QM ZG528 L-7 Reliability Engineering: BITS Pilani

QM ZG528 L-7
Reliability Engineering
BITS Pilani Gajanand Gupta
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Pilani Campus
1
BITS Pilani
Pilani Campus
State-Dependent Systems
Chapter – 6
RL 2.6-2.8
Load-Sharing System
• Markov analysis is applied to a load-sharing system.
• In this system, the two components in parallel are

dependent on each other.
• If one component fails, the failure rate of the other

component increases due to the additional load.
• 1 and 2 represent the increased failure rates of

components 1 and 2 respectively.
3
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Load-Sharing System
System states for a two-component load-sharing system
Rate diagram for a two-component load-sharing system

4
Load-Sharing System
• The resulting differential equations
... (6.13)
... (6.14)
... (6.15)
5
Load-Sharing System
• The solution to these questions is as follows:
... (6.16)
... (6.17)
... (6.18)
R(t)= P1(t) + P2(t) + P3(t)
6
7
Load-Sharing System
• If we let and
... (6.19)
... (6.20)
8
Example
Q.
Two generators provide needed electrical power. If either

fails, the other can continue to provide electrical power.
However, the increased load results in a higher failure rate
for the remaining generator. If λ = 0.01 failure per day and
λ+ = 0.10 failure per day. Determine the system reliability
for a 10-day contingency operation and determine the
system MTTF.
9
Example
Solution.
From Eq. 6.19,

2(0.01)
R(t) = e -2(0.01)t + [e-0.10t –e-2(0.01)t]
2(0.01) - 0.10
and
0.02
-0.2
R(10) = e + [e-1 –e-0.2] = 0.9314
- (0.08)
From Eq.(6.20),
1
MTTF = + 0.02 [ 1 - 1 ] = 60 days
0.02  0.08 0.10 0.02
10
Standby Systems
• Standby systems are generally much more reliable than
an active redundant system.
• Unlike an active redundant system, a two-component

standby system will have a reduced failure rate in its
standby mode.
• The backup unit may or may not have the same failure
rate as that of the online system.
• Failure rate of the standby unit depends on the state of

the primary unit.
11
Standby Systems
Rate diagram for a two-component standby system with failures in standby.
• State 3: failure of the standby unit while in standby.
12
Standby Systems
• System of equations
... (6.21)
... (6.22)
... (6.23)
13
Standby Systems
• Solutions
... (6.24)
... (6.25)
... (6.26)
... (6.27)
14
Standby Systems
...(6.28)
• If there are no failures set 

2 = 0 in Eqs. (6.27) and (6.28)
• If λ1 = λ2 = λ and  2 = λ- ,

...(6.29)
...(6.30)
15
Example
Q.
An active generator has a failure rate (failure per day) of

0.01.An older standby generator has a failure rate of 0.001
while in the standby and a failure rate of 0.10 when on-
line. Determine the system reliability for a planned 30-day
use and compute the system MTTF.
16
BITS Pilani
Pilani Campus
Physical Reliability Models

Chapter – 7
RL 3.1 – 3.4
Introduction
• In many applications system or component reliability is
not just a function of time alone.
• A more accurate reliability model is one in which inherent

characteristics or the external operating conditions of a
component are included.
e.g., electronic component failures may depend on the applied
voltage or on the operating temperature.
• The chapter deals with different covariate models, static

stress-strength models, dynamic stress-strength models,
physics-of-failure modeling approach etc. 18
Covariate Models
• To develop failure distribution involving one or more
covariate/explanatory variables.
• Define one or more of the distribution parameters as a

function of the explanatory variables.
- a distribution parameter can be a percentile.
- a covariate may be a voltage, current, temperature or other
measure of stress or environment.
• An obvious correlation between the covariates and the

parameter values exists which may not necessarily be a
cause-and- effect relationship.
19
Covariate Models
• In general,
α(x) = f (x1,x2,….xk)
where,
α- distribution parameter
x = (x1,x2,….xk) and xi = the ith covariate.
• The functional form of f(x) may be determined by the physical

process relating the covariates to the parameters.
• If this relationship is unknown, a simple functional form (e.g.,

linear) can be assumed.
20
Proportional Hazards Models
• Models having the property that individual component
hazard rate functions are proportional to each other are
referred to as proportional hazards models.
• Two cases are considered:

- Exponential case.
- Weibull case.
21
Exponential Case
• For the constant failure rate model, the simplest covariate
model is given by,
k
λ(x) = a x
i 0
i i ... (7.1)
where,
ai = unknown parameters to be determined.
x0 = 1
xi = transformed variables (e.g., squares and
reciprocals), thus allowing, for example,
polynomials to be used.
22
Exponential Case
• The failure rate remains constant over time but depends on

the particular covariate values.
e.g., the failure rate of a circuit board may be linearly related
to the operating temperature of the equipment and the
ambient relative humidity.
• Other functional forms could also be assumed.
• In one popular model the covariates affect the parameter

(failure rate) multiplicatively. It has provided good correlation
with observed data.
23
Exponential Case
• A popular form of the multiplicative model is obtained by
letting
... (7.2)
• This model is desirable as λ(x)>0 and is linear in

logarithm of λ(x).
• Regardless of the model used,

R(t) = e-λ(x)t
24
Example
25
Weibull Case
• Assume that only the characteristic lifetime depends on the
covariates, the shape parameter doesn’t.
• For the multiplicative model, let
... (7.3)
• Then,
and
... (7.4)
26
Weibull Case
• The ratio of two Weibull hazard rates having different

covariate vectors doesn’t depend on time.
... (7.5)
• The component hazard rate functions are proportional to one

another.
• It suggests that this model is a proportional hazards model.
27
Weibull Case
• Based on Eq. (7.5) a general form of hazard rate function can
be:
... (7.6)
with
where,
λ0(t) – baseline hazard rate function when g(x) =1.
e.g.,
the exponential baseline failure rate in Eq.(7.2) is λ0(t) = e a0.
28
Example
29
Physics of Failure Models
• Limitations of statistical models
 Occurrence of failures are treated as random events.
 Lack of knowledge of the physical processes resulting in a
failure.
Reliability estimates are very little concerning an individual
component or failure occurrence.
 Reliable reliability predictions can be made only over a
large number of failures.
e.g., For an exponential distribution, the time to failure of a
single occurrence can be any t ≥ 0. The exponential
pattern can be seen only over a large number of failures.
 It doesn’t consider the effect of individual stresses and
operating conditions on components.
30
• Physics of failure models is an alternative approach.
Mathematically derived deterministic models based on
knowledge of the failure mechanisms and the root causes
of failures
 Failure is not viewed as a stochastic event.
 Time to failure is found for each component failure mode

and failure site.
31
 Failure time is estimated based on the stresses, material
properties, geometry, environmental conditions and
conditions of use.
 The failure times can be ranked, most dominant of which

provides the component time to failure estimate.
 A reliability estimate for a particular application can be

created from a developed model considering the individual
use and environmental conditions.
32
• Disadvantages:
 Models are very specific to the failure mechanism and
failure site.
A detailed understanding of the failure process is

required.
 Experimental data as well as engineering analysis may

be required.
Only a limited number of useful models are available.
33
• General steps for developing physical failure models:
1. Identify failure sites and mechanisms.
2. Construct mathematical models.
3. Estimate reliability for a given operating and
environmental profile and for given component
characteristics.
4. Determine dominant service life.
5. Redesign to increase service (design) life.
• The significant activity in this methodology is the

development of the physical model.
34
A physics- of-failure conceptual model

• Typical failure mechanisms that have been modelled:
 Fatigue
Friction
 Corrosion
 Dielectric breakdown
 Electromigration
 Contamination
 Molecular migration
Temperature cycling
Mechanical stress.
36
Example
37
Example
38
Example
39
Example
40
Covariate and Physics of Failure Models
Covariate Models Physics-of-Failure Models
The parameters of failure Treat the time to failure as
distributions are determined by deterministic.
the explanatory variables.
Not physical models, and do not Capture the relevant casual
necessarily show cause and effect. variables and their relationships
among one another.
Normally include physical
Do not include physical constants. constants like acceleration due to
gravity or Boltzmann’s constant.
The functional form is strongly
Simple functional forms are determined by the physical
assumed. processes generating the failures.
41
Thank You!
42

QM ZG528 L-7 Reliability Engineering: BITS Pilani

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

QM ZG528 L-7 Reliability Engineering: BITS Pilani

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QM ZG528 L-7

• Markov analysis is applied to a load-sharing system.

• In this system, the two components in parallel are

• If one component fails, the failure rate of the other

• 1 and 2 represent the increased failure rates of

System states for a two-component load-sharing system

Rate diagram for a two-component load-sharing system

• The resulting differential equations

• The solution to these questions is as follows:

R(t)= P1(t) + P2(t) + P3(t)

Two generators provide needed electrical power. If either

From Eq. 6.19,

• Unlike an active redundant system, a two-component

• Failure rate of the standby unit depends on the state of

Rate diagram for a two-component standby system with failures in standby.

• State 3: failure of the standby unit while in standby.

• If there are no failures set 

An active generator has a failure rate (failure per day) of

Physical Reliability Models

• A more accurate reliability model is one in which inherent

• The chapter deals with different covariate models, static

• Define one or more of the distribution parameters as a

• An obvious correlation between the covariates and the

• The functional form of f(x) may be determined by the physical

• If this relationship is unknown, a simple functional form (e.g.,

• Two cases are considered:

• The failure rate remains constant over time but depends on

• Other functional forms could also be assumed.

• In one popular model the covariates affect the parameter

• This model is desirable as λ(x)>0 and is linear in

• Regardless of the model used,

• The ratio of two Weibull hazard rates having different

• The component hazard rate functions are proportional to one

• It suggests that this model is a proportional hazards model.

 Time to failure is found for each component failure mode

 The failure times can be ranked, most dominant of which

 A reliability estimate for a particular application can be

A detailed understanding of the failure process is

 Experimental data as well as engineering analysis may

Only a limited number of useful models are available.

• The significant activity in this methodology is the

A physics- of-failure conceptual model

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

You might also like