\ & HEE TRANSACTIONS ON RELIABILITY, VOL. R19. NO, 4, NOVEMBER 1970 Markov Approach to Finding Failure Times of Repairable Systems JOHN A. BUZACOTT analyzing repaleable systems i is often necessary to deter sine such parameters a6 aval ‘ime, and te fs failure, These and over fllure te messes are defined Froud of calculating them using » Markov approach are developed. Al ‘oncepe spl ew meets rote st ackall fens bere of te argc nubs: of pose system sats. Various special tchriqoes ‘aha lumping states ordecomponng the ist to deen sa ‘systoms-are-discased. These techniques, if applicable, can simplify the tnalysic considerably Reader Aids: Pee: Widen state of art Specsit math needed for explanation: Marko processes, matrices, Laplace transforms ‘Special math needed for results: Same Results usefl to: Designers, theoreticians Iyrropuction HEN analyzing a complex system with repair of maintenance facilities, 1wo steps are necessary 110 choose an appropriate measure of the reliability of the system: and 2) to develop a procedure by which numerical values of the appropriate reliability measure can be ob- tained The choice of reliability measure requires consideration of whether the main penalty or cost of system failures depends on a) the total duration of failures or b) the fre- quency of failures. Ifthe total du failures s impor- tant, then the appropriate measure will be related to the availability of the system, If the frequency of failures is im, ‘tant, thea the appropriate measure will be related to the interval of ime betwen successive failures ofthe system, While the concept of availability is well known, the measures appropriate to the situations where the cost of failures depend on frequency of failure are not so well understood. Thisis because the definition ofa time interval between failures is not normally sufficiently precise in specifying the condition ofthe system and its components ai the beginning and at the end ofthe interval. For example, at the beginning of the interval the system may have just failed, or the system and its components may be in the as stew condition, or the system may have just begun operating alter repair but with some components stil under repair Definitions and situations where each time interval is an appropriate measure are discussed in the next section. Numerical values of the appropriate reliability measure Manuscript reccved August 15, 1969; revised October 16, 1970, The author was with the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England. He is now with the Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. Canada can ‘be obtained ihe? Ly Wing etlatian and Monie Carlo methods[t}0rby setting upand solving mathematical (symbolic) models There are two mathematiea! approaches that appear to be of practical value. One, the Markov pprouch is reviewed inthis paper. The other, the network oF reliablty block diagram approach, is dzteribed in a companion paper [2 The particular Markov model that is usually appropriate is that of describing the system as a diseretestae ep models aré-Sometimes useful, and much less frequently, semi-Markov models (3}ean be used. This paper restricted There are several books [1}, (3) (4} tha describe methods of determing ibe posible sates ofthe sytem, developing the systemstate transition matrix and solving the state equations to find the sytem availably, However, apat from Sandler 3} there seems tobe litle published on how to use the s)stem sate transition matrs m ealeulating the value of measures elated to the time imerval between failures of system required to operate continuously. In this paper formulas are developed by which the means (and, if necessary, other moments) of the diferent time intervals can be Calculated if the tysemtate transtion matrix is known. The formulas also show that the relation: ships between the diferent ime intervals arse due to die ent inal conditions atthe beginning of the ime interval "The formulas usually require the solution of the system state equations. This is offen an enormous task because of the large number of possible states of comple systems ‘There are various shortcuts or approximations that can besed. One approach is ioreduce the numberof equations by combining or lumping [6] states. Another approach isto try and discover whether the system consists of independent fubsyttema or nou Ifo, the system time interval Between failures can te found trom the subsysiem time interval between furs. A means of using the stale transion tmatrit to show that a system consists of independent sub- system is dseribed inthe Append “The discussion and explanations assume that the system is quired to operate continuously and that there Is 0 specially favorable opportunity for repair and main: Derintmions Let system initiation be the instant when system operation begins for the first time. The system and all its components are assumed to be new and to be working correctly.Let system failure be the instant when the system changes from working to failed. Let system repair be the instant when the system changes from failed to working The first group of definitions apply to the concept of availability. Point availability (at time 1): The probability that the system is working at time ¢ from system initiation. It is assumed that at time ¢ no information is available about system failures and system repairs during the time interval (0,1), {symbol P,(t)]. Imerval availability (at time t) ‘The expected proportion of the time interval from system initiation (time 0) to time ¢ during which the system is working, [symbol 1()) Hence Ho) = 7 [pe Asymptotically. for large tit can be shown using renewal theory (eg. [7. p. 84) that point availability is numesically. the same as interval availability. Thus lim {P.(0} = tim {100}. lability referred 1@ next group of definitions refer to concepts related to the time interval between failures. Each definition defines a random variable. Following the definition is given the symbol that will be used for the mean of the random variable. Up Time : Time interval from system repair to next system failure (mean: MUT). Down Time: Time interval from system failure to next system repair (mean: MDT). Cyele Time: Time interval from one system failure to the next system failure. The cycle time is the sum of an up time ‘and a down time (mean : MCT), Time to First Failure: Time interval from system initia- tion to the first system failure (mean: MTF}. Time to Failure: Time interval from an instant when the system is working, chosen randomly, to the next system failure. The randomly chosen instant is assumed to be a Tong time from system initiation (mean MTTF). ‘The first three time intervals, up time, down time, and. cycle time,' apply to a system that is alternately working, failed, working, failed, and so on. The system is said to be repaired when sufficient, but not necessarily all, components are repaired so that the system is working, It will be assumed in calculating all quantities except the mean and other moments of the time to first failure that the system has been operating long enough for initial effects to have died away, ic. statistical equilibrium (as defined by Cox and Smith (9}) or the asymptotic behavior "The term “eyele time” was suggested by the editor instead of “time bbeimeen failures” Unfortunately, in seliabity studies of repairable systems, the term “vime between flues” x often used forthe concept defined above as "time to frat failure” (eg 19 has been reached. The mean cycle time can then be obtained from the ratio of the length + of some long time interval to the number of failures N, in that interval, ie, McT and SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE RELIABILITY MEASURE If the cost of system failure is insured through the event system failure, irrespective of thé ditation of failure, then the appropriate measure of reliability would usually be the MCT. However, if future of the system were catastrophic, then the MTFF would be more appropriate ‘Availability is an appropriate measure if the cost of system failure is proportional to the duration of failure Very often it is desirable to calculate both availabili 8s two systems ean e same availabilty MCTS, The formulas given in subsequent sections show that there is very litte extra calculation involved if MCT is caleulated at the same time as availa. bility ‘The MTTF is not often a useful reliability measure However, it may be a useful design parameter ifthe system takes some time to carry out its function and that function is initiated at a random instant of time; a possible example is a radar warning system, Markov Process MopeLs The use of continuous-time discrete-state Markov- process models for describing the behavior of repairable systems is now quite common in reliability studies (1, (3}~ (5), [8] Im this section the basic procedure is summarized and the symbols are defined, Suppose that the system states are numbered 1,2, and let oh Pht) = (POPS (0) +» Pylt)} be an N dimensional row vector with Jth component P(t) the probability that the system state at time Pig J. ‘Then the state equation describing system beh a Plo) = Pod where 4 is the NX N state transition (rate) matrix of the system, The element il # Hof A.ay, C aciie {Pelee ectanetom tejintc + a a and Ee Note that all off-diagonal elements of 4 are nonnegative. ‘The state equation can be solved ifthe initial state of the30 system is known, ie, the vector XO) is specified. Then Pe) = PO) exp (At). ‘Methods of finding exp (At) are discussed in [10] Often only the steady-state probabilities are required ‘They can be found by solving the set of N equations formed from N ~ 1 of the N equations PA and with the Nth equation Lat See [8] for an example of the approach, MEANS AND OTHER MOMENTS OF FAILURE TIME INTERVALS BY MaRKov METHODS ‘pose the states are ordered so that in states 1.2.--K the sysfem is working and in states K1 Kt 2.N the-system is failed. Then the matrix A can be written in partitioned form as [ ] 4 GH where the size of E is K x K, Fis K x (N— K), Gis (N — K) x K,and His (N — K) x (N — K). Define Poult) = {P(e alt) + Pelt} Pelt) = {Pao s(DParalt) + Pyld)} Suppose that, at 1 = 0, the probabilities P,(0) are given and the system is working, ie. D PO) = Tia the mean and other moments (about the origin) of the time to next system failure can be found by following the approach of Bartlett [11] for simple birth and death processes. States K +1, K +2,.++,N are assumed for , the purpose of calculation to be absorbing states, ic., )setG=H=0 *%) > Then the state equations become iz ag le 4 Pa) = ROOF. Taking Laplace transforms these equations become (since P,0) = 0) Ps) = PsO\st — BY" sPH(s) = PO\o1 ~ BF where the * indicates the Laplace transform, L{P(:)} = P¥(s). The probability that the system is in a failed state at Z SH) ~ Few = RUE 5 Psy = PLE SS sverseaptien FEA anble meq hy seabstituting Rte) x mee TRANSACTIONS ON RELLAMILITY, NOVEDRER 1970, time tis Ptlhy, where hy pis column vector of N ~ K. Hence the Laplace transform of the probability density of failure is Ss) = SPHIig—1 = PaO\S1 — EY" Fly Since the row sums of A are zero, Phy = ~Ehg and (3) = = PAO\(sf = EY" Eg ‘The rth moment about the origin of the time to failure "can befound from lint a £03} ) {= P00 -Ehe cy. din particular the mean js =|! dn pale COAT dean ev ae SALE ' exe TO at = PONE)” tg. Be ‘These formulas enable td ieadand mnomésk of al the failure times defined earier to be. determined through appropriate choice of P,(0). The specific formulas for the means are develope in the nest section ‘A number of authors (1) (5) [8] have obtained these results but have only used them to ealeulate the MTF. FORMULAS FOR FAILURE TIME INTERVALS Time to First Failure: Uf state | is the state where all \\ components are i the new condition, then P.(0 fing T= {7,7 Ty) the MTF can solving the K equations = TE = (10.--0} Then MIFF = 5 1; Time to Failure: Suppose the steady-state probabilities of the states are known. Write P= {P,P,). Then the probability of observing the system in @ working state Vis Py/lPyhy) thus we have PAO) = Pan), P= EY" Poh Up Time: An up time interval will begin in state J ifthe system was in @ failed state J and then made a wansition from state J to state J. The probability of beginning an up time interval in state J is thus MITF weth¢ dave frrmub t alee SITE. KUT, cmtoslthat is, PEhy PeFhy-n Hence is fs ‘The working states such that YF. gay, # Oare called the boundary working states ié- they are those states sgh that if the system is in one of them at time fit can Tal ican ail "Similarly the Boundary failed states will be those Failed states such that DF. ay, #0. It can be shown that (r + 1)th moment of up time = (r + 1) (MUT) (rth moment of time to failure). Whence. it can be deduced that the variance of up time = MUT (2 MTTF ~ MUT) a result that is well known in renewal theory [7] (MTTF is the forward recurrence time). Note that only when MTTF = MUT will the up time have an exponential distribution (with standard deviation equal to mean) Down Time: Usinga similar approach itean be shown that Ln se wore fe kei akan Ses a Cycle Time: Since the distribution of the cycle time will be the convolution of the up time and down time distribu- tions, MCT = MUT + MDT This formula can also be derived from the inverse of the probability of a system failure in a short interval dt (i.e, using Blackwel’s theorem [11]. Ifthe system isin boundary working state 1, then the probability of system failure in the short time interval eis)". ,,@,, at. So the probability of system failure in dt is Z py > ayy dt. ma Hence Mee vr Because of the apparently constant failure rate, this ‘approach is apt to lead to the conclusion that time between failures _has an exponential distribution. This is not true generally. EXAMPLE OF FAILURE TIME CALCULATION Suppose 3a 0 ® Of asset oye 0 a 0 0 bb and the system is working in states 1 and 2 and failed ua states 3 and 4. Then the application of the above methods gives (with a/b =r) MTEF = ‘I Lee ' weil = pt =1** wer =} rae + “| ‘When ris much less than 1, ie, failure rate of a unit is much Jess tham its repair rate, then MUT = MCT = MTTF ~ MTFF, ‘This asymptotic result appears to be generally true for high-reliability systems, APPLICATION OF MaRKOV APPROACH It ean be seen that the availability, MCT, and MUT can be calculated directly from the steady-state probabilities and the transition matrix. By solving the set of K equations based on £, the MTFF ot MTTF can be found. Thus. provided the system behavior can be described by a Markov process, the approach appears o be quite universal. However, for general systems the approach is quite limited in its practical application. The main reason for this isthe rapid increase inthe numberof possible system states withthe size ofthe system. For example, a system of only 10 independent subsystems, each with possible states ‘working of failed, Would have 1024 system states. So most applications of the Markov approach have tended to be to small-size systems.ma ‘There are some special techniques that can sometimes bbe used to simplify the analysis, These techniques are discussed in the remainder of the paper. SPECIAL TECHNIQUES IN MARKOV ANALYSIS Lumping States: It is sometimes possible to reduce the number of states by lumping (6, p. 123]. A group of states, can be lumped if the transition rate 10 shy oTRer STE L _sioup of lumpabie sates i the same foreach sate inthe ‘group. In order that information ~lost-the himped group of states mi stales or all system-failed states. Lumping states is particularly useful when the system has a numberof identical subsystems. For example. consider a system of two parallel units with one repairman who repairs the failed units in order of failure at a rate b, the ‘same for each unit. Then if the units have failure rates a, das. Lall be system-working aya, a ba a 6 a b =o. Way states 4 and 5 can be Jumped. A then reduces to 2 = a. then states 2 and 3 can be lumped and 2 da -b a bb awl bo = General Closed-Form Solutions. There are « number of systems that have been considered in queueing theory studies, particularly in machine interference ((9}, ch. 4). 1m ‘me of these cases general solutions to the state equations exist. So in order to apply the Markov approach the state equations need not be solved, although the states must still be enumerated. Thus the size of system that can be handled is larger but still by no means adequate. Asymptotic Equivalence of Failure Time Intervals: As mentioned in the example above, the MTFF is approx- imately equal to the MCT in systems of high reliability. If 2 system has few working states, it may be quite straight- forward to solve the equations to obtain the MTFF. However, it is not known how high the reliability of the system must be in order for the approximation of one failure time by the other to be valid. ‘System Decomposition: Suppose that 4 system consists ‘of a number of independent subsystems. Then to apply the Markov approach it would first be necessary to determine the possible states of each subsystem. The system states would then be all possible combinations of the states of each subsystem (ie, the set of system states is the product of the sets of subsystem states). If there were m subsystems and subsystem i had n, states, then the number of system states m= myng---n, {AE TRANSACTIONS ON RELIABILITY. NOVEMBER 1970, ‘The probability of any system state can be obtained from the product of the probabilities of the constituent subsystem states, Thus it is not necessary to solve the n equations: instead the m sets of n, equations are solved. Usually this is a much easier task, Now it is shown in [12].[13] that, if the conditions for the system to be working can be determined in terms of whether the subsystems are working or failed. itis possible to determine the system availability, MCT, MUT. and MDT by assuming that each subsystem has just two states. working and failed. The failure rate of the subsystem is the inverse of the MUT and the repair rate is the inverse of the MDT. Thus in systems of m independent subsystems only 2M states need be considered instead of enumerating all m states, Because of the considerable reduction in number of states, if the subsystems are independent, it is worth developing a procedure to test whether a given transition matrix represents @ system of independent subsystems, i.e. whether system decomposition is possible. This can be done using stochastic automata theory. The method is discussed in Appendix I ConcLusions ‘The Markov approach to determining the time interval between failures of complex systems is quite simple con- ‘ceptually. If some of the special techniques discussed above ‘can be used, then it is often possible to use the approach for nontrivial systems without the number of states becoming too large. Often the Markov approach is the only approach that can be used. This is typically the situation in systems with complicated repair and associated standby switching policies. However, when the system consists of independent sub- systems, the Markov approach is not the only approach that can be used, The Markov approach of [12], [13] still requires enumerating the 2” possible states and checking each state to see whether itis a system-working or system- failed state, That is, it corresponds to carrying out a logical analysis by explicit enumeration of cases (states). This is rather inefficient in many applications compared to net- ‘work based methods such as discussed in (2) (14), although the Markov approach is useful in verifying that these other methods are correct. Appexorx T Decomposition oF Systems Ifa given stochastic transition rate matrix represents the transition rate matrix of a system of IV independent sub- systems, then certain conditions must be satisfied Define, following Bacon [15], a partition of the states of the system to be the grouping of the states into blocks. A partition with the substitution property is defined to be a partition such that all states in the same block have the same transition rate into any second block of the partition, ice, the matrix is lumpable on the partition. ‘Now, ifa transition rate matrix represents a system of N independent subsystems, then there will exist N’ differentaUZACOTT: MARKOV APPROACH TO FINDING FAILURE TIMES OF REPAIRABLE SYSTEMS partitions with the substitution property, ie. it is possible to form N different transition rate matrices (one for cach subsystem) by lumping the states according to each parti- tion. Also, these partitions will be mutually independent. It is possible to find a condition on the elements of the state transition rate matrix, which must be satisfied if the parti- tions are independent. Consider a transition rate matrix such that two different partitions 2,1 exist. Denote by ry, the states in block k of mand 1, the states in block ¢ of t. 1 1 t, is defined as the states in both m and Then Pr {transition to state in my in t,¢ + del system in state i at time t} =F ajdt + bq, where i=l ifien 0, otherwise. Now. if the partitions = and + are independent and the system is in state fat time f, Pr {transition to a state in mA teint + de} Pr {transition to a state in my in «1 + dr} x Pr {transition to a state in ze in tt + dt, that is, eo B18 + Bast (= aydt + 6a} (z silt +6.) whence the condition for independence of the partitions is that forall 1%, te ZL ay be Day + Sau EA This can be seen to be satisfied for the matrix 1 2 3 4 1f-a-a,]} ay a: 2] | ab a 4 3] bs a, - a 4 by by for the two partitions {12, 34} and {13,24}. Hence these two partitions are independent and correspond to independent subsystems. In terms of stochastic automata theory the decomposition ofa system into independent subsystems can be regarded as 133 4 parallel decomposition. Theorem 3 of [15] can be adapted to give the condition for such a decomposition to exist. Theorem: If there exists a set T of distinct partitions (ry, 3--++1%) on the system states such that 1) each x, has the substitution property: 2) the greatest lower bound on the set is the partition where each state is in a block of its own (ie. no pair of states appears together in the same block in each partition); 3) all x, are mutually independent ‘Then there corresponds a decomposition of the system into m independent subsystems. Each subsystem is associ- ated with a partition x, belonging to T. Tt follows from condition 2) of the theorem that each state of the system can be expressed as the intersection of a block from each partition. Thus, given the system-working states its possible to determine the condition forthe system to be working in terms of whether the subsystems are working, ie. to determine the logical function connecting system state and subsystem states. In the above example with two independent partitions with the substitution property (12.34) = fr} {93.24} = {21.4} then state emAy Jaman enNy 45mM5 If the system is working in states 1. 2. 3, hen the logical function determining the conditions for the system to be working is logical function = (ry 24) U(r A ty) Ulm A) =m Une i.e, the system is working if subsystem 1 is working or if subsystem is working. In other words. the system can be regarded as consisting of subsystems x and t in parallel. REFERENCES (11 M.L, Shooman, Probie Rei [New York: MeGrawsHil 1968. [2] JA. Buzacott “Network approaches to finding the reliability of ‘repairable sjtems.” this sve. pp, 140-146 (3) RIE. Barlow and F. Proschan, Mathematical Theory of Reliab New York: Wiley, 1965. [QW Roberts, Mathematico! Methads i» Reliability Enginering [New York: McGraw-Hil 196s [5] GH. Sandler. System Relablcy Engineering. Englewood Cis Ni Prentice Hall, 1983 {6 1. Kemeny and J, Sell, Finite Markov Chains. New York: Van Nostrand, 1960. [7] DR. Con, Renewal Theory. London: Methuen, 1962. [s] LR: Doyon and M. W. Bersenbrugee, “Solving complex reliability rods by computer.” Pree. IEEE 1068 Ann. Symp. Relabily pp asus [9] BR: Cox and W. L. Smith. Queues. London: Methuen, 1961 [10] L.A. Zadeh and C. A. Desoet. Linear Sysiems—The State Space lapproash. New York: McGraw-Hill 1963. (11) MS Barlet, nTetradaction to Stochastic Processes. New York Cambridge University Press. 1955 An Engineering Approach136 [12] M. Potkin and S. Einhorn, “Ketabilty prediction for continuously operating systems." JEEE Trans, Rel, ol. Rol, 1965, pp 1422 103) SP. Appelbaum. “Steady state reliability of sytem ef mutally independent subsistems.” IEEE Trans, Rel, vol, Reis, 1965. pp. 3, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON RELIABILITY. VOL, R9, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1970 [14] 3, A, Buzacot. “Finding the MTBF of repairable systems by redoe~ ‘ion ofthe reliability block digram.” Alroeeciran. Rel vol 8, 1967, pp. 105-112, [15 GC. Bacon. “The decomposition of stochastic automata." Inform. oni. sol 7.1964, pp. 320-349, Determination of Optimum Burn-In Time: A Composite Criterion LEONARD A. WASHBURN, MEMBER, IEEE Abstract—The object ofthis paper isto present x mathematical model capable of determining the optimum amount of time that semiconductor ‘evies, which have specified life characterise, mist be placed on bur-in 'o obtain maximum performance vers otal cost ‘To make the model operational and realistic, the traitonal assumption of an exponeatial (more recently, Weibull) distribution of ife i omited ia {aor of the generalized gamma distribution (GGD). This is done because the GGD inches, as special eases, such distributions asthe normal, Ray leigh, Maxwel, chi, chi, Webul gamma, ‘GGD is justied inthe results ofthe stdies showing that (other thags being equal) small changes in parametric vals of lie characteristics can cause vast diferences in the optimam burn-in tne and maximum system efectivencs. “The physical performance sector ofthe model incerporates system effec- tiveness that includes such factors as availablity, expected tine to repae, mission reliability, system use coeiclent, storage survival probability a ‘operational readiness ‘The costs considered are those due to buneia peraton,prodation, and sales, ‘The model hasbeen stdled by use of computer rans from the standpoin, ‘of critical analysis and parametric sensitivity analysis Special math needed for explanations: None Special math needed for results: None ‘Results usefal to: Reliab engineers Iwrropuerion RADITIONALLY, the decision criteria used to burn- in components have been overly simple and arbitrary. appears that the most popular arbitrary figure for burn-in is 168 hours, which happens to be exactly one week. The most commonly assumed distribution has been exponential, probably because of its tractability. The purpose of burn-in is to eliminate infant mortality; hence, itis not uncommon Manuscript received November 28,1970 “The authors wit the DeVry Inatue of Technology, 5383 Maple Ave, Dallas, Tex. 75235, to specify that burn-in continue until some arbitrarily low value of failure rate is achieved, Probably a more realistic decision criterion should recognize and combine the elements of physical perform- lance with the economic facts of real life. Moreover, it should do this within the framework of a life model that is flexible enough to approximate reality with a sufficient degree of accuracy to afford valid, meaningful decisions. I is the purpose of this paper to formulate such a model ‘and show how it may be manipulated to yield solutions for optimum burn-in time. A list of symbols is given in Appen- dix L The generalized gamma distribution is given in Appendix IIL Economic ConsIDERATIONS Very rarely is it truc that “money is no object” in the business world. In the few cases where this may be true and. where performance is all important, then and only then may we be justified in using a decision model containing only physical performance criteria. In such a rare circumstance, it would be logical to formulate a physical performance model or utility function that would take into consideration, all of the essential performance requirements that are affected by burn-in. Next, the model would be maximized (maximum performance is desired) with respect to burn-in, time. The value of burn-in time that maximized the model would be the optimum burn-in time. Unfortunately, such ‘a model would have ignored perhaps the most important consideration of all: cost. With a fixed amount of funds to spend, some constraint must be placed on performance. Hence, the situation ultimately comes down to fulfilling mission performance requirements in the most economic manner possible. With this in mind, the following utility function or total-cost model is presented. 80) = Cet GNF) + CKSPO. (1)1 nm on Ys me seit moe te gis 6 sat: ew go MLN a mG So BE BLS Te cance ain Ee orn a en nd St oar Joa HB gH Mi teat ih ve ae > nde 8 Siawe mabey ws = seapeewiene Bae ag 8 0 er sh weal S4P! "oem getenes ‘fae fe We etal care Somme ewonen rh Spee ss want ST abort esau ot ramil ol-mvG mumitg® te noiteninniesed noivetinD sizoqmes A any _sapaosy ates cect Chania sere ame surarzge row sere Yl (reba 5 ace sai be ior Merde gone myers Bamlaat gum ated swrahim, iinyeiq abner ath MueTon Lg eslngrahs Mio te owed abi ln ak lanceriae oe one seduces and fie oti Ms downer ape =b rah Banal 7 bw ihe aiactla agi ot Agere -samettont ‘itecemoms bases tro 2 extn ont c aa srtares ~ amy ee in pete site A Wl nnalO® Stat 4 basanpana ad ua N wee wen be “ame a ovo S Fiemme ie mea & nent oi-m eat aSw AD 2 avig ot poniiand domme baciionwrg ti” Fab OG aiden eangtneeceng rain a) ab rede. om game vad p aveh Aon qlee wit muh) ook (60m cuts in eons Wet ath ch eine senile) ee a5 oe WBA ran who oa canny 4 part = ‘hes geen Into, porimb s gaia at bedlints rt oe eID cay 2 Cale RM aeaty Heel teers manner lvat iemebiaa & stave? yi leekyel sd blow oy atherabtenas ated 2 dep bias ttt ovis” ey inrr wy Rabon re bal ormoviwpss comecteabee; -adnarso wit Ye the ogsomitnenen 9d Dhawer latheamy ath saree? a rnarti aet Seat os ink ue hen ted Pian 24 Pasa sano tocaer toes ser: tet ete apie he bait OT ree des sthomuywie.! sme occnf mamas + af Bho DRRIAES Mom adh agesay heprunD oe blu pe leben AWA Yes ts Beak + WRN cee: th 1a ephemera suas oo bash stg tetas ie oar allt ot morn ons wlrasails wih. dr seat SeTOMNSS anim say a ANySeRRUPE! Wem Sates “eB gmaven a lon eh wi ih on ¢ ee barratry $ bina tinrhee to wit nt ris MA «OF Nee nie Heat 2 One OE? a ‘tbe are ht rsa sa = voi Paton ws ate a OW Shenae so ann fbn aie oma ame on be Sock ae Lei tern arene heat I St ate Aan Achy ime aey pe tp it - Se feta ated i end tae a, assent eB he facta git ead canton woe Se oe eakenser trees eee “orc asp Se mn wis ea ene ta ae ata crenata bat So the sana ee aT Sabie sa ces Fiala ae male Cw werk toed Siieeces cones peak anor ae tes che ten esis actors ame 9) Sh mire tien oe a cet sh Set stage ines 1a ints me nen codon tah rata has Metco Shan mathe mater (a0 cameras 98 ae ti a Seer teen pare nae rege eM arte ae wemmrerenitik efetins sain oan caste AAMT Pood tie aan tirid mad sae ewes EA Dent me sigh chats Teap -e rt 8) stave iru chumne 90 eeagyst Game tk PD) Teese aod to oO ani ls Ks anenad Do expel ediedetion! ah oe peed qhiaden 3, Poepmmmngta inien al 6 oatmeal {cai seme weit Sete Be FR ockeneid Metem striae em