Applied Mathematical Modelling 77 (2020) 1229–1241

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Mathematical Modelling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apm

Reliability of repairable multi-state two-phase mission

systems with finite number of phase switches
Bei Wu∗, Lirong Cui
School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this article, a repairable multi-state two-phase mission system with finite number of
Received 16 April 2019 phase switches is considered. System states can be divided into a subset of working states
Revised 20 August 2019
and a subset of failed states, and the system can be repaired from the failed subset to
Accepted 3 September 2019
the working subset. However, when the number of switches between two phases exceeds
Available online 10 September 2019
a specified integer, the system will be permanently damaged and cannot be repaired any
Keywords: more. The closed-form formulas of the probability density function of the time to first
Multi-state phased mission system failure of the system, the point-wise availability, the interval availability and other relia-
Semi-Markov process bility indexes are obtained by using the theory of aggregated stochastic processes. Finally,
Time to first failure a detailed example of lithium-ion batteries is given to illustrate the proposed model and
System availability obtained results.
Aggregated stochastic process © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

1.1. Literature review

A complex phased mission system is often designed to have the ability to perform missions consisting of multiple phases.
The configuration of the system and the behavior of the components vary greatly from phase to phase. In practical, many
systems are actually phased mission systems. For example, an aircraft must undergo take-off, cruise, and landing to form
a complete voyage mission, and the reliability requirements and behavior are completely different at each phase [1]. The
phased mission model is powerful to construct dynamic systems and estimate the reliability of dynamic systems.
Since the concept of the phased mission system was first introduced by Esary and Ziehms [2], it has received substantial
attention over the past four decades. Various techniques and tools have been developed. Many researchers exploit state-
based approaches based on Markov and semi-Markov models to represent the behavior of the phased mission system [3–5].
However, as the number of components increases, the state explosion problem brings difficulties to analysis and calcula-
tion. To deal with the state explosion problem, some researchers proposed combinatorial models based on binary decision
diagrams (BDDs) [6,7], aggregated binary decision diagrams (ABDDs) [8], multiple-valued decision diagrams (MDDs) [9],
multi-state multi-valued decision diagrams (MMDDs) [10]. Multivariable universal generating function (MUGF) method can
also be exploited for the effective reliability analysis of the multi-state system with phased missions [11]. However, on the
one hand, existing works mainly apply these methods to evaluate unrepairable phased mission systems. On the other hand,
the study of finite switches is rarely seen. In our paper, a repairable phased mission system is considered which will fail

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: 315562327@qq.com (B. Wu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2019.09.018
0307-904X/© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1230 B. Wu and L. Cui / Applied Mathematical Modelling 77 (2020) 1229–1241

permanently when the number of phase switches reaches a specific finite value. To the best of our knowledge, it is the
first paper that develops the repairable phased mission system which limits the number of switches between phases. The
theory of aggregated stochastic processes is exploited to evaluate the reliability of the repairable phased mission system
with multiple states whose phase durations are assumed to be exponentially distributed.
Since Bruke and Rosenblatt [12] first presented the theory of aggregated stochastic processes (TASP), many researchers
have been attracted in that the system states can be grouped into some subsets so that dimensions can be reduced. TASP
was first introduced to the reliability field by Rubino and Sericola [13] when they calculated sojourn times of Markov sys-
tems in state subsets, and was further developed by Colquhoun and Hawkes in their pioneering work which described the
behaviors of ion channels through probabilistic models, such as [14,15]. In the field of reliability, the most extensive applica-
tion of TASP is for the multi-state system, which mainly consists of the proposition and derivation of new reliability indexes
(see, e.g., [16-18]), and the birth of new complex system models (see, e.g., [19,20]), especially in developing phased mis-
sion systems. Hawkes et al. [21] presented a finite-state system operating under two alternating regimes, and the evolution
of regime was governed by a Markov process. They obtained availabilities and probability distributions for uptimes of the
finite-state system by exploiting TASP. Their work was extended to multiple regimes by Shen and Cui [22] and degrading
systems based on gamma processes by Shen et al. [23]. The reliability of a non-repairable discrete state system with cyclic
multiple missions was analyzed in [24]. In the present article, TASP is applied to obtain the formulas for the probability
density function of the time to system first failure, the point-wise and interval availabilities, the mean time to first failure
(MTTFF) and other reliability indexes.
Our work is an extension of Hawkes et al. [21], in which the obtained formulas for reliability indexes can be regarded
as a special case of our study. Movements between the system states were governed by continuous-time Markov processes
but with two different infinitesimal generator matrices due to two alternating regimes in [21]. Many works have been done
based on [21] by different researchers. For example, movements between the system states were governed by continuous-
time semi-Markov processes in Wang et al. [25], and the mission duration was governed by a semi-Markov process which
was made up of phases with random sequence and durations in Çekyay and Özekici [26]. A discrete-time case where the
discrete-state system with random durations in generally distributed was considered in Li et al. [27], and the formula for
system reliability was obtained by using TASP and Z-transform. The extension to semi-Markov processes is necessary and
meaningful, because semi-Markov processes are more applicable to some engineering practices than Markov processes in
that sojourn time distributions are usually arbitrary rather than exponential. In the present article, the evolution of system
states is assumed to be a semi-Markov process, but when performing different phases, it is governed by different kernels.
The most significance of our paper is that we introduce a constraint on the number of switching between phases for phased
mission systems.
Mathematically, the number of transitions between states, the number of transitions between subsets of states and the
number of transitions between mission phases are usually assumed to be infinite, but in practice, they are usually finite.
Moreover, the reliability, lifetime and maintenance cost of the system will be affected by the number of transitions between
state subsets or mission phases. However, in the reliability field, models with finite number of transitions have received less
attention. To the best of our knowledge, the literature contains only two related papers. Cui and Wu [28] divided the system
states into three subsets: the perfect working subset, the imperfect working subset and the absorbing failed subset. They
assumed the number of transitions from the perfect working subset to the imperfect working subset cannot exceed a given
threshold, or the system would fail. A Markov system was considered in [28] and a semi-Markov system was considered by
Wu et al. [29]. An integer nonlinear programming and the corresponding algorithm for finding the optimal solution were
presented in [29] which enables the system to satisfy the prescribed performance requirements and control its economic
cost.
In the present article, a two-phase mission system whose number of switches between the two phases is finite is consid-
ered. Systems with two phases running alternately are common in reality, for example, charging and discharging of batteries,
day and night, working and idling machine, and so on. The number of switches between the two phases should not exceed
a given value in our model, or the system will be permanently damaged.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the multi-state two-phase mission system, and
gives some necessary assumptions. TASP is exploited to derive the formulas for the probability density function of the time
to first failure in Section 3, and the point-wise and interval availabilities in Section 4, respectively. Section 5 discusses the
relationship between the formulas obtained in this article and the results of the traditional two-phase mission model. A
detailed example of lithium-ion batteries is provided to illustrate the obtained results in Section 6. Finally, conclusions are
given in Section 7.
Vectors and matrices are rendered in bold throughout this article. All vectors are column vectors.

2. Model assumptions

Consider a repairable system with a finite state space S = {1, 2, …, nS } which can be divided into two subsets, a subset of
working states W = {1, …, nW } and a subset of failed states F = {nW + 1, …, nS }. The system can be repaired from the failed
states to the working states, which means the transitions from F to W are allowed. At any time, the system stays in one of
states in S and moves among these states.
 B. Wu and L. Cui / Applied Mathematical Modelling 77 (2020) 1229–1241 1231

Fig. 1. A possible state transition route.

We make the following assumptions in developing the reliability model for the repairable multi-state two-phase mission
system with the constraint on the number of phase switches.
(1) Two phases that can be presented by Phase I and Phase II are performed alternately, and switches between two phases
are instantaneous. The durations spent on Phase I are denoted as {Vn }, which are independent identically distributed
exponential non-negative random variables, and the constant hazard rate is μ1 . The durations spent on Phase II can
be denoted as a sequence of independent identically distributed exponential non-negative random variables {Wn },
with the constant hazard rate μ2 . It is assumed that the system starts with Phase I, and then the process of system
undergoing phases can be described by the sequence {V1 ,W1 ,…, Vn ,Wn ,…}.
(2) The number of switches between Phase I and Phase II is finite, and the maximum number of switches between the
two phases is MS , where MS is a positive integer.
(3) The movement of the system states follows a semi-Markov process, but when performing different phases, it is gov-
erned by different kernels. When Phase I is performing, transitions between states are governed by a semi-Markov
process {Z1 (t),t ≥ 0} with kernel K1 (t ) = [K1,i j (t )]nS ×nS . For Phase II, they are governed by a semi-Markov process
{Z2 (t),t ≥ 0} with kernel K2 (t ) = [K2,i j (t )]nS ×nS .
(4) States of the system under Phase k are visited in terms of the underlying homogenous Markov chain {Xk,l , l ∈ N} where
N = {0, 1, 2, . . .}, whose one-step transition matrix is Pk = [ pk,i j ]nS ×nS . The system transitions occur at time instants
{Yk,l , l ∈ N+ } where N+ denotes all positive integers. Let Yk,0 denote the beginning time of Phase k. The duration in
each individual state is given by increment Hk,l = Yk,l − Yk,l − 1 under Phase k, whose distribution only depends on the
state Xk,l − 1 currently being visited and the state Xk,l subsequently to be visited.
Specifically, the element of Kk (t) is
P (Hk,l ≤ t, Xk,l = j|Xk,l−1 = i ) = Kk,i j (t ), (i, j ) ∈ S,
∞
with its Laplace–Stieltjes transform k,i j (s ) = 0 exp(−st )dKk,i j (t ), which can be expressed in matrix form as k (s ) =
[k,i j (s )]nS ×nS . It is worth noting that Kk (0) = 0, Kk (∞) = k (0) = Pk . In the following derivation, let Kk (t), k (s) and Pk denote
the corresponding matrices where k (k = 1, 2) implies which phase it belongs to. In terms of the working subset and the
failed subset, they can be partitioned as
     
Kk,W W (t ) Kk,W F (t ) k,W W (s ) k,W F (s ) Pk,W W Pk,W F
Kk (t ) = , k ( s ) = , Pk = .
Kk,F W (t ) Kk,F F (t ) k,F W (s ) k,F F (s ) Pk,F W Pk,F F
A possible state transition route of the phased mission system is shown in Fig. 1.
From Fig. 1, the system starts with Phase I and can be repaired once it fails before the number of phase switches reaches
MS + 1. When the (MS + 1)th switch is made between phases, the system is permanently damaged.

3. Probability density function of time to first failure

For the proposed model, we need to calculate the probability density function of the time to first failure of the system,
which is related to the maximum number of switches between the two phases. Let TW denote the time to first failure of
the system which is a continuous random variable taking values on R = [0, ∞ ) with the probability density function fW (t).
Before analysis, four important indexes are necessary to be introduced which will be used in the derivation of fW (t). The
first probability matrix is Pk,WW (t) (k = 1, 2), whose ijth element is
Pk,i j,W (t ) = P (Yk,l ≤ t < Yk,l+1 , Xk,l = j, Xk,1 , . . . , Xk,l−1 ∈ W, l ∈ N|Xk,0 = i ), (i, j ) ∈ W,
1232 B. Wu and L. Cui / Applied Mathematical Modelling 77 (2020) 1229–1241

which represents the probability that Phase k performs throughout the time from 0 to t, and the system remains within
the subset W throughout the time from 0 to t and will be in state j, t time units from now, given that it is in state i now.
∞
Theorem 1 gives the Laplace transform of Pk,WW (t). For function f(t), its Laplace transform is defined as 0 exp(−st ) f (t )dt =
f ( s ).
∗

Theorem 1. The Laplace transform of the probability matrix Pk,WW (t) is

W (s ) = (I − k,W W (s )) (I − Hk,W (s ))/s,

∗ −1
Pk,W

where
⎛ ⎞
k,1i (s ) 0 ··· 0
⎜ i∈S  ⎟
⎜ k,2i (s ) ⎟
⎜ 0 ··· 0 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
Hk,W (s ) = ⎜ i∈S ⎟ , k = 1, 2.
⎜ .. .. .. .. ⎟
⎜ . . . . ⎟
⎝  ⎠
0 0 ··· k,nW i (s )
i∈S nW ×nW

The second probability matrix is Gk,WF (t) (k = 1, 2), whose ijth element is

Gk,i j (t ) = P (Yk,l ≤ t, Xk,l = j, Xk,1 , . . . , Xk,l−1 ∈ W, l ∈ N+ |Xk,0 = i ), i ∈ W, j ∈ F .

The element Gk,ij (t) describes the probability that during the implementation of Phase I, the system stays within the
working subset from the beginning to time t, and then leaves for the failed state j in the next transfer, conditional on
starting with state i. The expression of Gk,WF (t) is given by Theorem 2.

Theorem 2. The Laplace–Stieltjes transform of the probability matrix Gk,WF (t) is

Gˆk,W F (s ) = (I − k,W W (s ))−1 k,W F (s ).

Proofs of Theorems 1 and 2 can refer to [29].

The two matrices presented above only describe the evolution of system states within a fixed phase. To depict the rela-
tionship between the evolution of system states and phase switches, two more matrices need to be introduced.
The following Laplace transform is defined to describe that the system remains within the working subset throughout
the duration of Phase k, i.e.,
 ∞
O∗k,W W (s ) = exp(−st )Pk,W W (t ) fk (t )dt , k = 1, 2,
0

whose ijth element is the Laplace transform of the distribution of the phase duration and the probability that the system
remains in the working subset throughout the phase and ends the phase in state j, given starting with the phase in state i.
Similarly, define
 ∞
O∗k,W F (s ) = exp(−st )Rk (t )dGk,W F (t ), k = 1, 2,
0

to describe the circumstance where the system starts with Phase k in the working subset but goes to the failed subset
before the phase ends. The ijth element depicts the Laplace transform of the distribution of the phase duration in the
working subset and the state which the system reaches in the failed subset. Combined with the fact that the phase duration
is exponentially distributed, we have O∗k,W W (s ) = μk Pk,W
∗
W
(s + μk ) and O∗k,W F (s ) = Gˆk,W F (s + μk ).
Based on Ok,W F (s ), the probability that the system is absorbed to the failed states before Phase k ends, which is denoted
∗

as Ok,WF (k = 1, 2), can be calculated by

Ok,W F = Gˆk,W F (μk ) = (I − k,W W (μk ))−1 k,W F (μk ).

Ok,WF can be obtained by setting s = 0 in O∗k,W F (s ).

Based on O∗k,W W (s ), Ok,WW (k = 1, 2) which describes the probability that the system keeps working until Phase k ends
can be obtained by setting s = 0 in O∗k,W W (s ), i.e.,

1
Ok,W W = (I − k,W W (μk ))−1 (I − Hk,W (μk )).
μk
Hence, we give the Laplace transform of the probability density function of the time to first failure of the system in
Theorem 3.
 B. Wu and L. Cui / Applied Mathematical Modelling 77 (2020) 1229–1241 1233

Theorem 3. Given that the system starts with Phase I, the Laplace transform of the probability density function of the time
to first failure is
M S /2
  r  
∗
fW (s ) = α0 O∗1,W W (s )O∗2,W W (s ) O∗1,W F (s ) + O∗1,W W (s )O∗2,W F (s ) eF
r=0 
 M S / 2
−α0 O∗1,W W (s )O∗2,W W (s ) O∗1,W W (s )O∗2,W F (s )eF I{MS /2=integer} PW (1)
   MS /2+1  −1
= α0 I − O∗1,W W (s )O∗2,W W (s ) I − O∗1,W W (s )O∗2,W W (s )

.(O∗1,W F (s ) + O∗1,W W (s )O∗2,W F (s ) )eF − α0 (O∗1,W W (s )O∗2,W W (s ) )MS /2 .O∗1,W W (s )O∗2,W F (s )eF I{MS /2=integer} PW ,
and
 
PW = α0 I − (O1,W W O2,W W )MS /2+1 [I − O1,W W O2,W W ]−1 (O1,W F + O1,W W O2,W F )eF
(2)
−α0 (O1,W W O2,W W )MS /2 O1,W W O2,W F eF I{MS /2=integer} ,
where x is the maximal integer not greater than x, and I{A} denotes that I{A} = 1 only when A is true, otherwise I{A} = 0;
and eW is an nS × 1 column vector whose ith element is denoted as (eW )i , and (eW )i = 1 if state i ∈ W, otherwise (eW )i = 0.

Proof. Eq. (1) is obtained based on the two well-known results. One is that the distribution of the sum of random variables
is the convolution of their individual distributions. The other one is that the Laplace transform of the convolution of two
individual functions is the product of their own Laplace transforms.
When MS is even, TW may consist of r (r = 0, 1, …, MS /2) cycles from phase I to phase II and back to phase I within the
working subset, and then the system shall go to F under Phase I. Or TW may consist of r (r = 0, 1, …, (MS /2) − 1) cycles from
phase I to phase II and back to phase I within the working subset, and then the system keeps within W under Phase I, then
goes to F under Phase II. Then, we have
 

MS /2
r 1 ∗ (M
S /2 )−1
 1∗ r 1 ∗
∗
fW (s ) = α0 1∗
OW W (s )OW W (s ) OW F (s )eF +α0
2∗ 2∗
OW W (s )OW 2∗
W (s ) OW W (s )OW F (s )eF PW , (3)
r=0 r=0

where
PW = α0 [I − (OW
1
W OW W )
2 (MS /2 )+1 ][I − O1 O2 ]−1 O1 e
WW WW WF F

+ α0 [I − (OW
1
W OW W )
2 MS /2
][I − OW
1 −1 1
W OW W ] OW W OW F eF .
2 2

When MS is odd, TW may consist of r (r = 0, 1, …, (MS − 1)/2) cycles from phase I to phase II and back to phase I within
the working subset. After that, there are two possible cases: (i) the system goes to the failed subset under Phase I; (ii) the
system keeps within W under Phase I, and then going to the failed subset under Phase II. The expression of fW ∗ (s ) when

MS is odd can be written similarly with Eq. (3), so it is omitted here. Summing up two expressions of fW (s ) under two
∗

situations yields Eq. (1).

PW is used to make fW (t) become a probability density function. Setting s = 0 in Eq. (1) and moving PW to the left side
of Eq. (1), the formula of PW can be obtained. The proof is completed. 

Indeed, PW is the probability that before the number of switches between two phases reaches (MS + 1), the system fails
for the first time.
In terms of the property of Laplace transforms, the mean time to first failure (MTTFF) which is denoted as θ , can be
computed by
 
d ∗
θ= − fW (s ) |s=0 . (4)
ds

4. Point-wise and interval availabilities

This section focuses on the derivation of the closed-form formulas for system point-wise and interval availabilities by
using TASP.

4.1. Formula for point-wise availability

The point-wise availability of the system is the probability that the system stays in the working subset at a specified
time point, which is an important index to measure the system performance.
The probability matrix Uk (t) (k = 1, 2) shall be used to calculate the system point-wise availability, whose ijth element
describes that the system is in state j at time t conditional on starting from state i under Phase k, which can be written as
Uk,i j (t ) = P (Zk (t ) = j|Xk,0 = i ).
1234 B. Wu and L. Cui / Applied Mathematical Modelling 77 (2020) 1229–1241

The Laplace transform of Uk (t) can be obtained by using Theorem 4.

Theorem 4. The Laplace transform of Uk (t) is

Uk∗ (s ) = D∗k (s ) + dk∗ (s )(I − Pk dk∗ (s ))−1 Pk D∗k (s ),

where D∗k (s ) = diag(Qk,

∗ (s ), Q ∗ (s ), . . . , Q ∗ (s ))
1 k,2 k,n nS ×nS ,
S

dk∗ (s ) = diag( q∗k,1 (s ) , q∗k,2 (s ) , . . . , q∗k,nS (s ))nS ×nS .

Proof. Define πk,i j (t ) = limt→0 P (t < Hk,l ≤ t + t, Xk,l = j|Xk,l−1 = i )/t, which is independent of the subscript l due to
t
the homogeneity. We have Kk,i j (t ) = 0 πk,i j (u )du.
The probability density function of the sojourn time in state j given that coming from state i under Phase k is denoted
as qk,ij (t), where

qk,i j (t )dt = P (t < Hk,l ≤ t + t |Xk,l = j, Xk,l−1 = i ) = πk,i j (t )dt/ pk,i j .

∞
Let Qk,i j (t ) = P (Hk,l > t, Xk,l = j|Xk,l−1 = i ) = t qk,i j (u )du, and then we can define the probability of staying in state i
n 
until time t as Qk,i (t ) = j=1 pk,i j Qk,i j (t ), whose probability density function is qk,i (t ) = nj=1 pk,i j qk,i j (t ).
Another probability which describes that the system leaves state j during (t, t + t) conditional on starting with state i,
can be denoted as ωk,ij (t)dt, and we have
n 
 t
ωk,i j (t ) = qk,i (t )δi j + ωk,ir (τ ) pk,r j qk, j (t − τ )dτ , (5)
r=1 0

where δ ij is an indicator function and δ ij = 1 only when i = j, otherwise δ ij = 0. The first term in Eq. (5) refers to the case
where before time t, the system never leaves state i. The second term is obtained in the situation when the system leaves
state r at time τ , and then enters and stays in state j until time t. Taking Laplace transform to both sides of Eq. (5) yields,


n
ωk,i
∗
j (s ) = qk,i (s )δi j +
∗
ωk,ir
∗
(s ) pk,r j q∗k, j (s ). (6)
r=1

Let dk∗ (s ) = diag(q∗k,1 (s ), q∗k,2 (s ), ..., q∗k,n (s ))nS ×nS and ωk∗ (s ) = [ωk,i
∗ ( s )]
j nS ×nS . Eq. (6) can be written in matrix form as
S
ωk∗ (s ) = dk∗ (s ) + ωk∗ (s )Pk dk∗ (s ). Then we have,

ωk∗ (s ) = dk∗ (s )(I − Pk dk∗ (s ))−1 . (7)

Next, two cases should be considered to calculate Uk,ij (t). One is that the system stays in state i from the start to time t.
The other is that conditional on starting with state i, the system leaves state r at time τ for state j, and stays in state j until
time t. Because these two cases are mutually exclusive, we have,
n 
 t
Uk,i j (t ) = Qk,i (t )δi j + ωk,ir (τ ) pk,r j Qk, j (t − τ )dτ ,
r=1 0

with Laplace transform:


n

j (s ) = Qk,i (s )δi j + ωk,ir (s ) pk,r j Qk,∗ j (s ).

∗ ∗ ∗
Uk,i (8)
r=1

Let D∗k (s ) = diag(Qk,

∗ (s ), Q ∗ (s ), ..., Q ∗ (s ))
1 k,2 k,n nS ×nS . We can write Eq. (8) in matrix form as
S

Uk∗ (s ) = D∗k (s ) + ω (s )
∗
k Pk D∗k ( s ). (9)

Substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (9) yields,

Uk∗ (s ) = D∗k (s ) + dk∗ (s )(I − Pk dk∗ (s ))−1 Pk D∗k (s ).

The proof is completed. 

After obtaining the probability matrix Uk (t), we should introduce another set of matrices r,mn (t) which combines the
transitions among system states and phases. The ijth element of r,mn (t) is

ψr,mn,i j (t ) = P (Zn (t ) = j, NS = r|Zm (0 ) = i ),

which describes the probability that the system is in state j and Phase n is executed, conditional on starting with Phase m
in state i, when the number of switching between Phase I and Phase II, say NS , is r. Since m and n may only take values 1
or 2, r,mn (t) can be obtained by a recursive method of Theorem 5.
 B. Wu and L. Cui / Applied Mathematical Modelling 77 (2020) 1229–1241 1235

Theorem 5. The Laplace transforms of r,mn (t) are, if r is odd, then

⎧
(r+1 )/2 (r−1 )/2 ∗ (r+1 )/2
⎪
⎨r,12 (s ) = μ1
∗
μ2 [U1 (s + μ1 )U2∗ (s + μ2 )] ,
r,∗ 21 (s ) = μ2(r+1)/2 μ1(r−1)/2 [U2∗ (s + μ1 )U1∗ (s + μ2 )](r+1)/2 ,
⎪
⎩∗ (s ) = ∗ (s ) = 0,
r,11 r,22

if r is even, then
⎧
⎪
⎨r,11 (s ) = [μ1U1 (s + μ1 )μ2U2 (s + μ2 )] U1 (s + μ1 ),
∗ ∗ ∗ r/2 ∗

r,∗ 22 (s ) = [μ2U2∗ (s + μ2 )μ1U1∗ (s + μ1 )]r/2U2∗ (s + μ2 ),

⎪
⎩∗ (s ) = ∗ (s ) = 0.
r,21 r,12

Because the system is assumed to start with Phase I, and the initial probability of states is α0 , based on the obtained
expressions of r,∗ (s ) and ∗ (s ) in Theorem 5, the Laplace transform of the system point-wise availability at time t is
11 r,12
given as follows.
M
 S /2 M
 S /2

A∗ ( s ) = α0 (μ1 μ2 )r [U1∗ (s + μ1 )U2∗ (s + μ2 )]rU1∗ (s + μ1 )eW + α0 (μ1 μ2 )r μ1 [U1∗ (s + μ1 )U2∗ (s + μ2 )]r+1 eW

r=0 r=0
(MS /2 )+1
− α0 (μ1 μ2 )(MS /2) μ1 [U1∗ (s + μ1 )U2∗ (s + μ2 )] eW I{MS /2=integer} . (10)
Taking inverse Laplace transform to Eq. (10), the numerical solution of the point-wise availability of the system A(t) can
be obtained.

According to Tauber’s theorem, the asymptotic availability is

A = lim A(t ) = lim sA∗ (s ).

t→∞ s→0

4.2. Formulas for interval availabilities

The interval availability is a significant reliability index which describes whether the system keeps working during a
specific time interval [a, b]. In our model, the interval availability of the system is defined as below.

Definition 1. Assuming that there is no phase switching during the time interval [a, b], the interval availability of the system
is the probability that the system stays in W from time a to time b, which can be expressed as follows

Ainter ([a, b] ) = P (Zk (u ) ∈ W, for all u ∈ [a, b], NS ≤ MS ).

According to Definition 1, the case where at least one switch occurs between two phases during the time interval [a, b]
is not considered in our article. Then, we can define two new interval availabilities based on the phase of the system in the
time interval [a, b]. The specific definitions are given in Definitions 2 and 3.

Definition 2. Given the time interval [a, b], the interval availability of the system belonging to Phase I is

A1,inter ([a, b] ) = P (Z1 (u ) ∈ W, for all u ∈ [a, b], NS ≤ MS ).

Definition 3. Given the time interval [a, b], the interval availability of the system belonging to Phase II is

A2,inter ([a, b] ) = P (Z2 (u ) ∈ W, for all u ∈ [a, b], NS ≤ MS ).

Before giving the formulas for interval availabilities, we should define two sets of time instants as below. The first set
denotes when Phase I (II) is performing, the last moment of the system in the failed subset F before time t, while the system
is in the working subset W at time t, respectively. Let T1F,t and T2F,t represent this set of moments, and we have

T1F,t = sup{u : u < t, Z1 (u ) ∈ F , Z1 (t ) ∈ W },

T2F,t = sup{u : u < t, Z2 (u ) ∈ F , Z2 (t ) ∈ W }.

The other set of time instants represents the last moment of Phase k1 where the system stays in the working subset W
before time t, and the system is in the working subset W at time t when Phase k2 is performing (k1
= k2 ). They can be
denoted as

T1W,t = sup{u : u < t, Z2 (u ) ∈ W, Z1 (t ) ∈ W },

and

T2W,t = sup{u : u < t, Z1 (u ) ∈ W, Z2 (t ) ∈ W }.

1236 B. Wu and L. Cui / Applied Mathematical Modelling 77 (2020) 1229–1241

Four matrices shall be used in the derivation of interval availabilities to make the formulas look more compact, which
are
 
( a ) α1 = ∞ r=1 (O1,W F (s )O1,F W (s )) , (b) α2 =
∗ ∗ r ∞
r=1 (O2,W F (s )O2,F W (s )) ,
∗ ∗ r

(c ) β1 = (I − O∗1,W F (s )O∗1,F W (s ))−1 , (d ) β2 = (I − O∗2,W F (s )O∗2,F W (s ))−1 .

Matrices (a) and (b) describe the situations where the system may transfer from W to F and back to W for any number
(1, 2, …, ∞) of times under Phase I and Phase II respectively. Matrices (c) and (d) describe the situations where the system
may go through any number (0, 1, …, ∞) of cycles from W to F and back to W under Phase I and Phase II respectively.
It is necessary to note that the situation where the system stays in F under Phase k until the end of Phase k is not
considered here, due to the complexity of computation. Theorem 6 gives the method to calculate Ainter ([a,b]).

Theorem 6. When MS = 1, the interval availability of the system is

 a
Ainter ([a, b] ) = α0 P1,W W (b)R1 (b)eW + fT F (u )P1,W W (b − u )R1 (b − u )eW du
1,a
0
 a  a
+ fT F
2,a
(u )P2,W W (b − u )R2 (b − u )eW du + fT W (u )P2,W W (b − u )R2 (b − u )eW du,
2,a
(11)
0 0

where the Laplace transforms of fT F (t ), fT F (t ) and fT W (t ) are f ∗F (s ) = α0 α1 , f ∗F (s ) = α0 β1 O∗1,W W (s )α2 and f ∗W (s ) =

1,a 2,a 2,a T1,a T2,a T2,a
α0 β1 O∗1,W W (s ). Otherwise,
 a
Ainter ([a, b] ) = α0 P1,W W (b)R1 (b)eW + fT F (u )P1,W W (b − u )R1 (b − u )eW du
1,a
0
 a  a
+ fT W (u )P1,W W (b − u )R1 (b − u )eW du + fT F (u )P2,W W (b − u )R2 (b − u )eW du (12)
1,a 2,a
0 0
 a
+ fT W (u )P2,W W (b − u )R2 (b − u )eW du,
2,a
0

where the Laplace transforms of fT F (t ), fT W (t ), fT F (t ) and fT W (t ) are

1,a 1,a 2,a 2,a


j−1
fT∗F (s ) = α0 β1 O∗1,W W (s )β2 (O∗2,W W (s )β1 O∗1,W W (s )β2 )r O∗2,W W (s )α1 ,
1,a
r=0

j
fT∗W (s ) = α0 (β1 O∗1,W W (s )β2 O∗2,W W (s ))r ,
1,a
r=1

j
fT∗F (s ) = α0 β1 (O∗1,W W (s )β2 O∗2,W W (s )β1 )r O∗1,W W (s )α2 ,
2,a
r=0

j
fT∗W (s ) = α0 β1 O∗1,W W (s )(β2 O∗2,W W (s )β1 O∗1,W W (s ))r ,
2,a
r=0

where MS = 2j + 1 ( j ∈ N+ ) if MS is an odd integer, and MS = 2j if MS is a positive even integer.

Proof. According to the definitions of interval availabilities, it is clear that

Ainter ([a, b] ) = A1,inter ([a, b] ) + A2,inter ([a, b] ).
To calculate A1,inter ([a, b]), according to Definition 2, we have

A1,inter ([a, b] ) = P (Z1 (u ) ∈ W, for all u ∈ [a, b], NS = 0 ) + P (Z1 (u ) ∈ W, for all u ∈ [a, b], 1 ≤ NS ≤ MS )
(13)
= α0 P1,W W (b)R1 (b)eW + P (Z1 (u ) ∈ W, for all u ∈ [a, b], 1 ≤ NS ≤ MS ).
The second term in Eq. (13) can be divided into two scenarios depending on whether the system moves to the failed
subset F. If the system never transfers to F before time a, it may go through any number of phase cycles which consist of
one Phase I and one Phase II, and then stay in W from time a to time b under Phase I. Otherwise, the system can move to
F any number of times and finally move to W before time a, to make sure that the system stays in W during [a, b]. On the
basis of the definitions of T1W,t and T1F,t , we have
 a
A1,inter ([a, b] ) = α0 P1,W W (b)R1 (b)eW + fT W (u )P1,W W (b − u )R1 (b − u )eW du
1,a
 a 0

+ fT F (u )P1,W W (b − u )R1 (b − u )eW du.

1,a
0

A2,inter ([a, b]) can be obtained similarly with A1,inter ([a, b]), and the biggest difference between them is that, for A2,inter ([a,
b]), there must be at least one switch between Phase I and Phase II.
 B. Wu and L. Cui / Applied Mathematical Modelling 77 (2020) 1229–1241 1237

Table 1
Electrical performance characteristics of a lithium-ion battery.

Temperature (◦ C) Power density (W l−1 ) Energy density (Wh l−1 )

25 210 300
10 100 300
− 10 0 280
− 20 0 250
− 40 0 0

One special case is that when MS = 1, T1W,a = 0 because the system is assumed to start with Phase I, and it has to switch
at least twice to go back to Phase I. And when MS = 1, T1F,a consists of any number of transitions (1, 2, …, ∞) from W to F
and back to W when Phase I continues until time t; T2F,a consists of any number of transitions (0, 1, …, ∞) from W to F and
back to W when Phase I is performing, and then the system goes through any number of transitions (1, 2, …, ∞) from W to
F and back to W when Phase II is performing; T2W,a consists of any number of transitions (0, 1, …, ∞) from W to F and back
to W when Phase I is performing, and then the system stays in W until Phase I ends.
The proof is completed. 

5. Discussion of special cases

The reliability evaluation of the multi-state system whose state evolution follows the Markov process under alternative
environments has been given in [21] and the semi-Markov case has been studied in [25], but the case where the number of
switches between the two phases is finite was not considered in the two papers. In the present article, when MS approaches
infinity, the constraint on the number of phase switches will disappear. In this case, the derived formulas for the probability
density function of the time to first failure, the point-wise availability become the formulas obtained in [25]. Hence, their
work can be seen as a special case of our study.
Based on Theorem 3, when MS approaches infinity, the Laplace transform of the probability density function of the time
to first failure can be given as
∗
fW (s ) = α0 (I − O∗1,W W (s )O∗2,W W (s ))−1 (O∗1,W F (s ) + O∗1,W W (s )O∗2,W F (s ))eF . (14)
Obviously, the failure probability PW becomes 1 when MS approaches infinity.
The point-wise availability of the system without the constraint on switching times can be obtained based on Eq. (10) as
follows.
A∗ (s ) = α0 (I − μ1 μ2U1∗ (s + μ1 )U2∗ (s + μ2 ))−1U1∗ (s + μ1 )eW
(15)
+ μ1 α0 (I − μ1 μ2U1∗ (s + μ1 )U2∗ (s + μ2 ))−1U1∗ (s + μ1 )U2∗ (s + μ2 )eW .
It can be observed that Eqs. (14) and (15) are consistent with the results obtained in [25].
If states in F are absorbing, which means the system cannot escape from F once entering it, our formulas are still valid
and the system becomes a non-repairable system. The formula in Theorem 3 becomes the Laplace transform of the prob-
ability density function of the system lifetime, and Eqs. (14) and (15) become the formulas for the system reliability. The
interval availability becomes the system reliability at time instant b.

6. A case study: lithium-ion batteries

In this section, the two-phase mission model with finite number of phase switches is applied to the lithium-ion batteries
for illustration of the proposed reliability evaluation method. Mathematica programs are exploited to implement the derived
formulas.

6.1. Background

The lithium-ion battery system is a multi-state two-phase mission system which is consistence with the presented as-
sumptions in Section 2 from the following aspects.

(1) The lithium-ion batteries can be recharged when they are exhausted. The discharge and charge processes can be
regarded as Phase I and Phase II, respectively.
(2) The number of charge-discharge cycles is finite, because a lithium-ion battery should be discarded once its maximum
releasable capacity decreases below 70% of the nominal capacity [30]. It is consistence with the assumption in our
model that the number of switches between Phase I and Phase II is finite.
(3) Temperature can affect significantly on battery performance. Low temperature electrical performance characteristics
of a lithium-ion battery are shown in Table 1, which is a result of [31].
1238 B. Wu and L. Cui / Applied Mathematical Modelling 77 (2020) 1229–1241

Table 2
Classes of the performance of batteries.

Temperature range (◦ C) Performance level

0–25 High-level
− 20–0 Poor-level
− 40–20 Downtime

Ref. [31] depicts that the performance of batteries at and around room temperature is respectable, and is poor at tem-
peratures below 0 ◦ C. Combined with Table 1, the performance level of the battery is discretely divided into three classes in
our paper as Table 2 shows.
Let states 1, 2 and 3 represent the high-level, poor-level performance and downtime respectively. Temperature changing
can be described by a semi-Markov process, and both the charge and discharge processes are influenced by temperature. It
is consistence with the assumption in Section 2, which means movements between states 1, 2 and 3 under the two phases
can be described by two semi-Markov processes with different kernels, respectively.

6.2. Reliability evaluation

We assume that the one-step transition matrices under Phase I and Phase II are given by P1 and P2 respectively as
follows.
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
0 0.9 0.1 0 0.8 0.2
P1 = ⎝0.8 0 0.2⎠, P2 = ⎝0.7 0 0.3⎠.
0.3 0.7 0 0.1 0.9 0
Without loss of generality, the sojourn time in each state is assumed to follow the gamma distribution Gamma(α , β )
with different shape parameter α and scale parameter β , whose probability density function is given by
β α xα−1 e−β x
(α ) , x > 0,
f (x ) =
0, otheriwse.
The specific kernels K1 (t) and K2 (t) are given as follows.
⎛ ⎞
0 0.9G2,2 (t ) 0.1G1,1 (t )
K1 (t ) = ⎝0.8G2,3 (t ) 0 0.2G1,1 (t )⎠,
0.3G1,3 (t ) 0.7G1,2 (t ) 0
⎛ ⎞
0 0.8G1,1 (t ) 0.2G1,2 (t )
K2 (t ) = ⎝0.7G2,4 (t ) 0 0.3G1,1 (t )⎠,
0.1G2,2 (t ) 0.9G1,1 (t ) 0
where Gα ,β (t) denotes the cumulative distribution function of Gamma(α , β ). Note that different sets of α and β are chosen
in order to make K1 (t) and K2 (t) have various characteristics.
Suppose a brand new fully charged lithium-ion battery is ready to discharge, which implies the system is assumed to
start with Phase I, and the initial probability of the system states is α0 = (1, 0, 0). Let μ1 = 4 be the rate of discharge of a
lithium-ion battery per day, which means the average time between discharges is 6 h. Let μ2 = 4/3 be the rate of charge of
a lithium-ion battery per day, which means the average time between charges is 18 h.
Firstly, the two important matrices O∗k,W W (s ) and O∗k,W F (s ) can be obtained on the basis of Theorems 1 and 2. Then, we
can draw the curves of probability density functions of the time to first failure of the system when the maximum number
of switching times takes different finite values based on Theorem 3. In addition, the curve of fW (t) when MS approaches
infinity can be drawn according to Eq. (14). The results are shown in Fig. 2.
Two phenomena can be found by observing the curves in Fig. 2. Firstly, when MS takes two adjacent finite values, the
distance between the two curves gradually decreases with the increase of MS . For example, there is a gap between the
two curves when MS = 1 and MS = 2, but the two curves when MS = 19 and MS = 20 nearly coincide. It indicates that as
MS increases, the variation of the first failure time of the system decreases gradually. Secondly, as MS increases, the curves
of fW (t) when MS takes finite values all move towards the curve of fW (t) when MS approaches infinity. This phenomenon
is consistent with the conclusion obtained in Section 5, which verifies the formulas in Theorem 3. This is due to the fact
that the formula for the time to first failure in Theorem 3 will degenerate into the formula in [25] as MS increases and
approaches infinity.
Based on Eq. (2), we can obtain different probabilities that the system fails for the first time before the number of
switches between two phases reaches 2, 3, 10, 11, 20 and 21, respectively. Also, based on Eq. (4), we can get the correspond-
ing MTTFFs. The results are shown in Table 3.
 B. Wu and L. Cui / Applied Mathematical Modelling 77 (2020) 1229–1241 1239

Fig. 2. Curves of probability density functions of times to first failure.

Table 3
PW and θ .

MS PW θ
1 0.1819 0.6488
2 0.2043 0.7120
9 0.6158 2.0542
10 0.6302 2.1182
19 0.8465 3.3117
20 0.8525 3.3547
Infinity 1 5.0093

It is clear that when the number of switches allowed between two phases increases, θ and PW both increase. We can see
that the value of θ when MS approaches infinity is more than five times the value of θ when MS = 1. The probability of sys-
tem first failure before the number of switches between two phases reaches 10 has already exceeded 50%. Such information
is valuable for engineering practice.
As Section 4 depicts, before calculating the point-wise availability of the system, we have to calculate D∗k (s ) and dk∗ (s )
first. By using Theorem 4, we can obtain
 
0.1 0.9 ( 4s2 + 4s ) 0.2 0.8 ( 9s2 + 6s ) 0.7 0.3
D∗1 (s ) = diag + , + , + ,
1+s s ( 1 + 2s )
2 1 + s s ( 1 + 3s )
2 2 + s 3 +s
 
0.8 0.2 0.3 0.7(16s2 + 8s ) 0.9 0.1 ( 4s2 + 4s )
D∗2 (s ) = diag + , + , + ,
1+s 2+s 1+s s ( 1 + 4s )
2 1+s s ( 1 + 2s )
2
 
0.1 0.9 0.2 0.8 1.4 0.9
d1∗ (s ) = diag + , + , + ,
1+s ( 1 + 2s )2 1+s
( 1 + 3s )2 2+s 3 +s
 
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.1
d2∗ (s ) = diag + , + , + .
1+s 2+s 1+s (1 + 4s )2 1 + s (1 + 2s )2
Then, U1∗ (s ) and U2∗ (s ) can be obtained. Next, the curves of system point-wise availabilities when the maximum number
of switching times takes various values can be drawn according to Theorem 5 and Eq. (10) respectively, whose results are
shown in Fig. 3.
Observing Fig. 3, one phenomenon can be found that at a fixed time point, the point-wise availability of the system
increases with MS increases. This is due to the fact that when more switching times between two phases are allowed,
the system will be more available. The point-wise availability will approach 0 when time approaches infinity, because the
number of the switches between two phases will reach the finite threshold finally.
Next, we calculate the system interval availability based on Theorem 6. Firstly, we set different fixed values of a when
MS = 2, and calculate the interval availabilities when b take different values. The curves of interval availabilities when
a = 0.001, a = 0.1, a = 0.3, a = 0.5 and a = 1 can be drawn respectively which are shown in Fig. 4.
When we fix the value of b in Fig. 4, we can find that the interval availability increases with a increases. It is because
when a increases and b does not change, the time interval gets smaller, so the probability that the system keeps working in
[a, b] becomes larger. Another observed phenomenon is that when b increases and a does not change, the interval availability
decreases and finally turns to 0.
Next, we calculate four sets of interval availabilities to make comparisons which are (i) a = 0.5 and MS = 1; (ii) a = 0.5
and MS = 2; (iii) a = 1 and MS = 1; (iv) a = 1 and MS = 2. The curves are shown in Fig. 5.
1240 B. Wu and L. Cui / Applied Mathematical Modelling 77 (2020) 1229–1241

Fig. 3. Curves of point-wise availabilities.

Fig. 4. Curves of interval availabilities when MS = 2.

Fig. 5. Curves of interval availabilities under different a and MS .

Fig. 5 indicates that the interval availability increases with MS increases. This is because when the number of switches
allowed between two phases gets larger, the system is more available in time interval [a, b].

7. Conclusions

A repairable multi-state phased mission system with two phases running alternately is considered in this article, and
the number of switches between the two phases is assumed to be finite. The theory of aggregated stochastic processes is
exploited to derive the reliability indexes of the system, and the closed-form formulas for the probability density function
of the time to system first failure, MTTFF, the system point-wise and interval availabilities, and other indexes are obtained.
When the number of transitions allowed between two phases becomes infinity, our model degenerates to the case of the
traditional alternative environment model.
The applicability of proposed method has been demonstrated on a real engineering system, i.e., the lithium-ion battery
system. From the example, it can be found that the time to system first failure, the point-wise and interval availabilities of
the system at any time can be assessed efficiently by the developed formulas. Two meaningful conclusions can be drawn.
Firstly, when the allowed number of switches between the two phases increases, the mean time to first failure of the system,
the system point-wise and interval availabilities all increase. Secondly, when the allowed number of switches between the
 B. Wu and L. Cui / Applied Mathematical Modelling 77 (2020) 1229–1241 1241

two phases is finite, the point-wise and interval availabilities will approach 0 when time approaches infinity, since the
number of the switches between two phases will reach the finite threshold finally.
We believe our model has many potential applications in practice, such as a machine which has two alternative operating
levels, or a foldable mobile phone which provides the convenience of great portability when folded and a larger screen when
people need it. Although the closed-form formulas for reliability indexes of phased mission systems are given in the present
paper, a large number of parameters and forms of distributions are required to be determined. An appropriate algorithm is
necessary to find suitable parameters and distributions in practice engineering.
Our proposed model is some initial work on a phased mission system with constraints, and we hope that our work can
lead to further developments in the future. As the system structure may be more complex and dynamic, different phases
can have different working and failed states, which is part of our future work.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant 71631001 and the Graduate
Technological Innovation Project of Beijing Institute of Technology 2018CX20030.

References

[1] X.Y. Zang, H.R. Sun, K.S. Trivedi, A BDD-based algorithm for reliability analysis of phased-mission systems, IEEE Trans. Reliab. 48 (1) (1999) 50–60.
[2] J.D. Esary, H. Ziehms, Reliability analysis of phased missions, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Reliability and Fault Tree Analysis, 1975,
pp. 213–236.
[3] M. Alam, U.M. Alsaggaf, Quantitative reliability evaluation of repairable phased mission systems using Markov approach, IEEE Trans. Reliab. 35 (5)
(1986) 498–503.
[4] X.Y. Wu, H. Yan, L.R. Li, Numerical method for reliability analysis of phased-mission system using Markov chains, Commun. Stat. Theory Methods 41
(21) (2012) 3960–3973.
[5] X.Y. Li, H.Z. Huang, Y.F. Li, Reliability analysis of phased mission system with non-exponential and partially repairable components, Reliab. Eng. Syst.
Saf. 175 (2018) 119–127.
[6] X. Zang, H. Sun, K.S. Trivedi, A BDD-based algorithm for reliability evaluation of phased mission systems, IEEE Trans. Reliab. 48 (1) (1999) 50–60.
[7] L.D. Xing, G. Levitin, BDD-based reliability evaluation of phased-mission systems with internal/external common-cause failures, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
112 (2013) 145–153.
[8] Q.Q. Zhai, L.D. Xing, R. Peng, J. Yang, Aggregated combinatorial reliability model for non-repairable parallel phased-mission systems, Reliab. Eng. Syst.
Saf. 176 (2018) 242–250.
[9] Y.C. Mo, L.D. Xing, S.V. Amari, A multiple-valued decision diagram based method for efficient reliability analysis of non-repairable phased-mission
systems, IEEE Trans. Reliab. 63 (1) (2014) 320–330.
[10] X.Y. Li, H.Z. Huang, Y.F. Li, E. Zio, Reliability assessment of multi-state phased mission system with non-repairable multi-state components, Appl. Math.
Model. 61 (2018) 181–199.
[11] R. Peng, Q.Q. Zhai, L.D. Xing, J. Yang, Reliability analysis and optimal structure of series-parallel phased-mission systems subject to fault level coverage,
IIE Trans. 48 (8) (2016) 736–746.
[12] C.J. Burke, M. Rosenblatt, A Markovian function of a Markov-chain, Ann. Math. Stat. 29 (4) (1958) 1112–1122.
[13] G. Rubino, B. Sericola, Sojourn times in finite Markov-processes, J. Appl. Probab. 26 (4) (1989) 744–756.
[14] D. Colquhoun, A.G. Hawkes, Relaxation and fluctuations of membrane currents that flow through drug-operated channels, Proc. R. Soc. Ser. B Bio. 199
(1135) (1977) 231–262.
[15] D. Colquhoun, A.G. Hawkes, On the stochastic properties of bursts of single ion channel openings and of clusters of bursts, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.
Ser. B Biol. Sci. 300 (1098) (1982) 1–59.
[16] L.R. Cui, J.H. Chen, B. Wu, New interval availability indexes for Markov repairable systems, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 168 (2017) 12–17.
[17] L.R. Cui, S.J. Du, B.L. Liu, Multi-point and multi-interval availabilities, IEEE Trans. Reliab. 62 (4) (2013) 811–820.
[18] H. Yi, L.R. Cui, Distribution and availability for aggregated second-order semi-Markov ternary system with working time omission, Reliab. Eng. Syst.
Saf. 166 (2017) 50–60.
[19] Y.Q. Wen, L.R. Cui, S.B. Si, B.L. Liu, Several new performance measures for Markov system with stochastic supply patterns and stochastic demand
patterns, J. Comput. Sci. 17 (2016) 148–155 Neth.
[20] L.Y. Wang, X.J. Jia, J. Zhang, Reliability evaluation for multi-state Markov repairable systems with redundant dependencies, Qual. Technol. Quant. M. 10
(3) (2013) 277–289.
[21] A.G. Hawkes, L.R. Cui, Z.H. Zheng, Modeling the evolution of system reliability performance under alternative environments, IIE Trans. 43 (11) (2011)
761–772.
[22] J.Y. Shen, L.R. Cui, Reliability performance for dynamic systems with cycles of k regimes, IIE Trans. 48 (4) (2016) 389–402.
[23] J.Y. Shen, A. Elwany, L.R. Cui, Reliability modeling for systems degrading in k cyclical regimes based on gamma processes, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part
O, J. Risk Rel. 232 (6) (2018) 754–765.
[24] L.R. Cui, Y. Li, J.Y. Shen, C. Lin, Reliability for discrete state systems with cyclic missions periods, Appl. Math. Model. 40 (23-24) (2016) 10783–10799.
[25] L.Y. Wang, L.R. Cui, J. Zhang, J. Peng, Reliability evaluation of a semi-Markov repairable system under alternative environments, Commun. Stat. Theory
Methods 45 (10) (2016) 2938–2957.
[26] B. Cekyay, S. Ozekici, Mean time to failure and availability of semi-Markov missions with maximal repair, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207 (3) (2010) 1442–1454.
[27] Y. Li, L.R. Cui, H. Yi, Reliability of non-repairable systems with cyclic-mission switching and multimode failure components, J. Comput. Sci. 17 (2016)
126–138 Neth.
[28] L.R. Cui, B. Wu, Extended phase-type models for multistate competing risk systems, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 181 (2019) 1–16.
[29] B. Wu, L.R. Cui, C. Fang, Reliability analysis of semi-Markov systems with restriction on transition times, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 190 (2019) 190.
[30] J. Feng, P. Kvam, Y.Z. Tang, Remaining useful lifetime prediction based on the damage-marker bivariate degradation model: a case study on lithium-ion
batteries used in electric vehicles, Eng. Fail. Anal. 70 (2016) 323–342.
[31] G. Nagasubramanian, Electrical characteristics of 18650 Li-ion cells at low temperatures, J. Appl. Electrochem. 31 (1) (2001) 99–104.