This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Lany H. Crow AT&T Bell Laboratories Whippany
Key W o k Repairable Systems, ConfidenceIntervals,Power Law NHPP Model, Crow (AMSAA) Model
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS Complex systems, such as communication systems, aircraft,
automobiles, military tanks, are generally repaired when they fail, not replaced. The most popular model for repairable system analysis is the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process. When failure data are generated by multiple systems, statistical procedures have been developed for estimating the power law model parameters, failure intensity and reliability functions. This paper discusses confidence intervals procedures on the failure intensity and reliability function appropriate when failure data are generated by multiple systems. The special case considered in this paper assumes that we are interested in placing confidence intervals on the failure intensity function at a time T and we have k systems which have operated fiom time 0 to at least time T. The failure data for each system over (0,T) will be used to calculate the confidence intervals utilizing the techniques presented in this paper. The actual operating times for these systems may however be greater than T. These confidence interval procedures utilize the methods developed for the Crow ( A M S A A ) reliability growth model. Examples illustrating the application of these methods to burn-in, useful life and wearout are discussed. 1. INTRODUCTION Many systems can be categorized into two basic types; one-time or nonrepairable systems, and reusable or repairable systems. The term "system" is used in a broad sense and may simply mean a component. If continuous operation of the system is desired, then in the former case, the system would be replaced by a new system upon failure. An example would be the replacement of a failed light bulb by a new bulb. The component or system may, of course, be part of a larger system. For example, the water pump of a vehicle may be considered a one-time or nonrepairable system. If failure data are available for a nonrepairable system, then, since the failure times are s-independent and identically distributed, the analyses may involve the estimation of the corresponding life distribution. In the latter case, under continuous operation, the system is repaired, but not replaced, after each failure. For example, if the system is a vehicle and the water pump fails, then the water pump is replaced and, hence, the vehicle is repaired.
For a repairable system, one is rarely interested primarily in time to fust failure. Rather, interest generally centers around the probability of system failure as a function of system age. Exact reliability analyses for complex, repairable systems are often difficult because of the complicated failure process that may result from the replacement or repair policy. A common procedure in practice is to approximate the complicated failure process by a simpler failure process, which although not exact, still yields useful practical results. One such approach assumes that the failure times of the complex repairable system follow a nonhomogeneous Poisson process. Crow developed the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process as a model for the reliability of a complex, repairable system when data are generated from multiple systems. A special case of this model is the basis of a widely used reliability growth model. In this paper, the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process model is used to develop practical and statistically sound s-confidenceinterval procedures for the intensity and reliability functions of a complex repairable system. It is assumed that the repairable system is under a customer use environment and failure data are generated by multiple copies of the system operated for the same period of time, starting at time 0. For repairable systems, it is generally of particular interest to address reliability characteristics associated with infant mortality, useful life and wearout. The s-confidence interval procedures developed in this paper relate in particular to practical issues concerning these typical reliabilityphases of a complex repairable system. 2. THEMODEL The power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process model considered in this paper for repairable system was investigated by Crow  for the case where data are generated by multiple systems. Estimation procedures for this model with multiple systems data are given in Crow [21,. See also Ascher and Feingold [l] for additional background. Suppose a system is put into operation at age 0 and operated for a period of time T. "Time" may be operating time for some systems or, in the case of vehicles, may be odometer mileage. The number of failures N O , experienced by the system is random and the successive times of occurrence of
0149-144)(/93/$3.00 1993 IEEE 0
1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium
Xi-l . 3. it is either decreasing. or the time from the Xi-lth failure to the Xith failure time. which always restarts to 0 after a failure. It is assumed that the failures for each of these systems occur in accordance with the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process with intensity function p(t) = 1ptp-1. given it has not occurred by time y. p = 1. Example of Decreasing Failure Intensity 1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium 127 .1)th failure to the i-th failure will occur between y and y + Ay. the time between the (i-1)th and i-th failure Y i = Xi-l . p(t) = hptD-1. In terms of a repairable system.2. This probability is s-independent of how many failures have occurred up to time t. I } In the homogeneous Poisson process case of no change in intensity of system failure as a function of system age. the Weibull distribution terminology. unlike the nonhomogeneous Poisson process does not apply to the sequence of failure as a function of system age. estimation and other statisticalprocedures do not apply. such as the exponential deals only with the successive times between failures. The time scale for y relates to a single operating period between failure. we have p(t) = h. the intensity of the corresponding homogeneous Poisson process is also h. In this paper. then hAy is approximately the probability that the time Y i from the (i. We are concerned with analyzing the reliability of a complex system based on failure data from several copies of this system under the same customer use environmental conditions. the concept of a failure rate and a corresponding distribution applies only to the time to a single failure. p > 0 and t is the age of the system. or constant. <XN(=) are also random. Now. p<1 0 System Age t Figure 1. is the nonhomogeneous Poisson process with intensity function p(t). the intensity function p(t) may depend on the age t of the system. The intensity function for the power law model is monotone.Xi follows the exponential distribution with failure rate h in the homogeneous Poisson process case. A distribution. t > O is a homogeneous Poisson process with intensity h. consequently. p(t) A t is approximately the probability that a failure will occur between system age t and system age t + At. t > 0 where h. and would be increasing during the wearout phase of the system. In the general case of a nonhomogeneous Poisson process.. Xi-l < Xi.. increasing. the time to the first failure X1. but is maintaining a constant intensity of failure. If during the operation of the system the times between successive failures Xi . In the exponential situation with failure rate h.. we assume that the failures for each system under study are occurring according to the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process with failure intensity function p(t) = xptp-1.these failures O < X 1 < X2 < -. p < 1. then N(t). hat is approximately the probability that a system failure will occur during the period (t. If At is infinitesimally small. This particular mathematical form for the intensity p(t) is the same mathematical form as the failure rate for a Weibull distribution. Xo = 0) are s-independent. t > 0. That is. it is very important to keep in mind that we are not dealing with the Weibull distribution and. However. During infant mortality p(t) would be decreasing. then for a homogeneous Poisson process. . the constant intensity hAt implies that the system is not improving nor wearing out with age. Analogous to h a t in the homogeneous Poisson process case. Figure 1 illustrates this case for p < 1. addresses the sequence of successive failure times 0 < X 1 < X2. p > 1.. identically distributed exponential random variables with failure rate h.(i= 1. That is. The homogeneous Poisson process on the other hand. t + At) where t is the age or operating time of the system. for example. it would be constant over the system useful life. if Ay is infinitesimally small. Therefore. BACKGROUND AND NOTATION It is important to note that the failure rate for a distribution. A generalization of the homogeneous Poisson process which allows for a change or trend in the intensity of system failure as a function of system age t. as noted above.
) F a i 1 U Threshold _____________________-____--__---__--_ e I n t e n S r F i t Y a U t 0 System Age t r e I n t e n Figure 3. which would include the case of p=1. We will show that this threshold on reliability can equate into a corresponding threshold on the system's failure intensity. decreasing or increasing.XtP] Note that if j3 > 1. then R(t) = Prob[system of age t will not fail in (t.-[Ut + s y . or perhaps maintaining an acceptable mission reliability after some age of the system. an example with 1 < j3 < 2. T). t V A V A V A V A I 0 V A V A V A V A )c This improvement in system reliability in a customer use environment is generally associated with infant mortality or burn-in caused by finding and correcting manufacturingand workmanship problems. (See Figure 3. When j3 = 1 3 (constant intensity of failures). That is the homogeneous Poisson process case. If the system is repairable and mission affecting failures follow a power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process. we consider the general situation of placing s-confidence intervals on the intensity function p(t) = hp tB-'. In this paper. In practice. It is desirable in this case for the failure intensity to decrease below this threshold value. then R(t) is increasing with age. the mission reliability is decreasing and it may be desirable to ascertain that this reliability is greater than some minimum threshold over the system age (0. is the concept of "mission reliability" for complex repairable system. This interest may be associated with warranties. t It may also be of interest to assess if the failure intensity is constant or place confidence intervals on its value at some system age regardless of whether or not it is constant. These corrective actions are rework to the system and not permanent changes to the underlying processes affecting future copies of this system.Of particular interest. This is the probability R(t) that a system of age t will successfully complete a mission of fixed duration s > 0. a For p < 1. in service they may exhibit wearout characteristics. Particular attention should be paid to determining whether or not the systems are representative of the same population in order for the failure data to be combined. the intensity function is decreasing and the intervals between successive system failures are getting further and further apart on average. s t Y 0 System Age t Figure 2. then R(t) = e-XS. Failure Intensity and Threshold Value The situations described above can be addressed by placing sconfidence intervals on the failure intensity function at some system age T.T) where T may be a replacement o r overhaul time for the system. Some systems may not exhibit bum-in or infant mortality if sufficient quality processes are in place during manufacturing. T). Failure Intensity and Thrmhold Value 128 1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium . that is the intervals between successive failures are tending to get closer and closer together with system age. it may be of interest to ascertain whether or not the intensity function has decreased below a target threshold level by some system age T. then R(t) is decreasing with age. 0 + s)] - . We assume that there are one or more copies of the system with known failure data over the period (0. constant.) For systems that are wearing out. If j < 1. However. (See Figure 2. It is desirable that the failure intensity be below this threshold over (0. how long to test a system before release to a customer.
The time when each of the k systems is 6rst operated or put into service is age or time 0. For the time T of interest. there is a "failure" each time any one of the k systems fails. In this case. let N. say T. 2. T) could be used to calculate the confidence intervals at this warranty time. then all data over (0..k. 4 and 5 for a single system b y applied to the superposition system failure intensity p (t). T. if we want to place confidence intervals at a predetennined time T I T l . From equations (8) and (9) of Crow . T) at system ages 0 < X11 c Xz1 c * c XN. be the number of failures experienced by the q-th system. we can use the procedures of Refs.the data for all m systems over the period (0. Therefore. Consequently.. 1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium 129 . 0 < t c T. During the period (0. these procedures are adapted for multiple systems by superpositioning of the failure times for the k copies onto a single time line.. T) would be used to calculate the confidence intervals on the failure intensity at time T. the test times for each system during Operational testing would often be greater than the warranty period. For these systems.Note that in practice. (see also Crow ). By dividing by k. for example operational testing of a new system design. the m system prototypes tested would generally not operate for the same period of time. I T 1 I System 1 System 2 x2 1 I x22 XN*2 T T I System k xlk X2k ... withT1 2 T 2 2 We will also generally be interested in estimating the failure intensity at T in addition to the corresponding mission reliability function. T).k I p*(t) = khpt0-l and each of the k system has failure intensity p(t) = hpp-'. k = 1. the intensity of failure for the superposition system is k times the intensity for each . For example. 0 0 T1 T2 T3 0 0 T m If we want to place confidence intervals at T. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES The superposition system has failure intensity * b 0 I I I l - - - l x1 1 I x1 2 I - xN. We let h* = kh. . The failure data described above is used to calculate the maximum likelihood estimates given by Crow .. Assume that we index the systems according to operating times Ti. we have appropriate s-confidence intervals on the intensity p t) at t = T. that is. there are N 1 failures during (0. then we may use the techniques described in this paper applied to the data of the k l m systems with Ti2T.Xd.of the systems. We wish to place a confidence interval on the system's failure intensity at a specified time T and each of the k systems has operated over (0.. in this paper. In this case. Suppose for the moment we have failure data on only one system.1. ( 4. (See also Crow . T. the maximum likelihood estimates of h and p are In practice. the superposition failure intensity p (t) is p*(t) = kp(t) = khptp-l.N. we will not know the parameters h and p and will want to estimate these values together with the failure intensity p(t) = Apta-l. The s-confidence interval procedures are based on sconfidence intervals for reliability growth developed by Crow  in 1977. The intensity p*(t) is also the intensity of a power law n2nhomogeneous Poisson process with scale parameter h = kh and the same shape parameter p. . q= 1 . we let k denote the number of systems with operating times at least T. and let XS be the age of this system at the i-th occurrence of failure ) (i= 1. However. the data over (0. For the superposition system.) These procedures were developed for a single system with failures following the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process. T). That is. In general..) for all m systems may be used. for data from multiple systems.
these s-confidence interval procedures were developed for application to a single system when failures occur in accordance with the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process. h* = 1. it follows that 1.6 33. and E* (t) utilizing the procedures in equations (3).4 35.8 N3 = 14 (6) Table 1. l . we use equations (5) and (7). X l k . S-CONFIDENCEINTERVAL PROCEDURES We wish to estimate the system failure intensity function utilizing the data from all three systems in Table 1. and the failure times correspond to each failure of the k systems are x 1 x1 1 .1 1288.(2) Any extrapolation outside the range of the data should be viewed with the usual caution..4 1604.x22. where k=3. we have for the superposition system As noted earlier. At T = 2000.2* . X N & .0 x13 0.9 1136. 0 < t 5 2000. For the situation of multiple systems operated over the same time span beginning at zero.1 712.007695 * * . For the superposition system.0 46.25 and p = 0.9 303. X 1 2 .7 3%.1 1408.3 32. Consequently. = .. the starting times for each system is 0 and the ending time for each system is 2000.6 326. The test data are over the T) and the intensity function for the period (0. 0 < t I2000. the number of failures for k systems is N = N1 + N2 + . .p. (9) The superposition failure intensity function is estimated by (equation 6) p*(t) = h ptp-1.4 1913. we have from equations (1) and (2) that A* N =(3) TB System 2 System 3 xu 1. . For the data in Table 1.8 588.7 111.453. Simulated data for k=3 systems operated for Time T = 2000 when h = 0.6 1005. 2 P* (2000) System 1 Xi1 = .7 1029.2 464. (4) and (6) discussed above. At T=2000.362.. From equations 3 and 4. suppose we have estimated h*.9 1675. kTp A N (5) The ML estimate of the intensity function for the superposition system is n * r pl(t) = h fltp-1 - NI = 9 N2 = 11 480.5 h=-.5 1867.2 55. + Nk. X2k9 . .086. .002565 (12) T = 2000 T = 2000 5. r * r 130 1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium . T = 2000 d l j l (1 1) and the estimated failure intensity function for a single system is ji(t) = ifjte-1. or (7) 2 = .7 1787. ---sXN.6 72.8 65.5..4 241.4 fj= q= li= 1 N (4) Since h* = Kh. these procedures can be easily adapted.1 1439. the failure intensity for a single system (equation 8) is fi(2000) = .9 121. For a single system.9 1568.453 Example 1 This example is discussed also in Crow . the estimated failure intensity for the superposition system is For the superposition system. X N . fj = .9 1043. Thesegive and the ML estimate of the intensity function for an individual system is P(t) = ifjta-1 . using all the combined data and treating the superposition system as a single system.9 181.
526 1. These values are given for various sample size N over the range 3 to 100. 7.662 1 4 5 .528 .9 1.2 10 . 0 71 132 .7 35 .468 1 8 1 .448 . C 2 p*(T) are s-confidence intervals for p*(T). corresponding to two-sided 80 percent and two-sided 90 percent confidence intervals. [ ] [ ] 4.4 51 166 15 .786 1 2 8 .3 1 9 .3 175 .343 2 1 9 .364 .6 * Table 2.581 .(T).840 257 . NOW p .*(T). 8. [ ] This 6.266 .189 211 .5 1 8 .490 1 7 0 12 SO9 1 7 7 .820 1.769 1 2 1 .158 3 0 3 4 . For N > 100.555 1 6 9 .4 40 .203 c 1 .430 .0 2.2 20 .I. f * are s-confidence intervals on p.a)lWpercent s-confidence intervals on p(T) can be determined from 382 .388 .737 1.7 11 .8 .0 50 . That is. For the Crow (AMSqP) reliability growth model confidence intervals on M (T) are given in Refs.221 . Table 2 lists values C 1 and C 2.1 1. 1 1 MIL-HDBK-189.678 1 4 6 . it follows that are s-confidence intervals for p.677 1.2 13 .0 2 1 .3 165 .0 30 .303 .80 are s-confidence intervals for M*(T).*(T).033 192 .445 27 .8 1.9 160 .479 .322 .591 1 5 8 .410 .5 7 .168 .293 2.5 8 . where C1 = l / n 2 and C2 = l / I l i .673 1 4 6 .689 . Ref.799 1 2 0 100 .656 1.7 199 . Consequently.4 . the Crow (AMSAA) model in Ref.600 155 .0 325 .236 2.3 179 .580 .1 186 .335 .719 1 3 2 .660 1 4 9 .4 156 .568 1 6 3 1 7 .601 1 5 8 . values I l l .627 1 4 3 .superposition system at time T is p.4 5 .9 22 . [Cl fim I C2fi(T)] (20) are s-confidence intervals on J. In these papers.2 29 .I.0 61 .649 1 4 6 26 .718 1 3 3 .(T).*(T) (15) is referred to as the instantaneous mean time between failure (MTBF).6 .259 2 3 7 . * ( ~is the intensity function for the superposition ) system at time T based on k separate systems.1 . model. The values C 1 and C2 are such that are s-confidence intervals on p.0 3 .748 1 3 0 .493 SO6 .3 148 .600 .639 c 2 1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium 131 .9 2.557 . the intensity function for a single system at time T.753 1. (14) r L 12 In reliability growth terminology M*(T) = I/J.. In this paper.6 158 .635 1 4 9 24 .3 80 .0 1 6 .770 179 . where fi(T) is given in equation ( ) Table 2 gives the values C1 and C2 7.613 .lo3 . [ ] is further described in Ref.300 . (13) where The estimate of the intensity function for the superposition system at time T is r 12 fi*(T) = X* DTi-'.2 .5 161 .668 1 4 4 .572 150 . N c 2 . the values C1 and C2 for approximate two-sided ( 1. The power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process was developed by Crow 11 as a stochastic model 2 for the Duane reliability growth postulate.1 45 .588 .9 .573 .538 .735 1 3 9 .7 185 .693 1 3 3 .517 .7 160 .7 2 3 .597 1 5 6 .464 .0 2.I ! M .1 162 .c1 .415 1 9 7 9 .5 1 4 .5 .607 .5 25 .580 1. 4 183 4 4 .418 . 5. Values C 1 and C2 such that C 1 fi (T).382 2 0 3 .610 1 5 2 .*(T) = XpTP-l.427 2.565 .595 .642 1 4 6 .4 70 . and l l 2 are given such that S-Confidence Coefficient .7 60 .8 .778 1 2 4 .3 28 .548 .7 6 . Therefore.
0 604.9 752.0057.000 when h = . (27) Example 4 System 1 Xi1 970.8 2874.0oO9.8 5300.8 7496.6 8401.6 6502.2 1730. it may not be known that the failure intensity is constant. S = .277. we are interested in an upper 90 percent confidence bound on the intensity function at T=lO.9 9064.8 7418. In this example. we have for N=58. which is less than the threshold of .7 2780.9 9472.002.1 3838.1 2869. c2=1.6 7195.3 3299.6 5960.0025.6 4819.7 8914.3 N1 = 21 P(2000) are (.9 7293.3 1014.696 Consequently.4 5734.003537). From Table 2.Example 2 Consider again the data from Table 1 used in the previous example.001707.3 3389.6 N3 = 12 Table 4.2 6604.8 N2 = 21 System 3 x13 366.2 5221.883 ~(10.2000) and N=34. This gives an upper bound of (. (24) System 2 X i2 640.8 5856.6 5018. (23) C1 = .3 2127.7 8806.4 1647.3 3664.3 6897.8 5917. p = 1.3 6269.8 5540.9 5471.6 1706. If the intensity function were constant.8 1423.9 6461.5 System 3 Xi3 212.2 7414. From equation (12) and L = . Consider the data in Table 4.7 2755. (25) (26) fi(2OOO) = . or when p assumes any other value.80 are C2 = 1. p = 1.9 6654.8 9546.6 6080.0025 after 10.5 9605. Suppose we want to place two-sided 80 percent confidence intervals on the intensity function for a single system at T=2000.0 9540.4 2179.9 5604.5 898. we have 2 = . A special case of the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process is the homogeneous Poisson process when p=1.6 245.4 9591.1 9075.7 2190. the procedures discussed in this paper may be used and are valid when the failure intensity is constant. Simulated data for k=3 systems operated for Time T = 10.2 1195.2 2068.001785.6 6412. In this case N=54.01 and p = .8 3126. p=1.OO1707)(1.4 2818. If it is known that the failure intensity is constant. 9417.5 6593.7 5047. However.00218.1 1693.OOO.3 5610. this would correspond to an exponential MlXF of at least 400 hours.1 1256.0 4489.277) = .0 4766.0.4 4480.0 5100.6 1625.7 6570.8.0 8833.8 4685.5 3252.7 9129.5 9893. .6 3202.3 8084.2 5896.1 ExamDle 3 System 1 Xi1 320.2 3032.6 9540.0 9499.5 2233.9 943.3 485. Simulated data for k=3 systems operated for Time T = 10. under two-sided 80 percent confidence coefficient.3 5408.8 4228.9 880.7 7422.1 1926.5 7874.8 885. From the data in Table 3.4 4633.2 4049.9 O 704 1.075 (28) 132 1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium ~ . Suppose it is desired to have an intensity of failure of no more than . data are generated from three systems operated over the period (0.7 5995. then the usual method for placing Chi-squared confidence intervals on this intensity function can be employed.000 hours of system age.6 4424. In Table 2.000 when h = . two-sided 80 percent confidence intervals on For this problem.5 77 17. This case corresponds to exponential times between failures. the corresponding values for N=34.3 2293. Suppose the data in Table 3 represents a system which typically exhibits manufacturing and quality problems over its initial operation.002565.7 2284.6 N1 = 2 3 System 2 Xi2 487.0 2544.OOO)= .5 976. confidence coefficient .0 3875.7 8002.8 9295.4 2828. In this situation.1 9893.379. N2 = 18 N3 = 17 Table 3.
Glossary of Reliability Growth Terms. Reliability Analysis for Complex. Los Angeles. Example 5 System 1 Xi1 1006. Crow. This will give us a lower 90 percent confidence bound on R(9970). Springfield. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace. Inc.. 1984. we have C2 = 1.5 9601.0 2615..OOO miles and a mission of 30 miles.9 7614. 1981. Mount Prospect.OOO) = . H. Desktop Publishing Assistant.9 5105. I would also like to thank Paula Borden. pp. 1990 Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium.1 5806. 1964. pp.9 9147.. 1977.002457.001358.9 7501. For this problem. (3 1) IES. No. N=50 = .3 9135.Confidence Interval Procedures for Reliability Growth Analysis. Suppose the data in Table 5 represents a system.3 5855. Vol. CA. ed..001933. J. 379410.7 1950. by F.4 7084.1 4073.O N2 = 21 System 3 X i3 619. It is required that this mission probability be a least 90 percent between t overhaul times. Technometrics. for these data.003194.2 8332. in Reliability and Biometry. L. VA. SIAM.1 System 2 Xi2 722. Reliability Growth Management. available from the Institute of Environmental Sciences. . L. J. Hence.9 7290. Suppose each system has an overhaul scheduled at 10.5 2848.9 6690. That is.2 6803. Proschan and R.909 (35) at the 90 percent confidence level. Confidence Interval Procedures for the Weibull Process with Applications to Reliability Growth.6 4733.474 (33) (34) C(l0.2 6999. US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity Technical Report 197.0002. that begins its wearout phase at time or mileage 0.0 8246. C2 = 1.1 6464.1 1519. Serfling. the underlying intensity function is constant in this example (p = l)withavalueof.VA. for the excellent text processing preparation of this document.9 9012. Duane. T.2 7851. For 90 percent two-sided s-confidence intervals. 2. Philadelphia. then ( Crow. H.1 7323. p = 1. MIL-HDBK-189.002623) (30) on the intensity function at T = 10. 1982.go.. C1 = . AD-AO44788. it will suffice to let t=9970 and place an upper 90 percent confidence bound on p( l0. available from the National Technical Information Service. L.5 9575. Alexandria. Defense Technical Information Center.1 6519.6 6325.6 3 114. Simulated data for k=3 systems operated for Time T = 10. REFERENCES Ascher. 1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY A N D MAINTAINABILITY Symposium - 133 ~~ .OOO).1 7342.1974.OOO). for a 90 percent upper bound on p(lO. New York. Feingold. 275-279. such as a military tank..000 when h = . NY. H. and = 1. 67-72.5 8947.1 5624.S.657.703. L.OOO. In fact. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to thank Amy Mardirossian for the computer programming which generated the data for the examples and analyses. H. From Table 2.8 3. Marcel Dekker.4 764 1. pp. Now.1 2956. 1.7 6799. 24.OOO2. Learning Curve Approach to Reliability Monitoring.5..1 8368.4 N1 = 13 N3 = 16 Table 5. Repairable Systems Reliability.9 4268. H.4 7105.6 8221. Repairable Systems. -ITp(t)dt R(t) = e If p t) is increasing. H.9 3259.9 9560.and (29) ~(l0. IL.2 2367. 2.0 5708.002.357. 2 ..9 7736.3 226 1.300. Vol. No. Evaluating the Reliability of Repairable Systems. Crow. Crow. This gives s-confidence intervals (. U. R(9970) 2 . This gives an upper bound of .6 8147.OOO)= . 1989.
delegate on reliability and maintainability to the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). UK. Dr. New Jersey.S. Crow is the principal author of the recently approved IEC Intemational Standard "Reliability Growth Models and Estimation Methods. Dr. 134 1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium . Larry H. He chaired the TriService Committee to develop Mil-Hdbk-189. From 1979-1985.. Crow is an elected Fellow of the American Statistical Association. Crow is Supervisor of the Quality Implementation and Reliability Methods Group a ATLT Bell Laboratories. t Whippany. He is also Technical Manager for Reliability Growth in ATLT Federal Systems Advanced Technologies. NJ 07981 USA Larry H. He is the recipient of the 1976 Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command Systems Analysis r Award for Individual Achievement. Crow chaired the US. Crow was chief of the Reliability Methodology Office at the US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity ( A M S A A ) ." Dr. D .BIOGRAPHY Dr. Crow ATLT Bell Laboratories Whippany Road Whippany. Reliability Growth Management and is the principal author of that document. Canadian and Australian reliability group of The Technical Cooperation Program (lTCF') and is currently a U. He developed the Crow ( A M S A A ) reliability growth model which has been incorporated into DoD military handbooks and national and internationalstandards and service regulations on reliability. Before joining Bell Laboratories in 1985.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.