Received: 6 February 2017 Revised: 19 March 2018 Accepted: 17 May 2018

DOI: 10.1002/qre.2345

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Aircraft reliability assessment for an individual mission

based on recordable flight parameters

Xiaobing Ma1 | Zhihua Wang2 | Tianyu Guan1 | Tao Ma3

1
School of Reliability and Systems
Abstract
Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing,
China Reliability of aircraft varies with different missions, because load conditions are
2
School of Aeronautic Science and always diverse. In limited sample size circumstances, convention aircraft
Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, mission reliability assessment method can only give an average result for a
China
3 kind of mission. Motivated by the practical need of reliability assessment for
Reliability Research Center, China Flight
Test Establishment, Xi'an, Shanxi, China an individual mission, this paper constructs a novel method, which can assess
reliability for a specific mission based on flight parameters. The mission
Correspondence
Zhihua Wang, School of Aeronautic
reliability model can be established according to the relationship between
Science and Engineering, Beihang flight loads, flight parameters, and reliability via adopting fault data and flight
University, Beijing 100191, China. parameters synthetically. Statistical inference of aircraft failure rate is
Email: wangzhihua@buaa.edu.cn
proposed, and then, the mission reliability can be assessed according to the
Funding information fault data of the focused aircraft. It is worth noticing that the proposed method
National Basic Research Program of can also assess the reliability for a mission category via conducting an average
China, Grant/Award Number:
2016YFF0202605; National Nature Sci- calculation across all individual missions belonging to the target mission
ence Foundation of China, Grant/Award category. An illustrative example shows that the proposed method not only
Numbers: 61104133 and 61473014
can give reliability assessments with a same precision with existing approaches
for a specific mission category but also can reasonably assess the reliability
regarding an individual mission.

KEYWORDS
aircraft, an individual mission, fault data, flight parameters, mission reliability assessment

Nomenclature: q, dynamic pressure; ρ, atmospheric density; ρ0, constant sea level atmospheric density; vTAS, true airspeed; vEAS, equivalent
airspeed; ω, power spectral density; h, location parameter; Lv, failure time subjected to vibration load only; La, failure time subjected to
acceleration load only; λv, hazard rate when only vibration load is considered; λa, hazard rate when only overload is considered; λ, total hazard
rate considering both vibration load and overload; β1, β2, unknown parameter; β = (β1, β2)T, unknown parameter vector; A, B, C, D, constant
parameter; a, acceleration; m, total number of aircraft; j, each individual aircraft which can be 1, 2, ⋯, m; t (j), total flight time of aircraft j;
t(*), duration time of a focused specific mission; vj(t), equivalent airspeed of aircraft j; aj(t), acceleration of aircraft j; Yj(t) = (vj(t), aj(t)),
flight parameters of aircraft j; λj(t), hazard rate of aircraft j; Hj, cumulative hazard function of aircraft j; f j, total failures when aircraft j

T
experiences all mission profiles from 0 to t (j); E(⋅), expectation; εj, error term; σ 2, variance of error term; V j ¼ vj1 ; vj2 ; ⋯; vjnðjÞ , flight

T
parameters recorded by the jth aircraft within its flight time; Aj ¼ aj1 ; aj2 ; ⋯; ajnðjÞ , flight parameters recorded by the jth aircraft within its
flight time; n (j), number of the parameter points recorded by aircraft j within its flight time; n(*), number of the parameter points during
target mission time [0, t(*)]; Δt = 1s, interval among the recorded parameter points; H = (H1, H2, ⋯, Hm)T, whole flight parameter matrix; H j ¼
ðjÞ ðjÞ
! ð*Þ ð*Þ
!
n n n n
∑ v4B
1k Δt ∑ a1k Δt , flight parameter vector for aircraft j; H * ¼
3
∑ v4B
*k Δt ∑ a*k Δt , flight parameter vector for a focused specific
D
k¼1 k¼1 k¼1 k¼1

mission; F = ( f 1, f 2, ⋯, f m)T, total failure vector; ε = (ε1, ε2, ⋯, ε
m) , total error b b2 , estimators of β and σ 2; b λ* ⋅t ð*Þ ,
 term vector; β, σ
T

approximate cumulative hazard rate for the focused specific mission; b λ*L t ð*Þ ; b
λ*U t ð*Þ , confidence interval of λ* ⋅ t(*); R(t| H*), focused mission
bðtjH * Þ, estimation of focused mission reliability; 1 − α, predefined confidence level
reliability; R

Qual Reliab Engng Int. 2018;1–10. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/qre Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 MA
1 | INTRODUCTION
Reliability assessment can figure out product reliability,
which provides a basis for evaluating the operational
effectiveness.1 As a reliability index defined from another
viewpoint, mission reliability is a reliability index that
defined as the probability that a device, product, or
system will not fail for a specific mission. Flight testing
is very important to evaluate aircraft performance and
reliability in practical engineering. Various typical flight
missions may be predefined to examine specific flight
performance, and multiple flight parameters over time
can be collected by air craft during flight tests. Therefore,
mission reliability analysis is of great concern for system
mission reliability improvement and flight test design
development from both theoretical and practical
viewpoints.2
In the early literature, large amount of fault data was
necessary for product mission reliability assessment.3
This kind of method has been applied to infer mission
reliability at a component level, because necessary fault
data probably can be obtained from a series of reliability
tests at that level. Regarding the product level, however,
because the cost of reliability tests is often unbearable,
enough fault data can hardly be obtained in a reasonable
test span.
For comprehensive systems, mission reliability can be
assessed based on subsystems hazard rate and a proper
reliability block diagram.4-7 The problem lies in that the
practical time variant subsystem hazard rate cannot be
considered across mission procedures. In aircraft mission
reliability assessment, however, the differences among
missions should be considered, because load conditions
are diverse under different missions.8
Researchers have also conducted mission reliability
analysis from the viewpoint of maintenance rate.9-12 This
kind of method is only applicable to products that can be
repaired at its normal operating condition, such as ships,
submarines, and trains. Therefore, it is inapplicable to
aircraft mission reliability analysis because aircraft
cannot be repaired during mission spans. Another
approach defined as phased‐mission reliability model
has been well studied for the reliability analysis of
phased‐mission systems.13-17 The biggest challenge this
method encounters lies in that it limits the possibility of
load conditions to a very limited extent and cannot make
flexible adjustments according to an actual mission
situation.
Aircraft in practical engineering comprises lots of
subsystems and components, and the logical relationship
among these units is usually complicated. Meanwhile, the
load conditions under which an aircraft execute its mis-
sions are always complex. From a theoretical viewpoint,
ET AL.
the loads affect aircraft reliability synthetically. Another
issue worth noticing is that the test sample size for
assessing aircraft mission reliability may probably be
limited in many practical situations. Consequently,
enormous challenges will be encountered when applying
the mission reliability assessment methods discussed
above to aircraft.
To this end, Liu et al18 and Liu et al19 proposed an air-
craft mission reliability assessment method that can
derive results based on fault data of a whole aircraft. This
method first categorizes the missions according to the
flight profile, and then gives an average level of mission
reliability for each mission category. The approach has
been applied for mission reliability assessment for aircraft
in China at present. The problem is this method can only
give an average level of mission reliability for a mission
category, not for an individual mission. In practical engi-
neering, however, reliability corresponding to an individ-
ual mission is of great concern for aircraft. The current
study is motivated by this practical need, and the main
contribution of this paper is to construct an effective
approach to assess aircraft reliability for a specific mis-
sion. It can be concluded that the relationship between
aircraft reliability and the focused mission is the key
point in our study.
To assess the mission reliability for a watercraft, Shi
et al20 focused on its key component—main propulsion
plant. It claimed that performance parameter of the main
propulsion plant directly determined the watercraft
speed, and watercraft reliability was determined to a great
extent by the performance of its main propulsion plant.
Shi et al20 considered speed as a parameter connecting
the reliability and the performance degradation. Consid-
ering aircraft, its performance and reliability is usually
validated via multiple flight testing conducted by the
institution that is responsible for predefining and
implementing the tests. Meanwhile, lots of flight parame-
ters over time can be recorded and collected during flight
tests. This collected flight parameters are valuable infor-
mation in practical engineering. Along this viewpoint,
the main idea of the current study comprises 3 issues.
First, describe specific aircraft missions with proper
recordable parameters. Then, a relationship has to be
established between aircraft reliability and the focused
mission. Thereafter, aircraft reliability assessment for an
individual mission can be conducted.
It has been well recognized that different missions
lead to diverse loads for aircraft. Therefore, an individual
mission can be properly represented via its corresponding
main loads. In real applications, load conditions are often
complex, where dynamic pressure (air flow force), over-
load, temperature, low pressure, and humidity are usually
involved. From a theoretical viewpoint, these loads affect
MA ET AL.
aircraft reliability synthetically. However, it is almost
impossible to consider them all in aircraft reliability
assessment at the same time, because failure mechanism
varies under different loads and the coupling effect
among them also exists. To correlate the loads with
aircraft reliability, properties of the aircraft itself, such
as material and geometric properties, must be studied
clearly as well.21 Therefore, the problem must be appro-
priately simplified to make it feasible in real applications.
According to the literature and practical experience,
typical mechanical loads including dynamic pressure
and overload are key factors describing an individual
aircraft mission and affecting its reliability.22-25 To depict
the dynamic pressure based on recordable flight parame-
ters, vibration is introduced as a main response in the
current study. Considering the physical meaning of
dynamic pressure, vibration can be reasonably depicted
by flight altitude and velocity.26 Vibration may cause
fatigue and loose, which may affect the accuracy of the
sensors, while overload has a great impact on most
airborne equipment including machinery, electronics,
materials, coating, and sealing devices.27 Overload is
mainly caused by the flight and usually can be well
characterized by flight acceleration.
In practical engineering, it is worth noticing that
flight altitude, velocity, and acceleration not only can be
easily monitored and recorded during an individual mis-
sion but also can be inferred for an upcoming mission.
From this viewpoint, it is reasonable to consider flight
altitude and speed (for vibration) and flight acceleration
(for overload) as typical flight parameters in aircraft
mission reliability assessment in the current study.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 describes the model construction and the
statistical inference. Section 3 shows the feasibility and
effectiveness of the proposed method through a real
application example, and Section 4 presents the conclu-
sion and future study issue.
2 | M I S S I O N RE L I A B I L I T Y M O D E L
2.1 | Flight altitude and speed
As previously discussed, flight altitude and speed can
cause vibration via dynamic pressure. The relationship
among 3 factors follows the Bernoulli theorem in the
ideal gas state, and the formula can be expressed as
1 time follows an exponential distribution. Based on the
q ¼ ρv2TAS (1)
2 exponential distribution properties, it can be concluded
where q denotes the dynamic pressure, ρ is the
atmospheric density, and vTAS is the true airspeed.
3
In practical engineering, however, flight missions
usually can be considered as time‐varying procedures,
during which the true airspeed vTAS is difficult to obtain,
and the atmospheric density ρ changes with the altitude.
To settle this problem, an equivalent airspeed vEAS has
been defined, which can be calculated by the recordable
calibrated airspeed (a flight parameter that can be directly
detected and recorded by the aircraft). Based on this
definition, the dynamic pressure q can be properly
expressed by the constant sea level atmospheric density
ρ0 and the equivalent airspeed vEAS as
1
q ¼ ρ0 v2EAS (2)
2
According to MIL‐STD‐810G, the relationship bet-
ween the power spectral density ω and dynamic pressure
can be expressed as.28
ω ¼ hq2 =22:925 (3)
where h denotes a location parameter.
According to accelerated fatigue failure tests of
mechanical and electronic products in the literature, the
relationship between the mean time to failure (MTTF)
and vibration can be deduced as.29
A
Lv ¼ (4)
ωB
where A and B are constants and Lv is the failure time
subjected to vibration load only. B is usually supposed as
3 to 5 for aircraft under random vibration. By substituting
Equations 2 and 3 into Equation 4, the relationship
between MTTF Lv and the flight speed can be described by
 
91:7 B A
Lv ¼ (5)
h ρ2B 4B
0 vEAS
In the literature, exponential distribution has been
widely accepted and applied to depict failure time for
aircraft, because the following 3 exponential distribution
principles (according to MIL‐HDBK‐338B30) are in line
with aircraft. (1) Failure rates of items do not change
significantly with age. (2) There is no excessive amount
of redundancy for complex and repairable equipment.
(3) Early failures or “infant mortalities” have been
eliminated by “burning in” for a reasonable time span.
This study, therefore, assumes that aircraft failure
that the hazard rate and MTTF are mutually reciprocal.
From this viewpoint, when only vibration load is
considered, the aircraft hazard rate λv can be expressed as
4 MA ET AL.

 
h B ρ2B 4B
0 vEAS
Section 2.1. Here, the subscript is omitted to illustrate a
λv ¼ (6) clear flight parameter corresponding to specific aircraft,
91:7 A
j = 1, 2, ⋯, m.
 h B
 ρ2B According to Equation 11, the relationship between
according to Equation 5. Further define β1 ¼ 0
,
91:7 A hazard rate λj(t) and flight parameters for aircraft j can
then Equation 6 can be simplified as be written as

λv ¼ β1 v4B (7) λj ðtÞ ¼ β1 vj ðt Þ4B þ β2 aj ðt ÞD

EAS 0≤t≤tðjÞ (12)
where β1 is a parameter to be estimated.
Then, the cumulative hazard function Hj of aircraft j
can further depict the conditional probability of failure
2.2 | Flight acceleration in the interval [0, t (j)], and it can be expressed as31,32
Similar with Equation 4, the relationship between aircraft t ð jÞ t ð jÞ


acceleration and its time between failures can be H j ¼ ∫0 λj ðt Þdt ¼ ∫0 β1 vj ðt Þ4B þ β2 aj ðt ÞD dt (13)
expressed as
According to reliability theory,31,32 Hj is also the total
C
La ¼ D (8) failure number of aircraft j during time interval [0, t( j)].
a
This means that when aircraft j experiences multiple
where a denotes the acceleration, C and D are constants, mission profiles from 0 to t( j), the total failure number
and La is the failure time under acceleration load only. D is expected to be Hj. Therefore, it is reasonable to define
is usually supposed to be 3 according to the literature. the total failures f j as a random variable, and Hj = E( f j)
For the situation involving only overload, the aircraft or Hj = f j + εj, where εj is an error term denoting
hazard rate λa can be written as statistical properties, and it will be explained below.
Based on the above discussions, Equation 13 can be
aD further written as
λa ¼ (9)
C
t ð jÞ


1 ∫0 β1 vj ðtÞ4B þ β2 aj ðt ÞD dt ¼ f j þ εj (14)
By further defining β2 ¼ , Equation 9 can be
C
simplified as Although flight parameters vj(t) and aj(t) usually can-
not be analytically expressed in real applications, their
λa ¼ β2 aD (10)
discrete sampling data can be adopted, because generally
Based on the exponential distribution assumption for the flight parameters are collected every second in practi-
the time between aircraft failures, when influence of cal engineering. Therefore, flight parameters of aircraft j
vibration (aircraft flight altitude and speed) and overload during its total flight time [0, t( j)] can be defined as

T
T
(acceleration) are synthetically considered, it is reason- V j ¼ vj1 ; vj2 ; ⋯; vjnð jÞ and Aj ¼ aj1 ; aj2 ; ⋯; ajnð jÞ ,
ably to add the hazard rates λv (only subjected to
where n( j) is the number of the parameter points
vibration load) and λa (only subjected to overload) to
recorded by the jth aircraft within its flight time span
depict the total hazard rate λ.
[0, t( j)]. Time interval among the recorded parameter
λ ¼ λv þ λa ¼ β1 v4B points is supposed to be Δt = 1s. Then, Equation 14 can
EAS þ β2 a
D
(11)
be rewritten as

nð jÞ 
2.3 | Mission reliability assessment for jk þ β2 ajk Δt ¼ f j þ εj
∑ β1 v4B D
(15)
aircraft k¼1

Suppose m aircraft perform multiple different missions
during the calendar time. Define t( j) as the jth aircraft
total flight time. To construct a condensed expression,
the flight parameters of aircraft j within [0, t( j)] are
denoted by Yj(t) = (vj(t), aj(t)), where vj(t) is the equivalent
airspeed and aj(t) is the acceleration. It is worth noticing
that the equivalent airspeed is expressed as vEAS in
From a practical engineering viewpoint, it can be seen
that the total failure number f j of aircraft j is determined
by the experienced multiple mission profiles denoted by a
series of equivalent airspeed vj(t) and acceleration aj(t).
Furthermore, because the flight parameter sampling
interval Δt is usually very short indeed, it is reasonable
to assume the total failure number f j of aircraft j as
MA ET AL. 5

 ‐1 
normally distributed; ie, εj denotes a normally distributed Because bβ : N β; σ 2 H T H and based on Equa-
error term εj~N(0, σ2).
tion 14, the approximate cumulative hazard rate b λ* ⋅t ð*Þ
To conduct a condensed matrix function throughout
can be concluded
 as normally
 distributed N(λ* ⋅ t(*), σ2x*),
all m aircraft, let H = (H1, H2, ⋯, Hm)T denote a whole ‐1
where x * ¼ H * H T H H T* . For a fixed

confidencelevel
flight parameter matrix containing the flight parameter
! 1 − α, the confidence interval λ*L t ð*Þ ; b
b λ*U t ð*Þ for
n ðj Þ nðjÞ
records Hj= ∑ v4B λ* ⋅ t can be determined by
(*)
1k Δt ∑ a31k Δt for aircraft j, j = 1,
k¼1 k¼1
2, ⋯, m. Meanwhile, define F = ( f 1, f 2, ⋯, f m)T as a

b pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi
total failure vector and ε = (ε1, ε2, ⋯, εm)T as a total error b x*; b
λ* ⋅t ð*Þ −z1‐α=2 σ λ* ⋅t ð*Þ þ z1‐α=2 σ
b x* (20)
term vector. Further supposing β = (β1, β2)T to be a
unknown parameter vector, then Equation 15 can be
expressed as Therefore, the focused mission reliability confidence
interval of aircraft can be expressed as
Ηβ¼ F þ ε (16)
h

i
During flight time span, flight parameters RðtjH * Þ: exp −b
λ*U ⋅t ð*Þ ; exp −b
λ*L ⋅t ð*Þ (21)
Yj(t) = (vj(t), aj(t)) and failure number f j are known
throughout all the m aircraft. Then, a least square
estimation of unknown parameter β can be obtained From the above procedure, one can conclude that the
according to the Gauss‐Markov theorem as mission reliability model has been constructed based on
 −1 the aircraft test information throughout all performed
b
β¼ H T H H T F (17) missions. Then, the established model can be adopted to
assess the reliability for an individual mission according
Based on the normal distribution assumption of to the corresponding flight parameters.
εj~N(0, σ2), j = 1, 2, ⋯, m, one can conclude the total
error term vector ε as normally distributed ε~N(0, Imσ2),

 ‐1 
and then estimator b βeN β; σ 2 H T H . Meanwhile, σb2 3 | ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
 2
 
F‐H b β 

2
 m The data adopted in this section come from the flight
¼ 2
is the estimator of σ2 with F‐H b β ¼ ∑ test conducted by China Flight Test Establishment.
m−3 2 j¼1
ðj Þ

!2 Because of confidentiality, the data illustrated here
n  have been properly scaled. Nearly 80 flight test infor-
∑ β1 v4B jk þ β2 ajk Δt−f j
D
. It is worth further noticing
k¼1 mation was recorded, including the duration, number
that, m > 3 aircraft has to be involved to guarantee a of failures, height, speed, and overload for each flight.
positive σ 2. Four aircraft of a same model were involved in the
Regarding a focused specific mission, given its test. The mission profiles can be divided into 3 catego-
duration time t(*) and the flight parameters H*= ries: fluctuant flight profile (the first kind of flight pro-
ð* Þ ð* Þ
! file), piecewise flight profile (the second kind of flight
n n
∑ v4B
*k Δt ∑ a*k Δt , then
D
profile), and single altitude flight profile (the third kind
k¼1 k¼1
of flight profile). The schematic diagrams correspond-
n ð* Þ n ð* Þ ing to these flight profiles are illustrated in Figures 1,
λ* ⋅t ð*Þ ¼ b
b β1 ∑ v4B b
*k Δt þ β2 ∑ a*k Δt
D
(18) 2, and 3, respectively. A same sampling interval of
k¼1 k¼1
1 second is supposed. Meanwhile, the sampling time
spans of Figures 1, 2, and 3 are 4482, 6391, and
where bλ* ⋅t ð*Þ can be considered as an approximate cumu-
8011 seconds.
lative hazard rate and n(*) is the number of recorded
Table 1 lists the failure time for the 4 aircraft
parameter points during target mission time [0, t(*)].
performing each kind of mission and the failure number.
Consequently, given a corresponding flight parameter
Flight parameters recorded in the flight mission are not
records H*, the focused mission reliability of the aircraft
ðj Þ
can be calculated by listed here because of the limited space. In Table 1, ti
denotes the flight time of aircraft j under the ith kind of
! mission profile (ie, the first kind corresponds to the
nð*Þ

b ðtjH * Þ ¼ exp − ∑ b
R β1 v4B
*k þ b
β2 *k Δt
a D
(19) fluctuant flight profile, and so forth) and F is the total
k¼1 failure number of each aircraft.
6 MA ET AL.

TABLE 1 Fault data of each aircraft

Barometric height
ð jÞ ð jÞ ð jÞ
4000 Aircraft t1 t2 t3
Number (second) (second) (second) F
Barometric height (m)

Equivalent airspeed (km/h)

No. 1 41 300 12 800 1500 4

2000 No. 2 7700 28 800 35 000 2

No. 3 35 200 43 000 9200 4
No. 4 15 200 26 500 46 300 3

0 Equivalent airspeed

based on flight profiles has been recognized and applied

0 2000 4000
by Chinese engineering community. As discussed above,
Time (s) the proposed method can also analyze the reliability for
a mission category via taking the corresponding flight
FIGURE 1 Fluctuant flight profile
profile parameters as input. Therefore, the approach of
Liu et al18 and Liu et al19 has adopted as a reference,
Barometric height and the reliability assessments for each mission category
from the 2 methods are given to illustrate the reasonabil-
8000
ity and effectiveness of the proposed method. To get a
Equivalent airspeed (km/h)
Barometric height (m)

better understanding, a brief introduction to this

reference method is given as follows.
4000 According to Liu et al18 and Liu et al19, the reference
model can be expressed as
Equivalent airspeed
F¼Bλ þ ε (22)
0
where F = ( f j)m × 1 and f j is the total failure number of


ð jÞ ð jÞ
aircraft j; B ¼ t i and t i is the total flight time of
0 3000 6000 m×n
Time (s) aircraft j during the ith mission kind; λ = (λi)n × 1 and λi
is the failure rate of the ith kind of mission; ε = (εj)m × 1
FIGURE 2 Piecewise flight profile
and εj ∼ N(0, σ 2) denotes the error term, i = 1, 2, ⋯, n,
j = 1, 2, ⋯, m.
Barometric height Then, the least square estimation of the failure rate
6000 vector λ can be derived as
 −1
b
Equivalent airspeed (km/h)

λ ¼ BT B BT F (23)
Barometric height (m)


3000
where b
λ¼ b
λi and b
λi is the least square estimation of
n×1
failure rate corresponding to the ith kind of mission.
Because εj~N(0, σ2), it can be deduced that estimator
Equivalent airspeed

 −1  1
follows b
λeN λ; σ 2 BT B , where b2 ¼
σ
0 m−n
m
2
b
∑ f j −T i λ and vector T i is the ith column of matrix
0 3000 6000 9000 j¼1
Time (s) B. For a fixed confidence level 1 − α, the confidence
interval of λi can be estimated as
FIGURE 3 Single altitude flight profile
 pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi 
b b wi
σ b wi
σ
λi −pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiStuα=2 ðm−nÞ; b
λi þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiStuα=2 ðm−nÞ (24)
3.1 | Mission reliability assessment by the m−n m−n
reference method
where wi is the ith diagonal element of the matrix (BTB)−1
As far as the authors are concerned, only the approach and Stuα/2(m − n) is the α/2 quantile of student distribu-
proposed in Liu et al18 and Liu et al19 and established tion under a freedom degree of m − n.
MA ET AL. 7

Based on test data, the mission profiles have been 3.2 | Mission reliability assessment by the
divided into 3 kinds including fluctuant flight profile, proposed approach
piecewise flight profile, and single altitude flight profile.
As previously discussed, let B = 3 and substitute the flight
Each category includes more than 20 flights. According
parameters into Equation 15, it can be determined
to Table 1, it can be concluded for the reference
accordingly that
method that
0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 37296000 29853000 4
41300 12800 1500 4 B 49278000 C B C
B 7700 C B C B 13693000 C B2C
B 28800 35000 C B2C H¼B C; F ¼ B C:
B¼B C; F ¼ B C @ 994334000 25127000 A @4A
@ 35200 43000 9200 A @4A
2975905000 28210000 3
15200 26500 46300 3
Based on Equation 17, estimation of β can be derived
 
−0:004
Considering Equations 23 and 24, the estimation and as b
β ¼ 10−7 . And σb ¼ 1:2099 can be obtained
confidence interval of the failure rate at 0.8 confidence 1:564
 2
 
level are calculated and summarized in Table 2. Because b2 ¼ F−H b
by substituting the data into σ β =ðm−3Þ.
the average flight time is 1.5 hours, set the mission time 2

as 5400 seconds. Then, the point estimation and confi- The approach proposed in this study can further assess
dence interval of mission reliability at 0.8 confidence level reliability for each specific mission. There are totally
are also calculated and shown in Table 3. about 80 flight test data and more than 20 for each mis-
From the processing procedure and the results, it can sion category. So, limited by space, one typical flight pro-
be concluded that the reference method first divides the file from each mission category is selected as an example
missions into 3 categories and accesses an average to show the feasibility and advantages of the constructed
mission reliability for each category. The key point lies method. The 3 chosen flight profiles are defined as mis-
in that, it can only focus on the reliability inference for sion 1 (a typical fluctuant flight profile in the “fluctuant”
each kind of mission, but cannot assess the reliability category), mission 2 (a typical piecewise flight profile in
for an individual mission. the “piecewise” category), and mission 3 (a typical
single altitude flight profile in the “single altitude”
category). According to the test, regarding the target
TABLE 2 Failure rate estimation and confidence interval results mission 1, mission 2, and mission 3, the flight parameters
by the reference method can be determined as H*1 = (1384300 3826200),
Estimation of Confidence Interval
H*2 = (5423200 813000), and H*3 = (7137600 848500).
Category Failure Rate of Failure Rate Based on the processing procedure in Section 2, the
point estimation and confidence interval of the fault
Fluctuant flight 9.243 × 10−5 (9.0991 × 10−5, 9.3871 × 10−5)
number corresponding to focused mission 1, mission 2,
profile
and mission 3 at 0.8 confidence level are calculated and
Piecewise flight 1.132 × 10−5 (0.9881 × 10−5, 1.2763 × 10−5)
shown in Table 4. The point estimation and confidence
profile
interval of mission reliability in 0.8 confidence level are
Single altitude 2.781 × 10−5 (2.6366 × 10−5, 2.9246 × 10−5) also obtained and listed in Table 5.
flight profile
Similarly, the mission reliability assessment through-
out all the missions can be conducted. It can be under-
TABLE 3 Mission reliability estimation and confidence interval stood that an average reliability of a mission category
results by the reference method can be obtained by taking an average calculation across
all the missions belonging the focused mission category.
Estimation Confidence
of Mission Interval of Mission
Along this line, a mission reliability of each mission cate-
Category Reliability Reliability gory (totally 3 mission categories as discussed) is calcu-
lated and summarized in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
Fluctuant flight 0.6071 (0.6024, 0.6118)
profile
Piecewise flight 0.9407 (0.9334, 0.9480) 3.3 | Comparison of the 2 mission
profile reliability assessment methods
Single altitude 0.8606 (0.8539, 0.8673) From the analysis procedure and the results summarized
flight profile
in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, one can draw conclusions from 2
8 MA ET AL.

TABLE 4 Estimation and confidence interval of fault number by proposed method (summarized in Table 7) show that
the proposed method the confidence intervals are very close. This demon-
Estimation of Confidence Interval strates that the proposed method can guarantee the
Missions Fault Number of Fault Number reliability analysis for a specific mission category with
a same accuracy compared with the well adopted
Mission 1 0.5581 (0.4544, 0.6617)
reference approach.
Mission 2 0.1170 (0.0965, 0.1375) We further examine the reliability results for each
Mission 3 0.1217 (0.1007, 0.1427) mission category (listed in Table 7) and the ones for each
selected individual mission (summarized in Table 5),
which are both derived by the proposed method. Because
TABLE 5 Estimation and confidence interval of mission reli-
the estimations for each mission category are obtained
ability by the proposed method
via an average calculation across all specific missions
Estimation Confidence involved in the mission category, the similar results
of Mission Interval of Mission demonstrate that the reliability assessment for an
Missions Reliability Reliability
individual mission is reasonable and reliable.
Mission 1 0.5723 (0.5160, 0.6348)
Mission 2 0.8896 (0.8715, 0.9080)
Mission 3 0.8854 (0.8670, 0.9042)
4 | C ON C L U S I ON

A novel method is proposed to assess aircraft reliability

TABLE 6 Estimation and confidence interval of the average fault
for an individual mission. By synthetically utilizing fault
number for each mission category data and flight parameters, a mission reliability model is
established according to the relationship between flight
Estimation of Confidence Interval loads, flight parameters, and reliability. Then, the statis-
Average Fault of Average Fault
tical inference of failure rate for aircraft is proposed,
Category Number Number
and the mission reliability can be assessed by given
Fluctuant flight profile 0.5173 (0.5082, 0.5266) flight test data.
Piecewise flight profile 0.1085 (0.0993, 0.1178) The constructed method illustrates significant advan-
Single altitude flight 0.1565 (0.1493, 0.1638) tages in specific mission reliability assessment comparing
profile with the reference approach. One can see that the model
is established based on the fault data on a whole aircraft
level. This can avoid the errors caused by the derivation
TABLE 7 Estimation and confidence interval of average mission process from the subsystem level to the whole aircraft
reliability for each category level, and this can also satisfy the current requirements
Estimation of Confidence Interval of the Chinese engineering community perfectly.
Average Mission of Average Mission From the application and comparison, one can
Category Reliability Reliability further conclude that the proposed method not only
Fluctuant flight 0.5961 (0.5906, 0.6016) can reflect the difference among different mission kinds
profile but also can properly depict the difference among spe-
cific missions in the same mission kind. Because the
Piecewise flight 0.8972 (0.8889, 0.9055)
profile mission reliability assessment results are key basis for
designing mission plan and making maintenance deci-
Single altitude 0.8551 (0.8489, 0.8613)
flight profile
sion, the proposed method can give important technical
support for scientific and reasonable design and
maintenance.
aspects. One is the reliability assessment for each mission It is also worth noticing that the current study is an
category from both the reference method and the exploratory one regarding aircraft reliability assessment
proposed approach. The other one is the reliability for an individual mission. Based on the flight test data
inference for each individual mission derived by the accumulated by China Flight Test Establishment and
constructed methodology. their collected flight parameters, 2 key loads relating to
Considering the average mission reliability for the 3 flight parameters altitude, velocity and acceleration are
mission categories, the result from the reference considered. In the future study, more necessary load
method (listed in Table 3) and the result from the conditions and factors will be studied and incorporated
MA ET AL.
to establish a more flexible and reasonable reliability
assessment method for an individual mission.
ACK NO WLE DGE MEN TS
This work was cosupported by the National Nature
Science Foundation of China (No. 61104133, 61473014)
and National Basic Research Program of China (Grant
No. 2016YFF0202605).
ORCID
Zhihua Wang http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8106-0627
R EF E RE N C E S
1. Sohn SY, Yoon KB, Chang IS. Random effects model for the
reliability management of modules of a fighter aircraft. Reliab
Eng Syst Saf. 2006;91(4):433‐437.
2. Cao J, Wang Q, Shen Y. Research on modeling method of
complex system mission reliability simulation. International
Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and
Safety Engineering 2012: 307–311.
3. Bilikam JE, Moore AH. Estimation of mission reliability from
multiple independent grouped censored samples. IEEE Trans
Reliab. 1977;26(1):57‐60.
4. Kim C. Analysis for mission reliability of a combat tank. IEEE
Trans Reliab. 1989;38(2):242‐245.
5. Levitin G, Xing L, Johnson BW, Dai Y. Mission reliability, cost
and time for cold standby computing systems with periodic
backup. IEEE Trans Comput. 2015;64(4):1043‐1057.
6. Yoo WJ, Jung KH. Mission reliability of an automatic control
system integrated with distributed intelligent built‐in‐test
systems. Comput Ind Eng. 1997;33(4):753‐756.
7. Wei J, Dai G, Li F. Research of warship total mission reliability
modeling based on unit mission. IEEE International Conference
on Reliability, Maintainability and Safety 2009: 260–263.
8. Caruso H. MIL‐STD‐810F, test method standard for environ-
mental engineering considerations and laboratory tests. J Test.
2001;44(3):30‐34.
9. Kodama M, Fukuta J, Takamatsu S. Mission reliability for a
1‐unit system with allowed down‐time. IEEE Trans Reliab.
1974;22(5):268‐270.
10. Kodama M. Mission reliability for a 2‐dissimilar‐unit warm
standby system with allowed down time and allowed number
of failures. IEICE Trans. 1976;E59‐E(12):1‐7.
11. Fukuta J, Kodama M. Mission reliability for a redundant
repairable system with two dissimilar units. IEEE Trans Reliab.
1974;23(4):280‐282.
12. Stancliff SB, Dolan JM, Trebiollennu A. Mission reliability
estimation for repairable robot teams. Int J Adv Robot Syst.
2006;3(2):155‐164.
13. Altschul RE, Nagel PM. The efficient simulation of phased fault
trees. Proc Ann Reliability & Maintainability Symp 1987: 292–296.
9
14. Tillman FA, Lie CH, Hwang CL. Simulation model of mission
effectiveness for military systems. IEEE Trans Reliab.
1978;27(3):191‐194.
15. Cheng Z, Wang X, Tian C, Wang F. Mission reliability
simulation of high‐speed EMU service braking system. 8th
International Conference on Reliability, Maintainability and
Safety 2009: 253–256.
16. Lewis EE, Boehm F, Kirsch C, Kelkhoff BP. Monte Carlo
simulation of complex system mission reliability. Conf Winter
Simul ACM. 1989;45(20):497‐504.
17. Yang YH, Feng YC, Hong YU, Li HJ. Simulation based mission
reliability calculation methods of complex weapon system. Acta
Simul Syst Sin. 2002;14(2):166‐169.
18. Liu Z, Ma X, Zhao Y. Mission reliability assessment for plane
fleet based on flight profile. International Conference on
Reliability, Maintainability and Safety 2011: 154–158.
19. Liu Z, Ma XB, Hong DP, Zhao Y. Mission reliability assessment
for battle‐plane based on flight profile. J Beijing Univ Aeronaut
Astronaut. 2012;38(1):59‐63.
20. Shi H, Yu SL, Deng J. Study of main propulsion plant's mission
reliability in view of performance degradation. Appl Mech
Mater. 2014;697:143‐146.
21. Li XY, Jiang TM. Review of multiple‐stress models in
accelerated life testing. XI Tong Gong Cheng Yu Dian Zi Ji
Shu/systems Engineering and. Electronics. 2007;29(5):828‐831.
22. Sadowski T, Golewski P. Loadings in thermal barrier coatings of
jet engine turbine blades. Singapore: Springer; 2016.
23. Smith S, Jacob J, Jones R, Scarborough S, Cadogan D. A high‐
altitude test of inflatable wings for low‐density flight
applications. 47th AIAA Conference on Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials 2006: 1–13.
24. Tustin W. Why test with random vibration. Annual Reliability
and Maintainability Symposium 1980: 235–238.
25. Wang C, Bai J, Wan F, Yan G. Review of statistical induction
analysis methods on aircraft vibration test data. Procedia
Environ Sci. 2011;10:825‐830.
26. Hong D, Ma X, Zhao Y, Zhang L. Environment referring factor
based on proportional hazards model. J Beijing Univ Aeronaut
Astronaut. 2010;36(4):443‐446.
27. Quan S, Juan T, Qiang M. Damage effect analysis and
experiment for electronic equipment in impact vibration
environment. J Syst Eng Electron. 2009;20(6):1384‐1388.
28. MIL‐STD‐810G, Environmental engineering considerations and
laboratory tests, 2008.
29. Yang GB. Chapter 7. Accelerated life tests. In: Life Cycle
Reliability Engineering. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.; 2007:237‐331.
30. MIL‐HDBK‐338B, Military Handbook Electronic Reliability
Design Handbook, 1998.
31. Kapur KC, Pecht M. Chapter 2. In: Reliability Engineering.
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2014:26‐29.
32. Elsayed E. Chapter 1. In: Reliability engineering. Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2012:15‐55.
10
Xiaobing Ma received his PhD degree in 2006 from
Beihang University. He is currently a professor at the
School of Reliability and Systems Engineering,
Beihang University. He also works in the Key Labora-
tory on Reliability and Environmental Engineering
Technology, Beihang University. His research inter-
ests include reliability data analysis, durability design,
and system life modeling.
Zhihua Wang received her PhD from Beihang Uni-
versity in 2007, and she is currently an associate pro-
fessor in the School of Aeronautic Science and
Engineering, Beihang University. Her research
focuses on reliability assessment regarding limited
sample size circumstances, degradation reliability
modeling, and product reliability monitoring.
MA ET AL.
Tianyu Guan is currently a graduate student in the
School of Reliability and Systems Engineering in
Beihang University. He is majoring in reliability
engineering.
Tao Ma is currently a senior engineer in Reliability
Research Center in China Flight Test Establishment.
How to cite this article: Ma X, Wang Z, Guan T,
Ma T. Aircraft reliability assessment for an
individual mission based on recordable flight
parameters. Qual Reliab Engng Int. 2018;1‐10.
https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.2345