Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
NOTATION
Repairable systems
Failure rate ( R O C O F )
General p(t)
N(T) Number of failures in (0,T)
t Time from start of present life (short term E{N(T)}
Expected number of failures in (0,T)
time--time over the course of one failure
cycle) R(TI, T2) Probability of system survival in (T1, Tz)
t~ 0 Parameter of N H P P model p,(T)
T Time from start of system life (long term
Parameter of N H P P model p l ( T )
t i m e - - t i m e over the course of several a,
Parameter of N H P P model p2(T)
failure cycles) A
Parameter of N H P P model p2(T)
n Number of observed failures for a /3
Cost of repair of a failure (minimal repair
component or system Cr
[4])
MTTF Average operational life of a component
Cost of system replacement
from installation to failure Cp
MTBF Average time between system failures
and identically distributed (i.i.d.). Independent and Bassin [5, 6], Crow [12, 13], Bell and Mioduski
identically distributed failure data are, amongst [7], Durr [17] and Ascher et al. [3].
others, generated by renewal processes--where the
component(s) is(are) totally renewed by the main-
tenance action (reconditioning or replacement).
Although there are a high percentage of failure data 2 MODEL DEVELOPMENT
sets for which this assumption is true, it is far from
universally applicable [25]. Many repairable systems
show a tendency towards long term reliability The base assumption in most present reliability
degradation with repeated overhauls and replacement analyses is that renewal takes place after failure of a
of single system components. This has the effect that component or system. This is the 'good-as-new'
successive times between failures are dependent as approach. If renewal takes place, the successive
well as coming from different distributions (not failures' arrival times to failure will be independent
identically distributed). Because of this the traditional and identically distributed. The data can then be
failure analysis techniques, where the failure data are reordered in the conventional failure interval histo-
summarily reordered in order of magnitude and a gram. This can then be used to fit a standard statistical
standard statistical distribution fitted, are not suitable distribution, after which, optimisation of the main-
for these situations. tenance strategy for the component or system can take
While data analysis techniques for homogeneous place.
data are fairly well developed, this is not true for The renewal assumption is valid in many main-
non-homogeneous data. Only in the last fifteen years tenance situations (notably in the case of single cell
have some researchers shown that there is an components). On the other hand, there are a large
important class of failure data for which the customary proportion of practical maintenance situations which
analysis techniques yield incorrect results. New are not well represented by the renewal assumption.
analysis techniques have thus started emerging for These are known as 'repairable systems' and have the
failure data with a long term life trend (reliability feature that complete repair does not take place after
growth and reliability degradation). Although re- failure. These typically include equipment (systems)
liability growth is experienced in situations where and sub-units (sub-systems) where repair of the
equipment is being improved, we are more interested system (or sub-system) consists of the replacement or
in the reliability degradation case, as this reflects the repair of only a small part of the system (or
typical longer term real world situation in many sub-system). The system is thus not in the
repairable systems. 'good-as-new' condition after repair, but in the
There are presently two main streams of develop- 'bad-as-old' condition (the same condition the system
ment for the analysis of non-homogeneous data. was in prior to failure). This is called 'minimal repair'
These are models based on the Non-Homogeneous [4]. This leads to the typical system being subject to
Poisson Process (NHPP) [2, 8, 14] and models based on reliability degradation, with an accompanying increase
Proportional Hazards [10] and its derivatives [22, 21]. in the failure rate (ROCOF) over time (the so called
Both streams have benefits and will probably play a 'sad' trend of Ascher (1983 comment on article by
role in the improvement of failure analysis techniques Lawless [19])). One should also note that not all single
for repairable systems. The present article will cell component replacements or repairs constitute
develop a practical analysis technique for repairable renewal as the position in which the component is
systems, using the NHPP models. The NHPP models installed may deteriorate in time, thus causing a
are chosen based on the following criteria. deteriorating trend, even on complete repair of the
component itself. The 'repairable system' situation
• It is generally suitable for the purpose of cannot be modelled by the conventional fitting of a
modelling data with a trend. This is notably so statistical distribution function as successive failures
due to the fact that the accepted formats of the are firstly not identically distributed and secondly not
NHPP are monotone increasing/decreasing func- independent.
tions. More important, the NHPP models are Another class of failure models has also emerged
especially suited to model the 'bad-as-old' between renewal models on the one extreme (perfect
situation [1, 12, 24]. repair) and repairable systems on the other extreme
• The NHPP models are mathematically straight- (minimal repair). This class is known as 'imperfect
forward. Due to this their theoretical base is well repair'. In these models the repair result is deemed to
developed, including goodness of fit tests and be better than 'bad-as-old', but worse than 'good-as-
confidence interval procedures. new'. The NHPP-models described in this text are part
• The models have been tested fairly well. of the class of 'repairable systems', as this is, in the
Examples include Ascher and Feingold [1], author's opinion (as a practising maintenance man)
NHPP models 163
l
Conventional
p2(T) = A/3T ~-~, A,/3 > O, T >- O. (2)
The average time between failures in the interval models and has the benefit that the start time of the
(T1, T2) is: test need not be zero as is the case with Crow's
application of the Cram6r von Mises test. The X 2 test
~ , ( ~ - r~) is applied in the customary way with the expected
MTBFI(TI,T2) -e%(e~f~_ e~,r,), T 2>- Tx ->0,
number of failures in any interval (T,, Tb) given by:
-o~ < ao, al < o~. (5) For pI(T):
e%
In the same way, the equivalent functions for the eab = - - (e ~'r, - e='rO (13)
O/1
model p2(T) are:
For p2(T):
E2{N(T2) - N(T~)} = h ( r 2~ - r~), h,/3 > 0 , r 2 -> T~ ->0 eah = )t(Tg - T~). (14)
(6)
2.5 Cost modelling
R2(T~,T2)=e-a('g-z~, h,fl>0, T2->T1->0 (7)
T2-T1 The two N H P P models as developed above can assist
MTBF2(T~,T2) A(T,~_T,~),A,,8>0,~
~ T2->TI->0. (8) t h e analyst in:
• Understanding the failure behaviour of the
2.3 Parameter estimation repairable system, whilst providing a mathemati-
cal equation that could be used in subsequent
model studies.
Using maximum likelihood estimates, the parameters
• Forecasting future failures through the use of the
for pI(T) can be found from:
model's mathematical formulation.
• Optimising the maintenance strategy for the
T~ + n a { ~ - nT,,{1 - e - " , r } -' = 0 (9) repairable system by adding relevant cost
i=1
information.
and
As was said previously, the N H P P models model
11 ,10, the minimal repair or bad-as-old situation. The cost
models that can be applied with success to this
The parameter values are found by solving eqn (9) situation includes type 2 policies [4] and type 3
for &l and then substituting this value in eqn (10) to policies [20].
solve for t~0. A simple interactive search or repeated
halving can be used to find til. 2.5.1 Type 2 policies
The maximum likelihood estimates for the para- Type 2 replacement policies were introduced by
meters of p2(T) are: Barlow and Hunter [4] and involves the planned
replacement of a system at a certain age with minimal
/~ n (11) repairs at breakdown up to that age. The model
In Tn optimises cost per unit time over an infinite time
1=1 T/ horizon. The optimum life T* at which system
replacement should take place is given by:
and
For pl(T):
n
= T--~"
(12) (
e ~,r" T * - ~
1)_cp 1
C/e% a~" (15)
(16)
It can be stated in general that not much work has T* = h(fl - 1)CIJ "
been done in the area of goodness of fit for N H P P
models. Ascher and Feingold [2] identifies this as one 2.5.2 Type 3 policies
of the areas where more work is required. The main Morimura and Makabe [20] introduced type 3 policies.
problem is that tests such as the Cram6r von Mises It prescribes system replacement after an optimum
test and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test were not number of failures n* has been repaired minimally. It
originally developed for the parametric case. Darling is superior over type 2 policies in the sense that the
[15] made modifications to the CramCr von Mises test full life of the last minimal repair is utilised--the
to apply it to the parametric case and Crow [12] system is only replaced at the next breakdown. Type 2
applied it to the model p2(T). policies are equivalent to type 3 policies if the system
The standard Z 2 test can be applied to both N H P P is replaced at the first breakdown following T*.
NHPP models 165
The optimum number of minimal repairs before Davis (1952) bus engine data
Expected number of failures
system replacement is given by: 12-
For pl(T): galO
(m - 1)e% •-- 8
n* (17)
of 1
m(lnm_l): - Ce _ 1 (18)
~ 80000 160000 240000 320000 400000
OlI ere % (x I
Cumulative use (miles)
For p2(T): -- E(N(T)) xN(T)
tend towards more conservative estimates of p(T). obtained for the particular truck:
Practical maintenance experience will favour the use
Cp = $1,300,000
of oI(T) in this case.
Cr= $7,165.
For the fitted model:
3.3 Caterpillar haul truck
% = - 6.545
at = 1.07 × 10 -4.
The data presented in Table 2 was collected from the
failures of a Caterpillar 789 180 ton haul truck doing By substitution into eqn (15), the optimal system
service at a large open cast colliery. The data consists replacement frequency (type 2 policy) is given as:
of the first 10 and last 10 failures in a data set of 128 T* = 21,293 hours.
failures. See [9] for the full data set. The optimal cost per unit time is then given by:
The results of doing a Laplace trend test on the data
reveal a fairly strong reliability degradation trend. C(T*) = C/E(N(T*)) + Cp
This is supported by the failure trend displayed in Fig. T*
8. with
The resulting fit for pt(T) (the best model for the e%ea~ T*
data) is shown in Fig. 8. It is clear that p1(T) presents E(N(T*)) =
O/1
a good fit to the Caterpillar data. This fit will be used This leads to:
to illustrate the use of the cost models to optimise the
system replacement strategy. C(T*) = $101.86 per hour.
One of the most important decisions that a The optimal replacement policy using the type 3
maintenance manager must take comprises the timing policy gives:
of system (equipment) replacements. This should be
n* = 118 minimal repair occasions.
done so as to optimally balance the cost of
maintenance against capital expenditure. For the The truck will thus be repaired minimally 118 times
present example the following cost figures were and will then be replaced at the next ( l l 9 t h ) failure.
The resultant cost for this policy is:
Davis (1952) bus engine data Proschan (1963) air conditioner data
Reliability over next 20000 miles Reliability over next 100 hours
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
~ 0.6
~,0.6
0.4
~" 0.4
0.2
0.2-
I I ~ I I
0 80000 160000 240000 320000 400000 400 800 1200 1 6 0 0 2000 " ~,lb0"
Cumulative use (miles) Cumulative life (hours)
×Model 1 o M o d e l 2 xModel I DModel2
Fig. 5. Expected survival rate over next 20000 miles. Fig. 7. Expected survival rate over next 100 hours.
N H P P models 167
1 78 78 119 56 21762
2 80 158 120 105 21867
3 173 331 121 45 21912
4 50 381 122 2 21914
5 142 523 123 23 21937
(i 97 620 124 1 21938
"7 44 664 125 1 21939
8 1141 1805 126 12 21951
9 12 1817 127 3 21954
10 251 2068 128 28 21982
maintenance policies. Journal of the Operational 23. Proschan, F., Theoretical explanation of observed
Research Society of Japan, 1963, 6, 17-47. decreasing failure rate. Technometrics, 1963, 6, 375-383.
21. Pijnenburg, M., Additive hazard models in repairable 24. Thompson, W. A.Jr., On the foundations of reliability.
systems reliability. Reliability Engineering and System Technometrics, 1981, 23(1), 1-13.
Safety, 1991, 31, 369-390. 25. Walls, L. A. and Bendell, A., The structure and
22. Prentice, R. L., Williams, B. J. and Peterson, A. V., On exploration of reliability field data: what to look for and
the regression analysis of multivariate failure time data. how to analyse it. Reliability Engineering, 1986, 15,
Biometrika, 1981, 68, 273-279. 115-143.