mobile equipment)•PERDEC (Fixed equipment)
•www.banak-inc.com
93
www.ipamc.org