5.

The methodology for life cycle cost analysis of pumps

based on reliability and maintainability principles

5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the methodology of LCC analysis based on reliability and
maintainability principles is applied to three different pumps and the results of analysis
have been compared. Pumps are the largest consumers of energy and account for more
than 25% of electricity consumption. Pumping systems often have a lifespan of 10 to 20
years. The life cycle cost of a pump is the total lifetime cost associated with
procurement, installation, operation, maintenance and disposal. Figure 5.1 shows the
pump life cycle cost breakdown for a typical case. Over the life of a pump, one comes
across various cost elements such as initial investment cost, installation and
commissioning costs, energy costs, operation costs, down time and lost production costs,
maintenance and repair costs, environmental costs and disposal costs. Depending upon
the process, down time costs can be more significant than the energy or maintenance
elements of the equation. Careful consideration should therefore be given to productivity
losses due to down time.

Com ponents of LCC

70

9 2 4 15

Initial Operation Maintenance Support Disposal

Figure 5.1 Pump life cycle costs for a typical case

For analysis purpose, two pumps have been selected from the literature and the
data available therein is utilized. The third pump is selected from a well known pump
manufacturer from India and the required data is obtained directly from the
manufacturer. The maintenance and repair costs are estimated under the conditions of
constant failure rate (exponential distribution) in the first case and increasing failure rate
(Weibull distribution) in the second case. The results obtained have been presented and
compared at the end.

70
5.2 Literature review
This section provides a brief review of literature related to the life cycle cost
analysis of pumps. In the world of pumps, there are two types of horizontal end suction
centrifugal pumps that are widely used than all the others put together. They are the
ANSI pumps that are designed and built to the standards of the American National
Standards Institute and the API pump that meets the requirements of the American
Petroleum Institute standard 610 for general refinery service. The ANSI standard
provides the dimensional interchangeability of pumps from one manufacturer to another
and these pumps are preferred for chemical process applications, water and other less
aggressive services. The API pump is the exclusive choice for applications in the oil
refinery industry, to handle high temperature and pressure applications of a more
aggressive nature. Barringer and Weber (1996) presented life cycle cost analysis of an
ANSI and API pump. The maintenance, failure and repair time data is given for both
pumps. Using this data, detailed calculations for life cycle costs for the pumps used in
hydrocarbon process industries have been explained. The basic concepts of LCC and its
applications are also discussed.
World pumps (1998) discussed the necessity of applying LCC techniques to
pumps, the phases of LCC analysis, the importance of identifying key cost drivers and
the benefits of carrying out LCC analysis. The purchase cost of pump can become
insignificant compared with the running cost over the life of a pump. The costs of
excessive wear, maintenance, spare parts, unplanned downtime and seal replacements
can form substantial proportions of pump life cycle cost. With the key cost drivers
identified and these costs estimated either over a defined time period or over the
predicted life of the pump, a comparison can be drawn between two or more different
pumping systems. Foster and Hanley (1998) presented life cycle cost analysis for
photovoltaic water pumping systems. They provided life cycle cost analysis for
determining the competitiveness of photovoltaic technologies for water pumping as
compared to traditional technologies. It has been concluded that photovoltaic systems are
generally competitive for water pumping applications upto about 2 kW in size as
compared to conventional gasoline or diesel water pumping technologies.
Hennecke (1999) presented the elements of life cycle costs and a method for LCC
calculation of pumps in chemical industry. The pump selection should not be based only
on the purchase cost, but the total costs of investment, operation including energy and
71
maintenance and final disposal should also be considered. Some statistical measurements
about the mean time between failures are also presented. Hydraulic Institute (2001)
presented life cycle cost model for pumping systems. The model takes into account the
initial costs, installation and commissioning costs, energy costs, operation costs,
maintenance and repair costs, down time costs, environmental costs and
decommissioning and disposal costs. The use of methodology has been explained with
the help of an example. Alfredsson (2001) explained the importance of life cycle costs
and presented the guidelines formulated by Euro-pumps to help users, consultants and
design engineers to optimize pumping systems with regard to the whole life cost. Nesbitt
(2001) described the basic concept of intelligent pump units (IPU) and its life cycle cost.
The IPU may require additional up-front capital expenditure but the life cycle cost
savings can be significant. Improved pump selection techniques and better system and
pipe work designs would also have a significant effect on pump LCC, possibly without
any additional initial expenditure.
Stavale et al. (2001) compared the life cycle cost of a smart pumping system with
a conventional pumping system. Smart pumping systems can match pump output exactly
to system conditions and can detect and protect the pump and system against unusual
operating conditions. The use of a smart variable speed controller significantly reduces
pump operating costs by eliminating the use of energy consuming control valves. The
value of smart pumping systems to the user is in reduced life cycle costs. It has been
shown that up to 35% of saving in life cycle cost can be obtained using a smart pumping
system over fifteen years of pump life as compared with a conventional pumping system.
Attride (2002) discussed the effect of wear because of the abrasive nature of the process
fluids that are handled by the pumps. Wear progressively reduces hydraulic efficiency
and consequently increases operating costs throughout the lifetime of the pump. The
material selection for critical components and a redesign of wet-end hydraulics results
into enhanced efficiency and reduced lifetime cost of heavy duty slurry pumps.
Waghmode et al. (2006) presented an application of a methodology for
determining the life cycle cost of a typical heavy usage multistage centrifugal pump and
the results of analysis have been compared. It is concluded that, the initial cost of the
pump is only a fraction of the total life cycle cost. The operating cost of the pump
dominated the life cycle costs. The operation and maintenance cost was almost 92 to 97

72
per cent of the life cycle cost. Graham (2007) explained the term low life cycle cost
(LLC) and what LLC really means and why it is suddenly becoming such an interesting
issue for capital projects. A significant proportion of pump LCC comes from the energy
it uses throughout its life. However, proven steps can be taken to reduce these costs
considerably when designing a pump system. Tolvanen (2007) presented how life cycle
energy cost savings can be obtained through careful system design and pump selection.
Cieslak (2008) examined the real case of a group of pumping stations operating as part of
the local water supply system from the life cycle cost perspective. The cost of buying a
pump is much higher than the price on the tag or in the catalogue.
Noll (2008) presented the importance of understanding all the components that
make up the total cost of ownership in choosing the right pump for the job. The article
also focuses on calculating the real cost of powering a pump. Sahoo and Guharoy (2009)
discussed some of the strategies to improve the energy efficiency of centrifugal pumps as
a means to reduce the overall life cycle costs. Waghmode and Sahasrabudhe (2009)
developed a methodology for effective implementation of life cycle costing (LCC) in
design and procurement of repairable and non-repairable products. The developed model
has been applied to a typical repairable system, a pump set manufactured by a well
known pump manufacturer from India and the results obtained were presented. It was
concluded that choosing a system with low initial price may not always be a good
decision and one has to consider the life cycle cost implications of that system too.
The above reviews show that the concept of life cycle cost for pumps came into
existence nearly one and half decades ago. The published literature in the area of pump
LCC focuses on the number of issues ranging from the basic concepts of LCC, its
importance, the techniques used, the benefits derived from carrying out LCC analysis
and the applications of LCC. The concept of LCC has been applied to the pumps used for
variety of applications such as water pumping, hydrocarbon processing, coal mining,
chemical processing and slurry pumping. In this present study, a methodology for LCC
analysis based on reliability and maintainability theory has been applied to three
different pumps as stated earlier. The renewal functions/expected number of failures in a
given time interval are used to model maintenance and repair costs. The life cycle cost is
estimated for renewal/replacement, minimal repair and combination strategies for
maintenance and repair of the pump.

73
5.3 Generalized LCC model as applied to pumps
The life cycle cost of a repairable system in the most general and comprehensive
form as represented by Eq. (3.1) can be expressed as follows:



LCC' K L C (5.1)
M

The most general and comprehensive life cycle cost model given above for a pump for
renewal/replacement upon failure strategy can be reduced to:

C t
M<

LCC K i C i C i L ‡ ‰ . +C i MTTR  . C' 0 i C

N 1
. v1 i w
(5.2)
M  β
η Г

Similarly, for minimal repair upon failure strategy the generalized model for pumps can
be reduced to:

C t k
M<

LCC′ K i C i C i L q r +C′ i MTTR  . C′' 0 i C

β

N
(5.3)
η
M

5.4 Application of the model

The above generalized model is applied to three different pumps. Two pumps
ANSI and API have been selected from the literature (Barringer and Weber, 1996) and
the data available therein is used. Third pump is selected from a well known pump
manufacturer in India, a single stage, horizontal, split-case type pump (Pump A). The
required data is obtained from the pump manufacturer. Table 5.1 depicts the
specifications of all the three pumps under consideration.
Table 5.1 Pump specifications
Particulars ANSI API Pump A
Input power (kW) 75 75 75
Motor cost (Rs) 150000 150000 75000
Cost of coupling (Rs) 20000 60000 1500
Design life of pump (hrs) 70000 70000 70000

74
5.4.1 Acquisition costs
The acquisition cost accounts for the cost of concept and definition (C ), research
and development (C ), design and development (C ), product validation (C ),
intellectual property (C ), raw material (C ), inspection and storage (C ), manufacturing
(C ), recurring functional testing (C ), assembly (C ), diagnosis and rework (C ),
quality control (C ), qualification and certification (C ), profit charged by manufacture
(C ), packaging and warehousing (C ), transportation and distribution (C ), training
and documentation (C ), product modification (C ) and warranty cost (C ) etc. The
acquisition cost (C) can be expressed as follows:

C K C i C i C i C i C i C i C i C i C i C i C i C i C i C

i C i C i C i C i C (5.4)

Table 5.2 shows the acquisition cost for ANSI, API and Pump A.
Table 5.2 Acquisition costs

Pump type Acquisition cost (Rs)

ANSI 725000
API 1370000
Pump A 216500

5.4.2 Installation and commissioning costs

The equation to estimate installation and commissioning cost can be formulated
using activity based costing method. In this method, all the activities associated with the
installation and commissioning of a system can be identified along with the time
consumed by each activity and the man power needed to perform the given activity. The
cost of tooling required for each activity can also be identified. Mathematically, the
installation and commissioning cost can be estimated as follows:

M<

C K L+-T. N . C/i Ct  0 (5.5)

M

Table 5.3 shows the installation and commissioning costs for ANSI, API and pump A.

75
 Table 5.3 Installation and commissioning costs
Pump type Installation and commissioning cost
(Rs)
ANSI 125000
API 175000
Pump A 29200

5.4.3 Operation costs

Two main cost drivers associated with the operation of a pump, the cost of energy
and labour cost of operation have been identified. Considering these two factors the
following equation is developed to estimate the annual operation cost of a pump.
Mathematically, the pump operation cost can be estimated as follows:

C K t. +C -kw/ i C& 0 (5.6)

The pump operation costs are estimated assuming cost of energy as Rs 5/kWh and labour
cost of operation as Rs 50/hour. Table 5.4 depicts the pump operation costs.
Table 5.4 Operation costs
Pump type Operation cost (Rs)
ANSI 29750000
API 29750000
Pump A 29750000

5.4.4 Maintenance and repair costs

The maintenance cost is modeled using expected number of failures. The
expected number of failures are estimated for exponential as well as Weibull times to
failure. Table 5.5 shows the values for C , β , η and MTTR  and the estimated values of
various parameters for renewal/replacement and minimal repair strategy. In this case, it
is assumed that all pump components follow exponential failure rate. For exponential
failure rate the expected number of failures remains same irrespective of the
maintenance/repair strategy. The expected maintenance and repair cost for an impeller
used in API pump as an example is estimated as discussed below.
The expected number of failures for renewal/replacement upon failure and minimal

t 70000
repair upon failure strategy are estimated as follows:

E+N-t/0IAPIE K v wKv w K 0.75

MTBFIAPIE 93440

76
The cost per failure for renewal/replacement upon failure strategy is estimated as

CFIAPI K +CIAPI i MTTR IAPI . C'IAPI 0

follows:

CFIAPI K +175000 i 8-5000/0 K Rs 215000

The maintenance and repair cost expected over the design life of the impeller for
renewal/replacement upon failure strategy is estimated as follows:

C+N-t/0IAPIE K CFIAPI . E+N-t/0IAPIE K 215000x0.75 K Rs 161250

The maintenance and repair cost for renewal/replacement upon failure strategy for API
pump is estimated as follows:

M<

C'APIE K L CF . E +N-t/0 K Rs 1262750

M

The cost per failure for minimal repair upon failure strategy is estimated as follows:

CF′IAPI K +C′IAPI i MTTR IAPI . C′'IAPI 0

CF′IAPI K +35000 i 8-5000/0 K Rs 75000

The maintenance and repair cost expected over the design life of the impeller for
minimal repair upon failure strategy is estimated as follows:

C′+N-t/0IAPIE K CF′IAPI . E′+N-t/0IAPIE K 75000x0.75 K Rs 56250

The maintenance and repair cost for minimal repair upon failure strategy for API pump
is estimated as follows:

M<

C′'APIE K L CF′ . E′ +N-t/0 K Rs 530950

M

77
 Table 5.5 Maintenance and repair costs (Exponential failure rate)

š— -©ª/ ­–® — -±²ª/ ­––© — -±²ª/ ¯+™-›/0 š — -©ª/ š #— -©ª/ š— +™-›/0 (Rs) š— #+™-›/0 (Rs)
ANSI pump
Component
Impeller 150000 70000 8 1 190000 70000 190000 70000
Shaft 125000 105120 10 0.7 175000 75000 122500 52500
Bearing 15000 23360 8 3 55000 43000 165000 129000
Seal 75000 17520 8 4 115000 55000 460000 220000
Housing 150000 105120 14 0.7 220000 100000 154000 70000
Motor 150000 70000 8 1 190000 70000 190000 70000
Coupling 20000 46720 8 1.5 60000 44000 90000 66000
Total 1371500 677500

š— -©ª/ ­–® — -±²ª/ ­––© — -±²ª/ ¯+™-›/0 š — -©ª/ š #— -©ª/ š— +™-›/0 (Rs) š— #+™-›/0 (Rs)
API pump
Component
Impeller 175000 93440 8 0.75 215000 75000 161250 56250
Shaft 175000 128480 10 0.55 225000 85000 123750 46750
Bearing 20000 35000 8 2 60000 44000 120000 88000
Seal 125000 26280 8 2.7 165000 65000 445500 175500
Housing 225000 128480 14 0.55 295000 115000 162250 63250
Motor 150000 70000 8 1 190000 70000 190000 70000
Coupling 60000 116800 8 0.6 100000 52000 60000 31200
Total 1262750 530950

š— -©ª/ ­–® — -±²ª/ ­––© — -±²ª/ ¯+™-›/0 š — -©ª/ š #— -©ª/ š— +™-›/0 (Rs) š— #+™-›/0 (Rs)
Pump A
Component
Impeller 20000 35000 8 2 60000 44000 120000 88000
Shaft 18000 70000 8 1 58000 43600 80000 43600
Bearing 6000 11680 4 6 26000 21200 156000 127200
Seal 1200 11680 4 6 21200 20250 127200 121500
Housing 40000 87600 8 0.8 80000 48000 64000 38400
Motor 75000 35000 8 2 115000 55000 230000 110000
Coupling 1500 70000 4 1 21500 20300 21500 20300
Total 776700 549000

78
 Table 5.6 Maintenance and repair costs (Weibull failure rate)

š— -©ª/ «— ¬— ­–® — ­––©— ¯+™-›/0 ¯′+™-›/0 š -©ª/ š #-©ª/ š— +™-›/0 š— ′+™-›/0

ANSI pump

-±²ª/ -±²ª/
Component
(Rs) (Rs)
Impeller 150000 2.5 70000 62108 8 1.13 1.0 190000 70000 214700 70000
Shaft 125000 1.2 105120 98780 10 0.7 0.61 175000 75000 122500 45750
Bearing 15000 1.3 23360 21523 8 3.25 4.16 55000 43000 139750 178900
Seal 75000 1.4 17520 15953 8 4.38 6.95 115000 55000 503700 382250
Housing 150000 1.3 105120 96854 14 0.72 0.59 220000 100000 158400 59000
Motor 150000 1.2 70000 65778 8 1.06 1.0 190000 70000 201400 70000
Coupling 20000 2.0 46720 41404 8 1.69 2.24 60000 44000 101400 98550
Total 1441850 904450

š— -©ª/ «— ¬— ­–® — ­––©— ¯+™-›/0 ¯′+™-›/0 š -©ª/ š #-©ª/ š— +™-›/0 š— ′+™-›/0

API pump

-±²ª/ -±²ª/
Component
(Rs) (Rs)
Impeller 175000 2.5 93440 82905 8 0.84 0.48 215000 75000 180600 36000
Shaft 175000 1.2 128480 120731 10 0.58 0.48 225000 85000 130500 40800
Bearing 20000 1.3 35000 32248 8 2.17 2.29 60000 44000 130200 100750
Seal 125000 1.4 26280 23930 8 2.92 3.94 165000 65000 481800 256100
Housing 225000 1.3 128480 118378 14 0.59 0.45 295000 115000 174050 51750
Motor 150000 1.2 70000 65778 8 1.06 1.0 190000 70000 201400 70000
Coupling 60000 2.0 116800 103512 8 0.67 0.35 100000 52000 67000 18200
Total 1365550 573600

š— -©ª/ «— ¬— ­–® — ­––©— ¯+™-›/0 ¯′+™-›/0 š -©ª/ š ′-©ª/ š— ′+™-›/0 š— ′+™-›/0

Pump A

-±²ª/ -±²ª/
Component
(Rs) (Rs)
Impeller 20000 2.5 35000 31054 8 2.25 5.65 60000 44000 135000 4972
Shaft 18000 1.2 70000 65778 8 1.06 1.0 58000 43600 61500 872
Bearing 6000 1.3 11680 10761 4 6.5 10.25 26000 21200 169000 4346
Seal 1200 1.4 11680 10635 4 6.58 12.26 21200 20250 139500 4965
Housing 40000 1.3 87600 80712 8 0.86 0.75 80000 48000 68800 720
Motor 75000 1.2 35000 32889 8 2.12 2.29 115000 55000 243800 2519
Coupling 1500 2.0 70000 62036 4 1.12 1.0 21500 20300 24100 406
Total 841700 940000

79
 Table 5.6 depicts the values for C , β , η and MTTR  and the estimated values for
various parameters for renewal/replacement and minimal repair strategy. In this case, it
is assumed that all pump components follow Weibull times to failure. The expected
maintenance and repair cost for an impeller used in API pump as an example is estimated
as discussed below.
The mean time between failures is estimated as follows:

1
MTBFIAPIW K ηIAPI . Г q1 i r
βIAPI

1
MTBFIAPIW K 93440. Г v1 i w K 82905 hrs
2.5

The expected number of failures for renewal/replacement upon failure strategy is

t 70000
estimated as follows:

E+N-t/0IAPIW K v wKv w K 0.84

MTBFIAPIW 82905

The expected numbers of failures for minimal repair upon failure strategy are estimated
as follows:

t 70000 .
βIAPI
E#+N-t/0IAPIW K q r Kv w K 0.48
ηIAPI 93440

The cost per failure for renewal/replacement upon failure strategy is estimated as

CFIAPI K +175000 i 8-5000/0 K Rs 215000

follows:

The maintenance and repair cost expected over the design life of the impeller for
renewal/replacement upon failure strategy is estimated as follows:

C+N-t/0IAPIW K CFIAPI . E+N-t/0IAPIW K 215000x0.84 K Rs 180600

The maintenance and repair cost for renewal/replacement upon failure strategy for API
pump is estimated as follows:

80
 M<

C'API K L CF . E +N-t/0 K Rs 1365550

M

The cost per failure for minimal repair upon failure strategy is estimated as follows:

CF′IAPI K +35000 i 8-5000/0 K Rs 75000

The maintenance and repair cost expected over the design life of the impeller for
minimal repair upon failure strategy is estimated as follows:

C#+N-t/0IAPI K CF#IAPI . E#+N-t/0IAPI K 75000x0.48 K Rs 36000

The maintenance and repair cost for minimal repair upon failure strategy for API pump
is estimated as follows:
M<

C′'API K L CF′ . E′ +N-t/0 K Rs 573600

M

Till now we have discussed two different maintenance and repair strategies. But,
practically no single strategy can be applied to all the components in a given system. For
example, in case of pumps the components like seal, bearing etc. need to be replaced
upon failure. Similarly, pump housing can be subjected to minimal repair upon failure
and renewal couldn’t be a feasible option. Considering these facts a combination strategy
can be devised. For combination strategy, it is assumed that impeller, seal and bearing
are replaced upon failure and for other components minimal repair strategy is applied.
Table 5.7 shows the results for maintenance and repair costs. In case of exponential
times to failure, for renewal/replacement upon failure strategy (S-1) and combination
strategy (S-3), pump A has lowest expected maintenance cost while ANSI pump has
highest expected cost. For minimal repair upon failure strategy (S-2), API pump has
lowest expected cost while ANSI pump has highest expected cost. In case of Weibull
time to failure, for renewal/replacement upon failure strategy and combination strategy
pump A has lowest expected maintenance cost while ANSI pump has highest expected
cost. For minimal repair upon failure strategy, API pump has lowest expected cost while
pump A has highest expected cost.

81
 Table 5.7 Maintenance and repair costs results
Pump type Exponential distribution Weibull distribution

S-1 S-2 S-3 S-1 S-2 S-3

ANSI 1371500 677500 1073500 1441850 904450 1131450

API 1262750 530950 937950 1365550 573600 973500

Pump A 776700 549000 615500 841700 940000 669350

Figure 5.2 compares the expected maintenance and repair costs of all the three pumps.

669350
973500
S-3
Weibull Distribution

1131450
940000
Maintenance and repair strategy

S-2 573600
904450
841700 1365550
S-1
1441850
615500
Exponential Distribution

937950 PUMP A
S-3
1073500
549000 API PUMP
S-2 530950
677500 ANSI PUMP
776700
1262750
S-1
1371500

0 500000 1000000 1500000

Maintenance and repair cost (Rs)

Figure 5.2 Maintenance and repair cost comparison for pumps

82
5.4.5 Disposal costs
Disposal costs as depicted in Table 5.8 will occur as a lump at the end of pump
life. The costs will be incurred due to permits and legal costs associated with disposition,
wrecking/disposal costs, remediation costs, write-off/recovery costs, and green/clean
costs associated with disposal of the asset. These costs will occur in the final year and
may vary from region to region. In this paper, it is assumed that the pumps are used in
the same region for comparison purpose. Hence the disposal costs are assumed same for
all the pumps.
Table 5.8 Disposal costs
Pump type Disposal cost (Rs)
ANSI 150000
API 150000
Pump A 150000

5.4.6 Life cycle cost results

The life cycle cost is estimated as sum of all the costs incurred as above. Table 5.9 shows
the results for pump life cycle costs for all the strategies under consideration.
Table 5.9 Life cycle costs
Failure rate Strategy Pump type LCC (Rs) LCC per hour of
pump operation (Rs)
ANSI 32121500 459
Exponential distribution

S-1 API 32707750 468

Pump A 30909900 442
ANSI 31427500 449
S-2 API 31975950 457
Pump A 30682200 438
ANSI 31823500 455
S-3 API 32382950 463
Pump A 30748700 439
ANSI 32191850 460
S-1 API 32810550 469
Weibull distribution

Pump A 30974900 442

ANSI 31654450 452
S-2 API 32018600 457
Pump A 31073200 444
ANSI 31881450 455
S-3 API 32418500 463
Pump A 30802550 440

83
Figure 5.3 compares the life cycle cost of all the pumps.

30802550
S-3 32418500

Weibull Distribution
31881450
31073200
Maintenance and repair strategy

S-2 32018600
31654450
30974900
32810550
S-1
32191850
30748700
32382950
Exponential Distribution

S-3
31823500 PUMP A
30682200 API PUMP
S-2 31975950
31427500 ANSI PUMP

30909900
32707750
S-1
32121500

29000000 30000000 31000000 32000000 33000000

Life cycle cost (Rs)

Figure 5.3 Life cycle cost comparison for pumps

5.5 Discussion of results

Table 5.10 shows the comparison of the components of life cycle costs for
renewal/replacement upon failure strategy and for the assumption that pump components
follow Weibull time to failure. The cost components are shown in terms of % of LCC,
the number of times the pump acquisition cost and cost per hour of pump operation. The
acquisition costs of the pumps varied from 0.65% of LCC to 4.18% of LCC. The
installation and commission costs and disposal costs are not so significant. The operation
and maintenance and repair cost are observed to be significant for all pumps.

84
 Table 5.10 Comparison of life cycle cost results
No. of times Cost per hour
% of pump of pump
Pump type Cost component Cost (Rs)
LCC acquisition operation
cost (Rs/hr)
Acquisition 725000 2.25 1 10
Installation and
125000 0.38 0.17 1.5
commissioning

ANSI Operation 29750000 92.41 20.34 425

Maintenance and repair 1441850 4.5 1.98 20
Disposal 150000 0.46 0.2 2
Total 32191850 100 44.4 458.5
Acquisition 1370000 4.18 1 19.5
Installation and
175000 0.53 0.12 2.5
commissioning

API Operation 29750000 90.67 21.71 425

Maintenance and repair 1365550 4.17 0.99 19.5
Disposal 150000 0.45 0.1 2
Total 32810550 100 23.94 468.5
Acquisition 216500 0.65 1 2.5
Installation and
29200 0.09 0.14 0.5
commissioning

Pump A Operation 29750000 96.04 145.83 425

Maintenance and repair 841700 2.74 4.12 12
Disposal 150000 0.48 0.73 2
Total 30987400 100 151.83 442

As stated earlier, the ANSI and API pump are chosen from the literature. The
model used in the literature estimates the average cost of corrective maintenance. In this
present study, the expected number of failures in a given time interval are used to model
the maintenance costs. It would be interesting to compare the results obtained using two
methods. Table 5.11 shows the results obtained for the expected maintenance and repair
costs for ANSI and API pump using the previous method reported in the literature and
the present method. The approach of expected number of failures resulted into lower
expected maintenance and repair cost as compared to previous method.

85
 Table 5.11 Comparison of maintenance and repair costs results
Pump type Maintenance and repair cost (Rs)
Previous method Present method
ANSI 154400 137150
API 152050 126250

Figure 5.4 compares the major elements of life cycle cost in terms of LCC.

% of LCC
PUMP A Maintenance and Repair 2.74

Operation 96.04

Acquisition 0.65
LCC components

Maintenance and Repair 4.17

API PUMP

Operation 90.67

Acquisition 4.18
4.5
ANSI PUMP

Maintenance and Repair

Operation 92.41

Acquisition 2.25

0 50 100

% of LCC

Figure 5.4 Comparison of life cycle cost components (% of LCC)

5.6 Conclusions
The generalized life cycle cost model as developed earlier has been applied to
estimate and compare the life cycle cost of three different pumps. For the two pumps
namely the ANSI pump and API pump the data available in the published literature is
used, while for pump A the data obtained from the concerned manufacturer is used. The
focus is mainly on modeling the maintenance and repair costs. To model maintenance
costs, the approach of expected number of failures in a given time interval is applied.
The expected number of failures depends upon the maintenance strategy used. Therefore,
the analysis is carried out for two different maintenance strategies, the
renewal/replacement upon failure strategy and minimal repair upon failure strategy. The
results obtained for combination strategy are also discussed. In the first case, the analysis
is based upon the assumption that pump component failures follow exponential failure

86
law and in the second case the components are assumed to follow Weibull times to
failure. In case of exponential failure distribution, the expected numbers of failures are
constant irrespective of whether the item is replaced or repaired upon failure. The
maintenance cost in case of exponential failures is observed to be low as compared to
Weibull times to failure. The results obtained for the life cycle cost of the three pumps
are then compared. Based upon the analysis carried out and results obtained it has been
observed that:
• The pump A has lowest maintenance cost for renewal/replacement upon failure
strategy while API pump has lowest maintenance cost for minimal repair upon
failure strategy.
• Pump A has lowest life cycle cost of Rs 442 per hour of pump operation while
ANSI pump has Rs 458.5 per hour of pump operation and API pump has Rs
468.5 per hour of pump operation. Thus, pump A has lowest life cycle cost while
API pump has highest life cycle cost.
• The maintenance and operation costs are observed to be significant in all the
three cases. The operation cost varied from 90.67 % of LCC to 96% of LCC and
the maintenance cost variation is observed to be 2.74% to 4.5% of LCC.
• The life cycle cost varies from 23.94 to 151.83 times the pump acquisition cost.
This establishes the importance of LCC in pump acquisition. The methodology presented
in this paper is expected to help the pump designers to estimate and compare the life
cycle cost of their different design alternatives.

87