Lean RW Final.
qxp 4/16/2007 9:56 AM Page 213
Reliability Engineering Principles
for the Plant Engineer
By: Drew D. Troyer, CRE, CMRP, Noria Corporation
Abstract
Increasingly, managers and engineers, who are responsible for
manufacturing and other industrial pursuits, are incorporating a
reliability focus into their strategic and tactical plans and initiatives.
This trend is affecting numerous functional areas, including
machine/system design and procurement, plant operations and plant
maintenance. With its origins in the aviation industry, reliability
engineering, as a discipline, has historically been focused primarily on
assuring product reliability. Increasingly, these methods are being
employed to assure the production reliability of manufacturing plants
and equipment – often as an enabler to Lean Manufacturing. This
presentation provides an introduction to the most relevant and
practical of these methods for plant reliability engineering, including:
• Basic reliability calculations for failure rate, MTBF, availability, etc.
• An introduction to the exponential distribution – the cornerstone
of the reliability methods.
• Identifying failure time-dependencies using the versatile Weibull
system.
• Developing an effective field data collection system.
Introduction
The origins of the field of reliability engineering, at least the
demand for it, can be traced back to the point at which man began to
depend upon machines for his livelihood. The Noria, for instance, is
an ancient pump thought to be the world’s first sophisticated
machine. Utilizing hydraulic energy from the flow of a river or stream,
the Noria utilized buckets to transfer water to troughs and other
distribution devices to irrigate fields and provide water to
communities. If the community Noria failed, the people who
depended upon it for their supply of food were at risk. Survival has
always been a great source of motivation for reliability and
dependability.
While the origins of its demand are ancient, reliability engineering as
a technical discipline truly flourished along with the growth of
commercial aviation following World War II. It became rapidly
apparent to managers of aviation industry companies that crashes are
bad for business. Karen Bernowski, editor of Quality Progress, revealed
in one of her editorials research into the media value of death by
various means, which was conducted by MIT statistic professor Arnold
Barnett and reported in 1994. Barnett evaluated the number of New
York Times’ front page news articles per 1000 deaths by various
means. He found that cancer related deaths yielded 0.02 front page
news articles per 1000 deaths, homicide yielded 1.7 per thousand
deaths, AIDS yielded 2.3 per thousand deaths, and aviation related
accidents yielded a whopping 138.2 articles per thousand deaths!
/ Reliability Basics
The cost and high profile nature of aviation related accidents helped
to motivate the aviation industry to participate heavily in the
development of the reliability engineering discipline. Likewise, due to
the critical nature of military equipment in defense, reliability
engineering techniques have long been employed to assure operational
readiness. Many of our standards in the reliability engineering field are
MIL Standards or have their origins in military activities.
Reliability engineering deals with the longevity and dependability of
parts, products and systems. More poignantly, it is about controlling
risk. Reliability engineering incorporates a wide variety of analytical
techniques designed to help engineers understand the failure modes
and patterns of these parts, products and systems. Traditionally, the
reliability engineering field has focused upon product reliability and
dependability assurance. In recent years, organizations that deploy
machines and other physical assets in production settings have
begun to deploy various reliability engineering principles for the
purpose of production reliability and dependability assurance.
Increasingly, production organizations deploy reliability engineering
techniques like reliability centered maintenance (RCM), including
failure modes effects (and criticality) analysis (FMEA.FMECA), root
cause analysis (RCA), condition-based maintenance, improved work
planning schemes, etc. These same organizations are beginning to
adopt life cycle cost-based design and procurement strategies,
change management schemes and other advanced tools and
techniques in order to control the root causes of poor reliability.
However, the adoption of the more quantitative aspects of reliability
engineering by the production reliability assurance community has
been slow. This is due in part to the perceived complexity of the
techniques and in part due to the difficulty in obtaining useful data.
The quantitative aspects of reliability engineering may, on the
surface, seem complicated and daunting. In reality, however, a
relatively basic understanding of the most fundamental and widely
applicable methods can enable the plant reliability engineer to gain a
much clearer understanding about where problems are occurring,
their nature and their impact on the production process - at least in
the quantitative sense. Used properly, quantitative reliability
engineering tools and methods enable the plant reliability engineering
to more effectively apply the frameworks provided by RCM, RCA,
etc., by eliminating some of the guesswork involved with their
application otherwise. However, engineers must be particularly
clever in their application of the methods because the operating
context and environment of a production process incorporates more
variables than the somewhat one-dimensional world of product
reliability assurance due to the combined influence of design
engineering, procurement, production/operations, maintenance, etc.,
and the difficulty in creating effective tests and experiments to model
the multidimensional aspects of a typical production environment.
2007 Conference Proceedings 213
Lean RW Final.qxp 4/16/2007 9:56 AM Page 214

Despite the increased difficulty in applying quantitative reliability

λ = r /T
methods in the production environment, it is nonetheless worthwhile
to gain a sound understanding of the tools and apply them where Where:
appropriate. Quantitative data helps to define the nature and λ = Failure rate (sometimes referred to as the hazard rate)
magnitude of a problem/opportunity, which provides vision to the T = Total running time/cycles/miles/etc. during an investigation
reliability in his or her application of other reliability engineering tools. period for both failed and non-failed items.
This paper and presentation will provide an introduction to the most r = The total number of failures occurring during the investigation
basic reliability engineering methods that are applicable to the plant period.
engineer that is interested in production reliability assurance. It
presupposes a basic understanding of algebra, probability theory and
For example, if five electric motors operate for a collective total
univariate statistics based upon the Gaussian (normal) distribution
time of 50 years with five functional failures during the period, the
(e.g. measure of central tendency, measures of dispersion and
failure rate is 0.1 failures per year.
variability, confidence intervals, etc.). It should be made clear that
this paper is a brief introduction to reliability methods. It is by no
The basic calculation to estimate Mean-Time-Between-Failure
means a comprehensive survey of reliability engineering methods, nor
(MTBF) and Mean-Time-To Failure (MTTF), measures of central
is it in any way new or unconventional. The methods described
tendency, is simply the reciprocal of the failure rate function. It is
herein are routinely used by reliability engineers and are core
calculated using the following equation.
knowledge concepts for those pursuing professional certification by
the American Society for Quality (ASQ) as a reliability engineer (CRE).
Several books on reliability engineering are listed in the bibliography θ =T /r
of this article. The author of this article has found Reliability Methods
Where:
for Engineers, by K.S. Krishnamoorthi, and Reliability Statistics by
θ = Mean-Time-Between/To-Failure
Robert Dovich, to be particularly useful and user friendly references
T = Total running time/cycles/miles/etc. during an investigation
on the subject of reliability engineering methods. Both are published
period for both failed and non-failed items.
by the ASQ press.
r = The total number of failures occurring during the investigation
Before discussing methods, one should familiarize him or herself period.
with reliability engineering nomenclature. For convenience, a highly
abridged list of key terms and definitions is provided in the appendix The MTBF for our industrial electric motor example is 10 years,
of this article. For a more exhaustive definition of reliability terms which is the reciprocal of the failure rate for the motors. Incidentally,
and nomenclature, refer to MIL-STD-721 and other related standards. we would estimate MTBF for electric motors that are rebuilt upon
The definitions contained in the appendix are from MIL-STD-721. failure. For smaller, motors that are considered disposable, we would
state the measure of central tendency as MTTF.
Basic Mathematical Concepts
The failure rate is a basic component of many more complex reliability
in Reliability Engineering
calculations. Depending upon the mechanical/electrical design, operating
Many mathematical concepts apply to reliability engineering,
context, environment, maintenance effectiveness, a machine’s failure
particularly from the areas of probability and statistics. Likewise,
rate as a function of time may decline, remain constant, increase linearly
many mathematical distributions can be used for various purposes,
or increase geometrically (Figure 1). The importance of failure rate
including the Gaussian (normal) distribution, the log-normal
versus time will be discussed in more detail later.
distribution, the Rayleigh distribution, the exponential distribution, the
Weibull distribution and a host of others. For the purpose of this brief
introduction, we’ll limit our discussion to the exponential distribution
and the Weibull distribution, the two most widely applied to reliability
engineering. In the interest of brevity and simplicity, important
mathematical concepts such as distribution goodness-of-fit and
confidence intervals have been excluded.

Failure Rate and Mean-Time-Between/To-Failure

(MTBF/MTTF)
The purpose for quantitative reliability measurements is to define
the rate of failure relative to time and to model that failure rate in a
mathematical distribution for the purpose of understanding the
quantitative aspects of failure. The most basic building block is the
failure rate, which is estimated using the following equation:

214 2007 Conference Proceedings

Lean RW Final.qxp 4/16/2007 9:56 AM Page 215
Figure 1 - Different failure rate versus time scenarios.
The “Bathtub” Curve
Individuals that have received only basic training in probability and
statistics are probably most familiar with the Gaussian or normal
distribution, which is associated with familiar bell-shaped probability
density curve. The Gaussian distribution is generally applicable to
data sets where the two most common measures of central
tendency, mean and median, are approximately equal. Surprisingly,
despite the versatility of the Gaussian distribution in modeling
probabilities for phenomenon ranging from standardized test scores to
the birth weights of babies, it is not the dominant distribution
employed in reliability engineering. The Gaussian distribution has its
place in evaluating the failure characteristics of machines with a
dominant failure mode, but the primary distribution employed in
reliability engineering is the exponential distribution.
When evaluating the reliability and failure characteristics of a
machine, we must begin with the much maligned “bathtub” curve,
which reflects the failure rate versus time (Figure 2). In concept, the
bathtub curve effectively demonstrates a machine’s three basic
failure rate characteristics – declining, constant or increasing.
Regrettably, the bathtub curve has been harshly criticized in the
maintenance engineering literature because it fails to effectively
model the characteristic failure rate for most machines in an
industrial plant, which is generally true at the macro level. Most
machines spend their lives in the early life, or infant mortality, and/or
the constant failure rate regions of the bathtub curve. We rarely see
systemic time-based failures in industrial machine. Despite its
limitations in modeling the failure rates of typical industrial machines,
the bathtub curve is a useful tool for explaining the basic concepts of
reliability engineering.
/ Reliability Basics
Figure 2 - The much maligned “bathtub” curve.
The human body is an excellent example of a system that follows
the bathtub curve. People, and other organic species for that matter,
tend to suffer a high failure rate (mortality) during their first years of
life, particularly the first few years, but the rate decreases as the
child grows older. Assuming a person reaches puberty and survives
his or her teenage years, his or her mortality rate becomes fairly
constant and remains there until age (time) dependent illnesses begin
to increase the mortality rate (wearout). Numerous influences affect
mortality rates, including pre-natal care and mother’s nutrition, quality
and availability of medical care, environment and nutrition, lifestyle
choices and, of course, genetic predisposition. These factors can be
metaphorically compared to factors that influence machine life.
Design and procurement is analogous to genetic predisposition;
installation and commissioning is analogous to prenatal care and
mother’s nutrition; and lifestyle choices and availability of medical
care is analogous to maintenance effectiveness and proactive control
over operating conditions.
The Exponential Distribution
The exponential distribution, the most basic and widely used
reliability prediction formula, models machines with the constant
failure rate, or the flat section of the bathtub curve. Most industrial
machines spend most of their lives in the constant failure rate, so it is
widely applicable. Below is the basic equation for estimating the
reliability of a machine that follows the exponential distribution,
where the failure rate is constant as a function of time.
R(t ) = e − λt
Where:
R(t) = Reliability estimate for a period of time, cycles, miles, etc. (t).
e = Base of the natural logarithms (2.718281828)
λ = Failure rate (1/MTBF, or 1/MTTF)
In our electric motor example, if one assumes a constant failure
rate the likelihood of running a motor for six years without a failure,
or the projected reliability, is 55%. This is calculated as follows:
R(6) = 2.718281828-(0.1* 6)
R(6) = 0.5488 = ~ 55%
2007 Conference Proceedings 215
Lean RW Final.qxp 4/16/2007 9:56 AM Page 216

In other words, after six years, about 45% of the population of

identical motors operating in an identical application can
probabilistically be expected to fail. It is worth reiterating at this point
that these calculations project the probability for a population. Any
given individual from the population could fail on the first day of
operation while another individual could last 30 years. That is the
nature of probabilistic reliability projections.

A characteristic of the exponential distribution is the MTBF occurs

at the point at which the calculated reliability is 36.78%, or the point
at which 63.22% of the machines have already failed. In our motor
example, after 10 years, 63.22% of the motors from a population of
identical motors serving in identical applications can be expected to
fail. In other words, the survival rate is 36.78% of the population. Figure 3 - The probability density function (pdf).

We often speak of projected bearing life as the L10 life. In reality,
this is the point in time at which 10% of a population of bearings
should be expected to fail (90% survival rate). In reality, only a
fraction of the bearings actually survive to the L10 point. We’ve
come to accept that as the objective life for a bearing when, perhaps,
we should set our sights on the L63.22 point, indicating that our
bearings are lasting, on average, to projected MTBF – assuming, of
course, that the bearings follow the exponential distribution. We’ll
discuss that issue later in the Weibull analysis section of the paper.
The cumulative distribution function is simply the cumulative number
of failures one might expect over a period of time. For the exponential
distribution, the failure rate is constant, so the relative rate at which
failed components are added to the cdf remains constant. However, as
the population declines as a result of failure, the actual number of
mathematically estimated failures decreases as a function of the
declining population. Much like the pdf asymptotically approaches zero,
the cdf asymptotically approaches one (Figure 4).

The probability density function (pdf), or life distribution, is a

mathematical equation that approximates the failure frequency
distribution. It is the pdf, or life frequency distribution, that yields the
familiar bell-shaped curve in the Gaussian, or normal, distribution.
Below is the pdf for the exponential distribution.

pdf (t ) = λe − λt
Where:
pdf(t) = Life frequency distribution for a given time (t)
e = Base of the natural logarithms (2.718281828)
λ = Failure rate (1/MTBF, or 1/MTTF) Figure 4 - Failure rate and the cumulative distribution function.

In our electric motor example, the actual likelihood of failure at
three years is calculated as follows:
pdf(3) = 01. * 2.718281828-(0.1* 3)
pdf(3) = 0.1 * 0.7408
pdf(3) = .07408 = ~ 7.4%
In our example, if we assume a constant failure rate, which follows
the exponential distribution, the life distribution, or pdf for the
industrial electric motors, is expressed in Figure 3. Don’t be confused
by the declining nature of the pdf function. Yes, the failure rate is
constant, but the pdf mathematically assumes failure without
replacement, so the population from which failures can occur is
continuously reducing - asymptotically approaching zero.
The declining failure rate portion of the bathtub curve, which is
often called the infant mortality region, and the wear out region will
be discussed in the following section addressing the versatile Weibull
distribution.
Weibull Distribution
Originally developed by Wallodi Weibull, a Swedish mathematician,
Weibull analysis is easily the most versatile distribution employed by
reliability engineers. While it is called a distribution, it is actually a
tool that enables the reliability engineer to first characterize the
probability density function (failure frequency distribution) of a set of
failure data, to characterize the failures as early life, constant
(exponential) or wear out (Gaussian or log normal) by plotting time to
failure data on a special plotting paper with the log of the
times/cycles/miles to failure plotted a log scaled x-axis versus the
cumulative percent of the population represented by each failure on a
log-log scaled y-axis (Figure 5).

216 2007 Conference Proceedings

Lean RW Final.qxp 4/16/2007 9:56 AM Page 217

/ Reliability Basics

As a caveat to tie this tool back to excellence in maintenance and

operations excellence, if we were to more effectively control the
forcing functions that lead to mechanical failure in bearings, gears,
etc., such as lubrication, contamination control, alignment, balance,
appropriate operation, etc., more machines would actually reach their
fatigue life. Machines that reach their fatigue life will exhibit the
familiar wearout characteristic.

Using the β coefficient to adjust the failure rate equation as a

function of time yields the following general equation:
β
β ⎛t⎞
h(t ) = ⎜ ⎟
t ⎝θ ⎠
Where:
Figure 5 - The simple Weibull plot - annotated. h(t) = Failure rate (or hazard rate) for a given time (t)
e = Base of the natural logarithms (2.718281828)
Once plotted, the linear slope of the resultant curve is an important θ = Estimated MTBF/MTTF
variable, called the shape parameter, represented by β, which is used to β = Weibull shape parameter from plot.
adjust the exponential distribution to fit a wide number of failure
distributions. In general, if the b coefficient, or shape parameter, is less
And the following reliability function:
than 1.0, the distribution exhibits early life, or infant mortality failures. If
the shape parameter exceeds about 3.5, the data are time dependent β
⎛t ⎞
and indicate wearout failures. This data set typically assumes the −⎜ ⎟
⎝θ ⎠
Gaussian, or normal, distribution. As the β coefficient increases above R(t ) = e
~ 3.5, the bell-shaped distribution tightens, exhibiting increasing kurtosis
(peakedness at the top of the curve) and a smaller standard deviation. Where:
Many data sets will exhibit two or even three distinct regions. It is R(t) = Reliability estimate for a period of time, cycles, miles, etc. (t)
common for reliability engineers to plot, for example, one curve e = Base of the natural logarithms (2.718281828)
representing the shape parameter during run in and another curve to θ = Estimated MTBF/MTTF
represent the constant or gradually increasing failure rate. In some β = Weibull shape parameter from plot.
instances, a third distinct linear slope emerges to identify a third shape,
the wearout region. In these instances, the pdf of the failure data do in And the following probability density function (pdf):
fact assume the familiar bathtub curve shape (Figure 6). Most
β
mechanical equipment used in plants, however, exhibit an infant β ⎛t⎞
β ⎛ t ⎞ −⎜ ⎟
mortality region and a constant or gradually increasing failure rate region. pdf (t ) = ⎜ ⎟ e ⎝θ ⎠
t ⎝θ ⎠
It is rare to see a curve representing wearout emerge. The characteristic
life, or η (lower case Greek “Eta”), is the Weibull approximation of the Where:
MTBF. It is always the function of time, miles or cycles where 63.21% of pdf(t) = Probability density function estimate for a period of time,
the units under evaluation have failed, which is the MTBF/MTTF for the cycles, miles, etc. (t)
exponential distribution.
e = Base of the natural logarithms (2.718281828)
θ = Estimated MTBF/MTTF
β = Weibull shape parameter from plot.

It should be noted that when the β equals 1.0, the Weibull

distribution takes the form of the exponential distribution on which it
is based.

To the uninitiated, the mathematics required to perform Weibull

Figure 6 - Depending upon the shape parameter, the Weibull failure
density curve can assume several distributions, which is what makes it
so versatile for reliability engineering.
analysis may look daunting. But once you understand the mechanics
of the formulas, the math is really quite simple. Moreover, software
will do most of the work for us today, but it is important to have an
understanding of the underlying theory so that the plant reliability
engineer can effectively deploy the powerful Weibull analysis
technique.

2007 Conference Proceedings 217

Lean RW Final.qxp 4/16/2007 9:56 AM Page 218
In our previously discussed example of electric motors, we
previously assumed the exponential distribution. However, if Weibull
analysis revealed early life failures by yielding a β shape parameter of
0.5, the estimate of reliability at six years time would be ~46%, not
the ~55% estimated assuming the exponential distribution. In order
to reduce wearout failures, we would need to lean on our suppliers to
provide better built and delivered quality and reliability, store the
motors better to avoid rust, corrosion, fretting and other static wear
mechanism and do a better job of installing and starting up new or
rebuilt machines.
Conversely, if Weibull analysis revealed that the motors exhibited
predominantly wearout related failures, yielding a β shape parameter
of 5.0, the estimate of reliability at six years time would be ~ 93%,
instead of the ~55% estimated assuming the exponential distribution.
For time-dependent wearout failures, we can perform scheduled
overhaul or replacement assuming we have a good estimate of the
MTBF/MTTF after we’ve reached the wearout region and a
sufficiently small standard deviation so as to make high confidence
rebuild/replace decisions that aren’t exceedingly costly. In our motor
example, assuming a β shape parameter of 5.0, the failure rate
begins to rapidly increase after about 5 or six years, so we may want
to edit our data to just focus upon the wearout region when
estimating time-based replacement or rebuild time. Alternatively, we
can improve the design, targeting the dominant failure mode(s) with
the objective of decreasing “stress-strength” interferences. In other
words, we can attempt to eliminate the machine’s frailties through
design modification, the goal being to eliminate whatever is causing
the time-dependent failures.
Assuming everything is constant, except the β shape parameter,
Figure 7 illustrates the difference the β shape parameter has on the
estimate of reliability assuming β shape values of 0.5 (early life), 1.0
(constant, or exponential) and 5.0 (wearout) for a range time
estimates. This graphic visually illustrates the concept of increasing
risk versus time (β = 0.5), constant risk versus time (β = 1.0) and
increasing risk versus time (β = 5).
Figure 7 - Various reliability projections as a function of time for different
Weibull shape parameters.
218 2007 Conference Proceedings
The Multi-Slope Weibull Plot
Frequently, when drawing a best-fit regression line through the
data points on a Weibull plot, the coefficient of correlation is poor,
meaning the actual data points stray a great distance from regression
line. This is assessed by examining the coefficient of correlation R,
or more conservatively, R2, which denotes data variability. When
correlation is poor, the reliability engineer should examine the data to
evaluate if two or more patterns exist, which can denote major
differences in failure modes, operating context, etc. Often, this
produces two or more estimates of beta (Figure 8).
Figure 8 - An example of a multi-beta Weibull plot.
As we see in our example in Figure 8, the data set works better
when two distinct regression lines are drawn. The first line, exhibits
a beta shape parameter of 0.5, suggesting early life failures. The
second line exhibits a beta shape of 3.0, suggesting that the risk of
failure increases as a function of time. It is common for complex
equipment, particularly mechanical equipment, to experience “run-in”
failures when new or recently rebuilt. As such, the risk of failure is
highest just following initial start-up. Once the system works through
its run-in period, which can take minutes, hours, days, weeks,
months or years, depending upon the system type, the system enters
a different risk pattern, in this example, the system enters a period
where the risk of failure increases as a function of time once the
system exits its run-in period.
The multi-beta offers the reliability engineer a more precise
estimate of risk as a function of time. Armed with this knowledge, he
or she is better positioned to take mitigating actions. For example,
during the early life period, we’d be inclined to improve the precision
with which we manufacture/rebuild, install and start-up. Moreover,
we might add monitoring techniques and/or increase our monitoring
frequency during the high risk period. Following the run-in period, we
might introduce monitoring techniques that are targeted at the time-
dependent wearout failures that are believed to affect the system,
increase monitoring frequency accordingly or schedule “hard-time”
preventive maintenance actions in some cases.
Lean RW Final.qxp 4/16/2007 9:56 AM Page 219
Estimating System Reliability
Once the reliability of components or machines has been
established relative to the operating context and required mission
time, plant engineers must assess the reliability of a system or
process. Again, for the sake of brevity and simplicity, we’ll discuss
system reliability estimates for series, parallel and shared-load
redundant system (r/n systems).
Series Systems
Before discussing series systems, we should discuss reliability
block diagrams. Not a complicated tool to use, reliability block
diagrams simply map a process from start to finish. For a series
system, subsystem A is followed by subsystem B and so forth. In
the series system, the ability to employ subsystem B depends upon
the operating state of subsystem A. If subsystem A is not operating,
the system is down regardless of the condition of subsystem B
(Figure 9).
To calculate the system reliability for a serial process, one needs
only to multiply the estimated reliability of subsystem A at time (t) by
the estimated reliability of subsystem B at time (t). The basic
equation for calculating the system reliability of a simple series
system is:
Rs( t ) = R1(t ) × R 2( t ) × ... × Rn(t )
Where:
Rs(t) – System reliability for given time (t)
R1-n(t) – Subsystem or sub-function reliability for given time (t)
So, for a simple system with three subsystems, or sub-functions,
each having an estimated reliability of 0.90 (90%) at time (t), the
system reliability is calculated as 0.90 X 0.90 X 0.90 = 0.729, or
about 73%.
Figure 9 - Simple serial system.
Parallel Systems
Often, design engineers will incorporate redundancy into critical
machines. Reliability engineers call these parallel systems. These
systems may be designed as active parallel systems or standby
parallel systems. The block diagram for a simple two component
parallel system is shown in Figure 10.
/ Reliability Basics
Figure 10 - Simple parallel system – the system reliability is increased to
99% due to the redundancy.
To calculate the reliability of an active parallel system, where both
machines are running, use the following simple equation:
[ ]
Rs( t ) = 1 − (1 − R1( t ) )× (1 − R 2 (t ) )× ... × (1 − Rn(t ) )
Where:
Rs(t) – System reliability for given time (t)
R1-n(t) – Subsystem or sub-function reliability for given time (t)
The simple parallel system in our example with two components in
parallel, each having a reliability of 0.90, has a total system reliability
of 1 – (0.1 X 0.1) = 0.99. So the system reliability was significantly
improved. There are some shortcut methods for calculating parallel
system reliability when all subsystems have the same estimated
reliability. More often, systems contain parallel and serial
subcomponents as depicted in Figure 11. The calculation of standby
systems requires knowledge about the reliability of the switching
mechanism. In the interest of simplicity and brevity, this topic will be
reserved for a future paper.
Figure 11 - Combination system with parallel and serial elements
r out of n Systems (r/n Systems)
An important concept to plant reliability engineers is the concept of
r/n systems. These systems require that r units from a total
population in n be available for use. A great industrial example is
coal pulverizers in an electric power generating plant. Often, the
engineers design this function in the plant using an r/n approach. For
instance, if a unit has four pulverizers and the unit requires that three
of the four be operable to run at the unit’s full load. This reliability
calculation can be reduced to a simple cumulative binomial
distribution calculation, the formula for which is:
2007 Conference Proceedings 219
Lean RW Final.qxp 4/16/2007 9:56 AM Page 220

k would likely be very different (Figure 12). For certain, some failure
n!
R( r ≤ k ) = ∑ p r (1 − p ) n − r modes would still be mathematical, but many, and arguably most,
r = 0 r!( n − r!)
would exhibit a time dependency. This kind of information would arm
Where: reliability engineers and managers with a powerful set of options for
Rs = System reliability given the actual number of failures (r) is mitigating failure risk with a high degree of precision. Naturally, this
less than or equal to the maximum allowable (k) ability depends upon the effective collection and subsequent analysis
r = The actual number of failures of field data.
k = The maximum allowable number of failures
n = The total number of units in the system
p = The probability of survival, or the subcomponent reliability for
a given time (t).

This equation is somewhat more complicated. In our pulverizer

example, assuming a subcomponent reliability of 0.90, the equation
works out as a summation of the following:

P(0) = 0.6561
P(1) = 0.2916

So, the likelihood of completing the mission time (t) is 0.9477

(0.6561 + 0.2916), or approximately 95%.

Field Data Collection

To employ the reliability analysis methods described herein, the
engineer requires data. It is imperative to establish field data
collection systems to support your reliability management initiatives.
Likewise, as much as possible, you’ll want to employ common
nomenclature and units so that your data can be parsed effectively
for more detailed analysis. Collect the following information:
• Basic System Information
• Operating Context
• Environmental Context
• Failure Data
A good general system for data collection is described in the IEC
standard 300-3-2. In addition to providing instructions for collecting
field data, it provides a standard taxonomy of failure modes. Other
taxonomies have been established, but the IEC standard represents a
good starting point for your organization to define its own. Likewise,
DOE standard NE-1004-92 offers a very nice standard nomenclature
of failure causes.
An important benefit derived from your efforts to collect good field
data is that it enables you to break the “random trap.” As I
mentioned earlier, the bathtub curve has been much maligned –
particularly in the reliability-centered maintenance literature. While
it’s true that Weibull analysis reveals that few complex mechanical
systems exhibit time-dependent wear out failures, the reason, at
least in part, is due to the fact that the reliability of complex systems
is affected by a wide variety of failure modes and mechanisms.
When these are lumped together, there is a “randomizing” effect,
which makes the failures appear to lack any time dependency.
However, if the failure modes were analyzed individually, the story
Figure 12 - Good field data collection enables you to break the random trap.
Conclusions
This brief introduction to reliability engineering methods is intended
to expose the otherwise uninitiated plant engineer to the world of
quantitative reliability engineering. The subject is quite broad,
however, and I’ve only touched on the major reliability methods that I
believe are most applicable to the plant engineer. I encourage you to
further investigate the field of reliability engineering methods,
concentrating on the following topics, among others:
• More detailed understanding of the Weibull distribution and its
applications
• More detailed understanding of the exponential distribution and
its applications
• The Gaussian distribution and its applications
• The log-normal distribution and its applications
• Confidence intervals (binomial, chi-square/Poisson, etc.)
• Beta distribution and its applications
• Bayesian applications of reliability engineering methods
• Stress-strength interference analysis
• Testing options and their applicability to plant reliability
engineering
• Reliability growth strategies and management
• More detailed understanding of field data collection
Most important, spend time learning how to apply reliability
engineering methods to plant reliability problems. I’ll be addressing

220 2007 Conference Proceedings

Lean RW Final.qxp 4/16/2007 9:56 AM Page 221
reliability engineering methods in future issues of Reliability World
magazine at more detailed and applied levels, emphasizing the needs
of the plant reliability engineer. If your interest in reliability
engineering methods is high, I encourage you to pursue professional
certification by the American Society for Quality as a reliability
engineer (CRE).
References
Troyer, D. (2006) Strategic Plant Reliability Management Course
Book, Noria Publishing, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Bernowski, K (1997) “Safety in the Skies,” Quality Progress,
January.
Dovich, R. (1990) Reliability Statistics, ASQ Quality Press,
Milwaukee, WI.
Krishnamoorthi, K.S. (1992) Reliability Methods for Engineers, ASQ
Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Mil Standard 721
IEC Standard 300-3-3
DOE Standard NE-1004-92
Appendix – Select Reliability Engineering
Terms from MIL STD 721
Availability – A measure of the degree to which an item is in the
operable and committable state at the start of the mission, when the
mission is called for at an unknown state.
Capability – A measure of the ability of an item to achieve mission
objectives given the conditions during the mission.
Dependability – A measure of the degree to which an item is
operable and capable of performing its required function at any
(random) time during a specified mission profile, given the availability
at the start of the mission.
Failure – The event, or inoperable state, in which an item, or part
of an item, does not, or would not, perform as previously specified.
Failure, Dependent – Failure which is caused by the failure of an
associated item(s). Not independent.
Failure, Independent – Failure which occurs without being caused
by the failure of any other item. Not dependent.
Failure Mechanism – The physical, chemical, electrical, thermal or
other process which results in failure.
Failure Mode – The consequence of the mechanism through
which the failure occurs, i.e. short, open, fracture, excessive wear.
Failure, Random – Failure whose occurrence is predictable only in
the probabilistic or statistical sense. This applies to all distributions.
Failure Rate – The total number of failures within an item
population, divided by the total number of life units expended by that
population, during a particular measurement interval under stated
conditions.
/ Reliability Basics
Maintainability – The measure of the ability of an item to be
retained or restored to specified condition when maintenance is
performed by personnel having specified skill levels, using prescribed
procedures and resources, at each prescribed level of maintenance
and repair.
Maintenance, Corrective – All actions performed, as a result of
failure, to restore an item to a specified condition. Corrective
maintenance can include any or all of the following steps: localization,
isolation, disassembly, interchange, reassembly, alignment, and
checkout.
Maintenance, Preventive – All actions performed in an attempt to
retain an item in a specified condition by providing systematic
inspection, detection and prevention of incipient failures.
Mean-Time-Between-Failure (MTBF) – A basic measure of
reliability for repairable items: the mean number of life units during
which all parts of the item perform within their specified limits, during
a particular measurement interval under stated conditions.
Mean-Time-To-Failure (MTTF) – A basic measure of reliability for
non-repairable items: the mean number of life units during which all
parts of the item perform within their specified limits, during a
particular measurement interval under stated conditions.
Mean-Time-To-Repair (MTTR) – A basic measure of maintainability:
the sum of corrective maintenance times at any specified level of repair,
divided by the total number of failures within an item repaired at that
level, during a particular interval under stated conditions.
Mission Reliability – The ability of an item to perform its required
functions for the duration of specified mission profile.
Reliability – (1) The duration or probability of failure free
performance under stated conditions. (2) The probability that an item
can perform its intended function for a specified interval under stated
conditions. For non-redundant items this is the equivalent to
definition (1). For redundant items, this is the definition of mission
reliability.
2007 Conference Proceedings 221