Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017)000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017)000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 1747–1752

International Conference on Industrial Engineering, ICIE 2017

International Conference on Industrial Engineering, ICIE 2017
Rational Route Choosing Methodology for Machine Parts
Rational Route Choosing Methodology
Restoration and Repairfor Machine Parts
Restoration
a,
and Repair
b b
S.A. Voynash *, P.A. Gaydukova , A. N. Markov
a S.A. Voynasha,*, P.A. Gaydukovab, A. N. Markovb
Rubtsovsk Industrial Institute (Branch) of Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education Polzunov Altai State Technical
a
Rubtsovsk Industrial
b
Institute (Branch) ofUniversity, 2/6,Budgetary
Federal State Traktornaya str., Rubtsovsk
Educational 658207,
Institution Russia Education Polzunov Altai State Technical
of Higher
Saint Petersburg State Forest Technical University, 5, Institutsky per., Saint
University, 2/6, Traktornaya str., Rubtsovsk 658207, RussiaPetersburg 194021, Russia
b
Saint Petersburg State Forest Technical University, 5, Institutsky per., Saint Petersburg 194021, Russia

Abstract
Abstract
This paper presents a modern approach to choosing the optimal route for restoration and repair of machine parts with full
consideration of theiraoperating
This paper presents modern parameters
approach toaschoosing
well as economic
the optimal substantiation
route for for using this
restoration or repair
and that repair technology.
of machine parts with full
To determine the optimal restoration route, we need a dependency analysis, for which we
consideration of their operating parameters as well as economic substantiation for using this or that repair technology. should meet the condition that
underlies the preventative
To determine the optimalmaintenance
restoration system and need
route, we that isa complied
dependency withanalysis,
the multiplicity
for whichprinciple.
we should meet the condition that
For threadthewear
underlies or thread-stripping,
preventative maintenancethere systemareandseveral
that ismethods
compliedofwith thread restoration, principle.
the multiplicity such as hole-welding with subsequent
threading;
For threadmounting a thread insert; hole-machining
wear or thread-stripping, there are several and methods
oversizedofthreading; use of polymer
thread restoration, such materials; or mounting
as hole-welding a threaded
with subsequent
spiral
threading; mounting a thread insert; hole-machining and oversized threading; use of polymer materials; or mounting aWith
insert. Unlike that, it is far more complicated to choose the optimal route for the worn surfaces restoration. full
threaded
consideration of the flux grade and the electrode wire material, there can be as many as 400 or even
spiral insert. Unlike that, it is far more complicated to choose the optimal route for the worn surfaces restoration. With full500 selectable routes. That is
why we can rely
consideration on the
of the fluxapplicability,
grade and thedurability,
electrodeandwirecost-effectiveness
material, there can analysis to narrow
be as many as 400theorrange
evenof options.
500 selectable routes. That is
When
why wechoosing
can rely the bestapplicability,
on the method to correct the and
durability, defect, one has to duly
cost-effectiveness consider
analysis how this
to narrow thepart
rangeoperates, the load it takes, and
of options.
whether there are fatigue cracks. These data help to select the most optimal route on the applicability
When choosing the best method to correct the defect, one has to duly consider how this part operates, the load it takes, and basis.
The mostthere
whether accurate and reliable
are fatigue cracks. data are obtained
These data help on the basis
to select theof
mostthe optimal
real-world useonofthe
route pairings, nodes, basis.
applicability and units.
When
The finding
most out whether
accurate this or
and reliable datathat
areroute is optimal,
obtained on thethebasistechno-economic
of the real-world criterion is the most
use of pairings, important
nodes, one.
and units.
© 2017finding
When The Authors.
out Published
whether this orbythat
Elsevier
route B.V.
is optimal, the techno-economic criterion is the most important one.
© 2017 The Authors.
Peer-review Published by
under responsibility of Elsevier Ltd. committee of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering.
the scientific
© 2017 The
Peer-review Authors.
under Published
responsibility by Elsevier
of the B.V.
scientific committee of the factor;
International
Keywords: parts
Peer-review restoration;
under parts repair;
responsibility durability
of the factor;
scientific wear resistance
committee adhesionConference
of the International Conference
on Industrial
strength; applicability Engineering
criterion.
on Industrial Engineering.
Keywords: parts restoration; parts repair; durability factor; wear resistance factor; adhesion strength; applicability criterion.

* Corresponding author. Tel. +7-903-996-7061

E-mail address:author.
* Corresponding [email protected]
Tel. +7-903-996-7061
E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
1877-7058 ©under
2017responsibility
The Authors. of the scientific
Published committee
by Elsevier B.V.of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering .
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering .

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering.
10.1016/j.proeng.2017.10.708
1748 S.A. Voynash et al. / Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 1747–1752
2 S.A. Voynash, P.A. Gaydukova, A.N. Markov / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

1. Introduction

Choosing the rational route for the restoration and repair of machine parts is a complex problem that requires a
careful solution depending on the scale of manufacturing. Generally, optimal routes are chosen based on the analysis
of the dependency:

Sm  Sr Sp  C f
 (1)
Lr Ln

where Sm , Sr are the specific quoted expenses for the repair and restoration of parts; Lr , Ln is the service life of
repaired and new parts; Sp is the sale price of new parts; C f is the coefficient that accounts for the transport costs.
Lr
The condition  1. should hold. [1] This ratio may be referred to as the life recovery coefficient of the part. It
Ln
should be borne in mind that the value of this coefficient should be in accordance with the multiplicity principle that
underlies the preventative maintenance system.
Parts that only require the restoration of worn surfaces are virtually non-existent. However, the problem of
choosing the repair route is not very multivariant. [2]

2. Relevance and Problem Statement

Let us consider, for instance, the wear or stripping of mounting bolt thread. The wear of threaded holes is always
fairly similar regardless of the material of parts. Such uneven wear is due to the fact that turns of a threaded
connection bear an unequal load. There are several practically applicable methods of thread restoration: hole-
welding with subsequent threading; installing a thread insert; hole-machining and oversized threading; use of
polymer materials; or installing a threaded spiral insert. Unlike that, it is far more complicated to choose the optimal
route for the restoration of worn surfaces.
Analysis of the repair methods shows that threaded connections become considerably more durable when
repaired with spiral inserts. The problem of choosing the optimal route to restore worn out surfaces is much more
complicated. Currently, there are more than 40 coating operations and more than 200 varieties thereof. [3,4]
That is why we propose to rely on the applicability, durability, and cost-effectiveness analysis to narrow the
range of options.
The applicability criterion helps choose the best case-specific method to correct the defect. This criterion can be
described by the function

Сa  f  M p , S s , Ds , Aw , M l ,  Т f  (2)

where M p is the material of the part; Ss is the shape of the surface to restore; Ds is the diameter of the surface to
restore; Aw is the amount of wear; M l is the magnitude and nature of the load born by the part; ∑ Т f is the total of
the technological peculiarities of the route that determine the scope of its optimal use.[6,7,8]
This dependency shows that to choose the restoration route, one had to know how the part or pairing operates, the
load it bears, the amount of resulting wear, and whether there are fatigue cracks. To have these data, one needs
systematic monitoring and the registration of output. [9,10]
Based on the data presented in Table 1, one can develop restoration routes for worn out surfaces and analyze
those routes on the basis of applicability, durability, and the economic criterion.[11,12]
The applicability criterion allows for leaving out the routes that do not meet the part-related requirements.
The durability factor, in general terms:
 S.A. Voynash et al. / Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 1747–1752 1749
S.A. Voynash, P.A. Gaydukova, A.N. Markov / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3

Cd  f  Cс , Ce , Cw  (3)

where Cс is the coating-to-base metal adhesion strength factor; Ce is the endurance ratio; Cw is the wear resistance
factor.

Table 1. Technological characteristics of the restoration methods

Technological characteristics of Restoration method codes

methods СО2 SC F EM Cr I ECW AC MW

Metals and alloys to which this Steel, ductile, and All Steel, gray Steel, cast
Steel Steel Steel All materials
method is applicable gray cast iron materials cast iron iron

External External and

Surfaces, to which this method External cylindrical and External and External and internal
cylindrical and internal
is applicable flat internal cylindrical cylindrical as well as flat
flat cylindrical

Applicability of the method to

Not
parts subjected to alternating Applicable Not applicable Applicable Applicable
applicable
loads

Minimum diameters of parts to

which this method is applicable, 10 15 35 30 5 12 5 5 10
mm

Minimal inner diameter to

- 50 - - 40 40 50 8 40
which this method applies

Least practical thickness of

0.5 0.3 1.5 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.0
coating, mm

Maximum practical thickness of

3.5 3.0 5.0 8.0 0.6 3.0 1.5 3.0 6.0
coating, mm

Decrease in fatigue strength,% 15 50 15 45 20 25 15 0 30

Meaning of the codes: CO2 is carbon dioxide welding, SC is short-circuited arc welding, F is flux welding, EM is
electrometallization, Cr is chrome plating, I is iron plating, ECW is electrocontact welding, AC is the use of
adhesive compositions, and MW is manual welding.

3. Theory, Part Three

According to Prof. A. M. Masino, the adhesive strength is sufficient if it has one of the following values:
500 MPa for external steel surfaces that bear significant impact and alternating loads; 200 MPa for external steel and
cast iron surfaces that do not bear a significant impact and alternating loads; 50 MPa for internal mounting surfaces
for bearings, which surfaces do not bear alternating and significant impact loads (applies to parts made of steel, cast
iron, or aluminum alloys); 40 MPa for external or internal steel or cast iron surfaces that do not bear significant
impact or alternating loads on a porous layer, provided that the pairing is well-lubricated. [13,14,15] These values
can be assumed as reference values. The value of the adhesion factor can be calculated based on the following
dependency

 е
Сс  с (4)
 сr
1750
4 S.A. Voynash, P.A.S.A. Voynash et
Gaydukova, al. Markov
A.N. / Procedia Engineering
/ Procedia 206 (2017)
Engineering 1747–1752
00 (2017) 000–000

where  се is the empirical coating-to-base metal adhesion value;  сr is a reference value from the above list,
assumed on the basis of operating conditions.[16,17]

Table 2. Life recovery coefficients

Part restoration processes Cw Ce Ca Cl

1 2 3 4 5

Grinding, iron plating, turning, grinding, hard-alloy burnishing 1.76 1.20 0.8 1.28

Grinding, iron plating, CBN-R turning, and electromechanical strengthening 1.50 1.14 0.8 1.19

Grinding, iron plating, CBN-R turning, grinding, surface plastic deformation 1.23 0.98 0.8 1.06

Electromechanical restoration 1.11 1.42 1.00 1.04

Propane-butane welding, turning, tempering with HFC heating, grinding, surface plastic deformation 1.72 1.06 1.00 1.25

Short-circuit arc welding, hexanit-R turning, grinding, hard-alloy burnishing 1.02 1.22 1.00 1.05

Short-circuit arc welding, hexanit-R turning, grinding, electromechanical strengthening 0.98 1.01 1.00 0.94

Short-circuit arc welding, hexanit-R turning, grinding, surface plastic deformation 0.89 0.94 1.00 0.94

Flux welding, turning, tempering with HFC heating, grinding, hard-alloy burnishing 1.12 1.30 1.00 1.02

Flux welding, turning, grinding, electromechanical strengthening 2.08 1.08 1.00 1.35

Flux welding, turning, tempering with HFC heating, grinding, surface plastic deformation 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.94

Carbon dioxide welding, turning, grinding, electromechanical strengthening 1.80 1.04 1.00 1.28

Carbon dioxide welding, turning, tempering with HFC heating, grinding, surface plastic deformation 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.94

Electrocontact welding, CBN-R turning, grinding, surface plastic deformation 1.08 0.98 0.95 1.00

Electrocontact welding, CBN-R turning, grinding, electromechanical strengthening 1.11 0.98 0.95 1.01

Macnining, flame spraying, tempering with HFC heating, CBN-R turning, grinding 1.10 1.20 0.98 1.1

Macnining, plasma spraying, tempering with HFC heating, CBN-R turning, grinding 1.80 1.60 1.00 1.50

Machining, detonation spraying, CBN-R turning, grinding 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Machining, detonation spraying, grinding 1.80 1.00 1.00 1.00

Machining, polymer composition coating, machining 1.20 1.20 0.95 1.10

Manual welding, CBN-R turning, grinding, surface plastic deformation 0.82 0.80 1.00 0.75

Manual welding, turning, tempering with HFC heating, grinding, surface plastic deformation 0.93 0.90 1.00 0.83

  (applied and machined according to

The endurance ratio is the ratio of the endurance limit of the coating
В
В

a specific restoration route) to the endurance limit of the new part  

Н
В

В
В
Се  (5)
Н
В
 S.A. Voynash et al. / Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 1747–1752 1751
S.A. Voynash, P.A. Gaydukova, A.N. Markov / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 5

This ratio is determined on the basis of laboratory and bench testing. Table 2 presents the results of fatigue
strength tests carried out on a RUMI‒30 machine under conditions close to the load for most parts of forestry
machines.
The wear resistance factor can be estimated on the basis of laboratory tests using a SMC‒2М friction machine.
The wear resistance factor Cw is calculated per the formula:

Сsres
Cw  (6)
Сsref

where Сsres is the wear resistance of the restored surface; Сsref is the wear resistance of the reference surface.[18]
Table 2 presents the test results obtained under the following conditions: slip velocity of 0.25 m/s, a load of
784 MPa, and a 4700 m slip distance (after breaking-in).
The durability factor can be determined by different methods. Prof. M.A. Mashino [3] proposes to use the least
values of its three constituent factors. Table 2 provides an example [1].

Fig.1. Nomogram for determining the number of failures of a part in a unit over the post-repair service life.

 is the variation coefficient of the part; Cru is the unit life coefficient; Crd is the life coefficient of the restored
part.
Other scientists and researchers [2] propose calculating the durability factor as a product of its constituent factors.
We believe that the durability factor can be calculated as follows

Cd  rCw Кbm (7)

where r is the basic variable; m is the tilt of the left branch of the fatigue curve per GOST 25.504‒82 (m=1.96)
provided that Cc  1. [19]
The techno-economic criterion is the most important one, as it is this criterion that determines whether this or that
restoration route is optimal or not. The technical aspect of this criterion is defined by the reliability of the restoration
and repair process:
1752
6 S.A. Voynash, P.A.S.A. Voynash et
Gaydukova, al. Markov
A.N. / Procedia Engineering
/ Procedia 206 (2017)
Engineering 1747–1752
00 (2017) 000–000

S m  Sr  Sc Sp  C f
 (8)
Lr Ln

where Sc are the specific quoted costs related to the elimination of the consequences of failures, see GOST 23.1.47‒
80,

Sq  nО
Sc  (9)
Т Р  n  1

where Sq are the specific quoted costs of repairing a unit in which there is a repaired and restored part; nо is the
probable number of failures related to the restored part, expected in the post-repair service life; n is the number of
repaired and restored parts in the unit; Sр is the price of a new or a spare part; Cf is the transport costs factor; Тр is the
service life of a repaired and restored part.[20]

4. Conclusion

For the main units of tracked vehicles that have not been overhauled, the variation coefficient is 0.3...0.4; for
those that have been overhauled, the value is 0.6...0.8.
If Кр  1, then the costs of eliminating the consequences of a failure are not accounted. If the left part, see
Figure 1, exceeds the right part, then one had better purchase spare parts and not repair or restore the broken part,
because such repair and restoration would not be cost-effective.

References

[1] V.V. Balikhin, V.V. Bykov, N.Yu. Ivanov, Machine and Equipment Repair Technology: a university textbook, SPSFTU, 2006. ( in Russ.)
[2] V.V. Balikhin, V.V. Bykov, N.Yu. Ivanov, Machine and Equipment Repair Technology: a university textbook, Moscow, MSFU, 2008. (in
Russ.)
[3] V.P. Nemtsov, B.A. Shestakov, Technical Operation of Motor Transport at Logging Enterprises, Moscow, Forest industry, 1985, 271 p. (in
Russ.)
[4] Yu.N. Artemyev, Quality of Repairs and Reliability of Machines in Agriculture, Moscow, Kolos, 1981, 239 p. ( in Russ.)
[5] A.N. Batishchev, I.G. Golubev, Restoration of Parts of Agricultural Machinery, Informtekhizdat,1995, 296 p. ( in Russ)
[6] V.N. Andreyev, V.V. Milyakov, V.V. Balikhin, V.I. Romanenko, Repair and Maintenance of Forestry Machinery, Leningrad, Agropromizdat,
1989, 312 p. (in Russ.)
[7] V.I. Dragunovich, V.S. Goncharov, Repair of Machines and Mechanisms in Forestry, Moscow,Transport, 1995, 303 p. (in Russ.)
[8] V.V. Kurchatkin, Reliability and Repair of Machines, Moscow, Kolos, 2000, 776 p. (in Russ.)
[9] V.A. Markov, V.I. Kretinin, V.A. Sokolova et al., Studying the Causes of Part Failures in Imported and Domestic Forestry Machinery
Bulletin of St. Petersburg Forest Technical Academy. 216 (2016) 155‒156. (in Russ.)
[10] A.P. Bortov, Modern Engineering Materials,: Moscow, 2001, 236 p. (in Russ.)
[11] M.N. Ivanov, Machine Parts, Moscow, Vysshaya shkola, 2007, 403 p. (in Russ.)
[12] Yu.M. Kalagin, V.P.Shevchenko, Centralized Restoration of Parts, 1987. (in Russ.)
[13] N.N. Litovchenko et al., Repairing a Skidder, Moscow, 1977, 224 p. ( in Russ)
[14] Yu.N. Lukanov, L.B. Roginsky, N.D. Segal, Restoration and Strengthening of Worn-out Parts of Forestry Machines, Moscow, 1982, 43 p.
(in Russ.)
[15] A.P. Kochnenko, L.O. Kirs, Theory and Practice of Depositing, Mechanical engineering, Kyiv, 1999, 241 p. (in Russ.)
[16] D. Mattson, The equipment of the wood industry, USA, 1999, 130 p.
[17] V. Meller, Die modern Mashinenbauproduktion, Berlin, 2010, 102 p.
[18] T. Wilson, Modern methods of restoration of details, USA, 2001, 340 p.
[19] P. Smith, Composition materials in mechanical engineering,Vancouver, 2002, 302 p.
[20] P. Smith, repair of forest car, Vancouver, 2003, 150 p.