Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 506


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 505
Me contract. The requirements are usually statM at such a high level Hat when Recompounded to detailed requirements and implementation approach Be contract is left open to significant inteIpretabon. For a design/build contract to achieve jurisdictional objectives, requires adequate definition of fimcdonal requirements, interfaces, standards, modularity, reliability, maintainability, compatible technology, diversity, and other factors deemed important to the jurisdiction. For example, a high-level specification may require closed circuit television (CCTV) technology be used. Adding standards assures open architecture, but definition of technology to be used (such as digital signal processing) may protect the installation from obsolescence, since Me industry is in a major transition from analog to digital cameras. Network compatibility for video distribution to multiple surveillance users may be a further requirement. similarly, main tang video quality through distribution may be important to the jurisdiction, supporting the use of Electronic Industnal Association ~A) 250C (medium hours) as a contract requirement. Without defining sensitivity, a low-cost camera with low sensitivity may be selected by a contractor as opposed to a higher quality camera win higher sensitivity, supporting viewing at dusk prior to street light activation. Thus, without adequate attention to Be requirements and design specifications, a design/bu~ld contact can result In major project conflicts. Table A5.2~2 details a design/build contract from three points of view. A.5.3 Life Cycle Cost Analyses and Evaluation of a Technology The tree cost of a technology is not just the cost of procurement. It includes all costs associated wad the acquisition, installation, testing, maintenance and operations of Be equipment over its expected life cycle. Some of the cost elements to be considered in a life cycle cost analysis Include those sued in Table A.5.3-~. (The reader should also refer to B.S. Blanchard's book, Design ar~Manage to Life Cycle Cost; M/A Press; Portland, Oregon; ISBN 0-930206- 00-2.) Technology should be evaluated on Be bases of: Performance, Life cycle cost, Open standards compatibility, and L::\NCHR~Pha~' NCHRP 3-51 Phase 2 Fmal Report

OCR for page 505
- ~ Ct5 0 a) ~ - in t) S O ~ As - o cod Q's O .-~ .0 2 it'= Q SO 8 'a . _ ~, U E ,_ ps ~ Q.= a, s c _ c,~ ~ n Q ~ ~ ~D O _ .0 o V~ .o.' E ~ m-- _ ~'0 0 A _ ~ C ~V~ U 0 A ~C ~ _ S Q ,,Q C' V CeO ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ .0 ~ 8 ~ C ~ o 3.= ~ ~ C A~ ~ en~ $: O.m CO ~ ~ O ~ ~ .~= ~ C5S CO ci' 3 o c CO O ~ _ ._ ~ 3 O ~ C~ Ct5 - .0 ,= ~ o - c .- a ~n o o s c~ clo o E ~ a) ._ ._ ~ n.* x 3 ~ ~s LL ~ 2 s ~ (' 8 3 <~' s 3 8 cn ~ _ ~ a, . .E ~ ~ ~ Q~ ~ . ._ V~ S' (D ~ o N ._ _ ~ O ~ ~ %0 ~ A~ ._ O _ O _ C5 E 0 c' ._ .~ 3 ec >, .= 8 a, ~ a, _ ._ 0 ~ Q~ Q ~n c 5 O _ ~ C.) Q cn O ._ ._ O ~ ~ ,= ~ ~ 30 as ~ ~ ~ ~ c E os ~o ~ - - o c~ c~.= .~ u, m -: _._ 52~n ~0 -0 E ~n 0 ._ ~'c a) ~ ._ s 3 I ~ _ vO 8 - ~ ' C ti ~ O ~O ~O=5 ~ - S Cd Ct a, ._ cn cn 8 CO C~ ._ C' CO 3' co c, c~ - co ~ CIS 0 ~ c, "D ~ co U 3 ~c -

OCR for page 505
o ~ - o ~ - o - J o - _ CO ~ ~ _a i ~n CD ._ Q 3 {D Q O Ct C5 C, O O a l ~ . CO Q O O _ .= C~ .CO .- CS ' ~ "o - o a, O ~ l a, 8 {D cn CtS C~ CD '3 ~i _ ._ a) '~n . O ~n (D ._ Q Q CO E cn CD E o ._ a ~ - o ,0 o) ~ C., - (D ~ =0 {D GS C~ Q ~ ~ ~ (D O ~ Q O C {S ~ O - Co C,) ~ O C o Q a o - _ ~ = _ ~ E o' o.<,, 0 Q O 3 =0c 0 [:L o 4~) ! ~ . C 3 _ o0- E a tD ~ E E ,0 -o, _ ~ c'3 o2 . . o _ o - a, _ cn ce , ~ _ ._ V _ s o Q CO . - CD ~ ._ E ' ._ {D cn cs as 0 ~ C' c, ~o 0 u, cO, _ 2 ._ ~ _ ~ u' sO ~c as _ ~ 0 ~ ._ QO ce C~ CtS O ~ ._ ~ S O - C-) ~ CD C5 ._ - CO ~n ._ o o O ._ - j Cl, 1 ~ ~ ,Q ~ (D c) ~j ~ ~ C'' O '% O 0O . {D O 3 O Cl) ._ cn _ o - o o O C' E 0 {D -o 0 o - o 8 = E _ Cl) -o _ 0 CD c ._ ._ c c ._ - 0 CD o ~C o o C' _ Q ~Q 0 .= Q ~j O O c5 C, o ~j _ ~ G I I . . Q Q ~g~ X X u, cn G G ~ ._ - o C, ~, a, o CO Q _ O ~ _ Q {tS ~ C~ {D O O U) 0 O O ~ (' _ C, O CO S~ _ ~g X O C: CtS 3 ~D ._ - o ~D c 0 o 3 o - o ~ o , ._ o - ~ C s Ct _ 1 to C, a) O CO (D Q ._ _ ce (D O _ CtS O _ ._ o ~D ._ 0~ ~ ~ _-~ -0 X ~ {D O > 1 a..O ~ (D O 0 C, Ce ' _ _ ~ ~ X o CD ~ ~ a, ~ ~ ~ O i_ ~S eQ~ - CD C, cn 8 o ~ ~ _ a) ' C,, ._, CtS ' 4, 8 ~._ CO o ~ cn ' W o o .O o _ "_ O =8 O ~ O _ O 8 a CS l o C, ` ~_ C' o Q CO - 11 cn O _ _ O C, ,~ _ CO ._ _ O ._ C, O Q -0 (D 3 - 3 - a) - CO g . - 2 ci, J E a) a) ~ Q Q ._ ~ ~ E O `~, a, a, '= Q. ~ 0 ~ ~ C~ D ilJ ~ ~ . - . 0-^ ~ O ~ ~0 -,o ~ O ~ ~ Q =0 ^= W ~W 'O O XQ 0 - 41) CD a, 2 ~' .E_ {D ~ ~ o QQ cn CO a w Q w o - CO - ._ ~0 ~D o - ~n o

OCR for page 505
Risks of supportability. Reliability and maintainability directly impact life cycle cost. Reliability is expressed in many ways including mean time between failures IF, mean time between critical failures ~3CF), mean time between maintenance activations ~MA) and mean time between corrective actions ~BCA). The difference in MTBF and M=CF lies within fault tolerance of equipment design. A failure which results in nonperformance of a system function is considerM a cntical failure. Win fault tolerance, a failure can occur but He system continues to perform. This is not a cntical failure, but a failure which needs maintenance attention on a scheduled rawer than crisis basis. BMA and MTBCA are essentialRy the same. MTBMA is a term coined by life cycle cost analysts while MBTBCA is a term related to reliability. Bow relate to Be probable time period between deployments of maintenance personnel to fig a failure. Fault tolerance allows for conservation in maintenance activity cost. The reason is Rat failures in equipment can occur and maintenance can be planned. Thus a maintenance technician can be deployed to fix sever failures rather Man a single failure. While actual corrective action time is not reduced, travel time can be significantly reduced. In InteNigent Transportation Systems travel time to a field site can be significant compared wig actual corrective action time at the site of the failure. The benefits of fault tolerance must be considers on a system level basis to determine Be probably number of failures Cat could be combined into one maintenance field trip and Be resulting savings achieved compared wig one top per failure. simplistic terms at Printed Circuit Board (PCB) level, Be cost of a failure can be determined by utilizing MTBF and mean time to repair (MTIB) of equipment and understanding Be associated cost of repair. While Be equipment manufacturer should be able to provide an MOOR for this equipment, what must be added is: Mean Travel Time (MTT), and Mean Access of Closure Time ~ACT) of equipment. ~:`NCHRP\Phasc~p ~NCHRP3-51 ~ Phase2Fm~Report A5-10

OCR for page 505
MA is based on field deployment locations and MACT is based on equipment cabinet location, and ease of access. Access to a splice closure mounted on the top of a communications pole may require a bucket Buck. The more difficult He accessibility, He greater MACr. M1TR includes all activities of maintenance personnel: Determining He location of the failure; Idendfying the failed module; Searching log~shcs files for spare modules; Obtaining replaceable modulefs) to accomplish the repair; Travel to the failure site; Setting up at the site for maintenance activity; Accessing He cabinets containing He suspected failed module; Accomplishing any on-site diagnosis to verify isolation and identification of the failed module; I Replacing He failed module; Verifying He failure has been repaired; Cleaning up He repair site and packing test equipment; Logging repair activity; and Retuming to the maintenance shop. . All of He above time is allocated to repair time of a failure at the system/subsystem level (i PCB replacement), thus, there are two M1TRs Hat are important: Correcting He failure at Be system or subsystem level, which involves changing an electronic module (PCB); and . 1 ~ _., Troubleshooting, isolating He component(s) fault(s), replacing failed component(s) on He electronic module (printed circuit board), and verifying that He module properly operates. This currently involves printed circuit board test equipment and system/subsystem level test sets (possibly hot mockup). Typically MITR at the system and subsystem level are 20-30 minutes (not including travel and access time) and 30-60 minutes at the punted circuit board (PCB) level. ~;~NCHRP~Phasc:~pr NCHRP 3-51 Phase 2 final Report A5-11

OCR for page 505
Usually jurisdictions perform system/subsystem maintenance. Circuit card level maintenance is typically accomplished through depot maintenance supplied by We manufacturer or a Bird party depot, trained and certified by Be manufacturers. While some jurisdictions do maintain circuit cards (especially for NEMA 170, and 179 controversy He trend is to use depot maintenance. Where depot maintenance is used, cost of the circuit card maintenance is determined by: Junsdiction cost of completing repair request forms, packaging, and mailing Be PCB to Be depot; Depot repair charges; and Jurisdictional cost of receiving the repaid PCB, logging it in, and returning it to spares inventory. After a finite number of repairs, at Be component level, He PCB probably will require replacement. Board damage typically is directly related to the number of integrated circuits that are difficult to remove and replace. Thus, spares replacement cost must be included in life cycle cost based on the MTBF of a specific type PCB (i.e., part number), He number of specific PC13s in He system and He number of spares ong~naDy ordered. If a specific PCB fails every 2,000 hours of operation, and there are two in the system, plus one spare, then within a 10,000 hour operating period, 10 failures can occur. The probability is that a new spare avid be required on or before five repairs; therefore, within 15,000 hours, replacement of the spare PCB most likely will be moored. Where PCBs are repaired by He junsdiction, cost of repair is based on MUIR at the component replacement level plus cost of materials (replacement components). There is an additional cost associated with returning the repaired PCB to spares inventory, updating inventory records and updating PCB repair history log. Similarly, there is a cost associated wad maintaining component spares inventory. Similarly He cost of test equipment is increased where component level repair is supported. PCB card testers are necessary and in many cases a 'Dot mockup" of the subsystem is necessary to verify repair. Where radio frequency communications equipment repair is accomplished, a special test environment (such as a screen room) to prevent external RF interference furring alignment of sensitive receiver components, may be necessary. Similarly, c:\NCHRP`Phase~rpt N~3-51 ~ P~2F~n A5-12

OCR for page 505
component level repair generally Squires electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection, especially where CMOS integrated circuits are used. ESD understanding and training is important for PCB replacement and repair of components on PCBs. Component repair requires special grounding provisions at He maintenance workbench. In general, it is too costly to consider acquisition of test equipment to diagnose and test to the component level for advanced communications equipment PCBs. Similarly, cost of mainlining skilled technicians for troubleshooting to the component level of a PCI3 and for Maintaining a component replacement inventory is prohibitive compared to depot level repair. Where a quality manufacturer is used, generally more reliable board-level repair is obtained by contact depot maintenance compared wig "do it yourself' junsdictional maintenance. The reasons are Mat Me manufacturer has: Much more sophisticated test equipment for failed component isolation and repaid PCB operation validlation; Formal quality test procedures; and Formal certification of cost of test equipment supporting component level troubleshooting and repair. Other factors that contribute to Me Semi for depot maintenance include: Cost of component replacement equipment; Cost of component inventory; Cost of Gaining maintenance personnel for component level troubleshooting and replacement; Cost associated with PCB repair damage and replacement; and t:`NCHRP ~NCHRP3-51 Phase2FmalRepore A5-13

OCR for page 505
Cost of ESD practication at component level replacement. Depot maintenance cost to the jumsdiction includes: Cost of retulIiing a failed board to the depot; Cost of receiving He repaired board and returning it to inventory; Repai} technicians for soldering alla component replacement; Special tools needed for surface mount component replacement; Environmental test capability to verify electromechanical connections; Formal ESD procedures and equipment; Large inventory of components and, where component part number has changed, an acceptable replacement part number cross reference must be maintained. By using depot level maintenance for PCB repair to the component level, the following jurisdictional costs are eliminated: Actual depot repair coil changed by the contractor; and Cost of resolving any unacceptable repair quality problems wig the supplier of depot maintenance services. As can be seen, calculations of life cycle cost can be very complex depending on the level to which Be analysis is taken. In general, during a procurement phase for advanced technology, cost consideration cannot include all Be details. Thus, it is prudent to consider primarily Be highly visible and important cost elements including: Acquisition cost; b;WCHR~as~Jpt NCHRP 3-51 ~ Phase 2 final Report AS-14

OCR for page 505
Cost of operating power over like expectancy; InstaBation and test cost; . Cost of recommended spares based on fonnal ~BF and numbers and types of PCBs; System level repairs cost, based on MTBF, MI - , and average cost for maintenance labor; Depot PCB repair, either flat cost per year or average repair cost and MTBF; Cost of test equipment and brining; and Cost of data What is generally found In advanced comrnun~cabons technology is Hat power use is competitive, as are installation, test, and training costs. Generally, operations manpower is insignificant. For the same type of technology, Be test equipment required to support maintenance at Be PCB level is usually equivalent. Thus, Be significant variation is in failure rates and cost of depot service. Since equipment u ill generally be located in similar locations, travel time for repair cost only becomes significant in the additional maintenance trips necessary to service a lower MTBF product. Depot maintenance cost can have significant variation based on Be manufacturer's use of separate contract maintenance facilities, its production test facilities, or Bird party maintenance. Similarly, PCB board-level maintenance cost may be Impacted by shipping cost to depot facilities. Thus a local depot repair facility can save bow shipping and insurance cost Cost of data may have significant variations wad some companies charging for manuals separately, some providing manuals as part of a training program, and some providing manuals as part of equipment cost. Manuals are required to support instalIabon, test, and corrective maintenance. Most manuals are copynghted by companies, therefore a sufficient number of copies must be ordered or permission to copy obtained from the manufacturer so that manuals ate available for both system support and training. L:~NCHR~Pba ~NCHRP 3-51 Phase 2 Fmal Report A5-15