Optimal Replacement Cycles of Highway Operations Equipment (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 14-37
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 14... ...
14 Project Results The three primary products of the project are: • A guide for optimal replacement cycles of highway operations equipment, • An Excel-based optimization tool for performing LCCA and supporting replacement processes, and • A user manual for the replacement optimization analysis tool. The guide and tool user manual are included as Parts II and III in this report, respectively.
|
From page 15... ...
15 equipment classes down too finely can affect the quality of the LCCA results if there are not enough equipment units in the class to render a realistic cost analysis. 3.2 Equipment Replacement Factors The following 11 factors were initially identified from the literature search as being potentially relevant to highway operations: Each factor was evaluated to determine if and how it applies to highway operations equipment.
|
From page 16... ...
16 The guide does not propose making replacement decisions based solely on age. However, age is an important factor to be considered in the replacement process and is used in three basic ways: • To express optimal replacement cycles in years, • As a planning value to identify equipment units as potential replacement candidates, and • To project the year that an equipment unit will reach its planned replacement life.
|
From page 17... ...
17 Analysis of DOT Salvage Values State DOTs do not keep records that show salvage values during each year of a unit's life, and thus no data exist with which to analyze year-over-year depreciation. However, for this project, DOT data were obtained and analyzed for endof-life salvage values for three equipment classes: Pickup Truck, Dump Truck, and End Loader.
|
From page 18... ...
18 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 5 55 105 155 205 255 305 355 Sa lv ag e V al ue - % LTD Miles at Sale, 1,000 DOT 1 DOT 2 Linear (DOT 1) Linear (DOT 2)
|
From page 19... ...
19 Figures 8 and 9 show that the salvage values trend with age and hours for both DOTs is upward, and the values are considerably higher than would be expected. For example, the average salvage value for 20-year-old end loaders was about 24% for both agencies but approximately 20% for DOT 1 and 32% for DOT 2 for end loaders with 12,000 hours.
|
From page 20... ...
20 DOTs are often able to purchase equipment units at a significantly lower cost than the private sector. However, DOT vehicles are sold at auction at prices equal to or higher than private sector vehicles.
|
From page 21... ...
21 Table 6. Excerpt of optimization tool depreciation schedule.
|
From page 22... ...
22 The first-year anomaly in M&R costs warrants careful consideration when performing LCCA. Units that have a substantially higher first-year cost per mile/hour should be evaluated to determine if they should be included in the LCCA for determining optimal life cycles.
|
From page 23... ...
23 are used to perform LCCA, the guide outlines recommended guidelines for tracking and allocating M&R costs. Generally, the guide recommends the following: • All services and repairs performed on a vehicle should be captured on a shop work order so that M&R costs are fully tracked, including – Preventive maintenance, – Scheduled and unscheduled repairs, – Accident repairs and body work, and – Rebuilds and overhauls.
|
From page 24... ...
24 of fleet replacement life cycle for the South Florida Water Management District (7) proposes that fuel costs can be estimated based on averages over time and price trends.
|
From page 25... ...
25 To ensure that downtime is effectively included as a replacement factor, the guide contains guidelines for tracking and reporting downtime. As a general rule, downtime is the time that a unit is out of service during normal working hours.
|
From page 26... ...
26 Equipment Number Description: Date: By: Equipment Criticality Weight 15 Good No rust, no body damage Fair Very little rust, minor body damage Poor Visible rust, some minor body repairs needed Very Poor Major rust or body damage. Requires major work within one year SCORE: 3.8 Weight 20 Good Good mechanical condition Fair Some minor services needed Poor Major repairs and more frequent maintenance needed Very Poor Major repairs needed within one year SCORE: 5.0 Weight 20 Good Good mechanical condition Fair Some minor services needed Poor Major repairs and more frequent maintenance needed Very Poor Major repairs needed within one year SCORE: 5.0 Weight 20 Good Good mechanical condition Fair Some minor services needed Poor Major repairs and more frequent maintenance needed Very Poor Major repairs needed within one year SCORE: 20.0 Weight 10 Good Good mechanical condition Fair Some minor services needed Poor Major repairs and more frequent maintenance needed Very Poor Major repairs needed within one year SCORE: 7.0 Weight 15 Good No rust or frame damage Fair Some minor rust and/or frame damage Poor Moderate rust and/or frame damage but safe to operate Very Poor Major rust and/or frame damage; safety concerns SCORE: 15.0 Overall Condition Score: 55.8 Notes: Steering/Suspension Electrical Frame Vehicle Condition Assessment Transmission Engine Very Low Body Figure 18.
|
From page 27... ...
27 Direct Overhead Indirect Overhead Payroll Additive/Benefits Training Uniforms Tool Allowance Nonchargeable Time Shop Management Warehouse Operations Expendable Parts and Supplies Facility Costs Table 7. Components of overhead costs.
|
From page 28... ...
28 competing investment options. Using the cost of money in equipment LCCA assumes that the fleet agency has viable investment options for using the available funds.
|
From page 29... ...
29 cess. Soft costs are discussed in the guide as part of the equipment replacement process.
|
From page 30... ...
30 Two levels of LCCA were developed for the project, each with a specific purpose: • A class-level LCCA to determine optimal life cycles and • A unit-level LCCA to analyze the cost history of individual pieces of equipment. 3.3.1 Class-Level LCCA The class-level LCCA determines optimal life cycles for the various equipment classes such as pickup, tandem dump truck, or end loader.
|
From page 31... ...
31 Figure 21. Example of class-level LCCA.
|
From page 32... ...
32 practical viewpoint, optimal replacement times seldom occur at an exact point of age or utilization but rather over a window of time. Unit-level LCCA is helpful in reviewing the cost history of individual units, but there are two practical limitations in interpreting and applying the results.
|
From page 33... ...
33 • Review the default values for the preloaded replacement factors and either adopt or override them with agencyspecific values. 3.5.2 Importing Agency Data into the Tool Because the optimization tool is built in Microsoft Excel, it cannot be interfaced with agency systems for automatic data loading.
|
From page 34... ...
34 Figure 26. Example report of class-level LCCA.
|
From page 35... ...
35 Figure 27. Example report of unit-level LCCA.
|
From page 36... ...
36 the overall ranking and display the units in priority order, as illustrated in Figure 29. The optimization tool computes priority rankings using the weight factors from the Configuration File as follows: = × + ×Priority Rank Condition Rank 60% Cost Rank 40% where Condition Rank is computed by the tool based on the condition assessment; 60% is the default value for the condition weight factor in the Configuration File; Cost Rank is computed by the tool based on the cost-permile analysis; and 40% is the default value for the cost-per-mile weight factor in the Configuration File.
|
From page 37... ...
37 Figure 30. Example of a 5-year replacement plan.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.