Comparative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Traditional Repair versus Engineering Modification of Mechanical Structures

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Jul 25, 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.66556/2787-9364.3-6.kolomiiets-n
Keywords:
traditional repair engineering modification lifecycle cost recurring failure reliability improvement mechanical structures decision framework

Main Article Content

Nataliia Kolomiiets
Banchelor's Degree, Department of Operation of Ship Power Plants and Thermal Power Engineering, Admiral Makarov National University of Shipbuilding, Mykolaiv, Ukraine
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0540-8195

Abstract

Choosing between continued repair and engineering modification of a repeatedly failing structural element currently relies on cost comparison, which may delay the modification decision by several failure cycles. A Repair-Modification Evaluation Framework (RMEF) is proposed that evaluates three criteria: lifecycle cost ratio, failure recurrence probability estimated from recorded intervals, and reliability improvement factor. A two-condition decision rule permits modification to be recommended when recurrence probability exceeds 0.80 and reliability improvement exceeds 3.0, even if repair remains less expensive. Verification on two industrial cases confirmed that RMEF identified the modification point earlier than cost-only analysis: a pipe support bracket with shortening crack intervals (recurrence probability 0.92) and a cooling pipe with persistent corrosion (five failures in six years, followed by 48 months corrosion-free after modification).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
| Abstract views: 8 | PDF Downloads: 2 |

Article Details

How to Cite
Kolomiiets, N. (2026). Comparative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Traditional Repair versus Engineering Modification of Mechanical Structures. Global Prosperity, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.66556/2787-9364.3-6.kolomiiets-n
Issue
Vol. 6 No. 3 (2026): Global Prosperity
Section
Articles

References

ASME PCC-2 (2022). Repair of Pressure Equipment and Piping. New York, NY: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

AWS D1.1/D1.1M (2020). Structural Welding Code — Steel. Miami, FL: American Welding Society.

Booth, G. S., & Charlesworth, F. D. W. (1999). Post-weld improvement methods. Welding in the World, 43(3), 5–15.

Haagensen, P. J., & Maddox, S. J. (2013). IIW Recommendations on Methods for Improving the Fatigue Strength of Welded Joints. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.

Moubray, J. (1997). Reliability-Centered Maintenance. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Industrial Press.

Nowlan, F. S., & Heap, H. F. (1978). Reliability-Centered Maintenance. Report AD-A066 579. San Francisco, CA: United Airlines / U.S. Department of Defense.

Frangopol, D. M., Lin, K.-Y., & Estes, A. C. (1997). Life-cycle cost design of deteriorating structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(10), 1390–1401.

Dhillon, B. S. (2010). Life Cycle Costing for Engineers. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Maddox, S. J. (1991). Fatigue Strength of Welded Structures. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Abington Publishing.

Kirkhope, K. J., Bell, R., Caron, L., Basu, R. I., & Ma, K.-T. (1999). Weld detail fatigue life improvement techniques. Part 1: Review. Marine Structures, 12(6), 447–474.

Branco, C. M., Fernandes, A. A., & de Castro, P. M. S. T. (1999). Fatigue of Structures and Materials. Dordrecht: Springer.

Brooks, C. R., & Choudhury, A. (2002). Failure Analysis of Engineering Materials. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Bloch, H. P., & Geitner, F. K. (2012). Machinery Failure Analysis and Troubleshooting. 4th ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Rausand, M., & Høyland, A. (2004). System Reliability Theory: Models, Statistical Methods, and Applications. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Revie, R. W., & Uhlig, H. H. (2008). Corrosion and Corrosion Control: An Introduction to Corrosion Science and Engineering. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.