Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Preventive and corrective maintenance: cost comparison and cost–benefit analysis
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0188-4624
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7474-2723
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics.
2016 (English)In: Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, ISSN 1573-2479, E-ISSN 1744-8980, Vol. 12, no 5, p. 603-617Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Maintenance can represent a significant portion of the cost in asset intensive organisations, as breakdowns have an impact on the capacity, quality and cost of operation. However, the formulation of a maintenance strategy depends on a number of factors, including the cost of down time, reliability characteristics and redundancy of assets. Consequently, the balance between preventive maintenance (PM) and corrective maintenance (CM) for minimising costs varies between organisations and assets. Nevertheless, there are some rules of thumb on the balance between PM and CM, such as the 80/20 rule. Studies on the relationship between PM and CM in practice are rare. Therefore, PM and CM costs are studied in this article by analysing historical maintenance data. A case study of rail infrastructure historical data is carried out to determine the shares of PM and CM, together with a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) to assess the value of PM. The results show that the PM represents 10% to 30% of the total maintenance cost when user costs, i.e. train delays, are included as a CM cost. The CBA shows the benefit of PM is positive with a benefit–cost ratio at 3.3. However, the results depend on the inclusion/exclusion of user costs, besides individual organisational parameters.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 12, no 5, p. 603-617
National Category
Other Civil Engineering
Research subject
Operation and Maintenance
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-9654DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2015.1032983ISI: 000370971500006Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84957845906Local ID: 85284003-2fa1-4ed4-850b-28d9d9aff6aaOAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-9654DiVA, id: diva2:982592
Note
Validerad; 2016; Nivå 2; 20150519 (andbra)Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2018-07-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Stenström, ChristerNorrbin, PerParida, AdityaKumar, Uday

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Stenström, ChristerNorrbin, PerParida, AdityaKumar, Uday
By organisation
Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics
In the same journal
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Other Civil Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 431 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf