cost/benefit analysis conducted at landing gear repair facility analysis conducted by concurrent...

Cost/Benefit AnalysisCost/Benefit AnalysisConducted at Landing Conducted at Landing

GearGearRepair FacilityRepair Facility

Analysis conducted byAnalysis conducted byConcurrent Technologies Corporation Concurrent Technologies Corporation using Environmental Cost Accounting using Environmental Cost Accounting

MethodologyMethodology

Tasking byTasking by Joint Group on Pollution PreventionJoint Group on Pollution Prevention

Process Flow for Hard Chrome Process Flow for Hard Chrome PlatePlate

ChromePlate

Clean

Mask

HotRinse

Grind/ Polish

De-MaskRinse

Strip(chemical)

AbrasiveBlast

Inspect

Rep

eat

as n

eed

ed

AcceptableParts

Rew

ork

as

nee

ded

UnacceptableParts

PartsInspect

DetailedInspection

Mask De-mask

ShotPeen

BakeDry

PlateReq’d

Plate Not Req’d

Process Flow for HVOF CoatingProcess Flow for HVOF Coating

HVOFSprayMask

Grind/ PolishDe-Mask

Strip(electrochemical)

AbrasiveBlast

Inspect

Repe

atas

nee

ded

AcceptableParts

Rew

ork

as n

eede

d

UnacceptableParts

PartsInspectDetailed

InspectionMask De-mask

ShotPeen

HVOFReq’d

HVOF Not Req’d

Data CollectionData Collection

Site visit conducted to collect data and conduct Site visit conducted to collect data and conduct interviews with plating engineers, plating interviews with plating engineers, plating supervisors, chemists, and other relevant employeessupervisors, chemists, and other relevant employees

Where available, material usage rates and costs, Where available, material usage rates and costs, labor hours, and waste treatment and disposal costs labor hours, and waste treatment and disposal costs were identifiedwere identified

ESOH costs were also obtained where available, or ESOH costs were also obtained where available, or estimatedestimated

Facility overhauls approximately 500 main landing Facility overhauls approximately 500 main landing gear (LG) pistons, 250 nose LG pistons and 250 nose gear (LG) pistons, 250 nose LG pistons and 250 nose LG cylinders annuallyLG cylinders annually

Determined that average hard chrome plating Determined that average hard chrome plating thickness for repaired components is 0.010”thickness for repaired components is 0.010”

Typical Areas on Main Landing GearTypical Areas on Main Landing Gearfor Transitioning to HVOF Thermal for Transitioning to HVOF Thermal

SpraySpray

Main Assumptions Associated Main Assumptions Associated WithWith

Transition to HVOF Thermal SprayTransition to HVOF Thermal Spray If HVOF implemented, two chrome plating tanks and one If HVOF implemented, two chrome plating tanks and one

chrome stripping tank could be shut downchrome stripping tank could be shut down HVOF would be applied to same thickness as chromeHVOF would be applied to same thickness as chrome WC/17Co powder costs would be $32 per poundWC/17Co powder costs would be $32 per pound HVOF spraying rate would be 10 pounds per hour with HVOF spraying rate would be 10 pounds per hour with

deposit efficiency of 50%deposit efficiency of 50% On average, one HVOF cell could process one LG in 40 On average, one HVOF cell could process one LG in 40

minutesminutes Hourly labor rates per person same for HVOF as for Hourly labor rates per person same for HVOF as for

chromechrome Approximately 88% of total surface area currently Approximately 88% of total surface area currently

chrome plated could be transitioned to HVOFchrome plated could be transitioned to HVOF Average turn-around-time for LG components coated Average turn-around-time for LG components coated

with HVOF would be approximately five days less than with HVOF would be approximately five days less than the average for chrome-plated componentsthe average for chrome-plated components

CBA does not assume increased lifetime for componentsCBA does not assume increased lifetime for components

Estimated Annual Operating Cost Estimated Annual Operating Cost Avoidance for LG Facility Changing to Avoidance for LG Facility Changing to

HVOFHVOFLaborLabor $113,540$113,540

MaterialsMaterials $ 75,520$ 75,520

UtilitiesUtilities $ 11,390$ 11,390

Waste DisposalWaste Disposal $ 2,900$ 2,900

Reduce TATReduce TAT $ 32,880$ 32,880

TOTALTOTAL $236,230$236,230

TAT = turnaround timeTAT = turnaround time

Based on 1250 total components processed per year and Based on 1250 total components processed per year and 1700 square inches coated1700 square inches coated

Table 1 Results of 15-year Financial Evaluation for Implementation of HVOF

Category Calculated Result

Annual Operating Cost Avoidance $195,600 - $210,700

Initial Capital Investment $700,450

Net Present Valuea $1,799,700 - $1,977,500

Internal Rate of Returna 30.5 – 32.8%

Discount Paybacka 3,29 – 3,53 years a This value was calculated with Pollution Prevention Financial Analysis and Cost Evaluation System (P2/FINANCE) software program. This software program is proprietary and copyrighted by Tellus Institute of Boston, Massachusetts. A 15-year analysis and 3.2% discount rate were assumed.

Formatted: Position: Horizontal:Center, Relative to: Margin, Vertical: 0.04", Relative to: Paragraph,Horizontal: 0.13", Width: Exactly 4.47", Height: At least 2.11", Nowrapping







cost/benefit analysis conducted at landing gear repair facility analysis conducted by concurrent...

Documents