P. 1
Life Cycle Costing and Reliability Engg

Life Cycle Costing and Reliability Engg

|Views: 2,076|Likes:
Published by SAMEER ALI KHAN
Very good notes for life cycle costing n reliability engg.
Very good notes for life cycle costing n reliability engg.

More info:

Published by: SAMEER ALI KHAN on Oct 11, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/30/2013

pdf

text

original

Sections

1

T u t o r i al s o n
L i f e Cy cl e Co st i n g
an d
Rel i ab i l i t y
En gi n eer i n g
Co u r se M at er i al
Cour se Inst r uct or : Pr of essor U Di nesh Kumar
Indian Inst i t ut e of M anagement Bangal or e
1. Rel i abi l i t y Mai n t enance and Logi st i c Suppor t - I nt r oduct i on 2
Chapter 1
Reliability Maintenance and Logistic
Support - Introduction
All the business of war, and indeed all the business of life, is to endeavour
to find out what you dont know from what you do.
Duke of Wel l i ngt on
1.1. INTRODUCTION
Ever si nce t he Indust r i al Revol ut i on began some 2½ cent ur i es ago,
cust omer s have demand ed bet t er , cheaper , f ast er , mor e f or l ess, t hr ou gh
gr eat er r el i abi l i t y, mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y (RM S). As soon as
peopl e set t hemsel ves up i n busi n ess t o pr ovi de pr o duct s f or ot her s and
not j ust f or t hemsel ves, t hei r cust o mer s have al w ays want ed t o make sur e
t hey wer e not bei ng expl oi t ed and t hat t hey wer e get t i ng val ue f or money
and pr oduct s t hat woul d be f i t f or pur pose.
Today’ s cust omer s ar e no di f f er ent . Al l t hat has changed i s t hat t he
compani es have gr ow n bi gger , t h e pr oduct s have b eco me mor e
sophi st i cat ed, compl ex and expensi ve and, t he cust omer s have become
mor e demandi ng and even l ess t r ust i ng. As i n al l f or ms of evol ut i on, t he
Red Queen Syndr ome ( Lew i s, C. 1971, M at t , R., 1993) i s f or ever pr esent – i n
busi ness, as i n al l t hi ngs, you si mpl y have t o keep r u nni ng f ast er t o st and
st i l l . No mat t er how good you make som et hi ng, i t wi l l never r emai n good
enough f or l ong.
Oper at or s w ant i nf i ni t e per f or mance, at zer o l i f e-cycl e cost , w i t h
100% avai l abi l i t y f r om t he day t hey t ake t o del i ver y t o t he day t h ey di spose
of i t . It i s t he t ask of t he desi gner / manuf act ur er / suppl i er / pr oducer t o get
as near as possi bl e t o t h ese ext r emes, or , at t h e ver y l east , near er t han
1. Rel i abi l i t y Mai n t enance and Logi st i c Suppor t - I nt r oduct i on 3
t hei r comp et i t or s. In many cases, how ever , i t i s not si mpl y suf f i ci ent t o t ell
t he (pot ent i al ) cust omer how w el l t hey have met t hese r eq ui r ement s,
r at her , t hey wi l l be r equi r ed t o pr oduce demonst r abl e evi dence t o
subst ant i at e t h ese cl ai ms. In t he f ol l owi ng pages, we hope t o pr ovi de you
wi t h t he t echni ques and met hodol ogi es t hat wi l l enabl e you t o do t hi s and,
t hr ough pr act i cal exampl es, expl ai n how t hey can be used.
The success of any busi ness d ep ends on t he ef f ect i veness of t he
pr ocess and t he pr oduct t hat busi ness pr oduces. Ever y pr oduct i n t hi s w or l d
i s made t o per f or m a f unct i on and ever y cust omer / user woul d l i ke her
pr oduct t o mai nt ai n i t s f unct i onal i t y unt i l has f ul f i l l ed i t s pur pose or , f ai l i ng
t hat , f or as l ong as possi bl e. If t hi s can be don e wi t h t he mi ni mum of
mai nt enance but , when t her e i s a need f or mai nt enance, t hat t hi s can be
done i n t he mi ni mum t i me, wi t h t he mi ni mum of di sr upt i on t o t he
oper at i on r equi r i ng t he mi ni mum of suppor t and expendi t ur e t hen so much
t he bet t er . As t he consumer ’ s awar eness of , and demand f or , qual i t y,
r el i abi li t y and, avai l abi l i t y i ncr eases, so t oo does t he pr essur e on i ndust r y t o
pr oduce pr oduct s, whi ch meet t hese d emands. I ndust r i es, over t h e year s,
have pl aced gr eat i mpor t ance on engi n eer i ng excel l ence, al t hough some
mi ght pr ef er t o use t he w or d “ hubr i s” . M any of t hose w hi ch have sur vi ved,
however , have done so by manuf act ur i n g hi ghl y r el i abl e pr oduct s, dr i ven by
t he mar ket and t he exp ect at i ons of t hei r cust omer s.
The oper at i onal phase of compl ex equi pm ent l i ke ai r cr af t , r ocket s,
nucl ear submar i nes, t r ai ns, buses, car s and comput er s i s l i ke an or chest r a,
many i ndi vi dual s, i n many depar t ment s d oi ng a set of i nt er connect ed
act i vi t i es t o achi eve maxi mum ef f ect i veness. Behi nd al l of t hese oper at i ons
ar e cer t ai n i nher ent char act er i st i cs (desi gn par amet er s) of t he pr oduct t hat
pl ays a cr uci al r ol e i n t he over al l success of t he pr oduct . Thr ee such
char act er i st i cs ar e r el i abi l i t y, mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y, t oget her
we cal l t h em RM S. Al l t hese t hr ee char act er i st i cs ar e cr uci al f or any
oper at i on. Bi l l i ons of dol l ar s ar e spent by co mmer ci al and mi l i t ar y oper at or s
ever y year as a di r ect co nsequence of t he unr el i abi l i t y, l ack of
mai nt ai nabi l i t y and poor suppor t abi l i t y of t he syst ems t hey ar e expect ed t o
oper at e.
M oder n i ndust r i al syst ems consi st of compl ex and hi ghl y
sophi st i cat ed el ement s, but at t he sam e t i me, user s’ expect at i ons r egar di ng
t r oubl e f r ee oper at i on i s ever pr esent and even i ncr easi n g. A Bo ei ng 777
has over 300, 000 uni que par t s wi t hi n a t ot al of ar ound 6 mi l l i on par t s (hal f
of t hem ar e nu t s, bol t s and r i vet s). Successf ul l y oper at i ng, mai nt ai ni ng and
suppor t i ng such a compl ex syst em demands i nt egr at ed t ool s, pr ocedur es
and t echni ques. Fai l ur e t o meet hi gh r el i abi l i t y, mai nt ai nabi l i t y and
suppor t abi l i t y can have cost l y and f ar -r eachi n g ef f ect s. Losi ng t he ser vi ces
1. Rel i abi l i t y Mai n t enance and Logi st i c Suppor t - I nt r oduct i on 4
of ai r l i ner s, such as t he Boei ng 747, can cost as hi gh as $ 300,000 per day i n
f or f ei t ed r evenue al one. Fai l ur e t o di spat ch a commer ci al f l i ght on t i me or
i t s cancel l at i on i s not onl y connect ed t o t h e cost of cor r ect i ng t h e f ai l ur e,
but al so t o t he ext r a cr ew cost s, addi t i onal passenger handl i ng and l oss of
passenger r evenue. Consequ ent l y, t hi s wi l l have an i mpact on t he
comp et i t i veness, pr of i t abi l i t y and mar ket shar e of t he ai r l i ne concer ned.
' Ai r cr af t on Gr ound' i s pr obabl y t h e most dr ead ed phr ase i n t he commer ci al
ai r l i nes’ vocabul ar y. And, al t hough t he cost s and i mpl i cat i ons may be
di f f er en t , i t i s no mor e popul ar wi t h mi l i t ar y oper at o r s. Cost s per mi nut e
del ay f or di f f er ent ai r cr af t t yp e ar e shown i n Fi gur e 1.1. Her e t he del ay
cost s ar e at t r i but abl e t o l abour char ges, ai r por t f ees, ai r t r af f i c cont r ol
cost s, r esch edul i ng cost s, passenger cost s (f ood, acco mmodat i on, t r anspor t
and payof f s).
Fi gur e 1.1 Ai r cr af t del ay cost per mi nut e
Indust r i es have l ear ned f r om past exp er i ence and t hr ough cut t i ng
edge r esear ch how t o mak e t hei r pr odu ct s saf e and r el i abl e. NASA, Boei ng,
Ai r bus, Lockheed M ar t i n, Rol l s-Royce, Gener al El ect r i c, Pr at t and Whi t ney,
and many, many mor e, ar e pr oduci ng ext r emel y r el i abl e pr oduct s. For
exampl e, over 25% of t h e j et l i ner s i n US have been i n ser vi ce f or over 20
year s and mor e t han 500 over 25 year s, near i n g or exceedi ng t hei r or i gi nal
desi gn l i f e (Lam, M ., 1995). The i mpor t an t message i s t hat t hese ai r cr af t ar e
st i l l capabl e of mai nt ai ni ng t hei r ai r w or t hi ness; t hey ar e st i l l saf e and
r el i abl e. But , we cannot b e compl acent , even t he b est of or gani sat i ons can
have t hei r bad days. The l osses of t he Chal l en ger Space Shut t l e i n 1986, and
Apol l o 13 ar e st i l l ver y f r esh i n many of our memor i es.
Cust omer s’ r equi r ement s gener al l y exceed t h e capabi l i t i es of t he
pr oducer s. Occasi onal l y, t hese go beyond what i s pr act i cal l y, and
somet i m es even t heor et i cal l y, possi bl e. An exampl e of t hi s coul d be t he
1. Rel i abi l i t y Mai n t enance and Logi st i c Suppor t - I nt r oduct i on 5
new r el i abi l i t y r equi r ement , mai nt enance and f ai l ur e f r ee oper at i ng per i od,
(Hockl ey et al 1996, Di nesh Kumar et al , 1999, 2000). Hi gh r el i abi l i t y i s
cer t ai nl y a desi r abl e f unct i on, but so t o i s mai nt ai nabi l i t y and excel l ent
l ogi st i c suppor t . It i s onl y t hr ough al l t hr ee t hat t he l i f e-cycl e cost can be
dr i ven down whi l st t he l evel of avai l abi l i t y i s dri ven up.
Combat ai r cr af t ar e exp ensi ve and so ar e t hei r cr ews, so no
oper at or want s t o l ose ei t her . At t he same t i me, d epl oyi ng l ar ge gr ou nd
f or ces t o mai nt ai n and suppor t t hem i s al so expen si ve and, pot ent i al l y
hazar dous. It i s t her ef or e not sur p r i si ng t hat t h e oper at or s ar e l ooki ng t o
t he manuf act ur er s t o pr oduce ai r cr af t so r el i abl e t hat t hey can go f or weeks
wi t hout any mai nt enance. The qu est i on i s, however , can we achi eve t he
necessar y l evel of r el i abi l i t y, wi t h suf f i ci ent conf i d ence, at an af f or dabl e
pr i ce, t o meet t hi s r equi r emen t ?.
Recent pr oj ect s such as t he Ul t r a Rel i abl e Ai r cr af t (URA) and Fut ur e
Of f ensi ve Ai r Syst ems (FOAS) pl ace a new di m ensi on t o t he r el i abi l i t y
r equi r ement . The op er at or s/ user s woul d l i ke t o have M ai nt enance Fr ee
Oper at i n g Per i ods (M FOP), dur i ng w hi ch t he pr obabi l i t y t hat t he syst em w i l l
need r est or at i ve mai nt enance i s ver y l ow . Bet ween each of t hese per i ods,
suf f i ci ent mai nt enance wi l l done t o ensur e t he syst em wi l l sur vi ve t h e next
M FOP wi t h t h e same pr obabi l i t y. Onl y t i me wi l l t el l whet her t hi s pol i cy
becomes adopt ed but , t her e i s no doubt t hat t he days of t he M TBF (mean
t i me bet ween f ai l ur es) and i t s i nver se, t he [ const an t ] f ai l ur e r at e ar e sur el y
number ed. Sci ence, mat hemat i cs and pr obabi l i t y t h eor y ar e sl owl y f i ndi ng
t hei r w ay i nt o t he af t er -mar ket busi ness and w i t h t h em w i l l come t he need
f or bet t er educat ed peopl e who under st and t hese new concept s,
t echni ques and met hodol ogi es. And, i t wi l l not j ust af f ect mi l i t ar y ai r cr af t ,
buyer s of al l manuf act ur ed pr oduct s wi l l demand gr eat er val ue f or money,
at t he t i me of pur chase, of cour se, but mor e t han t h at t hey wi l l expect i t
t hr oughout i t s l i f e. M anuf act ur er s who have r el i ed on unr el i abi l i t y wi l l
need t o r e-t hi nk t hei r pol i ci es, pr ocesses and f i nances.
1.2. THE LIFE CYCLE OF ASYSTEM
Fundament al t o any engi neer i ng d esi gn pr act i ce i s an under st andi n g of t he
cycl e, whi ch t he pr oduct goes t hr ou gh dur i ng i t s l i f e. The l i f e cycl e begi ns at
t he moment when an i dea of a new syst em i s bor n and f i ni shes when t he
syst em i s saf el y di sposed. In ot her w or ds, t he l i f e cycl e begi ns w i t h t he
i ni t i al i dent i f i cat i on of t h e needs and r equi r ement s and ext ends t hr ough
pl anni ng, r esear ch, desi gn, pr oduct i on, eval uat i on, oper at i on, mai nt enance,
suppor t and i t s ul t i mat e phase out (Fi gur e 1.2).
1. Rel i abi l i t y Mai n t enance and Logi st i c Suppor t - I nt r oduct i on 6
Fi gur e 1.2 Li f e cycl e of t h e syst em.
M anuf act ur er s w ho speci al i se i n mi l i t ar y har dw ar e w i l l of t en be
appr oached, ei t her di r ect l y or t hr ou gh an adver t i sed “ i nvi t at i on t o t ender ”
t o di scuss t he l at est d ef ence r equi r ement . For most ot her manuf act ur er s, i t
i s gener al l y up t o t hem t o i dent i f y a (pot ent i al ) mar ket need and deci de
whet h er t hey can meet t hat n eed i n a pr of i t abl e way. Th e UK M oD
appr oached BAE Syst ems t o br i ng t oget her a consor t i um (i ncl udi ng
r epr esen t at i ves of t he M oD and RAF) f or an ai r syst em t hat woul d out -
per f or m al l exi st i ng of f ensi ve syst ems, bot h f r i end and f oe, and t hat woul d
i ncl ude al l of t he con cep t s i dent i f i ed as pr act i cal i n t he URA r esear ch
pr oj ect . Ai r bus I ndust r i es, on t he ot her hand, deci ded, based on t h ei r
ext ensi ve mar ket r esear ch, t hat t her e was a suf f i ci ent mar ket n eed f or a
ver y l ar ge ai r cr af t t hat coul d car r y w el l i n excess of 500 passenger s, at l east
acr oss t he Paci f i c f r om Tokyo t o Los Angel es and po ssi bl y even non-st op
bet w een Lon don and Sydney. It wi l l be man y year s bef or e w e wi l l know
whet h er ei t h er of t hese ai r cr af t wi l l get of f t he gr ound and ver y much
l onger t o see i f t hey pr ove a busi ness success f or t hei r manuf act ur er s.
The f i r st pr ocess t hen i s a set of t asks per f or med t o i dent i f y t he
needs and r equi r ement s f or a n ew syst em and t r ansf or m t hem i nt o i t s
t echni cal l y meani n gf ul def i ni t i on. The mai n r easo n f or t he need of a new
syst em coul d be a new f unct i on t o be per f or med (t hat i s t her e i s a new
mar ket d emand f or a pr oduct w i t h t h e speci f i ed f unct i on) or a d ef i ci ency of
t he pr esent syst em. The def i ci enci es coul d be i n t he f or m of : 1. Funct i onal
def i ci en ci es, 2. I nadeq uat e per f or man ce, 3. Inadequat e at t r i but es. 4. Poor
r el i abi li t y, 5. Hi gh mai nt enance and suppor t cost s, 5. Low sal es f i gur es and
hence l ow pr of i t s.
The f i r st st ep i n t he concept ual desi gn phase i s t o anal yse t he
f unct i onal need or d ef i ci ency and t r ansl at e i t i nt o a mor e speci f i c set of
qual i t at i ve and quant i t at i ve r equi r emen t s. Thi s anal ysi s woul d t hen l ead t o
concept ual syst em d esi gn al t er nat i ves. The f l ow of t he concept ual syst em
desi gn pr ocess i s i l l ust r at ed i n Fi gur e 1.3 (D Ver ma and J Knezevi c, 1995).
The out put f r om t hi s st age i s f ed t o t he pr el i mi nar y desi gn st age. The
Needs and
Requirements
Design
Conceptual design
Preliminary design
Detailed design
Production or
Construction
Manufacture
Assembly
Use
Operation
Maintenance
Support
Retirement
1. Rel i abi l i t y Mai n t enance and Logi st i c Suppor t - I nt r oduct i on 7
concept ual desi gn st age i s t he best t i me f or i ncor por at i ng r el i abi l i t y,
mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y consi d er at i ons. In t he case of FOAS, f or
exampl e, var i ous i nt egr at ed pr oj ect t eams wi t h r epr esent at i ves of t he
user s, suppl i er s and even academi a w i l l dr aw n t oget her t o come up w i t h
new i deas and set t ar get s, however , i mpr act i cal . It was l ar gel y a r esul t of
t hi s act i vi t y t hat t h e concept s of t he M FOP and t he u ni nhabi t ed combat ai r
vehi cl e (UCAV) wer e bor n.
Fi gur e 1.3 Concept ual syst em desi gn pr ocess
The mai n t asks dur i ng t he pr el i mi nar y desi gn st age ar e syst em
f unct i onal anal ysi s such as op er at i onal f unct i ons, mai nt enance f u nct i ons,
al l ocat i ons of per f or mance and ef f ect i ven ess f act or s and t he al l ocat i on of
syst em suppor t r equi r ement (Bl anchar d, 1991). It i s at t hi s t i me t hat t he
concept s ar e br ought down t o ear t h ou t of t he “ bl ue sky” . Gr oups wi l l be
r equi r ed t o put t hese i d eal s i nt o r eal i t y possi bl y vi a t echni cal devel opment
pr ogr ams or abandon t hem unt i l t he next t i me.
The mai n t asks per f or med dur i ng t h e det ai l ed desi gn st age 1.
Devel opment of syst em/ pr oduct desi gn, 2. Devel opment of syst em
pr ot ot ype, and 3. Syst em pr ot ot ype t est and eval uat i on. Desi gn i s t h e most
i mpor t ant and cr u ci al st age i n t he pr oduct l i f e cycl e. Rel i abi l i t y,
mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y depend on t he desi gn and ar e t h e mai n
dr i ver s of t he oper at i onal avai l abi l i t y and cost s. It i s dur i ng t hi s st age t hat
saf et y, r el i abi l i t y and mai n t ai nabi l i t y demonst r at i ons can b e per f or med
and, f r om t hese, mai nt enance and suppor t pl ans can be deci d ed.
The pr oduct i on/ const r uct i on pr o cess i s a set of t asks per f or med i n or der
t o t r ansf or m t h e f ul l t echni cal d ef ini t i on of t he n ew syst em i nt o i t s physi cal
exi st en ce. Th e mai n t asks per f or med dur i ng t hi s pr ocess ar e 1.
M anuf act ur e/ Pr odu ct i on/ Test of pr i m e syst em el ement s, 2. Syst em
assessment , 3. Qual i t y Assur ance, and 4. Syst em M odi f i cat i on. Dur i ng t he
pr oduct i on / const r u ct i on pr o cess t he syst em i s physi cal l y cr eat ed i n
accor dance wi t h t he desi gn def i ni t i on. The i nput char act er i st i cs of t he
pr oduct i on pr o cess ar e t he r aw mat er i al , ener gy, equ i pment , f aci l i t i es and
ot her i ngr edi ent s needed f or t h e pr oduct i on/ const r uct i on of t he new
Needs and
Requirements
Needs Analysis
& Requirements
Definition
Synthesis of
conceptual system
design alternatives
Analysis of
Conceptual
System Design
Alternatives
Evaluation of
Conceptual
System Design
Alternatives
1. Rel i abi l i t y Mai n t enance and Logi st i c Suppor t - I nt r oduct i on 8
syst em. The out put char act er i st i cs ar e t he f ul l physi cal exi st ence of t he
f unct i onal syst em.
1.3. CONCEPT OF FAILURE
As w i t h so many w or ds i n t he Engl i sh l anguage, f ai l ur e has come t o
mean man y t hi ngs t o many p eopl e. Essent i al l y, a f ai lur e of a syst em i s any
event or col l ect i on of event s t hat causes t h e syst em t o l ose i t s
f unct i onabi l i t y w her e f unct i onabi l i t y i s t he i nher ent char act er i st i c of a
pr oduct r el at ed t o i t s abi l i t y t o per f or m a speci f i ed f unct i on accor di ng t o t he
speci f i ed r equi r ement s under t he speci f i ed oper at i ng condi t i ons. ( Kn ezevi c
1993) Thus a syst em, or i ndeed , any compon ent wi t hi n i t , can onl y be i n
one of t wo st at es: st at e of f unct i oni ng or ; st at e of f ai l ur e.
In many cases, t h e t r ansi t i on bet ween t hese st at es i s ef f ect i vel y
i nst ant aneous; a wi ndscr een shat t er s, a t yr e punct ur es, a bl ade br eaks, a
t r ansi st or bl ow s. Ther e i s i nsuf f i ci ent t i me t o det ect t he onset or pr even t
t he consequences. However , i n many ot her cases, t he t r ansi t i on i s gr adual ;
a t yr e or bear i ng wear s, a cr ack pr opagat es acr oss a di sc, a bl ade “ cr eeps”
or t he p er f or mance st ar t s t o dr op of f . In t hese ci r cumst ances, some f or m
of heal t h moni t or i ng may al l ow t he user t o t ake pr even t at i ve measur es.
Inspect i ng t he amount of t r ead on t he t yr es at r egul ar i nt er val s, scanni ng
t he l ubr i cat i ng oi l f or excessi ve d ebr i s, bor oscope i nspect i on t o l ook f or
cr acks or usi ng some f or m t r endi ng (e.g. Kal man Fi l t er i ng) on t he speci f i c
f uel consumpt i on can al er t t h e user t o i mmi n ent onset of f ai l ur e. Si mi l arl y,
any one of t he many f or ms of non-d est r u ct i ve t est i ng may be used (as
appr opr i at e) on compon ent s t hat have been exposed dur i ng t he r ecover y
of t hei r par ent component t o ch eck f or damage, det er i or at i on, er osi on,
cor r osi on or any of t he ot h er vi si bl e or physi cal l y det ect abl e si gns t hat
mi ght cause t he co mponent t o become non-f unct i onabl e.
Wi t h man y hi ghl y co mpl ex syst ems, whose f ai l ur e may have ser i ous
or cat ast r ophi c consequences, measur es ar e t aken, wher ever possi bl e, t o
mi t i gat e agai nst such event s. Car s ar e f i t t ed w i t h dual br aki ng syst ems,
ai r cr af t wi t h (at l east ) t r i pl e hydr aul i c syst ems and numer ous ot her
i nst ances of r edundancy. I n t hese cases, i t i s possi bl e t o have a f ai l ur e of a
compon en t wi t hout a f ai l ur e of t he syst em. The r ecover y of t he f ai l ed i t em,
vi a a mai nt enance act i on, may be def er r ed t o a t i me whi ch i s mor e
conveni ent t o t he oper at or , saf e i n t he knowl edge t hat t her e i s an
accept abl y hi gh pr obabi l i t y t hat t he syst em wi l l cont i nue oper at i ng saf el y
f or a cer t ai n l engt h of t i me. If one of t he f l i ght cont r ol comput er s on an
ai r cr af t f ai l s, i t s f unct i ons wi l l i nst ant l y and aut omat i cal l y be t aken over by
1. Rel i abi l i t y Mai n t enance and Logi st i c Suppor t - I nt r oduct i on 9
one of t h e ot her comput er s. The f l i ght wi l l gener al l y be al l owed t o
cont i nue, uni nt er r u pt ed t o i t s next schedul ed dest i nat i on. Dependi ng on
t he l evel of r edundancy and r egul at i ons/ cer t i f i cat i on, f ur t her f l i ght s may be
per mi t t ed, ei t her unt i l anot her comput er f ai l s or , t he ai r cr af t i s put i n f or
schedul ed mai nt enance.
M ost co mmer ci al ai r li ner s ar e f i t t ed w i t h t w o, or mor e, engi nes. Par t of t he
cer t i f i cat i on pr ocess r equi r es a pr act i cal demonst r at i on t hat a f ul l y l oaded
ai r cr af t can t ake-of f saf el y even i f one of t hose engi nes f ai l s at t he most
cr i t i cal t i me; “ r ot at i on” or “ wei ght -of f -wheel s” . However , even t hough t he
ai r cr af t can f l y wi t h one engi ne out of ser vi ce, once i t has l anded, i t woul d
not t hen be p er mi t t ed t o t ake-of f agai n unt i l t hat en gine has been r et ur ned
t o a st at e of f unct i oni ng (except und er ver y excep t i onal ci r cumst ances) .
Wi t h t he l at est l ar ge t w i ns (e.g. Ai r bus 330 and Bo ei ng 777), a change i n t he
ai r wor t hi ness r ul es has al l owed t hem t o f l y f or ext ended per i ods f ol l owi ng
t he i n-f l i ght shut down of one of t he engi n es, gen er al l y r ef er r ed t o ETOPS
(whi ch of f i ci al l y st ands f or ext ended t wi n oper at i ons over sea or ,
unof f i ci al l y, engi nes t ur n or passenger s sw i m). Thi s def i nes t he maxi mum
di st ance (usual l y expr essed i n mi nut es of f l yi ng t i me) t he ai r cr af t can be
f r om a sui t abl e l andi ng si t e at any t i me dur i ng t h e f l i ght . It al so r equi r es an
ai r cr af t t hat has “ l ost ” an en gi ne t o f l y t o i m medi at el y di ver t t o a l andi ng
si t e t hat i s w i t hi n t hi s f l yi ng t i me. Agai n, havi ng l anded, t hat ai r cr af t w ould
not be per mi t t ed t o t ake of f unt i l i t was f i t t ed wi t h t wo f unct i onabl e
engi n es. In t hi s case, nei t her engi ne i s t r ul y r edundant but , t he syst em
(ai r cr af t ) has a l i mi t ed l evel of f aul t / f ai l ur e t ol er ance.
M ost per sonal comput er s (PC) come compl et e wi t h a “ har d di sc” .
Dur i ng t he l i f e of t he PC, i t i s not uncommon f or smal l sect or s of t hese di scs
t o become unusabl e. Pr ovi ded t h e sect or di d not hol d t he f i l e access t abl e
(FAT) or key syst em’ s f i l es, t he comput er i s not onl y abl e t o d et ect t h ese
sect or s but i t w i l l mar k t hem as unusabl e and avoi d w r i t i ng any dat a t o
t hem. Unf or t unat el y, i f t her e was al r eady dat a on t hese sect or s bef or e
t hey become unusabl e, t hi s w i l l no l onger be accessi bl e, al t hough w i t h
speci al sof t w ar e, i t may be possi bl e t o r ecover some o f i t . Thus, t he bui l t -i n
t est sof t war e of t he comput er i s abl e t o pr ovi de a l evel of f aul t t ol er ance
whi ch i s of t en t ot al l y i nvi si bl e t o t he user , at l east unt i l t he whol e di sc
cr ashes or t he f aul t af f ect s a cr i t i cal par t of a pr ogr am or dat a. Even under
t hese ci r cumst ances, i f t hat pr o gr am or dat a has been backed up t o ano t her
medi u m, i t shoul d be possi bl e t o r est or e t he f ul l capaci t y of t he syst em
usual l y wi t h a l evel of manual i nt er vent i on. So t her e i s bot h f aul t t ol er ance
and r edundancy al t hough t he l at t er i s usual l y at t he di scr et i on of t he user .
2. 10
Chapter 2
Probability Theory
We do not know how t o pr edi ct what woul d happen i n any gi ven
ci r cumst ances, and we bel i eve now t hat i t i s possi bl e, t hat t he onl y t hi ng t hat
can be pr edi ct ed i s t he pr obabi l i t y of di f f er ent event s
Ri char d Feynman
Pr obabi l i t y t heor y pl ays a l eadi ng r ol e i n moder n sci en ce i n spi t e of t he f act
t hat i t w as i ni t i al l y devel oped as a t ool t hat coul d be used f or guessi ng t he
out come of some games of chance. Pr obabi l i t y t heor y i s appl i cabl e t o
ever yday l i f e si t uat i ons wher e t he out co me of a r epeat ed pr ocess,
exp er i ment , t est , or t r i al i s uncer t ai n and a pr edi ct i on has t o be made.
In or der t o appl y pr obabi l i t y t o ever yday engi neer i ng p r act i ce i t i s necessar y
t o l ear n t he t er mi nol ogy, def i ni t i ons and r ul es of pr obabi l i t y t heor y. Thi s
chapt er i s not i nt ended t o a r i gor o us t r eat men t of al l -r el evant t heor ems
and pr oof s. The i nt ent i on i s t o pr ovi de an under st andi ng of t he mai n
concept s i n pr obabi l i t y t heor y t hat can be appl i ed t o pr obl ems i n r el i abi l i t y,
mai nt enan ce and l ogi st i c suppor t , whi ch ar e di scussed i n t he f ol l owi ng
chapt er s.
2.4. PROBABILITY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
In t hi s sect i on t hose el ement s essen t i al f or under st andi ng t he r udi ment s of
el ement ar y pr obabi l i t y t heor y w i l l be di scussed and def i ned i n a gener al
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 11
manner , t oget her wi t h i l l ust r at i ve exampl es r el at ed t o engi neer i ng pr act i ce.
To f aci l i t at e t he di scussi on some r el evant t er ms and t hei r def i ni t i ons ar e
i nt r oduced.
Experiment
An exper i men t i s a wel l -def i ned act or pr ocess t hat l eads t o a si ngl e wel l -
def i ned out com e. Fi gur e 2.1 i l l ust r at es t h e con cept of r andom exper i ment s.
Ever y exper i ment must :
1. Be capable of being described, so that the observer knows when it occurs.
2. Have one and only one outcome, so that the set of all possible outcomes
can be specified.
Fi gur e 2.1 Gr aphi cal Repr esent at i on of an Exper i ment and i t s out comes.
Elementary event
An elementary event is every separate outcome of an experiment.
From the definition of an experiment, it is possible to conclude that
the total number of elementary events is equal to the total number of
possible outcomes, since every experiment must have only one
outcome.
Sample space
The set of all possible distinct outcomes for an experiment is called
the sample space for that experiment.
M ost f r equent l y i n t he l i t er at ur e t h e symbol S i s used t o r epr esent t he
sampl e space, and smal l l et t er s, a, b, c, .., f or el ement ar y event s t hat ar e
possi bl e out comes of t he exper i men t und er consi der at i on. The set S may
Experiment
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 12
cont ai n ei t her a f i ni t e or an i nf i n i t e number of el ement ar y event s. Fi gur e
2.2 i s a gr aphi cal pr esent at i on of t he sampl e space.
Fi gur e 2.2 Gr aphi cal Pr esent at i on of t he Sampl e Space
Event
Event is a subset of the sample space, that is, a collection of
elementary events.
Capi t al l et t er s A, B, C, …, ar e usual l y used f or denot i ng event s. For exampl e,
i f t he exp er i ment per f or med i s measur i ng t he sp eed of passi ng car s at a
speci f i c r oad j unct i on, t hen t he el ement ar y event i s t he sp eed measur ed,
wher eas t he sampl e space consi st s of al l t he di f f er ent speeds one mi ght
possi bl y r ecor d. Al l speed event s co ul d be cl assi f i ed i n, say, f our di f f er ent
speed gr oups: A (l ess t han 30 km/ h), B (bet ween 30 and 50 km/ h), C
(bet w een 50 and 70 km/ h) and D (above 70 km/ h) . I f t he measur ed sp eed
of t he passi ng car i s, say 35 km/ h, t hen t he event B i s sai d t o have occur r ed.
2.5. ELEMENTARY THEORY OF PROBABILITY
The t heor y of pr obabi l i t y i s devel oped f r om axi oms pr oposed by t he
Russi an mat h emat i ci an Kol mogr ov. In pr act i ce t hi s means t hat i t s el ement s
have been def i ned t oget h er w i t h sever al axi oms w h i ch go ver n t h ei r
r el at i ons. Al l ot her r ul es and r el at i ons ar e der i ved f r om t hem.
2.5.1 Axioms of Probability
In cases w her e t he o ut come of an exper i ment i s uncer t ai n, i t i s
necessar y t o assi gn some m easur e t hat w i l l indi cat e t h e chances of
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 13
occur r ence o f a p ar t i cul ar even t . Such a measur e o f event s i s cal l ed
t he pr obabi l i t y of t he event an d symbol i sed b y P(.), ( P(A) d enot es t he
pr obabi l i t y of even t A). The f un ct i on whi ch associ at es each event A in
t he sampl e space S, wi t h t he pr ob ab i l i t y measur e P(A), i s cal l ed t he
pr obabi l i t y f unct ion - t he pr obabi l i t y of t hat event . A gr aph i cal
r ep r esent at i on of t he pr obabi l i t y f unct i on i s gi ven i n Fi gu re 2.3.
Fi gur e 2.3 Gr aphi cal r epr esent at i on o f p r obabi l i t y f u nct i on.
Formally, the probability function is defined as:
A function which associates with each event A, a real number, P(A),
the probability of event A, such that the following axioms are true:
1. P(A) > 0 for every event A,
2. P(S) = 1, (probability of the sample space)
3. The probability of the union of mutually exclusive events is the sum of
their probabilities, that is
) ( ... ) ( ) ( ) ... (
2 1 2 1 n n
A P A P A P A A A P + + + · ∪ ∪
In essence, t hi s d ef i ni t i on st at es t hat each event A i s pai r ed wi t h a non-
negat i ve number , pr obabi l i t y P(A), and t hat t he pr obabi l i t y of t he sur e
event S, or P(S), i s al w ays 1.
Furthermore, if A
1
and A
2
are any two mutually exclusive events (that is,
the occurrence of one event implies the non-occurrence of the other) in the
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 14
sample space, the probability of their union P A A ( )
1 2
∪ , is simply the sum
of their two probabilities, P A P A ( ) ( )
1 2
+ .
2.5.2 Rules of Probability
The f ol l owi ng el ement ar y r ul es of pr obabi l i t y ar e di r ect l y deduced f r om t he
or i gi nal t hr ee axi oms, usi ng t he set t heor y:
a) For any event A, the probability of the complementary event, written A' ,
is given by
P A P A ( ' ) ( ) · − 1 (2.1)
b) The probability of any event must lie between zero and one inclusive:
0 1 ≤ ≤ P A ( ) (2.2)
c) The probability of an empty or impossible event, φ, is zero.
P( ) φ · 0 (2.3)
d) If occurrence of an event A implies that an event B occurs, so that the
event class A is a subset of event class B, then the probability of A is less
than or equal to the probability of B:
) ( ) ( B P A P ≤ (2.4)
e) In order to find the probability that A or B or both occur, the probability
of A, the probability of B, and also the probability that both occur must
be known, thus:
P A B P A P B P A B ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ∪ · + − ∩ (2.5)
f) If A and B are mutually exclusive events, so that P A B ( ) ∩ · 0, then
P A B P A P B ( ) ( ) ( ) ∪ · + (2.6)
g) If n events form a partition of S, then their probabilities must add up to
one:
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 15
∑ · · + + +
·
n
i
i n
A P A P A P A P
1
2 1
1 ) ( ) ( ... ) ( ) ( (2.7)
2.5.3 Joint Events
Any event that is an intersection of two or more events is a joint event.
Ther e i s not hi ng t o r est r i ct any gi ven el ement ar y event f r om t he sampl e
space f r om qual i f yi ng f or t wo or mor e event s, pr ovi ded t hat t hose event s
ar e not mu t ual l y excl usi ve. Thus, gi ven t he event A and t he event B, t he
j oi nt event i s A B ∩ . Si nce a member of A B ∩ must be a member of set
A, and al so of set B, bot h A and B event s o ccur when A B ∩ occur s.
Pr ovi ded t hat t he el ement s of set S ar e al l equal l y l i kel y t o occur , t he
pr obabi l i t y of t he j oi nt even t coul d be f ound i n t he f ol l owi ng way:
P A B ( ) ∩ ·
∩ number of elementary events in A B
total number of elementary events
2.5.4 Conditional Probability
If A and B ar e event s i n a sampl e space w hi ch consi st s of a f i ni t e number of
el ement ar y even t s, t he condi t i onal pr obabi l i t y of t he event B gi ven t hat t he
event A has al r eady occur r ed, denot ed by P B A ( | ) , i s def i ned as:
P B A P A ( | ) , ( ) ·

>
P(A B)
P(A)
0 (2.8)
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 16
Fi gur e 2.4 Gr aphi cal Pr esent at i on of t he Bayes Theor em
The condi t i onal pr obabi l i t y symbol , P B A ( | ) , i s r ead as t he pr obabi l i t y of B
gi ven A. It i s necessar y t o sat i sf y t he condi t i on t hat P(A)>0, because i t does
not make sense t o consi d er t he pr obabi l i t y of B gi ven A i f event A i s
i mpossi bl e. For any t wo event s A and B, t her e ar e t w o condi t i onal
pr obabi l i t i es t hat may be cal cul at ed:
P B A and P A B ( | ) ( | ) ·

·
∩ P(A B)
P(A)
P(A B)
P(B)
(The probability of B, given A) (The probability of A,
given B)
One of t h e i mpor t ant appl i cat i on of condi t i onal pr obabi l i t y i s due t o Bayes
t heor em, whi ch can be st at ed as f ol l ows:
If ( , , , ) A A A
N 1 2
K r epr esen t s t h e par t i t i on of t he sampl e space (N
mut ual l y excl usi ve event s), and i f B i s subset of ( ) A A A
N 1 2
∪ ∪ ∪ K , as
i l l ust r at ed i n Fi gur e 2.4, t hen
P A B
i
( | )
)
) ) )
·
+ + + +
P(B|A )P(A
P(B|A )P(A P(B|A )P(A P(B|A )P(A
i i
1 1 i i N N
K K
(2.9)
2.6. PROBABILITY AND EXPERIMENTAL DATA
The cl assi cal appr oach t o pr obabi l i t y est i mat i on i s based on t he r el at i ve
f r equency of t he o ccur r ence of t hat event . A st at ement of pr obabi l i t y t el l s
us what t o expect about t h e r el at i ve f r equency of occur r ence, gi ven t hat
enough obser vat i ons ar e mad e. In t he l ong r un, t he r el at i ve f r eq uency of
occur r ence of an event , say A, shoul d appr oach t he pr obabi l i t y of t hi s
event , i f i ndependent t r i al s ar e made at r andom over an i ndef i ni t el y l ong
sequ ence. Thi s pr i nci pl e was f i r st f or mul at ed an d pr oved b y James
Ber noul l i i n t he ear l y ei ght eent h cent ur y, and i s now wel l -known as
Ber noul l i ' s t heor em:
If t he pr obabi l i t y of occur r ence of an event A i s p, and i f n t r i al s ar e made
i ndepen dent l y and und er t he same condi t i ons, t hen t he pr obabi l i t y t hat t he
r el at i ve f r equ ency of occur r ence of A, (def i ned as f A N A n ( ) ( ) · ) di f f er s
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 17
f r om p by an y amount , how ever smal l , appr oaches zer o as t he number of
t r i al s gr ows i ndef i ni t el y l ar ge. That i s,
P N A n p s as n (| ( ) ) | ) , − > → → ∞ 0 (2.10)
where s is some arbitrarily small positive number. This does not mean that
the proportion of
n
A N ) (
occurrences among any n trial must be p; the
proportion actually observed might be any number between 0 and 1.
Nevertheless, given more and more trials, the relative frequency of f A ( )
occurrences may be expected to become closer and closer to p.
Al t hough it i s t r ue t hat t he r elat i ve f r equ en cy of occur r ence of an y event i s
exact l y equal t o t he pr obabi l i t y of occur r ence of any event onl y f or an
i nf i ni t e numb er of i ndepend ent t r i al s, t hi s poi nt must not b e over st r essed.
Even wi t h r el at i vel y smal l number of t r i al s, t her e i s ver y good r eason t o
exp ect t he obser ved r el at i ve f r equ en cy t o b e qui t e cl ose t o t he pr obabi l i t y
because t he r at e of con ver gence of t he t wo i s ver y r api d. How ever , t he
mai n dr aw back of t he r el at i ve f r equency appr oach i s t hat i t assumes t hat al l
event s ar e equal l y l i kel y (equal l y pr obabl e).
2.7. PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION
Consider the set of events A A A
n 1 2
, , , K , and suppose that they form a
partition of the sample space S. That is, they are mutually exclusive and
exhaustive. The corresponding set of probabilities, P A P A P A
n
( ), ( ), , ( )
1 2
K ,
is a probability distribution. An illustrative presentation of the concept of
probability distribution is shown in Figure 2.5.
As a si mpl e exampl e of a pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i on, i magi ne a sampl e space of
al l For d car s pr oduced. A car sel ect ed at r ando m i s cl assi f i ed as a sal oon or
coupe or est at e. The pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i on mi ght be:
Event Saloon Coupe Estate Total
P 0.60 0.31 0.09 1.00
Al l even t s ot her t han t hose l i st ed have pr obabi l i t i es of zer o
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 18
Fi gur e 2.5 Gr aphi cal r epr esent at i on of Pr obabi l i t y Di st r i but i on
2.8. RANDOM VARIABLE
A f unct i on t hat assi gns a number (usual l y a r eal number ) t o each sampl e
poi nt i n t he sampl e space S i s a r andom var i abl e.
Out comes of exp er i ment s may be expr essed i n numer i cal and non-
numer i cal t er ms. In or der t o compar e and anal yse t h em i t i s much mor e
conveni ent t o deal wi t h numer i cal t er ms. So, f or pr act i cal appl i cat i ons, i t is
necessar y t o assi gn a numer i cal val ue t o each possi bl e el ement ar y event i n
a sampl e space S. Even i f t he el ement ar y event s t hemsel ves ar e al r eady
expr essed i n t er ms of number s, i t i s possi bl e t o r eassi gn a uni que r eal
number t o each el ement ar y event . The f unct i on t hat achi eves t hi s i s know n
as t he r andom var i abl e. In ot her w or ds, a r andom var i abl e i s a r eal -val ued
f unct i on def i ned i n a sampl e space. Usual l y i t i s denot ed wi t h capi t al l et t er s,
such as X, Y and Z, w her eas smal l l et t er s, such as x, y, z, a, b, c, and so on,
ar e used t o denot e par t i cul ar val u es of r andom var i abl es, see Fi gur e 2.6
If X is a random variable and r is a fixed real number, it is possible to
define the event A to be the subset of S consisting of all sample points 'a' to
which the random variable X assigns the number r, ) ) ( : ( r a X a A · · . On
the other hand, the event A has a probability ) ( A P p · . The symbol p can
be interpreted, generally, as the probability that the random variable X takes
on the value r, ) ( r X P p · · . Thus, the symbol ) ( r X P · represents the
probability function of a random variable.
0 p1 p2 ... pi ...pn 1
Sample Space (S)
a1 a2
an
}
Probability Distribution
S
P
a1
p1
a2
p2
.
.
an
pn
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 19
Fi gur e 2.6 Gr aphi cal Repr esent at i on of Random Var i abl e
Ther ef or e, by usi ng t he r andom var i abl e i t i s possi bl e t o assi gn pr obabi l i t i es
t o r eal number s, al t hough t he or i gi nal pr obabi l i t i es wer e o nl y def i ned f or
event s of t he set S, as show n i n Fi gur e 2. 7.
The pr obabi l i t y t hat t he r andom var i abl e X, t akes val u e l ess t han or equal t o
cer t ai n val ue ' x' , is cal led t he cumul at i ve di st r i but i on f unct i on, F(t ). That i s,
P[ X ≤ x] = F(x)
Fi gur e 2.7 Rel at i onshi p bet w een pr obabi l i t y f unct i on and a r andom var i abl e
2.8.1 Types of random variables
Depending on the values, which the random variables can assume,
random variables, can be classified as discrete or continuous. The main
characteristics, similarities and differences for both types will be briefly
described below.
Di scret e random vari abl es
If the random variable X can assume only a particular finite or countably
infinite set of values, it is said to be a discrete random variable.
Ther e ar e ver y many si t uat i ons wher e t he r andom var i abl e X can assume
onl y a par t i cul ar f i ni t e or count abl y i nf i ni t e set of val ues; t hat i s, t he
possi bl e val ues of X ar e f i ni t e i n number or t hey ar e i nf i ni t e i n number but
can be put i n a one-t o-on e cor r espond ence wi t h a set of r eal number .
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 20
Cont i nuous r andom vari abl es
If the random variable X can assume any value from a finite or an infinite
set of values, it is said to be a continuous random variable.
Let us consi der an exp er i ment , whi ch consi st s of r ecor di ng t he t emper at ur e
of a cool i ng l i qui d of an engi ne i n t h e ar ea of t he t h er most at at a gi ven
t i me. Suppose t hat we can measur e t he t emper at ur e exact l y, whi ch means
t hat our measur i ng devi ce al l ows us t o r ecor d t he t emper at ur e t o any
number of d eci mal poi nt s. If X i s t he t emper at ur e r eadi ng, i t i s not possi bl e
f or us t o sp eci f y a f i ni t e or count abl y i nf i ni t e set of val u es. For exampl e, i f
one of t he f i ni t e set of val u es i s 75.965, we can det er mi ne val ues 75.9651,
75.9652, and so on, w hi ch ar e al so possi bl e val ues of X. What i s bei ng
demonst r at ed her e i s t hat t he possibl e val ues of X consi st of t he set of r eal
number s, a set whi ch cont ai ns an i nf i ni t e (and uncount abl e) number of
val ues.
Cont i nuous r andom var i abl es have enor mous ut i l i t y i n r el i abi l i t y,
mai nt enance and l ogi st i c suppor t as t he r andom var i abl es t i me t o f ai l ur e,
t i me t o r epai r and t he l ogi st i c del ay t i me ar e con t i nuous r andom var i abl es.
2.9. THE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION OF
RANDOM VARIABLE
Taking into account the concept of the probability distribution and the
concept of the random variable, it could be said that the probability
distribution of the random variable is a set of pairs, [ ¦ r P X r i n
i i
, ( ), , · · 1
as shown in Figure 2.8.
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 21
Figure 2.8 Probability Distribution of a Random Variable
The easiest way to present this set is to make a list of all its members. If
the number of possible values is small, it is easy to specify a probability
distribution. On the other hand, if there are a large number of possible
values, a listing may become very difficult. In the extreme case where we
have an infinite number of possible values (for example, all real numbers
between zero and one), it is clearly impossible to make a listing.
Fortunately, there are other methods that could be used for specifying a
probability distribution of a random variable:
a) Functional method, where a specific mathematical functions exist from
which the probability of any value or interval of values can be calculated.
b) Parametric method, where the entire distribution is represented through
one or more parameters known as summary measures.
2.9.1 Functional Method
By d ef i ni t i on, a f unct i on i s a r el at i on w her e each m ember of t he domai n i s
pai r ed wi t h on e memb er of t he r ange. I n t hi s par t i cu l ar case, t he r el at i on
bet w een numer i cal val ues w hi ch r andom var i abl es can have and t hei r
pr obabi l i t i es wi l l be consi der ed. Th e most f r equent l y used f unct i ons f or t he
descr i pt i on of pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i on of a r andom var i abl e ar e t he
pr obabi l i t y mass f unct i on, t he pr obabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on, and t he
cumul at i ve di st r i but i on f un ct i on. Each of t hese wi l l be anal ysed and
def i ned i n t he r emai nder of t hi s chapt er .
Probabi l i t y mass f unct i on
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 22
This function is related to a discrete random variable and it represents the
probability that the discrete random variable, X, will take one specific value
x
i
, p P X x
i i
· · ( ) . Thus, a probability mass function, which is usually
denoted as PMF(.) , places a mass of probability p
i
at the point of x
i
on
the X-axis.
Given that a discrete random variable takes on only n different values, say
a a a
n 1 2
, , , K , the corresponding PMF(.) must satisfy the following two
conditions:
1 0 1 2
2 1
1
. ( ) , , ,
. ( )
P X a for i n
P X a
i
i
i
n
· ≥ ·
· ·
·

K
(2.11)
In practice this means that the probability of each value that X can take
must be non-negative and the sum of the probabilities must be 1.
Thus, a probability distribution can be represented by the set of pairs
of values ( , ) a p
i i
, where i n · 1 2 , , , K , as shown in Figure 2.9. The
advant age of such a gr aph over a l i st i ng i s t he ease of compr ehensi on and a
bet t er pr ovi si on of a not i on f or t he nat ur e of t he pr ob abi l i t y di st ri bu t i on.
Fi gur e 2.9 Pr obabi l i t y M ass Funct i on
Probabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on
In the previous section, discrete random variables were discussed in terms
of probabilities P(X =x), the probability that the random variables take on an
exact value. However, consider the example of an infinite set for a specific
type of car, where the volume of the fuel in the fuel tank is measured with
only some degree of accuracy. What is the probability that a car selected at
random will have exactly 16 litres of fuel? This could be considered as an
event that is defined by the interval of values between, say 15.5 and 16.5, or
15.75 and 16.25, or any other interval t × 16 01 . i , where i is not exactly
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 23
zero. Since the smaller the interval, the smaller the probability, the
probability of exactly 16 litres is, in effect, zero.
In general, for continuous random variables, the occurrence of any exact
value of X may be regarded as having zero probability.
The Probability Density Function, ) (x f , which represents the probability
that the random variable will take values within the interval
x X x x ≤ ≤ + ∆( ) , when ∆( ) x approaches zero, is defined as:
f x
P x X x x
x x
( ) lim
( ( ))
( )
·
≤ ≤ +
→ ∆

∆ 0
(2.12)
As a consequence, t he pr obabi l i t i es of a cont i nuous r andom var i abl e can be
di scussed onl y f or i nt er val s of X val ues. Thus, i nst ead of t he pr obabi l i t y t hat
X t akes on a sp eci f i c val ue, say ' a' , w e d eal w i t h t he so-cal l ed pr obabi l i t y
densi t y of X at ' a' , symbol i sed by f a ( ) . I n gener al , t he pr obabi l i t y
di st r i but i on of a cont i nuous r andom var i abl e can be r epr esent ed b y i t s
Pr obabi l i t y Densi t y Funct i on, PDF, w hi ch i s def i ned i n t he f ol l ow i n g w ay:
P a X b f x dx
a
b
( ) ( ) ≤ ≤ ·

(2.13)
A f ul l y def i ned pr obabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on must sat i sf y t h e f ol l owi ng t wo
r equi r ement s:
f x for all x ( ) ≥ 0
f x dx ( )
−∞
+∞

· 1
The PDF i s al w ays r epr esen t ed as a smo ot h cur ve dr aw n abo ve t he
hor i zont al axi s, w hi ch r epr esent s t he possi bl e val ues of t he r andom var i abl e
X. A cur ve f or a hypot het i cal di st r i but i on i s show n i n Fi gur e 2.10 w her e t he
t w o poi nt s a and b o n t he hor i zont al axi s r epr esent l i mi t s whi ch def i n e an
i nt er val .
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 24
Fi gur e 2.10 Pr obabi l i t y Densi t y Funct i on f or a Hypot het i cal Di st r i but i on
The shaded por t i on b et w een ' a' and ' b' r epr esent s t he pr obabi l i t y t hat X
t akes on a val ue bet ween t he l i mi t s ' a' and ' b' .
Cumul at i ve di st ri but i on f unct i on
The pr obabi l i t y t hat a r andom var i abl e X t akes on a val ue at or bel ow a
gi ven number ' a' i s of t en wr i t t en as:
) ( ) ( a X P a F ≤ · (2.14)
The symbol ) (a F denot es t he par t i cul ar pr obabi l i t y f or t he i nt er val a X ≤ .
The gener al symb ol ) (x F i s somet i mes used t o r epr esent t h e f unct i on
r el at i ng t h e var i ous val ues of X t o t h e cor r espondi ng cumul at i ve
pr obabi l i t i es. Thi s f unct i on i s cal l ed t he Cumul at i ve Di st r i but i on Funct i on,
CDF, and i t must sat i sf y cer t ai n mat h emat i cal pr oper t i es, t he most
i mpor t ant of whi ch ar e:
1. 0 1 ≤ ≤ F x ( )
2. if a b F a F b < ≤ , ( ) ( )
3. F and F ( ) ( ) ∞ · −∞ · 1 0
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 25
Figure 2.11 Cumulative Distribution Function for Discrete Variable
Figure 2.12 Cumulative Distribution Function for Continuous Variable
The symbol F x ( ) can be used to represent the cumulative probability that
X is less than or equal to x. It is defined as:
F a P X x
i
i
n
( ) ( ) · ·
·

1
(2.15)
For t he di scr et e r andom var i abl es, wher eas i n t he case of cont i nuous
r andom var i abl es i t wi l l t ake t he f ol l owi ng f or m:
F a f x dx
a
( ) ( ) ·
−∞

(2.16)
Hypot het i cal cu mul at i ve di st r i but i on f unct i ons f or bot h t yp es of r andom
var i abl e ar e gi ven i n Fi gur es 2.11 and 2.12.
2.9.2 Parametric Method
In some si t uat i ons i t i s easi er and even mor e ef f i ci ent t o l ook onl y at cer t ai n
char act er i st i cs of di st r i but i ons r at her t han t o at t empt t o speci f y t he
di st r i but i on as a whol e. Such char act er i st i cs su mmar i se and nu mer i cal l y
descr i b e cer t ai n f eat ur es f or t he ent i r e di st r i but i on. Two gen er al gr oups of
such char act er i st i cs appl i cabl e t o any t ype of di st r i but ion ar e:
a) Measures of central tendency (or location) which indicate the typical or
the average value of the random variable.
0
1
x
F(x)
a
F(a)
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 26
b) Measures of dispersion (or variability) which show the spread of the
difference among the possible values of the random variable.
In many cases, i t i s possi bl e t o adequat el y descr i be a pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i on
wi t h a f ew measur es of t hi s ki nd. It shoul d b e r emember ed, however , t hat
t hese measur es ser ve onl y t o summar i se some i mpo r t ant f eat ur es of t he
pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i on. In gener al , t hey do not co mpl et el y d escr i be t he
ent i r e di st r i but i on.
One of t h e most co mmon and usef ul sum mar y measur es of a pr obabi l i t y
di st r i but i on i s t he expect at i on of a r andom var i abl e, E(X). It i s a uni que
val ue t hat i ndi cat es a l ocat i on f or t he di st r i but i on as a whol e (In physi cal
sci ence, expect ed val u e act ual l y r epr esent s t he Cent r e of gr avi t y). The
concept of expect at i on pl ays an i mpor t ant r ol e n ot onl y as a usef ul
measur e, but al so as a cent r al concept wi t hi n t he t heor y of pr obabi l i t y and
st at i st i cs.
If a r andom var i abl e, say X, i s di scr et e, t hen i t s expect at i on i s def i ned as:

· × ·
x
x X P x X E ) ( ) ( (2.17)
Wh er e t he su m i s t aken f or al l t he val ues t hat t he var i abl e X can assume. If
t he r andom var i abl e i s cont i nuous, t he expect at i on i s def i ned as:

+∞
∞ −
× · dx x f x X E ) ( ) ( (2.18)
Wh er e t he sum i s t aken o ver al l val ues t hat X can assu me. For a cont i nuous
r andom var i abl e t he exp ect at i on i s def i ned as:
E X F x dx ( ) [ ( )] · −
−∞
+∞

1 (2.19)
If c is a constant, then
) ( ) ( X E c cX E × · (2.20)
Al so, f or any t wo r andom var i abl es X and Y,
) ( ) ( ) ( Y E X E Y X E + · +
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 27
Measures of cent ral t endency
The most f r equ ent l y used measur es ar e:
The mean of a r andom var i abl e i s si mpl y t he expect at i on of t he r andom
var i abl e under consi der at i on. Thus, f or t he r andom var i abl e, X, t he mean
val ue i s def i ned as:
) ( X E Mean · (2.21)
The median, is defined as the value of X which is midway (in terms of
probability) between the smallest possible value and the largest possible
value. The median is the point, which divides the total area under the PDF
into two equal parts. In other words, the probability that X is less than the
median is1 2, and the probability that X is greater than the median is also
1 2. Thus, if P X a ( ) . ≤ ≥ 050 and P X a ( ) . ≥ ≥ 050 then 'a' is the
median of the distribution of X. In the continuous case, this can be expressed
as:
f x dx f x dx
a
a
( ) ( ) .
−∞
+∞
∫ ∫
· · 050 (2.22)
The mode, i s def i ned as t he val ue of X at w hi ch t he PDF of X r eaches i t s
hi ghest p oi nt . If a gr aph of t he PM F (PDF), or a l i st i ng of possi bl e val ues of X
al ong wi t h t hei r pr obabi l i t i es i s avai l abl e, det er mi nat i on of t he mode i s
qui t e si mpl e.
A cent r al t endency par amet er , whet her i t i s mode, medi an, mean, or any
ot her measur e, su mmar i ses onl y a cer t ai n aspect of a di st r i but i on. I t i s easy
t o f i nd t w o di st r i but i ons w hi ch have t he same mean but w hi ch ar e not at al l
si mi l ar i n any ot her r esp ect .
Measures of di spersi on
The mean i s a good i ndi cat i on of t he l ocat i on of a r an dom var i abl e, but no
si ngl e val ue need be exact l y l i ke t he mean. A devi at i on f r om t he mean, D,
expr esses t he measur e of er r or made by usi ng t he mean as a par t i cul ar
val ue:
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 28
M x D − ·
Wher e, x, i s a possi bl e val ue of t he r andom var i abl e, X. The d evi at i on can
be t ak en f r om ot h er measur es of cent r al t end en cy such as t h e medi an or
mod e. It i s qui t e obvi ous t hat t he l ar ger such devi at i ons ar e f r o m a
measur e of cent r al t endency, t he mor e t he i ndi vi dual val ues di f f er f r om
each ot her , and t he mor e appar ent t he spr ead wi t hi n t he di st r i but i on
becomes. Consequent l y, i t i s necessar y t o f i nd a measur e t hat w i l l r ef l ect
t he spr ead, or var i abi l i t y, of i ndi vi dual val ues.
The expect at i on of t he devi at i on about t he mean as a measur e of
var i abi l i t y, E(X - M ), w i l l not w or k because t he expect ed d evi at i on f r o m t he
mean must be zer o f or obvi ous r easons. Th e sol ut i on i s t o f i nd t he squar e of
each d evi at i on f r o m t he mean, and t hen t o f i nd t h e expect at i on of t he
squar ed d evi at i on. Thi s char act er i st i c i s know n as a var i ance of t he
di st r i but i on, V, t hus:
V X E X Mean X Mean P x ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) · − · − ×

2 2
if X is discrete (2.23)
V X E X Mean X Mean f x dx ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) · − · − ×
−∞
+∞

2 2
if X is continuous
(2.24)
The posi t i ve squar e r oot of t he var i ance f or a di st r i but i on i s cal l ed t he
St andar d Devi at i on, SD.
) (X V SD · (2.25)
Pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i ons can be anal ysed i n gr eat er dept h b y i nt r oduci ng
ot her summar y measur es, known as moment s. Ver y si mpl y t h ese ar e
exp ect at i ons of di f f er ent pow er s of t he r andom var iabl e. M or e i nf or mat i on
about t hem can be f ound i n t ext s on pr obabi l i t y.
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 29
Fi gur e 2.13 Pr obabi l i t y Syst em f or Cont i nuous Random Var i abl e
Vari abi l i t y
The st andar d devi at i on i s a measur e t hat show s how cl osel y t he val ues of
r andom var i abl es ar e concent r at ed ar ound t he mean. Somet i mes i t i s
di f f i cul t t o use onl y know l edge of t h e st andar d d evi at i on, t o d eci de wh et her
t he di sper si on i s consi der abl y l ar ge or smal l , because t hi s w i l l depend on
t he mean val u e. I n t hi s case t he par am et er know n as coef f i ci ent of
var i at i on, CV
X
, def i ned as
M
SD
CV
X
· (2.26)
Coef f i ci ent of var i at i on i s ver y usef ul because i t gi ves bet t er i nf or mat i on
r egar di ng t h e di sper si on. Th e concept t hus di scussed so f ar i s summar i sed
i n Fi gur e 2.13.
In concl usi on i t coul d b e sai d t hat t he pr obabi l i t y syst em i s w hol l y abst r act
and axi omat i c. Consequent l y, ever y f ul l y def i ned pr o babi l i t y pr obl em has a
uni que sol ut i on.
2.10. DISCRETE THEORETICALPROBABILITY
DISTRIBUTIONS
In pr obabi l i t y t heor y, t her e ar e sever al r ul es t hat def i ne t he f unct i onal
r el at i onshi p bet w een t he possi b l e val u es of r andom var i abl e X and t hei r
pr obabi l i t i es, P(X). As t hey ar e pur el y t heor et i cal , i . e. t hey do not exi st i n
r eal i t y, t hey ar e cal l ed t heor et i cal pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i ons. Inst ead of
anal ysi ng t he ways i n whi ch t hese r ul es have been der i ved, t he anal ysi s i n
t hi s chapt er con cent r at es on t hei r pr oper t i es. It i s necessar y t o emphasi se
t hat al l t heor et i cal di st r i but i ons r epr esent t he f ami l y of di st r i but i ons
def i ned by a co mmon r ul e t hr ough unspeci f i ed const ant s known as
par amet er s of di st r i but i on. The par t i cul ar member of t h e f ami l y i s d ef i ned
by f i xi ng numer i cal val ues f or t he par am et er s, whi ch def i ne t he di st r i but i on.
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 30
The pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i ons most f r equent l y used i n r el i abi l i t y,
mai nt enan ce and t he l ogi st i c suppor t ar e exami ned i n t hi s chapt er .
Among t h e f ami l y of t h eor et i cal pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i ons t hat ar e r el at ed t o
di scr et e r andom var i abl es, t he Bi nomi al di st r i but i on and t he Poi sson
di st r i but i on ar e r el evan t t o t h e obj ect i ves set b y t hi s book. A br i ef
descr i pt i on of each now f ol l ows.
2.10.1 Bernuolli Trials
The si mpl e pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i on i s one wi t h onl y t wo event cl asses. For
exampl e, a car i s t est ed and one of t wo event s, pass or f ai l , must occur ,
each wi t h so me pr obabi l i t y. The t ype of exper i ment consi st i ng of ser i es of
i ndepen dent t r i al s, each of whi ch can event uat e i n onl y one of t wo
out comes ar e known as Ber nuol l i Tr i al s, and t he t w o event cl asses and t h ei r
associ at ed pr obabi l i t i es a Ber nuol l i Pr ocess. In gener al , one of t he t w o
event s i s cal l ed a “ success” and t h e ot her a “ f ai l ur e” or “ nonsuccess” .
These names ser ve onl y t o t el l t he event s apar t , and ar e not meant t o b ear
any connot at i on of “ goodness” of t he even t . The symbol p, st ands f or t he
pr obabi l i t y of a success, q f or t he pr obabi l i t y of f ai l ur e (p + q =1). If 5
i ndepen dent t r i al s ar e made (n = 5), t hen 2
5
= 32 di f f er ent sequences of
possi bl e out comes woul d be obser ved.
The pr obabi l i t y of gi ven sequen ces d epends upon p and q, t h e pr obabi l i t y of
t he t wo event s. For t unat el y, si nce t r i al s ar e i ndepen dent , i t i s possi bl e t o
comput e t h e pr obabi l i t y of any sequence.
If al l possi bl e sequences and t hei r pr obabi l i t i es, ar e w r i t t en dow n t he
f ol l owi ng f act emer ges: The pr obabi l i t y of any gi ven sequences of n
i ndependent Ber nuol l i Tr i al s depends onl y on t he number of successes and
p. Thi s i s r egar dl ess of t he or der i n w hi ch successes and f ai l ur e occur i n
sequence, t he pr obabi l i t y i s
p q
r n r −
where r is the number of successes, and n r − is the number of failures.
Suppose that in a sequence of 10 trials, exactly 4 success occurs. Then the
probability of that particular sequence is p q
4 6
. If
3
2
· p , then the
probability can worked out from:
2
3
1
3
4 6
|
.

`
,

|
.

`
,

2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 31
The sam e pr ocedur e w oul d be f ol l ow ed f or any r successes out of n t r i al s
f or any p. Gen er al i si ng t hi s i dea f or any r , n, and p, w e have t he f ol l ow i ng
pr i nci pl e:
In sampling from the Bernuolli Process with the probability of a success
equal to p, the probability of observing exactly r successes in n independent
trials is:
P r successes n p
n
r
p q
n
r n r
p q
r n r r n r
( | , )
!
!( )!
·
|
.

`
,
·

− −
(2.27)
2.10.2 The Binomial Distribution
The theoretical probability distribution, which pairs the number of successes
in n trials with its probability, is called the binominal distribution.
Thi s pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i on i s r el at ed t o exp er i ment s, w hi ch consi st of a
ser i es of i ndep endent t r i al s, each of whi ch can r esul t i n onl y on e of t wo
out comes: success and or f ai l u r e. These names ar e used onl y t o t el l t he
event s apar t . By conven t i on t h e symbol p st ands f or t he pr obabi l i t y of a
success, q f or t he pr obabi l i t y of f ai l ur e ( ) p q + · 1 .
The number of successes, x i n n t r i al s i s a di scr et e r andom var i abl e whi ch
can t ake on onl y t he whol e val ues f r o m 0 t hr ough n. The PM F of t he
Bi nomi al di st r i but i on i s gi ven by:
PMF x P X x
n
x
p q x n
x n x
( ) ( ) , · · ·
|
.

`
,

< <

0 (2.28)
wher e:
n
x
p q
n
x n x
p q
x n x x n x
|
.

`
,

·

− −
!
!( )!
(2.29)
The bi nomi al di st r i but i on expr essed i n cu mul at i ve f o r m, r epr esen t i ng t he
pr obabi l i t y t hat X f al l s at or bel ow a cer t ai n val ue ' a' i s def i ned by t he
f ol l ow i ng equat i on:
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 32
P X a P X x
n
i
p q
i
i n i
i
a
i o
a
( ) ( ) ≤ · · ·
|
.

`
,


· ·
∑ ∑
0
(2.30)
As an i l l ust r at i on of t he bi nomi al di st r i but i on, t he PM F and CDF ar e sh own
i n Fi gur e 2.14 wi t h par amet er s n = 10 and p = 0. 3.
Figure 2.14 PMF and CDF For Binomial Distribution, n = 10, p = 0.3
E X np ( ) · (2.31)
Si mi l ar l y, because of t he i ndep endence of t r i al s, t he var i ance of t he
bi nomi al di st r i but i on i s t he sum of t he var i ances of t he i ndi vi dual t r i al s, or
p p ( ) 1− summed n t i mes:
V X np p npq ( ) ( ) · − · 1 (2.32)
Conseq uent l y, t he st andar d devi at i on i s equal t o:
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 33
Sd X npq ( ) · (2.33)
Al t hough t he mat hemat i cal r ul e f or t he bi nomi al di st r i but i on i s t he same
r egar dl ess of t he par t i cul ar val ues w hi ch par amet er s n and p t ake, t he
shape of t he pr obabi l i t y mass f unct i on and t he cu mul at i ve di st r i but i on
f unct i on w i l l depend upon t hem. The PM F of t he bi nomi al di st r i but i on i s
symmet r i c i f p = 0.5, posi t i vel y skew ed i f p < 0.5, and negat i vel y skew ed i f p
> 0. 5.
2.10.3 The Poisson Distribution
The t heor et i cal pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i on whi ch pai r s t he number of
occur r ences of an event i n a gi ven t i me per i od w i t h i t s pr obabi l i t y i s cal l ed
t he Poi sson di st r i but i on. Ther e ar e exp er i ment s wher e i t i s not possi bl e t o
obser ve a f i ni t e sequence of t r i al s. I nst ead, obser vat i ons t ake pl ace o ver a
cont i nuum, such as t i me. For exampl e, i f t he number of car s ar ri vi ng at a
speci f i c j unct i on i n a gi ven per i od of t i me i s obser ved, say f or on e mi nut e, i t
i s di f f i cul t t o t hi nk of t hi s si t uat i on i n t er ms of f i ni t e t r i al s. I f t he number of
bi nomi al t r i al s n, i s made l ar ger and l ar ger and p smal l er and smal l er i n such
a w ay t hat np r emai ns const ant , t hen t h e pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i on of t he
number of occur r ences of t he r andom var i abl e appr oaches t he Poi sson
di st r i but i on.
The pr obabi l i t y mass f unct i on i n t he case of t he Po i sson di st ri but i on f or
r andom var i abl e X can be expr essed as f ol l o w s:
P X x
e
x
x
( | )
!
· ·

λ
λ
λ
where x = 0, 1, 2, . (2.34)
λ i s t he i nt ensi t y of t he pr ocess and r epr esent s t h e expect ed number of
occur r ences i n a t i me per i od of l engt h t . Fi gur e 2.15 show s t he PM F of t he
Poi sson di st r i but i on wi t h λ · 5
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 34
Figure 2.15 PMF of the Poisson Distribution with λ · 5
The Cumul at i ve Di st r i but i on Funct i on f or t he Poi sson di st r i but i on
F x P X x
e
i
i x
i o
x
( ) ( )
!
· ≤ ·
·

λ
(2.35)
The CDF of t he Poi sson di st r i but i on w i t h λ · 5 i s pr esent ed i n Fi gur e 2.16.
Expect ed val ue of t he di st r i but i on i s gi ven by
E X xP X x x
e
x
x
x
x
( ) ( )
!
· · ·
·

·
∑ ∑
0 0
λ
λ
Appl yi ng some si mpl e mat h emat i cal t r ansf or mat i ons i t can be pr oved t hat :
E X ( ) · λ (2.36)
whi ch means t hat t he exp ect ed number of occur r ences i n a per i od of t i me t
i s equal t o np, whi ch i s equal t o λ .
The var i ance of t he Poi sson di st r i but i on i s equal t o t he mean:
V X ( ) · λ (2.37)
Thus, t he Poi sson di st r i but i on i s a si ngl e par amet er di st r i but i on because i t i s
compl et el y d ef ined by t he par amet er λ . In gener al , t he Poi sson
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 35
di st r i but i on i s posi t i vel y skew ed, al t hough i t i s n ear l y symmet r i cal as
λ beco mes l ar ger .
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 36
Fi gur e 2. 16 CDF of t he Poi sson Di st r i but i on λ · 5
The Poi sson di st r i but i on can b e der i ved as a l i mi t i ng f or m of t h e bi nomi al i f
t he f ol l owi ng t hr ee assumpt i ons wer e si mul t aneousl y sat i sf i ed:
1. n becomes large (that is, n → ∞).
2. p becomes small (that is, p →0).
3. np remains constant.
Under t hese condi t i ons, t he bi nomi al di st r i but i on wi t h t he par amet er s n
and p, can be appr oxi mat ed t o t he Poi sson di st r i but i on wi t h
par amet er λ · np . Thi s means t hat t he Poi sson di st r i but i on pr ovi d es a
good appr oxi mat i on t o t he bi nomi al di st r i but i on i f p i s ver y smal l and n i s
l ar ge. Si nce p and q can be i nt er changed b y si mp l y i nt er changi ng t he
def i ni t i ons of success and f ai l u r e, t he Poi sson di st r i but i on i s al so a good
appr oxi mat i on when p i s cl ose t o one and n i s l ar ge.
As an exampl e of t h e use of t he Poi sso n di st r i but i on as an appr oxi mat i on t o
t he bi nomi al di st r i but i on, t he case i n w hi ch n = 10 and p = 0.10 w i l l be
consi der ed. The Poi sson par amet er f or t h e ap pr oxi mat i on i s t hen
λ · · × · np 10 010 1 . . The bi nomi al di st r i but i on and t he Poi sson
appr oxi mat i on ar e shown i n Tabl e 2.2.
The t w o di st r ibut i ons agr ee r easonabl y w el l . If mor e pr eci si on i s desi r ed, a
possi bl e r ul e of t humb i s t hat t he Poi sson i s a good appr oxi mat i on t o t he
bi nomi al i f n p / > 500 (t hi s shoul d gi ve accur acy t o at l east t w o deci mal
pl aces).
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 37
Tabl e 2.2 Poi sson Di st r i but i on as an Appr oxi mat ion t o t he Bi nomi al
Di st r i but i on
Binomial
P X x n p ( | , . ) · · · 10 01
Poisson
P X x ( | ) · · λ 1
0 0.598737 0.606531
1 0.315125 0.303265
2 0.074635 0.075816
3 0.010475 0.012636
4 0.000965 0.001580
5 0.000061 0.000158
2.11. CONTINUOUS THEORETICAL PROBABILITY
DISTRIBUTIONS
It i s necessar y t o emphasi se t hat al l t heor et i cal di st r i but i ons r epr esent t he
f ami l y of di st r i but i ons d ef i ned b y a common r u l e t hr ou gh unspeci f i ed
const ant s known as par amet er s of di st r i but i on. The par t i cul ar member of
t he f ami l y i s def i ned b y f i xi ng numer i cal val ues f or t he par amet er s, w hi ch
def i ne t he di st r i but i on. The pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i ons most f r equent l y used
i n r el i abi l i t y, mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y en gi neer i ng ar e exami ned i n
t hi s chapt er . Each of t h e abo ve ment i oned r ul es def i ne a f ami l y of
di st r i but i on f unct i ons. Each member of t he f ami l y i s def i ned wi t h a f ew
par amet er s, w hi ch i n t hei r ow n w ay cont r ol t he di st r i but i on. Par amet er s of
a di st r i but i on can b e cl assi f i ed i n t he f ol l owi ng t hr ee cat egor i es (not e t hat
not al l di st r i but i ons wil l have al l t he t hr ee par amet er s, many di st r i but i ons
may have ei t her one or t wo par amet er s):
1. Scale parameter, which controls the range of the distribution on the
horizontal scale.
2. Shape parameter, which controls the shape of the distribution curves.
3. Source parameter or Location parameter, which defines the origin or the
minimum value which random variable, can have. Location parameter
also refers to the point on horizontal axis where the distribution is
located.
Thus, i ndi vi dual member s of a speci f i c f ami l y of t he pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i on
ar e def i ned b y f i xi ng numer i cal val ues f or t he above par amet er s.
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 38
2.11.1 Exponential Distribution
Exponent i al di st r i but i on i s f ul l y def i ned b y a si ngl e one par amet er t hat
gover ns t he scal e of t he di st r i but i on. The pr obabi l i t y d ensi t y f unct i on of t he
exponent i al di st r i but i on i s gi ven by:
| ) 0 , exp ) ( > − · x x x f λ λ (2.38)
In Fi gur e 2.17 sever al gr aphs ar e shown of exponen t i al densi t y f unct i ons
w i t h di f f er ent val ues of λ. Not i ce t hat t he expon ent i al di st r i but i on i s
posi t i vel y skew ed, wi t h t he mode occur r i ng at t h e smal l est possi bl e val ue,
zer o.
Fi gur e 2.17. Pr obabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on of exponent i al di st r i but i on f or
di f f er en t val ues of λ
The cu mul at i ve di st r i but i on of exponen t i al di st r i but i on i s gi ven by:
| ) | ) x x X P x F λ − − · < · exp 1 ) ( ) ( (2.39)
It can be show n t hat t he mean and var i ance of t he exponent i al di st r i but i on
ar e:
λ / 1 ) ( · X E (2.40)
2
) / 1 ( ) ( λ · X V (2.41)
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 39
The standard deviation in the case of the exponential distribution rule has a
numerical value identical to the mean and the scale parameter,
λ / 1 ) ( ) ( · · X E X SD .
11.1.1 Memory-less Property of Exponential Distribution
One of t h e uni que pr op er t y of exponen t i al di st r i but i on i s t hat i t i s t he onl y
cont i nuous di st r i but i on t hat has memor y l ess pr oper t y. Suppose t hat t he
r andom var i abl e X measur es t he dur at i on of t i me u nt i l t he occur r ence of
f ai l ur e of an i t em and t hat i t i s known t hat X has an exponen t i al di st r i but i on
wi t h par amet er λ. Suppose t he pr esent age of t he i t em i s t , t hat i s X > t .
Assume t hat w e ar e i nt er est ed i n f i ndi ng t he pr obabi l i t y t hat t hi s i t em wi l l
not f ai l f or anot her s uni t s of t i me. Thi s can be expr essed usi ng t he
condi t i onal pr obabi l i t y as:
} { t x t s X P > + >
Usi ng condi t i onal pr obabi l i t y of even t s, t he above pr obabi l i t y can be
w r i t t en as:
} {
} {
} {
} {
} {
t X P
t s X P
t X P
t X t s X P
s X t s X P
>
+ >
·
>
> ∩ + >
· > + > (2.42)
How ever w e know t hat f or exponent i al di st r i but i on
)) ( exp( ] [ t s t s X P + − · + > λ and ) exp( ] [ t t X P λ − · >
Subst i t ut i ng t hese expr essi ons i n equat i on (2.42), we get
) exp( ] [ ] [ s s X P t X t s X P λ − · > · > + >
That i s, t he condi t i onal pr obabi l i t y d epends onl y on t h e r emai ni ng d ur at i on
and i s i ndependent of t he cur r ent age of t he i t em. Thi s pr oper t y i s expl oi t ed
t o a gr eat ext end i n r el i abi l i t y t heor y.
2.11.2 Normal Distribution (Gaussian Distribution)
Thi s i s t he most f r equ ent l y used and most ext ensi vel y cover ed t heor et i cal
di st r i but i on i n t he l i t er at ur e. Th e Nor mal Di st r i but i o n i s cont i nuous f or al l
val ues of X bet w een − ∞ and + ∞. It has a char act er i st i c symmet r i cal
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 40
shape, w hi ch means t hat t he mean, t he medi an and t he mode have t he
same numer i cal val ue. Th e mat hemat i cal expr essi on f or i t s pr obabi l i t y
densi t y f unct i on i s as f ol l ow s:

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
| −
− ·
2
2
1
exp
2
1
) (
σ
µ
π σ
x
x f (2.43)
Wh er e µ i s a l ocat i on par amet er (as i t l ocat es t he di st r i but i on on t he
hor i zont al axi s) and σ i s a scal e par amet er (as i t cont r ol s t he r ange of t he
di st r i but i on). µ and σ al so r epr esent s t he mean and t he st andar d devi at i on
of t hi s di st r i but i on.
The i nf l uence of t he par amet er µ on t he l ocat i on of t he di st r i but i on on t he
hor i zont al axi s i s shown i n Fi gur e 2.18, wh er e t he val ues f or par am et er σ
ar e const ant .
As t he devi at i on of x f r om t he l ocat i on par amet er µ i s ent er ed as a squar ed
quant i t y, t wo di f f er ent x val ues, show i ng t h e same absol ut e devi at i on f r om
µ, wi l l have t he same pr obabi l i t y densi t y accor di ng t o t hi s r ul e. Thi s di ct at es
t he symmet r y of t he nor mal di st r i but i on. Par amet er µ can be any f i ni t e
number , whi l e σ can be any posi t i ve f i ni t e number .
The cumul at i ve di st r i but i on f unct i on f or t he nor mal di st r i but i on i s:
F a P X a f x dx
a
( ) ( ) ( ) · ≤ ·
−∞

wher e f (x) i s t he nor mal densi t y f unct i on. Taki ng i nt o accoun t Eq. (2.43)
t hi s becomes:
dx
a
a F
a

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
| −
− ·
∞ −
2
2
1
exp
2
1
) (
σ
µ
π σ
(2.44)
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 41
Fi gur e 2.18 Pr obabi l i t y densi t y of nor mal di st r i but i on f or di f f er ent σ val ues
In Fi gur e 2.19 sever al cu mul at i ve di st r i but i on f unct i ons ar e gi ven of t he
Nor mal Di st r i but i on, cor r espondi ng t o di f f er ent val u es of µ and σ .
As t he i nt egr al i n Eq. (2.44) cannot be eval uat ed i n a cl osed f or m,
st at i st i ci ans have const r uct ed t h e t abl e of pr obabi l i t i es, whi ch compl i es
wi t h t he nor mal r ul e f or t he st andar di sed r andom var i abl e, Z. Thi s i s a
t heor et i cal r andom var i abl e wi t h par amet er s µ = 0 and σ = 1. The
r el at i onshi p bet w een st andar di sed r andom var i abl e Z and r andom var i abl e
X i s est abl i shed by t he f ol l owi ng expr essi on:
Fi gur e 2.19 Cumul at i ve di st r i but i on of nor mal di st r i but i on f or di f f er ent
val ues of µ and σ.
σ
µ −
·
x
z (2.45)
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 42
M aki ng use of t he abo ve expr essi on t he eq uat i on (2.43) becomes
si mpl er :
2
2
1
2
1
) (
z
e z f

·
π σ
(2.46)
The st andar di sed f or m of t he di st r i but i on makes i t possi bl e t o use onl y one
t abl e f or t he d et er mi nat i on of PDF f or any nor mal di st r i but i on, r egar dl ess of
i t s par t i cul ar par amet er s (see Tabl e i n appendi x).
The r el at i onshi p bet w een f (x) and f (z) i s :
σ
) (
) (
z f
x f · (2.47)
By substituting
σ
µ − x
with z Eq. (2.44) becomes:

,
`

.
| −
Φ ·

,
`

.
|
− ·
∞ −
σ
µ
π σ
x
dz z a F
z
2
2
1
exp
2
1
) ( (2.48)
w her e Φ i s t he st andar d nor mal di st r i but i on Funct i on def i ned by
Φ( ) exp z z dx
x
· −
|
.

`
,

−∞

1
2
1
2
2
π
(2.49)
The cor r espondi ng st andar d nor mal pr obabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on i s:
f z
z
( ) exp · −
|
.

`
,

1
2 2
2
π
(2.50)
M ost t abl es of t he nor mal di st r i but i on gi ve t he cumul at i ve pr obabi l i t i es f or
var i ous st andar di sed val u es. That i s, f or a gi ven z val ue t he t abl e pr o vi des
t he cu mul at i ve pr obabi l i t y up t o, and i ncl udi ng, t hat st andar di sed val u e i n a
nor mal di st r i but i on. In M i cr osof t EXCEL
©
, t he cumul at i ve di st r i but i on
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 43
f unct i on and densi t y f unct i on of nor mal di st r i but i on wi t h mean µ and
st andar d devi at i on σ can be f ound usi ng t he f ol l ow i ng f unct i on.
F(x) = NORM DI ST (x, µ, σ, TRUE), and f (x) = NORM DI ST (x, µ, σ, FALSE)
The expect at i on of a r andom var i abl e, i s equal t o t he l ocat i on par amet er µ
t hus:
µ · ) ( X E (2.51)
Wh er eas t he var i ance i s
2
) ( σ · X V (2.52)
Si nce nor mal di st r i but i on i s a symmet r i cal about i t s mean, t he ar ea
bet w een µ - kσ, µ + kσ (k i s any r eal number ) t akes a uni que val ue, w hi ch i s
shown i n Fi gur e 2.20.
Fi gur e 2. 20 The ar eas under a nor mal di st r i but i on bet w een
µ - kσ and µ + kσ
11.2.1 Central Limit Theorem
Suppose X
1
, X
2
, … X
n
ar e mut ual l y i ndep end ent obser vat i ons on a r andom
var i abl e X havi ng a wel l -def i ned mean µ
x
and st andar d devi at i on σ
x
. Let
n
X
Z
x
x
n
/ σ
µ −
·

(2.53)
Wher e,
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 44
∑ ·
·

n
i
i
X
n
X
1
1
(2.54)
and ) (z F
n
z
be the cumulative distribution function of the random variable
Z
n
. Then for all z, - ∞ < z < ∞,
) ( ) ( lim z F z F
Z Z
n
n
·
∞ →
(2.55)
wher e F
Z
(z) i s t he cumul at i ve di st r i but i on of st andar d nor mal di st r i but i on
N(0,1). The X val ues have t o be f r om t h e same di st r i but i on but t he
r emar kabl e f eat ur e i s t hat t hi s di st r i but i on does no t have t o be nor mal , i t
can be uni f or m, exponent i al , bet a, gamma, Wei bul l or even an u nknown
one.
2.11.3 Lognormal Distribution
The l ognor mal pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i on, can i n some r espect s, be consi der ed
as a speci al case of t he nor mal di st r i but i on because o f t he der i vat i on of i t s
pr obabi l i t y f unct i on. If a r andom var i abl e Y X · ln i s nor mal l y di st r i but ed
t hen, t h e r andom var i abl e X f ol l ows t he l ognor mal d i st r i but i on. Thus, t he
pr obabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on f or a r andom var i abl e X i s def i ned as:
0
ln
2
1
exp
2
1
) (
2

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
| −
− ·
l
l
l
X
x
x
x f
σ
µ
π σ
(2.56)
The par amet er
l
µ i s cal l ed t he scal e par amet er (see Fi gur e 2.21) and
par amet er
l
σ i s cal l ed t he shape par amet er . Th e r el at i onshi p bet w een
par amet er s µ (l ocat i on par amet er of t he nor mal di st r i but i on) and
l
µ i s
def i ned:

,
`

.
|
+ ·
2
2
1
exp
l
l
σ µ µ (2.57)
The cumul at i ve di st r i but i on f unct i on f or t he l ognor mal di st r i but i on i s
def i ned wi t h t he f ol l owi ng expr essi on:
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 45
Fi gur e 2.21 Pr obabi l i t y densi t y of l og-nor mal di st r i but i on
dx
x
x
x X P x F
x
l
l
l
X

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
| −
− · ≤ ·
0
2
ln
2
1
exp
2
1
) ( ) (
σ
µ
π σ
(2.58)
As t he i nt egr al cannot b e eval uat ed i n cl ose f or m, t he same pr ocedur e i s
appl i ed as i n t h e case of nor mal di st r i but i on. Then , maki ng use of t he
st andar di sed r andom var i abl e Equat i on (2.61) t r ansf or ms i nt o:

,
`

.
| −
Φ · ≤ ·
l
l
X
x
x X P x F
σ
µ ln
) ( ) ( (2.59)
The measur es of cent r al t endency i n t h e case of l ognor mal di st r i but i ons ar e
def i ned by t he:
(a) Locat i on par amet er (M ean)

,
`

.
|
+ · ·
2
2
1
exp ) (
l
l
X E M σ µ (2.60)
(b) Devi at i on par amet er (t he var i ance)
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 46
| ) ' | ) 1 exp( 2 exp ) (
2
2
− + ·
l l
l
X V σ σ µ (2.61)
2.11.4 Weibull Distribution
This distribution originated from the experimentally observed variations in
the yield strength of Bofors steel, the size distribution of fly ash, fibre
strength of Indian cotton, and the fatigue life of a St-37 steel by the Swedish
engineer W.Weibull. As the Weibull distribution has no characteristic shape,
such as the normal distribution, it has a very important role in the statistical
analysis of experimental data. The shape of this distribution is governed by
its parameter.
The rule for the probability density function of the Weibull distribution is:
]
]
]
]

,
`

.
| −

,
`

.
| −
·
− β β
η
γ
η
γ
η
β x x
x f exp ) (
1
(2.65)
where η, β, γ > 0. As the location parameter ν is often set equal to zero, in
such cases:
]
]
]
]

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|
·
− β β
η η η
β x x
x f exp ) (
1
(2.66)
By altering the shape parameter β, the Weibull distribution takes different
shapes. For example, when β = 3.4 the Weibull approximates to the normal
distribution; when β =1, it is identical to the exponential distribution. Figure
2.22 shows the Weibull probability density function for selected parameter
values.
The cumul at i ve di st r i but i on f unct i ons f or t he Wei bul l di st r i but i on i s:
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 47
]
]
]
]

,
`

.
| −
− − ·
B
x
x F
η
γ
exp 1 ) ( (2.67)
Fi gur e 2.22. Pr obabi l i t y densi t y of Wei bul l di st r i but i on wi t h β = 2.0,
γ = 0, η = 0.5, 1, 2
For γ = 0, the cumulative distribution is given by
]
]
]
]

,
`

.
|
− − ·
β
η
x
x F exp 1 ) ( (2.68)
The expect ed val ue of t he Wei bul l di st r i but i on i s gi ven by:

,
`

.
|
+ Γ × + · 1
1
) (
β
η γ X E (2.69)
wher e Γ i s t he gamma f unct i on, def i ned as
2. Pr obabi l i t y Theor y 48
dx x e n
n x 1
0
) (



×

· Γ
When n is integer then )! 1 ( ) ( − · Γ n n . For other values, one has to solve
the above integral to the value. Values for this can be found in Gamma
function table given in the appendix. In Microsoft EXCEL, Gamma function,
) (x Γ can be found using the function, EXP[GAMMALN(x)].
The var i ance of t he Wei bul l di st ri but i on is gi ven by:
]
]
]

,
`

.
|
+ Γ −

,
`

.
|
+ Γ ·
β β
η
1
1
2
1 ) ( ) (
2 2
X V (2.70)
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 49
Chapter 3
Reliability Measures
I have seen t he f ut ur e; and i t w or ks
Li ncol n St ef f ens
In t hi s chapt er we di scuss var i ous measur es by whi ch har dwar e and
sof t war e r el i abi l i t y char act er i st i cs can b e numer i cal l y def i ned and
descr i b ed. M anuf act ur er s and cust omer s use r el i abi l i t y measur e t o quant i f y
t he ef f ect i ven ess of t h e syst em. Use of any par t i cul ar r el i abi l i t y measur e
dep ends on what i s expect ed of t he syst em and what we ar e t r yi ng
measur e. Sever al l i f e cycl e d eci si on ar e mad e usi n g r el i abi l i t y measur e as
one of t he i mpor t ant desi gn par amet er . The r el i abi l i t y char act er i st i cs or
measur es used t o sp eci f y r el i abi l i t y must r ef l ect t he op er at i onal
r equi r ement s of t h e i t em. Requi r ement s must b e t ai l or ed t o i ndi vi dual i t em
consi der i ng oper at i onal envi r onmen t and mi ssi on cr i t i cal i t y. In br oader
sense, t he r el i abi l i t y met r i cs can be cl assi f i ed (Fi gur e 3.1) as: 1. Basi c
Rel i abi l i t y M easur es, 2. M i ssi on Rel i abi l i t y M easur es, 3. Oper at i onal
Rel i abi l i t y M easur es, and 4. Cont r act ual Rel i abi l i t y M easur es.
Basi c Rel i abi l i t y M easur es ar e used t o pr edi ct t he syst em' s abi l i t y t o op er at e
wi t hout mai nt enan ce and l ogi st i c suppor t . Rel i abi l i t y measur es l i ke
r el i abi l i t y f unct i on and f ai l ur e f unct i on f all under t hi s cat egor y.
M i ssi on Rel i abi l i t y M easur es ar e used t o pr edi ct t h e syst em' s abi li t y t o
compl et e mi ssi on. These measur es consi der onl y t hose f ai l ur es t hat cause
mi ssi on f ai l ur e. Rel i abi l i t y measur es such as mi ssi on r el i abi l i t y,
mai nt enance f r ee oper at i ng per i od (M FOP), f ai l ur e f r ee oper at i ng p er i od
(FFOP), and hazar d f unct i on f al l under t hi s cat egor y.
Oper at i onal Rel i abi l i t y M easur es ar e used t o pr edi ct t h e per f or mance of t he
syst em wh en oper at ed i n a pl anned envi r onment i ncl udi ng t he combi ned
ef f ect of desi gn, qual i t y, envi r onment , mai nt enan ce, suppor t pol i cy, et c.
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 50
M easur es such as M ean Ti me Bet ween M ai nt enance (M TBM ), M ean Ti me
Bet w een Over haul (M TBO), M ai nt enance Fr ee Op er at i ng Per i od (M FOP),
M ean Ti me Bet ween Cr i t i cal Fai l ur e (M TBCF) and M ean Ti me Bet ween
Unschedul ed Removal (M TBUR) f al l under t hi s cat egor y.
Cont r act ual Rel i abi l i t y M easur e i s used t o def i ne, measur e and eval uat e t he
manuf act ur er ' s pr ogr am. Cont r act ual r el i abi l i t y i s cal cul at ed by consi der i ng
desi gn and manuf act ur i ng char act er i st i cs. Basi cal l y i t i s t he i nher ent
r el i abi l i t y char act er i st i c. M easur es such as M ean Ti me To Fai l ur e (MTTF),
M ean Ti me Bet w een Fai l ur e (M TBF) and Fai l ur e r at e f al l under t hi s
cat egor y.
Fi gur e 3.1 Cl assi f i cat i ons of Rel i abi l i t y M easur es
Though w e cl assi f y t he r el i abi l i t y measur es i nt o f our cat egor i es as
men t i oned above, on e may r equi r e mor e t han one r el i abi l i t y met r i c i n most
of t h e cases f or speci f yi ng r el i abi l i t y r equi r emen t s. Sel ect i on of sp eci f i c
measur e t o quant i f y t he r el i abi l i t y r equi r emen t s shoul d i ncl ude mi ssi on and
l ogi st i c r el i abi l i t y al ong wi t h mai nt enance and suppor t measur es. Cur r ent l y,
many manuf act ur er s speci f y r el i abi l i t y by usi ng mean t i me bet w een f ai l ur e
(M TBF) and f ai l ur e r at e. However , M TBF and f ai l ur e r at es have sever al
dr awbacks. Recent pr oj ect s such as Fut ur e Of f ensi ve Ai r Syst ems (FOAS)
dr i ve mai nt enance f r ee oper at i ng per i ods (M FOP) as t he pr ef er r ed
r el i abi li t y r equi r ement .
In t he next Sect i on, we d ef i ne var i ous r el i abi l i t y measur es and how t o
eval uat e t hem i n pr act i cal pr obl ems. Al l t he measur es ar e d ef i ned based on
t he assump t i on t hat t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e (TTF) di st r i but i on of t he syst em i s
know n. Pr ocedur es f or f i ndi ng t h e t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on by anal ysi ng
t he f ai l ur e dat a t hat ar e di scussed i n Chapt er 12.
Reliability Measures
Basic Reliability
Mission Reliability
Operational Reliability Contractual Reliability
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 51
3.12. FAILURE FUNCTION
Fai l ur e f unct i on i s a basi c (l ogi st i c) r el i abi l i t y measur e and i s def i ned as t he
pr obabi l i t y t hat an i t em wi l l f ai l bef or e or at t h e moment of oper at i ng t i me
t . Her e t i me t i s used i n a gener i c sense and i t can have uni t s such as mi l es,
number of l andi ngs, f l yi ng hour s, number of cycl es, et c., dependi ng on t he
oper at i onal pr of il e and t he ut i l i sat i on of t he syst em. That i s, Fai l ur e f unct i on
i s equal t o t he pr obabi l i t y t hat t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e r andom var i abl e w i l l be
l ess t han or equal a par t i cul ar val ue t (i n t hi s case oper at i ng t i me, see Fi gur e
3.2a). The f ai l ur e f unct i on i s usual l y r epr esent ed as F(t ).
F(t ) = P (f ai l ur e wi l l occur bef or e or at t i me t ) = P (TTF ≤ t )
= du u f
t

0
) ( (3.1)
Fi gur e 3.2a. Fai l ur e f unct i on of a hypot het i cal di st r i but i on
Wh er e ) (t f i s t he pr obabi l i t y d ensi t y f unct i on of t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e
r andom var i abl e TTF. Exponent i al , Wei bul l , nor mal , l ognor mal , Gamma and
Gumbel ar e f ew popul ar t heor et i cal di st r i but i ons t hat ar e used t o r epr esent
f ai l ur e f unct i on. Equat i on (3.1) i s der i ved by assumi ng t hat no mai nt enance
i s per f or med t o t h e syst em, and gi ves t he pr obabi l i t y of f ai l ur e f r ee
oper at i on wi t hout mai nt enance up t o t i me t . However , most of t he
compl ex syst ems wi l l r equi r e mai nt enance at f r equent i nt er val s. In such
cases, equat i on (3.1) has t o be modi f i ed, t o i ncor por at e t he b ehavi our of
t he syst em und er mai nt enance. Fai l ur e f unct i ons of f ew popul ar
t heor et i cal di st r i but i ons ar e li st ed i n Tabl e 3.1.
It shoul d be not ed t hat i n case of nor mal di st r i but i on t he f ai l ur e f unct i on
exi st s bet w een -∞ and +∞, so may have si gni f i cant val ue at t ≤ 0. Si nce
negat i ve t i me i s meani ngl ess i n r el i abi l i t y, gr eat car e shoul d be t aken i n
usi ng nor mal di st r i but i on f or t he f ai l ur e f unct i on. For µ >> 3σ, pr obabi l i t y
val ues f or t ≤ 0 can be consi der ed negl i gi bl e.
Ti me
F(t )
f t ( )
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 52
Table 3.1 Failure function, F(t), of few theoretical distributions
Distribution Failure Function, F(t)
Exponential
1 0 0 − − > > exp( ) , λ λ t t
Normal

,
`

.
| −
Φ

,
`

.
| −
− t
x
t
or dx e
0
]
2
1
[
2
2
1
σ
µ
π σ
σ
µ
or NORM DIST(t , µ, σ, TRUE) i n EXCEL
®
Lognormal

,
`

.
| −
Φ

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
| −

t
l
l
x
l
t
or dx e
x
l
l
0
) ln(
2
1
) ln(
2
1
2
σ
µ
π σ
σ
µ
or NORM DIST(l n(t ), µ, σ, TRUE) i n EXCEL
®
Weibull 1 0 − −

> ≥ exp( ( ) ) , , ,
t
t
γ
η
η β γ γ
β
Gamma
1
1
0
Γ( ) α
β
α α β
x e dx
x
t
− −

Not e t hat t h e f ai l ur e f unct i on of nor mal di st r i but i on i s def i ned b et ween 0
and t , si nce t i s gr eat er t han 0 f or r el i abi l i t y pur poses (agai nst t he usual l i mi t
-∞) Appl i cat i ons of f ai l ur e f unct i on ar e l i st ed bel ow (Fi gur e 3.2b). Fai l ur e
f unct i ons of var i ous t heor et i cal di st r i but i ons f or di f f er ent par amet er val ues
ar e shown i n Fi gur es 3.3a-3.3c.
Charact eri st i cs of f ai l ure f unct i on
1. Failure function is an increasing function. That is, for t
1
<t
2
, F (t
1
) ≤ F (t
2
).
2. For modelling purposes it is assumed that the failure function value at
time t = 0, F(0) = 0. However, this assumption may not be valid always.
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 53
For example, systems can be dead on arrival. The value of failure
function increases as the time increases and for t = ∞, F(∞) = 1.
Appl i cat i ons of f ai l ure f unct i on
1. F(t) is the probability that an individual item will fail by time t.
2. F(t) is the fraction of items that fail by time t.
3. 1 - F(t) is the probability that an individual item will survive up to time t.
Figure 3.2b. Properties of failure function
Fi gur e 3. 3a: Fai l ur e f unct i on of exponent i al di st r i but i on f or di f f er ent val ues
of λ
Failure Function
Increasing function Probability of
failure by given
age
Fraction of
items that fail by
given age
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200 300 400
Time
λ · 0.03
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
,
F
(
t
)
λ · 0.02
λ · 0.01
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 54
Fi gur e 3.3b Fai l ur e f unct i on of Wei bul l di st r i but i on f or di f f er en t β val ues
Fi gur e 3. 3c Fai l ur e f unct i on of nor mal di st r i but i on f or di f f er ent µ val ues
Exampl e 3.1
The t i me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of a sub -syst em i n an ai r cr af t engi n e f ol l ows
Wei bul l di st ri but i on w i t h scal e par amet er η = 1100 f l i ght hour s and t he
shape par amet er β = 3. Fi nd:
a) Probability of failure during first 100 flight hours.
b) Find the maximum length of flight such that the failure probability is less
than 0.05.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 50 100 150 200
Ti me
µ = 100
µ = 120
µ = 140
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
,
F
(
t
)
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
,
F
(
t
)
β
= 1
β
= 2
β
= 3
Time
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 55
SOLUTION:
a) The f ai l ur e f unct i on f or Wei bul l di st ri but i on is gi ven by:
F t
t
( ) exp( ( ) ) · − −

1
γ
η
β
It i s gi ven t hat : t = 100 f l i ght hour s, η = 1100 f l i ght hour s, β = 3 and γ = 0.
Pr obabi l i t y of f ail ur e wi t hi n f i r st 100 hour s is gi ven by:
F( ) exp( ( ) ) . 100 1
100 0
1100
0 00075
3
· − −

·
b) If t i s t he maxi mum l engt h of f l i ght such t hat t he f ai l ur e pr obabi l i t y i s l ess
t han 0.05, w e have
3 / 1 3
3
3
)] 95 . 0 ln( [ 1100 95 . 0 ln )
1100
(
95 . 0 ) )
1100
( exp(
05 . 0 ) )
1100
0
( exp( 1 ) (
− × · ⇒ − > ·
> − ·
<

− − ·
t
t
t
t
t F
Now sol vi ng f or t , w e get t = 408.70 f l i ght hour s. The maxi mum l en gt h of
f l i ght such t hat t he f ai l ur e pr obabi l i t y i s l ess t han 0. 05 i s 408.70 f li ght hour s.
Exampl e 3.2
The t i me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of a Radar War ni ng Recei ver (RWR) syst em
i n a f i ght er ai r cr af t f ol l ow s Wei bul l di st r i but i on wi t h scal e par amet er 1200
f l i ght hour s and shap e par amet er 3. Th e t i me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of t he
same RWR i n a hel i copt er f ol l ow s exponent i al di st r i but i on w i t h scal e
par amet er 0.001. Compar e t he f ai l ur e f unct i on of t he RWR i n t h e f i ght er
ai r cr af t and t he h el i copt er . If t he suppl i er gi ves a w ar r ant y f or 750 f l i ght
hour s, cal cul at e t he r i sk i nvol ved wi t h r esp ect t o f i ght er ai r cr af t and t he
hel i copt er . (Al t hough we have a same syst em, t he oper at i ng condi t i ons
have si gni f i cant i mpact on t he f ai l ur e f unct i on. In t hi s case, RWR i n
hel i copt er i s subj ect t o mor e vi br at i ons compar ed t o ai r cr af t ).
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 56
SOLUTION:
The f ai l ur e f unct i on of RWR on t he f i ght er ai r cr af t i s given by:
F t
t
( ) exp( ( ) ) · − − 1
1200
3
The f ai l ur e f unct i on of RWR on t he hel i copt er i s gi ven by:
F t t ( ) exp( ( . )) · − − × 1 0001
Fi gur e 3.4 d epi ct s t he f ai l ur e f unct i on of RWR i n f i ght er ai r cr af t and t he
hel i copt er .
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 57
Fi gur e 3.4 Fai l ur e f unct i on of RWR i n f i ght er ai r cr af t and hel i copt er
If t he suppl i er pr ovi des w ar r ant y f or 750 f l i ght hour s t he r i sk associ at ed
wi t h ai r cr af t i s gi ven by:
F( ) exp( ( ) ) . 750 1
750
1200
0 2166
3
· − − ·
That i s, j ust above 21% per cent of RWR ar e l i kel y t o f ai l i f t he RWR i s
i nst al l ed i n t he ai r cr af t .
If t he RWR i s i nst al l ed i n hel i copt er t hen t he associ at ed r i sk i s gi ven by:
F( ) exp( . ) . 750 1 0001 750 05276 · − − × ·
In t he case of hel i copt er , mor e t han 52% of t he RWR’ s ar e l i kel y t o f ai l
bef or e t he war r ant y per i od.
3.12.1 Failure function of system under multiple failure
mechanisms
It i s sel dom t r ue t hat an i t em' s f ai l ur e i s caused by a si ngl e f ai l ur e
mechani sm. In most of t he cases t her e wi l l be mor e t han one (some t i mes
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
,
F
(
t
)
Hel i copt er
Ai r cr af t
Ti me
0 1000 2000
3000 4000
0.2
0.4
0. 6
0.8
1
0
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 58
hundr eds) mechani sm t hat causes t h e f ai l ur e of an i t em. The expr essi on
(3.1) i s mor e appr opr i at e w hen t he f ai l ur e i s caused by a si ngl e f ai l ur e
mechani sm. However , most of t he pr act i cal syst ems f ai l due t o di f f er en t
causes or di f f er ent f ai l ur e mechani sms. Assume t hat t he syst em f ai l ur e i s
due t o t w o di f f er ent f ai l ur e mechani sms. Let f
1
(t ) and f
2
(t ) be t h e pr obabi l i t y
densi t y f unct i on of t he syst em due t o f ai l ur e mechani sm 1 and 2
r esp ect i vel y. Now t he pr obabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on of t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e of
t he syst em caused by ei t her of t he f ai l ur e mechani sms:
)] ( 1 )[ ( )] ( 1 )[ ( ) (
1 2 2 1
t F t f t F t f t f − + − ·
wher e, F
1
(t ) and F
2
(t ) t he ar e f ai l u r e f unct i on f or f ai l ur e mechani sm 1 and 2
r esp ect i vel y. The f ai l ur e f unct i on of t he i t em und er t wo di f f er en t f ai l ur e
mechani sm i s gi ven by:

− + − ·
t
dx x F x f x F x f t F
0
1 2 2 1
)]} ( 1 )[ ( )] ( 1 )[ ( { ) ( (3.2)
Exampl e 3.3
Fai l ur e of an i t em i s caused by t w o di f f er ent f ai l ur e mechani sms (say f ai l ur e
mechani sm A and B). The t i me- t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of t he i t em due t o
f ai l ur e mechani sm A can be r epr esent ed by exponent i al di st r i but i on wi t h
par amet er λ
A
= 0.002 hour s. The t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of t he i t em due
t o f ai l ur e mechani sm B can be r epr esent ed by exponent i al di st r i but i on w i t h
par amet er λ
B
= 0. 005 hour s. Fi nd t he pr obabi l i t y t hat t he i t em wi l l f ai l
bef or e 500 hour s of oper at i on.
SOLUTION:
Assume t hat f
A
(t ) and f
B
(t ) r epr esent pr obabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on of t he
t i me-t o-f ai l ur e r andom var i abl e due t o f ai l ur e mechani sm A and B
r esp ect i vel y. Thus,
f t t F t t
f t t F t t
A A A A A
B B B B B
( ) exp( ) , ( ) exp( )
( ) exp( ) , ( ) exp( )
· − − · −
· − − · −
λ λ λ
λ λ λ
1
1
Now t he f ai l ur e f unct i on of t he i t em i s gi ven by:
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 59
] ) ( exp( 1 [
] ) ( exp( 1 )[ (
] ) ( exp( 1 )[ (
) ) ( exp( ) ) ( exp( { ) (
0
t
t
t
dx x x t F
B A
B A B A B
B A B A A
B A
t
B B A A
λ λ
λ λ λ λ λ
λ λ λ λ λ
λ λ λ λ λ λ
+ − − ·
+ − − + +
+ − − + ·
+

− + + − ·
Fi gur e 3.5 r epr esent s t he f ai l ur e f unct i on due t o f ai l ur e mechani sm 1, 2 and
t he syst em f ai l ur e f unct i on. The pr obabi l i t y t hat t he i t em wi l l f ai l by 500
hour s i s gi ven by:
9698 . 0 )) 500 ) 002 . 0 005 . 0 (( exp( 1 ) 500 ( · × + − − · F
Fi gur e 3.5 Fai l ur e f unct i on due t o di f f er ent f ai l ur e mechani sms
3.13. RELIABILITY FUNCTION
Rel i abi l i t y i s t he abi l i t y of t h e i t em t o mai nt ai n t he r equi r ed f unct i on f or a
speci f i ed per i od of t i me (or mi ssi on t i me) under gi ven oper at i ng co ndi t i ons.
Rel i abi l i t y f unct i o n, R(t ), i s def i ned as t he pr ob abi l i t y t hat t he syst em wi l l not
f ai l dur i ng t he st at ed per i od of t i me, t , under st at ed oper at i ng condi t i ons.
If TTF r epr esen t s t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e r andom var i abl e w i t h f ai l ur e f unct i on
(cumul at i ve di st r i but i on f unct i on) F(t ), t hen t h e r el i abi l i t y f unct i on R(t ) i s
gi ven by:
R(t) = P{the system doesn't fail during [0 , t]} = 1 - F(t) (3.3)
0
0. 2
0. 4
0. 6
0. 8
1
0 1000 2000 3000
Ti me
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
,
F
(
t
)
Fai l ur e mechani sm A
Fai l ur e mechani sm B
Syst em
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 60
In equat i on (3.3) we assume t hat t he age of t he syst em bef or e t he st ar t of
t he mi ssi on i s zer o. Thus t h e equat i on (3.3) i s val i d on l y f or new syst ems or
t hose syst ems who se f ai l ur es ar e not age r el at ed (t hat i s, t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e
f ol l ow s exponent i al di st r i but i on due t o memor y l ess pr oper t y of
expon ent i al di st r i but i on). However , i n most of t he cases t hi s assumpt i on
may not be val i d. I f t he syst em age i s gr eat er t han zer o at t he begi nni ng of
t he mi ssi on, t hen w e have t o cal cul at e mi ssi on r el i abi l i t y f unct i on, w hi ch
wi l l be di scussed l at er . Fi gur e 3.6 depi ct s t he r el at i o n bet ween r el i abi l i t y
f unct i on and t he TTF densi t y f unct i on. R(t ) i s t he ar ea under TTF d ensit y
bet w een t and ∞.
Fi gur e 3.6 Rel i abi l i t y f unct i on of a hypot het i cal pr obabil i t y di st r i but i on
Propert i es of rel i abi l i t y f unct i on:
1. Reliability is a decreasing function with time t. That is, for t
1
< t
2
; R(t
1
)
≥ R(t
2
).
2. It is usually assumed that R (0) = 1. As t becomes larger and larger R(t)
approaches zero, that is, R(∞).
Appl i cat i ons of rel i abi l i t y f unct i on
1. R(t) is the probability that an individual item survives up to time t.
2. R(t) is the fraction of items in a population that survive up to time t.
3. R(t) is the basic function used for many reliability measures and system
reliability prediction.
Rel i abi l i t y f unct i on f or some i mpor t ant l i f e di st r i but i ons ar e gi ven i n Tabl e
3.2. Fi gur e 3.7a-c r epr esent s r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of var i ous t heor et i cal
di st r i but i ons f or di f f er ent par amet er val ues.
Ti me
f t ( )
T
T
F

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
R(t )
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 61
Table 3.2. Reliability function, R(t), for popular theoretical distributions
Distribution
Reliability function, R(t)
Exponential
0 , 0 ) exp( > > − λ λ t t
Normal
dx e
t
t
x

− ·

Φ

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
| −

0
2
1
2
2
1
1 ) (
σ
µ
π σ
σ
µ
or NORM DIST (µ, t , σ, TRUE) i n EXCEL
Lognormal
dx e
x
t
t
x
l
l
l
l
l

− ·

Φ

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
| −

0
) ln(
2
1
2
2
1
1 )
ln
(
σ
µ
π σ
σ
µ
or NORM DIST (µ, l n(t ), σ, TRUE) i n EXCEL
Weibull
γ γ β η
η
γ
β
≥ >

− t
t
, 0 , , ) ) ( exp(
Gamma

Γ

− −
t
x
dx e x
0
1
) (
1
1
β α α
β
α
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1000 2000 3000
Ti me
λ
λ·0.001
λ·0.005
λ·0.008 =
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
,
R
(
t
)
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 62
Figure 3.7 a. Reliability function of exponential distribution for different
values of λ
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 63
Fi gur e 3.7 b. Rel i abi l i t y f unct i on of Wei bul l di st r i but i on f or di f f er ent val ues
of β
Fi gur e 3.7c. Rel i abi l i t y f unct i on of Nor mal di st ri but i on f or di f f er ent val ues of
µ
Exampl e 3.4
Ti me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of a comput er memor y chi p f ol l ows nor mal
di st r i but i on w i t h mean 9000 hour s and st andar d devi at i on 2000 hour s.
Fi nd t he r el i abi li t y of t hi s chi p f or a mi ssi on of 8000 hour s.
SOLUTION
Usi ng Tabl e 3.2, t he r el i abil i t y f or a mi ssi on of 8000 hour s i s gi ven by:
R t
t
( ) ( ) ( ) ( . ) . ·

·

· · Φ Φ Φ
µ
σ
9000 8000
2000
05 0 6915
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0. 8
1
0 50 100 150
Ti me
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
,
R
(
t
)
µ·50
µ·60
µ·70
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0. 8
1
0 50 100 150 200
250
Ti me
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
,
R
(
t
)
β·3
β·2
β·1
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 64
Exampl e 3.5
The t i me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of a st eam t ur bo gen er at or can be
r epr esen t ed usi ng Wei bul l di st r i but i on wi t h η = 500 hour s and β = 2.1. Fi nd
t he r el i abi l i t y of t he gener at or f or 600 hour s of oper at i on.
SOLUTION:
Agai n usi ng Tabl e 3.2, r el i abi l i t y of t he gen er at or f or 600 hour s of
oper at i ons i s gi ven by:
R t ( ) exp( ( / ) ) . · − · 600 500 0 2307
2.1
3.13.1 Reliability function for items under multiple failure
mechanisms
Assume t hat t he f ai l ur e of t he i t em i s caused due t o t wo di f f er ent f ai l ur e
mechani sms. Let f
1
(t ) and f
2
(t ) be t he pr obabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on of t he
t i me-t o-f ai l ur e r andom var i abl e due t o f ai l ur e mechani sm 1 and 2
r esp ect i vel y. The pr obabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on of t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e of t he
i t em i s gi ven by caused by ei t her of t he f ai l ur e mechan i sms:
)] ( 1 [ ) ( )] ( 1 )[ ( ) (
1 2 2 1
t F t f t F t f t f − ⋅ + − ·
Wh er e F
1
(t ) and F
2
(t ) ar e f ai l ur e f unct i on f or f ai l ur e mechani sm 1 and 2
r esp ect i vel y. Th e Rel i ab i l i t y f unct i on of t h e i t em und er t wo di f f er ent f ai l ur e
mechani sm i s gi ven by:

− + − − · − ·
t
dx x F x f x F x f t F t R
0
1 2 2 1
)]} ( 1 )[ ( )] ( 1 )[ ( { 1 ) ( 1 ) ( (3.4)
The abo ve r esul t can be ext ended t o obt ai n expr essi on f or r el i abi l i t y
f unct i on due t o mor e t han t wo f ai l ur e mechani sms.
Exampl e 3.6
For t he exampl e 3.3, f i nd t he r el i abil i t y of t he i t em f or 200 hour s.
SOLUTION:
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 65
Usi ng t he expr essi on f or f ai l ur e f unct i on obt ai ned i n exampl e 3.3, t he
r el i abi l i t y f unct i on can be w r i t t en as:
2465 . 0 ) 200 ) 005 . 0 002 . 0 ( exp( ) 200 (
) ) ( exp( ) (
· × + − ·
× + − ·
R
t t R
B A
λ λ
3.13.2 Mission Reliability Function
In many pr act i cal si t uat i ons, one mi ght be i nt er est ed i n f i ndi ng t he
pr obabi l i t y of compl et i ng a mi ssi on successf ul l y. Success pr obabi l i t y of
hi t t i ng an en emy t ar get and r et ur ni ng t o t he base i s an exampl e wher e
mi ssi on r el i abi l i t y f unct i on can be used. The mai n di f f er ence bet ween
r el i abi l i t y f unct i on and t he mi ssi on r el i abi l i t y f unct i on i s t hat , i n mi ssi on
r el i abi l i t y we r ecogni se t h e age of t he syst em bef or e t he mi ssi on. M i ssi on
r el i abi li t y i s def i ned, as t he pr obabi l i t y t hat t he syst em aged t
b
i s abl e t o
compl et e mi ssi on dur at i on of t
m
successf ul l y. We assume t hat no
mai nt enance i s per f or m ed dur i ng t he mi ssi on. The expr essi on f or mi ssi on
r el i abi l i t y MR ( t
b
, t
m
) i s gi ven by
) (
) (
) , (
b
m b
m b
t R
t t R
t t MR
+
· (3.5)
wher e, t
b
i s t he age of t he i t em at t he b egi nni ng of t he mi ssi on and t
m
i s t he
mi ssi on per i od. If t he t i me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on i s exponent i al , t hen t he
f ol l ow i ng r el at i on i s val i d.
) ( ) , (
m m b
t R t t MR ·
Appl i cat i on of mi ssi on reli abi l i t y f unct i on
1. Mission reliability, MR(t
a
, t
m
) gives the probability that an individual
item aged t
a
will complete a mission duration of t
m
hours without any
need for maintenance.
2. Mission reliability is the appropriate basic reliability measure for ageing
items or items whose time-to-failure distribution is other then
exponential.
Exampl e 3.7
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 66
Ti me- t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of t he gear box wi t hi n an ar mour ed vehi cl e can
be model l ed usi ng Wei bul l di st r i but i on wi t h scal e par amet er η = 2400 mi l es
and shape par amet er β = 1.25. Fi nd t h e pr obabi l i t y t hat t hat gear box wi l l
not f ai l dur i ng a mi ssi on t i me of 200 mi l es. Assumi ng t hat t he age of t he
gear box i s 1500 mi l es.
SOLUTION:
Gi ven, t
b
= 1500 mi l es and t
m
= 200 mi l es
) 1500 (
) 1700 (
) (
) (
) , (
R
R
t R
t t R
t t MR
b
b m
m b
·
+
·
5221 . 0 ) )
2400
1700
( exp( ) 1700 (
25 . 1
· − · R
5736 . 0 ) )
2400
1500
( exp( ) 1500 (
25 . 1
· − · R
9102 . 0
5736 . 0
5221 . 0
) 1500 (
) 1700 (
) 200 , 1500 ( · · ·
R
R
MR
That i s, t he gear box aged 1500 mi l es has appr oxi mat el y 91% chance of
sur vi vi ng a mi ssi on of 200 mi l es.
3.14. DESPATCH RELIABILITY
Despat ch r el i abi l i t y (DR) i s one of popul ar r el i abi l i t y met r i cs used by
commer ci al ai r l i nes ar ound t he wor l d. Despat ch r el i abi l i t y i s def i ned as t he
per cent age of r evenu e depar t ur es t hat do not occur i n a del ay or
cancel l at i on due t o t echni cal pr obl ems. For most ai r l i nes, t he d el ay means
t hat t h e ai r cr af t i s del ayed mor e t han 15 mi nut es. Techni cal del ays occur
can be caused due t o some unschedul ed mai n t enan ce. Ai r l i nes f r equent l y
seek DR guar ant ees wher e t h e ai r cr af t manuf act ur es f ace penal t i es i f DR
l evel s ar e not achi eved. For commer ci al ai r l i nes despat ch r el i abi l i t y i s an
i mpor t ant economi c f act or , i t i s est i mat ed t hat del ay cost per mi nut e f or
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 67
l ar ge j et s can be as hi gh as 1000 US dol l ar s. The expr essi on f or despat ch
r el i abi l i t y i s gi ven by:
% 100
100
100
(%)
15
×
− −
·
NC ND
DR (3.6)
Wher e,
ND
1 5
= Number of del ays w i t h mor e t han 15 mi nut es del ay
NC = t he number of cancel l at i ons
Equat i on (3. 6) i s appl i ed onl y t o t echni cal del ays. DR i s a f unct i on of
equi pment r el i abi l i t y, syst em and comp onent mai nt ai nabi l i t y, and over al l
l ogi st i c suppor t .
3.15. HAZARD FUNCTION (HAZARD RATE OR
INSTANTANEOUS FAILURE RATE)
Hazar d f unct i on (or hazar d r at e) i s used as a par amet er f or compar i son of
t wo di f f er en t desi gns i n r el i abi l i t y t heor y. Hazar d f unct i on i s t he i ndi cat or of
t he ef f ect of agei ng on t he r el i abi l i t y of t he syst em. It quant i f i es t he r i sk of
f ai l ur e as t he age of t h e syst em i ncr eases. M at hemat i cal l y, i t r epr esent s t he
condi t i onal pr obabi l i t y of f ai l ur e i n an i nt er val t t o t + δt gi ven t hat t he
syst em sur vi ves up t o t , di vi ded by δt , as δt t ends t o zer o , t hat i s,
) (
) ( ) (
lim
) (
) ( ) (
.
1
lim ) (
0 0 t tR
t t R t R
t R
t F t t F
t
t h
t t δ
δ δ
δ δ δ
+ −
·
− +
·
→ →
(3.7)
Not e t hat hazar d f unct i on, h(t ), i s not a pr obabi l i t y, i t i s t he l i mi t i ng val ue of
t he pr obabi l i t y. How ever , h(t )δt , r epr esent s t h e pr o babi l i t y t hat t he i t em
w i l l f ai l bet w een ages t and t +δt as δt →0. The abo ve expr essi on can be
si mpl i f i ed so t hat
h t
f t
R t
( )
( )
( )
· (3.8)
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 68
Thus, t he hazar d f unct i on i s t he r at i o of t he pr obabi l it y densi t y f unct i on t o
t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on. Int egr at i ng bot h si des of t he above equat i on, we
get :
h x dx
f x
R x
dx
R x
R x
dx R t
t t
t
( )
( )
( )
' ( )
( )
ln ( )
0 0
0

·

· −

· −
Thus r el i abi l i t y can be w r i t t en as:
R t h x dx
t
( ) exp ( ) · −

]
]
]
]

0
(3.9)
Fr om equat i on (3.9), i t i mmedi at el y f ol l ow s t hat :
f t h t h x dx
t
( ) ( ) exp( ( ) · −

0
(3.10)
The expr essi on (3.10), whi ch r el at es r el i abi l i t y and hazar d f unct i on, i s val i d
f or al l t ypes of t i me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on. Hazar d f unct i on shows how t he
r i sk of t he i t em i n use changes over t i m e (h ence al so cal l ed r i sk r at e). The
hazar d f unct i ons of so me i mpor t ant t h eor et i cal di st r i but i ons ar e gi ven i n
Tabl e 3.3.
Charact eri st i cs of hazard f unct i on
1. Hazard function can be increasing, decreasing or constant.
2. Hazard function is not a probability and hence can be greater than 1.
Table 3.3. Hazard function, h(t), of few theoretical distributions
Distribution Hazard function, h(t)
Exponential λ
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 69
Distribution Hazard function, h(t)
Normal
), ( / ) (
σ
µ t
t f

Φ f(t) is the pdf of normal distribution.
Lognormal
), ( / ) (
l
l
l
t
t f
σ
µ −
Φ f
l
(t) is the pdf of lognormal
distribution.
Weibull
1
) (
− β
η η
β t
Gamma
[
( )
] /
( )
β
α α
β
α
α β α α β
Γ Γ
t e x e dx
t x
t
− − − −


1 1
0
1
1
Appl i cat i ons of hazard f unct i on
1. h(t) is loosely considered as failure rate at time t (time-dependent)
2. h(t) quantifies the amount of risk a system is under at time t.
3. For h(t) ≤ 1, it is not recommended to carry out preventive maintenance.
Fi gur es 3.8a-c show hazar d f unct i on of var i ous t heor et i cal di st r i but i ons f or
di f f er en t par amet er val ues.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time
h
a
z
a
r
d

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
β = 2.4
β = 0.8
β = 1.6
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 70
Fi gur e 3.8a Hazar d f unct i on of Wei bul l di st r i but i on f or di f f er ent val ues of β
Figure 3.8b Hazard function of exponential distribution
Fi gur e 3.8c Hazar d f unct i on of nor mal di st r i but i on f or di f f er ent val ues of µ
Exampl e 3.8
Ti me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of a gas t ur bi n e syst em can be r epr esent ed
usi ng Wei bul l di st r i but i on wi t h scal e par amet er η = 1000 hour s and shape
par amet er β = 1. 7. Fi nd t h e hazar d r at e of t he gas t ur bi ne at t i me t = 800
hour s and t = 1200 hour s.
SOLUTION:
The hazar d r at e f or Wei bul l di st r i but i on i s gi ven by:
0
0. 005
0. 01
0. 015
0. 02
0 50 100 150 200
Ti me
h
a
z
a
r
d

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
0
0. 1
0. 2
0. 3
0. 4
0. 5
0. 6
0 20 40 6 0 80 100
Ti m e
h
a
z
a
r
d

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
µ = 50
µ = 60
µ = 70
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 71
h t
t
( ) ( ) ·

β
η η
β 1
h(800 ) =
17
1000
800
1000
0 00145
0 7
.
( ) .
.
·
h(1200 ) =
17
1000
1200
1000
0 0019
0 7
.
( ) .
.
·
3.15.1 Cumulative hazard function
Cumul at i ve hazar d f unct i on r epr esent s t he cumul at i ve hazar d or r i sk of t he
i t em dur i ng t h e i nt er val [ 0,t ] . Cumul at i ve hazar d f unct i on, H(t ), i s gi ven by:
H t h x dx
t
( ) ( ) ·

0
(3.11)
Rel i abi l i t y of an i t em can b e conveni ent l y wr i t t en usi ng cumul at i ve hazar d
as:
R t e
H t
( )
( )
·

(3.12)
3.15.2 Cumulative hazard function and the expected
number of failures
Consi der an i t em, whi ch upon f ai l ur e i s subj ect t o mi ni mal r epai r . That i s,
t he hazar d r at e af t er r epai r i s same as t he hazar d r at e j ust bef or e f ai l ur e. I f
N(t ) i s t he t ot al number of f ai l ur es by t i me t , t hen M (t ) = E [ N(t )] i s t he
expect ed numb er of f ai l ur es by t i me t . It can b e show n t hat und er t he
assumpt i on t hat t h e i t em r ecei ves mi ni mal r epai r
*
(‘ as-bad -as-ol d’ ) af t er
each f ai l ur e, t hen
E[N(t)] =

·
t
dx x h t M
0
) ( ) ( (3.13)
*
Mathematically minimal repair or as bad as old means that the hazard rate of the item
after repair will be same as the hazard rate just prior to failure.
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 72
The abo ve expr essi on can be used t o model di f f er en t
mai nt enan ce/ r epl acemen t pol i ci es. I n case of exponent i al and Wei bul l t i me
t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i ons we get t he f ol l ow i ng si mpl e expr essi ons f or t he
exp ect ed number of f ai l ur es of an i t em subj ect t o mi ni mal r epai r .
Exponent i al t i me t o f ai l ure di st ri but i on
For exponen t i al di st ri but i on, t he expect ed number of f ai l ur es i s gi ven by
E[N(t)] = h x dx dx t
t t
( )
0 0

·

· λ λ (3.14)
Wei bul l t i me t o f ai l ure di st ri but i on
E[N(t)] = h x dx
x
dx
t
t t
( ) ( ) ( )
0
1
0
∫ ∫
· ·

β
η η η
β β
(3.15)
Exampl e 3.9
An i t em i s subj ect t o mi ni mal r epai r whenever i t f ai l ed. I f t h e t i me t o f ai l ur e
of t he i t em f ol l ow s Wei bul l di st r i but i on w i t h η = 500 and β = 2. Fi n d: 1. The
number of t i mes t he i t em i s expect ed t o f ai l by 1500 hour s, and 2. The cost
of t he i t em i s $ 200. If t he cost of mi nimal r epai r i s $ 100 per each r epai r , i s
i t advi sabl e t o r epai r or r epl ace t he i t em upon f ai l ur e.
SOLUTION:
1. The expect ed numb er of f ai l ur es i s gi ven by:
E[N(t)] = [ ] [ ]
t
η
β
· · ·
1500
500
3 9
2 2
2. Usi ng t he above r esul t t he cost associ at ed w i t h r epai r , C
rep air
(t ) = 9 × 100
= $ 900.
If t he i t em i s r epl aced, t hen t he expect ed number of f ai l ur es i s gi ven by t he
r enewal f unct i on, M (t ) [ r ef er chapt er 4] , w her e
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 73
M t F t
i
i
( ) ( ) ·
·


1
For t he above case, t he val ue of M (t ) < 4 (Th e act ual cal cul at i on of t he
above f unct i on wi l l be di scussed i n Chapt er 4). Thus t he cost due t o
r epl acement wi l l be l ess t han 4 × 200 = $ 800. Thus, i t i s bet t er t o r epl ace
t he i t em upon f ai l ur e r at her usi ng mi ni mal r epai r .
3.15.3 Typical Forms of Hazard Function
In pr act i ce, hazar d f unct i on can have di f f er ent shapes. Fi gur e 3.9 shows
most gen er al f or ms of hazar d f unct i on. Recent r esear ch i n t he f i el d of
r el i abi l i t y cent r ed mai nt enance (RCM ) shows t hat t h e hazar d r at e most l y
f ol l ow s six di f f er ent pat t er ns. Dependi ng on t h e equi pment and i t s f ai l ur e
mechani sm, one can say t hat t he hazar d f unct i on may f ol l ow any one of
t hese si x pat t er ns. How ever , one shoul d not bl i ndl y assume t hat hazar d
r at e of any i t em w i l l f ol l ow any one of t hese si x pat t er ns. These ar e onl y
possi bl e cases based on some dat a.
Pat t er n A i s cal l ed t he bat ht ub cur ve and consi st of t hr ee di st i nct phases. I t
st ar t s wi t h ear l y f ai l ur e r egi on (known as bur n-i n or i nf ant mor t al i t y)
char act er i sed by decr easi ng hazar d f unct i on. Ear l y f ai l ur e r egi on i s f ol l ow ed
by const an t or gr adual l y i ncr easi ng r egi on (cal l ed usef ul li f e). The const ant
or gr adual l y i ncr easi ng r egi on i s f ol l owed b y w ear out r egi on char act er i sed
by i ncr easi ng hazar d f unct i on. The r eason f or such as shape i s t hat t he
ear l y decr easi ng hazar d r at e r esul t s f r om manuf act ur i ng def ect s. Ear l y
oper at i on wi l l r emove t h ese i t ems f r o m a popul at i on of l i ke i t ems. The
r emai ni ng i t ems have a const ant hazar d f or some ext ended per i od of t i me
dur i ng whi ch t h e f ai l ur e cause i s not r eadi l y appar ent . Fi nal l y t hose i t ems
r emai ni ng r each a w ear -out st age wi t h an i ncr easi ng hazar d r at e. One
woul d expect bat ht ub cur ve at t h e syst em l evel and not at t he par t or
componen t l evel (unl ess t h e compo nent has many f ai l ur e modes whi ch
have di f f er ent TTF di st r i but i on). It was bel i eved t hat bat h t ub cur ve
r epr esen t s t he most gener al f or m of t he hazar d f unct i on. However , t he
r ecent r esear ch shows t hat i n most of t he cases hazar d f unct i on do not
f ol l ow t hi s pat t er n.
Pat t er n B st ar t s wi t h hi gh i nf ant mor t al i t y and t hen f ol l ows a const ant or
ver y sl owl y i ncr easi ng hazar d f unct i on . Pat t er n C st ar t s wi t h a const ant or
sl owl y i ncr easi ng f ai l ur e pr obabi l i t y f ol l owed by wear out (shar pl y
i ncr easi ng) hazar d f unct i on. Pat t er n D shows const ant hazar d t hr oughout
t he f il e. Pat t er n E r epr esent s a sl owl y i ncr easing hazar d w i t hout any si gn of
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 74
wear out . Pat t er n F st ar t s wi t h a l ow hazar d i ni t i al l y f ol l owed by a const ant
hazar d.
Figure 3.9. Different forms of hazard function
Tabl e 3.4 shows t he r el at i onshi p bet ween f ai l ur e f unct i on, r el i abi l i t y
f unct i on and hazar d f unct i on.
Tabl e 3.4. Rel at i onshi p bet w een F(t ), R(t ) and h(t )
F(t) R(t) h(t)
F(t) ----- 1 - R(t)

− −
t
dx x h
0
) ) ( exp( 1
Pattern A: Hazard function (bathtub curve)
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0 20 40 60 80 100
Age
Pattern B: High infant Mortality
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0 100 200 300
Age
Pattern D: Constant Hazard
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0 50 100 150
Age
Pattern E: Slowly increasing hazard
function
0
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0 50 100 150
Age
Pattern C: Slowly increasing hazard
followed by wearout
0.00995
0.01
0.01005
0.0101
0 50 100 150
Age
Pattern F: Initial low hazard followed by
constant hazard
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0 50 100 150 200 250
Age
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 75
F(t) R(t) h(t)
R(t) 1 - F(t) ------


t
dx x h
0
) ( exp(
h(t)
)] ( 1 [ ) (
'
t R t F − ) ( ) (
'
t R t R −
-------
3.15.4 Failure rate
Wh enever t he hazar d f unct i on i s const ant , w e cal l i t as f ai l ur e r at e. That i s,
f ai l u r e r at e i s a speci al case of hazar d f unct i on (w hich i s t i me dep end ent
f ai l ur e r at e). Fai l ur e r at e i s one of t he most wi del y used cont r act ual
r el i abi l i t y measur es i n t he d ef ence and aer ospace i ndust r y. By def i ni t i on, i t
i s appr opr i at e t o use f ai l ur e r at e onl y when t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on
i s exponent i al . Al so, f ai l ur e r at e can be used onl y f or a non-r epai r abl e
syst em. M any def ence st andar ds such as M IL-HDBK- 217 and Br i t i sh DEF-
STAN 00-40 r eco mmend t h e f ol l owi ng equat i on f or est i mat i ng t he f ai l ur e
r at e.
sample the of time operating Cumulative
sample a in failures of number Total
rate Failure · (3.16)
Car e shoul d be t aken i n usi ng t he above equat i on, f or good est i mat i on one
has t o obser ve t he syst em f ai l ur e f or a suf f i ci ent l y l ar ge oper at i ng per i od.
Appl i cat i ons of f ai l ure rat e
1. Failure rate represents the number of failures per unit time.
2. If the failure rate is λ, then the expected number of items that fail in [0,t]
is λt.
3. Failure rate is one of the popular contractual reliability measures among
many industries including aerospace and defence.
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 76
3.16. MEAN TIME TO FAILURE (MTTF)
M TTF r epr esent s t h e exp ect ed val ue of a syst em' s t i me t o f ir st f ai l ur e. It i s
used as a measu r e of r el i abi l i t y f or non-r epai r abl e i t ems such as bul b,
mi cr ochi ps and many el ect r oni c ci r cui t s. M at hemat i cal l y, M TTF can be
def i ned as:
MTTF tf t dt R t dt · ·
∞ ∞
∫ ∫
( ) ( )
0 0
(3.17)
Thus, M TTF can be consi der ed as t h e ar ea under t he cur ve r epr esen t ed
by t he r eli abili t y f unct ion, R(t ), bet w een zer o and i nf i ni t y. If t he i t em under
consi d er at i on i s r epai r abl e, t hen t he expr essi on (3. 17) r epr esent s m ean
t i me t o f i r st f ai l ur e of t he i t em. Fi gur e 3.10 depi ct s t he M TTF val ue of an
i t em.
For many r el i abi l i t y f unct i ons, i t i s di f f i cul t t o eval uat e t h e i nt egr al (3.17).
One may have t o use numer i cal appr oxi mat i on such as t r apezi um appr oach
t o f i nd M TTF val ue.
Fi gur e 3.10 M TTF of an i t em as a f unct i on of Rel i abi l i t y
M TTF i s one of t h e most popul ar measur es f or sp eci f yi ng r el i abi l i t y of non-
r epai r abl e i t ems among mi l i t ar y and Gover nment or gani sat i ons t hr oughout
t he wor l d. Unf or t unat el y t h er e ar e many mi sconcept i on about M TTF
among r el i abi l i t y anal yst s. Dur i ng t he Gul f War , on e of Gener al s f r om a
def ence depar t m ent sai d, ' We know exact l y how many t anks t o send, w e
measur ed t he di st ance f r om t he map and di vi ded t hat by M TTF' . What many
peopl e do no t r eal i se i s t hat M TTF i s onl y a measur e of cent r al t enden cy.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
1
5
0
3
0
0
4
5
0
6
0
0
7
5
0
9
0
0
1
0
5
0
1
2
0
0
1
3
5
0
1
5
0
0
1
6
5
0
1
8
0
0
1
9
5
0
2
1
0
0
2
2
5
0
Time
R
(
t
)
MTTF
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 77
For exampl e, i f t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on i s exponent i al , t hen 63% of
t he i t ems w i ll f ai l bef or e t h ei r age r eaches M TTF val ue.
M TTF i s one of t h e i mpor t ant cont r act ual r el i abi l i t y measur es f or non-
r epai r abl e (consu mabl e) i t ems. How ever , i t i s i mpor t ant t o under st and
what M TTF val ue r eal l y means. For exampl e l et us assu me t hat we have t wo
i t ems A and B wi t h sam e M TTF (say 500 days). One mi ght t hi nk t hat bot h
t he co mpon ent s have equal r el i abi l i t y. However , i f t he t i me t o f ai l ur e of
t he i t em A i s expon ent i al i s t hat of i t em B i s nor mal t hen t her e wi l l be a
si gni f i cant var i at i on i n t he behavi our of t hese i t ems. Fi gur e 3.11 sh ows t he
cumul at i ve di st r i but i on of t hese t wo i t ems up t o 500 days. The f i gur e
cl ear l y shows t hat i t ems wi t h exponent i al f ai l ur e t i me show hi gh er chance
of f ail ur e dur i ng t he i ni t i al st ages of oper at i on.
Fi gur e 3.11 Compar i son of i t em w i t h same M TTF
Usi ng t he equat i on (3.17), t he M TTF of var i ous f ai l ur e di st r i but i ons ar e
l i st ed i n Tabl e 3.5.
It i s easy t o check t hat i f t he t i me t o f ai l ur e of t he i t em i s exponent i al t hen
mor e t han 63% of t he i t ems w i l l f ail by t he t i me t he age of t he i t em r eaches
M TTF. I n t he case of nor mal di st r i but i on, i t wi l l be 50%.
Appl i cat i ons of MTTF
1. MTTF is the average life of a non-repairable system.
2. For a repairable system, MTTF represents the average time before the
first failure.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
Normal
Exponential
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 78
3. MTTF is one of the popular contractual reliability measures for non-
repairable systems.
Table 3.5. MTTF of different time-to-failure distributions
Distribution MTTF
Exponential 1/λ
Normal µ
Lognormal
)
2
exp(
l
l
σ
µ +
Weibull
)
1
1 (
β
η + Γ ×
Gamma α / β
3.16.1 Mean Residual Life
In some cases, i t may be of i nt er est t o know t h e expect ed val ue of t he
r emai ni ng li f e of t he i t em bef or e i t f ai l s f r om an ar bi t r ar y t i me t
0
(know n as,
mean r esi dual l i f e). We denot e t hi s val ue as M TTF( t
0
), w hi ch r epr esent s t he
expect ed t i me t o f ai l ur e of an i t em aged t
0
. M at hemat i cal l y, M TTF(t
0
) can
be expr essed as:
MTTF t t t f t t dt
t
( ) ( ) ( | )
0 0 0
0
· −


(3.18)
f (t | t
0
) i s t he d ensi t y of t he condi t i onal pr obabi l i t y of f ai l ur e at t i me t ,
pr ovi ded t hat t he i t em has sur vi ved over t i me t
0
. Thus,
) | ( ) ( ) | (
0 0
t t R t h t t f × ·
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 79
wher e, R(t | t
0
), i s t he condi t i onal pr obabi l i t y t hat t he i t em sur vi ves up t o
t i me t , gi ven t hat i t has sur vi ved up t o t i me t
0
. Now , t he above expr essi on
can be w r i t t en as:
) (
) (
) ( ) | (
0
0
t R
t R
t h t t f × ·
The expr essi on f or M TTF(t
0
) can be wr i t t en as:
MTTF t t t h t
R t
R t
dt
t
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
0 0
0
0
· −


(3.19)
subst i t ut i ng f or h(t ) i n t he above equat i on, we have
MTTF t
t t f t
R t
dt
R t
t t f t dt
t t
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
1
·

· −
∞ ∞
∫ ∫
The above eq uat i on can be w r i t t en as (usi ng i nt egr at i o n by par t s):
MTTF t
R t dt
R t
t
( )
( )
( )
0
0
0
·


(3.20)
The concept of mean r esi dual l i f e can be successf ul l y appl i ed f or pl anni ng
mai nt enance and i nspect i on act i vi t i es.
Exampl e 3.10
Compani es A and B manuf act ur e car t yr es. Bo t h t he compani es cl ai m t hat
t he M TTF of t hei r car t yr e i s 2000 mi l es. Af t er anal ysi ng t he f i el d f ai l ur e
dat a of t h ese t wo t yr es i t was f ound t hat t he t i me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of
A i s exponent i al wi t h λ = 0.0005 and t he t i me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of B i s
nor mal w i t h µ = 2000 mi l es and σ = 200 mi l es. If t he mai nt enan ce pol i cy of
t he Exet er ci t y car r ent al s i s t o r epl ace t he t yr es as soon as i t r eaches 2000
mi l es w hi ch t yr e t hey shoul d buy:
SOLUTION:
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 80
Rel i abi l i t y of t he car t yr e pr oduced by company A f or 2000 mi l es, R
A
(2000),
i s gi ven by:
3678 . 0 ) 2000 0005 . 0 exp( ) 2000 ( · × − ·
A
R
Rel i abi l i t y of t he car t yr e pr oduced by co mpany B f or 2000 mi l es, R
B
(2000),
i s gi ven by:
R
B
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) . 2000
2000 2000 2000
200
0 05 ·

·

· · Φ Φ Φ
µ
σ
Thus, i t i s advi sabl e t o buy t he t yr es pr oduced by company B.
Exampl e 3.11
The t i me t o f ai l ur e of an ai r bor ne navi gat i on r adar can be r epr esent ed usi ng
Wei bul l di st ri but i on wi t h scal e par amet er η = 2000 hour s and β = 2.1. I t
was t ol d t hat t he age of t he exi st i ng r adar i s 800 hour s. Fi nd t he expect ed
val ue of t he r emai ni ng l i f e f or t hi s r adar.
SOLUTION:
Usi ng Equat i on (3.20), The M TTF(800) can be w r i t t en as:
) 800 (
) ( ) (
) 800 (
) (
) 800 (
0
800
0 800
R
dt t R dt t R
R
dt t R
MTTF
∫ ∫

·

·
∞ ∞
MTTF(800) = MTTF
MTTF
t
dt
( )
exp( ( )
.
.
800
2000
08641
2 1
0
800
·
− −

MTTF · × + · ⋅ + · η
β
Γ Γ ( ) (
.
) . 1
1
2000 1
1
21
17712
The value of )
1
1 (
β
+ Γ can be found from Gamma function table (see
appendix).
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 81
Using numerical approximation,

≈ −
800
0
1 . 2
90 . 763 )
2000
( exp( dt
t
Thus M TTF(800) ≈ (1771.2 - 763.90 ) / 0.8641 = 1165.72 hour s
Thus, expect ed r emai ni ng l i f e of t he r adar aged 800 hour s i s 1165.72 hour s.
3.16.2 MTTF of a maintained system
Assume t hat an i t em i s subj ect t o pr event i ve mai nt enance af t er ever y T
p m
uni t s, t hat i s, at T
p m
, 2T
p m
, 3T
p m
, et c. The expect ed t i me t o f ai l ur e, M TTF
p m
,
(M TTF of an subj ect t o pr event i ve) of t he i t em i s gi ven by:
MTTF R t dt
pm pm
·


( )
0
(3.21)
Usi ng addi t i ve pr oper t y of i nt egr at i on, t he above i nt egr al can be wr i t t en as:
MTTF R t dt R t dt R t dt
pm pm
T
pm
T
T
pm
T
T
pm
pm
pm
pm
pm
· + + +
∫ ∫ ∫
( ) ( ) ( ) ....
0
2
2
3
wher e R
pm
(t ) i s t he r el i abi l i t y of t he i t em subj ect t o pr event i ve
mai nt enan ce. If t he i t em i s r est or ed t o ‘ as- good-as- new’ st at e af t er each
mai nt enan ce act i vi t y, t hen t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on bet w een any t wo
mai nt enan ce t asks can be wr i t t en as:
R t R T R t kT t k T
pm pm
k
pm pm
( ) [ ] ( ), ( ) · ≤ ≤ +1
Usi ng t he above expr essi on f or R
pm
(t ) i n t he i nt egr al (3.21) w e have:
MTTF R t dt R T R t dt R T R t dt
R T R T R t dt
pm
T
pm
T
pm
T
pm pm
T
pm pm pm
pm
· + + +
· + + +
∫ ∫ ∫

( ) ( ) ( ) [ ( )] ( ) ...
{ ( ) [ ( )] ....} ( )
0 0
2
0
2
0
1
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 82
As R(t) ≤ 1, the above expression can be written as:
MTTF
R t dt
R T
R t dt
F T
pm
T
pm
T
pm
pm pm
·

·
∫ ∫
( )
( )
( )
( )
0 0
1
(3.22)
Si mi l ar l ogi c can be used t o d er i ve t h e expr essi on f or M TTF
pm
w hen t he
r epai r i s not per f ect (t hat i s, when t he i t em i s not as good as new af t er
mai nt enan ce). M TTF
p m
can be used t o quan t i f y t he ef f ect i veness of t he
mai nt enan ce act i on. If M TTF
pm
>M TTF, t hen one can say t hat t h e r el i abi l i t y
can b e i mpr oved by car r yi ng out mai nt enance. If M TTF
p m
≤ M TTF t h en, t he
mai nt enance w i l l not i mpr ove t he r el i abi l i t y of t he i t em. Fi gur e 3.12 shows
M TTF
p m
val u es of an i t em f or di f f er ent T
p m
w hose t i me-t o-f ai l ur e can be
r epr esen t ed usi ng Wei bul l di st r i but i on wi t h η = 200 and β = 2.5. It can be
not i ced t hat as t he val ue of T
pm
i ncr eases, t he M TTF
pm
conver ges t o t hat of
cor r ect i ve mai nt enance.
Exampl e 3.12
A sol i d st at e r adar i s subj ect t o pr even t i ve mai nt enance af t er ever y 400
f l i ght hour s. The t i me t o f ai l ur e of t h e r adar f ol l ows exponent i al
di st r i but i on wi t h mean l i f e 800 f l i ght hour s. Fi n d t he M TTF
p m
of t he r adar .
SOLUTION:
We have: T
0
= 500 f l i ght hour s and (1/ λ) = 800
λ = (1/ 800) = 0.00125
MTTF
t dt
pm
·
− ×
− − ×
·

exp( . )
exp( . )
000125
1 000125 400
800
0
400
Ther e i s no i mpr ovement i n t he M TTF
pm
b ecause t he t i me t o f ai l ur e i s
expon ent i al . Thus, pr event i ve mai nt enance wi l l not i mpr ove t he r el i abi l i t y
of t he syst em, i f t he t i me t o f ai l ur e i s exponent i al . Thi s exampl e i s used t o
demonst r at e t hi s wel l known f act mat hem at i cal l y.
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 83
Fi gur e 3.12. M TTF
pm
of an i t em f or di f f er ent T
p m
val ues
Exampl e 3.13
A manuf act ur i ng company buys t wo machi nes A and B. The t i me t o f ai l ur e
of machi ne A can b e r epr esent ed by Wei bul l di st r i but i on wi t h η = 1000
hour s and β = 2. The t i me t o f ai l ur e of machi n e B can be r epr esent ed by
Wei bul l di st r i but i on w i t h η = 1000 hour s and β = 0.5. Th e mai nt enance
manager i n char ge of op er at i on pl an t o appl y pr event i ve mai n t enance f or
bot h t h e machi n es f or ever y 200 hour s, so t hat he can i mpr o ve t he
expect ed t i me t o f ai l ur e of t he machi nes. Ch eck w het h er t h e manager ’ s
deci si on i s cor r ect .
SOLUTION:
The M TTF
pm
f or machi ne A i s gi ven by:
MTTF
pm
= MTTF
t dt
pm
exp( ( / ) )
exp( ( / ) )




1000
200 1000
5033
2
0
200
2
hours
MTTF for machine A is η × + · × + · Γ Γ ( ) ( ) . 1
1
1000 1
1
2
886 2
B
hours
Thus f or machi ne A, pr event i ve mai nt enance w i l l i mpr ove t he mean t i me t o
f ai l ur e of t he syst em.
The M TTF
pm
f or machi ne B i s gi ven by:
MTTFpm for different Tpm values
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
40 80 120 160 200 240
Tpm
M
T
T
F
p
m
MTTFpm
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 84
MTTF
t dt
pm
·




exp( ( / ) )
exp( ( / ) )
.
.
1000
200 1000
414
0 5
0
200
0 5
hours
MTTF for machine B is η × + · × + · Γ Γ ( ) (
.
) 1
1
1000 1
1
05
2000
B
hours
Thus f or machi ne B, pr event i ve mai nt enance wi l l decr ease t he mean t i me
t o f ai l ur e of t h e syst em. Thus, i t i s bet t er not t o appl y pr event i ve
mai nt enance f or machi ne B.
3.16.3 Variance of Mean Time To Failure
It i s i mpor t ant t o know t he var i ance of mean t i m e t o f ai l ur e f or bet t er
under st andi ng of t he i t em. Fr om def i ni t i on var i ance V(t ) i s gi ven by:
V t E t E t
t f t MTTF
( ) ( ) [ ( )]
( )
· −
· −


2 2
2
0
2
Appl yi ng i nt egr at i on by par t s:
V t tR t dt MTTF ( ) ( ) · −


2
0
2
(3.23)
3.17. MEAN OPERATING TIME BETWEEN
FAILURES (MTBF)
M TBF st ands f or mean oper at i ng t i me bet ween f ai l ur es (wr ongl y ment i oned
as mean t i me bet ween f ai l ur es t hr oughout t h e l i t er at ur e) and i s used as a
r el i abi l i t y measur e f or r epai r abl e syst ems. In Br i t i sh St andar d (BS 3527)
M TBF i s def i ned as f ol l ow s:
For a st at ed per i od i n t he l i f e of a f unct i onal uni t , t he mean val ue of t he
l engt hs of t i me bet ween consecut i ve f ai l ur es under st at ed condi t i on.
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 85
M TBF i s ext r em el y di f f i cul t t o pr edi ct f or f ai r l y r el i abl e i t ems. However , i t
can be est i mat ed i f t he appr opr i at e f ai l ur e dat a i s avai l abl e. I n f act , i t i s ver y
r ar el y pr edi ct ed w i t h an accept abl e accur acy. In 1987 t h e US Ar my
conduct ed a sur vey of t he pur chase of t hei r SINCGARS r adi os t hat had been
subj ect ed t o comp et i t i ve pr ocur ement and del i ver y f r o m 9 di f f er en t
suppl i er s. Th ey w ant ed t o est abl i sh how t he obser ved Rel i abi l i t y In-ser vi ce
compar ed t o t h at whi ch had been pr edi ct ed by each suppl i er (usi ng M IL-
HDBK-217). Th e ou t put of t hi s exer ci se i s shown i n Tabl e 3.6 ( Knowl es,
1995). It i s i nt er est i ng t o not e t hat t hey ar e al l same r adi o, same d esi gn,
same choi ce of component s (bu t di f f er ent manuf act ur er s) and t he
r equi r ement set b y t he Ar my w as M TBF of 1250 hour s w i t h a 80%
conf i dence. M aj or i t y of t he suppl i er s' obser ved M TBF was no wher e near
t hei r pr edi ct i on.
Tabl e 3.6 SINCGARS r adi os 217 pr edi ct i on and t he obser ved M TBF
Vendor M IL-HDBK-217 (hour s) Obser ved M TBF (hour s)
A 7247 1160
B 5765 74
C 3500 624
D 2500 2174
E 2500 51
F 2000 1056
G 1600 3612
H 1400 98
I 1000 472
Let us assume t hat t he sequence of r andom var i abl es X
1
, X
2
, X
3
, …X
n
r epr esen t t h e o per at i ng t i me of t h e i t em bef or e i - t h f ai l ur e (Fi gur e 3.13).
M TBF can b e pr edi ct ed by t aki ng t he aver age of expect ed val ues of t he
r andom var i abl es X
1
, X
2
, X
3
,…, X
n
et c. To det er mi ne t hese exp ect ed val ues
i t i s necessar y t o det er mi ne t h e di st r i but i on t ype and par amet er s. As soon
as an i t em f ai l s, appr opr i at e mai nt enan ce act i vi t i es wi l l be car r i ed out . Thi s
i nvol ves r epl aci ng t he r ej ect ed component s wi t h ei t her new on es or ones
t hat have been pr evi ousl y r eco ver ed (r epai r ed). Each of t hese compon ent s
wi l l have a di f f er en t wear out char act er i st i c gover ned by a di f f er ent
di st r i but i on. To f i nd t he expect ed val ue of t he r an dom var i abl e X
2
one
shoul d t ake i nt o account t he f act t hat not al l component s of t he i t em ar e
new and, i ndeed, t hose, whi ch ar e not new, may have qui t e di f f er ent ages.
Thi s makes i t al most i mpossi bl e t o det er mi ne t h e di st r i but i on of t he
r andom var i abl e X
2
and hence t he expect ed val ue.
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 86
Fi gur e 3.13 oper at i ng pr of i l e of a gener i c i t em
The sci ence of f ai l ur es has not advanced suf f i ci en t l y, as yet , t o b e abl e t o
pr edi ct f ai l ur e t i me di st r i but i on i n al l cases. Thi s i s cur r ent l y done
empi r i cal l y by r unni ng a sampl e of i t ems on t est unt i l t hey f ai l , or f or an
ext ended p er i od, usual l y under ‘ i deal ’ condi t i ons t hat at t empt t o si mul at e
t he o per at i onal envi r onment . M i l i t ar y ai r cr af t - engi nes, f or exampl e, ar e
exp ect ed t o oper at e whi l e subj ect ed t o f or ces bet ween - 5 and + 9 ‘ g’ ,
al t i t udes f r om zer o t o 50000 f eet (15000 met er s) and speeds f r om zer o t o
M ach 2+. One has t o t est t he equi pment w i t h some new and some ol d
compon en t s t o f i nd t he exp ect ed val ues of t he r ando m var i abl es X
2
, X
3
, et c.
In pr act i ce most of t h e t est i ng i s done on new i t ems wi t h al l new
compon en t s i n pr i st i ne condi t i on. The val ue der i ved by t h ese t yp e of
t est i ng wi l l gi ve t he expect ed val ue of t he r andom var i abl e X
1
. In pr act ice,
t he expect ed val ue of X
1
i s quot ed as M TBF. I n f act , t he exp ect ed val ue of X
1
w i ll gi ve onl y t he M ean Ti me To Fi r st Fai l ur e (as t he t est i ng i s done on new
i t ems and t he t i mes r ef l ect t h e t i me t o f i r st f ai l ur e) and not t h e M TBF. To
cal cul at e M TBF one shoul d consi der t he expect ed val ues of t he r andom
var i abl es X
2
, X
3
, et c.
If t he t i me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of t he syst em i s exponent i al t hen t he
M TBF can be est i mat ed usi ng t he f ol l owi ng equat i on (r ecommend ed by
M IL-HDBK-217 and DEF-STAN-00-40):
MTBF
T
n
· (3.24)
wher e, T i s t he t ot al op er at i n g p er i od and `n’ i s t he number of f ai l ur es
dur i ng t hi s per i od. Not e t hat t he above r el at i on i s val i d onl y f or l ar ge val ue
of T. If n = 0, t hen M TBF becomes i nf i ni t y, t hus one shoul d b e car ef ul i n
usi ng t he above r el at i on. The above expr essi on can be used onl y when
suf f i ci ent amount of dat a i s avai l abl e.
Oper at i n g X
1
Down
t i me
Dow n
t i me
Oper at i ng X
1
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 87
Charact eri st i cs of MTBF
1. The value of MTBF is equal to MTTF if after each repair the system is as
good as new.
2. MTBF = 1 / λ for exponential distribution, where λ is the scale parameter
( also the hazard function ).
Appl i cat i ons of MTBF
1. For a repairable system, MTBF is the average time in service between
failures. Note that, this does not include the time spent at repair facility
by the system.
2. MTBF is used to predict steady-state availability measures like inherent
and operational availability.
3.18. PERCENTILE LIFE ( TTF
P
OR B
P%
)
Per cent i l e l i f e or B
p %
i s a measur e of r el i abi l i t y whi ch i s popul ar among
i ndust r i es. Thi s i s t he l i f e by whi ch cer t ai n pr opor t i on of t he popul at i on (p
%) can be expect ed t o have f ai l ed. B
10%
means t he l i f e (t i me) by whi ch 10%
of t he i t ems wi l l be expect ed t o have f ai l ed. Per cent i l e l i f e i s now
f r equ ent l y used amo ng aer ospace i ndust r i es as a desi gn r equi r ement .
M at hemat i cal l y p er cent i l e l i f e can be obt ai ned by sol vi ng t he f ol l owi ng
equat i on f or t :
F t f x dx p
t
( ) ( ) % · ·

0
(3.25)
Assume t hat F(t ) i s a exponent i al di st r i but i on wi t h paramet er λ = 0.05, and
we ar e i nt er est ed i n f i ndi ng B
10
. Then f r om above equat i on w e have:
1 005 010 2107 − − · ⇒ · exp( . ) . . t t
Thus 2. 107 i s t he B
10
l i f e f or exponent i al di st r i but i on wi t h par amet er 0.05.
The mai n appl i cat i on of per cent i l e l i f e li es i n pr edi ct i on of i ni t i al spar es
r equi r ement (i ni t ial spar es pr ovi si oni ng, IP).
3. Rel i abi l i t y M easur es 88
Sy st em Rel i ab i l i t y
an d M ai n t ai n ab i l i t y
Co u r se m at er i al
Cour se I nst r uct or : Pr of essor U Di nesh Kumar
Indi an Inst i t ut e of M anagement Bangal or e
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 89
Chapter 4
Systems Reliability
' A Bi r d i s an i nst r ument wor ki ng accor di ng t o a mat hemat i cal l aw . It l i es wi t hi n
t he power of man t o make t hi s i nst r ument wi t h al l i t s mot i on'
Leonar do da Vi nci
In t hi s chapt er , we pr esent met hodol ogi es t hat can be used t o eval uat e
syst ems r el i abi l i t y usi ng si mpl e mat h emat i cal t ool s. The chapt er di scusses
t wo appr oach es t hat can be used t o pr edi ct t he r el i abi l i t y met r i cs of t he
syst em. Fi r st , we st udy t he model s t hat ar e based on si mpl e pr obabi l i t y
t heor y, assumi ng t hat t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i ons of di f f er ent
component s w i t hi n t he syst em ar e known. These model s can be used onl y
f or non-r epai r abl e i t ems. The second appr oach i s based on M ar kov model s,
f or pr edi ct i ng di f f er ent r el i abi l i t y measu r es. The model s f or r epai r abl e
i t ems wi l l be di scussed usi ng t he M ar kov model s. Thr oughout t he Chapt er ,
t he wor d ‘ syst em’ i s used t o r epr esent t he compl et e equi pmen t and t he
wor d ‘ i t em’ i s used as a gen er i c t er m t hat st ands f or subsyst em, modul e,
component , par t or uni t . Any r el i abil i t y pr edi ct i on met hodol ogy usi ng t i me-
t o-f ai l ur e appr oach wi ll i nvol ve t he f ol l owi ng st eps:
1. Const r uct t he r el i abi l i t y bl o ck di agr am (RBD) of t he syst em. Thi s may
i nvol ve per f or mi ng f ai l ur e modes and ef f ect anal ysi s (FM EA).
2. Det er mi ne t he oper at i onal pr of i l e of each bl ock i n t he r el i abi l i t y bl ock
di agr am.
3. Der i ve t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of each bl ock.
4. Der i ve t h e l i f e exchange r at e mat r i x (LERM ) f or t he di f f er en t
component s w i t hi n t he syst em.
5. Comput e r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of each bl ock.
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 90
6. Comput e t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of t he syst em.
4.19. RELIABILITY BLOCK DIAGRAM
Rel i abi l i t y bl o ck di agr am, RBD, of an i t em i s a l ogi cal di agr ammat i c
i l l ust r at i on of t he syst em i n w hi ch each i t em (har dw ar e/ sof t w ar e) w i t hi n
t he syst em i s r epr esen t ed b y a bl o ck. RBD f or ms a basi s f or cal cul at i on of
syst em r el i abi l i t y measur es. Each bl ock wi t hi n a RBD can r epr esen t a
componen t , subsyst em, modul e or syst em. The st r uct ur e of a RBD i s
det er mi ned b y t he ef f ect of f ai l ur e of each bl ock on t he f unct i onal i t y of t he
syst em as a w hol e. A bl ock does not have t o r epr esent physi cal l y
connect ed har dw ar e i n t he act ual syst em t o b e connect ed i n t he bl ock
di agr am. I n an RBD t he i t ems whose f ai l ur e can cause syst em f ai l ur e
i r r espect i ve of t he r emai ni ng i t ems of t he syst em ar e connect ed i n ser i es.
It ems whose f ai l ur e al one cannot cause syst em f ai l ur e ar e connect ed i n
par al l el . Dependi n g on t he i t em, a RBD can be r epr esent ed by a ser i es,
par al l el , ser i es-par al l el , r -out -of -n or compl ex conf i gur at i on. Const r uct i on of
RBD r equi r es f unct i onal anal ysi s of var i ous par t s wi t hi n t he syst em. Each
bl ock wi t hi n a RBD shoul d be descr i bed usi ng t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on f or
t he pur pose of cal cul at i ng syst em r el i abi l i t y measur es. Th e RBD can al so
have net w or k st r uct ur es (e.g. communi cat i on syst ems, w at er n et w or k and
Int er net ). In t he f ol l owi ng sect i ons we addr ess how t o eval uat e var i ous
r el i abi l i t y measur es f or di f f er ent r el i abi l i t y bl ock di agr ams.
4.20. RELIABILITY MEASURES FOR SERIES
CONFIGURATION
In a ser i es conf i gur at i on, al l t he consi st i ng i t ems of t he syst em sh oul d be
avai l abl e or f unct i onal t o mai nt ai n t he r equi r ed f unct i on of t he syst em.
Thus, f ai l ur e of any one i t em of t h e syst em w i l l cause f ai l ur e of t he syst em
as whol e. Ser i es conf i gur at i on i s pr obabl y t he most commonl y encount er ed
RBD i n engi neer i ng pr act i ce. The RBD of a hypot het i cal syst em whose i t ems
ar e connect ed i n ser i es i s gi ven i n Fi gur e 4.1.
Fi gur e 4.1. Rel i abi l i t y bl ock di agr am of a syst em wi t h ser i es conf i gur at i on
Rel i abi l i t y f unct i on of seri es conf i gurat i on
1 2 n
n

4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 91
Rel i abi l i t y f unct i on of a syst em wi t h ser i es conf i gur at i on can b e der i ved
f r om t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of i t s consi st i ng i t ems. Let R
S
(t ) r epr esent t he
r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of a ser i es syst em wi t h n i t ems. Let R
i
(t ) denot e t he
r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of t h e i t em i . If TTF
i
i s t he t i me- t o-f ai l ur e r andom
var i abl e f or t he i t em i , t hen t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of syst em f or ‘ t ’ hour s of
oper at i on i s gi ven by:
R
S
(t) = P [ TTF
1
≥ t, TTF
2
≥ t, ...., TTF
n
≥ t ] (4.1)
The equat i on (4.1) cl ear l y st at es t hat t he syst em under consi der at i on wi l l
mai nt ai n t he r equi r ed f unct i o n i f and onl y i f al l t he n i t ems of t h e syst em
ar e abl e t o mai nt ai n t he r equi r ed f un ct i on f or at l east t hour s of op er at i on.
Assumi ng t hat t he r andom var i abl es TTF
i
ar e i ndependent of each ot her ,
t he expr essi on (4.1) can be w ri t t en as:
R
s
(t ) = P[ TTF
1
≥ t ] × P[ TTF
2
≥ t ] × ... × P[ TTF
n
≥ t ]
= R
1
(t ) × R
2
(t ) × .. . × R
n
(t )
Thus, t he r el i ab i l i t y of a ser i es conf i gur at i on wi t h n i t ems i s gi ven by:
R t R t
s i
i
n
( ) ( ) · ∏
·1
(4.2)
Not e t hat i n t he ab ove equat i on (4.2), i t i s assu med t hat t h e connect i ng
medi a (such as sol der j oi nt s) bet w een di f f er ent i t ems i s 100% r el i abl e
(unl ess t hi s i s speci f i cal l y i ncl uded i n t he RBD). However , t hi s need not be
t r ue. In t he equat i on (4.2) t i me t i s used as a gener i c t er m. I n most case
t ime act ual l y r epr esent s age or ut i l i sat i on of t he i t em under consi d er at i on.
It can have di f f er ent uni t s such as hour s, mi l es, l andi ngs, cycl es et c f or
di f f er en t i t ems. One has t o nor mal i se t he ‘ t i me’ bef or e cal cul at i ng t he
r el i abi l i t y f unct i on i n such cases. One met h od of nor mal i si ng t he di f f er en t
l i f e uni t s of t he i t ems i s usi ng Li f e Exchange Rat e M at r i x (LERM ), whi ch wi l l
be di scussed l at er i n t hi s chapt er . When t he l i f e uni t s of i t ems ar e di f f er ent
(or di f f er ent i t ems have di f f er ent ut i l i sat i on), w e use t he f ol l ow i ng equat i on
t o f i nd t he r el i abi l i t y of t he ser i es syst em.
R P TTF t TTF t TTF t R t R t R t
s n n n n
· ≥ ≥ ≥ · × × × [ , , , ] ( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
L L
That i s,
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 92

·
·
n
i
i i S
t R t R
1
) ( ) ( (4.3)
In equat i on (4.3), t
i
i s t he age of t h e i t em i , w hi ch i s equi val ent t o age t of
t he syst em. That i s, f or t he syst em t o sur vive up t o age t , t he i t em i shoul d
sur vi ve up t o t
i
. Thr ough out t hi s book we use equat i on (4.3) unl ess
ot her wi se sp eci f i ed.
Charact eri st i cs of rel i abi l i t y f unct i on of a seri es conf i gur at i on
1. The val u e of t h e r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of t he syst em, R
S
(t ), f or a ser i es
conf i gur at i on i s l ess t han or equal t o t he mi ni mum val ue of t he i ndi vi dual
r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of t he const i t ut i ng i t ems. That i s:
R t Min R t
S
i n
i
( ) { ( )}
,2,..

·1
2. If h
i
(t ) r epr esent t he hazar d f unct i on of i t em i , t h en t h e syst em r el i abi l it y
of a ser i es syst em can be wr i t t en as:
dx x h
dx x h t R
t n
i
i
n
i
t
i s
] ) ( [ exp(
) ( exp( ) (
0 1
1 0
∫ ∑ − ·
∏ ∫
− ·
·
·
Exampl e 4.1
A syst em consi st s of f our i t ems, each of t hem ar e necessar y t o mai nt ai n t he
r equi r ed f unct i on of t h e syst em. The t i me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on and t hei r
cor r espondi ng par amet er val u es ar e gi ven i n Tabl e 4.1. Fi nd t he r el i abi l i t y
of t he syst em f or 500 and 750 hour s of oper at i on.
Tabl e 4.1 Ti me t o f ai l ur e di st ri but i on and t hei r par amet er of t he i t ems
It em Ti me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on Par amet er val ues
It em 1 Exponent i al λ = 0.001
It em 2 Wei bul l η = 1200 hour s β = 3. 2
It em 3 Nor mal µ = 800 hour s σ = 350
It em 4 Wei bul l η = 2000 hour s β = 1. 75
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 93
SOLUTION:
Fr om t h e i nf or mat i on gi ven i n Tabl e 4.1, t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of var i ous
i t ems can be w r i t t en as:
R t t
R t
t
R t
t
R t
t
1
2
3 2
3
4
175
0 001
1200
800
350
2000
( ) exp( . )
( ) exp[ ( ) ]
( ) ( )
( ) exp[ ( ) ]
.
.
· − ×
· −
·

· −
Φ
Si nce t he i t ems ar e connect ed i n ser i es, t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of t he
syst em i s gi ven by:
R t t
t t t
s
( ) exp( . ) exp[ ( ) ] ( ) exp[ ( ) ]
. .
· − × × − ×

× − 0 001
1200
800
350 2000
3 2 175
Φ
Fi gur e 4.2 Rel i abi l i t y f unct i on of t he syst em and i t s const i t uent i t ems.
Subst i t ut i ng t = 500 and 750 i n t he above equat i on, we get :
R(500) = 0.6065 × 0.9410 × 8043 × 0.9154 = 0.4202
R(750) = 0.4723 × 0.8003 × 0.5568 × 0. 8355 = 0.1759
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
6
0
0
1
8
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
4
0
0
2
6
0
0
2
8
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
3
4
0
0
3
6
0
0
3
8
0
0
4
0
0
0
Time
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
R
4
(t )
R
3
(t )
R
1
(t )
R
2
(t )
R
s
(t )
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 94
Fi gur e 4.2 shows t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of t he syst em and var i ous i t ems of
t he syst em. Not e t hat t h e syst em r el i ab i l i t y val u e i s al ways l ess t han or
equal t o any of t he const i t ut i ng i t ems.
Exampl e 4.2
Avi oni cs syst em of an ai r cr af t consi st s of di gi t al aut o-p i l ot , i nt egr at ed gl obal
posi t i oni ng syst em, weat her and gr ound mappi ng r adar , di gi t al map di spl ay
and war ni ng syst em. Apar t f r om t he above i t ems, t he avi oni cs syst em has
cont r ol sof t war e. The t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i ons of var i o us i t ems ar e gi ven
i n Tabl e 4.2. Fi nd t he r el i abi l i t y of t he avi oni cs syst em f or 100 hour s of
oper at i on i f al l t he i t ems ar e n ecessar y t o mai nt ai n t he r equi r ed f unct i on of
t he avi oni cs syst em.
Tabl e 4.2 Ti me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of var i ous i t ems of t he avi oni cs syst em
It em Ti me-t o-f ai l ur e
di st r i but i on
Par amet er val ues
Di gi t al aut opi l ot Exponent i al λ = 0.003
Int egr at ed gl obal
posi t i oni ng syst em
Wei bul l η = 1200, β = 3.2
Weat her and gr ound
mappi ng r adar
Wei bul l η = 1000, β = 2.1
Di gi t al map di spl ay Nor mal µ = 800, σ = 120
War ni ng Syst em Nor mal µ = 1500, σ = 200
Sof t war e Exponent i al λ = 0.001
SOLUTION:
Fr om t he dat a gi ven i n Tabl e 4.2, we can d er i ve t h e r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of
var i ous i t ems as f ol l ows:
1. Rel i abi l i t y of di gi t al aut o-pi l o t
R t t R
1 1
100 0 003 100 07408 ( ) exp( ) ( ) exp( . ) . · − × ⇒ · − × · λ
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 95
2. Rel i abi l i t y of i nt egr at ed gl obal posi t i oni ng syst em.
R t R
2 2
3 2
100 100 100 1200 09996 ( ) exp( ( / ) ) ( ) exp( ( / ) ) .
.
· − ⇒ · − · η
β
3. Rel i abi l i t y of weat her and gr ound mappi ng syst em r adar
R t R
3 3
2 1
100 100 100 1000 0 9920 ( ) exp( ( / ) ) ( ) exp( ( / ) ) .
.
· − ⇒ · − · η
β
4. Rel i abi l i t y of di gi t al map di spl ay
R
t
R
4 4
100 100
800 100
120
58 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( . ) ·

⇒ ·

· · Φ Φ Φ
µ
σ
5. Rel i abi l i t y of war ni ng syst em
R
t
R
5 4
100 100
1500 100
200
7 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ·

⇒ ·

· · Φ Φ Φ
µ
σ
6. Rel i abi l i t y of sof t war e
R t t
6
0001 100 0 9048 ( ) exp( ) exp( . ) . · − ⇒ − × · λ
Thus, t he r el i abi l i t y of t he avi oni cs syst em f or 100 hour s of op er at i on i s
gi ven by:
R R
s i
i
( ) ( ) . . . . . 100 100 0 7408 09996 09920 1 1 09048 06646
1
6
· · × × × × × ·
·

Hazard f unct i on of a seri es conf i gur at i on
Let R
S
(t ) denot e t h e r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of t he syst em. Fr om def i ni t i on, t he
hazar d r at e of t he syst em, h
S
(t ), can be wr i t t en as:
h t
dR t
dt R t
S
S
S
( )
( )
( )
· − ×
1
(4.4)
Usi ng equat i on (4.2), t he expr essi on f or R
S
(t ) can be wr i t t en as:
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 96
R t R t F t
S i
i
n
i
i
n
( ) ( ) [ ( )] · · −
· ·
∏ ∏
1 1
1 (4.5)
wher e F
i
(t ) i s t he f ai l ur e f unct i on of t he i t em i . Di f f er ent i at i ng t h e above
expr essi on f or r el i abi l i t y f unct i on wi t h r espect t o t , w e get :
dR t
dt
f t F t
i
i
n
i
j
j i
n
( )
( ) [ ( )] · − −
· ·

∑ ∏
1 1
1 (4.6)
Subst i t ut i ng equat i on (4.6) i n equat i on (4.4), we get
h t
f t
R t
h t
S
i
i
i
n
i
i
n
( )
( )
( )
( ) · ·
· ·
∑ ∑
1 1
(4.7)
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 97
Tabl e 4.3 Hazar d r at e of ser i es conf i gur at i on wi t h n i t ems.
Pr obabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on
of i -t h i t em, f
i
(t )
Hazar d f unct i on of t he syst em, h
S
(t )
(Exponen t i al )
) exp( t
i i
λ λ −

·
·
n
i
i S
t h
1
) ( λ
(Weibull)
) ) ( exp( ) (
1
i i
i i i
i
t t
β β
η η η
β



·

·
n
i i i
i
S
i
t
t h
1
1
) )( ( ) (
β
η η
β
(Normal)
) ) (
2
1
( exp(
2
1
2
i
i
i
t
σ
µ
π σ



·

Φ ·
n
i i
i
i S
t
t f t h
1
) ( ) ( ) (
σ
µ
Thus t he hazar d f unct i on of a ser i es syst em i s gi ven by t he sum of t he
hazar d f unct i on of i ndi vi dual i t ems. Tabl e 4.3 gi ves hazar d f unct i on of a
ser i es conf i gur at i on wi t h n i t em und er t he assu mpt i on t hat t he t i me-t o-
f ai l ur e of t he i t ems f ol l o ws same di st r i but i on but have di f f er en t par amet er .
Fi gur e 4.3 show s hazar d r at e of a ser i es syst em w i t h t w o i t ems w her e t he
t i me-t o-f ai l ur e of i ndi vi dual i t ems f ol l ow Wei bul l di st r i but i on.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
0
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
8 1
1
.
2
1
.
4
1
.
6
1
.
8 2
2
.
2
2
.
4
Time
h
a
z
a
r
d

r
a
t
e
h
s
(t )
η = 1, β = 2.1
η = 1, β = 0.5
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 98
Fi gur e 4. 3 Hazar d r at e of ser i es syst em wi t h t wo i t ems wi t h Wei bul l t i me-
t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on.
In most cases, t h e hazar d f unct i on of a ser i es conf i gur at i on w i l l be a
i ncr easi ng f unct i on. For exampl e, consi der a ser i es syst em wi t h 10 i t ems.
Let 9 out of 10 i t ems be i dent i cal and have exponent i al t i me-t o-f ai l ur e
di st r i but i on wi t h par amet er wi t h r at e λ = 0.01. Now w e consi der t w o
di f f er en t cases f or t h e t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of t he r emai ni ng one
i t em.
Fi gur e 4.4 Hazar d r at e t he syst em w i t h 10 i t ems w her e 9 of t hem have
const ant hazar d.
Case 1:
Let t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e of t he r emai ni ng one i t em be r epr esent ed by usi ng
Wei bul l di st r i but i on w i t h scal e par amet er η = 100 and β = 2. 5. Now t he
hazar d r at e of t hi s syst em i s gi ven by:
h t
t
s
( ) . ( ) · × +

9 0 01
1
β
η η
β
It i s obvi ous f r om t he above expr essi on t hat t he hazar d r at e of t he syst em i s
not const ant . Fi gur e 4.4 shows t he ef f ect of non-const ant hazar d f unct i on
on t he syst em hazar d f unct i on even when most of t h e i t ems have const ant
hazar d f unct i on. In Fi gur e 4.4, h
1
(t ) r epr esent s t he hazar d r at e f or t he ni ne
i t ems wi t h exponent i al t i me-t o-f ai l ur e and h
2
(t ) r epr esent t he hazar d r at e
of t he i t em w i t h Wei bul l t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0
1
5
3
0
4
5
6
0
7
5
9
0
1
0
5
1
2
0
1
3
5
1
5
0
1
6
5
1
8
0
1
9
5
2
1
0
2
2
5
2
4
0
Time
H
a
z
a
r
d

r
a
t
e
h
1
(t)
h
2
(t)
h
s
(t)
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 99
Let t he t i me- t o-f ai l ur e of t he r emai ni ng one i t em can be r epr esent ed by
usi ng Wei bul l di st r i but i on wi t h scal e par amet er η = 100 and β = 0. 5. Now
t he hazar d r at e of t hi s syst em i s gi ven by:
h t
t
s
( ) . ( ) · × +

9 0 01
1
β
η η
β
It i s obvi ous f r om t he above expr essi on t hat t he hazar d r at e of t he syst em i s
not const ant . Fi gur e 4.5 shows t he ef f ect of non-const ant hazar d f unct i on
on t he syst em hazar d f unct i on even when most of t h e i t ems have const ant
hazar d f unct i on. In Fi gur e 4.5, h
1
(t ) r epr esent t he hazar d r at e f or t he ni ne
i t em w i t h exponent i al t i me-t o-f ai l ur e and h
2
(t ) r epr esent t he hazar d r at e of
t he i t ems w i t h Wei bul l t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on.
Not e: The hazar d f unct i on of compl ex r epai r abl e syst em may conver ge t o a
const ant hazar d f unct i on under cer t ai n condi t i ons (mai nl y under st eady-
st at e condi t i ons). Thi s r esul t pr oved by Dr eni ck (1961) may not be t r ue f or
t oday’ s hi ghl y r el i abl e syst ems. Thus, one has t o be ver y car ef ul i n usi ng
const ant hazar d f unct i on and t hus exponent i al t i me t o f ai l ur e f or compl ex
syst ems. Thi s pr obl em wi l l be f ur t her di scussed i n Chapt er 8.
0
0. 02
0. 04
0. 06
0. 08
0. 1
0. 12
0
1
5
3
0
4
5
6
0
7
5
9
0
1
0
5
1
2
0
1
3
5
1
5
0
1
6
5
1
8
0
1
9
5
2
1
0
2
2
5
2
4
0
Time
h
a
z
a
r
d

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
h
s
(t)
h
1
(t)
h
2
(t)
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 100
Fi gur e 4.5 Hazar d f unct i on of t he syst em wi t h 10 i t ems wher e 9 of t hem
have const ant hazar d.
Exampl e 4.3
A syst em has t w o i t ems A and B connect ed i n ser i es. The t i me-t o-f ai l ur e of
i t em A f ol l ow s exponent i al di st r i but i on w i t h par amet er λ = 0.002. Th e t i me-
t o-f ai l ur e of i t em B f ol l ow s Wei bul l di st r i but i on wi t h par amet er η = 760 and
β = 1. 7. Fi nd t he hazar d r at e of t hi s syst em at t i me t = 100 and t = 500.
SOLUTION:
Let h
A
(t ) and h
B
(t ) r epr esent t h e hazar d r at e of i t em A and B r espect i vel y.
Si nce t h e i t ems ar e co nnect ed i n ser i es, t he hazar d r at e of t he syst em, h
S
(t )
i s gi ven by:
7 . 0 1
)
760
)(
760
7 . 1
( 002 . 0 ) )( ( ) ( ) ( ) (
t t
t h t h t h
B A S
+ · + · + ·
− β
η η
β
λ
Subst i t ut i ng t = 100 and t = 500 i n t he above equat i on,
h
S
(100) = 0.00254
h
S
(500) = 0.0036
Mean t i me t o f ai l ure of a seri es conf i gurat i on
The mean t i me t o f ai l ur e, M TTF, of a ser i es conf i gur at i on, denot ed by
M TTF
S
, can be wr i t t en as:
∫ ∏ ·

·

·

0 1 0
) ( dt t R dt R MTTF
n
i
i S S
(4.8)
The above i nt egr al can be eval uat ed usi ng numer i cal i nt egr at i on i f t he
f ai l ur e di st r i but i on i s Wei bul l , nor mal , l ognor mal or Gamma. How ever , i n
case of exponen t i al di st r i but i on t he expr essi on f or syst em M TTF
S
can be
obt ai ned as f ol l ow s. Assume t hat t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of
component i i s gi ven by, 1− − exp( ). λ
i
t Subst i t ut i ng R t t
i i
( ) exp( ) · −λ i n
equat i on (4.8) w e have,
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 101
∫ ∫ ∑ ∏ ∫ ∏
∞ ∞
· ·

·
− · − · ·
0 0 1 1 0 1
) exp( ) exp( ) ( dt t dt t dt t R MTTF
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i s
λ λ

·
·
n
i
i
s
MTTF
1
1
λ
(4.9)
Thus, t he M TTF
S
of a ser i es conf i gur at i on wi t h n i t ems wher e t he t i me-t o-
f ai l ur e of t he i t ems ar e r epr esent ed by exponent i al di st r i but i on i s gi ven by
t he i nver se of t he syst em’ s hazar d f unct i on. Not e t hat t hi s r esul t i s t r ue
onl y when t he t i me-t o-f ail ure di st ri but i on i s exponent i al . The f ol l ow i ng
equat i on der i ved usi ng t r apezi um appr oxi mat i on of equat i on (4.8) can be
used whenever t h e t i me-t o-f ai l ur e of at l east one i t em i s non-exponent i al .
] [ ]) * [ ] 0 [ (
2
1
1
h i R h h M R R
h
MTTF
M
i
S
× × + + × ≈


·
(4.10)
Wh er e h i s a smal l val ue (e.g. 0.01 or 0.1), t he val ue of M i s sel ect ed such
t hat ) ( h M R
S
× i s al most zer o.
Exampl e 4.4
A syst em consi st s of t hr ee i t ems connect ed i n ser i es. The t i me-t o-f ai l ur e
di st r i but i on and t hei r cor r esp ondi ng par am et er val ues ar e gi ven i n Tabl e
4.4. Fi nd t he mean t i me t o f ai l ur e of t he syst em. Compar e t he val ue of
M TTF
S
wi t h mean t i me t o f ai l ur e of i ndi vi dual i t ems.
Tabl e 4.4 Ti me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of di f f er ent i t ems
I t em Di st r i but i on Par amet er val ues
I t em 1 Wei bul l η
1
= 10, β
1
= 2. 5
I t em 2 Exponen t ial λ = 0.2
I t em 3 Wei bul l η
2
= 20, β
2
= 3
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 102
SOLUTION:
M ean t i me t o f ai l ur e of t he syst em i s gi ven by:
dt
t
t
t
dt t R MTTF
i
i S
) ) ( exp( ) exp( ) ( exp(
) (
2 1
2 1 0
0
3
1
β β
η
λ
η
− × − × − ·
·

∫ ∏


·


− × − × − ·
0
3 5 . 2
) )
20
( exp( ) 2 . 0 exp( ) )
10
( exp( dt
t
t
t
MTTF
S
Usi ng numer i cal i nt egr at i on, t he M TTF
S
i s gi ven by:
M TTF
S
≈ 3.48
Tabl e 4. 5 gi ves t h e mean t i me t o f ai l ur e of var i ous i t ems. Not e t hat t he
mean t i me t o f ai l ur e of t he syst em i s al ways l ess t han t hat of t he
compon en t s when t he i t ems ar e connect ed i n ser i es.
Tabl e 4.5 Compar i son of M TTF of i ndi vi dual i t ems and M TTF
S
I t em 1 I t em 2 It em 3 Syst em
M TTF = 8. 87 M TTF = 5 M TTF = 17.86 M TTF
S
≈ 3.48
Char act er i st i cs of MTTF
S
of seri es syst em
1. The M TTF
S
≤ M TTF
i
, w her e M TTF
i
i s t he mean t i me t o f ai l ur e of t he i t em
i . Thus, t he mean t i m e t o f ai l ur e of a syst em wi t h ser i es RBD wi l l be l ess
t han t he mean t i me t o t i me f ai l ur e of any of i t s const i t ut i ng i t ems.
MTTF Min MTTF
S
i n
i

·1,2,...,
{ }
Wh er e M TTF
i
d enot e t he mean t i me t o f ai l ur e of t he i t em i .
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 103
2. For compl ex r epai r abl e syst ems, M TTF
S
, r epr esent s t he mean t i me t o f i r st
f ai l ur e.
4.21. LIFE EXCHANGE RATE MATRIX
Not al l t he co mponent s of t he i t em wi l l have t he same ut i l i sat i on or l i f e
uni t . In some cases, i f t he act ual mi ssi on per i od i s t hour s, some i t ems of
t he syst em may have t o oper at e mor e t han t hour s (i n many cases i t can be
l ess t han t ho ur s). An ai r cr af t j et en gi ne wi l l be swi t ch ed on at l east 20
mi nut es b ef or e t he act ual f l i ght . Thus, f or 10 hour s f l i ght , t he engi n e may
have t o oper at e f or mor e t han 10 hour s. Oper at i onal envi r onment can al so
change t he agei ng pat t er n of di f f er en t compon ent s w i t hi n a syst em. For
exampl e, t he aver age f l i ght of a domest i c f l i ght wi t hi n Japan i s ar ound 30
mi nut es compar ed t o t hat of ar ound 3 hour s i n US. Thus t he ai r cr af t used i n
Japan l ands mor e of t en t han t he on e i n USA. Thi s means t hat t he usage of
l andi ng gear s, t yr es et c of ai r cr af t used i n domest i c f l i ght s i n Japan wi l l be
much hi gher t han t hat of USA. It i s ver y common t hat di f f er ent i t ems w i t hi n
a syst em may have di f f er ent l i f e uni t s such as hour , mi l es, f l yi ng hour s,
l andi ngs, cycl es et c. Thus, t o f i nd t h e r el i abi l i t y of a syst em w hose i t ems
have di f f er ent l i f e uni t s i t i s n ecessar y t o nor mal i se t he l i f e uni t s. In t hi s
sect i on we i nt r oduce t he concept of l i f e exchange r at e mat r i x, whi ch can be
used t o descr i b e t he exchange r at es bet w een var i ous l i f e uni t s.
Li f e exchange r at e mat r i x (LERM ) i s a squ ar e mat r i x of si ze n, w her e n i s t he
number of i t ems i n t he syst em. Let us denot e t h e l i f e exchange r at e mat r ix
as R = [ r
i, j
] , w her e r
i ,j
i s t he (i ,j ) t h el ement i n t he LERM . Thus, f or a syst em
wi t h n i t ems connect ed i n ser i es, t he LERM can be r epr esent ed as:
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

·
n n n n
n
n
r r r
r r r
r r r
LERM
, 2 , 1 ,
, 2 2 , 2 1 , 2
, 1 2 , 1 1 , 1
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
...
The el emen t s of LERM ar e i nt er pr et ed as f ol l ows:
r
i ,j
denot es t hat :
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 104
1 li f e uni t of i = r
i,j
× 1 l i f e uni t of j .
Any LERM wi l l sat i sf y t he f ol l owi ng condi t i ons:
1
,
·
i i
r for all i.
j k k i j i
r r r
, , ,
× · for all i, j, k
i j
j i
r
r
,
,
1
·
As an exampl e, l et us consi der a syst em wi t h t hr ee i t ems connect ed i n
ser i es (Fi gur e 4.6). Let t he l i f e uni t of i t ems 1, 2 and 3 be hour s, mi l es and
cycl es r esp ect i vel y.
Fi gur e 4.6. Ser i es syst em wi t h t hr ee i t ems wher e each i t em has di f f er en t l i f e
uni t s
Assume t hat :
1 hour = 10 mi l es
1 hour = 5 cycl es
Usi ng t he abo ve dat a, i t i s easy t o const r uct t h e l i f e exchange r at e mat r i x
f or t he above syst em. The LERM f or t he above mat r i x i s:
]
]
]
]
]

·
1 2 5 / 1
5 . 0 1 10 / 1
5 10 1
R
One can easi l y ver i f y t hat t h e above mat r i x sat i sf i es al l t hr ee condi t i ons f or
a l i f e exchange r at e mat r i x. Usi ng t he above mat r i x, one can easi l y measur e
1
Hours
2
Miles
3
Cycles
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 105
r el i abi l i t y char act er i st i cs i n nor mal i sed l i f e uni t . For t he RBD shown i n
Fi gur e 4.6, r el i abi l i t y of t he syst em f or 5 cycl es i s gi ven by R
1
(1)×R
2
(1)×R
3
(5).
Example 4.5
Rel i abi l i t y bl ock di agr am of a syst em consi st s of t hr ee modul es A, B and C
connect ed i n ser i es. The t i me- t o-f ai l ur e of modul e A f ol l ows Wei bul l
di st r i but i on wi t h scal e par amet er η = 100 hour s and β = 3.2. The t i me-t o-
f ai l ur e of modul e B f ol l ows Nor mal di st ri but i on wi t h par amet er µ = 400
cycl es and σ = 32 cycl es. The t i m e-t o-f ai l ur e o f modul e C f ol l ow s
expon ent i al di st r i but i on wi t h par amet er λ = 0.00015 per mi l e. It was al so
not ed t hat , dur i ng 1 hour , t he modul e B per f or ms 12 cycl es and modul e C
per f or ms 72 mi l es. Fi nd t he pr obabi l i t y t hat t he syst em wi l l sur vi ve up t o
240 cycl es of modul e B.
SOLUTION:
For t h e syst em t o sur vi ve 240 cycl es, modul e A sho ul d sur vi ve up t o 20
hour s and modul e C shoul d sur vi ve up t o 1440 mi l es.
The r el i abi l i t y of i ndi vi dual modul es ar e gi ven by:
9942 . 0 ) )
100
20
( exp( ) ) ( exp( ) (
2 . 3
· − · − ·
β
η
A
A A
t
t R
1 )
32
240 400
( ) ( ) ( ·

Φ ·

Φ ·
σ
µ
B
B B
t
t R
8174 . 0 ) 1440 00015 . 0 exp( ) exp( ) ( · × − · × − ·
C C C
t t R λ
The syst em r el i abi l i t y f or 240 cycl es i s gi ven by:
8126 . 0 8174 . 0 1 9942 . 0 ) 1440 ( ) 240 ( ) 20 ( ) 240 ( · × × · × × ·
C B A S
R R R R
4.22. PARALLEL CONFIGURATION
In a par al l el conf i gur at i on t he syst em f ai l s onl y when al l t he i t ems of t he
syst em f ai l . In ot her w or ds, t o mai nt ai n t he r equi r ed f unct i on onl y on e i t em
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 106
of t he syst em i s r equi r ed t o f u nct i on. The r el i abi l i t y bl ock di agr am f or a
syst em consi st i ng of i t ems connect ed i n par al l el i s shown i n Fi gur e 4.7
Fi gur e 4.7 Rel i abi l i t y bl ock di agr am f or a par al l el conf i gur at i on
Par al l el component s ar e i nt r oduced when t he r el i abi l i t y r equi r em ent s f or
t he syst em ar e ver y hi gh. The use of mor e t han one engi ne i n ai r cr af t i s one
of t he obvi ous exampl es of par al l el conf i gur at i on (In pr act i ce an ai r cr af t
w oul d not be al l ow ed t o f l y i f any of t he engi ne f ai l s. I f an engi ne f ai l s
dur i ng a f l i ght , t he pi l ot woul d nor mal l y be expect ed t o di ver t t o t he
near est ai r por t ). How ever , par al l el i t ems w i l l i ncr ease cost , compl exi t y and
wei ght of t he syst em. Hence, t he number of par al l el it ems r equi r ed shoul d
be car ef ul l y det er mi n ed and i f possi bl e opt i mi sed.
Rel i abi l i t y f unct i on of par al l el conf i gurat i on
Rel i abi l i t y f unct i on of a par al l el conf i gur at i on can be ob t ai ned usi ng t he
f ol l owi ng ar gument s. As t he syst em f ai l s onl y wh en al l t he i t ems f ai l , t he
f ai l u r e f unct i on, F
S
(t ), of t he syst em i s gi ven by:
] ,... , [ ) (
2 1
t TTF t TTF t TTF P t F
n S
≤ ≤ ≤ · (4.11)
wher e TTF
i
r epr esent s t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e r andom var i abl e of i t em i .
Assumi ng i ndependen ce among di f f er ent i t ems, t he above expr essi on can
be wr i t t en as:
F
S
(t ) = F
1
(t ) × F
2
(t ) × …× F
n
(t )
(4.12)
1
2
n

4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 107
wher e F
i
(t ) i s t he t i me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of i t em i . Subst i t ut i ng F
i
(t )=1 -
R
i
(t ) i n equat i on (4. 12), t h e expr essi on f or f ai l ur e f unct i on of a par al l el
conf i gur at i on can be wr i t t en as:
F
S
(t ) = [ 1 - R
1
(t ) ] × [ 1 - R
2
(t ) ] × …× [ 1 - R
n
(t ) ]
(4.13)
Now, t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on, R
S
(t ), of a par al l el conf i gur at i on can be wr i t t en
as:
R
S
(t ) = 1 - F
S
(t ) = 1 - [ 1 - R
1
(t )] × [ 1 - R
2
(t )] × …× [ 1 -R
n
(t )]
or

·
− − ·
n
i
i S
t R t R
1
)] ( 1 [ 1 ) ( (4.14)
Charact eri st i cs of a paral l el conf i gurat i on
1. The syst em r el i abi l i t y, R
S
(t ), i s mor e t han r el i abi l i t y of t he any of t he
consi st i ng i t ems. That i s,
R
S
(t) ≥ )} ( {
,..., 1
t R Max
i
n i·
2. If h
i
(t ) r epr esent t h e hazar d r at e of i t em i , t hen t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of
a par al l el conf i gur at i on can be wr i t t en as:
∏ ∫
·
− − − ·
n
i
t
i S
dt t h t R
1 0
] ) ( exp( 1 [ 1 ) (
Exampl e 4.6
A f l y-by-wi r e ai r cr af t has f our f l i ght cont r ol syst em el ect r o ni cs (FCSE)
connect ed i n par al l el . The t i me-t o-f ai l ur e of FCSE can be r epr esent ed by
Wei bul l dist r i bu t i on wi t h scal e par amet er η=2800 and β = 2. 8. Fi nd t he
r el i abi l i t y of f l i ght cont r ol syst em f or 1000 hour s of oper at i on.
SOLUTION:
Rel i abi l i t y f unct i on f or a paral l el syst em wi t h f our i dent i cal i t ems i s gi ven by:
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 108
R t R t
R t
S i
i
( ) [ ( )]
[ ( )]
· − − ∏
· − −
·
1 1
1 1
1
4
4
wher e R(t ) i s t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of each i t em. For t = 1000, R(t ) i s gi ven
by:
9455 . 0 ) ) 2800 / 1000 ( exp( ) ) / ( exp( ) (
8 . 2
· − · − ·
β
η t t R
Thus t he r el i abi l i t y of f l i ght cont r ol syst em f or 1000 hour s of oper at i on i s
gi ven by:
999991 . 0 ] 9455 . 0 1 [ 1 ) 1000 (
4
· − − ·
S
R
Hazard f unct i on of a par al l el conf i gurat i on
Hazar d f unct i on, h
S
(t ), of t he par al l el conf i gur at i on can be wr i t t en as:
) (
1 ) (
) (
t R dt
t dR
t h
S
S
S
×

· (4.15)
Subst i t ut i ng t he expr essi on f or R
S
(t ) f r om equat i on (4.14) i n t he above
equat i on, we get


·
·
− −
× − − − ·
n
i
i
n
i
i S
t R
t R
dt
d
t h
1
1
))] ( 1 ( 1 [
1
} ))] ( 1 ( 1 [ { ) ( (4.16)
It i s easy t o ver i f y t hat t he above equat i on can be wr i t t en as:

∑ ∏
·
· ≠ ·
− −
×
·
n
i
i
n
j
n
j i i
i j
S
t R
t F t f
t h
1
1 , 1
)] ( 1 [ 1
} ) ( ) ( {
) ( (4.17)
Wher e, f
i
(t ) i s t he pr obabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on of i t em i .
Exampl e 4.7
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 109
For t he f l i ght cont r ol syst em el ect r oni cs di scussed i n t he exampl e 3.5, f i nd
t he hazar d f unct i on of t he syst em at t i me t = 100.
SOLUTION:
Si nce al l t he f our i t ems ar e i dent i cal , t he hazar d r at e of t he syst em can be
w r i t t en as (usi n g equat i on (3.15)):
4
3
)] ( [ 1
)] ( [ ) ( 4
) (
t F
t F t f
t h
S

× ×
·
wher e,
) ) ( exp( ) (
) ) ( exp( ) ( ) (
1
β
β β
η
η η η
β
t
t F
t t
t f
− ·
− ·

Subst i t ut i ng t = 100, we get
h
S
(t ) = 8.0 × 10
- 8
Mean t i me t o f ai l ure of paral l el conf i gurat i on
The mean t i me t o f ai l ur e of a par al l el conf i gur at i on, denot ed by M TTF
S
, can
be wr i t t en as:
∫ ∏ ∫

·

− − · ·
0 1 0
)]} ( 1 [ 1 { dt t R dt R MTTF
n
i
i S S
(4.18)
For most of t he f ai l ur e di st r i but i ons one may have t o use n umer i cal
i nt egr at i on t o eval uat e t h e abo ve i nt egr al . How ever , i n case of exponent i al
di st r i but i on we can get si mpl e expr essi on f or syst em’ s M TTF.
Assume t hat t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of component i i s
expon ent i al wi t h mean ) / 1 (
i
λ . Then t he mean t i me t o f ai l ur e of t he
syst em, M TTF
S
, i s gi ven by:
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 110
∫ ∏ ∫ ∏

·

·
− − − · ·
0 1 0 1
)]} exp( 1 [ 1 { ) (
n
i
i
n
i
i s
dt t dt t R MTTF λ (4.19)
For par t i cul ar val ues of n, we can si mpl i f y t h e above i nt egr al t o d er i ve t he
expr essi on f or t he M TTF
S
.
Case 1: Assume n = 2. Equat i on (4.19) can be wr i t t en as:
2 1 2 1
0
2 1 2 1
2
0
1
1 1 1
)] ) ( exp( ) exp( ) [exp(
))]} exp( 1 ( )) exp( 1 [( 1 {
λ λ λ λ
λ λ λ λ
λ λ
+
− + ·
+ − − − + − ·
− − ⋅ − − − ·




dt t t t
dt t t MTTF
S
Case 2: Assume n = 3, t he expr essi on f or M TTF
S
can be wr i t t en as:
3 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 1
0
3
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
))]} exp( 1 ( [ [ 1 {
λ λ λ λ λ λ λ λ λ λ λ λ
λ
+ +
+
+

+

+
− + + ·
− − − ·
∫ ∏

·
dt t MTTF
i
i
S
(4.20)
4.23. R-OUT-OF-N SYSTEMS
In an r -out -of -n (or r -out -of -n: G) syst em, at l east r i t ems out of t he t ot al n
i t ems shoul d mai nt ai n t hei r r equi r ed f unct i on f or t he syst em t o be
oper at i onal . Fol l owi ng ar e f ew exampl es of r -out -of -n syst ems:
1. Control software in a space shuttle has four programs. For the successful
completion of the mission, at least three of them should maintain the
required function and also the output from at least three programs should
agree with each other. This is an example of a 3-out-of-4 system.
2. Most of the telecommunication system can be represented as a r-out-of-n
systems.
The r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of r -out -of -n syst em can be der i ved as st at ed bel ow .
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 111
Rel i abi l i t y f unct i on of an r-out -of -n syst em
Consi der an r -out -of -n syst em wi t h i dent i cal i t ems. That i s, R
1
(t )=R
2
(t ) =. .. =
R
n
(t ). Then t he syst em r el i abi l i t y, R
S
(t ,r ,n), i s gi ven by:
i n i
n
r i
S
t R t R
i
n
n r t R

·

,
`

.
|
·

)] ( 1 [ )] ( [ ) , , ( (4.21)
For t he cases when t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on i s exponent i al or Wei bul l
w e have t he f ol l ow i ng expr essi ons f or r el i abi l i t y f unct i on.
1. Exponent i al t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on

·

− − −

,
`

.
|
·
n
r i
i n i
S
t t
i
n
n r t R ] exp( 1 [ )] [exp( ) , , ( λ λ
2. Wei bul l t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on

·

− − −

,
`

.
|
·
n
r i
i n i
S
t t
i
n
n r t R )] ) ( exp( 1 [ )] ) ( [exp( ) , , (
β β
η η
However , i f t he i t ems ar e not i dent i cal t hen one may have t o use ot her
mat h emat i cal model s such as enumer at i on t o eval uat e t h e r el i abi l i t y. For
exampl e consi der a 2-ou t -of -3 syst em wi t h non-i dent i cal i t ems. The
r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of t he syst em can be d er i ved as f ol lows.
Let E
i
denot e t he event t hat t he i t em i successf u l l y compl et es t he mi ssi on
(or sur vi ves t hour s of oper at i on). Th en t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on f or t he
syst em can be wr i t t en as:
R
S
(t ) = P [ {E
1
∩ E
2
} ∪ {E
1
∩ E
3
} ∪ {E
2
∩ E
3
} ]
By put t i ng, A = E
1
∩ E
2
, B = E
1
∩ E
3
and C = E
2
∩ E
3
, t he above expr essi on
can be w r i t t en as:
R
S
(t ,2,3) = P [ {A ∪ B ∪ C } ]
= P(A) + P(B) + P(C) - P(A ∩ B) - P(A ∩ C) - P(B ∩ C)
+ P(A ∩ B ∩ C)
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 112
= P(E
1
∩E
2
) + P(E
1
∩ E
3
) + P(E
2
∩ E
3
) - 2 P( E
1
∩ E
2
∩E
3
)
Let R
i
( t ) r epr esent t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on f or t he i t em i . Now t he abo ve
expr essi on can be wr i t t en as:
R
S
(t , 2, 3) = R
1
(t ) R
2
(t ) + R
1
(t ) R
3
(t ) + R
2
(t ) R
3
(t ) - 2 × R
1
(t ) R
2
(t ) R
3
(t )
The abo ve appr oach becomes compl ex wh en t he number of i t ems n
i ncr eases. How ever , t her e ar e sever al appr oaches avai l abl e t o t ackl e
compl ex r -out -of -n syst ems wi t h non-i dent i cal i t ems. The r el i abi l i t y f unct i on
of r -1-out -of -n and r -out -of -n syst em wi t h i dent i cal i t ems sat i sf i es t he
f ol l ow i ng r el at i on:
) , , ( )] ( 1 [ )] ( [
1
) , 1 , (
1 1
n r t R t R t R
r
n
n r t R
S
r n r
s
+ −

,
`

.
|

· −
+ − −
(4.22)
Mean Ti me t o Fai l ure of r-out -of -n Syst ems
The mean t i me t o f ai l ur e, M TTF, of an r -out -of -n syst em, M TTF
S
(r ,n), can be
obt ai ned usi ng t he f ol l owi ng expr essi on:


·
0
) , , ( ) , ( dt n r t R n r MTTF
S S
One may have t o use numer i cal i nt egr at i on i n most of t he cases t o eval uat e
t he abo ve i nt egr al . How ever , i f t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on i s
expon ent i al , t hen t he above i nt egr al r educes t o a si mpl e expr essi on. For
exampl e, consi der a 2-ou t -of -3 syst em wi t h i dent i cal i t ems wher e t h e t i me-
t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of t h e i t em i s r epr esent ed b y exponent i al di st r i but i on
wi t h par amet er λ. The r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of 2-o ut -of -3 syst em wi t h
expon ent i al i t ems ar e gi ven by:
) 3 exp( )) exp( 1 )( 2 exp( 3
)] exp( 1 [ )] [exp(
3
) (
3
2
t t t
t t
i
t R
i
i n i
S
λ λ λ
λ λ
− + − − − ·
− − −

,
`

.
|
·

·

Now t he M TTF
S
i s gi ven by,
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 113
MTTF t t t dt
S
· − − − + −

·

[ exp( )( exp( )) exp( ] 3 2 1 3
5
6
0
λ λ λ
λ
Usi ng equat i on (4.22), we get t he f ol l owi ng r el at i on bet ween M TTF
S
(r -1,n)
and M TTF
S
(r ,n) (M i sr a, 1992):
) , ( )] ( 1 [ )] ( [
1
) , 1 (
0
1 1
n r MTTF dt t R t R
r
n
n r MTTF
s
r n r
S
+ −

,
`

.
|

· −


+ − −
(4.23)
4.24. SERIES AND PARALLEL CONFIGURATION
In t hi s Sect i on w e di scuss t w o t ypes of ser i es and par al l el st r uct ur es, w hi ch
have w i de appl i cat i on i n r el i abi l i t y t heor y.
Model 1. Ser i es-Par al l el Conf i gur at i on
Her e t he syst em has a ser i es st r uct ur e wi t h n i t ems wher e each i t em has
par al l el r edundant i t ems. Assume t hat i t em i has m
i
component s i n par al l el .
Fi gur e 4.8 shows a ser i es-par al l el conf i gur at i on.
Fi gur e 4.8 Ser i es-par al l el st r uct ur e w i t h n i t ems subsyst em wher e
subsyst em i has m
i
par al l el component s
In Fi gur e 4.8, (i ,j ) r epr esent j -t h par al l el component of t he i t em i . If R
i, j
(t )
denot e t h e cor r espondi ng r el i abi l i t y of t he co mponent , t hen t he r el i abi l i t y
of i t em i of t he syst em i s gi ven by:

·
− − ·
i
m
j
j i i
t R t R
1
,
)] ( 1 [ 1 ) ( (4.24)

1,1
1,2
1,m1
2,1
2,2
2,m2
n,1
n,2
n,mn
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 114
Now t he syst em r el i abi l i t y can be w ri t t en as:
∏ ∏ ∏
· · ·
− − · ·
n
i
m
j
j i
n
i
i S
i
t R t R t R
1 1
,
1
))] ( 1 ( 1 [ ) ( ) ( (4.25)
Model 2. Par al l el -Seri es Syst em
Fi gur e 4. 9. Par al l el ser i es st r uct ur e wi t h n sub-syst ems wher e sub syst em i
has m
i
componen t s
Assume t hat t h e syst em has n i t ems connect ed i n par al l el w her e each i t em
has component s conn ect ed i n ser i es. An ai r cr af t wi t h mor e t han one
engi n e, i s a t ypi cal exampl e f or t hese t ype of conf i gur at i on. Fi gur e 4.9
shows par al l el -ser i es st r uct ur e.
Si nce i t em i has m
i
component s i n ser i es, t he r el i abi l i t y of i t em i i s gi ven by:

·
·
i
m
j
j i i
t R t R
1
,
) ( ) ( (4.26)
wher e R
i, j
(t ) i s t he r el i abil i t y f unct i on of t he compon en t j i n i t em i . Now t he
r el i abi li t y of t he par al l el -ser i es syst em i s gi ven by:
∏ ∏ ∏
· · ·
− − · − − ·
n
i
n
j
j i
n
i
i S
t R t R t R
1 1
,
1
] ) ( 1 [ 1 )] ( 1 [ 1 ) ( (4.27)
1,1
2,1
n,1
1,2
2,2
n,2
1,m1
2,m2
n,mn
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 115
4.25. REDUNDANT SYSTEMS
In syst ems, r edundancy i s a means of mai nt ai ni ng syst em i nt egr i t y i f
cr i t i cal par t s of i t f ai l . I n some cases t hi s means r epl i cat i ng par t s of t he
syst em, i n ot her s, al t er nat i ves ar e used. A commer ci al ai r cr af t has t o be
abl e t o compl et e a t ake-of f and l andi ng wi t h on e of i t s engi nes shut down
but , except under ver y speci al ci r cumst ances, no such ai r cr af t w oul d be
al l ow ed t o l eave t he depar t ur e gat e i f any of i t s engi nes ar e not f unct i oni ng.
And yet , ETOPS, ext end ed t wi n engi ne oper at i ons al l ows cer t i f i ed t wi n-
engi n e ai r cr af t (e.g. Boei ng 777 and Ai r bus 330) t o f l y up t o 180 mi nut es
f r om a sui t abl e l andi ng si t e. Thi s i s based on t h e pr obabi l i t y t hat even i f
one of t he engi nes f ai l s t hat f ar f r om l and, t he o t her i s suf f i ci ent l y, r el i abl e
t o make t he pr obabi l i t y of not r eachi ng a l andi ng si t e an accept abl e r i sk. I t
shoul d be not ed t hat i n nor mal f l i ght , i .e. at cr ui si ng speed and al t i t ude, t he
engi n es ar e gener al l y doi ng ver y l i t t l e wor k and usual l y ar e t hr o t t l ed back.
If an engi ne f ai l s, i t woul d nor mal l y be wi nd-mi l l ed t o mi ni mi se ' par asi t i c'
dr ag but , even t hen, i t st i l l of f er s a consi der abl e r esi st ance and, of cour se,
pr oduces an i n-bal ance whi ch has t o b e of f set by t he r udd er and ot her
cont r ol l abl e sur f aces al l of whi ch means t he f unct i onal engi ne has t o w or k
consi der abl y har der t hus i ncr easi ng i t s pr obabi l i t y of f ai l ur e.
If t he ai r cr af t onl y had one engi n e and i t f ai l ed, t h e pr obabi l i t y of l andi ng
saf el y wi t h no en gi nes i s not ver y hi gh, at l east , f or f ast mi l i t ar y j et s. In
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 116
most cases ul t i mat el y, i f t he engi ne cannot be r e-l i t , t he onl y opt i on i s t o
ej ect af t er di r ect i ng t he ai r cr af t away f r o m i nhabi t ed ar eas, i f t her e i s t i me.
Wi t h commer ci al ai r l i nes, nei t her t h e pi l ot , t he cr ew nor t h e passenger s
have t he op t i on of ej ect i ng or bal i ng o ut i f t he ai r cr af t suf f er s a t ot al engi ne
f ai l ur e (i .e. al l engines f ai l ). These ai r cr af t w i l l gli de, t o a cer t ai n ext end b ut ,
wi t h no power , none of t h e i nst r ument s wi l l f unct i on and, t her e wi l l be no
pow er assi st ance f or t he cont r ol sur f aces or t o depl oy t he l andi ng gear . For
t hi s r eason, t hey ar e f i t t ed wi t h wi nd t ur bi nes t hat shoul d dr op down and
st ar t f unct i oni ng i f t her e i s pr ol onged l oss of power . Thi s gi ves t he pi l ot s
some cont r ol , but even t hen, l ar ge ai r l i ner s ar e not goi ng t o r i se on a
t her mal , how ever go od t he pi l ot may be.
A Boei ng 767, on one of i t s f i r st f l i ght s, had a t ot al engi ne f ai l ur e some
1500 mi l es f r om i t s i nt end ed dest i nat i on, Ont ar i o. Al l at t empt s t o r e-l i ght
t he engi nes f ai l ed si mpl y because i t had r un out of f u el . Th er e was a t o t al
bl ackout i n t he cockpi t and, even when t h e co-pi l ot managed t o f i nd a t or ch
(f l ashl i ght s) al l t hi s showed was t hat none of t he i nst r ument s wer e wor ki ng
(bei ng al l di gi t al and comput er cont r ol l ed). The pi l ot , by pur e chance,
happened t o be an ext r emel y accompl i shed gl i der pi l ot and, agai n by pur e
chance, t he co-pi l ot happened t o be par t i cul ar l y f ami l i ar wi t h t hi s par t of
Canada, some 200 mi l es out si d e Wi nni peg. For sever al mi nut es t he pi l ot
manhandl ed t he cont r ol s and managed t o st op t he ai r cr af t f r om l oosi ng
hei ght t oo qui ckl y. Event ual l y t he wi nd t ur bi ne depl o yed whi ch gave t hem
enough pow er f or t he i nst r ument s, r adi o and pow er assi st ed cont r ol s t o
wor k agai n. Unf or t unat el y t he ai r cr af t had l ost t o o much hei ght t o r each
Wi nni peg but , i t had j ust enough t o get t o an ex- mi l i t ar y r unw ay (used as a
st r i p f or dr ag r aci ng). Ther e was j ust enough power t o l ock t he mai n
under car r i age dow n, but not t h e nose w heel . Th e Gi ml i Gl i der as i t became
know n, l anded saf el y w i t h no ser i ous casual t i es. But , out of el even ot her
pi l ot s, w ho l at er t r i ed t o l and t h e ai r cr af t i n t he same ci r cumst ances on a
f l i ght si mul at or al l cr ashed. Had i t not been f or t he ' r edundant ' wi nd
t ur bi ne, i t i s al most cer t ai n even t hi s exper i enced gl i der pi l ot woul d have
cr ashed ki l l i ng al l on boar d.
If t he Bo ei ng 777, say, was f i t t ed wi t h t hr ee or f our Rol l s- Ro yce Tr ent
800s, Pr at t & Whi t ney 4084s or Gener al El ect r i c GE 90' s (i nst ead of t he t wo
i t cur r ent l y has) t hen t her e woul d be t r u e r edundan cy si nce i t needs onl y
t w o t o achi eve ETOPS (Ext ended Twi n-engi ne Oper at i ons). Ther e ar e,
however , a nu mber of pr obl ems wi t h t hi s desi gn. Fi r st l y, i t woul d add ver y
si gni f i cant l y t o bot h wei ght and dr ag, t o t he poi nt wher e i t woul d ser i ousl y
r educe t h e payl oad and r ange, pr obabl y maki ng t h e ai r cr af t unecono mi cal
t o oper at e and hence undesi r abl e t o t he ai r l i nes. Secondl y such an i ncr ease
i n wei ght and dr ag woul d pr obabl y mean t he nor mal t wo engi nes woul d
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 117
pr ovi de i nsuf f i ci ent t hr ust t her ef or e ei t h er mor e power f ul en gi nes woul d
be n eeded or , t h e ext r a engi nes w oul d h ave t o be used r ender i ng t hem no
l onger t r ul y r edun dant .
On t he Bo ei ng 767, f or exampl e, t he IFSD (In Fl i ght Shut Down) r at e
af t er 10 mi l l i on hour s w as l ess t han 0.02 per t housand f l yi ng hour s (t he
st andar d measur e i n t he aer ospace i ndust r y). And, none of t hese had l ed
t o t he l oss of a si ngl e l i f e, l et al on e an ai r cr af t w i t h i t s f ul l compl ement of
passenger s and cr ew. It i s qui t e l i kel y t hat , i n some of t he i nst ances, f l i ght s
woul d have been di ver t ed f r om t h ei r schedul ed d est i nat i ons t o al t er nat i ves,
f or saf et y r easons. Th e i nconveni en ce t o passenger s (and ai r l i nes) woul d
have cost t he ai r l i ne but , t he amount woul d, al most cer t ai nl y, have been
si gni f i cant l y l ess t han t he l oss of r evenue r esul t i n g f r om t h e r educed
payl oad had t r ul y r edundant engi nes been f i t t ed.
In many cases, t he r edu ndant i t ems may not be f unct i oni ng si mul t aneousl y
as i n t he case of par al l el or r -out -of -n conf i gur at i ons. The r edundant i t ems
wi l l be t ur ned on onl y when t he mai n i t em f ai l s. In some cases, t he i t ems
may b e f unct i oni ng si mul t aneousl y but one of t hem may be shar i ng much
hi gher l oad compar ed t o t h e ot her . Such t yp es of syst ems ar e cal l ed
st andby r edundant syst ems. Whenever t he mai n i t em f ai l s, a bui l t -i n swi t ch
senses t h e f ai l ur e and swi t ches on t he f i r st st andb y i t em. It i s i mpor t an t
t hat t he sw i t ch has t o mai nt ai n i t s f unct ion. Fai l ur e of t he sw i t ch can cause
t he syst em f ai l ur e. The st andb y r edundant syst ems ar e nor mal l y cl assi f i ed
as col d st andby, w ar m st andby and hot st andby.
Col d St andby Syst em
In a col d st andby, t he r edundant par t of t he syst em i s swi t ched on onl y
when t he mai n par t f ai l s. For exampl e, t o meet t h e const ant l y changi ng
demand f or el ect r i ci t y f r om t he ' Nat i onal Gr i d' i t i s necessar y t o keep a
number of st eam t ur bi nes r eady t o come on st r eam w h en ever t h er e i s a
sur ge i n demand. Th e f ai l ur e of a gener at or woul d r esul t i n i nst ant aneous
r educt i on i n capaci t y, whi ch woul d be r ect i f i ed by br i ngi ng one of t hese
' r edundant ' t ur bi nes up t o f ul l power . I n t he event of a power cut t o a
hospi t al , bat t er i es may swi t ch i n i nst ant l y t o pr ovi de emer gen cy l i ght i ng
and keep emer gency equi pment , e. g. r espi r at or s and moni t or s r unni n g.
Pet r ol and di esel gen er at or s woul d t hen be st ar t ed up t o r el i eve t he
bat t er i es and pr ovi de addi t i onal pow er .
In a col d st andby syst em, a r edundant i t em i s swi t ched on onl y when t he
oper at i ng i t em f ai l s. That i s, i ni t i al l y one i t em wi l l be oper at i ng and wh en
t hi s i t em f ai l s, one i t em f r om t he r edundan t i t ems w i l l be sw i t ched on t o
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 118
mai nt ai n t he f unct i on. In a col d st andby, t he hazar d f unct i on of t he i t em i n
st andby mode i s zer o.
Fi gur e 4.10 Col d st andby r edundan t syst em
Consi der a col d st andby syst em wi t h t wo i dent i cal i t ems (see Fi gur e 4.10).
The r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of t hi s syst em can b e der i ved as f ol l ow s (assumi ng
t hat t he swi t ch i s per f ect ):
R
S
(t ) = P{The mai n i t em sur vi ves up t o t i me t }
+ P{ Th e mai n i t em f ai l s at t i me u ( u < t ) and t he st andby
i t ems sur vi ves t he r emai ni ng i nt er val ( t - u ) }
Thus,
du u t R u f t R t R
t
S ∫
− + ·
0
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( (4.28)
wher e f (t ) i s t he pr obabi l i t y densi t y f un ct i on of t i me-t o-f ai l ur e r andom
var i abl e.
As an exampl e consi d er a col d st andb y syst em wi t h t wo i t ems wher e t he
t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on i s exponent i al w i t h par amet er λ. Usi ng t he
equat i on (4.29) t he expr essi on f or r el i abil i t y f unct i on i s gi ven by:
] 1 )[ exp( ) exp( ) exp(
)) ( exp( ) exp( ) exp( ) (
0
t t t t t
du u t u t t R
t
S
λ λ λ λ λ
λ λ λ λ
+ − · − + − ·
− − × − + − ·

For a col d st andby syst em wi t h n i dent i cal i t ems wi t h exponent i al t i me-t o-
f ai l ur e di st r i but i on, t he expr essi on f or r el i abi l i t y f unct ion i s gi ven by:
1
2
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 119


·
− ·
1
0
!
) (
) exp( ) (
n
i
i
S
i
t
t t R
λ
λ (4.29)
The equat i on (4.30) i s t h e cu mul at i ve di st r i but i on of Poi sson di st r i but i on
wi t h mean λt . One can al so der i ve t h e expr essi on f or non-i dent i cal st andb y
uni t s usi ng t he ar gu ment s pr esent ed i n equat i on (4.29). For a col d-st andby
syst em wi t h non-i dent i cal i t ems, t he syst em r el i abi l i t y f unct i on i s gi ven by:
dx x t R x f t R R
t
s ∫
− + ·
0
2 1 1
) ( ) ( ) ( (4.30)
Wh er e R
1
(t ) and f
1
(t ) ar e t he r el i abi li t y f unct i on and f ai l ur e densi t y f unct i on
of it em 1 and R
2
(t ) i s t he r el i abi li t y f unct i on of i t em 2. Assume t hat t he
t i me-t o-f ai l ur e i t ems 1 and 2 can be model l ed usi ng exponent i al
di st r i but i on wi t h mean (1/ λ
1
) and (1/ λ
2
) r espect i vel y. Usi ng equat i on
(4.31), t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of col d-st andby syst em wi t h non-i dent i cal
i t ems i s wi t h exponent i al f ai l ur e t i me i s gi ven by:

− − × − + − ·
t
s
dx x t x t t R
0
2 1 1 1
)) ( exp( ) exp( ) exp( ) ( λ λ λ λ
)] exp( ) [exp( ) ( exp( ) (
1 2
2 1
1
1
t t t t R
s
λ λ
λ λ
λ
λ − − −

+ − ·
The M TTF of a col d-st andby syst em can be eval uat ed by i nt egr at i n g t he
r el i abi l i t y f unct i on b et w een 0 and ∞. Th e M TTF of a col d-st andby syst em
wi t h n i dent i cal uni t s wi t h exponen t i al f ai l ur e t i me i s gi ven by:
λ
n
MTTF · (4.31)
Equat i on (4.31) can be easi l y der i ved f r om equat i on (4.30). For t he non-
i dent i cal M TTF i s gi ven by:
∑ ·
·
n
i
i
s
MTTF
1
1
λ
(4.31a)
Warm St andby Syst em
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 120
In a w ar m st andby syst em, t h e r ed undant i t em w i l l be shar i ng par t i al l oad
al ong w i t h t h e mai n i t em. Thus, i n a w ar m st andb y, t he hazar d f unct i on of
t he st andb y i t em wi l l be l ess t han t hat of t he mai n i t em.
That i s, a st andby syst em can det er i or at e even when i t i s not i n use.
Consi der a syst em wi t h t wo war m st andby i t ems. Assume t hat R(t ) and
R t
s
( ) r epr esent t he r el i abi l i t y of t he i t em i n oper at i ng mode and st and by
mod e r espect i vel y. Now t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of t he syst em can be w r i t t en
as:
du x t R x R x f t R t R
t
s
S ∫
− × × + ·
0
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( (4.32)
For a par t i cul ar case wher e ) exp( ) ( t t R λ − · and ) exp( ) ( t t R
s
s
λ − · t he
r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of a war m st andby syst em i s gi ven by:
)) exp( 1 (
) exp(
) exp(
)) ( exp( ) exp( ) exp( ) exp( ) (
0
t
t
t
du u t u u t t R
s
s
t
s S
λ
λ
λ λ
λ
λ λ λ λ λ
− −

+ − ·
− − × − × − + − ·

Hot St andby Syst em
In a hot st andby, t he mai n i t em and t he st and by i t em wi ll be shar i n g equal
l oad, and hence wi l l have t he same hazar d r at e. Thus, a hot st andby can be
t r eat ed as a par all el syst em t o d er i ve r el i abi l i t y expr essi ons. If h
o
(t ) and h
s
(t )
r epr esen t t he hazar d r at e of a oper at i ng and st andby i t em r espect i vel y.
The Tabl e 4.6 gi ves t h e var i ous r edundanci es and t he pr oper t i es of hazar d
r at e.
Tabl e 4.6 Types of st andby r edundancy and t he cor r espondi ng pr oper t i es of
hazar d r at e
Type of Redundancy Pr op er t i es of hazar d r at e
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 121
Col d St andby h
S
(t ) = 0
War m St andb y h
O
(t ) > h
S
(t )
Hot St andby h
O
(t ) = h
S
(t )
4.26. COMPLEX RELIABILITYBLOCK DIAGRAMS
In many cases, t he r el i abi l i t y bl ock di agr am w i l l have co mpl ex
combi nat i ons of ser i es and par al l el b l ocks. In such cases, one has t o r educe
t he bl ock t o ei t her a ser i es st r uct ur e or a par al l el st r uct ur e b ef or e one can
pr edi ct t he r el i abi l i t y char act er i st i cs of t he syst em. Red uci ng a co mpl ex
r el i abi l i t y st r uct ur e wi l l i nvol ve t he f ol l owi ng st eps:
1. Replace all purely series (parallel) with an equivalent (reliability wise)
single block.
2. Repeat step 1 up till the RBD reduces to either a series or parallel
structure.
3. Compute the reliability of resulting RBD.
For exampl e, consi der t he RBD shown i n Fi gur e 4. 11.
Figure 4.11 Reliability block diagram with combination of series-parallel
structures
The t i me-t o-f ai l ur e of t he si x i t ems wi t hi n t he syst em shown i n Fi gur e 4.11
ar e show n i n Tabl e 4.7.
Tabl e 4.7. Ti me-t o -f ai l u re o f i t ems show n in Fi gur e 4.12
It em Di st r i but i on wi t h par amet er val ues
2 3
4
5
6
1
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 122
1 Wei bul l , η = 450 hour s, β = 2.4
2 Lognor mal µ
l
= 4.5, σ
l
= 0.75
3 Wei bul l , η = 890 hour s, β = 1. 75
4 Exponent i al , λ = 0.001
5 Nor mal µ = 800, σ = 120
6 Exponen t ial , λ = 0. 00125
The r el i abi l i t y bl o ck di agr am shown i n Fi gur e 4.11 can be eval uat ed usi ng
t he t hr ee st eps expl ai ned above. The RBD i n Fi gur e 4. 11 can be r epl aced by
a ser i es st r uct ur e w i t h t hr ee bl ocks as show n i n Fi gur e 4. 11a.
Fi gur e 4.11a Rel i abi l i t y bl ock di agr am equi val ent t o Fi gur e 4.11
Fi gur e 4.11b RBD equi val ent t o bl ock B i n Fi gur e 4. 11
The bl ock A i s same as i t em 1, wher e bl ock B i s equi val ent t o t h e RBD
shown i n Fi gur e 4.11b.
The bl ock B i s equi val ent t o RBD shown i n Fi gur e 4.12.c.
A
B C
2 3
4
4
5
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 123
Fi gur e 4.11c. RBD equi val ent t o bl ock C i n Fi gur e 4.11
The expr essi on f or r el i abi l i t y f unct i on of t he syst em i n Fi gur e 4.11 i s gi ven
by:
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( t R t R t R t R
C B A s
× × ·
wher e
) ( ) (
1
t R t R
A
·
))] ( 1 ( )) ( ) ( 1 ( 1 [ 1 ) (
4 3 2
t R t R t R t R
B
− × × − − − ·
))] ( 1 ( )) ( 1 ( 1 [ 1 ) (
6 5
t R t R t R
C
− × − − − ·
For some syst ems, t he r el i abi l i t y bl ock di agr am may have mor e compl ex
conf i gur at i on t han t he ser i es/ par al l el st r uct ur e as di scussed so f ar . The
w el l -know n ‘ Wheat st one Br i dge’ (see Fi gur e 4.12) i s an exampl e of such
conf i gur at i on. To f i nd t he r el i abi l i t y of such syst ems one may have t o use
speci al t ool s such as cut -set , pat h-set , enumer at i on or t he condi t i onal
pr obabi l i t y appr oach. I n t hi s Sect i on w e i l l ust r at e t he cut -set appr oach f or
eval uat i n g r el i abi l i t y of compl ex st r uct ur es.
4.27. CUT SET APPROACH FOR RELIABILITY
EVALUATION
Cut -set appr oach i s one of t he most popul ar and wi del y used met hods f or
pr edi ct i ng r el i abi l i t y of compl ex st r uct ur e. The mai n advant age of cut -set
appr oach i s t hat i t i s easy t o pr ogr am and most of t h e commer ci al sof t war e
f or r el i abi l i t y pr edi ct i on use cut -set appr oach t o eval uat e t h e r el i abi l i t y of
compl ex st r uct ur es. A cut -set i s def i ned as t he set of i t ems t hat , when
f ai l ed, wi l l cause t he syst em f ai l ure. A cut -set wi t h mi ni mum number of
i t ems i s cal l ed mi ni mal cut set . That i s i f any i t em of t he mi ni mal cut set
has not f ai l ed, t hen t he syst em w i l l not f ai l . M at hemat i cal l y, i f t he set Ci s a
cut set of t he syst em. Then, t he set C w i ll be a mi ni mal cut set i f f or all c
i

C, C - c
i
i s not a cut set . Her e C - c
i
r epr esent s t he set C w i t hout t he
el ement c
i
. The cut set appr oach t o r el i abi l i t y pr edi ct i on i nvol ves
i dent i f yi ng al l t he mi ni mal cut set s of t he syst em.
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 124
Fi gu r e 4.12 Br i d ge net w or k
In Fi gur e 4.12, t he set of i t ems C = { 1, 2, 3} f or ms a cut set , si nce t he f ail ur e
of t h e i t ems 1, 2 and 3 w i l l cause syst em f ai l ur e. How ever , t h e set C = {1, 2,
3} i s not a mi ni mal - cut set si nce C - 3 = {1, 2} st i l l f orms a cut set . For t he
st r uct ur e show n i n Fi gur e 4. 12, t he mi ni mal cut set s ar e gi ven by:
C
1
= {1, 2}, C
2
= {1, 3, 5}, C
3
= {2, 3, 4} and C
4
= {4, 5}
Si nce al l t he el ement s of t he mi ni mal cut set shoul d f ai l t o cause t he syst em
f ai l ur e, each cut set can be consi der ed as a par al l el conf i gur at i on. Thus, t he
cut set s C
1
, C
2
, C
3
and C
4
r epr esent t h e f ol l owi ng st r uct ur es show n i n Fi gur e
4.13.
Fi gur e 4. 13. Equi val ent RBD f or mi ni mal cut set s of t he syst em show n i n
Fi gur e 4.12
Si nce t he syst em wi l l f ai l when at l east one mi ni mal cut set s f ai l , t he
r el i abi li t y f unct i on of t he syst em can be wr i t t en as:
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
5
3
2
3
4
4
5
C
1
=
C
C
2
= C
4
=
C
3
=
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 125
R
S
(t ) = RC
1
(t ) × RC
2
(t ) × RC
3
(t ) × RC
4
(t )
(4.33)
wher e RC
1
(t ), RC
2
(t ), RC
3
(t ) and RC
4
(t ) ar e t he r el iabi l i t y f unct i on of t he
st r uct ur es r epr esent ed b y t he cu t set s C
1
, C
2
, C
3
and C
4
r espect i vel y. If R
i
(t )
denot e t h e f ai l ur e f unct i on of t he i t ems 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, t hen we have:
) ( ) ( 1 ) ( ), ( ) ( ) ( 1 ) (
) ( ) ( ) ( 1 ) ( ), ( ) ( 1 ) (
5 4 4 4 3 2 3
5 3 1 2 2 1 1
t F t F t RC t F t F t F t RC
t F t F t F t RC t F t F t RC
− · − ·
− · − ·
Subst i t ut i ng t he above expr essi ons i n equat i on (4.34), we get t he f ai l ur e
f unct i on f or t he compl ex st r uct ur e shown i n Fi gur e 4.12.
In gener al , cut set appr oach i nvol ves t he f ol l ow i ng st eps:
1. Identify all the minimal cut sets of the system.
2. Since all the elements of the minimal cut set should fail to cause the
system failure, each cut set can be treated as a parallel configuration.
3. Since failure of any one minimal cut set can cause system failure,
different minimal cut sets can be treated as a series configuration.
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 126
4.
4.28. CASE STUDY ON AIRCRAFT ENGINES
Ai r cr af t engi ne i s one of t he most cr i t i cal i t ems used i n t oday’ s avi at i on
i ndust r y. In t hi s sect i on, w e t r y t o addr ess sever al r el i abi l i t y measur es one
may l i ke t o know about an engi n e. Ther e ar e t o t al l y el even i t ems i ncl udi ng
t he ext er nal gear box, oi l t ank and f i l t er . Th e t i me-t o-f ai l ur e of t hese i t ems
ar e gi ven i n Tabl e 4.8.
Tabl e 4.8. Ti me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of var i ous i t ems of t he engi ne
I t em
no.
It em Di st r i but i on Par amet er Val ues
01 LP compr essor Wei bul l η = 15 000, β = 3
02 LP st age 2 st at or Wei bul l η = 5 000, β = 2. 8
03 Int er medi at e
casi ng
Wei bul l η = 11 000, β = 3
04 HP compr essor Wei bul l η = 12 000, β = 3.5
05 HP NGV Wei bul l η = 8 000, β = 3
06 HP t ur bi ne Wei bul l η = 25 000, β = 4
07 LP NGV Wei bul l η = 7 000, β = 2. 2
08 LP t ur bi ne Wei bul l η = 20 000, β = 2.8
09 Exhaust mi xer Wei bul l η = 7 000, β = 3
10 Ext er nal gear box Wei bul l η = 6 500, β = 3
11 Oi l t ank and f i l t er Wei bul l η = 5 000, β = 3. 8
We ar e i nt er est ed i n car r yi ng out t he f ol l ow i ng t asks
1. Dr aw t he r el i abi l i t y bl ock di agr am of t he engi ne.
2. Fi nd r el i abi li t y of t he engi ne f or 3000 hour s of oper at i on.
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 127
3. Fi nd t he hazar d r at e of t he engi n e at t = 3000 and t = 7000 hour s.
4. Fi nd t he M TTF of di f f er ent i t ems of t he engi ne and est i mat e t he M TTF of
t he engi ne f r o m t he M TTF val u es of t he i t ems.
5. Fi nd t he M TTF of t h e engi ne i f al l t he i t ems ar e subj ect t o pr event i ve
mai nt enance af t er ever y 1000 hour s of op er at i on (assume t hat af t er
mai nt enance al l t he i t ems behave as good as new).
6. For an engi n e of age 5000 hour s, f i nd t he mi ssi on r el i abi l i t y f or 1000
hour s of oper at i on.
7. Fi nd t he M FOPS of t he engi ne f or 500 hour s of oper at i on f or di f f er en t
cycl es.
SOLUTION:
1. Si nce al l t h e i t em of t he engi ne must mai nt ai n t hei r f unct i on, t he syst em
w i l l have a ser i es conf i gur at i on as show n bel ow :
Fi gur e 4.14 Rel i abi l i t y bl ock di agr am of t he engi ne
2. Si nce al l t he i t ems of t h e syst em f ol l ow Wei bul l di st r i but i on, t he
r el i abi l i t y f unct i on f or each of t hese i t ems i s gi ven by:
) ) ( exp( ) (
β
η
t
t R − ·
Subst i t ut i ng t he val ues of η and β f or var i ous i t ems i n t he above equat i on,
t he r el i abi l i t y of var i ous i t ems f or 3000 hour s of oper at i on i s gi ven by:
1. Rel i abi l i t y of LP compr essor f or 3000 hour s of oper at i on i s gi ven by:
LP compressor
LP stage 2
stator
Intermediate
casing
HP compressor
HP NGV HP turbine LP NGV
LP Turbine
Exhaust mixer
External
gearbox
Oil tank and
filter
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 128
9920 . 0 ) )
15000
3000
( exp( ) 3000 (
3
1
· − · R
2. Rel i abi l i t y of LP st age 2 st at or f or 3000 hour s of oper at i on i s gi ven by:
7872 . 0 ) )
5000
3000
( exp( ) 3000 (
8 . 2
2
· − · R
3. Rel i abi l i t y of i nt er medi at e casi ng f or 3000 hour s of oper at i on i s gi ven by:
9799 . 0 ) )
11000
3000
( exp( ) 3000 (
3
3
· − · R
4. Rel i abi l i t y of HP compr essor f or 3000 hour s of oper at i on i s gi ven by:
9922 . 0 ) )
12000
3000
( exp( ) 3000 (
5 . 3
4
· − · R
5. Rel i abi l i t y of HP NGV f or 3000 hour s of oper at i on i s gi ven by:
9486 . 0 ) )
8000
3000
( exp( ) 3000 (
3
5
· − · R
6. Rel i abi l i t y of HP t ur bi ne f or 3000 hour s of oper at i on i s gi ven by:
9997 . 0 ) )
25000
3000
( exp( ) 3000 (
4
6
· − · R
7. Rel i abi l i t y of LP NGV f or 3000 hour s of oper at i on i s gi ven by:
8563 . 0 ) )
7000
3000
( exp( ) 3000 (
2 . 2
7
· − · R
8. Rel i abi l i t y of LP t ur bi n e f or 3000 hour s of oper at i on i s gi ven by:
9950 . 0 ) )
20000
3000
( exp( ) 3000 (
8 . 2
8
· − · R
9. Rel i abi l i t y of exhaust mi xer f or 3000 hour s of oper at i on i s gi ven by:
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 129
9243 . 0 ) )
7000
3000
( exp( ) 3000 (
3
9
· − · R
10. Rel i abi l i t y of ext er nal gear box f or 3000 hour s of oper at i on i s gi ven by:
9063 . 0 ) )
6500
3000
( exp( ) 3000 (
3
10
· − · R
11. Rel i abi l i t y of oi l t ank and f il t er f or 3000 hour s of oper at i on i s gi ven by:
8662 . 0 ) )
5000
3000
( exp( ) 3000 (
8 . 3
11
· − · R
Usi ng t he above val u es of i ndi vi dual r el i abi l i t i es, t he r el i abil i t y of t he syst em
i s gi ven by
4451 . 0 ) 3000 ( ) 3000 (
11
1
· ·

· i
i S
R R
Fi gur e 4. 15 hazar d f unct i on f or t he engi ne.
3. Hazar d f unct i on of t he syst em.
Si nce al l t he i t ems of t h e syst em f ol l ow Wei bul l t i me-t o-f ai l ur e, t he hazar d
f unct i on i s gi ven by:
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
1
9
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Time
H
a
z
a
r
d

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 130
1
) )( ( ) (

·
β
η η
β t
t h
The syst em hazar d f unct i on i s gi ven by:

·
·
11
1
) ( ) (
i
i S
t h t h
It i s easy t o ver i f y t hat t he hazar d f unct i on of t h e syst em at t = 3000 and t =
7000 i s gi ven by:
000791 . 0 ) 3000 ( ·
S
h and 004796 . 0 ) 7000 ( ·
S
h
Fi gur e 4.15 depi ct s t h e hazar d f unct i on f or t he engi ne.
4. The expr essi on f or M TTF i s gi ven by:
)
1
1 (
β
η + Γ × · MTTF
By subst i t ut i ng t h e val ues of η and β, one can f i nd t he M TTF of di f f er en t
i t ems. Tabl e 4.9 gi ves t h e M TTF of di f f er ent i t ems.
Tabl e 4.9 M TTF of di f f er ent i t em of t he engi n e
It em M TTF (i n hour s)
LP com pr essor 13 395
LP st age 2 st at or 4 450
Int er medi at e casi ng 9 823
HP compr essor 10 800
HP NGV 7 144
HP t ur bi ne 22 650
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 131
LP NGV 6 202
LP t ur bi ne 17 800
Exhaust mi xer 6 251
Ext er nal gear box 5 804
Oi l t ank and fi l t er 4 525
Si nce t h e l owest M TTF i s 4 450 (LP st age 2 st at or ), t he M TTF of engi ne wi l l
be l ess t han 4 450.
5. M ean t i me t o f ai l ur e of a syst em subj ect t o pr event i ve mai nt enance i s
gi ven by:
) ( 1
) (
0
P S
T
S
pm
T R
dt t R
MTTF
P

·

It i s gi ven t hat t he engi ne i s subj ect t o pr even t i ve mai nt enan ce ever y 1000
hour s of oper at i on. Thus, T
P
= 1000 ho ur s. Th e above expr essi on can be
eval uat ed usi ng numer i cal i nt egr at i on. The appr oxi mat e val ues of M TTF
p m
i s:
075 , 27
0369 . 0
06 . 999
) 1000 ( 1
) (
1000
0
≈ ≈

·

S
S
pm
R
dt t R
MTTF
6. The mi ssi on r el i abi l i t y of t he engi n e i s gi ven by:
) (
) , (
) , (
b
m b
m b
t R
t t R
t t MR ·
wher e t
b
i s t he age of t he i t em at t he begi nni ng of t he mi ssi on and t
m
i s t he
mi ssi on dur at i on. Subst i t ut i ng t
b
= 5000 and t
m
= 1000, w e have
4. Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y 132
0548 . 0
02369 . 0
0013 . 0
) 5000 (
) 6000 (
) 5000 (
) 1000 5000 (
) , (
11
1
11
1
· · ·
+
·


·
·
i
i
i
i
m b
R
R
R
R
t t MR
7. The mai nt enance f r ee oper at i ng per i od sur vi vabi l i t y, M FOPS, f or t he
engi n e descr i b ed i s gi ven by:


·
·
× −
×
·
× −
×
·
11
1
11
1
) ] 1 ([
) (
) ] 1 ([
) (
) (
i
mf i
i
mf i
mf S
mf S
mf
t i R
t i R
t i R
t i R
t MFOPS
The abo ve equat i on can be eval uat ed f or t
mf
= 500 and f or i = 1, 2, ... et c.
Fi gur e 4.16 shows t he M FOPS val ues f or di f f er ent cycl es (not e t hat t h ese
val ues ar e der i ved wi t hout consi der i ng mai nt enan ce r eco ver y per i od M RP).
Fi gur e 4. 16 M FOPS val u e f or di f f er ent cycl es f or t he engi ne
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
Cycle number
M
F
O
P
S
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 133
Chapter 5
Maintainability and Maintenance
M ai nt enance i s t he management of f ai l ur es and
t he assur ance of avai l abi l i t y
J Hessbur g
M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and mai nt enance has al w ays been i mpor t ant t o t he i ndust r y
as i t af f ect s t h e p er f or mance as w el l as t he f i nance. For commer ci al
ai r l i nes, mai nt enance cost s ar ound 10% of t h e ai r l i nes t ot al cost , as much as
f uel and t r avel agent s' commi ssi on (M Lam, 1995). Oper at or s/ user s woul d
l i ke t hei r syst em t o be avai l abl e and saf e t o oper at e when r equi r ed. One
shoul d be l ucky t o f i nd a smi l i ng cust omer w hen t h e syst em f ai l s and i t
t akes a l ong t i me t o r ecover t he f unct i onal i t y.
Ther e ar e sever al ways t hat desi gner s can pr o vi de maxi mum ut i l i t y of t hei r
pr oduct . One w ay i s t o bui l d i t ems/ syst ems t hat ar e ext r emel y r el i abl e (and
consequen t l y wi l l , al most cer t ai nl y, have a hi gher acqui si t i on cost ). Anot her
i s t o desi gn syst ems t hat ar e qui ck and easy t o r epai r w hen t hey f ai l .
Obvi ousl y, t he mai n obj ect i ve of t he desi gn er i s t o p r ovi de a r el i abl e and
saf e i t em at an af f or dabl e pr i ce.
M ai nt enance i s t he act i on necessar y t o sust ai n and r est or e t he
per f or mance, r el i abi l i t y and saf et y of t he i t em. The mai n obj ect i ve of
mai nt enance i s t o assur e t he avai l abi l i t y of t he syst em f or use w hen
r equi r ed. For ai r cr af t , mai nt enance f or ms an essent i al par t of
ai r wor t hi ness. The common o bj ect i ve of ai r cr af t mai nt enan ce, ci vi l or
mi l i t ar y, i s t o pr ovi de a f ul l y ser vi ceabl e ai r cr af t when i t i s r equi r ed by t he
oper at or at mi ni mum cost (Knot t s, 1996). However , mai nt enance cost s
money. Th e annual mai nt enance cost of pr odu ct i on asset s i n t h e Uni t ed
Ki ngdom i s est i mat ed i n excess of $13 bi l l i on, wi t h $2 bi l l i on wast ed
t hr ough i nef f i ci ent mai nt enance management pr act i ces (Knot t s, 1999).
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 134
M ai nt enance al so account s f or appr oxi mat el y 10% of t he or gani sat i ons’
empl o yees and at l east 10-15% of i t s oper at i ng cost s.
29. CONCEPT OF MAINTAINABILITY
In t he pr evi ous chapt er s, we showed t hat i t i s i mpor t ant f or t he
oper at or / user t o know t he r el i abi l i t y char act er i st i cs of t he i t em. We al so
r eco gni sed t hat i t i s al most i mpossi bl e f or any i t em t o mai nt ai n i t s f unct i on
f or ever , as f ai l ur e and t h e d egr adat i on of per f or mance i s i n evi t abl e. Thus,
f or t he user i t i s equal l y, or even mor e i mpor t ant t o know:
• When and how often maintenance tasks should be performed
• How they shoul d be performed
• How many people will be needed
• What skills they will need and how much training
• How much the restoration will cost
• How long the system wil l be down
• What facilities and equipment (special and general) will be required.
Al l t he above i nf or mat i on i s i mpor t an t as i t af f ect s t he avai l abi l i t y and t he
l i f e cycl e cost of t he syst em. One has t o appl y a sci ent i f i c di sci pli ne t o f i nd
answ er s t o t hese quest i ons.
M ai nt ai nabi l i t y i s t he sci ent i f i c di sci pl i ne t hat st udi es compl exi t y, f act or s
and r esour ces r el at ed t o t he mai nt enance t asks needed t o be per f or med by
t he user i n or der t o mai nt ai n t he f unct i onal i t y of a syst em, and w or ks out
met hods f or t hei r quant i f i cat i on, assessment , pr edi ct i on and i mpr ovement .
M ai nt ai nabi l i t y Engi neer i ng i s r api dl y gr owi ng i n i mpor t ance because i t
pr ovi des a ver y pow er f ul t ool t o engi neer s f or t h e quant i t at i ve descr i pt i on
of t he i nh er ent abi l i t y of t hei r syst em/ pr oduct t o b e r est or ed by p er f or mi ng
speci f i ed mai nt enance t asks. It al so cont r i but es t ow ar ds t he r edu ct i on of
mai nt enan ce cost s of a syst em dur i ng i t s ut i l i sat i on t o achi eve opt i mum l i f e
cycl e cost .
The mai nt ai nabi l i t y engi neer i ng f unct i on i nvol ves t he f or mul at i on of an
accept abl e combi n at i on of desi gn f eat ur es, w hi ch di r ect l y af f ect
mai nt enance and syst em suppor t r equi r ement s, r epai r pol i ci es, and
mai nt enance r esour ces. Some physi cal desi gn f eat ur es such as accessi bi l i t y,
vi si bil i t y, t est abi l i t y, compl exi t y and i nt er changeabi l i t y af f ect t h e sp eed and
ease wi t h whi ch mai nt enance can be per f or med.
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 135
M ai nt ai nabi l i t y st udi es have t he f ol l owi ng obj ect i ves (R Knot t s 1996):
To guide and direct design decisions
To predict quantitative maintainability characteristics of a system
To identify changes to a system's design needed to meet operational
requirements
In t he t echni cal l i t er at ur e, sever al def i ni t i ons f or mai nt ai nabil i t y can be
f ound. For exampl e, t he US Depar t men t of Def ence' s M IL-STD-721C (1966)
def i nes mai nt ai nabi l i t y as:
The measur e of t he abi l i t y of an i t em t o be r et ai ned i n or r est or ed t o
speci f i ed condi t i on w hen mai nt enance i s per f or med by per sonnel
havi ng speci f i ed ski l l l evel s, usi ng pr escr i bed pr ocedur es and
r esour ces, at each pr escr i bed l evel of mai nt enance and r epai r.
M ain t ain ab ili t y can b e expr essed i n t er ms o f mai n t en an ce f r equency
f act o r s, mai n t en an ce el ap sed t i mes and mai nt enance cost .
M ain t ain ab ili t y t her ef or e i s an i nheren t desi gn char act er i st i c deal i ng
w i t h t he ease, accu r acy, saf et y, and econo my i n t he p er f or mance o f
mai nt en ance f un ct i ons. M ai n t ai nabi l i t y req ui r ement s ar e d ef i ned in
concept ual d esi gn as p ar t of syst em oper at i onal r equi r ement s and
t he mai nt en an ce concep t . Anon (1992) descr i b es mai nt ai nab i l it y as:
The char act er i st i c of mat eri al desi gn and i nst all at i on t hat
det er mi nes t he r equi r ement s f or mai nt enance expendi t ur es
i ncl udi ng t i me, manpow er , per sonnel ski l l , t est equi pment ,
t echni cal dat a and f aci li t i es t o accompl i sh oper at ional obj ect i ves i n
t he user' s oper at i onal envi r onment .
One of t he common mi sper cept i on s i s t hat mai nt ai nabi l i t y i s si mpl y t he
abi l i t y t o r each a co mponent t o per f or m t he r equi r ed mai nt enance t ask
(accessi bi l i t y). Of cour se, accessi bi l i t y i s one of t he mai n concer ns f or many
mai nt enance engi n eer s. Fi gur e 5.1 i l l ust r at es an accessi bi l i t y pr obl em i n
one of t he ol der t wi n-engi ne f i ght er ai r cr af t , Gl ost er Javel i n. Bef o r e an
en gi ne co uld be ch an ged, t h e j et pi pe h ad t o be di scon nect ed and
r emoved. To r emove t he j et pi p e i t w as necessar y f or a t echni ci an t o
gai n access t h ro ugh a hat ch and t hen b e su sp en ded upsi d e d own t o
r each t he cl amps and pi p es whi ch had t o b e di sconn ect ed. The job
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 136
coul d on l y be achi eved b y t ou ch; t he i t ems wer e o ut si d e of t he
t ech ni ci an’ s f i el d of vi ew . The t echn i ci an h ad t o w or k hi s w ay down
bet w een t he engi ne an d t he ai r cr af t ’ s ski n, wi t h t ool s i n hi s h an d. For
saf et y r eason s, he was h el d by hi s ankl es, as shown i n f i gur e 5.1
(sou r ce: R Kn ot t s).
However , t her e ar e many ot her asp ect s t o be co nsi der ed ot her t han
accessi bi l i t y. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y shoul d al so consi der f act or s such as vi si bi l i t y,
t hat i s t he abi l i t y t o see a comp onent t hat r equi r es mai nt enance act i on,
t est abi l i t y (abi l i t y t o det ect syst em f aul t s and f aul t i sol at i on), si mpli cit y and
i nt er changeabi l i t y. Addi t i onal l y deci si on-maker s have t o be awar e of t he
envi r onment i n whi ch mai nt ai ner s oper at e. It i s much easi er t o mai nt ai n
an i t em on t he b ench, t han at t he ai r por t gat e, i n a war , amongst busy
mor ni ng t r af f i c, or i n any ot her r esul t -or i ent ed and schedul e-dr i ven
envi r onment .
Fi gur e 5.1 Accessi bi l i t y concer n i n t he Javel i n f i ght er ai r cr af t
Anot her ar ea t o be consi der ed under mai nt ai nabi l i t y i s t r oubl eshoot i ng t he
var i ous modul es wi t hi n t he al l owed t i me, i . e. det er mi ni ng whet her t he
syst em i s saf e t o oper at e and, i f not , w hat act i on i s needed. For t he
commer ci al ai r l i nes, t her e i s usual l y l ess t han an hou r at t he gat e pr i or t o
t he ai r cr af t ’ s depar t ur e t o t he next dest i nat i on, w her eas f or a r aci ng car or
weapon syst em ever y second coul d be vi t al .
To meet t hese r equi r ement s, an easi l y manageabl e d evi ce i s needed w hi ch
can di agnose wi t h a hi gh degr ee of accur acy, whi ch modul es wi t hi n t he
syst em ar e at f aul t . It i s now wi del y accept ed t hat f al se r emoval s (of t en
r ef er r ed t o as No Faul t Found – NFF) cost about t he same as an act ual
f ai l ur e when t he comp onent under i nvest i gat i on i s r emoved and r epl aced.
Access Hatch
to Disconnect Jet Pipe
Items for
Disconnection
Access Hatch
to Disconnect Jet Pipe
Aircraft
Skin
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 137
Reduci ng t he nu mb er of f al se r emoval s, t her ef or e, w oul d be a bi g cost
saver .
Devi ces w i t h t hese capabi l i t i es have been devel oped i n t he aer ospace,
For mul a 1 r aci ng car and l uxur y car i ndust r i es. For exampl e, t he Boei ng 777
i ncl u des an ' on-boar d mai nt enance syst em' wi t h t h e obj ect i ve t o assi st t he
ai r l i nes t o avoi d exp ensi ve gat e d el ays and f l i ght cancel l at i ons. For si mi l ar
pur poses t he Fl i ght Cont r ol Di vi si on of t he Wr i ght Labor at or y i n t he USA has
devel oped a f aul t det ect i on/ i sol at i on syst em f or F-16 ai r cr af t , whi ch all ow s
mai nt ai n er s, novi ce as wel l as exper t , t o f i nd f ai l ed compon ent s.
I n t he n ext sect i on, we di scuss t he mai nt ai nabi l i t y measur es and how t hese
measur es can be used f or ef f ect i ve mai nt enance management .
30. MEASURES OF MAINTAINABILITY
It i s ext r emel y i mpor t an t f or t he user t o have i nf or mat i on abou t t he
f unct i onal i t y, cost , saf et y, and ot her char act er i st i cs of t he pr oduct under
consi der at i on at t he begi nni ng of i t s op er at i ng l i f e. How ever , i t i s equal l y,
or even mor e i mpor t ant t o have i nf or mat i on about t h e char act er i st i cs wi t h
w hi ch t o def i ne t he mai nt enance t i me. M easur es of mai nt ai nabi li t y ar e
r el at ed t o t h e ease and econom y of mai nt enance such as; el apsed t i me t hat
an i t em spends i n t he st at e of f ai l ur e, man-hour s r equi r ed compl et i ng a
mai nt enance t ask, f r equ ency of mai nt enan ce, and t he cost of mai nt enance.
As t he el apsed t i me has a si gni f i cant i nf l uence on t he avai l abi l i t y of t he
syst em, op er at or s w oul d l i ke t o know t he mai nt enance t i mes; not just t he
mean t i me but al so t he pr obabi l i t y t hat a mai n t enance t ask wi l l be
compl et ed wi t hi n a gi ven t i me. M ai nt enan ce el apsed t i mes ar e even
adver t i sed as a mar ket i ng st r at egy.
30.1 Maintenance Elapsed-Time
The l en gt h of t h e el apsed t i me, r equi r ed f or t he r est or at i on of f unct i onal i t y,
cal l ed t i me t o r est or e, i s l ar gel y d et er mi ned at an ear l y st age of t he d esi gn
phase. The mai nt enance el apsed t i me i s i nf l uenced by t he co mpl exi t y of t he
mai nt enance t ask, accessi bi l i t y of t he i t ems, saf et y of t he r est or at i on,
t est abi l i t y, physi cal l ocat i on of t he i t em, as w el l as t he d eci si ons r el at ed t o
t he r equi r ement s f or t h e mai nt enan ce suppor t r esour ces (f aci l i t i es, spar es,
t ool s, t r ai ned p er sonnel , et c). It i s t her ef or e a f unct i on of t he
mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y of t he syst em. It wi l l , of cour se, al so be
i nf l uenced by ot her f act or s dur i ng t he var i ous st ages of t he l i f e of t he
syst em but any bad deci si on made (ei t her expl i ci t l y or by def aul t ) dur i ng
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 138
t he desi gn st age w i l l b e cost l y t o r ect i f y at a l at er st age and w i l l si gni f i cant ly
af f ect bot h t he oper at i onal cost s and syst em avai l abi l i t y.
1. Personnel factors which represent the influence of the skill, motivation,
experience, attitude, physical ability, self-discipline, training,
responsibility and other similar characteristics related to the personnel
involved;
2. Conditional factors which represent the influence of the operating
environment and the consequences of failure with the physical condition,
geometry, and shape of the item under restoration;
3. Environmental factors which represent the influence of factors such as
temperature, humidity, noise, lighting, vibration, time of the day, time of
the year, wind, noise, and others such as those similar to the maintenance
personnel factors during restoration.
Thi s mai nt ai nabi l i t y measur e can be r epr esent ed usi ng t he pr obabi l i t y t hat
t he mai nt enance t ask consi d er ed wi l l be compl et ed by a st at ed t i me. Si nce
t he mai nt enan ce el apsed t i me i s a r ando m var i abl e, one can use t he
cumul at i ve di st r i but i on f unct i on of t he el apsed t i me t o f i nd t h e per cen t age
of mai nt enance t asks t hat wi l l be compl et ed wi t hi n a speci f i ed t i me.
Mean Ti me t o Repai r
One appr oach f or measur i ng mai nt ai nabi l i t y i s t hr ough M ean Ti me t o
Repai r (M TTR). M TTR i s t he expect ed val ue of t he i t em' s r epai r t i me. Wi t h
t he knowl ed ge of t h e r el i abi l i t y and mai nt ai nabi l i t y of t he sub-syst ems one
can eval uat e t he mai nt ai nabi l i t y of t he syst em, t hat i s, mean t i me t o r epai r
of t he syst em, M TTR
s
(Bi r ol i ni , 1994).
Assume t hat t he r el i abi l i t y bl ock di agr am of t he syst em has a ser i es
st r uct ur e wi t h n i t ems wi t h no r edundancy. Let M TTF
i
and M TTR
i
b e t he
mean t i me t o f ai l ur e and mean t i me t o r epai r of sub-syst em i i n t he syst em.
Consi der an ar bi t r ar i l y l ar ge oper at i ng t i me T. Assumi ng t hat t he f ai l ur e
r at e of t he uni t i s const an t , t he expect ed numb er o f f ai l ur es of uni t i i n
dur i ng T i s gi ven by:
i
MTTF
T
(5.1)
The mean of t ot al r epai r t i me t o r epai r uni t i duri ng T i s gi ven by:
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 139
i
i
MTTF
T
MTTR (5.2)
For t he whol e syst em, t he mean number of f ai l ur es i s gi ven by:

·
n
i i
MTTF
T
1
(5.3)
For t he whol e syst em, t he mean of t ot al r epai r t i me i s gi ven by:
∑ ×
·
n
i i
i
MTTF
T
MTTR
1
(5.4)
Combi ni ng equat i on (5.3) and (5.4), we get t h e mean t i me t o r epai r at t he
syst em l evel , M TTR
s
, as:


·
·
·
n
i i
n
i i
i
s
MTTF
MTTF
MTTR
MTTR
1
1
1
(5.5)
Assumi ng const ant f ai l ur e r at e, t hat i s,
i
i
MTTF
1
· λ and
∑ ·
·
n
i
i s
1
λ λ , equation (5.5) can be written as:
∑ ·
·
n
i
i
s
i
s
MTTR MTTR
1
λ
λ
(5.6)
Exampl e 5.1
The M TTF and M TTR of f our sub-syst ems i n a syst em ar e gi ven i n Tabl e 5.1.
Est i mat e t he syst em l evel mean t i me t o r epai r , M TTR
s
.
Sub-syst em M TTF M TTR
1 200 24
2 500 36
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 140
3 340 12
4 420 8
SOLUTION:
Appl yi ng equat i on (5.5), we get :

+ + +
+ + +
·
420
1
340
1
500
1
200
1
420
8
340
12
500
36
200
24
s
MTTR 20 hours.
Mean Time to Repair Multi-Indenture Case
Many complex systems are broken down into a number of levels of
indenture (LoI). For these systems, recovery of an LoI
i
unit is usually
achieved by the removal and replacement of LoI
i +1
items. In many cases, the
replacement LoI
i+1
item will not be the item that was removed. It may be a
new (i.e. unused) one or it may be one that was removed from another LoI
i
unit and subsequently recovered and put into stock for such an occasion.
Now, for such a system, the time to repair will be the time to remove and
refit the units at the next lower level of indenture. The elapsed time will
need to take into account logistic delays (i.e. waiting for equipment,
personnel, spares and any transport to and from the site at which the
maintenance work is to be done). This is discussed in more detail in Chapter
10.
Suppose a system is made up of n levels of indenture and a unit at LoI
i
is
made up of m
i
LoI
i +1
items. Suppose also that to recovery an LoI
i
unit, one
of the m
i
items is removed and replaced with average times, MTTRM
i,j
and
MTTRP
i ,j
respectively. Let us assume that the probability that item j is
rejected given that unit i has been removed is P
i j ,
then over an arbitrarily
long operating time T, the expected number of system failures is:
T
MTTF
1
where MTTF
1
is the mean time between failures of the system (over time
T).
Now, the probability that the failure was due to sub-system j is P
i,j
so the
mean time between failures due to sub-system j is
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 141
MTTF
P
MTTF
P
j
j j j
1
1 1 1
1
1
1 1
,
, , ,
· · ·
λ λ
Assuming the system reliability block diagram is series and is series and
there are no redundancies.
The expected number of failures of sub-system j is
P
T
MTTF
T
MTTF
T
j
j
j 1
1 1
1 ,
,
,
· · λ
The expected time to recover the system given that sub-system j is the
cause of its failure is
MTTR MTTRM MTTRP
j j j 1 1 1 , , ,
· +
The exp ect ed t o t al t i me sp ent r ecover y t h e syst em due t o sub-syst em j
f ai l ur es over t i me T i s t hen
P
MTTR
MTTF
T
MTTR
MTTF
T MTTR T
j
j j
j
j j 1
1
1
1
1
1 1 ,
, ,
,
, ,
· · λ
So, t he expect ed t ot al t i me spent r ecover i ng t he syst em b y sub-syst em
exchan ge i s
P
MTTR
MTTF
T
MTTR
MTTF
T MTTR T
j
j
j
m
j
j j
m
j j
j
m
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1 1
,
, ,
,
, ,
· · ·
∑ ∑ ∑
· · λ
Wher e m
1
i s t he number of sub-syst ems. Th en t he mean t i me t o r ecover
t he syst em (by sub-syst em exchan ge per syst em f ai l ur e) i s
MTTR MTTR
E
j
j
j
m
1
1
1
1
1
1
,
,
,
·
·

λ
λ
To d et er mi n e t he t ot al mai nt enance t i me, w e w oul d have t o l o ok at t he
t i me spent r ecover i ng t he sub-syst ems, b y sub-sub-syst em exchan ge and so
on dow n t o t he l ow est l evel compon ent s t hat ar e r ecover ed i n t hi s w ay and
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 142
t hen add on any t i me spent r epai r i ng t he l ow est l evel compon ent s (par t s) i f
t hey can be r epai r ed but we wi l l l eave t hi s exer ci se unt i l our next book.
30.2 Maintenance Man Hour (MMH)
Al t hough el apsed t i me i s an ext r emel y i mpor t an t mai nt enance measur e,
one must al so consi der t he mai nt enance man- hour s, M M H (al so know n as
mai nt enance l ab our ho ur s). The M M H i s an est i mat e of t he expect ed
“ spanner -i n-hand” t i m e and t akes i nt o account al l of t he mai nt enance t asks
and act i ons r equi r ed f or each syst em, sub-syst em or compon ent r ecover y.
It shoul d be not ed t hat t h e M M H can be consi der abl y gr eat er t han t he
el apsed t i me as i t i s of t en possi bl e and so met i mes even necessar y t o
empl o y mor e t han one per son on any gi ven act i vi t y or t ask.
“ Wor k st udy” and “ t i me and mot i on” exer ci ses have gener at ed t abl es of
t i mes f or ever y concei vabl e mai nt enance act i on, f r om r el easi ng t he cat ches
t hat ar e used on access panel s t o i nspect i ng t he bl ades on a t ur bi ne usi ng a
bor oscope t o dr i l l i ng out a st ud t hat has shear ed af t er t oo much t or que has
been appl i ed t o i t , t o di sconn ect i ng and r econnect i ng al l of t he pi pes and
l eads when r emovi ng and r epl aci ng an engi ne.
In most cases, t hese t i mes ar e based on car r yi ng out t hese t asks and act i ons
i n i deal condi t i ons, i .e. i n a pr oper l y l i t w or kshop, w hi ch i s heat ed and
pr ovi des sh el t er f r om t he el ement s. They ar e gener al l y done when t he
compon en t s ar e i n pr i st i ne condi t i on f r ee f r om cont ami nat i on, cor r osi on or
damage. It i s al so gener al l y assumed t hat t he mechani c car r yi ng out each
act i on wi l l have been pr oper l y t r ai ned and f ami l i ar wi t h t he cor r ect
pr ocedur es. In pr act i ce, however , i t i s ver y r ar e f or al l of t hese i deal
condi t i ons t o be met so, t he act ual t i mes wi l l i nevi t abl y b e l onger t han
t hose used i n t he M M H pr edi ct i on.
M ai nt enance man-hour s ar e usef ul i n t hei r own r i ght but ver y of t en t hey
ar e gi ven as a “ r at e” such as (M M H/ oper at i ng hour ), (M M H/ cycl e),
(M M H/ mont h), and (M M H/ mai nt enan ce t ask). For exampl e, el apsed t i mes
can be r educed (somet i mes) by i ncr easi ng t he number of peopl e i nvol ved i n
accompl i shi ng t he speci f i c t ask. How ever , t hi s may t ur n ou t t o be an
exp ensi ve t r ade-of f , par t i cul ar l y when hi gh ski l l l evel s ar e r equi r ed t o
per f or m t he t asks. Al so, unl ess i t act ual l y r equi r es mor e t han one per son t o
do t he j ob, t her e i s l i kel y t o b e an “ i nt er f er ence f act or ” w hich means t hat
t he ef f i ci ency of each per son i s r educed. Ther ef or e, a pr oper bal ance
among el apsed t i me, l abour t i me, and per sonnel ski l l s at a mi ni mum
mai nt enan ce cost i s r equi r ed.
Commer ci al ai r l i nes and ai r f or ces use t he measur e M ai nt enance M an-Hour
per Fl i ght Hour (M M H / FH) as an i ndi cat or of t he mai nt ai nabi l i t y of t he
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 143
ai r cr af t f or compar i son wi t h ot her si mi l ar ai r cr af t ei t her of an ol der
gen er at i on or mad e b y ano t her manuf act ur er . Thi s measur e may be used
t o deci de b et w een al t er nat i ves al t hough, i n many cases, i t wi l l be used t o
exer t pr essur e on t h e manuf act ur er t o make i mpr o vement s. The f ol l owi ng
expr essi on can be used t o eval uat e t he M M H/ FH:
hours flying Total
MNC MCMT t N MNC MPMT t N
FH MMH
cm pm
× × + × ×
·
) ( ) (
/
2 1
(5.7)
Wher e:
N
1
(t ) i s t he t ot al number of pr event i ve mai nt enance t asks dur i ng t
hour s, and N
2
(t ) i s t h e t ot al number of cor r ect i ve mai nt enance t asks. The
val ue t shoul d be equal t o t he oper at i onal l i f e of t he ai r cr af t .
M PM T = M ean pr event i ve mai nt enance t i me.
M CM T = M ean cor r ect i ve mai nt enan ce t i me.
M NC
p m
= M ean numb er of cr ew f or pr event i ve mai nt enance.
M NC
cm
= M ean nu mber of cr ew f or cor r ect i ve mai nt enance.
Not e t hat t hese est i mat ed mean val ues shoul d be w ei ght ed accor di ng t o
t he expect ed f r equency of each mai nt enan ce t ask as w e di d w hen
cal cul at i ng M TTR
s
above.
A pr obl em wi t h est i mat i ng t h e M M H/ FH met r i c i s t hat i t r el i es on t he
r el i abi l i t y of t he var i ous component s of t he syst em, whi ch may be age-
r el at ed and wi l l , i nevi t abl y, depend on t he mai nt enance and suppor t
pol i ci es. For t hese r easons, t h e M M H/ FH may not r emai n const ant w i t h
ai r cr af t age. The i mpl i cat i on of usi ng such a met r i c i s t hat i t i s pr ef er ent i al
f or i t t o be mi ni mi sed, however , i t may act ual l y be bot h cheaper and yi el d a
hi gher l evel of avai l abi l i t y i f mor e t i me i s spent on mai nt enance, par t i cul ar l y
pr event at i ve mai nt enance.
30.3 Maintenance Frequency Factors
M ai nt ai nabi l i t y engi n eer i ng i s pr i mar i l y concer n ed wi t h desi gni ng a syst em
so t hat i t spends a mi ni mum t i m e i n mai nt enance, gi ven t hat i t needs
mai nt ai ni ng. Anot her char act er i st i c of syst em desi gn per t ai ni ng t o
mai nt ai nabi l i t y i s i n opt i mi si ng t he mi x b et ween pr even t at i ve and
cor r ect i ve mai nt enance.
The i deal syst em desi gn woul d al l ow t he oper at or s t o use t he syst em unt i l
j ust bef or e i t f ai l s but , w i t h enough not i ce of t h e i mpendi ng f ai l ur e so t hat
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 144
t he oper at or can ch oose t o per f or m t he necessar y mai nt enan ce at t he most
oppor t une moment . In al l but a f ew cases, pr ognost i cs have, as yet , not
r each ed t hi s l evel of sophi st i cat i on. An al t er nat i ve appr oach i s bui l t -i n
r edundancy and f aul t -t ol er an t syst ems. These al l ow t he oper at or s t o def er
mai nt enance f or a l i mi t ed per i od or , i n cer t ai n ci r cumst an ces unt i l t he
backup syst em f ai l s.
Corrective maintenance can be expensive if the failure causes damage to
other parts of the system or if it stops the system from earning its keep.
However, redundant components will also add to the cost of the system and
may reduce its load-carrying capacity. The spare wheel in cars takes up
space that could otherwise be used for carrying luggage, it also increases
the gross weight, which will reduce the performance of the car both by
reducing its rate of acceleration and increasing the fuel consumption.
It i s common pr act i ce f or mot or i st s t o r epl ace t yr es bef or e t he t r ead has
been co mpl et el y wor n away because i t i s unsaf e t o dr i ve on bal d t yr es. It i s
al so il l egal and t he penal t i es can b e bot h exp ensi ve and i nconveni ent . It i s
al so ver y easy t o i nspect t yr es f or wear so i t i s possi bl e t o l eave t hem unt i l
t he “ l ast mi nut e” or get t hem r epl aced when t he car i s not needed t hus
mi ni mi si ng t he i nconveni ence or l ack of avai l abil i t y.
Br ake pads ar e mor e di f f i cul t t o i nspect b y t h e owner . As a r esul t , many
car s ar e now f i t t ed wi t h pads t hat have an i n-bui l t el ect r ode, whi ch causes a
war ni ng l i ght t o b e i l l umi nat ed on t he dash boar d when i t comes i nt o
cont act wi t h t he met al l i c di sc (due t o t he non- conduct i ve par t of t he pad
bei ng wor n away). t hi s gener al l y gi ves t he dr i ver a suf f i ci ent war ni ng f or
hi m or her t o f i nd out w hat t he war ni ng l i ght means and t ake t he necessar y
cor r ect i ve act i on bef or e t he br akes beco me danger ous.
M ost mot or i st s have t hei r cam or t i mi ng bel t s r epl aced wi t hi n about 1000
mi l es of t he manuf act ur er ’ s r ecommended mi l eage possi bl y dur i ng a
r out i ne ser vi ce (sch edul ed mai n t enance) or at t he dr i ver / own er ’ s
conveni ence. In t hi s case, t h e owner has al most cer t ai nl y no way of
know i ng how much l onger t he b el t w i l l l ast and, i ndeed, i t i s l i kel y t o cost
t hem al most as much t o have t he b el t i nspect ed as i t w oul d t o have i t
r epl aced because of t h e amount of wor k i nvol ved. In t hi s case, t he ext ent
of t he damage t o t he en gi ne i f t he bel t br eaks i s l i kely t o cost a gr eat deal
mor e t han t hat of r epl aci ng t h e bel t ear l y. It woul d no doubt b e possi bl e t o
devi se a mo ni t or t hat coul d i ndi cat e wh en t he bel t was st ar t i ng t o wear but ,
whet h er i t woul d be pr act i cal i n t er ms of i t s si ze, r el i abi l i t y, cost and ext r a
wei ght i s ver y much open t o debat e.
Her e w e have seen f our di f f er ent sol ut i ons t o t he same pr obl em of avoi di ng
f ai l ur es and hence t he n eed f or cor r ect i ve mai nt enan ce. One of t he t asks
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 145
of t he mai nt ai nabi l i t y engi neer i s t o det er mi n e whi ch, i f any of t hese, or
ot her si mi l ar appr oach es i s appr opr i at e t aki ng i nt o co nsi der at i on t h e cost s
and pr act i cal i t i es i n each ci r cumst ance.
Ther e i s cl ear l y a need t o st r i ke a bal ance. Pr event at i ve mai nt enance may
cause co mponent s t o be r epl aced unnecessar i l y (or at l east pr emat ur el y).
Al l owi ng a syst em t o r un unt i l i t f ai l s may maxi mi se t he t i mes bet ween
mai nt enan ce but f ai l ur es can b e expensi ve t o r ect i f y bot h because of t he
ext ent of t he damage caused and because of t h e l oss of avai l abi l i t y of t he
syst em whi l st i t i s bei ng mai nt ai ned. Pr o gnost i cs can hel p but t hese t oo
have t hei r own pr obl ems of r el i abi l i t y and t he need f or mai nt enan ce as wel l
as possi bl y addi ng t o t he wei ght , compl exi t y and cost of t he syst em.
30.4 Maintenance cost factors
For many syst ems/ pr odu ct s, mai nt enance cost s const i t ut e a maj or segmen t
of t he t ot al l i f e-cycl e cost . Fur t her , exp er i en ce has i ndi cat ed t hat
mai nt enan ce cost s ar e si gni f i cant l y af f ect ed by desi gn deci si ons made
t hr oughout t he ear l y st ages of syst em devel opmen t . M ai n t ai nabi l i t y i s
di r ect l y concer n ed wi t h t he char act er i st i cs of syst em desi gn t hat wi l l
ul t i mat el y r esul t i n t he accompl i shment of mai nt enance at mi ni mum cost .
Thus, one way of measur i ng mai nt enance cost i s cost per mai nt enance t ask,
whi ch i s t he su m of al l cost s r el at ed t o el emen t s of l o gi st i cs suppor t whi ch
ar e r equi r ed t o p er f or m t he consi der ed mai nt enance t ask.
In addi t i on t o t he abo ve f act or s, t he f r equency wi t h whi ch each
mai nt enan ce act i on must be per f or med i s a maj or f act or i n bot h cor r ect i ve
and pr event i ve mai nt enance. Obvi ousl y t hi s i s gr eat l y i nf l uenced b y t he
r el i abi l i t y of t h e compon ent s but i t can al so be r el at ed t o t h e t yp e and
f r equency of t he mai nt enance per f or med. If a component i s r epai r ed t hen
i t i s l i kel y t hat t he t i me t o f ai l ur e f or t hat component wi l l be l ess t han i f i t
had been r epl aced by a new one. We wi l l r et ur n t o t he q uest i on of r epai r
ef f ect i ven ess i n Chapt er 6.
Per sonnel and human f act or consi der at i ons ar e al so of pr i me i mpor t ance.
These consi der at i ons i ncl ude t he exper i ence of t h e t echni ci an, t r ai ni ng, ski ll
l evel and number of t echni ci ans.
Suppor t consi d er at i ons co ver t he l ogi st i cs syst em and mai nt enance
or gani sat i on r equi r ed t o suppor t t he syst em. They i ncl ude t h e avai l abi l i t y
of spar e par t s, t echni cal dat a (manual s), t est equi pment and r equi r ed
speci al and gener al t ool s.
If a mai nt enance t ask r equi r es hi ghl y ski l l ed per sonnel , a cl ean envi r onment
equi pped w i t h expensi ve, speci al t ool s t h en i t i s unl i kel y, t hat i t w i l l pr ove
economi cal t o p er f or m t hi s t ask at f i r st l i ne or , possi bl y, even at second l i ne.
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 146
How ever , i f t he mai nt ai nabi l i t y engi neer had d esi gned t he syst em so t hat
t hi s t ask coul d be don e b y per sonn el wi t h l ower ski l l l evel s usi ng st andar d
t ool i ng t hen i t mi ght have al l owed t he t ask t o be done i n t he f i el d wi t h a
possi b l e r educt i on i n t he t ur nar o und (or out -of -ser vi ce) t i me. I f , t he t ask i s
onl y l i kel y t o be done once i n t he syst em’ s l i f e dur i ng a maj or over haul
when i t woul d be at a cent r al mai nt enance uni t or r et ur n ed t o t he
manuf act ur er t hen such consi der at i ons may b e l ess r el evant . For exampl e,
t her e i s l i t t l e t o be gai n ed by maki ng i t easy t o r epl ace a br oken cam bel t by
t he si de of t h e r oad. The damage don e t o t he engi ne, as a r esul t of a f ail ed
cam bel t , wi l l mean t hat t h e engi ne wi l l ei t her have t o be r epl aced or
over haul ed/ r econdi t i oned bef or e i t i s l i kel y t o f unct i on agai n.
31. MAINTAINABILITY DEMONSTRATION
The obj ect i ve of t he mai nt ai nabi l i t y demonst r at i on i s t o show t hat t he
var i ous mai nt enance t asks can b e acco mpl i shed i n t he t i mes al l ot t ed t o
t hem. Gener al l y, t he most i mpor t ant i ssue i s whet her t h e syst em can be
r eco ver ed by sub-syst em (or l i ne r epl aceabl e uni t – LRU) exchange wi t hi n
t he sp eci f i ed t i mes. It i s a common r equi r ement t hat each LRU can be
r emoved and r epl aced w i t hout i nt er f er i ng w i t h an y ot her LRU. Some of t he
ear l y j et f i ght er s w er e vi r t ual l y bui l t ar ound t he engi n e so t hat , i n or der t o
r epl ace t he engi ne, i t was not so much a quest i o n of r emovi ng t h e engi ne
f r om t he ai r cr af t as r emovi ng he ai r cr af t f r om t he engi ne.
A r ecen t i nnovat i on on commer ci al ai r cr af t i s t o use aut onomi cs, whi ch
si gnal ahead t o t he dest i nat i on any det ect ed f aul t s in t he mi ssi o n cr i t i cal
componen t s (i . e. t hose not on t he mi ni mu m equi pment l i st ). Thi s al l ows
t he mechani cs t o pr epar e t o r epl ace t h ese i t ems as so on as t he ai r cr af t has
r each ed t he gat e. I f such r epl acement s can be per f or med w i t hi n t he 50
mi n, or so, t ur nar ound t i me t hen i t wi l l not be necessar y t o f i nd a
r epl acement ai r cr af t or del ay t he depar t ur e. Anyon e w ho has seen t he f i l m
Bat t l e of Br i t ai n or Reach f or t he Sky w i l l r ecogni se t he i mpor t an ce of
t ur ni ng f i ght er ai r cr af t ar ound i n mi ni mum t i me when t he ai r f i el d may be
under at t ack f r om en emy bomber s and f ight er s. An ai r cr af t not i n t he ai r i s
bi t l i ke a duck ou t of w at er , i t i s par t i cul ar l y vul ner abl e and do ver y l i t t l e t o
def end i t sel f .
The demo nst r at i on i s al so expect ed t o gener at e r esul t s t hat can cont r i but e
t o t he whol e d evel opment pr ocess, i dent i f yi ng any r emai ni ng d ef i ci enci es
such as t h e desi gn of t he syst em and t he t est equi p men t , co mpi l at i on of
mai nt enance manual s, et c. Any mai nt ai nabi l i t y demonst r at i on woul d
i nvol ve t he f ol l ow i ng st eps:
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 147
1. Ident i f y t he oper at i on and envi r onment al condi t i on i n whi ch t he
syst em i s l i kel y t o be used.
2. Si mul at e t he syst em f ai l ur es and per f or m cor r ect i ve mai nt enance
act i on. One shoul d al so r ecor d t he mai nt enance man-hour s
r equi r ed t o compl et e t he r epai r t ask successf ul l y.
Fur t her , i t i s an i mpor t ant t o t ake car e of t h e f ol l ow ing i ssues dur i ng t he
demonst r at i on:
1. The t est must be on a sampl e of fi xed f i nal bui l d st andar d.
2. The t est condi t i ons must b e r epr esent at i ve, t he eq ui pment / t ool s,
mai n t enan ce manual s, l i ght i ng and si mi l ar f act or s must be car ef ul l y
consi der ed.
3. A mi x of r epai r er s r epr esent at i ve i n ski l l s, t r ai ni ng, and exper i ence of
t hose who woul d do t he act ual r epai r i n ser vi ce must conduct t he
r epai r .
Once we have t he r ecor ded r epai r t i me dat a f r om t he above pr ocedur e,
t hen i t i s easy t o ver i f y w het her t he mai nt ai nabi l i t y t ar get has been
achi eved usi ng t he f ol l owi ng pr ocedur e.
Let t
1
, t
2
, …, t
n
denot e t he obser ved r epai r t i mes t o compl et e t h e r epai r
t asks f or a sample of n uni t s. For n > 30, t he (1 - α) 100 per cent conf i dence
l i mi t i s gi ven by:
n
s
z MTTR
α
+ (5.8)
Wher e z
α
i s t he z val ue (st andar d nor mal st at i st i c) t hat l ocat es an ar ea of α
t o i t s r i ght and can b e f ound f r om t he nor mal t abl e. For exampl e, f or a 95%
conf i dence l i mi t , t he z
α
i s gi ven by 1.645. M TTR and ' s' ar e gi ven by:
∑ ·
·
n
i
i
t
n
MTTR
1
1
, and
∑ −

·
·
n
i
i
MTTR t
n
s
1
2 2
) (
1
1
If t he t ar get mai nt ai nabi l i t y i s M TTR
*
, t hen t o demonst r at e t hat t he syst em
has achi eved t hi s, we have t o show t hat :
n
s
z MTTR MTTR
α
+ ≤
*
(5.9)
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 148
Wh enever t he nu mber of r epai r t i me dat a i s l ess t han 30, we use t -
di st r i but i on; i n t hat case, t he condi t i on f or accept ance i s gi ven by:
n
s
t MTTR MTTR
n 1 ,
*

+ ≤
α
(5.10)
The val ue of t
α,n-1
can b e obt ai n ed f r om t he t -di st r i but i on t abl e show n gi ven
i n appendi x.
Exampl e 5.2
A mai nt ai nabi l i t y demonst r at i on t est i s car r i ed out on 20 par t s and t he
accompl i shed r epai r t i mes ar e show n i n Tabl e 5.2. If t he t ar get M TTR i s 20
hour s, check whet her t he syst em has achi eved t he t ar get mai n t ai nabi l i t y
usi ng 95% conf i dence l evel .
Tabl e 5.2. Recor d ed r epai r t i mes f or m a sampl e of 20 par t s i n hour s
8 6 12 20 24
12 9 17 4 40
32 26 30 19 10
10 14 32 26 18
SOLUTION:
Si nce t h e obser ved number of dat a, n i s l ess t han 30, we use t -st at i st i c. The
M TTR and st andar d devi at i on, s, ar e gi ven by:
45 . 18
20
1
20
1
· ∑ ·
· i
i
t MTTR hours, ∑ − ·
·
n
i
i
MTTR t s
1
2
) (
19
1
= 10.06 hours
Fr om t he t -dist r i but i on t abl e (see appendi x) w e get , t
α, n-1
= 1. 729 (α = 0.05,
n-1 = 19).
95% upper l i mi t f or M TTR i s gi ven by:
33 . 22
472 . 4
06 . 10
729 . 1 45 . 18 · × + · +
n
s
t MTTR
α
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 149
Whi ch i s gr eat er t han 20 hour s, whi ch i s t he t ar get M TTR. Thus t he
achi eved M TTR i s si gni f i cant l y gr eat er t han t he r equi r ed M TTR and i s
t her ef or e not accept abl e.
32. MAINTENANCE
Accor di ng t o BS 4778, mai nt enance can be def i ned as:
The combi nat i on of al l t echni cal and admi ni st r at i ve act i ons, i ncl udi ng
super vi si on act i ons, i nt ended t o r et ain an i t em i n, or r est or e i t t o, a st at e i n
whi ch i t can per f or m a r equi r ed f unct i on.
In ot her wor ds, al l act i ons, whi ch keep t h e syst em r u nni ng and ensur e t hat
i t i s mai nt ai ned t o an accept abl e st andar d i n whi ch i t i s abl e t o oper at e at
t he r equi r ed l evel s ef f i ci ent l y and ef f ect i vel y. The obj ect i ves of
mai nt enan ce ar e t o:
1. Reduce the consequences of failure.
2. Extend the life of the system, by keeping the system in a proper condition
for a longer time. In other words, to increase the 'up¨ time of the system.
3. Ensure that the system is fit and safe to use.
4. Ensure that the condition of the system meets all authorised
requirements.
5. Maintain the value of the system.
6. Maintain reliability and achieve a high level of safety.
7. Maintain the system's availability and therefore minimise production and
quality losses.
8. Reduce overall maintenance costs and therefore minimise the life cycle
cost.
The pur pose of mai nt enance i s t o keep syst ems i n a st at e of f unct i oni ng i n
accor dance wi t h t hei r desi gn and t o r est or e t h em t o a si mi l ar st at e as and
when r equi r ed.
33. MAINTENANCE CONCEPT
The mai nt enance concept b egi ns wi t h a ser i es of st at ement s def i ni ng t he
i nput cr i t er i a t o whi ch t he syst em shoul d be desi gned. These st at emen t s
r el at e t o t h e mai nt enance t asks t hat shoul d be per f or med at each l evel of
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 150
mai nt enan ce (or gani sat i onal , i nt er medi at e and depot ), t he t est equi p ment
and t ool s t hat shoul d be used i n mai nt ai ni ng t he syst em, t he ski l l l evel s of
t he mai nt enance per sonnel t hat per f or m t he i dent i f i ed t asks, mai nt enance
t i me const r ai nt s, and ant i ci pat ed mai nt enance envi r onment al r equi r ement s
(Knezevi c, 1997). A pr el i mi nar y mai nt enance concept i s devel oped dur i ng
t he co ncept ual desi gn st age, i s cont i nual l y updat ed, and i s a pr er equi sit e t o
syst em d esi gn an d d evel opment . M ai nt enance concep t at t h e desi gn phase
t ends t o ensur e t hat al l f unct i ons of desi gn and suppor t ar e i nt egr at ed wi t h
each ot her . The mai nt enance concept evol ved f r om t he def i ni t i on of
syst em oper at i onal r equi r emen t s del i neat es [ Bl anchar d et . al ., 1995]
• The ant i ci pat ed l evel of mai nt enance
• Over al l r epai r pol i ci es
• El ement s of mai nt enance r esour ces
• The or gani sat i onal r esponsi bi l i t i es f or mai nt enance
The mai nt enance concep t ser ves t he f ol l owi ng pur poses:
1. It provides the basis for the establishment of maintainability and
supportability requirements in the system design.
2. It provides the basis for the establishment of requirements for total
support which include maintenance tasks, task frequencies and time,
personnel quantities and skill levels, spare parts, facilities, and other
resources.
3. It provides a basis for detailing the maintenance plan and impacts upon
the elements of logistic support.
34. LEVELS OF MAINTENANCE
Compl ex syst ems can be consi der ed as mad e up of sever al l evel s of
i ndent ur e. A combat ai r cr af t t hat may be consi der ed as t he Level 0 (LoI-0),
may be t hought of as consi st i ng f i ve subsyst ems: ai r f r ame, ar mament ,
avi oni cs, pr opul si on and gener al . The pr opul si on syst em t hen b eco mes a
LoI-1 i t em t hat may consi st of t he engi n es, t he auxi l i ar y power uni t (APU)
and var i ous accessor i es i ncl udi ng cont r ol uni t s and p umps, each of w hi ch
may b e co nsi der ed as LoI-2 i t ems. An engi ne i s t ypi cal l y an assembl y of a
number of modul es or LoI-3 i t ems w hi ch, i n t ur n, may be mad e up of sub-
assembl i es and par t s, LoI-4 and 5 r espect i vel y.
At t he same t i me, t he mi l i t ar y t ypi cal l y di vi des i t s mai nt enance and sup por t
i nf r ast r uct ur e i nt o 3, 4 or 5 ech el ons, l i nes or [ mai nt enance] l evel s. “ Fi r st
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 151
Li ne” , or “ O-Level ” i s f r om wher e t he syst ems ar e oper at ed. “ Second Li ne”
or “ I-Level ” i s t ypi cal l y t he mai n oper at i onal bases f r om whi ch t he
squadr ons ar e depl oyed. These ar e usual l y suppor t ed by a d epot or
mai nt enance uni t at “ Thi r d Li ne” or “ D-Level ” . Th e cont r act or , suppl i er or
or i gi nal equi pment manuf act ur er (OEM ) of t en pr ovi des a shadow f aci l i t y at
“ Four t h Li ne” ef f ect i vel y dupl i cat i ng t he Thi r d Li ne f aci l i t y’ s capabi l i t i es.
M ai nt enance l evel s ar e concer ned wi t h gr oupi ng t he t asks f or each
l ocat i on wher e mai nt enance act i vi t i es ar e per f or med. The cr i t er i a i n w hi ch
t he mai nt enance t asks sel ect ed at each l evel ar e; t ask compl exi t y,
per sonnel ski l l -l evel r equi r ement s, speci al mai nt en ance equi pment and
r esour ces and economi c measur es. Wi t hi n t he scope of t he i dent i f i ed l evel
of mai nt enance, t he manuf act ur er and t he user shoul d def i ne a basi c r epai r
pol i cy t hat may var y f r om r epai r / r epl ace a par t ( LoI-5, say) t o r epl ace t he
ent i r e syst em. The hi er ar chi es of achi evi ng mai nt enance t asks ar e di vi ded
i nt o t hr ee or f our l evel s.
34.1 User level (organisational)
Thi s t ype of mai nt enance l evel i s r el at ed t o al l mai nt enance t asks w hi ch ar e
per f or med on t he syst em whi l st i t i s on depl oyment or at i t s oper at i n g si t e.
Thi s woul d i ncl ude r epl eni shment t asks, e.g. r e-f uel l i ng, r e-ar mi ng,
mai nt ai ni ng oi l l evel s, si mpl e condi t i on and per f or mance moni t or i ng
act i vi t i es, ext er nal adj ust ment s and r epl acement of l i ne r epl aceabl e uni t s
(LRU). Some mi nor r epai r s and r out i ne ser vi ci ng may al so come under t hi s
cat egor y.
34.2 Intermediate level
Int er medi at e mai nt enance l evel i s r el at ed t o al l mai n t enance t asks, w hi ch
ar e p er f or med at wor kshops (mobi l e, semi - mobi l e and/ or f i xed) wher e t he
syst ems woul d nor mal l y b e based. Common mai nt enance t asks
accompl i shed at t hi s l evel ar e det ai l ed condi t i on and per f or mance
moni t or i ng act i vi t i es, r epai r and r epl acement of maj or i t ems i n a syst em,
maj or over haul , syst em modi f i cat i on, et c. Per f or mi ng mai nt enan ce t asks at
t hi s l evel r equi r e hi gher per sonnel ski l l s t han t hose at or gani sat i onal l evel
and addi t i onal mai nt enance r esour ces. Tr adi t i onal l y, a r emoved LRU
woul d be r ecover ed, gener al l y by modul e (or shop-r epl aceabl e uni t – SRU)
exchan ge, at t hi s l evel .
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 152
34.3 Depot level
Depo t mai nt enance l evel i s r el at ed t o al l mai nt enance t asks, w hi ch ar e
accompl i shed beyond t he capabi l i t i es of i nt er medi at e l evel at r emot e si t es.
In t he UK syst em, “ Thi r d Li ne” r ef er s sp eci f i cal l y t o an oper at or -own ed
f aci l i t y w her eas i n US nomencl at ur e “ D-Level ” al so i ncl udes
manuf act ur er / cont r act or f aci l i t i es. M ai nt enance t asks at t hi s l evel ar e
car r i ed out by hi ghl y ski l l ed speci al i st s at a speci al i sed r epai r f aci l i t y or t he
equi p ment pr oducer ’ s f aci l i t y. M ai nt enance t asks at depot l evel i ncl ude
compl et e o ver haul i ng and r ebui l di ng of t h e syst em, hi ghl y compl ex
mai nt enance act i ons, et c. Th ey woul d al so i ncl ude t asks whi ch may o nl y be
per f or med r ar el y, par t i cul ar l y i f t hey r equi r e expensi ve equi p men t or ar e
l i kel y t o t ake a l ong t i me.
34.4 Hole-in-the-Wall
Wi t h t he move t o ever gr eat er ef f i ci en cy and/ or mi ni mal cost s, t he
per cei ved n eed t o r educe manni ng l evel s and t he desi r e of OEM s t o
i ncr ease t hei r r evenu e b y ent er i ng t he “ af t er -mar k et ” , t he “ hol e-i n-t he-
wal l ” concept i s gai ni ng i n popul ar i t y. Thi s i s wher e t he onl y i nt r usi ve
mai nt enance t ask t he oper at or p er f or ms i s t o r emove t he LRU (at f i r st l i ne).
Thi s i s t hen passed t hr ou gh t hi s myt hi cal hol e i n t he wal l t o t he OEM or
mai nt enan ce cont r act or i n exchange f or a r epl acement (ser vi ceabl e) LRU.
The cont r act or t hen t akes t he LRU away t o a conveni ent l ocat i on wher e i t i s
r eco ver ed. Such cont r act s ar e of t en f und ed by f l eet hour ar r angement s
such as “ power -by-t he-hour ” , see chapt er 12.
The advant age t o t h e oper at or s i s t hat t h ey can get on w i t h what t h ey ar e
i n busi ness f or ; put t i ng “ bums on seat s” or “ bombs on t ar get ” . It i s al so
ar gued, per haps mor e st r on gl y b y t he OEM t han t he oper at or , t hat havi ng
desi gn ed and bui l t t he LRU, t hey (t he OEM ) ar e t h e best peopl e t o t ake i t
apar t and r epai r i t . A secondar y advant age t o t he OEM , and agai n,
hopef ul l y t o t he oper at or , i s t hat because al l of t he m ai nt enance i s done i n
one pl ace, t he peopl e doi ng i t shoul d become mor e ef f i ci ent (as t hey see
t he sam e j ob mor e of t en) and t he i n-ser vi ce dat a (t i me t o f ai l ur e, cause of
f ai l ur e, i t ems r epai r ed or r epl aced, et c.) sho ul d be consi st ent and mor e
accur at e.
Bet t er dat a shoul d l ead t o i mpr oved f or ecast i ng, r educed l ogi st i c del ays,
mor e appr opr i at e mai nt enance pol i ci es and, ul t i mat el y, t o i mpr oved
desi gns.
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 153
35. MAINTENANCE TASK CLASSIFICATION
Al l user s woul d li ke t hei r syst ems t o st ay i n a st at e of f unct i oni ng as l ong as
possi bl e or , at l east , as l ong as t hey ar e need ed. In or der t o achi eve t hi s, i t i s
necessar y t o mai nt ai n t he syst em’ s f unct i onal i t y dur i ng oper at i on, by
per f or mi ng appr opr i at e mai nt enance t asks. Thus, mai nt enance t ask can be
def i ned as a set of act i vi t i es t hat need t o be per f or med, i n a speci f i ed
manner , i n or der t o mai nt ai n t he f unct i onal i t y of t he i t em/ syst em.
Fi gur e 5.2 shows t he pr ocess of mai nt enance t ask, whi ch i s i ni t i at ed by t he
need f or mai nt enance d ue t o a r educt i on, or t er mi n at i on of t he
i t em/ syst em f unct i onal i t y. The execu t i on of a mai nt enance t ask r equi r es
r esour ces su ch as t he r i ght number and ski l l s of per sonnel , mat er i al ,
equi pment , et c. It al so r equi r es an appr opr i at e en vi r onment i n whi ch t he
mai nt enan ce act i vi t i es can be car r i ed out .
Fi gur e 5.2 Pr ocess of mai nt enance t ask
M ai nt enance t asks can be cl assi f i ed i nt o t he f ol l owi ng t hr ee cat egor i es:
1. corrective maintenance task
2. preventive (predictive) maintenance task
3. conditional maintenance task
Each maintenance task is briefly discussed in the following sections.
35.1 Corrective Maintenance Task
Cor r ect i ve mai nt enance t ask, CRT, i s a set of act i vi t i es, whi ch i s per f or med
w i t h t he i nt ent i on of r est or i ng t h e f unct i onal i t y of t he i t em or syst em, af t er
Maintenance task
activities
Need for
maintenance
Resources
Maintenance task
complete
Environment
Restore
functionality
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 154
t he l oss of t he f u nct i onal i t y or p er f or mance (i . e. af t er f ai l ur e). Fi gur e 5.3
i l l ust r at es t ypi cal cor r ect i ve mai nt enan ce t ask act i vi t i es. The dur at i o n of
cor r ect i ve mai nt enance t ask, DM T
c
, r epr esent s t he el apsed t i me n eed ed f or
t he successf ul compl et i on of t he t ask. Cor r ect i ve mai nt enan ce t ask i s al so
r ef er r ed t o as an unschedul ed or unpl anned mai nt enance t ask.
Fi gur e 5.3 Act i vi t i es of t ypi cal cor r ect i ve mai nt enance t ask
35.2 Preventive Maintenance Task
Pr event i ve mai nt enance t ask, PM T, i s a mai nt enance act i vi t y t hat i s
per f or med i n or d er t o r educe t he pr obabi l i t y of f ai l ur e of an i t em/ syst em or
t o maxi mi se t he oper at i onal b enef it . Fi gur e 5.4 i l l ust r at es t he act i vi t i es of a
t ypi cal pr even t i ve mai nt enan ce t ask. The dur at i on of t h e pr event i ve
mai nt enan ce t ask, DMT
p
, r epr esent s t he el apsed t i me need ed f or t he
successf ul compl et i on of t he t ask.
MTBF
DMT
c
?
Item
Failed
Fault
Location
D
i
s
a
s
s
e
m
b
l
y
Repair or
Replacement
Assembly
T
e
s
t

a
n
d

C
h
e
c
k
Verification
Corrective maintenance
task activities
CMT start CMT complete
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 155
Fi gur e 5.4 Act i vi t i es of a t ypi cal pr event i ve mai nt enance t ask
Pr event i ve mai nt enance t ask i s per f or med bef or e t he t r ansi t i on t o t he st at e
of f ail ur e occur s wi t h t he mai n obj ect i ve of r educi ng:
• The pr obabi l i t y of t he occur r ence of a f ai l ur e
• The consequences of f ai l ur e
Common pr event i ve mai nt enance t asks ar e r epl acement s, r en ewal and
over haul . These t asks ar e per f or m ed, at f i xed i nt er val s based on oper at i ng
t i me (e.g. hour s), di st ance (e.g. mi l es) or number of act i ons (e.g. l andi ngs),
r egar dl ess of t he act ual condi t i on of t he i t ems/ syst ems.
MTBF
DMT
p
Tp
Disassembly
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Assembly
T
e
s
t

a
n
d

C
h
e
c
k
Verification
Preventive maintenance
task activities
PMT start
PMT complete
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 156
35.3 Conditional (Predictive) Maintenance Task
Condi t i onal mai nt enan ce t ask, COT, r ecogni ses t hat a change i n condi t i on
and/ or per f or mance i s l i kel y t o pr ecede a f ai l ur e so t he mai nt enance t ask
shoul d be based on t h e act ual condi t i on of t he i t em/ syst em. COT does not
nor mal l y i nvol ve an i nt r usi on i nt o t he syst em and act ual pr event i ve act i on
i s t aken onl y w h en i t i s bel i eved t hat an i nci pi ent f ail ur e has been det ect ed.
Thus, t hr ough moni t or i n g of some condi t i on par amet er (s) i t woul d be
possi bl e t o i dent i f y t h e most sui t abl e i nst ant of t i me at whi ch pr event i ve
mai nt enan ce t asks shoul d t ake pl ace.
Fi gur e 5.5 Act i vi t i es of a t ypi cal condi t i onal mai nt enance t ask.
Fi gur e 5.5 i l l ust r at es t he act i vi t i es of a t ypi cal condi t i onal mai nt enance. The
dur at i on of condi t i onal mai nt enance t ask, DMT
m
, r epr esent s t he el apsed
t i me n eeded f or t he successf ul compl et i on of t he t ask.
In t he past , cor r ect i ve mai nt enance and pr event i ve mai nt enance t asks have
been popul ar among mai nt enance manager s. How ever , i n r ecent year s, t he
DMT
m
FMT
I
/ FMT
E
Inspection/
Examination
D
a
t
a
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Condition
assessment
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
Decision
making
Conditional maintenance
task activities
COT start
COT complete
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 157
di sadvant ages of t hese t asks have been r ecogni sed by man y mai nt enance
managemen t or gani sat i ons. The need f or t he pr ovi si on of saf et y, and
r educt i on of t he mai nt enance cost have l ed t o an i ncr easi ng i nt er est i n
usi ng condi t i onal mai nt enance t ask. Wai t i ng unt i l a componen t f ai l s may
maxi mi se t he l i f e obt ai ned f r om t hat co mponent but , i t s f ai l ur e may cause
si gni f i cant damage t o ot her par t s of t h e syst em and wi l l of t en occur at
i noppor t une t i mes causi ng a di sr upt i on t o t he oper at i on and i nconveni ence
t o t he user s. Rout i ne or schedul ed pr even t i ve mai nt enance, on t he o t her
hand, may be ver y conveni en t but i s l i kel y t o r esul t i n an i ncr ease i n t he
amount of mai nt enance needed b ecause par t s w i l l be r epl aced w hen t hey
have achi eved a f r act i on of t hei r expect ed l i f e.
36. MAINTENANCE POLICIES
The mai nt enance pol i cy def i nes whi ch t yp e of mai nt enance wi l l (nor mal l y)
be p er f or m ed o n t he var i ous component s o f t h e syst em. It i s d et er mi ned
by mai nt enance engi neer s, syst em pr oducer s and / or user s t o achi eve hi gh
saf et y, r el i abi l i t y and avai l abi l i t y at mi ni mu m cost . Wi t h r esp ect t o t he
r el at i on of t he i nst ant of occur r ence of f ai l ur e and t he i nst ant of per f or mi ng
t he mai nt enance t ask t he f ol l owi ng mai nt enance pol i ci es exi st :
1) Fai l ur e-Based mai nt enance pol i cy, FBM , w her e cor r ect i ve mai nt enance
t asks ar e i ni t i at ed by t he o ccur r ence of f ai l ur e, i .e., loss of f unct i on or
per f or mance,
2) Ti me-Based mai nt enance pol i cy, LBM , wher e pr even t i ve mai nt enance
t asks ar e p er f or med at pr edet er mi ned t i mes dur i ng oper at i on, at f i xed
l engt h of oper at i onal l i f e,
3) I nspect i on-Based mai nt enance pol i cy, IBM , wher e condi t i onal
mai nt enance t asks i n t he f or m of i nspect i ons ar e per f or med at f i xed
i nt er val s of oper at i on, unt i l t he per f or man ce of a pr event i ve
mai nt enance t ask i s r equi r ed or unt i l a f ai l ur e occur s r equi r i ng
cor r ect i ve mai nt enance. Not e t hat t h e f ai l ur e coul d be due t o a
component of t he syst em t hat w as not bei ng subj ect ed t o I BM or i t
coul d have happen ed as a r esul t of some unpr edi ct ab l e ext er nal even t
such as f or ei gn obj ect damage or because t he i nspect i on i nt er val was
t oo l ong or t he i nspect i on w as i nef f ect i ve.
4) Exami nat i on- Based mai nt enance pol i cy, EBM , wher e condi t i onal
mai nt enance t asks i n t he f or m of exami nat i ons ar e p er f or med i n
accor dance wi t h t h e moni t or ed condi t i on of t he i t em/ syst em, unt i l t he
execut i on of a pr even t i ve mai nt enance t ask i s needed or a f ai l ur e
occur s.
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 158
The pr i nci pal di f f er ence b et ween t he above mai nt enance pol i ci es occur s at
t he t i me wh en t he mai nt enance t ask i s per f or med. The advant ages and
di sadvant ages of each mai nt enance pol i cy ar e br i ef l y descr i bed bel ow .
36.1 Failure-Based Maintenance Policy
Fai l ur e-Based mai nt enance pol i cy, FBM , r epr esent s an appr oach w her e
cor r ect i ve mai nt enan ce t asks ar e car r i ed out af t er a f ai l ur e has occur r ed, i n
or der t o r est or e t he f unct i onal i t y of t he i t em/ syst em consi der ed.
Conseq uent l y, t hi s appr oach t o mai nt enance i s known as br eakdown, post -
f ai l ur e, f i r e f i ght i ng, r eact i ve, or unschedul ed mai nt enance. Accor di ng t o
t hi s pol i cy, mai nt enance t asks of t en t ake pl ace i n ad hoc manner i n
r esponse t o br eakdown of an i t em f ol l owi ng a r epor t f r om t he syst em user .
A schemat i c pr esen t at i on of t he mai nt enan ce pr ocedur e f or t he f ai l ur e-
based mai nt enance pol i cy i s pr esen t ed i n Fi gur e 5.6. Cor r ect i ve
mai nt enance t ask pr i or i t i es can r ange f r om " nor mal " , " ur gent " t o
" emer gency" . Th ese cat egor i es r ef l ect t h e nat ur e of t he r espo nse r at her
t han t he act ual act i ons done. Fai lur e based mai nt enan ce coul d be t he most
appl i cabl e and ef f ect i ve mai nt enance pol i cy i n si t uat i ons wher e:
Items for which the loss of functionality does not compromise the safety
of the user and/ or the environment or the failure has little or no
economic consequences (i.e. categories major and minor see
FMECA i n Chapter 11)
systems have buil t-in redundancy or have been designed to be fault-
tol erant
Fi gur e 5.6 Fai l ur e-Based Mai nt enance Pol i cy
Advant ages of f ai l ure based mai nt enance
Item
Failed
Operating
time
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 159
Impl ement at i on of FBM t o t h e abo ve si t uat i ons coul d l ead t o f ul l ut i l i sat i on
of t he op er at i ng li f e of t he i t em. Thi s means t hat t h e non-cr i t i cal i t ems w i l l
have t he abi l i t y t o per f or m t hei r f unct i on(s) f or t he st at ed per i od of t i me
when t hey oper at e under st at ed condi t i ons. Thi s means t hat coef f i ci ent of
ut i l i sat i on, CU, whi ch is t he r at i o of t he M ean Dur at i on of Ut i li sed Li f e of t he
i t em (M DUL
F
) t o t h e exp ect ed oper at i ng l i f e (M TTF), of i t ems consi der ed
wi l l have val ue of 1. The user wi l l get maxi mum val ue out t h e component
w hen t he FB mai nt enance pol i cy i s appl i ed.
Di sadvant ages of f ai l ure based mai nt enance
Despi t e t h e advant ages of i mpl ement i n g t hi s pol i cy, i t has some
di sadvant ages when i t i s not cor r ect l y sel ect ed.
• The failure of an item will generally occur at an inconvenient
time.
• Maintenance acti viti es cannot be pl anned.
• It demands a lot of mai ntenance resources.
• The fai l ure of an i tem can cause a l arge amount of consequenti al
damage to other items in the system.
Anal ysi s of mai nt enance cost s have shown t hat a r epai r made af t er f ai l ur e
w i l l nor mal l y be t hr ee t o f our t i mes mor e expensi ve t han t he same
mai nt enan ce act i vi t y when i t i s wel l pl anned [ M obl ey (1990)] .
36.2 Time-Based Maintenance Policy
Some f ai l ur es can l ead t o econo mi cal consequences such as l oss of
pr oduct i on and t her ef or e a r educt i on i n pr of i t . Some f ai l ur es may have an
i mpact on t h e saf et y of t he user , passenger s, t hi r d par t i es and
envi r onment . Ther ef or e, i t i s desi r abl e t o pr event t hese f ai l ur es, i f possi bl e,
by car r yi ng out mai nt enance act i ons bef or e f ai l ur e occur s.
As t he mai n ai m i s t o r educe t h e pr obabi l i t y of occur r ence of f ai l ur e and
avoi d t he syst em br eakdow n, a t i me-based mai nt enance pol i cy i s
per f or med at f i x i nt er val s, whi ch i s a f unct i on of t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e
di st r i but i on of t he i t em consi d er ed and i n so me cases i t may be adj ust ed by
t he syst em' s user . Thi s pol i cy i s ver y of t en cal l ed age-based, l i f e-based,
pl anned or schedul ed mai nt enan ce. The r eason f or t hat i s t he f act t hat t he
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 160
mai nt enan ce t ask i s p er f or m ed at a pr edet er mi n ed f r equency, whi ch may
be based on, f or exampl e, oper at i ng t i mes such as, hour s, year s, mi l es,
number of act i ons or any ot her uni t s of use, t hat make i t i s possi bl e t o pl an
al l t asks and f ul l y suppor t t hem i n advance. A schemat i c pr esent at i on of
t i me-based mai nt enance pr ocedur e i s pr esent ed i n Fi gur e 5.7. The
f r equency of mai nt enan ce t ask, FMT
L
, is det er mi ned even bef or e t he
i t em has st ar t ed f unct i oni ng. Thus, at t he pr edet er mi ned l engt h of
oper at i onal l i f e speci f i ed, pr event i ve mai nt enan ce t asks t ake pl ace. The
t i me-based mai nt enance pol i cy coul d be ef f ect i vel y appl i ed t o
i t ems/ syst ems t hat meet som e of t he f ol l owi ng r equi r ement s:
1. the probability of occurrence of failure is reduced
2. the likely consequences of failure is 'catastrophic¨ (e.g. loss of life or
serious injury)
3. the total costs of applying this policy are substantially lower than the
alternatives
4. the condition of the system, or its consisting items, cannot be monitored
or is impractical or uneconomical.
Advant ages of t i me-based mai nt enance pol i cy
One of t he mai n advant ages of t hi s mai nt enance p ol i cy i s t he f act t hat
pr event i ve mai nt enance t asks ar e p er f or med at a pr edet er mi ned i nst ant of
t i me wh en al l mai nt enance suppor t r esour ces coul d be pl anned and
pr ovi ded i n ad vance, and p ot ent i al cost l y o ut ages avoi ded. For f ai l ur es,
whi ch coul d have cat ast r ophi c consequ ences t o t he user / oper at or and
envi r onment (Cher nob yl , Bhopal , Pi per Al pha and si mi l ar ) i t may be t he
onl y f easi bl e opt i on. Ti me-based mai nt enance has many advan t ages over
f ai l ur e-based mai nt enan ce, whi ch ar e summar i sed i n t he f ol l o wi ng l i st :
1. Maintenance can be planned ahead and performed when it is convenient
from the operational and logistics point of view.
2. The cost of lost production and of consequential damage can be reduced.
3. Downtime, the time that the system is out of service, can be minimised.
4. Safety can be improved.
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 161
Fi gur e 5.7 Ti me Based M ai n t enan ce Pol i cy
Di sadvant ages of t i me -based mai nt enance pol i cy
In spi t e of t he advant ages gi ven above, t he t i me-based mai nt enan ce p ol i cy
has sever al di sadvan t ages t hat must be mi ni mi sed. Thi s pol i cy coul d be
uneconomi cal because t he maj or i t y of i t ems ar e p r emat ur el y r epl aced,
i r r espect i ve of t hei r condi t i on. In man y i ndust r i es t hi s pol i cy i s now onl y
used under sp eci al condi t i ons because i t i s ver y cost l y, and al so because i t s
ef f i ci ency i n r educi ng f ai l ur es i s not al w ays suppor t ed by exper i ence. A
summar y of t h e di sad vant ages of t i me-based mai nt enance pol i cy i s l i st ed
bel ow .
1. Time-based maintenance is performed irrespective of the condition of the
system. Consequently, a large number of unnecessary tasks will be
carried out on a system that could have been operated safely for a much
longer time.
2. The tasks may require higher numbers of skilled mechanics.
3. If the time to perform the maintenance is greater than the time the system
would normally be idle (eg overnight) then because of the frequency, it
could cause higher levels of unavilability.
4. It cannot guarantee the elimination of all failures and will do nothing to
reduce non-age-related failures.
5. Increasing the frequency of maintenance tasks may lead to an increase in
the probability of human errors in the form of maintenance-induced
failures.
6. Reducing the probability of failure by prematurely replacing components
means that the coefficient of utilisation of the item/system, CU
L
, will
have a value much less than one.
Preventive
Task
System in use
Predetermined
Time Tp
Operating time
FMT
L
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 162
36.3 Condition Based Maintenance (Predictive
Maintenance)
The need f or t h e pr ovi si on of saf et y, i ncr eased syst em avai l abi l i t y, and
r educed mai nt enance cost s have l ed t o an i ncr easi ng i nt er est i n
devel opment of al t er nat i ve mai nt enance p ol i ci es. A pol i cy w hi ch
over comes man y of t h e di sadvant ages of t he pr evi ous mai nt enance pol i ci es
(f ai l ur e-based and t i me-based), and has pr oved i t s abi l i t y t o ext end t he
oper at i ng l i f e of a syst em w i t hout i ncr easi ng t he r i sk of f ail ur e is condi t i on-
based mai nt enance, CBM . CBM i s al so know n as pr edi ct i ve mai nt enan ce.
Condi t i on-based mai nt enance can be d ef i ned as: " M ai nt enance car r i ed out
i n r esponse t o a si gni f i cant det er i or at i on i n a uni t as i ndi cat ed by a change
i n t he moni t or ed par amet er s of t he uni t ' s condi t i on or per f or mance" [ Kel l y
& Har r i s (1978)] . Thi s means t hat t he pr i nci pl e r eason f or car r yi ng out
mai nt enan ce act i vi t i es i s t he change or d et er i or at i o n i n condi t i on and/ or
per f or mance, and t he t i me t o per f or m mai nt enan ce act i ons i s det er mi ned
by moni t or i ng t h e act ual st at e of t he syst em, i t s per f or mance and/ or ot her
condi t i on par amet er s. Thi s shoul d mean t he syst em i s oper at ed i n i t s most
ef f i ci ent st at e and t hat mai nt enance i s onl y per f or med when i t i s cost -
ef f ect i ve. A sch emat i c pr esen t at i on of condi t i on-based mai nt enance
pr ocedur e i s pr esent ed i n Fi gur e 5.8. Thi s pol i cy i s wor t h appl yi ng i n
si t uat i ons w her e:
1- The st at e of t he syst em i s descr i bed b y one or mor e condi t i on
par amet er s.
2- The cost of t h e condi t i on moni t or i ng t echni qu e i s l ow er t han t he
expect ed r educt i on i n over al l mai nt enance cost s.
3- Ther e i s a hi gh pr obabi l i t y of det ect i ng pot en t i al l y cat ast r ophi c f ai l ur es
(bef or e t hey happen).
Fi gur e 5.8 Condi t i on based mai nt enance pol i cy
Unsatisfactory
Preventive
Task
System in use
Inspection time
Operating time
Satisfactory
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
System in use
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 163
The condi t i on-based mai nt enan ce i s a condi t i o n or per f or mance-dr i ven
pr event i ve mai nt enan ce. Thi s means t hat t he t i mi n g of t he mai nt enance
t ask i s not si mpl y a f unct i on of t he mean- t i me-t o-f ai l ur e. The pr i nci pl e of
condi t i on-based mai nt enan ce t her ef or e i s based on t he way of moni t or i ng
t he condi t i on par amet er s of a syst em gi vi ng t hr ee di f f er ent t ypes of
condi t i on moni t or i n g:
1- Inspect i on
Inspect i on i s gener al l y per f or med at r egul ar i nt er val s usi ng any of a number
of non-dest r uct i ve t est (NDT) pr ocedur es whi ch ar e desi gned t o det er mi ne
w het her t he condi t i on of t he (i nspect ed) i t em i s sat i sf act or y or
unsat i sf act or y and hence whet her f ur t her act i on i s r equi r ed.
2- Exami nat i on
Thi s i s a condi t i on-moni t or i ng t ask, whi ch pr esent s a numer i cal descr i pt i on
of t h e condi t i on of t he i t em at t hat moment t hr ou gh r el evant condi t i on
pr edi ct or s. The r esul t s di r ect l y af f ect t he sch edul i ng of t he next
exami nat i on. Thi s i s possi bl e because of t he uni que pr op er t i es and
char act er i st i cs of t he r el evant condi t i on pr edi ct or .
3 - Perf ormance Trend Moni t ori ng
For propulsion or energy producing systems, in particular, the
performance may be expressed as a ratio of the output to input, e.g. miles
per gallon, kilometres per litre, thrust per kilogram or (mega)watts per
tonne. As the system deteriorates, usually through wear but also through
damage, these ratios may show signs of decreasing. For systems operating
in relatively constant conditions (e.g. constant ambient temperature,
pressure and output), consistent changes in the specific fuel consumption
(SFC) will almost certainly be indicative of a deterioration in the system
which will need some form of maintenance to restore it to an acceptable
level. For systems that are operated in an inconsistent manor for which the
environmental conditions may be in a constant state of change, the SFC may
be subject to considerable noise and hence any deterioration will only be
apparent by using sophisticated trending algorithms, such as Kalman
Filtering.
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 164
36.3.1Setting up condition-based maintenance policy
In or der t o i mpl ement CBM pol i cy, i t i s necessar y t o use t he f ol l owi ng
managemen t st eps t hat ar e shown i n Fi gur e 5.9
Ident i f i cat i on and sel ect i on of mai nt enance si gni f i cant i t ems
The f i r st r equi r emen t of i mpl emen t i ng CBM i s t o d eci de whi ch i t ems of t he
syst em shoul d be moni t or ed, si nce i t i s l i kel y t o be bo t h unecono mi cal and
i mpr act i cal t o moni t or t hem al l . Ther ef or e, t he f i r st st ep of t he condi t i on-
based mai nt enance deci si on pr ocess i s a compr ehensi ve r evi ew of al l i t ems
i n a syst em, i n or der t o i dent i f y t he mai nt enan ce si gni f i cant i t ems, M SI s.
These ar e i t ems whose f ai l ur es coul d b e saf et y- cr i t i cal , envi r onment al l y
damagi ng or r evenue sensi t i ve. Thus, each i t em wi t h i n t he syst em shoul d
be anal ysed f r om t he poi nt of vi ew of f ai l ur e, especi al l y t he consequences
of f ai l ur e. The most f r equ ent l y used engi n eer i ng t ool s f or per f or mi ng t hi s
t ask i s a Fai l ur e M ode Ef f ect and Cr i t i cal i t y Anal ysi s, FM ECA and Rel i abi l i t y
Cent r ed M ai nt enance, RCM (see al so Chapt er s 6 and 11). Car e sh oul d be
t aken t o ensur e t hat al l of t he mai nt enan ce si gni f i cant i t ems ar e i dent i f i ed
and li st ed.
Ident i f i cat i on and sel ect i on of condi t i on paramet ers
Once t he mai nt enan ce si gni f i cant i t ems ar e i dent i f i ed i t i s n ecessar y t o
det er mi ne al l moni t or abl e par amet er s whi ch descr i be t hei r condi t i on or
per f or mance. The condi t i on par amet er can be def i ned as a measur abl e
var i abl e abl e t o di spl ay di r ect l y or r ef l ect i ndi r ect l y i nf or mat i on about t he
condi t i on of an i t em at any i nst ance of oper at i ng t i me. Ideal l y, mai nt enance
engi n eer s woul d l i ke t o f i nd many condi t i on/ par amet er s whi ch can be
moni t or ed and w hi ch accur at el y r ef l ect s t he condi t i on / per f or man ce of t he
syst em. In pr act i ce t h er e ar e t wo di st i ngui shabl e t ypes of condi t i on
par amet er s w hi ch ar e abl e t o achi eve t hi s (Knezevi c et al , 1995):
A. Rel evant Condi t i on Indi cat or, RCI
The Rel evan t Condi t i on Indi ct or , RCI, i s a par amet er t hat d escr i bes t he
condi t i o n of an i t em dur i ng i t s oper at i n g t i me and i t i ndi cat es t he condi t i on
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 165
of t he i t em at t he i nst ant of i nspect i on. The numer i cal val ue of RCI
r epr esen t s t he l ocal val ue of t he condi t i on of an i t em/ syst em at t h e t i me of
i nspect i on. Thi s t ype of condi t i on par amet er i s usual l y r el at ed t o t he
per f or mance. However , RCI i s not abl e t o pr edi ct t he f ut ur e devel opment of
t he condi t i on of t he consi der ed i t em/ syst em. Typi cal exampl es of t he RCI
ar e p er f or mance, t he l evel of vi br at i on, l evel of oi l , pr essur e, t emper at ur e,
et c. It i s necessar y t o st r ess t hat t h e RCI coul d have an i dent i cal val ue at
di f f er en t i nst ances of oper at i ng t i me.
Fi gur e 5.9 Fl ow of condi t i on based mai nt enance
Rel evant Condi t i on Predi ct or (RCP)
The Rel evant Condi t i on Pr edi ct or , RCP, i s a par amet er , whi ch descr i bes t he
condi t i on of an i t em at ever y i nst ant of oper at i ng t i me. Usual l y t hi s
par amet er i s di r ect l y r el at ed t o t he shap e, geomet r y, wei ght , and ot her
char act er i st i cs, whi ch descr i be t he condi t i on o f t he i t em under
consi der at i on. Th e RCP r epr esent s t he condi t i on of t he i t em/ syst em whi ch
i s most li kel y t o be af f ect ed b y a gr adual det er i or at i on f ail ur e such as w ear ,
cor r osi on f at i gue cr ack gr owt h. The gener al pr i nci pl es of t he RCP ar e
di scussed by Knezevi c (1987). Typi cal exampl es of RCP ar e: t hi ckness of an
System/ items selection
Condition parameters
selection
Condition monitoring
techniques selection
Collecting data &
information
fault diagnosis
Condition
assessment &
Condition-based
maintenance task
accepted
unaccepted
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 166
i t em, cr ack l engt h, dept h of t yr e t r eads, et c. The RCP cannot have i dent i cal
val ues at t wo or mor e i nst ance of t i me. The nu mer i cal val ue of t he r el evant
condi t i on pr edi ct or at any i nst ant of oper at i ng t i me quant i f i es t he
cumul at i ve val ue of t he condi t i on of an i t em/ syst em at t h e t i me of
exami nat i on.
Sel ect i on of condi t i on moni t ori ng t echni que
Havi ng i dent i f i ed t he mai nt enance si gni f i cant i t em and t he associ at ed
condi t i on par amet er (s), t he n ext st ep i s t o sel ect t he sui t abl e moni t or i ng
t echni que, whi ch wi l l be used t o i nspect and exami ne each condi t i on
par amet er .
The condi t i on moni t or i ng t echni que i s a devi ce used t o i nspect or exami ne
an i t em i n or der t o pr o vi de dat a and i nf or mat i on abo ut i t s condi t i on at any
i nst ance of oper at i ng t i me. Numer ous condi t i on moni t or i ng t echni qu es, f or
i nst ance, NDT t echni ques, p er f or man ce, vi br at i on, et c ar e avai l abl e f or use
by mai nt enan ce engi neer s i n or der t o d et er mi ne measur abl e val ue of
condi t i o n par amet er . It i s i mpor t ant t o under st and t he b ehavi our of t he
f ai l ur e t hat t he i t em exhi bi t s so t hat t he most ef f ect i ve mo ni t or i ng
t echni ques can be chosen.
The d eci si on as t o w hi ch condi t i on-moni t or i ng t echni ques ar e sel ect ed
depends gr eat l y on t he t yp e of syst em, t he t ype of condi t i on par amet er
and, i n t he end, on cost and saf et y. Once t he d eci si on i s made as t o whi ch
t echni ques ar e t o b e used, i t i s p ossi bl e t o def i ne t he equi pment or
i nst r ument t hat wi l l be needed t o car r y out condi t i on moni t or i ng.
Col l ect i ng dat a and i nf ormat i on
The phi l osophy of condi t i on moni t or i n g i s t o assess t he condi t i on of an
i t em/ syst em by t he use of t echni ques whi ch can r ange f r om human sensi ng
t o sophi st i cat ed i nst r ument at i on, i n or der t o det er mi ne t he n eed f or
per f or mi ng pr event i ve mai nt enance t asks. Wi t h t he i ncr eased i nt er est i n
condi t i on moni t or i ng i n r ecent year s t her e have been a number of
devel op ment s i n t he t echni ques t hat ar e used t o col l ect dat a and pr o vi de
i nf or mat i on, w hi ch hel ps mai nt enan ce engin eer s assessi ng t he condi t i on of
an i t em or a syst em. These devel opmen t s have mad e i t possi bl e t o obt ai n
mor e r el i abl e i nf or mat i on on t he condi t i on of t he syst em. In many
i nst ances such i nf or mat i on i s used t o i nsur e t hat t he st at us of t h e syst em
wi l l cont i nue t o be i n a f unct i oni ng st at e wi t ho ut si gni f i cant r i sk of
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 167
br eakdown, and i n some i nst ances t o make a deci si on on t he t i mi n g of
when mai nt enan ce t asks shoul d be per f or med. The met hod of dat a
col l ect i on can be cl assi f i ed i nt o t he f ol l owi ng cat egor i es:
On-l i ne dat a col l ect i on and moni t ori ng
On-l i ne dat a col l ect i on and moni t or i ng uses i nst r ument at i on f i t t ed t o t he
syst em w hi ch t ak es cont i nuous measur ement s of t h e condi t i on par amet er s.
These may t hen be anal ysed b y an on-boar d comput er t o det er mi ne
whet her t her e has been a change i n t he condi t i on of t he i t em/ syst em and
whet h er t hat chan ge r equi r es an y act i on. The benef i t of usi ng on-l i ne
moni t or i n g i s t o r educe t he n eed f or human i nt er vent i on and mi ni mi se t he
pr obabi l i t y of a f ai l ur e occur r i ng bet w een i nspect i ons.
Of f -l i ne col l ect i on and moni t ori ng
Of f -l i ne col l ect i on and moni t or i ng i s per i odi c measur emen t of a condi t i on
of an i t em/ syst em or con t i nuous dat a col l ect i on whi ch i s anal ysed
r emot el y. Thi s t ype of met hod i nvol ves ei t her t he col l ect i on of dat a usi ng a
por t abl e dat a col l ect or , or t aki ng a physi cal sampl e, f or exampl e, l ubr i cat i on
oi l sampl es f or anal ysi s of cont ami nat i on and debr i s cont ent . Per i odi c
moni t or i ng t h er ef or e pr ovi des a way of det ect i ng pr ogr essi ve f aul t s i n a
way t hat may be cheaper t han t he on-l i ne syst em.
Fi gur e 5.10. Condi t i on moni t or i ng and condi t i on assessmen t
Condi t i on assessment
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 168
The assessment of t he condi t i on of an i t em/ syst em (Fi gur e 5.10) can r ange
f r om human exper i ence t o sophi st i cat ed i nst r ument at i on. Th e l ast f ew
decades have seen a number of devel opment s i n t he met hods w hi ch ar e
used t o hel p t he mai nt enance engi neer s assess and di agnose t he condi t i on
of an i t em/ syst em and pr ovi de t hem wi t h i nf or mat i on on whi ch t o base
t hei r deci si on. Once condi t i on moni t or i ng sensor s have been i nst al l ed and
dat a ar e bei ng col l ect ed, i t i s necessar y t o have r el i abl e met hods of
i nt er pr et i ng t he dat a t o i den t i f y whet her t he consi der ed i t em i s under goi ng
a t r ansi t i on f r om t he nor mal t o abnor mal condi t i on and i n many cases t o
i dent i f y t he causes of t he chan ges.
Ef f ect i ve condi t i on-based mai nt enance r equi r es a l ar ge number of
measur ement s t aken cont i nuousl y or at i nt er val s t hat assur e r ecogni t i on of
change i n t he condi t i on of t he i t em/ syst em i n suf f i ci ent t i me t o avoi d t he
need f or any cor r ect i ve act i on. The vol ume of dat a necessar y t o accur at el y
det er mi ne t he condi t i on of t he i t em/ syst em can r equi r e an excessi ve
amount of t i me t o pr o cess and anal yse. Consequent l y, t he demand t o
mani pul at e and pr ocess l ar ge amount s o f dat a ver y qui ckl y has l ead t o t he
devel opment of t ool s such as Ar t i f i ci al I nt el l i gence, AI, t o assi st engi neer s t o
gai n maxi mum val ue f r om t h e dat a.
In r ecent year s, Ar t i f i ci al Int el l i gence t echni ques such as Exper t Syst em,
Neur al Net wor ks and Fuzzy Logi c have been appl i ed t o t he di sci pl i ne of
moni t or i ng and di agnost i c syst ems [ M ann et al (1995)] . These t echni ques
ext end t h e power of t h e compu t er beyond t he usu al mat hemat i cal and
st at i st i cal f unct i ons by usi ng di al ogue and l ogi c t o det er mi n e var i ous
possi bl e cour ses of act i on or out co me. By pr ocessi ng i nf or mat i on much
f ast er (t han humans) t he t i me t o assess t he condi t i on and di agnose t he
causes of f ai l ur es can be r educed. It can anal yse si t uat i ons obj ect i vel y and
wi l l not f or get any r el evan t f act s (gi ven t hat i t has been suppl i ed t hem),
t her ef or e t he pr obabi l i t y of maki ng a wr ong assessment or di agnosi s may
be r educed. Fur t her mor e, i t can d et ect i nci pi ent f ai l ur es t hr o ugh i t s on-l i ne
moni t or i ng of t he condi t i on par amet er s of t he syst em [ Laval l e et al (1993)] .
Impl ement at i on of condi t i on based mai nt enance
Havi ng i dent i f i ed and l i st ed al l t he condi t i on par amet er s of t he
mai nt enance si gni f i cant i t ems, t he ai m of t hi s st ep i s t o i mpl ement
condi t i on based mai nt enance. Accor di ng t o t he cl assi f i cat i ons of condi t i on
par amet er , condi t i on based mai nt enance coul d be di vi ded i n t w o pol i ci es:
Inspect i on Based Mai nt enance Pol i cy
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 169
The sui t abl e mai nt enan ce pol i cy f or i t ems f or whi ch t hei r condi t i ons ar e
descr i b ed by t he r el evant condi t i on i ndi cat or , RCI i s i nspect i on-based
mai nt enance. The al gor i t hm, whi ch pr esent s t he mai n t enance pr ocedur e i n
t hi s case, i s show n i n Fi gur e 5.11
Inspect i on i s car r i ed at f i xed i nt er val s t o d et er mi ne whet h er t he
condi t i on of t he i t em, i s sat i sf act or y or unsat i sf act or y accor di ng t o t he RCI .
Bef or e t he i t em/ syst em i s i nt r odu ced i nt o ser vi ce t he most sui t abl e
f r equency of t h e i nsp ect i on, FMT
I
, and cr i t i cal val ue of r el evant condi t i on
i ndi cat or
cr
RCI has t o b e det er mi ned. Once t he cr i t i cal l evel i s r eached,
RCI FMT RCI
I
cr
( ) > , t he pr escr i b ed pr event i ve mai nt enance t asks t ake
pl ace. I f t he i t em f ai l s bet ween i nspect i ons, cor r ect i ve mai nt enance t akes
pl ace.
Advant ages of i nspect i on based mai nt enance
CBM has t he po t ent i al t o pr oduce l ar ge savi ngs si mpl y by al l ow i ng i t ems i n
t he syst em t o be r un t o t he end of t hei r usef ul l i f e. Thi s r educes t he
equi pment down t i me and mi ni mi ses bot h schedul ed and unsch edul ed
br eakdown si t uat i ons. By el i mi nat i ng al l unsched ul ed i nt er r u pt i ons t o
oper at i on and pr oduct i on and onl y car r yi ng out r equi r ed mai nt enance i n a
car ef ul l y cont r ol l ed mann er , i t i s possi bl e t o r educe t he mai nt enan ce cost ,
t o i mpr ove saf et y, i mpr o ve t he ef f i ci ency of t he oper at i on and i ncr ease t he
syst em’ s avai l abi l i t y.
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 170
Fi gur e 5. 11 Al gor i t hm f or i nspect i on based mai nt enance t ask
The b en ef i t s of i nspect i on based mai nt enance pol i cy can be summar i sed as
f ol l ow s:
1. Reduce unplanned downtime, since maintenance engineers can determine
optimal maintenance intervals through the condition of constituent items
in the system. This allows for better maintenance planning and more
efficient use of resources.
2. Improve safety, since monitoring and detection of the deterioration in
condition and/or performance of an item/system will enable the user to
stop the system (just) before a failure occurs.
3. Extending the operating life of each individual items and therefore the
coefficient of life utilisation will be increased compared to time based
maintenance
4. Improve availability by being able to keep the system running longer and
reducing the repair time.
5. Reduce maintenance resources due to reduction in unnecessary
maintenance activities
6. The above benefits will lead to a reduction in maintenance costs
MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE
Condition-based Maintenance policy
System in use
Maintenance task
Type Inspection
Inspection of RCI
Yes
No
Determination of
RCI > RCI
cr
cr
FMT and RCI
I
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 171
Exami nat i on Based Mai nt enance Pol i cy
The d eci si on f or per f or mi ng t he condi t i on-based mai nt enan ce t asks i s
based on t he i nf or mat i on r el at ed t o t he condi t i on of an i t em/ syst em
est abl i shed t hr ough condi t i on checks dur i ng i t s o per at i onal l i f e. Thi s
i ndi cat es t hat i nsp ect i on-based mai nt enance st r at egy has achi eved t he
demand f or i ncr easi ng t he l evel of ut i l i sat i on of an i t em/ syst em. How ever ,
t he syst em avai l abi l i t y may not i ncr ease, due t o an i ncr eased number of
i nt er r upt i ons of t h e oper at i on caused by i ncr easi ng t he number of
i nspect i ons. Th er ef o r e, as an al t er nat i ve, exami nat i on based mai nt enance
appr oach i s pr oposed by Knezevi c (1987b) f or t he d et er mi nat i on of
mai nt enan ce t asks based on r el evant condi t i on pr edi ct or s.
Exami nat i on based mai nt enance pr o vi des addi t i onal i nf or mat i on about t he
change i n condi t i on of t he i t ems consi der ed dur i n g i t s oper at i onal l i f e.
Conseq uent l y, exami nat i on based mai nt enance was devel oped f or t he
cont r ol of mai nt enance pr ocedur es [ El - Har am 1995] . Wi t h mor e
i nf or mat i on about t he pr ocess of change i n condi t i on, a hi gher l evel of
ut i l i sat i on of t he i t ems can b e achi eved w hi l st mai nt ai ni ng a l ow pr obabi l i t y
of f ail ur e dur i ng t he oper at i on.
It i s a dynami c pr ocess becau se t he t i me of t he n ext exami nat i on i s f ul l y
det er mined b y t he r eal condit i on of t he syst em at t he t i me of exami nat i on.
Dynami c con t r ol of mai nt enance t asks al l ows each i ndi vi dual i t em t o
per f or m t he r equest ed f unct i on wi t h t he r equi r ed pr obabi l i t y of f ai l ur e, as
i n t he case of t i me-based pr even t i ve mai nt enance but wi t h f ul l er ut i l i sat i on
of oper at i ng l i f e, hen ce wi t h a r educt i on of t ot al cost of oper at i on and
pr oduct i on.
The cr i t i cal l evel of t h e r el evant condi t i on pr edi ct or RCP
cr
, set s t he l i mi t
above whi ch appr opr i at e mai nt enance t asks shoul d be per f or med. The
i nt er val b et w een t he l i mi t (
lim
RCP ) and cr i t i cal val u es d epends on t he
abi l i t y of t he oper at or t o measur e t h e condi t i on of t he i t em t hr ough t he
RCP. The i t em under consi d er at i on coul d be i n one of t he f ol l ow i n g t hr ee
st at es, accor di ng t o t he numer i cal val ue of t he RCP, :
1. RCP RCP l RCP
initial cr
< < ( ) : cont i nue wi t h exami nat i ons;
2. RCP RCP l RCP
cr
< < ( )
lim
: pr event i ve mai nt enance t ask r equi r ed;
3. RCP RCP l
lim
( ) < : cor r ect i ve mai nt enance t ask, because t h e f ai l ur e
has al r eady occur r ed.
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 172
In or der t o mi ni mi se i nt er r upt i ons t o t he oper at i on and maxi mi se t he
avai l abi l i t y of t he syst em, no st oppages occur unt i l t he t i me t o t h e f i r st
exami nat i on of t he condi t i on of t he i t em, FMT
E
1
. The r esul t of t he
exami nat i on i s gi ven as a numer i cal val ue of t he r el evant condi t i on
pr edi ct or , MRCP FMT
E
( )
1
, and i t pr esent s t he r eal condi t i on of t he i t em
at t hi s i nst ant of t i me. The f ol l owi ng t wo condi t i ons ar e possi bl e,
dep endent on t he val ue r ecor ded:
1. MRCP FMT RCP
E
cr
( )
1
> , whi ch means t hat a pr escr i b ed
mai nt enance t ask shoul d t ake pl ace.
2. MRCP FMT RCP
E
cr
( )
1
< , t he i t em can cont i nue t o be used.
The quest i on, w hi ch i mmedi at el y ar i ses h er e, i s: w hen w i l l t he next
exami nat i on have t o be don e, pr eser vi ng t he r equi r ed r el i abi l i t y l evel ? The
t i me t o t he next exami nat i on dep ends on t he di f f er ence bet ween t he
RCP
cr
and MRCP FMT
E
( )
1
. The gr eat er t he di f f er ence, t he l onger t he
(oper at i onal ) t i me t o t he next exami nat i on, FMT
E
2
. At t he pr ed et er mi n ed
t i me of t he next exami nat i on, FMT
n
E
, ei t her of t he t wo condi t i ons i s
possi bl e, and t he same pr ocedur e sho ul d be f ol l ow ed, as show n i n Fi gur e
5. 12
Advant ages of Exami nat i on Based Pol i cy
The advant ages of t he exami nat i on-based mai nt enance pol i cy ar e:
1. Fuller utilisation of the functional life of each individual system than in
case of time -based maintenance;
2. Provision of the required reliability level of each individual system as in
case of time-based maintenance;
3. Reduction of the total maintenance cost as a result of extending the
realisable operating life of the system and provision of a plan for
maintenance tasks from the point of view of logistic support;
4. Increased availability of the item by a reduction of the number of
inspections in comparison with inspection-based maintenance.
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 173
5. Applicability to all engineering systems. The main difficulties are the
selection of a relevant condition predictor and the determination of the
mathematical description of the RCP l ( ) .
Fi gur e 5.12 M ai nt enance pr ocedur e f or exami nat i on based mai nt enance
In pr act i ce, i t i s i mpossi bl e t o el i mi nat e al l br eakd ow ns. In some cases, i t
may no t b e economi cal or pr act i cal t o use exami nat i on-based mai nt enance.
Somet i mes i t i s not physi cal l y possi bl e t o moni t or t he condi t i on of al l
mai nt enan ce si gni f i cant i t ems. For t hese r easons, condi t i on- based
mai nt enan ce shoul d not b e consi der ed t o be a st and-al one pol i cy. It shoul d
be i nt egr at ed as a par t of t he over al l mai nt enan ce pol i cy. Thus, t he opt i mal
sel ect i on of mai nt enance pol i cy f or a syst em shoul d i ncl ude f ai l ur e-based,
cr
E
n
RCP FMT MRCP > ) (
Maintenance Policy
Condition -Based Maintenance
Policy
Type
Examination
Determination of
E
FMT
1
and
cr
RCP
System in use
Examination of RCPat
E
FMT
1
cr
E
RCP FMT MRCP > ) (
1
Determination of
E
n
FMT
Preventive task
System in use
Examination of RCPat
E
n
FMT
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 174
t i me-based, i nspect i on -based and exami nat i on-based mai nt enance
st r at egi es. The r easo ns f or t hi s ar e summar i sed bel ow:
1. Not all items in the system are significant; the suitable maintenance
policy is therefore, failure-based maintenance.
2. It may not be possible or practical to monitor the condition / performance
of the significant items, so the suitable maintenance policy is therefore,
time-based maintenance.
3. If the condition parameters of a significant item cannot be described by a
relevant condition predictor, then the suitable maintenance policy is
inspection-based maintenance
4. For significant items with relevant condition predictors, the most suitable
policy is examination-based maintenance.
A mai nt enance management appr oach such as r el i abi l i t y cent r ed
mai nt enan ce coul d be used t o sel ect t he most appl i cabl e and ef f ect i ve
mai nt enan ce t ask f or each i t em i n t he syst em
37. MAINTENANCE RESOURCES
It i s i mpor t ant t o st r ess t hat t he number of act i vi t i es, t hei r sequen ce and
t he t yp e and quant i t y of r esour ce r equi r ed mai nl y depends on t he deci si ons
t aken dur i ng t he desi gn phase of t he i t em/ syst em. The t i me r equi r ed t o
per f or m a mai nt enance t ask wi l l al so depend on deci si ons made dur i ng t hi s
phase, such as t he compl exi t y, t est abi l i t y, accessi b i l i t y and any speci al
f aci l i t i es, equi pment , t ool s or r esour ces needed.
Resour ces r equi r ed pr i mar i l y t o f aci l i t at e t he mai nt enance pr ocess wi l l be
cal l ed M ai nt enance Resour ces, M R.. The r esour ces needed f or t he
successf ul co mpl et i on of ever y mai nt enance t ask, coul d be gr ouped i nt o
t he f ol l ow i ng cat egor i es (Kn ezevi c 1997):
1. Maintenance Supply Support, MSS: is generic name which includes all
spares, repair items, consumables, special supplies, and related
inventories needed to support the maintenance process
2. Maintenance Test and Support Equipment, MTE: includes all tools,
special condition monitoring equipment, diagnostic and check-out
equipment, metrology and calibration equipment, maintenance stands and
servicing and handling equipment required to support maintenance tasks
associated with the item/system. Typically, MTE can be divided into two
groups: special to type equipment (STTE) and general (to type)
equipment (GTTE).
3. Maintenance Personnel, MP: required for the installation, check-out,
handling, and sustaining maintenance of the item/system and its
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 175
associated test and support equipment are included in this category.
Formal training for maintenance personnel required for each maintenance
task should be considered
4. Maintenance Facilities, MFC: refers to all special facilities needed for
completion of maintenance tasks. Physical plant, real estate, portable
buildings, inspection pits, dry dock, housing, maintenance shops,
calibration laboratories, and special repair and overhaul facilities must be
considered related to each maintenance task
5. Maintenance Technical Data, MTD: necessary for check-out procedures,
maintenance instructions, inspection and calibration procedures, overhaul
procedures, modification instructions, facilities information, drawings
and specifications that are necessary in the performance of system
maintenance functions. Such data not only cover the system but test and
support equipment, transportation and handling equipment, training
equipment and facilities
6. Maintenance Computer Resources, MCR: refers to all computer
equipment and accessories, software, program tapes/disks, data bases and
so on, necessary in the performance of maintenance functions. This
includes both condition monitoring and diagnostics.
On t he ot h er hand, i t i s i mpor t ant t o r em ember t hat each t ask i s per f or med
i n a speci f i c wor k envi r onment t hat coul d make a si gni f i cant i mpact on t he
saf et y, accur acy and ease of t ask compl et i on. Th e mai n envi r onment al
f act or s coul d be gr oup ed as f oll ows:
• space i mp edi m ent (whi ch r ef l ect s t he obst r uct i ons i mposed on
mai nt enance per sonn el dur i ng t he t ask execu t i on whi ch r equi r es t hem
t o oper at e i n aw kw ar d posi t i ons)
• Cl i mat i c condi t i ons such as r ai n/ snow, sol ar r adi at i on, humi di t y,
t emper at ur e, and si mi l ar si t uat i ons, whi ch coul d make si gni f i cant
i mpact on t he saf et y, accur acy and ease of t ask compl et i on.
• Pl at f or m on whi ch mai nt enance t ask i s per f or med (on oper at i onal si t e,
on boar d a shi p/ submar i ne, space vehi cl e, wor kshops, and si mi lar ).
38. MAINTENANCE INDUCED FAILURES
Wh enever t he cause of f ai l ur e i s r el at ed t o t he mai nt enance per f or med on
t he syst em, we cal l i t mai nt enance-i nduced f ai l ur e M IF. The r oot cause of
M IF i s poor wor kmanshi p, whi ch mi ght l ead t o po or spar es or mat er i al
sel ect i on, i mpr oper use of t est equi pment , t r ai ni ng, wor ki ng envi r onment
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 176
et c. A f ew exampl es of mai nt enance-i nduced f ai l ur e ar e di scussed i n t hi s
sect i on.
In 1991, Ni gel M ansel l l ost hi s chance of beco mi ng t he For mul a 1 Wor l d
Champi o n i n Por t ugal when one of t he mechani cs dur i ng a r out i ne t yr e
change cr oss-t hr ead ed t he r et ai ni ng nut on t he r ear of f si de wheel . The
r esul t was t hat t he wh eel over t ook t he car as Ni gel was exi t i ng f r om t h e pi t
l ane and hi s chan ce of vi ct or y and of t h e champi o nshi p ended at t hat
moment .
An ai r l i ne pi l ot had a ver y l ucky escape when he was near l y sucked t hr ou gh
a wi ndow i n t he cockpi t . The wi ndow was r emoved and r epl aced dur i ng a
r ecent l y compl et ed mai nt enance act i vi t y. Wh en t h e cabi n was pr essur i sed
as t he ai r cr af t cl i mbed t o cr ui si ng al t i t ude, t he wi ndow bl ew out . The r api d
l oss of pr essur e caused t he pi l ot sat next t o t he wi ndow t o be sucked
t hr ough t h e hol e. A combi nat i on of hi s si ze and t he qui ck r eact i ons of ot her
member s of t h e cr ew w er e al l t hat saved hi m f r om a cer t ai n deat h. The
cause of t h e wi ndow bei ng bl own out was t hat i t had been r ef i t t ed usi ng
under -si zed scr ew s.
In 1983, a n ew Ai r Canada Boei ng 767 f l yi ng f r om M ont r eal t o Edm ont on
r an out of f uel hal f w ay bet w een t he t w o at Gi ml i near Wi nni peg. Al t hough
t hi s was not ent i r el y t he f aul t of t h e r ef uel l er s, t hei r mi scal cul at i ons i n
conver t i ng bet w een i mper i al an d met r i c uni t s w as t he f i nal st r aw i n an
unf or t unat e sequence of event s. A number of r eco mmen dat i ons f ol l owed
t hi s i nci dent whi ch shoul d mean t hat i t n ever happens agai n (pr ovi ded
ever yone f ol l ow s t he pr ocedur es cor r ect l y).
A f ew year s ago, a t eam of “ exp er i enced ” mechani cs t hough t t hey knew
how t o do a par t i cul ar mai nt enance t ask so di d not f ol l ow t he i nst r uct i ons
i n t he mai nt enance manual s. The r esul t was a cost of sever al mi l l i on
pounds st er l i ng and a numb er of ai r cr af t bei ng out of ser vi ce f or
consi der abl y l onger t han t hey shoul d have been.
These ar e ext r eme exampl es of what may be consi der ed as “ mai nt enance
i nduced f ai l ur es” . They ar e al so ones w her e i t w as r el at i vel y easy t o
det er mi ne t he cause(s).
One of t he maj or causes f or acci dent al damage t o compon ent s (f r om l i ne
r epl aceabl e uni t s t o par t s) i s t he need t o r emove t hem i n or d er t o access
ot her component s. Usi ng CATIA an d EPI C (or si mi l ar syst ems) can do a
gr eat d eal t o ai d t he t ask of maki ng co mponent s accessi bl e and r emovi ng
i nt er f er ence pr ovi ded, of cour se, t he desi gn t eam ar e aw ar e of t h ese needs
and t hei r i mpor t ance t o t he oper at i onal ef f ect i veness of t he ai r cr af t .
Fast ener s not pr oper l y t i ght ened and l ocked (wher e appr opr i at e) can wor k
l oose. Si mi l ar l y, i f t hey ar e not “ capt ur ed” t h en t her e i s a danger of t hem
bei ng “ l ost ” w hen undone. If t hey ar e i nsi de t he engi ne or engi ne nacel l e
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 177
t hey may b e sucked i nt o t h e d el i cat e machi ner y al most cer t ai nl y causi ng
ext ensi ve and expensi ve damage. Fast ener s over -t i ght ened may cause
di st or t i on r esul t i ng i n l eaks or damage, whi ch may agai n have ser i ous
consequen ces. Consi st en t and sensi bl e use of f ast ener s can not onl y
r educe su ch pr obl ems but wi l l al so r educe t he par t s l i st and hence i mpr ove
t he suppor t abi l i t y of t he ai r cr af t .
Some spar e par t s may be expensi ve or di f f i cul t t o obt ai n. Ther e may be a
t empt at i on t o use al t er nat i ve sour ces (ot her t han t hose aut hor i sed). In
many cases t hese may be made f r o m i nf er i or mat er i al s or t o l ess
demandi ng t ol er ances and qual i t y st andar ds. The use of such r o gue par t s
may r esul t i n pr emat ur e component f ai l ur e and, possi bl e, ser i ous damage.
Conf igur at i on cont r ol and f ul l t r aceabi l i t y of par t s i s an essent i al el emen t of
ai r cr af t saf et y but , unt i l pr act i cal el ect r oni c t aggi ng of al l par t s becomes
avai l abl e, i t wi ll r emai n di f f i cul t t o pol i ce ef f ect i vel y.
39. MAINTENANCE COST
The wor l d' s ai r l i nes spend ar ound $21 bi l l i on on mai nt enance, out of whi ch
21% i s spen t on l i ne mai nt enance, 27% on heavy mai n t enance, 31% on
engi n e over haul , 16% on componen t o ver haul and t he r emai nder on
modi f i cat i ons and conver si ons (M Lam 1995). Repai r and mai nt enance of
bui l di ng st ock i n t he UK r epr esent s o ver 5% of Gr oss Domest i c Pr o duct , or
£36 bi l l i on at 1996 [ Bui l di ng mai nt enance i nf or mat i on r epor t 254,1996] .
M ai nt enance and r epai r cost s can be t wo t o t hr ee t i mes t h e i ni t i al capi t al
cost s, over t he l i f e of many t ypes of bui l di ngs.
If one r ecogni ses t hat mai nt enance i s essent i al l y t he managemen t of f ai l ur e
t hen cl ear l y, t hi s expendi t ur e i s pr i mar i l y t he r esul t of poor qual i t y and
unr el i abil i t y. How ever , si nce i t i s i mpossi bl e t o pr oduce a syst em w hi ch w i l l
never f ai l i f oper at ed f or l ong enough w e must consi der w ays i n w hi ch t he
cost s of mai nt enance can b e kept t o a mi ni mum w hi l st ensur i ng syst em
avai l abi l i t y, saf et y and i nt egr i t y.
We have al r eady seen t hat t her e ar e many f act or s whi ch can af f ect t he
cost s of mai nt ai ni ng a syst em. Whi l st t he or i gi nal d esi gn w i l l be a maj or
i nf l uenci ng f act or on t hese cost s, t he oper at or s and mai nt ai ner s of t he
syst em can, non et hel ess, do much t o mi ni mi se t h e cost of owner shi p by
adopt i ng t h e most sui t abl e mai nt enance pol i ci es f or t he condi t i ons
pr evai l i ng.
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 178
39.1 Cost of Maintenance Task
The cost of t he mai nt enance t ask i s t he cost associ at ed wi t h each cor r ect i ve
or pr event i ve t ask, whet her t i me-based or condi t i on-based. The expect ed
cor r ect i ve mai nt enance cost i s t he t ot al cost of mai nt enance r esour ces
needed t o r epai r or r epl ace f ai l ed i t ems. Si mi l ar l y, t he expect ed pr event i ve
mai nt enan ce cost i s t h e t ot al cost of mai nt enan ce r esour ces needed t o
i nspect and/ or exami ne an i t em bef or e f ai l ur e t akes pl ace and t o r epl ace
any i t ems r ej ect ed. Thus, t he t ot al mai n t enance cost t hr oughout t he l i f e of
a syst ems/ pr oduct i s t he sum of t he cor r ect i ve and pr event i ve mai nt enance
cost s and t he o ver head cost s, w hi ch consi st of al l co st s ot her t han di r ect
mat er i al , l abour and pl an t equi p ment . Th e cost of mai nt enan ce t ask can be
di vi ded i nt o t wo cat egor i es:
39.2 Direct cost of maintenance task
The di r ect cost associ at ed wi t h each mai nt enance t ask, CM T, i s r el at ed t o
t he cost of mai nt enance r esour ces, CM R, whi ch ar e ment i on ed i n Sect i on 9.
Thi s i s t he cost of t he mai nt enance r esour ces di r ect l y used dur i ng t he
execut i on of t he mai nt enance t ask, w hi ch i s def i ned as:
d f te p m s
C C C C C C CMT + + + + + · (5.11)
Where:
s
C = cost of spare parts,
m
C = cost of material,
p
C = cost of
personnel,
te
C = cost of tools and support equipment,
f
C = cost of
facilities and
d
C = cost of technical data.
39.3 Indirect cost of maintenance task
Indi r ect cost s i ncl udes as management and admi ni st r at i on st af f need ed f or
t he su ccessf ul compl et i on of t he t ask and t he cost of t he consequences of
not havi ng t he syst em avai l abl e whi ch i s r el at ed t o a compl et e or par t i al
l oss of pr oduct i on and/ or r evenue. It al so i ncl udes t he over head cost s, i .e.
sal ar i es of empl oyer s, h eat i ng, i nsur ance, t axes, f aci l i t i es, el ect r i ci t y,
t el ephon e, IT, t r ai ni ng and si mi l ar w hi ch ar e i ncur r ed w hi l e t he i t em i s i n
st at e of f ai l ur e (and, of cour se, not i ncl uded i n t h e di r ect cost s). These cost s
shoul d not be negl ect ed, b ecause t hey coul d be even hi gher t han t he ot her
cost el ement s.
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 179
Cost of l ost pr oduct i on and/ or r evenue, CLR, i s di r ect l y pr opor t i onal t o t he
pr oduct of t he l engt h of t he t i me whi ch t he syst em spends i n t he st at e of
f ai l u r e (dow n t i me) and t he i ncome hour l y r at e, IHR, w hi ch i s t he money
t he syst em w oul d ear n w hi l st i n oper at i on. Thus, t he cost of l ost r evenue
coul d be det er mi ned accor di ng t o t he f ol l ow i ng expr essi on:
IHR DT IHR DST DMT CLR × · × + · ) ( (5.12)
Wh er e DM T i s dur at i on of mai nt enance t ask, DST i s dur at i on of suppor t
t ask and DT i s t ot al down t i me. Not e f or syst ems t hat ar e not nor mal l y i n
cont i nuous oper at i on, t he downt i me shoul d t ake acco unt of t he pr opor t i on
of t he t i me t he syst em woul d nor mal l y be expect ed t o be oper at i onal . In
par t i cul ar , pr event at i ve, pl anned or sch edul ed mai nt enan ce woul d
nor mal l y be don e w hen t he syst em w oul d be exp ect ed t o be i dl e and w oul d
onl y count as “ downt i me” f or any per i od t hat t h e syst em woul d be
exp ect ed t o be oper at i onal . Thus, f or exampl e, i f an ai r l i n er i s not
per mi t t ed t o f l y b et w een t h e hour s of 21: 00 and 07:00 t hen any
mai nt enance t asks und er t aken and compl et ed dur i ng t hose 10 hour s woul d
not af f ect t he r evenue-ear ni n g capaci t y of t he ai r cr af t .
39.4 Total cost of maintenance task
The t ot al cost of mai nt enance t ask i s t he sum cost of di r ect and i ndi r ect
cost s, t hus:
CMT CMR CLR · + (5.13)
M aki ng use of t he above equat i ons t h e expr essi on f or t he cost of t he
compl et i on of each mai nt enance t ask i s def i ned as:
IHR DST DMT C C C C C C CMT
d f te p m s
× + + + + + + + · ) ( (5.14)
It i s necessar y t o under l i ne t hat t he cost d ef i ned by t he above expr essi on
coul d di f f er consi der abl y, due t o:
1. Adopt i on of di f f er ent mai nt enan ce pol i ci es
2. The di r ect cost of each mai nt enance t ask
3. Consump t i on of mai nt enance r esour ces
4. Dur at i on of mai nt enance t ask,
E I p c
DMT DMT DMT DMT and , ,
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 180
5. Fr equency of pr event i ve mai nt enance t ask,
L
FMT , t he f r equency of
i nspect i on,
I
FMT and f r equency of exami nat i on
E
FMT
6. Dur at i on of suppor t t ask,
E I p c
DST DST DST DST and , ,
7. The exp ect ed number of mai nt enance t asks NMT T
st
( ) per f or med
dur i ng t h e st at ed oper at i onal l engt h,
st
L . For exampl e, i n t he case of
FBM ,
MTTF
T
T NMT
st
st
· ) (
8. Di f f er ent pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i ons and di f f er ent val ues whi ch r andom
var i abl es
E I p c E I p c
DST DST DST DST DMT DMT DMT DMT and , , , , , ,
can t ake.
9. I ndi r ect cost s of mai nt enance t asks.
Thus, t he gen er al expr essi on f or t he cost of each mai nt enance t ask w i l l
have di f f er ent dat a i nput f or di f f er ent mai nt enance pol i ci es, as show n
bel ow :
c c c c
d
c
f
c
te
c
p
c
m
c
sp
c
IHR DST DMT C C C C C C CMT × + + + + + + + · ) (
p p p p
d
p
f
p
te
p
p
p
m
p
sp
p
IHR DST DMT C C C C C C CMT × + + + + + + + · ) (
I I I I
d
I
f
I
te
I
p
I
m
I
sp
I
IHR DST DMT C C C C C C CMT × + + + + + + + · ) (
E E E E
d
E
f
E
te
E
p
E
m
E
sp
E
IHR DST DMT C C C C C C CMT × + + + + + + + · ) (
Wher e: CMT
c
i s r el at ed t o t he cost of each mai nt enance t ask per f or med
af t er t he f ai l ur e, CMT
p
i s cost i n t he case of t i me based mai nt enance
I
CMT i s cost of i nspect i on based mai nt enance and
I
CMT i s cost of
exami nat i on based mai nt enance.
The expect ed t ot al mai nt enance cost f or a st at ed t i me, ) (
st
T CMT , i s equal
t o t he pr oduct of t he mai nt enance cost f or each mai nt enance t ask and t he
expect ed number of mai nt enan ce t asks per f or med d ur i ng t he st at ed t i me,
NMT T
st
( ) , t hus:
) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) (
st
E E
st
I I
st
p p
st
c c
st
T NMT CMT T NMT CMT
T NMT CMT T NMT CMT T CMT
× + ×
+ × + × ·
(5.15)
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 181
39.5 Factor Affecting Maintenance Costs
M ai nt enance cost coul d be af f ect ed by t he f ol l owi ng f act or s:
1. Supply responsiveness or the probability of having a spare part available
when needed, supply lead times for given items, levels of inventory, and
so on.
2. Test and support equipment effectiveness, which is the reliability and
availability of test equipment, test equipment utilisation, system test
thoroughness, and so on.
3. Maintenance facility availability and utilisation.
4. Transportation times between maintenance facilities.
5. Maintenance organisational effectiveness and personnel efficiency.
6. Durability and reliability of items in the system
7. Life expectancy of system
8. Expected number of maintenance tasks
9. Duration of maintenance and support task
10. Maintenance task resources
In or der t o r educe mai n t enance cost s, i t i s necessar y t hat t he i mpact of t he
above f act or s shoul d be r educed and/ or cont r ol l ed.
In cal cul at i ng t he var i ous cost el ement s of mai nt enance, i t i s i mpor t ant t o
r eco gni se t hat f aci l i t i es, equi pment , and per sonn el may b e used f or ot her
t asks. For exampl e, mechani cs i n t he ar med f or ces may be put on guar d
dut y or pr ovi de a def ence r ol e when no t per f or mi ng mai nt enance t asks.
Thus el i mi nat i ng al l mai nt enance t asks at f i r st l i ne ( or O-Level ) may not
necessar i l y l ead t o a si gni f i cant r educt i on i n t he per sonnel depl oyed or ,
i ndeed, i n t he oper at i onal cost s.
40. AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE - CASE STUDY
For ever y commer ci al ai r l i ne, mai nt enance i s on e of t he most i mpor t ant
f unct i ons t o assur e saf e oper at i on. Feder al Avi at i on Regul at i on (FAR)
r equi r e t hat , no per son may oper at e an ai r cr af t unl ess t h e mandat or y
r epl acement t i mes, i nspect i on i nt er val s and r el at ed pr ocedur es or
al t er nat i ve i nsp ect i on i nt er val s and r el at ed pr oced ur es set f or t h i n t he
oper at i ons sp eci f i cat i ons or i nspect i on pr ogr am has b een compl i ed w i t h. Al l
ai r cr af t must f ol l ow a mai nt enance pr ogr am t hat i s appr oved by a
r egul at or y aut hor i t y such as FAA (Feder al Avi at i on Admi ni st r at i on, USA) and
CAA (Ci vi l Avi at i on Aut hor i t y, UK). Each ai r l i ne d evel ops i t s own
mai nt enance pl an, based on t he manuf act ur er ’ s r ecommendat i ons and by
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 182
consi d er i ng i t s ow n oper at i on. Thus, t w o di f f er ent ai r l i nes may have
sl i ght l y di f f er ent mai nt enance pr ogr am f or same ai r cr af t model used under
si mi l ar oper at i ng condi t i ons. Ai r cr af t mai nt enance i s r el i abi li t y cent r ed. It i s
cl ai med t hat each ai r cr af t r ecei ves appr oxi mat el y 14 hour s of mai nt enance
f or ever y hour i t f l i es (R Baker , 1995). M ai nt enance account s f or
appr oxi mat el y 10% of an ai r l i ne’ s t ot al cost s. On aver age a t ypi cal Boei ng
747 wi l l gener at e a t ot al ai r cr af t mai nt enan ce cost of appr oxi mat el y $1,700
per bl ock hour .
Ai r cr af t mai nt enance can be cat egor i sed as:
1. Rout i n e schedul ed mai nt enance.
2. Non-r out i ne mai nt enance.
3. Ref ur bi shment .
4. M odi f i cat i ons.
Rout i ne Schedul ed Mai nt enance
Schedul ed mai nt enance t asks ar e r equi r ed at d et er mi nant r ecur r i ng
i nt er val s or due t o Ai r wor t hi ness Di r ect i ves (AD). The most common
r out i ne mai nt enan ce i s vi sual i nspect i on of t he ai r cr af t pr i or t o a sch edul ed
depar t ur e (know n as w al k ar ound) by pi l ot s and mechani cs t o ensur e t hat
t her e ar e no obvi ous pr obl ems. Rout i ne mai nt enance can be cl assi f i ed as:
1. Over ni ght mai nt enan ce.
2. Har d t i me mai nt enance.
3. Pr ogr essi ve Inspect i on.
Over ni ght mai n t enance nor mal l y i ncl udes l ow l evel mai nt enance checks,
mi nor ser vi ci n g and speci al i nspect i ons done at t he end of t he wor ki ng f or
about one t o t wo hour s t o ensur e t hat t he pl ane i s oper at i ng i n accor dance
wi t h M i ni mum Equi pment Li st . Over ni ght mai nt enance pr ovi des an
oppor t uni t y t o r emed y passenger and cr ew compl ai nt s (M Lam, 1995).
Har d t i me i s t he ol d est pr i mar y mai nt enance pr ocess. Har d t i me r equi r es
per i odi c o ver haul or r epl acement of af f ect ed syst ems/ component s and
st r uct ur es and i s f l i ght , cycl e an d cal endar l i mi t ed. That i s, as soon as t he
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 183
compon en t age r eaches i t har d t i me i t i s r epl aced w i t h a new co mponent .
M ost of t he r ot at i ng engi ne uni t s ar e har d t i med. The pur pose of har d t i me
mai nt enance i s t o assur e oper at i ng saf et y of component or syst em, whi ch
have a li mi t ed r edundancy.
Pr ogr essi ve i nspect i on gr o ups l i ke t i me r el at ed mai nt enance t asks i nt o
conveni ent ‘ bl ocks’ so t hat mai nt enance wor kl oad becomes bal anced wi t h
t i me and mai nt enance can be accompl i shed i n smal l ‘ bi t es’ maki ng
equi pment mor e avai l abl e. Gr oupi ng mai nt enance t asks al so hel ps bet t er
ut i l i sat i on of t he mai nt enance f aci l i t i es. These mai nt enance t ask gr oups ar e
(det ai l ed i nf or mat i on can be f ound i n M Lam (1995) and L R Cr awf or d,
1995):
1. Pre-flight Visual inspections carried out by the mechanic and the pilots
to ensure that there are no obvious problems.
2. A Check Carried out approximately every 150 flight hours, which
includes selected operational checks (general inspection of the
interior/exterior of the aircraft), fluid servicing, extended visual
inspection of fuselage exterior, power supply and certain operational
tasks. During A check, the aircraft is on ground for approximately 8 to
10 hours and requires approximately 60 labour hours.
3. B Check Occurs about every 750 flight hours and includes some
preventive maintenance such as engine oil spectro-analysis, oil-filter are
removed and checked, lubrication of parts as required and examination of
airframe. Also incorporates A-check. The aircraft could be on ground for
10 hours and will require approximately 200 labour hours.
4. C Check Occurs every 3, 000 flight hour (approximately 15 months)
and includes detailed inspection of airframe, engines, and accessories. In
addition, components are repaired, flight controls are calibrated, and
major internal mechanisms are tested. Functional and operational checks
are also performed during C-check. It also includes both A and B
checks. The aircraft will be on ground for 72 hours and will require
approximately 3,000 labour hours.
5. D Check This is the most intensive form of routine maintenance occurs
about 20,000 flight hours (six to eight years). It is an overhaul that
returns the aircraft to its original condition, as far as possible. Cabin
interiors including seats, galleys, furnishings etc are removed to allow
careful structural inspections. The aircraft is on ground for about 30 days
and will require approximately 20,000 labour hours.
A and B checks and over ni ght mai nt enan ce ar e i nst ances of l i ne
mai nt enan ce (per f or med upon t h e ai r cr af t i nci den t al t o i t s sch edul ed
r evenue oper at i ons), of t en car r i ed out an ai r por t . C and D ch ecks, however
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 184
ar e heavy mai nt enance t hat r equi r es speci al f acil i t ies and ext ensi ve l abour .
The t ask i nt er val s f or var i ous ch ecks men t i oned above coul d var y
si gni f i cant l y. The r ecommended t i me i nt er val s f or di f f er ent ai r cr af t mod el s
ar e gi ven i n Tabl e 5.3 (Ai r cr af t Economi cs).
Tabl e 5.3 Di f f er ent sch edul ed checks i n a commer ci al ai r cr af t
Ai r cr af t Type A check
Fl i ght hour s
B Check
Fl i ght hour s
C Check
Fl i ght hour s
D Check
Fl i ght hour s
Bo ei ng 707 90 450 14,000
Boei ng 727 80 400 1,600 16,000
Boei ng 737-100 125 750 3,000 20,000
Bo ei ng 747-100 300 3,600 25,000
DC-8 150 540 3,325 23,745
DC-9 130 680 3,380 12,600
Non-r out i ne mai nt enance r ef er s t o t he mai nt enance t asks t hat has t o be
per f or med on r egul ar basi s dur i ng checks, but whi ch i s not speci f i ed as
r out i ne mai nt enan ce t ask on t he j o b car ds of t he mai nt enance sch edul e.
Non-r out i ne mai nt enance shoul dn’ t be conf used wi t h unschedul ed
mai nt enan ce, whi ch i s r epai r s t hat have t o be do ne as a r esul t of an
unexpect ed f ai l ur e such as acci dent al damage (such as bi r d st r i ke) t o cr i t i cal
compon en t s or a r esponse t o ai r wor t hi ness di r ect i ves (AD). As t he ai r cr af t
age, t hey r equi r e mor e mai nt enance due t o f at i gue and cor r osi on. The
most si gni f i cant of t hese agi ng ai r cr af t ai r w or t hi ness di r ect i ves con cer ns
Bo ei ng 747. Th e f usel age of t he Bo ei ng 747 i s bui l t i n sect i ons as separ at e
ent i t i es and t hen assembl ed dur i ng t he ai r cr af t pr o duct i on phase. The
f usel age i s bui l t i n f i ve sect i ons and t he poi nt s at whi ch t hese sect i ons ar e
j oi ned ar e cal l ed t he pr oduct i on br eaks. Sect i on 41 i s t he sect i on f r om t he
nose t o j ust af t of t h e f or war d passenger ent r y (M ai nt ai ning t he Boei ng
747, Ai r cr af t Economi cs, 1994). The modi f i cat i on of Sect i on 41, w hi ch i s t he
ar ea ahead of t he f or war d passenger door s, r equi r es appr oxi mat el y 60,000-
70,000 man-hour s t o co mpl et e and r equi r es r epl acement of most of t he
st r uct ur al component s (L Cr aw f or d, 1995).
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 185
5. M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and M ai nt enance 186
A v ai l ab i l i t y , D esi gn
f o r Rel i ab i l i t y an d
D at a A n al y si s
Co u r se M at er i al
Cour se Inst r uct or : Pr of essor U Di nesh Kumar
Indi an Inst i t ut e of M anagem ent Bangal or e
10. Avai l abi l i t y 187
Chapter 10
Availability
Ther e i s not hi ng i n t hi s wor l d const ant , but i nconsi st ency
Jonat han Sw i f t
Avai l abi l i t y i s used t o measur e t h e combi n ed ef f ect of r el i abi l i t y,
mai nt enance and l o gi st i c suppor t on t h e oper at i onal ef f ect i veness of t he
syst em. A syst em, w hi ch i s i n a st at e of f ai l ur e, i s not ben ef i ci al t o i t s
ow ner ; i n f act , i t i s pr obabl y cost i ng t he ow ner mo ney. If an ai r cr af t br eaks
down, i t cannot b e used un t i l i t has been decl ar ed ai r wor t hy. Thi s i s l i kel y
t o cause i nconveni ence t o t he cust omer s w ho may t h en d eci de t o sw i t ch t o
an al t er nat i ve ai r l i ne i n f ut ur e. It may di sr upt t he t i met abl es and cause
pr obl ems f or sever al days.
As ment i on ed i n Chap t er 9, most l ar ge ai r l i ner s have a ver y hi gh ut i l i sat i on
r at e w i t h t he onl y dow n t i me bei ng t o do a t r ansi t ch eck, unl oad, cl ean t he
cabi n, r ef uel , r est ock wi t h t he next f l i ght ’ s f oods and ot her i t ems, and
r el oad wi t h t he next set of passen ger s and baggage. The whol e op er at i on
gen er al l y t akes about an h our . Any del ay may cause i t t o mi ss i t s t ake of f
sl ot and mor e si gni f i cant l y i t s l andi ng sl ot , si nce an ai r cr af t cannot t ake-of f
unt i l i t has been cl ear ed t o l and, even t hough t hi s may b e 12 h our s l at er .
M any ai r por t s cl ose dur i ng t he ni gh t t o avoi d unaccept abl e l evel s of noi se
pol l ut i on. If t he par t i cul ar f l i ght was due t o l and j ust bef or e t he ai r por t
cl oses, mi ssi ng i t s sl ot coul d mean a del ay of sever al hour s.
An oper at or of a syst em woul d l i ke t o make sur e t hat t he syst em wi l l be i n a
st at e of f unct i oni ng (SoFu) when i t i s r equi r ed. Desi gner s and
manuf act ur er s know t hat t hey ar e unl i kel y t o r emai n i n busi ness f or ver y
l ong i f t hei r syst ems do no t sat i sf y t he cust omer s’ r equi r ement s i n t er ms of
oper at i onal ef f ect i ven ess. M any f or ms of avai l abi l i t y ar e used t o measur e
t he ef f ect i veness of t he syst em. I nher ent avai l abi l i t y, oper at i onal
avai l abi l i t y and achi eved avai l abi l i t y ar e som e of t he measu r es used t o
10. Avai l abi l i t y 188
quant i f y wh et her an i t em i s i n an oper abl e st at e when r equi r ed. Avai l abi l i t y
i s def i ned as:
The probability that an item is in state of functioning at a given point
in time (point availability) or over a stated period of time (interval
availability) when operated, maintained and supported in a
prescribed manner.
It i s cl ear f r om t he above d ef i ni t i on t hat avai l ab i l i t y i s a f unct i on of
r el i abi l i t y, mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y f act or s (Fi gur e 10.1).
Fi gur e 10.1 Avai l abi l i t y as a f unct i on of r el i abil i t y, mai nt ai nabi l i t y and
suppor t abi l i t y
In t hi s chapt er , w e l ook at f ew i mpor t ant avai l abi l i t y measur es such as poi nt
avai l abi l i t y, i nt er val avai l abi l i t y, st eady st at e i nher ent avai l abi l i t y,
oper at i onal avai l abi l i t y and achi eved avai l abi l i t y.
10.41. POINT AVAILABILITY
Poi nt avai l abi l i t y i s def i ned as t he pr obabi l i t y t hat t h e syst em i s i n t he st at e
of f unct i o ni ng (SoFu) at t he gi ven i nst ant of t i me t . We use t he no t at i on
A(t ) t o r epr esent t he poi nt avai l abi l i t y. Avai l abi l i t y expr essi ons f or syst ems
can be obt ai ned by usi ng st o chast i c pr ocesses. Dependi ng on t he t i me t o
f ai l ur e and t i me t o r epai r di st r i but i ons, one can use M ar kov chai n, r enewal
pr ocess, r egener at i ve pr ocess, semi -M ar kov pr ocess and semi -r egen er at i ve
pr ocess model s t o der i ve t h e expr essi on f or poi nt avai l abi li t y. For exampl e,
consi der an i t em wi t h const ant f ai l ur e r at e λ and const ant r epai r r at e µ. At
any i nst ant of t i me, t he i t em can be i n ei t her t he st at e of f unct i oni ng (say,
st at e 1) or i n t he st at e of f ai l ur e (say, st at e 2). As bot h f ai l ur e and r epai r
Rel i abi l i t y
M ai nt ai nabi li t y
Suppor t abi l i t y
Avai l abi l i t y
10. Avai l abi l i t y 189
r at es ar e const ant (and t hus f ol l ow exponent i al di st r ibut i on), we can use a
M ar kov chai n t o model t he syst em t o der i ve t he avai l abi l i t y expr essi on.
Let p
i j
( h) deno t e t he t r ansi t i on pr obabi l i t y f r om st at e i t o st at e j dur i ng t he
i nt er val ‘ h’ (i ,j = 1, 2). Def i ne, P
i
(t +h), as t he pr obab i l i t y t hat t he syst em
w oul d be i n st at e i at t i me t +h, f or i = 1, 2. The expr essi on f or P
1
(t +h) can be
der i ved usi ng t he f ol l owi ng l ogi c:
1. The syst em w as i n st at e 1 at t i me t and cont i nues t o r emai n i n
st at e 1 t hr ou ghout t he i nt er val h.
2. The syst em w as i n st at e 2 at t i me t and i t t r ansi t s t o st at e 1 d ur i ng
t he i nt er val h.
The cor r espondi ng expr essi on can be w r i t t en as:
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
21 2 11 1 1
t p t P h p t P h t P × + × · + (10.1)
Usi ng si mi l ar l ogi c, t he expr essi on f or P
2
(t +h) can be wr i t t en as:
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
22 2 12 1 2
h p t P h p t P h t P × + × · + (10.2)
p
1 1
(h) i s t he pr obabi l i t y of r emai ni ng i n st at e 1 dur i ng t h e i nt er val h. The
pr obabi l i t y p
11
(h) i s gi ven by
1 ) exp( ) (
11
h h h p λ λ − ≈ − · for λh<<1
p
2 1
(h) i s t he pr obabi l i t y of ent er i n g st at e 1 f r om st at e 2 dur i ng t he i nt er val
h. The cor r esp ondi ng expr essi on i s gi ven by
h h h p µ µ ≈ − − · ) exp( 1 ) (
21
for hµ<<1
p
1 2
(h) i s t he pr obabi l i t y of ent er i n g st at e 2 f r om st at e 1 dur i ng t he i nt er val
h. The pr obabi li t y p
12
(h) i s gi ven by
h h h p λ λ ≈ − − · ) exp( 1 ) (
12
for hλ<<1
p
2 2
(h) i s t he pr obabi l i t y of r emai ni ng i n st at e 2 dur i ng t h e i nt er val h. The
pr obabi l i t y p
22
(h) i s gi ven by:
h h h p µ µ − ≈ − · 1 ) exp( ) (
22
for hµ<<1
10. Avai l abi l i t y 190
Subst i t ut i ng t he val ues of p
i j
(h) i n equat i on (10.1) and (10.2), we get
h t P h t P h t P µ λ × + − × · + ) ( ) 1 ( ) ( ) (
2 1 1
) 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
2 1 2
h t P h t P h t P µ λ − × + × · +
By r ear r angi ng t he t er ms and set t i ng h → 0, w e have
) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) (
2 1
1 1 1
0
t P t P
dt
t dP
h
t P h t P
Lt
h
µ λ + − · ·
− +

) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) (
2 1
2 2 2
0
t P t P
dt
t dP
h
t P h t P
Lt
h
µ λ − · ·
− +

On sol vi ng t he above t wo di f f er ent i al equat i ons, we get
) ) ( exp( ) (
1
t t P µ λ
µ λ
λ
µ λ
µ
+ − ×
+
+
+
·
P
1
(t ) i s not hi ng but t h e avai l abi l i t y of t he i t em at t i me t , t hat i s t he
pr obabi l i t y t hat t he i t em wi l l be i n st at e of f unct i oni ng at t i me t . Thus, t he
poi nt avai l abi l i t y A(t ) i s gi ven by:
) ) ( exp( ) ( t t A µ λ
µ λ
λ
µ λ
µ
+ − ×
+
+
+
· (10.3)
Subst i t ut i ng λ = 1/ M TTF and µ = 1/ M TTR i n t he above equat i on, w e get
) )
1 1
( exp( ) ( t
MTTR MTTF MTTR MTTF
MTTR
MTTR MTTF
MTTF
t A + − ×
+
+
+
· (10.4)
Wh en t he t i me t o f ai l ur e and t i me t o r epai r ar e not exponent i al , we can use
a r egener at i ve pr ocess t o d er i ve t he avai l abi l i t y expr essi on. If f (t ) and g(t )
r epr esen t t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e and t i me-t o-r epai r di st r i but i ons r espect i vel y,
t hen t h e poi nt avai l abi l i t y A(t ) can be wr i t t en as (Bi r ol ini , 1997):
dx x t F x g x f t F t A
t
n
n
)] ( 1 [ )] ( * ) ( [ ) ( 1 ) (
0 1
− − + − ·
∫ ∑

·
10. Avai l abi l i t y 191
where [f(x)*g(x)]
n
is the n-fold convolution of f(x)*g(x). The summation


·

1
)] ( ) ( [
n
n
x g x f gives the renewal points f(x)*g(x), f(x)*g(x)*f(x)*g(x),
lies in [x, x+dx], and 1 F(t-x) is the probability that no failures occur in the
remaining interval [x, t].
10.41.1 Average Availability
Int er val avai l abi l i t y, AA(t ), i s def i ned as t he expect ed f r act i onal dur at i on of
an i nt er val (0, t ] t hat t he syst em i s i n st at e of f unct i oni ng. Thus,

·
t
dx x A
t
t AA
0
) (
1
) ( (10.5)
wher e A( x) i s t he poi nt avail abi l i t y of t he i t em as d ef i ned i n equat i on (10.3)
and (10.4). For an i t em w i t h const ant f ai l ur e r at e λ and const ant r epai r r at e
µ, t he aver age avai l abi l i t y i s gi ven by:
)] ) ( exp( 1 [
) (
) (
2
t
t
t AA µ λ
µ λ
λ
µ λ
µ
+ − −
+
+
+
· (10.6)
10.41.2 Inherent Availability
Inher ent avai l abi l i t y (or st ead y-st at e avai l abi l i t y), A
i
, , i s def i ned as t he
st eady st at e pr obabi l i t y (t hat i s, t → ∞) t hat an i t em w i l l be i n a st at e of
f unct i oni ng, assumi ng t hat t hi s pr obabi l i t y depends onl y on t he t i me-t o-
f ai l ur e and t i me t o r epai r di st r i but i ons. I t i s assumed t hat an y suppor t
r esour ces t hat ar e r equi r ed ar e avai l able w i t hout an y r est r i ct i on. Thus, t he
i nher ent avai l abi l i t y i s gi ven by:
MTTR MTTF
MTTF
t A Lt A
t
i
+
· ·
∞ →
) ( (10.7)
The above r esul t i s val i d f or any t i me t o f ai l ur e f unct i on F(t ) and any t i me t o
r epai r di st r i but i on G(t ) (Bi r ol i ni , 1997). Al so, i n t he case of const ant f ai l ur e
r at e λ and const ant r epai r r at e µ, t he f ol l owi ng i nequal i t y i s t r ue.
10. Avai l abi l i t y 192
) / exp( ) ( MTTR t A t A
i
− ≤ − (10.8)
Exampl e 10.1
Ti me t o f ai l ur e di st r i but i on of a di gi t al engi ne cont r ol uni t (DECU) f ol l ow s an
expon ent i al di st r i but i on wi t h mean t i me bet ween f ai l ur es 1200 hour s and
t he r epai r t i me al so f ol l ows an exponent i al di st r i but i on wi t h mean t i me t o
r epai r 400 hour s.
1. Pl ot t he poi nt avai l abi l i t y of t he DECU.
2. Fi nd t he aver age avai l abi l i t y of t he DECU dur i ng f i r st 5000 hour s.
3. Fi nd t he i nher ent avai l abi l i t y.
SOLUTION:
1. The poi nt avai l abi l i t y of t he DECU i s cal cul at ed usi ng t he equat i on
(10.4). Fi gur e 10.2 depi ct s t he poi nt avai l abi l i t y of t he syst em.
Fi gur e 10.2 Poi nt avai l abi l i t y of DECU
2. The aver age avai l abi l i t y of t he syst em dur i ng 5000 hour s of oper at i on i s
gi ven by:
)] ) ( exp( 1 [
) (
) (
2
t
t
t AA µ λ
µ λ
λ
µ λ
µ
+ − −
+
+
+
·
Subst i t ut i ng t he val ues of λ (= 1/ 1200) and µ (=1/ 400), we get t h e val ue
of t he aver age avai l abi l i t y dur i ng 5000 hour s as 0.7649.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
St eady-st at e
10. Avai l abi l i t y 193
3. The i nher ent avai l abi l i t y i s gi ven by
75 . 0
400 1200
1200
·
+
·
+
·
MTTR MTTF
MTTF
A
i
Thus, t he st ead y st at e avai l abi l i t y of t he syst em i s 0.75 or 75%.
10.41.3 System Availability of different reliability block
diagrams
Avai l abi l i t y of a syst em wi t h ser i es r el i abi l i t y bl ock di agr am wi t h n i t ems i s
gi ven by
) ( ) (
1
t A t A
n
k
i s

·
· (10.9)
wher e A
i
(t ) i s t he poi nt avai l abi l i t y of i t h i t em. The i nher ent avai l abi l i t y of
t he syst em i s gi ven by

·
+
·
n
k i i
i
s i
MTTR MTTF
MTTF
A
1
,
(10.10)
For a ser i es syst em w i t h al l t he el ement s havi ng const ant f ai l ur e and r epai r
r at es, t he syst em i nher ent avai l abi l i t y
s s
s
s i
MTTR MTTF
MTTF
A
+
·
,
(10.11)
M TTF
s
and M TTR
s
ar e syst em mean t i me t o f ai l ur e and syst em mean t i me t o
r epai r r espect i vel y. Let λ
i
and µ
i
r epr esent t he f ai l ur e r at e and r epai r r at e
of i t em i r espect i vel y. M TTF
s
and M TTR
s
ar e gi ven by

·
·
n
i
i
s
MTTF
1
1
λ

·
·
n
i
s
i i
s
MTTR
MTTR
1
λ
λ
, where ∑
·
·
n
i
i s
1
λ λ
10. Avai l abi l i t y 194
Avai l abil i t y of a par al l el syst em w i t h n i t ems i s gi ven by

·
− − ·
n
i
i s
t A t A
1
)] ( 1 [ 1 ) ( (10.12)
Exampl e 10.2
A ser i es syst em consi st s of f our i t ems. Th e t i me t o f ai l ur e and t he t i me t o
r epai r di st r i but i ons of t he di f f er ent i t ems ar e gi ven as gi ven i n Tabl es 10.1
and 10. 2. Fi nd t he i nher ent avai l abi l i t y of t he syst em.
Table 10.1. Time to failure distribution for different items.
Item Number Distribution Parameters
Item 1 Weibull η = 2200 hours β = 3.7
Item 2 Exponential λ = 0.0008 per hour
Item 3 Weibull η = 1800 hours β = 2.7
Item 4 Normal µ = 800 hours σ = 180 hours
Table 10.2. Time to repair distribution for different items
Item number Distribution Parameters
Item 1 Lognormal µ
l
= 3.25 and σ
l
= 1.25
Item 2 Normal µ = 48 hours σ = 12 hours
Item 3 Lognormal µ
l
= 3.5 and σ
l
= 0.75
Item 4 Normal µ = 72 hours σ = 24 hours
SOLUTION:
Fi r st w e cal cul at e M TTF
i
and M TTR
i
f or di f f er ent i t ems:
10. Avai l abi l i t y 195
4 . 1984 902 . 0 2200 )
7 . 3
1
1 ( 2200 )
1
1 (
1
· × · + Γ × · + Γ × ·
β
η MTTF
1250 0008 . 0 / 1 / 1
2
· · · λ MTTF , 2 . 1600
3
· MTTF , MTTF
4
=800
33 . 56 ) 2 / exp(
2
1
· + ·
l l
MTTR σ µ hours, MTTR
2
=48 hours
87 . 43 ) 2 / exp(
2
3
· + ·
l l
MTTR σ µ hours, MTTR
4
= 72 hours
Inher ent avai l abi l i t y, A
i
, f or i t em i can be cal cul at ed usi ng t he equat i on
(10.11). Subst i t ut i ng t he val ues of M TTF
i
and M TTR
i
i n equat i on (10.11), w e
have
A
1
= 0.9723, A
2
= 0.9630, A
3
= 0.9733, A
4
= 0. 9174
The syst em avai l abi l i t y i s gi ven by
8362 . 0
4
1
· ·

· i
i s
A A
10.42. ACHIEVED AVAILABILITY
Achi eved avai l ab i l i t y i s t he pr obabi l i t y t hat an i t em wi l l be i n a st at e of
f unct i oni ng (SoFu) wh en used as speci f i ed t aki ng i nt o account t he
schedul ed and unschedul ed mai nt enance; any suppor t r esour ces need ed
ar e avai l abl e i nst ant aneousl y. Achi eved avai l abi l i t y, A
a
, i s gi ven by
AMT MTBM
MTBM
A
a
+
· (10.13)
M TBM i s t he mean t i me b et ween mai nt enance and AM T i s act i ve
mai nt enance t i me. The mean t i me bet ween mai nt en ance dur i ng t he t ot al
oper at i onal l i f e, T, i s gi ven by:
sm
T T T M
T
MTBM
/ ) ( +
· (10.14)
M (T) i s t he r enew al f unct i on, t hat i s t h e expect ed number of f ai l ur es dur i ng
t he t ot al l i f e T. T
sm
i s t he sch edul ed mai nt enance i nt er val (t i me bet w een
schedul ed mai nt enance). The abo ve expr essi on i s val i d when af t er each
schedul ed mai nt enance, t he i t em i s ‘ as-bad-as-ol d’ and af t er each
10. Avai l abi l i t y 196
cor r ect i ve mai nt enance t he i t em i s ‘ as-good-as-new’ . The act i ve
mai nt enan ce t i me, AM T, i s gi ven by:
sm
sm
T T T M
MSMT T T MTTR T M
AMT
/ ) (
) / ( ) (
+
+ ×
· (10.15)
M TTR st ands f or t he mean t i me t o r epai r and M SM T i s t he mean sch edul ed
mai nt enan ce t ime.
Exampl e 10.3
Time to failure distribution of an engine monitoring system follows a
normal distribution with mean 4200 hours and standard deviation 420
hours. The engine monitoring system is expected to last 20,000 hours
(subject to corrective and preventive maintenance). A scheduled
maintenance is carried out after every 2000 hours and takes about 72
hours to complete the task. The time to repair the item follows a
lognormal distribution with mean time to repair 120 hours. Find the
achieved availability for this system.
SOLUTION:
Mean time between maintenance, MTBM, is given by
2000 / 20000 ) 20000 (
20000
/ ) ( +
·
+
·
M T T T M
T
MTBM
sm
M (20000) f or nor mal di st r i but i on wi t h mean 4200 hour s and st andar d
devi at i on 420 hour s i s gi ven by
1434 . 4 )
420
4200 20000
( ) 20000 (
1
·
×
× −
Φ ·


· n
n
M
n
hours 1414
10 1434 . 4
20000

+
· MTBM
The act i ve mai nt enance t i me i s gi ven by:
10. Avai l abi l i t y 197
06 . 86
10 1434 . 4
72 10 120 1434 . 4
/ ) (
) / ( ) (

+
× + ×
·
+
+ ×
·
sm
sm
T T T M
MSMT T T MTTR T M
AMT
The achi eved avai l abi l i t y of t he syst em i s gi ven by:
9426 . 0
06 . 86 1414
1414
·
+
·
+
·
AMT MTBM
MTBM
A
a
10.43. OPERATIONAL AVAILABILITY
Oper at i onal avai l abi l i t y i s t he pr obabi l i t y t hat t he syst em w i l l be i n t he st at e
of f unct i oni ng (SoFu) when used as sp eci f i ed t aki ng i nt o account
mai nt enan ce and l ogi st i c del ay t i mes. Oper at i onal avai l abi l i t y, A
o
, i s gi ven
by
DT MTBM
MTBM
A
o
+
· (10.16)
wher e, M TBM i s t he mean t i me bet ween mai nt enance (i ncl udi ng bot h
schedul ed and unschedul ed mai nt enance) and DT i s t he Down t i me. The
mean t i me b et w een mai nt enan ce dur i ng t he t ot al oper at i onal l i f e, T, i s
gi ven by:
sm
T T T M
T
MTBM
/ ) ( +
· (10.17)
M (T) i s t he r enew al f unct i on, t hat i s t h e expect ed number of f ai l ur es dur i ng
t he t ot al l i f e T. T
sm
i s t he schedul ed mai nt enance i nt er val (t i m e bet w een
schedul ed mai nt enan ce). The syst em down t i me DT i s gi ven by:
sm
sm
T T T M
MSMT T T MTTRS T M
DT
/ ) (
) / ( ) (
+
+ ×
· (10.18)
M TTRS st ands f or t he mean t i me t o r est or e t h e syst em and M SM T i s t he
mean schedul ed mai nt enance t i me. MTTRS i s gi ven by
10. Avai l abi l i t y 198
M TTRS = M TTR + M LDT
wher e MLDT i s t he mean l ogi st i c del ay t i me f or suppl y r esour ces. In t he
absence of any sch edul ed mai nt enance t he oper at i o nal avai l abi l i t y can be
cal cul at ed usi ng t he f ol l ow i ng si mpl e f or mul a
MLDT MTTR MTBF
MTBF
A
O
+ +
· (10.19)
Exampl e 10.4
In t he pr evi ous exampl e, assume t hat whenever a syst em f ai l s i t t akes
about 48 hour s bef or e al l t he necessar y suppor t r esour ces ar e avai l ab l e.
Fi nd t he oper at i onal avai l abi l i t y.
SOLUTION
M TBM i s same as i n t he pr evi ous exampl e and i s equ al t o 1414 hour s. The
mean t i me t o r est or e t he syst em i s gi ven by
M TTRS = M TTR + M LDT = 120 + 48 = 168 hour s
The syst em down t i me i s gi ven by
hours 12 . 100
1434 . 14
72 10 168 1434 . 4
/ ) (
) / ( ) (
·
× + ×
·
+
+ ×
·
sm
sm
T T T M
MSMT T T MTTRS T M
DT
The oper at i onal avai l abi l i t y of t he syst em i s gi ven by
9338 . 0
12 . 100 1414
1414
·
+
·
+
·
DT MTBM
MTBM
A
O
11. Desi gn f or Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt enance and Logi st i c Suppor t 199
Chapter 11
Design for Reliability, Maintenance and
Logistic Support
Rel i abi l i t y, mai nt enance and suppor t abi l i t y shoul d be desi gned i nt o t he
pr oduct . Desi gn phase i s par t i cul ar l y i mpor t ant f or any pr oduct as t he
deci si ons mad e dur i n g t hi s st age can det er mi ne how r el i abl e t he pr oduct i s
goi ng t o be as wel l as t he mai nt ai n abi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y of t hat pr oduct .
In t hi s chapt er , we woul d l i ke t o di scuss f ew t ool and t echni qu es t hat can
be used at t he d esi gn st age t o i mpr ove t he RM S char act er i st i cs.
44. RELIABILITY ALLOCATION
Rel i abi l i t y al l ocat i on i s a pr ocess by w hi ch t he syst em’ s r el i abi l i t y
r equi r ement s i s di vi ded i nt o sub-syst em and component r el i abi l i t y
r equi r ement s.
45. FAILURE MODES, EFFECTS AND CRITICALITY
ANALYSIS (FMECA)
The f ai l ur e modes, ef f ect s and cr i t i cal i t y anal ysi s (FM ECA) i s a syst emat i c
met hod f or exami ni ng al l modes t hr ough whi ch a f ai l ur e can occur ,
11. Desi gn f or Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt enance and Logi st i c Suppor t 200
pot ent i al ef f ect s of t hese f ai l ur es on t h e syst em per f or mance and t hei r
r el at i ve sever i t y i n t er ms of saf et y, ext end of damage, and i mpact on
mi ssi on success. FM ECA i s per f or med t o i dent i f y r el i abi l i t y, mai nt enance,
saf et y and suppor t abi l i t y pr obl ems r esul t i ng f r o m t he ef f ect s of a
pr oduct / pr ocess f ai l ur e. It i s an excel l ent met hodol ogy f or i dent i f yi ng and
i nvest i gat i ng pot ent i al pr oduct weakn esses. FM ECA est abl i shes a det ai l ed
st udy of t he pr oduct d esi gn, manuf act ur i ng oper at i on or di st r i but i on t o
det er mi ne whi ch f eat ur es ar e cr i t i cal t o var i ous modes of f ai l ur e. The
FM ECA con cept w as devel oped by US def ence i ndust r i es i n t h e 1950s, t o
i mpr ove t h e r el i abi l i t y of mi l i t ar y equi pment . Si nce t h en, FM ECA has
become an i mpor t ant t ool s appl i ed by al m ost al l i ndust r i es ar ound t he
wor l d t o i mpr ove t he r el i abi l i t y, mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y of t hei r
pr oduct . It i s cl ai med t hat a mor e r i gor ous FM ECA anal ysi s woul d have
avoi ded t h e di sast r ous expl osi on of t he Chal l enger l aunch on 28
t h
Januar y
1986.
The t hr ee pr i nci p al st udy ar eas i n FM ECA anal ysi s ar e t he f ai l ur e mod e,
f ai l ur e ef f ect and f ai l ur e cr i t i cal i t y. Fai l ur e mod e an al ysi s l i st s al l possi bl e
mod e t he f ai l ur e woul d occur whi ch i ncl ude t he condi t i on, t he compon ent s
i nvol ved, l ocat i on et c. The f ai l ur e ef f ect anal ysi s i ncl udes t h e st udy of t he
l i kel y i mpact of f ai l ur e on t he per f or mance of t he w hol e pr oduct and t he
pr ocess. The cr i t i cal i t y anal ysi s exami nes how cr i t i cal a f ai l ur e woul d be f or
t he o per at ion and saf e use of t he pr oduct . The cr i t ical i t y mi ght r ange f r om
mi nor f ai l ur e t hr ou gh l ower i ng of per f or mance, shut down of t h e pr oduct ,
saf et y and envi r onment al hazar d t o a cat ast r ophi c f ai l ur e. Thi s anal ysi s i s
best ut i l i sed dur i ng t h e ear l y desi gn and d evel opment phase of new
syst ems, and i n t he eval uat i on of exi st i ng syst em (D Ver ma, 1993).
The act ual FM ECA per f or med coul d b e bot h quant i t at i ve and qual i t at i ve
based on t he i nf or mat i on avai l abl e t o t he anal yst . In put r equi r ement s f or
FM ECA anal ysi s i ncl ude r el i abi l i t y dat a, t hei r modes of f ai l ur e, and t he
est i mat ed cr i t i cal i t y of t he f ai l ur es. Addi t i onall y, t he pr obabi l i t i es of
det ect i on f or t he var i ous f ai l ur e mod es ar e al so r equi r ed. A pr er equi si t e f or
t he su ccessf ul compl et i on of FM ECA i s good knowl ed ge of , and f ami l i ar i t y
w i t h t he pr oduct / pr ocess bei ng anal ysed and i t s desi gn and f unct i onal i t y ( D
Ver ma, 1993).
45.1 Procedural Steps in the FMECA analysis
The pr ocedur al st eps i n FM ECA anal ysi s dep end t o a cer t ai n ext end what
pr oduct or pr ocess i s bei ng exami ned. The sequ ence of st eps f ol l owed t o
11. Desi gn f or Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt enance and Logi st i c Suppor t 201
accompl i sh t he f ai l ur e modes, ef f ect and cr i t i cal i t y anal ysi s i s depi ct ed i n
Fi gur e 11.1. The f ol l owi ng ar e t he key st eps i nvol ved i n t he FM ECA anal ysi s:
1. Ident i f i cat i on of t he syst em r equi r ement s, by def i ni ng t he basi c
r equi r ement s f or t he syst em i n t er ms of i nput cr i t er i a f or desi gn.
Dur i ng t he syst em r equi r ement def i ni t i on, t he f ol l owi ng t asks
shoul d be addr essed (Ref er t o Bl anchar d and Fabr ycky 1999 f or
det ai l ed di scussi on).
What is expected from the system in terms of operation and
performance.
What is the customer requirements with respect to reliability,
maintainability and supportability
How the system is used in terms of hours of operation/number of
cycles per day etc.
What are the requirements for disposal after the system is
withdrawn from service.
2. Accompl i sh f unct i onal anal ysi s (Funct i onal anal ysi s i s a syst emat i c
appr oach t o syst em d esi gn and devel opment , whi ch empl oys
f unct i onal appr oach as a basi s f or i dent i f i cat i on of desi gn
r equi r ement s f or each hi er ar chi cal l evel of t he syst em. Funct i onal
anal ysi s i s accompl i shed t hr ough f unct i onal f l ow di agr am t hat
por t r ays t he syst em d esi gn r equi r ement s i l l ust r at i ng ser i es and
par al l el r el at i onshi ps and f unct i onal i nt er f aces).
3. Accompl i sh r equi r ement s al l ocat i on, t hat i s f or a speci f i ed
r equi r ement at syst em l evel , w hat shoul d be speci f i ed at uni t and
assembl y l evel . Syst em ef f ect i veness f act or s such as r el i abi l i t y,
mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y speci f i ed at syst em l evel ar e
al l ocat ed t o uni t and assembl y l evel .
4. Ident i f i cat i on of al l possi bl e f ai l ur e modes f or t he syst em as wel l as
t he subsyst em, modul es and compon ent s.
5. Det er mi ne cause of f ai l ur es, wh i ch coul d b e desi gn and
manuf act ur i ng d ef i ci ency, agei ng and wear - out , acci dent al damage,
t r anspor t at i on and handl i ng, mai nt enance i nduced f ai l ur es.
6. Ident i f y t h e ef f ect s of f ai l ur e. Ef f ect of f ai l ur e mi ght r ange f r om
cat ast r ophi c f ai l ur e t o mi nor per f or mance degr adat i on.
7. Assess t he pr obabi l i t y of f ai l ur e. Thi s can be achi eved by anal ysi ng
t he f ai l ur e dat a and i dent i f yi ng t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on.
8. Ident if y t he cr i t i cal i t y of f ai l ur e. Fai l ur e cr i t i cali t y can be classi f i ed i n
any one of f our cat egor i es, depen di ng upon t h e f ai l ur e ef f ect s as
f ol l ow s
11. Desi gn f or Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt enance and Logi st i c Suppor t 202
a) Minor failure Any failure that doesn`t have any noticeable
affect on the performance of the system.
b) Major failure Any failure that will degrade the system
performance beyond an acceptable limit.
c) Critical failure Any failure that would affect safety and
degrade the system beyond an acceptable limit.
d) Catastrophic failure Any failure that could result in significant
system damage and may cause damage to property, serious
injury or death.
9. Compute the Risk Priority Number (RPN) by multiplying the
probability of failure, the severity of the effects and the likelihood of
detecting a failure mode.
10. Initiate corrective action that will minimise the probability of failure
or effect of failure that show high RPN.
Figure 11.1 Sequence of steps involved in FMECA
Define System
Requirements
Accomplish
Functional Analysis
Requirements
Allocation
Identify Failure
Modes
Determine Causes of
Failure
Determine Effects of
Failure
Assess the
probability of Failure
Assess the
probability of Failure
Assess the Criticality
of Failure
Analyse failure mode
Criticality (PRN)
Feedback and corrective action
loop
11. Desi gn f or Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt enance and Logi st i c Suppor t 203
45.2 Risk Priority Number
Ri sk Pr i or i t y Number s pl ay a cr uci al r ol e i n sel ect i ng t he most si gni f i cant
i t em t hat wi l l mi ni mi se t he f ai l ur e or ef f ect of f ai l ur e. As ment i oned ear l i er ,
RPN i s cal cul at ed by mul t i pl yi ng t he pr obabi l i t y of f ai l ur e, t he sever i t y of
t he ef f ect s of f ai l ur e and l i kel i hood of f ai l ur e det ect i on. That i s:
RPN = FP × FS × FD (11.1)
Wh er e, FP i s t he Fai l ur e pr obabi l i t y, FS i s t he f ai l ur e sever i t y and FD
denot es t h e f ai l ur e det ect i on pr obabi l i t y. Tabl es 11.1 – 11.3 gi ves possi bl e
r at i ngs f or pr obabi l i t y of f ai l ur e, sever i t y of f ai l ur e and f ai l ur e det ect i on.
Not e t hat , t he r at i ngs gi ven i n t h e t abl es 11.1-11. 3 ar e onl y su ggest ed
r at i ngs.
Table 11.3. Rating scales for occurrence of failure
Description Rating
Remote probability of occurrence 1
Low probability of occurrence 2 - 3
Moderate probability of occurrence 4 - 6
High probability of occurrence 7 8
Very High probability of occurrence 9 - 10
Table 11.2 Rating scales for severity of failure
Description Rating
Minor failure 1 2
Major Failure 3 5
Critical Failure 6 9
Catastrophic Failure 10
11. Desi gn f or Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt enance and Logi st i c Suppor t 204
Description Rating
Table 11.3. Rating scales for detection of failure
Description Rating Probability of Detection
Remote probability of
detection
1 0 0.05
Low probability of
detection
2 - 3 0.06 0.15
Moderate probability of
detection
4 - 5 0.16 0.35
High probability of
detection
6 - 8 0.36 0.75
Very high probability of
detection
9 - 10 0.76 1.00
Assume t hat a f ai l ur e mod e has f ol l ow i ng r at i ngs f or pr obabi l i t y of f ai l ur e,
f ai l ur e sever i t y and f ai l ur e det ect i on:
Fai l ur e pr obabi l i t y = 7
Fai l ur e sever i t y = 4
Fai l ur e det ect i on = 5
Then t he r i sk pr i or i t y number f or t hi s par t i cul ar f ai l ur e mode i s gi ven by 7 ×
4 × 5 = 140. Ri sk pr i or i t y nu mb er f or al l t he f ai l ur e modes ar e cal cul at ed
and pr i or i t y i s gi ven t o t he one wi t h hi gh est RPN f or el i mi nat i ng t he f ai l ur e.
Thi s i s usual l y achi eved usi ng Par et o anal ysi s wi t h a f ocus on f ai l ur e mod e,
f ai l ur e cause an d f ai l ur e cr i t i cal i t y. Out put s f r o m a pr oper l y conduct ed
FM ECA can be used i n d evel opi ng a cost ef f ect i ve mai nt enan ce anal ysi s,
syst em saf et y hazar d anal ysi s, and l ogi st i c suppor t anal ysi s.
11. Desi gn f or Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt enance and Logi st i c Suppor t 205
46. FAULT TREE ANALYSIS (FTA)
Faul t t r ee anal ysi s i s a deduct i ve appr oach i nvol vi ng gr aphi cal enumer at i on
and anal ysi s of t he di f f er ent w ays i n w hi ch a par t i cul ar syst em f ai l ur e can
occur , and t he pr obabi l i t y of i t s occur r en ce. It st ar t s w i t h a t op-l evel event
(f ai l ur e) and wor ks backwar d t o i den t i f y al l t he possi bl e causes and
t her ef or e t he or i gi ns of t hat f ai l ur e. Dur ing t he ver y ear l y st ages of syst em
desi gn pr o cess, and i n t he absence of i nf or mat i on r equi r ed t o compl et e a
FM ECA, f aul t t r ee anal ysi s (FTA) i s of t en conduct ed t o gai n i nsi ght i nt o
cr i t i cal aspect s of sel ect ed desi gn concep t s. Usual l y, a separ at e f aul t t r ee i s
devel oped f or ever y cr i t i cal f ai l ur e mod e or undesi r ed Top-Level event .
At t ent i on i s f ocused on t hi s t op-l evel event and t he f i r st -t i er causes
associ at ed wi t h i t . Each f i r st -t i er cause i s next i nvest i gat ed f or i t s causes,
and t hi s pr ocess i s cont i nued. Thi s ‘ Top-Dow n’ cau sal hi er ar chy and t he
associ at ed pr obabi l i t i es, i s cal l ed a Faul t Tr ee.
One of t he out pu t s f r o m a f aul t t r ee anal ysi s i s t h e pr obabi l i t y of occur r ence
of t he t op-l evel even t or f ai l ur e. If t hi s pr obabi l i t y i s unaccept abl e, f aul t
t r ee anal ysi s pr ovi des t h e d esi gn er s wi t h an i nsi ght i nt o aspect s of t he
syst em t o whi ch r edesi gn can be di r ect ed or compensat or y pr ovi si ons be
pr ovi ded such as r edundancy. Th e FTA can have most i mpact i f i ni t i at ed
dur i ng t h e concept ual and pr el i mi nar y desi gn phase wh en desi gn and
conf i gur at i on changes can be most easi l y and cost ef f ect i vel y i mpl emen t ed.
The l ogi c used i n devel opi ng and anal ysi ng a f aul t t r ee has i t s f oundat i ons in
Bool ean Al gebr a. The f ol l owi ng st eps ar e used t o car r y out FTA (Fi gur e
11.2).
1. Identify the top-level event The most important step is to identify and
define the top-level event. It is necessary to specific in defining the top-
level event, a generic and non-specific definition is likely to result in a
broad based fault tree which might be lacking in focus.
2. Develop the initial fault tree Once the top-level event has been
satisfactorily identified, the next step is to construct the initial causal
hierarchy in the form of a fault tree. Techniques such as Ishikawas
cause and effect diagram can prove beneficial. While developing the
fault tree all hidden failures must be considered and incorporated. For the
sake of consistency, a standard symbol is used to develop fault trees.
Table 11.4 depicts the symbols used to represent the causal hierarchy and
interconnects associated with a particular top-level event. While
11. Desi gn f or Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt enance and Logi st i c Suppor t 206
constructing a fault tree it is important to break every branch down to a
reasonable and consistent level of detail.
3. Analyse the Fault Tree The third step in FTA is to analyse the initial
fault tree developed. The important steps in completing the analysis of a
fault tree are 1. Delineate the minimum cut-sets, 2. Determine the
reliability of the top-level event and 3. Review analysis output.
Figure 11.2 Steps involved in a fault tree analysis.
Table 11.4. Fault tree construction symbols
Symbol Description
The Ellipse represents the top-level event (thus always appears at the
very top of the fault tree).
The rectangle represents an intermediate fault event. A rectangle can
appear anywhere in a fault tree except at the lowest level in the
hierarchy.
A circle represents the lowest level failure event, also called a basic
event.
The diamond represents an undeveloped event, which can be further
broken. Very often, undeveloped events have a substantial amount of
complexity below and can be analysed through a separate fault tree.
This symbol represents the AND logic gate. In this case, the output is
realised only after all the associated inputs have been received.
Identify Top
Level
Event
Develop the
Initial
Fault Tree
Analyse the
Fault
Tree
Delineate the
Minimal Cut-
sets
Determine Top-
Level Event
Reliability
Review Analysis
Output
11. Desi gn f or Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt enance and Logi st i c Suppor t 207
Symbol Description
This symbol represents the OR logic gate. In this case, any one or
more of the inputs need to be received for the output to be realised.
47. FAULT TREE ANALYSIS CASE STUDY
PASSENGER ELEVATOR
In t hi s sect i on w e di scuss a case st udy on f aul t t r ee anal ysi s of a passenger
el evat or (M ai n sour ce, D Ver ma, 1993). Consi der a passenger el evat or
depi ct ed i n Fi gur e 11.3. We consi der t wo maj or assembl i es f or FTA 1.
Cont r ol assembl y and 2. Dr i ve/ suspensi on assembl y. Al l dr i ve assembl y
f ai l ur es ar e gener al i sed as ‘ mot or f ai l ur es’ and ‘ ot her f ai l ur es’ whi l e cont r ol
uni t f ai l ur es ar e gener al i sed as ‘ har dwar e f ai l ur es’ and ‘ sof t w ar e f ai l ur es’
f or t he sake of si mpl i ci t y.
Fi gur e 11.3 Schemat i c di agr am of a passenger el evat or
The cont r ol assembl y consi st s of a mi cr opr ocessor , whi ch awai t s an
oper at or si gnal r equest t o move t he car t o a cer t ai n l evel . The con t r ol uni t
act i vat es dr i ve uni t t hat moves t h e car t o t hat l evel and opens t he el evat or
Passenger
Car
Shaft
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Level 0
Drive Unit
Control
Unit
Power
Supply
Weight
11. Desi gn f or Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt enance and Logi st i c Suppor t 208
door once t he car comes t o a st op. Swi t ches exi st at each l evel and i nsi de
t he car al l o w i ng t he cont r ol l er t o know w her e t he car i s at any t i me.
Dr i ve/ susp ensi on assembl y hol ds t h e car susp ended w i t hi n t he shaf t and
moves i t t o t he cor r ect l evel as i ndi cat ed by t h e cont r ol uni t . The Dr i ve uni t
moves or st ops t h e car onl y when pr ompt ed t o do so by t he cont r ol uni t .
The br ake uni t i s desi gned t o hod t h e car st at i onar y when power i s
r emoved and t o al l ow t he mot or shaf t t o t ur n when power i s appl i ed.
We d ef i ne t h e t op-l evel event i n t hi s case i s ‘ passenger i nj ur y occur s’ . The
f ol l ow i ng ar e t he possi bl e syst em oper at i ng condi t i ons:
A. El evat or oper at i ng pr oper l y.
B. Car st ops bet w een l evel s.
C. Car f al l s f r eel y.
D. Car ent r y door opens i n t he absence of car .
In t hi s case, oper at i ng condi t i ons ‘ C’ and ‘ D’ ar e of concer n. The i ni t i al
f aul t t r ee i s shown i n Fi gur e 11.4.
Fi gur e 11.4 Ini t i al f aul t Tr ee
In Fi gur e 11.4, G1 i s r epr esent s t he OR l ogi c gat e and t he event s 1, 2 and
3 ar e as def i ned bel ow :
Event 1 – Passenger i nj ur y occur s
Event 2 – Car f r ee f al l s
Event 3 – Door opens w i t hout car pr esent .
Thus, t he t op-l evel event (passenger i nj ur y occur s) can be ei t her due t o
car f r ee f al l or door opens wi t hout t he car pr esent .
1
2 3
G1
11. Desi gn f or Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt enance and Logi st i c Suppor t 209
Now t he event , car f r ee f al l , can f ur t her anal ysed by t r eat i ng i t as a t op-
l evel event , r esul t i ng i n a f aul t t r ee depi ct ed i n Fi gur e 11.5. In Fi gur e
11.5, G2 i s agai n a OR gat e and t he event s 4, 5 and 6 ar e def i ned bel ow :
Event 4 – Cabl e sl i ps of pul l ey
Event 5 – Hol di ng br ake f ai l ur e
Event 6 – Br oken cabl e
Event 4 and 6 ar e undevel oped event , whi ch can f ur t her br oken, w hi ch
can be f ur t her anal ysed usi n g a separ at e f aul t t r ee. Event 5 i s an
i nt er medi at e event .
Fi gur e 11.5 Fur t her FTA anal ysi s of t he event car f r ee f al l
2
G2
4 6 5
11. Desi gn f or Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt enance and Logi st i c Suppor t 210
Fi gur e 11.6 Faul t t r ee f or t he event , t he door opens er r oneousl y
The event 3 can be f ur t h er anal ysed t o f i nd t he causes, Fi gur e 11.6 depi ct s
FTA f or t he event 3, door opens wi t hout t he car pr esent . Thi s can be caused
due t o t he f ol l owi ng event s:
Event 7 – Door cl ose f ai l ur e
Event 8 – Car not at l evel
Event 9 – Lat ch f ai l ur e
For t he event , door opens er r oneousl y, t o occur , event s 7 and 8 must
happen, t hus w e have a AND gat e G3. The door cl ose f ai l ur e can be caused
ei t her due t o t he l at ch f ai l ur e or du e t o cont r ol l er er r or (deno t ed by OR
gat e, G4). Combi ni ng f aul t t r ees depi ct ed i n Fi gur es 11.4-11.6, we can
const r uct a compl et e (al most ) f or t he event , passen ger i nj ur y, as shown i n
Fi gur e 11.7. Not e t hat event s 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 can be f ur t her expanded t o
f i nd t he causes usi ng f aul t t r ee anal ysi s. Th e pr obabi l i t y f or t he occur r ence
of t he t op-l evel event can be cal cul at ed o nce t he t i me-t o -f ai l ur e and
pr obabi l i t y of occur r ence of al l t h e event s ar e known. If t he der i ved t op-
l evel pr obabi l i t y i s unaccept abl e, necessar y r edesi gn or compensat i on
ef f or t s shoul d be i dent i f i ed and i ni t i at ed. As i t i s a si mpl e mat hemat i cal
cal cul at i on, i t i s not cover ed i n t hi s book.
3
G4
7 8
G5
9
Controller
Error
11. Desi gn f or Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt enance and Logi st i c Suppor t 211
Fi gur e 11.7 Faul t t r ee f or t he event , passenger i nj ur y
1
2 3
G1
4 6 5
G2 G3
7 8
G4
9
Controller
Error
Chapter 12
Analysis of Reliability, Maintenance and
Supportability Data
Of t en st at i st i cs ar e used as a dr unken man uses l amp post s… f or suppor t
r at her t han i l l umi nat i on.
To pr edi ct var i ous r el i abi l i t y char act er i st i cs of an i t em, as w el l as i t s mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y
f unct i on, i t i s essent i al t hat w e have suf f i ci ent i nf or mat i on on t he t i me t o f ai l ur e, t i me t o r epai r
(mai nt ai n) and t i me t o suppor t char act er i st i cs of t hat i t em. In most cases t hese char act er i st i cs ar e
expr essed usi ng t heor et i cal pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i ons. Thus, t he pr obl em w hi ch ever y l o gi st i ci an f ace i s
t he sel ect i on of t he appr opr i at e di st r i but i on f unct i on t o descr i be t he empi r i cal dat a (obt ai ned f r om dat a
capt ur i ng sour ces) usi ng t heor et i cal pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i ons. Once t he di st r i but i on i s i dent i f i ed, t hen
one can ext r act i nf or mat i on about t he t ype of t he hazar d f unct i on and ot her r el i abi l i t y char act er i st i cs
such as mean t i me bet w een f ai l ur es and f ai l ur e r at e et c. In t he case of mai nt enance and suppor t abi l i t y
dat a, w e w oul d i d ent i f y t he mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y f unct i on as i n t he case of r el i abi l i t y dat a
and t hen comput e M TTR and M TTS.
To st ar t w i t h w e l ook at w ays of f i t t i ng pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i ons t o i n-ser vi ce dat a, t hat i s t he dat a
r el at i ng t o t he age of t he component s at t he t i me t hey f ai l ed w hi l e t hey w er e i n oper at i on (i n
mai nt enance and l ogi st i c suppor t we anal yse t he dat a cor r espondi ng t o t he mai nt enance and suppor t
t ask compl et i on t i mes). We l ook at t hr ee popul ar t ool s; 1. Pr obabi l i t y paper s, 2. Li near r egr essi on, and
3. M axi mum l i kel i hood est i mat es t o i dent i f y t he best di st r i but i on usi ng w hi ch t he dat a can be expr essed
and t o est i mat e t he cor r espondi ng par amet er s of t he di st r i but i on. In t he sect i on on “ censor ed dat a” w e
r ecogni se t hat ver y of t en w e do not have a compl et e set of f ai l ur e dat a. We may wi sh t o det er mi n e
w het her a new ver si on of a component i s mor e r el i abl e t han a pr evi ous ver si on t o deci de w het her w e
have cur ed t he pr obl em (of pr emat ur e f ai l ur es, say). Of t en, compon ent s wi l l be r epl aced bef or e t hey
have act ual l y f ai l ed, possi bl y because t hey have st ar t ed t o cr ack, t hey have been damaged or t hey ar e
show i ng si gns of excessi ve w ear . We may have a number of syst ems und er goi ng t est i ng t o det er mi n e
w het her t he pr oduct i s l i kel y t o meet t he var i ous r equi r ement s but w e need t o go i nt o pr oduct i on
bef or e t hey have al l f ai l ed. Ther e i s usef ul dat a t o b e gl eaned f r om t he ones t hat have not f ai l ed as w el l
as f r om t he ones t hat have f ai l ed. If a component i s bei ng used i n a number of di f f er ent syst ems, i t may
be r easonabl e t o assume t hat t he f ai l ur e mechani sm i n each of t hese i nst ances w i l l be si mil ar . Even
t hough t he way t he di f f er ent syst ems oper at e may be di f f er ent , i t i s st i l l l i kel y t hat t he shap e of t h e
f ai l ur e di st r i but i on wi l l be same and t hat onl y t he scal e wi l l be di f f er ent .
Even r el at i vel y si mpl e syst ems can f ai l i n a number of di f f er ent ways and f or a number of di f f er ent
r easons. Suppose w e w i sh t o f ast en t w o pi eces of met al t oget her usi ng a nut and bol t . If w e over -
t i ght en t he nut , w e mi ght st r i p t he t hr ead or w e mi ght shear t he bol t . If w e do not put t he nut on
squar el y, we coul d cr oss t he t hr eads and hence w eaken t he j oi nt . If t he t wo pi eces of met al ar e bei ng
f or ced apar t t hen t he st r ess on t he nut and bol t may cause t he t hr ead t o st r i p ei t her i nsi de t he nut or on
t he out si de of t he bol t or i t may cause t he bol t t o exceed i t s el ast i c and pl ast i c l i mi t s unt i l i t event ual l y
213
br eaks. If t he j oi nt i s subj ect t o excessi ve heat t hi s coul d accel er at e t he pr ocess. Equal l y, i f i t i s i n ver y
l ow t emper at ur es t hen t he bol t i s l i kel y t o become mor e br i t t l e and br eak under l ess st r ess t han at
nor mal t emper at ur es. If t he di amet er of t he bol t i s t ow ar ds t he l ow er l i mi t of i t s t ol er ance and t he
i nt er nal di amet er of t he nut i s t ow ar ds t he upper l i mi t t hen t he amount of met al i n cont act may not be
suf f i ci ent t o t ake t he st r ai ns i mposed. As t he t w o component s age, cor r osi on may cause t he amount of
met al i n cont act t o be even f ur t her r educed. It may al so change t he t ensi l e st r engt h of t he met al s and
cause pr emat ur e f ai l ur e.
Component s may t her ef or e f ai l due t o a number of f ai l ur e modes. Each of t hese modes may be mor e or
l ess r el at ed t o t he age. One w oul d not expect cor r osi on t o be t he cause of f ai l ur e dur i ng t he ear l y
st ages of t he component ’ s l i f e, unl ess i t w as subj ect ed t o except i onal l y cor r osi ve chemi cal s. On t he
ot her hand, i f t he component s have been badl y made t hen one mi ght expect t o see t hem f ai l ver y soo n
af t er t he uni t has been assembl ed.
Ver y of t en, a possi bl y smal l , number of component s may f ai l unexp ect edl y ear l y. On f ur t h er
i nvest i gat i on i t may be f ound t hat t hey w er e al l made at t he same t i me, f r om t he same i ngot of met al or
by a par t i cul ar suppl i er . Such a phenomenon i s commonl y r ef er r ed t o as a bat chi ng pr obl em.
Unf or t unat el y, i n pr act i ce, al t hough i t may be possi bl e t o r ecogni se i t s pr esence, i t may not al ways be
possi bl e t o t r ace i t s or i gi n or , mor e poi gnant l y, t he ot her member s of t he same bat ch or , i ndeed, how
many t her e may be.
In deci di ng w het her a new ver si on of a component i s mor e r el i abl e t han t he ol d one, w e need t o
det er mi ne how conf i dent w e ar e t hat t he t w o di st r i but i ons ar e di f f er ent . If t hey bot h have t he same (or
near l y t he same) shapes t hen i t i s a r el at i vel y st r ai ght f or war d t ask t o det er mi ne i f t hei r scal es ar e
di f f er ent . In some cases, t he pr i mar y cause of f ai l ur e of t he or i gi n ver si on may have been el i mi nat ed or ,
at l east , si gni f i cant l y i mpr o ved but , anot her , hi t her t o r ar el y seen cause, may have become el evat ed i n
si gni f i cance. Thi s new pr i mar y cause may have a di st i nct l y di f f er ent shape t han t h e f i r st one t hat of t en
makes i t ver y di f f i cul t t o deci de bet w een t he t w o.
In t hi s chapt er , w e f i r st l ook at t he empi r i cal appr oaches f or f i ndi ng est i mat es f or M TTF, M TTR and
M TTS as w el l as f ai l ur e f unct i on, mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y f unct i ons. Rest of t he chapt er
descr i bes some of t he w el l -know n met hods f or sel ect i on of t he most r el evant t heor et i cal di st r i but i on
f unct i ons f or t he r andom var i abl es under consi der at i on.
12.48. RELIABILITY, MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORTABILITY DATA
A ver y common pr obl em i n r el i abi l i t y engi n eer i ng i s t he avai l abi l i t y of f ai l ur e dat a. In many cases get t i n g
suf f i ci ent dat a f or ext r act i n g r el i abl e i nf or mat i on i s t he most di f f i cul t t ask. Thi s may be due t he f act t hat
t her e i s no good pr o cedur e empl oyed by t he oper at or (or suppl i er ) t o col l ect t he dat a or t he i t em may
be hi ghl y r el i abl e and t he f ai l ur e i s ver y r ar e. How ever , even w i t hout any dat a, one shoul d be abl e t o
pr edi ct t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on i f not t he par amet er s. For exampl e, i f t he f ai l ur e mechani sm i s
cor r osi on, t hen i t cannot be an exponent i al di st r i but i on. Si mi l ar l y i f t he f ai l ur e cause i s ‘ f or ei gn obj ect
damage’ t hen t he onl y di st r i but i on t hat can be used i s exponent i al . The mai n pr obl em wi t h i nsuf f i ci ent
f ai l ur e dat a i s get t i ng an accur at e est i mat e f or t he sh ape par amet er . For t unat el y, we don’ t have su ch
pr obl ems wi t h mai nt enance and suppor t abi l i t y dat a. These ar e easi l y avai l abl e f r om t he peopl e who
mai nt ai n and suppor t t he i t em. The r el i abi l i t y dat a can be obt ai ned f r om t he f ol l ow i ng sour ces:
1. Fi el d dat a and t he i n-ser vi ce dat a f r om t he oper at or usi ng st andar d dat a capt ur i ng t echni ques.
Ther e ar e st andar d f ai l ur e r epor t i ng f or ms f or t he pur pose of capt ur i ng desi r ed i nf or mat i on
r egar di ng t he r el i abi l i t y of t he i t em under consi der at i on. Unf or t unat el y, al l t hese f or ms ar e
214
f l aw ed, as t hey r ecor d onl y M TBF (or M TTR and M TTS i n case of mai nt enance and suppor t ).
Just t he val u e of M TBF al one may not be enough f or many anal yses concer ni ng r el i abi l i t y
(si mi l arl y, i n t he case of mai nt enance (suppor t ), i nf or mat i on on M TTR (M TTS) i s not enough f or
compl et e anal yses).
2. Fr om l i f e t est i ng t hat i nvol ves t est i ng a r epr esent at i ve sampl e of t he i t em under cont r ol l ed
condi t i ons i n a l abor at or y t o r ecor d t he r equi r ed dat a. Somet i mes, t hi s mi ght i nvol ve
‘ accel er at ed l i f e t est i ng’ (ALT) and ‘ hi ghl y accel er at ed l i f e t est i ng’ (HALT) dependi ng on t h e
i nf or mat i on r equi r ed.
As ment i oned ear l i er , i n some cases i t i s not possi bl e t o get a compl et e f ai l ur e dat a f r om a sampl e. Thi s
i s because some of t he i t ems may not f ai l duri ng t he l i f e t est i ng (al so i n t he i n-ser vi ce dat a). These t ypes
of dat a ar e cal l ed ‘ censor ed dat a’ . If t he l i f e t est i ng exp er i ment i s st opped bef or e al l t he i t ems have
f ai l ed, i n w hi ch cases onl y t he l ow er bound i s know n f or t he i t ems t hat have not f ai l ed. Such t ype of
dat a i s know n as ‘ r i ght censor ed dat a’ . In f ew cases onl y t he upper bound of t he f ai l ur e t i me may be
know n, such t ype of dat a i s cal l ed ‘ l ef t censor ed dat a’ .
12.49. ESTIMATION OF PARAMETERS - EMPIRICAL APPROACH
The obj ect i ve of empi r i cal met hod i s t o est i mat e f ai l ur e f unct i on, r el i abi l i t y f unct i on, hazar d f unct i on,
M TTF (or M TTR and M TTS) f r om t he f ai l ur e t i mes (or r epai r and suppor t t i mes). Empi r i cal appr oach i s
of t en r ef er r ed as non-par amet r i c appr oach or di st r i but i on f r ee appr oach. In t he f ol l ow i ng sect i ons w e
di scuss met hods f or est i mat i ng var i ous per f or mance measur es used i n r el i abi l i t y, mai nt enance and
suppor t f r om di f f er ent t ypes of dat a.
Estimation of Performance Measures - Complete Ungrouped Data
Compl et e ungr ouped dat a r ef er s t o a r aw dat a (f ai l ur e, r epai r or suppor t ) w i t hout any censor ed dat a.
That i s, t he f ai l ur e t i mes of t he whol e sampl e under consi der at i on ar e avai l abl e. For exampl e, l et t
1
, t
2
,
…, t
n
, r epr esent s n or der ed f ai l ur e t i mes such t hat t
i
≤ t
i+1
. Then t he possi bl e est i mat e f or f ai l ur e
f unct i on (cumul at i ve f ai l ur e di st r i but i on at t i me t
i
) i s gi ven by:
n
i
t F · ) (
^
(12.1)
A t ot al of i uni t s f ai l by t i me t out of t he t ot al n i n t h e sampl e. Thi s w i l l make F(t
n
) = n / n = 1. That i s,
t her e i s a zer o pr obabi l i t y f or any i t em t o sur vi ve beyond t i me t
n
. Thi s i s ver y unl i kel y, as t he t i mes ar e
dr awn f r om a sampl e and i t i s ext r emel y unl i kel y t hat any sampl e woul d i ncl ude t he l on gest sur vi val
t i me. Thus t he equat i on (12.1) under est i mat es t he component sur vi val f unct i on. A number of
mat hemat i ci ans have t r i ed t o f i nd a sui t abl e al t er nat i ve met hod of est i mat i ng t he cumul at i ve f ai l ur e
pr obabi l i t y. These r ange f r om usi ng n+1 i n t he denomi nat or t o usi ng -0.5 i n t he numer at or and +0.5 i n
t he denomi nat or . The one t hat gi ves t he best appr oxi mat i on i s based on medi an r ank. Ber nar d' s
appr oxi mat i on t o t he medi an r ank appr oach f or cumul at i ve f ai l ur e pr obabi l i t y i s gi ven by
4 . 0
3 . 0
) (
^
+

·
n
i
t F
i
(12.2)
215
Thr oughout t hi s chapt er w e use t he above appr oxi mat i on t o est i mat e t he cumul at i ve f ai l ur e di st r i but i on
or f ail ur e f unct i on. Fr om equat i on (12.2), t he est i mat e f or r el i abi l i t y f unct i on can be obt ai ned as
4 . 0
7 . 0
4 . 0
3 . 0
1 ) ( 1 ) (
^ ^
+
+ −
·
+

− · − ·
n
i n
n
i
t F t R
i i
(12.3)
The est i mat e f or t he f ai l ur e densi t y f unct i on f (t ) can be obt ai ned usi ng
1
1
1
^ ^
^
,
) ( ) (
) (
+
+
+
≤ ≤


·
i i
i i
i i
t t t
t t
t F t F
t f (12.4)
Est i mat e f or t he hazar d f unct i on can be obt ai ned by usi ng t he r el at i on bet w een t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on
R(t ) and t he f ai l ur e densi t y f unct i on f (t ). Ther ef or e,
1
^ ^ ^
for ) ( ) ( ) (
+
< < ·
i i
t t t t R t f t h (12.5)
An est i mat e f or t he mean t i me t o f ai l ur e (or mean t i me t o r epai r or mean t i me t o suppor t ) can be
di r ect l y obt ai ned f r om t he sampl e mean. That i s,

·
·
n
i
i
n
t
MTTF
1
^
(12.6)
Est i mat e f or t he var i ance of t he f ai l ur e di st r i but i on can be obt ai ned f r om t he sampl e var i ance, t hat i s

·


·
n
i
i
n
MTTF t
s
1
2
^
2
1
) (
(12.7)
Est i mat e f or M TTR (M TTS) and Var i ance of t i me t o r epai r di st r i but i on (t i me t o suppor t di st r i but i on) can
be obt ai ned by r epl aci ng f ai l ur e t i mes by r epai r t i mes (suppor t t i mes) i n equat i on (12.6) and (12.7)
r espect i vel y.
Confidence Interval
It i s al w ays of t he i nt er est t o know t he r ange i n w hich t he measur es such as M TTF, M TTR and M TTS
mi ght l i e wi t h cer t ai n conf i d ence. The r esul t i ng i nt er val i s cal l ed a conf i dence i nt er val and t he
pr obabi l i t y t hat i t cont ai ns t he est i mat ed par amet er i s cal l ed i t s conf i dence l evel or conf i dence
coef f i ci ent . For exampl e, i f a conf i dence i nt er val has a conf i dence coef f i ci ent equal t o 0.95, w e cal l i t a
95% conf i dence i nt er val .
To der i ve a (1-α) 100% conf i dence i nt er val f or a l ar ge sampl e we use t he f ol l owi ng expr essi on:
) (
2 /
^
n
z MTTF
σ
α
t (12.8)
216
Wher e z
α/ 2
i s t he z val u e (st andar d nor mal st at i st i c) t hat l ocat es an ar ea of α/ 2 t o i t s r i ght and can be
f ound f r om t he nor mal t abl e. σ i s t he st andar d devi at i on of t he popul at i on f r om w hi ch t he popul at i on
w as sel ect ed and n i s t he sampl e si ze. The above f or mul a i s val i d w henever t he sampl e si ze n i s gr eat er
t han or equal t o 30. The 90%, 95% and 99% conf i dence i nt er val f or M TTF w i t h sampl e si ze n ≥ 30 ar e
gi ven bel ow:

,
`

.
|
× t
n
MTTF
σ
645 . 1 confidence % 90
^
(12.9)

,
`

.
|
× t
n
MTTF
σ
96 . 1 confidence % 95
^
(12.10)

,
`

.
|
× t
n
MTTF
σ
58 .. 2 confidence % 99
^
(12.11)
When t he number of dat a i s smal l (t hat i s w hen n i s less t han 30), t he conf i dence i nt er val i s based on t
di st r i but i on. We use t he f ol l owi ng expr essi on t o cal cul at e (1-α)100% conf i dence i nt er val .

,
`

.
|
t
n
s
t MTTF
2 /
^
α
(12.12)
w her e t
α/ 2
i s based on (n-1) degr ees of f r eedom and can be obt ai ned f r om t di st r i but i on t abl e (r ef er
appendi x).
Exampl e 12.1
Ti me t o f ai l ur e dat a f or 20 car gear boxes of t he model M 2000 i s l i st ed i n Tabl e 12.1. Fi nd:
1. Estimate of failure function and reliability function.
2. Plot failure function and the reliability function.
3. Estimate of MTTF and 95% confidence interval.
Table 12.1. Failure data of gearboxes in miles
1022 1617 2513 3265 8445
9007 10505 11490 13086 14162
14363 15456 16736 16936 18012
19030 19365 19596 19822 20079
SOLUTION:
The f ai l ur e f unct i on and r el i abi l i t y f unct i on can be est i mat ed usi ng equat i ons 12.2 and 12.3. Tabl e 12.2
show s t he est i mat ed val u es of f ai l ur e f unct i on and r el i abi l i t y f unct i on.
217
Tabl e 12.2. Est i mat e f or f ai l ur e and r eli abi l i t y f unct i on.
Fai l ur e dat a
) (
^
i
t F ) (
^
i
t R
1022 0.0343 0.9657
1617 0.0833 0.9167
2513 0.1324 0.8676
3265 0.1814 0.8186
8445 0.2304 0.7696
9007 0.2794 0.7206
10505 0.3284 0.6716
11490 0.3774 0.6225
13086 0.4264 0.5736
14162 0.4754 0.5246
14363 0.5245 0.4755
15456 0.5735 0.4265
16736 0.6225 0.3775
16936 0.6716 0.3284
18012 0.7206 0.2794
19030 0.7696 0.2304
19365 0.8186 0.1814
19596 0.8676 0.1324
19822 0.9167 0.0833
20079 0.9657 0.0343
The failure function and the reliability function graph are shown in Figure 12.1 and 12.2 respectively.
Fi gur e 12.1 Est i mat e of f ai l ur e f unct i on f or t he dat a show n i n Tabl e 12.1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Age of the car(in miles)
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
218
Fi gur e 12.2 Est i mat ed r el i abi l i t y f unct i on f or t he dat a gi ven i n Tabl e 12.2
The est i mat e f or mean t i me t o f ai l ur e i s gi ven by:

·
· ·
20
1
^
5 . 12725
20
i
i
t
MTTF miles.
Est i mat e f or t he st andar d devi at i on i s gi ven by
miles 16 . 14827
1
) (
1
2
^
·


· ∑
·
n
i
i
n
MTTF t
s
As t he sampl e dat a i s l ess t han 30, w e use equat i on (12.12) t o f i nd t he 95% conf i dence l evel . Fr om t -
t abl e t he val ue of t
0.025
f or (n-1) = 19 i s gi ven by 2.093. The 95% conf i dence l evel f or M TTF i s gi ven by:
) 19 / 16 . 14827 ( 093 . 2 5 . 12725
2 /
^
t ·

,
`

.
|
t
n
s
t MTTF
α
That i s, t he 95% conf i dence i nt er val f or M TTF i s (5605.98, 19845.01).
Exampl e 12.2
Ti me t aken t o compl et e r epai r t asks f or an i t em i s gi ven i n Tabl e 12.3. Fi nd t he cumul at i ve t i me t o
r epai r di st r i but i on and mean t i me t o r epai r . Fi nd 95% conf i dence l evel f or M TTR.
Tabl e 12.3. Ti me t o r epai r dat a
28 53 71 90
30 56 72 92
31 58 74 94
33 59 75 95
35 61 79 97
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Age of the car (in miles)
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
219
40 65 81 99
41 67 82 100
44 68 84 103
49 69 85 108
51 70 89 110
M ai nt ai nabi l i t y f unct i on can be est i mat ed usi ng f ol l owi ng expr essi on:
4 . 40
3 . 0
4 . 0
3 . 0
) (
^

·
+

·
i
n
i
t M
i
Figure 12.3 shows the estimated maintainability function.
Fi gur e 12.3.M ai nt ai nabi l i t y f unct i on f or t he dat a gi ven i n Tabl e 12.3.
M ean Ti me t o Repai r i s gi ven by:
hours 7 . 69
40
40
1
^
· ·

· i
i
t
MTTR
St andar d devi at i on f or r epai r t i me i s gi ven by
hours 23.43
1
) (
1
2
^
2
·


· ∑
·
n
i
i
n
MTTR t
s
Si nce n > 30, w e use equat i on (12.10) t o cal cul at e 95% conf i dence i nt er val f or M TTR. 95% conf i dence
l evel f or M TTR i s gi ven by
) 96 . 76 , 43 . 62 (
40
43 . 23
) 96 . 1 ( 7 . 69 96 . 1
^
·

,
`

.
|
t ·

,
`

.
|
t
n
s
MTTR
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
220
Analysis of Grouped Data
Of t en f ai l ur e dat a i s pl aced i nt o t i me i nt er val s w hen t he sampl e si ze i s l ar ge. The f ai l ur e dat a ar e
cl assi f i ed i nt o sever al i nt er val s. The number of i nt er val s, NI, depends on t he t ot al number of dat a n.
Fol l owi ng equat i on can be used as gui dance f or det er mi ni ng t he sui t abl e number of i nt er val s:
]
) ( log 3 . 3 1
10
n NI × + · (12.13)
]
NI denotes that the value is rounded down to the nearest integer.
The l engt h of each i nt er val , LI, i s cal cul at ed usi ng:
| )
]
NI
x x
LI
min max

· (12.14)
wher e x
max
i s t he maxi mum r ecor ded f ai l ur e t i me and x
mi n
i s t he mi ni mu m r ecor d ed f ai l ur e t i me. Th e
l ow er and upper bound of each i nt er val i s cal cul at ed as f ol l ow s:
LI i x X
LI i x X
i
i
× + ·
× − + ·
min max,
min min,
) 1 (
X
min,i
i s t he l ow er bound of t h e i t h i nt er val and X
max,i
i s t he upper bound val ue of t he i t h i nt er val . Let n
1
,
n
2
, … n
n
be t he number of i t ems t hat f ai l i n t he i nt er val i . Then t he est i mat e f or cumul at i ve f ai l ur e
di st r i but i on i s gi ven by
4 . 0
3 . 0
) (
1
max,
^
+

·

·
n
n
X F
i
k
k
i
(12.15)
Est i mat e f or t he r el i abi l i t y f unct i on R(t ) i s gi ven by:
4 . 0
7 . 0
) ( 1 ) (
1
max,
^
max,
^
+
+
· − ·

+ ·
n
n
X F X R
n
i k
i
i i
(12.16)
Est i mat e f or t he f ai l ur e densi t y i s gi ven by:
For X
max,i+1
< t < X
max,i
) ( ) 4 . 0 (
) ( ) (
) (
max, 1 max,
1
max, 1 max,
max, 1 max,
^
^
i i
i
i i
i i
X X n
n
X X
X F X F
t f
− × +
·


·
+
+
+
+
The M TTF i s est i mat ed usi ng t he expr essi on:
221

·
×
·
NI
i
i i med
n
n X
MTTF
1
,
^
(12.17)
wher e X
med,i
i s t he mi dpoi nt i n t he i t h i nt er val and n
k
i s t he number of obser ved f ai l ur es i n t hat i nt er val .
Est i mat e f or sampl e var i ance i s gi ven by

·
× − ·
NI
i
i
i med
n
n
MTTF X s
1
2
^
,
2
) ( (12.18)
Exampl e 12.3
Resul t s of 55 obser ved val ues of t he dur at i on of suppor t t asks i n hour s ar e gi ven i n Tabl e 12.4. Cal cul at e
t he M ean Ti me t o Suppor t (M TTS).
Tabl e 12.4. Ti me t o suppor t dat a
3 56 9 24 56 66 67 87 89 99 4
26 76 79 89 45 45 78 88 89 90 92
99 2 3 37 39 39 77 93 21 24 29
32 44 46 5 46 46 99 47 77 79 89
31 78 34 67 86 86 75 33 55 22 44
SOLUTION:
Fi r st w e need t o f i nd t he number of gr oups usi ng equat i on (12.13). The number of i nt er val s i s gi ven by:
] ]
6 74 . 6 ) 55 ( log 3 . 3 1
10
· · × + · NI
The l engt h (r ange) i f each i nt er val (gr oup) i s gi ven by:
]
17 . 16
6
2 99
min max
·

·

·
NI
x x
LI
Tabl e 12.5 show s t he var i ous cal cul at i ons associ at ed i n comput i ng t he mean t i me t o suppor t .
Table 12.5. Analysis of grouped data given in example 12.3
i LI (x
min,I
- x
max,i
) n
i
x
med,i
X
med,i
× n
i
1 2 - 18.17 6 10.08 60.51
2 18.17 34.34 10 26.25 262.55
3 34.34 - 50.51 11 42.42 466.67
4 50.51 - 66.68 5 58.59 292.97
5 66.68 - 82.85 9 74.76 672.88
6 82.85 - 99 14 90.92 1272.95
M TTS i s gi ven by:
222
∑ ∑
· ·
·
×
·
×
·
6
1
,
1
,
^
06 . 55
55
i
i i med
NI
i
i i med
n X
n
n X
MTTS
12.50. ANALYSIS OF CENSORED DATA
In many cases, t he compl et e dat a may not b e avai l abl e due t o t he r easons such as al l t he i t ems may n ot
have f ai l ed or t he manuf act ur er may w i sh t o get i nt er i m est i mat es of t he r el i abi l i t y et c. The mechani sm
f or censor i ng may be based on a f i xed age, on a f i xed number of f ai l ur es or at some ar bi t r ar y poi nt i n
t i me. In pr act i ce, pr ovi ded t he t i mes at t he t i me of f ai l ur e or , at t he t i me of suspensi on (censor ) ar e
know n, t he r eason f or t er mi nat i ng t he t est i s not i mpor t ant . We w i l l assume t hat t he t i mes of f ai l ur e
ar e know n pr eci sel y. We w i l l l ook at cases i n w hi ch w e do not know t he exact t i me, onl y t hat t he f ai l ur e
occur r ed somet i me bet w een t he l ast i nspect i on and t he cur r ent age l at er . In t hi s sect i on w e der i ve
est i mat es f or f ai l ur e f unct i on, r el i abi l i t y f unct i on when t he dat a i s mul t i pl e censor ed. We denot e t
i
t o
r epr esent a compl et e dat a and t
i
* t o denot e a censor ed t i me.
The onl y di f f er ence bet ween t he est i mat i on of par amet er s i n compl et e dat a and t he censor ed dat a i s
t he cal cul at i on of medi an r anks. Now w e wi l l need t o adj ust t he r anks i n or der t o t ake account of t he
component s t hat have not f ai l ed. The r ank adj ust ment i s done i n t he f ol l owi ng t w o st eps:
1. Sor t al l t he t i mes (f ai l ur es and suspensi ons) i n ascendi ng or der and al l ocat e a sequence number i
st ar t i ng w i t h 1 f or t he f i r st (l ow est ) t i me and endi ng w i t h n (t he sampl e si ze f or t he hi ghest r ecor ded
t i me). Now w e di scar d t he suspended t i mes as i t i s onl y t he (adj ust ed r ank) of t he f ai l ur es w i t h
whi ch we ar e concer ned.
2. For each f ai l ur e cal cul at e t he adj ust ed r ank as f oll ow s:
i
i
i i
S n
R n
R R
− +
− +
+ ·


2
1
1
1
(12.19)
wher e, R
i
i s t he adj ust ed r ank of t he i
t h
f ai l ur e, R
i-1
i s t he adj ust ed r ank of t he (i -1)
t h
f ai l ur e, t hat i s t he
pr evi ous f ai l ur e. R
0
i s zer o and S
i
i s t he sequence number of t he i
t h
f ai l ur e.
As a qui ck check, t he adj ust ed r ank of t h e i
t h
f ai l ur e w i l l al w ays be l ess t han or equal t o t he sequence
number and at l east 1 gr eat er t han t he pr evi ous adj ust ed r ank. If t her e i s no suspensi ons, t he adj ust ed
r ank w i l l be equal t o t he sequence number as bef or e. These adj ust ed r anks ar e t hen subst i t ut ed i nt o
t he Benar d' s appr oxi mat i on f or mul a t o gi ve t he medi an r ank and t he est i mat e f or cumul at i ve pr obabi l i t y
i s gi ven by:
4 . 0
3 . 0
) (
^
+

·
n
R
t F
i
i
Exampl e 12.4
The f ol l ow i ng dat a wer e obser ved dur i ng t he dat a capt ur i ng exer ci se on 12 compr essor s t hat ar e bei ng
used by di f f er ent oper at or s. Est i mat e t he r el i abi l i t y and f ai l ur e f unct i on (* i ndi cat es t hat t he dat a i s a
censor ed dat a)
2041, 2173, 2248
*
, 2271, 2567
*
, 2665
*
, 3008, 3091, 3404
*
, 3424, 3490
*
, 3716
223
SOLUTION:
We need t o cal cul at e t he adj ust ed r ank of t he f ai l ur e t i mes usi ng equat i on (12.19), once t hi s i s done,
t hen t he f ai l ur e and r el i abi l i t y f unct i on can be est i mat ed usi ng equat i ons (12.2) and (12.3) r espect i vel y.
The est i mat ed f ai l ur e and r el i abi li t y f unct i ons ar e show n i n Tabl e 12.6.
Tabl e 12.6 Est i mat ed f ai l ur e and r eli abi l i t y f unct i on
S
i
t
i
j R
j
= R
j -1
+ [ (n+1– R
j-1
)
/ (n+2 – S
i
) ]
) (
i
t F ) (
i
t R
1 2041 1 1 0.0565 0.9435
2 2173 2 2 0.1370 0.8630
3 2248
*
4 2271 3 3.1 0.2258 0.7742
5 2567
*
6 2665
*
7 3008 4 4.51 0.3395 0.6605
8 3091 5 5.92 0.4532 0.5468
9 3404
*
10 3424 6 7.69 0.5960 0.4040
11 3490
*
12 3716 7 10.34 0.8097 0.1903
12.51. FITTING PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS GRAPHICALLY
The t r adi t i onal appr oach f or measur i ng r el i abi l i t y, mai nt enance and suppor t abi l i t y char act er i st i cs i s
usi ng a t heor et i cal pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i on. It shoul d how ever , be bor ne i n mi nd t hat f ai l ur es do not
occur i n accor dance w i t h a gi ven di st r i but i on. These ar e mer el y conveni ent t ool s t hat can al l ow us t o
make i nf er ences and compar i sons i n not j ust an easi er w ay but al so w i t h know n l evel s of conf i dence. In
t hi s sect i on w e w i l l l ook at a gr aphi cal met hod t hat can be used t o not onl y t o f i t di st r i but i ons t o gi ven
dat a but al so hel p us det er mi ne how good t he f i t i s. To i l l ust r at e t he gr aphi cal appr oach w e use t he
f ol l ow i ng f ai l ur e dat a obser ved on 50 t yr es.
Tabl e 12.7. Fai l ur e dat a f or 50 t yr es
1022 14363 20208 26530 31507
1617 15456 20516 28060 33326
2513 16736 20978 28240 33457
3265 16936 21497 28757 35356
8445 18012 24199 28852 35747
9007 19030 24582 29092 36250
10505 19365 25512 29236 36359
11490 19596 25743 29333 36743
13086 19822 26102 30620 36959
14162 20079 26163 30924 38958
224
To dr aw a gr aph w e obvi ousl y need a set ' x' and ' y' co-or di nat es. Sor t i ng t he t i mes-t o-f ai l ur e i n
ascendi ng or der w i l l gi ve us t he ' x' val ues so al l w e need i s t o associ at e a cumul at i ve pr obabi l i t y t o each
val ue. Thi s i s done usi ng t he medi an r ank appr oach di scussed ear l i er , t hat i s ' y' axi s val ues ar e gi ven by
t he cumul at i ve f ai l ur e pr obabi l i t i es cal cul at ed usi ng t he equat i on (12.2). Now, w e can pl ot t he val u es [ t
i
,
F(t
i
)] . I n Fi gur e 12.4 w e can see t he r esul t of t hi s f or t he 50 t yr e t i me-t o-f ai l ur e.
Fi gur e 12.4 Tyr e Dat a compar ed t o Exponent i al and Nor mal Di st r i but i ons
The t w o addi t i onal l i nes on t hi s gr aph have b een pl ot t ed t o show w hat an exponent i al di st r i but i on (w i t h
t he same mean as t he sampl e) w oul d l ook l i ke and si mi l ar l y f or a nor mal di st r i but i on w i t h t he sampl e
mean and st andar d devi at i on. Thi s i ndi cat es t hat t he exponent i al di st r i but i on i s not a ver y good f i t
w her eas t he nor mal i s cer t ai nl y bet t er . What i t does not t el l us, how ever , i s how much bet t er or ,
i ndeed, w het her anot her di st r i but i on gi ves an even bet t er f i t .
A measur e of how good t he cur ve f i t s t he dat a w oul d be t he cor r el at i on coef f i ci ent but , t hi s onl y appl i es
t o st r ai ght l i ne f i t s. Si mi l ar l y w e coul d use t he Kol mogor ov-Smi r nov t est but t hi s r eal l y onl y t el l s us
w het her t he t her e i s a si gni f i cant di f f er ence bet w een t he dat a and t hat w hi ch w oul d b e expect ed i f t he
dat a wer e exponent i al l y or nor mal l y di st r i but ed.
Ther e ar e, i n f act , t w o st andar d appr oaches t o f i t t he dat a t o a pr obabi l i t y di st r i but i on gr aphi cal l y: t o
use “ pr obabi l i t y paper ” or t o t r ansf or m ei t h er t he “ x” or “ y” (or bot h) dat a so t hat t he r esul t i ng gr aph
w oul d be a st r ai ght l i ne i f t he dat a w er e f r om t he gi ven di st r i but i on. Act ual l y bot h met hods ar e
essent i al l y t he same because t o cr eat e pr obabi l i t y paper t he axes have been so const r uct ed as t o
pr oduce st r ai ght l i nes pl ot i f t he dat a i s f r om t he gi ven di st r i but i on. If w e can det er mi ne t he necessar y
t r ansf or ms t hen w e can easi l y const r uct t he pr obabi l i t y paper .
Fitting an exponential distribution to data graphically
The cumul at i ve pr obabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on f or t he exponent i al di st r i but i on i s gi ven by
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Time-to-Failure
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Tyre Data
Exponential
Normal
225
¹
'
¹
≥ − −
<
·
0 ), exp( 1
0 , 0
) (
t t
t
t F
λ
Si nce we ar e onl y consi d er i ng posi t i ve f ai l ur e t i mes, we can, wi t hout l oss of gener al i t y, omi t t he
expr essi on f or t < 0. If we r epl ace F(t ) w i t h p t hen we get
) exp( 1 t p λ − − ·
Rear r angi ng and t aki ng nat ur al l ogar i t hm we get
t
p
λ ·

]
1
1
ln[ (12.20)
Thi s i s a l i near f unct i on i n t such t hat t he sl ope of t he l i ne i s t he r eci pr ocal of t he M TTF. Fi gur e 12.5 i s an
exampl e of “ Exponent i al Gr aph Paper ” (f or t he f ai l ur e dat e f r om Tabl e 12.7). The y-scal e i s gi ven as
per cent ages r at her t han pr obabi l i t i es. The x-scal e i s l i near .
Fi gur e 12.5 Dat a Pl ot t ed on Exponent i al Gr aph Paper
If t he dat a f or ms a st r ai ght l i ne i n t he exponent i al pr obabi l i t y paper , t hen w e can f i nd t he val ue of M TTF
by usi ng t he r el at i on F(M TTF) = 0.632. That i s, w e f i nd t he t i me t o f ai l ur e f r om t he paper f or w hi ch t h e
per cent age f ai l ur es i s 63.2.
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Times to Failure
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
%
)
99
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
20
226
Fitting a Normal Distribution Graphically
We w i l l now see how good a f i t t he nor mal di st r i but i on gi ves. Agai n w e can pl ot t he t i mes-t o-f ai l ur e on
speci al nor mal (pr obabi l i t y) paper . Such paper i s becomi ng i ncr easi ngl y mor e di f f i cul t t o obt ai n
commer ci al l y. It can, however , be cr eat ed usi ng a pr o pr i et ar y spr eadsheet package. Fi gur e 12.6 shows
how t he t yr e exampl e f ai l ur e t i mes (and t h ei r r espect i ve medi an r anks) woul d appear on “ nor mal
paper ” .
Fi gur e 12.6 Ti mes- t o-Fai l ur e pl ot t ed on Nor mal Paper
The cumul at i ve densi t y f unct i on f or t he nor mal di st r i but i on i s not as si mpl e t o t r ansf or m t o a l i near f or m
as t he exponent i al .
dx e p t F
t
x

∞ −

,
`

.
| −

· ·
2
2
1
2
1
) (
σ
µ
σ π
How ever , w e can obt ai n t he st andar di sed nor mal var i abl e ) (
σ
µ −
·
x
z , f or any gi ven val ue of p (F(t ))
ei t her f r om t abl es or , usi ng t he NORM SINV f unct i on i n M i cr oSof t ™ Excel ®, f or exampl e. Now w e can
pl ot t hi s val ue(as t he y co-or di nat e) agai nst t he cor r espondi ng t i me-t o-f ai l ur e (as t he x co-or di nat e). Th e
val ue of µ and σ can be f ound by usi ng t he r el at i on, F(µ) = 0.5 and F(µ+σ) = 0.84.
Fitting a Log-Normal Distribution Graphically
Essent i al l y t he l og-nor mal di st r i but i on i s t he same as a nor mal di st r i but i on except i ng t hat t he (nat ur al )
l ogar i t hm of t h e x- val ues ar e used i n pl ace of t he act ual val ues. Fi gur es 12.7 and 12.8 show l og-nor mal
pl ot f or t he dat a gi ven i n Tabl e 12.7.
Times to Failure
0
10000 20000 30000 40000
99
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
1
227
Fi gur e 12.7 Ti mes-t o-Fai l ur e pl ot t ed on Log-Nor mal Paper
Fi gur e 12.8 Fi t t i ng a Log-Nor mal Di st r i but i on Gr aphi cal l y
1000 10000 100000
99
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
1
y = 1.0614x - 10.444
R
2
= 0.7346
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11
Ln(Time to Failure)
N
o
r
m
a
l

O
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
228
Her e t he pl ot t ed poi nt s f or m a concave cur ve t o w h i ch t he st r ai ght l i ne i s not a par t i cul ar l y good f i t
al t hough i t i s st i l l bet t er t han t he exponent i al f i t . The mean i n t hi s case i s 18,776 w hi ch i s consi der abl y
l ow er t han t he mean f r om t he pr evi ous gr aphs but , t hi s i s because i t i s t he geomet r i c mean (t he n
t h
r oot
of t he pr oduct of t he TTFs) and not t he ar i t hmet i c mean w i t h w hi ch w e ar e mor e f ami l i ar .
Fitting a Weibull Distribution Graphically
The cumul at i ve densi t y f unct i on of t he Wei bul l di st r i but i on i s si mi l ar t o t hat of t he exponent i al , i ndeed
t he l at t er i s t he (mat hemat i cal l y) degener at i ve f or m of t he f or mer .
By r e-ar r angi ng and t aki ng nat ur al l ogar i t hms
whi ch i s st il l not i n a l i near f or m so we have t o t ake l ogs agai n t o gi ve:
So i f w e pl ot l n(-l n(1-p)) agai nst l n(t ) an est i mat e of t he shape par amet er (β) of t he Wei bul l w i l l be gi ven
by t he sl ope of t he st r ai ght l i ne dr aw n t hr ough t he pl ot t ed poi nt s. To get an est i mat e of t he scal e
par amet er (η) w e need t o car r yout a t r ansf or m on t he i nt er cept :
wher e c i s t he i nt er cept of t he r egr essi on l i ne w i t h t he x-axi s. Fi gur es 12.9 and 12.10 show s Wei bul l pl ot
f or t he dat a gi ven i n Tabl e 12.7.
F t p ( ) · ·

¹
'
¹
¹
¹
|
.

`
,

0 for t < 0
1- for t 0 e
-
t
η
β
− − ·
|
.

`
,
ln( ) 1 p
t
η
β
ln( ln( )) ln( ) ln( ) − − · − 1 p t β β η
η
β
·

e
c
229
Figure 12.9 Times-to-Failure Fitted on Weibull Paper
Fi gur e 12.10 Fi t t i ng a Wei bul l di st r i but i on gr aphi cal l y
Agai n t he Wei bul l di st r i but i on does not gi ve as good a f i t as t he nor mal (di st r i but i on) but i t i s bet t er t han
ei t her t he exponent i al or t he l og-nor mal . The sl ope (1.48) i ndi cat es t hat t her e coul d be a cer t ai n
amount of age-r el at edness t o t he f ai l ur es.
99
95
90
80
70
6
50
40
30
20
10
5
1
1000 10000 100000
y = 1.4608x - 14.935
R
2
= 0.883
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11
Log(Time to Failure)
T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
e
d

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
230
12.52. REGRESSION
The model s used t o r el at e a dependent var i abl e y t o t he i ndependent var i abl es x ar e cal l ed r egr essi on
model s. The si mpl est r egr essi on model i s t he one t hat r el at es t he var i abl e y t o a si ngl e i ndependent
var i abl e x (l i near r egr essi on model ). Li near r egr essi on pr ovi des pr edi ct ed val u es f or t he dependent
var i abl es (y) as a l i near f unct i on of i ndependent var i abl e (x). That i s, l i near r egr essi on f i nds t he best -f i t
st r ai ght l i ne f or t he set of poi nt s (x, y). The obj ect i ves of l i near r egr essi on ar e:
1. To check whether there is a linear relationship between the dependent variable and the independent
variable.
2. To find the best fit straight line for a given set of data points.
3. To estimate the constants a` and b` of the best fit y = a + bx.
Fi gur e 12.11 Least squar e r egr essi on.
The st andar d met hod f or l i near r egr essi on anal ysi s (f i t t i ng a st r ai ght l i ne t o a si ngl e i ndependent
var i abl e) i s usi ng t he met hod of l east squar es. Least squar e r egr essi on i s a pr ocedur e f or est i mat i ng t he
coef f i ci ent s ‘ a’ and ‘ b’ f r om a set of X, Y poi nt s t hat have been measur ed. In r el i abi l i t y anal ysi s, t he set X
i s t he set of t i me t o f ai l ur es (or f unct i on of TTF) and set Y i s t hei r cor r espondi ng cumul at i ve pr obabi l i t y
val ues (or f unct i on of cumul at i ve di st r i but i on). Fi gur e 12.11 i l l ust r at es t he l east squar e r egr essi on. The
measur e of how w el l t hi s l i ne f i t s t he dat a i s gi ven by t he cor r el at i on coef f i ci ent . If w e const r uct a l i ne
such t hat i t passes t hr ough t he poi nt | ) y x, wher e x i s t he mean of t he x val ues and y i s t he mean of
t he y val ues t hen t he sum of t he di st ances bet w een each poi nt and t he poi nt on t he l i ne ver t i cal l y above
(-ve) or bel ow (+ve) wi l l al ways be zer o (pr o vi ded t he l i ne i s not par al l el t o t he y-axi s). The same hol ds
f or t he hor i zont al di st ances pr ovi ded t hat t he l i ne i s not par al l el t o t he x-axi s. Thi s means t hat any l i ne
passi ng t hr ough t he means (i n t he way descr i bed) wi l l be an unbi ased est i mat or of t he t r ue l i ne.
If w e now assume t hat t her e i s a l i near r el at i onshi p bet w een t he x’ s (x ∈ X) and y’ s ( y ∈ Y), t hat t he x’ s
ar e know n exact l y and t hat t he “ er r or s” i n t he y val u es ar e nor mal l y di st r i but ed w i t h mean 0 t hen i t can
be shown t hat t he val ues of a and b w hi ch mi ni mi ses t he expr essi on:

·
− −
n
i
i i
bx a y
1
2
) ( (12.21)
y
a
x
Slope = b
231
Wi l l gi ve t he best f i t . The expr essi on (y
i
– a – bx
i
) gi ves t he ver t i cal di st ance bet w een t he poi nt and t he
l i ne. Cut t i ng out l ot of al gebr a, one can show t hat t he val ues of a and b can be f ound by sol vi ng t he
f ol l ow i ng equat i ons:
∑ ∑
· ·
· +
n
i
i
n
i
i
y x b na
1 1
(12.21)
∑ ∑ ∑
· · ·
· +
n
i
i i
n
i
i
n
i
i
y x x b x a
1 1
2
1
(12.22)
‘ a’ i s t he est i mat e of t he i nt er cept (of t he l i ne w i t h t he y-axi s) and ‘ b’ i s t he est i mat e of t he sl ope – i .e. y
= a + bx i s t he equat i on of t he l i ne gi vi ng:
2
1 1
2
1 1 1
) (
∑ ∑
∑ ∑ ∑
· ·
· · ·


·
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i i
x x n
y x y x n
b (12.23)
∑ ∑
· ·
− ·
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
x
b
n
y
a
1 1
(12.24)
Not e al so t hat t hese expr essi ons ar e not symmet r i cal i n x and y. The f or mul a quot ed her e gi ves
w hat i s cal l ed “ y on x” r egr essi on and i t assumes t he er r or s ar e i n t he y-val ues.
By r epl aci ng each x w i t h a y and each y w i t h an x w e can per f or m “ x on y” r egr essi on (w hi ch assumes
t he er r or s ar e i n t he x- val ues). If c i s t he est i mat e of t he i nt er cept so obt ai ned and d i s t he est i mat e
of t he sl ope t hen t o get est i mat es of a and b (t he i nt er cept and sl ope of t he or i gi nal gr aph):
d
b
1
· and
d
c
a − ·
Not e: unl ess t he poi nt s ar e col l i near , t he “ x on y” est i mat es w i l l not be t he same as t he “ y on x”
est i mat es. In t he sp eci al case wh er e you want t o f or ce t he l i ne t hr ough t he or i gi n (i .e. t he i nt er cept i s
zer o), t he l east squar es f or mul a f or t he sl ope becomes:


·
·
·
n
i
i
n
i
i i
x
y x
b
1
2
1
(12.25)
Not e t hi s l i ne does not pass t hr ough t he means (unl ess i t i s a per f ect f i t ).
232
Correlation Co-efficient
A measur e of t he dependence bet ween t wo var i abl es i s gi ven by t he cor r el at i on coef f i ci ent . The
cor r el at i on coef f i ci ent , r i s gi ven by:
2
1 1
2 2
1 1
2
1 1 1
) ( ) ( ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
∑ ∑ ∑
· · · ·
· · ·
− × −

·
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i i
y y n x x n
y x y x n
r (12.26)
The cor r el at i on coef f i ci ent al w ays l i es bet w een –1 and +1. A val ue of +1 or –1 means t hat x and y ar e
exact l y l i near l y r el at ed. In t he f or mer case y i ncr eases as x i ncr eases but f or r = -1, y decr eases as x
i ncr eases. Not e t hat i f x and y ar e i ndependent t hen r = 0, but r = 0 does not mean t hat x and y ar e
i ndependent . The best f i t di st r i but i on i s t he one w i t h maxi mum r val ue (cl ose t o one). To f i nd t he best
f i t , r egr essi on anal ysi s i s car r i ed out on t he popul ar di st r i but i on such as exponent i al , Wei bul l , nor mal
and l og-nor mal . The one w i t h hi ghest cor r el at i on coef f i ci ent i s sel ect ed as t he best . The coor di nat es (x,
y) and t he cor r espondi ng par amet er s f or di f f er ent di st r i but i ons ar e l i st ed gi ven i n t he f ol l ow i ng sect i ons.
Linear Regression for Exponential Distribution
To f i t a dat a t o an exponent i al di st r i but i on, w e t r ansf or m t he co-or di nat es (t
i
, F(t
i
)) such a w ay t hat ,
when pl ot t ed, i t gi ves a st r ai ght l i ne. Her e t
i
i s t he obser ved f ai l ur e t i mes and F(t
i
) i s t he est i mat ed
cumul at i ve di st r i but i on f unct i on. The cumul at i ve di st r i but i on of exponent i al di st r i but i on i s gi ven by:
) exp( 1 ) ( t t F λ − − ·
t hat i s,
t
t F
λ ·

]
) ( 1
1
ln[ (12.27)
Equation (12.27) is a linear function. Thus, for an exponential distribution, the plot of ( ]
) ( 1
1
ln[ ,
t F
t

)
provides a straight line. Thus, if t
1
, t
2
, ., t
n
are the observed failure times, then to fit this data into an
exponential distribution, we set:
i i
t x · (12.28)
]
) ( 1
1
ln[
i
i
t F
y

· (12.29)
Subst i t ut i ng (x
i
, y
i
) i n equat i on (12.23) we get :
233


·
·
·
n
i
i
n
i
i i
x
y x
b
1
2
1
(12.30)
Not e t hat , f or exponent i al di st r i but i on b = 1/ M TTF.
Exampl e 12.5
The following failure data were observed on Actuators. Fit the data to an exponential distribution and find
the MTTF and the correlation coefficient.
14, 27, 32, 34, 54, 57, 61, 66, 67, 102, 134, 152, 209, 230
SOLUTION:
First we carry out least square regression on ]
) ( 1
1
ln[ ,
i
i
t F
t

, various calculations are tabulated in Table
12.8.
Tabl e 12.8. Regr essi on anal ysi s f or t he dat a i n exampl e 12.5
i t
i
(= x
i
) F(t
i
) y
i
= l n[ 1 / (1-F(t
i
))]
1 14 0.0486 0.0498
2 27 0.1180 0.1256
3 32 0.1875 0.2076
4 34 0.2569 0.2969
5 54 0.3263 0.3951
6 57 0.3958 0.5039
7 61 0.4652 0.6260
8 66 0.5347 0.7651
9 67 0.6041 0.9267
10 102 0.6736 1.1196
11 134 0.7430 1.3588
12 152 0.8125 1.6739
13 209 0.8819 2.1366
14 230 0.9513 3.0239
The val ue of b i s gi ven by:
01126 . 0
]
) ( 1
1
ln[
1
2
1
1
2
1
·

×
· ·




·
·
·
·
n
i
i
n
i i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i i
t
t F
t
x
y x
b
MTTF is given by 1/b = 1/0.01126 = 88.73. The corresponding correlation coefficient is 0.9666.
234
Linear Regression for Weibull Distribution
Cumul at i ve di st r i but i on of Wei bul l di st r i but i on i s gi ven by:
) ) ( exp( 1 ) (
β
η
t
t F − − ·
That is, ) ln( ) ln( )]
) ( 1
1
ln[ln( η β β − ·

t
t F
, which is a linear function. Thus to fit the data to a Weibull
distribution, we set:
) ln(
i i
t x · (12.31)
)]
) ( 1
1
ln[ln(
i
i
t F
y

· (12.32)
From least square regression, it is evident that the shape and scale parameters of the distribution are given
by:
b · β (12.34)
) / exp( β η a − · (12.35)
Exampl e 12.6
Const r uct a l east squar e r egr essi on f or t he f ol l owi ng f ai l ur e dat a:
17, 21, 33, 37, 39, 42, 56, 98, 129, 132, 140
SOLUTION:
M aki ng use of equat i ons (12.31) and (12.32), w e const r uct t he l east squar e r egr essi on, w hi ch ar e
pr esent ed i n Tabl e 12.9.
Tabl e 12.9. Wei bul l r egr essi on f or t he dat a i n exampl e 12.6
i t
i
F(t
i
) x
i
= l n(t
i
) Y
i
= l nl n(1/ 1-F(t
i
))
1 17 0.0614 2.8332 - 2.7581
2 21 0.1491 3.0445 - 1.8233
3 33 0.2368 3.4965 - 1.3082
4 37 0.3245 3.6109 - 0.9354
5 39 0.4122 3.6635 - 0.6320
6 42 0.5 3.7376 - 0.3665
7 56 0.5877 4.0253 - 0.1209
8 98 0.6754 4.5849 0.1180
9 129 0.7631 4.8598 0.3648
10 132 0.8508 4.8828 0.6434
11 140 0.9385 4.9416 1.0261
235
Using equations (12.34) and (12.35), we get β = 1.4355, η = 76.54 and the correlation
coefficient r = 0.9133.
Linear regression for Normal Distribution
For nor mal d i st r i but i on,
) ( ) ( ) ( z
t
t F Φ ·

Φ ·
σ
µ
Now z can be written as:
σ
µ
σ σ
µ
− ·

· Φ ·
− i i
i
t t
t F z )] ( [
1
(12.36)
Which is a linear function. Now for regression, we set x
i
= t
i
and y
i
= z
i
= Φ
-1
[F(t
i
)]. The value of z can
be obtained from standard normal distribution table. One can also use the following expression that gives
polynomial approximation for z
i
.
i i
t x · (12.37)
]
)] ( 1 [
1
ln[
2
i
t F
P

·
3
3
2
2 1
2
2 1 0
1 P d P d P d
P C P C C
P y
i
+ + +
+ +
− · (12.38)
where
C
0
= 2.515517, C
1
= 0.802853, C
2
= 0.010328, d
1
= 1.432788,
d
2
= 0.189269, d
3
= 0.001308
The est i mat e f or µ and σ ar e gi ven by
b
a
− · µ and
b
1
· σ
Exampl e 12.7
Fi t t he f ol l owi ng dat a i nt o a nor mal di st r i but i on
236
62, 75, 93, 112, 137, 170, 185
SOLUTION:
Tabl e 12.10 gi ves var i ous comput at i ons i nvol ved i n r egr essi on.
Tabl e 12.10. Nor mal r egr essi on f or exampl e 12.7
i t
i
F(t
i
) z
i
= P – (c
0
+ c
1
P + c
2
P
2
/ 1 + d
1
P + d
2
P
2
+
d
3
P
3
)
1 62 0.0945 - 1.2693
2 75 0.2297 - 0.7302
3 93 0.3648 - 0.3434
4 112 0.5 0
5 137 0.6351 0.3450
6 170 0.7702 0.7394
7 185 0.9054 1.3132
The est i mat e f or µ = 118.71, σ = 54.05 and t he cor r el at i on coef f i ci ent r = 0.9701.
Linear Regression for Log-normal Distribution
For l og-nor mal di st r i but i on w e set :
) ln(
i i
t x · (12.39)
]
)] ( 1 [
1
ln[
2
i
t F
P

·
3
3
2
2 1
2
2 1 0
1 P d P d P d
P C P C C
P y
i
+ + +
+ +
− · (12.40)
where
C
0
= 2.515517, C
1
= 0.802853, C
2
= 0.010328, d
1
= 1.432788, d
2
= 0.189269, d
3
= 0.001308
237
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) and Life Cycle Cost
Models
Prof. U Dinesh Kumar
Indian Institute of Management Bangalore
238
CONTENTS
1. Life Cycle Cost and Total Cost of Ownership 3
1.1 Introduction. 3
1.2 Initial Capital Cost 5
1.3 Life of the Asset 5
1.4 The Discount Rate 6
1.5 Operation and Maintenance Cost 6
1.6 Disposal Cost 6
1.7 Uncertainties and Sensitivity Analysis 6
1.8 Summary 7
2. Survey of Existing Literature 09
2.1 Life Cycle Cost/Total Cost of Ownership Concept 09
2.2 Definitions of Life Cycle Cost/Cost of Ownership 12
2.3 Life Cycle Cost Technique 13
2.4 Review of Life Cycle Cost Models 16
2.5 Taylor`s LCC Model 23
2.6 Raymer`s LCC Model 25
2.7 Roskam`s LCC Model 25
2.8 Fabrycky and Blanchard`s LCC Model 26
2.9 Burn`s Life Cycle Cost Model 28
2.10 PRICE Life Cycle Costing System 28
2.11 Equipment Designer`s Cost Analysis System (EDCAS) 28
2.12 LCC Models Using Markov Chain 30
2.13 LCC Models for Labour Factor 31
2.14 LCC Models in Designing for Logistic Support 31
2.15 Applications of LCC/Cost of Ownership Models 34
References 35
239
240
1. Life Cycle Cost and Total Cost of Ownership
___________________________________________
1.1 Int r oduct i on
“ Val ue f or M oney” has become one of t he i mpor t ant cr i t er i a i n an i ncr easi ngl y compet i t i ve
busi ness envi r onment . Li f e Cycl e Cost (LCC) and t he Tot al Cost of Owner shi p (TCO) ar e t wo i mpor t ant
f i nanci al measur es t hat ar e used f or deci si on maki ng i n acqui si t i ons. Fr om i t s or i gi ns i n def ence
equi pment pr ocur ement i n t he US i n ear l y 1960s, t he use of l i f e cycl e cost and cost of ow ner shi p has
ext ended t o ot her ar eas of t he publ i c and pr i vat e sect or s. LCC and TCO ar e bei ng used t o assi st i n
deci si on-maki ng, budget pl anni ng, cost cont r ol , and r ange of ot her act i vi t i es t hat occur over t he l i f e of
compl ex t echnol ogi cal equi pment .
It i s i mpor t ant t o consi der t he di f f er ence bet w een LCC and TCO. LCC anal ysi s i s appl i ed
r out i nel y t o mi l i t ar y pr oj ect s. In t he mi l i t ar y sect or t he consumer , by f undi ng t he pr oj ect and oper at i n g
t he r el at ed pr oduct , essent i al l y bear s t he t ot al l i f e cycl e cost cover i ng t he maj or cost el ement s i n al l
st ages of a pr oduct ’ s l i f e cycl e. The t er m LCC anal ysi s i s r ar el y used i n t he commer ci al sect or . Inst ead,
t he mai n f ocus i s on TCO wh er e r el at ed cost s, cover i ng acqui si t i on (pur chase or l ease), oper at i on,
mai nt enance and suppor t ar e bor ne by t he cust omer . In addi t i on, t he cust omer can al so i ncur cost s
w hen t he pr oduct i s not avai l abl e f or use, t hat i s, ‘ down t i me cost s’ .
The obj ect i ves of LCC/ TCO ar e (Fl anagan and Nor man, 1983):
Ø To enabl e i nvest ment opt i ons t o be mor e ef f ect i vel y eval uat ed.
Ø To consi der t he i mpact of all cost s r at her t han onl y t he i ni t i al capi t al cost s.
Ø To assi st i n t he ef f ect i ve management of compl et ed pr oj ect s.
241
Ø To f aci l i t at e choi ce bet w een compet i ng al t er nat i ves.
In t he Def ence i ndust r y t he syst em’ s l i f e cycl e i s di vi ded i nt o var i ous phases, w hi ch al l ow pr oper
pl anni ng and cont r ol of a pr oj ect . The number of phases depend on t he nat ur e of t he pr oj ect , pur pose
and whet her t hey ar e appl i ed t o commer ci al , mi l i t ar y or space pr oj ect s (Knot t s, 1998). Commonl y used
phases ar e:
1. Requi r ement s (Funct i onal Speci f i cat i on).
2. Concept / Feasi bi l i t y St udi es.
3. Desi gn and Devel op ment .
4. Pr oduct i on.
5. Test i n g and Cer t i f i cat i on.
6. Oper at i on, M ai nt enance and Suppor t .
7. Di sposal
It i s r epor t ed by t he US Depar t ment of Def ence t hat 70% of w eapon syst em l i f e cycl e cost i s
commi t t ed by t he end of concept st udi es, 85% by t he end of syst em def i ni t i on and 95% by t he end of
f ul l scal e devel opment . The US Depar t ment of Def ence has f or mal l y used t he concept of l i f e cycl e cost
i n w eapon syst em acqui si t i on si nce t he ear l y 1960s t hr ough l i f e cycl e cost i ng and l i f e cycl e cost anal ysi s.
The cost of ow ner shi p appr oach i d ent i f i es al l f ut ur e cost s and r educes t hem t o t hei r pr esent
val ue by use of t he di scoun t i ng t echni ques t hr ough w hi ch t he economi c w or t h of a pr oduct or pr oduct
opt i ons can be assessed. In or der t o achi eve t hese obj ect i ves t he f ol l ow i ng el ement s of cost of
owner shi p have been i dent i f i ed (Woor war d, 1997):
Ø Ini t i al capi t al cost s
Ø Li f e of t he asset
Ø The di scount r at e
242
Ø Oper at i ng and mai nt enance cost s
Ø Di sposal cost
Ø Uncer t ai nt y and sensi t i vi t y anal ysi s
1.2 Ini t i al capi t al cost s
The i ni t i al capi t al cost s can be di vi ded i nt o t hr ee sub-cat egor i es of cost namel y: (1) pur chase cost s,
(2) acqui si t i on/ f i nance cost s, and (3) i nst al l at i on/ commi ssi oni ng/ t r ai ni ng cost s. Pur chase cost s w i l l
i ncl ude assessment of i t ems such as l and, bui l di ngs, f ees, and equi pment . Fi nance cost s i ncl ude
al t er nat i ve sour ces of f unds. Basi cal l y, t he i ni t i al capi t al cost cat egor y i ncl udes al l t he cost s of buyi ng
t he physi cal asset and br i ngi ng i t i nt o oper at i on.
1.3 Lif e of t he Asset
The est i mat ed l i f e of an asset has a maj or i nf l uence o n l i f e cycl e cost anal ysi s. Fer r y et al (1991) has
def i ned t he f ol l ow i ng f i ve possi bl e det er mi nant s of an asset ’ s l i f e expect ancy:
Funct i onal l i f e – t he per i od over w hi ch t he need f or t he asset i s ant i ci pat ed.
Physi cal l i f e – t he per i od over w hi ch t he asset may be expect ed t o l ast physi cal l y, t o w hen
r epl acement or maj or r ehabi l i t at i on i s physi cal l y r equi r ed.
Technol ogi cal l i f e – t he per i od unt i l t echni cal obsol escence di ct at es r epl acement due t o t he
devel op ment of a t echnol ogi cal l y super i or al t er nat i ve.
Economi c l i f e – t he per i od unt i l economi c obsol escence di ct at es r epl acement w i t h a l ow er cost
al t er nat i ve.
Soci al and l egal l i f e – t he per i od unt i l human desi r e or l egal r equi r ement di ct at es r epl acement .
1.4 The discount r at e
243
As t he cost of ow ner shi p i s di scount ed t o t hei r pr esent val ue, sel ect i on of a sui t abl e di scount r at e i s
cr uci al f or TCO anal ysi s. A hi gh di scount r at e w i l l t end t o f avour opt i ons w i t h l ow capi t al cost , shor t l i f e
and hi gh r ecur r i ng cost , whi l st a l ow di scount r at e wi l l have t he opposi t e ef f ect .
1.5 Oper at i ons and M ai nt enance Cost s
Cost of ow ner shi p, i n many cases, i s about oper at i on and mai nt enance cost . Est i mat i on of
oper at i on and mai nt enance cost s i s t he essent i al t o mi ni mi se t he t ot al cost of ow ner shi p of t he asset . I n
t he whol e of TCO anal ysi s, est i mat i on of oper at i on and mai nt enance i s t he most chal l engi ng t ask.
1.6 Di sposal cost
Thi s i s t he cost i ncur r ed at t he end of as asset ’ s w or ki ng l i f e i n di sposi ng of t he asset . The
di sposal cost woul d i ncl ude t he cost of demol i t i on, scr appi ng or sel l i ng t he asset .
1.7 Uncer t ai nt i es and Sensi t i vi t y Analysi s
LCC/ TCO i s hi ghl y dependent on t he assu mpt i ons and est i mat es made whi st col l ect i ng dat a.
Even t hough i t i s possi bl e t o i mpr o ve t he qual i t y of t hese est i mat es, t her e i s al ways an el ement of
uncer t ai nt y associ at ed wi t h t hese est i mat es and assumpt i ons. M acedo et al (1978) i dent i f i es t h e
f ol l ow i ng f i ve maj or sour ces of uncer t ai nt y:
1. Di f f er ences b et w een t he act ual and expect ed per f or mance of t he syst em coul d af f ect f ut ur e
oper at i on and mai nt enance cost .
2. Changes i n oper at i onal assumpt i ons ari si ng f r om modif i cat i ons i n user act i vi t y.
3. Fut ur e t echnol ogi cal advances t hat coul d pr ovi d e l ow er cost al t er nat i ves and hence shor t en t he
economi c l i f e of any syst em/ subsyst em.
4. Changes i n t he pr i ce l evel s of maj or r esour ces such as ener gy or manpower , r el at i ve t o ot her
r esour ces can af f ect f ut ur e al t er at i on cost s.
244
5. Er r or i n est i mat i ng r el at i onshi ps, pr i ce r at es f or speci f i c r esour ces and t he r at e of i nf l at i on i n
over al l cost s f r om t he t i me of est i mat i on t o t he avai l abi l i t y of t he asset .
Whi l e under t aki ng a LCC/ TCO anal ysi s, t her e may be some key par amet er s about whi ch uncer t ai nt y
exi st s, usual l y because of t he i nadequacy of t he i npu t dat a. Bl anchar d (1972) suggest ed t he f ol l owi ng
shoul d be t he subj ect of sensi t i vi t y anal ysi s:
Ø Fr equency of t he mai nt enance f act or .
Ø Var i at i on of t he asset ’ s ut i l i zat i on or oper at i ng t i me.
Ø Ext ent of t he syst em’ s sel f -di agnost i c capabi l i t y.
Ø Var i at i on of cor r ect i ve mai nt enance hour s per oper at i ng hour .
Ø Pr oduct demand r at e.
Ø The di scount r at e
1.8 Summar y
In t hi s chapt er , w e l ooked at t he concept of Li f e Cycl e Cost and Cost of Ow ner shi p and t he
f act or s t hat i nf l uence LCC and TCO as descr i bed i n t he l i t er at ur e. In t he next chapt er w e sur vey t he
exi st i ng LCC/ TCO model s, met hodol ogi es, pr act i ces an d t echni ques avai l abl e i n t he l i t er at ur e and i t s
appl i cat i ons and l i mi t at i ons. The model s t hat have di r ect appl i cat i on f or assessi ng t he t ot al cost of
owner shi p of ai r bor ne mi l i t ar y equi pment ar e hi ghl i ght ed.
245
53. 2. SURVEY OF EXISTING LITERATURE
Al t hough a consi der abl e body of l i t er at ur e r el at i ng t o l i f e cycl e cost and cost of ow ner shi p has
been devel oped over t he past f our decades, much of t he publ i shed mat er i al has emanat ed f r o m
pr act i t i oner s (Ni chol as, 1999). Publ i cat i ons by pr act i t i oner s have t ended t o consi st of gener al gui del i nes
and a subst ant i al amount of t echni cal r epor t s i n t he f or m of t echni cal r epor t s and conf er ence paper s,
det ai l i ng t he devel opment and appl i cat i on of speci f i c model s and model i ng t echni ques. M ost of t hese
paper s l acked r i gor t hat one can expect f r om academi c publ i cat i ons. M u ch f ew er i n number , academi c
publ i cat i ons have t aken t h e f or m of t ext books w hi ch pr esent t ool s and t echni ques of anal ysi s (Dhi l l on
1989, Fabr ycky and Bl anchar d 1991) and Jour nal publ i cat i ons, w hi ch t end t o consi der ver y speci f i c
t echni cal aspect s of LCC and TCO. We have gr ouped t he l i t er at ur e under di f f er ent cl assi f i cat i on, namel y,
(1) Publ i cat i ons on LCC/ TCO concept s, (2) Publ i cat i ons on LCC model s, (3) Publ i cat i ons on TCO model s,
and (4) Publ i cat i ons on LCC/ TCO appl i cat i ons.
2.1 Li f e Cycl e Cost / Tot al Cost of Ownershi p Concept
Asi edu and Gu (1998) i n t hei r paper t i t l ed, ‘ Pr oduct l i f e cycl e cost anal ysi s – st at e of t he ar t
r evi ew ,’ pr ovi des an i n-d ept h anal ysi s of sever al i ssues of t he l i f e cycl e cost . The paper di scusses i ssues
such as (1) l i f e cycl e appr oach t o desi gn; (2) l i f e cycl e cost anal ysi s, and (3) cost anal ysi s model s. They
poi nt out t hat LCC anal ysi s shoul d not be seen as an appr oach f or d et er mi ni ng t he cost of t he syst em
but as an ai d t o desi gn deci si on-maki ng. The use of l i f e cycl e cost anal ysi s and cost of ow ner shi p shoul d
246
t her ef or e be r est r i ct ed t o t he cost t hat w e can cont r ol . For desi gner s, est i mat i ng t he LCC of a pr oposed
pr oduct dur i ng i t s devel opment phase i s r equi r ed f or a number of r easons i ncl udi ng:
(1) Det er mi ni ng t he most cost ef f i ci ent desi gn amongst a set of al t er nat i ves.
(2) Det er mi ni ng t he cost of a desi gn f or budget ar y pur poses.
(3) Ident i f yi ng cost dr i ver s f or desi gn changes and opt i mi sat i on.
Fi gur e 1. Key f act or s i n Li f e Cycl e Cost (Rose, 1984)
Rose (1984) i n a shor t paper r evi ew i ng t he st at us of l i f e cycl e cost ar gues t hat many f or ms of l i f e
cycl e cost anal ysi s ar e not act ual l y l i f e cycl e cost anal ysi s but can cont r i but e t o l i f e cycl e cost anal ysi s.
Thi s i s an i mpor t ant di st i nct i on because w i de r anges of anal yses ar e of t en t er med as l i f e cycl e cost
anal ysi s, wher eas t hey ar e par t i al anal ysi s.
Rose concl udes t hat many l i f e cycl e cost st udi es r el at e t o par t of a syst em r at her t han a
compl et e syst em. He has shown t he r el at i onshi p bet ween capi t al and r evenue cost s, t he pot ent i al
Life cycle costing
functions
Physical asset
functions
Financial
functions
Organizational
functions
Specification
Costs
Time
Trade-off
Capital cost
Revenue Cost
Design
Development
Acquisition
Disposal
Operations
Maintenance
Reliability
Availability
Maintainability
Capacity
Utility
Performance
Life cycle costing
functions
Physical asset
functions
Financial
functions
Organizational
functions
Specification
Costs
Time
Trade-off
Capital cost
Revenue Cost
Design
Development
Acquisition
Disposal
Operations
Maintenance
Reliability
Availability
Maintainability
Capacity
Utility
Performance
247
t r ade-of f bet ween cost s and engi neer i ng f eat ur es, and t he or gani zat i onal f unct i ons of an ent er pr i se.
Thi s i s i l l ust r at ed i n Fi gur e 1.
Har t (1985) i n a paper t i t l ed, ‘ The i nt er pr et at i on of l i f e cycl e cost s,’ r ef er s t o a pot ent i al
communi cat i on pr obl em – f i r st w i t hi n t he l i f e cycl e cost communi t y and second w i t h t he r ecei ver of t he
i nf or mat i on f or deci si on maki ng. The suggest ed sol ut i on i s t he set of def i ni t i ons at a hi gh l evel i n t er ms
of boundar i es, w hi ch consi st of (1) syst em, (2) l i f e and (3) cost . Th e syst em boundar i es est abl i sh t he
ext ent of t h e l i f e cycl e cost anal ysi s. Al t hough t hi s w oul d appear st r ai ght f or w ar d, Har t obser ves t hat
of t en anal ysi s r el at es t o t he hi ghl y vi si bl e i t ems of a syst em and di sr egar ds anci l l ar y i t ems needed t o
oper at e and mai nt ai n i t . Har t descr i bes t he boundar y of l i f e i n t he f ol l ow i ng t er ms – ‘ The l i f e of a
pr oj ect begi ns w hen t her e i s r ecogni t i on t hat a new asset i s needed t o meet t he r equi r ement s of t he
or gani zat i on. Resour ces ar e t hen exp ended by t he owner , t o t est t he sui t abi l i t y and f easi bi l i t y of t he
pr oposed asset , def i ne i t , acqui r e i t , i nt egr at e i t i nt o ser vi ce and t hen oper at e i t ’ . Har t ’ s descr i pt i on of
l i f e doesn’ t i ncl ude t he di sposal of t he syst em, w hi ch i s i mpor t ant phase of l i f e cycl e. Har t def i nes cost
as t hose r esour ces sacr i f i ced t ow ar ds an obj ect i ve.
Har t al so di scusses t he pr obl em of communi cat i ng l i f e cycl e cost i nf or mat i on t o deci si on-
maker s. He concl udes t hat t her e shoul d be t w o st udi es – t he f i r st an economi c st udy and t he second a
budget ar y st udy. The economi c st udy consi der s al l t he r esour ces w hi ch w er e commi t t ed i n t he past t o
pr ocur e asset s and f r om w hi ch benef i t s can st i l l be der i ved i n addi t i on t o f ut ur e consumpt i on of
r esour ces. The budget ar y st udy concer ns onl y f ut ur e pr ocur ement and i s not concer ned w i t h t he past
(sunk) cost s.
At t he concept l evel , def i ni t i on of l i f e cycl e cost and t ot al cost of ow ner shi p i t sel f i s a chall engi ng
t ask. Def i ni t i ons of t he t er m l i f e cycl e cost i n t he l i t er at ur e ar e nor mal l y of a gener al i zed f or m. Sever al
def i ni t i ons of LCC/ TCO exi st . It i s i mpor t ant f or any or gani zat i on t o def i ne w hat t hey mean by LCC or
248
TCO. Thi s w i l l set t he boundar y f or t he cost s t hat shoul d be i ncl uded f or t he anal ysi s. I n t he f ol l ow i ng
sect i ons, w e l ook at t he some of t he most common def i ni t i ons of LCC/ TCO.
2.1 Def i ni t ions of Lif e Cycl e Cost and Cost of Ow ner shi p
Whi t e and Ost wal d (1976)
“ The l i f e cycl e cost of an i t em i s t he sum of al l f unds expended i n suppor t of t he i t em f r om i t s
concept i on and f abr i cat i on t hr ough i t s oper at i on t o t he end of i t s usef ul l i f e ”
M i chael s and Woods (1989)
“ The t ot al cost t o t he cust omer s of acqui si t i on and owner shi p of t hat syst em over i t s f ul l l i f e ”
Dhi l l on (1989)
“ The sum of al l cost s i ncur r ed dur i ng t he l i f e t i me of an i t em, i .e., t he t ot al of pr ocur ement and
ow ner shi p cost s ”
Fabr ycky and Bl anchar d (1991)
“ Al l cost s associ at ed w i t h t he syst em or pr oduct as appl i ed t o t he def i ned l i f e cycl e ”
“ Li f e cycl e cost i ng i s al l cost s associ at ed wi t h t he syst em as appl i ed t o t he def i ned l i f e cycl e. The
t ot al cost of a syst em coul d be br oken i nt o f our cat egor i es, (1) desi gn and devel opment cost , (2)
pr oduct i on/ manuf act ur i ng cost , (3) ut i l i zat i on cost , and (4) r et i r ement and di sposal cost ”
Degr aeve and Roodhoof t (1999)
“ The t ot al cost of ow ner shi p i s t he t r ue cost of buyi ng a par t i cul ar good or ser vi ce and consi st s of
pr i ce and ot her el ement s t hat r ef l ect addi t i onal cost s caused by t he suppl i er s i n t he pur chasi ng
compani es val ue chai n”
2.3 Lif e Cycl e Cost Techni que
249
Har vey (1976) i n hi s ar t i cl e compr ehensi vel y r evi ewed t he LCC t echni que and pr oposed t he gener al
pr ocedur e f or LCC, whi ch i s summar i zed i n t he Fi gur e 2.
Fi gur e 2 Har vey’ s l i f e cycl e cost i ng pr ocedur e
Woodward (1997) has elaborated the different steps of Harveys procedure as given below:
The cost elements of interest are all the cash flows that occur during the life of the asset. From the
definition of LCC it is apparent that the LCC of an asset includes all expenditure incurred in respect of it,
from acquisition until disposal at the end of its life.
Def i ni ng t he cost st r uct ur e i n vol ves gr oupi ng cost s so as t o i dent i f y pot ent i al t r ade-of f s, t her eby
t o achi eve opt i mum LCC. The nat ur e of t he cost st r uct ur e def i ned wi l l depend on t he r equi r ed
dept h of t he LCC st udy, and a number of al t er nat i ve st r uct ur es have b een pr oposed i n t he l i t er at ur e
(Whi t e and Ost w al d 1976, Fabr ycky and Bl anchar d 1991).
Cost est i mat i ng r el at i onshi p i s a mat hemat i cal expr essi on t hat descr i bes, f or est i mat i ng
pur poses, t he cost of an i t em or act i vi t y as a f unct i on of one or mor e i ndependent var i abl es.
Est abl i shi ng t he met hod of LCC f or mul at i on i nvol ves choosi ng an appr opr i at e met hodol o gy t o
eval uat e t he asset ’ s LCC.
Kauf man (1970) devel op ed one of t he ear l i est f or mul at i ons of LCC wher e he has devel op ed a
model based on t he ei ght -st ep appr oach i ndi cat ed bel ow and show n i n Fi gur e 3. The ei ght st eps of
Kauf man’ s LCC model ar e:
Ø Est abl i sh t he oper at i ng pr of i l e
Ø Est abl i sh t he ut i l i zat i on f act or s
Define the cost
elements of
interest
Def i ne t he
cost st r uct ur e
t o be used
Establish cost
estimating
relationships
Establish the
method of
LCC
formulation
LCC
250
Ø Ident i f y al l cost el ement s
Ø Det er mi ne al l cr i t i cal cost par amet er s
Ø Cal cul at e al l cost s at cur r ent pr i ces.
Ø Escal at e cur r ent cost s at assumed i nf l at i on r at es;
Ø Di scount al l cost s t o t he base per i od:
Ø Sum di scount ed cost s t o est abl i sh t he net pr esent val ue.
St ep 1: The oper at i ng pr of i l e (OP) d escr i bes t he per i odi c cycl e, t hr ough w hi ch equi pment w i l l go,
and i ndi cat es w hi ch equi pment w i l l , or al t er nat i vel y w i l l not be w or ki ng. The oper at i ng pr of i l e
shoul d i ndi cat e t he oper at i ng hour s of t he equi pment t hr oughout t he l i f e of t hat equi pment .
St ep 2: Ut i l i zat i on f act or s i ndi cat e i n w hat w ay equi pment w i l l be f unct i oni ng w i t hi n each mode
of t he OP.
St ep 3: Ever y cost el ement or ar ea of cost must be i dent i f i ed.
St ep 4: The cr i t i cal cost par amet er s ar e t hose f act or s, w hi ch cont r ol t he degr ee of cost s i ncur r ed
dur i ng t he l i f e of t he equi pment . St evens (1976) has suggest ed t he most si gni f i cant of t hese
ar e:
§ M ean Ti me bet ween f ai l ur es (M TBF)
§ M ean Ti me Bet w een Over haul s (M TBO)
§ M ean Ti me To Repai r (M TTR)
§ Ti me Bet ween Schedul ed M ai nt enance
§ Ener gy use r at e
St ep 5: Al l cost s ar e f i r st cal cul at ed at cur r ent r at es.
St ep 6: Al l cost s need t o be pr oj ect ed f or w ar d at appr opr i at e r at e (t hat i s, di f f er ent i al ) r at es of
i nf l at i on.
251
St ep 7: M oney has a t i me val ue and t he cash f l ow s occur r i ng i n di f f er ent t i me per i ods shoul d b e
di scount ed back t o t he base per i od t o ensur e compar abi l i t y.
St ep 8: Summi ng al l t he cash f l ows i nvol ved wi l l enabl e t he LCC of t he asset t o be est abl i shed.
Compar i sons b et w een compet i ng asset s can t hen be under t aken, and t he f al l acy of opt i n g
si mpl y f or t he asset wi t h l ow est capi t al cost wi l l t hen be exposed.
Fi gur e 3. Kauf man’ s l i f e cycl e cost i ng f or mul at i on
54. 2.4 REVIEW OF LIFE CYCLE COST MODELS
In gener al , The LCC model s can be cl assi f i ed i nt o t he f ol l owi ng cat egor i es:
1. Account i ng model s (model s t hat sum LCC component s).
2. Cost est i mat i ng r el at i onshi p (CER) model s (model s used t o anal yse desi gn al t er nat i ves).
3. Heur i st i c model s.
Parts
Labour
Parts
Operating
profile
Utilization
Factors
Maintenance
costs
PM
labour
Critical
cost para-
meters,
MTBF ete
Calculate
costs at
current
prices
Escalate
current
costs
(inflation)
Discount
costs to
base
period
Sum up all
the cash
flows
involved
LCC
CM
labour
Operating
manpower
Electricity,
water etc.
Operating
costs
Initial
spares cost
Initial
acquisition
cost
Overhaul
cost
Parts
Labour
Parts
Operating
profile
Utilization
Factors
Maintenance
costs
PM
labour
Critical
cost para-
meters,
MTBF ete
Calculate
costs at
current
prices
Escalate
current
costs
(inflation)
Discount
costs to
base
period
Sum up all
the cash
flows
involved
LCC
CM
labour
Operating
manpower
Electricity,
water etc.
Operating
costs
Initial
spares cost
Initial
acquisition
cost
Overhaul
cost
Operating
profile
Utilization
Factors
Maintenance
costs
PM
labour
Critical
cost para-
meters,
MTBF ete
Calculate
costs at
current
prices
Escalate
current
costs
(inflation)
Discount
costs to
base
period
Sum up all
the cash
flows
involved
LCC LCC
CM
labour
Operating
manpower
Electricity,
water etc.
Operating
costs
Initial
spares cost
Initial
acquisition
cost
Overhaul
cost
252
4. Fai l ur e f r ee war r ant y model s (model s used t o anal yse war r ant y per i ods)
5. Rel i abi l i t y model s (used t o appor t i on r el i abi l i t y and mai nt ai nabi l i t y), and
6. Economi c anal ysi s model s (model s deal i ng wi t h gener al cost ef f ect i veness).
How ever , Sher i f and Kol ar i k (1981) cl assi f y LCC model s i nt o t hr ee gener al f or ms: (1) concept ual , (2)
anal yt i cal model s, and (3) heur i st i c model s. Concept ual model s consi st of a set of hypot het i cal
r el at i onshi ps expr essed i n a qual i t at i ve f r amewor k. Concept ual model s ar e gener al l y const r uct ed at
macr o l evel . Anal yt i c model s consi st of a set of mat hemat i cal r el at i onshi ps, whi ch ar e used t o descr i be a
cer t ai n aspect of t he syst em. Such model s r ange f r om model s cover i ng ver y speci f i c aspect s of a syst em
t o model s, w hi ch addr ess t ot al syst em l i f e cycl e cost .
Gupt a (1983) i dent i f i es t hr ee t ypes of anal yt i c model s: (1) desi gn t r ade-of f model s, (2) t ot al cost
model s, and (3) l ogi st i c suppor t model s. Desi gn t r ade-of f model s r el at e t o t he desi gn phase of t he l i f e
cycl e cost and at t empt t o mi ni mi se cost t o meet a gi ven val u e of desi gn par amet er s such as r el i abi l i t y
and avai l abi l i t y t o maxi mi ze t he val u e of desi gn par amet er s f or gi ven cost const r ai nt s. Tot al cost model s
ar e t er med t r ue l i f e cycl e cost model s and usual l y encompass t he t ot al l i f e of t he syst em. They at t empt
t o mi ni mi ze t he t ot al l i f e cycl e cost of t he syst em w hi le maxi mi zi ng i t s p er f or mance and ef f ect i veness by
eval uat i ng var i ous par amet er s such as r el i abi l i t y, mai nt ai nabi l i t y, avai l abi l i t y et c, w hi ch af f ect l i f e cycl e
cost . Logi st i c suppor t model s ar e concer ned w i t h t he oper at i ons phase of t he l i f e cycl e. Usual l y t he
obj ect i ve of su ch model s i s t o det er mi n e cost s f or al t er nat i ve sup por t pl ans and ef f ect on t he syst em’ s
ef f ect i veness. They r ef l ect oper at i ons cost par amet er s as var i abl e cost s and r esear ch, devel opment ,
t est and eval uat i on and acqui si t i ons cost s as f i xed cost s. These model s ar e i nconsi st ent i n t hat desi gn
par amet er s such as r el i abi l i t y and mai nt ai nabi l i t y heavi l y i nf l uence oper at i ons cost s and t her ef or e f al l
shor t of det er mi ni ng opt i mal l i f e cycl e cost .
Dhi l l on (1989) si mpl y di vi des l i f e cycl e cost model s i nt o t w o f or ms: (1) gener al l i f e cycl e cost model s,
and (2) speci f i c l i f e cycl e cost model s. Gener al l i f e cycl e cost model s ar e not r el at ed t o any sp eci f i c
253
equi pment or syst em w her eas speci f i c l i f e cycl e cost model s have been d evel oped f or par t i cul ar t ypes of
equi pment or syst em. Gi ven t he speci f i c i nt er r el at i o nshi ps and i nt er act i ons of a par t i cul ar syst em, t he
appl i cat i on of gener al model s i s cl ear l y l i mi t ed. Recent l y, Dani el (1991) has cl assi f i ed l i f e cycl e cost
model s i nt o t w o br oad cat egor i es: (1) account i ng model s w hi ch at t empt t o assembl e and di st r i but e
cost s, det er mi ned el sewher e so as t o descr i be t he t ot al cost of a syst em, and (2) pr edi ct i ve model s
w hi ch ar e used t o f or ecast t he val ues of t he var i ous cost el ement s r equi r ed as i nput t o t he account i ng
model s.
Nobl e and Tanchoco (1990) devel oped a concept ual f r amew or k f or concur r ent desi gn and economi c
j ust i f i cat i on of t he syst em. A pr ot ot ype i mpl ement at i on w as devel oped t o expl or e t he usef ul ness of
t he desi gn j ust i f i cat i on concept . Act ual dat a f r om t he desi gn of an el ect r omagnet i c/ r adi o f r equency
shi el d, a component i n el ect r i cal met er i ng equi pment , was used t o demonst r at e t he model .
Woodw ar d (1997) i n hi s paper t i t l ed, ‘ Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng – Theor y, Inf or mat i on Acqui si t i on and
Appl i cat i on,’ pr esent ed a case on t ot al cost of own er shi p on Sout h Yor kshi r e Passenger Tr anspor t
(SYPT). SYPT’ s mai n act i vi t y i s t he pr ovi si on of passenger t r anspor t ser vi ces b y r oad. It ’ s f i xed asset s
w er e w or t h $ 43,327,500 out of w hi ch t he passenger vehi cl es account ed f or about 17,662,500. The
company pur chases vehi cl es t hat f or m a maj or par t of t he capi t al expendi t ur e, on a r egul ar basi s
and t he deci si on t o pur chase t hem i s based on t he LCC t echni que. The est i mat ed l i f e cycl e cost s ar e
di scount ed at an assumed monet ar y cost of capi t al of 15%, af t er i ncl udi ng a st andar d i nf l at i on r at e
assumed over t he l i f e of t he asset . If t he t w o al t er nat i ves have si mi l ar di scount ed cost s, t hen a
choi ce w i l l be made by t he f i nanci al di r ect or t aki ng i nt o account non-f i nanci al f act or s such as t h e
cr edi bi l i t y, r el i abi l i t y et c. of t he suppl i er s. Al t hough, t he case was on passenger t r anspor t by r oad,
t he concept i s val i d f or any syst em, i ncl udi ng ai r bor ne def ence equi pment .
Degr aeve and Roodhoof t (1999) devel op ed a mat hemat i cal pr ogr ammi ng model t hat uses t ot al cost
of owner shi p i nf or mat i on t o sel ect suppl i er s and det er mi n e or der quant i t i es over a mul t i -p er i od t i me
254
hor i zon. The t ot al cost of ow ner shi p quant i f i es al l cost s associ at ed w i t h pur chasi ng pr ocess and i s based
on t he act i vi t i es and cost dr i ver s det er mi ned by an Act i vi t y Based Cost i ng (ABC) syst em. They have al so
di scussed a case on t he pur chasi ng pr obl em of heat i ng el ect r odes at Cocker i l l Sambr e, a Bel gi an
mul t i nat i onal st eel pr oducer . In t hi s case, qual i t y i ssues account ed f or mor e t han 70% of t he t ot al cost
of ow ner shi p maki ng t he qual i t y of t he suppl i er a cr i t i cal success f act or i n t he suppli er sel ect i on pr ocess.
LCC model can be a si mpl e ser i es of cost est i mat i on r el at i onshi ps (CERs). LCC anal ysi s dur i ng t he
concept ual or pr el i mi nar y desi gn phases may r equi r e t he use of basi c account i ng t echni ques (Fabr ycky
and Bl anchar d, 1991). The most i mpor t ant t ask i n LCC model i ng i s t he const r uct i on of Cost Br eakdow n
St r uct ur e (CBS), w hi ch show s var i ous cost cat egor i es t hat combi ne t o pr ovi de t he t ot al cost . Cost
br eakdow n st r uct ur e shoul d exhi bi t t he f ol l ow i ng basic char act er i st i cs (Bl anchar d et al 1995):
1. Al l syst em cost el ement s must be consi der ed.
2. Cost cat egor i es ar e gener al l y i dent i f i ed wi t h a si gni f i cant l evel of act i vi t y or some maj or i t em of
har dwar e.
3. The cost st r uct ur e and cat egor i es shoul d be coded i n such a manner as t o al l ow f or t he anal ysi s
of cer t ai n speci f i c ar eas of i nt er est (e. g., syst em oper at i on, ener gy consumpt i on, equi pment
desi gn, spar es, mai nt enance per sonnel and suppor t , mai nt enance equi pment and f aci l i t i es). In
some i nst ances, t he anal yst may w i sh t o pur sue a desi gnat ed ar ea i n d ept h w hi l e cover i ng ot her
ar eas wi t h gr oss t op-l evel est i mat es. Thi s wi l l cer t ai nl y occur f r om t i me t o t i me as a syst em
evol ves t hr ough t he di f f er ent phases of i t s l i f e cycl e.
4. When r el at ed t o a speci f i c pr ogr am, t he cost st r uct ur e shoul d be compat i bl e (t hr ough cr oss-
i ndexi ng, codi ng et c.) w i t h t he cont r act w or k br eakdow n st r uct ur e (WBS) and w i t h management
account i n g pr ocedur es used i n col l ect i ng cost s.
5. For pr ogr am, wher e subcont r act i ng i s pr eval ent , i t i s of t en desi r abl e and necessar y t o separ at e
suppl i er cost s (i .e., i ni t i al bi d pr i ce and f ol l ow -on pr ogr am cost s) f r om ot her cost s. The cost
255
st r uct ur e shoul d al l ow f or t he i dent i f i cat i on of sp eci f i c w or k packages t hat r equi r e cl ose
moni t or i ng and cont r ol .
An exampl e of a cost br eakdow n st r uct ur e adopt ed f r om Bl anchar d (1991) i s show n i n Fi gur e 4.
Ref er r i ng t o Fi gur e 4, cost s may be accumul at ed at di f f er ent l evel s dependi ng on t he ar eas of i nt er est
and t he dept h of det ai l r equi r ed. M ost of t he LCC model s can be a si mpl e ser i es of cost est i mat i on
r el at i onshi ps. Est i mat i ng model s used i n i ndust r y can be br oadl y cl assi f i ed as par amet r i c model s,
anal ogous model s and det ai l ed model s (Asi edu and Gu, 1998).
256
Fi gur e 4. Cost Br eakdow n St r uct ur e (Bl anchar d, 1991)
Par amet r i c model s i nvol ve gener at i on and appl i cat i on of equat i ons t hat descr i be r el at i onshi ps
bet ween cost schedul es and measur abl e at t r i but es of a syst em t hat must be br ou ght f or t h, sust ai ned
and r et i r ed (Dean, 1995). Cost est i mat i on w i t h a par amet r i c model i s based on pr edi ct i ng a pr oduct ’ s
cost ei t her i n t ot al or f or var i ous act i vi t i es, by t he use of r egr essi on anal ysi s based on hi st or i cal cost and
t echni cal i nf or mat i on. A si mpl e par amet r i c CER i s t he r el at i on bet w een t he cost of bui l di ngs and t he
f l oor ar ea. M ost of t he cost est i mat i ng r el at i onshi ps f or ai r bor ne mi l i t ar y syst ems r el at es t he cost t o t he
par amet er s such as wei ght , cr ui se speed, et c. of t he syst em. Par amet r i c est i mat i ng can i nvol ve
consi der abl e ef f or t because of t he syst emat i c col l ect i on and r evi si on pr ocess r equi r ed t o keep t he CERs
updat ed, but once t hi s dat a i s avai l abl e est i mat es can be pr oduced f ai r l y r api dl y (Gr eves and Schr ei ber ,
1993). Ther e ar e sever al commer ci al model s avai l abl e now. The most wi del y used i s t he Lockheed
M ar t i n’ s PRICE syst em. Est abl i shment s such as Br i t i sh Aer ospace, The Eur opean Space Agency and
Total System Cost C
T
Research and Development, C
R
Investment, C
I
Operation and Maintenance, C
O
Program Management, C
RM
Advanced R & D, C
RR
Engineering Design, C
RE
Engineering Development
and Test, C
RT
Engineering Data, C
RD
Manufacturing, C
IM
Construction, C
IC
--------------------------------
Manufacturing Facilities
Test Facilities
Operational Facilities
Maintenance Facilities
Manufacturing, C
IM
Operations, C
OO
Maintenance, C
OM
System/Equipment
Modification, C
ON
System Phase-out and
Disposal, C
OP
Total System Cost C
T
Research and Development, C
R
Investment, C
I
Operation and Maintenance, C
O
Program Management, C
RM
Advanced R & D, C
RR
Engineering Design, C
RE
Engineering Development
and Test, C
RT
Engineering Data, C
RD
Manufacturing, C
IM
Construction, C
IC
--------------------------------
Manufacturing Facilities
Test Facilities
Operational Facilities
Maintenance Facilities
Manufacturing, C
IM
Operations, C
OO
Maintenance, C
OM
System/Equipment
Modification, C
ON
System Phase-out and
Disposal, C
OP
257
NASA use PRICE syst em. How ever , i t i s not r ecommended f or est i mat i ng t he cost of pr oduct s t hat ut i l i ze
new t echnol ogi es.
55. ANALOGOUS MODELS
Cost est i mat i ng made by anal ogy i dent i f i es a si mi l ar pr oduct or component and adj ust s f or
di f f er ences bet w een i t and t he t ar get pr oduct (Shi el ds and Young 1991). The ef f ect i veness of t hi s
met hod depends heavi l y on an abi l i t y t o i dent i f y cor r ect l y t he di f f er ences b et w een t he case i n hand and
t hose deemed t o be compar abl e. The mai n di sadvant age of est i mat i ng by anal ogy i s t he hi gh degr ee of
j udgment r equi r ed.
56. DETAILED MODELS
Det ai l ed model s use est i mat es of l abour t i mes and r at es and al so mat er i al quant i t i es and pr i ces
t o est i mat e t he di r ect cost s of a pr oduct or act i vi t y (Shi el ds and Young, 1991). An al l ocat i on r at e i s t hen
used t o al l ow f or i ndi r ect / o ver head cost s. Thi s i s know n as bot t om-up est i mat i ng and i s w i del y used t o
al l ow i ndi r ect / over head cost s. It i s t he most t i me consumi ng and cost l y appr oach and r equi r es a ver y
det ai l ed kn owl edge of t he pr oduct and pr ocesses. However , t he most accur at e cost est i mat es can be
made usi ng t hi s appr oach. The met hod i nvol ves (Asi edu and Gu, 1998) est i mat i o n t he t i me needed
t o per f or m an act i vi t y and t he hour l y r at es f or t he man and machi ne, and t hen mul t i pl y t i mes and r at es
t o get cost s. Ti me st andar ds can be i ndust r y st andar ds, i n-house st andar ds or based on exper t guesses.
In-house st andar ds ar e t he best but most di f f i cul t t o devel op. Indust r i al t i me st andar ds f or pr oduct i on
oper at i ons exi st f or many common t asks.
258
57. IN THE NEXT FEW SECTIONS WE DESCRIBE FEW LCC
MODELS THAT ARE POPULAR AMONG PRACTITIONERS THAT CAN
BE USED FOR ESTIMATION OF LIFE CYCLE COST/COST OF
OWNERSHIP OF AIRBORNE MILITARY EQUIPMENT.
58. 2.5 TAYLOR`S LCC MODEL
Tayl or ’ s model f ocuses on t he capi t al and r evenue cost s. Tayl or cl ai ms t hat i n any di scussi on of
t r ade-of f s bet w een i ni t i al and subsequent cost s, a point t hat i s f r equent l y made i s t hat t her e i s a maj or
di st i nct i on bet w een i ni t i al capi t al cost s and r evenue cost s. It i s cl ai med t hat compani es and publ i c
bodi es f aced w i t h l i mi t ed capi t al budget or cost l i mi t s do not have t he f aci l i t y t o i ncr ease i ni t i al capi t al
cost s on t he chance t hat t her e w i l l be f ut ur e r evenue gai ns. How ever , Tayl or cl ai ms t hat t he di st i nct i on
bet w een r evenue exp endi t ur e and capi t al i s an account i ng one whi ch doesn’ t af f ect t he l i f e cycl e cost
concept based on t he cash f l ow s t hr oughout t he l i f e of t he asset .
259
Fi gur e 5. Tayl or ’ s LCC cost el ement s and i nt er act i on
Tayl or ’ s cost s of ow ni ng physi cal asset ar e show n i n Fi gur e 5. The cost s f al l i nt o t hr ee gr oups,
f i r st t he i ni t i al capi t al cost s secondl y t he r evenue cost s of oper at i ng and mai nt ai ni ng t he asset dur i ng i t s
oper at i onal l i f e and t hi r dl y t he cost of asset di sposal , w hi ch may be r evenue of capi t al i f i t i s subst ant i al .
The i ni t i al cost s f or an or gani zat i on w hi ch desi gns and const r uct s physi cal asset s f or i t s ow n use or f or
r esal e woul d be:
Ø Resear ch and Devel opment
Ø Desi gn and Speci f i cat i on.
Ø M anuf act ur i ng.
Ø Qual i t y cont r ol and t est i ng.
Ø M oni t or i ng Per f or mance.
Capital
Costs
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
etc Tools Space, inventory, spares, of provision A
e Maintenanc - Training and Manuals
Operations - Training and Manuals
ioning on/Commiss Installati
e/Build Manufactur
t Developmen
Design
ion Specificat
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
Down time -
Overheads ent Establishm -
Equipment and Facilities -
Labour -
Spares - Costs e Maintenanc
Labour and material Indirect -
Overheads
and Expenses Direct -
Labour Direct -
Material Direct - Costs Operating
Revenue
Costs
Capital and
Revenue Residual
Costs
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
Disposal -
n Dislocatio -
Demolition - Costs Disposal
Value Disposal
Residual Costs
Preventive
Repair
Output Quantity
Output Quality
Material Utilization
Labour Utilization
Asset Utilization
Asset Reliability
Asset Maintainability
Asset Availability
Capital
Costs
Capital
Costs
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
etc Tools Space, inventory, spares, of provision A
e Maintenanc - Training and Manuals
Operations - Training and Manuals
ioning on/Commiss Installati
e/Build Manufactur
t Developmen
Design
ion Specificat
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
Down time -
Overheads ent Establishm -
Equipment and Facilities -
Labour -
Spares - Costs e Maintenanc
Labour and material Indirect -
Overheads
and Expenses Direct -
Labour Direct -
Material Direct - Costs Operating
Revenue
Costs
Revenue
Costs
Capital and
Revenue Residual
Costs
Capital and
Revenue Residual
Costs
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
Disposal -
n Dislocatio -
Demolition - Costs Disposal
Value Disposal
Residual Costs
Preventive
Repair
Output Quantity
Output Quality
Material Utilization
Labour Utilization
Asset Utilization
Asset Reliability
Asset Maintainability
Asset Availability
260
The second gr oup of cost s ar e i ncur r ed dur i ng t he oper at i onal l i f e of t he asset and t hi s w oul d
i ncl ude t he cost s of : oper at i ng t he asset s i ncl udi ng t he l abour , mat er i al s, t ool s, f i xt ur es and over heads,
mai nt enance i ncl udi ng spar es and l abour . Fi nal l y t her e ar e di sposal cost s w hi ch i ncl ude cost s of
demol i t i on and r emoval , di sl ocat i on of exi st i ng pr oduct i on capaci t y. Agai nst t hi s may be any di sposal
val ue of t he physi cal asset .
2.6 Raymer ’ s LCC M o del
Raymer ’ s l i f e cycl e cost i ng model i s based on t he Devel opment and Pr ocur ement Cost s of
Ai r cr af t (DAPCA IV) model devel oped b y t he Rand Cor por at i on. The Rand cor por at i on devel oped sever al
cost est i mat i on r el at i onshi ps f or est i mat i ng var i ous cost s f or al l depar t ment s i ncl udi ng engi neer i n g,
t ool i ng, manuf act ur i ng and qual i t y cont r ol gr oups. DAPCA assumes a t en-year pr oduct l i f e, w hi ch al so i s
an i ndust r y st andar d. Rand Cor por at i on cl ai ms t hat DAPCA, coupl ed w i t h appr opr i at e f act or s i s accur at e
t o w i t hi n +/ - 5% of act ual cost s.
2.7 Roskam LCC M o del
Roskam model di vi des t he LCC i nt o f our maj or cat egor i es: (1) Resear ch and Devel op ment , t est and
eval uat i on, (2) Pr ogr am acqui si t i on cost t hat i ncl ud es manuf act ur i n g cost and manuf act ur er ’ s pr of i t , (3)
Oper at i ng cost , and (4) Di sposal cost . The expr essi on f or LCC i s gi ven by t he equat i on:
D OM AC RDTE
C C C C LCC + + + ·
(1)
Wher e, C
RDTC
i s t he R& D, t est and eval uat i on cost , C
AC
i s t he acqui si t i on cost , C
OM
i s t he oper at i on
and mai nt enance cost and C
D
i s t he di sposal cost .
261
R& D cost i s f ur t her br oken i nt o cost el ement s such as: (1) ai r f r ame engi neer i ng and desi gn, (2) t est
f l i ght ai r cr af t and f li ght t est oper at i ons, (3) t est & si mul at i on f aci l i t i es, (4) cost t o f i nance. Each of t hese
cost el ement s i s est i mat ed usi ng par amet r i c met hods usi ng ai r cr af t w ei ght , maxi mum desi gn speed, and
number of ai r cr af t bui l t . Si mil ar l y acqui si t i on cost i s cal cul at ed usi ng par amet er s such as t he number of
ai r cr af t s manuf act ur ed, manuf act ur i ng cost , t ake-of f wei ght , desi gn cr ui se speed et c.
Oper at i on cost s ar e br oken i nt o t he mat er i al cost s, di r ect and i n-di r ect p er sonnel cost and l ogi st i c
suppor t cost s. The di sposal cost i s t aken as 1% of t he LCC cost . Roskam devel op ed sever al cost
est i mat i on r el at i onshi ps f or est i mat i on of t he var i ous cost s gi ven i n above equat i on. M ost of t hese
model s wer e devel oped usi ng wei ght of t he ai r cr af t as a dependent var i abl e.
2.8 Fabr ycky and Bl anchar d’ s LCC M odel
Fabr ycky and Bl anchar d (1991) devel op ed t he det ai l ed LCC model . The most i mpor t ant t ask i n
t hei r model i s t o d evel op t he cost br eakdow n st r uct ur e (CBS, show n i n Fi gur e 4). Ther e i s no met hod set
f or br eaki ng dow n t h e cost s as l ong as t he met hod used can be t ai l or ed t o t he speci f i c appl i cat i on.
Pr i mar i l y t he cost i s di vi ded i nt o t he f ol l owi ng f our cat egor i es:
Ø Resear ch and devel opment
Ø Pr oduct i on and const r uct i on cost s
Ø Oper at i on and mai nt enance cost s
Ø Ret i r ement and di sposal cost s
Thus t he t ot al cost i s (C) i s cal cul at ed usi ng t he expr essi on:
D O P R
C C C C C + + + ·
(2)
Wher e,
262
Cost Disposal and Retirement C Cost, e Maintenanc and Operation C
Cost, on Constructi and Production C cost, D & R C
R O
P R
· ·
· ·
The t ot al cost , C, i ncl udes al l f ut ur e cost s associ at ed w i t h t he acqui si t i on, ut i l i zat i on, and
subsequent di sposal of syst em equi pment .
Resear ch and d evel opment cost i ncl udes al l cost s associ at ed wi t h concept ual f easi bi l i t y st udi es,
basi c and advanced r esear ch and devel op ment , engi n eer i ng desi gn, f abr i cat i on and t est of engi neer i ng
pr ot ot ype model s (har dwar e), and associ at ed document at i on. Al so cover s al l r el at ed pr ogr am
management f unct i ons. The R& D cost i s gi ven by:
RD RT RE RR RM
C C C C C + + + + ·
R
C
(3)
Wher e,
cost data g Engineerin C
cost t/test developmen g Engineerin C cost, design g Engineerin C
Cost, D & R Advanced C cost, management Program C
RD
RT RE
RR RM
·
· ·
· ·
Oper at i ons and mai nt enance cost i ncl udes al l cost s associ at ed w i t h t he oper at i on and
mai nt enance suppor t of t he syst em t hr oughout t he l i f e cycl e subsequent t o t he equi pment del i ver y i n
t he f i el d. Speci f i c cat egor i es cover t he cost of syst em oper at i on, mai nt enance, sust ai ni ng l ogi st i c
suppor t , equi pment modi f i cat i ons. Thus, t he oper at i on and mai nt enance cost i s gi ven by:
OP ON OM OO O
C C C C C + + + ·
(4)
Wher e,
disposal system of Cost C ons, modificati cycle life system of Cost C
e, maintenanc cycle life system of Cost C , operations cycle life system of Cost C
OP ON
OM OO
· ·
· ·
263
The cost s i n equat i ons (2) – (4) can be f ur t her di vi ded i nt o var i ous cost el ement s.
2.9 Bur ns Lif e Cycl e Cost M o del
Bur ns devel op ed a cost est i mat i on r el at i onshi p f or pr edi ct i ng l i f e cycl e cost of ai r cr af t based on i t s
wei ght . Bur ns model i s a si mpl e ext ensi on of Roskam’ s l i f e cycl e cost model . The model al so i ncl udes
j udgement f act or f or comput i n g ai r f r ame-engi neer i ng hour s f or devel opment and pr oduct i on. A
compl et e anal ysi s of Bur ns model i s pr esent ed i n Jayakr i shnan (2002).
2.10 PRICE Lif e Cycl e Cost i ng Syst em
The PRICE syst em consi st s of par amet r i c cost est i mat i on model s f or pr edi ct i ng t he l i f e cycl e cost of
weapon syst ems devel oped by t he Lockh eed M ar t i n. The PRICE syst em’ s t ool i ncl udes a set of f our
par amet r i c cost est i mat i on model s, each w i t h a di f f er ent speci al t y ar ea. The model s consi st s of :
PRICE M: Thi s model speci f i cal l y addr esses el ect r o ni c modul e l evel har dwar e devel opment and
pr oduct i on cost s.
PRICE H: Thi s model speci f i cal l y addr esses t he cost s associ at ed w i t h d evel opment and pr oduct i on of
har dw ar e. Thi s t ool can use out put s of t he PRICE M t ool .
PRICE HL: Thi s model uses dat a gener at ed by PRICE H and cal cul at es t he har dw ar e l i f e-cycl e cost s,
i ncl udi ng spar i ng f or a depl oyment envi r onment .
PRICE Sof t ware: Thi s model est i mat es bot h devel opment cost s and l i f e cycl e suppor t cost s f or
sof t war e.
2.11 Equi pment Desi gner ’ s Cost Analysi s Syst em (EDCAS) M odel
EDCAS i s one of t he popul ar commer ci al syst ems avai l abl e f or l i f e cycl e cost pr edi ct i on. EDCAS i s a
sequent i al model and i s appl i cabl e f or desi gn t o LCC i n f r ont -end desi gn anal ysi s. Over 500 gover nment
264
and i ndust r y use t he syst em w or l dw i de. For exampl e, U. S. Ai r For ce uses EDCAS f or ai r cr af t and
ai r bor ne weapons and el ect r oni c syst ems.
2.12 LCC M odel s Usi ng M ar kov Chai n
St ump (1988) devel op ed a LCC model based on M ar kov chai ns and i l l ust r at ed t he model f or a
hypot het i cal r emot el y pi l ot ed vehi cl e (RPV). The M ar kov chai n i s used t o est i mat e t he oper at i on,
mai nt enan ce and suppor t cost s. The model assumes t hat t he syst em goes t hr ough a number of st at es.
For any st at e, t he number of vi si t s per cycl e mul t i pl i ed by t he cost per vi si t and t he expect ed l i f e of t he
RPV i n cycl es w i l l yi el d a l i f e cost f or t hat st at e. Summi ng over al l st at es w i l l yi el d a t ot al l i f e cost . To
f ul l y i mpl ement t hi s l i f e cycl e cost met hodol ogy, t he f ol l owi ng i nf or mat i on i s needed:
1. A l i st of syst em st at es.
2. A l i st of t r ansi t i on pr obabi l i t i es f r om any st at e t o any ot her st at e (zer o i f t he st at es do not
communi cat e).
3. A l i st of t he cost s of ent er i ng t he st at es.
4. The aver age number of vi si t s per cycl e f or each st at e.
5. The expect ed l i f e of t he syst em.
6. Cost est i mat i ng r el at i onshi ps f or comput i ng cost s.
The l i f e cycl e cost f or st at e i i s:
i i i
C a L LC × × ·
(5)
Wher e, a
i
, i s t he st at e pr obabi l i t y f or st at e i and C
i
i s t he aver age cost of ent r y i nt o st at e i and L i s
t he expect ed l i f e of t he syst em. The t ot al l i f e cost of t he RPV i s si mpl y t he sum of t he LC
i
f or al l st at es.
One of t he maj or pr obl ems w i t h M ar kov chai n model i s t hat t he syst em i s l i kel y t o have l ar ge number of
st at es.
265
2.13 LCC model f or l abour f act or
Dahl en and Bol msj o (1996) devel op ed a l i f e cycl e cost model f or t he l abour f act or t hat cover s
t he cost s f or an empl o yee over t he whol e empl oyment cycl e – f r om t he r equi r ement unt i l r et i r ement .
The cost s ar e di vi ded i nt o t hr ee basi c cat egor i es:
1. Empl oyment cost s: consi st i ng of cost s f or r ecr ui t i ng, i nt r oduct i on and t r ai ni ng of new empl oyees
– t o compar e w i t h acqui si t i on cost s such as pr oj ect i ng, i nst al l at i on and st ar t -up of t he new
equi pment .
2. Oper at i ons cost s: consi st i ng of w ages, and l abour r el at ed over head – t o compar e w i t h
depr eci at i on, mai nt enance and r epai r s.
3. Wor k envi r on ment al cost s: consi st i ng of a addi t i onal cost s f or absent eei sm, r ehabi l i t at i on and
pensi ons – t o compar e w i t h cost s f or i ncr eased mai nt enance and r epai r s and f i nal l y t o scr ap t he
equi pment .
The basi c cat egor i es of l abour l i f e cycl e cost can be di vi ded i nt o: empl o yment cost s, oper at i on cost s
and wor k envi r onment al cost s. The empl o yment cost s can be di vi ded i nt o t hr ee maj or sub cat egor i es:
(1) r ecr ui t ment cost s, (2) addi t i onal pr oduct i ons cost s and (3) educat i on cost s.
Oper at i on cost s ar e i ncur r ed w hen t he empl oyee i s i n t r oduced and mast er s t he w or k t asks, t he
cost s consi st s of w ages and over heads. The t hi r d cat egor y, w or k envi r onment al cost s, i ncl udes cost s f or
absence, si ckness benef i t s, r ehabi l i t at i on cost s and di sabi l i t y pensi on cost s.
2.14 LCC M odel s i n Desi gni ng f or Logi st i c Suppor t
Hat ch and Bedi nel l i (1999) devel oped a model t hat car r i es out a concur r ent opt i mi zat i on of a
pr oduct desi gn and i t s associ at ed manuf act ur i ng and l ogi st i c suppor t syst em. The model i s const r uct ed
266
w hi ch l i nks t oget her t he deci si ons associ at ed w i t h t hr ee maj or phases of t he l i f e cycl e: pr oduct desi gn,
manuf act ur i ng and l ogi st i c syst em desi gn, pr oduct i on and f i el d oper at i on cont r ol . The model i ncl uded
an opt i mi zat i on scheme t hat concur r ent l y opt i mi zes t he deci si on var i abl e of t he l i nked model . The f i nal
sol ut i on pr escr i bed by t he model i s based on a mul t i -cr i t er i a val ue f unct i on f or med f r o m t he i ndi vi dual
obj ect i ves of mi ni mi zi ng l i f e cycl e cost and maxi mi zi ng avai l abi l i t y. The model eval uat es al t er nat i ve
desi gn sol ut i ons by cal cul at i ng t he associ at ed oper at i onal avai l abi l i t y as w el l as manuf act ur i ng and
l ogi st i c suppor t cost s. The t wo mai n per f or mance measur es can be combi ned i nt o t h e f ol l ow i ng bi -
cr i t er i a model f or mul at i on:
Mi n Li f e Cycl e Cost
Max Syst em Avai l abi l i t y
Subj ect t o Pr oduct Desi gn Requi r ement s
2.15 Appl i cat i ons of LCC/ Cost of Ow ner shi p M odel s
The l i t er at ur e sur vey car r i ed out by Ni chol as (1999) i ndi cat es t hat t he t er m l i f e-cycl e cost / cost of
ow ner shi p i s appl i ed t o var yi n g f or ms of anal ysi s, w hi ch ar e under t aken f or a r ange of di f f er ent
pur poses. These appl i cat i ons can be br oadl y descr i bed as eval uat i on and deci si on-maki ng, pl anni ng and
budget i ng, cost management and cont r ol , pr oj ect / pr ogr am management and cont r ol , l i f e-cycl e
management , cont r act i ng, and mar ket i ng. These appl i cat i ons ar e show n i n Tabl e 1 i n r el at i on t o r ecent l y
publ i shed paper s.
Al t hough l i f e-cycl e cost / cost of ow ner shi p i s appl i ed t o anal ysi s, w hi ch i s used f or a w i de r ange of
pur poses, i t can be ar gued t hat i n essence t he anal ysi s i s bei ng used t o pr ovi de i nf or mat i on f or t w o
f undament al pur poses - pl anni ng and cont r ol . Pl anni ng i ncl udes i ) d eci si on-maki ng - t he al l ocat i on of
267
r esour ces f or f ut ur e per i ods t hr ough t he i dent i f i cat i on, eval uat i on and sel ect i on of al t er nat i ve cour ses
of act i on and ii ) budget i ng - t he i dent i f i cat i on of means r equi r ed t o i mpl ement t he sel ect ed cour ses of
act i on. Pr i nci pal ar eas of cont r ol i ncl ude cost cont r ol and cont r act ual ar r angement s. Cost cont r ol
i ncl udes pr ocedur es t o i nf l uence cost t hr ough desi gn (M i chael s and Wood, 1989) and t hr oughout t h e
pr ocess of acqui si t i on (US Depar t ment of Def ense, 1996). Cont r act ual ar r angement s ar e desi gned t o
cont r ol cost t hr ough l egal agr eement s. Cont r act ual ar r angement s i ncl ude guar ant ees f or par t of l i f e-
cycl e cost such as suppor t cost (Baat he, 1995) and guar ant ees f or t ot al l i f e cycl e cost (Aksel sson and
Bur st r om, 1994). Pl anni ng and cont r ol ar e i nt egr at ed t hr ough management w hi ch i ncl udes pr oj ect and
pr ogr am management dur i ng acqui si t i on and much wi der l i f e-cycl e management whi ch ext ends t o t he
compl et e l i f e-cycl e of t he syst em.
Ther e i s an i mpor t ant di st i nct i on t o be made bet w een t he nat ur e of t he use of anal ysi s t o pr ovi de
i nf or mat i on f or pl anni ng and cont r ol . In pl anni ng, i n bot h deci si on-maki ng and budget i ng, l i f e-cycl e cost
i s used as an ex ant e concept t o pr edi ct f ut ur e cost . In cont r ol , i t i s used as bot h an ex ant e and an ex
post concept . It i s used as an ex ant e concept t o est abl i sh t ar get s or per f or mance cr i t er i a but as an ex
post concept w hen moni t or i ng and compar i ng cost per f or mance i n t er ms of pl anned cost agai nst act ual
cost . As i ndi cat ed i n t he di scussi on of concept s of cost bel ow , t hi s w i l l i nvol ve t he appl i cat i on of
di f f er ent concept s of cost .
Anal ysi s usi ng t he concept of l i f e-cycl e cost i s not onl y used f or di f f er ent pur poses but al so i nvol ves
di f f er ent f unct i onal user s. Exampl es of di f f er ent user s i ncl ude pol i cy-maker s (Ki r kpat r i ck, 1996),
manager s (Ri ggs and Jones, 1990, Gr eene, 1991) and engi n eer s (Var i ous - see r ef er ences and
bi bl i ogr aphy). Pol i cy-maker s ar e i nvol ved i n st r at egi c deci si ons t hat i nvol ve t he l ong-t er m
commi t ment of f unds. M anager s may be pr oj ect manager s or budget manager s whose i nt er est i s
pr i nci pal l y i n cont r ol . Engi neer s may i ncl ude desi gn engi neer s, pr oduct i on engi neer s, syst ems
268
engi n eer s, l ogi st i cs engi n eer s and ot her s who have an i nt er est i n l i f e-cycl e cost f or engi neer i ng
deci si on-maki ng.
Tabl e 1. Appl i cat i on of LCC/ TCO i n t he l i t er at ur e
Appl i cat i on of Li f e Cycl e Cost and Cost of Ownershi p Model s
Desi gn eval uat i on Dacko and Dar l i ngt on (1988) Takagi shi (1989)
Gi bbs and Ki ng (1989) Johnson (1990) Keene and
Keene (1993) St ahl and Wal l ace (1995) Pl ebani ,
Rosi and Zanet t a (1996) Asi edu and Gu (1998)
M at er i al s sel ect i o n Wi nkel (1996)
Choi ce of desi gn l i f e Howar d (1991) Asi edu and Gu (1998)
Envi r onment al eval uat i on Fi ksel and Wapman (1994) Vi vona (1994)
Eval uat i on of t echnol ogy devel opment s Cur r y (1993) Vacek, Hopki ns and M acPher so n
(1995)
Pr oduct i o n/ manuf act ur i ng Wi l ki nson (1990) M al kki , Enwal d and Toi vonen
(1991)
Rel i abi l i t y anal ysi s Zhou and Cai (1994)
Fai l ur e anal ysi s Rooney and Jackson (1996)
Avai l abi l i t y anal ysi s Fai r cl ough (1989)
M ai nt enance Lansdowne (1994) Di nesh Kumar (2000)
M ai nt ai nabi l i t y Govi l (1992), Di nesh Kumar (2000)
Condi t i on moni t or i ng Hut t on (1994)
Logi st i cs suppor t anal ysi s M cAr t hur and Snyder (1989)
Oper at i on and suppor t Cur r y (1989) Snyder (1990) St one, Dr ubka and
Br aun (1994)
Tr anspor t at i on Wonsi ewi cz (1988) Tzemos (1990)
Val ue engi neer i ng Har di ng (1996)
Li f e-cycl e cost benef i t anal ysi s Adl er , Her kamp, Wi esl er and Wi l l i ams (1995)
Pl anning and budget i ng
Pr ocur ement st r at egy Pr of i t t (1994)
Busi ness pl anni ng Jones (1994)
Budget ar y pr ovi si on Ki r kpat r i ck (1995)
M anpow er , per sonnel and t r ai ni ng pl anni ng Col e (1991)
Cost management and cont rol
Cost management Fabr ycky and Bl anchar d (1991)
Desi gn f or / t o Cost M i chael s and Woo d (1989) Dean and Unal (1991)
Proj ect / program management and cont rol
Pr ogr am management Gr eene (1991) Zhi (1993)
Pr oj ect cont r ol Gobl e and Paul (1995)
58.1 Table 1 Continued
Management
Lif e-cycl e management Hel l (1995)
Physi cal asset management Hodges (1996) Sher wi n (1996)
Act i vi t y-based management Br i mson and Ant os (1994)
Cont r act i ng
269
Cont r act pr ovi si on Aksel sson and Bur st r om (1994) Baat he (1995)
Mar ket i ng
M ar ket i ng of commer ci al pr oduct s Car r uba (1992)
59.
270
Li st of Ref er ences
Adl er , D.J., Her kamp, J.A., Wi esl er , J.R. and Wi l l i ams, S.B. (1995) ' Li f e-Cycl e Cost and Benef i t s of Pr ocess
Aut omat i on i n Bul k Phar maceut i cal s' , ISA Tr ansact i ons, Vol . 34, No. 2, pp. 133-139.
Ahmed, N. U. (1995) ‘ A desi gn and Impl ement at i on M odel f or Li f e Cycl e Cost M anagement Syst em’ ,
Inf or mat i on and M anagement , Vol . 28, pp. 261-269.
Aksel sson, H. and Bur st r om, B. (1994) ' Li f e-Cycl e Co st Pr ocur ement of Sw edi sh St at e Rai l w ays Hi gh-
Speed Tr ai n X2000' , Pr oceedi ngs of t he Inst i t ut i on of M echani cal Engi neer s, Par t F, Jour nal of Rai l and
Rapi d Tr ansi t , Vol . 208, No. 1, pp.51-59.
Asi edu, Y. and Gu, P. (1998) ‘ Pr oduct Li f e Cycl e Cost Anal ysi s: St at e of t he Ar t Revi ew’ , Int er nat i onal
Jour nal of Pr oduct i on Economi cs, Vol. 36, No. 4, 883-908.
Baat he, O. (1995) ‘ Li f e Cycl e M anagement f or t he A/ C JAS 39 Gri ppen’ , Pr oceedi ngs of 11t h Int er nat i onal
Congr ess, Soci et y of Logi st i cs Engi neer s, St ockhol m, pp. 159-167.
Bl anchar d, B.S. (1972) ‘ Desi gn and M anage t o Li f e Cycl e Cost ’ , M / A Pr ess, Or egon, USA.
Bl anchar d, B.S. (1986) Logi st i cs Engi neer i ng and M anagement , 3r d Edi t i on, Pr ent i ce-Hal l , Engl ew ood
Cl i f f s, New Jer sey.
Bl anchar d, B.S. (1998) Syst em Engi neer i ng M anagement , 2nd Edi t i on, John Wi l ey, New Yor k.
Bl anchar d, B.S. and Fabr ycky, W.J. (1990) Syst ems Engi neer i ng and Anal ysi s, 2nd Edi t i on, Pr ent i ce-Hal l ,
Engl ewood Cl i f f s, New Jer sey.
Br i mson, J.A. and Ant os, J. (1994) Act i vi t y-Based M anagement , John Wi l ey, New Yor k.
Bur ns, J. W. (1994) ‘ Ai r cr af t Cost Est i mat i on M et hodol ogy and Val ue of a Pound Der i vat i on f or
Pr el i mi nar y Desi gn Devel opment Appl i cat i ons, SAWE Paper No. 2228, Long Beach, USA.
Car r ubba, E.R. (1992) ' Int egr at i ng Li f e-Cycl e Cost and Cost of Owner shi p i n t he Commer ci al Sect or ' ,
Pr oceedi ngs of t he Annual Rel i abi l i t y and M ai nt ai nabi l i t y Symposi um, pp. 101-108.
Checkl and, P. (1981) Syst ems Thi nki ng, Syst ems Pr act i ce, John Wi l ey, New Yor k.
Cur r y, E.E. (1989) ' STEP - A Tool f or Est i mat i ng Avi oni cs Li f e Cycl e Cost s' , IEEE Aer ospace and El ect r oni c
Syst ems M agazi ne, Vol . 4, No. 1, pp. 30-32.
Cur r y, E.E. (1993) ' FALCCM -H: Funct i onal Avi oni cs Li f e Cycl e Cost M ode f or Har dw ar e' , 1993 IEEE
Nat i onal Aer ospace and El ect r oni cs Conf er ence, Dayt on, Ohi o, M ay 24-28, pp.950-953.
271
Dacko, L.M . and Dar l i ngt on, R.F. (1988) ' Li f e Cycl e Cost Pr ocedur e f or Commer ci al Ai r cr af t Subsyst em' ,
Pr oceedi ngs of t he Annual Rel i abi l i t y and M ai nt ai nabi l i t y Symposi um, 1988, Los Angel es, Januar y 26-
28, pp.389-394.
Dahl en, P., and Bol msj o, B.S. (1996) ‘ Li f e Cycl e Cost Anal ysi s of Labour Fact or ,’ Int er nat i onal Jour nal of
Pr oduct i on Economi cs, Vol . 46-47, pp. 459-467.
Dean, E. B. (1995) ‘ Par amet r i c Cost Depl oyment ’ , Pr oceedi ngs of t he Sevent h Symposi um on Qual i t y
Funct i on Depl o yment , M I, USA, pp. 27-34.
Degr aeve, Z., and Roodhoof t F. (1999) ‘ Impr o vi ng t he Ef f i ci ency of t he Pur chasi n g Pr ocess Usi ng t he
Tot al Cost of Owner shi p Inf or mat i on: The Case of Heat i ng El ect r odes at Cocker i l l Sambr e S.A.,’
Eur opean Jour nal of Oper at i onal Resear ch, Vol . 112, pp. 42-53.
De La M ar e, R.F. (1982) ' M anuf act ur i ng Syst ems Economi cs: The Li f e Cycl e Cost s and Benef i t s of
Indust r i al Asset s' , Hol t , Ri nehar t and Wi nst on, London.
Dew hur st . P., and Boot hr oyd, G. (1988) ‘ Ear l y Cost Est i mat i ng i n Pr oduct Desi gn ,’ Jour nal of
M anuf act ur i ng Syst ems,’ Vol. 7, pp. 183-191.
Dhi l l on, B.S. (1989) Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng : Techni ques, M odel s and Appl i cat i ons, Gor don and Br each, New
Yor k.
Di enemann, P.F. (1966) ‘ Est i mat i ng Cost Uncer t ai nt y Usi ng M ont e Car l o Techni ques’ , M emor andum RM -
4854-PR, The RAND Cor por at i on, Sant a M oni ca, Cali f or ni a, Januar y.
Dowl at shahi , S. (1992) ‘ Pr oduct Desi gn i n Concur r ent Engi n eer i n g Envi r onment : An Opt i mi zat i on
Appr oach’ , Jour nal of Pr oduct i on Resear ch, Vol . 30, 1803-1818.
Fabr ycky, W.J. (1994) ‘ M od el i ng and Indi r ect Exper i ment at i on i n Syst em Desi gn Eval uat i on’ , The Jour nal
of NCOSE, Vol . 1, No. 1, pp. 133-144.
Fabr ycky, W.J. and Bl anchar d, B.S. (1991) Li f e-Cycl e Cost and Economi c Anal ysi s, Pr ent i ce-Hal l ,
Engl ewood Cl i f f s, New Jer sey.
Fabr ycky, W.J. and Thuesen, G.J. (1980) Economi c Deci si on Anal ysi s, 2nd edi t i on, Pr ent i ce-Hal l ,
Engl ewood Cl i f f s, New Jer sey.
Fai r cl ough, M .R. (1989) ' Ar ena - A Sof t w ar e Ai d f or M easur i ng Syst em Avai l abi l i t y and Li f e Cycl e Cost ' ,
Rel i abi l i t y ' 89, Par t 2, London, June 14-16, pp.p4B/ 1-4B/ 1/ 6.
Fi ksel , J. and Wapman, K. (1994) ' How t o Desi gn f or Envi r onment and M i ni mi ze Li f e Cycl e Cost ' ,
Pr oceedi ngs of t he 1994 IEEE Int er nat i onal Symposi um on El ect r oni cs and t he Envi r onment , San
Fr anci sco, pp. 75-80.
Fi nkel st ei n, W. and Guer t i n, J.A.R. (1988) Int egr at ed Logi st i cs Suppor t : The Desi gn Engi neer i ng Li nk, IFS
Publ i cat i ons, Kempst on, Bedf or d.
272
Fi sher , G.H. (1971) Cost Consi der at i ons i n Syst ems Anal ysi s, Amer i can El sevi er , New Yor k.
Fl anagan, R. and Nor man, G. (1983), Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng f or Const r uct i on, Quant i t y Sur veyor s Di vi si on of
t he Royal Inst i t ut i on of Char t ed Sur veyor s, London.
Gi bbs, D.J.L. and Ki ng, R.J. (1989) ' Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng i n t he Desi gn of Naval Equi pment ' , Rel i abi l i t y ' 89,
Par t 1, No. 1989, June 14-16, pp. 2A/ 5/ 1 - 2A/ 5/ 8.
Govi l , K.K. (1992) ' A Si mpl e M odel f or Li f e-Cycl e vs M ai nt ai nabi l i t y Funct i on' , M i cr oel ect r oni cs and
Rel i abi l i t y, Vol . 32, No. 1-2, pp. 269-270.
Gr eene, L. E., and Shaw , B. L. 1990 ‘ The St eps f or Successf ul Li f e Cycl e Cost Anal ysi s,’ Pr oceedi ngs of t he
IEEE 1990 Nat i onal Aer ospace and El ect r oni cs Conf er ence, Dayt on, Ohi o, pp. 1209-1216.
Gr eves, Y. P., and Schr ei ber , B. (1993) ‘ Engi neer i ng Cost i ng Techni ques i n ESA, Int er net si t e:
ht t p:/ / w w w .esapub.esr i u. esa.i t .poi nt t obul l et / gr eves.ht ml .
Gupt a, Y.P. (1983) ‘ Li f e Cycl e Cost M odel s and Associ at ed Uncer t ai nt i es’ i n Skw i r zynski, J. K. (1983) (Ed.),
El ect r oni c Syst ems Ef f ect i veness and Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng, Spr i nger -Ver l ag, Ber l i n, pp. 535 - 549.
Gupt a, Y., and Chow , W. S. (1985) ‘ Tw ent y-f i ve Year s of Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng – Theor y and Appl i cat i on: A
Sur vey’ , The Int er nat i onal Jour nal of Qual i t y and Rel i abi l i t y M anagement , Vol . 2, pp. 551-576.
Habayeb, A.R. (1987) Syst em Ef f ect i veness, Per gamon Pr ess, Oxf or d.
Hal l , A.D. (1962) A M et hodol ogy f or Syst ems Engi neer i ng, Van Nost r and, Pr i ncet on, New Jer sey.
Hanssmann, F. (1968) Oper at i ons Resear ch Techni ques f or Capi t al Invest ment , John Wi l ey, New Yor k.
Har t , G.W. (1985) ' Int er pr et at i on of Li f e Cycl e Cost s' , Rel i abi l i t y ' 85 - Pr oceedi ngs , Vol . 1, Jul y 10-12, pp.
3A. 4. 1-3A. 4. 5.
Har t , G.W. (1985) ‘ Int er pr et at i on of Li f e Cycl e Cost s’ , Rel i abi l i t y ’ 85 - Pr oceedi ngs, Nat i onal Cent r e of
Syst ems Rel i abi l i t y, UKAEA and Inst i t ut e of Qual i t y Assur ance, Vol . 1, 10-12 Jul y, pp. 3A.4.1 - 3A.4.5.
Har vey, G. (1976) ‘ Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng: A Revi ew of t he Techni que’ , M anagement Account i ng, pp. 343-347.
Hodges, N.W. (1996) ' The Economi c M anagement of Physi cal Asset s' , M echani cal Engi neer i ng
Publ i cat i ons, London.
Howar d, R.J. (1991) ' Road Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng' , Nat i onal Conf er ence Publ i cat i on - Inst i t ut i on of Engi neer s,
Aust r al i a, No. 91, Par t 14, pp. 55-59.
Jayakr i shnan, V. E. (2002) ‘ M odel f or Fi ght er Ai r cr af t Li f e Cycl e Cost Est i mat i on,’ M .Tech. Thesi s, Indi an
Inst i t ut e of Technol ogy Bombay, Indi a
Johnson, V.S. (1990) ' M i ni mi zi ng Li f e-Cycl e Cost f or Subsoni c Commer ci al Ai r cr af t ' , Jour nal of Ai r cr af t ,
Vol . 27, No. 2, pp. 139-145.
273
Jones, C. (1994) ' Li f e Cycl e Cost M odel s' , Col l oqui um on Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng and t he Busi ness Pl an, London,
Febr uar y 1, pp.2/ 1 - 2/ 6.
Jor dan, N. (1960) ' Some Thi nki ng About ' Syst em' ' , i n Opt ner (1973), pp. 53-72.
Kauf man, R. J. (1970) ‘ Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng: A Deci si on M aki ng Tool of Capi t al Equi pment Acqui si t i on,’ Cost
and M anagement , pp. 21-28.
Keene, S.J. and Keene, K.C. (1993) ' Reduci ng t he Li f e Cycl e Cost of Sof t war e t hr ough Concur r ent
Engi neer i ng' , Pr oceedi ngs of t he 1993 Annual Rel i abi l i t y and M ai nt ai nabi l i t y Symposi um, At l ant a,
Geor gi a, Januar y 26-28, pp.305-309.
Ki r kpar t i ck, P. S., and Jones, A. L. (1974) ‘ Li f e Cycl e Cost Compar i sons of Avi oni c Syst em Desi gn
Al t er nat i ves,’ Pr oceedi ngs of t he IEEE 1974 Nat i onal Aer ospace and El ect r oni cs Conf er ence, Dayt on,
Ohi o, pp. 514-520.
Knezevi c, J. (1993) Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and Suppor t abi l i t y : A Pr obabi l i st i c Appr oach, M cGr aw -Hi l l
, London.
Knezevi c, J. (1997) Syst ems M ai nt ai nabi l i t y : Anal ysi s, Engi neer i ng and M anagement , Chapman and Hal l,
London.
Knot t s, R. M . H. 1996 ‘ Anal ysi s of t he Impact of Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt ai nabi l i t y and Suppor t abi l i t y on t he
Busi ness and Economi cs of Ci vi l Ai r Tr anspor t Ai r cr af t M ai nt enance and Suppor t , M . Phi l . Thesi s,
Uni ver si t y of Exet er , UK
Lamar , W.E. (1981) ‘ A Revi ew and Assessment of Syst em Cost Reduct i on Act i vi t i es’ , AGARD Conf er ence
Pr oceedi ngs, No. 289, Desi gn t o Cost and Li f e Cycl e Cost ’ i n Dhi l l on, B.S. (1989) Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng :
Techni ques, M odel s and Appl i cat i ons, Gor don and Br each, New Yor k.
Lamb, R.G. (1995) Avai l abi l i t y Engi neer i ng and M anagement f or M anuf act ur i ng Pl ant Per f or mance,
Pr ent i ce-Hal l , Engl ewood Cl i f f s, New Jer sey.
Lansdowne, Z.F. , (1994) ' Bui l t -In-Test Fact or s i n a Li f e-Cycl e Cost M odel ' , Rel i abi l i t y Engi neer i ng and
Syst em Saf et y, Vol . 43, No. 3, pp. 325-330.
M acedo, M .C., Dobr ow , P. V., and O’ Rour ke, J J. (1978) ‘ Val ue M anagement f or Const r uct i on,’ John
Wi l ey & Sons, Chi est er , UK.
M al kki , H., Enwal d, P. and Toi vonen, J. (1991) ' Exper i ence of Tr ansf er r i ng Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng t o
M anuf act ur i ng Indust r y' , Amer i can Soci et y of M echani cal Engi neer s, pp. 1-8.
M cNi chol s, G. R. (1983a) A Repor t ed Pr esent at i on on Cost Gr ow t h i n Skw i r zynski , J. K. (1983) (Ed.),
El ect r oni c Syst ems Ef f ect i veness and Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng, Spr i nger -Ver l ag, Ber l i n, pp. 567 - 582.
M cNi chol s, G. R. (1983b) ‘ Uncer t ai nt i es of LCC Pr edi ct i ons’ i n Skw i r zynski , J. K. (1983) (Ed.), El ect r oni c
Syst ems Ef f ect i veness and Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng, Spr i nger -Ver l ag, Ber l i n, pp. 583 - 594.
274
M i chael s, J.V. and Wood, W.P. (1989) Desi gn t o Cost , John Wi l ey, New Yor k.
Ni chol as, C.S. (1999) ‘ Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng’ , M .Phi l . Thesi s, Uni ver si t y of Exet er , UK
Ni chol as, C.S. (1994) ‘ Det er mi ni ng and Achi evi ng Oper at i onal Avai l abi l i t y - Economi c Impact ’ ,
Pr oceedi ngs of 10t h Int er nat i onal Congr ess, Soci et y of Logi st i cs Engi n eer s, Exet er , M ar ch, pp. 275-
283.
Ni chol as, C.S. (1996a) ‘ The Impact of Di scount i ng Li f e-Cycl e Cost on Suppor t abi l i t y Engi neer i ng’ ,
Communi cat i ons i n Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt ai nabi l i t y, Suppor t abi l i t y and Logi st i cs’ , Vol . 3, No. 1, pp. 42-46.
Ni chol as, C.S. (1996b) ‘ Suppor t abi l i t y Engi neer i ng - The Economi c Di mensi on’ , Pr oceedi ngs of t he Soci et y
of Logi st i cs Engi neer s Annual Int er nat i onal Symposi um, Washi ngt on, pp. 151-157.
Nobl e, J. S., and Tanchoco, J. M . A. (1990) ‘ Concur r ent Desi gn and Economi c Just i f i cat i on i n Devel opi ng a
Pr oduct ’ , Int er nat i onal Jour nal of Pr oduct i on Resear ch, Vol . 28, pp. 1225-1238.
Ost w al d, P.F. (1992) Cost Est i mat i ng, 3r d edi t i on, Pr ent i ce-Hal l , Engl ewood Cl i f f s, New Jer sey.
Pl ebani , S. , Rosi , R. and Zanet t a, L. (1996) ' Li f e Cycl e Cost s Compar i son and Sensi t i vi t y Anal ysi s f or
M ul t i medi a Net wor ks' , Pr oceedi ngs of t he 1996 IEE Col l oqui um on Opt i cal and Hybr i d Access
Net w or ks, No. 052, London, M ar ch 4-5, pp. 3/ 1-3/ 6.
Pr of f i t t , J.T. (1994) ' Li f e Cycl e Cost of Ai r cr af t Syst ems' , Col l oqui um on Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng and t he
Busi ness Pl an, IEE Col l oqui um (Di gest ), No. 013, pp. 1/ 1-1/ 3.
Per er a, H.S.C., Nagar ur , N., and Tabucanon, M .T. (1999) ‘ Component Par t St andar di zat i on: A Way t o
Reduce t he Li f e Cycl e Cost s of Pr odu ct s,’ Int er nat i onal Jour nal of Pr oduct i on Economi cs, ’ Vol . 60-61,
pp. 109-116.
Quade, E.S. (1963b) ‘ Th e Li mi t at i ons of A Cost -Ef f ect i veness Appr oach t o M i l i t ar y Deci si on-M aki ng’ ,
Repor t P-2798, The RAND Cor por at i on, Sant a M oni ca, Cal i f or ni a.
Quade, E.S. (1965) ‘ Cost -Ef f ect i veness Anal ysi s: An Appr eci at i on, Repor t P-3248, The RAND Cor por at i on,
Sant a M oni ca, Cal i f or ni a.
Raymer , D.P. (1992) Ai r cr af t Desi gn: A Concept ual Appr oach, Amer i can Inst i t ut e of Aer onaut i cs and
Ast r onaut i cs, Washi ngt on.
Ri ggs, J.L. and Jones, D. ‘ Fl owgr aph r epr esent at i on of Li f e Cycl e Cost M et hodol ogy - A New Per spect i ve
f or Pr oj ect M anager s’ , IEEE Tr ansact i ons on Engi neer i ng M anagement , Vol . 37, No.2, pp.147-152.
Ri ggs, J.L. (1968) Economi c Deci si on M odel s f or Engi neer s and M anager s, M cGr aw -Hai l l , New Yor k.
Rooney, C. and Jackson, E. (1996) ' Uni t Fai l ur e: A Li f e Cycl e Cost Anal ysi s' , Gl ass Di gest , Vol . 75, No.2,
pp.7.
275
Rose, A. (1984) ' Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng Today' , 28t h Annual M eet i ng of t he Amer i can Associ at i on of Cost
Engi neer s and t he Ei ght h Int er nat i onal Cost Engi neer i ng Congr ess, M ont r eal , June 24-27, pp. J.3.1 - J.
3. 4.
Roskam, J. (1990) ‘ Ai r pl ane Desi gn Par t VII I: Air pl ane Cost Est i mat i on Desi gn, Devel opment ,
M anuf act ur i ng and Oper at i ng, Roskam Avi at i on and Engi neer i ng Cor por at i on Repor t , Kansas, USA.
Sabbagh, K. (1995) 21st Cent ur y Jet : The M aki ng of t he Boei ng 777, M acmi l l an, London.
SAE (1992) ‘ Li f e Cycl e Cost - Techni ques and Appl i cat i ons’ , Aer ospace Recommended Pr act i ce, SAE
ARP4293, SAE, War r endal e.
Scher er , F.M . (1964) The Weapons Acqui si t i on Pr ocess : Economi c Incent i ves, Har var d Uni ver si t y,
Har var d.
Sher i f , Y.S. and Kol ar i k, W. J. (1981) ‘ Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng: Concept and Pr act i ce’ , OM EGA, The Int er nat i onal
Jour nal of M anagement Sci ence, Vol . 9, No. 3, pp. 287 - 296.
Sher wi n, D. (1996) ‘ Economi c and Account i ng Asp ect s Of Ter ot echnol ogy and Li f e-Cycl e Cost i ng’ ,
Pr oceedi ngs of t he Int er nat i onal Conf er ence of M ai nt enance Soci et i es, M el bor ne, M ay 22-23, Paper
46.
Shi el ds, M . D., and Young, S. M . 1991 ‘ M anagi ng Pr oduct Li f e Cycl e Cost : An Or gani zat i onal M odel , Cost
M anagement , pp. 39-52.
Si mon, H. A. (1959) ‘ Theor i es of Deci si on M aki ng i n Economi cs and Behavi our al Sci ence’ , Amer i can
Economi c Revi ew, June.
Si ngl et on, W.T. (1974) M an-M achi ne Syst ems, Pengui n, Har mondswor t h.
Snyder , H.M . (1990) ' Li f e Cycl e Cost M odel f or Dor mant Syst ems' , Pr oceedi ngs of t he IEEE 1990 Nat i onal
Aer ospace and El ect r oni cs Conf er ence - NAECON 1990, Vol . 3, Dayt on, M ay 21-25, pp.1217-1219.
Sr i ni vasan, N. K., Nagesw ar a A. M ., and Pr abhakar B K. (1997) ‘ CASSA M odel f or Li f e Cycl e Cost
Est i mat i on f or Ai r cr af t ,’ Repor t No. S-97-1, CASSA, DRDO, Bangal or e.
St ahl , L. and Wal l ace, M . (1995) ' Li f e Cycl e Cost Compar i son - Tr adi t i onal Cool i ng Syst ems vs. Nat ur al ' ,
Pr oceedi ngs of t he 1995 17t h Int er nat i onal Tel ecommuni cat i ons Ener gy Conf er ence, Hague, Oct ober
29 - November 1, pp.259-265.
St one, K.W., Dr ubka, R.E.and Br aun, H. (1994) ' Impact of St i r l i ng Engi ne Oper at i onal Requi r ement s on
Di sh St i r l i ng Syst em Li f e Cycl e Cost s' , Pr oceedi ngs of t he 1994 ASM E/ JSM E/ JSES Int er nat i onal Sol ar
Ener gy Conf er ence, San Fr anci sco, M ar ch 27-30, pp.529-534.
St ump, E. J. (1988) ‘ An Appl i cat i on of M ar kov Chai ns t o Li f e Cycl e Cost Anal ysi s,’ Engi neer i ng Cost s and
Pr oduct i on Economi cs, Vol. 14, pp. 151-156.
276
Takagi shi , S.K. (1989) ' El ect r i c Power ver sus Pet r ol , M et hanol or Gas. Li f e Cycl e Cost Compar i son' , 9t h
Int er nat i onal El ect r i c Vehi cl e Symposi um, El ect r i c Vehi cl e Devel opment s,Vol . 8, No. 3, Tor ont o,
November 13-15, pp.77-81.
Tayl or , W.B. (1981) ‘ The Use of Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng i n Acqui r i ng Physi cal Asset s’ , Long Range Pl anni ng, Vol .
14, pp. 32-43.
Thuesen, G.J. and Fabr ycky, W.J. (1989) Engi neer i ng Economy, 7t h edi t i on, Pr ent i ce-Hal l , Engl ew ood
Cl i f f s, New Jer sey.
UK Depar t ment of Indust r y (1977) ‘ Li f e Cycl e Cost i n g i n t he M anagement of Asset s' , Depar t ment of
Indust r y, Commi t t ee f or Ter ot echnol ogy, H.M .S.O., London.
US Depar t ment of Def ense, (1983a) ‘ Desi gn t o Cost ’ , Di r ect i ve 4245.3, US Depar t ment of Def ense.
US Depar t ment of Def ense, (1983b) ‘ Li f e Cycl e Cost i n Navy Acqui si t i ons’ , M IL-HDBK-259 (Navy), US
Depar t ment of Def ense.
US Depar t ment of Def ense, (1996) ‘ M aj or Syst ems Acqui si t i ons’ , Di r ect i ve 5000.1 (Revi sed), US
Depar t ment of Def ense.
Vacek, R.M ., Hopki ns, M . and M acPher son, W.H. (1996) ' Devel op ment , Demonst r at i on and Int egr at i on
of Advanced Technol ogi es t o Impr ove t he Li f e Cycl e Cost s of Space Syst ems' , Pr oceedi ngs of t he 1996
IEEE Aer ospace Appl i cat i ons Conf er ence, Vol . 1, IEEE, Los Al amos, pp. 217-225.
Ver ma, D. (1995) ‘ Con cept ual Syst em Desi gn Synt hesi s, Anal ysi s and Eval uat i on’ , Techni cal M onogr aph
1, Cent r e f or M anagement of Indust r i al Rel i abi l i t y, Cost and Ef f ect i veness, Facul t y of Engi neer i ng,
Uni ver si t y of Exet er , Exet er .
Vi vona, M .A. (1994) ‘ Audi t Envi r onment al Pr ocesses Usi ng Li f e-Cycl e Cost s’ , Hydr ocar bon Pr ocessi ng,
Vol . 73, No. 8, p. 115.
Whi t e, G. E., and Ost w al d, P. H. (1976) ‘ M anagement Account i ng’ , pp. 39-42.
Whi t e, J. A., Agee, M .H. and Case, K.E. (1977) Pr i nci pl es of Engi neer i ng Economi c Anal ysi s, John Wi l ey,
New Yor k.
Wi l ki nson, V.K. (1990) ' Li f e Cycl e Cost Anal yses of Gover nment Pr oduct i on and Ser vi ces' , Pr oceedi ngs of
t he 1990 Int er nat i onal Indust r i al Engi neer i ng Conf er ence, No. 1990, San Fr anci sco, M ay 20-23, pp.
111-116.
Wi nkel , J. D. (1996) ' Use of Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng i n New and M at ur e Appl i cat i ons' , Pr oceedi ngs of t he 1996
NPF/ SPE Eur opean Pr oduct i on Oper at i ons Conf er ence, Soci et y of Pet r ol eum Engi neer s (SPE),
St avanger , Nor w ay, Apr i l 16-17, pp. 239-248.
Wonsi ewi cz, T.J. (1988) ' Li f e Cycl e Cost Anal ysi s. Key Assumpt i ons and Sensi t i vi t y of Resul t s' ,
Tr anspor t at i on Resear ch Recor d, Lane Ent er pr i ses Inc, Camp Hi l l , pp.113-117.
Woodw ar d D. G. (1997) ‘ Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng – Theor y, Inf or mat i on, Acqui si t i on and Appl i cat i on,’
Int er nat i onal Jour nal of Pr oj ect M anagement , Vol . 15, No. 6, pp. 335-344.
277
Woud, J.K., Smi t , K. and Vuci ni c, B. (1997) ' M ai nt enance Pr ogr amme Desi gn f or M i ni mal Li f e Cycl e Cost s
and Accept abl e Saf et y Ri sks' , Int er nat i onal Shi pbui l di ng Pr ogr ess, Vol . 44, No. 437, Del f t Uni ver si t y
Pr ess, Del f t , Net her l ands, pp.77-100.
Zhi , H. (1993) ' Si mul at i on Anal ysi s i n Pr oj ect Li f e Cycl e Cost ' , Cost Engi neer i ng, Vol . 35, No. 12,
M or gant own, West Vi r gi ni a, pp. 13-17.
Zhou, X. and Cai , N. (1994) ' Dynami c St udy of t he Rel at i onshi p bet ween Li f e Cycl e Cost and Rel i abi l i t y i n
El ect r oni c Pr oduct ' , Ti en Tzu Hsueh Pao/ Act a El ect r oni ca Si ni ca, Vol . 22, No. 11, Hangzhou Inst . of
El ect r oni cs Engi neer i ng, Hangzhou, Chi na, pp.22-27.
278
Tot al Cost of Ownershi p f or Rai l way Asset s: A Case St udy on BOXN Wagons of Indi an Rai l ways
U Di nesh Kumar * , Gopi nat h Chat t opadhyay* * and H S Pannu* * *
* Indi an Inst i t ut e of M anagement Cal cut t a, Joka, D H Road, Kol kat a 700104, INDIA
* * Dept . of M echani cal , M anuf act ur i ng and M edi cal Engi neer i ng, Queensl and Uni ver si t y of Technol ogy,
Br i sbane, QLD 4001, Aust r al i a
* * * Sout h East er n Rai l w ay, Gar den Reach Road, Kol kat a 700043, INDIA
di nesh@i i mcal .ac.i n, g.chat t opadhyay@qut .edu.au, h_s_pannu @yahoo.co.i n
ABSTRACT
Deci si on t o pur chase any capi t al equi pment must be based on i t s t ot al cost of ow ner shi p (TCO) r at her
t han t he usual pr act i ce of pr ocur ement based on t he i ni t i al pur chase pr i ce. In t he r ecent year s, TCO has
become a par t of t he st r at egi c cost management and t he concept can be appl i ed f or ef f ect i ve
pr ocur ement of r ai l w ay asset s. TCO pr ovi des an i nsi ght i nt o t he t ot al cost of acqui si t i on and sust enance
and t hus ef f ect i vel y suppor t deci si on-maki ng i n eval uat i on of var i ous al t er nat i ves. The pr i mar y
obj ect i ve of t hi s pap er i s t o devel op model s f or pr edi ct i on of cost of ow ner shi p of capi t al asset s. The
model s ar e devel oped usi ng t he M ar ko v and r enewal pr ocesses dependi n g on t he t i me t o f ai l ur e
di st r i but i on of i ndi vi dual i t ems w i t hi n t he capi t al equi pment . The model s devel oped i n t hi s paper ar e
val i dat ed usi ng t he dat a f r om BOXN wagon used by t he Indi an Rai l ways.
Keywor ds: Asset management , M ai nt enance, M ar kov and r enewal pr ocesses, Tot al cost of owner shi p.
1. INTRODUCTION
“ Val ue f or M oney” has become one of t he i mpor t ant cr i t er i a i n an i ncr easi ngl y compet i t i ve busi ness
envi r onment . Li f e Cycl e Cost (LCC) and t he Tot al Cost of Ow ner shi p (TCO) ar e t w o i mpor t ant f i nanci al
measur es t hat ar e used f or deci si on maki ng i n acqui si t i ons t o eval uat e t he val u e of any capi t al
equi pment (Hampt on, 2004; Humphr i es, 2004). Li f e cycl e cost r ef er s t o al l cost s associ at ed w i t h t he
279
pr oduct or syst em as appl i ed t o def i ned l i f e cycl e. That i s, st ar t i ng f r om r equi r ement anal ysi s, desi gn,
pr oduct i on, oper at i on and mai nt enance t i l l di sposal . Tot al cost of ow ner shi p (TCO) i s a phi l osophy,
w hi ch i s ai med at under st andi ng t he t r ue cost of buyi ng a par t i cul ar pr oduct or ser vi ce f r om a par t i cul ar
suppl i er . Fr om i t s or i gi ns i n def ence equi pment pr ocur ement i n t he US i n ear l y 1960s, t he use of l i f e
cycl e cost and cost of ow ner shi p has ext ended t o ot her ar eas of t he publ i c and pr i vat e sect or s. LCC and
TCO ar e bei ng used t o assi st i n deci si on-maki ng, budget pl anni ng, cost cont r ol , and r ange of ot her
act i vi t i es t hat occur over t he l i f e of compl ex t echnol ogi cal equi pment .
LCC anal ysi s i s appl i ed r out i nel y t o mi l i t ar y pr oj ect s (Bl anchar d, 1986). I n t he mi l i t ar y sect or t he
consumer , by f undi ng t he pr oj ect and oper at i ng t he r el at ed pr oduct , essent i al l y bear s t he t ot al l i f e cycl e
cost cover i ng t he maj or cost el ement s i n al l st ages of a pr oduct ’ s l i f e cycl e. The t er m LCC anal ysi s i s
r ar el y used i n t he commer ci al sect or . Inst ead, t he mai n f ocus i s on TCO w her e r el at ed cost s, cover i ng
acqui si t i on (pur chase or l ease), oper at i on, mai nt enance and suppor t ar e bor ne by t he cust omer . In
addi t i on, t he cust omer can al so i ncur cost s w hen t he pr oduct i s not avai l abl e f or use, t hat i s, ‘ down t i me
cost s’ .
The obj ect i ves of LCC/ TCO ar e (Fl anagan and Nor man, 1983):
• To enabl e i nvest ment opt i ons t o be mor e ef f ect i vel y eval uat ed.
• To consi der t he i mpact of all cost s r at her t han onl y t he i ni t i al capi t al cost s.
• To assi st i n t he ef f ect i ve management of compl et ed pr oj ect s.
• To f aci l i t at e choi ce bet w een compet i ng al t er nat i ves.
In t he Def ence i ndust r y t he syst em’ s l i f e cycl e i s di vi ded i nt o var i ous phases, w hi ch al l ow pr oper
pl anni ng and cont r ol of a pr oj ect . The number of phases d epends on t he nat ur e of t he pr oj ect , pur pose
and whet her t hey ar e appl i ed t o commer ci al , mi l i t ar y or space pr oj ect s (Knot t s, 1998). Commonl y used
phases ar e:
8. Requir ement s (Funct i onal Speci f i cat i on).
9. Concept / Feasi bi l i t y St udi es.
10. Desi gn and Devel opment .
11. Pr oduct i on.
12. Test i ng and Cer t i f i cat i on.
13. Oper at i on, M ai nt enance and Suppor t .
14. Di sposal
It i s r epor t ed by t he US Depar t ment of Def ence t hat 70% of w eapon syst em l i f e cycl e cost i s
commi t t ed by t he end of concept st udi es, 85% by t he end of syst em def i ni t i on and 95% by t he end of
f ul l scal e devel opment (Knot t s, 1998). The US Depar t ment of Def ence has f or mal l y used t he concept of
l i f e cycl e cost i n w eapon syst em acqui si t i on si nce t he ear l y 1960s t hr ough l i f e cycl e cost i ng and l i f e cycl e
cost anal ysi s.
The cost of ow ner shi p appr oach i d ent i f i es al l f ut ur e cost s and r educes t hem t o t hei r pr esent
val ue by use of t he di scoun t i ng t echni ques t hr ough w hi ch t he economi c w or t h of a pr oduct or pr oduct
280
opt i ons can be assessed. In or der t o achi eve t hese obj ect i ves t he f ol l ow i ng el ement s of cost of
owner shi p have been i dent i f i ed (Woor war d, 1997):
• Ini t i al capi t al cost s
• Li f e of t he asset
• The di scount r at e
• Oper at i ng and mai nt enance cost s
• Di sposal cost
1.2 Ini t i al capi t al cost s
The i ni t i al capi t al cost s can be di vi ded i nt o t hr ee sub-cat egor i es of cost namel y: (1) pur chase cost s,
(2) acqui si t i on/ f i nance cost s, and (3) i nst al l at i on/ commi ssi oni ng/ t r ai ni ng cost s. Pur chase cost s w i l l
i ncl ude assessment of i t ems such as l and, bui l di ngs, f ees, and equi pment . Fi nance cost s i ncl ude
al t er nat i ve sour ces of f unds. Basi cal l y, t he i ni t i al capi t al cost cat egor y i ncl udes al l t he cost s of buyi ng
t he physi cal asset and br i ngi ng i t i nt o oper at i on.
1. Li f e of t he Asset
The est i mat ed l i f e of an asset has a maj or i nf l uence o n l i f e cycl e cost anal ysi s. Fer r y et al (1991) has
def i ned t he f ol l ow i ng f i ve possi bl e det er mi nant s of an asset ’ s l i f e expect ancy:
• Funct i onal l i f e – t he per i od over w hi ch t he need f or t he asset i s ant i ci pat ed.
• Physi cal l i f e – t he per i od over w hi ch t he asset may be expect ed t o l ast physi cal l y, t o w hen
r epl acement or maj or r ehabi l i t at i on i s physi cal l y r equi r ed.
• Technol ogi cal l i f e – t he per i od unt i l t echni cal obsol escence di ct at es r epl acement due t o t he
devel op ment of a t echnol ogi cal l y super i or al t er nat i ve.
• Economi c l i f e – t he per i od unt i l economi c obsol escence di ct at es r epl acement w i t h a l ow er
cost al t er nat i ve.
• Soci al and l egal l i f e – t he per i od unt i l human desi r e or l egal r equi r ement di ct at es
r epl acement .
1.4 The di scount rat e
As t he cost of ow ner shi p i s di scount ed t o t hei r pr esent val ue, sel ect i on of a sui t abl e di scount r at e i s
cr uci al f or TCO anal ysi s. A hi gh di scount r at e w i l l t end t o f avour opt i ons w i t h l ow capi t al cost , shor t l i f e
and hi gh r ecur r i ng cost , whi l st a l ow di scount r at e wi l l have t he opposi t e ef f ect .
281
1.5 Oper at i ons and Mai nt enance Cost s
Cost of ow ner shi p, i n many cases, i s about oper at i on and mai nt enance cost . Est i mat i on of
oper at i on and mai nt enance cost s i s t he essent i al t o mi ni mi se t he t ot al cost of ow ner shi p of t he asset . I n
t he whol e of TCO anal ysi s, est i mat i on of oper at i on and mai nt enance i s t he most chal l engi ng t ask.
1.6 Di sposal cost
Thi s i s t he cost i ncur r ed at t he end of as asset ’ s w or ki ng l i f e i n di sposi ng of t he asset . The
di sposal cost woul d i ncl ude t he cost of demol i t i on, scr appi ng or sel l i ng t he asset .
1.7 Uncer t ai nt i es and Sensi t i vi t y Anal ysi s
LCC/ TCO i s hi ghl y dependent on t he assumpt i ons and est i mat es made whi l e col l ect i ng dat a.
Even t hough i t i s possi bl e t o i mpr ove t he qual i t y of t hese est i mat es, t her e i s al ways an el ement of
uncer t ai nt y associ at ed wi t h t hese est i mat es and assumpt i ons. M acedo et al (1978) i dent i f i es t he
f ol l ow i ng f i ve maj or sour ces of uncer t ai nt y:
6. Di f f er ences b et w een t he act ual and expect ed per f or mance of t he syst em coul d af f ect f ut ur e
oper at i on and mai nt enance cost .
7. Changes i n oper at i onal assumpt i ons ari si ng f r om modif i cat i ons i n user act i vi t y.
8. Fut ur e t echnol ogi cal advances t hat coul d pr ovi d e l ow er cost al t er nat i ves and hence shor t en t he
economi c l i f e of any syst em/ subsyst em.
9. Changes i n t he pr i ce l evel s of maj or r esour ces such as ener gy or manpower , r el at i ve t o ot her
r esour ces can af f ect f ut ur e al t er at i on cost s.
10. Er r or i n est i mat i ng r el at i onshi ps, pr i ce r at es f or speci f i c r esour ces and t he r at e of i nf l at i on i n
over al l cost s f r om t he t i me of est i mat i on t o t he avai l abi l i t y of t he asset .
Whi l e under t aki ng a LCC/ TCO anal ysi s, t her e may be some key par amet er s about whi ch uncer t ai nt y
exi st s, usual l y because of t he i nadequacy of t he i npu t dat a. Bl anchar d (1972) suggest ed t he f ol l owi ng
shoul d be t he subj ect of sensi t i vi t y anal ysi s:
1. Fr equency of t he mai nt enance f act or .
2. Var i at i on of t he asset ’ s ut i l i zat i on or oper at i ng t i me.
3. Ext ent of t he syst em’ s sel f -di agnost i c capabi l i t y.
4. Var i at i on of cor r ect i ve mai nt enance hour s per oper at i ng hour .
5. Pr oduct demand r at e.
6. The di scount r at e
282
In t hi s paper , w e devel op mat hemat i cal model s f or pr edi ct i on of t ot al cost of ow ner shi p. The r est of
t he paper i s or gani zed as f ol l ows. In Sect i on 2, w e have d evel oped a f r amew or k f or est i mat i ng t he t ot al
cost of ow ner shi p. Sect i on 3 deal s w i t h t he mat hemat i cal model s f or t ot al cost of ow ner shi p. A case
st udy on BOXN wagon used by t he Indi an Rai l w ays i s used t o i l l ust r at e t he mat hemat i cal model
devel oped i n t he paper .
2. Framework f or Tot al Cost of Ownershi p Model
Tot al cost of ow ner shi p i s dr i ven by r el i abi l i t y, mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y. The obj ect i ve of
t ot al cost of ow ner shi p i s t o mi ni mi se TCO by opt i mi zi ng r el i abi l i t y, mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y.
Fi gur e 1 i l l ust r at es t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he syst em oper at i onal ef f ect i veness and ot her desi gn
par amet er s (Di nesh Kumar 2000). Tot al cost of ow ner shi p wi l l decr ease as t he r el i abi l i t y i ncr eases.
Si mi l ar l y bet t er mai nt ai nabi l i t y and suppor t abi l i t y woul d decr ease t he mai nt enance and suppor t cost
and hence w i l l decr ease t he t ot al cost of ow ner shi p. How ever , i ncr easi ng r el i abi l i t y, mai nt ai nabi l i t y and
suppor t abi l i t y may r equi r e addi t i onal r esour ces dur i ng t he desi gn and pr oduct devel op ment st age and
hence i s l i kel y t o i ncr ease t he i ni t i al pr ocur ement cost .
Fi gur e 1. Cause and ef f ect dependency bet w een oper at i onal ef f ect i veness, t ot al cost of ow ner shi p and
ot her desi gn par amet er s
The f r amew or k f or cal cul at i ng t ot al cost of ow ner shi p can be ver y compl ex dependi ng on t he
pr ocur ement and asset management st r at egi es used by t he user . In t hi s paper , w e mai nl y f ocus on
Systems Operational Effectiveness: Systems Operational Effectiveness:
A Cause A Cause- -and and- -Effect Dependency Effect Dependency
Reliability/
Supportability/ Maintainability/
Design Cause
Operational Effect
Operation
Logistics Maintenance
Time to
Support (TTS)
Time to
Maintain (TTM)
Time to
Failure (TTF)
System Downtime System Uptime
System
Effectiveness
Operation
Maintenance
Logistics
Process
Efficiency
Operational Operational
Effectiveness Effectiveness
Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV)/TOC
Reliability
Maintainability
Supportability
Availability
Technical
Effectiveness
Inherent
Performance
Functions
Requirements
Priorities
Systems Operational Effectiveness: Systems Operational Effectiveness:
A Cause A Cause- -and and- -Effect Dependency Effect Dependency
Reliability/
Supportability/ Maintainability/
Design Cause
Reliability/
Supportability/ Maintainability/
Design Cause
Operational Effect
Operation
Logistics Maintenance
Operational Effect
Operation
Logistics Maintenance
Time to
Support (TTS)
Time to
Maintain (TTM)
Time to
Failure (TTF)
System Downtime System Uptime
System
Effectiveness
Operation
Maintenance
Logistics
Process
Efficiency
System
Effectiveness
Operation
Maintenance
Logistics
Process
Efficiency
Operational Operational
Effectiveness Effectiveness
Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV)/TOC
Operational Operational
Effectiveness Effectiveness
Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV)/TOC
Reliability
Maintainability
Supportability
Availability
Technical
Effectiveness
Inherent
Reliability
Maintainability
Supportability
Availability
Technical
Effectiveness
Inherent
Performance
Functions
Requirements
Priorities
Performance
Functions
Requirements
Priorities
283
pr ocur ement , oper at i on, mai nt enance and di sposal cost , w hi ch ar e mor e r el evant f or asset s l i ke
w agons. The f r amew or k show n i n Fi gur e 2 i s used f or eval uat i on of t ot al cost of ow ner shi p.
284
Fi gur e 2: Fr amew or k f or cal cul at i on of t ot al cost of owner shi p
3. Mat hemat i cal Model s f or Est i mat i on of Tot al Cost of Ownershi p
In t hi s sect i on w e devel op mat hemat i cal model s f or est i mat i on of var i ous cost el ement s i n t he
t ot al cost of ow ner shi p. The mai n f ocus i s on est i mat i on of i n-ser vi ce cost . Si nce al l t he cost el ement s i n
t he t ot al cost of own er shi p need t o be di scount ed t o t hei r pr esent val ue, al l t he cost s model s expl ai ned
i n t he subsequent sect i ons ar e cal cul at ed on annual basi s and f i nal l y di scount ed usi ng appr opr i at e
di scount r at e.
3.1 Est i mat i on of operat i ng cost
The oper at i ng cost can be di vi ded i nt o t w o cat egor i es, di r ect oper at i ng cost and over head cost s.
The di r ect oper at i ng cost i s d et er mi ned by t he r esour ces, w hi ch ar e r equi r ed f or oper at i ng t he asset .
The mai n r esour ces f or most of t he syst em ar e ener gy consumed by t he asset and t h e manpower
r equi r ed t o oper at e t he asset . The ener gy consumed by t he asset wi l l depend on t he oper at i onal
avai l abi l i t y of t he syst em cal cul at ed on annual basi s. The oper at i onal avai l abi l i t y, A
o
, of any asset i s
gi ven by (D Kumar et al 2000):
DT MTBM
MTBM
A
O
+
· (1)
wher e:
Acquisition Cost
Operating Cost
Maintenance Cost Logistics Cost
Support Cost
In-Service Cost
Total Cost of Ownership
285
M TBM = M ean t i me bet w een mai nt enance
DT = Dow n Ti me
M ean t i me bet ween mai nt enance f or dur at i on, T, i s gi ven by:
sm
T
T
T M
T
MTBM
+
·
) (
(2)
Wher e, M (T), i s t he number of f ai l ur es r esul t i ng i n unschedul ed mai nt enance and T
sm
i s t he t i me
bet ween schedul ed mai nt enance. The down t i me, DT, can be est i mat ed usi ng t he f ol l ow i ng equat i on:
sm
sm
T
T
T M
MPMT
T
T
MCMT T M
DT
+
× + ×
·
) (
) (
(3)
Wher e,
M CM T = M ean cor r ect i ve mai nt enance t i me.
M PM T = M ean pr event i ve mai nt enance t i me.
The number of f ai l ur es r esul t i ng i n unschedul ed mai nt enan ce can be eval uat ed usi ng r enewal
f unct i on and i s gi ven by:

− + ·
T
dx x f x T M T F T M
0
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( (4)
Wher e, F(T) i s t he cumul at i ve di st r i but i on of t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e r andom var i abl e and f (x) i s t he
cor r espondi ng pr obabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on. Equat i on (4) i s val i d onl y w hen t he f ai l ed uni t s ar e r epl aced
or w hen t he r epai r i s as good as new . How ever , i n case of mi ni mal r epai r and i mper f ect r epai r , one may
have t o use model s based on non-ho mogeneous Poi sson pr ocess or modi f i ed r enewal pr ocess. For
mor e det ai l s, t he r eader s may r ef er t o Ross (2000). If we assume t hat t he ener gy cost and manpow er
286
cost per uni t t i me i s C
o u
and t he annual usage of t he asset i s T l i f e uni t s. Then t he annual oper at i ng cost
i s gi ven by:
ou O O
C T A C × × · (5)
Assume t hat ‘ r ’ denot es t he di scount r at e. Then t he pr esent val ue of t he oper at i ng cost f or n
t h
per i od (n
t h
year ), C
O,n
, i s gi ven by:
n
ou O
n O
r
C T A
C
) 1 (
,
+
× ×
· (6)
3.2 Est i mat i on of Mai nt enance Cost
The mai n component s of mai nt enance cost ar e cor r ect i ve mai nt enance cost s, pr event i ve
mai nt enance cost s and over haul cost s. M ai nt enance r esour ces t hat used i n per f or mi ng t hat par t i cul ar
mai nt enan ce dr i ve t hese cost s. The mai nt enance cost , C
M
, can be est i mat ed usi ng t he f ol l ow i ng
equat i on:
∑ × + × + × ·
·
k
i
i OH n i pm
sm
cm M
C C
T
T
C T M C
1
, ,
) ( δ (7)
Wher e:
C
cm
= Aver age cost of cor r ect i ve mai nt enance.
C
pm
= Aver age cost of pr event i ve mai nt enance
¹
'
¹
·
otherwise , 0
n period during out carried is i type of overhaul if , 1
, n i
δ
C
OH,i
r epr esent s t he aver age cost of over haul of t ype i . Thi s cost wi l l be added t o t he mai nt enance cost ,
i f t he t ype i over haul i s car r i ed out dur i ng per i od n.
The mai nt enance cost f or per i od ‘ n’ i s gi ven by:
287

,
`

.
|
∑ + × + ×
+
·
·
i OH
k
i
n i pm
sm
cm
n
n M
C C
T
T
C T M
r
C
,
1
, ,
) (
) 1 (
1
δ (8)
3.3 Est i mat i on of Logi st i c Support Cost
Logi st i c suppor t cost cover s t he cost s associ at ed w i t h mai nt ai ni ng spar e par t s, mai nt enance
f aci l i t i es, t est equi pment and ot her l ogi st i cs cost s such as t r anspor t at i on cost s. The spar e par t s
cont r i but e si gni f i cant por t i on of t he t ot al supp or t cost . The number of spar es st ocked al so pl ays a
cr uci al r ol e i n t he oper at i onal avai l abi l i t y of t he syst em. Pr act i t i on er s deci de on t he number of spar e
par t s t o be pur chased based on t he t ar get f i l l r at e, α (pr obabi l i t y t hat a demand f or a par t i cul ar spar e
par t can be achi eved f r om t he avai l abl e st ock). Usual l y t he t ar get f i l l r at e i s 85%. Assume t hat N
s
r epr esent t he mi ni mum number of spar es t hat shoul d be st ocked t o achi eve a t ar get f i l l r at e α. Then
t he val ue of N
s
can be cal cul at ed usi ng t he f ol l owi ng equat i on:

× −
·
s
N
k
k
k
T T
0
!
) ( ) exp( λ λ
(9)
The above equat i on i s val i d onl y wh en t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on f ol l ows exponent i al
di st r i but i on, w her e λ i s t he f ai l ur e r at e. When t he t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on i s ot her t han exponent i al ,
t hen w e need t o use r enew al f unct i on t o f i nd t he val ue of N
s
t o achi eve t he t ar get avai l abi l i t y.
The annual l ogi st i cs cost f or t he per i od n, C
L
,n i s gi ven by:
s s
n
n L
C N
r
C ×
+
·
) 1 (
1
,
(10)
3.4 Tot al Cost of Owner shi p
The t ot al cost of ow ner shi p i s obt ai ned by addi ng t he component s gi ven by equat i ons (6), (8)
and (10) over t he desi gned l i f e of t he asset . If t he desi gned l i f e of t he asset i s D, t hen t he t ot al cost of
ow ner shi p, TCO
D
, i s gi ven by:
MF n L
D
n
n M n O P D
C C C C C TCO + + ∑ + + ·
·
] [
,
1
, ,
(11)
288
Wher e C
P
i s t he pr ocur ement pr i ce of w agon and C
M F
i s t he one-t i me expenses of mai nt enance
and suppor t equi pment .
4. Case St udy on BOXN wagons used by t he Indi an Rai l ways
Indi an r ai l w ays ar e t he pr i nci pal mode of t r anspor t f or r aw mat er i al f or st eel pl ant s, f i ni shed st eel
f r om st eel pl ant s, coal , i r on, oi l , cement , pet r ol eum pr oduct s, f er t i l i zer and f ood gr ai ns i n I ndi a. Indian
r ai l w ays ow ns mor e t han 5,00,000 w agons. The w agons have a desi gn l i f e of 35 year s. The r equi r ement
of w agons f or f ut ur e i s assessed on t he basi s of f r ei ght t r af f i c pr oj ect ed and t he ant i ci pat ed l evel of
pr oduct i vi t y of wagons measur ed i n t er ms of net t on ki l omet er s (NTKM ) per wagon per day l i kel y t o be
achi eved. The w agons ar e pr ocur ed f r om t he w agons Indi a l i mi t ed, w hi ch w as i ncor por at ed i n 1974.
Wagons Indi a l i mi t ed suppl i es about 90% of t he w agon r equi r ement and t he r est ar e pur chased f r om
t he open mar ket . The t ot al cost of ow ner shi p i s an i mpor t ant i ssue dur i ng t he pr ocur ement of w agons.
The pr ocur ement cost of w agon i s $40,000.
The BOXN wagons ar e mai nl y used f or car r yi n g coal and ar e f i t t ed wi t h CASNUB bogi es. CASNUB
bogi es ar e t he cr i t i cal subsyst em of t he w agon. The CASNUB bogi e consi st s of t w o cast si de f r ames and
a f l oat i ng bol st er . The bol st er i s suppor t ed on t he si de f r ames t hr ough t w o gr oups of spr i ng, w hi ch al so
i ncor por at e t he l oad pr opor t i onal f r i ct i on dampi n g. The si de f r ames of t he CASNUB bogi e ar e
connect ed by a f abr i cat ed mi l d st eel spr i ng pl ank t o mai nt ai n t he bogi e squar e. The sal i ent f eat ur es
CASNUB bogi es ar e shown i n Tabl e 1.
Tabl e 1. Sal i ent f eat ur es of CASNUB bogi e
59.1.1.1 Gauge
1676mm
Axl e l oad 20.3t . How ever al l bogi es except Casnub 22HS can be
upgr aded upt o 22.9t
Wheel Di amet er 1000 mm (New ). 956 mm ((New ) f or r et r of i t t ed
Casnub 22W
Wheel Base 2000mm
Type of Axl e Casnub- 22W (M )
Bear i ng (a) Cyl i ndr i cal r ol l er bear i ng axl e box i n l i mi t ed no. on
Casnub 22W Bogi es onl y.
(b) St andar d AAR t aper ed car t r i dge bear i ng cl ass ‘ E’
sui t abl e f or 152.4x276.4mm (6” x11” ) nar r ow j aw .
289
Di st ance Bet w een
Jour nal cent r es
2260mm
Di st ance bet w een si de
bear er s
1474 mm
Type of si de bear er s
59.2 Casnub 22W
59.3 Roller Type (clearance type)
59.4 Retrofitted Casnub 22W, Casnub
22W(M), 22NLB
Const ant cont act t ype (M et al bonded r ubber pad,
housed i nsi de si de bear er housi ng).
Casnub 22HS
Spr i ng l oaded const ant cont act t ype si de bear er .
Type of pi vot Casnub 22W
IRS Type
Top Pi vot –RDSO Dr g. No. W/ BE-601.
Bot t om Pi vot – RDSO Dr g. No. W/ BE-602 or si mi l ar
mat i ng pr of i le i nt egr al l y cast w i t h bol st er .
59.5 Casnub 22W(M), 22NL, 22NLB,
22HS
Spher i cal t ype RDSO Dr g. No. WD-85079-S/ 2.
59.6 Anti rotation
features
Ant i r ot at i on l ugs have been pr ovi de bet w een bogi e
bolst er and si def r ame.
59.6.1.1 Type of brake
beam
59.7 Casnub 22W, /22NL, 22NLB and
22HS
Uni t t ype f abr icat ed br ake beam suppor t ed and
gui ded i n t he br ake beam pocket s.
Casnub22W(M)
Unit t ype cast st eel br ake beam suspended by
hanger s f r om si de f r ame br acket s.
Suspensi on det ai l s Long t r avel hel i cal spr i ngs
El ast omer i c pads On al l t ype of bogi es except Casnub
290
22Wsubsequent l y pr ovi ded i n r et r of i t ment .
The CASNUB bogi e assembl y consi st s of t he f ol l ow i ng component s:
1. Wheel set w i t h cyl indr i cal r ol l er bear i ng or w heel set w i t h car t r i dge bear ing.
2. Axl e box/ adapt er , r et ai ner bol t & si de f r ame key assembl y.
3. Si def rame w i t h f r i ct i on w ear pl at es.
4. Bolst er w i t h w ear l i ner s.
5. Spr ing pl ank, f i t bol t s & r i vet s.
6. Load bear i ng spr i ngs and snubber spr i ngs.
7. Fr ict i on shoe w edge.
8. Cent r e Pi vot ar r angement compr i si ng of cent r e pi vot , cent r e pi vot bot t om, cent r e
pi vot pi n, cent r e pi vot r et ai ner & l ocki ng ar r angement .
9. Si de bear er s.
10. Elast omer ic pads.
11. Bogi e br ake gear .
12. Br ake beam.
Rel i abi l i t y and Mai nt enance of BOXN Wagon
Indi an r ai l ways cl assi f i es t he f ai l ur es i nt o t he f ol l owi ng t hr ee cat egor i es:
1. Vi t al – causi ng l i ne f ai l ur e.
2. Essent i al – causi ng del ay t o t r af f i c.
3. Non-essent i al – causi ng no di st ur bance t o t r af f i c.
The above cl assi f i cat i on enabl es t he Indi an Rai l w ays t o f ocus on vi t al and essent i al component s
and t o st udy t hei r r el i abi l i t y and mai nt ai nabi l i t y i n ser vi ce and t ake adequat e st eps t o i mpr ove t hei r
per f or mance by modi f i cat i on or r e-desi gn. The f ol l ow i ng t hr ee t ypes of mai nt enance ar e pr act i ced
f or wagons:
1. Prevent i ve mai nt enance (PM ): Pr event i ve mai nt enance i s car r i ed out af t er ever y 6000 Km f or
BOXN wagons (appr oxi mat el y 15 days).
2. Rout i ne over haul (ROH): Rout i ne over haul i s car r i ed out af t er ever y 24 mont hs. Dur i ng ROH,
t he bogi e i s di smant l ed and t he wheel s ar e de-wheel ed.
3. Peri odi c Overhaul (POH): The per i odi c over haul i s car r i ed out af t er ever y 48 mont hs and
i nvol ves compl et e over haul of t he wagon. How ever , t he f i r st POH i s car r i ed out af t er 6 year s.
For t hi s r esear ch, w e l ooked at t he most cr i t i cal comp onent s (t he component s t hat cont r i but e t ow ar ds
maj or i t y of t he f ai l ur es). Tabl e 2 show s t he vi t al component s and t hei r t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on al ong
291
w i t h t he est i mat ed par amet er s. To mai nt ai n t he conf i dent i al i t y of t he f ai l ur e and mai nt enance dat a, w e
have used hypot het i cal dat a i n t he r est of t he paper . The obj ect i ve her e i s t o i l l ust r at e t he model s
devel oped i n t he paper .
Tabl e 2. Vi t al component s of BOXN w agons and t hei r t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on (λ i s t he f ai l ur e r at e, η
i s t he scal e par amet er and β i s t he shape par amet er )
S. No. Component Ti me-t o-Fai l ure
Di st ri but i on
Par amet er s
1. Wheel Wei bul l η= 52, 0000 Km, β = 4
2. Rol l er Bear i ng Wei bul l η= 250, 0000 Km, β = 3
3. Br ake Beam Wei bul l η= 160, 0000 Km, β = 4
4. Br ake Shoe Wei bul l η= 140, 0000 Km, β = 3
5. CBC Wei bul l η= 70, 0000 Km, β = 3.5
6. Panel Hat ch Wei bul l η= 38, 0000 Km, β = 4.2
7. Ai r Br ake Wei bul l η= 48, 0000 Km, β = 3.5
8. Wagon Door Exponent i al λ = 6.6 x 10
-6
9. Cent r e Pi vot Wei bul l η= 55, 0000 Km, β = 3.8
Al l cr i t i cal component s except wagon door f ol l ow Wei bul l di st r i but i on. The t i me-t o-f ai l ur e di st r i but i on
of t he w agon door i s exponent i al , si nce most of t he w agon door f ai l ur es ar e caused due t o mi shandl i ng.
The t i me-t o-f ai l ur e of t he w agon i t sel f f ol l ow s exponent i al di st r i but i on w i t h mean t i me bet w een f ai l ur es
of 16000 Km.
Cal cul at i on of t he oper at i onal avai l abi li t y of Wagon
Al l t he l i f e uni t s ar e measur ed i n t er ms of Ki l omet er and t hus t he PM , ROH, POH ar e conver t ed i n
t er ms of Km. The pr event i ve mai nt enance i nt er val i s appr oxi mat el y 15 days, t hat i s af t er ever y 6000 Km,
and dur i ng PM , t he w agon i s out of ser vi ce f or 2 days (t hat i s 800 Km). Whenever , t he w agon r equi r es
cor r ect i ve mai nt enance, i t i s l i kel y t o be out of ser vi ce f or 4 days (t hat i s 1600 Km). The usage of w agon
f or ever y mont h i s 12,000 Km. Usi ng t hese dat a, t he mean t i me bet w een mai nt enance i n one year ,
(144,000 Km) i s gi ven by:
4363
6000
144000
) 144000 (
144000
·
+
·
M
MTBM
wagon
Km (12)
The Down t i me i s gi ven by:
292
1018
24 9
800 24 1600 9
) (
) ( ) (
·
+
× + ×
·
+
× + ×
·
sm
sm
wagon
T
T
T M
MPMT
T
T
MCMT T M
DT Km (13)
Usi ng, (12) and (13), we get t he oper at i onal avai l abi l i t y of t he wagon as:
8108 . 0
1018 4363
4363
·
+
·
+
·
wagon wagon
wagon
wagon
DT MTBM
MTBM
A (14)
Thus, t he oper at i onal avai l abi l i t y of t he w agon i s 81.08%.
4.3 Oper at i ng cost f or Wagon
The oper at i onal avai l abi l i t y val ue can be now used t o cal cul at e t he oper at i n g cost of t he w agon.
For t he sake of mat hemat i cal si mpl i ci t y, w e cal cul at e t he cost of ow n er shi p f or 6 year s f r om
commi ssi oni ng of t he wagon. Assume:
C
ou
= $1 per Km
Then, t he oper at i ng cost f or f i r st si x year s, at an i nt er est r at e of 6% i s gi ven i n t he f ol l ow i ng t abl e (t abl e
3):
Tabl e 3: Pr esent val ue of t he oper at i ng cost
Year PV of t he oper at i ng cost (i n $)
1
9178.868
2
8659.309
3
8169.16
4
7706.755
5
7270.523
6
6858.984
Tot al 54314.34
293
4.4 Mai nt enance cost f or Wagon
The cost of mai nt enance f or si x year s can be cal cul at ed usi ng t he equat i on (8). We make t he
f ol l ow i ng assumpt i ons:
C
cm
= Cost of cor r ect i ve mai nt enance = $800
C
pm
= Cost of pr event i ve mai nt enance = $1500
C
OH,1
= Cost of r egul ar over haul (ROH) = $8000
C
OH,2
= Cost of per i odi c over haul (POH) = $15000
Tabl e 4, show s t he pr esent val ue of t he mai nt enance cost f or t he f i r st si x year s.
Tabl e 4: Pr esent val ue of t he mai nt enance cost
Year PV of t he l ogi st i cs cost (i n $)
1
30849.06
2
36222.86
3
27455.55
4
37782.87
5
24435.34
6
28691.89
Tot al
30849.06
294
In t abl e 4, one can not i ce, cost f l uct uat i on dur i ng year 2, 4 and 6. This i s due t o ROH and POH
car r i ed out dur i ng t hat per i od.
4.5 Logi st i cs Support Cost
The l ogi st i cs suppor t cost can be est i mat ed usi ng equat i on (10). Thi s i nvol ves t he use of r enew al
pr ocess t o est i mat e t he spar es r equi r ement f or each of t he component s show n i n t abl e 2. Assumi ng, N
s
x C
s
= $ 3000, t he pr esent val ue of t he l ogi st i cs cost f or si x year s i s show n i n Tabl e 5.
Tabl e 5: Pr esent val ue of t he l ogi st i cs cost
Year PV of t he l ogi st i cs cost (i n $)
1
2830.189
2
2669.989
3
2518.858
4
2376.281
5
2241.775
6
2114.882
Tot al
14751.97
4.6 Tot al cost of ownershi p of wagon
The t ot al cost of ow ner shi p of w agon f or t he f i r st 6 year s i s obt ai ned by addi ng t h e component s
gi ven by equat i ons (6), (8) and (10). Assume t hat C
M F
= $20000. The t ot al cost of ow n er shi p, TCO
D
, f or
si x year s, i s gi ven by:
6 . 314502 $
20000 97 . 14751 6 . 185437 34 . 54314 40000
] [
,
1
, ,
·
+ + + + ·
+ + ∑ + + ·
·
MF n L
D
n
n M n O P D
C C C C C TCO
The cost of ow ner shi p i s cal cul at ed f or si x year s, w hi ch i s t he f i r st maj or over haul per i od. The above
cost can b e di vi ded by t he dur at i on, t o cal cul at e TCO per year , w hi ch t hen can be used f or compar i n g
di f f er ent conf i gur at i ons.
295
5. Deci si on Maki ng on t he Basi s of Cost of Ownershi p
In t hi s sect i on, w e di scuss how t he cost of ow ner shi p der i ved i n t he pr evi ous sect i on can be used f or
pur chasi ng deci si ons. The f oll ow i ng t w o appr oaches can be used f or deci si on maki ng.
5.1 Deci si on Maki ng Based on TCO as onl y Cri t er i a
If t he cost of ow ner shi p i s t he onl y cr i t er i a on w hi ch t he pur chasi ng deci si on i s based on t hen,
t he al t er nat i ve w i t h mi ni mum t ot al cost of ow ner shi p per per i od (per annum). That i s, i f t her e ar e n
al t er nat i ves such t hat :
TCO
a,i
= Tot al cost of ow ner shi p per annum f or t he i
t h
al t er nat i ve.
Then, t he al t er nat i ve, m, such t hat :
} TCO ,..., TCO , Min{TCO TCO
n a, a,2 a,1 m a,
· (15)
5.2 Deci si on Maki ng Based on TCO as one of t he cri t er i a
In many si t uat i ons, t he pur chasi ng deci si on i s made usi ng mul t i pl e cr i t er i a, i ncl udi ng TCO as o ne
of t he cr i t er i a. In such cases, one can use mul t i cr i t er i a deci si on maki ng t echni qu es t o choose t he best
al t er nat i ve. In t hi s paper , we suggest anal yt i c hi er ar chy pr ocess (AHP) f or choosi ng t he best al t er nat i ve
(Saat y, 1980). AHP i s a mul t i -cr i t er i a d eci si on maki ng t echni que w hi ch can be used t o choose best
al t er nat i ve among number of al t er nat i ves. Let us assume t hat t her e ar e M al t er nat i ves and N deci si on
cr i t er i a. Let a
i j
denot e t he wei ght of t he i
t h
al t er nat i ve on j
t h
cr i t er i a. Let W
j
be t he w ei ght f or cr i t er i a j .
Then, t he deci si on pr obl em can be def i ned usi ng t he f ol l ow i ng mat r i x (Tr i ant aphyl l ou et al 1995)
Cr i t er i a
Al t er nat i ve
1 2 3 N
W
1
W
2
W
3
… W
N
1 a
11
a
12
a
13
… a
1N
2 a
21
a
22
a
23
… a
2N
.
.


296
. …
M a
M 1
a
M 2
a
M 3
a
M N
Usi ng t he above dat a AHP f i nds t he over al l i mpor t ance of t he al t er nat i ve and chooses t he one w i t h
maxi mum wei ght (i nt er est ed r eader may r ef er t o Saat y, 1980).
6. Concl usi ons
The mai n obj ect i ves of t hi s pap er ar e t o devel op f r amew or k f or est i mat i on of cost of ow ner shi p of
capi t al asset s and t o devel op mat hemat i cal model s f or est i mat i on of var i ous cost el ement s w i t hi n t he
cost of ow ner shi p. The i nno vat i ve appr oach used i n t hi s paper i s t he use of oper at i onal avai l abi l i t y t o
est i mat e t he oper at i ng cost . M ost of t he model use cal endar t i me t o est i mat e t he oper at i n g t i me. The
use of cal endar t i me may be appr opr i at e f or cer t ai n el ement s of oper at i ng cost such as l abor cost s, t he
var i abl e cost s su ch as ener gy consumed w oul d depend on t he oper at i onal avai l abi l i t y of t he syst em. The
model s devel oped i n t he paper ar e used i l l ust r at ed usi ng t he w agons used i n t he Indi an r ai l w ays.
Al t hough, t he dat a used i n t he paper ar e modi f i ed, i t capt ur es t he i mpact of cost of ow ner shi p. In t he
exampl e, w e have show n t hat t he cost of ow ner shi p of w agon f or si x year s i s al most 8 t i mes i t s i ni t i al
pr ocur ement pr i ce. Th e mai n ai m of t hi s paper i s t o show t he si gni f i cance and t ot al cost of ow ner shi p
compar ed t o t he pr ocur ement pr i ce and t hus t o pr ove t hat al l pr ocur ement deci si ons must be based on
t ot al cost of ow ner shi p and not on t he basi s of pr ocur ement cost .
Ref er ences
Anon. (2002), Pr ocur ement of wagons by Indi an Rai l ways, Repor t Number 9A, Indi an Rai l ways.
Bl anchar d, B. S. (1986), Logi st i cs Engi neer i ng and M anagement , 3
r d
Edi t i on, Pr ent i ce Hal l , New Jer sey.
Bl anchar d, B. S. (1988), Syst ems Engi neer i ng and M anagement , 2
nd
Edi t i on, John Wi l ey, New Yor k.
Bl anchar d, B. S. and Fabr ycky, W. J. (1990), Syst ems Engi neer i ng and Anal ysi s, 2
nd
Edi t i on, Pr ent i ce Hal l ,
New Jer sey.
Di nesh Kumar , U., Cr ocker , J, Knezevi c, J and El -Har am. (2000), Rel i abi l i t y, M ai nt enance and Logi st i cs
Suppor t – A Li f e Cycl e Appr oach, Kl uw er Academi c Publ i sher s, Bost on.
Hampt on, T. (2004), The Cost of Ow ner shi p, ENR: Engi neer i ng News Recor d, Vol . 253, 7, 24-29.
Har vey, G. (1976), Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng: A Revi ew of t he Techni que, M anagement Account i ng, 343-347.
Humphr i es, J. (2004), Opt i mi zi ng Tot al Cost of Owner shi p, Pl ant Engi neer s, Vol. 58, 7, 23-27.
Ross, S. (2000), Int r oduct i on t o Pr obabi l i t y M odel s, Academi c Pr ess, New Yor k.
297
Saat y, T. L. (1980), The Anal yt i c Hi er ar chy Pr ocess: Pl anni ng, Pr i or i t y Set t i ng and Resour ce Al l ocat i on,
M cGr aw Hi l l .
Sher i f , Y. S., and Kol ar i k, W. J. (1981), Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng: Concept and Pr act i ce, OM EGA, 9,.3, 287-296.
Tayl or , W. B. (1981), The Use of Li f e Cycl e Cost i ng i n Acqui r i ng Physi cal Asset , Long Range Pl anni ng, 14,
32-43.
Tr i ant aphyl l ou, E., and M ann, S. (1995), Usi ng Anal yt i cal Hi er ar chy Pr ocess i n Deci si on M aki ng i n
Engi neer i ng Appl i cat i ons: Some Chal l enges, Int er nat i onal Jour nal of Indust r i al Engi neer i ng:
Appl i cat i ons and Pr act i ce, Vol . 2, No. 1, 35-44

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->