Analysis Of Reliability Of Engineering

Design
Reliability is a new concept, barely three decades old and is primarily due to
the complexity, sophistication and automation inherent in modern
technology. It has been established that the reliability, which is a measure of
quality, is an essential element at each stage of the equipment
manufacturing procedure through design and production to final delivery to
the user.
Reliability can be defined in the following ways:
1. The reliability of a component (or a system) is the probability that the
component (or a system) will not fail for a time t.
2. The reliability of a system is called its capacity for failure –free
operation for a definite period of time under given operating
conditions.
3. Reliability is the probability of an item performing its intended
function over a given period of time under the operating conditions
encountered.

Some important terms:

i. Failure rate (λ)
It is the ratio of total number of failures during the test interval to the
total test time.
λ = f/t
ii. Mean time between failure (m)
It is the reciprocal of the constant failure rate.
m = 1/λ = t/f
iii. Mean time to failure (MTTF)
If we have a life-test information on n items with failure times t1, t2…..
tn Then n
MTTF = 1/n Σ ti
i=1

iv. Reliability function

Let a fixed number (N) of components be repeatedly tested. There will
be, after a time t, n components, which survive the test and m components,
which fail.
The Reliability (or probability of survival) expressed as a fraction at any time
t, during the test is
R (t) = n/N
The probability of failure or unreliability at any time t, can be expressed as

F (t) = m/N
It is clear that at any time, t,
R (t) + F(t) = 1
because R (t) & F (t) are mutually exclusive events.

2
v. Density function, f(t)
The probability that a random trial yields a value of t within the interval
from t1 to t2 , is
t2
∫ f (t) dt
t1
then f(t) is the density function for the continuous random variable.
vi. Distribution function, F (t)
The distribution function, F (t) is the probability that in a random trial,
the random variable is not greater than t, thus,
t
F (t) = ∫ f (t) dt
-∞

F (t) is recognized as unreliability function, when speaking of failures.

vii. Reliability, R (t)
The reliability is given by
R (t) =1-F (t)
In integral form, R (t) can be expressed as
∞
R (t) = ∫ f (t) dt
t

viii. Hazard Rate, Z (t):

It is also called as instantaneous failure rate, defined as the ratio of
density function, f (t) to the reliability function, R (t).
Z (t) = f (t)/R (t).

1. A shaft on two supports is shown. The distance between the supports

is L. Assume that the axis for the left bore in the housing is the
reference axis (which means that the left bore surface is taken as the
datum). Then the position of the shaft axis with respect to the bore
axis is determined by the eccentricities of the bearing outer ring, balls,
inner ring and shaft plus the magnitude of a clearance in the bearing
(clearance between the balls and the rings after the bearing is
mounted on the shaft). The latter, however is neglected here for the
sake of simplicity. Assume that the system of balls in a bearing can be
treated as a ring, the tolerances of which are equal to those for an
individual ball.

3
 Figure 1.1

Then the eccentricity vector for the left support ēl is determined by the
equation
4
ēl = Σ ē i ………… 1
i=1

where ē1 , ē2 , ē3 and ē4 are the eccentricities for the outer ring, balls, inner
ring and shaft respectively. Similarly the eccentricity for the right support is
determined by

5
ēr = Σ ē i ………. 2
i=1

where ē1 , ē2 , ē3 , ē4 and ē5 are the eccentricities for the bore, outer ring,
balls, inner ring and shaft respectively. (It is assumed here that the housings
for the two bearings cannot be bored with one setup, which means that the
right bore may have a displaced geometric axis with respect to the left). The
statistical means for the eccentricity magnitude in equations 1 and 2 are
related to the tolerance by equations 3 and the Rayleigh distribution
parameters are found from equation 4.

μe = Δ / 4 , ……….. 3

where μe - mean of eccentricity magnitude

Δ - tolerance

σi = [(2/ π)^ ½] x [Δi /4] ……….. 4

where σi - distribution parameter

4
 Δ - tolerance for each outside diameter of a ring

The resultant vector of eccentricities with respect to the datum is

ē = ēl + ēr ……….. 5

The distribution of [ē ] is given by

9
σ 2 = Σ σ i2 …………. 6
i=1

The probability that a misalignment angle α = e/L exceeds a specific

magnitude α* is

*
P(α > α*) = ∫ f(e) de …………. 7
e*

where e* = α*L

As an illustration, consider a numeric solution. The following nominal

dimensions are given :the shaft diameter at both supports is ds = 40 mm,
housing diameter at both supports db = 80 mm. Assume that the same type
of bearing is used at both supports and neglect the effect of ball tolerances.
Consider for simplicity a transition type fit for both housing and shaft
interfaces with the bearing rings. The following dimensions are assigned :

Shaft at two supports

+0.002
ds = 40
-0.014

Bore of the bearing

+0.016
db = 40
-0

Outer diameter of the bearing

+0.003
Db = 80
-0.016

Diameter of the housing

+0.019
Dh = 80
-0

5
Then the corresponding tolerances are

Shaft Δs = 0.016 mm

Bore of the bearing Δb1 = 0.016 mm

Outer diameter of the bearing Δb2 = 0.019 mm

Diameter of the housing Δh1 = 0.019mm

The calculation of corresponding σi , according to eqn. 4 and σ eqn. 6 gives

σ2 = 0.006415 σ = 0.08

For L = 300 mm the probability of exceeding various angles of misalignment

is calculated using equation 7

The probability P (α > 0) = 1, while the probability P (α > 0.001) = 0.00088.

In this particular case the probability of a significant misalignment is small.

This illustrates how the tolerances of various dimensions of different

components in a system affect the probability of exceeding a specific angle
of misalignment. However, the reliability of a bearing operating at a given
speed and load under the condition of misalignment is a property of the
bearing itself. Thus the bearing reliability is conditional, the condition being in
this case the probability of a specific position of the shaft. Note also that in
this example two bearings are operating in similar conditions as far as
misalignment is concerned. This may be a common cause for failure, other
parameters being independent.

2. A single lip seal separating a rotating shaft from the stationary case is
shown. This type of a seal is usually used for retaining lubricants in
machines having rotating and/or oscillating shafts. Various polymer
materials are used for seal elements. The function of the seal is
determined by its ability to maintain a constant radial pressure
between the sealing element and the shaft. Anything causing a
decrease in this pressure affects leakage and thus seal failure.
Consider factors affecting the radial lip seal performance.

6
 OIL

Figure 2.1 Lip Seal On Rotating Shaft

1. Temperature : It affects oil viscosity and properties of the

sealing material. If temperature increases, the viscosity of the oil
goes down, and the oil film between the lip and the shaft
becomes thinner. This leads to increased friction losses and thus
to increase local temperature. The variation of temperature
affects the sealing material as well: Thermal expansion during
temperature rise and stress relaxation during temperature fall,
speed up the process of material ageing. Thus temperature
control is important from the point of view of seal reliability.
Temperature at the lip of the seal is affected by
• Ambient temperature
• Temperature of the oil
• Friction coefficient between seal and shaft
• Initial preload by a garter spring
• Conductivity of materials

2. Wear: Wear at the contact point of the seal directly affects its
functioning. The rate of the wear depends on
• Coefficient of friction at the seal- shaft interface
• Pressure exerted by the garter spring
• Pressure due to the seal-shaft fit
• Pressure caused by the oil
• Shaft surface finish
• Shaft surface hardness
• Speed of rotation
• Shaft oscillations
• Abrasion resistance of the seal material

3. Fatigue: Fatigue manifests itself in a gradual deterioration

of the seal material, which loses its elastic properties. As a

7
 result, a seal cannot follow the shaft displacements, an event
that constitutes seal failure. Factors affecting fatigue are:
• Fluctuating temperature
• Chemical environment
• Oscillating shaft
• Pressure at the seal-shaft interface

Not all the above factors are equally important in seal reliability. To
assign some weight to these factors would require more specific data about
the design and the seal. Note that seal reliability is affected by the process of
assembly as well, since it can simply be damaged while assembled. In
practical situations, experience accumulated in industry is used as a guide.

This shows how complicated it is to access the reliability of a

component in an operating system. Again, there are factors associated with
the component itself and with the system in which this component operates,
and factors that are external to the system. Given the complexity of physical
processes and uncertainties associated with these processes and the system,
true reliability is impossible to predict for a component in many situations
previously unencountered. True reliability will reveal itself when the product
is in service. In the mean time, at the detail design stage, use of design
experience and analytical and experimental methods will increase the
relative level of reliability.

3. A brake hoist is shown. Two springs are exerting forces on the

corresponding shoes, thus keeping the brake normally locked. To unlock the
brake, a hydraulic actuator is used.

a. Draw a reliability diagram of the brake considering only components

indicated.
b. Draw a reliability diagram if the brake is normally unlocked but
becomes locked when hydraulic pressure is decreased. Explain the
difference between the two cases.

8
 Figure 3.1 Brake Hoist

In the first case, the brake is normally locked, thus both the springs are
exerting forces on the corresponding shoes. To unlock the brake, the
hydraulic actuator that is used must retract both the springs and thereby
both the shoes, so the reliability diagram consists of all the components in
series system. Therefore if one of the components fails, the brake does not
unlock.

In the second case, the brake is normally unlocked but becomes locked
when hydraulic pressure is decreased. This is possible even if one brake shoe
fails to lock the other shoe locks the brake. But for the above situation to be
true all the components that lock the individual brake shoes must be in
series.

6 5 4 3 2 1

Figure 3.2 Reliability Diagram

5 3 1

6 4 2

Figure 3.3 Reliability Diagram

9
4. Three possible configurations of gear reduction boxes are shown.
Assuming that the input output characteristics of all boxes are
identical,
a. Discuss the reliability advantage and disadvantage of every
configuration and
b. Draw the reliability diagram for each configuration considering only
such components as gears

Figure 4.1 Gear Configurations

In the first case, the failure of any one of the elements of the
system will lead to failure of the system. So all the components in the
system (the bearing 1, input shaft, gears, output shaft and bearing 9
are in series. The above system has a reliability advantage over the
others by having the least number of components.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Figure 4.2 (a)

2 3
1 6 7

4 5
8

9
10
 Figure 4.3 (b)

5 6
1 2 3 4 9

7 8

Figure 4.4 (c)

In the second case the reliability is increased by having a redundant

set of gears from the input shaft to the midddle shaft. So reliability in speed
reduction is enabled to a greater extent than the previous case. But since
there is only one set of gears from the middle shaft to the final output shaft,
failure of this set of gears may also lead to a system failure. So reliability is
reduced due to the above mentioned reason.

In the third case , reliability is reduced at the intial stage itself where
there is only one set of gears from the input shaft to the middle shaft. After
this the reliability is increased with the redundant set of gears from middle
shaft to the output shaft.

5. Two possible configurations of spur gear - support system are shown:

a. Discuss the reliability advantages and disadvantages of both
configuration
Draw the reliability diagram of the gear-bearings-shaft system
Discuss the influence of the system on the bearings reliabilty

11
 Figure 5.1 Spur Gear Support System

S G

Figure 5.2 Reliability Diagram (A)

S G

Figure 5.3 Reliability Diagram (B)

In both the cases, the presence of a redundant bearing enables the

system to function even in the event of failure of one of the bearings. The
reliability of the spur gear support system depends on the position of the
bearing and the shape of the gear.

In the first case, the cross-section of the gear is irregular thereby

allowing a difference in contact pressure. i.e., both the bearings are not
working under similar load conditions.

In the second case, the load on the bearings is same, so reliability is

more. Further, the end support provided by the side of the bearing is placed
in such a way that its failure will not affect the working of the system to a
great extent unlike the first case.

12
 6. Two concentric springs make up a support. Both the springs are known
to be in a state of random failure with the rates h1 = 0.005
failures/kilocycle and h2 = 0.008 failures/kilocycle for the inner and
outer springs respectively. Each of the two springs is capable of
withstanding the fluctuating load. However, if the inner spring fails, the
failure rate of the outer one becomes h2* = 0.012 failures/kilocycle; if
the outer spring fails the failure rate of the inner one becomes h 1* =
0.0075 failures/kilocycle. What is the reliability function of the support
from 0 to 400 kilocycle?

Figure 6.1 Concentric Springs

Failure rates

Inner spring h1 = 0.005 failures/kilocycle

Outer spring h2 = 0.008 failures/kilocycle
t = 400 kilocycles

Probability of both the springs operating successfully

P1 (t) = exp [- (h1+ h2) t]

= exp [- (0.005 + 0.008)400 ]
= 0.00551

Probability of outer spring failing

P2 (t) = { exp ( - h1* t) - exp [ - (h1+ h2 ) t ]}[ h1 / ( h1 + h2 - h1*)]

= 0.04427 * 1.4545
= 0.06439

Probability of the inner spring failing

P3 (t) = { exp ( - h2* t) - exp [ - (h1+ h2 ) t ]}[ h1 / ( h1 + h2 - h2*)]

13
 = 0.002719 * 5
= 0.01359

Reliability function

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

= 0.00551 + 0.06439 + 0.01359
= 0.083

7. The failures of 15 shock absorbers were recorded. The results (in

Kilocycles) were as follows :
2.5,3.5,4,6.5,7,9.5,10.5,14,17,19,21,24,27,32 and 36. If it known that
the shock absorbers were in a state of random failure, what would the
95 and 99 percent two sided confidence limits on the mean life be?
15
The estimation of the mean life is μχ* = 1/15 Σ ti
i=1

= 1/15 (2.5+3.5+…………+32+36)
= 15.6 Kilocycles
The chi-square values from tables are
95 percent confidence (α = 0.05), 2n = 30

χ2 [1-(α/2), 2n] = χ2 (0.975, 30) = 16.791

χ2 [(α/2), 2n] = χ2 (0.025, 30) = 46.979

99 percent confidence (α = 0.01), 2n = 30

χ2 [1-(α/2), 2n] = χ2 (0.995, 30) = 13.787

χ2 [(α/2), 2n] = χ2 (0.005, 30) = 53.632

Then the 95 percent confidence limits for μχ are

μχ(U) = 2n μχ / { χ2 [1-(α/2), 2n]}

= (30 *15.6) / 16.791
= 27.8

μχ(L) = 2n μχ / { χ2 [(α/2), 2n]}

= (30 *15.6) / 16.791
= 9.999 ≈ 10

Then the 95 percent confidence limits for μχ are 10.0 ≤ μχ ≤ 27.8

Then the 99 percent confidence limits for μχ are

μχ(U) = 2n μχ / { χ2 [1-(α/2), 2n]}

= (30 *15.6) / 13.787
= 33.94

14
μχ(L) = 2n μχ / { χ2 [(α/2), 2n]}
= (30 *15.6) / 53.632
= 8.72
Then the 99 percent confidence limits for μχ are 8.72 ≤ μχ ≤ 33.94

It is seen how an increase in the confidence level (1-α) widens the confidence
interval. A probability that the true mean is within the specified limits is
higher if the range is wider.

8. For the data given in the previous problem determine

a. 95 percent low confidence limit for the 10 Kilocycle reliability and
compare it with the estimated reliability for this number of cycles.
b. 95 percent two sided confidence limit for the number of cycles at
which 15% of the shock absorbers will have failed.

a. The estimated reliability is given by

R*(t) = exp (- t / μλ*)

R*(10) = exp (- 10 / 15.6)

= 0.526
where as the lower confidence limit is
R (10) = exp (- 10 / μλ(L))
= exp (-10/10)
= 0.368
Thus there is a 95% chance that the true reliability after10 Kilocycles
would be as low as 0.368, which is much smaller than the estimated
value 0.526.

b. The estimated number of cycles for the reliability level of 0.85 is

tp* = μλ* ln [(1-p)-1]
t0.15 = 15.6 ln[(1-0.15) -1]
= 2.53 Kilocycles
The confidence limits for tp are
μλ(L) ln [(1-p)-1]≤ tp ≤ μλ(U) ln [(1-p)-1]

10 ln [(1-0.15)-1] ≤ tp ≤ 27.8 ln [(1-0.15)-1]

1.6 Kilocycles ≤ tp ≤ 4.5 Kilocycles

15
 9. Consider the data given in problem 7. Do they fit the exponential
distribution and if so, what is the value of the parameter λ? Let us take
Δti = 5 Kilocycles. Note that in this case n = 15, carry out the
calculations and plot the results on the weibull paper.

Table 9.1 Parameter values:

ti
Ns(ti) F(ti) R(ti) f(ti) h(ti)
Kilocycles
<5 12 0.176 0.824 - -
5-10 9 0.370 0.630 0.0388 0.062
10-15 7 0.5 0.5 0.026 0.052
15-20 5 0.63 0.37 0.026 0.07
20-25 3 0.76 0.240 0.026 0.108
25-30 2 0.825 0.175 0.013 0.074
30-35 1 0.89 0.11 0.013 0.118
35-40 0 0.955 0.045 0.013 0.288
Where F(ti) = 1 – [(Ns(ti)+ 0.7)/(N +0.4)] , here N = 15
R(ti) = 1- F(ti)
f(ti) = d[R(ti)- R (ti+1)]/dt
h(ti) = f(ti) / R (ti)

It is seen that a straight line approximates the failure data fairly accurately,
except for the last point. For the comparison h(t) is calculated in the above
table, and the results are shown in the plot. It is seen that h(t) has a small
upward trend if it was not the last point (the out-of-sequence point can be
due to the small size of the recorded data).The simplest way to find λ is to
use the equation

λ = - t/ (ln R (t))
= - t/ (ln 1-F (ti)),

for any point t =ti that lies on the straight line. Let us take t i =20 Kilocycles
and the corresponding F (ti) = 0.63

Then,
λ = - t/ (ln 1-F (ti)),
= 20/0.994
= 20.1 Kilocycles
This estimation gives λ larger than the mean μ λ* = 15.6 Kilocycles in problem
7. At the same time for μλ* = 15.6, the constant hazard value h* = 0.064 and
approximates only the initial part of the failure times well.

This discrepancy between the two values of λ estimated by two

methods, graphical and numerical may be due to the errors in plotting and

16
interpretation of data on graph, to the assumption that the data can be
described by exponential distribution (in fact, it cannot be), or both.

17
Figure 9.1 Weibull Plot

18
10. Failures of 20 shafts operating at a constant stress level were reported.
The decimal logarithm, log K, of the no. of cycles to failure was distributed as
follows: 4.2, 4.4, 4.58, 4.6, 4.7, 4.76, 4.81, 4.86, 4.88, 4.96, 4.98, 4.99, 5.02,
5.12, 5.17, 5.25, 5.36, 5.4, 5.49 & 5.78. 1. Take the interval ∆t = ∆(log K) =
0.2 and plot the reliability, failure density and hazard functions. Does it look
like log K is normally distributed? 2. Assume that log K is a normally
distributed variable and that the mean and standard deviation can be
approximated by the average and an unbiased variance, respectively. What
no. of failures should be expected in a population of 100 products with similar
shafts in similar conditions during the first 100 kilocycles? 3. What are the 95
percent confidence limits for the no. of failures during the first 100 kilocycles?

The test and reliability data are given in the table as follows. Plots of R (t i),
f (ti), h (ti) are as shown in the figure below. Although h(t) function is
increasing, which means that qualitatively a normal distribution for log K
would not be contradictory, the f(t) function for the assumed ∆t does not
give an indication that the normal distribution is a good fit.

The average value of log K is

20
μ*log K = 1/20 Σ (log K)i
i=1

= 4.96

and the variance of log K is

20
S2log K = 1/19 Σ (log K - μ*log K)2
i=1

= 0.146

and according to the assumption σ = S log K = 0.382.

The number of failures during 100 Kilocycles is

Nf (number of cycles < 105) = N0F(100) = N0Φ(z100)

Table 10.1 Parameter Values:

Ti = log K Ns F(ti) R(ti) f(ti) h(ti)

4.2-4.4 18 0.083 0.917 - -
4.4-4.6 16 0.181 0.819 0.49 0.6
4.6-4.8 14 0.279 0.721 0.49 0.68
4.8-5.0 8 0.574 0.426 1.48 3.47
5.0-5.2 5 0.721 0.279 0.74 2.65
5.2-5.4 2 0.868 0.132 0.74 5.60
5.4-5.6 1 0.917 0.083 0.25 3.01
5.6-5.8 0 0.966 0.034 0.25 7.35

19
Where F(ti) = 1 – [(Ns(ti)+ 0.7)/(N +0.4)] , here N = 20
R(ti) = 1- F(ti)
f(ti) = d[R(ti)- R (ti+1)]/dt
h(ti) = f(ti) / R (ti)

Where

z100 = (log 105 – log K*) / σ = 0.105

From the normal table (B-1) Φ(0.105) = 0.5596, so Nf = 56 shafts. At the

same time, if F(ti = 5.0) = 0.574 is used from the test data directly,
without implying a normal distribution, the no. of failed shafts is 57, which
is in a good agreement with the result based on mathematical model

The confidence interval on the population mean is given by

μ*log K – t α/2 , v [ Slog K / √ 20 ] ≤ μ log K ≤ μ*log K + t α/2 , v [ Slog K / √ 20 ]

For α = 0.05 and v = n-1 = 19 the t value from the tables( B -3) is t 0.025,19
= 2.093, then

4.781 ≤ μ log K ≤ 5.138

The confidence interval on the variance is

[(n-1)S2 log K ] / χ2 α/2 , v ≤ σ2 ≤ [(n-1)S2 log K ] / χ2 1 - α/2 , v

For α = 0.05 and v= n-1, the χ2 values are (table B-2)

χ2 0.025, 19 = 32.852 and χ2 0.975, 19 = 8.907

then,
0.084 ≤ σ2 ≤ 0.311

The corresponding limits for z100 are

-0.247 ≤ z100 ≤ 0.756

From the normal table( B-1 ), Φ ( -0.247) = 0.401 and Φ ( 0.756) =

0.7764

Thus there is a 95 percent confidence that the no. of failed shafts may be
within the limits

40 ≤ N f ≤ 78

This indicates that the margin of uncertainty if N f = 56 would be taken as a

target in planning the maintenance schedules.

20
Figure 10.1 Reliability, failure, and hazard functions for shafts

21
11. Consider the data in problem 9 for 20 failed shafts, and (1) Make a
weibull probability plot, (2) estimate the parameters of the distribution, (3)
find out the nature of the failure rate, and (4) find out whether the
distribution is close to normal, an assumption made in problem 9.

(1) The plot is constructed on the basis of data in table 10.1 assuming δ =
0. It looks like a straight line fits the experimental points, and thus the
Weibull distribution can be assumed to be appropriate in this case.

(2) The estimation of β can best be accomplished by taking any two

points that lie on a straight line (F1, t1) and (F2, t2).

Then

β = [ln ln (1- F2)-1 - ln ln (1- F1)-1 ] / [ln t2- ln t1]

Taking from table 10.1(F1, t1) =(0.083,4.3) and (F2, t2) = (0.966,5.7) gives

β = [1.218- (-2.466)] / [1.74-1.46]

= 13.08
The θ is found from the plot for F(t) = 0.632; t = θ = 5.0. Here δ = 0, since
the line is sufficiently straight.
(3) Since β > 1, the failure rate is increasing.

(4) The distribution would be close to normal if β ≅ 3.44. In this case it is

much greater. Thus the assumption made in problem 9 does not seem to
be satisfactory

22
Figure 11.1 Weibull Plot

23
 12. Failures of dc motors in specified intervals of days are given in table
12.1. Assuming that the dc motors were in a state of random failure,
what is the 95 percent, two-sided confidence interval for the mean life?
Determine the number of days at which 10 percent motors will have
failed.

Table 12.1 Failure Of Dc Motors:

Interval
0-200 200-400 400-600 600-800 800-1000
Number of 5 3 2 2 1
failures
Table 12.2 Probability of Failure:
Days Mid point Number of Probability of
failures failure (Pi)
0-200 100 5 0.384
200-400 300 3 0.230
400-600 500 2 0.153
600-800 700 2 0.153
800-1000 900 1 0.077

Expected mean time to failure is

n
m = Σ ti Pi
i=1

= {100(0.384) + 300(0.230) + 500(0.153) + 700(0.153) +

900(0.077)}
m = µ λ * = 360.3

95 percent confidence (α = 0.05), 2n = 26

χ2 [1-(α/2), 2n] = χ2 (0.975, 26) = 13.844

χ2 [(α/2), 2n] = χ2 (0.025, 26) = 41.923

μχ = 2n μχ / {χ2 [1-(α/2), 2n]}

= (26 *360) / 13.844

= 676.1 days

μχ = 2n μχ / {χ2 [(α/2), 2n]}

= (26 *360) / 41.923

= 223.2 days

Then the 95 percent confidence limits for μχ are 223.2 ≤ μχ* ≤ 676.1

24
2. 10% failure P =0.1

Time to failure tp = μλ* ln [(1-p)-1]

= 360 ln (1-01) –1
= 37.92 days

25