Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-021-03222-y

TECHNICAL PAPER

Asset management strategies using reliability, availability,

and maintainability (RAM) analysis
Maria Valentina Clavijo Mesa1   · Carmen Elena Patino‑Rodriguez2 · Fernando Jesus Guevara Carazas3 ·
Indra Gunawan4   · Enrique López Droguett5 

Received: 18 May 2021 / Accepted: 27 September 2021 / Published online: 12 October 2021
© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2021

Abstract
Reliability, availability and maintainability (RAM) analysis is used for various strategic purposes in the operations of
productive assets to identify key points to apply improvements to. The conventional RAM approaches are, nevertheless,
practical guides developed for case studies, not for analyses that consider any level of complexity asset. This paper presents
a methodology for RAM analysis, which represents a logical pathway for analysts and operators of engineered systems
to guide the decision-making of asset managers. For different scenarios, strategies to collect the required information are
discussed as well as recommendations to make the asset more efficient. Due to the usual limitation of available resources
in the companies, and prioritization maintenance actions that must be assertive to achieve the best possible efficiency dur-
ing the operation, the methodology includes techniques to identify critical equipment as structural importance measures
(Birnbaum, Risk Reduction Worth, Risk Achievement Worth). The proposed methodology is demonstrated by developing a
RAM analysis for a heavy-duty truck. This type of vehicle is used for collecting cargo in a Colombian city. The case study
results in operational, tactical, and strategic recommendations for operation and maintenance management professionals.

Keywords  RAM analysis · Importance measures · MTBF · MTTR​ · Fitted distributions · Heavy-duty trucks

1 Introduction need for quality at the best possible cost is a requirement

The industrial production process has evolved with import
changes in the quality of product, operations management,
and recent technology. According to Tsarouhas [58], the
Technical Editor: Andre T. Beck.
for companies to remain current in a competitive environ-
ment. In this context, RAM analysis has been presented as
a powerful tool to estimate a set of indicators that allow
monitoring asset health management.
Nevertheless, technological advances and improvements
have caused increasing system complexity. Concurrently,

2
* Maria Valentina Clavijo Mesa Analytics and Research for Decision‑Making Laboratory
valentina.clavijo@usp.br (ALIADO), Industrial Engineering Department, University
of Antioquia, Calle 67 # 53‑108, Medellín, Colombia
Carmen Elena Patino‑Rodriguez
3
elena.patino@udea.edu.co Asset Management, Operation and Maintenance Research
Group (GOMAC), Mechanical Engineering Department,
Fernando Jesus Guevara Carazas
National University of Colombia, Carrera 64C #63‑120,
fjguevarac@unal.edu.co
Medellín, Colombia
Indra Gunawan 4
Adelaide Business School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide
indra.gunawan@adelaide.edu.au
SA 5005, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Enrique López Droguett 5
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
eald@ucla.edu
and Garrick Institute for the Risk Sciences, University
1 of California, Los Angeles, 404 Westwood Plaza,
Analysis, Evaluation and Risk Management Laboratory
Engineering VI, 580B, Los Angeles, CA, USA
(LabRisco), Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering
Department, University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Mello
Moraes, 2231, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo, Brazil

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
495 
Page 2 of 17 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495
requirements for high functionality and high performance
also increase. These conditions result in challenges and
opportunities [13]. For example, component reliability is
often nonspecific since reliability depends on the operating
and environmental conditions [39]. Maintainability, in turn,
is difficult to estimate due to the uncertainty associated with
repair processes in complex assets, and estimating the availa-
bility of a system tends to require a high computational cost.
In this sense, Sharma et al. [50] analyzed the literature about
maintenance optimization models, concluding that mainte-
nance models require maintenance teams to have software
for information storage and subsequent efficient retrieval for
maintenance management.
To obtain a rigorous and real summary of the RAM anal-
ysis, bibliometric analysis was performed to quantitatively
evaluate the eligible articles and identify quantifiable pat-
terns of interest, such as the occurrence of keywords distri-
bution in articles. Descriptive information, including title,
keywords, journal name, abstract, and publication year were
derived. Scopus database and VOSViewer [61] were used
collectively to compile, manage, and analyze the descrip-
tive properties of the eligible articles. The network for key-
words of RAM analysis publications is presented in Fig. 1.
This methodology is based on keywords used in academic
research publications that, in our case, are related to the
RAM concepts and techniques used to estimate each of the
RAM indicators.
A closer look at Fig. 1 shows the temporal evolutions
associated with the RAM concepts. The color scale begins
Fig. 1  Network of RAM analy-
sis publications
13
in the red color for the concepts that were developed first
(1983) and ends in the yellow color to represent the latest
concepts developed in this topic (2021).
The first RAM concepts were associated with Maintain-
ability analysis, then Reliability analysis was developed;
finally, Availability analysis emerged. In the decades of
comprehending the 2000s, it seems that the main concern
regarded the solution methods, cost, and performance. For
instance, Liberopoulos and Tsarouhas [34] developed a sta-
tistical analysis of failure data of a production line. For the
study, the line failures were collected for four years. The
analysis included the computation of the descriptive statis-
tics of the failure data, the characterization of the relevant
failures, the computation of the parameters of the theoretical
distributions that best fit the failure data, and the investiga-
tion of the existence of autocorrelations and cross-correla-
tion in the failure data.
More recently, the concern has revolved around an inte-
grated RAM analysis and engineering systems applications
mixing advanced computational concepts and risk analy-
sis, such as Gao and Wang [21] and Kumar and Jain [30],
who used Markovian approaches. Kumar and Jain [30]
investigated the reliability of a multi-component machin-
ing system with unreliable servers. In the analysis, transient
probabilities are obtained by computing eigenvalues of the
transition matrix and using a spectral method. Particularly in
this paper, the metrics are estimated to be great for numeri-
cal experiments. Gao and Wang [21] expose a reliability
and availability analysis of a repairable retrial system with
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495 Page 3 of 17  495
mixed standbys. Solving equations of statistical equilibrium
in matrix form, the authors obtain the asymptotic availability
of the machine system as well as the expected busy cycle
of the repair facility. Furthermore, Sharma and Kumar [51]
developed a RAM analysis in a urea plant, situated in north-
ern India. During this application, the authors conducted the
analysis applying a Markov model.
Yang and Tsao [63] present an alternative to estimate
the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) based on the Laplace
transform technique. In the paper, the authors focus on
reliability-based measures of standby systems with retrials
and working vacations. For this reason, it is simulated as
a repairable system consisting of M primary components,
S spare components and a repairman. The repair times of
failed components are assumed as exponential.
We would like to point out that several distributions have
been adopted in the RAM analysis. For example, Garg [22]
during the estimation of RAM indicators, the author quanti-
fies the uncertainty in the data for a crankcase manufacturing
plant. The author applies the particle swarm optimization
(PSO) technique, and for uncertainty analysis, triangular and
normal distribution using a setting suggested by: (i) deci-
sion-makers, (ii) design maintenance experts, and iii) system
reliability analysts. PSO technique is also implemented by
Chalabi et al. [8] to study an optimization problem of the
grouping strategy of preventive maintenance tasks for multi-
unit series production systems.
In short, even when the RAM concepts were known a
few decades ago, these concepts continue to be of interest
to the scientific community, which has related the concepts
to some other areas. In fact, as evident from the above stud-
ies, systems models are developed to solve reliability, avail-
ability, and maintainability problems. However, Zhang et al.
[64] argue that there are still unresolved challenges for RAM
analysts, for example:
• Familiarization with the engineering system under study
depends on the experience and competence of RAM
engineers instead of designers, thus creating the possi-
bility that key aspects of the engineering of the system
may be ignored or misinterpreted.
• The interactions between components and functions are
not sufficient to evaluate RAM performance because
the failure effect is only identified and evaluated in the
selected hierarchical decomposition, and health is evalu-
ated in a remarkably similar way.
Then, to explore the potential of RAM analyses, it is relevant
to cite some studies, such as Choudhary et al. [11], Mar-
torell et al. [36], and Sikos and Klemeš [53]. Choudhary et al.
[11] implement RAM analysis of a cement plant in Northern
India, using operational data collected for two years. Subse-
quently, the authors used the tests of lack of fit, distribution
of time between failure, and Time To Repair (TTR) data and
their parameters. Sikos and Klemeš [53] design a fault tree
(FT), to analyze the reliability of heat exchanger networks,
and Martorell et al. [36] suggest the use of genetic algorithms
to estimate the availability of industrial installations.
In another study, Cheung and Wang [9] quantified the
reliability and availability of a cooling system. The study
also defines which types of cooling system designs are
preferable for highly reliable centers. The exponential
distribution is used to model the failure data (assuming
constant hazard rate) and the asymptotic availability of
data center cooling equipment from the field and calcu-
lating the availability of complete systems with different
numbers of redundant equipment and distribution headers.
Other applications of RAM analysis in the industry
are presented by Arias Velásquez and Mejía Lara [5] and
Herder et al. [26]. In the first, using Monte Carlo simu-
lation (MCS) and reliability block diagrams (RBD), the
authors describe the implementation of a RAM simula-
tion model for a plastic plant located in the Netherlands.
Arias Velásquez and Mejía Lara [5] developed a RAM
study for series capacitor banks for power lines located at
substations in Peru. In that research, it was assumed that
the exponential distribution was adequate for modeling
the failure rate of the electrical equipment, and MCS was
also used to estimate the annual availability and the MTBF
(mean time between failures) of the system.
However, these RAM approaches suffer limitations as
they fail to:
–  Integrate each RAM indicator with the general analysis
of the asset, concluding about alternatives for the asset
manager that allow improving the reliability, availabil-
ity and/or maintainability of their asset,
–  provide strategies that researchers could apply during
the data collection required to RAM analyses,
–  present a methodological graph of the process imple-
mented during the analysis, instead of a figure of the
technique used,
–  expose analysis techniques that could be implemented
in computational tools for free access and low compu-
tational cost
From these premises and considering that during the stud-
ies presented there was no evidence of an integrated meth-
odology for RAM analysis that can be applied to systems
of different levels of complexity. The authors of this paper,
hereinafter called the authors, were motivated to design a
RAM analysis methodology to support the four limitations
previously mentioned. Additionally, the proposed meth-
odology is demonstrated through a case study involving a
heavy-duty truck (HDT) used for a Colombian company
that collects cargo in Colombian cities.
13
495 
Page 4 of 17 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495
We here proposed a methodology for RAM analysis and
strategies to collect the required data for analysis are detailed
(Sect. 2). Afterward, the application of the methodology is
elucidated, using a HDV as a case study (Sect. 3). Lastly, in
Sect. 4, the concluding statements are presented.
2 Methodology
The proposed methodology is based on traditionally applied
concepts. Yet it is innovative because it presents a clear and
replicable methodological structure so that readers and ana-
lysts of the health status of productive assets can replace
the study and thus monitor the RAM indicators required for
the proper management of their assets, besides integrating
several techniques to evaluate the reliability, maintainability,
and availability of an asset, generating different alternatives
for the analyst according to the system complexity. Figure 2
shows the methodology diagram.
The methodology is divided into four main steps: func-
tional description of the system, reliability analysis, main-
tainability analysis, and availability analysis. The first step
consists in defining the technical and operational charac-
teristics of the system. As mentioned by Stapelberg [56],
engineering integrity includes RAM of inherent systems
functions and their related equipment. Thus, the analyst
establishes the characteristics that define the engineering
principles and the operational characteristics of the equip-
ment, from information from manufacturers or other sources
of technical information.
2.1 Functional analysis
Functional analysis should be the analyst’s first approach to
the asset under study [48]. Particularly, Fig. 2 exposes three
alternatives as possible sources of information to functional
analysis. Generally, the information is obtained for com-
ponents; therefore, the analyst must collect as much infor-
mation as possible from the components and later design
the functional analysis of the system. Thus, manufacturer’s
manuals and literature reviews could be used for designing
system functional trees. A functional tree is a graphical tool
that allows establishing the dependencies or functional links
between the subsystems of an entire system. Basically, in
functional analysis, these trees show the existing relations
within a system by decomposing a problem into simpler
parts or elements [24]. Note that the failure mode and effect
analysis (FMEA) guidelines are related to the industry to
which the asset being analyzed belongs [1, 41, 47, 59].
Once the functional analysis and FMEA is implemented,
the analyst is expected to identify the equipment bounda-
ries, assumptions of asset operation, and redundancy levels
of the system. Therefore, the first step in the methodology
13
represents the theoretical base for RAM analysis, and nor-
mally, the process developed is presented in a specific con-
figuration of the asset (diagram functional description).
2.2 Reliability analysis
Secondly, the methodology proposes executing the reliabil-
ity analysis. For this analysis, the inputs required are the
mission time and hazard rate of the system components. The
mission time is the period necessary to calculate the prob-
ability of non-failure [39]. The hazard rate could be defined
as the frequency at which an engineered component fails,
expressed in failures per unit of time [20]. Figure 3 presents
some strategies to collect information related to hazard rates
of components.
During reliability analysis, the analyst should select the
analytical logic techniques to quantify the probability of the
system to perform without failure under a given set of oper-
ating conditions for a mission time, given it was operating
at the initial instant. Thus, Fig. 2 presents some of the mul-
tiple alternatives that might be applicable, such as fault tree
analysis (FTA), RBD, Markov Chain, or Bayesian networks
(BNs) [6, 19, 40]. Particularly, FTA and RBD are widely
used formalisms in system reliability modeling [18].
Table 1 summarizes some reliability techniques and pre-
sents the limitations that must be previously considered by
analysts.
Note that FTA and RBD have two different approaches,
that is, in the RBD, the asset (productive system) is repre-
sented by functionally interconnected components or reli-
ability relationships, whereas in the FTA, it shows which
combinations of failures between components trigger in a
total or partial failure of the entire asset or system [62]. In
this sense, the recommendation for the analyst is that FTA
implementation could be more advantageous in case the
hazard rate is collected for events (for example, piston pres-
sure too high, cylinder excessive external load, ring pressure
too low, etc.); whereas application of RBD may be more
appropriate if the hazard rate is compiled for components
(for example, loss of pump, valve fail, switch failed.) and
the functionality of the system can be decomposed into
series–parallel systems.
The results expected from the reliability analysis are the
estimation of asset failure probability for predefined mission
time (unreliability) and the identification of the most critical
components of the asset. However, some authors propose
that system critical components can be established by the
qualitative evaluation of FTA. The methodology proposed
in this article suggests using the importance measures (IM)
for quantitatively assessing the most critical components.
Table 2 presents a summary of information about structural
IM commonly used.
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495 Page 5 of 17  495

Fig. 2  Proposed methodology

13
495 
Page 6 of 17 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495
Fig. 3  Data collection strategies
In Table 2, the following definitions are used:
Rs the present system reliability.
Ri (the present
) reliability of component i .
Rs Ri = 1 the increased reliability level with component
i optimized) or assumed to be perfectly reliable.
Rs Ri = 0 the decreased reliability level without compo-
(
nent i or with component i assumed failed.
To explore more information about IM, the reader is encour-
aged to consult authors such as Clavijo Mesa [12], Modarres
[38], Si et al. [52], and Van Der Borst [60].
2.3 Maintainability analysis
According to the methodology, the next step encompasses
the maintainability analysis. Providing information about
the repair rate of components and mission time of system/
asset is required. Figure 3 presents some strategies to collect
information related to the repair rate of components.
Once the input information is compiled, the analyst
defines the method for emulating the system operation and
maintenance. Some alternatives are MCS, Markov Chains,
Dynamic FTA, Dynamic RBD, Dynamic Bayesian Network
(DBN), or Petri Nets [16, 46]. Note that traditional reliability
techniques of analysis, such as FTA and RBD, are unable to
model the dynamic behavior of systems (as transitions of
unavailable state to available state due to process of failure-
repair) [28]. For this reason, the implementation of other
techniques is suggested in the methodology.
13
Table 3 summarizes some maintainability techniques
and presents the limitations that must be previously con-
sidered by analysts.
Upon obtaining the repair times of the system, the
methodology proposes plotting histograms for these times
to know the data frequency distribution. Subsequently, the
analyst should apply parametric or non-parametric meth-
ods to estimate the theoretical or empirical probability
density function (pdf) of the repair time system. Some
references recommended to estimate the theoretical or
empirical pdf are Chouaib [10], Clavijo Mesa [12], and
Silverman [54].
The focus of the maintainability analysis is to appraise
the probability to repair the asset in time t and evaluate if
there is a suitable probability distribution family to model
the asset repair times.
2.4 Availability analysis
Regarding availability analysis, the methodology suggests
the use of the systems MTBF and Mean Time To Repair
(MTTR). Note that using the simulated times in maintain-
ability analysis, it is possible to estimate these times. At
this point, the analyst can select between different availabil-
ity approaches, that is, from MTBF and MTTR, the analyst
can estimate the steady-state availability and/or inherent
availability.
Note that the steady-state availability, A(∞) , is the
limit of the availability function as time tends to infinity.
The steady-state availability is also called the long-run or
 Table 1  Some reliability techniques
Limitations
Degraded performances cannot be
considered
Priority and standby condition of
components cannot be treated
Incapacity to model time interval
too short
Common cause failure not modeled
It is not very useful for explaining
events
Conditional probability is required
Huge computational burden
13
FTA RBD Markov chain BN
Logic diagrams that display the state Graphical technique, which Stochastic process of parameters Directed acyclic graph I which each
of systems (top event) in terms of expressed the concerned system as whose development may be node represents a random variable,
the states of its basic events [31] connections of a number of com- conducted through a series of and the directed edges between vari-
ponents in accordance with their transitions between the states of a ables [33]
logical relation of reliability [25] system [43]
✓ ✓
✓
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓
Page 7 of 17  495
495 
Page 8 of 17 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495

Table 2  Summary information about Birnbaum, RRW, and RAW Importance Measures

Measure Abbreviation Interpretation Principle

Birnbaum importance BI High values indicate that a small change in the reliability of component i, will Rs (Ri = 1) − Rs (Ri = 0)
result in a large change in the system reliability
Risk reduction worth RRW​ It presents the maximum increase in reliability for an improvement to the Rs ∕[Rs (Ri = 1)]
component i
Risk achievement worth RAW​ It presents the maximum decrease in reliability for a decadence of the com- [Rs (Ri = 1)]∕Rs
ponent i and indicates the importance of maintaining the current level of
reliability for the component i

asymptotic availability [7]. A common equation for the
steady-state availability found in the literature is:
[ ]
A(∞) = lim A(t) = lim e − ∫ ((t)+r (t)) dt
∫ (t)e∫ ((t)+r (t)) dt
dt + c
t→∞ t→∞ r eral equipment attributes); (b) published data handbooks
(1)
However, the case of analysis only considers the down-
time due to corrective maintenance of the system [3]. The
steady-state availability could be defined as the inherent
availability,
A(t) = MTBF∕(MTBF + MTTR) (2)
Finally, the results of the RAM analysis are reported, and
the analyst would know the effectiveness of the asset once
identifying how the asset fails, what the expected time for
the systems to return to operation is and, in the short or
long term, what the likelihood is that the system will oper-
ate satisfactorily. Thus, in this report, the analyst will not
only present the MTTF or MTTR of the asset as commonly
occurs, but will also be able to expose a ranking of critical
components or subsystems and even size the maintenance
team once the researcher knows the pdf of the system repair.
Nevertheless, the methodology is flexible and, therefore, in
Fig. 2, the analyst is considered to have previously known
some indicators (reliability, availability or maintainability)
of the asset. For example, if the analyst knows the reliability
of the asset and only owns the repair rate of components,
then an A&M analysis could be developed, implementing
the maintainability analysis, and availability analysis as pre-
viously discussed.
It is worth highlighting that the results from applying the
methodology depend on the quality of the data used. Thus,
Fig. 3 presents some strategies to collect the hazard rate and
repair rate of system components.
In general terms, the asset manager could select between
three strategies to collect failure and repair rates of asset
components: (a) retrospective study; (b) observational study,
or (c) experimental study.
Retrospective studies are based on historical data. These
data describe past process performance. Nevertheless, the
analyst can evaluate the quality of the data and verify if it is
useful for the purposes of the analysis.
Normally, the data used in this strategy are (a) comput-
erized database (typically grouped in data tables with sev-
(sometimes simplified versions of computerized databases,
but the formats can depend on the publisher) and (c) expert
judgment (published data handbook or results from using
statistical expert analysis methods) [27].
If there is sufficient data volume, the analyst could imple-
ment an exploratory data analysis. However, in other cases,
some distribution in conformity with the component life
cycle is assumed.
In an observational study (see Fig. 3), specific data are
collected. The intention is to use the information to gain
insights into the performance of assets under analysis. These
data can be established by one company from: enterprise
installations, and its key performance indicators (KPI).
Another alternative consists in applying Bayesian inference
towards updating retrospective data as more evidence or
information becomes available about the failure and repair
process of assets [57].
Experimental studies produce data obtained because of
active interventions. The analyst systematically changes or
manipulates, a set of experimental factors while controlling
for other variables. Particularly, these studies can apply to
new technology equipment for which experience data do not
yet exist. In this strategy, the analyst could implement relia-
bility-based life testing or accelerated lifetime testing. Once
data are collected, the practitioner may test distributions of
the estimated hazard rate and the repair rate of the asset.
To support the maintenance and operation decision-
making in a Colombian company, the authors applied this
methodology to a heavy-duty truck (HDT). The analysis
implementation and results are presented and discussed in
the next section.

13
 Table 3  Some maintainability techniques
MCS Markov chain DFTA DRBD DBN Petri nets

Generates random Consists a finite number Extends traditional FTA The condition of each The fundamental assump- Considers discrete events
numbers from random of states with the by defining 4 additional component is charac- tion in the case of time that are characterized as
variables for modeling Markovian property gates: Priority AND, terized by a variable series modeling is that being concurrent, syn-
risk or uncertainty of a and some transition sequence enforcing, state identifying the an event can cause chronous, asynchronous,
certain system [40] rates λij [32] standby and functional operational condition another event in the distributed, parallel,
dependency [19] of the component at a failure, but not vice nondeterministic, and
given name [18] versa [6] stochastic [16]
Limitations
Forces us to use too ✓
complex a model
Collecting and structur- ✓
ing expert knowledge is
a challenge
Incapacity to model time ✓
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495

interval too short

Limitations in modular ✓ ✓
analysis
It is not very useful for ✓
explaining events
Approximate technique ✓
The concurrency of ✓
operations has become
more common increas-
ing the complexity
Huge computational ✓ ✓
burden

13
Page 9 of 17  495
495 
Page 10 of 17 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495
3 Case study
A HDV is a vehicle designed to have a higher gross vehi-
cle weight (GVW). HDTs are usually designed to have
a GVW of 3500 kg or more [49]. This type of vehicle
is interesting because, according to Giakoumis [23],
HDT or just Heavy Trucks are not manufactured on large
scales. The design and manufacturing processes of this
type of vehicle are characterized by the great variety
of engine—systems—chassis combinations that can be
obtained according to the specific need of operation or
fleet design.
This section details the application of the proposed meth-
odology for analyzing HDTs used for a Colombian company
that collects cargo in Medellin city.
3.1 Functional Analysis
The function of HDT under consideration is transporting a
cargo of up to 12 tons from the urban area of the city to the
company facility. This operation occurs at altitudes between
3608 and 5905 ft. above sea level. Using the Manufactur-
er’s Manual and a Literature Review, defined the functional
structure of the asset (see Fig. 4).
HDT consists of seven systems. The electrical and con-
trol system is responsible for supplying power to the starter
motor, besides providing electricity for the lighting and
security system, the instrument and meter system, as well
as for the computers operation. Additionally, this system
provides control regarding the position of the vehicle and
warns in the event of a critical component failure. Brakes
and pneumatic systems correspond to a type of friction
brake for vehicles in which compressed air pressing on
a piston is used to apply the pressure on the brake pad
needed to stop the vehicle. The engine system oversees
converting heat from burning gas into mechanical energy.
Particularly, the HDT under study has an internal com-
bustion engine with a configuration of six cylinders in a
straight line. The chassis responds to the basic vehicle-cab,
frame and running gear, whereas the bodywork system is
the container in which the load is carried. The suspension
Fig. 4  Functional tree of heavy-duty truck
13
system is responsible for maximizing the friction between
the tires and the pavement to give steering stability and
firm handling.
The steering system allows the driver to steer the vehi-
cle safely and precisely. The power transmission system is
required for transferring engine power to the driveshaft and
rear wheels; the gear inside the transmission changes the
vehicle’s drive-wheel speed and torque in relation to the
engine speed and torque. A truck transmission often operates
for periods exceeding a million and a half kilometer, with
simple maintenance activities, such as checking lubricant
levels and preventive changes.
Regarding FMEA, the authors defined the analysis struc-
ture using the FMEA handbook published by the Automotive
Industry Action Group and Verband der Automobilindustrie
in 2012 [1]. Failure reports of the HDT fleet between 2015 and
2019 were also used in the Risk Priority Number (RPN) esti-
mation. Table 4 presents the most critical failure modes.
Note that the power transmission system is critical
because failures in flanks and crosses could generate detach-
ment of the Cardan axis. Additionally, failure modes associ-
ated with brake pneumatic systems also present high RPN;
this is explained by the potential safety negative effect of an
eventual failure.
3.2 Reliability analysis
As previously pointed out, reliability is the probability that
a system will execute a designated function, in a defined
period, under specific operating and maintenance conditions.
To obtain this probability for HDT, the authors developed
a retrospective study. Thus, the authors used a computer-
ized database of failure data compiled during a time horizon
of approximately 47 months (December 2015–November
2019).
As there was sufficient data volume, the analysts imple-
mented an exploratory data analysis to estimate the TTF
(hours) of each vehicle system, and then probability distribu-
tions (Exponential, Weibull, Lognormal and Gamma) were
fitted for each of them. These probability functions must be
tested using Goodness of Fit (GOF) tests; particularly in this
study, Kolmogorov–Sminorv is used as a GOF test, which is
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495 Page 11 of 17  495

available in statistical software R. In case the reader wants
to explore different GOF tests, Anderson and Darling [4],
Csorgo and Faraway [15] and Marsaglia et al. [35] are some
references that detail the test process.
Table 5 presents the fitted parameters in each case and
the p-value obtained from the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test
that supported that distribution. Likewise, the MTTF
is presented, calculated as the mean of each of the fit-
ted distributions. Note that the p-value is a measure of
the strength of the sampling evidence against the null
hypothesis. A very low or less than 0.05 (significance
used) p-value will mean great sampling evidence against
the established null hypothesis.
Using the hazard rate of each system and considering
that operators are interested in quantifying the HDT reli-
ability for mission times of 250 operational hours, the
authors designed the RBD of the vehicle as shown in Fig. 5.
Note that HDT is a series system, that is, if any vehi-
cle system fails, the vehicle will do the same. Therefore,
assuming that systems are independent, the reliability of
HDT, Rs (t) could be calculated as follows:
n
∏
Rs (t) = Ri (t) (3)
i=1
where Ri (t) is the reliability of the system i for time t  , and n
is the number of systems that compose the asset.
Again, using the free software environment for statisti-
cal analysis, R, the authors developed a code to quantify
the HDT reliability [44]. Figure 6 shows the results for
each system (a) and for the vehicle (b).
Note that the electric and control system presents the low-
est reliability, whereas the engine system exposes the highest
reliability values over time. Regarding HDT, Fig. 6b reveals
that after 175 h of continuous operation, the vehicle’s unreli-
ability exceeds its reliability.
If 175 h of continuous operation is an interesting time to
analyze the vehicle, the authors implemented the structural

Table 4  Most critical failure System Component Potential failure modes RPN

modes of HDT
Power transmission Cardan couplings Loss of data 448
Electric and control Starter engine Engine does not start or runs slowly 343
Brake and pneumatic Rear and front brakes Brake drum overheating 320
Vibration when brakes are applied 294
Brake drum overheating 288
Power transmission Power takes over Fracture or wear of the shaft teeth 252
Brake and pneumatic Rear and front brakes Vibration when brakes are applied 252
Loss of braking ability 252
Vehicle does not remain in parking position 252
Rear and front brakes Wheel stalls or does not brake 252

Table 5  MTTF and fitted System Distribution Parameter 1 Parameter 2 p-Value MTTF (h)
distributions for the TTF of
each vehicle’s system Electric and control Weibull 0.9645 0.0010 0.0570 1096
Brakes and pneumatic Exponential 0.0009 0.0687 1281
Engine Lognormal 7.2472 0.9072 0.0724 1858
Suspension Weibull 0.8829 0.0023 0.0991 2431
Steering Exponential 0.0003 0.1351 3106
Power transmission Exponential 0.0008 0.0597 3102

The chassis and bodywork system does not present failure data in the horizon time under analysis. In
Weibull distribution, parameter 1 and parameter 2 correspond to shape and scale, respectively. In Lognor-
mal distribution, parameter 1 represents the mean and parameter 2, the standard deviation

Fig. 5  RBD of HDT

13
495 
Page 12 of 17 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495

Fig. 6  Results of the reliability analysis

IM considering reliability values in this time range to iden-
tify the most critical systems on the asset.
Structural IMs are used when only the structure of the
system is known. Nevertheless, depending on the data and a
priori knowledge available about the asset, there are differ-
ent groups of IM that could be analyzed [60]. Table 6 pre-
sents the Birnbaum, RRW and RAW importance measures
obtained for HDT.
Note that even though every single component is relevant
in the HDT operation, the inquiries in the IM field are inter-
esting due to the usual limitation of available resources, and
the prioritization actions must be assertive to achieve the
best possible efficiency during the operation.
In this sense, the Birnbaum measure shows that a small
change in the reliability of electric and control systems
results in a large change in the HDT reliability. The RRW
measure shows that the engine is the system that should
be improved to obtain a considerable increase in the
reliability of the HDT, once the RRW importance meas-
ure establishes the change in unreliability when the unre-
liability of component i is set to zero, that is, by assuming
that a component is ‘perfect’ (or its failure probability is
zero).
Note that the Birnbaum measure does not consider the
baseline performance (probability of success or failure
of an element), making it hard to use it for reliability-
informed decision-making, since low-failure probability
items are not necessarily the prime candidates for any
change [38, 60].
Therefore, the reliability modeling presented in this
study not only calculates MTBF but also presents the
probability of failure of a system, according to reliabil-
ity values, identifying the operational time at which the
cumulative failure probability exceeds the vehicle reli-
ability and exposes the most critical systems from differ-
ent viewpoints.

Table 6  Structural importance System BI System RRW​ System RAW​

measures of HDT
Electric and control 0.6283 Engine 0.9892 Electric and control 0
Brakes and pneumatic 0.6214 Steering 0.9452 Brakes and pneumatic 0
Power transmission 0.6051 Suspension 0.9024 Engine 0
Suspension 0.5864 Power transmission 0.8746 Suspension 0
Steering 0.5598 Brakes and pneumatic 0.8516 Steering 0
Engine 0.5350 Electric and control 0.8422 Power transmission 0

RAW importance does not offer relevant information about critical HDT systems because all of them are in
series

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495 Page 13 of 17  495

Table 7  MTTR and Fitted System Distribution Parameter 1 Parameter 2 p-Value MTTR (h)
distributions for the TTR of
each vehicle’s system Electric and control Lognormal 2.6065 1.9135 0.4511 66
Brakes and pneumatic Lognormal 2.4959 1.7876 0.1270 46
Engine Weibull 0.7236 56.4616 0.9979 71
Suspension Lognormal 2.9191 1.7443 0.4498 65
Steering Weibull 0.6471 43.4425 0.9971 61
Power transmission Lognormal 2.8409 1.7789 0.6884 70

The chassis and bodywork system does not present failure data in the time horizon under analysis. In
Weibull distribution, parameter 1 and parameter 2 correspond to shape and scale, respectively. In Lognor-
mal distribution, parameter 1 represents the mean and parameter 2, the standard deviation

Fig. 7  MCS approach for main-

tainability analysis

Table 8  Repair times of HDT obtained by Monte Carlo simulation

3.3 Maintainability analysis Samples Repair time (h)

As previously said, the inputs required for maintainability Mean Median Mode Percentile 5th Percentile 95th
analysis are the mission time and repair rate of asset com- 1.000 20.44 11.68 2.49 0.66 73.69
ponents/systems. Particularly, the mission time for the HDT 10.000 18.89 10.40 0.59 0.61 67.36
study was defined as 250 operational hours and, to estimate 100.000 18.98 10.58 0.50 0.65 67.17
the repair rate of each vehicle system, a retrospective study 1.000.000 18.60 10.31 1.00 0.65 66.36
was implemented. Table 7 presents the fitted distributions
and MTTR for each system.
Note that, according to Fig. 2, one has various alterna- Carlo analysis using Python and Akram [2] discussed a
tives to model the maintenance process of the asset: MCS, practical method to apply MCS in Excel.
Markov Chain, DFTA, DRBD, DBN, or Petri Nets. How- For the HDT, statistical software R was used to develop
ever, Markov Chains could be complex when the asset under MCS to model repair times of assets. Considering that one
analysis presents different distributions for the transitions usually performs Monte Carlo experiments in long-run
between states (operational and failure) [32, 37, 42]. lengths to increase the results confidence level [65], four
Thus, considering that the asset under study presents dif- different numbers of simulations (samples) were developed.
ferent distributions for both the hazard rate and the repair Table 8 summarizes the simulated repair times of vehicles.
rate of systems, the use of MCS is proposed to model the In general terms, there is a 90% likelihood that the vehicle
maintenance process for the HDT. As shown in Fig. 7, MCS repair time is greater than 0.6 h and less than 66.36 h with
uses the RBD of the asset and the information compiled a repair time average of 18.60 h. Additionally, observing
about the repair and failure of each system to model the situ- Table 8, the results based on 100,000 simulations tend to be
ation in which the HDT is going from the operational state the same as the results from 1,000,000 simulations. Thus,
to the failure state. At each time, at least one of its systems running 1,000,000 simulations to analyze the HDT may not
fails and the vehicle returns to its operational state, each time generate a relevant gain regarding computational cost.
a repair is completed, and all systems are operative. Then, As regards the adequate pdf family to model repair times
MCS allows the maintainability distribution of the asset. of HDT, the generalized additive models for location scale
The MCS method could be implemented in various com- (GAMLSS) available in R [14] was implemented; different
putational tools. Robert and Casella [45] introduced the models that assume a parametric distribution for the interest
MCS in R, Dirk et al. [17] presented the process to imple- variable were applied to obtain the theoretical pdf of HDT
ment MCS in MATLAB, Knox [29] developed a Monte repair times.

13
495 
Page 14 of 17 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495

Fig. 8  Pdf of HDT repair times

Hence, based on the results from the GAMLSS, it can Table 9  Availability analysis results of HDT
be concluded that the Gamma distribution is an adequate Operational Steady-state MTTR (h) MTBF (h) Inherent
repair time model of HDT as the p-value obtained in the time simulated availability availability
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test is greater than 0.05 for all sam- (h)
ples of MCS. Figure 8 shows the histogram of HDT repair
200 0.9709 27.50 210.57 0.8845
times simulated and the fitted theoretical pdf of each number
400 0.9636 27.23 205.25 0.8828
of simulations.
600 0.9661 27.40 202.58 0.8809
Thus, the maintainability modeling presented herein not
800 0.9681 27.56 191.86 0.8744
only calculates MTTR but also presents the 90th confidence
1000 0.9698 21.63 146.64 0.8715
level for TTR and identifies the pdf family adequate to model
1500 0.9678 32.55 200.11 0.8601
the MTTR system from parametric models.
2000 0.9715 32.40 197.78 0.8593

3.4 Availability analysis
In the next step in the proposed methodology, the MTBF
and MTTR were estimated to quantify the steady-state avail-
ability and inherent availability of the HDT (see Sect. 2).
Table  9 presents the availability values obtained from
100,000 simulations of 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1500, and
2000 h of operation. Note that the current operating policy
of the company establishes 16 daily operational hours for
vehicles. Therefore, the times simulated refer to 12, 25, 38,
50, 63, 94, and 125 operational days.
Considering that the vehicle operates under demand-
ing conditions, including continuous stops and runs, long
trajectories up to the company’s facilities, steep hills, and
frequent load-unload cycles, it is reasonable to conclude
that the availability results for the HDT can be considered
high. Additionally, the inherent availability was lower than

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495 Page 15 of 17  495
the steady-state availability for all the operational times
simulated.
This makes sense once the steady-state availability rep-
resents the asymptotic value of availability, whereas inher-
ent availability estimation considers that all the downtimes
occur due to corrective maintenance and the MTBF and
MTTR are calculated as:
Uptime
MTBF =
Number of system failure
Corrective Maintenance downtime
MTTR =
Number of system failure
Even when the inherent availability is higher than 85%,
the HDT availability in the field might be lower than the
results reported in Table 9 depending on the logistic delays,
supply delays and administrative delays.
4 Conclusions
RAM analysis represents a powerful tool that, if strategically
applied, is capable of increasing asset performance and pro-
ductivity, evaluating the impact of failures, and proposing
changes to current operations management.
The proposed methodology allows acquiring operational
and technical knowledge of the asset so that the analyst can
migrate to a more detailed analysis. For instance, the func-
tional analysis of an asset provides a taxonomic visualization
that makes it easier to apply a reliability analysis technique
(e.g., RBD, FTA, and BN).
Also presented was a detailed flowchart with the method-
ology steps that aim to integrate the results of all techniques
to allow practitioners to make decisions supported by the
different perspectives of an asset. In this sense, analysis tech-
niques such as IM are not only used to provide a ranking to
identify critical components of an asset, but the methodol-
ogy provides support to employ these measures with the
functional analysis and FMEA to know how the failure of a
component might evolve in time.
In terms of computational cost, companies currently have
different free alternatives to implement simple codes and
quickly obtain results of a RAM analysis, such as R Studio,
Python, and MATLAB. In this paper, the software R Studio
was used to implement the RAM analysis due to its statis-
tical strengths. Also, there are packages such as FaulTree
available to implement basic reliability techniques.
The authors have used the proposed methodology to analyze
systems with different levels of complexity, such as Dynamic
Positioning Systems, used in offshore operations, Offshore
Drilling Rigs Cutting Dryer and Solid Waste Collection and
Compaction Truck [12, 55]. In particular, the methodology
was exemplified by means of a case study involving Heavy-
Duty Trucks. The results showed that the implementation of
the methodology to analyze the HDT resulted in operational,
tactical, and strategic planning and support for decision-mak-
ers. At the operational level, critical failure modes were iden-
tified in the power transmission system and brake and pneu-
matic systems that can impact the effectiveness of the asset.
Recommendations were generated stating the maintenance
(4) team should plan a revision of the vehicle before 175 opera-
tional hours since, at that moment, the vehicle’s unreliability
exceeded its reliability. At the tactical level, vehicle operation
planners should expect 96% asymptotic availability with an
(5)
MTTR of 18.6 h. At the strategic level, the RAM analysis
showed that the engine should be prioritized during an over-
haul of the asset since by improving this system, the maximum
increase in vehicle reliability is achieved.
In the future, the developed RAM analysis methodology
can include the uncertainty modeling to support the design
strategies to reduce unacceptable risks.
References
1. AIAG & VDA (2012) New AIAG & VDA FMEA handbook,
Berlin. Automotive Industry Action Group and Verband der
Automobilindustrie
2. Akram N (2017) Practical Monte Carlo simulation with excel.
Gatekeeper Press, Ohio
3. Amari SV (2007) Steady-state availability and MTBF of systems
subjected to suspended animation. Int J Perform Eng 3:282–284
4. Anderson T, Darling D (1954) A test of goodness of fit. J Am Stat
Assoc 49:765–769
5. Arias Velásquez RM, Mejía Lara JV (2018) Reliability, availabil-
ity and maintainability study for failure analysis in series capacitor
bank. Eng Fail Anal 86:158–167. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engfa​
ilanal.​2018.​01.​008
6. Ayele YZ, Barabady J, Droguett EL (2016) Dynamic Bayesian
network—based risk assessment for arctic offshore drilling waste
handling practices. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1115/1.​40337​13
7. Bahri S, Ghribi F, Bacha HB (2009) A study of asymptotic availa-
bility modeling for a failure and a repair rates following a Weibull
distribution. Reliab Risk Anal Theory Appl 2:30–42
8. Chalabi N, Dahane M, Beldjilali B, Neki A (2016) Optimisation
of preventive maintenance grouping strategy for multi-component
series systems: particle swarm based approach. Comput Ind Eng
102:440–451. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cie.​2016.​04.​018
9. Cheung H, Wang S (2019) Reliability and availability assessment
and enhancement of water-cooled multi-chiller cooling systems
for data centers. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 191:106573. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​ress.​2019.​106573
10. Chouaib A (2015) Kernel estimator and bandwidth selection for
density and its derivatives. Cornell University, New York, pp 1–22
11. Choudhary D, Tripathi M, Shankar R (2019) Reliability, avail-
ability and maintainability analysis of a cement plant: a case
study. Int J Q Reliab Manag 36:298–313. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
IJQRM-​10-​2017-​0215
12. Clavijo Mesa MV (2020) Application of reliability, availability
and maintainability analysis to dynamic positioning systems used
in offshore operations. University of Sao Paulo
13
495 
Page 16 of 17 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495
13. Coit DW, Zio E (2019) The evolution of system reliability optimi-
zation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 192:106259. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.​
ress.​2018.​09.​008
14. CRAN-R Project (2019) Package GAMLSS [WWW Document].
https://​cran.r-​proje​ct.​org/​web/​packa​ges/​gamlss/​index.​html
15. Csorgo S, Faraway J (1996) The exact and asymptotic distributions
of Cramer-von Mises statistics. J R Stat Soc Ser B 58:221–234
16. Diallo O, Rodrigues JJPC, Sene M (2015) Performances evalua-
tion and Petri nets, modeling and simulation of computer networks
and systems: methodologies and applications. Elsevier. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​12-​800887-​4.​00011-0
17. Dirk P, Taimre T, Botev Z (2011) Handbook of Monte Carlo meth-
ods. Wiley, New Jersey
18. Distefano S, Puliafito A (2007) Dynamic reliability block
diagrams vs dynamic fault trees. In: Proceedings of the 2007
annual reliability and maintainability symposium, Orlando, FL,
USA, 22–25 January 2007, pp 71–76
19. Durga Rao K, Gopika V, Sanyasi Rao VVS, Kushwaha HS,
Verma AK, Srividya A (2009) Dynamic fault tree analysis using
Monte Carlo simulation in probabilistic safety assessment.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94:872–883. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ress.​
2008.​09.​007
20. Ebeling, C., 1997. An introduction to Reliability and Maintain-
ability Engineering. Massachusetts.
21. Gao S, Wang J (2020) Reliability and availability analysis of
a retrial system with mixed standbys and an unreliable repair
facility. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 205:107240. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​ress.​2020.​107240
22. Garg H (2014) Reliability, availability and maintainability
analysis of industrial systems using PSO and fuzzy methodol-
ogy. Mapan—J Metrol Soc India 29:115–129. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s12647-​013-​0081-x
23. Giakoumis E (2016) Driving and engine cycles. Springer, New
York
24. Guevara Carazas FJ, Martha De Souza GF (2009) Availability
analysis of gas turbines used in power plants. Int J Thermodyn
12:28–37. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5541/​ijot.​10340​00235
25. Guo H, Yang X (2007) A simple reliability block diagram
method for safety integrity verification. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
92:1267–1273
26. Herder PM, van Luijk JA, Bruijnooge J (2008) Industrial appli-
cation of RAM modeling. Development and implementation of
a RAM simulation model for the ­Lexan® plant at GE Industrial.
Plast Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:501–508. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
ress.​2006.​10.​019
27. ISO (2016) Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries—
collection and exchange of reliability and maintenance data for
equipment (ISO 14224:2016)
28. Kabir S (2017) An overview of fault tree analysis and its appli-
cation in model based dependability analysis. Expert Syst Appl
77:114–135. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eswa.​2017.​01.​058
29. Knox A (2011) Multivariable Monte Carlo analysis methods
in traffic accident reconstruction using python. In ASME 2011
international mechanical engineering congress and exposition,
Colorado, pp 639–653
30. Kumar P, Jain M (2020) Reliability analysis of a multi-component
machining system with service interruption, imperfect coverage,
and reboot. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 202:106991. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​ress.​2020.​106991
31. Lewis E (1996) Introduction to reliability engineering. Wiley,
New York
32. Li W, Zhang C (2009) Markov chain analysis. Int Encycl Hum
Geogr. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-​00804​4910-4.​00470-3
33. Li H, Guedes-Soares C, Huang HZ (2020) Reliability analysis of
a floating offshore wind turbine using Bayesian Networks. Ocean
Eng 217:107827
13
34. Liberopoulos G, Tsarouhas P (2005) Reliability analysis of an
automated pizza production line. J Food Eng 69:79–96. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jfood​eng.​2004.​07.​014
35. Marsaglia G, Tsang WW, Wang J (2003) Evaluating Kolmogo-
rov’s distribution. J Stat Softw 8(18):1–4
36. Martorell S, Sánchez A, Carlos S, Serradell V (2004) Alternatives
and challenges in optimizing industrial safety using genetic algo-
rithms. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 86:25–38. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
ress.​2003.​12.​010
37. Mehta PG, Vaidya U, Banaszuk A (2008) Markov chains, entropy, and
fundamental limitations in nonlinear stabilization. IEEE Trans Auto-
mat Contr 53:784–791. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​TAC.​2008.​917640
38. Modarres M (2006) Importance ranking in probabilistic risk
assessment. In: Francis CT (ed) Risk analysis in engineering,
London, pp 242–247. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1201/​b21429
39. Modarres M, Kaminskiy MP, Krivtsov V (2017) Reliability engi-
neering and risk analysis: a practical guide, 3rd edn. Taylor &
Francis Group, LLC, New York
40. Montgomery DC, Runger GC (2003) Applied statistics and prob-
ability for engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education.
New York. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03043​79940​89283​33
41. NASA (2002) Fault tree handbook with aerospace applications.
NASA Handb XXXIII:218. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​TC.​1986.​
16768​19
42. Osorio-Lird A, Chamorro A, Videla C, Tighe S, Torres-Machi C
(2018) Application of Markov chains and Monte Carlo simula-
tions for developing pavement performance models for urban net-
work management. Struct Infrastruct Eng 14:1169–1181. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15732​479.​2017.​14020​64
43. Possan E, De Oliveira Andrade JJ (2014) Markov chains and reli-
ability analysis for reinforced concrete structure service life. Mater
Res 17:593–602
44. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statisti-
cal computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Austria. https://​www.R-​proje​ct.​org/
45. Robert C, Casella G (2010) Introducing Monte Carlo methods
with R, New York
46. Robidoux R, Xu H, Xing L, Zhou M (2010) Automated modeling
of dynamic reliability block diagrams using colored Petri nets.
IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 40:337–351
47. SAE International (2001) Recommended failure modes and effects
analysis (FMEA) practices for non-automobile applications. Soci-
ety of Automotive Engineers International, New York
48. Saini M, Kumar A (2019) Performance analysis of evaporation
system in sugar industry using RAMD analysis. J Braz Soc Mech
Sci Eng 41:1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40430-​019-​1681-3
49. Seo J, Kim H, Park S (2018) Estimation of CO2 emissions from
heavy-duty vehicles in Korea and potential for reduction based on
scenario analysis. Sci Total Environ 636:1192–1201. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2018.​04.​269
50. Sharma A, Yadava GS, Deshmukh SG (2011) A literature review
and future perspectives on maintenance optimization. J Q Maint
Eng 17:5–25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​13552​51111​11162​22
51. Sharma RK, Kumar S (2008) Performance modeling in critical
engineering systems using RAM analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
93:913–919. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ress.​2007.​03.​039
52. Si XS, Wang W, Hu CH, Zhou DH (2011) Remaining useful life
estimation—a review on the statistical data driven approaches.
Eur J Oper Res 213:1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ejor.​2010.​11.​
018
53. Sikos L, Klemeš J (2010) Reliability, availability and mainte-
nance optimisation of heat exchanger networks. Appl Therm Eng
30:63–69. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​applt​herma​leng.​2009.​02.​013
54. Silverman B (1986) Density estimation for statistics and data
analysis. Monogr Stat Appl Probab 33:43–54. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1177/​03009​85896​03300​105
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:495 Page 17 of 17  495
55. Souza-Franco V, Clavijo MV, Schleder A, Martins MR (2019)
Monte Carlo simulation to consider uncertainty in the reliability
analysis of dynamic positioning systems. In: Proceedings of the
29th European safety and reliability conference, 22–26 September
2019, Hannover
56. Stapelberg R (2009) Handbook of reliability, availability, main-
tainability and safety in engineering design. Springer, London.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-1-​84800-​175-6
57. Straub D, Papaioannou I (2015) Bayesian updating with structural
reliability methods. J Eng Mech. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/(​ ASCE)​
EM.​1943-​7889.​00008​39
58. Tsarouhas P (2018) Reliability, availability and maintainability
(RAM) analysis for wine packaging production line. Int J Qual
Reliab Manag 35:821–842
59. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2006) Guidance
for industry, quality risk management. Center for Drug Evalua-
tion and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research (CBER), Maryland
60. Van Der Borst M (2001) An overview of PSA importance meas-
ures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 72:241–245. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
S0951-​8320(01)​00007-2
61. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2009) VOSviewer: a computer program
for bibliometric mapping. In: 2th international conference on sci-
entometrics and informetrics, pp 886–897
62. Xing L, Amari SV (2008) Fault tree analysis. In: Handbook
of performability engineering. Springer, London, pp 595–620.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-1-​84800-​131-2_​38
63. Yang DY, Tsao CL (2019) Reliability and availability analysis
of standby systems with working vacations and retrial of failed
components. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 182:46–55. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​ress.​2018.​09.​020
64. Zhang J, Haskins C, Liu Y, Lundteigen MA (2018) A systems
engineering–based approach for framing reliability, availability,
and maintainability: A case study for subsea design. Syst Eng
21:576–592. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​sys.​21462
65. Zio E (2013) The Monte Carlo simulation method for system
reliability and risk analysis. Springer, London. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​978-1-​4471-​4588-2
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13