First Case Study

Calculation of Various Reliability Measures using Historical Data

Purpose: To calculate Mean Time Between failures (MTBF), Mean Time To Repair (MTTR), Failure Rate, and
other Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability measures using the reliability data.

Benefits: Reliability data serves several important purposes:

1)

To provide failure history, repair history, and other reference data for use in production;

2)

To detect current reliability and maintainability problems and assist in their solutions;

3)

To provide managers with quantitative information on equipment performance;

4)

To assist in reliability improvement programs.

The MTBF/MTTR Model: The main reliability measures are simple to calculate. For instance:
MTBF = (Operating Time)/(Number of Failures)
MTTR = (Unplanned Downtime)/(Number of Failures)
Percent Availability (A) = (Operating Time)/(Operating Time +Unplanned Downtime)
Speed Ratio (S) = (Designed Machine Cycle Time)/(Actual Machine Cycle Time)
Yield (Y) = (Good Products)/(Good Products + Defective Products)
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) = A.S.Y

Note: There are different ways to define reliability measures, hence you are encouraged to use the definition
that is adopted by your corporation. If you have not been exposed to these definitions, discuss it briefly within
yourselves and choose the most appropriate ones.

Facts about the case: A company was inquiring about a Grinder that was needed for production. There are two
operations Op1 and Op2 and there were 4 machines involved in those operations. Two types of Grinders are
used for two operations. Two identical machines perform the finish grinding on one face while two other
identical machines grind the adjacent faces. We received the following data that were manually collected on
performance of the grinder over a week.

Calculation of Reliability Measures: Calculate different reliability measures and offer your critics regarding
the performance of the machine.

A Summary of the Reported Downtimes:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date Start Resp. Diag. Total Oper. Description
time time time time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------08/01
08/01
08/01
08/01
08/01
08/01
08/01
08/01
08/01
08/01
08/01
08/02
08/02
08/02
08/02
08/02
08/02
08/03
08/03
08/03
08/03
08/03
08/03
08/03
08/03
08/04
08/04
08/04
08/04
08/04
08/04
08/04
08/04
08/04
08/04
08/04
08/04
08/04
08/05
08/05
08/05
08/05
08/05
08/05
08/05
08/05
08/05
08/06
08/06

00:00
00:00
00:00
00:00
01:20
04:45
06:22
07:40
11:30
15:22
16:24
12:17
15:40
06:56
07:15
09:23
09:29
11:30
14:23
14:43
15:18
15:22
05:50
07:37
00:40
01:55
07:37
08:30
08:51
09:25
12:10
12:51
13:40
14:48
14:57
11:00
14:53
16:11
09:17
10:47
12:14
04:17
06:15
07:05
08:05
09:40
16:09
11:01
11:30

8
8
8
8
10
4
0
4
5
0
0
15
21
9
20
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
20
60
5
0
0
24
68
0
3
0
6
0
0
0
0
2
12
0
0
4
10
20
1
0
0

7
7
7
7
5
1
8
1
5
8
1
1
1
1
33
4
34
12
8
6
2
4
20
140
1
245
1
69
8
113
5
9
1
4
1
10
4
5
4
1
1
18
15
20
12
1
50
10
3

15
15
15
15
15
5
8
5
10
8
1
16
22
10
53
4
44
12
8
6
2
4
20
185
21
305
6
69
8
137
73
9
4
4
7
10
4
5
4
3
13
18
15
24
22
21
51
10
3

101
102
201
202
201
101
101
101
201
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
102
101
101
102
101
201
102
101
102
101
201
202
101
101
101
102
202
101
101
101
101
102
101
102
101
102
201
101
101
102

startup
startup
startup
startup
coolant system filter leaking
clamp arm got stuck picking part
work didn't chuck up
clamp arm stuck
coolant system leaking
work didn't chuck up
work didn't chuck up
gantry loader reset
gantry loader reset
clamp arm stuck when picking parts
headstock is not advanced auto.
work didn't chuck up
work chunk being repaired
gaging, post process
gaging, post process
reset controls
gaging
gaging
problem with loader
locating dowel for clamp shaft bush.
overhead conveyor down
change wheel
part not chucking up automatically
mach. was down from wheel change
gaging, post process
wheel head had L/S fault
coolant filter had a hole in it
gaging, post process
loader/unloader reset
gaging
loader/unloader reset
bad parts
gaging
gaging
gaging
loader reset
loader reset
no stock due to unloader problem
loader problems
loader problems
loader problems
elevator between 150 and 160 down
clamp/unclamp air chuck not work.
gaging
gaging

Second Case Study

Practice of Performing FMEA on a Product
This case study will be an open ended project in which you are asked to get into groups of 3 to 4 participants
and select one of the following components, subsystem, or system that your group is familiar with. Then
conduct a brainstorming session aimed at performing all aspects of FMEA on the selected part. Your team can
pick any of the following products for the purpose of conducting Design FMEA.
a) A coffee maker
b) A toaster
c) A cell phone
d) A headphone
e) A bicycle
Your product can be a cheap one with very simple and unsophisticated design or a fancy one with lots of
features, but your grade depends on the complexity of the design. If you prefer you can contact me with a
proposal as to the product of your choice, and upon my approval, you may proceed with FMEA of your own
product.
You are expected to provide me with:
1) A detailed FMEA analysis, covering as much of the steps as practically possible.
2) Some photos of the product showing major components
3) A list of all the pertinent components.
4) Summary of your recommendations.
The group is responsible for performing a detailed FMEA analysis for the part and presenting their findings
along with a description of the recommended actions to the class. The format of the report and the presentation
is as follows:
1)
2)

Each team will submit their findings in one report. The report should be typed or printed in a FMEA form.
A leader in each team will have 10 minutes to present the case and respond to the critics.

In what follows, few examples of FMEA is depicted.

Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

Page:
Date:
Project:
Function/System:
Phase/Mode:
Assembly Name:
Ref
Des
1

Name & Function

Flashlight
- No Data

Simple Flashlight Example

Flashlight
Normal Operation
Flashlight

FMI

Failure Mode

Reference Drawing:
FL164578-1
Assembly RD:
1

Local Effect

Next Higher Effect

Sev
.

End Effect

Detection Method
Compensating
Provisions
Remarks

FAAA constant flashlight output

constant flashlight output Comp / Prov:

None
Det. Method:
None
Remarks:
None
flashlight output dim
Comp / Prov:
None
Det. Method:
None
Remarks:
None

FAAB flashlight output dim

FAAC flashlight sometimes will

not turn on

flashlight sometimes will Comp / Prov:

not turn on
None
Det. Method:
None
Remarks:
None

FAAD no flashlight output

no flashlight output

Comp / Prov:
None
Det. Method:
None
Remarks:
None

Failure Cause

Project:
Function/System:
Phase/Mode:
Assembly Name:

1A1

1A2

1A3

1A4

Name & Function

Bulb
- Provides the light
source for the flashlight

Switch
- Turns flashlight on or
off

Contact
- No Data

Battery
- Provides the power
source for the flashlight

RD

Item Causing

Stuck closed

1A2

Switch

dim light

1A1

Bulb

poor contact
low power
intermittent

1A3
1A4
1A2

Contact
Battery
Switch

intermittent
no light

1A3
1A1

Contact
Bulb

Stuck open
no contact
no power

1A2
1A3
1A4

Switch
Contact
Battery

Page:
Date:

Ref
Des

1
8 Nov 2014

2
8 Nov 2014

Simple Flashlight Example

Flashlight
Normal Operation
Flashlight

FMI

Failure Mode

Reference Drawing:
FL164578-1
Assembly RD:
1

Local Effect

Next Higher Effect

Sev
.

FAAA dim light

flashlight output dim

FAAB no light

no flashlight output

FAAA intermittent

flashlight sometimes will

not turn on

FAAB Stuck closed

constant flashlight output

FAAC Stuck open

no flashlight output

FAAA intermittent

flashlight sometimes will

not turn on

FAAB no contact

no flashlight output

FAAC poor contact

flashlight output dim

FAAA low power

flashlight output dim

FAAB no power

no flashlight output

End Effect
flashlight output dim

Detection Method
Compensating
Provisions
Remarks

Comp / Prov:
None
Det. Method:
None
Remarks:
None
no flashlight output
Comp / Prov:
None
Det. Method:
None
Remarks:
None
flashlight sometimes will Comp / Prov:
not turn on
None
Det. Method:
None
Remarks:
None
constant flashlight output Comp / Prov:
None
Det. Method:
None
Remarks:
None
no flashlight output
Comp / Prov:
None
Det. Method:
None
Remarks:
None
flashlight sometimes will Comp / Prov:
not turn on
None
Det. Method:
None
Remarks:
None
no flashlight output
Comp / Prov:
None
Det. Method:
None
Remarks:
None
flashlight output dim
Comp / Prov:
None
Det. Method:
None
Remarks:
None
flashlight output dim
Comp / Prov:
None
Det. Method:
None
Remarks:
None
no flashlight output
Comp / Prov:
None
Det. Method:
None
Remarks:
None

Failure Cause

RD

Item Causing

Third Case Study: Application of Life Cycle Cost

Purpose: To calculate the life cycle cost (LCC) for two different proposals, and to show the impact of Mean
Time Between Failures (MTBF) and Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) on the overall cost of a piece of
equipment.

Benefits: The LCC Technique helps utilize manufacturing machinery characteristics in life cycle cost
comparisons. The "Guideline" showed that an additional initial cost could save greater amount of cost at the
operation and support stages of that machinery. In light of that issue, LCC goals are to:
1)

Consider the big picture: "Pay me now or pay me later",

2)

Highlight the impacts of R&M on support cost,

3)

Low purchase price does not always imply best deal,

4)

More expenditure does not always imply more reliability,

5)

Helps consider the competing suppliers on an equal basis.

The LCC Model:

LCC Cost = Acquisition Cost + Ownership Cost

where:
Acquisition Costs = Purchase Price + Installation Cost + Training/ Documentation Cost + Transportation Cost
and
Ownership Costs = Operations Costs + Maintenance Costs + Future Cost of Money

Each of these Costs may consist\ of more basic costs. For instance:
Purchase Price = Cost of Design + Cost of Build + Acceptance Testing + Initial Spares;
Operations Costs = Machine Operators + Inventory Management + Consumable/ Expendable;
Maintenance Costs = Preventive Maintenance + Predictive M. + Corrective (Unscheduled M.).

Each of those Costs may consist of more detailed costs. For instance:

Consumable Costs = Tooling Cost + Lubricant Cost + Coolant Cost + Machine Electricity Cost
Preventive/Predictive Maintenance Costs =
Maintenance Labor Cost + Materials Cost + Logistics Support Cost
Corrective Maintenance =
Maintenance Labor Cost + Cost of Failed items/Spare + Logistics Support Cost
+ Lost Productivity Cost

Facts About The Case: A company was in the process of ordering a Grinder, described in the previous case
study. The division had two sources, hereon named Source #1 and Source #2. A study was initiated to
determine which source was offering a better option for purchase .

The following requirements were imposed by the process and had to be considered in our analysis:
Production machinery life

10 years

Production quantity required

1,400,000 parts/year

Machinery operating hours per month

532 hours

Estimated maintenance cost per hour

34 $/hr

Inventory carrying cost (in percent per year)

17%

Cost of crisis downtime per hour

200 $/hr

Floor and foundation cost per square foot

$100 $/SqFt

Electricity cost per KWHr

0.0301 $/KWHr

Shipping cost per pound

0.32 $/Lbs

Initial dollar year of study

1995

Annual Inflation ratio

2%

Annual Interest rate of money

8%

A detailed analysis of the first supplier's proposal revealed that the equipment had the following parameters:
Machine yield (95%); Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF of 40 hrs); Mean Time To Repair (MTTR
of 0.49 hrs); non-spared items requiring major rework (0.10%); Mean Time to Re-tool (0.50 hrs);
machine production capability (14 parts/hr); machine weight (100,000 lbs); and footprint of each
machine (832 SqFt).

The acquisition costs associated with the first machine are:

Machine acquisition cost per machine ($931,000); warranty cost ($30,000); warranty period (2 years);
installation cost per machine ($15,000); machine development cost ($35,000); and initial spares cost
($30,000).

Additional support requirements are:

Hardware ($1,000); software upgrade ($1,000); training hours (40 hrs at a training cost of $500 per
hour).

Additional information on the maintenance requirements for the equipment supplied by the first supplier are:
5 hours of preventive maintenance per month; 5 hours of predictive maintenance per month; $30,000
spares is needed to be stocked at plant; and major rework turn around is estimated at 0.1666 months.

Finally the consumable requirements for the first supplier's equipment are:
Tool set cost ($16,520 with a tool life of 15,235 parts/tool); lubricant cost ($1,000 per year); coolant
cost ($500 per year); electricity consumption (35 KW/hr); and $1000 misc consumable.

Similar analysis of the second supplier's proposal showed the following specification:
Machine yield (90%); MTBF of 100 hrs; MTTR of 0.59 hrs; non-spared items requiring major rework
(0.10%); Mean Time to Re-tool (0.50 hrs); machine production capability (12.2 parts/hr); machine
weight (100,000 lbs); and footprint of each machine (832 SqFt).

The acquisition costs associated with the second machine are:

Machine acquisition cost per machine ($710,000); warranty cost ($20,000); warranty period (2 years);
installation cost per machine ($10,000); machine development cost ($20,000); and initial spares cost
($40,000).

Additional support requirements are:

Hardware ($1,000); software upgrade ($1,000); training hours (40 hrs at a training cost of $600 per
hour).

Additional information on the maintenance requirements for the equipment supplied by the second supplier are:
5 hours of preventive maintenance per month; 5 hours of predictive maintenance per month; $40,000
spares is needed to be stocked at plant; and major rework turn around is estimated at 1 months.

Finally the consumable requirements for the second supplier's equipment are:
Tool set cost ($7,090 with a tool life of 5,454 parts/tool); lubricant cost ($1,000 per year); coolant cost
($500 per year); electricity consumption (25 KW/hr); and $1000 misc consumable.

Selection Process: Select the better proposal. Your decision should be based on an overall cost
analysis of the two proposals, and should show the difference in the overall cost of the two
proposals over the life of the equipment.
Hint: As you perhaps know, the only costs that may affect your decisions are the ones that are different. Hence,
for sake of time, you are encouraged to focus on the differences in cost between competing suppliers and ignore
those components that are identical.

Fourth Case Study: Application of Life Testing

Life Testing of Valves for two Suppliers

Date:

May 11, 2015

We performed a life test on 40 vlaves that were provided to us from a local company. 20 of these valves were manufactured
by the company, here called Supplier A, and the other 20 were provided by the competition, here called Supplier B.
You are asked to perform a detailed analysis of the data and provide a comprehensive report.
Valve number refers to the location of the valve on the test equipment. There were four rows (A, B, C, D) of testing,
each equiped with five columns (1-5) of air nozzles, on either side (Right and Left).

Current Cycle Count:

50,000,000

Count
Valve
Count when
when
Number
Turned Off
Turned On
A1L
A1R
A2L
A2R
A3L
A3R
A4L
A4R
A5L
A5R
B1L
B1R
B2L
B2R
B3L
B3R
B4L
B4R
B5L
B5R
C1L
C1R
C2L
C2R
C3L
C3R
C4L
C4R
C5L
C5R
D1L
D1R
D2L
D2R
D3L
D3R
D4L
D4R
D5L
D5R

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,583,315
9,430,000
10,614,677
9,235,045
10,614,677
2,774,000
2,774,000
2,774,000
10,614,677
13,604,000
13,635,250
13,935,400
16,674,000
18,568,000
18,568,000
19,796,000
20,378,000
20,378,000
20,378,000
23,460,000
23,460,000
25,317,000
25,738,000
25,317,000
30,826,000
29,087,000
34,719,000
34,719,000
34,719,000
37,413,000

Under Test
Cumulative
Cycles of
Operation

28,263,000
10,614,677
10,614,677
18,568,000
9,235,045
34,719,000
2,224,025
24,890,000
5,314,000
2,224,025

Test
Complete
Valve
Total Cycles Manufacturer
to Failure
28,263,000
10,614,677
10,614,677
18,568,000
9,235,045
34,719,000
2,224,025
24,890,000
5,314,000
2,224,025

42,416,685
10,614,677
34,719,000
19,796,000
13,604,591
9,430,000
13,181,000
2,774,000
13,935,400
37,328,000
17,640,000
16,603,000
20,301,000
30,761,000
20,301,000
23,181,000
20,378,000
22,729,000

1,184,677
24,104,323
10,560,955
2,989,914
6,656,000
10,407,000
0
3,320,723
23,724,000
4,004,750
2,667,600
3,627,000
12,193,000
1,733,000
3,385,000
0
2,351,000
29,622,000

24,890,000
40,830,000
45,291,000
40,128,000
25,707,000

1,430,000
17,370,000
19,974,000
14,390,000
390,000
19,174,000

37,918,000
49,201,000
34,719,000

8,831,000
14,482,000
0
15,281,000

46,534,000

9,121,000

Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A

Apparent Failure Mode

Failure to shift, excessive leakage
Excessive leakage
Excessive leakage
Excessive leakage
Failure to shift
Excessive leakage
Failure to shift
Excessive leakage
Excessive leakage
Failure to shift
Excessive leakage, leakage out body of valve
Leakage out body of valve
Failure to shift
Excessive leakage
Failure to shift
Leakage out body of valve, failure to shift
Failure to shift
Failure to shift
Excessive leakage
Failure to shift
Excessive leakage
Excessive leakage
Failure to shift, excessive leakage
Excessive leakage
Failure to shift
Excessive leakage at startup
Excessive leakage
Excessive leakage
Excessive leakage
Excessive leakage
Failure to shift
Excessive leakage
Leakage out of valve body
Excessive leakage
Excessive leakage before startup
Excessive leakage