REPAIRABLE AND NON-REPAIRABLE ITEMS

For a Non-repairable item such as a light bulb, a

transistor, a rocket motor or an unmanned
spacecraft, reliability is the survival probability over
the items expected life, or for a period during its life,
when only one failure can occur.
During the items life the instantaneous probability of
the first and only failure is called the hazard rate.
Life values such as the mean life or mean time to
failure (MTTF) are other reliability characteristics that
can be used.
When a part fails in a non-repairable system, the
system fails (usually) and system reliability is,
1
therefore, a function of the time to the first part

For items which are repaired when they fail, reliability

is the probability that failure will not occur in the
period of interest, when more than one failure can
occur. It can also be expressed as the failure rate.
However,
the
failure
rate
expresses
the
instantaneous probability of failure per unit time,
when several failures can occur in a time continuum.
Repairable
system
reliability
can
also
be
characterized by the mean time between failures
(MTBF), but only under the particular condition of a
constant failure rate.
We are also concerned with the availability of
repairable items, since repair takes time. Availability
is affected by the rate of occurrence of failures
2
(failure rate) and by maintenance time.

Chapter-2 Reliability of Systems

GENERAL RELIABILITY ANALYSIS RELATED FORMULAS
There are a number of formulas often used in conducting reliability
analysis. This section presents four of these formulas based on the
reliability function.
Failure density function: This is defined by dRt/dt=-f (t )...(2)
where: R(t) is the item reliability at time t, f(t) is the failure (or
probability) density function.
Hazard rate function: This is expressed by (t)=f(t)/R(t)(3)
where: (t) is the item hazard rate or time dependent failure rate.
Substituting Equation (2) into Equation (3) yields
(t)= - 1/R(t)x d R(t)/dt (4)
General reliability function: This can be obtained by using Equation
(4).
Thus, we have 1/R(t) x dR(t)=- (t)dt ..(5)
Integrating both sides of Equation (5) over the time interval [o, t], we get
R(t)
t
1
1 R ( t )dR (t ) 0 (t )dt...(6)
since at t = 0, R (t) = 1.
3

GENERAL RELIABILITY ANALYSIS RELATED FORMULAS

Evaluating the left-hand side of Equation (6) yields

t

ln R ( t ) ( t )dt...(7)
0

From Equation (7), we get

t

R (t) e

( t ) dt
0

...(8)

The above equation is the general expression for the

reliability function. Thus, it can be used to obtain
reliability of an item when its times to failure follow
any known statistical distribution, for example,
exponential, Rayleigh, Weibull, and gamma
distributions.
4

GENERAL RELIABILITY ANALYSIS RELATED FORMULAS

Mean time to failure: This can be obtained by using

any of the following three formulas:
MTTF E (t )
or
MTTF
or

tf (t ) dt...(9)
0

R (t ) dt.............(10)
0

MTTF Limit R ( s )
s 0

...(11)

where:
MTTF is the item mean time to failure,
E(t) is the expected value,
s is the Laplace transform variable,
R(s) is the Laplace transform for the reliability
function, R (t).
5
is the failure rate

GENERAL RELIABILITY ANALYSIS RELATED FORMULAS

Mean time between failure MTBF

where MTBF stands for mean operating time
between failures. MTBF should be confined to the
case of repairable items with constant failure rate

MTBF

is the failure rate

Review Questions:

Define the following terms: Reliability, Failure, Downtime,

Maintainability, Redundancy, Active redundancy, Availability,
Mean time to failure (exponential distribution, Useful life,
Mission time, Human error, Human reliability.
Discuss the need for reliability.
Draw the bathtub hazard rate curve and discuss its three
important regions.

Bathtub Hazard Rate Curve

Bathtub hazard rate curve is a well known

concept to represent failure behavior of various
engineering items/products because the failure
rate of these items changes with time. Its name
stem from its shape resembling a bathtub as
shown in Figure 1. Three distinct regions of the
curve are identified in the figure: burn-in
region(early failures), useful life region, and wearout region. These regions denote three phases
that a newly manufactured product passes
through during its life span.
During the burn-in region/period, the product
hazard rate (i.e., time dependent failure rate)
decreases and some of the reasons for the
occurrence of failures during this period are poor
8

incorrect installation and start-up human error,

inadequate debugging, incorrect packaging,
inadequate
processes,
and
poor
handling
methods. Other names used for the burn-in
region are debugging region, infant mortality
region, and break-in region.
During the useful life region, the product hazard
rate remains constant and the failures occur
randomly or unpredictably. Some of the reasons
for their occurrence are undetectable defects,
abuse, low safety factors, higher random stress
than expected, unavoidable conditions, and
human errors.
During the wear-out region, the product hazard
rate increases and some of the reasons for the
occurrence of wear-out region failures are as
9
follows: Poor maintenance, Wear due to friction,

Figure 1: Bathtub hazard rate curve.

10

11

Example 1 :
Assume that a railway engines constant failure rate
is 0.0002 failures per hour. Calculate the engines
1 to failure.
1
mean time

MTTF

0.0002

5000h

Thus, the railway engines expected time to failure is

Example 2 :
5000 h.
Assume that the failure rate of an tautomobile is
( t ) dt
0.0004 failures/h. Calculate the automobile
reliability
0
R (time
t ) toefailure.
...(8)
for a 15-h mission and mean
t

e
Using the given data in Equation

e ( 0.0004)(15)
0.994

12

Similarly, inserting the specified data for the

automobile failure rate into Equation MTTF, we get

MTTF
MTTF
MTTF

R (t ) dt.............(10)

t
e
dt..

( 0.0004) t
e
dt ..

0.0004
2,500h
Thus, the reliability and mean time to failure of the
automobile are 0.994 and 2,500 h, respectively.

13

Reliability Networks
An engineering system can form various different
configurations in conducting reliability analysis. If the
reliability factor or the probability of failure of the
system is to be determined, we will find that it is very
difficult to analyze the system as a whole.
The failure of the system as a whole can be attributed
to the failure of one or more components of the system
not functioning in the stipulated manner.
Depending on the type in which the sub-system and
elements are connected to constitute the given
system, the combinatorial rules of probability are
applied to obtain the system reliability.
14

Series Network
Each block in the diagram represents a unit/component.
Diagram represents a system with m number of units
acting in series.
If any one of the units fails, the system fails.
In other words, all units must operate normally for the
systems success.
The reliability of series systems network is expressed by:

Rs P ( x1 x2 x3 ...xm )......... .(1)

where,
Rs=series system reliability or probability of success,
xi=event denoting the success of unit i, for i=1,2,3,,m
and
P(x1,x2,x3,..xm)=probability of occurrence of events x1,x2,x3,
,xm
15

Series Network Diagram

16

For independently failing units, eq. (1) becomes

R s P( x1 )P( x 2 )P( x 3 )..........P( x m )......( 2)

where P(x) is the occurrence probability of event x i, for i=1,2,3,
,m
m i) in eq. (2) it becomes:
If we let Ri=P(x

R s R i ......(3)
i 1

where Ri= is the unit i reliability, for i=1,2,3,,m.

m
For Ri>0.95 in eq.
(3), system reliability Rs can be approximated
R s eq.
1 (1 R i )......( 4)
by using

i 1

For identical units (i.e., Ri=R) eq. (4) becomes

R s 1 m(1 R )......(5)

where, R is the unit reliability.

17

Example 1:
Assume an automobile has four independent and
identical tires. The tire reliability is 0.97. If any one of the
tries is punctured, the automobile cannot be driven.
Calculate the automobile reliability with respect to tires
by using eq. (3) and eq. (5). Comment on the end result.

R s (0.97)(0.97)(0.97)(0.97) 0.8853

Similarly, using the given data values in eq. (5) yields:

Both the above reliability results are very close. More

specifically, the system reliability value obtained through
using eq. (5) is lower than when the exact eq. (3) was
used.

18

Parallel Network
This is a widely used network and it represents a system
with m units operating simultaneously. At least one unit
must operate normally for the system success.
Each block in the diagram denotes a unit. The failure
probability of the parallel system/network is given by:

Fp P( x1 x 2 x 3 ......x m )

...(6)

where: Fp=failure probability of the parallel system,

x i event denoting the failure of unit i; for i=1,2,3,,m
=
P ( x1=probability
x 2 x 3 ......x m ) of occurrence of events
x1 x 2eq.
x 3(6)
......
xm
For independently failing units,
becomes

Fp P x1 x 2 x 3 ...... x m

...(7)

where:
P( x1 )is the probability of occurrence of failure event xi
, for i=1,2,3,,m
19

Parallel Network Diagram

20

Parallel Network

Fp Fi
If we let Fi=P(xi) in eq. (7) it yields:

...(8)

i 1

where: Fi is the failure probability of unit i for i=1,2,3,

.,m
Subtracting eq. (8) from unity yields the following
expression mfor parallel network reliability:
R p 1 Fp 1 Fi ...(9)
i 1

where Rp is the parallel system reliability.

m
R

F
...(10
) (9) becomes
For pidentical units,
eq.
where: F is the unit failure probability.
Since
R p R+F=1,
1 (1 R ) meq....((10)
11) is rewritten to the following form:
where: R is the unit reliability.

21

The plots of eq. (11) shown in Figure 1 (parallel

system reliability plots) clearly demonstrates that
as the unit reliability and the number of redundant
units increase, the parallel system reliability
increases accordingly.

22

Example 2:
A computer has two independent and
identical Central Processing units (CPUs)
operating simultaneously. At least one CPU
must operate normally for the computer to
function successfully. If the CPU reliability is
0.96, calculate the computer reliability with
respect to CPUs.
R p 1 (1 0.96) 2 0.9984
By substituting the specified data values
into eq. (11), we get
Thus, the computer reliability with respect
to CPUs is 0.9984.

23

Series-Parallel Network
This network represents a system having m number of subsystems
in series. In turn, each subsystem contains k number of active (i.e.,
operating) units in parallel. If any one of the subsystems fails, the
system fails. Each block diagram in the diagram represents a unit.
Figure 2 (below) shows series-parallel network/system.

24

For independent units, using eq. (9) we write the following

equation for ith subsystems reliability,Figure 2 .
k

R pi 1 Fij

...(13)

j1

where Rpi is the reliability of the parallel subsystem i and Fij

is the ith subsystems jth units failure probability.
Substituting eq. (13) into eq. (3) yields the following
expression for series-parallel network/system reliability:

R sp 1 Fij ...(14)
i 1
j1
where Rsp is the series-parallel network/system reliability.
m

For identical units, eq. (14) becomes (where R is the unit

reliability)

R sp 1 F

k m

...(15)

Where F is the unit failure probability. Since R+F=1, eq.

(15) is rewritten to the following form:

R sp 1 1 R

k m

...(16)

25

For R=0.8, the plots of eq. (16) are shown in Figure

3 (below). These plots indicate that as the number
of subsystems m increase, the system reliability
decreases, accordingly. On the other hand, as the
number of units k increases, the system reliability
also increases.

26

Example 3:
Assume that a system has four active,
independent, and identical units forming a
series-parallel configuration (i.e., k=2,
m=2). Each units reliability is 0.94.
Calculate the system reliability.
By substituting
2 2 the given data values into
R sp (16)
1 1yields:
0.94 0.9928
eq.

Thus, the system reliability is 0.9928.

27

Parallel-Series Network
This network represents a system having m number of
subsystems in parallel. In turn, each subsystem contains k
number of active (i.e., operating) units in series. At least
one subsystem must function normally for the system
success. The network/system block diagram is shown in
Figure 4. Each block in the diagram denotes a unit.
For independent and identical units, using eq. (3), we get
the following equation for the i th subsystems reliability,
k
inRFigure

R4 : ...(17)
si

ij

j1

where Rsi is the reliability of the series subsystem i and Rij

is the ith subsystems
jth units reliability. By subtracting eq.
k
Fsi from
1 R siunity,
1 weR ijget...(18)
(17)

j1

where Fsi is the failure probability of the series subsystem

28 i.

ure 4 Parallel-series network system.

29

Using eq. (18) in eq. (9) yields:

m

R ps 1 1 Rij
i 1
j 1

...(19)

where Rps is the parallel-series network/system

reliability. For identical units eq. (19) simplifies to

R ps 1 1 R

k m

...(20)

where R is the unit reliability.

30

For R=0.8, the plots the eq. (20) are shown in Figure
(below). The plots show that as the number of units
k
increases,
the
system/network
reliability
decreases accordingly. On the other hand, as the
number of subsystems m increases, the system
reliability also increases.

31

Example 4:

system is composed of four active,

independent, and identical units forming a
parallel-series configuration (i.e., k=m=2).
Calculate the system reliability, if each
units reliability is 0.94.
By substituting the
given data into eq. (20),
2 2
R ps
1 1 0.94 0.9865
we
get

Thus, parallel-series system reliability is

0.9865.
32

Review Questions:

Compare series and parallel networks.

Compare series-parallel and parallel-series networks.
Prove the reliability of a series and parallel network/system.
Prove the reliability of a parallel-series network.
A system has three independent, identical, and active units. At
least two units must operate normally for the system success.
The reliability of each unit is 0.91. Calculate the system
reliability.
An aircraft has four active, independent, and identical engines.
At 35000 ft above ground at least one engine must operate
normally for the aircraft to fly successfully. Calculate the
reliability of the aircraft flying at 35000 ft, if the engine
probability of failure is 0.05.
Assume that an automobile has four independent and identical
tires. The tire reliability is 0.93. If any one of the tires is
punctured, the automobile cannot be driven. Calculate the
automobile reliability with respect to tires.
33

Reliability Allocation
The process by which the failure allowance for
a system is allocated in some logical manner
among its sub-systems and elements is
termed as reliability allocation.
Reliability allocation may simply be
described as the process of assigning
reliability requirements to individual
parts or components to achieve the
specified system reliability.

34

The reliability allocation problem is bit

complex and not straight forward.
Some of the associated reasons are as follows:
Role the component plays for the operation of
the system.
Component complexity.
The chargeable or assignable
component
reliability with the type of function to be
conducted.
Approaches available for accomplishing the
given allocation task.
Lack of detailed information on many of the
above factors in the early design stage.
35

Nonetheless, there are many benefits of

the reliability allocation because
it forces individuals involved in design
and development to clearly understand
and develop the relationships between
reliabilities
of
components,
subsystems, and systems,
it forces the design engineer to seriously
consider reliability equally with other
design
parameters
such
as
performance, weight, and cost, and it
ensures
satisfactory
design,
36
manufacturing approaches, and test

Two
reliability
allocation
described as follows:

methods

are

(1) HYBRID METHOD: This method is the

result of combining two approaches: similar
familiar systems and factors of influence. The
resulting method incorporates benefits of
these two methods.
The basis for the similar familiar systems
reliability
allocation
approach
is
the
familiarity of the designer with similar
systems or sub-systems. In addition, failure
data collected on similar systems from
various sources can also be used during the
allocation process.
37
The main drawback of this approach is to

The factors of influence method is based upon the

following factors that are considered to effect the
system reliability:
Complexity/Time: The complexity relates to the
number of subsystem parts and the time to the
relative operating time of the item during the entire
system functional period.
Failure criticality: This factor considers the criticality
of the item failure on the system. For example, some
auxiliary instrument failure in an aircraft may not be
as critical as the engine failure.
Environment: This factor takes into consideration the
susceptibility or exposure of items to environmental
conditions such as temperature, humidity, and
vibration.
State-of-the-Art: This factor takes into consideration
the advancement in the state-of-the-art for a specific
item.
In using the above influence factors, each item is rated
with respect to each of these influence factors38 by

(2) FAILURE RATE AllOCATION METHOD: This method is

concerned with allocating failure rates to system
components when the system required failure rate is
known. The following assumptions are associated with
this method:
System components form a series configuration.
System components fail independently.
Time
to
component
failure
is
exponentially
distributed.
Thus, the
system failure rate is
n

s i

...(1.3)

i 1

where: n is the number of components in the system.

s is the system failure rate.
i is the failure rate of system component I; for i=1,
2, 3, ,n.
If the system required failure rate is sr, then allocation
39
component failure rate such that:

i sr

...(1.4)

i 1

where: *i is the failure rate allocated to component i; for i=1,

2, 3,,n.
The following steps are associated with this method:
1. Estimate the component failure rates i for i=1, 2, 3, ,n,
using the past data.
2. Calculate the relative weight, i , of component i using the
preceding step failure rate data and the following equation:

, for i 1,2,..., n ...(1.5)

It isi 1to be noted that i denotes the relative failure

vulnerability of the component i and
n

i 1 ...(1.6)
i 1

3. Allocate failure rate to component i using the following

relationship:
*i = i sr , for i=1, 2, ,n (1.7)
It must be remembered that eq. (1.7) is subject to the condition that
40
the equality holds in eq. (1.4).

composed of five independent subsystems in series

and its specified failure rate is 0.0006 failures/h.
The estimated failure rates from past experience
for subsystems 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are 1=0.0001
failures/h,
2=0.0002
failures/h.,
3=0.0003
failures/h., 4=0.0004 failures/h., and 5=0.0005
failures/h. respectively. Allocate the specified
Answer:
Using eq.
(1.3)
and subsystems.
the given data, we get the
system failure
rate
to five
following estimated military system failure rate:
5

s i (0.0001) (0.0002) (0.0003) (0.0004) (0.0005) 0.0015 failures / h

i 1

Thus, utilizing eq. (1.5) and calculated and given values,

we get the following relative weights for subsystems 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively:
1=(0.00010.0015)=0.0667,
2=(0.00020.0015)=0.1333, 3=(0.00030.0015)=0.2,
4=(0.00040.0015)=0.2667,
5=(0.00050.0015)=0.3333
41

Using eq. (1.7) and calculated and given values,

the subsystems 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 allocated
failure rates, respectively, are as follows:
*1=1
sr
=(0.0667)(0.0006) =0.00004
failures/h
*2=2
sr
=(0.1333)(0.0006) =0.00007
failures/h
*3=3
sr
=(0.2)(0.0006)
=0.00012
failures/h
*4=4
sr
=(0.2667)(0.0006) =0.00016
failures/h
*5=5
sr
=(0.333)(0.0006)
=0.00019
failures/h

42

SAME LIKE ABOVE PROBLEM

Problem:
An aerospace system is made up of seven
independent subsystems in series and it specified
failure rate 0.009 failures/h. Subsystems 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, and 7 estimated failure rates from previous
experience are 0.001 failures/h, 0.002 failures/h,
0.003 failures/h, 0.004 failures/h, 0.005 failures/h,
0.006 failures/h, and 0.007 failures/h, respectively.
Allocate the specified system failure rate to seven
subsystems.

43

Reliability Evaluation Methods

Introduction: Reliability evaluation is an
important activity for ensuring the reliability
of engineering products. It normally begins
right from the conceptual design stage of
products with specified reliability. Over the
years, many reliability evaluation methods
and techniques have been developed.
Some examples
of these methods and
techniques are fault tree analysis (FTA),
failure modes
and effect analysis (FMEA),
Markov method, network reduction method,
and decomposition method.
The use of these methods for a particular
application depends on various factors
including the specified requirement, the type
44
of project under consideration, the specific

The ease of use and the requirement of specific

experience of users (analysts) may vary from
one method to another. For example, in the real
world
application
the
network
reduction
method is probably the easiest to use and it
does not really require any specific experience
from its users.
In contrast, FMEA and FTA are relatively more
demanding to perform and require considerable
experience of analysts in the area of design.
Different types of reliability evaluation methods
are discussed below.

Network Reduction Method

This is probably the simplest method for evaluating the

reliability of systems composed of independent series and
parallel subsystems. It sequentially reduces the parallel
and series subsystems to equivalent hypothetical single
units until the complete system itself becomes a single
hypothetical
unit.
The
bridge
configurations
or
subsystems (if any) in the system can be converted to
series and parallel equivalents by using delta-star
conversions or the decomposition method.
The main advantage of this approach is that it is easy to
understand and apply. The method is demonstrated
through the following example:
Example 1: A network representing an engineering system
with independent units is shown in Figure (1). Each block
in the figure denotes a unit. The reliability R J of unit j, for j
= 1, 2, 3, ... , 7 is given. Determine the network reliability
by using the network reduction method.
First we have identified subsystems A, B, and C of the
network as shown in Figure 1(i). The subsystem A has
46

Network Reduction Method

The reduced network is shown in Figure 1(ii). Now, this

network is made up of two parallel subsystems B and C acting in series.
Thus, we reduce subsystem B to a single hypothetical unit as follows:
RB(reliability of subsystem B)=1-(1-R 5)(1-R6)(1-R7)=1-(1-0.7)(1-0.8)(10.9)=0.994
Thus, subsystem B has been reduced to a single hypothetical unit having
reliability 0.994. The reduced network is shown in Figure 1(iii). This network contains subsystem C and a hypothetical unit, representing
subsystem
B, in series. In similar manner to subsystem B, we reduce subsystem C to
a
single hypothetical unit:
RC(reliability of subsystem C)=1-(1-R A)(1-R4)=1-(1-0.21)(1-0.8)=0.842
Similarly, the reduced network is shown in Figure 1(iv). This network is
composed of two hypothetical units, representing subsystems B and C, in
series. The reliability of this network is given by
Rn=RCRC=(0.994)(0.842)=0.8369
where Rn is the reliability of the whole network shown in Figure 1 (i). All
in all, by using the network reduction method, the Figure 1(i) network
was reduced to a single hypothetical unit having reliability 0.8369
(Figure 1(v)); which is the whole network's reliability.
47

Figure 1: Diagrammatic steps of the network reduction: (i)

original network; (ii) reduced network; (iii) reduced network;
(iv) reduced network; (v) single hypothetical unit.

48

Decomposition Method
This method is used to evaluate reliability of complex
systems. It decomposes complex systems into simpler
subsystems by applying the conditional probability
measures of subsystems.
The method begins by first selecting the key element or
unit to be used to decompose a given network/system.
The poor choice of this key element leads to poor
efficiency of computing system reliability. Nonetheless,
the past experience usually plays an instrumental role in
selecting the right key element.
First, the method assumes that the key element/unit, say x,
is replaced by another element that never fails (i.e.,
100% reliable) and then it assumes that the key element
is 100% unreliable (i.e., it is completely removed from the
system or network). Under this scenario, the overall
system/network reliability is given by
Rs=P(x)P(system good/x good)+P(
)P(system good/ x fails)
X
(10)
49

Decomposition Method
where: Rs=system reliability
P(system good/x good)=reliability of the system
when x is 100% reliable.
P(system good/ x fails)=reliability of the system
when x is 100% unreliable
P(x)=reliability of the key element x
P( )=unreliability
of the key element x
X
Similarly, the overall system/network unreliability is
expressed by:
X
URs=P(x)P(system fails/x good)+P(
)P(system fails/x
fails)
where: URs=system unreliability
P(system fails/ x good)=unreliability of the system
when x is 100% reliable
P(system fails/x fails)=unreliability of the system
when x is 100% unreliable
50

Example5: A five independent unit bridge network is

shown in Figure 6. Each block in the diagram denotes a
unit and each units reliability is denoted by R i, for
i=1,2,3,,5. Develop an expression for the network by
utilizing the decomposition method.
First
of
all,
in
this
example we identify the
Figure
6
unit
with
reliability R3 as our key
element, say x. thus, by
replacing the key element
in Figure 6 with 100%
reliable unit and then
with 100% unreliable unit
results in Figure 7(a) and
Figure
7(b)
diagrams,
respectively.

51

Figure 7: Reduced networks of Figure 6 diagram: (a) For a 100%

reliable key element, (b) For 100% unreliable key element.

Using the network reduction method, we obtain the following

reliability expression for Figure 7(a):

Rsp=[1-(1-R1)(1-R4)][1-(1-R2)(1-R5)]

..(12)

where: Rsp is the series=parallel network reliability (i.e., the

system reliability when the key element is 100% reliable)
For identical units (i.e., R1=R2=R4=R5=R) eq. (12) becomes

Rsp=[1-(1-R)2]2=(2R-R2)2

..(13)

where: R is the unit reliability. Similarly, by utilizing the

network reduction approach, we get the following reliability
expression for Figure 7(b):

Rps=1-(1-R1R2)(1-R4R5) ..(14)

52

where: Rps is the parallel-series network reliability (i.e., the

system reliability when the key element is 100% unreliable).
For identical units, eq. (14) becomes:

Rps=1-(1-R)2=2R2-R4 ...(15)
The reliability and unreliability
respectively, are given by:

of

the

key

element

x,

X )=1-R3(17)
P(x)=R3 (16) and P(
For R3=R, eq. (16) and eq. (17) become:
P(x)=R (18) and P( X
)=(1-R) (19)
Substituting eq. (12), eq. (14), eq. (16), and eq. (17) into eq.
(10) yields:

Rs=R3[1-(1-R1)(1-R4)][1-(1-R2)(1-R5)]+(1-R3)[1-(1-R1R2)
(1-R4R5)](20)
For identical units, inserting eq. (13), eq. (15), eq. (18) and eq.
(19) into eq. (10), we get:

Rs=R(2R-R2)2+(1-R)(2R2-R4)=2R2+2R3-5R4+2R5 (21)
Thus, eq. (20) and eq. (21) are reliability expressions for Figure
6 network with non-identical and identical units, respectively.
53

Delta-Star Method
This is the simplest and very practical approach to evaluate
reliability of bridge networks. This technique transforms a bridge
network to its equivalent series and parallel form. However, the
transformation process introduces a small error in the end result,
but for practical purposes it should be neglected.
Once a bridge network is transformed to its equivalent parallel and
series form, the network reduction approach can be applied to
obtain network reliability. The delta-star method can easily handle
networks containing more than one bridge configurations.
Furthermore, it can be applied to bridge networks composed of
devices having two mutually exclusive failure modes.
Figure 8 shows delta to star equivalent reliability diagram. The
numbers 1,2, and 3 denote nodes, the blocks the units, and R (.) the
respective unit reliability.
In Figure 8, it is assumed that three units of a system with
reliabilities R12, R13, and R23 form the delta configuration and its star
equivalent configuration units' reliabilities are R1, R2, and R3.
Using Equations (3) and (9) and Figure 8, we write down the
following equivalent reliability equations for network reliability
between nodes 1, 2; 2, 3; and I, 3, respectively:
54

Figure 8. Delta to star equivalent reliability diagram.

55

R1R2=1-(1-R12)(1-R13R23)(49)
R2R3=1-(1-R23)(1-R12R13)

(50)

R1R3=1-(1-R13)(1-R12R23) (51)
Solving eqs. (49) through (51), we get

AC
R1
B

...(52)

where:
A=1-(1-R12)(1-R13R23) (53)
B=1-(1-R23)(1-R12R13) (54)
C=1-(1-R13)(1-R12R23) (55)

R2

AB
C

...(56)

R3

BC
A

...(57)

56

Example: A five independent unit bridge

network with specified unit reliability Ri; for
i=a, b, c, d, and e is shown in Figure 9.
Calculate the network reliability by using the
delta-star method and also use the specified
data in eq. (3) and (9) to obtain the bridge
network
Compare
bothnetwork
results. with
Figure
9.reliability.
A five unit
bridge
specified unit reliabilities.

57

In Figure 9 nodes labeled 1, 2, and 3 denote delta

configurations. Using eqs. (52), (56) and (57) and
the given data, we get the following star
equivalent
reliabilities:
AC
R1
0.9633
B
where: A=B=C=1-(1-0.8)[1-(0.8)(0.8)]=0.9280
R2=0.9633 and R3=0.9633
Using the above results, the equivalent network to
Figure 9 bridge network is shown in Figure 10.
The reliability of Figure 10 network, R br, is
Rbr=R3[1-(1-R1Rd )(1-R2Re)]=0.9126
By substituting the given data into eq. (21), we get
Rbr=2(0.8)5-5(0.8)4+2(0.8)3+2(0.8)2=0.9114
Both the reliability results are basically same, i.e.,
0.9126 and 0.9114. All in all, for practical purposes
the delta-star approach is quite effective
58

Figure
10.
Equivalent
configuration of Figure 9.

network

to

bridge

59

Similar to above problem

Calculate the reliability of the
network using the delta-star
Assume that each block in the figure
unit with reliability 0.8 and all
independently.

Figure A
approach.
denotes a
units fail

Figure A

60

Parts Count Method

This is a very practically inclined method used during bid
proposal and early design phases to estimate equipment failure
rate. The information required to use this method includes
generic part types and quantities, part quality levels, and
equipment use environment. Under single use environment, the
equipment failure rate can be estimated by using the following
equation:

E Q i g Fq i
m

...(58)

i 1

where: E is the equipment failure rate, expressed in failure/10 6h.

m is the number of different generic part/component
classifications in the equipment under consideration.
g is the generic failure rate of generic part I expressed in
failure/106h.
Qi is the quantity of generic part i.
Fq is the quality factor of generic part i.
(Note: From table you will get g and Fq values)
61

Failure rate estimation of an electronic part:

As the design matures, more information becomes available,
the failure rates of equipment components are estimated.
Usually, in the case of electronic parts, the MIL-HDBK-217
is used to estimate the failure rate of electronic parts. The
failure rates are added to obtain total equipment failure
rate. This number provides a better picture of the actual
failure rate of the equipment under consideration than the
one obtained through using eq. (58).
An equation of the following form is used to estimate failure
rates of many electronic parts:
p=beq(59)
where: p is the part failure rate.
b is the base failure rate and is normally defined by a
model relating the influence of temperature and electrical
stresses on the part under consideration.
e is the factor that accounts for the influence of
environment.
q is the factor that accounts for part quality level.
62

For many electronic parts, the base failure

rate, b, is calculated by using the following
equation:

E
b C exp
kT

...(60)

where:
C is a constant
E is the activation energy for the process.
K is the Boltzmanns constant.
T is the absolute temperature.

63

Markov Method

This is a widely used method in industry to perform

various
types
of
reliability analysis. The method is named after a
Russian mathematician, Andrei Andreyevich Markov
(1856-1922). Markov method is quite useful to model
systems with dependent failure and repair modes and is
based on the following assumptions:
The probability of transition from one system state to
another
in
the finite time interval t is given by t, where is the
transition
rate (e.g., constant failure or repair rate of an item)
from
one
system
state to another.
The probability of more than one transition in time
interval
t
from
one state to the next state is negligible (e.g., (t)
(t)0).
64
The occurrences are independent of each other.

With the aid of Markov method, we write down the following

equations for the Figure 5 diagram for state 0 and state 1,
respectively,:
P0(t+t) = P0(t)(1-t)
.(3) and
P1(t+t) = P1(t)+(t)P0(t).(4)
where: Pi(t+t)=probability that at time (t+t) the system is
in state i, i=0 (working normally), i=1 (failed),
Pi(t)=probability that at time t the system is in state i, i=0
(working normally) i=1 (failed),
=system constant failure rate,
t=probability of system failure in finite time interval t,
(1-t)=probability of no failure in time interval t when
the system is in state 0.

65

In the limiting case, eq. (3) and eq. (4) become

Limit
t 0

P0 ( t t ) P0 ( t ) dP0 ( t )

P0 t
t
dt

...(5)

and

Limit
t 0

P1 ( t t ) P1 ( t ) dP1 ( t )

P1t
t
dt

...(6)

At time t=0, P0(0)=1 and P1(0)=0

Solving eq. (5) and eq. (6), we get
P0(t)=Rs(t)=e t
(7)
P1(t)=URs(t)=(1-e

) (8)
66

Figure 5. System state space diagram.

where Rs(t) is the system reliability at time t and UR s (t)
is the system unreliability at time t. The system mean
time to failure is given by:

1
MTTFs R s ( t )dt e dt

0
0
t

...(9)

where MTTFs is the system mean time to failure. Thus,

expressions for system reliability, unreliability, and
mean time to failure are given by eq. (7), eq. (8), and
eq. (9), respectively.

67

Review Questions:

Calculate
the
reliability of the
Figure A network
using the deltastar
approach.
Assume that each
block in the figure
denotes a unit with
reliability 0.8 and
all
units
fail
independently.

Figure A

An aerospace system is
made
up
of
seven
independent subsystems
in series and it specified
failure
rate
0.009
failures/h. Subsystems 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
estimated failure rates
from previous experience
are
0.001
failures/h,
0.002 failures/h, 0.003
failures/h,
0.004
failures/h,
0.005
failures/h,
0.006
failures/h,
and
0.007
failures/h,
respectively.
Allocate
the
specified
system failure rate to
seven subsystems.

68

69

 A bridge network is composed of five independent and

identical units. The constant failure rate of a unit is 0.0005
failures/h. Calculate the network reliability for a 300-h
mission and mean time to failure.
Similar to above problem

70