TYPE OF PRODUCTION SYSTEM

Batch production is a production method used in manufacturing, in which the object in question is created
stage by stage over a series of workstations, and different batches of products are made. 1

This is the case where a grade of lubricant with a specific viscosity is blended before a different grade of
the same or different viscosity is blended.

There are inefficiencies associated with batch production as equipment must be stopped, re-configured,
and its output tested before the next batch can be produced. Idle time between batches is known as
downtime. The time between consecutive batches is known as cycle time.

PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AVAILABILITY AND AVAILABILITY

Reliability prediction and improvement[edit]

See also: Risk Assessment § Quantitative risk assessment

Reliability prediction is the combination of the creation of a proper reliability model (see further
on this page) together with estimating (and justifying) the input parameters for this model (like
failure rates for a particular failure mode or event and the mean time to repair the system for a
particular failure) and finally to provide a system (or part) level estimate for the output reliability
parameters (system availability or a particular functional failure frequency).

Some recognized reliability engineering specialists – e.g. Patrick O'Connor, R. Barnard – have
argued that too much emphasis is often given to the prediction of reliability parameters and more
effort should be devoted to the prevention of failure (reliability improvement). [4] Failures can and
should be prevented in the first place for most cases. The emphasis on quantification and target
setting in terms of (e.g.) MTBF might provide the idea that there is a limit to the amount of
reliability that can be achieved. In theory there is no inherent limit and higher reliability does not
need to be more costly in development. Another of their arguments is that prediction of
reliability based on historic data can be very misleading, as a comparison is only valid for
exactly the same designs, products, manufacturing processes and maintenance under exactly the
same loads and environmental context. Even a minor change in detail in any of these could have
major effects on reliability. Furthermore, normally the most unreliable and important items (most
interesting candidates for a reliability investigation) are most often subjected to many
modifications and changes. Engineering designs are in most industries updated frequently. This
is the reason why the standard (re-active or pro-active) statistical methods and processes as used
in the medical industry or insurance branch are not as effective for engineering. Another
surprising but logical argument is that to be able to accurately predict reliability by testing, the
exact mechanisms of failure must have been known in most cases and therefore – in most cases –
can be prevented! Following the incorrect route by trying to quantify and solving a complex
reliability engineering problem in terms of MTBF or Probability and using the re-active
approach is referred to by Barnard as "Playing the Numbers Game" and is regarded as bad
practise.[5]

For existing systems, it is arguable that responsible programs would directly analyse and try to
correct the root cause of discovered failures and thereby may render the initial MTBF estimate
fully invalid as new assumptions (subject to high error levels) of the effect of the patch/redesign
must be made. Another practical issue concerns a general lack of availability of detailed failure
data and not consistent filtering of failure (feedback) data or ignoring statistical errors, which are
very high for rare events (like reliability related failures). Very clear guidelines must be present
to be able to count and compare failures, related to different type of root-causes (e.g.
manufacturing-, maintenance-, transport-, system-induced or inherent design failures, ).
Comparing different type of causes may lead to incorrect estimations and incorrect business
decisions about the focus of improvement.

To perform a proper quantitative reliability prediction for systems may be difficult and may be
very expensive if done by testing. On part level, results can be obtained often with higher
confidence as many samples might be used for the available testing financial budget, however
unfortunately these tests might lack validity on system level due to the assumptions that had to
be made for part level testing. These authors argue that it can not be emphasized enough that
testing for reliability should be done to create failures in the first place, learn from them and to
improve the system / part. The general conclusion is drawn that an accurate and an absolute
prediction – by field data comparison or testing – of reliability is in most cases not possible. An
exception might be failures due to wear-out problems like fatigue failures. In the introduction of
MIL-STD-785 it is written that reliability prediction should be used with great caution if not only
used for comparison in trade-off studies.

Design for reliability[edit]

Reliability design begins with the development of a (system) model. Reliability and availability
models use block diagrams and Fault Tree Analysis to provide a graphical means of evaluating
the relationships between different parts of the system. These models may incorporate
predictions based on failure rates taken from historical data. While the (input data) predictions
are often not accurate in an absolute sense, they are valuable to assess relative differences in
design alternatives. Maintainability parameters, for example MTTR, are other inputs for these
models.

The most important fundamental initiating causes and failure mechanisms are to be identified
and analyzed with engineering tools. A diverse set of practical guidance and practical
performance and reliability requirements should be provided to designers so they can generate
low-stressed designs and products that protect or are protected against damage and excessive
wear. Proper Validation of input loads (requirements) may be needed and verification for
reliability "performance" by testing may be needed.

A Fault Tree Diagram

One of the most important design techniques is redundancy. This means that if one part of the
system fails, there is an alternate success path, such as a backup system. The reason why this is
the ultimate design choice is related to the fact that high confidence reliability evidence for new
parts / items is often not available or extremely expensive to obtain. By creating redundancy,
together with a high level of failure monitoring and the avoidance of common cause failures,
even a system with relative bad single channel (part) reliability, can be made highly reliable
(mission reliability) on system level. No testing of reliability has to be required for this.
Furthermore, by using redundancy and the use of dissimilar design and manufacturing processes
(different suppliers) for the single independent channels, less sensitivity for quality issues (early
childhood failures) is created and very high levels of reliability can be achieved at all moments
of the development cycles (early life times and long term). Redundancy can also be applied in
systems engineering by double checking requirements, data, designs, calculations, software and
tests to overcome systematic failures.

Another design technique to prevent failures is called physics of failure. This technique relies on
understanding the physical static and dynamic failure mechanisms. It accounts for variation in
load, strength and stress leading to failure at high level of detail, possible with use of modern
finite element method (FEM) software programs that may handle complex geometries and
mechanisms like creep, stress relaxation, fatigue and probabilistic design (Monte Carlo
simulations / DOE). The material or component can be re-designed to reduce the probability of
failure and to make it more robust against variation. Another common design technique is
component derating: Selecting components whose tolerance significantly exceeds the expected
stress, as using a heavier gauge wire that exceeds the normal specification for the expected
electric current.
Another effective way to deal with unreliability issues is to perform analysis to be able to predict
degradation and being able to prevent unscheduled down events / failures from occurring. RCM
(Reliability Centered Maintenance) programs can be used for this.

Many tasks, techniques and analyses are specific to particular industries and applications.
Commonly these include:

 Built-in test (BIT) (testability analysis)

 Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)
 Reliability hazard analysis
 Reliability block-diagram analysis
 Dynamic Reliability block-diagram analysis[19]
 Fault tree analysis
 Root cause analysis
 Statistical Engineering, Design of Experiments - e.g. on Simulations / FEM models or with
testing
 Sneak circuit analysis
 Accelerated testing
 Reliability growth analysis (re-active reliability)
 Weibull analysis (for testing or mainly "re-active" reliability)
 Thermal analysis by finite element analysis (FEA) and / or measurement
 Thermal induced, shock and vibration fatigue analysis by FEA and / or measurement
 Electromagnetic analysis
 Avoidance of single point of failure (SPOF)
 Functional analysis and functional failure analysis (e.g., function FMEA, FHA or FFA)
 Predictive and preventive maintenance: reliability centered maintenance (RCM) analysis
 Testability analysis
 Failure diagnostics analysis (normally also incorporated in FMEA)
 Human error analysis
 Operational hazard analysis
 Manual screening
 Integrated logistics support

Results are presented during the system design reviews and logistics reviews. Reliability is just
one requirement among many system requirements. Engineering trade studies are used to
determine the optimum balance between reliability and other requirements and constraints.

Quantitative and qualitative approaches and the importance of language[edit]

Reliability engineers could concentrate more on "why and how" items / systems may fail or have
failed, instead of mostly trying to predict "when" or at what (changing) rate (failure rate (t)).
Answers to the first questions will drive improvement in design and processes.[4] When failure
mechanisms are really understood then solutions to prevent failure are easily found. Only
required Numbers (e.g. MTBF) will not drive good designs. The huge amount of (un)reliability
hazards that are generally part of complex systems need first to be classified and ordered (based
on qualitative and quantitative logic if possible) to get to efficient assessment and improvement.
This is partly done in pure language and proposition logic, but also based on experience with
similar items. This can for example be seen in descriptions of events in Fault Tree Analysis,
FMEA analysis and a hazard (tracking) log. In this sense language and proper grammar (part of
qualitative analysis) plays an important role in reliability engineering, just like it does in safety
engineering or in general within systems engineering. Engineers are likely to question why?
Well, it is precisely needed because systems engineering is very much about finding the correct
words to describe the problem (and related risks) to be solved by the engineering solutions we
intend to create. In the words of Jack Ring, the systems engineer’s job is to "language the
project." [Ring et al. 2000].[20] Language in itself is about putting an order in a description of the
reality of a (failure of a) complex function/item/system in a complex surrounding. Reliability
engineers use both quantitative and qualitative methods, which extensively use language to
pinpoint the risks to be solved.

The importance of language also relates to the risks of human error, which can be seen as the
ultimate root cause of almost all failures - see further on this site. As an example, proper
instructions (often written by technical authors in so called simplified English) in maintenance
manuals, operation manuals, emergency procedures and others are needed to prevent systematic
human errors in any maintenance or operational task that may result in system failures.

Reliability modeling[edit]
Reliability modeling is the process of predicting or understanding the reliability of a component
or system prior to its implementation. Two types of analysis that are often used to model a
complete system availability (including effects from logistics issues like spare part provisioning,
transport and manpower) behavior are Fault Tree Analysis and reliability block diagrams. On
component level the same type of analysis can be used together with others. The input for the
models can come from many sources: Testing, Earlier operational experience field data or data
handbooks from the same or mixed industries can be used. In all cases, the data must be used
with great caution as predictions are only valid in case the same product in the same context is
used. Often predictions are only made to compare alternatives.

A reliability block diagram showing a 1oo3 (1 out of 3) redundant designed subsystem

For part level predictions, two separate fields of investigation are common:

 The physics of failure approach uses an understanding of physical failure mechanisms involved,
such as mechanical crack propagation or chemical corrosion degradation or failure;
 The parts stress modeling approach is an empirical method for prediction based on counting the
number and type of components of the system, and the stress they undergo during operation.
Software reliability is a more challenging area that must be considered when it is a considerable
component to system functionality.

Reliability theory[edit]
Main articles: Reliability theory, Failure rate, and Survival analysis

Reliability is defined as the probability that a device will perform its intended function during a
specified period of time under stated conditions. Mathematically, this may be expressed as,

where is the failure probability density function and is the length of the period of time (which is
assumed to start from time zero).

There are a few key elements of this definition:

1. Reliability is predicated on "intended function:" Generally, this is taken to mean operation

without failure. However, even if no individual part of the system fails, but the system as a
whole does not do what was intended, then it is still charged against the system reliability. The
system requirements specification is the criterion against which reliability is measured.
2. Reliability applies to a specified period of time. In practical terms, this means that a system has a
specified chance that it will operate without failure before time . Reliability engineering ensures
that components and materials will meet the requirements during the specified time. Units
other than time may sometimes be used.
3. Reliability is restricted to operation under stated (or explicitly defined) conditions. This
constraint is necessary because it is impossible to design a system for unlimited conditions. A
Mars Rover will have different specified conditions than a family car. The operating environment
must be addressed during design and testing. That same rover may be required to operate in
varying conditions requiring additional scrutiny.

Quantitative system reliability parameters – theory[edit]

Quantitative Requirements are specified using reliability parameters. The most common
reliability parameter is the mean time to failure (MTTF), which can also be specified as the
failure rate (this is expressed as a frequency or conditional probability density function (PDF)) or
the number of failures during a given period. These parameters may be useful for higher system
levels and systems that are operated frequently, such as most vehicles, machinery, and electronic
equipment. Reliability increases as the MTTF increases. The MTTF is usually specified in hours,
but can also be used with other units of measurement, such as miles or cycles. Using MTTF
values on lower system levels can be very misleading, specially if the Failures Modes and
Mechanisms it concerns (The F in MTTF) are not specified with it.[16]
In other cases, reliability is specified as the probability of mission success. For example,
reliability of a scheduled aircraft flight can be specified as a dimensionless probability or a
percentage, as in system safety engineering.

A special case of mission success is the single-shot device or system. These are devices or
systems that remain relatively dormant and only operate once. Examples include automobile
airbags, thermal batteries and missiles. Single-shot reliability is specified as a probability of one-
time success, or is subsumed into a related parameter. Single-shot missile reliability may be
specified as a requirement for the probability of a hit. For such systems, the probability of failure
on demand (PFD) is the reliability measure – which actually is an unavailability number. This
PFD is derived from failure rate (a frequency of occurrence) and mission time for non-repairable
systems.

For repairable systems, it is obtained from failure rate and mean-time-to-repair (MTTR) and test
interval. This measure may not be unique for a given system as this measure depends on the kind
of demand. In addition to system level requirements, reliability requirements may be specified
for critical subsystems. In most cases, reliability parameters are specified with appropriate
statistical confidence intervals.

Reliability testing[edit]

A reliability sequential test plan

The purpose of reliability testing is to discover potential problems with the design as early as
possible and, ultimately, provide confidence that the system meets its reliability requirements.
Reliability testing may be performed at several levels and there are different types of testing.
Complex systems may be tested at component, circuit board, unit, assembly, subsystem and
system levels.[21] (The test level nomenclature varies among applications.) For example,
performing environmental stress screening tests at lower levels, such as piece parts or small
assemblies, catches problems before they cause failures at higher levels. Testing proceeds during
each level of integration through full-up system testing, developmental testing, and operational
testing, thereby reducing program risk. However, testing does not mitigate unreliability risk.

With each test both a statistical type 1 and type 2 error could be made and depends on sample
size, test time, assumptions and the needed discrimination ratio. There is risk of incorrectly
accepting a bad design (type 1 error) and the risk of incorrectly rejecting a good design (type 2
error).

It is not always feasible to test all system requirements. Some systems are prohibitively
expensive to test; some failure modes may take years to observe; some complex interactions
result in a huge number of possible test cases; and some tests require the use of limited test
ranges or other resources. In such cases, different approaches to testing can be used, such as
(highly) accelerated life testing, design of experiments, and simulations.

The desired level of statistical confidence also plays a role in reliability testing. Statistical
confidence is increased by increasing either the test time or the number of items tested.
Reliability test plans are designed to achieve the specified reliability at the specified confidence
level with the minimum number of test units and test time. Different test plans result in different
levels of risk to the producer and consumer. The desired reliability, statistical confidence, and
risk levels for each side influence the ultimate test plan. The customer and developer should
agree in advance on how reliability requirements will be tested.

A key aspect of reliability testing is to define "failure". Although this may seem obvious, there
are many situations where it is not clear whether a failure is really the fault of the system.
Variations in test conditions, operator differences, weather and unexpected situations create
differences between the customer and the system developer. One strategy to address this issue is
to use a scoring conference process. A scoring conference includes representatives from the
customer, the developer, the test organization, the reliability organization, and sometimes
independent observers. The scoring conference process is defined in the statement of work. Each
test case is considered by the group and "scored" as a success or failure. This scoring is the
official result used by the reliability engineer.

As part of the requirements phase, the reliability engineer develops a test strategy with the
customer. The test strategy makes trade-offs between the needs of the reliability organization,
which wants as much data as possible, and constraints such as cost, schedule and available
resources. Test plans and procedures are developed for each reliability test, and results are
documented.

Reliability testing is common in the Photonics industry. Examples of reliability tests of lasers are
life test and burn-in. These tests consist of the highly accelerated ageing, under controlled
conditions, of a group of lasers. The data collected from these life tests are used to predict laser
life expectancy under the intended operating characteristics.[22]

Reliability test requirements[edit]

Reliability test requirements can follow from any analysis for which the first estimate of failure
probability, failure mode or effect needs to be justified. Evidence can be generated with some
level of confidence by testing. With software-based systems, the probability is a mix of software
and hardware-based failures. Testing reliability requirements is problematic for several reasons.
A single test is in most cases insufficient to generate enough statistical data. Multiple tests or
long-duration tests are usually very expensive. Some tests are simply impractical, and
environmental conditions can be hard to predict over a systems life-cycle.

Reliability engineering is used to design a realistic and affordable test program that provides
empirical evidence that the system meets its reliability requirements. Statistical confidence levels
are used to address some of these concerns. A certain parameter is expressed along with a
corresponding confidence level: for example, an MTBF of 1000 hours at 90% confidence level.
From this specification, the reliability engineer can, for example, design a test with explicit
criteria for the number of hours and number of failures until the requirement is met or failed.
Different sorts of tests are possible.

The combination of required reliability level and required confidence level greatly affects the
development cost and the risk to both the customer and producer. Care is needed to select the
best combination of requirements – e.g. cost-effectiveness. Reliability testing may be performed
at various levels, such as component, subsystem and system. Also, many factors must be
addressed during testing and operation, such as extreme temperature and humidity, shock,
vibration, or other environmental factors (like loss of signal, cooling or power; or other
catastrophes such as fire, floods, excessive heat, physical or security violations or other myriad
forms of damage or degradation). For systems that must last many years, accelerated life tests
may be needed.

References[edit]
1. Jump up ^ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (1990) IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A
Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. New York, NY ISBN 1-55937-079-3
2. Jump up ^ RCM II, Reliability Centered Maintenance, Second edition 2008, page 250-260, the role of
Actuarial analysis in Reliability
3. Jump up ^ Why You Cannot Predict Electronic Product Reliability (PDF). 2012 ARS, Europe. Warsaw,
Poland.
4. ^ Jump up to: a b c O'Connor, Patrick D. T. (2002), Practical Reliability Engineering (Fourth Ed.), John
Wiley & Sons, New York. ISBN 978-0-4708-4462-5.
5. ^ Jump up to: a b Barnard, R.W.A. (2008). "What is wrong with Reliability Engineering?" (PDF). Lambda
Consulting. Retrieved 30 October 2014.
6. Jump up ^ Saleh, J.H. and Marais, Ken, “Highlights from the Early (and pre-) History of Reliability
Engineering”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Volume 91, Issue 2, February 2006, Pages 249-
256
 7. Jump up ^ Juran, Joseph and Gryna, Frank, Quality Control Handbook, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1988, p.24.3
8. Jump up ^ Wong, Kam, "Unified Field (Failure) Theory-Demise of the Bathtub Curve", Proceedings of
Annual RAMS, 1981, pp402-408
9. Jump up ^ Practical Reliability Engineering, P. O'Conner - 2012
10. Jump up ^ "Articles - Where Do Reliability Engineers Come From? - ReliabilityWeb.com: A Culture of
Reliability".
11. Jump up ^ Using Failure Modes, Mechanisms, and Effects Analysis in Medical Device Adverse Event
Investigations, S. Cheng, D. Das, and M. Pecht, ICBO: International Conference on Biomedical Ontology,
Buffalo, NY, July 26–30, 2011, pp. 340–345
12. Jump up ^ Federal Aviation Administration (19 March 2013). System Safety Handbook (PDF). U.S.
Department of Transportation. Retrieved 2 June 2013.
13. Jump up ^ Kokcharov I. "Structural Safety". Structural Integrity Analysis (PDF).
14. Jump up ^ Reliability Hotwire - July 2015
15. Jump up ^ Reliability Maintainability and Risk Practical Methods for Engineers Including Reliability
Centred Maintenance and Safety - David J. Smith (2011)
16. ^ Jump up to: a b Practical Reliability Engineering, O'Conner, 2001
17. Jump up ^ System Reliability Theory, second edition, Rausand and Hoyland - 2004
18. Jump up ^ The Blame Machine, Why Human Error Causes Accidents - Whittingham, 2007
19. Jump up ^ Salvatore Distefano, Antonio Puliafito: Dependability Evaluation with Dynamic Reliability
Block Diagrams and Dynamic Fault Trees. IEEE Trans. Dependable Sec. Comput. 6(1): 4-17 (2009)
20. Jump up ^ The Seven Samurais of Systems Engineering, James Martin (2008)
21. Jump up ^ Ben-Gal I., Herer Y. and Raz T. (2003). "Self-correcting inspection procedure under
inspection errors" (PDF). IIE Transactions on Quality and Reliability, 34(6), pp. 529–540.
22. Jump up ^ "Yelo Reliability Testing". Retrieved 6 November 2014.
23. ^ Jump up to: a b Reliability and Safety Engineering - Verma, Ajit Kumar, Ajit, Srividya, Karanki, Durga
Rao (2010)
24. Jump up ^ INCOSE SE Guidelines
25. ^ Jump up to: a b "8.1.1.1. Quality versus reliability".
26. Jump up ^ "The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability".
27. Jump up ^ American Society for Quality Reliability Division (ASQ-RD)
28. Jump up ^ American Society for Quality (ASQ)
29. Jump up ^ Society of Reliability Engineers (SRE)
30. Jump up ^ "Top Tools for a Reliability Engineer's Toolbox: 7 Reliability Engineering Experts Reveal
Their Favorite Tools, Tips and Resources". Asset Tag & UID Label Blog. Retrieved 2016-01-18.

The Manufacturing Reliability System is an enterprise-wide process driven by the most extensive
group of manufacturing talent in the industry – talent who track key metrics called Special
Procedures and Instructions (SPIs).

When an issue occurs, our team uses an electronic tracking system to review customer incidents,
credits, and MRS non-conformances. A single member of our team is assigned responsibility for
that issue and uses lean tools including RACI charts to investigate the root cause and implement
an effective corrective action. Our team then communicates the issue’s resolution to our
customer using the tracking system’s standardized reports. Because monitoring drives
compliance, auditors from plant management and corporate Blackshirts verify proper and timely
root cause analyses and corrective actions.
 Expand all

NA MRS
Features & Benefits
Features & Benefits

Our extensive talent tracks, audits, and reviews the following SPIs:

 Inspection
 Equipment centerlining
 Maintenance and benchmarking
 Waste tracking and reduction
 Product safety

Assessment of Manufacturing System Reliability: A

Case Study
Subrata Chakraborty and B. Ankiah

The Journal of the Operational Research Society

Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 55-63

Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals on behalf of the Operational Research Society

DOI: 10.2307/2583077

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2583077

Page Count: 9

Abstract
Reduction of unproductive work-in-process (WIP) inventory has been a subject of global concern lately.
Detailed examination often reveals that such unproductive WIP is the result of a low manufacturing
system reliability (MSR). The impact of poor MSR is felt all the more in industries where material cost
constitutes a significant portion of the total manufacturing cost. Guided by these considerations, in this
paper a case study is reported wherein an analysis has been made to assess MSR in a multinational
switchgear industry located in Western India. The paper provides a few practical guidelines towards
maintaining a certain level of MSR by suitably adjusting factors like utilization level of machines, utilization
level of tools, tool down-time, mean production rate per tool, etc. Detailed sensitivity analysis on the
simulation results has also been presented, which is believed to help substantially in decisions related to
the finer adjustments of these factors.

INTRODUCTION

In the face of modern management where stiff competition has become the order of the day in the
midst of economic global recession and increased customer expectations.

Production being the nerve centre of most manufacturing enterprise, a considerable amount of research
has been undertaken in the areas of production and allied areas like stores and inventory.

Reliabilty engineering and mgt have also been areas of intense research for the last 2 decades. Emphasis
has been on issues like reliability assessment, evaluation and optimization in the contexts of products
and subsystems. Little seems to have been done so far to assess the reliability of a vital system like the
manufacturing system.

This paper constitutes an attempt in this direction, wherein a case study is presented on the assessment
of MSR. The work reported here is based on a study conducted by the authors in a press shop of a large
multinational switchgear manufacturing unit located in india. The study was conducted based on the
following broad objectives:

 To develop an analytical approach to measure the reliability of the manufacturing system

 To identify the main factors that affect the overall manufacturing system reliability
 To understand how changes in the level of these factors may affect the manufacturing system
reliability.
 To provide the operational managers with some evaluative guidelines such that they are in a
position to estimate fairly accurately the reliability of the system under different operating
conditions.

Fuzzy Bayesian reliability and availability analysis of production systems

Authors: Latife Görkemli Department of Industrial Engineering, Erciyes University,

 38039 Kayseri, Turkey

Selda Kapan Ulusoy Department of Industrial Engineering, Erciyes University,

38039 Kayseri, Turkey

Published in:

· Journal

Computers and Industrial Engineering archive

Volume 59 Issue 4, November, 2010

Pages 690-696
Pergamon Press, Inc. Tarrytown, NY, USA

To have effective production planning and control, it is necessary to calculate the reliability and
availability of a production system as a whole. Considering only machine reliability in the
calculations would most likely result unmet due dates. In this study, a new modelling approach
for determining the reliability and availability of a production system is proposed by considering
all the components of the system and their hierarchy in the system structure. Components of a
production system are defined as production processes; components of the processes are
defined as sub-processes. In this hierarchical structure we could model all kinds of failures such
as material and supply, management and personnel, and machine and equipment. In the
analysis, a fuzzy Bayesian method is used to quantify the uncertainties in the production
environment. The suggested modelling approach is illustrated on an example. In the example,
also a separate reliability and availability analysis is conducted which only considered machine
failures, and the results of both analyses are compared.

Reliability Modeling and Optimization Strategy for Manufacturing

System Based on RQR Chain
Yihai He,1,2 Zhenzhen He,1 Linbo Wang,1 and Changchao Gu1
1
School of Reliability and Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191,
China
2
Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of
Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Received 12 June 2015; Accepted 2 November 2015
Academic Editor: Nidhal Rezg
Copyright © 2015 Yihai He et al. This is an open access article distributed under the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract
Accurate and dynamic reliability modeling for the running manufacturing system is the
prerequisite to implement preventive maintenance. However, existing studies could not
output the reliability value in real time because their abandonment of the quality
inspection data originated in the operation process of manufacturing system. Therefore,
this paper presents an approach to model the manufacturing system reliability
dynamically based on their operation data of process quality and output data of product
reliability. Firstly, on the basis of importance explanation of the quality variations in
manufacturing process as the linkage for the manufacturing system reliability and product
inherent reliability, the RQR chain which could represent the relationships between them
is put forward, and the product qualified probability is proposed to quantify the impacts
of quality variation in manufacturing process on the reliability of manufacturing system
further. Secondly, the impact of qualified probability on the product inherent reliability is
expounded, and the modeling approach of manufacturing system reliability based on the
qualified probability is presented. Thirdly, the preventive maintenance optimization
strategy for manufacturing system driven by the loss of manufacturing quality variation is
proposed. Finally, the validity of the proposed approach is verified by the reliability
analysis and optimization example of engine cover manufacturing system.

1. Introduction
To meet the demands of high reliability and long life of the product, integrated analysis,
assurance, and optimization for reliability are required to be carried out in the lifecycle of
design, manufacture, and usage. However, for a long time, most of traditional reliability
studies had merely focused on the design and usage stages, and reliability technology
suitable for the manufacturing process has always been ignored, lacking proper attention
it deserved, which caused the serious degradation of product reliability after batch
production frequently, and resulting in a high infant failure rate, and the product inherent
reliability could not meet the increasingly stringent design reliability requirements [1]. As
we all know, product is the output of the manufacturing process which is the
implementation form of the manufacturing system. Therefore, the reliability of final
produced product is closely related to the reliability of manufacturing system and the
quality of manufacturing process. Usually, even a good design cannot guarantee that the
manufactured products achieve the satisfactory reliability when the design quality of
manufacturing system is poor [2]. Thus, it can be seen that integrating the reliability
modeling and optimization for manufacturing system is crucial to ensure the product
reliability.
Practices have proved that uncertain factors like quality variation in manufacturing
process and deteriorations of system components could lead to the degradation of
manufacturing system, which should affect the quality of manufacturing process
interactively. And when quality variations are cumulated and amplified, the number of
potential defects of products is arising, which would trigger the decline of product
inherent reliability finally. In order to minimize the decline of product inherent reliability
with respect to the design specifications, identifying and optimizing the critical factors in
manufacturing that contribute to the product reliability degradation systematically are
becoming the research focus of reliability engineering currently, and how to carry out
product reliability oriented reliability modeling and optimization of manufacturing
system is the most urgent and task.
At different nodes of product life cycle, product reliability exhibits different
characteristics. Murthy [3] defined the evolution chain which transfers product reliability
from design, manufacturing, transportation, sale, and usage, enriching notation of product
reliability at different stages, and named the reliability in manufacturing as product
inherent reliability. Then, Jiang and Murthy [4] pointed out the negative impact of
variations on the reliability during the product life cycle via the transmission chain and
pointed out that the quality variations and assembly errors are the root reasons causing
the deterioration of product inherent reliability. As to product inherent reliability in
manufacturing, Li et al. [5, 6] noted that both the reliability of manufacturing system and
quality of manufacturing process are the critical roles to ensure and improve the product
quality and reliability. Inman et al. [7] believed that performance of manufacturing
system severely restricted product quality and reliability, and upgrading the
manufacturing equipment or adjusting the technological process could promote the ability
of manufacturing system as well as ensuring and optimizing product quality and
reliability. To some extent, the ability of trouble free operation of manufacturing system
determines the level of inherent reliability formed in manufacturing process.
Traditional reliability modeling of manufacturing system tends to follow the classic
reliability block diagram method, fault tree analysis, Petri nets, and so forth, which
caused a comprehensive analysis and dynamical assessment for manufacturing system to
be complex or inconvenient. Based on the data of system operation and maintenance, Li
and Ni [8] used the maximum likelihood estimation method to estimate the reliability of
manufacturing system, which provided the basis for carrying out preventive maintenance
of manufacturing system. Lin and Chang [9] proposed the limited manufacturing network
model, and after mining operating failures and rework data, an analysis model of
manufacturing system reliability was established. Li et al. [10] created a prediction model
of manufacturing system using the grey model, and the author stated that the weaknesses
of manufacturing system could be identified by the proposed model. Considering the
plenty of quality data existing in manufacturing process, Chen and Jin [11, 12] put
forward a Quality-Reliability chain model based on the interaction between
manufacturing process quality and manufacturing system reliability, and the reliability
analysis and maintenance optimization of manufacturing system were expounded based
on the proposed Quality-Reliability chain. Zhang et al. [13] presented a reliability
modeling approach of manufacturing system using dimensions of process quality. Rafiee
et al. [14] analyzed four typical vibration modes and their effects on the degradation rate
of manufacturing process and modeled the complex manufacturing system reliability like
MEMS and so on. Regarding the maintenance strategy of manufacturing systems, Li et
al. [15] investigated the economic production quantity model jointly considering product
deterioration and proposed an EPQ (economical production quantity) model for
deteriorating production system and items with rework. Gong et al. [16] explored an
adaptive maintenance model of the process environment to diagnose the progressive
faults in manufacturing systems. Tlili et al. [17] proposed a new modeling approach
based on the fact that the degradation process is modeled by the wiener process. Hajej et
al. [18–21] studied integrated maintenance strategies and policies jointly considering the
optimization problems of subcontracting, product returns, lease contract, and so forth,
which provide a solid foundation to develop the integrated maintenance strategies
optimization for manufacturing system. Mifdal et al. [22] presented a joint optimization
approach of maintenance and production planning for a multiple-product manufacturing
system, which could establish sequentially an economical production plan and an optimal
maintenance strategy considering the influence of the production rate on the system’s
degradation.
As can be seen from the above literature analysis, the interaction between product
inherent reliability and manufacturing system reliability is not defined, and studies on the
product reliability oriented reliability modeling and optimization of manufacturing

References

1. Y. He, W. Linbo, Z. He, and M. Xie, “A fuzzy TOPSIS and rough set based
approach for mechanism analysis of product infant failure,” Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google
Scholar
2. M. Colledani, T. Tolio, A. Fischer et al., “Design and management of
manufacturing systems for production quality,” CIRP Annals: Manufacturing
Technology, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 773–796, 2014. View at Publisher · View at
Google Scholar · View at Scopus
3. P. Murthy, “New research in reliability, warranty and maintenance,” in
Proceedings of the 4th Asia-Pacific International Symposium on Advanced
Reliability and Maintenance Modeling (APARM '10), pp. 504–515, McGraw-Hill
International Enterprises, Wellington, New Zealand, December 2010.
4. R. Jiang and D. N. P. Murthy, “Impact of quality variations on product reliability,”
Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 490–496, 2009. View
at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
5. J. Li and N. Huang, “Quality evaluation in flexible manufacturing systems: a
Markovian approach,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2007, Article
ID 57128, 24 pages, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at
MathSciNet · View at Scopus
6. J. Li and J. Lei, “Integration of manufacturing system design and quality
management,” IIE Transactions, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 555–556, 2013. View at
Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
7. R. R. Inman, D. E. Blumenfeld, N. Huang, J. Li, and J. Li, “Survey of recent
advances on the interface between production system design and quality,” IIE
Transactions, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 557–574, 2013. View at Publisher · View at
Google Scholar · View at Scopus
8. N. Li and J. Ni, “Reliability estimation based on operational data of manufacturing
systems,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 24, no. 7, pp.
843–854, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
9. Y.-K. Lin and P.-C. Chang, “System reliability of a manufacturing network with
reworking action and different failure rates,” International Journal of Production
Research, vol. 50, no. 23, pp. 6930–6944, 2012. View at Publisher · View at
Google Scholar · View at Scopus
10. G.-D. Li, S. Masuda, D. Yamaguchi, and M. Nagai, “A new reliability prediction
model in manufacturing systems,” IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 59, no.
1, pp. 170–177, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at
Scopus
11. Y. Chen and J. Jin, “Quality-reliability chain modeling for system-reliability
analysis of complex manufacturing process,” IEEE Transactions on Reliability,
vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 475–488, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar ·
View at Scopus
12. Y. Chen and J. Jin, “Quality-oriented-maintenance for multiple interactive tooling
components in discrete manufacturing processes,” IEEE Transactions on
Reliability, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 123–134, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google
Scholar · View at Scopus
13. F. Zhang, J. Lu, Y. Yan, S. Tang, and C. Meng, “Dimensional quality oriented
reliability modeling for complex manufacturing process,” International Journal of
Computational Intelligence Systems, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1262–1268, 2011. View at
Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
14. K. Rafiee, Q. Feng, and D. W. Coit, “Reliability modeling for dependent
competing failure processes with changing degradation rate,” IIE Transactions,
vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 483–496, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar ·
View at Scopus
15. N. Li, F. T. S. Chan, S. H. Chung, and A. H. Tai, “An EPQ model for deteriorating
production system and items with rework,” Mathematical Problems in
Engineering, vol. 2015, Article ID 957970, 10 pages, 2015. View at Publisher ·
View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
16. X. Gong, Y. Feng, H. Zheng, and J. Tan, “An adaptive maintenance model
oriented to process environment of the manufacturing systems,” Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, vol. 2014, Article ID 537452, 10 pages, 2014. View at
Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
17. L. Tlili, M. Radhoui, and A. Chelbi, “Condition-based maintenance strategy for
production systems generating environmental damage,” Mathematical Problems in
Engineering, vol. 2015, Article ID 494162, 12 pages, 2015. View at Publisher ·
View at Google Scholar
18. Z. Hajej, N. Rezg, and A. Gharbi, “Forecasting and maintenance problem under
subcontracting constraint with transportation delay,” International Journal of
Production Research, vol. 52, no. 22, pp. 6695–6716, 2014. View at Publisher ·
View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
19. H. Zied, D. Sofiene, and R. Nidhal, “Joint optimisation of maintenance and
production policies with subcontracting and product returns,” Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 589–602, 2014. View at Publisher · View at
Google Scholar · View at Scopus
20. Z. Hajej, N. Rezg, and A. Gharbi, “A decision optimization model for leased
manufacturing equipment with warranty under forecasting
production/maintenance problem,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol.
2015, Article ID 274530, 14 pages, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google
Scholar · View at MathSciNet
21. Z. Hajej, S. Turki, and N. Rezg, “Modelling and analysis for sequentially
optimising production,maintenance and delivery activities taking into account
product returns,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 53, no. 15, pp.
4694–4719, 2015. View at Google Scholar
 22. L. Mifdal, Z. Hajej, and S. Dellagi, “Joint optimization approach of maintenance
and production planning for a multiple-product manufacturing system,”
Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2015, Article ID 769723, 17 pages,
2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
23. J. Shi, Stream of Variation Modeling and Analysis for Multistage Manufacturing
Processes, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, 2007. View at Publisher · View at
Google Scholar

The primary goal of maintenance is to avoid or mitigate the consequences of failure of equipment. This
may be by preventing the failure before it actually occurs which Planned Maintenance and Condition
Based Maintenance help to achieve. It is designed to preserve and restore equipment reliability by
replacing worn components before they actually fail. Preventive maintenance activities include partial or
complete overhauls at specified periods, oil changes, lubrication, minor adjustments, and so on. In
addition, workers can record equipment deterioration so they know to replace or repair worn parts
before they cause system failure. The ideal preventive maintenance program would prevent all
equipment failure before it occurs.[citation needed]

Preventative maintenance (or preventive maintenance) is maintenance that is regularly

performed on a piece of equipment to lessen the likelihood of it failing. Preventative
maintenance is performed while the equipment is still working, so that it does not break down
unexpectedly.